a study of romans 8.26f.pdf

A STUDY OF ROMANS 8;26f .

by

EMMANUEL ADOW OBENGB.A. (ED) HONS., (CAPE COAST), M.TH. (ABERDEEN)

doctoral thesis presented to the Faculty of Divinity, University of Aberdeen

October, 1980

UMI Number: UB14073

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI U314073Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

To my mother, Maame Sarah, my wife Rosilta, my two boys, Kojo and Kofi* Their interests were sacrificed to make this work possible*

DECLARATION

This thesis has been composed by myself, and has not been accepted in any previous application for a degree. The work of which it is a record has been done by myself. All quotations have either been distinguished by quotation marks or blocked in singlespaced format; the sources of information have been specifically acknowledged by means of footnotes.

E. A. OBEN

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere thanks are due to Prof* R* A* S, Barbour who supervised the first two years of my work and Prof* I*H. Marshall without whose constructive criticism this work would not have been in the form that it is now* Xt is not possible to express adequately the debt X owe to them*

My thanks are also due to Prof* C* R, Gaba and Rev* Dr* J* K, Agbeti, both of the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, for their trust and encouragement; to the post-graduate scholarship board of the same University for the provision of money to cover my tuition fees and general expenses while studying in Britain* X am also grateful to Rev* Fr* J* Osei—Bonsu, who helped me with my study of the German language, to Mr* R* Dargie of the University of Aberdeen, my proof-reader, and to all friends who helped in diverse ways to make this work possible*

Lastly, I am very grateful to my wife, Rosilta, for her love, support and consistent encouragement during the period of this research*

V

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page No.

Abbreviations viIntroduction 1Chapter One Intercession in Old Testament, 11

Judaism, etc.Chapter Two Intercession in the New 38

Testament — Jesus, SpiritChapter Three Spirit in Prayer 113Chapter Four The Interpretation of 139

Rom. 8:26f.Chapter Five How does Rom. 8:26f*. integrate 236

into its context?Conclusion 263Summary 272A Select Bibliography 277

ABBREVIATIONS

(in our notes, books and articles, in their first appearance, are listed by the name of the author or editor, the title of book or article, the year of publication of the edition used,and page numbers; e.g. H. TiJdt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. 1965» p.91. In subsequent appearance of already cited works, we list the name of the author, an abbreviated form of' the title and page numbers, e.g. Todt, Son of Man. p .91).

1. PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS

Analecta BiblicaAmerican Church QuarterlyW. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich,A Greek—English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1979* Assemblies du Seigneur Biblica BijdragenF. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1961.The Bible TranslatorBiblical and Theological StudiesClarendon Bible CommentaryCatholic Biblical QuarterlyConciliumChurch Quarterly

BTBTSCBCCB&Cone ,CO

AB

Arndt-Gingrich

ASBib.Bi.j.Blass, Debrunner, Funk

vii

CT Christ TodayCTS Calvin Theological SocietyDP In Disciplina DominiEnc, EncounterEQ Evangelical QuarterlyEx .T Expository Times (occasionally: ET)Exp, ExpositorFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur

des Alten und Neuen Testaments HTR Harvard Theological ReviewICC International Critical CommentaryIER Irish Ecclesiastical RecordIKZ Internationale Kirchliche ZeitschriftInt. Interpretation (occasionally: Interp,)1TQ Irish Theological QuarterlyJASA Journal of American Scientific

AffiliationJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJeev, JeevadharaJTS Journal of Theological StudiesLCC The Library of Christian Classics,

ed. by J, Baillie et. al, 26 volumes, SCM Press, London.

LCL The Classical Library, ed. byT. E. Page et. al, Philo, eng. trans. by F. H. Colson andG. H. Whitaker (Col.-Whit.), 10 volume Wm. Heinemann Ltd., London.

viii

MNTCNCBNIDNTT

NLCNov. T .NRANTSPGRBRGGRRRSRScrip.SESJTSLSNTSMS

STKStr-B

TDNT

Moffat New Testament Commentary New Clarendon BibleThe New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. by C. Brown, 3 volumes, Paternoster Press, Exeter, 1975—78.New London Commentary Novum TestamenturnNachgelassene Reden und Aufsatze New Testament Studies Patrologia Graeca. ed. J. P. Migne Revue BibliqueDie Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwar

/ /La Revue ReformeeRecherches de Science ReligieuseScriptureStudia EvangelicaScottish Journal of TheologyStudia LiturgicaSociety for New Testament Studies Monograph SeriesSvensk Theologisk Kvartalskrift Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und MidrascVx k volumes,C. K. Beck, Munchen, 1922-28. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by G. Kittel,10 volumes, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1964-76.

ix

Thom,TSTUTZUBSZNW

ZST

ThomistTexts and Studies Texte und Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift United Bible SocietyZeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren KircheZeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie

2. OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

PHILODe Spec. Leg.Pet. Pot, Ins,QRDHSRABBIS

De Specialibus LegibusQuod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres

Ber, BerakhothCant, r. Canticle rabbahDeut. (Ex.. Gn., Lev, 1 -X* Deuteronomy (Exodus, Genesis , Leviticus

rabbahMen. Monaco thMid. Ps. Midrash PsalmShab. Shabbath

OTHER WRITINGS

Ep . B a m . Mand .T. Ben.

Epistle of Barnabas Mandean Literature Testament of Benjamin

T. Jud. T. Lev. Vis. Sol

Testament of Judah Testament of* Levi Wisdom of Solomon

GENERAL

Diss. Dissertationed. edited; editorJB Jerusalem BibleKJV King James VersionLXX SeptuagintMSS manuscriptMT Masoretic TextNEB New English BibleN1V New International VersionRSV Revised Standard Version

JjjgCRlPTVCWS ' NNRI'TlMfrS OF Am ti^UiTV

&'»ocWus <Ss\cuW& } ed.

^ V L ooj£_ Li>sctv^VvoD*M*\ CVc\ecc\Tvx'm^ ftcX • Ojtur V ols. IS - ’Zty

G're'o e. cva<\ Wm'c. IWi W\ \

^ . PvAtaVvecxvcm'v c\e.llc\ Qcc’veta V aUc vxcv",

oy xri W t c l e Hi'S.- 35.

1

INTRODUCTION

In Rom. 8:26f., we have one of the unique passagesin the NT. Its uniqueness derives from two basic thoughtsin the passage: (1) there is the assertion that "we do notknow how to pray as we ought”; this is an exception to whatis otherwise said of prayer in the NT; (2) this is the onlypassage in the NT, where mention is made of the Spirit'sintercession with groans. As puts it

"inability to pray properly and the intercession of the Spirit are ideas which are not expressed elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles, nor in the rest of the NT".1

Prayer has been considered as an essential and a necessaryaspect of religious life. F. Heiler's description ofprayer as "the central phenomenon of religion, the very

2hearthstone of all piety", expresses this view very well.As might be expected in a religious tradition then, both the Old and New Testaments teem with references to prayer: instructions on how to pray, examples of prayer, invitations and encouragements to pray. In view of the numerous teachings and examples of prayer in the biblical books, Paul's assertion that "we do not know how to pray as we ought" sounds ridiculous. But is it?

It might also be argued that what Paul says in Rom. 8:26f. has no relevance to modern Christians. But

^M. de Goedt, "The Intercession of the Spirit in Christian Prayer, (Rom. 8:26, 2j)n, Cone.. 9*8, 1972, p.26.^F. Heiler, Prayer. 1932, p.xiii.

2

is this true? There is a crisis of confidence with regardto our prayer life, B. Streeter wrote

"prayer is an activity the value of which isso open to question, that for the men andwomen who have to carry on the world’s work it decidedly is not worthwhile? it may safely be left to ministers and monks and pious ladies who have nothing else to do",3

This statement hints at a possible problem we have withprayer. The fact that we have a problem with prayer canalso be deduced from L. Gilkey's remark that "I suspectthat most contemporary theologians would be e m b a r r a s s ® ^ toadmit that they do not pray. And the others would beembarrassed to admit they do". Wiles noted in the prefaceto his book Paul’s Intercessory Prayers that

"men can no longer pray. Even those for whom _ God remains a reality find prayer an unreality",5

These statements are reflections on what might be termedan "acute ’crisis of piety’ in the Christian church".If these scholars are aware of a problem with modernprayers, does it not show that what Paul says in Rom, 8:26f,is meaningful to our times?

Our present world appears "Godless",' The events thatoccur within it

"no longer present themselves to our experience, at least, not spontaneously as the work of God within this world and directed towards it"

3. B, Streeter, Concerning Prayer. Its Nature, its Difficulties its Value. 191^. p.ix. See also W. B. Hunter, The Prayers of" Jesus in the Gospel of John, (Diss, Aberdeen), 1979* pp.Iff,k.L. Gilkey, "Can M o d e m Man Pray", Newsweek, 72, Dec, 30,1968, pp.38f.■ G. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers. SNTSMS 2k, 197^» p.ix.gH-J. auf der Maur, "The Difficulties of Common Prayer Today", SL, 10, 197^, P.171.

3

Coupled with, the advancement of science and technology, secular culture etc., modern man is not aware of any part of nature which is divine. We cannot talk of holy, social or political structures, neither can we talk of sacred or profane places, times or persons.' Man therefore encounters not that nature which God created but one which we have made ourselves. In addition, the psychological stress to which this world exposes man destroys our inward peace and makes "recollection or true presence of mind difficult". These are some of the reasons which make prayer difficult in our present world. Advancement in science and technology gives us little cause to give thanks to any supra-mundane being or to praise him as Lord of the nature that we know. The chaos in the world and the agony we feel as a result, appear to be a challenge not to intense petition but rather as a challenge to transform existing circumstances. The effectiveness of intercessory and petitionary prayers now . beenquestioned: if God wants our good and knows our needs,why tell Him of them in prayer? Does not intercessory

ry owE. F. Y'ijjlzSoiC.ksr suggests that "Faith in science plays the role of the dominant religion of our time", The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony. 1964, p.178.

k

gprayer imply that God needs to be persuaded before acting?The fact that there is now a lot of literature on prayerand its problems, indicates the severity of this problem.In view of the above, Paul’s claim that "we do not know howto pray as we ought" is very relevant to us. How do wecope with this problem of prayer in the modern world?Can the answer to our prayer problem be the answer whichPaul prescribes for the Church of Rome in Rom. 8:26f.;which is : the Spirit helps us in our prayer?

We are not suggesting that an examination of Rom.8 s26f. will provide an answer to the "crisis of piety"in the Christian church; for it may rightly be pointedout that an adequate solution to the problem must takeinto serious consideration the gospels’ accounts of the

9words and examples of Jesus concerning prayer; what we are saying is that a clear understanding of the reason for the Pauline claim in Rom. 8s26f. and of his suggestion of a solution might give us some indications as to how best to handle this "crisis of piety" in the Christian church.gSee M. R. Austin "Can Intercessory Prayer Work", Ex.T..89:11, Aug. 78, pp.335-339? Boomer, "Is the Prayer ofPetition and Intercession still Meaningful?" Cone. 9:8,1972, pp.72-82. Boomer argues for intercessory prayer in the words of Schultze that "all the same, man has still, in faith, to address God, to thank him, to complain to him and to make demands on him"; see also H. Schultze,"Gebet zwischen Zweifel und Vertrauen". Ev.T. 3* 1970,PP« 133-^9* esp.p.1^9* Austin called into question many of the reasons advanced in support of intercessory prayer and noted that they betray an inadequate view of God and the limitations of the language we use create real difficulties for many. Thus he called attention to the inadequacy of intercessory prayer. Austin’s position has been criticised by R. H. Eldridge and C. Cleal in Ex .T.. 90:5* Feb. 1979, PP*1^3* 14^# Eldridge observed that "there is evidence that intercessory prayer does work" and Cleal also stressed the importance of intercessory prayer.9See A. R# George, Communion with God in the New Testament, (London, 1953), P.33 "To neglect the example which he afforded us by His godly life is a Christological heresy".

5

Paul's suggested solution to our inability to pray,put succint&y is "pray in the Spirit". A common featureof the practices of Pentecostalism is the phenomenon ofspeaking in tongues. This phenomenon, the Pentecostalsbelieve, affords man the chance to speak to God in prayers

"for one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit"(1 Cor. 14:2)

It is believed that this phenomenon opens a new dimensionto a man's prayer life. With the gift, man actuallylongs to pray whereas before, he finds it an effort.Thus the gift of tongues is looked on as producinggenuine liberty in prayer. Pentecostals therefore seein Paul's encouraging words "pray in the Spirit", areference to speaking in tongues. As a result, Rom. 8:26f.is seen as sanctioning glossolalia as the effective way of

10prayer.Pentecostalism is now a common feature of the Christian

church in Ghana. These Pentecostal churches, or New Religious Movements (NERMS) as they are sometimes called, operate in most cases, along the lines of the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem of the C1AD. Just as primitive Christianity began with the resurrection appearances and the experience of Pentecost, these NERMS often spring up from new revelations - that is, the leader's mystical experience and the immense spiritual power which the members claim to be working amongst their

^See W. J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals. 1972, p.3^2.

ranks. The activities of most of them include comprehensive healing programmes, constant prayers, communal sharing of goods, radical and creative worship. By radical and creative, we mean a complete break with the established liturgical practices of the orthodox churches of Western Christianity, A noticeable feature in their worship is prayer in tongues, Xn support of their manner of prayer as the effective way to pray, Rom, 8:26f,, among other passages is cited. But does this not imply that, those Christians who have not been endowed with the gift of glossolalia, are not able to pray effectively? In this case, must Rom, 8:26f, be understood as a reference to glossolalia? Moreover, we intend, sometime in the near future, to examine the prayer practices of these churches and how much of it is due to the influence of the Ghanaian culture; the Spirit possession of traditional religion, with its characteristic groans and ecstatic behaviour and language is similar to the phenomenon of speaking in tongues. But it is necessary now to have a clear understanding of Rom, 8:26f.; one of the passages from which the Pentecostals draw the necessary inference in support of their practice. The above considerations make it necessary for an examination of Rom, 8:26f,

There are a number of published articles on Rom, 8:26f,

^W, Bieder, "Gebetswirklichkeit und Gebetsmoglichkeit bei Paulus: Das Beten des Geistes und das Beten iro Geist",TZ, 4, 1948, pp.22-40; Goedt, "Intercession of the Spirit", Cone,, 9:8, 1972, pp.26-38, E, Gaugler, "Der Geist und das Gebet der Schwachen Gemeinde, Eine Auslegung von RcSm. 8:26", XKZ, 51, 19^1, pp.67-94; K. Niederwimmer, "Das Gebet des Geistes, Rom. 8:26f," TZ, 20, 1964, pp.252—265,J. Schniewind, "Das Seufzen des Geistes. Rom. 8:26, 27”»NRA, 1952, pp.81-103; R. W. Dale, "The Intercession of the Spirit", Exp,, 4, 5th series, 18§6, pp.186-193; A. Dietzel "Beten im Geist", TZ, 13, 1957; pp.12-32; R. F. Boyd, "The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. An Exposition o± Rom. e : 26, 27”. Int.. 8, 1954, pp.35-42.

7

Exegesis of the passage is found in commentaries onRomans. A dissertation has also been produced on it :W. Brownson, Protestant Exegesis of Rom. 8;26. 27.A History and an Evaluation. (Princeton Theological Seminary).1963# His aim was threefold:

'•to discover how Luther and the other reformers interpreted Rom. 8:26, 27; to consider how the passage has been treated in subsequent Protestant exegesis and theology; and finally to survey afresh the exegetical data, endeavouring to assay the significance of the passage for New Testament Theology”,12

Xn spite of these works on Rom. 8:26f., there are still some neglected areas in the study of this passage.

(1) Rom. 8:26f. is the only passage in the NT wheremention is made of the Spirit's intercession. Thus weexpected some attempt to be made to find the origin ofthis motif. For example, scholars have tried to find the

13background to the Johannine Paraclete sayings. This is what we want to see done with Rom. 8:26f. Little has been done in this direction. Thus, the advantage that such a background examination may have,to the understanding of Rom. 8:26f.,has not been utilized.

(2) The Spirit's intercession is set within a theme of prayer. There are a number of passages in the NT which have this theme — "pray in the Spirit". These passages are Jn. 4:23f“«; Rom. 8:15, 16; Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor.14:14, 15; Eph. 6:18; Phil. 3:3; Jud. 20, One will expect

"12Brownson, Protestant Exegesis. (Diss. Princeton), pp.5f“»; gee al^o E* M. Heufelder, Per Geist Betet.in uns. Erwagung uber Rom 8:26. 27. 1973* 56 pages # “^0. Betz, Der Paraklet. (Leiden: Brill) 19^3; S. Mowinckel,

"Die Vorstellungen des Spatjudentums vom heiligen Geist als Fflrsprecher und der johanneische Paraklet", ZNW. 32, 1933* PP*97-130; N. Johansson, P a r a k l e t o i Lund, 194-0, These works attempt to find the root of the Paraclete sayings.

8

exegetes to have examined these passages with a view to find what contribution, if any, they make to the understanding of Rom, 8:26f. We must point out, however, that Heufelder examined some of these passages in connection with his study of Rom, 8:26f. But he excluded Eph, 6:18,Jud, 20, Phil, 3:3» etc. This implies that he was not able to draw the maximum contributions which these passages are possible. Other scholars also note similarity between some of these passages and Rom, 8:26f, but they do not go to any length to show how this similarity comes about,

(3) There is also the question of how Rom, 8;26f,integrates into its context. In v,18—25, the guidingthought is suffering but in v,26 Paul suddenly starts totalk about prayer. Why is this so? Osten—Sachen presentsa view that Paul was using traditional material and nKasemann also suggests that v.26f. is the climax to the

apocalyptic theme of w , 18-27* But how correct are these explanations? Do they explain why Paul suddenly starts to speak about prayer?

(4) Apart from these neglected areas in the study of Rom, 8:26f,, there are explanations of statements in the passage itself, which are debatable. For example, is

/ 3 v t vglossolalia the accurate explanation of ^A°t A -tot ?There are certain questions to which firm answers are also required: (a) How are we to understand the word <TVNo<VTV.-

t i°tX and what does our weakness involve?(b) what is the reason(s) for the Pauline claim that "we do not know how to pray as we ought"? (c) how is the

9

believer related to the Spirit*s intercession? Ihis dissertation therefore will concentrate on these areas*

The basic objective of this dissertation is to answer four main questions: (a) Where did Paul get the idea ofthe Spirit*s intercession from? (b) How do Rom* 8:15, 16, Gal* ^:6 , Jn, 4:23f*, and similar passages contribute to the understanding of Rom* 8:26f? (c) What can we learnfrom a re-examination of the interpretations of Rom* 8:26f*? (d) How does Rom* 8:26f* integrate into its context? The text of the dissertation has thus, accordingly,been divided* Chapters One and Two are given to the examination of intercession in the OT, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings, the Rabbinic and Philonic writings; the intercession of Jesus, Mk*13:11 and the Paraclete sayings are examined as possible sources for Rom* 8:26f* Chapter Three deals with passages which have similar teaching on prayer as Rom* 8:26f* Exegesis of the relevant passages is carried out and an attempt made to understand the findings in relation to Rom* 8:26f* Chapter Four treats Rom* 8:26f* exegetically* We give a history of exegesis and submit the various interpretations to fresh analysis* Chapter Five examines how Rom* 8:26f* integrates into its context*A Concluding Chapter draws together our findings* In this chapter also, we make observations on: how an understandingof our passage can assist individuals and the church to deal with the crisis in piety*

10

Finally, we must note that the text of Rom, 8s26f., with which we shall be working^does not constitute a problem. Thus we work with a high degree of assurance that the text has the authentic words of the Apostle,

There are a few variant readings in the passage which are worth noting. In, v,26a, the Byzantine manuscript family and other later manuscripts have the plural

'T<=(VS . it also made its appearance inthe edition of Erasmus which may explain its appearance in Luther’s German translation. It is also found in the Textus Receptus and has survived presently in the English Authorised Version, The manuscript support for this is very weak compared to the support for the singular reading (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus etc.). The C9th manuscript Boerneriarjns has no reference to weakness, rather it has £fe-<yrfcv'oS ,This can be a deliberate change. In v,26b most of the Latin and Syriac manuscriptsvand the C5th uncial Ephraemi Rescriptus have the words tTCfcj5 after

. ku .j. .fchg-pe great weight of uncial manuscript in suppopt of ^their omission. Besides, the inclusion of does not add anything newt_vto the passage since Paul writes in v,27

11

CHAPTER ONE

INTERCESSION IN OLD TESTAMENT, JUDAISM, ETC.

This chapter will examine the idea of intercession in the Old Testament, the writings of the intertestamental period, the Rabbinic literature and Philo's writings. The aim is to find out where Paul could have got the idea of the Spirit's intercession from.

1. INTERCESSION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The idea of intercession is found

in the Old Testament. It could have evolved from the belief that Yahwehhad become more and more transcendent due to the sins of men. There wasa general conviction that there are people who because of a special place assigned to them by God, can intercede with Him on behalf of the guilty partner to avert a punishment. We find many instances of such special people acting as intercessors for the nation of Israel or for their fellow men in the Old Testament. They include: (a) the Patriarchs, (b) Prophets,(c) Kings, (d) Priests, (e) Righteous people and (f) Angels.

(a) In Gen. 18:22-32, there is evidence that the Patriarch Abraham

interceded with God on behalf of the city of Sodom. In Gen. 20:17 He also prayed for Abimelech.

(b) In Ex. 8:8,12,28-30; 9*28,33; 10:17,18, Moses is presented asinterceding with Yahweh on behalf of Pharaoh. In the incident of the

-JGolden Calf (Ex. 32), Moses assumes the role of a mediator in w . 11-13 and 1 Inconsistencies have been pointed out in this chapter - Ex. 32. For example, w . 7-14 have been argued to be saturated with Deuteronomic language (Deut. 9*25ff.). Tv. 25-29 have been argued to reflect an independent tradition and introduce another issue into the story which goes beyond the original intention of the narrative. It has also been argued that chapter 32 is a late interpolation into the pentateuchal narrative which has been composed by the Deuteronomic writer as a polemic against Jeroboam's policy and projected back into the Mosaic period (1 Kg. 12:25ff.). See B. S. Childs, Exodus. 1974, PP* 553-573.

12

appeals to God's honour for His own name before the pagan nations and also to the promises made to Abraham as motives to prevent the destruction of the Israelites; in w . 30-34, he interceded to avert the punishment that was to come on the people. Moses' prayer at Rephidim resulted in the victory of the Israelites over the Amelikites (Ex. 17*11-13). In the narrative of Num. 11:1-3, Moses intercedes in order to arrest the fire that threatened the Israelites. He also prays for Miriam (Num. 12:13). Samuel is also an intercessor. Time after time, he interceded on behalf of the Israelites (1 Sam. 7 * 5 , 8 : 6 , 1 0 , 2 1 ; 12:23; 15:11); in some of theseinstances, he is asked to intercede (7:8; 12:19) and in others, he offeredto pray to Yahweh for the people (7*55 12:23). In Am. 7:1-6, the prophetsought by intercession to halt the divine anger; and Szekiel can also cite "intercession" as a mark of the genuine prophet (13:5)• Jeremiah was also one of the greatest intercessors of the Old Testament. Both the people and their Kings went to him that he might represent them in the presence of

Yahweh (21:2; 37:3; 42:1-4). He also considered intercession as one ofthe signs of the true prophet (27:18).

(c) The King held office as Yahweh's "anointed" and therefore was regarded as sacrosanct. Thus it is not surprising that we find Kings in intercessory roles in the Old Testament. David pleaded with God on behalf of Bathsheba's child (2 Sam. 12:16) and he pleaded also for his people(2 Sam. 24:17,25). Solomon is also found interceding for the people of Israel in his prayer of dedication (1 Kg. 8:22-54). Hezekiah is also

presented in 2 Kg. 19:15-19 as praying for his people (also 2 Chron. 30:18,19).(d) In passages like Lev. 16:21, Num. 6:23-27, Ezra 6:10 we find ideas

which put the priest in a direct intercessory role. In Lev. 16:21,confession of sin, which is mentioned, is a natural accompaniment to prayer

for forgiveness (Joel 2:12-14? Lev. 5*5,6). This will mean that what

13

Aaron is engaged in here is an act of prayer to Yahweh for the forgiveness of the sins of the people of Israel. In Num. 6:23-27, the pronouncement of a blessing over Israel in the name of Yahweh was more than an expression of a wish that they may be blessed. Hy ’’laying the name of Yahweh on the

people”, they were in fact setting in motion an actual beneficent power; Yahweh will . deal leniently with His people as a result. The Ezra passage also requested the priests to pray for the.welfare of the King and his sons.

(e) There were also men who as a result of their righteousness were considered close to Yahweh and thus were thought capable of interceding for their fellow men. Job is, therefore, presented as interceding for his friends (42:8-10).

(f) In the later writings of the Old Testament, there is at least one reference to the intercession of Angels. According to Gen. 21:17, 22:11, angels are with God in heaven and there form his heavenly court (1 Kg. 22:19). As the name mal*aklm implies, angels come to man as messengers of God(Gen. I6:7f; 19:1ff; 21:17; 22:15; Num. 22:22ff; Jud. 2:1; 6:11, etc.).Hence angels had immediate and privileged access to God. As Israelite belief in angelology developed, it was natural to expect that beings which stood in such an intermediate position between God and men will become intercessors. In Zech. 1:12, the angel of Yahweh appealed to Him to have mercy on Jerusalem and cities of Judah. Angelic intercession is also

implied in Job 5s1;2 33:23-26.

translated 'holy ones* are the ''servants” and ”angels” of 4*18. They are mentioned also in Hos. 11:12 (12:1); Zech. 14*5* Eliphaz appears to be taunting Job with the suggestion that itis hopeless to appeal to any of these lesser beings in the hope of finding an intercessor with God.See M. H. Pope, Job. 1973, p. 251.

Ik

As the belief in the resurrection of the body and after-life in the presence of Yahweh grew among the Jews,^ we find with it a few references in the Old Testament which seem to imply the idea of dead righteous people interceding in heaven for men on earth (is. 63s16; Jer. 15sl). The men cited in these passages are conceived as having special powers of intercession while on earth; they will naturally be thought to have even greater powers now that they were in the presence of God as a reward for their righteousness. Is. 63:16 probably refers to the intercession of Abraham and Jacob in heaven. Jer. 15s1 can be interpreted in two ways: either it is referring to Moses and Samuel as interceding in heaven or it is stating that even if Moses and Samuel were alive and interceding on earth, Yahweh will not listen to them. The latter interpretation is more probable for it fits the total rejection of Judah which the prophet was speaking about.

The above examples of intercession describe intercessory prayer; butthere are passages in the OT which speak of an intercessor who is willingto pay the price of the reconciliation to God of those for whom he prays,^ It is not possible to trace clearly the factors that led Israel to belief in resurrection. It appears, however, that figurative statements such as Ps. 88:3ff.; 16:10 which speak of God's miraculous saving of the individualfrom death and figurative expressions which described the bringing back of Israel from the death of captivity (Ezek. 37) may have had their influence. Increased interest in God's dealings with individuals may have led men to ask whether God's goodness can maintain the life of his loyal saints beyond death. Sheol was just what the wicked deserved but c an . not God give His faithful people a better lot? Clear and explicit references to resurrection are rare in the OT. The taking up of Enoch and Elijah to fellowship with God (En. 5*24; 2 Kg. 2:11) does not express it but thesestories can stimulate men to think that God's people will have a permanent privileged position in living touch with Him. The raising of a child by Elijah and Elisah (1 Kg. 17*17-23; 2 Kg. 4*32-36) created, possibly, anatmosphere congenial to the idea of a permanent resurrection of the body.Is. 26:19 possibly speaks of bodily resurrection, though some scholars think that the author envisages not a resurrection of bodies but national restoration. Cf. P. J. Helfmeyer, ’"Deine Toten-Meine Leichen'. Heilszusage und Annahme in Jes. 26,19'* in Bausteine Biblischer Theologie. Festgabe fBrG. Johannes Botterweck zum 60 Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schulem, ed.H.-J. Fabry, Koln, Bonn, 1977* P* 258; see also C. Larcher, "La doctrine de la resurrection dans l'AT", Vie et Lumi^re, 1952, p. 19«Ban. 12:2 certainly speaks of individual resurrection.

15

to bear the penalty and by his own sufferings, possibly his own death, to bring forgiveness and peace to others, removing their guilt and bearing their punishment. We find the beginnings of this idea in Ex. 32:32;Deut. 3s26ff; 1:37 which leave it to be inferred that Moses, by hisexclusion from the promised land, interposed for his people and bore the penalty of their disobedience. The development of this, is the idea of the Suffering Servant. The language that deals with this figure is sacrificial; a discussion of it will . therefore involve us in sacrificial concepts. We want to limit our investigation here to intercessory prayer and avoid discussion of sacrifice as intercessory aids.^ It must be mentioned that the concept of the Servant depicts the surrender of one's own right to life in favour of God's cause. In his intervention on behalf of sinners in intercession, his is a self-offering made deliberately, of his own free will.

How effective were these intercessions? In spite of his intercession, Abraham could not save the city of Sodom; despite Amos' prayer, God proclaimed that judgment was inevitable. Jeremiah was not allowed to pray for the people. Although negative responses were received.to these intercessions there is no suggestion in the narratives that the intercessions

were a failure. The reason is this: in spite of the fact that intercessionwas by people who had a special place with God, their intercession remained subject to God's will. For the sake of the special persons, God will pardon and save men, but he does not commit Himself to them. He keeps Himself perfectly free to decide towards them. Thus whether or not to grant the requests, remained the prerogative of Yahweh's sovereign will. Other

4 Por a full discussion of the Servant of Yahweh concept see J. Jeremias, TENT, v, pp. 654-700? W. Zimmerli, The Servant of God, 1957*

16

intercessions were also granted by God. Abraham prayed for Abimelech; Moses for Pharaoh, for Miriam; Samuel for the people; David for Jerusalem, etc.

A strong personal relation with God also underlay these acts of intercession. In the process of intercession, the rights of the intercessor's own life disappeared completely from their field of vision that any hardship and mortification they personally were experiencing were forgotten; their very existence was offered for the redemption of the one threatened by the wrath of God. Thus when the Israelite historians made Abraham strive with God for the life of the righteous in Sodom or present Moses staking his own life for the election of his people or portray Samuel as a loyal advocate of the erring nation, despite the ingratitude which he had experienced, theyare showing us "intercession as a complete turning of Man to God, a becoming

5one with the will of God to the point of self-sacrifice".

We conclude that the idea of intercession is prevalent in the OT writings. Por the exercise of it, the individual can call on the services of the man of God. We observe that in some cases, the man of God intercedes at his own initiative or is requested to intercede for the individual or the nation. The granting of the requests are, however, left to the discretion of Yahweh. Whatever the action of Yahweh in response to these intercessions, one supreme principle dominates - the realisation of God's plan of salvation despite human sin.

What purpose does the above examination serve towards our main objective,i.e. where did Paul get the idea of the Spirit's intercession from? From the above survey, it is evident that in the OT, there is no mention of the intercession of the Holy Spirit or even an allusion to it. Our immediate

W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, 1967» P* 450*

17

thought is that Paul could not, therefore, have got the idea of the Spirit’s intercession from the OT. However, it is clear that OT writers were familiar with the concept of intercession. Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee who was proud of his training in Judaism and observance of the Mosaic law.Thus nurtured in the traditions of Israel, he was aware of the necessity of intercession; he was aware that intercession must be by persons chosen by God, close to God or by heavenly beings; he was aware that the outcome of intercession is dependent on the sovereign will of God. Thus, although a direct reference to the Spirit's intercession is not found in the OT, the intercessory ideas of the OT were known to Paul and could have contributed to the ideas expressed in Rom. 8:26f. We suggest that it did contribute to the idea of the Spirit's intercession (see pp,36f»).

2. INTERCESSION IN THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHAL WRITINGS. In the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings, the OT idea of intercession is found established and developed. Righteous men interceded on behalf of their fellow men (2 Macc. 12:40-45)* In this passage, we find a possible combination of a belief in intercession and a belief in the resurrection of the dead. In T. Reub. 1:7* Jacob is presented, pleading for Reuben's life. He also prayed for Judah (T. Jud. 19:2), for Gad (5:9) and also for his ten eldest sons (T. Ben. 3:6).

With increased interest in angelology, we find more accounts of angels interceding on behalf of men. Raphael, described as "one of the seven holy angels" brought the prayer of Tobit and Sarah before the Lord (Tob. 12:12). Michael, "the commander of the angels" came down to receive the prayers of men (3 Bar. 11:4). He also presented to God, the merits of the righteous

which had been presented to him by the angels (3 Bar. 11:9* 12:1-5* 14:2).In T. Lev. 3:5*6, archangels ministered and propitiated the Lord for all the

18

sins of ignorance of the righteous by offering to God, "a sweet-smelling savour, a reasonable and bloodless offering". There is mention also of an angel who interceded for the nation of Israel (T. Levi 5:6,7)*

The most important development in intercession here was the idea of the blessed righteous interceding in heaven for men on earth. There are many references in this literature to those in heaven interceding with God. In 2 Macc. 15:12-16, Judas Maccabaeus is reported to have seen a vision of Onias, a former High Priest, with outstretched hands invoking blessings on the whole "body of the Jews" and of Jeremiah "who was praying for the people and the holy city". Moses also occupied a prominent place as a heavenly intercessor (Ass. Mos. 11:14,17? 12:6). In 1 En. 39:5, we havea vision of Enoch in which he saw the dwelling places of the righteous in heaven, who petitioned and interceded and prayed for the children of men. Elsewhere, Enoch himself is designated by God as the redeemer of the sins of men and the helper of his people (2 En. 64:5)* In 4 Ezra 7:102-115, the author reported that on the day of judgment the righteous will not be able to intercede for the unrighteous, neither will father be able to intercede for the son. A similar thought is also expressed in 2 En. 53:1 where "my children" are advised not to look to "our father" to intercede for them on the Day of Judgment, for there will be no help for any man whohas sinned. The same view is also expressed in 2 Bar. 85:12 where it issaid that the intercession of the fathers, the prayers of the prophets and the help of the righteous will be denied the sinners. Are these passages denying the fact of intercession by the blessed righteous in heaven? No. The emphasis in the three passages is on what will . happen on the Day of Judgment. The concern of the authors is to impress on the readers that on the Day of Judgment it will be. too late to expect sins to be forgiven;rather than an attempt to deny the belief that the blessed righteous

intercede in heaven for earthly men.

19

During this period, there were no prophets; thus it is not surprising that there is no mention of prophets as intercessors. Similarly, since the tenure of office of priests and kings during this period was extremely uncertain, we do not find references to the intercession of these people.The only exceptions are of 2 Macc. 1:24-29 which is a reference to a priestly intercessory prayer and 2 Bar. 63:5 which also referred to the intercessory prayer of King Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:18,19)*

From the above examination, we observe that the writings of the intertestamental period show evidence of intercessory ideas; especially intercession by angels and the blessed righteous. There is, apparently, no reference to the intercession of the Spirit. But there are three passages which need to be examined more carefully. In their proposal that the solution to the problem of the Paraclete in the Gospel of John is to

S 1be found in the OT, both Mowinckel and Johansson interpreted some passagesas references to the intercession of the Holy Spirit. These passages areT. Jud. 20:1-5; Wis. Sol. 1:6-8; Ms. Sol. 9:17-18.T. Jud. 20:1-5. V\mTfc (&N XfeKstot. >00 j £oo

cv -o X4t>©ocri tC o ^ t o T ^ s T O

T'jjsK Xlvo(V^. 3-Kc^V-y fc X T T^s r&fc-CTS Toe TAS

t i r t T o (rT^-ôs Too

c*oxuw yVw/Delev K ^ io s . 4.. OOK. KXt/>oS fa & SvtffoemAoeetw ^ >t v C TTêt ‘ccrlfvuvj ofviloO

& v W < w Kopiovi. s. Ko(vL xo Twtoy* Tjs m v t t K'Hi^yo/OeL îre\roptcrTo(L

6 o( jo<px o-b(s tK T»js t K°(o upotrîicN0 0 (Tivo^T^L HPOS TOV U,fl|T^V.

gS. Mowinckel, "Die Vorstellungen des Spatjudentums vom heiligen Geist als

Fursprecher und die johanneische Paraklet" ZNW. 32, 1933, pp.,97-130.^ N. Johansson, Parakletol. 1940, esp. pp. 84f., 93f.

jl. Kc<e wltcnov t o - T t x o T<\S crvNtCfc-wS To'o voos ob

20

Mowinckel identified t o TTveo^jo^ o^K^-trV^s with the HolySpirit and observed that the emphasis in the passage falls on the accusation of sinners by the "spirit of truth". Thus the "spirit of truth" has taken over the old role of Satan, the accuser. Mowinckel argued that if the "spirit of truth" testifies to everything and accuses all, then it must be presupposed that the "spirit of truth" also testifies to the good works of

Qthe pious and thereby intercedes for them. Johansson subscribed to thisview. He observed that the "spirit of truth" is here presented primarily

/as o dos- He brings the wicked deeds of the sinner before God.Johansson pointed out that, although it is not expressly said, it is clearthat the same spirit bears witness of good deeds and intercedes for therighteous. The "spirit of truth" therefore appears here as the intercessorfor men. Behm noted that angels can "both defend and prosecute, for inheaven they bring forth both the good and evil in a man's life (Jud. 30:20;2 8:6, etc.)" and commented on T. Jud. 20:1-5 that "features of theinterceding angel are transferred to the hypostatised Spirit of God: acting

9before God's judgment seat and witness, combined with the role of accuser".It is true that the "spirit of truth" in this passage can be spoken of

as an advocate because to "bear witness" in Jewish thought had the sense of 10advocacy. But we ask two questions here: (a) is the "spirit of truth"

the Holy Spirit? (b) if T. Jud. 20:1-5 refers to the intercession of the Holy Spirit, could it have influenced Paul in Rom. 8:26f.?

(a) Whether "spirit of truth" refers to the Spirit of God or not is a point of dispute. Mowinckel, Johansson, Behm and Sjoberg think that it is.

0Mowinckel, "Yorstellungen", p. 99*

^ Behm, TfflT,V, p. 810; see also D. E. Holwerda, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the Gospel of John. 1959» P« 33.10 A. Trites, The Hew Testament Concept of Witness (SNTSMS 31 )> 1977» P* 21. Seepp»87Efof this thesis also.

21

Barrett asserts that "the spirit of truth is not the Spirit of God, but thegood yetzer, and the spirit of deceit is the evil yetzer which incites man

11to sin". 0. Betz thinks that in the Qumran writings it refers to 12Michael, the archangel. It has also been suggested that the "spirit of

truth" is not the Spirit of God because originally they were two differentrealities - the "spirit of truth" from the Iranian dualism and the Holy

13Spirit from the monist tradition of the OT.We suggest that the identification of "spirit of truth" in T. Jud.

20j1—5 with the Holy Spirit is incorrect for the following reason. The "spirit of truth" and the "spirit of error" formed a familiar concept.The thought of it appears in Num. 5:14*30 (a spirit of jealousy). In the intertestamental period, there is mention of "seven spirits of deceit"(T. Reub. 2:1f) and in T. Dan 1:6 there is mention also of the "spirit of jealousy". The phrase "spirit of truth" itself appears in the Manual of

Discipline 1 QS 3:17ff:

C. K. Barrett, "The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel" JTS, NS1,1950-51 ,.P»12f also The Gospel according to St. John. 1955» P* 386; see also L. Morris,The Gospel according to John, 1972, p. 649; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (SNTSMS 5)7 1967. P. 222.

^ 0. Betz, Per Paraklet, 1963, pp. 165-169, 207f.; see also A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning, 1966, pp. 50f«; G. Johnston, The Spirit- Paraclete in the Gospel of John, 1970, P* 98.

We find this argument weak. Although the concept of antithetic spirits is present in Mazdean dualism (Mowinckel himself observed a Persian influence in this passage - "Vorstellungen", p. 98; Johansson, Parakletoi, p. 94), the concept also has affinities in the Qumran writings and other Judaistic or early Christian literature. This makes one wonder whether the concept was wholly borrowed from Iranian dualism or whether it could not have developed within the monist tradition of the 0T. Audet and Seitz have shown that the "Two Way" theme in these literatures have a Jewish ancestry - 0. J. F. Seitz, "Two Spirits in Man : An Essay in Biblical Exegesis" NTS,6, 1959-60, pp. 82-94; J* P* Audet, "Affinites litteraires et doctrinales du 'Manuel de Discipline'", RB 1952, pp. 219-38; 1953, pp. 41-82. See also Leaney,The Rule, pp. 50f«; B. C. Butler, "'The Two Ways' in the Didache" JTS, (NS)12, 1961, pp. 27-38.

22

"He created man for dominion over the earth; and he set in him two spirits for him to set his course by them until the set time of his visitation. They are the spirits of truth and of perversity."

We think that the phrases "spirit of error" and "spirit of truth" refer to that which in a person makes him a good or bad person. The "spirit of error" will . be the source of vices, such as those mentioned in Rom. 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9ff; Gal. 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:3 and "spirit of truth" will give rise to the virtues or good qualities in a person. Thus in Num. 5s14* the "spirit of jealousy" may be understood not as the actual existence of a "spirit of jealousy" (as the Holy Spirit or Satan are thought to exist) but as a vice which issues from the evil nature of man. Similarly, the "lying spirit" and "the spirit of harlotry" can be so interpreted. Our interpretation gains credibility when examined against T. Reub. 2:3,4*The "seven other spirits" mentioned in the passage refer not to the actual existence of spirits, but to attributes of a person - the sense of sight, the sense of hearing, the sense of smell, the power of speech, the sense of taste, the power of procreation. Instead of "spirits" T. Ash. 1:3ff speaks of 'inclinations':

"if the soul takes pleasure in the good (inclinations) all its actions are in righteousness; if it inclines to the evil, all its actions are in wickedness and .... it is ruled by Beliar."

In 1 QS 3:17ff, by the phrase "he set in him two spirits for him to set his course by them", the writer wanted to teach that man is a combination of a good and a bad spirit. He can . either walk in the path of light or the path of darkness. In Qumran, this appears to be one of the main doctrines.

This concept of two antithetic spirits in man was certainly associated with the doctrine of two ways - light and darkness. All those who practised

righteousness were under the domination of the light. This concept is often

23

presented as war "between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. In1 QS 4:2, the concepts of light and darkness are thought of as ethicalqualities.as in T. Levi 17s6f.; T. Ben. 5:2; 6:4. Besides, in Qumran,the two spirits are regarded as a kind of permanent element in every man,since creation, until the "End" decreed by God. Although it sometimes

emerges clearly that the two spirits are personal entities outside of man(1 QS 3:24-25; 1 QfJ 13:10; and the fact that the term "angel" is used todescribe the two spirits),^ the emphasis in the Scrolls is

"not on the invasive, transcendent character of the two spirits, but on their enduring presence and persistence until the End: they suggest not an inrush of speciallygiven energy but .... two constant currents of good and evil forces in conflict."15

Prom the pentecostal narrative, we note that the Holy Spirit is transcendent(see also pp. 107f^» He came upon the disciples like "a rush of a mightywind" (Ac. 2:2), thus characterising the reception of the Spirit as invasive.The spirit of truth (at least in Qumran), does not have these qualities.Thus the Holy Spirit is to be distinguished from the "spirit of truth".

The language of T. Jud. 20:1-5 itself suggests that "spirit of truth"refers to an ethical quality of a person. The phrase "spirit of understanding of the mind" recalls one of the spirits of T. Reub. 2:3,4 (thepower of speech with which comes knowledge). " .... and the sinner isburnt up ’by his own heart1 and cannot raise his face to the judge" appearsto speak more of our conscience than of the Holy Spirit. When the goodperson sins, he is ashamed of it when he realises what he has done. Itcan be that the identification of the "spirit of truth" and the Holy Spiritevolved from the combination of ideas that the good natured man must be -underthe influence of the Spirit of God. Thus we accept the view that the"spirit of truth" does not refer to the Holy Spirit in the passage underdiscussion. It refers to the good naturedness of man.14 K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the Hew Testament, 1958, P» 187*^ 0t>« °4t«, p. 173-

2k

(b) The second question is, if T. Jud. 20:1-5 refers to the intercessionof the Holy Spirit, could it have influenced Paul in Rom. 8:26f.? Theanswer to this question involves us in the dating of the Testaments of theTwelve Patriarchs. The authorship and date of the Testaments have been asubject of much discussion. The problem lies in the great variety ofcontents which they show. We find a number of midrashic stories dealingwith various episodes in the lives of the Twelve Patriarchs. There arealso a number of apocalyptic passages as well as religious - ethicalteachings which are closely related to that of the NT. Thus the questionwhich arises is whether the Testaments are a product of pre-ChristianJudaism or are of Christian origin.

16R. H. Charles, for example, maintained that the Testaments werewritten during the last years of John Hyrcan.ua, i.e. between 109 and 106 B.C.,to glorify the Hasmonean house. He looked on this book as of great valuein influencing the thought and diction of the writers of the NT, and eventhose of Jesus. This ethical teaching, Charles thought, is much higher

and purer than the OT and helps to bridge the chasm that divides the ethics17of the OT and the, NT. E. Bickermann favoured a pre-Maccabean date. He

argued that historical references in the Testaments showed that the work was composed after 330 and before ca. 140 B.C. He considered numismatic evidences in the Testaments and argued on them that the Testaments could have been written between 330-285 and 200-150 B.C. Since some features of the work seem to rule out the dating around 300 B.C. or after the persecution of Antiochus, Bickermann limited the probable dating to the first quarter of the C2nd.

16 R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the 0T, vol. 2 (Pseudepigrapha) 1913, p. 282.17 E. Bickermann, "The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs'*,JBL, 69, 1950, pp. 245-260.

25

M. de Jonge argued that they were Christian productions dating from the end of the C2nd or the beginning of the C3rd. He observed that the Testaments contained notions, which although they were not found earlier, were generally accepted in the time of Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian.De Jonge gave the dating as 190 AD to 225 AD.

Are the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs pre-Christian? We cannot answer this question with a simple ’yes' or 'no'. There are fragments of Aramaic T. of Levi from Cairo Genizah. These have been published in Appendix III of Charles' Greek version of the Testaments. Although these fragments, together with a Greek fragment which is incorporated in a tenth century manuscript from Mount Athos, with fragments and various publications of J. T. Mvlik, show clearly that our present Greek text of T. of Levi isan abbreviated form and thus poses a question of

"whether the original was rewritten before the Christian passages were added or whether the person(s) responsible for the Christian additions were also responsible for the editing of the original material", 19

we want to direct attention to another question. Does the existence of theAramaic T. of Levi imply that other Testaments were also available atQumran? It is sensible to assume the possibility - if there is a QumranT. of Levi, why not a Qumran T. of Judah, or Reuben, or Dan ?

20M. Philonenko makes a case of this. He argued for a common origin to

m QM. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 1953* esp. pp. 121 —

125; see also Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 1975* esp. pp. 183-246.19 de Jonge, Studies, p. 195f«; see also A. S. van der Woude, DieMessianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran, 1957* P* 193, where heopts for the first possibility "Ob der Text schon gekurzt und umgearbeitet wurde, bevor die Christlichen Interpolationen in den Text hineingerieten, ist nicht zu entscheiden, auf Grund der weniger interpolierten armenischen Ubersetzung jedoch nicht unwahrscheinlich".20 M. Philonenko, Les interpolations Chretiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et les Manuscrits de Q.umran, Paris, 1960.

26

21the Testaments and the texts of the desert of Judah. So did van der Woudewho wanted to prove the Essene origin of the Testaments. One can alsopoint to the 'two spirit* theme in the Manual of Discipline and itsappearance in the Testaments as evidence of a link between the two writings.But no matter how strong the above points are, it is difficult to acceptthem. First, existence of other Testament materials at Qumran has notbeen proven. Second, the Aramaic T. of Levi is not clearly a testament,

22there are materials of priestly exhortations in it. Third, the appearance of the 'two spirits' theme in the Manual of Discipline can only confirm that there are religious and theological similarities between the Testament and the Qumran documents. We cannot prove any historical connection.Until there is evidence to the contrary, it will be inadvisable to link the Testaments to the Scrolls, historically.

T. Jud. 20s1—5 is reminiscent of the Shepherd of Hermas:Mand. Ill:Iff. Again he said to me, "Love truth: and let all

truth proceed from your mouth, that the Spirit which God has made to dwell in this flesh may be found true by all men, and the Lord who dwells in you shall thus be glorified, for the Lord is true in every word and with him there is no lie. They therefore who lie set the Lord at nought, and become defrauders of the Lord, not restoring to him the deposit which they received.For they received from him a spirit free from lies.If they return this as a lying spirit, they have defiled the commandment of the Lord and have robbed him" . . . ."Your thought", said he, "is good and true; for you ought to have walked in truth as God's servant, and an evil conscience ought not to dwell with the spirit of truth, nor ought grief to come on a spirit which is holy and true." (Trans, by K. Lake, Apostolic Fathers,II, LCL.)

21 van der Woude, Die Messianischen Vorstellungen. esp. pp. 191-194* 214-216.22 We got this view from a handout obtained from Professor Marshall in which the main issues in M. de Jonge's Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are set out.

27

It is also reminiscent of the Didache:

Didache I-71. There are two ways, one of Life and one of Death,and there is a great difference between the two ways.The Way of life is this: . Apostolic Fathers I, LCL.)

etc. (K. Lake,

It is also reminiscent of the Epistle of Barnabas:

Ep. Barn. XVTII-XXI. Now let us pass on to another lesson andteaching. There are two ways of teaching and power,one of Light and one of Darkness. And there is agreat difference between the two ways. For over theone are set light-bringing angels of God, but over theother angels of Satan. And the one is Lord frometernity and to eternity, and the other is the ruler ofthe present time of iniquity. The way of Light isthis ........... etc. (Trans. K. Lake, Apostolic Fathers 1,

The reminiscences suggest that our passage, T. Jud. 20:1-5, possibly

belonged to a stock of ideas from which early Christian writings like the

Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas were drawn.

These ideas could be pre- or post-Christian. The writings cited above

axe early Christian writings. They will be much more relevant and meaningful

if they deal with things which are of immediate concern to the Christian

community. We think that this was the case. So all that the reminiscences

can show is that Test. Judah has similar thoughts to early.Christian

writings. They do not show that Test. Judah is pre-Christian.

We conclude that first it will be incorrect to identify the "spirit

of truth" in T. Jud. 20:1-5 with the Holy Spirit. Second, due to lack of

strong evidence fbr the pre-Christian dating of the Testaments, and especially

Test. Judah, we do not think that there are grounds to argue that T. Jud.

20:1-5 could have influenced Paul in Rom. 8:26f.

LCL.)

28

A. \ V T^'OTo ( J ^ t y y ^ p t v o s ^ n < ° < c b S e i s ^ o o 5gr

y<y “C«<p o cie jcr o vjtoM G- X t y oocp* ^ «*• 7 ° ^

S \ ^ ^ o o \ C o t s otort|6roos e e i o ^ a n i > 0 ^ ^ <5e o k ^ t o 0i \ v 1 /•/ /-/C } 1/<xk o<| irpos Kopcov KSti e<s e-Johansson commented on this verse that

K'JyOiovj. v.7) has certain functions which the meligim had. Wisdom is the

watchman who watches over the ideas, words, and activities of men. In v.6,

it is God who watches over the activities of men, hut it becomes clear from

v.7 that God carries out this activity through His Spirit, through Wisdom.

Johansson argued, therefore, that the "spirit - wisdom" is called a watchman

in this passage. He observed that this description of the "spirit - wisdom",

accords with the description of angels as watchers in Jub. 4*15 and also23with what is said of the melig, the angel, in Jub. 33*23. He argued

) . /further that tXt-y'/fcw is the main accent in this passage. The meanings

given to this word include "to disgrace" "put to shame" "to cross-examine"

"question" or "to test" "bring to the proof". These meanings are observed

in the use of the word in the LXX at Is. 37*3* Job 21:4; 23*2 and 2 Chron.

26:20. In the NT, the word is used with the meaning of showing "someone

his sin and to summon him to repentance" (Matt. 18:15; Eph. 5:11; 1 Tim.

5:20; 2 Tim. 4*2; Tt. 1*9*13; 2:15). The crux of Johansson'3 argument

on this passage is this: not only does the "spirit - wisdom" watch over our

deeds but it serves as a witness before the divine judge bringing in

evidence to prove the unrighteous guilty and similarly to prove the righteous

innocent. This duty of warning and persuading falls within the activities

of the mellg. Israel's mellglm in Is. 43*27 had, as the intermediaries

between Yahweh and the people, the task of warning them.

We suggest that to see a reference to intercession of the Spirit in

this passage represents a wrong understanding of the verse. In the passage

under discussion, "spirit - wisdom" is represented as watching over the

Ofvirov).- wisdom (i.e. the iTvfcujj*.

23 Johansson, Parakletoi, p. 86.

29

ideas and activities of men, but there is no mention or allusion to

intercession. In Jub. 4*15 which Johansson cited, the angels of the Lord -

the Watchers, descended to earth in order to instruct the children of men.

Angels are intercessors not because they are watchers, but because they are

made to mediate between men and God, elsewhere in biblical writings;

nowhere is watching related to intercession. In Job 33s23, there is mention

of an angel, a mediator who will instruct man of what is right and wrong.

One can argue that an angel is a mediator in this verse but we cannot argue

similarly for the "spirit - wisdom" as Johansson did because it is not

stated, nor even implied in the wisdom passage that the "spirit - wisdom"

is an intercessor.

Concerning the Creek word fe fcy)^€rvV, we must a r g u e tha t

although the meaning of showing "someone his sin and summoning him to

repentance" is found in the NT, it is not certain that this sense of the

word can be derived from its use in the wisdom passage; in fact, there, the> . iword is translated "punish". Besides, the subject of the word fcXfe-y Xfe-W

is not "spirit - wisdom" but justice. Thus even if one can argue for

intercession on the word fcX -y>Cfcv>l , "justice" would be the intercessor

and not "spirit - wisdom". Thus we think that Johansson's comments on the

wisdom passage were foroed.Wis. Sol. 9>17-18.^ S o o V ^ v Je <roO ~nS <yu e5u3Ko<s

CrOcjjteiVj \<«<\ T& Otycov <yoO ^Ko(X otjToOS TcPcftoL TvJV fcrlTl v m s > K jM.

° ^ k C T 7 <* 0"OVJ J Ko<V (T Q ^ o t,

Johansson argued from this passage that the Holy Spirit (Wisdom) is the

pioneer who leads men on to the right path and teaches men God's will. He

hinted at a possible intercession here by relating teaching of the will of

God to intercession; the duty of wisdom as the intercessor of man before

God is, however, not limited to the watching of their ideas, words and

30

deeds, but to teaching them God's will and to leading them on the right

path.Johansson's deductions on this passage that wisdom teaches men the

ways of life and are by him saved, -are right; but his attempt to link this passage to intercession is unacceptable, because we have rejected the idea of intercession in Wis. Sol. 1:6-9 to which he links our present passage.

In these three passages singled out for examination, we do not findthe idea of the Spirit's intercession expressed, contrary to what Mowinckeland Johansson have claimed. But it is evident, from the above discussion on the whole, that the idea of intercession was a widespread belief in the intertestamental period.

3. INTERCESSION’ IN THE RABBINIC WRITINGS. In the Rabbinic literature,the idea of advocate was vigorously maintained. This is evident from theterms Peraqlet or PSraql5ta and its Greek synonym yu^'^Yc D05transliteratedSenegor which have been adopted into Rabbinic use. These words carriedthe sense "advocate” and always denoted advocacy before God.

Moses (Ex. r., 43,1 on Ex. 32:11) and Hezekiah were among thoseconsidered as intercessors.24

The idea that angels interceded for men was also maintained."The angel whose charge is prayer .... waits until the congregation in Israel which assembles at the last hourpossible has concluded its prayers and out of theirprayers he fashions a crown which he places upon the __ head of the Holy One .... '* (Mid. Psalm 19*7? 88:2).

These words attest to the mediatory roles of angels between man and God.Michael is the chief guardian angel of Israel. He is found acting as

26representative, patron, and advocate before God.

24 Ber. 10b; also Mid. Ps. 7:6; 55*4-2^ See also Shab. 12b. of. Targ. to Cant. 8:9, Men. 110a; Mid. Ps. 134*1 •

31

New features to intercession are also observed in the Rabbinic writings.First, the Torah is personified and listed among the heavenly intercessors:

'R. Levi said: Two things did Israel ask from God /at Sinai/.First, that they should see His glory; second, that they should hear His words. They saw His glory, as it says,"Behold, the Lord our God has shown us His glory" (Daut. V,24). And it says also "and His voice have we heard from the midst of the fire". Then there was no strength to stand left in them, for when they came to Sinai and God revealed Himself to them, their soul fled, for that He spake with them, as it says, "My soul failed when He spake" (Cant. V,6). But the Torah interceded for them with God, saying "Does a King, when he gives his daughter in marriage, slay the sons of his house?All the world rejoices and thy sons are dying]" At once their souls were restored as it says, "the Torah of the Lord is perfect, it restores the soul" (Ps. XIX,7). But did not God foresee that the sight of His glory and the sound of His words would overpower Israel? /fes, but/ He also foresaw that they would, in the future, commit idolatory, and He revealed Himself lest they should then say, "Had He shewn us His Glory, we would not have made idols", hence it says,"Hear, my people, and I will testify (A.Y. unto) thee"(Ps. LXXXI,8).' (Exod. r. XXIX.4).

Second, the works of piety and sacrifices are also listed as advocatesat God's judgment seat.

"If someone is led to the place of judgment to be judged, he can be saved if he has great advocates, and these are the advocates of a man: conversion and good works" (b Shab. 32a)and R. Eleazar b. R. Jose also said

"All the benevolences and good works which the Israelites d© in this world .... are great advocates between the Israelites and their Father in heaven" (bBB. 10a).

Sacrifices also come in for mention: Pesikt. 191b "There are no betteradvocates than sacrifices."

Third is the idea that the Spirit is an advocate. R. Aha commentingon Lev. 5*1 observed that

"after the sin of the golden calf, Israel heard the voice, which was the Holy Spirit, interceding for Israel to God and saying to God 'Say not "as he did to me, so will I do to him"' (Lev, r ., 6.1). ^7

27 Str. - B, vol. 2, p. 5^2; see also C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe,A Rabbinic Anthology, 1938, p. 677*

32

Mowinckel argued, from this passage that the Holy Spirit, after the sin withthe golden calf, interceded, defending on both sides, in that he remindedthe Israelites through the words of Prov. 24:28 of their duties toward God

but reminded God through Prov. 24:29 of His Grace and admonished Him not28to judge according to strict retribution. Related to this is Dt. r.,

293,12 on 9:1 whioh has the Spirit exercising his intercessory function inconnection with that of Moses. Another passage which must be mentionedis Gant, r . 8:11 on 8:10. R. Aibo says: God said "I will create for theIsraelites an intercessor in the midst of the people of the world (that isduring their diaspora). Who is that? it is the Bath-Qpl". (The bath-qol is a substitute for the Holy Spirit; cf. Matt. 3:17-)

These three passages testify to the Holy Spirit as an intercessor.So, how significant are they to our purpose? Of these three, the firsttwo sayings are "rabbinic interpretations of Prov. 24:28f. and are thereforeto a certain extent parallel passages".3* Thus, "there is nothing surprisingabout this interpretation; it is in keeping with a customary mode of

31Rabbinic exposition" argued Sjoberg. An examination of the original text of the incident of the golden calf reveals no reference to the Holy Spirit; it was Moses who interceded with God on behalf of the Israelites. Thus we agree with Sjoberg in his view that we cannot use the two passages to supportthe claim that the idea of the Spirit as intercessor was common in Judaism.The passages are "no more here than an occasional introduction of the conceptof advocacy within the context of biblical exposition". On Cant, r . 8:11,

28 Mowinckel, "Vorstellungen", p. 99} Behm, THNT.Y, p. 811; Holwerda,The Holy Spirit, p. 34«29 Johansson, Parakletoi, p. 159f*} Behm, TPNT.V, p. 811; Sjoberg, TDNT,VI, p. 389.3^ Holwerda, .The Holy Spirit, p. 34-31 SjSberg, TDNT,VI. p. 389.

33

we will suggest that the hath-qol is not the Holy Spirit himself, "but an

'echo' of the Spirit (Matt. 3J1T)* It was 311 agent of revelation and its authority was not equivalent to the Holy Spirit. Thus the bath-qol is a weak substitute for the Holy Spirit. If it is, then the bath-q ol in the Rabbinic passage cannot be fully identified to the Holy Spirit and its intercession not equivalent to the Spirit's.

The Rabbis, to which these three passages are attributed, are C4thRabbis. It must be asked then whether the ideas expressed by them areearly and could have influenced Paul? Rabbinic traditions were preserved

32orally. The reason is that it was considered impious to write down formulae for prayers, legal decisions and arguments, parables and translations of scriptures. This was their way to: ensure spontaneity in prayer thusavoiding rote, ensure that the law develops according to the needs of the people, ensure that parables remain fresh and ever inspiring, and ensure that Bible translations would not become stereotyped. However, the process of codification of Rabbinic traditions began only when danger threatened the oral transmission of traditions. This danger was in the form of the wholesale massacre of scholars, proscription of study, and the fact that the Rabbis were dying off. As a result of the oral transmission of traditions, the date of a saying is that of the man who first uttered it, not of the transmitter who repeated it; still less of the editor who recorded it.Thus, although the Rabbis cited in the three passages are C4th, there is no

reason to suppose that their evidence is too late to have any significance to our purpose. These three passages could be the first recorded evidence of a tradition which had been transmitted over the years. The question that we have to ask is this: is there any evidence of the intercession of the

32 Montefiore and Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology, see pp. 709-713*

Spirit in Rabbinic traditions prior to these statements of R. Aha and R. Aibo? The answer is 'no1; and we find support for this in the absence of such a formula - R.X in the name of R.Y in the name of R.Z said? which normally gives an idea of how tradition has been transmitted.

Thus, although there is reference to the Spirit as an intercessor in Rabbinic writings, the evidence is not strong enough for us to accept that the idea of the Spirit as an intercessor was common in Judaism nor is it sufficiently early. However, it is clear from the above discussion that the idea of intercession was maintained in late Rabbinic writings.

4. INTERCESSION IN THE WRITINGS OR PHILO. In Philo's voluminous works, there are few references of any kind to interoession but what there are are most important for the development of the idea of intercession in Christian doctrine.

Philo held the usual Jewish view of the pious intercessions of the patriarchs of the people. Among these Moses is regarded as the great intercessor whose prayers are always answered.

"Struck with dismay, and compelled to believe the incredible tale, he yet took the part of mediator and reconciler and did not hurry away at once, but first made prayers and supplications, begging that their sins might be forgiven. Then, when this protector and intercessor had softened the wrath of the Ruler, he wended his way back in mingled joy and dejection.He rejoiced that God accepted his prayers, yet was ready to burst with the dejection and heaviness that filled him at the transgression of the multitude." •(De Vita Mosis II. 166, trans. by Col.-Whit. Philo (LCL) VI, p. 531).33

33 See also Migr. Abr. 122 (Philo, IV. pp. 201f.); De Somniis 1, 143 (Philo, V, p. 373).

35

For the first time in Jewish literature, the High Priest is here mentioned prominently in connection with intercession. Not only is heseen offering prayers and sacrifice for the Jewish race,

" .... the high priest, who as ruler dispenses justice to litigants according to the law, who day by dayoffers prayers and sacrifices and asks for blessings, asfor his brothers and parents and children, that every ageand every part of the nation regarded as a single bodymay be united in one and the same fellowship, making peace and good order their aim" (De Spec. Leg. III. 131),

but he is also presented as offering intercession for the whole human raceand the realm of nature.

"Thus is the high priest arrayed when he sets forth to his holy duties, in order that when he enters to offer the ancestral prayers and sacrifices there may enter with him the whole universe .... " (De Vita Mosis II. 133; trans. by Col.-Whit., Philo (LCL) VI, p. 513).

The high priest is conceived to belong to two spheres, divine and human,having a nature superior to man but inferior to God. As such he is ableto be an effective mediator between God and nature.

The word (Logos) is also mentioned as both mediator and intercessor; his intercession is continual and effective because he belongs to the spheres both of the divine and the human.

"To this word, His chief messenger, highest in age and honour, the Father of all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the' creature from the creator. This same word both pleads with the immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subject." (QRDHS 205; Philo (LCL) IV,P. 385.)

He also held the Jewish view about the intercession of angels."These are called 'demons’ by the other philosophers, but the sacred record is wont to call them 'angels' or messengers, employing an apter title, for they both convey the biddings of the Father to His children and report the children's need to their Father." (De Somniis I. 141»Philo (LCL) V, p. 373.)

36

Philo had a doctrine of intercession; intercession offered hy divine beings in close relationship both to God and to men. There is no mention of the intercession of the Holy Spirit, however.

We conclude that the Jews had a doctrine of intercession: intercessionof the patriarchs, prophets, priests and kings; heavenly intercession ofthe blessed righteous and of angels. These ideas were held by the Rabbisand Philo. There is no mention of the intercession of the Holy Spirit andthe possible references were considered too late to have influenced Pauldirectly in Rom. 8:26f. However, as the above discussion shows, the ideasof intercession were maintained and developed from the OT over the yearsto the NT times. As Bernardin observed,

"Christianity took over many of the beliefs .... Judaism contains all the elements out of which the Christian doctrine of the heavenly intercession of Our Lord was formed."34

If this is true of the intercession of Christ, can we not say the same forthe intercession of the Spirit? The difficulty here is that the Spirit'sintercession is clearly mentioned only once in the NT (thus there is notmuch to go on) and also the Spirit's intercession is not for the forgivenessof sins, which we find as the main purpose of intercession elsewhere inbiblical writings. Thus we cannot speak of a direct influence but we maybe able to speak of an indirect influence: first. Paul was aware of the needfor intercession which must be due to his Jewish background. There aresigns in his letters that he believed himself appointed mediator between God

35and the Churches in his care; his awareness for the need of intercession

^ J. B. Bernardin, Intercession of Our Lord. 1933, p« 19*35 Por a discussion of Paul as mediator or intercessor, see 0. Schmitz, Die OpferausacWaWftQ d-e3 spateren Judentums; und die Opferaussagen des Neuen Testament, 1910> PP« 213-37; N. A. Dahl, "Paulus som Foresprakere" (Paul as Intercessor), STK. 18, 1942, pp. 173-182; G. Wiles, Paul's Intercessory Prayers (SNTSMS 24), 1974-

37

ia also evident from his reference to Christ's intercession (Rom. 8:34) and possibly to that of Elijah (Rom. 11:25) and to angelic intercession (1 Cor. 11:10). Thus a deep sense of intercession lay behind Paul's preaching, teaching, prophesying and personal work; a sense which was cultivated from Jewish traditions. By speaking of the Spirit's intercession, Paul possibly was merely adding a new dimension to an already known doctrine of intercession. Second, it is clear from the Jewish idea of intercession that heavenly beings were considered effective intercessors.

The Holy Spirit is a heavenly being. Matt. 3:15*17 and parallels (ik. 3* 21-22; Mk. 1:10,11), Jn. 14:26; 15:26; Ac. 2:1-4, are some of thepassages which testify to this fact. With the Jewish intercessory -understanding, and the fact that the Spirit is a heavenly being, it was easy to link the Spirit to intercession.

38

CHAPTER TWO

INTERCESSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - JESUS, SPIRIT.

1. JESUS. The word TOy)(4v\0 in v.27, used of the Spirit is alsoused of Jesus in Rom. 8:34» and Heh. 7*25. Besides the preposition is

i /used with in hoth Rom. 8:26f. and 8:34* These suggest thatthe Spirit's intercession and that of Jesus are parallel ideas. Such a parallel idea can form an atmosphere in which the idea of the Spirit's

intercession developed. Thus it is worthwhile to examine Jesus' intercession to determine how it m a y have contributed to the idea of the Spirit's intercession.

(a) REFERENCES TO JESUS' INTERCESSION IN THE GOSPELS. In the Gospels, there is evidence that Jesus was aware of the doctrine of intercession.

iNot only did he request Sis disciples to pray for others, lie himself interceded for his disciples and made statements which can be construed as pointers to Sis future role as intercessor in heaven. We want to drawattention to a number of these passages.

Matt. 10:32f.; Lk. 12i8f. The Matthean passage reads''So every one who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.''

This passage differs from the Lucan parallel in three ways. First, forthe "I” in Matthew, Luke has "the Son of Man". Second, the phrase "rqyFather who is in heaven" differs from Luke's "before the angels of God".Third, the Matthean saying is set within a context of mission; therefore

Matt. 5*44 (pa^» Lk. 6:28); Matt. 9*38 (par. Lk. 10:2).

39

the saying gives a reason why the disciples should not be afraid of 2opposition. In Luke, the context is that of hypocrisy and persecution

and therefore the saying gives a reason for fearless witness under

persecution. However, the two contexts are closely related.3We have to determine whether the "I" of Matthew or the "Son of Man"

of_Luke is original. These questions may also be asked: did Jesusspeak of a future "Son of Man"? If he did, is there any evidence that he identified himself with the figure? Or is the "Son of Man" a creation of the early Church? It is also necessary to determine what role Jesus plays in this passage - is he the advocate or the judge?

Attempts to determine which of the subjects, "I" or "Son of Man", isthe original finds exegetes divided. The originality of Luke's "Son of

4 - 5 6 7 QMan" is argued for by Hill, Kummel, Schweizer, Manson, Marshall,

The strongest point in favour of the originality of the Lucan "Son of Man"is its catchword connection with v.10 and also its attestation in asimilar saying in Mk. 8:38. The originality of the Matthean "I" seems

9 10to be argued for by Colpe and Yielhauer. The latter argued that by the

2 See I. H, Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 1978, pp. 510f“.3 Ibid.4 D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1978, p. 193*5 W. G. Kummel, Promise and Fulfilment, 1957* P* 44f.^ E. Schweizer, The Gospel of Tfark, 1971* P* 178.7 T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 1975* P* 109*® Marshall, Luke, p. 515* see also NTS, 12, 1965-66, pp. 327-351* esp.pp. 343ff«> see also H. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, 1965*pp. 91f.9 C. Colpe, TLNT, 8, p. 442; see also n. 297.

P. Yielhauer, "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Yerkundigung Jesu" in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Festschrift fur Gunther Pehn, 1957* pp. 51-79 esp. pp. 68-70; see also E. Kasemann, "Satse heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament", NTS, 1, 1954-55, PP. 256f.; Colpe, TLNT. 8, p. 442 n. 300; Marshall, NTS.12, 1965-66, p. 344-

4o

words "confession” and "denial", a forensic situation is being envisaged in both the protasvs and apodosis of the statement. This presupposes a situation of persecution for the disciples of Jesus. As a result,Vielhauer thinks that we have a post-Easter situation here. He argues therefore that the situation to which the saying refers does not fit with Jesus1 life, since Jesus could not have looked forward to a period after his death when men might be persecuted for their allegiance to Him.Colpe's reconstruction of what he thinks might have been the original form of the Q saying shows that the title "Son of Man" was added to the saying of the early Church. He supported this view with the note that Matthew always retained the "Son of Man" title in his source and often adds it

(16:28; 24:39? 25:31; 26:32). Thus he chose Matthew's originality to his inconsistency in this case.

11The basis of Vielhauer's argument on this passage has been disproved thus: although heavenly confession and denial can only be understood inthe context of the last judgment, earthly confession and denial must not be limited to earthly courts. Peter's denial of Jesus was not before an earthly court; it was before a maid (Matt. 26:70,72; Mk. 14:68,70; Ik. 22:57)* Jesus spoke of self denial, with no forensic colouring (Lk. 9:23)* John the Baptist confessed to not being the Christ before a representative body of the priests and Levites; this was not a court (see also Ik. 8:45> Jn. 13:38; 18:25,27; Ac. 4:16; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Tim. 2:12,13, etc.). Forexamples of passages that deal with confession, see Moulton's Concordance to the Greek Testament, 1978, p. 695* Besides, Jesus was consciously moving towards his passion and a similar situation m a y have been expected

11 See Todt, Son of Man, p. 342.

to befall the disciples (Mk. 13:11» see pp.8 I f f C o l p e ' s reconstruction of the Q saying only shows that both the "I" and the "Son of Man" are possible additions. It does not show that the Matthean "I" is the original.

We think that the "Son of Man" can be the oldest form of the sayingbecause of its association with Mk. 8:38. This passage reads

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

It has parallels in Matt. 16:27 and Lk. 9:26. If "Son of Man" is theresult of Luke's editorial work, how do we explain its appearance in asimilar saying in Mark's gospel? The Q saying and the Markan logion bothhave reference to the fate of those who deny Jesus before men; but inwording, setting and point of view, these two sayings are dissimilar.Would Jesus have made two statements on the same subject, one in which hepictured himself as judge on earth and the other as an intercessor in

heaven? It seems to us that we have a single tradition behind these twosayings, a tradition in which Jesus might have spoken of the fate of thosewho would confess or deny him in terms of the eschatological "Son of Man".The divergent viewpoints might be due to the treatment of the traditionthrough, possibly, two divergent channels of transmission. The "Son of Man"must be original or else it will . be difficult to explain how the earlychurch could have reconstructed a saying that would have been contrary totheir feeling and thinking; for this passage appears to distinguish betweenJesus and the "Son of Man". The early church thought of them as one.

If the "Son of Man" is original to this saying, it raises the question whether Jesus identified Himself with the "Son of Man". This question falls within the debate on the authenticity of the "Son of Man" sayings.

This topic has been dealt with so often and in such detail that nothing

b2

helpful can be added by its discussion here. However, the main theories12are these: (i) the ’’Son of Man” sayings are the work of an early church;

(ii) the "Son of Man" sayings go back to Jesus and they are utterances of 13himself; (iii) the authentic "Son of Man" sayings are those in which

Jesus regarded the "Son of Man" as a figure distinct from himself;"*^(iv) the authentic "Son of Man" sayings are those which speak of "a man wholives a lowly life on earth, rejected, humiliated, handed over to hisopponents, but eventually exalted by God and to be the chief witness in the

15last judgment".Bultmann argued that in Lk. 12:8f., Jesus did not identify himself

with the transcendent "Son of Man". He was followed by Bomkamm whoinsisted that in Ik. I2:8f., Jesus regarded the "Son of Man” as distinctfrom himself. This implies that this passage cannot be cited as a reference to Jesus' heavenly intercession; even if a note of intercession is deduced, it will apply to the "Son of Man" not to Jesus Christ. Our problem, therefore, is to show that in Lk. 12:8f., the "Son of Man" refers to Jesus ( so Matt. 10:32f.). We want to draw attention to Marshall's article "The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings" in which he argued convincingly for Jesus' self identification with the "Son of Man". Some of the arguments involved

12 This view is represented by P. Vielhauer, Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament, 1965, pp. 55~91, 92-1405 N* Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 1967, PP. 173-199.^ M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, 1967? R« M a d d o x , "The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels", NTS, 15, 1968-69, pp. 45- 74; V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus, 1953* PP* 25-35; Marshall, NTS, 12, 1965-66, pp. 327-351, esp. pp. 350f.

R. Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament, 1, 1952, pp. 28-32; see also The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 1968, p. 152; G. Bomkamm,Jesus of Nazareth, 1960, pp. 228-231.^ B. Schweizer, "The Son of Man", JBL, 79, 1960, pp. 119-129.

43

are here cited: (a) There is no evidence that Jesus expected a Messianicfigure to come after him. (b) Jesus would not use a comparatively unknownfigure in Jewish apocalyptic and claim that he ,rwould be the validator ofthe fellowship established between the disciples and Jesus at the last

16judgment”. (c) Jesus made the eternal destiny of man depend on man'searthly response to him because he expected to be at the last judgment. Ifwe replace Jesus with the "Son of Man", we are faced with the problem of theeschatological role of Jesus. We think a convincing case has been made towarrant an identification of Jesus with the "Son of Man" in our passage andother "Son of Man" sayings. Lk. 12:8f., therefore, is to be understoodthat Jesus will confess anyone who confesses him on earth and will deny

anyone who denies him on earth.In Lk. 12:8f. also, the phraseluov olyyfcAttA/ TOO ^600 is presented

differently in Matthew who has Too T\ek~tpOS >00 l o o fc\/ Oop<\/OiS17This is a favourite Matthean expression. Dalman argued that "angels of

God" is an unfamiliar idiom in Jewish literature and thus can not havebeen used by Jesus. It was inserted by Luke in place of a term which

18appeared to him less intelligible. This, however, does not mean that Matthew's "my father in heaven" is original to the saying. Dalman doubts whether Jesus used this expression in prayer. Matthew's expression appears to be an adaptation to Jewish usage. In Jewish mode of speech, one rarely finds God addressed as "Father", without the epithet heavenly. The only

16 Marshall, NTS, 12, 1965-66, p. 338.17 Manson, Sayings, p. 109. The expression appears twenty times in Matthew in the words of Jesus, eleven times in Mark. It does not appear in Luke; however, 11:13 might show his awareness of it.18 Gf. A, H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1915» P- 146.He thought that Luke' s ~\&v iAy -y Xuiv TQ^i 6 tea is probably more original.

kk

exception found is in the Shemoneh Ezreh where Israel ventures to call God '’Our Father" 1-3 ^ and then "Our King" ~ \ 3 . There is also aprayer in Tob. 13:4 which the Vaticanus renders ol'dTOS€r S TuKVTc^S T O ^ S (absent from the Hebrew and the Aramaic).

Akiba is also reported to have brought rain in an answer to a short prayerwhich b e g a n 33^:? "H "Our Father and Our King" (b. Taan. 25^).Apart from these exceptions, the Targums show that great care was exercised

19against the use of the single word "Father" for God. Jesus, however,_ / _

addressed God in prayer only as "my Father", whether the Greek is ll®( -upt i

(Matt. 11:25 par. Ik. 10:21; Lk. 22:42; 23:34,46), or O (Matt.11:26 par. Ik. 10:21; Mk. 14:36), yo u (as in Matt. 26:39,42).

JThe underlying Aramaic word to these addresses is undeniablyIf Jesus will not use "angels of God", and there is evidence that

"my father in heaven" is an adaptation to Jewish usage, then it is correctto say that the two phrases were not original to the saying. Dalman arguedthat "in the presence of God" might have been original, these two variationsbeing the results of the evangelists attempt to either avoid the divine name,

20or change what appeared ■unintelligible to them. Whether one accepts "the angels of God" or "my father in heaven" or "in the presence of God" as original to the saying, one thing is clear: bur response to Jesus on earthwill be the criterion for his response to us in heaven. The above phrases are, therefore, different renderings of "in heaven".

Thus in Matt. 10:32,33 and Ik. 12:8f., we have two different settings: an earthly scene where Christians either confess their faith in Christ or deny any relation to him before men (not necessarily earthly courts), and a heavenly scene of the last judgment where Jesus confesses or denies

19 G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1909, P* 191*20 Dalman, Words, p. 197*

k5

Christians accordingly. We asks what role does Jesus play in thisheavenly scene - is he an advocate or a judge?

It has been suggested that Jesus Christ is not a judge in this passage

because throughout Q, it is only God and never Christ who is pictured as21Judge. This implies that Jesus Christ is a witness in this passage.

Schweizer also expressed the view that Jesus was exalted to he chief witness in the last judgment hut he expressed further that in the early church the

22role of Christ shifted from that of a decisive witness to that of a judge.23Hill thinks that Jesus is an advocate in the Matthean passage. Michel

appears to suggest that in Lk. 12:8f., the "Son of Man" is the judge of the world; in Matt. 10:32f., Jesus is the eschatological witness hfore the Father.^

We find that exegetes are divided on the question of Jesus' role inthis Q saying. There is no douht that the time of the heavenly confessingand denying is the last judgment, hut is there any evidence in this passageor elsewhere in the NT to suggest Jesus' role at the last judgment as

t . / tdepicted hy this saying? The words 0^0 Xoy£\>j(Lk. O^Q)\o'yn<r«^ ; Matt.OôXo'yô-ti) a n d f y v t O ^ V . ( L k A ^ ^ ^ t V O S , M a t t . ^ ^ O ^ ) are the

possible clues we have in the passage. O^^Ô^fc-Uihas been discussed hy 25Michel. He observed that there are three main meanings of the word in

the NT. (l) "To assume", "to promise", "to concede". (2) Usedjudicially, it means "to make a statement" in the legal sense, "to hear

witness". This is the most important meaning in the NT tradition.21 Bemardin, Intercession, p. 23.22 Schweizer, JBL. 79* 19^0, pp. 121 and 129.23 Hill, Matthew, p. 194* see also P. Bonnard, L'Evangile selon Saint Matthieu, 1963, p. 153* Todt, Son of Man, p. 56.^4 0. Michel, TDNT, 5* P» 208; cf. H. B. Green, The Gospel according to Matthew, 1975* P* 112.25 Michel, TDNT, 5, pp. 199-220, esp. 207-212.

k6

(3) "To make solemn statements of faith", "to confess something in faith",t’Oyo^eyfeU0in our passage has the second meaning. It can, however, be

rendered in two ways: Jesus, the chief witness, will bear witness to thecharacter of Christians based on their earthly attitude to him; or Jesus,as the judge, will pronounce us guilty or innocent based on evidence fromour earthly attitude to him. p V h a s also been examined by

26Schlier. He outlined three meanings of the word in the NT. (a) "To say no" in relation to a question, either with or without an object.(b) "To refuse" in relation to a demand or claim. (c) "To deny". This third meaning gathers into itself the first two meanings. Applied to our passage, it can also be rendered in two ways: Jesus as the chief witnesscan refuse to speak for us and thus deny any knowledge of us due to our human conduct on earth, or, as a judge, he can deny to us any plea for clemency. An examination of both words do not help in clarifying whether Jesus is the judge or witness in our passage.

In the NT also, Jesus spoke of God as future Judge. In Matt. 7: 1-2, we read

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

Kummel noted that the passive form is the Jewish way of speaking of God's 27action. Warning is given, in Matt. 10:28, as to God's power as judge

"Fear him who can destroy soul and body in hell". Paul names God as

judge of the world at 1 Thes. 3:13; Rom. 3:5; 14:10; 1 Pet. 1:17, Rev.11;17f-; 20:1Iff., etc.

26 Schlier, TDNT. 1, pp. 469-471.27 W. G. Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament. 1974> P* 39*

hi

But Jesus Christ also appears as judge of the world. In the Gospels,

passages like Matt. 13:41f •; 25:31ff.; Jn. 5:22; 9:39; etc., can heinterpreted as references to Jesus as a judge. In Paul, the idea of Jesus as judge is also found in 1 Thes. 2:19* 1 Cor. 4:5* Paul can speak of both the judgment seat of God (Rom. 14:10) as well as that of Christ (II Cor. 5:10). Thus in the NT we have evidence to the fact that both Jesus and God are presented as judges at the eschatological last judgment.

Thus, from these considerations, it is difficult to determinewhich role Jesus plays in the passage under discussion. But for thefollowing reason, we suggest that in this Q passage, Jesus is presented asthe chief witness or advocate at the last judgment. Rev. 3:5 reads

"He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."

28This is a clear reminiscence of Matt. 10:32f. and Lk. 12:8f. The theme of this verse is admission into the Kingdom of God. The one who, accordingto the context, speaks to the church in Sardis intercedes for those who areconsidered worthy to belong to the heavenly community. He does not permit their names to be erased from the book of life, but confesses them. Thus lie is the advocate, the witness and guarantor for those who conquer. The function of the speaker here is the same as the function of Jesus in Lk. 12: 8f., and par. Can we not say therefore, that Jesus is the advocate, the witness at the last judgment of those who confess him on earth before men?

The above discussion has some implications which must be drawn out. Jesus identifying himself with the "Son of Man" during his ministry provides a key to the early church's understanding of Him as an intercessor. The

pQR. H. Mounce, Revelation. 1978, p. 114; also Todt, Son of Man. p. 56;

L. Morris, Revelation, 1969* P» 77? E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung Des Johannes, 1970* P* 34*

k8

29"Son of Man" is a heavenly figure. We deduce this from:(i) Dan. 7:13. "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the

clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to theAncient of Days and was presented before him";

(ii) 1 En. 62:7. "For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,And the Most High preserved him in the presence of his might,

And revealed him to the elect";

(iii) Mk. 8:38. " ... the Son of Man also will be ashamed, when hecomes in the glory of his father with the Holy angels".

(iv) Mk1__13l2 .* "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory";

(v) Mk. 14:62. " ... and you will see the Son of man seated atthe right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." There is a common thought to these passages: the "Son of Man" is located in heaven.He was hidden in the presence of God; he comes on the clouds of heaven and with the holy angels; his seat of glory is at the right hand of God.Jesus' use of the term "Son of Man" without any explanation is an indication that his hearers were aware of its meaning and characteristics. If they knew of the heavenly connotation of the term, Jesus' use of it as a self designation, coupling with their belief in heavenly intercession will, lead his hearers to think of Kim (especially after his death and resurrection)

29 Does the concept of the "Son of Man" go back to Dan. 7s13 in which the concept is given a corporate interpretation or is there a still much earlier tradition behind it in which the "Son of Man" is an individual eschatological agent of redemption? Are the similitudes Christian interpolations, in which case the Son of Man would not be a pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic title? These are some of the problems which have to be discussed when examining the background passages to the concept of the "Son of Man".

k9

as a heavenly intercessor. We find evidence to this in Rom. 8:34 where the underlying idea is the "Son of Man" as an intercessor. This passage

is discussed on pp.6i4-ff*There are other passages in the gospels with intercessory connotations.

These passages reinforce the idea of Jesus as an intercessor. ■ Some of these passages are discussed below.

Lk. 22:31-32. This passage has parallels in Matt. 26:31-35> Mk. 14:27-31 and Jn. 13:36-38. In Mark and Matthew, the announcement of Peter's denial is made on the way to the Mount of Olives. In Luke and John, the announcement was made at the supper table. There are also many differences of detail in these accounts of Peter's denial. First, the accounts of the preliminaries to the prediction differ. In Luke, Jesus warns Peter of Satan's trial, but he will survive. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus warns that the disciples will fall away and be scattered; and in John, Peter asks where Jesus is going. Jesus tells him he can only follow later. Second, in Mark and Matthew, Peter's willingness to die follows Jesus' prediction of his denial; in Luke and John, it precedes it. Besides, the wording of Peter's statement varies in these accounts. Thirdly, the prediction of Peter's denial before cockcrow is variedly presented. There are, however, two general points in common: (i) Peter's willingness to die and (ii) Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial before cockcrow.

Our interest here lies in verses 31 and 32 of the Lucan account. The thought expressed in these verses appears only in Luke. However, this passage, as it stands now includes v.34 in its unit. V.34> as well as w . 59-62, which tells of the fulfilment of the prediction, can be argued to be derived from a source other than "L". The reasons are two. First,

without v.34, the unit of w.31-33 is understandable. The meaning conveyed by it is not to tell of Peter's denial but rather the trial of the disciples.

50

Second, in v.31, the Apostle is referred to as whereas in v.34 heis callad^WTpfc . This can be an indication of a change in source.Thus it does not seem that Luke's peculiar source contained the narrativeof Peter's denial.3^ It can be argued, however, that the story of Peter's

31denial and "tears of remorse" is consistent with the tradition here,especially with the word , the aorist of which implied success

32in Satan's petition.We want to draw attention to two points in the passage. First, Satan

is presented as an accuser. This is reminiscent of the prologue to the book of Job and Zech. 3:Iff. The metaphor of the sifting wheat and its application to the disciples has been variously explained.33 But it seemsto us that the metaphor indicates the severity of the trial. The purposeof it is to test the loyalty of the disciples to Christ and their faith in M m . Failure at this trial would have led to apostasy and loss of salvation.

Second, Jesus is presented as an intercessor. As a result of Satan’s demand, Jesus prayed for his disciples, especially for Peter. The purpose

c/ , Vof His intercession is expressed by the Wc< clause: (a) that the foundationof Peter’s faith, as well as the disciples, must not be destroyed and (b) that Peter may be able to strengthen the disciples afterwards. There is no mention of forgiveness of sins here. The intercession has reference to the present time and also possibly to the continual opposition of Satan to the people of God.34

3^ Mans on, Sayings, pp. 339f«» Bultmann, Die Geschichte der SynoptiStkyiA Tradition. 1958, p. 288.3 Marshall, Luke, p. 821.32 H. K. Luce, St. Luke. 1938, p. 334; A. Plummer, St. Luke, 1922, p. 503.33 See Marshall, Luke, p. 821.34 Ibid.

51

Can we depend, however, on these verses as an authentic reference tothe intercession of Jesus? It has been suggested by Finegan that ourpassage in question was created by Luke to replace the Marcan account ofthe fleeing disciples. This will mean for us that the statement hereof Jesus' intercession was conceived by Luke and is thus not based onoriginal tradition. It is true that Luke's hand can be detected in thispassage. For example, the use of the name by itself is possibly acharacteristic of "L" (see also Lk. 5s3) and the double vocative appearsto be a characteristic of Luke (Lk. 10:41; 12:34)* Marshall states alsothat the vocabulary of v.33 is largely Lucan.^ Despite these Lucantraces, there is some agreement that pre-Lucan tradition is contained in

37these verses. The repetition of the name in an address is common in Jewish literature"^ and the use of vc£o4 to introduce a threat is also pre-Lucan. These signs of pre-Lucan tradition probably point to the fact that the passage was not wholly composed by Luke. Thus we find ourselves agreeing with Fuchs that "v.31 and v.32a may well go back to older (Palestinian?) tradition". In this passage, therefore, is an original saying of Jesus with intercessory connotation.

Lk. 23:34a. This verse tells of a prayer of Jesus to God, asking for forgiveness for those involved in his crucifixion.^ This is a clear act of intercession by Jesus.

35 j. Finegan, Die Uberlieferung der Leidens - und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, 1934* P* 14f*36 Marshall, Luke, p. 823.37 E. Fuchs, TDNT, 7» P* 292; Marshall, Luke, p. 819; Bultmann, Die Geschichte, p. 288.38 Manson, Sayings. p. 340; see also pp. 126 and 264.39 Fuchs, T U T , 7, p. 292.

^ Can the Roman soldiers be included in Plummer arguedthat the soldiers were carrying out their duties; thus is

52

There is some doubt as to whether this saying formed a part of the original gospel written by Luke. The reasons are these: (l) The verse

■X"is omitted by an impressive number of manuscripts and translations - B D

38 43 435 W •& 0124 1241 579i-fc etc. Cyril of Alexandria isreported to have regarded it as spurious. WH and TJBS ' , regardthe verse as not original to Luke. Evidence to the passage is found in A C B L a X r A etc. (2) The prayer breaks the connection between w . 33 and 34b (see Matt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24). (3) In each main section ofthe Lucan crucifixion narrative are found sayings of Jesus (23:28-31, 43, 46). The lack of such a saying at this point will disturb the pattern; hence the insertion of this prayer. (4) This prayer is derived from Ac. 7:60. (5) The ’’motif of forgiveness for sins of ignorance" whichappears here, also appears elsewhere in scribal insertion in 6:5D.^

On the other hand too, its Lucan originality can be argued for.First, the events of AD 66-70 may have been thought of as proving Jesus' prayer ineffective.^2 Second, it could have been removed by an editor who had anti-Jewish tendencies. Third, the prayer could have been removed because it was thought to conflict with the ideas expressed in w . 28-31 Fourth, instead of v.34a being considered as breaking the thought of v.33

and v.34t>, it could be argued for that v.34b was placed to emphasise the

a reference to only the Jews, especially the Jewish hierarchy who were responsible for what was being done (Luke, p. 531)• Dalman, in Jesus- Jeshua, 1971, P* 195, noted thata$£S oi’bTO^i refers to the soldiers who nailed him to the cross. We think that Plummer's view is more plausible because it would not be fair to hold the soldiers responsible for carrying out their duties on the orders of the governor.^ See Marshall, Luke, p. 868.

^2 Luce, Luke, p. 350; A. R. C. Leaney, Luke, p. 284; G. B. Caird,St. Luke. 1977, P. 251.^ A. Schlatter, Das Evangelium das Lukas. 1960, p. 446.

53

cruel nature of the executioners. Hence v.34b could rather be considered as an insertion. Fifth, the final words of Stephen (Ac. 7*60) were based on this p r a y e r , 44 thus presenting Stephen as following the pattern of Jesus. Sixth, the " motif of forgiveness for sins of ignorance" and the thought of Jesus giving a last chance to the Jews fits in with Lucan thought.

In view of the evidence that can be marshalled in favour of each position, caution must be exercised as to what view is accepted. For our purpose, however, if this saying of Jesus is not authentic, it does not necessarily rule out the fact that it could have developed from beliefs which people had of Jesus as an intercessor - if so, then it is possible to say that these beliefs were founded on actions and sayings of Jesus during his ministry. On the other hand, if the saying is authentic, then our work is made easier, for in this verse, we will . have a clear reference to the intercession of Jesus.

This intercession has a present sense and has no association with the last judgment. O'-* Y^P "H OlOuOTVV shows that the act

of intercession refers to the act of crucifixion, not to the sins of the people generally.

Although our examples so far are drawn largely from Luke's gospel,

this is no indication of some kind of a Lucan theology of intercession; for the passages cited have close parallels in the other gospels and those passages which are peculiar to Luke only reflect largely the interest of his peculiar source.

Jn. l6;26f. (see 1 Jn. 3:22-23). In the phrase V^v OTt fcpvJ■\vvT\jO "\ov 'n<A'i6,p,ct f we have a saying

which seems to exclude intercession on Jesus' part. Was this phrase meant

44 Bernardin, Intercession, pp. 20f. n.4; E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB), 1974* PP« 11f . and 267•

to contradict the view that Jesus intercedes for believers (see Rom. 8:34;Heb. 7:25; 1 Jn. 2:1)? Was Jesus or John trying to correct a falseimpression of the necessity of Christ interposing between God and Christians,as if God is unwilling to pity and forgive us, and thus needs to be bribedinto such an act? Students of John's gospel have noted and have tried toprovide an explanation for Jn. l6:26f.

Hendriksen argued that Jn. l6:26f. does not mean that the intercessionof Jesus ceases. What it teaches is that in "the dispensation of the Spirit,the disciples will reach maturity, so that they themselves also, in the nameof the Son will approach the Father." Jesus is not going to pray for themin the sense of making request to the Father on their behalf but he is going

45to pray for them in the sense of unceasing intercession in heaven. This explanation relates Jn. l6:26f. very well to Rom. 8:34> Heb. 7:25 and 1 Jn. 2:1, etc. Its problem is how we reconcile it to Rom. 8:26f. where Paul speaks of the fact that "we do not know how to pray as we ought". Hendriksen's explanation implies that there will be a time, possibly the day of Pentecost (because of the reference to the dispensation of the Spirit), when the disciples and, for that matter, all Christians will be able to present their requests to God because they know how to pray. We find this implication irreconcilable with Rom. 8:26f.; Paul claims in this verse that the Christian cannot pray as he ought.

It has been suggested also that the underlying reference to Jesus' statement here is the eternal significance of his priestly work. His ministry and his death formed a perpetual intercession that does not require to be supplemented by future intercession.^ The proponents of this view do not think that it contradicts statements of Jesus' intercession elsewhere.

^ W. Hendriksen, Gospel of John, 1973, p. 338.^ Barrett, John, p. 413; Morris, John, p. 710.

55

We also find suggested that Jesus spoke these words in order to correct a false impression, possibly among the disciples, of the need to persuade God, as if God was not merciful and was that stern judge who needed to be persuaded to forgive by His Son.^ The implication of the verse is that Jesus does not need to persuade God to be gracious. This leads us on to a view which we think is very plausible. Jesus does not

Aoneed to pray for the disciples because God loves them (v.27). His work in bringing men to God has ensured an intimate relationship of love between God and Christians, that God loves the disciples and Christians in the same way as He loves Jesus. The Father, Jesus and Christians will be one. There will be no need for Jesus to ask on behalf of the Christians because the prayer of the Christian will be the prayer of Jesus. Thus, we have to see statements of Jesus' intercession in heaven in this light of God's love for Christians. God loves Christians; Jesus' intercession in heaven is a pointer to this love. In Jesus' heavenly intercession, God has provided the means to ensure the continuance of His love for the Christian.

Jn. I6:26f., therefore, does not imply cessation of intercession on behalf of Christians; it reflects the unity of God, Jesus and the Christian as a result of Jesus' work, as well as the love of God for the Christian.

Jn. 17. John's presentation of the Last Discourse is climaxed with a49prayer of Jesus. How this prayer divides into sections is disputed.

In this prayer Jesus recalls the successful completion of his work given him

47 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB), 1972, pp. 511:f«; E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, (2 volumes), II, 1940, p. 580f.j Q

R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (3 volumes), III, 1975* P* 184» R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. 1961, p. 1104;R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971* PP* 588f.; R. Brown, The Gospel according to John, (2 volumes), II, 1970, p. 735*^ Three sections: Morris, John, p. 716; Schnackenburg, Johannesevscyqslium,vol. 3, p. 191. With variations in the verses in each section, Brown,

56

by the Father and prays that the approaching hour (his passion) may be themeans for his glorification as well as the Father's. In this chapteralso, he prays for his disciples that they may be kept in unity! unitedwith each other, in Christ, and in God; they are to be protected as theycarry out their commission of mission to the world. Not only the disciples,but he also prayed for all future believers; for their unity which wouldbe a means of convincing and persuading the world.

Jn. 17 has been a subject of much discussion among students of the

Johannine Gospel. Some of the questions discussed involve its composition50and its placement in the gospel, its relation to other writings.

Within the scope of our thesis, a full discussion of Jn. 17 is not advisable.However, we want to draw attention to the literary genre and Sitz im

Leben of the chapter, a discussion which has relevance to whether Jn. 17 is51considered intercessory or not. It has been suggested that Jn. 17 is a sermon^

Vajrter also prefer three sections.Four sections! Barrett, John, p. 416; Lindars, John, p. 515-There are also suggestions of six and twelve sections. See M. Appold,The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Tubingen), 1976.

See C. C. Torrey, "The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John", HTR, 16,1923, p. 342; Barrett, John, p. 379; Hoskyns, The 4th Gospel, vol. 2, p. 548; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953* PP- 408-409;Morris, John, p. 6^1; Bultmann, John, pp. 459f«; F. R. Hoare, The Original Order and Chapters of St. John's Gospel, 1944; T. Cottam, The Fourth Gospel Re-arranged, 1952; Barrett, John, p. 379; Brown, John, II, pp. 581-586; Lindars, John, pp. 50-51» pp. 466-467.51 W. Oehler, Das Johannesevangelium ein Missionsschrift fur die Welt (Gutersloh), 1936, maintained that Jn. 15—17* before addition to the Gospel, was first a sermon. Barrett, in John, p. 379> noted that "it is a plausible hypothesis that the last discourses were originally eucharistic sermons".Brown also speaks of the "Johannine material stemming from the evangelists preaching" and subsequently refers to 15-17 as being in this category - vol. 1, pp. XXXVI - XXXVII; Brown appears to have modified this view in the second volume; chapters 14-17 "belong to the literary genre of the farewell speech",pp. 600-601.

57

52 53or an utterance of a Christian prophet, or a liturgical document. Ifany of these views are upheld, it means that Chapter 17 cannot be an authentic prayer of Jesus and thus cannot be cited as evidence of Jesus' intercessory role.

The evidence on which these views are based does not stand up under close scrutiny. Among the questions raised against these views ares(a) if Jn. 17 is the product of the activity or activities of early Christian prophets, how do we account for the absence of introductory formulae like "thus says the Holy Spirit" (Ac. 21s11) or "the words spoken by the prophet" (Jn. 12 j38); we do not think that the activities of early Christian prophets had reached the level during this period as to do away with introductory formulae; (b) if Jn. 17 is a sermon, how do we account for the fact that its context and content do not conform to the lines of public proclamation of the gospel? (c) if Jn. 17 is a "hymn", how do we account for its lack of hymnic characteristics and its abundant personal references?

A prayer-hymn intended for community use would be less likely to have so manypersonal references. W. B. Hunter examined these and many other points in

54his thesis. His treatment of the materials is careful and we agree with

52J D. M. Smith states in his article "Johannine Christianity : Some Reflections on its Character and Delineation", NTS, 21, . 1975» PP« 222-248, that the "words of Jesus in the 4th Gospel" are to be regarded as having come from the "spirit-inspired prophets" of the Johannine "post-resurrection community". This view appears applicable to Chapter 17 because, as Brown points out, the strange use of tenses in Chapter 17 seems to point out that Jesus' return to his Father was already accomplished, John, II, p. 584*See also W. B. Hunter, Prayers of Jesus in the Gospel of John, (Diss. Aberdeen) 1979* PP* 202-205.53 0. Michel, in an article "Das Gebet des scheidenden Erlosers", ZST, 18, 1941 > P« 523, refers to Jn. 17 as "Gebetshymnus". See, Hunter's thesis for a discussion : Is Jn. 17 a liturgical document? pp. 212-222.^ Hunter, Prayers, (Diss. Aberdeen), pp. 214-217.

58

his conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to think of Jn. 17 as a sermon, a prophetic utterance, or a liturgical document. John certainly presents the chapter as a prayer. The phrase ''looking up to heaven" is

Jn. 17 is a prayer; but what sort of prayer is it? Is it a "high priestly prayer", a "consecration prayer", a "unity prayer" or an "intercessory prayer"? Exegetes are divided on this. As far back as the C5th, Cyril of Alexandria spoke of Jesus here as a high priest making intercession on our behalf. David Chytrau3 called this chapter the precatio Summl Sacerdotis and Luther says of Jesus in this chapter, "he might entirely carry out his office as our only High Priest". There has been a shift from this stand, however. Barrett objects to describing the prayer inthis way because it "does not do justice to the full range of the material

55contained in it". We must note that the two essential things to high priesthood are missing in Jn. 17} there is no reference to sin and atonement in the chapter.

Referring to Jn. 17 as a "Consecration Prayer", Hoskyns writes,

But Jn. 17 deals with more than Jesus' consecration. The only reference to Jesus1 death in the chapter is possibly v.19» Is it right to make a strong case out of one verse? We do not think so.

associated only with prayer in the Fourth Gospel; the word used by John of Jesus' prayer and ^ reflects "Abba" prayer.

"the prayer is the solemn consecration of himself in the presence of his disciples as their effective sacrifice .... and those who believe through their ,./■ teaching may be consecrated to the service of God."

Barrett, John, p. 417*56 Hoskyns, The 4th Gospel, II, p. 586. This view is also held by G. H. C. MacGregor, The Gospel of John, 1937> P» 314*

59

Due to w . 11 and. 20-23, Jn. 17 has been called "the prayer of unity”.Brown^7 and Schnackenburg^ in their commentaries have provided corrections

59to claims concerning the role of unity in Jn. 17. M. Appold also accepts w . 11, 20 and 23 as essential to the evangelist but he avoided calling Jn. 17 as a "prayer of unity".

We prefer to see Jn. 17 as an intercessory prayer. W. B. Hunter comes to this conclusion after a careful examination of the material and we find

his conclusions acceptable (see pp. 267-275)* Although the chapter opens with a prayer for his own glorification, this was not motivated by self interest; since his glorification is to be seen in the cross, his

resurrection and ascension, it is rather a prayer that the Father's will may be done in him. But a comparison of Jn. 17 with intercessory passages

in the 0T (Moses - Ex. 32:11-14; 31-32; Num. 14*13-19; Jeremiah 14:7—9*19-22; Isaiah 63*7-64; Ezra 9:10-15) shows that it does not fit well into 0T categories. Differences are also observed between Jn. 17 when examined against prayer literature of intertestamental and Rabbinic Judaism as well as Pauline intercessory prayers. The inference we can make is that Jn. 17> as an entity, seems to be without parallels in the extant literature at the close of the first century.

Jn. 17 is an intercessory prayer of Jesus. In it, we note the unmistakable necessity of the intercessor's obedience to the will of God. Jesus' obedience to the Father is made the basis for the acceptance of petitions of intercessions - w . 4»6,9* But obedience on the part of those being prayed for is also necessary. Yv. 6,7»8 clearly present the disciples

57 Brown, John. II, pp. 769-72, 774-79*cr q

Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium. III, pp. 214-221.^ Appold, Oneness Motif, p. 236.

6o

to God that "they are yours". Spiritual condition of those prayed for is therefore necessary for the effectiveness of the prayer.

Jesus' intercessory prayer here was not for the removal of sins; it was a request for the protection, unity and sanctification of the disciples as well as for the unity of future believers.In the gos pels, we observe that there are no direct references to the

intercession of Jesus apart from certain utterances of his which carry intercessory connotations. He spoke of himself as the "Son of Man" who will intercede before God for those who confess him on earth; h« was the reliable intercessor against Satan on Peter's behalf; he prayed for forgiveness for the Jewish nation and. he prayed for his disciples as well as future believers on the eve of his passion. The purpose of his intercession includes asking for forgiveness of sins, praying for protection and unity. His intercession had a present sense but sometimes the ring of the last judgment to it was unmistakable. However, there is no evidence that Jesus promised to intercede for Christians whilst in heaven; (cf. see p*530> rather, he taught men to pray directly to the Father with the confidence that they will be heard, if it is in accordance with God's will and if the one who prays, does so in faith and penitent humility.

(b) REFERENCES TO JESUS' INTERCESSION IN OTHER NT WRITINGS. Apart from the passages discussed above, there are other passages in the NT in which

scholars see references to Jesus' intercession.in heaven. Some of these passages are here discussed.

Ac. 7855,56. "But,he full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God .... " This passage alludes to Bs. 110:1. These observations on the passage must be

61

noted. (1) The term "Son of Man" occurs here on the lips of someone other than Jesus. (2) There is the likelihood that Luke wished to imply a correspondence between the death of Stephen and the death of Christ.(3) The statement that Jesus is standing at God's right hand is not found in NT literature. (4) There appears to be an incorporation of pre-Lucan tradition here! (i) OOpoWOS in 7*55 fits Lucan usage but Ov>pc(voc (foviS O&poNOviS) 7*56 does not,^ (ii) 7*56 appears to repeat 7*55? this apparent redundancy of v .56 can be explained if we assume that Luke took over most or all of v .56 from a source.

What is the significance of this passage to us in as far as the inter

cession of Jesus is concerned? Hay recognises that, depending on how weunderstand the statement To'u ,

61our passage can be a reference to Jesus' intercession. The description 62of Jesus as standing is very unusual. Can its unusualness be suggestive

of a special meaning here? Dodd has denied that the verb %OTp»Tc< has any special meaning. According to him, it means quite generally "to be situated" without necessarily any suggestion of an upright attitude.^Dalman, with slight variation, expressed the same idea. He reasoned that £o'Tu>To( is merely a verbal change for 14*9 in the words of Christ(Mk. 14:62); and that "there is no thought of a rising up after being

seated"^

^ Todt, Son of Man, p. 305. He reasons that the change indicates at least,in part, a pre-Lucan formulation.61 D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 1973* P* 75*^ A passage in the MEKILTA (Jacob Lauterbach), p* 210, indicates thatstanding signifies the presence of the Holy Spirit as in the passage "I saw the Lord standing beside the altar" (Amos 9*1)* see M. H. Scharlemann, Stephen; A Singular Saint. 1968, p. 15*^ C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 1952, p. 35*^ Dalman, Words, p. 311.

62

A l t h o u g h i n the NT ca n have the neutral meaning that is being claimed for it here (Lk. 5*2) we hesitate to adopt this meaning for the following reasons. First, the NT always uses either 0r

when speaking of Christ's place at God's right hand. Second, whenever the NT quotes Ps. 110, it reproduces the LXX . Third,Sparks? conclusion on this passage that Luke's septuagintalisms are deliberate makes us believe that Luke would have used the LXX word unless he had a special reason to change it. Fourth, there is little doubt that Luke wished to link the death of Stephen and the death of Christ. If he

had this in mind, why did he not write to recall his gospel int r>22:69? The conclusion we come to is that was used because the

evangelist wanted to convey an explanation by it.Luke-Acts provide no firm clues as to what that explanation is.

Therefore, we can only speak of a number of possibilities. Haenchen records65three explanations in his commentary: (1) The standing posture indicates

an attitude of welcome on the part of Jesus towards Stephen. Hay comments

on this view that"this interpretation could fit Lucan theology as well as the pre-Lucan tradition since the evangelist elsewhere suggests that true believers do not wait for the end of the world before joining Jesus in heaven"(Lk. 16:19-31).66

This interpretation, however, when accepted, will put this "Son of Man" saying in a classification of its own apart from the synoptic "Son of Man" sayings (except Lk. 22:69). Statements about the "Son of Man" in the synoptics referred to Jesus' parousia or his role as a guarantor at the

65 E. Haenchen expresses no preference among these explanations. The Acts of the Apostles, 1971» P. 292 n.4»66 Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, p. 75*

63

67last judgment. (2) Jesus is being presented as an angelic being amongstmany divine beings before God's throne. Such a primitive Christology candraw support from Dan. 7:10,13 (LXX). (3) The third possibility is thatJesus is here ready to execute judgment on his enemies in his parousia.This explanation implies that Stephen's vision is eschatological; and thatthe return of Jesus is imminent. Owen holds this view in his article

6 9"Stephen's Vision in Acts VII:55-56". Pesch, with variation, alsoexpressed the third view. He reasoned that the standing of the"Son of Man"refers to his position as a condemning judge. Ass. of Moses, 10:3 andIs. 3:13 (LXX) indicates the magistrate ordinarily seated but rises topronounce judgment. Therefore, of Ac. 7:55,56, it will be right to saythat the Son of Man has risen to pass sentence of condemnation against hispeople who are guilty as charged by Stephen. Pesch does not link thisexplanation to the parousia; he links it to the spread of the apostolicministry. He made Jesus' judgment a turning point in the salvation history:the passing of the proclamation of the good news from the Jews to theGentiles. Stephen's vision then guarantees that this turning from the Jews

70to the Gentiles has been divinely ordained.Moule has also advanced a fourth explanation that the "Son of Man" is

here portrayed as a witness "giving decisive evidence in vindication of M s

^ Todt, Son of Man, p. 303- 68 Scharlemann, Stephen, p. 15*69 H. P. Owen, "Stephen's Vision in Acts VII 55-56", NTS, 1, 1954-55,p p . 2 2 4 - 2 2 6 .

70 R. Pesch, "Die Vision des Stephanus Apg. 7:55 *• im Rahmen der Apostelgeschichte",&ibeUn£L^«-n 6, 2, 1965, pp. 92-107; 3, 1965, PP» 170-183.

6k

71 72oppressed disciple". Cullmann also holds this view. In this explanation, Jesus is the witness or advocate; lie rises to act as witness or intercessor on behalf of Stephen. Or he -can be a witness in relation to the Jewish judges about to condemn the martyr denouncing them or perhaps pleading for their forgiveness. This intercessory explanation, although not improbable, cannot be proved. This renders it difficult to accept.

We think that Pesch's view is more plausible for two reasons.(1) The spread of the ministry immediately after the death of Stephen gives sense to his explanation. (2) Its independence from the connotation of parousia; because the parousia interpretation does not fit Lucan eschatological orientation. We will not expect the end of the world to follow soon after Stephen's martyrdom. In view of lack of evidence to prove that Jesus is a witness in these verses, it is inadvisable to see an intercessory note here.

Rom. 8:34. Although we do not accept that the "Son of Man" is anintercessor in Ac. 7*55>56, we think it is the idea behind Rom. 8:34 - the"Son of Man" as an intercessor.

"Who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died,yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at theright hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us?"

The clue to this position is OS ( £ CrTi'/ TonJ Q&0O

This is an echo of Ps. 110:1. The idea of Ps. 110:1 is that a particularIsraelite monarch reigned with the power and authority of Yahweh himself -the right hand position symbolising highest honour and closeness to Yahweh.

71 C. P. D. Moule, "Prom Defendant to Judge - and Deliverer", in The Phenomenon of the New Testament (SBT 2nd Series. 1), 1967, P« 47> see also P. P. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1967, p. 154 n. 79*

0. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1975, PP» 159f*> 183.For a discussion of the particle, see C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans. (ICC)

(2 volumes), 1, 1975, P* 438 n. 6.

65

This right hand position occurs or is alluded to in a number of NTreferences.74 In almost all these references, to be at the right hand ofGod is taken to indicate majesty and exaltation. When used of Jesus, itdepicts His resurrection, ascension and continuing exaltation. There isno evidence that links "the right hand" to an intercessory function exceptin this verse. Hay expresses this idea when he writes,

"in the early Christian literature, the symbol of Jesus* PLACE or SESSION seems to mean basically honour not function."75

How then do we explain this link between "the right hand of God" andintercession? Two options are open to us. (1) The link is pre-Pauline(i.e. it was not by Paul). Kelly cites this verse, amongst other NT

V6passages, as an extract from a confessional creed. (2) The link isPauline. It can be argued for the second option that we find the two phrases OS 6-OTW V / Too 0eov> ^ q s WcAS j l N t

\ tv. f t p iinked. here only in Paul and nowhere else in NTwritings and thus is evidence of Pauline creation. But we accept the first option, and think that Paul, in this verse, was echoing a formula which evolved as a result of the concept of the "Son of Man". The "Son of Man" is a heavenly figure and fairly naturally, with the Jewish belief in heavenly intercession, will be thought of as an intercessor. The "Son of Man" is also seen at the right hand of God in Mk. 14:62 and Ac. 7:56 and is spoken of with intercessory connotation in Lk. 12:8f. and par.(see pp.38ff^. Thus there was talk of the "Son of Man" interceding at the right hand of God. Jesus spoke of himself as the "Son of Man" and

the kerygma of the Church had Jesus exalted to the right hand of God

74 Cor. 3:1; Eph. 1:20; Ac. 2:33-36; Heb. 1:3,13; 8:1; 12:2, etc.7 Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, p. 90*

7^ J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972, p. 17 •

66

(Ac. 2:33; 5s31» etc.). In the NT also, we find a number of beliefs onJesus, which probably predisposed Christians to think of 'him as an

77intercessor. (l) Jesus was looked on as a prophet. Intercession was considered one of the prophetic functions and the intercession of the prophet was regarded as almost certain to be accepted by God. (2) Those who lived righteous lives were considered to have a special•claim on God's favour and to be heard by him in their requests. (3) There is possible indication that Jesus spoke on his future role as a heavenly intercessor.In Lk. 22:37* he applies Is. 53:12, a clear passage of intercession to himself. Thus, the idea of the "Son of Man" interceding at the right hand of God, Jesus' self identification with the "Son of Man", his exaltation to the right hand of God, coupling with other indications of intercessory nature, will make it easy to speak of Jesus as an intercessor at the right hand of God.

A further reason that makes us see a link between Rom. 8:34 and the "Son of Man" concept is t h e closeness of meaning between Lk. 12:8f. and Rom. 8:34* On Lk. 12:8f., we concluded that Jesus, as the "Son of Man", is our advocate at the last judgment (see pp.^5ff»)* In Rom. 8:34* the future context gives the saying a last judgment colouring. Paul is assuring Christians that we have a safe and sure intercessor in Christ at the last judgment. But in the passage itself, it appears that Paul was also thinking c£ a present intercession. This is evident from the verbs tOrTW and Christ is there and intercedes for us now. If we take the verse with its present connotation and relate it to the context with the future connotation, then we have in Rom. 8:34 an assurance to Christians, not only of a present

77 Matt. 16:14; 21:11,46; Mk. 6:15; 8:28; Lk. 7:16,39; 9:8,19; 24:19;Jn. 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17; Ac. 3:22; 7:37-

67

intercessor in heaven but also of a reliable intercessor at the time of the last judgment. The subject of intercession is not indicated, but from the context of "bring charges" and "condemn", the most probable inference is that it is to guarantee forgiveness of sins.,

A further question to be asked on this verse is: why speak ofintercession at the right hand of God? The simple reason is that "right hand of God" is "the Presence of God", and it is -in His Presence thatintercession is possible. .

Rom. 8:34 then is one of the clearest references to the intercession of Jesus Christ. ,

Heb. 7:25. Another clear reference to Jesus' intercession is Heb. 7:25. "Consequently he is able for all time to save those'who'draw near to God through him, since he always lives .to make intercession for them." The thought of intercession here is set within a context of Jesus' high priesthood which is drawn from Ps. 110:4* The mention of Ps. 110 recalls the link betweenHeb. 7:25 . and the intercession of Rom. 8:34. Is this evidence that therewas an intercessory tradition of Jesus based on Ps. 110? ' This is possible. E3.110 (v.1) was used to describe Jesus' exaltation. As the exalted Christ, he is the most effective intercessor. Thus, it was easy to link Ps. 110 and intercession.

This verse is sometimes made to appear less important with the comment that, it was a passing remark made by the author of Hebrews. The reasons for this suspicion are these: (l) the verse is set within a discussion ofthe priestly office of Jesus; (2) there is only a single direct mention of it in the whole of Hebrews; (3) atonement was accomplished once and for all

in Jesus' death (1:3—4 » 7:27? 9:25-28; 10:12-14), what then is the usefor a heavenly intercession? (4) Jesus appears passive in heavenly sessions of 10:12-14 and 12:2. In view of these observations, the intercession of

68

Jesus appears to be unimportant to the author of Hebrews. But this Hebrew verse is important to the overall picture of Jesus' heavenly intercession.(1) The intercession here is set within a context of high priesthood because the author had a purpose to it; that of uniting two different ideas of Jesus: his'high priestly work which was consummated in his cross and his post celestial-ministry. This verse, therefore, shows a continuity, now in heaven, of Jesus' ministry.(2) The idea-of-intercession is not isolated in Hebrews because the theme of it is found in' 2": 17»18; 4:14-16; 8:2; 9:24; 12:24; 13:8,13 wherethe author implies- that Jesus has an ongoing priestly ministry in heaven and on behalf' of believers.(3) The idea'of7Jesus' intercession in heaven does not imply that his atoning death was ineffective. His heavenly intercession is rather to show that he still cares for us. His concern for us did not end with his earthly ministry and his death; even in his glory, he still cares. Thus the intercession of Jesus is riot out of place in our passage.

Three things are to be learned about Jesus' intercession in this verse.First, the words yfcv^JfcVoS indicate that he

intercedes as'an-enthroned Priest-King, confident that his plea would begranted.- Second, the purpose of his intercession is to save by bringingmen to God. ' This implies that the intercession .embraces everything needed

7ft ■to open an acc'essto God. Third, Jesus is a heavenly intercessor by virtue of his glorified and perfected humanity (v. 26).

7ft Bultmann in his Theology of the New Testament (2 volumes), 2, 1952, p. 167, commented that the intercession was for occasional sins. We think that there is more involved here than just forgiveness of occasional sins.It will involve all that will - bring men to'God such as forgiveness of sins, strengthening in temptation, and help in time of need.

69

Heb. 9*24. - This verse speaks of Christ appearing in the presence of Godon behalf of Christians. Just as the Levitical High Priest, on the dayof atonement entered the Holy of Holies, so Christ entered the heavenlyHoly of Holies in order that he may appear in the presence of God not onhis own behalf but on behalf of sinners. But the contrast ends here for

"in contrast to the Levitical High Priest who on the day of atonement entered alone into the holy

.. of holies,, while all others were stringently excluded; Christ’s entry into the heavenly holy .of hqlies is opposite of exclusive ... his entry is ... the opening up of the way for us to follow into the presence of God himself and with confidence to approach the throne of the divine g r a c e ."79

This means that the object of Christ presenting himself before God is toappear as counsel on our behalf; this is the only way he can open for usour access to God. The content of his plea is not stated and as Montefiorepoints out, it would be unprofitable to speculate on what the author of

80Hebrews might have thought it to be.We can deduce from this verse that Jesus Christ appears in the presence

of God as our advocate - the purpose of which is to ensure that we have an access to Gbd.

1 Jn. 2:1. Within a context of"the Christian and sin", the author of Johannine epistles made a clear reference to Jesus'’ heavenly intercession. "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; butif any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ therighteous." The word used to describe Jesus' intercession here, unlike

Rom. 8:34 uud Heb. 7s25 is "Uct^XKAfjTo& The word occurs in the NT only in the Johannine writings. If the epistles were written to accompany theGospel, we would expect the word to have the same meaning in both the Gospel

79 p. e . Hughes, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1977, p. 382.60 H. W, Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1964> P- 161.

70

and. the epistles. In fact Plummer attempted, though forcedly we think,81to read the meaning "advocate” into all five occurrences of the word.

Clearly, the meaning "advocate" is needed in the epistle but what it meansin the gospel is a point of debate (see pp. 93f'f)* With the meaning

' 1 82 "advocate", Schnackenburg sees behind this verse the "high priestly prayer"of Jesus and finds support for this in the cultic terminologies of the following verses. As the departing Christ spoke then, that he "consecrates"

himself for the disciples (jn. 17s19)» so he is now called the "expiation for our sins".®^ Whatever thought lies behind 1 Jn. 2:1, it is clear that Jesus1 advocacy is linked to sin.®^

Two views of sin are here presented. The author is aware that the Christian should not sin but this awareness is balanced by the consciousness that Christians do not escape the grips of sin. What sort of sin does the author have in mind? It is not to a continuous sinful habit but to a specific and single act of sin into which the believer may be carried against the true tenor of his life. With respect to such sins, the Christian has an advocate with the father; any time we give way to an act of sin which interrupts intercourse and fellowship between us and God, Christ intercedes for us by removing that sin and therefore restores us to fellowship.

Three points are to be noted of Jesus * intercession here: (i) it isto remove occasional sin; (ii) the ultimate purpose of his intercession is to restore the Christian back into God's favour; (iii) his expiation is for all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles.

A. Plummer, The Epistles of St. John, 1900, p. 87.an We prefer to see Jn. 17 as an "intercessory prayer"; see pp. 5C>~59

r . Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, 19^3, p. 91•a A In 1 Jn. 2:2,12; 3s5» 4*10; the author connects forgiveness of sins to Christ; in 1 Jn. 1:7, he connects it to his death.

71

1 T'im. 2:5. "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between Godand men, the man Christ Jesus .... " Our concern here is with the word

/ytCTlT<|S . This word is sometimes confused with intercessions intercession

is a form of mediation, but it has a one way direction, i.e. from our (human) level to God; mediation has a two-way direction; from God to the universe and from the universe to God. In the English language, however,

mediation may often be used in the narrow sense of intercession alone, but intercession cannot be used in the wider sense of mediation; but it is implied in it. Hence 1 Tim. 2:5 needs to be examined.

/ Q CThe word y € r i s not common in the NT. Its one Pauline use isin Gal. 3*19»20. where it probably refers to Moses in his role as a lawgiver. The word, however, is characteristic of Hebrews where it is usedin an explicit comparison of Christ and Moses; Jesus is the mediator of anew and a better covenant (8:6; 9*15> 12:24). By derivation, the wordsimply indicates someone who stands "in the middle". The purpose of this"in-between position" sometimes is derived from the context of the passagein which it is found. In our passage, the author seems to understand theword in the sense that Christ has voluntarily taken his stand between the

G/Aoffended^and the offending sinner, in order to take upon himself the wrath

86of God which the sinner deserved, thereby delivering him. There is

support in the context for this: in v.4, the author had spoken of men beingsaved and in v.6, he speaks of Christ as a ransom for all. Christ became

xt occurs in Job 9*32f.; Philo used the word of Moses - Yit. Mos. II ,166 in connection with the idol worship of the people when Moses was upon the mountain before God. See M. Dibelius, Die Pastoral briefe, 1966, pp. 34B*86 Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles, 1963, p. 51» W. Hendriksen, I and II Timothy and. Titus, 1972, p. 97f*

72

a ransom to ensure our salvation. We find a striking explanation for this in Gal. 3s135 we are redeemed from the curse of the law because Christ comes between us and the curse, and takes the curse upon himself. The

theme of Jesus as mediator is evidenced in the NT. Although the synoptic gospels do not employ the title "mediator”, throughout, the teaching, life, and death of Jesus as mediatorial were implied. In his ministry, he revealed God to man and in his death he offered to God ,a sacrifice of perfect human obedience which effected a new relation between God and mankind. In Acts, the whole mission of Christ is given a mediatorial interpretation by the Apostles. Thus it is not surprising to find this meaning of Jesus' work here in our passage.

What do we learn from this verse about Jesus' intercession or mediatorship? (1) It restores sinners to a right relationship to God, thus ensuring their salvation. (2) That we have "one God" and "one mediator" emphasises the -universal scope of the one way to salvation. (3) "One mediator" also excludes Jewish ideas of Moses, angels, acting as intermediaries, as well as intercessory deities found in pagan circles. (4) The word "man" ca,-n be an indication of the universal nature of Jesus' mediatorship.The mediatorship is intended not only for Jews (possibly the author would

have said "the Jew, Christ. Jesus", if it was intended for Jews only - thus

argued Hendriksen, I and II Tim, and Tit. 1972, p. 97f*)» tint both Jews and Gentiles. The word "man" on the other hand can be stressing Christ's manhood in contrast to angelic mediators believed in by gnostic heretics.This will imply that Jesus' divine side is assumed. In I Tim. 2:5, therefore, JesUs is a go-between who enables men to come to God.

The passages examined above do not exhaust the list of verses that can be interpreted in reference to Christ's intercession. Some students might include passages like Rom. 1:8; 7:25; 16:27; Col. 3:17 in which prayers

73

are made in the name of Jesus. We do not think that such passages really have the sense of "intercession". However, it is clear from the above examination that Jesus, as an intercessor was known in the NT and the early church. Historically, Jesus described himself in the Gospels as the "Son of Man" who will confess in heaven those who confessed him on earth; he prayed for Peter, the disciples, future believers and the Jewish nation.But it is clear also that Jesus never promised to intercede for Christians in heaven; he taught men to pray directly to God. After his death, we find clear references in NT writings to Jesus* intercession in heaven.Various reasons gave rise to this Christian doctrine. Some of these reasons are (1) the Jewish idea of heavenly intercession; (2) Jesus' self identification with the "Son of Man", a heavenly and exalted figure; (3) belief in Jesus' exaltation to the right hand of God; (4) his role as a prophet.With such beliefs about Jesus, one can see parallels between him and those held in Judaism as intercessors.

The examination of Jesus' intercession reveals that (a) the purpose of intercession is varied; for forgiveness of sins, (ensuring salvation at the last judgment), protection, unity of Christians - but all these have one ultimate purpose, to bring us into fellowship with God; (b) there are two main settings to Jesus' intercession: (i) some of the references of inter

cession are within a judicial context (Rom. 8:34» Matt. 10:32f. par.),(ii) others are set within a priestly context (Heb. 7*25; 9*24; 1 Tim. 2:5;

Jn. 17; 1 Jn. 2:1); (c) Jesus intercedes as an enthroned king who isconfident that his petitions will be granted; (d) his intercession has a present as well as an eschatological significance; (e) his intercession is for all mankind.

How pan Jesus' intercession give rise to the idea of the Spirit's intercession? We shall discuss this on two levels.

7k

(1) We find an answer to the above question in the relation that the

NT sees between Christ and the Spirit.In the Synoptics. Both Matthew (1:18) and Luke (1:35) attribute the birth

87of Jesus to the creative power of the Holy Spirit. All three gospelssay that J<ahn th e Baptist .preached that it will be the mission of the

88coming one to baptise with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:8). The synopticsrelate Jesus1 baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit like a dove. Theyreport that the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness for forty days.Matthew says that Jesus' power over evil spirits was given him by the HolySpirit 89 (Matt. 12:28); the other two Gospels imply it by preserving thesaying about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Although in differentcontexts, both Tfotthew (12:18) and Luke (4:18) point to the fulfilment ofthe prophecy that the Messiah will be endowed with the Spirit.

In brief, the synoptics envisaged the Spirit as the power with which

Jesus worked - he was endowed with -the Spirit to fulfill his messianic mission.90In the Fourth Gospel. The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit. The description

of it bears resemblance to what is said of Jesus elsewhere in the Gospel.91Brown outlines the similarities between Jesus and the Paraclete; the

resemblance is very clear that"it is our contention that John presents the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit in a special role, namely, as the personal presence of Jesus in the Christian while Jesus is with the Father."92

8^ See Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, 1970* PP* 5-25*QO Matt. 3:11 and Lk. 3:16 add "with fire".89 See J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 1975* PP* 44-53* Barrett, Holy Spirit and Gospel Tradition, pp. 46-68.

90 See Brown, John. II, pp. 1139ff.91 Ibid.92 0£. cit., p. 1139*

75

For example, the Spirit is "another paraclete" implying that Jesus was the first paraclete (see p. 19). If the Paraclete is the Spirit of Truth,Jesus is the truth (14*6). If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, Jesus isthe Holy one of God (6:69). The disciples will he granted the privilegeto know or recognise the Paraclete; so also it is a special privilege to know or recognise Jesus (14:7,9). If the Paraclete will hear witness,so also Jesus hears witness (8:14). The world does not know or recognisethe Paraclete; so also men do not know Jesus (16:3» cf. 7s28; 8:14,19,14:7). The numerous resemblances testify that John saw a close relationship between Jesus and the Spirit; the one whom John calls "another Paraclete" is another Jesus.

In Paul, He is the most important because he is the only writer who clearly speaks of the two intercessors - Jesus and the Spirit. It is argued that Paul identified the Spirit with the exalted Christ. Cited as

references to this are 2 Cor. 3s17» 1 Cor. 15s45* etc. The interpretation of these passages is open to dispute. For example, the most importantpassage here - 2 Cor. 3:17 - is interpreted in two ways. Scholars like Strachan,9 Dodd, Rees‘S favour the view that in the statement Q Kw^>U)S €<TT\V t the Spirit and Christ are identified. Those

who accept the contrary view that Paul is not here identifying Christ with96 97 98 99the Spirit include E. F. Scott, Hughes, Rawlinson, Headlam. Within

93 R, h . Strachan, Second Corinthians (MNTC), 1948, P» 88.94 C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Teaching and its Developments, 1935* P* 47*95 T. Rees, The Holy Spirit, 1915* PP* 98f.» see also N. Q. Hamilton,The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, 1957* pp. 4ff.9^ E. F. Scott, The Spirit in the New Testament, 1923, pp. 180f.97 Hughes, ET, 45, 1934, PP. 2351.98 A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of Christ, 1929, P* 155*^ A. Headlam, St. Paul and Christianity, 1913, pp. 106ff. See also M. E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit, 1976, p. 113. She explains that "although in this passage in 2 Cor. 3, the spirit and Christ are not identified, there are other occasions when Paul does not distinguish between the Spirit of God and Christ. This is because, for Paul, the experience of union with God has been mediated through the person of Jesus. Therefore, he makes — a =+■?n . H nn Kotwden the snuTf.e and the aeent of the soirit".

76

the second viewpoint, scholars accept one of two alternatives - either(a) the verse is a strong statement of the "equivalence of function" of the Lord (Christ) and the Spirit, falling short of identification or(b) it is an identification of God (the Lord in the LXX sense) with the Spirit, for v.16 is a reminiscence of Exod. 34534*

We think that there are grounds to argue against the identification of Christ and the Holy Spirit in this verse. Paul made distinctive assertions of Christ (2 Cor. 12:8; 1 Thess. 4s16,17; Phil. 3:20-21) andof the Spirit (Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 3:16). Although Paul can speak of theSpirit in personal terms (Rom. 8:26; 1 Cor. 12:11), Paul does not think

of him as a person (1 Cor. 7*40; Gal. 3:2; 1 Thess. 5:19; 2 Cor. 13:13)* Moreover, there is evidence of distinction between the relation of the Christians to Christ and their relation to the Spirit. On this, Moule noted

"Although these are exceptions and Paul's usage is not wholly consistent, nevertheless there is a discernible tendency not to say indifferently 'we in Christ' and 'Christ in us* but to speak of Christians as in Christ and of the Holy Spirit as in Christians. To be a Christian is4 to be incorporated in Christ and to have the Spirit of Christ within oneself." 100

In 2 Cor. 3:17 itself, Paul is contrasting the Old and New Covenants; the Old Covenant was a dispensation of outward commandments, the New, a dispensation of spiritual principles and laws. The former could be described as the "letter", the latter the "spirit". Related to v.17 then, two .

can follow P. Prat and take "spirit" not to be the Holy Spirit but simply the "spirit" which is opposed to the "letter", then Lord (Christ) will be

interpretations of K^plOS ib W tw are possible: we

Moule, "The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures", Cft, 3» 4» 1971 > PP* 284-6.

77

101in a sense, the principle by which the scriptures are correctly understood; or we can take TO to be the Holy Spirit who bestows fullliberty of interpretation of the scriptures and thus is Lord of the

102 103 scriptures. There is no case of identification here. (For adetailed discussion of this verse - see Dunn, JTS, ITS 21, 1970> PP« 309-20.

We are also not convinced that 1 Cor. 15:45 is a passage in which Paulidentifies Christ with the Spirit. We think that in the passage, Adam asa man is being contrasted with Christ, he who as a result of his resurrection,became the source of "spiritual life". Moreover, it cannot be maintainedthat '^JoTiOv.ooy should have the same meaning as IWfc'JyEk

elsewhere in Paul. Christ here has a function of giving life. Thisfunction relates Christ close to the Spirit who also gives life.

However, there is evidence that Paul brought the exalted Christ andthe Spirit into very close relationship. In his epistles, Paul made the sameutterances about Christ and the Holy Spirit; he practically presented theexalted Christ and the Holy Spirit interchangeably. The character anddirection of their influence are identical: we have peace in Christ andin the Holy Spirit (Phil. 4:7; Rom. 14:7); Christ and the Spirit givelife (Rom. 6:23; II Cor. 3:6). The Spirit and the exalted Christ alike

101 P. Prat, La Theologie de Saint Paul, II, 1949* PP« 525ff*; see also J. Hering, The 2nd Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1967» P» 26;G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament. 1901, p. 443*102 A. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the Hew Testament, 1969* P» 122; W. G. Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament, 1974»p. 168.

Hamilton argued from 2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Cor. 12:3; Rom. 8:96; Gal. 4:6that "from the standpoint of faith, the Spirit and the Lord are identical", Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, p. 15« But what Hamilton's examination shows is that the working of the Spirit in us has Jesus Christ as its source. It is a kind of - exalted Christ, Spirit and Believerrelationship. The Spirit reveals the exalted Christ to believers. Thushe can speak of identification that, Christ in us is identified with the Spirit, because he dwells in us through his Spirit. But the Christ that lived and was crucified is never in any way identified with the Spirit.

78

make themselves felt as , a divine personality working on theperson of the Christian (1 Thess. 1:5 with 2 Cor. 12:9 and Phil. 4s13)•In Rom. 8:9-11, Paul's usage that "the Spirit of God dwells in you" (v.9) means the same as "Christ is in you" (v.10); suggests that the "Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ" have no difference in meaning and "to he in the Spirit" is equivalent to^being in Christ". The interchangeability of these expressions, however, does not mean that Paul is identifying Christ and the Spirit. If there is any identification, it is in function not of personalities.

The same close relationship between Christ and the Spirit can be seen in Revelation. Here the Spirit which addresses the churches (Rev. 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22) is none other than the risen Christ.

Paul presents the Spirit as a close associate of Christ; in fact, he does not appear to distinguish between the functions of the exalted Christ and the Spirit. John sees the Spirit as another Jesus - a close representative of Jesus on earth. The synoptics observe a closeness of the Spirit to Jesus. Because of this close relationship, coupling with the clear evidence to Jesus' intercession, it is easy to appropriate for the Spirit the role of an intercessor. We have peace in Christ, we have peace in the Holy Spirit; Christ gives life, the Spirit gives life;Christ is an intercessor, the Spirit must also intercede.

(2) We must draw attention to three passages: Mk. 8:38, Lk. 12:8-11and Rom. 1:16. Mk. 8:38 reads

"Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels."

We may compare to it, Rom. 1:16"For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is thepower of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

These two passages have two things in common. (l) The verb ^r\to<.uBrKVJVo os.v.appears in both passages. (2) The verb is linked to Jesus and the Gospel

79

in both passages."'0 ' Is Paul echoing this dominical saying? That he is positively using it cannot be proved. 7fe are certain, however, thathe knew of the tradition. (l) 2 Tim. 1:8; Phil. 1:20; 2 Cor. 10:8express a similar thought to Rom. 1:16 . This shows that Paul must have been aware of the importance of one's attitude to Jesus and the Gospel. Such an importance can come about if it is based on a tradition going back to Jesus in which he (Jesus) had expressed this opinion. (2) Lk.

9:26; Matt. 10:32,33; Lk. 12:8,9 are varied forms of Mk. 8:38. These forms indicate how widely known the saying was in the early Church.(3) The church, even when it was not being persecuted in a formal sense, was almost always subject to pressures which made it difficult to admit one's adherence to the crucified Jesus. Because it was difficult to admit one's faith freely in that period, Jesus' words were probably the watchwords of the Christian community. They will suffer all indignity on earth, so as to be confessed by Jesus in heaven. Thus we accept Barrett's conclusion that

I i Mk. 8:38, W and K omit ^cyoviS . The effect of the omission is that tyooS is left without a noun thus yielding the meaning "and mine"i.e. my followers. This reading is preferred by C. H. Turner,T. W. Manson. See V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1952, p. 383; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Mark. 1974* P* 284;C. K. Barrett, New Testament Essays, 1972, p. 132. Barrett examined the patristic evidence of Mk. 8:38 (pp. 132-134) and concluded that "the study of these texts not only suffices to make it impossible to take 'me and mine', a^ the, original text ....". He accepted the Marcan Wd(v Tc^iS feyOuS Xo\|CvJS as -the earliest form. Cranfield maintained a middle way when he observed that "perhaps it is safer, in view of the ease with which XoyovJL could have been omitted accidentally by homoioteleuton, to follow the great weight of attestation and include it, though noting that there is a real possibility that the omission may be right". Mark, p. 284. But whichever reading is accepted, it must be noted that in we see a reference to Jesus' words; Jesus and his words are inseparable.

80

"Rom. 1s16 stands in close relation with the tradition of the sayings of Jesus, and with a characteristic and early stage of this tradition. When Paul declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel, he is not simply putting on a bold front in face of the imperial capital but expressing solidarity with the early communities which framed their essential discipline in terms of loyalty to Jesus, and saw the Son of man as the one who would execute judgment upon those who by apostasy transgressed this discipline.""'^5

If Paul was aware of this tradition, there is a real possibility that he was also aware of its varied forms. Lk. 12:8-10 is one such form.We have discussed this passage on pp. 38f*f*.and noted that the saying(l) goes back to Jesus and (2) it has intercessory connotations. In v.10 (see Matt. 12:31,32) a similar statement is made of the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Just as Jesus will bear witness at the last judgment against those who denied him on earth,so the Spirit will also bear witness at the last judgment against those who blasphemed against him. It is noteworthy that this passage is followed by the promise of the aid of the Spirit to the disciples (w.11,12). The Spirit is to be their advocate at court (see Mk. 13:11 - pp. 86ff J.Thus in Lk. 12:8,9 and 10,11, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are placed in similar roles. They will accuse whoever denies or blasphemes against them. These roles have intercessory reference. Assuming that the Spirit saying is authentic and early, then it means that Paul knew it along with the various forms of the saying concerning our attitude to Jesus on earth.If the saying concerning our attitude to Jesus is given an intercessory sense, then the similar saying about the Spirit must have had a similar sense and thus may have contributed to Rom. 8:26f.

108 Barrett, NT Essays, pp. 127f. This fact raises a problem which Barrett also discussed. How is Jesus related to Paul? See pp. 128-132. 7/e think that Paul saw a close relation between the content of his preaching and that of Jesus. He could not have spoken with such authority as he did if he had thought otherwise.

81

2. ADVOCACY OF THE SPIRIT. Another area which may have given a deposit in Rom. 8:26f. and thus needs to be examined is the teaching of Jesus on the Spirit. Here we must examine (a) Mk. 13:11 and (b) the Paraclete sayings. In Mk. 13:11, there is a promise of Jesus that the disciples will be given divine assistance when they are put on trial before human authorities. Against the understanding of Jewish legal procedure, this involves the Spirit bearing witness to exonerate the disciples. Bearing witness in Jewish thought had the sense of advocacy (see pp. 87f$ • The question arises, can we understand the help of the Spirit here in terms of. advocacy? In the Paraclete sayings also, we may find a close parallel to the Spirit's intercession. In form^^p^^^^TDS is a passive participle derived from the verb it means "one whois called to someone's aid". Its use in the legal sphere acquired it anactive meaning of "one who speaks on behalf of someone before someone";

106he speaks on behalf of the accused. Behm's study of the use of 'ti&pb kX/JtqSoutside the New Testament shows that it had a clear meaning of "advocate". In the New Testament, apart from the Paraclete sayings, it occurs only in 1 Jn. 2:1 used of Jesus as an advocate and intercessor. Thus it is necessary to ask: does the use TV*pXKXrjTbS of the Holy Spirit convey the idea of the Spirit as an advocate? In our present search, therefore, we must examine Mk. 13:11 and the Johannine Paraclete sayings.

(a) Mk. 13:11."And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up,do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say;but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."

We ask three questions. (i) Is Mk. 13:11 an authentic saying of Jesus?Related to this is the question whether Jesus could have contemplated the

106 Behm, TINT. 5, pp. 800-814.

82

thought expressed by this passage. (ii) Does the promise of divine help here have a sense of advocacy? (iii) If it does, how close is it toPaul?

(i) Our passage has parallels in Matt. 10:19,20; Lk. 12:11,12 and21:14,15* In these parallels, we get two other forms of the saying.

There are linguistic contacts between Matt. 10:19f* and Lk. 12:11f. which possibly show that the two sayings were based on Q. The Q passage is similar to the Markan version. The problem is with Lk. 21:14,15*Whilst the Markan passage promises the help of the Spirit, the Lucan version speaks of the exalted Jesus. Which of these two sayings is original?

E. F. Scott commented on Mk. 13:11 that "there are several reasons107for doubting the authenticity of the saying". He gave two. (l) He

mentioned that the saying occurs in a chapter which in the main, may beconsidered a fragment of Jewish apocalypse; "a chapter, which as a wholelies under suspicion and nothing contained in it can be accepted without

1 oftreserve." (2) He thought that the conditions contemplated here didnot arise till later on in the life of the church. Barrett expressed this view that Mk. 13:11 is a secondary version of the saying in Lk. 21:15* He argued on the grounds that since Luke is interested in the Holy Spirit, he will not.have willingly omitted a reference to the Spirit, or substituted for it another version or modified it himself; just as Lk.11:20 is viewed as more original than Mk. 12:28 on this basis, so Lk. 21:15

Matt. 10:20 has T o T W J T o o ttcttpoS To XdXoox %st vjyWand Lk. 21:15 has V / k SuJCro) vjyvo CTSoy<*

E. F. Scott, The Spirit in the Hew Testament. 1923, p. 73* 108 Ibid.

83

109should be preferred to Mk. 13:11. He also drew attention to the110distinctly Semitic colouring of the passage and cited numerous 0T111parallels to the gifts of mouth and wisdom.

V. Taylor argued differently from the above. He accepts that Lk. 21:15

"comes from a primitive Aramaic source, and, in view of Luke’s special interest in the doctrine of the Spirit, it is difficult to think that he would have replaced a reference to the Spirit by fcvuJ £u>crv» ..................» . 112

But he thinks that Lk. 21:15 cannot be original because it has a distinctive113Johannine ring and reflects the doctrine of the risen and exalted Lord.

Against Barrett, Cranfield also noted that Lk. 21:15"is less primitive than Mk. 1 3 1 b , Mt. 10:20; Lk. 12:12; for the first person singular (feyu ) suggests thepost-Ascension faith of the Church, the relative clause ( A ob • • • • b ^ w ) looks like Christian heightening (cf. Acts 6:10 and ?also 4:|3; 6:1J>, etc.), and thephrase SvoovoU srTo^ K.'*'- is least aslikely to be an instance of Luke's LXX colour (cf. Exod.4:11, Esek. 29:21) as it is to reflect the originalAramai c s aying." 114

109 C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. 1970* P* 131. Barrett comparers v.14* ToUS W p S w M S b^)v>W

to Haggai 2:15 ( We< att^h simu-na1 le babkein t ^ ), which is translatedby the LXX KoU MUVHe also cites Easton (Commentary) that <Ti0 <* , (in the sense here - powerof speech) is probably Hebraistic.111 _ Exod. 4:11f*, 16; Jud. 9:38; 1 Kg. 13:21; Job 16:5; Ps. 17:3;Prov. 11:9,11; Is. 34:16; 40:5; 58:14; Jer. 1:9; Ezek. 3:27, etc.

T o V * - Exod. 28:3; 31:3,6; 35:31,35; 36:1,2; 1 Kg. 5:9,26;2 Chron. 1:10,12; Job 38:37; Prov. 2:6; Is. 11:2; Dan. 2:23.

Taylor, St. Mark, p. 508.He, however, argued for the originality of the Matthean version, p. 509;

see also J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus. 1958, pp. l69f.;E. Mally, Mark (Jerome Biblical Commentary), p. 51.

C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, p. 400. See alsoCi.SVBeasley-Murray,Commentary on Mark 13* 1957, pp. 46-48.

8k

Schweiser maintained this view that "the replacement of the Spirit by theascended Christ and the broadening of the promise (Lk. 21:15) axe

115secondary". Thus whether Lk. 21:15 which promises supernatural aidbut makes no mention of the Spirit is original, is arguable.

We find Beasley-Murray's objections to the position held by Barrett 1 1 6convincing. (i) Luke did not object to the Markan form of the saying

for he utilised the Q form of it in Lk. 12:11f . (ii) In Lk. 21:15, heappears to be referring to the promise made to Moses and Aaron (Ex. 4:15)»a tradition he later relates of Stephen in Ac. 6:10. This passagecombines the motives of both Mk. 13:11 and Lk. 21:15 which suggests that"Luke was consciously adapting the traditions and employing terms that

117appealed to him".The Semitic colouring and the 0T parallels to which Barrett refers

can also be explained as Lucan septuagintalism.Scott's position that Jesus is here being credited with a condition

which the Church learned from later experience can also be disputed.During his ministry, Jesus sent out the twelve on a mission of

1 "18evangelisation, with well defined instructions on what to do.

^ 5 e. Schweiser, TDNT. 6, p. 398 n.414»G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Jesus and the Spirit" in Melanges Bibliques en

hommage au R.P. BSda Rigaux ed. A. Descamps, 1969> p. 474* n.2.Ibid.. see also E. Schweiser, Mark, 1971* P* 271.

"1 "1 ftJ. Wellhausen advanced a theory in his book Einleitung in die ersten drei Bvangelien, (Berlin), 1911* p. 141* that the narrative of the twelve did not belong to the story of Jesus. He considered their mission a projection from the risen Christ to the historical Jesus (Matt. 28:l6ff.;Lk. 24:44ff.; Jn. 20:21-23). Jeremias, on the other hand, has argued convincingly for the authenticity of these missions from the early confession of faith in 1 Cor. 15s15• See Eucharistic Words, 1955* P* 102f.;"Artikelloses Zur Ursprache von 1 Cor. 15*3b-5"> ZNW. 57* 1966,pp. 211-215; "Nochmals : Artikelloses Y.^f<rT^£ in 1 Cor. 15:3” ZNW, 60,1969* PP* 214-219* New Testament Theology, vol. 1, 1971* PP* 233f.

85

With utmost clarity, he prepared the disciples for the problems which come with the service of a messenger "like sheep among wolves" (Matt.10:16; Lk. 10:3); Mk. 6:11 (par. Lk. 9:5; Matt. 10:14; Lk. 10:10) indicates they will be refused hospitality; Matt. 5:11 indicates that they will be persecuted and accused falsely and Matt. 10:24f. indicates that they will be mocked as messengers of the devil. There are quite a number of outrages which the disciples must endure for the sake of being disciples. Despite these known problems, they went out with Jesus'assurance that their father will care for them.

119In Lk. 22:35-38 (assuming that these sayings are genuine), wegather that Jesus was convinced that his suffering and death willfundamentally alter the situation of his followers. The problems theyf ac e d during their mission will be minimal compared to what theyare going to face.

"Enmity and hatred will surround them on all sides.At no moment will they be sure of their life. Asword, everything for a sword, will be the solution."

Mk. 8:34 represents pictorially the possible future that Jesus knew willface his disciples. Whether we interpret the verse as a reference tomartyrdom or "the feeling of being made an outcast, the helpless object

121of contempt and mockery", it paints a very gloomy fate for the disciples. They had to expect hatred, persecution, and excommunication from the synagogues. Our argument is this: if Jesus prepared his disciples to

119 * *Einegan, ITberlieferung. p. 16, thinks the passage is a Lucan composition. However, V. Taylor, in The Passion Narrative of St. Luke, 1972, pp. 66-68, and M. Black, An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967, p. 179» argue for its prer-Lucan origin.120 Jeremias, Theology. 1, p. 241.121 Jeremias, _0£. cit.. p. 242; see also A. Fridrichsen, "Ordet o m '0 baere sit Kors'", in : Gamle spor og nye veier, L. Brun Festschrift, Krist’vcuuu (Oslo) 1922, 17ff.

expect to face hardships during their mission before sending them, and ifhe knew his death will also involve his disciples with far more dauntingproblems than they had met on their mission, then it is reasonable toexpect some form of preparation of the disciples for the time when thingswill be made even more difficult by his physical absence.

Beasley-Murray concluded his essay on "Jesus and the Spirit" that"the notion that the Spirit was unimportant to Jesus is the reverse of the

122truth. The Spirit was the power and life of his ministry". Jesusknew that it was by the might of the Spirit that he had conquered the evilone (Lk. 11:20) and was releasing his captives. Who else better thanthe Spirit can be promised to come to the aid of the disciples during timeswhen they are at their tether's end? We appreciate the plausibility ofthis when we take into consideration Nineham's comment that "most of theearly Christians were simple and unlearned people, for whom a speech in

123court would have been a terrible ordeal ....". Thus we suggest thatthe reference to the Holy Spirit belongs to the original form of thesaying; but whether the Markan form of the saying or the Matthean formis the original is another question. Dodd's statement that

"the call to Christians to 'witness' to Christ beforecourts of justice, and the promise that they shouldreceive help in so doing, was so deeply rooted in the oral tradition that it appeared in several branches of that tradition, taking slightly different forms",

best relates the different versions of the saying to one another.

(ii) From the above discussion, we gather that Jesus promised the helpof the Spirit to the disciples. This promise did not involve an outpouringof the Spirit on all flesh; it was expressly related to the inspiration

122 Beasley-Murray, "Jesus and the Spirit", p. 475*123 j). Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark, 1968, p. 349-124 c. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the 4th Gospel, 1963, p. 411*

87

125of the disciples when they stand trial for their faith. The inspirationinvolved is also not a single occasion of inspiration; it is

"a situation that would be repeated ever and again with the continuance of persecution. If the disciples were to be constantly in need of the Spirit's aid, they were to rest assured that it would be perpetually given."126

The Spirit's aid involves helping the disciples to defend themselves.The practice to which Mk. 13:11 is referring to occurs in Ac. 4:8* Here,reference is made to "Peter filled with the Holy Spirit said to themThe result of the speech was the wonderment of the rulers at the boldnessof the ignorant speakers. Again, Luke draws attention to the fact thatStephen was filled with the Holy Spirit as he spoke in his defence beforethe Council. Outwardly, the disciples appear as their own advocates butthe idea in these passages is that it is the Holy Spirit who is speakingthrough the disciples. Pesch states this clearly when he writes "DieJunger sind nicht die eigentlichen Redner, sondern der Heilige Geist redet

127fur sie". When the disciples speak in their defence, it is in realitythe Spirit who is speaking for them. He is bearing witness to the defenceof the disciples. What" would Jesus' contemporaries have understood by the teaching that the Spirit bears witness in defence of the disciples?

According to strict Jewish legal procedure which is laid down in the Bible and which we find elaborated by the Rabbis, we find that there was no place for an "advocate" in the way we understand it. Everything

depended on witnesses.

125J Taylor, Mark, p. 509; see also Beasley-Murray, "Jesus and the Spirit",

P. 473.1 26 Beasley-Murray, loc. cit.1271 R. Pesch, Naharwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mk. 13, (Diisseldorf), 1968, p. 133; J. Schmid, The Gospel according to Mark, 1968, p. 237-

88

"The chief method of proof was the testimony of witnesses. These witnesses were not in any sense merely objective informants. Their role was similar to that played in a modern lawsuit by the counsel for the defence and the counsel for theprosecution.""'28

Thus, a man’s acquittal d e p e n d s on the number of respectable personswho will come forward and corroborate his own testimony. The Hebrewlanguage simply did not allow for any forensic activity other than

129"testifying" or "giving evidence". Evidence to this is the fact thaton the rare occasions that "advocate" is mentioned in Rabbinic literature,no Hebrew word is used; rather a Greek word is transliterated for thepurpose - Pe«-cnq.leJt or Per.a«.\efc<* , Senegor. Harvey pointed out that thesewords did not mean an "advocate" in the sense of a lawyer but rather a man

"who would appear in court to lend the weight of his influence and prestige to the case of his friend, to convince the judges of his probity and to seek to secure a favourable verdict.""'30

In support of this view, we cite a comment by Palk that"evidence given by two witnesses was conclusive and this form of proof seems to have been extended from criminal trials to cases of all k i n d s " , ^ 31

and again that"only after witnesses have been heard, would the judges speak ’first of acquittal’ (M. Sanh. V 4) then ’for conviction (IV 1), after they had discussed the matter’ .""132

Witnesses are therefore important to Jewish trials.

128 Trites, NT Witness, p. 21; see also A. Harvey, Jesus on Trial, 1976, esp. pp. 107-111; Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, pp. 48f*129 Holwerda, o£. cit.. p. 47*110 Harvey, Jesus on Trial, p. 109-111 Z. W. Palk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, 1964, p. 70*112 Palk, Introduction to Jewish Law of the 2nd Commonwealth. 1, 1972,p. 104.

89

It is evident from the above discussion that one who bears witness in favour of a person brought to trial is in an advocatory role.”'"B. Sheb. 31a is a reference to the partiality of the courts as a result of such a practice; we can infer from such negative comments that such a legal practice existed in the CIAD. which will imply that it is an essential background against which we must understand Mk. 13:11.

In Mk. 13:11, the disciples are not the real speakers; it is theHoly Spirit who speaks for them. He bears witness in their defence.We have also noted that there is no place in Jewish legal practice foran advocate in the real sense; this role is played by the person whobears witness on behalf of those on trial. Thus if Jesus described the Spirit as one who will bear witness in defence of the disciples, there is the likelihood that his contemporaries understood the reference, in terms of advocacy.

(iii) There is a case that Mk. 13:11 is Jesus' and was known to Paul.But how close is Mk. 13:11 to Paul in Rom. 8:26f.? Although we see a note of advocacy in Mk. 13:11 it is not right to equate it to intercession of w . 26f. (a) A sense of proclamation of the Gospel is.involved inMk. 13:11. The disciples took the opportunity of such situations to proclaim their faith as well as the truth of the Gospel. This is evident

in Ac. 4:5-12, Ac. 7* This point is specially understood in the Lucanparallel (Lk. 21:13) ^ ) W y*pT«/\D\f which

has the sense of "this will be a time or an opportunity for you to beartestimony". In Matt. 24:14, is used to describe the proclamation of the gospel; it is noteworthy that is also used elsewhere toexpress bearing witness before earthly courts. This shows how close the

133 Betz, Paraklet, pp. 73-116 where he deals with intercession; he scarcely distinguishes witnessing from intercession.

90

two ideas were for members of the early church. Intercession in Rom. 8:26f. has no proclamatory connotations. (b) The advocacy of the Spirit in Mk. 13:11 is before men in earthly courts but the Spirit's intercession is before God in heaven. (c) The Spirit's intercession is linked to prayer but the advocacy in Mk. 13s11 has no prayer connotation. Thus there is a gap between Mk. 13:11 and Paul.

We cannot speak of a direct influence but we can see some roots of Spirit's intercession in here. In Lk. 12:8f., it is obvious that such testimony as described in Mk. 13:11 is what will determine the response of the Son of Man in the heavenly courts. Thus it is possible that in the thinking of the early church, such instances as Mk. 13:11» Ac. 4:5-22, Ac. 7 refer not to actual court proceedings on earth but to an imagined trial and judgment before God. Thus Stephen's vision during his trial must have this underlying sense and it is no wonder then that some scholars see Jesus as a Witness in this vision.

Mk. 13:11 is Jesus'. The Spirit, bearing witriess at the trial of the disciples, is an advocate because in Jewish legal procedure the function of the witness is the same as an advocate. This was known to Paul. But Mk. 13:11 cannot be equated to Rom. 8:26f. There are differences.Mk. 13:11 is essential to our discussion because the earthly trials are imagined as trials before God. This gives the Spirit's witness here a heavenly colouring. Thus it is a possible root to Rom. 8:26f.

(b) The Paraclete Sayings. The general viewpoint in Mk. 13:11 is similar to that put forward by John in relation to the Paraclete In fourpassages of John's Gospel the wordm^^'yicS is used of the Holy Spirit.

W. P. Howard, Christianity according to St. John, 1943» P* 78*

91

We ask five questions. (l) What does the term yTos mean?(2) What axe the functions given to the Paraclete in the Gospel? (3) Is there an advocatory sense in 15:26f. and l6:8ff? (4) How close is thesense of advocacy (if any) to Paul? (5) Do these Paraclete sayings go back to Jesus?

(1) Behm examined the w o r d a n d concluded that"in the whole sphere of known Greek and Hellenisticusage outside the NT (the word) yields the clearpicture of a legal adviser or helper or advocate in a relevant c ourt".135

In its only appearance outside John's Gospel, 1 Jn. 2:1,was used of Jesus with a clear meaning of advocate or intercessor. This meaning, advocate, is not readily obvious from the functions ascribed to the wA-yios in the Gospel.

(2) In Jn. 145 16,17"*^ Jesus is reported to have told his disciplesthat he would pray to the Father to send them <xXNo\j , 3^

135 Behm, TDNT, 5, p. 803.1 6 See G. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. 1970, PP* 29f. for a discussion of the textual problems of the passage.137 u «Y,,* kA ,,\"'C0V can be translated in two ways: (i) anotherParaclete (ii) another one, a Paraclete. The first translation implies that there has been a first Paraclete, probably Jesus. The second translation implies that there h .s not been an earlier Paraclete.W. Michaelis had suggested that ^XXoS be interpreted pleonastically.His reasons were that Jesus is nowhere described as Paraclete in the Gospel of John and elsewhere, the title when applied to the Spirit is accompanied by»ithe articlev indicating that the Spirit bears this title exclusively.

ANXoS should be interpreted "einen Anderen, namlich denParakleten" - "Zur Herkunft des johanneischen Paraklet-Titels" Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XI, 1947• PP* 152-153. His interpretation has an advantage of being grammatically possible, but we may note the following objections against his view. (a) Jesus is clearly referred to as a Paraclete in I Jn. 2:1. (b) The Paraclete takes the place of Jesus andperforms activities similar to those performed by him (Jesus). See R. Brown, John, II, p. H40f.; thus there are grounds to assume that the title can be applied to Jesus. (c) Blass-Debrunner-Funk record no example of g. pleonastic use of 'HXXcs • but there is an example of a pleonastic use of tTfcpcs - p. 160, par. 306. (d) We also cite Behm’s remarks that "thisforced explanation .... is difficult to harmonise with John's style .... and is not in accord with the exegesis of the Greek fathers .... TDNT. 5»p. 800 n.1 .

92

He is a companion - he is to be with them. In Jn. 14*26, the Paraclete,1the Holy Spirit, is spoken of as a teacher, and he will remind the

disciples all that Jesus taught them. Against a background of persecutionof the disciples, the help of the Paraclete is offered in 15j26f. In thiscontext of persecution, the role of bearing witness to Jesus is given to

139the Paraclete. The work of the Paraclete in relation to the world isset down in 16:8-11 KtiLV £\CfcWoS l o vk o c t ^ o v life o ^ p r t a s k <*\ I'tfc pX. ^ \ k.<*u 3c

\<&.C TTtpv. KpiffGuxS . These three charges are then

each explained. W . 12-15^^ deal with the role of the Paraclete as a teacher to the disciples. In v.12, Jesus says that he has much to tell

*1 8 v ^v This is the only instance in John's Gospel of the full phrase TVtoyoy To coyvov . xt has been suggested that the words to k'/io'j are to beomitted; see Johnston, The Spirit - Paraclete, p. 31. There is support,although minor, for the reading "the Spirit of Truth" but as Brown explains - p. 650, this is probably due to a harmonisation with other Paraclete passages as 14:17; 15*26). There is a simple reading "the Spirit", which is found in OS3^ 1. Barrett suggests that "this short reading may beoriginal"; which would explain the words "holy" and "truth" as possible scribal clarifications; see John, p. 390» also Johnston, Spirit - Paraclete, p. 31. If one accepts the view that the word "holy" was not original tothe text, the equation of Paraclete = the Holy Spirit is called into questionfor this is the only passage that makes that identification explicit. In this verse also, (as well as w.16,17) it is observed that God gives or sends the Paraclete but in 15*26, and 16:7* the Paraclete is sent by Jesus. In Luke-Acts, we read that Jesus sends or pours out the Spirit (Lk. 24*49>Ac. 2:33)« However, these very verses also show the father as the source of the Spirit. Thus the variation here should not be over-emphasised.139 It appears from this passage that the witness of the Paraclete and thewitness of the disciples are two separate witnesses. In Matt. 10:20, theSpirit speaks through the disciples. The co-ordination of witnesses is also observed in Ac. 5*32. The thought of the Spirit and the disciplesbearing witness together is also observed in Ac. 6:10; 15*28. Jn. 14*17has spoken of the Paraclete being invisible to the world; thus the only way its witness can be heard is through the witness of the disciples.

There are textual problems in this passage; for a discussion of it see Johnston, Spirit - Paraclete, pp. 36f., Barrett, John, p. 407; Morris,John, p. 700.

93

the disciples which they cannot hear now and in v.13 it is said that the141Spirit of Truth will announce what is to come. The note of advocacy

does not appear in the Paraclete's tasks of abiding with the disciples,teaching them all things, bringing to their remembrance the words of Jesus,leading them into the truth and telling them of the things that are tocome. Even it does not come out clearly in his task of bearing witnessto Jesus and convicting the world.

Further evidence to the lack of intercessory note in the functions ofthe Paraclete is to be seen in translations such as "Comforter”, "Convincer”,"Helper” which have been suggested in an attempt to relate the linguisticbasis of the title to the tasks in the Gospel.

"Comforter” comes to us from Wyclif (1382) who spelt it "confortoure”as a translation of the Yulgate " par adLi turn". Recently, Davies has arguedfor this translation on the basis of the usage of -j g

1A2.context in the LXX. H The objection to this translation is that (a) the Paraclete is nowhere spoken of in the role of consoling the disciples.The element of consolation is confined to the context - for example 16s6-7, which prefaces a Paraclete passage. (b/ft^p^K^Xevo and do not occur in the vocabulary of John.

"Convincer" is argued for strongly by Snaith.^^ The objection to this translation is that not every one of the Paraclete passages, not even

141 Do these statements imply that there would be new revelations after Jesus1 death? Some have thought so - see Brown, John, II, p. 714f*« It is unlikely that in Johannine thought there was any concept of further revelation after the ministry of Jesus. Thus the idea in these statements is that it is only after Jesus' resurrection that what he said and what happened during his ministry would be fully understood. The Paraclete brings no new revelations because he receives from Jesus what he is to declare to the disciples.142 j. Davies, "The Primary Meaning of ^ APAKAHT0*" JTS, NS4, 1953, pp. 35—38; see also E. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament Translation, 1945,p. 110.1431\| H. Snaith, ET, 57, 1945/46, p. 50; also The Distinctive Ideas of the 0T, 1950, pp. 180f.

9^

in most of them does the Paraclete convince.”'44 Behm also noted that the translation "convincer1* is "neither semasiologically nor exegetically

tenable". ”'4'*Bultmann explained the Paraclete on the basis of Gnostic parallels.

He asserted that one of the sources used by the author of Gospel of John was a Gnostic source of Revelation-discourses. The figure of the Paraclete

is derived from this source and re-interpreted as the Holy Spirit of the Christian tradition. On his suppositions, he rejected the interpretation of Paraclete as "Intercessor" or "Comforter" and suggested the meaning of

1 A .(s"Helper". There are objections to Bultmann*s view. The maindisadvantage to his view is that reactions to his theory are determined to

a great extent by the critics' presuppositions. Michaelis accuratelydescribed the situation that the more one considers the Gospel to be original - Christian, the less one can expect a non-Christian origin; but the more one thinks that the Gospel of John does contain ideas borrowed from non- Christian sources, the more one can hope to find the source of the Paraclete figure outside of Christianity and find it easier to prove such a source. However, there are specific objections to Bultmann*s view. The Mandaean literature to which Bultmann refers has many of these Helper-figures who bear no relationship to one another. This is not the idea found in John'sGospel. The work of the Paraclete is closely related to Jesus.^4^Michaelis also pointed out that the translation "Helper" in the Mandaean

^44 See Morris, John, p. 664.

145 Behm, TDNT, 5, P* 804 n.30."*4^ E. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, PP« 566-572. H. Windisch pointed out some parallels earlier, but he did not work them out to the extent or degree of certainty that Bultmann has. See The Spirit - Paraclete in the 4th Gospel, (Philadelphia, Portress, 1968)."*47 gee Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. 31; Brown, "The Paraclete in the4th Gospel", NTS, 13, 1966-67, pp. 119f., Behm, TDNT, 5, p. 808.

95

literature is actually a translation of three different words. Thesuitable translation of these three is /^cr^os notTva\p'=0'i ,|~c>-sWe might also add: how proper is it to explain a Greek term on the basisof non-Greek words?

Mowinckel, later followed by Johansson, proposed that it is the OTand Jewish concept of intercession which underlies the Paraclete in the

149Gospel of John. The main objection against their view is that muchweight was placed upon the scanty evidence of the Spirit as intercessor inJudaism. Other times, they imply that from the Jewish idea of intercessor,it was but a natural step to designate the Spirit as intercessor orparaclete. Such an implication was not proven. Barrett gave threecriticisms against their views - especially as developed by Johansson.(i) John does not describe the Spirit as advocate or intercessor; (ii)there is no evidence that the Spirit was ever called "Paraclete'*; (iii)the paracletes considered by Johansson perform no function really comparable

150with the Spirit's activity in convicting the world.Barrett offered an interpretation based on the Christian and NT use

of Xtv-i and . "it will be difficult to resist the151view that the Paraclete is the Spirit of Christian paraclesis". J Viewed

in itself, Barrett's interpretation is very attractive."It correctly interprets the messianic content of the Paraclete's activities and thus lays the correctbasis for the relationship of the Spirit to thePerson and work of Jesus." 152

148 Michaelis,' "Zur Herkunft", pp. 157-161.149 Mowinckel, "Vorstellungen", Z N W , 1933* PP* 97-130; Johansson, Parakletoi.

Barrett, "The Holy Spirit in the 4th Gospel", JTS, NS1, 1950* PP* 1-15* esp. pp. 11,12. Some of Barrett's criticisms here can be called into question; for example, bearing witness within Jewish legal procedure has a sense of advocacy. See the discussion below.151y For a full discussion of his view see his article "The Holy Spirit in the 4th Gospel".152 Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. 36.

96

The major difficulty, however, is that it completely bypasses the normal meaning of . Barrett derives the meaning of eg

directly from the verb and the noun K N f j • Thisprocedure is in most cases philologically unjustified as Mowinckel correctly

pointed outs"Es ist philologisch unberechtigt, den lebendigen Sinninhalt eines gelaufigen Wortes aaas der, sei es auch nioht etymologischen, sondem gebrauchlichen,Bedeutung des zugrundeliegenden Verbums zu bestimmen; ungezahlteMa.le sind Verb und Nomen je ihren eigenen Weg gegangen ."”153

It is apparent, from these attempts to find an appropriate translationof that will reflect all his functions as stated in the Gospel,that "no one translation of parakletos captures the complexity of the

154functions, forensic and otherwise, that this figure has". One thing isalso clears the Spirit is not described as an intercessor. The title Paraclete and its meaning elsewhere does not correspond to the actual functions ascribed to the Spirit-Paraclete in John’s Gospel.

(3) We must draw attention, however, to 15s26f. and l6:8ff. the Paraclete "will bear witness to me"; and he will convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. We have mentioned earlier that in OT legal practice (see pp.87f*f**) "bearing witness" is tantamount to advocacy. A witness testifies with the purpose to accuse or defend the one on trial. Justice depended on the testimony of the witnesses. Thus the facts presented by the witness form the basis upon which a judgment is rendered, for in the OTand Judaism "es gab aber fur die Jerusalemiten keinen anderen Beweis als

155den durch Zeugen". Since "bearing witness" has the sense of advocacy

153 Mowinckel, "Vorstellungen", p. 118 n.75*154 Brown, John II, p. 1137.155 A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, 1943» p. 154*

97

in OT legal procedure and also 15s26f. is set within a context ofpersecution which suggests a judicial setting, we feel compelled to examine the passage more closely. We must extend this examination to l6s8ff.

is a judicial term, not to mention that the context also describes thepersecution of the disciples.

In 15*26f., the witness of the apostles is linked with the witness of

the Holy Spirit. The idea here is not that the Spirit presents histestimony to the disciples and the disciples in turn pass this on to theworld. The meaning is that "the testimony of the disciples is at the same

156time the active witnessing of the Paraclete". The Paraclete bears157witness "in and through the witness of the disciples". J The testimony

of the Paraclete is thus presented in the same forensic situation in which the disciples stand. But whose cause does the Holy Spirit plead? The Holy Spirit gives testimony concerning Jesus: "He shall bear witness tome." How does he do this? By bringing to the remembrance of the disciples

the things that Jesus had said to them, and by teaching them the meaning of the saving events, the Spirit provides the materials for the witness of the disciples.

In 15:26f., the Spirit witnesses to Jesus. Jesus' vindication is thevindication of the disciples. The Spirit's role as a witness has forensicconnotations as we have noted earlier (see pp.87ff^* Trites stated thatthe idea of witness in John is "thoroughly juridical and is to be understood

158in terms of Old Testament legal language?'. Bultmann also drew attention

^56 Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. 52. Related to this, we may also cite Bultmann who states correctly that as far as content is concerned the witness of the disciples and that of the Spirit are identical; John, p. 553f.”*57 a , Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the NT. 19^9» P* 109*153 Writes, NT Witness, p. 80.

/ r |"because the word which governs °t^pTvo<. ,/

98

to the forensic use of y^^Top\<*, an^ y^pTo pe-w in John.^^ If we

consider that the Spirit, who bears witness, is described by a juridicalword, K^To.S, then the advocacy note in "witness” is illuminated.

G. F. D. Moule wrote

"^Paraclete7 Fourth Gospel is best interpretedif we take its primary connotation to be uniformly that of Advocate. This is not only a literal rendering (advocatus), avoiding the linguistic violence done to the form of the word by other proposed equivalents, but makes, I believe, the best sense of the notoriously difficult passage 16:8-11, makes at least good sense of 15:26,27, and does not conflict with the other passages .... ".160

Like the legal representatives in the OT courts, the Spirit is a witness,thus an advocate.

1 6*1Jn. 15s26f . is closely related to Jn. l6:8ff. contextually. Thecontext speaks of the mission of the disciples to the world and thereception they will encounter. Just as Jesus had testified to the Jewsand they had hated him, so the witnessing of the disciples would evoke theirpersecution and possibly death. In Jn. I6:8ff., the work of the Spirit in

162convicting the world is presented. ' The problem word in the passage is> i& Xfc-yyi/J # is translated "to bring to light, expose, set forth" and

when the object of the exposing is evil, it means "to convince, convict","to reprove or rebuke" or even "to punish or discipline". Its usage in the

*16LXX and the NT have been examined by Buchsel. In the majority of cases,

^59 Bultmann, John, pp. 145, 172, 293, 553*160 p. d . Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, p. 91* He adds, however, "I am not, of course, suggesting that the Fourth Evangelist is likely to have intended the word in only one sense .... he uses a word suggestively, as a poet may, with any number of associational overtones".1^1 See Barrett, John, p. 402.162 ijhg translation "convince" is sometimes offered; see Trites, NT Witness, pp. 118—119, Snaith, "The Meaning of the Paraclete" ET 57, 1954* 47-50.We prefer "convict" as will be shown in the following discussion.163 Buchsel, TDNT, II, pp. 473ff.

99

^ ttflenotes the disciplining and educating of man by Godas a result of His judicial activity". In the NT, it is used in the

165sense "to show someone his sin and to summon him to repentance"; it

c a n be a private affair (Matt. 18s 15) a congregational affair (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2).

There are two passages in the NT in which the idea of repentance in the word, recedes into the background. In Jn. 8 :46, Jesus asks the Jews "which of you convicts me of sin?** In this verse jfrXfe-y'AfcW means "to

bring charges against, to accuse" but also "to furnish proof for the accusation". In Jude 15 which speaks of the Lord coming to judge and to

5 \ f Vconvict the ungodly of all their evil deeds, the verb t^tyx^ means to convict in order to condemn. Thus there are two interpretations of the word in the NT, implying that in Joh. 16:8 we have two possible interpretations. This prompts us to ask these questions: (i) does the judicial activity ofthe Spirit here lead to condemnation or to repentance; (ii) is theconvicting performed by the Spirit, an anticipation or realisation of the

"1 66 1 67last judgment or does it lead to the conversion of the world?These are questions which are also posed by Holwerda in his discussion ofthe passage and he rightly points out that "whether this exposing actually

leads to repentance or to condemnation can only be determined by the contextin which it occurs".” ®

0£. cit., p. 473.^ 5 0]3. cit., p. 474> see also Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. 54*

C. H. Dodd calls this activity of the Spirit "the Last Judgment" - see The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, P« 414*167 e . Hoskyns writes "the operation of the Spirit in exposing Sin and Righteousness and Judgment is concisely illustrated in 1 Cor. 14s24~6" - But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all .... and so falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. The thought in this passage is that of conversion. See The Fourth Gospel, II, p. 572.168 Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. 55-

100

A way to determine the purpose of the Spirit’s activity here is to examine the relation of the Kccyos to Jesus and the Spirit. Kosr^05 , in Johannine writings, has a reference to the world of mankind and is the object both of salvation and of condemnation. Jesus, the Son, was sent to save the world (3s17)» He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29); He came not to judge the world but to save it (12:47) and in the First Epistle, Jesus is the expiation not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). On the part of the world, it did not recognise Jesus, the Father, nor the Spirit (1:10; 14:17;17:25); Men rather loved the darkness (3*19). It can also be said that Jesus has come to judge the world (3s19? 5*27,30; 9*39; 12:48). Theworld stands in opposition to God and is excluded from Christ's intercession

(17*9). Ihe church and the world are also presented in opposing relationship. Believers are not of the world as Christ is not of the world (17*16), but they must live in the world for the present. This separation of mankind into church and the world sounds as if condemnation alone awaits the world.But does it? Bearing in mind that the world continues to be the object of mission; Jesus sends the disciples into the world, we might say that the activity of the Paraclete in convicting the world may not solely be interpreted in terms of condemnation.

To help us determine clearly the purpose of the Spirit's activity, thet/second problem word, QTt needs to be examined: is it causal or explanatory;

are the b t- clauses giving the grounds for the conviction of the world orare they presenting the content of conviction? Barrett gives two possible

dmeanings of 0,1 : (i) "because"; the Paraclete will convict the world of sin because sin reached its complete demonstration in men's failure to believe in me; (ii) "that" or "in that"; the Paraclete will convict the

101

world of ita sin, in that men do not believe in me. Barrett finds both interpretations possible but he accepts, as the more attractive and as the more adaptable to the three words, an interpretation of "in regard to" of the word TCfcpi ."^9 Bultmann^^ and Lindars^^ prefer a causal translation.

In opposition to the causal translation, we may cite Buchsel who arguedCt * rjn

that to take causally is artificial and Holwerda who stated that the173causal translation "removes the verses from their proper setting".

are forensic terms and the setting in thepassage is a judicial one. With convictions must come grounds for the

Vconviction. In this sense, the ©In clauses are explanatory reasons for4the conviction. Holwerda argued this point, that the °^v clauses give

the fundamental grounds of conviction, clearly in his book (p. 5&f.).His main points are here stated.

(1) The Spirit convicts the world not of one particular sin-unbelief, but convicts men of sin as a condition - the basis is their unbelief.(2) The world is convicted of righteousness - the righteousness of Jesus which is proved by his departure to the father.(3) The world is convicted of judgment because Jesus did overcome the world in his death and resurrection.

The Paraclete convicts the world of these by means of the apostolic witnesses. This is evident from the fact that these three elements, that comprise the Spirit's conviction of the world are major themes in apostolic preaching. The Apostles preached

Barrett, John, p. 406.170 Bultmann, Theology, II, pp. 31f»» John, pp. 5^3f.

Lindars, John, p. 501*172 BQchsel, TDNT, 2, p. 474 n.7.173 Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. ^6.

102

"the righteousness of Jesus as manifested in His departure to the Father, the judgment of Satan, the sin of unbelief, and therefore the necessity of faith".^74

As noted on p*87 , the Spirit witnesses in and through the witness of the apostles. This witness is the means used by the Spirit to convict the world. Although the Spirit-Paraclete uses the Apostolic witness, it is not this witness in itself that convicts the world but the Paraclete himself.(4) The result of the conviction of the world by the Paraclete is conversion and judgment.

We accept Holwerda1s arguments and conclusion on this passage because

his conclusion has the advantage of relating carefully the fact that those who rejected the word of Jesus had been judged (3:18), to the present work of the Spirit and the disciples in the world.

For our purpose, we gather from the passage that the Paraclete appears as the advocate for the cause of Jesus and thus as the accuser of the world. This activity of the Paraclete affects the disciples in two ways. First, the Paraclete becomes the defender of the disciples. In defending the cause of Jesus, the Paraclete, at the same time is defending the disciples who officially represent Jesus and will be persecuted by the world as a

result of this representation. Thus a conviction of the world constitutes a defense of the disciples. Second, in the Paraclete’s defense the disciples are assured of victory. That the Paraclete convicts the world is an indication of Jesus' victory over the world. Because of this, the disciples can be of good cheer. Although for a time they must endure oppression they know even in the midst of oppression that they are victorious. They know that the verdict has been granted in their favour and against their oppressors.174 Qg. cit., p. 58*

103

In Jn. 15j26f. and l6:8ff., therefore, it is possible to retain thef *17 Snormal, forensic meaning of k N^toS . In these passages, "we are

introduced into a courtroom scene of cosmic dimensions. The Spirit appears as the advocate for the cause of Jesus convicting the world of its status before God".

When we relate the conclusion here to the view presented on Mk. 13*11>there emerges a clear picture of the Spirit placed in an advocatory role.In Mk. 13*11, he is the advocate of the disciples before the earthlyauthorities; in Jn. 15*26f. and l6*8ff., he is the advocate for the cause

177of Jesus; the outcome is also a vindication of the disciples.

(4) We suggest, therefore, that in Mk. 13*11 and in the Paraclete sayings of Jn. 15*26f. and l6:8ff., the Spirit is presented as an advocate. But how close is this sense of advocacy to Paul in Rom. 8s26f.? We draw attention to pp^Sgfwhere we have already outlined the differences between this witness-advocate idea and intercession. Those differences also apply here. Our conclusion there, is also applicable to our passages here.

The witness-advocacy of the Spirit must not be equated to Rom 8*26f. but it is a possible root to it.

i 7S /M. Miguens in El Paraolito, (Jerusalems Studii Biblici Franciscani Analecta, 19&3) has also argued convincingly for a jurisdical situation in Jn. 14—16. The word Paraclete then maintains its original meaning and forensic connotations. This means that John did not deviate from thetraditional Christian usage. See also W. E. Lynch, CBQ, 26, 19^4» PP* 115^*176 Holwerda, The Holy Spirit, p. 59-177 Bultmann argued that Jn. 15*26f. has nothing to do with Mk. 13*11; seeJohn, p. 553 n.5. Against Bultmann see H. Windisch The Splrit-Paraclete inthe Fourth Gospel, (Facet Books, BS, 20) 1968, p. 22. See also Betz,Der Paraklet, p. 178, who also poses the question whether the passage -Jn. 15*2^f. could not be linked to Mk. 13*11 in which case the Spirit’s witnessing takes place at the trial of the disciples.

10^

(5) The above conclusion implies that the teaching of Jesus on the Paraclete contributed to the idea of the Spirit's intercession in Rom. 8j26f. This invites the question: is there any evidence for the Paraclete sayings

going back to Jesus or at least being Pre-Pauline? The argument is this; if the Paraclete sayings go back to Jesus, thus being Pre-Pauline, then they are important to our study of the origins of the Spirit's intercession, but if they reflect the Evangelist's usage, thus Post-Pauline, then they cannot be of much importance to us in our quest for the origins of the idea

of the Spirit's intercession.We want to draw attention to three points.

(1) J. Kremer commented on Jn. 16:13 thus"Der Text selbst ist ganz in der theolo^lscWn Terminolcgie des vierten Bvangeliums formuliert und deshalh-wie heute allgemein anerkannt wird - mit Sicherheit nicht als ipsissima vox zu werten. Es gibt aber keinen Grund, daran zu zweifeln, dass der verfasser von Joh. 16,13 - ahnliches gilt auch fur die ubrigen Parakletspruche - davon uberzeugt war, mit seinen Worten eine VerheiBung Jesu wiederzugeben."

There was no doubt in the Evangelist's mind that he was reproducing a promiseof Jesus. Jesus knew the situation of the Church which necessitated thepromise of the Paraclete; he knew of the gift of the Spirit in his earlylife; the Spirit promised is his spirit; his earthly life and his lifewith the father are seen as a unit - why then should there be a problemabout the reality of his promise of the Spirit? This is a valid argument,for the simple reason that if John shows no trace at all that he waswrestling with a problem whether Jesus actually promised the Holy Spirit ornot, what evidence is there for us to doubt the reality of these promises?

J. Kremer, "Jesu Yerheissung des Geistes" in Die Kirche des Anfangs, Festschrift fur Heinz Schurmann zum 65* Geburtstag. ed. by R. Schnackenburg et al. (Leipzig : St. Benno - Yerlag GmbH) 1977, P. 260.

105

(2 ) Jn. 15 :26 f . and l 6 s 8 f f . have key parallels in the Synoptics - Mk. 13j11j

Matt. 10:19,20; Lk. 12:11-12; Lk. 2 1 :1 4 ,1 5 .1^ Although there aredifferences in these versions as well as problems as to which of them isthe original saying and as to how Lk. 21:14,15 relates to, say, Mk. 13:11(see pp. 82ff) there is a possibility that they belong to one earlytradition."'^ In view of the closeness of Jn. 15:26f. and l6:8ff. to theSynoptic parallels, can we argue that in the Paraclete sayings we have a

181continuity of the tradition preserved in 1/Ik. 13s 11 ? A positive answerhere is undermined by the question: did Jesus, before his death, ever

promise the Holy Spirit to help in defense? It is weakened further stillby the conclusion that the tradition of Mk. 13:11 cannot be defined withcertainty as ipsissima vox Jesu. The tradition is a vaticinis exeventu.On p.89 we held the position that the tradition behind Mk. 13:11 goes backto Jesus. Jesus was aware that his death will bring suffering to hisdisciples and prepared them for it. The vacuum in the life of the disciplesthat will be created by his physical absence had to be filled. The Spiritwho is the power behind Jesus1 work was to fill this vacuum.We must also bear in mind that the experiences of the early Christians was

182not in a void. The historical milieu is the Jewish expectation. Therewas Jewish expectation for the Holy Spirit. References are:

See pp. 262-267 of Kremerfs article.180 Or do these versions suggest many sources about the promise of the Holy Spirit? See Kremer, "Yerheissung”, p. 264.181 Persecution is a common setting to these passages. Besides, an advocatory note is derived from these passages when we understand them against OT legal procedure. We are, however, not equating the Paraclete sayings to these Synoptic parallels. The task of the Paraclete goes beyond that stated in the Synoptic parallels - defense and attestation of the Gospel before a court or elsewhere - "wenn man berucksichtight, dass nach dem Johannesevangelium die d.urch den Geist vermittelte Erkenntnis eine lebenspendende und gemein schaftsstiftende Wirkdng besitzt (Joh. 17:3)"» Kremer, ,,VerheissungM, p. 266.182 See Kremer, "Verheissung", p. 269.

106

Eg. 36:25-27 "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shallbe clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you;and I will take out of your flesh the heart ofstone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinance s."

Ez. 37*1-14 "The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he broughtme out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me downin the midst of the valley; it was full of bones

Joel 2:28-32 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams,and your young men shall see visions .... "

These passages show that the Jews expected a new transforming spirit. Jesusknew this. His promise of the Spirit will, therefore, be in accord withJewish expectation. It has been argued also that Jesus reckoned with animmediate and imminent beginning of the reign of God. Thus the idea ofthe persecutions of the disciples after his death and outside Palestine could

hardly have been familiar to him. But this argument is not strong enough.Jesus himself asked for the gospel to be preached to all nations. Allnations imply outside Palestine. Such a request also hints at the fact thata considerable length of time must elapse before the End. Jesus was notunaware of the problems of mission work.

We still maintain the position that Jesus promised the help of theSpirit to his disciples and that the tradition behind Mk. 13*11, Matt. 10j

19»20, Lk. 12:11-12 and the Paraclete passages goes back to Jesus.(3) It is of interest also to observe that the w o r d k V jToS was takenover and transliterated into Rabbinic use in the form Peraqlet or P®raqleta;

/its more frequent synonym is the Greek word trUN,, 'yc oS similarly transliteratedSenegor and adopted. There is no passage in the Rabbinics in which the

107

word Peraqlet is expressly used of the Holy Spirit, hut he is once named Senegor or advocate, which is actually indistinguishable from I^raqlet.If the vocabulary of the Rabbinic literature represents the language of the Rabbis of Jesus' day (and we do not see why it should not), then there is no reason to deny that Jesus used the word Paraclete.

There is evidence that Jesus spoke of the Spirit in advocatory terms. The relevant passages are Mk. 13:11, Jn. 15:26f., and l6.8ff. Although the Spirit is an advocate in these passages, the sense is not the same as intercession in Rom. 8:26f. It is close, however, to make it necessary for us to take the passages into consideration in our quest for the origins of the Spirit's intercession. It must be mentioned, that nowhere do we read that Paul heard Jesus preach. We know from Acts that he knew the Apostles who were closest to him; this shows that Paul was aware of church tradition of what Jesus taught.

3. THE SPIRIT AS A HEAVENLY BEING. We mentioned on p. 37 that the NTpresents the Spirit as a heavenly being. The relevant passages areMatt. 3:16,17 and par. (Lk. 3:21-22; Mk. 1:10,11)

"And when Jesus was baptised, he went up immediately from the water and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; ........... "

Jn. 14:26 "But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

Jn. 15:26 "But when the Counsellor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father........ . • "

Ac. 2:2-4 "And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush ofa mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of t h e m .......... "

108

The common idea to these passages is that the Spirit comes from heaven.He is the Spirit of God. Angels interceded, because they are in the Presence of God, dead righteous men are intercessors because they are in heaven: thus it was easy to think of the Spirit, a heavenly being, as

an intercessor.

The answer to our question, from where did Paul get the motif of the Spirit's intercession is. therefore, fourfold.

(i) The heavenly intercession in Jewish thought. Intercessory motif is common in the OT, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings, the Rabbinic writings and those of Philo's. For the exercise of it, the individual can call on the patriarch, the prophet, king, priest, or the righteous man. Angels and heavenly beings are also intercessors. We did not find any reference to the Spirit's intercession. There are passages (T. Jud. 20:1-5; Wis. Sol. 1:6-9; Wis. Sol. 9s17-18; Wayyikra Rabba 6 £Lev. r ,6.f7(Cant.'r-. 8:11 on 8:10) in Judaistic Writings which were -understood as references to the Spirit's intercession by Mowinckel and Johansson. We recognised the uncertainty of date and interpretation of these passages. The significance is that they did not directly influence Paul in Rom. 8:26f. But it shows two things. First, Paul is aware of the necessity of intercession. Second, the idea of heavenlyintercession is prevalent in the period; thus it shows how easily the Spirit, as a heavenly being, can be linked to intercession.

(ii) Jesus as a heavenly intercessor. In Rom. 8:34» Paul speaks of Jesus' intercessory role with the same terminology )as he does of the Spirit in Rom. 8:26f. This suggests a parallel. We recognise that the intercession of Jesus is commonly known throughout the NT. We also recognise a close relationship between Christ and the Spirit:

109

a relationship which leads Paul to present the risen Christ and the Spirit interchangeably and for John to see the Spirit as another Jesus. If Jesus1 heavenly intercession is known to the early church and if the church is also aware of the close relationship that exists between the Spirit and

Jesus, it is easy for it to think of the Spirit as an intercessor.(iii) Advocacy attributed to the Spirit in Jesus* teaching. The

relevant passages are Mk. 13:11 and the Paraclete sayings. In these passages, Jesus promised the help of the Spirit. In Mk. 13:11, the Spirit's aid involves helping the disciples to defend themselves. We take this to mean a "bearing witness" to the defence of the disciples by the Spirit. "Bearing witness" in Jewish legal procedure has the sense of advocacy.Jesus' hearers will -understand the Spirit's function of witness in a forensic sense. Similarly, although the functions of teaching, guiding into truth, abiding with the disciples do not have forensic sense, we understand the functions "he will bear witness to me" (jn. 15:26) and "he will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgment" (jn. 16:8-11) in a forensic sense. We recognise that an early tradition which goes back to Jesus, is behind this promise of the Spirit. To speak of the Spirit as witness calls up in the minds of his Jewish hearers, a picture of an advocate. This gives a deposit in Rom. 8:26f.

(iv) The Spirit as a heavenly being. The Spirit as a heavenly being

is known in biblical literature. He is the Spirit of God, he is given to Christians by God. Heaven is his dwelling place prior to Pentecost. In the context of the motif of Jewish heavenly intercession, we recognise how easy it is to associate the Spirit with intercession.

Individually, each of these points has its flaws and thus cannot be overtly emphasised. But taken collectively, they present themselves as aconclusive source of the motif of the Spirit's intercession.

1 10

To bring our discussion of the origins of the Spirit's intercession

to a close, two further questions have to be asked.(a) Does the background of intercession discussed help us to understand

the Pauline use in Rom. 8:26f. better?c f ) ^(b) Seeing that Paul uses uTxfrp + fcM of both Jesus' and the

Spirit's intercession, it must be asked: does Paul model the intercessionof the Spirit on that of Jesus?

(a) We think that the background of intercession helps us to understand what Paul wants to express by the Spirit's intercession. We observe from our discussion that intercession is petitionary. Intercessors request God to turn away divine punishment as a result of disobedience; they request God to restore individuals to health; they request God to forgive the sins of the people as well as the nation. Jesus' intercession was for forgiveness of sins, protection, unity of Christians. With this background, it makes us anxious to know, as we come to the Spirit's intercession, whether it is to be understood in terms of sin and justificationor/and petition. Even a cursory glanoe at Rom. 8:26f. and its context

shows that the Spirit's intercession is not for the forgiveness of sins, nor to halt divine punishment nor is it for restoration to health. Wehave to look for the answer in the fact that the Spirit is given by God tosustain us in our period of weakness. God provides the means to ensure that we are brought and also remain within fellowship with him. Rom. 8:26f. thus expresses this gracious nature of God. It is no wonder that the rest of the chapter goes on to speak of God's love. In this note of God's graciousness, we find a connecting link between Rom. 8:26f. and the intercessory ideas examined in this thesis. God listens to and grants intercessory prayers, because He is gracious and loves His people.

111

Thus the discussion on intercession does not only enable us to find the sources of the motif of the Spirit’s intercession; it also enables us to understand what this motif expresses. The graciousness of God and His love for Christians.

(b) The answer to the second question cannot be a simple "yes" or "no".In the first place, there is a difference in location between Jesus1 andthe Spirit’s intercession. Jesus intercedes in heaven. His intercessionis a work with which, strictly speaking, believers have nothing to do. Itoccurs "outside" of believers securing their justification. On the partof the Spirit, his intercession occurs within the hearts of believers.Although the intercession is on their behalf, it is an activity in whichthe Christians personally share. This difference led Brownson to write

"the goal secured by the Spirit's intercession is not the believer's acceptance with God, but rather the accomplishment of God's purpose within his life.Christ's intercession saves men from condemnation; that of the Spirit preserves their hope amid the sufferings of this present time".

Zorn argued from Rom. 8:34 that intercession can properly take place atthe right hand of God in heaven and not in the prayer of the Spirit. In

1 84.this case, Christ and not the Spirit is intercessor. The flaw inBrownson*s statement is that he asked the wrong question. The question he ought to have, asked is: what is the purpose of the Spirit's preservationof our hopes amidst present suffering? His answer would have been - so that we do not despair and fall into apostasy and thus into condemnation.

H O DBrownson, Protestant Exegesis, (Diss., Princeton), p. 167.

184. R. Zorn, Die Furbitte im Spatjudentum und im Neuen Testament,(Diss., Gottingen) 1957> P* 117.

1 12

The Spirit's intercession enables us to know and do His will. Theultimate end of the Spirit's intercession is to bring us into God'sfellowship. What is the ultimate purpose of Christ's intercession?Is it not to bring us into God's fellowship? 'When we take this intoconsideration with the fact that Paul identified the functions of Christand the Spirit, it seems to us that Paul will not distinguish betweenChrist and the Spirit as intercessors. Zorn's argument must be rejected

c v \ loutright for the reason that Paul uses OvCtp + fc-'Tv fQr bothintercessors. The intercession of the Spirit is also the intercessionof Christ. This view is expressed by A. Dietzel that

"Der Geist vollzieht dasselbe recht fertigende Eintreten, wie es in Rom. 8s34 von erhoten H e m ausgesagt ist."1®5

By the intercession of the Spirit, Paul was not thinking of two rivalintercessors to God; he was thinking of the one sure way by which mencan come to God - through Christ and his Spirit. In our opinion, theSpirit's intercession is modelled on that of Christ. The difference ischiefly one of emphasis: the Spirit intercedes within us and Christintercedes at the "right hand of God". Both intercessions are inseparablyand indivisibly the activity of the one God whose age-long plan is toculminate in the redemption of man.

A. Dietzel, "Beten im Geist", TZ, 13, 1957, P» 28; see also W. Bieder, "Gebetswirklichkeit und Gebetsmoglichkeit bei Paulus" TZ, 4» 1948, p. 33 - he takes the same view that what Rom. 8:34 says of Christ is here said of the Spirit of Christ.

113

CHAPTER THREE

SPIRIT IN FRAYER

The Spirit's intercession is set within a theme of "Spirit and Prayer". The Spirit helps us because "we do not know how to pray as we ought"."Pray in the Spirit" or "Prayer and the Spirit" is a common theme in the NT. Christians are encouraged to pray or worship in the Spirit in passages like Jn. 4:23; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20, etc., and there is evidence ofChristians praying in the Spirit in Rom. 8:15,16; Gal. 4?6, etc. Thus inRom. 8:26f., Paul is speaking of the Spirit's intercession within a theme which is known in the NT. It is only reasonable then to want to know (l) how the idea of "prayer and the Spirit" is understood elsewhere in the NT and (2) how these passages help us to understand Rom. 8:26f.

Jn. 4:23,24. The main question to be asked here is: what does "worship" mean? In w . 20 and 22, the dialogue

had been on the place of worship; is it Mt. Gezirim or Jerusalem? Butin these verses (w. 23,24), the emphasis is shifted from the place ofworship to the manner of worship. How are Christians to worship?Exegetes are divided on this issue.

In view of the preceding context, it has been thought that Jesus was contrasting external worship with inward worship. Thus "spirit" has been taken as a reference to the human spirit. Among those who hold this view are Morris,1 Hendriksen,2 Stevens^ and Johnston.^ There is a contrary

1 Morris, John, p. 270.2 Hendriksen, John, p. 167- ^ Stevens, Theology, p. 178.^ Johnston, Suirit - Paraclete, p. 45*

114

view to this that Jesus was not contrasting external worship with internalworship. The worship in question is worship in the Spirit, the Holy

5 6 7Spirit. Exponents of this view are Brown, Schnackenburg, Barrett,8 9Dunn, and Ladd. Support for this view is also drawn from the context -

"God is Spirit". God’s essential nature is Spirit, thus He expects mento respond in the same manner. We think that €:N refers tothe Holy Spirit for the reason that in the Greek NT, the term ' »without a qualifier usually means the Holy Spirit. Besides, in John,TTvJfcO e* as Well as denotes the sphere of divine essence and

> /occurrence as distinct from human (3:6-8). If refers tothe Holy Spirit, then there are two main implications of the statement"worship in Spirit ... ". (l) Man, of himself, can have no access to Godand His heavenly realm. If he is to pray effectively, he must be enabledto do so by God, by being filled with His Spirit. (2) The outpouring ofthe Spirit has come about through Jesus Christ. Thus worship in theSpirit is possible in union with Christ.

"His glorified body is the holy temple of God (2:21); true worship is performed in him .... acceptable adoration is only possible through Jesus, the revealer and bringer of life."10

Within Johannine context, it is impossible to separate the two notionsof "Spirit and truth". Jesus is the truth (14:6) in the sense that hereveals God's truth to men (8:45? 18:37); the Spirit is the Spirit of

5 Brown, John, I, p. 180.^ Schnackenburg, John, I, p. 437*7' Barrett, John, p. 199*g

Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 353.^ Ladd, Theology, p. 292.10Schnackenburg, John, I, p. 438.

115

Jesus as well as the spirit of truth. He will guide us into all truth.Thus if is added to \Wfco^ot , it is an indication that worshipcan take place only as determined by the revelation accomplished in Jesus.Thus worship in spirit and truth simply is worship mediated through theperson of Jesus and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Johnstonb observation that’"worship in the spirit1 could refer to ecstatic forms of divine service

11as in Rev. 1:10, dreams, trances and rapture of Dionysian type1* need not be entertained here. Although there is evidence for such activities in the NT, there is no reason in the verse or the chapter for us to assume that Jesus or John had such a phenomenon in mind.

Rom. 8:15f. and Gal. 4:6. There is a similarity in vocabulary between Rom. 8:15f. and Gal. 4:6f. The similarity is: first, the wordApart from Rom. 9:4 where it designates the sonship of Israel and Eph. 1:5 and probably Rom. 8:23, the term appears only in these two places and in both cases it is introduced into the passage by words translated "receive": o<TTo (Gal.) and £-\o^fc~e (Rom.). Second, the

joined in both cases to the verb to cry - K^<*bfcW -> which Paul does not

use elsewhere except in Rom. 9:27 where it is used in a totally profane sense. Third, the expression " ciWba o '• occurs in both passages.

The themes in the two passages are identical so that it will be appropriateA

to discuss these passages together.

Johnston, The Spirit - Paraclete, p. 44*12 In the Galatian passage, the actual occurrence of the word is at v.5 but the thought of adoption is carried on into v.6.^ Tljere is a very important difference between the two passages. The verb

Bt-tv is linked in Gal. 4:6 to the Spirit as a subject while in Rom. 8:15f. it is the believer who accomplishes the . But the difference ismore apparent than real. In Rom. 8:15^-, we can orjly c ry through the Spirit and in Gal. 4:6, the Spirit is sent "'s T'*s (some manuscriptshave 0|ouW isc k vp 33 31 33 131 326 330 436 451 614 629 630 1877,etc. Didymus, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, John of Damascus also read the second person plural). The subject of the cry "Abba Father" is therefore the man who is apprehended by the Spirit. Grundmann, TDNT, III,p. 903.

116

There are translation problems in both passages. The text of Rom. 8:15,16 is such that two punctuations are possible. The first translation, adopted by Moffatt and the RSV following WH mg, puts a full stop after and

_ / ) ? fa comma after : that is, it links the phrase ' ^ ^ .... to,-X _ ~ ' 1 N } I -\D \v\/toyc\ 0f v.16. This translation presents 0,0 Y^f3 fc. • • •

as"incomplete both stylistically, since there is nothing to balance £-is ^c^cv _and also as far as themeaning is concerned, since vjvoQ-fc-cr is anew and not an easy expression, which seems to require.. . some measure of explanation within the same sentence".

The second punctuation is to put a comma after uio^fciX^S and a full stop after

^o(.T^ . This is adopted by the HV. This punctuation appears reasonable.As Cranfield points out, the second punctuation will "serve to balance Tv=<Xv\/triS (jicftov i*. fhe most important reason for accepting the second punctuation

is that it clarifies the meaning of 'ovo -fccTi S. Besides, the ideait conveys, that the cry 'Abba* is a result of the gift of Spirit, will betheologically correct and accord with Pauline thought expressed in Gal. 4*6,7.

. C/_There is also a syntactical problem in Gal. 4*6. The initial o.t can15 cLbe translated with a causal or a declarative meaning. If is given a

causal meaning, the passage will read "because you are sons, God has sent into our hearts the Spirit of His Son which cries 'Abba Father'"; but if it is

given a declarative sense, then it translates "the proof that you are sons is that God has sent into your hearts the Spirit of His Son who cries 'Abba Father" The difference in translation is this: the gift of the Spirit is presentedin the first case as a consequence of sonship but in the second translation, the gift of the Spirit becomes the source of sonship. The first translation

^ Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 398.15 'A. Duprez, "Note sur le r6le de L'Esprit-Saint dans la filiation du Chretien. A propos de Gal. 4*6" RSR, 52, 3, 1964, P* 421.

117

was adopted by Luther, Ridderbos and Boice. The second was adopted byLagrange, Lietzmann, Zahn and Robinson. It also has the support of a good

16number of Latin and Greek fathers.The grammar authorises both constructions. Thus we need to examine

the context in order to determine which of these translations is to bepreferred. Paul speaks first of adoption and then mentions the sending ofthe Spirit. He also employed the same verb Xt-v to describe thesending of the Son into the world and the sending of the Spirit into theheart of the faithful. In both cases, it is God who gives freely - thereforethe verb appears to be insisting on the sovereignty of God. The aorist isused of the Spirit probably because the sending of the Spirit is a historicalevent of the same style as that of the Son. The point here is this: thesovereign God could choose whom he wants as a Son and then send the Spiritto work in him and enable him to call God, Father.

Although the first translation considered above is exegetically and17grammatically correct, theologically it has been argued to be wrong.

Theologically, we are constituted sons through the gift of the Spirit andthe proof that we are sons in the Spirit is our ability to address God as"Abba Father". This is the meaning which the second translation conveys.Besides, the second translation accords with the parallel passage of Rom. 8 s15-From Rom. 8s15»16 and what Paul has said in Gal. 3, i t can be ascertainedthat he thought that the gift of the Spirit "is that which brings the individual

18into the covenant of promise, that which begins his Christian life".

See J. Pathrapankal, "The Spirit of Sonship in Rom. 8" Bible-hashyam, 2, 3, 1976, p. 186.

J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 1970, p. 113-

118

It is the Spirit who effects sonship. He does not merely strengthen theconsciousness of sonship; he creates it. Thus the Spirit enables us tocall God as Jesus Himself had done - "Abba Father". The second translationis thus more probable.

The main theme of Rom. 8:15,16 and probably Gal. 4:6 is: we are madesons of God and the spontaneous expression of this sonship is the cry"Abba Father". Three issues in these verses are to be noted. First, the

vjvc’dfc-cruxS refers to the Holy Spirit who makes us sons."^ Its

use, in contrast to does not imply the actual existenceof a spirit of bondage; it was employed by Paul probably to deny thesupposition that we have received a spirit of bondage. Paul is expressinghere that when we receive the Holy Spirit, he effects a relationship between

20us and God; a relationship of sonship. "All who are led by the Spiritof God are sons of God" (8:14). Being the Son of God was a unique right

19 For a discussion of the problem of interpretation see Cranfield, Romans.1, P* 396. Exegetes who take the two types of TTVto<*."<*. as a reference totemperament include Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NIC), 1974, P* 295;W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1902, p. 202; M. Black, Romans (NCB), p. 118; Bunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 240. cf. H. Schlier, Romerbrief. 1977, P* 252^ whomaintained that ulo-O-fccriotS refers to the Holy Spirit and(fccAtit\s, implies a spirit which enslaves, i.e. the spirit of law.^ The Greek word uicBtCK* translated sonship, does not occur at all in the LXX. In the NT, it occurs only five times - Rom. 8:15,23? 9:4; Gal. 4:5;Eph. 1:5 - all in Pauline writings. Attempts have been made to find the legal practice behind Paul's use. Scholars are divided on this issue. The following legal practices have been suggested to be behind vj Jewish: see S. Feigin, "Some Cases of Adoption in Israel", JBL, 50, 1931,pp. 186-200; B. J. Theron, "Adoption in the Pauline Corpus", EQ, 28, 1956, pp. 6-14; W. H. Rossell "New Testament Adoption - Graeco-Roman or Semitic?" JBL, 71, 1952, pp. 233-4.Roman: See F. Lyall, "Roman Law in the writings of St. Paul - Adoption",JBL, 88, 1969, PP. 458-466; J. B. Hester, Paul's Concept of Inheritance. 1968, p. 58; J. S. Candlish, "Adoption" in A Bictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 41*Greek: J. Massie, "Testaments" in A Bictionary of the Bible, vol. IV, 1906,p. 720; G. H. Box, "Adoption" in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 1, 1908, pp. 114f. t ,We think that it will not be right to identify U\ou-etrio(. with any one particular legal system. (a) The phenomenon of bringing up someone's child treated as a son was known to the Jews. (b) Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee,

i

119

of Jesus. According to writers of the gospels, Jesus knew Himself to hethe Son. Examples cited are the narratives of Jesus' experience at Jordan

21(Mk. 1:9-11 pa^*) in which some see an allusion to Ps. 2:7; t'he Q accountof Jesus' temptation in which the test focused on Jesus' conviction of

sonship (Matt. 4*1-11» Lk. 4*1-13). In addition, we may cite the Lucanaccount of Jesus' boyhood visit to the temple and the transfiguration story.His use of "abba" in address or prayer to God, a word which has a connotationof familiarity, is an indication of this sense of sonship. In passages like

Matt. 11:27; Mk. 13*32; Jn. 5:19-26; 8:351; 10:36; 14*13, etc., Jesusopenly speaks of Himself as "the Son". This is the unique relationshipwhich the Spirit enables us to share. It is not our good works that makeus sons of God nor is it our physical descent which entitles us to thisposition. It is the act of God through the Holy Spirit. Our adoption assons means that we are now fellow heirs with Christ (v.17) and we can nowapproach God in all confidence as a Father. It is right to say then thatit is the Holy Spirit who makes it possible for us to know God as Father.How do we reconcile this view with Matt. 11:27 (par. Lk. 10:22) where Jesusis reported to have said that revelation of God comes only through Him?

22Matt. 11:27 is an authentic saying of Jesus. But the statement is not to

born and bred within Roman system of law and he knew the Greek language and customs of his native Tarsus. Thus Jewish, Roman and Greek cultural systems might have influenced Pauline thought here.21 J ^__0r is it a reference to Is. 42:1, w-QS being Mark's interpretation ofUotlS , "servant" or "child"? See 0. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT,

1959, p. 66; R. H. Fuller, Foundations, pp. l69f. Marshall, however, hasargued that Mk. 1:11 is not to be explained out of Is. 42:1; 44*1* Seehis article "Son of God or Servant of Yahweh? - A Reconsideration of Mk. 1:11"NTS,15, 1968-69, pp. 326-36.on It has been argued that Matt. 11:25-27 is not authentic for the following reasons: (a) it has a distinctly Johannine ring (Jn. 3*35; 10:15); (b) the form and the context of the verses mark v.27 to be a "Hellenistic Revelation Saying" (R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 1963, P* 160);(c) Jesus could not have made the absolute and exclusive claim in this verse because it is unprecedented in the Synoptic Gospels and thus suggests a later

120

be considered as a contradiction of the view that the Holy Spirit enablesthe Christian to know God. Two answers are probable here. First, whatJesus meant in Matt. 11:27 is

"a personal 'I-thou' relationship engaging heart and mind and will - a relationship initiated and sustainedby the Father and complemented and fulfilled by Jesus'own filial response of obedience and love ... " 23

This relationship implies that the Son knows the Father with the sameknowledge as the Father has of Himself. This knowledge then is nottransferable. Therefore one can get to know the Father through unitywith the Son. Second, we do not have to see a contradiction here, becausethe role of Jesus and the role of the Spirit are indistinguishable (see pp.74f!f).The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Gal. 4s 6) and although the immediatesource of sonship is the Spirit, it is achieved in unity with Jesus Christ.2^

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we express our sonship inthe words "Abba Father", words which also characterised Jesus' own relationshipwith God. "Abba Father" is the second issue we would like to discuss here.Do these words represent prayer? To answer this question we need to examine(a) the word k.P’sdjfelVand (b) the form of "Abba Father".

Christological development. The first criticism can be dismissed that it is no reason at all for condemning Matt. 11:27 as unauthentic unless it is made a canon of criticism that any saying in the Synoptics with a parallel in John must ipso facto be spurious; see Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, pp. 28f.;A. M. Hunter, "Crux Criticorum - Matt. 11:25-30. A Re-appraisal".NTS,.,8, 1962, pp. 241-249, esp. p. 245. On the second criticism, we will . say that there is enough evidence elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition (Lk. 2:49* Mk. 1:11; 12:6) plus Jesus' unique invocation of God as "Abba", to make it possible that Jesus styled Himself "the Son" as Paul and John believed he did. The third criticism can be answered that the Hellenistic parallels drawn to it are never impressive. Scholars now think that the OT is the likeliest background to the "I-thou" relationship of Matt. 11:27; see Hunter, "Crux Criticorum", NTS, 8, 1962, p. 245? Marshall, Int., 21, 1967, PP« 91-4* The Gospel of Luke. PP« 435f«; D* Hill, Matthew, p. 205f.2 Hunter, "Crux Criticorum", NTS,8. 1962, p. 246.2^ M. J. Lagrange, Epitre aux Galates, 1918, p. 193.

121

in the OT predominantly in the contexts of crying or calling on God in someindividual or national emergency (Gen. 18s20; Exod. 2:23; 31T? 22:23;1 Sam. 5s12; Job 34:28; Ps* 34:15)* These instances are possibly criesof prayer to God. In the NT, the verb is significantly used in connectionwith Jesus' work. Expelled demons cry out in recognition of Jesus Christ

and His will (Mk. 1:23f., 3:11* 5:7*)• The sick or their relatives alsoturn to Jesus crying for help (Matt. 9:27, cf. 20:30,31; Matt. 15:22,23;Mk. 9:23-24)* These cries are addressed to Jesus, and are possibly criesof help; prayers to the saviour to help. In Matt. 27:50* the verb is usedof Jesus' last words on the cross. Grundmann points out that

"in accordance with the context and with the significance of the term elsewhere in the NT and the OT, this is not aninarticulate death cry but a final prayer to God".25

Luke's version supports this view. In Ac. 7:60, the verb translates "to26call on God" and has the sense of prayer to God. Thus there is evidence

in biblical writings that K h a s the implied meaning of "prayer".This meaning will characterise "Abba Father" as prayer.

(b) "Abba Father" occurs only three times in the NT: Mk. 14:36;Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15* Considering the dates of these books, the expression occurred first in Galatians, then in Romans and lastly in Mark. In Mark, the expression was written in connection with Jesus' prayer and in Galatians and Romans, in connection with the adoption of Christians as sons. We have here in Mark, a possible reading of the churches' later practice into theJesus tradition. This is not to say that the "Abba" prayer was a creation

of the early church. "Abba" was a distinctive characteristic of Jesus' own

^ Grundmann, TINT, III, p. 900*^ In Acts,K/JoTSfe-iv and are used for the tumultuous outcriesof the mob, e.g. Ac. 19:28, 32, 34; 21:28; 21:36.

122

prayer; for it will be difficult to explain how the disciples and the earlyChristians would have dared to address God so intimately if Jesus had notused it and encouraged His disciples to use it as well. In Mk. 14?36,"Abba Father" occurs as part of a longer prayer. In Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4?6we have just the two words. A. Seeberg in his analysis of the form "Abba

27Father", characterised it as a prayer. But this view is not withoutopponents. Paulsen wrote

i . c _ /"denn von der Form her durfte das O UotT^pals Gebet sehr kurz sein; es fehleri ‘zudem auch sont Merkmale, die das H. o als Gebetkennzeichnen k'onnten." ^8 '

> n r , ' L «We think that it will be right to consider Q iV<\7'yP as prayer becausethe form of a prayer does not affect its character. It can be a meregroaning in thought, or a sigh in which one's oppressed soul finds relief;it may consist of a single cry, a flow of words or an elaborate invocationof the Eternal. This aspect of prayer is true of most, if not all, religioustraditions. Single words as 'prayer' are well attested among Africantraditional believers, Buddhists, etc. The most important criterion ofprayer is not its form, as Paulsen wants to argue, but that in uttering sucha prayer word

"the soul, in the consciousness that God lives and hears its cry, addresses itself directly to Him as though it stood in His immediate presence .... " ^9

But what sort of prayer is "Abba Father"? It has been suggested thatAbba Father is an abbreviated version of a detailed prayer, possibly the

27 A. Seeberg, Der Katech»smv»s der Urchristenheit, 1903» p. 243* Most scholars think of "Abba Father" as prayer, but not as reference to any particular prayer.28 *-H. Paulsen, Uberlieferung und Auslegung in Romer 8, 1974> P» 89. The view that "Abba Father" is not a prayer was also expressed by Kasemann in his article "Liturgische Formeln i.m NT", RGG, 3> A.2, pp. 993-996, esp. p. 994«^ Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, p. 623.

123

Lord’s p r a y e r a n d the person who hears the "Abba Father" links it, in his mind, to that prayer. In support of this thesis, reference has been made to the fact that early Christianity has preserved in its liturgical

i iutterances a series of formulae in foreign languages; for example, >etc. Paulsen pointed out, with some measure of

certainty that these formulae are not to be regarded precisely as prayers.Besides, these formulae are not abbreviated forms of prayers. They weretransmitted entirely in their present form and in most cases they were handeddown as archaic material without the content being intelligible. Unlikec 6 t -{jq which there is evidence that it was used as a prayer,

there is no evidence that etc., were regardedas prayers, nor were they regarded as abbreviated versions of prayer.

■> c.__ _ IThus to cite such words as prayer in support of 0 as an31abbreviated form of a prayer is not acceptable.

We hold the view that "Abba Father" is a prayer but it is not an abbreviated form of a formal prayer. What then is "Abba Father"? "Abba Father" must be regarded as a complete utterance and it was a phrase known and understood by the Christian community. If it was not known, it would have remained an enigma to his readers. Paul also supposes that all Christians use it since he refers to it as proof of their sonship. The

See Kittel, TDNT, 1, p. 6; Lietzmann, An die Romer, 1971» PP» 83f.;F. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, 1961, g. 214; C* K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 1957> P* 164» Paulsen, Uberlieferung, p. 90*^ 0. Kuss pointed out that Paul certainly did not see O asa reference to the "Our Father", on the contrary it appeared to him rightly thus " .... die Anrede ,abba , ,vaterc , die ja als solche inhaltsreichund schwerwiegend genug ist und im Keim das ganze Evangelium enthalt, fur sich zu nehmen .... und sie nicht sogleich als Abbreviatur des Vaterunser gebetes auf zufassen, in dessen verschiedenen Versionen .... sie ja auch nicht erscheint". Romerbrief, 3 volumes,.1963-78, p. 602. Kasemann also stated that "Abba Father" is not to be thought of as the Lord’s prayer.

12k

change from the second to the first person plural - Rom. 8 s 15 - ..VCp<KtyoyfcV and Gal. 4 j6 - \r<TTfe oLoL Tc<S ^ p S ’v^S ^ vaiv _

strengthens this view that "Abba Father” was in usage everywhere, not in Palestine alone. In the two passages also, "Abba Father” is linked to the possession of the Spirit. Baptism was a well practised rite in the Christian community. Besides, the act of baptism and the reception of theSpirit were intimately linked. Also, it is only after baptism that

32believers were permitted to call God - Father. "Abba Father” willtherefore have a baptismal setting. If this is so, "Abba Father” will . be,in view of the verb , an acclamatory prayer of God as Father. Withour baptism and subsequent reception of the Spirit and our inner convictionof sonship, we burst out in all intensity, in confidence and joy, in praiseof God as Father. We say "Abba Father" under the inspiration of the HolySpirit, without whose help we cannot envisage this. "Abba Father" isevidence to us that we are the sons of God; it is evidence that we have anopen way to God and thus we can approach Him in worship, in all confidencethat He will hear us.

denotes a loud public cry. This has led some scholars to

see in our passages, references to ecstatic utterance. "Crying" led Doddto suggest that Paul had in mind

"people under the stress of strong spiritual excitement or exaltation who would break out into loud cries often unintelligible to the hearers. These cries .... independent of the thought or will of the speaker were,, regarded as utterances of the Spirit within him."

3^ The first thing which the neophytes did was to recite the "Our Father" with the community. The Apostolic constitution, composed in the C3rd, demanded of the candidates who came to be baptised that they stand and recite the prayer "which the Lord has taught us" facing the east. The special accent is the fact that newly baptised Christians call God Father immediately after baptism.33 c. H. Dodd, Romans, 1932, p. 129; see also W. Bieder, "G.ebetswirklichkeit und Gebetsmoglichkeit bei Paulus: Das Beten des Geistes und das Beten im Geist"TZ, 4» 1948, p. 24; D. G. Delling, Worship in the NT, 1962, p. 71; A. Oepke,Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THNT)^ 1957* pp. 97*‘** H. Schlier, Die Briefe an die Galater, 1962, p. 198 n.2; 0. Michel, Die Brief an die Rdmer,1963, p. 198; Kuss, RSmerbrief, pp. 602ff; E. Kasemann, An die Romer, 1974* p. 220; Paulsen, Uberlieferung, pp. 192f.

125

Bieder, noting that \<.poOfcW, in hellenistic Greek had ecstatic connotations,posed the question whether we have to think of glossolalial events in thesepassages. Mu^ner on Gal. 4*6 thinks that Paul perhaps meant

"hestimmte Erfahrungen der Urkirche, wie etwa die Glossolalie mit ihren spontanen, unartikulierten Gebetsrufen (1 Kor. 14)" ^4

Marchel also drew attention to the fact that the idea was put forward thatPaul in these two passages was making allusion to the ecstatic prayer ofglossolalia. The Greek word placed beside the Aramaic term in the phrase

was taken to indicate the plurality of tongues which willcharacterise this phenomenon. Paul in 1 Cor. 14*18 and certain members ofthe community (Ac. 19*6) are considered to have this charisma. Thus it wasconsidered that Paul was making an appeal to this ecstatic prayer of his

35readers as a public witness to their divine sonship.The force of the word used by the Apostle in Gal. 4*6 and Rom.

8:15 should not necessarily lead us to an interpretation of glossolalia.As Bieder pointed out, Paul in 1 Cor. 14 dispensed with the use of K 0o(1jfc\Veven though he was definitely speaking of glossolalia. Besides, the Apostle

here is referring to an experience known by all Christians and not to a 'phenomene transitoire’ experienced by only a few. Moreover, the expression "Abba Father" is clear and refers at least to speech spoken with reasonable words and c a n be understood by all, unlike glossolalia where special interpreters are needed. Furthermore, unlike glossolalia, there is no suggestion here of the loss of man’s self-awareness for the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are sons of God (see below).

F. Mu^ner, Der Galater brief, 1974* PP* 275f*35 *■ „ >For a discussion of how abba and O were joined see W. Marchel,Abba Pere. La priire du Christ et des Chretiens, Analecta Biblica, 1971*S. 7. MoCasland, "Abba Father", JBL, LXXII, 1953, p. 82; T. M. Taylor,"Abba Father and Baptism", SJT, 11, 1958, p. 64.

126

The third issue we must discuss is the relation of our spirit

to the Holy Spirit in this passage. In the cry "Abba Father", the Spirit

possible of two translations: first, the Spirit bears witness with ourspirit; and second, the Spirit bears witness to our spirit. The differencein translation is that in the first case, the Holy Spirit and our humanspirit are linked together as two witnesses to the fact that Christians arechildren of God and the second translation, our human spirit is the recipientof the Spirit's testimony.

Parratt claims that "most commentators see two distinct witnesses toadoption - the human spirit and also the Holy Spirit". M. Black observedthat "two witnesses according to the OT injunction establish the truth ofany statement and here the witnesses are first the Holy Spirit .... and then

37the Christian himself". 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5*19 show that Paul recognisedthe formal principle of multiple witness. Thus the idea of the Holy Spiritwitnessing with our_spirit will not be new. Therefore, in Rom. 8:16, "thereader is reminded that the Holy Spirit bears consistent witness with the

Christian's own spirit that he is a child of God".The second translation also has its supporters including Calvin, Godet,

Preiss and Cranfield. Preiss, for example, argued that nowhere else in Paul39is the certainty of acceptance with God attributed to the human spirit.

Cranfield argued for the second translation with the question "but what standing has our spirit in this matter?" and continued "that of itself, the human

3^ J. K. Parratt, "The Witness of the Holy Spirit", B£, 41» 19^9, p. 166; see also Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 203; Stevens, Theology, p. 44;Trites, NT Witness. p. 202.37 Black, Romans, p. 119.38 Trites, NT Witness, p. 202.39 T. Preiss, "The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and Scripture", Int., 7, 1953, pp. 264f.

our spirit that we are God's children.

127

spirit has no right at all to testify to our being- sons of God”.40 To thesescholars then, it seems better to follow the example of the Vulgate and

We accept the first view. (a) There is evidence that Paul is aware of the principle of multiple witness. (b) Paul writes sometimes that itis the Spirit who prays in us and sometimes that it is us who pray in theSpirit; this is an indication that the Holy Spirit works jointly with our spirit. (c) Disciples, in the power of the Spirit declare to the world the wondrous work of Christ; similarly, our spirit, filled with the conviction of sonship can, in'the power of the Spirit, declare to the world of this sonship. We think that Paul has in mind the world as the recipient of this cry, not our spirit.

In both Rom. 8:15f • and Gal. 4**6 therefore, it is clear that Paul is speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the possession of the Holy Spirit which is the immediate source of our sonship. By sonship we are brought into divine favour and fellowship. This has the implication that we can worship God in all confidence and with the assurance that we shall be heard. It is noteworthy then that in Rom. 8:15f. and Gal. 4:6, the Holy Spirit is the subject of prayer. These implications can also be drawn from the passage: (i) although it is the Spirit who makes it possiblefor us to worship God effectively, it is God who provides the means by which we can come to Him; He sends His Spirit to us; (ii) Paul writes in Gal. 3:26,27 that we are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, and again inGal. 4s6 that the Spirit is "the Spirit of the Son"; these are probable indications to the fact that the work of the Spirit here is also the work

take with the dative - in the sense of "testify to, or..41assure ♦..

4^ Cranfield, Romans, p. 403*

41 Ibid.

128

of Christ; (iii) to approach God in the right manner, we need to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is necessary that we respond to this inspiration - we must not only receive the Spirit but we must also work with Him.

It must also be noted that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit need not be supposed always to be glossolalia. The context will be an indication of this.

1 Cor. 14:14.15. These two verses form a complete unit with the wholeof chap. 14* In this chapter, Paul is dealing with two important issues:(i) the relative value and use of prophecy and speaking in tongues ( w . 1-25)and (ii) orderly conduct in public worship. He argues clearly in thischapter that prophesying is to be preferred over speaking in tongues becausethe former, since it is understood, edifies the church, whereas without aninterpreter, tongue speaking does not. Tongue speaking is not profitableto the church; it is as useless to the church as a conversation between twopeople neither of whom understands a word of what the other is saying(w.10,11). There has been so much discussion on the question of tongue-speaking^ that a detailed discussion of it here will not be worthwhile.However, it is clear in our verses that Paul is discouraging the practiceof speaking of tongues among Christians.

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the mind also."

P. W. Beare, "Speaking with Tongues. A Critical Survey of the NT evidence", JBL, 83, 1964» PP« 229-246; A. H. Hoe,kema, What about Tongue-Speaking? 1966;G. Cutten, Speaking with Tongues. Historically and Psychologically Considered, 1927; J. P. M. Sweet, "A Sign of Unbelievers : Paul's attitude to Glossolalia" NTS, 13, 1966-67, pp. 240-257; R. Gundry, "Ecstatic Utterance", JTS, NS 17, 1966, 299-307; R. H. Fuller, "Tongues in the NT", ACQ,3, 1963, pp. 162-168;N. I. J. Engelsen, Glossolalia and other forms of Inspired Speech according to 1 Cor. 12-14. 1970, Yale Univ. Dissertation.

129

According to v.14> speaking in tongues implies praying with "my spirit"^ to the exclusion of the intellect. The result is unintelligent prayer:I do not understand what I am saying neither is it understandable by others.This type of prayer is not to be preferred. Intelligent speech, prayerand song is equally spiritual, and does not give any less evidence of the Holy Spirit within us. Moreover it has one advantage over unintelligible utterances - it is understandable.

Thus in our verses, Paul is drawing a distinction between an intelligibleSpirit-inspired prayer and an unintelligible Spirit-inspired prayer. Heprefers clear and intelligible worship for the sake of edification of the church.

In conclusion, we can draw these two inferences: (a) for reasons ofedification, a Spirit-inspired prayer has to be intelligible; (b) a prayer does not have to be glossolalic to be Spirit-inspired.

Eph. 6:18 . This verse concludes that great passage in the epistle on the armour of God in the believer's warfare. Taken with the preceding verses, prayer in this verse has two possible interpretations. First, either it is the seventh piece of armour or second, it is being used here to express the metaphorical sense of all arms mentioned and of their use in daily life.44

What does the statement "pray in the Spirit" mean?

"my spirit" is possible of three meanings: (a) the human spirit whichis part of our psychological make up but is non-rational, thus distinct from mind; (b) the Holy Spirit; (c) the spiritual gift of glossolalia. Interpretation (c) appears more probable - see Barrett, 1st Corinthians. 1971* p. 320. Into this meaning, three clarifying points have been compressed:(l) it is the Holy Spirit who is inspiring the Christian prayer, (2) this inspirational work of the Spirit is crystallised into a specific gift, (3) a gift which is personal and can be spoken of as "my spirit".44 por a discussion of these two points, see M. Barth, Ephesians 4-6, 1974* p. 777- We question the identification of prayer as the seventh armour - it does not appear to be part of the armour at all.

130

"To pray .... in the Spirit means to pray in that awarenessof God which the Spirit brings to be able to approach Himin simple trusting confidence as a child to his father (Rom. 8:15*16); it means to pray in the knowledge that the Spirit helps our weakness and even 'intercedes for us'(Rom. 8:26). It is an approach to God relying not onour own piety but on the help which God in his Spiritoffers to us." 45

We are not citing this comment as a representative of what scholars havethought of the statement in Eph. 6:18; we are citing it because we thinkthat it contains the important issues that need to be pointed out here.

> fFirst is a reference to the Holy Spirit. He enables us topray to God because he brings us close to God - as a son to a father.Second, we are able to pray, because of God's love who sends us the Spirit."Pray in the Spirit" also involves vigilance on the part of the Christian,"hold yourselves open to prayer of the Spirit", Dunn writes.^ This becomesclear when we take the next line of the verse into consideration friSoCyjDOTWtiVJY«fcS €rV U QflTKo Tfc jcrfci.. The purpose of staying awake is

> _ t"praying". The Greek word used here is nutiVtvJ which literally means "to lie sleepless, to pass sleepless night". The terminology was used in the story of Jesus in Gethsemane where the three closest disciples fell asleep. Most of the instances of the "stay awake" stories-in the NT are associated with an all out prayer; intense and earnest prayer to God.

Thus in Eph. 6:18 also, the Spirit is the source of access to God inprayer; the inspirer, the energiser and sustainer of Christian prayer.Prayer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, obviously leads us to the

> — 1question of glossolalia. In 1 Cor. 14*. 16, the phraseappears and there it clearly denotes ecstatic prayer. Thus scholars have assumed a relationship between the use of 6W in Eph. 6:18 and

^ C. L. Mitton, Ephesians (NCB), 1976, p. 228. ^ Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 245*

131

glossalalia. For example, George Johnston interpreted the Ephesian passagein terms of ecstasy^ and Dunn finds in it a possible allusion to glossolalia.^The phrase appears in I Cor. 14:6; the context demands aninterpretation of glossolalia. Eph. 6:18 is not synonymous with theCorinthian passage. There must be a difference in the Greek to maketranslators use different prepositions - "with" and "in" and also by usinga capital "S" for "in the Spirit" and a small "s" for "with the spirit".Besides, the Ephesian context is that of a warrior getting ready to do battleagainst the powers and principalities of darkness - a situation of solemnand grim determination to be victorious rather than ecstatic and incoherentbabbling cases. We do not think that "pray in the Spirit" refers to

49glossolalia.

Phil. 3:3• In this verse, Paul contrasts himself and Christians withJudaiserss "for we are the circumcision, who worship God in spirit, andglory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh also". Paul's use

— n 1of ue^iTo^i for Christians shows him giving a new content to the word asthe true Israel; that content we find in Rom. 2:28f. The true significanceof circumcision does not lie in the physical operation (which the Jewsthought mediated salvation now and in the future world); the true circum-

50cision is that of the heart. This idea is found expressed in Rom. 2:28f:"for he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision isa matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal."

^ G. Johnston (ed.), Ephesians, Philippians, Colosslans and Philemon, 1967*p. 27.a Q

Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 245*^ Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, 1971* P* 301.

F. W. Beare, Philippians. 1959* P» 104f.; Meyer, TDNT, VI, p. 83*J. H. Michael, Philippians, 1948, p. 136f.; M. R. Vincent, Philippians and Philemon, 1922, p. 93; K. Grayston, Philippians and Thessalonians, 1967* P» 37-

132

This interpretation of circumcision goes back to Jeremiah (4:4)» it is51also found in the theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Roman

passage as well as our passage, it is evident that circumcision of theheart is the work of the Spirit, not of man. Elsewhere, Paul speaks ofbaptism as the Christian circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11fwhich would imply that, to P a u l , m e a n s €rWatt £-v/ #

There are three characteristics of the fact that "we are the truecircumcision": (1) we worship God in Spirit (2) we glory in Christ Jesusand (3) we do not rely on the flesh. The first characteristic Qt• fcou X^jpfcuoVTfeSis what interests us here. There are two other variant

readings to this phrase: (a) some manuscripts (D P 88 436 1962(l984 tiuj) 2127, etc.) have the dative and (b) the Beatty papyrus omitsthe word for 'God' altogether. Working on the principle of LectiodifficiliQ-r valet we can argue that the difficulty and awkwardness of thefirst variant led to the creation of the two variant readings. Besidesthe difficult reading , has the support of an impressive list ofmanuscripts ( A B C Dc G K 33 81 104 181 326, etc.). How do we translatethis Greek phrase? Some translations, (Mft, RSV, Bruce) support thereading "who worship God in spirit". This makes "God" the object of worship.The implication here is that Paul envisages

"the worship of the true Christian to be offered in the domain of the spirit, not in the realm of external ceremonies." 52

This translation, however, leaves room for speculation as to whether "spirit" refers to the human spirit or the Holy Spirit. But it will be wrong to

51 There is a difference - in the Scrolls, it is necessary to be a Jew and consequently possess the Covenant sign, but its physical presence is not enough "to protect one from falling under the sway of Belial". Meyer, TDNT,VI, p. 82.

I-Jin Loh and E. A. Nida, Philippians, (A Translator's Handbook), 1977* p. 92.

Owing to an error in numbering, there is no page 133.

13k

think of "spirit” here as a reference to the human spirit. In the Greek New Testament the term "spirit” without a qualifier usually means the Holy Spirit, so it is more likely that "spirit" here is not the human spirit hut the Holy Spirit. Thus, a number of translations prefer another reading "who worships by the Spirit of God". The implication of this reading is that, it is the Spirit alone who can inspire us to worship God. The word XaiTj t-vjS/O' was used in the OT in the context of the sacrificial cultus.

But in the NT, the sacrificial connotation is completely secondary except in Hebrews where we find a strong usage of the word due to the epistle's cultic ideas. We find it used to refer to prayer (Lk. 2:37; Ac. 26:7) and more generally to the whole Christian life as inspired by the Spirit. Strathmann argues that in Phil. 3:3 XoiT^fcutW is used "in a broad metaphorical sense in which it comprises the whole of Christian existence” and should "not be restricted to prayer".^ If O'- "iTVtj6' Tv. Xp<Tpfc'J^viTtrS is a proof

of our being "the true circumcision", then a much broader interpretation than "prayer" is required. The "true circumcision" is that of the heart; the heart is the centre of our actions, thus Ot )fcOU X<*T^>tOOVTfc-Sraus t be a reference to our whole Christian life as worked out by the Spirit in order to reflect the total content of "circumcision of the heart".

For our purpose, one thing is clear from this passage - worship is effective through the Holy Spirit.

The theme "pray in the spirit" is also found in Jude 20 and Rev. 1:10.In Jude 20, the writer encourages his readers to continuous prayer: "But you,beloved, build yourself up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit".

53 The word occurs 21 times in the NT: 8 times in Luke (1:745 2:37? 4:8;Ac. 7:7,42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23); 6 in Hebrews (8:5; 9:9,14; 10:2; 12:28; 13:10); 4 in Paul (Rom. 1:9,25; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3); 2 in Revelation(7:15; 22:3) and 1 in Matthew (4:10). For a full discussion of the word andits usage in the LXX and the NT, see Strathmann, TDNT, IV, pp. 58-65.54 Strathmann, op,, cit.. p. 64.

135

The purpose of the prayer is to build up their faith. A glossolalic55reference is presumed in this verse by Dunn; Green also noted that a

suggestion of prayer in tongues has been made in connection with the Jude 56passage. The Jude passage calls for attentive and careful building up

of one's faith thus we find it difficult to see how glossolalia cancontribute to this.

In Rev. 1:10, the expression has been taken57by exegetes to be an ecstatic experience, possibly a trance or a dream.

In this state, John was open to the Holy Spirit. The importance of thisy r\verse for our examination lies in the time it occurred - \v W P

t / There has been debate as to what this day is. Three mainsuggestions are given. First, it refers to the eschatological Day of

58 59Yahweh. Second, it refers to the Easter Sunday and third, it refers60 *N 0 |to the Sunday of the week. It is clear, however, that

was a day of worship. Thus it has been suggested that John was at worship; anyway no indication is given that he was with other worshippers. The

55 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 246.^ E. M. B. Green, II Peter and Jude, 1968, pp. l83f.

^ R. H. Mounce, Revelation. 1977* P« 75; L. Morris, Revelation. 1969» P* 51* E. Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 1970* P* 15* M. Ford, Revelation, 1975* P* 382;M. Kiddle, Revelation. 1947* P* 11* H. Charles, Revelation (ICC), vol. 1,1920, p. 22.

Beasley-Murray, Revelation (NCB), 1974* P* 64f.; of. R. H. Mounce, Revelation, p. 76: he noted and correctly too that if it were a reference tothe eschatological day of the Lord, we would have expected the more usual

KV)|Otou of •; Thess. 5:2, II Pet. 3:10 rather than ^ whichapart from our text occurs in the NT in 1 Cor. 11:20.59 C.W. Dugmore "Lord's Day and Easter" was published in the Oscar Cullmann Festschrift Volume, Neotestamentica et Patristica, pp. 272-81 (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. VI, 1962); K. A. Strand, "Another Look at 'Lord's Day' in the Early Church and in Rev. 1:10",NTS, 13* 1966-67, pp. 174-81.^ L. Morris, Revelation, p. 51* W. Stott, "A Note on the Word KYPIAKH in Rev. 1:10", NTS. 12, 1965-66, p. 75? R. H. Charles, Revelation, 1, p. 22.

136

emphasis here, however, must . not be on whether John was with other worshippers or not; what is important is that John fell into a trance at a time when Christians were united in prayer. This condition is also mentioned in 4*2; 17!3* 21:10.

The is the Holy Spirit. Although John’s state wasan ecstatic one, it involved no glossolalic utterance; for there was no loss of consciousness and John is able to inform the reader that he knew full well what was happening.

What is the cumulative force of these passages? (i) The help of the Spirit in prayer is not an isolated reference in Rom. 8:26f. The reference to it appears also in the Johannine Gospel as well as the Pauline writings. Referring to the Spirit's intercession in a context of prayer would have been understood by his readers.. (ii) The most important point which comes out clearly is that effective worship or prayer is possible only by the Holy Spirit. In Galatians, it is the Spirit who enables the Christians to pray.In Romans, the Spirit is said to give us the power to call God "Abba Father". Thus it stands out that it is the Spirit who enables us to pray in the way that is characteristically Christian. We need the Spirit in prayer because he provides that direct meeting with God and most crucial, he understands not only the mind of God but also the mind of the struggling Christian.(iii) There are two implications of the Spirit's help in prayer: (a) it isGod who makes possible effective prayer because He sends the Spirit to believers; (b) possession of the Spirit is possible through union with Christ; his work is the work of Christ, thus the Spirit's inspirational prayer is also the prayer of Christ. (iv) Spirit inspired prayers should not necessarily be understood as references to glossolalic utterances. It has to be determined from the context.

137

An important question to ask at this point is: how do theseconclusions help towards an understanding of Rom. 8:26f? That Rom. 8:26f.is related to these passages cannot be denied; Luther related Gal. 4:6 toit, that refers to the "sighs too deep for words"; Heufelder

61examined Rom. 8:15f- and Jn. 4:23 in connection with Rom. 8:26f. We canplace these "Spirit in prayer" passages in two groups. The first group ofEph. 6:18, Jude 20, have an imperative sense. The second group of Rom.8s 15f *» Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor. 14:14f*5 Phil. 3:3 do not. Rom. 8:26f. doesnot have an imperative sense. How are we to understand this command?It simply means to pray "in the power or under the control of the Spirit and

62with the ability given by the Spirit". We approach God, relying not onour strength but on that of the Spirit. This is also the implication ofthe non-imperative passages. Thus it is not right to see a difference in our two groups. We can now safely make our observations on Rom. 8:26f.

(a) It is clear, from the discussion in this chapter, that the Holy Spirit ensures effective prayer. This makes of Rom. 8:26f.unquestionably the Holy Spirit. Zwingli, Cltramare and others (see pp.178,191ff\ have argued that in our passage refers to the human spirit. Thisview, against the background of "spirit in prayer" passages, is found to be wrong.

(b) Spirit inspired prayers are in most cases understood with glossolalic connotations. Thus OrTfcNocypcc which express the prayerof the Spirit has thus been understood (see pp.198flf» 217fif).It is evident,however, that a prayer can be Spirit inspired without necessarily beingglossolalic. A glossolalic interpretation derives from the context. This makes us cautious as to the acceptance of the glossolalic interpretation

_ > ) V ' Vgiven to ^ itV=<YP0,L- ®<A0(Xr TcC'

^ E. M. Heufelder, Der Geist Betet in uns, 1973, pp. 18-22; 35—42. ^ C. F. D. Moule, Holy Spirit, 1978, p. 31.

138

(c) Since God sends us the Spirit, He is the ultimate source of effective prayer. He sends us the Spirit because He loves us. The love of God thus underlies Rom. 8:26f. and the other "Spirit-prayer" passages.

In this note we find a link between v.26f. and the w . 28-39 (this passage ends in the note that the Christian will remain in the love of God forever) and thus can say that w . 28-39 axe a perfect follow-up to v.26f.

(d) We noted in the discussions of this chapter that the possession of the Spirit is possible through union with Christ. This implies that the work of the Spirit is also the work of Christ. His prayer is also the prayer of Christ. Thus in w.26f., in the work of the Spirit, we must see the work of Christ also. On this basis we see a close link betweenw. 2 6 f . and v.34 and thus can understand why the Apostle in both verses

c / > _ /used the preposition Ufttp together with the verb to describe theintercessions of both Christ and the Spirit .

(e) The discussions in this chapter also provide a basis on which to link (D cic yfev (v.26) to ■Q-fccv (v.27). Prayer in the Spirit iseffective because the Spirit is of God and knows His will. Thus he helps us to pray according to God's will. This implies that our inability to pray is our ignorance of God's will.

With this background information, it is now appropriate to examine Rom. 8:26f. itself. We shall discover how the passage has been interpreted, note the inadequacy of past interpretations and offer our own Tinderstanding of it.

139

CHAPTER FOUR

THE INTERPRETATION OF ROM. 8:26f.

This chapter divides into two sections. The first section gives a history of exegesis. Our aim is to draw attention to the different interpretations of Rom, 8:26f, which have been offered over the periods. In the second section, we shall re-examine the interpretations and submit views which have been expressed to fresh analysis,

SECTION A

HISTORY OF EXEGESIS

We shall concern ourselves with three periods: (a) thepatristic period, (b) the reformation, (c) modern scholarship. In the patristic period, we want to determine (i)how the earliest interpreters of the Bible understood the verses;(ii) to what extent they influenced subsequent interpreters and (iii) how helpful patristic exegetical insights are to modern exegetes so far as Rom, 8;26f, is concerned. We hope to include as much patristic material as possible though our investigation will by no means claim to be comprehensive. In the reformation period, our study will be limited to the interpretations of the passage by Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon and Zwingli, The reasons for this limitation are: (l) mostof the scholars of the post-reformation period, took the cue

for their intepretation of this passage from the interpretations of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon (although varied, in terms of development and modification). If we understand the views of these four scholars on this passage, the implication is that we understand the fundamental principles on which subsequent protestant exegetes based their intepretations , •(2 ) Brownson has produced a doctoral thesis on the protestant exegesis of Rom, 8:26, 27* This work spanned the reformation and post-reformation periods. We wish to avoid a discussion of Rom, 8:26, 27 in reformation and post—reformation periods because we do not want to repeat Brownson's work here.Besides, our main concern here is not a discussion of protestant exegesis of Rom, 8:26f. In this period also, we want to determine the similarities and differences in intepretation and relate them to the patristic exegesis. In the period of modern scholarship, we shall limit our study to scholars of the C20th but where necessary we shall refer to exegetes of an earlier date. The purpose is to determine the influence of the fathers on the modern interpretation of this passage and also to help define clearly the problems involved in Rom, 8:26f.It must be mentioned also that the examination of the interpretations of Rom, 8:26f, over these periods, will help to highlight the difficulties in the passage and afford us material for our re—examination.

141

(a ) THE PATRISTIC EXEGESIS. When we turn our attention to the interpretations of* Rom. 8:26f*. by the fathers, we notice that two main phrases are commented on: (i) for we do notknow how to pray as we ought; (ii) the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words.

(i) FOR WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRAY AS WE OUGHTORIGEN: We strike a fruitful vein of exegesis on this phrasein the writings of Origen. A gem among his writings is hiswork on Prayer. The immediate occasion of the treatise was aletter addressed to Origen by his friend Ambrose in associa-

1tion with a lady named Tatiana which stated, either on their behalf or on behalf of others, certain objections or difficulties in regard to the practise of prayer. For example, if(a) God knows the future beforehand and it must come to pass, prayer is in vain and (b) if all things happen according to the will of God and if what is willed by him is fixed and nothing of what he wills can be changed, prayer is in vain.It was to tackle these problems that Origen produced his work on prayer. In his treatise, we find an insight into his understanding of Rom 8:26f.

On the phrase I'D ^ |90<TfeolEju>Ufc a(. Ko<'6o\ Vx ' I \OVK , Origen wrote

"So it is necessary not only to pray, but also to pray ’as we ought* and to pray for what we ought. For it is not enough that we should be able to pray for what we ought, unless in

Tatiana is not known for certain. It has been suggested that she was Ambrosius* wife. But in the epistle to Africanus, Ambrosius* wife is called Marcella. However, Tatiana may be a second name. On the other hand she may have been Ambrosius* sister. The question is discussed in the Monitum which precedes the Libellus de Oratione in Migne, PG, XI.

142

addition we possess the 'as we ought*. And what does the 'as we ought* profit us, if we do not know how to pray for what we o u g h t ?

Ve can infer from the above statement that two things contribute to our inability to pray - our ignorance of (a)(what we ought) and (b) Sfec (as we ought). He explained

0 „that O Ofc\, is concerned with the words of prayer andwith the condition of the one who is praying. To

elucidate & and K ^ -©© t he cited passagesfrom the Gospels.(a ) Cb ^6-W . The believer is to ask for heavenly things andearthly things will be added (Matt. 6:33* Lk. 12:31)} he is topray for them that despitefully use him (Lk. 6:28)} he is to pray to the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into his harvest (Lk. 10:2; Matt. 9*38)* he must pray that he does not enter into temptation (Lk. 22:40) etc* In view of these examples, it is clear that is to refer to theobject of prayer (despite his definition that O isconcerned with words of prayer)(b) VC<A ~0 • Origen gave the following examples to explainfas we ought*. The believer must pray in every place liftingup holy hands without anger and disputes (l Tim. 2:8-10); he should make his peace with those he has offended and be reconciled to them before he offers his gifts to God (Matt. 5:23-24); he is also requested to appear before God in prayer, in proper clothing (1 Cor. 11:3* 5) etc. These examples make clear Origen*s understanding of the phrase Mfor we do not know how to pray as we ought". We are unable to pray because,2J. E. L. Oulton and H. Chadwick (trans.), Alexandrian Christianity (LCC), Vol. 2, 195^* p»240; for the Greek text see P. Koetschau, Origenes Werke. Vol. 2, 1899* P*299*3We do not think there is much difference between these twoideas words of prayer and object of prayer. The words <&v»w««<r ,«v « ~ „-k np or aver.

1*0

firstly we do not ask for the proper things and secondly, the atmosphere in which we pray is not conducive to effective prayer.

CHRYSOSTOM: In his Homilies on Romans , Chrysostom commentedon our phrase thus

"and this he said to show the Spirit's great concern about us and also to instruct them not to think for certainty that those things are ^ desirable which to man's reasonings appear so”.

We are to note two things in this statement: (1) Paul madethis assertion as a lead on to the Spirit's help; (2) Ourhigh estimation of things should not make them desirable.He elaborated on the second point that when a Christian isbeing scourged, or persecuted, what he thinks of naturallyis to ask for an end to the suffering. If God has a purposein the scourging and persecution, then the request for thecessation of the suffering will not be according to God'swishes. Such a request will not be granted. From this, heargued for the feebleness of man and his total dependence onGod's aid. We need God's aid even to pray properly. This lackof divine aid means that we do not know God’s will and therefore

5cannot pray accordingly. Elsewhere , he restated his view that we are unable to ask for things which accord with the wishes of God:

"for many times it is more profitable for you not to obtain what you have prayed for. For unlesswhat we ask is expedient for us, it will certainlynot be granted to us: so that it is equally a gainto obtain our request and not to obtain it"

h J. Chrysostom, The Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, p.250.^M. F. Toal, The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. Vol. 2, 1960, p.388. In this sermon also, he outlined other reasons why our prayers might go unanswered.

'ikk

Therefore, according to Chrysostom, we do not know how to pray as we ought” because we do not know God*s will which he attributed to the fact that we are feeble and as such nothing by ourselves,

THEODORE OF MOPSUBSTIA: According to Theodore, "we do not knowg

how to pray as we ought" because we lack faith in God*s abilityto grant certain requests. Thus we only ask for things whichwe think will be granted but do not ask for those things whichby our reckoning cannot be granted. It is this inability toexpect sin answer to some of our requests that Theodore thought,

7Paul called a lack of knowledge of how we ought to pray*

THEOPHYLACT: His comments were that Paul is here thinking ofChristian patience. To encourage the reader, Paul spoke of the Spirit*s help thus - do not give up your hope and patience, for the Spirit helps you provided that you contribute in hope and endurance. Theophylact made three points in his comments on the phrase in question..(a) We do not know how to pray because we are weak.(b) This weakness applies to everyone - Paul himself included for he also prayed about the thorn in the flesh and about going to Rome, Moses prayed to see Palestine and Jeremiah prayedfor the Jews. Their prayers were not answered because they did not know what to pray for. •(c) This was probably written with the faithful in Rome in mind. It was to be expected that the faithful in Rome who£ Chrysostom stated further that Paul used the first person plural(we) for two reasons, (l) he did not want the learner to feel any shame that he (the learner) does not know how to pray(2 ) He (Paul) and indeed all men, also do not know how to pray (2 Cor. 12:8 j Deut. 3:26; Jer. 15:1).^K. Staab, Pauluskowuflgflb -e aus der Griedo'ifi^Wrv Kirche. 1933»p.140.

were probably suffering persecution would pray for relief and if they did not get it might loose faith. Therefore Paul here is encouraging those under severe pain to endurance because no-one knows how to pray for what is expedient. It is the Spirit only who knows what is expedient for us.

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO: To the question: why the Apostle said"we do not know what we should pray for as we ought", Augustine stated t

"we think that his reason for saying it, since it was not possible for him to speak impulsively or untruthfully, was because temporal trials and troubles are often useful for curing the swelling of pride, or for proving and testing our patience, and, by this proving and testing, winning for it a more glorious and more precious reward; or for chastising and wiping out certain sins, while we, ignorant of these benefits, wish to be delivered from all trouble."®

We can infer from this statement that certain trials andtroubles which face the Christian are sometimes employed byGod with a purpose - of testing our patience and of humblingus. The trials are often hard and painful. Thus withoutrealising the purpose to which these sufferings serve, werequest to be rid of them. Such a request would not begranted. It does not accord with God*s wishes. He continuedthat should our requests not be granted "we are not to thinkthat we are thereby forsaken by Him, but rather by lovingly

9bearing evil, we are to hope for greater good". He cautioned that God, in His wrath against those who lack patience, grants what they ask. Augustine cited the example of the Israelites

8W. Parsons, St. Augustine (Letters). Vol. 2 (83- 130), 1953» p.395* For the Latin text, see S. Aureli Augustini, epistularum CXXX, 25.^Parsons, Augustine (Letters). 2, p.396; *ad Probam' XIV, 26,

146

(1 Kg. 8:5-7)* They asked for a king. God gave them a kingaccording to their heart, but not according to His heart(other examples he cited include Job 1:12; 2:6, Matt. 8:30—32;Lk. 8:32). These examples, he said, are there so that

"no one may think well of himself if his prayer is heard, when he has asked impatiently for what it would be better for him not to receive, and that no one may be cast down and may despair of the divine mercy toward him if his prayer has not been heard, when he has, perhaps, asked for something which, would bring him more bitter suffering if he received it or would cause his downfall if he were ruined by p r o s p e r i t y " . ^

To Augustine then, "we do not know how to pray as weought" because our prayers are self-motivated. We do not oftenask for what God intends us to have. The course of this isthat we do not know God's will. He therefore advised thatshould anything contrary to what we pray for happen, we shouldbear it patiently and never forget to ask "what the will of

11God intends and not what we will ourselves".Augustine's interpretation is similar to that of Chrysostom.

These two maintained that Christians often request for things which by their consideration are worthy, but because we do not know the will of God, these demands are more often in opposition to what God really intends us to have. In relation to Origen's interpretation, one might argue that, that of Chryrostom and Augustine represent a step further. Origen had stated that •we do not know how to pray as we ought' because (a) we do not ask for the proper things and (b) we do not put ourselves in a condition, conducive to effective prayer. The cause of this twofold hindrance to our prayer life could be due to our ignorance of the will of God. A link between Origen's

1°Parsons, Augustine (Letters). 2, p.397> "ad Probam" XXV, 26

1^7

interpretation (on the one hand) and that of Chrysostom andAugustine (on the other) might be found in the early pagesof Augustine*s letter to Proba. The lady Proba had askedfor the bishop’s advice on the Pauline statement that "we donot know how to pray.*." In response, Augustine enumeratedwhat we have to ask for in prayer and how we have to pray.The Christian should pray for happiness - happiness that willensure friendship, love and joy amongst those whom he findshimself. The Christian must refrain from speaking too muchwhen praying; for prayer I.CSQS its essence when the believerspeaks too much. The Christian must pray insistently (lk.18:1-8, 11:5-13)» Augustine further advised that, thebeliever must pray with faith, hope and charity. Also, thebeliever is to model his prayers on that of the Lord's prayer.

"But whoever says anything in his prayer which does not accord with the gospel prayer, even if his prayer is not the forbidden sort, it is carnal ^and X am not sure it ought not be called forbidden ..." *

that is, any prayer which does not correspond in meaning tothe Lord’s prayer is not a good prayer. The believer whouttered the prayer does not know how to pray as he ought.Augustine believed that an examination of all the words ofthe holy prayers will show nothing which is not containedand included in the Lord’s prayer. This does not mean thatwe must repeat the words of the Lord’s prayer any-time wepray - "it is allowable to say the same things in differentwords but it ought not to be allowable to say differentthings" . 3

1 2 0 p . cit.. p . 393; "ad Probam" XII, 2 2

130P. cjt.. p.39*M Ibid

148

These examples of* Augustine correspond to those of*Origen cited in support of his interpretation (see p«l42) .Thus when we take Augustine's comments here, in conjunction with his later comments outlined above(pp, lipJEf)fit appears that his later comments (that we do not know how to pray because what we request in prayer do not accord with God's wishes) must be the cumulative thought arising from the earlier comments. In this therefore, we can find a link between Origen's interpretation and that of Chrysostom and Augustine,

PELAGIUS; He expressed the view that Paul’s assertion stemmedfrom the fact that the believer is unable to express preciselywhat he felt in his heart in prayer. The believer sees througha mirror and often things which he thinks are beneficial arebad for him and for that reason what he asked for is not granted

1him by divine providence. The cause of our inability to pray as we ought is that we are subject to illusions about what is best for us. This results from our ignorance of the will of God,

1 5AMBROSTASTER The preceding verses spoke of believers groaningto be freed from the suffering and pain into which they have been placed. Thus they want now, the future glory which has been promised, writes Ambrosiaster. Due to their impatience, believers pray for those things which are contrary to reason — things which God would not be willing to give to us now,

1^A, Souter, Pelagius - Expositlo in Romanos, TS, 9> 1926, p.67«^H, I, Vogels (ed, ) Ambrosiastri qui dicitur commentarius in epistulas Paulinas, I (in epistulam ad Romanos), 1966, p.287f•

Due to our ignorance we are deceived into thinking that those things we ask for are advantageous when in actual fact they are foolish. He drew attention to Paul's praying three times for a thorn to be removed from him and drew the lesson that a person is able to store up merit when he is found to be patient in enduring hardships.

From Ambrosiaster1s comments, we can deduce that two things contribute to our weak prayers - (a) our impatience to get now what has been promised to us for the future and(b) ignorance of what we really need.

THEODORET: He said that the Christian is not to ask to befree from those things which are painful, for he does not

16know what is good for him as God does, who directs everything.In this statement is the suggestion that the Christian is ignorant of the will of God. Thus he suggested that the believer gives himself to Him who holds the helm of the universe.

PRIMASIUS: In his interpretation, he said that often thethings which we think are good for us are obstacles and for that reason they are not given to us; rather God provides us with better things. Here also, we find the suggestion that the believer does not ask for the appropriate things in prayer because he does not know the will of God.

In the interpretations of the fathers examined above, it comes out clearly that the assertion of Paul that "we do not know how to pray as we ought" was understood in the sense that the Christian is unable to request for what God in reality wanted him to have. The cause of this inability is that we

^Theodoret, PGj 82, Col. 1^0.

150

do not know God's will* We are ignorant of His purpose in our sufferings and trials and so we request for sin end to these. The reason for our ignorance of God's will is given as our feebleness, our subjection to illusionisms, impatience etc. All these can be attributed to the fact that we are human and thus cannot fully understand the workings of the Divine,

(ii) THE SPIRIT HIMSELF INTERCEDES FOR US WITH SIGHS TOO DEEP FOR WORDSTwo main questions are to be asked in relation to the

) \ _ N, _, **above statement: (a) does <^OTO TO u^fcy^ctrefer to the Holyf > V t vSpirit or the human spirit and (b) how is <y7fcye* o$> =* V itoS

interpreted by the fathers?ORIGEN: (a) In his treatise on prayer, Origen identifiedthis o^JTO “o "TTvikrO c with the of Gal, andthere, undoubtedly refers to the Holy Spirit,Schelkle observed that "es wird uns kaum ein Zweifel sein,

it it it iidas Rom, 8:26f, der Geist als gottliche Machtigkeit personalich 18gemeint ist11, and continued that this view was generally

maintained by the earlier Greek fathers like Origen, Didymus,i vand Gregory of Nazianzus, Although Origen interprets »<07o

^ V , rsiO as the Holy Spirit, it must be noted that generallyOrigen was not anxious to draw too sharp a distinction between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit, The human spirit is the good element in man standing in opposition to the flesh but it needs the help and instruction of the Holy

17 Oulton and Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity, p,2*1-1 ; Koetschau , Origenes Werke, 2, p,301,18K. H, Schelkle, Paulus, Lehrer der Vater, die qifc. kirchliche,A u s V e g w g 3 \^S jb ) p. 0 , 0 5 .

151

Spirit, "The aim of* Christian life is not the separation19but the union of the two",

(b) He commented on the Spirit’s intercession thus"in very truth, this Spirit, not content simply to intercede with God, intensifies the intercession and intercedes exceedingly, X imagine that he does this for those who are conquering exceedingly such as Paul was ,,, probably, he merely intercedes for those who on the other hand, are so great as to conquer exceedingly and yet, on the other are not such as to be conquered but rather are conquering",^®

Two points are to be drawn from the above comment: (1) TheSpirit "intercedes exceedingly" for those whom he referredto as "conquering exceedingly"; (2) The Spirit intercedes forthose who are not so great as "to conquer exceedingly".However, such a distinction is not obvious from the text,Paul merely states that the Spirit intercedes. Can it bethat Origen*s deductions are based on the two forms of theword ’intercede* which appear in v .36 and v,27? V,26 has0^6^t\iToy‘X.<s<'Jfc-t ancj £vl~OyY«si>lfcv_ appears in v,27»There is no evidence that one of the forms has an intensivemeaning. Moreover, it is a mistake to read too much intothese forms of the word since it is not uncommon in Greekthat a simple form of a verb follows its compound verb with

21the same meaning,J v / vIn the O' itv/otyfJOS oCA°<. A’yios , Origen identified

two groanings. First, the groanings of the Christian, These

^M, Wiles, The Divine Apostle, 19^7» P«31*20Oulton and Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity, p.2^1; Koetschau, Origenes Werke, p.301,

m dt-Gingrich, (2nd edition), see pp,270 and 840. :E.'JT0yYo<Vu> and UirtyOfcvTUy'Aavio have the same meaning of " plead", "intercede",

152

groans are known and received by the Spirit* Second, the groans of* the Spirit, These are the intercession of the Spirit to God and appear to be a reshaping of the groans of the Christian, The groans of the Spirit differ from our groans in that they are no ordinary groans, They are groans which cannot be uttered. They enshroud mysteries which are not possible for men to utter, Origen related these groans of the Spirit to the unspeakable words of IX Cor, 12:4, It will be incorrect to understand Origen's reference here in terms of glossola 1 ia; first because it is not certain that II Cor, 12:4 refers to gloss olalia and second, Origen's language here does not suggest that he had glossolalic utterances in mind. It is likely that he thought of these groans as shrouding mysteries of heaven which men are not allowed to utter. The Spirit receives our groans and reinterprets them in his intercession on a condition - a condition that "our souls are humbled to the dust" and confined in "the body of humiliation". These two phrases indicate that the groans of the Christian are issued from suffering and the purpose of the suffering is to humble us,

> x v-In summary, we can say that Origen identified o(070 vOwith the Holy Spirit, In his intercession, the Spirit

takes over our groans and reshapes them. These groans of the Spirit are unspeakable because they enshroud mysteries of heaven which men are not allowed to utter,

AUGUSTINE: (a) He identified O(0TO vi th the"Holy Spirit of God, who is unchangeable God in the Trinity,

22one God with the Father and the Son", (b) The Spirit makes

^Parsons, Augustine (Letters), 2, p,398j 'ad Probam" XV, 28

153

the saints ask with unspeakable groanings and he breathesinto them the desires of* "this great thing" which is notknown but which the Christian awaits in patience. Augustine

/ i Itherefore discerned in ®Tfc\l»A^cs =kXo<.Va ToS the groans of the saints which are issued forth on the request of the Spirit.The Holy Spirit breathes into these "our groans", the desires of that which we patiently wait. The groans are unspeakable because what is desired is not known (however, not entirely

p Ounknown or else it would not be desired) and cannot be seen.

AMBROSIASTER; (a) He identified otvHO To as theHoly Spirit. The Spirit prays for us with inexpressible groans, (b) He explained the "inexpressible groans" that the Spirit of the Lord does not pray with human speech but in a manner according to his own nature. When that which is of God talks with God it must talk in a manner that befits its divine nature. The purpose of the Spirit’s intercession is to make our prayers right so as to cover our ignorance or lack of foresight. He intervenes on our behalf and prays for those things which are pleasing to God and good for us.

Two points are to be noted here: ( 1 ) CT1 fc-Moc )0£ 'o^X’AA^toSis divine language and (2 ) the Spirit’s intercession involves asking of God, the things that are good for us.

PRIMAS1US: (a) He identified cCviib To with theHoly Spirit. He makes us ask things which belong to God by inspiring and working in us. (b) TfcrVocypoL arethe groans of the believer but are inspired by the Spirit and

^This position is different from Origen’s who thought that the groans are unspeakable because they shroud mysteries which men are not allowed to utter.

15

represent requests which belong to God*

> _'v \ <-*The fathers examined above identified <x»To toas the Holy Spirit but there are some who maintained that inRom* 8:26bt Paul was not referring to the Holy Spirit but tothe yApic~|J<* of the Spirit. We find this explanation for

2kthe first time in Diodore. According to this explanation, the which intercedes for us with unspoken groansis the charisma of prayer which had been given to the Apostles* With this they plead for the church, Chrysostom echoed Diodore*s interpretation.

CHRYSOSTOM; (a) He said that the Spirit who intercedes forthe saints is to be understood as the of the

25Spirit. Chrysostom reasoned that if the Holy Spirit wasintended, v,27 would read "He that searcheth the Spirit"rather than "He that searcheth the hearts". He thereforeargued that o(UTO To WVfcGyo refers to "a gift of prayer whichalso was called a Spirit".

"And one had the gift of prophecy and foretold things to come; and another of wisdom, and taught the many; and another of healings and cured the sick; and another of miracles, and raised the dead; another of tongues, and spake different languages. And with all these there was also a gift of prayerwhich also was called a spirit, and he that hadthis prayed for all the people".2°

(b) This special endowment for prayer was given to anindividual within the congregation and with it what wasprofitable for the whole church. This person then prayed onbehalf of the church. His inspired praying relieved the

2kStaab, Pauluskommentare. p.92; Schelkle, Paulus. Lehrer.V&ter. p.305*25Chrysostom, Romans. p.251.26Ibid.

155

distress of those in the fellowship who did not know whatthey should pray for.

"Spirit, then, is the name that he (Paul) gives here to the grace of this character, and the soul that receives the grace and intercedes to God and groans. For he that was counted worthy of such grace as this, standing with much compunction and with many mental groanings falling before God, asked the things that were profitable for all".

Two points are to be noted here. First, the <9(010 VOis the gift of prayer which is given to the charismatic man.

/ ) x / _Second, Cr'Tfc'^y^ol 1.0 are the groans of thecharismatic man as he strives to put before God the requests of the community embodied in the gift. This interpretation of Chrysostom suggests glossolalic utterances.

THEODORET: (a) He said that the refers not to thesubstance of the Holy Spirit but the grace of• it which is

28given to those who believe. Ihis grace inspires the Christian to a prayer of great eagerness in inarticulate groans; (b) C*'TfcN's<.'| oc are the groans of theChristian who is under the inspiration of the grace of the Spirit which lives in us. Statements like "we are aroused", "we are set on fire", "we pray with greater eagerness" might indicate a context of glossolalia (also Chrysostom). But unlike Chrysostom*s interpretation, the communal setting is missing.

According to GENNADIUS2^ also, °WTo vO T»VfeVj^refers to the charisma sent by the Spirit; in v.27t meansour spirit. PH0T1TJS, however, suggested that both two references - the Holy Spirit, and the gift of spirit (or of

270P. cit., p.252pOPG. 124, col. 140.

o-i— do M ln s lfn m iB fin ta re . t>.382 >

156

prayer) are possible* He observed that it is the Spirithimself who takes up our cause and helps us to pray andturns everything towards good* On the other hand too, itis the gift of the Spirit which takes care of us and

30strengthens us, AMBROSIUS also, whose earlier opinion was that in Rom. 8:26f, was the personal Holy Spirit,changed this opinion in his dogmatic writing - De Spiritu Sancto. In his writing, he stated that the Spiritus in

O *|Rom* 8:26f, refers to the spiritual grace. However, it needs mentioning also that he left the possibility open that Paul might mean the Spirit.

32THEOPHYLACT , a very late father echoed Chrysostom*s interpretation, He observed that just as in the olden times God gave many and different gifts to people when they were baptised which were called spirits so that one man had the gift of prophecy, another wisdom etc, so also, in the same way, the gift of prayer was given and it was called Spirit. As a result of ignorance, believers ask for what is not expedient. But the charisma of prayer came to a member of the Christians and he stood and prayed for what benefited the congregation as a whole. He also taught the members of the congregation how to pray. According to Theophylact, "spirit” is the name Paul gave to this gift and to the spirit (human) which receives the gift of prayer and which prays to God and groans. The spiritual man stands with great pain and many groans to

3°0P. cit., p.511.31 ^Schelkle, Paulus» Lehrer, Vater, p,306.32PG. 12h, col. kk9.

157

make earnest prayers on behalf of the people• The deacon is this spiritual man* He stands praying not as if God does not know, but he who searches the heart knows the mind of the Spirit, i.e. of the spiritual man} for the spiritual man prays for what is pleasing to God on behalf of the faithful in the Church.

In the interpretations of the fathers examined, thefollowing observations were made: (l) (a) €s(vJTO lbrefers to the Holy Spirit. This view was maintained by Origen,Augustine, Ambrosiaster and Primasius. (b) A second view wasthat the c(v)lb "lb refers to the "gift of the prayer"or "the grace of the spirit", and the soul (i.e. the humanspirit) which received the gift of prayer. This view wasfirst expressed by Diodore and maintained by Chrysostom,Theodoret and Gennadius. It was also echoed by Theophylact.It is appropriate to mention the possible cause of these twointerpretations. In their controversy over the divinity ofthe Holy Spirit, the w&cVw)V contested the divinityof the Holy Spirit by appealing to Rom. 8:26f. They arguedthat if the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with pleas, it meantthat the Holy Spirit was subordinate to God. Some fathers

\ /did not agree to this view and argued that GVTOy)<(xvfcW does not mean a subordination of the Spirit nor does mean an ignorance on the part of the Holy Spirit. Despite this argument in favour of the Spirit*s divinity, later fathers agreed to explain Rom. 8:26a - with the saying about the Holy Spirit who takes upon himself our weakness — as a reference to the Holy Spirit but for Rom. 8:26b, the explanation that Paul meant not the Holy Spirit but the gift of the

158

*> NSpirit was given, Hence the two interpretations on To TNfcoyck Here is an example of how Christological

controversies influenced the biblical interpretations of the fathers, (2)(a) 1=l'tXocX<y’»0*' represent the groansof the believer as inspired by the Holy Spirit, Into these groans, the Spirit puts the requests or desires which arepleasing to God, This view was held by Augustine and

/ ) \ / \Primasius, Origen also discerned from <TTfcVoty|->ou «=cA°<.A^Toc

the groans of the believer. But unlike Augustine and Primasius, he did not attach any significance to the groans of the believer but maintained that the CTT€rVa<.y|joC <k\o(.X^“oL represent the actual groaning of the Spirit, (b) Others maintained that the "inexpressible groans" represent the ecstatic cries of the charismatic man who upon receiving the gift of prayer, strives with groans to put before God the desires of the community. This view was held by Diodore, Chrysostom, Theodoret and later by Theophylact,

We conclude our examination of the patristic interpretations by noting that first, the Pauline assertion that "we do not know how to pray as we ought" was commonly attributed to our ignorance of God*s will. The result is that our requests in prayer are more often contrary to what God intends to give us. Second, ^OTO To refers to (a) theHoly Spirit or (b) the gift of prayer said the soul which received this gift. Third may represent(a) the groans of the believer inspired by the Holy Spirit,These groans contain the requests made of God by the Spirit33-^Schelkle, Paulus, Lehrer, Vater, p,305*

159

and thus are his intercession for us. (b) They represent the actual groans of the Holy Spirit or (c) they represent the groans of the charismatic man as he strives to put before God the desires of the congregation.

We must draw attention to the following observationss(1) To explain c(OTO 10 as a gift of prayer is notcorrect. Our reasons are these: (a) From our examination of••Spirit-prayer” passages, we were convinced that Toin Rom. 8:26f. must refer to the Spirit (see p. 137)5 (l3) W© cannot see how a gift of prayer cam intercede as Tois said to do.(2 ) We find it difficult to understand how the groans of a charismatic cam constitute intercession by the Spirit. Thus we reject the explanation that crTfe-V yjjoc are thegroans of the charismatic (see pp.15^ff •) .(3) We may ask whether the explanation, that XocX<j7o<- are the groans of the believer as inspired by the Spirit,imply that the believer is involved in the act of intercession.Patristic exegesis did not define this clearly.

f ) /(*»■) If CrTfe-v/ok, ocXo^X^Tot are the groans of the Spiritdoes it imply that the Spirit is suffering physically and if so, is the suffering on our behalf? These questions are not answered by patristic exegesis.

160

(b ) THE REFORMATION EXEGESIS. In this period, Rom. 8:26f.was treated with varied importance. For Luther, Prenterreports that, it was the key to his understanding of theworking of the Holy Spirit. The importance of Rom. 8:26f.to Luther is also observed in the fact that the concept ofthe Holy Spirit completely dominated Luther's theology toan extent that

"in every decisive matter whether it be the study of Luther's doctrine of justification, of his doctrine of sacraments,of his ethics, or of any other fundamental teaching, we are forced to take into consideration the concept of the Holy Spirit".

Rom. 8:26f. was not of such importance to Calvin, Melanchthonand Zwingli.

1. MARTIN LUTHER ( 148 3-15 *16 ) When we turn to Luther's writings, it is to be observed that he interpreted Rom. 8:26f.against the background of 'the darkness of inner conflict'.

35He regarded "weakness" as a picture of the agonising inward struggle of the sinner. The sinner is in the throes of great terrors: he is harassed by conscience; he is tormented by the law and sinj he is attacked by the devil; in fact, it appears that everything outside of God allies itself with wrath against the sinner. There is nothing to strengthen, nor sustain him against these forces, except his faith in the exalted Lord. Even the consolation of prayer is denied him.In this state, instead of the believer feeling the presence of Christ and his help, he rather feels the more, the power

34R. Prenter, Spiritus Creator. 1953» p.ix.■^Luther reads it as a plural ( IS )• SeeH, C. Oswald (ed), Luther's Works, vol. 25, p.74.

161

of sin, the weakness of the flesh and his own doubts, he feels the overpowering presence of the devil, the terrors of death and the wrath of God. All these issue powerful and horrible cries against him so that there appears to be nothing left for him except despair and eternal death. This is a situation of desperation; and this is what Luther tinderstood by k c r .

It is precisely in this situation of despair that theSpirit’s help is experienced. He wrote

wtherefore we have then most need of the help of the comfort of the Holy Ghost; yes, and then he is most ready to help us, when we are most weak and nearest to desperation”.3°

Two points are to be noted here: first, the Spirit comes tohelp us when we are very weak and at our tether's end; second,people who do not know this desperation do not experiencethe Spirit’s help. To this effect, Luther wrote

"certainly no one can have all this who spends his days in a good life and dwells in a land of luxury. This is only for those who are moved to despair by the feeling of death and the bite of sin .*."37

(a) WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRAY AS WE OUGHT. Luther interpreted this statement in terms of the believer's ignorance of what his petitions should be. He argued that, although men may pray "in the Spirit" as Moses probably did (Deut. 3s25), requests, which are not of God's will are often made. However, Luther did not see in this any reason for discouragement; rather he saw it as a "good sign", and a "bad sign" if the petitions of believers always turn out according to their

■^J. Pelikan (ed.), Luther's Works. Vol. 26, pp.381f. ■^Pelikan (ed.), Luther's Works. Vol. 9» P * 181 .

162

desires• The reasons he gave in support of his positionare (i) the transient nature of our thoughts (Ps. 9^s1l)c»SftcjainSfc the permanent nature of God's (Ps, 33*11): (ii) ourignorance of God's ways, which often contradict our thoughts.In a letter to Gregory Brueck, we find that Luther appliedthis position to his own experience.

"I had hoped that at least we might have peace in a political sense, but God's thoughts are above our thoughts ... as we read in Rom. 8 'we know not what to pray for as we ought'. If God should hear our prayers according to our requests, namely, that the Emperor grant us peace, perhaps it would tuna out to be less rather than more than we think, and the Emperor would get the glory instead of G o d " . 3 8

Luther's understanding of how God responds to our3 9prayers might be described as a principle of 'reverse hearing'.

This means that God often does the opposite in response to what a believer requests for in his prayer. God sends greater temptation to lust to the one who requests purity, to a request of strength, the Christian is made to face more and more damnation. This principle of 'reverse hearing' is observed in God's attitude to His Son's glorification. God undertook to glorify His Son and establish his kingdom, but to all intents and purposes, He appeared to act in a completely opposite way by first letting Jesus die and descend into hell. Also, He made St* Augustine descend to the depths and in opposition to the prayers of the mother, He caused him to go astray that He might reward her far beyond what she asked".

The purpose behind these actions of God, according to Luther, is preparatory. They are to prepare the Christian forqOT. G. Tappert (ed.), Luther : Letters of Spiritual Counsel (LCC). Vol. 18, 1955, P.157.•^See Brownson, Protestant Exegesis. (Diss. Princeton), p.12. ^°Oswald (ed.), Luther's Works. Vol. 25, pp.366f.

163

God’s gifts, Christians are ready to receive God’s gifts when

"our counsels have ceased and our works have stopped and we are made purely passive before God both with regard to pur inner as well as our outward activities", *

He found his reasons for this in Is 55s8 "My thoughts are notyour thoughts, neither are your ways my ways’* and Is, 28:21"He does a strange work in order to do His own work".

That "we do not know how to pray" is emphasised, according/to Luther, by Jesus’ description of the promised kA-^TOS

He pointed out that the word meant "comforter" and "advocate"and reasoned on these that

"he who seeks an advocate is confessing that he does not know how to speak or pray as he ought and he who needs a comforter confesses that he is certain that he is hopeless and cast down",^2

Therefore when we ask for what we think are good and salutarybut receive the c on traxy we need an intercessor, someone elseto intervene for us

"who understands these things and prays for us and in the meantime sustains us so that we do not lose heart",

It is also emphasised by our inability to accept gratefully God’s providential dealings. When believers pray and then shrink from the answers which God sends, they demonstrate that they do not know what is best. The Christian must receive even the terrors given by God with a joy greater than the longing with which they have prayed for these gifts.

**10p, cit,, p,365«llP .Op, cit,, p.368. ^3Ibid.

164

In view of* Luther* s position on prayer outlined above, we might ask whether this means that Christians always ask for harmful things, Luther anticipated this problem and observed that believers pray for "too little things that are too lowly or insignificant in comparison with what God wants

44to give them", When God hears the prayer of the believerand answers it, He rejects the "still too humble ideas"contained in the prayers and gives that which the Spirit asksin their stead. To elucidate this explanation, Luther citedthe request of the sons of Zebedee (Mk. 10:35**? request oftheir mother Matt, 20:22f, see also Ambrosiaster, p«287).Doubtless, their request was good, Jesus' answer

"you do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or to be baptised with the baptism with which I am baptised"

implied that their request will not be fulfilled in the way they have asked. Although they did not ask for the cup, they will drink it. Because they asked for poorer things, their weakness (which is the cause) must be crucified through the cup of suffering, that they may be strong. He cited the example of a boy who wrote to his father requesting a small sum in silver, though the father had made up his mind to give him a thousand gold pieces. The father's initial reaction will be to disregard the note. The son, unaware of the father's decision to give him something greater than the small sum would feel disheartened at this reaction of the father. This is how God works in response to our prayers; what He gives though it may not be what we requested, is always far

44Op. cit., p . 369

165

in excess of our hopes or understanding,Luther's position on prayer here also raises a further

questions is the Christian capable of intelligent purposeful prayer? It is clear that man's supplications are only meaningful if they are answered according to how they were asked, Luther thought otherwise. He observed that, to pray rightly is not to ask for the right things but to ask and not doubt that the prayer is surely acceptable and heard, although the very thing prayed for might not be given.

It is noteworthy that Luther by this observation, lays emphasis, not on the rightness of requests contained in a prayer, but on the faith of the Christian in his prayer to endure whatever comes in response to it. But we may say here that although long suffering is a necessary preparatory requirement for the Christian's faith, it is equally important that our prayers are answered sometimes according to how they were requested; for the effectiveness of our prayers can only be measured by the outcome. If we go by Luther's criterion, then we can say that the Christian, at most times, is not capable of effective prayer, since the outcome of his prayer is often not exactly what he asked for,

(b) THE SPIRIT HIMSELF INTERCEDES FOR US WITH SIGHS TOO DEEP FOR WORDS, Answers to two questions are sought here:

first, how did Luther identify c<OTO To T\\lfc0 d. and

of a conflict in which the believer is harassed by conscience, tormented by the law and sin and attacked by the Devil, till

second how did he explain <rTfcVot.yjJ<HS(l) Luther understood K c Cr fcVfc'io< as a

166

he is at the point of desperation. This conflict involves the whole person of the Christian and "everything outside of God Himself in the inner conflict allies itself with wrath against the sinner". This implies that help cannot come from anything within the individual himself, nor from any divine power outside God, Help must come from God Himself, Thus we can say that ol’O'To "\0 was considered by Lutherto be a reference to the Spirit of God, It's the intensity of the conflict which demands the divine help,

(2) On the statement that, the Spirit intercedes with inexpressible groans, Luther commented that it is the Holy Spirit who stirs up these groans or sighs in the heart of the Christian, The groans are of the Spirit, Although theyseem meagre to the flesh, they constitute a powerful plea to God

"in comparison with which the great and horrible roars of the law, sin, death, the devil and hell are nothing at all and are inaudible",^5

He drew attention to the fact that the Spirit does not intercede with a "long prayer" nor does he "cry loudly andtearfully"; his intercession is the utterance of a cry and a

46sigh which is "Oh FatherI" The groans are unutterable because they are such that no one except God can"ponder it and rightly perceive it” as we read in Ps, 38 s 9 "All my

47longing is known to thee, my sighing is not hidden from thee". These sighs cannot be expressed in words by any man, nor can

^Pelikan (ed,), Luther's Works, Vol, 26, p,382.460p. olt.. p.385.^Oswald (ed,), Luther's Works, Vol, 25, p,74, n.28.

167

anyone tinderstand them except God*On the human party the Christian also groans but his

groaning is the result of the inner conflict* He has been weakened by this conflict to an extent that he is hardly aware of his own groans and of the groans which the Spirit inspires in his heart* Luther assigned little importance to the Christian*s activity - he preserved the distinctiveness of the Spirit’s intercession, for he presented the Holy Spirit as the dominant subject here*

Ve may conclude the examination of Luther’s interpretation by summarising his views as follows: first* we are weakbecause of an inner conflict, in which sin, death and the devil s e e k to dominate us } second* we do not know how to pray because: (a) we are ignorant of God’s will and thus ourpetitions are contrary to what God wants to give us and(b) our inability to accept from God whatever comes in response to our prayers} third* it is the Spirit who intercedes with unutterable groans and fourth the groans are the Spirit’s in that he inspires them in the Christian* The Christian, however, is not aware of these groans* The sighs are unutterable because they cannot be put into words by man and only God can understand them*

How much of Luther’s interpretation is similar to the patristic exegesis? Luther’s views on the statement that "we do not know how to pray as we ought" are similar to the views of Chrysostom, Augustine, Pelagius, Theodoret and others in the sense that both Luther and these fathers principally maintained that we do not know how to pray because we do not know God’s

168

will* The pain we suffer, though we have asked for deliverance from it makes sense within the frame of God's purpose for us* However, the principle of 'reverse hearing' does not come out in the patristic exegesis* Luther said that to have one's prayers answered according to how one requested them is a bad sign* This note is missing from the patristic exegesis* Chrysostom for example stated that

"unless what we ask is expedient for us, it will certainly not be granted to us* so that it is equally a gain to obtain our request and not to obtain it".

His identification of the as a reference tothe Holy Spirit accords with the views of Origen, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Primasius* But, Luther's understanding of the Spirit's intercession differed from Augustine and Primasius*To Luther (and also Origen), it is the Holy Spirit who actually intercedes with groans* The Christian groans as a result of his suffering, but these groans are insignificant in so far as the Spirit's intercession is concerned, Augustine and Primasius stressed that the groans are of the believer* the Spirit breathes or puts into these groans the requests which are of God*

Although we notice similarity between Luther's interpretations and that of some of the fathers, this is no evidence for stating that Luther was influenced wholly by the exegesis of the fathers on Rom* 8:26f* The simple reason is that Luther's work shows original emphasis. However, owing to some similarity, we cannot deny that he reflected on the work of the Fathers on Rom* 8s26f.

169

2. JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564) When we turn from the interpretation of Luther to Calvin, a change of emphasis is observed. "Weakness" is not an ’inner conflict’ but is hitman frailty in general which results from "many and sohard burdens" that "the bearing of the cross" brings on to

48the Christian. One of the areas of focus of this weaknessis prayer. Due to our weakness, we are not able to pray’duly and properly’. According to Calvin, to pray ’dulyand properly’, our minds must be freed from "carnal caresand thoughts by which it can be called or led away from

49right and pure contemplation of God" x and be devotedcompletely to prayer. Besides, we are not to ask any morethan God allows in prayer. God invites us to pour out (your)our hearts before Him (Ps. 62:8) and promises to act accordingto the will of the Godly but He would not tolerate rash,shameful and irreverent requests. In reality, we need helpto overcome this weakness of ours in prayer. Thus in order

50to minister to this weakness, God gives us the Spirit.The help of the Spirit is implied in the Greek word CTO'JoiNTl — °<|J)o('Jt'fA\sCalvin considered this word of great significance and explained that it meant that the Spirit takes on himself a part of the burden by which we are oppressed. Therefore, the Spirit not only helps us and succours us, "but doth so ease us as though it undertook some part of the burden with

48John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans (CTS). p.223.^ J , T. McNeill (ed.), Calvin : Institutes of the Christian Religion (LCC). Vols. 20, 21; esp. Institutes. 2, p.853*•"^Calvin, institutes. 2, p.855*5 1Calvin, R omans, p.223.

170

(a) VE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRAY AS WE OUGHT. Calvin acceptedthat divers interpretations have been given to the statementin question but to him, Paul simply meant that

"we are blind in praying unto God, because, although we feel our evils, yet our minds are more intricated and confounded than that they can rightly elect what is convenient or expedient".52

It is a confusion in our minds which prevents us from request-5 3ing for what are suitable to us. Elsewhere in his writings,

Calvin related this thought to our ignorance of God’s will.But here, the emphasis is not put on what God wants us to haveas opposed to what we have requested, but on our inabilityto pray according to the law prescribed by God’s will as tohow we must pray.

Commenting on 1 Jn.5:15, Calvin said that although Godhas promised to do whatsoever we ask, He will not allow usthe unbridled liberty to ask whatever may come into our minds.Thus He has prescribed for us a law by which we must pray.In his Institutes. Calvin touched on what we might take tobe part of this prescribed law of God. First, we must applyour minds and efforts zealously to prayer. The mind must befreed from all external thoughts by which it can be distractedfrom its complete devotion to prayer. Calvin called this

54"lifted and carried beyond itself". Second, we must not ask more than what God allows. Many a Christian requests of God vilest desires - "whatever in dreams has struck their fancy", in a rash, shameful and irreverant way. Although God

52Ibid.e oCalvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (CTS). p.266.54Calvin, Institutes. 2, pp.853f"»

171

has requested us to 'pour out our hearts' to Him andpromised to act according to the will of the Godly, He would

55not tolerate such "dullness or stupidity". Third, when we request anything of God, we must sincerely and affectionately yearn for it and at the same time desire to obtain it from Him.

To pray 'duly and properly', we must pray according to the law prescribed by God's will. That we do not know how to pray is our ignorance or neglect of this law.

(b) THE SPIRIT HIMSELF INTERCEDES FOR US WITH SIGHS TOO DEEPFOR WORDS. For Calvin 0<Vvb -\© refers

unquestionably to the Spirit of God. But he argues that theintercession with groans, here mentioned is not carried onby the Spirit per se. His role in this intercession is"as our teacher in prayer to tell us what is right and temper

56our emotions". That the Spirit makes intercession for usdoes not mean that he actually prays or groans; rather itmeans that the Spirit stirs up in our hearts those assurances,desires and sighs in prayer which we would not be capableourselves. Thus, although the groanings are ascribed to theSpirit, it is the believer who actually groans; they are theSpirit's because he excites them.

The groans are described as because "they57far exceed the capacity of our wit". Emphasis here falls on

the fact that believers cannot originate them rather them that they cannot utter them.

550p. cit.. p.855. 56Ibid.“ Calvin, Romans. p.224.

172

Attention must be drawn to two implications of Calvin's interpretations• First, the Spirit's intercession involves teaching us how to pray. This involves stirring up in our hearts groans which the believer utters. This implies that, although the groans of the Spirit are beyond our natural power to orginate them, they come into expression in our consciousness. Thus under the 'tuteUvje of the Spirit we learn increasingly of proper prayer and acquire the ability of

egpraying rightly. This implication is in sharp contrast to Luther's interpretation examined above. Luther virtually denied the capability of man to pray rightly. He stressed that to have one's prayer answered according to how one requested it, is not even desirable. Second, in Calvin's

/ J iinterpretation of CrTfcVocypct ai Xo< * To L » we see implied an active role of the believer. Although Calvin agreed that the initiative in the intercession is the Spirit's, he rejected all thought of passivity on the part of the Christian. He wrote

"these things are not said in order that we, favouring our own slothfulness, may give over the function of prayer to the Spirit of God, and vegetate in that carelessness to which we are all too prone".59

We are not to wait until we feel the inspiration of the Spiritbefore praying: rather we are to make the effort and seekthe aid of the Spirit, since the Spirit's aid is to make itpossible for us to compose prayers and does not hinder ourown efforts at prayer. The efforts of the Christian atprayer tffSL- necessary prerequisite to the aid of the Spirit.

^Brownson, Protestant Exegesis (Diss. Princeton), pp.21f . "^Calvin, Institutes. 2, p.856.

173

This position was different from Luther who had argued that the Christian has been' so weakened by the "inner conflict" that he is hardly aware of the groans of the Spirit,

We may conclude Calvin*s interpretations by summarising his views as follows. First, the weakness which Paul speaks of is a general condition of human frailty which results from afflictions of this present life. Second we do not know how to pray as we ought because we are ignorant of the will of God which is embodied in His law regarding prayer.Third, it is the Holy Spirit who intercedes for the Christians, But intercession involves teaching the Christians to pray. The Spirit originates the groans but they are uttered by the Christian,

Certain aspects of Calvin*s interpretations are similar to the patristic exegesis on the verse. Like Chrysostom, Augustine, Pelagius, Theodoret, Calvin thought that we do not know how to pray because of our ignorance of God*s will.But unlike the fathers mentioned, he did not link this ignorance to our reluctance to accept whatever God gives in response to our prayers, but rather to our inability to pray according to the law regarding prayer, prescribed by the will of God, His understanding of the Spirit*s intercession was also similar to Augustine and Primasius in that they stressed the importance of the part played by the believer - the Spirit intercedes by making us pray properly.

17

(3) PHILIP MELANCHTHON (1497-1560) He interpreted Rom. 8:26f. in close relation to the immediately preceding discussions of patience and hope. He thought of the passage as one of a series of Pauline arguments to give comfort to the Christian in distress. Christians by nature are infirm; they find themselves in a situation of suffering. It is doubtful, therefore, that the Christian, weak by nature, and being afflicted by innumerable evils, would be able to hold on to hope and patience. To enable us to hold on to our faith, hope and wait in patience, the help of the Spirit’s given to us;

"nihil enim maius promitti potest, quam praesentia et efficacia Dei: haec enim prpmittitur, cum promittitur Spiritus sanctus".

With the Spirit’s aid, we would not succumb to our weaknessand suffering and we would not loose our faith.

(a) WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRAY AS WE OUGHT. According toMelanchthon, that we do not know how to pray is

"cum naturali imbecillitate petimus nos-statim liberari et impatienter ferimus crucem".6l

There is a natural imbecility in Christians which makes us very impatient to bear suffering. Thus when faced with persecution and privation, we( do not want to bear the suffering involved but feverishly long to be rid of it. In such a situation we do ask wrongly.

^Nothing surely can be promised greater than the presence and efficacy of God : this is promised, since the Holy Spirit is promised. P. Melanthonis, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia Bnarratio Bpistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Vol. XV of Corpus Reformatorum,1848, P.67*T.61Melanthonis, Opera, p.673 - natural imbecility according to which we seek constantly to be liberated and bear the cross impatientlys

(b) THE SPIRIT HIMSELF INTERCEDES FOR US WITH SIGHS TOO DEEPFOR WORDS. To Melanchthon, o&'T6 lo XfNfcOy* is the

Holy Spirit, His understanding of the intercession of the Spirit is to be deduced from the statement

"Subiicimus" suggests that by the Spirit, we are made to obey God's will and pray accordingly rather than for what our body desires. Thus, the intercession of the Spirit involves

as a result, prayer which pleases God, It is this obedience in prayer, that Melanchthon thought Paul meant by {J c C

desires, it involves an enormous and remarkable struggle.This struggle is described as true and prodigious not "frigidis

64et otiosis cogitationibus",In his comments on Rom, 8:26f,, he touched on an aspect

of the verse which has been neglected by Luther and Calvin,This is the relationship between the intercession of the Spirit and that of Christ, He maintained that Jesus Christ intercedes as a Redeemer who pays the price to satisfy God's justice and placate God’s wrath. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is an intercessor only as he moves Christians to pray. His intercession is through the Christian after he has been reconciled to God, Melanchthon, therefore, viewed the two intercessions as distinct and unrelated,

6 2Ibid, By the Spirit we subject ourselves to God and seek liberation according to God's will, not according to carnal des6 Brownson, Protestant Exegesis, (Diss, Princeton), p ,27,64Melanthonis, Opera, p.674,

Brownson, Protestant Exegesis, (Diss, Princeton), p ,29,

"Spiritu enim subiicimus nos Deo, et iuxta voluntatem Dei petimum liberationem, non iuxta carnale desiderium",62

zf oinclining the will of the Christian to obedience J and inciting

When the Spirit subjects our bodily

176

Implied in Melanchthon*a interpretation is the view that God has a purpose in our trials and sufferings• He sends trials to us so that He may reveal Himself to us as our helper and liberator* This is the reason for the Spirit to incline our will to obedience, to bear the suffering in patience* This thought is similar to a feature of Luther*s interpretation* Luther understood the condition described in v*26 as one of great distress and that God has a purpose in our suffering.But Melanchthon understood the conflict, not so much as an inner struggle with sin, wrath and hell,but as suffering involved in bearing the cross of Christ, Melanchthon understood the message about the Spirit*s intercession as consolatory; thus he stressed the help which the Christian receives rather them the intercession of the Spirit on the Christian's behalf*

Although Melanchthon stressed the inclination of our wills by the Spirit to obedience to God, he implied in his interpretation that Christians are helped to pray* This view is similar to Calvin's* Christians, on their own, pray selfishly but by the Spirit's intercession we are made to submit to God and pray according to His will*

Ve may conclude the examination of Melanchthon*s interpretations by summarising his views as follows: (l) TheChristian, by nature, is weak* This weakness is worsened by the suffering in which we find ourselves* (2 ) That we do not know how to pray as we ought is due to a "natural imbecility" which makes us pander to our fleshly demands in prayer,(3) AVfo To TV'Ji'Ouo is the Holy Spirit, (4) The Spirit's

177

intercession involves an inward working to produce obedience to God*s will*

Comparing Melanchthon1s interpretations to the patristic exegesis* similarities as well as differences are observed*He noted that "natural imbecility11 (ignorance) is the cause of "our not ' kqoWwcj how to pray". Principally, Chrysostom, and Augustine held this view that ignorance of God*s will is the cause of "our not knowing how to pray as we ought", Xn his interpretation of the Spirit*s intercession, Melanchthon stressed the note of inclination of the human will to obedience. This idea was not present in patristic exegesis*

(k) HULDREICH ZWINGLI (1484-1531) Zwingli1s exegesis of Rom* 8:26f* differed radically from the other three reformers.He understood that * our weakness* is part of a total weaknesswhich afflicts the whole of mankind* The ‘whole of creation*(v.22 - to be understood as all men) groan with confused longings and "we ourselves" (v,23 - to be understood as the Apostles) experience this groaning and pain* The cause of this weakness is the rebelliousness of the flesh, who constantly prays for selfish desires,^

(a) WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRAY AS VE OUGHT* According toZwingli, our sinful nature prevents us from praying effectively.This sinful nature, the flesh, has the tendency to make usrequest for selfish desires — "vengeance or the favour of man

67or wealth"; that is of things which are not right for God

66W. J, Hinke (ed*), The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli,Vol, 111, 1922, pp.152-153.67Ibida

178

to give. It can be derived from this explanation that Zwingli conceived of two different wills in the man of faith. The carnal will (the flesh) which demands selfish desires and the divine element in man (the human spirit) which panders to these desires and requests them in prayer.

(b) THE. SPIRIT HIMSELF INTERCEDES FOR US WITH SIGHS TOO DEEPFOR WORDS. Zwingli commented that the references

in Rom. 8:26f. are not to be understood as the Holy Spirit.He took the references to mean 11 our spirit" or "the spiritual man". The "spiritual man" he thought, is one "who is raised

68to God through the Spirit of God that he looks to Him alone".He argued that in v.26 is said to intercede withgroanings; it cannot be the Spirit of God because he has no

69groaning. Besides, Paul spoke of God who*searches theheart’ and knows the mind of the Spirit in v.27» these twophrases can have no reference to the Divine Spirit who has

70no heart. It’s the spirit of man who has a heart.When the Christian, under the influence of the *f4.esh*

requests for things which are not right for God to give, thepious mind (human spirit)

"sweats because of the recklessness of the carnal man and cries to God with weepings and groanings inexplicable to us grieving for its persistent folly and praying for forgiveness".

The groans are the Christian’s; they are an inward outcry/TOHinke (ed.), Latin Works. Vol. 11, p.239«^ H . Zwingli, Opera VI. 1832, p.106.^^Hinke (ed.), Latin Works. Vol. 111, p.212.7 1 0p. c i t . , p p . 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 .

179

against his own sins; and they also represent signs of repentance, By them the Christian pleads against guilt and is reconciled to God, The groans are filled with the good intentions and desires of the faith-filled human spirit, God knows these desires and in His mercy grants that these shall work together

7 2for good "to them on whose behalf the pious mind is troubled",

Zwingli's interpretations can be summarised in three points. F i rst, the weakness mentioned is a general weakness of mankind; it stems from our human nature. Second, we do not know how to pray because of a conflict between the desires of the flesh and our spirit, ¥e often request for what the flesh desires. T h ird, the intercession is an act of the believer's own spirit,

Zwingli's interpretation of the Spirit's intercession is unique in the sense that it presents two differing wills in man; a side of the person which he described as carnal and acts contrary to God's will and on the other side, the Spirit, the pious mind, which pleads continually with weeping and groaning, grieving for the persistent folly of the 'carnal man'. Is it possible to reconcile Zwingli's idea of man here to Pauline anthropology? It is very difficult to pin down firmly Paul's idea of man. His thought on the make up of man depends on ascertaining what Paul meant by soma, sarx, psyche, pneuma. kardia and n o u s . Paul did not describe for us man in s e . but rather described different relations of man vis k vis God, These terms then do not really designate parts of man but designate rather aspects of the whole man

180

as seen from different perspectives. However, in his discussions of these aspects of man, we do not find this intense conflict within the personality of man. If this is the case then we find it difficult to reconcile Zwingli*s views on this passage to Pauline anthropology. As a result, we find that he greatly differed, not only from the other reformers but also from the patristic exegetes. None of the scholars examined show this conflict of wills. But in his identification of <elv>*lb , not as a reference to theHoly Spirit, he approached the position of Chrysostom,Theodoret, Gennadius and later Theophylact. There is some amount of Holy Spirit direction on "the spirit", however.

This examination of the reformers* exegesis of Rom. 8:26f. shows three things. First there is a general agreement that Christians are weak. The cause or causes of it, although differently worded, fundamentally mean the same. Luther's "inner conflict", Calvin's "burdens of being a Christian", Melanchthon*s "present suffering", and Zwingli*s "inward rebelliousness of the flesh" have one underlying principle: human nature per se succumbs to the painful conditions of this present time, which make us unable to do anything right. Second, an outcome of this inability is that we do not know how to pray as we ought. Reasons for this Pauline assertion, are given variously. Luther observed that it is our ignorance of the right things to ask for in prayer, as well as our unwillingness to accept what God provides. Calvin's position is that it is our inability to pray according to the law of God regarding prayer, and Melanchthon expressed the view that what Paul had in mind is our impatience to bear suffering thus

181

asking to be rid of* them, Zwingli’s position is that it is 'the carnal m a n ’ in us who requests wrongly. The common thought of* all these seemingly different views is that because we are human, we do not understand God and how He works amongst us. This affects our attempts to approach Him, Third Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon agree that o^OTO T O vCvfcOyc*. is the Holy Spirit; but whether the groans are that of the Spirit himself or they are the believer's, they do not agree, Luther's position stresses that it is the Spirit who intercedes with the unutterable groans, Calvin and Melanchthon held the groans to be the believers', they are the Spirit's only in the sense that he inspires them in his bid to teach us how to pray, A different position entirely was adopted by Zwingli, It is the human spirit who intercedes.

The main comments we offer on the Reformers' inter

pretations are: (l) In his interpretation of the Spirit'sintercession, Luther stressed the divine initiative of the Spirit, This is correct for it agrees with the interpretation

3 fof £.\JTuyX,=(,'/v/0 , But we must ask: does the Christianplay any part at all in this act of intercession? Luther does not think so, Rom, 8:15f* and its parallel Gal, ki6 (to which Luther himself linked the Spirit's intercession), however, seems not to support this position. In these passages, it is the Spirit of God and our spirit that bear witness that we are the sons of God (see pp.126f). The Spirit's intercession, also takes place in the heart of the Christian,Do these imply that the Christian must be involved in this act of intercession? If so, to what extent must he beinvolved so as not to obscure

182

Luther did not touch on these questions,(2) In his interpretation, Calvin failed to recognize

a distinct intercession of the Holy Spirit, iE\|"\oy')Qoc>/''xSrefers to a personal intercession of the Spirit but hisinterpretation that the Spirit teaches men to pray does notdo justice to this. Teaching believers to pray cannot beequated to intercession. Besides, his interpretation doesnot give due weight to ^ as a permanent realitywith our prayers (see pp,l85f&). It is correct for Calvinto suggest the personal involvement of the believer in theSpirit's intercession but he gave it too much emphasis

t tthat it obscured the meaning of uTTt-p&V"OyiCcWvj .(3 ) We find it difficult to understand how obedience

to God can Inean intercession. Besides, in Melanchthon's/ ) \ / vinterpretation, the 0 r {J 01 otAo(A»jioi are the groans

which result from the struggle involved in the process of subduing the flesh to obedience to God; in this sense, we think that the groans will best be understood as groans of resistance. In Rom, 8:26f,, the groans are ~ti\oQe. of intercession, Melanchthon's interpretation does not clearly reflect the sense of Rom, 8s26f,

(k) We must reject Zwingli*s interpretation that cUilO To refers to the human Spirit. There is great weight

of exegetical evidence against his position (see pp,195ff,)« Besides, his description of the intense conflict within the personality of man does not fit into Paul's anthropological understanding as well as Rom, 8:26f, and its context.

183

(C) MODERN EXEGESIS. It is best to see Rom. 8;26f. as a complete unit,but for the purpose of convenience, as we have done for the first two sections, we must divide the passage into three separate units: (1) 26a - the Spirit helps us inour weakness; (2 ) 26b — we do not know how to pray as we ought; (3 ) 26c - the Spirit intercedes for us with groans (for. v .27 see pp.232ff.).

1. THE SPIRIT HELPS US IN OUR WEAKNESS. Two questions arise: first, how is CTO'^va.n)'" v Xo<^ t~o<^ understood; secondhow did modern exegetes understand ?

In the two periods examined, patristics and reformers exegesis did not expound on how the Spirit helps us; they did not adequately explain, if not at all, the meaning of CTvy'to'il v . In this period we have three,somewhat, different views expressed on the Greek word.

The first view is that the prefix (TUV — should not begiven any significance and that it is simply intensive,

'•The CTOV - does not mean ’together with’ but is simply intensive: the meaning is not thatthe Spirit joins our weakness ... but simply thatthe Spirit helps our weakness".73

In the second view, proponents want to stress the prefix5‘u'W-. 'j'his suggestion draws support from the bulk ofcrux- passages in the NT which give the notion of accompani

ment: for example, Matt. 26:35 CTOV croc. otu‘o'§c<'ifc-W ;Col. 3:3 k g k ^ o TTToic cruv ~Ko X/4 cr“^ Vv Q-e\>a .

before, its appearance in Rom. 8:26f.,Paul had used a

^Cranfield, Romans. p.241; see also J. Lambrecht, "Present World and Christian Hope. A consideration of Rom. 8:18-30". Jeev.. 8(43), 1978, p.34.

18

number of CTOV — compounds - especially in verses 16 and 17 where the verbs have the sense of 'association with',Xf the crv)\/~ is stressed, then «ro\is\vj-7 \ \ o t y h a s

j kthe meaning "to lay hold of a thing together with a person".This is the meaning carried by the word, in its appearance inDiod. S:1*+, 8, 2; S y l l . 3 41 2 , 7 ( 2 7 0 B.C.), Or. 267,

26; PHib 82, 18 (perh. 2 3 8 B.C.); PSl 3 2 9 , 6; 59 1 , 12.

A third view is that Crosl^Wtt Wtr~=<c indicates75"a taking hold of in turn and along with".'^ This was

suggested by R. Boyd who argued that verbs compounded with°W"?i - have the simple meaning of "instead of" or "in turn"in the NT. He gave the example of the Greek verbwhich when compounded with oNT» — means to take turns atthrowing; the verb meaning "to eat" when compounded with >oWTl means "to take turns at eating". He observed that

one of the common meanings of is "totake hold of in turn". In view of this, Boyd understands TO T V that the Holy Spirit

7 4This view is held by quite a number of scholars : see J.Parry, Romans. 1912, p.120; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p.213,W. Bieder, "Gebetswirk 1 ich und Gebetsmoglichkeit" TZ, k t 19 +8, p. 31» Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains. p •211; A. T. Robertson,A Grammar of the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research. 19l4, p.573, (The first half of his explanation appears to conform to the view expressed here but the second half conforms to the third view). A. Deissmann, St. Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History, 1912, p.83; Schl'ier Romerbrief, p.268;H. ¥. Schmidt, Per Brief des Paulus an die'**Rbmer, 1972, p. 150, F. E, Gaebelein (ed.), Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 10, 197^, P.96; Dellin^, TDNT. 1, pp. 375f. and Blass, Debrunner, Funk, NT Grammar, p •9k •

^^Boyd, "The Work of the Holy Spirit", Int. 8, 195^, P«39*

185

supports the Christian by bearing a part of* the load himself* and at times also takes the complete load upon himself* implying "a correlated and interchanging action of* the divine and human spirit".

These are the three main interpretations of* "v o(y -jSoNfcfc L . Although the first view sounds reasonable, we want to ask: if Paul had intended a simple meaning of "help",why did he not use the word whichconveys this meaning better. That the prefix CTVJ ~ was used with the word, shows a purpose in mind, possibly to show a necessity of a close working relationship between the Holy Spirit and the believer. Moreover, if the prefix CTMM— in our word is stressed, it will conform to the interpretations of the cluster of compounds in the preceding verses, especially 16 and 17» all of which are given the sense of accompaniment.In view of these we are forced to look to the second and third views. Which of these two views do we accept? We shall discuss this on pp. ■ aofe •

Let us turn our attention now to the second problem:) rs. , > «. 76how is i(\ understood by modern

exegetes? Two main positions are held on this clause andM. Black phrases these two positions beautifully - are we tointerpret weakness here of human frailty in general or in the

77light of 26b ,of the imperfections of the devotional life?

There is considerable difference as to how this clause is rendered in the better known translations. RSV, ISTBB, JB and the AJP have "in our weakness", TEV has "weak as we are", LB. has "with our daily problems", Phillips has "in our present limitations and KJV has "in our infirmities". See R. R* Rickards, "the translation of te astheneia hemon in Rom. 8:26". BT. 28, 2, 1977, P.2^7.77Black, Romans, p.123.

186

The view that refers to general*78weakness is held by a number of scholars including Barrett,

D o d d B i e d e r , ® 0 Harrison,®1 Knox,®2 Murray,®^ Niederwimmer RRand Goedt. Although differently worded, the sense of their

comments is that this "weakness” is that which comes to usso long as we are in this flesh, so long as we remain finitecreatures in a finite world; our weakness is our humanity.

The other view equates "weakness" to the fact that"we do not know how to pray". Conner wrote

"He (the Apostle) makes clear what our infirmity is. It is that we do not know how to pray". °

^Barrett, Romans, p. 168.

^Dodd, Romans. p. 135*O ABieder, "Gebetswirklichkeit und Gebetsmoglichkeit", TZ,4, 1948, p.29f*.Q E. F. Harrison (Romans) in Expositors Bible Commentary. 10, ed. by Gaebelein, p.96.QoJ. Knox, "Romans" in Interpreter1s Bible. 8, 1954, p.523*8 ?Murray, Romans. p.311.Oh Niederwimmer, "Das Gebet des Geistes, Rom. 8;26f.", TZ, 201964, p.255.

^Goedt, "The Intercession of the Spirit", Cone. 9*8, 1972,P.31.Q/T¥. T. Conner, The Work of the Holy Spirit. 1949* p.107.

187

87 88Sanday and Headlam ' and probably Cranfield are amongscholars who subscribe to this view. The context seems tosupport this view because the assertion that "we do not knowhow to pray as we ought” follows immediately afterand appears to be a qualifying phrase for it.

In our opinion, the key to the understanding of the clause "our weakness” is given in the word ycM<*vo inv.20. Why it is necessary to draw on the preceding verses to understand our passage will be discussed in the second section of this chapter. It is appropriate therefore, to reserve our comments until then (seepp^207ff).

Thus, it is to be noted that there are two possibleinterpretations of Crvw<k\4*xv s ; (a) the Spirit takeshold of our weakness with us, and/or (b) the Spirit takes holdof our weakness in turn; there are also two main interpreta—

c. /tions of : (a) it refers to generalweakness of man, and (b) it refers to weakness in prayer.Most of the fathers examined as well as the reforpiers, maintained that by "our weakness” Paul meant human frailty in general.Our views are presented on pp.207-214.

8*7‘Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p.213.88Cranfield, Romans, p.421; see also Boyd, "The Woyk of the Spirit", Int. 8, 195^, P.39. He thought of <\ d o i n terms of moral weakness - what he called "spiritual incapacities and limitations". Gaugler in "Der Geist und das Gebet", 1KZ.51, '19-61, p.71 observed that by "our weakness", the Apostle might have had in mind the special prayer need of the people, but he qualified this view by saying that "our weakness" can be an expression for theessentially infectious weakness of the community. "Die Kirche in dieser Zeit is nicht « die machtige Kirche , sondem «. Gemeinde in Schwachhei t>> , die nicht <s. kann» , was sie will, sondem des stell- vertretenden Einsatses des Geistes bedarf". "Our weakness" according to Gaugler,is whatever turned the once powerful church into an unimpressive community.

188

2. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PRAY AS WE OUGHT. The main questionwhich exegetes have tried to answer is: what did Paul meanby the statement To Y0 3 K?<%o '"ibev. o o kIt appears absurd in the face of immensely rich prayerpractices of the heathen, of the Jews and of the Christians,for Paul to make such a claim# < Everywhere Christians prayassiduously# The Lord's prayer was well known in the earlychurch. Besides, various forms of intercession, thanksgiving,praise, hymnic worship seem to contradict this Pauline

89statement that prayer was and is a problem.Xn view of the absurdity of the statement, some scholars

have tried to weaken it by reading wiK°<Qo # This will point to an insufficient and

th

uncertain knowledge of prayer. One of the chief proponentsof this view is Zahn who thought that a different reading willpresent a falsely exaggerated opinion that Christians simply

90do not know how to pray. But against this explanation we must argue that: (1) the word order in v.26b speaks againstit. If only a lack of knowledge is meant, as Zahn is implying,

rK°^o btL will have to stand after •

Although Paul uses OS-C) with dependent clauseinfinitives (Rom. 2:2; 3:19? 7:1^, 8:22), O^K. is

^Kasemann, An die Romer, 197^» P«31*^ T . Zahn, Per Brief des Paulus an die Romer. 1910, p.^12; see also H. Greeven, Gebet und Eschatologie im Neuen Testament, 1931, p.153 where he argued that the Apostle was speaking in a hyperbole,generalising an experience which he would have had only in a limited measure. See also E. Kuhl, An die Romer. 1913, P . 298.

189

always used with a direct accusative and this is the casein Rom. 8:26f. (2) We may cite Lagrange's comments that

"mais c'est peu naturel et trop subtil. Done le sens est plutSt: nous ne savons commentdemander!^. .91

This explanation of* uncertain knowledge of prayer is alsoexpressed by Barrett that

"Man does not know the secret prayers which alone can give access to Godj when he has been initiated the divine Spirit speaks through his mouth the correct formula, which may never be communicated to, and indeed would not be understood by, thepublic”.92

Knowledge of right secret formulae is what Paul meant. But as Barrett himself notes, Paul did not think of prayer in terms of formulae nor did he think of salvation as possible through the repetition of unintelligible words, A further attempt to weaken the statement was to take the clause to mean "what we ought to pray", i.e. "'how we are to word our

9 3prayers* not 'what we are to choose as the objects of prayer™.94This is the view of Sanday and Headlam, Huby and others.

But we cannot accept this explanation because it shifts the/ 9 5stress from ti to a supposed TTwi Besides this

explanation fails to give sufficient weight to the wordv.o\ which this clause in part describes (see

p *2 14 )• Therefore, we can say that the suggestion that

91 'Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains. p.213*"^Barrett, Romans. p.168; Lietzmann, Andie Romer. p.87 93Sanday and Headlam, Romans. p.213. gZj. /■J. Huby, St. Paul : Epitre aux Romains. new ed., by S. Lyonnet, Paris, 1957, (1940), P»303» see also Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains. p .211; A. Julicher, Der Brief an die Romer in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2, 1917» p.284.9 5 »i " iKasemann, An die Romer. p.231; Cranfield, Romans. p.421*

190

K°kfyo <5 61 is to be taken with OOV< must berejected as forced.

The only other option open to us is to read <Cc< o <5erCwith vTpocrfcO S'oa fc -t* which suggests that effectiveprayer does not lie at our disposal but at the Spirit*s whocomes to help us. This explanation implies that V<®^o c)€rC isto be understood as corresponding to *<**“«; of v.27«The popular reading of ■O’tcw is "according to thewill of God". To ■irpoc'feva^^fc^ k ^ o ^ q o k

therefore means: we do not know how to pray because we donot know God's will. This implies that it is only those whoknow the will of God that can pray and as the verses indicate,it is theHoly Spirit who knows the will of God. Thus thestatement 1' TCpotrfcolibw fc-' c*. K ^ o ... is not tobe explained in terms of content or object of prayer but

96rather in terms of our whole prayer life. Besides, it sounds unreasonable to separate prayer into two different sections and argue that the Apostle had only a section of it in mind here. It must concern the Christian's total prayer life*

Therefore, it is not worth arguing that by Ti WpccreoSvope^ dttPaul meant anything other them simply "we do not know how to pray". Rather, what is important is to determine why, despite the numerous teachings on prayer in the NT. Paul, unreservedly claimed that the Christian does not know how to pray (see p . 2 1 4 ) ,

■^Murray, Romans, p .3115 Leenhardt, Romans. 1961, p.230. Niederwimmer, "Das Gebet und das Geistes", TZ. 20, 1964, p.255} Schmidt, An die Romer. p .150; Schlier, Rbmer brief,p . 268.

191

This view which has been singled out here is that which was commonly held by the fathers and the reformers. But not much effort was made to bring out clearly, the reason for this seeming contradiction in the NT,

3. THE SPIRIT HIMSELF INTERCEDES FOR US WITH SIGHS TOO DEEP FOR WORDS, Two questions are of main concern. First, how

has c^OTo T o been understood? Second,how has been interpreted?

Ao~tO TO T^K^His the human spirit, Oltramare interpretedTO as the "spirit of adoption". He wrote"II consiste dans ces sentiments de confiance filiale, d*amour d*enfant, qui animent le chretien, au point que, dans toutes les circonstances il se tourae vers Dieu pour l’implorer, comme un petit enfant, par le cri de Perel"97

This filial spirit constitutes a very potent help in the midstof our weakness. To dismiss the view that refersto the Holy Spirit, Oltramare asked a series of questions.First, who is this spirit? Second, who is it who utters themute sighs? Third, who actually feels the sadness which theyexpress — is it the Christian or the Holy Spirit? He answeredthat it is the Christian who feels weak, the sighs are issuedfrom his heart and they express the emotions which he doesnot know how to render by words. The TTVfcO c* t therefore,should be understood as the subjective spirit, Oltramareargued that, if the desires which the sighs express are feltby the Holy Spirit, then we have here a picture of a sufferingHoly Spirit sighing in a human heart but such a thought has

^Oltramare, Epitre aux Romains, II, 1881/82, p,175«

192

98"ni sens ni analogie biblique". If it is "man11 who suffers and sighs, what becomes of the intercession of the Holy Spirit? It would then be limited to the matter of exciting these sighs within the suffering Christian in which case it would be the Christian, not the Holy Spirit, who actually intercedes. He observed that, rejecting his interpretation would mean that scholars must either reduce the aid and intercession described to a mere provoking of sighs within the Christian or else must find in the verse, a kind of possession of the Holy Spirit, for which scholars would be compelled to seek an analogy in the possession of a demoniac by a demon. Finding none of these alternatives attractive, he concluded that T T V ^ can be meaningfully interpreted only as a subjective "spirit of adoption".

This view had earlier been expressed by authors likeA. A. L i v e r m o r e R e i c h e , Kollner^^. Livermore, forexample said that

"the spirit here spoken of cannot be the Spirit of God because He is represented as knowing what its mind is which would be unnecessary to remark, if he were that identical Spirit itself";

9 9 A. A. Livermore, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. 1854, PP.153f.100 11 iiJ, G. Reiche, Versuch einer aus-fuhrlichen Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer , ~*18 3 ^ . P « 2 3 1 .101 See also E. Kbllner, Kommentar zu dem Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Romer, I83V, P»301 • ”*

193

then is "the character, the historical unity andcontinuity of the soul"# How does this spirit intercede?He observed that

"if we have infirmities, we also have aids, an immortal nature struggles and inspires and dictates within us. We cannot by an act of volition pray as we ought but this instinctive and spontaneous spirit, soul of our soul intercedes for us with inarticulate sighs and instructs us how to pray"#

Worthy of mention is also Reiche# He interpreted To WNtO^Aas the Christian spirit but pointed out that it would make little or no difference if "Tb is understood as the Holy Spirit, refers to the humanspirit in so far as it is divinely illuminated and moved through the Christian message. It is the Holy Spirit as that Spirit becomes effective in Christian life. He, however, preferred to call it "der Christensinn", Here is a personification of Christian consciousness. The personified Christian consciousness lays before God the believer's distressed condition and asks for deliverance. Thus the Christian's inner life or consciousness, through the reception of the gospel serves as the Christian's "mediating person with God",

The explanation of o^OTO Tb as the humanspirit, expressed here by Oltramare and other scholars, supported in reformation time by Zwingli and in the patristic period by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gennadius, Ambrosius; has to be rejected outright for the following reasons: (l) Theexplanation is "inconsistent with the natural sense of

GV'vOyXol'ltrC h#102 When we refer to intercessory

^^Cranfield, Romans. p,423.

prayer, we mean prayer for others rather than for ourselves. Thus, the intercessor here cannot be our human spirit; ithas to be an entity outside us. We may cite Lagrange's

c /comments on that"comme vtvv signifie deja interceder(pour quelqu'un), on peut se demander si Paul n'a pas ajoute* vnltp pour marquer le sumaturel une surintercession, plutot qu'une intercession pour d 'autresM.103

our human spirits would not be capable of the super intercession required. (2 ) We do not know how to pray, becausewe do not know God's will. This is the plausible explanation which comes out of our passage. As Niederwimmer pointed out, this inability to pray is not a transitory condition which can be removed through some special teaching or instruction in a definite technique of prayer which can be learned. We cannot remove this inability to pray. This impediment is insuperable.Thus the intercession to remove this impediment must be bythe Holy Spirit; our spirit will not be capable of it.Moreover, from our discussion of spirit — prayer passages above, we noted that the Holy Spirit is the only one capableof effective prayer. We cannot pray except with his help.Bieder wrote

"Eroffnet das Pneuma dem Menschen die Gebetsmoglich- keit, so muss daraus gefolgert werden, dass demMenschen als solchem, abgesehen vom Pneuma Christi,keine Gebetsmoglichkeit eignet. Denn wie(|soll der Mensch aus Eigenem wirklich den anrufen konnen, der der Vater ist, wenn er nichfcdas Pneuma Xuvor den Vatemamen hat aussprechen horen?" 10-5

^Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains. p.212.^^Niederwimmer, "Das Gebet des Geistes", TZ, 20, 1964, p.255*10 *5 11Bieder, "Gebetswirklichkeit und Gebetsmoglichkeit", TZ,4, 1948, p„29.

195

In order to maintain the sense of "intercede" and also, not to weaken the sense of the passage, we must not explain

o 'O'lO TO as the human spirit#

Most exegetes identify <*d"tO ~b as the HolySpirit; differences,appear, however, when they attempt to relate the Spirit to the inexpressible groans# There are two main views#

The first explanation is that it is the Spirit himself who groans in his intercession for us# H# W# Meyer stated that the

"Spirit himself must sigh, if He is to intercede for us ;with sighs, and if God is to understand the of the Spirit"#^06

Nevertheless, the Spirit uses the human organ for His sighingbut it is independent of any personal activity on the part ofthe believer# Karl Barth also subscribed to this view that

"no man and no thing can make intercession for us. We stand alone and are lost. But, according to the will of God, the Spirit intercedes for us, and we are saved#107

There was no doubt in Barth’s mind as to who intercedes forus: it is the Holy Spirit# He does not help the Christianto intercede, rather he intercedes for Christians with

108groanings. This view was also subscribed to by Getz,

^^Meyer, Romans, II, p,88,107K# Barth, Epistle to the Romans, (trans, by E. C# Hoskyns)1933, P.317.^^W# Getz, Bibelstuden uber den Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Romer, 1893, p •331•

196

m o 110 111 112 112Dale, ~ Lagrange, Nygren, Cranfield, Barrett,11^ « 115 o x-i • 116 o , .,,117 .Harrison, Murray, Schlier, Schmidt . Thexr m a m

arguments are: (1) Such an explanation puts OWfcptr>J1 oy fc-v,in its right perspective: (2 ) It is consistent with theconfidence expressed in O'fcov in v.27.

The second explanation is that, it is an intercessionby both our spirit and the Holy Spirit, One of the early

118exegetes to develop this view is J. T. Beck# He commentedthat the Holy Spirit identifies himself with the believer so that he shares his "psycho-physical condition of weakness"# Instead of repelling the earthly feeling of affliction in God’s children as something unworthy, the Spirit takes an actual part in it and intercedes in it on their behalf. Thus the Spirit is not to be thought of as an external intercessor before God: the medium for his intercession is the groansof the believer# B. H. Streeter also expressed this view."The intercession of the Spirit" in human hearts means that man comes to participate in the inner life of the Godhead.

^^R. W# Dale, "The Intercession of the Spirit", Expositor#5th Series, IV, 1896, p.189.110Lagrange, Epitre aux Romains, p .212.111Nygren, Romans, p#336.^^Cranfield, Romans # p.423*113Barrett, Romans, p.168.114Harrison, "Romans" in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p.96.115Murray, Romans, p .312.^1^Schlier, Romerbrief, p.268.117 "Schmidt, An die Romer, p.15°« J , T# Beck.# Erklanmg des Briefes Pauli an die Romer, 1884,

p . 8 0 .

197

When a man prays to God for anything "it is he and the Spirit119of* God within him who together make that prayer",

120 121 122M, Black, Dodd, Robinson are some of the exegeteswhose names come under our second view here. Here, also,

✓we may mention the explanation of1 R, A, Torrey that in g—1, the Spirit teaches the believer how to pray,

"It is the believer1s privilege to be taught by the Spirit of God himself to know ivhat the will of God is and not to ask for the things that our foolishness would prompt us to ask for but to ask for things that the never-erring Spirit of God prompts us to ask for",123

True prayer, according to Torrey, is the prayer which theSpirit inspires and directs. Therefore

"when we come into God's presence, we should recognise our infirmity, our ignorance of what is best for us, our ignorance of what we should pray for, our ignorance of how we should pray for it and in the consciousness of our utter inability to pray aright look up to the Holy Spirit to teach us to pray •,,124

1 2 5Conner also maintained this position, ^ Earlier adherents126 ^ 2 7included Hodge and Manoury,

119 B, H, Streeter, Concerning Prayer, Its Nature, its difficulties and its Values, 1916,~p ,223, ~~120Black, Romans, p,123»121 Dodd, Romans, p,135«122J, A, T, Robinson, Wrestling with Romans, 1979» p,104,1 2 3 R, A, Torrey, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit as Revealed in the Scriptures and Personal Experience, 1910,vTTW. ~ ~ : ~

124Op, cit., P,155#^^Conner, The Work of the Spirit, p.108.126C, Hodge, Romans, 1871, PP«437f«1 2 7 A, F, Manoury, Commentaire sur L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains, 1878, p,195«

198

How do these explanations fit into Rom, 8:26f.? To claim /that 0 T f c r W o k ' Y o f v,26 represent the groans of the Spirit

and our spirit together shows a misunderstanding of the wordvn\fc >tVT'Jy'jCoivjtv. . We cannot intercede for ourselves. Moreover,

to teach how to pray cannot have the sense of intercession.Thus CTewotyjjov. c*.\oCVntot of v.26 must be the groans of the

t „ /Spirit himself. This view puts the word fcVTOy inits right perspective. But Rom. 8:15f» and Gal. 4:6, plus the fact that the Spirit's intercession takes place in the heart of the believer (see p. 215 ) show that the believer must beinvolved somewhat in this act of intercession. So, the necessary question which must be asked and to which we must find an answer is this: what role does the believer play in this actof intercession? We discuss this on pp.2l4-215«

To complete our historical survey of the interpretations of Rom. 8:26f., two more points need to be mentioned. (1) How was CfTtN(«.yjvicc Q ^ X o c V ' j ' T C L explained? The popular explanation is that it is a reference to ecstatic utterance. . Godet, commenting on 1 Cor. 14:2 observed that the phenomenon ofspeaking to God in an unknown tongue can be justly compared

128to what is described in Rom. 8:26. Althaus also observedthat this intercession of the Spirit took place when "our

129conscious prayer life lies prone". According to Althaus, Paul was referring, in this verse, to experiences in worship

Godet, 1 Corinthians, 1887» p.266.Althaus, Der Brief an die Romer (NTD 6), p.77»

199

of the Christian community during which an individual wascarried away by the Spirit to a prayer "in tongues" which wasunintelligible to himself and others. Other subscribers tothis view are Lietzmann, who observed that 0“tfcW0*. |Jol o<,Xcs. ViToiare the wordless stammers of the ecstatics through which

130the Spirit speaks a language understood by God, Hamilton,who states that intercession in inexpressible groans suggests

131that unintelligible prayer called "speaking in tongues",Scott, O ’Neill, Stendahl^^ and others. Kasemann andBalz are the two main contemporary expounders of this view.Kasemann dismissed the suggestion that (TTfcVai^ÔC c*refers to "wordless groans", as something that was notobtained in early Christianity and that prayer "ist bei Paulus

135niemals wortlos ..." He argued that the sighs must be"sehr sinnen^dlVlê ErscheinungenVi&*\deVa and take placewithin"die gottesdienstliche Versammlung der Gemeinde •.."He found a parallel to 8:26f.,in 8:15f., where, there he thought that Cr*J|J|)o(jOTO tt took place during

1 O f |Lietzmann, An die Romer. p.86.131 N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul.SJT Occasional Papers No. 6, 1957*1^2E. F. Scott, Romans, 19^7» P « 5 2 .

^ ”*J. C. O ’Neill, Romans. 1975* P»1^3*"*- K* Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles. 1977* p#111j see also Paulsen. Uberlief e r un g . pp^122ff.^Ê. Kasemann, Paulinische Perspektiven. 1969 * p.223» also An die Romer. p.232; Schniewind, "Das Seufzen des Geistes,Rom7”8, 26» 27" NRA. (Berlin), 1952, p.86.^-^Kasemann, Perspektiven, p.224.

worship and the c*vJ“fb “Co TvNfcO )c\ was the "Kraft ...>i 137welche die gesamte Versammlung erfullt" and explained the

whole phenomenon in terms of ecstatic utterances. If ^TcSdoesnot mean "wordless" what then does it mean? Kasemann found

1' „ c /the answer in the lOfj cX.Tc*, of 2 Cor. 12:4which Paul experienced when he was caught up into heaven.The words that Paul heard are not

"imausgesprochene, sondem urn unaussprechbarexand nicht ohne weiteres wiedergebbare Worte, „ gwelche im himmlischer Sprache Mysterien enthullen".

The main points of Kasemann’s thesis are these:1. "Prayer in the Spirit" presupposed in the Qumran Vvodayot appears in the NT in passages like 1 Cor. l4:13ff.; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; Rev. 22:17} these refer to speaking in tongues. Thus showing that the phenomenon had a fixed place in primitive Christianity.2. The glossolalic interpretation of Rom. 8:26 will maintain that Paul's assertion here does not contradict everything that the NT has otherwise to say on the subject of prayer and thus will maintain the meaning and assurance of prayer (p«13l)«3* It will also preserve the divinity of the Spirit and thus made not to submit to our weakness (p.132).4. It will also contain the situation envisaged that Rom.8:26 refers to a worshipping assembly (p.131f*)»5. The glossolalic interpretation will also guard against the fact that it is only the Spirit who knows and can express the urgency of our need of redemption (p.133)»

201

6 . Speaking in tongues is an apocalyptic language, thus linking our passage to the preceding verses (p.135)*7. Speaking in tongues as an explanation of* Rom. 8:26 is to be understood as a cry for liberty (p.135)* (The pages cited here are from the English translation of Perspectives on P a u l . SCM Press, 19 71* In his commentary also An die R S mer. he carefully compared this glossolalic interpretation with and defended it against other interpretations — see

pp.231-233). We discuss Kasemann’s view again - on pp . 2 17-228.Balz also reinforced this interpretation. He pointed

out that f i rst. the groaning of the Spirit is not mentionedat all in the NT. Second. the Spirit apart from 1 Cor. 2:10;12:14; Phil. 1:19* Is represented not as acting on its ownbut as a "Gabe Gottes an die Glaubenden und wird in der Existenz

1 39der Glaubenden e r f a h r b a r ". Third, xn the L X X , groanings,in most places, are not understood metaphorically but as an actual and perceptible expression. Fourth, the Holy Spirit does not groan anywhere; not even in Philo, nor in apocalyptic and Gnostic literature. F i f t h . Ao<Afc-Tv and its cognates can mean the fundamental becoming silent as well as to describe ecstatic state. With these observations, Balz argued that in the language of Paul and the rest of the NT, ecstatic speaking in tongues almost in all cases is expressed along with the term or the onomatopoeic word

t>oY (1 Cor. 12:30; 13:1; 14:2, 4, 5 , 6 , 9 , 11, 13, 18,19, 23, 27, 39)« In 1 Cor. 14:14 it is used with

. There it is a reference to glossolalia.

1 89H. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturen derpaulinischen Eschatologie nach Romer 8, 18-39, 1971, p»71«

202

140

Significantly enough., Balz pointed out, TS alsooccurs in Rom, 8:26f. What is to stop us under standing Rom. 8:26 in the same way, he asked? He observed that this will provide an analogy to 1 Cor. lk:2 where it is also stated that glossolalia can be heard and understood by no one but it is meaningful as the language of the Spirit and also for God.

How acceptable is this glossolalic interpretation? Barre111^1 1Z12 1 > v ; VSchniewind and Dunn take O' * fc-v/o pet <=Aa<, Vycoc in a

broader sense so that it does not exclude glossolalia and is143not confined to it either. Other exegets like Michel,

144 1^5 146Leenhardt, Gaugler, Niederwimmer reject outright,any reference to glossolalia. That there are alternate views to this explanation of ■aV.Xok is an indication of the possible problems inherent in the interpretation (see pp.217-22B) and thus need to be examined in detial.

In connection with the explanation of the groans also, we may also ask how is &.Xo< X^xo v, translated? The vulgateand majority of commentators translate "inexpressible" (for the expression of whose meaning words are insufficient);Beza, Grotius translate "unexpressed" (not accompanied with words). Which of these translations fit into the thought of

^^Barrett, Romans . p. 168.^^Schniewind, "Seufzen" NRA, '52, pp.82f.142 ,Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p.241.^^Michel, Romer. p.208.144Leenhardt, Romans. p .231•14 5 hE. Gaugler, Der Brief an die Romer. 1. Teil : Kapitel 1—8(Proph.) 19^5, pp.322f.^^Niederwimmer, "Das Gebet des Geistes", TZS 20, 196^, pp.263f«

203

Rom, 8:26? (see pp.231-232).

This outline of modern exegesis of Rom, 8:26 shows three things: First, there are three main interpretations of v,26a,(i) The preposition CTUV - does not mean "together with (us)" but merely corroborates the idea of support expressed by the compound verb, (ii) The Greek word means "to lay hold of a thing together with a person" and (iii) The Greek word gives the sense of "in turn". We rejected (i) on the grounds that CT0\J~ must have a purpose and thus needs to be stressed.

What is left for us to do is to determine whether (ii) or (iii) is a more acceptable explanation. Second, it came out clearly that in v,26b, Paul clearly and simply meant that we cannot pray. Prayer is possible through the Spirit, Any attempt to weaken the saying is unacceptable. What is important for us is to determine why Paul made such a claim despite the numerous teachings on prayer. Third, whether it is the Spirit himself who groans or whether he groans in conjunction with our spirit is also disputed; so also is the question of what these groans represent, with most scholars divided between glossolalic and non-glossolalic interpretations.

This historical examination enables us to outline the main explanations of the various units of Rom, 8:26f, That there is more than one explanation of a unit is an indication of the inadequacy of the interpretations. Our task here is to submit these explanations to fresh analysis in order to determine which ones are plausible. The following questions will be the pivots on which our discussions will revolve.

20^

(1) How does the Spirit help us? (2 ) What is "our weakness"?(3) Why did Paul claim that we do not know how to pray?(4) The groans of* v.26 are the Spirit’sj but how is the believer related to these groans? (5 ) How do we understand

- / > V / V _CT LtNoi.'l a<X<xV^iOL ancj are these groans "unspoken" or"unspeakable"? (6) How does v.27 relate to v.26.

SECTION B

1, How does the Spirit help us? The word O'uV^NTvis the middle voice of* a compound verb made up of* a prefixC*^W- and the compound word AvJWi # Relating theSpirit to "our weakness", we have two interpretations of theGreek words (a) "to lay hold of a thing together with (us)",or (b) to hold in turn". The word appears in three otherpassages (apart from Rom. 8:26f.), thus it will be appropriateto examine how they have been explained elsewhere. v.-X=( j appears in the LXX at Num. 11:17 where Moses is

advised to appoint helpers "who shall bear the burden of thepeople with you". The word CrUVo<,VT'-^^^c>VTott is rendered"help" but it cannot be ruled out that it carried there ameaning of actually working together with Moses in administeringthe tribes of Israel. The word also appears in Exod. 18:22where the same thought as in the Numbers passage is expressed:

"every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves; so it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you".

205

Its next occurrence is in the NT - Lk, 10:40. There, Marthawho had had more than she could handle in the preparationof the meal, asked the Lord to bid her sister Mary to comeand help her* Here,the meaning of” Xoy3T|-fo<.c is"help"but once again, it is possible to read into it the idea thatMary is being asked actually to work together with Martha toget the meal ready. Linguistic usage, therefore makes usaccept the first explanation and reject the second* Besides,Boyd's explanation of CTUvMVTi- which is ouralternative view here appears to be forced. His explanationwill make sense if the Greek word is Ti X°( f inwhich case a stress on the °(Vlt ~ will give it the meaningof 'do something in place of (instead of)'. The Spirittherefore will be shouldering our weakness instead of us.

)To stress both CTUV - and e,W T — in the double compound Xo( j |ic<\jc f to give it the meaning of "help in

turn" (instead of) or "help along with as if two men were carrying a log, one at each end", appears to be pushing the grammar too far. This grammatical explanation of Boyd and Robertson does make sense out of context but it breaks down within the context of Rom. 8:26. The Pauline idea is not that the Spirit takes over our weakness completely nor did he want to stress the position (placement) of the Spirit in respect to us("face to face")} his idea simply is that the Spirit shares in our weakness. In Rom. 8:15f»» the Spirit, in conjunction with our spirit proclaim our sonship. It is this working togetherness which is behind our passage* Just as the lawyer is, as it were, a substitute identifying himself with the will and interest of his client, so the Spirit as

206

^^^ToS has joined himself to the believer's inmost life, so that one cannot distinguish between the Spirit and his action. He is in us and we are in him. We no longer live by our own strength, but by God's.

In view of the above discussion, the acceptable explanation of |3,o<.vl'oo<v. iSf to lay hold of our weaknesstogether with us. This explanation will do justice to the linguistic usage of the word elsewhere and will fit the thought conveyed by Rom. 8:26f. But there is a problem which needs to be resolved if we accept this interpretation.iiKasemann, disputing what he called "Schlatter's mistaken

interpretation" of glossolalia, stated"... he now has to go on to say that even the Spirit submits to our weakness ... Intercession is not adaptation to our weakness but the representation of a plenipotentiary which can thus assist our weakness".1^7

A working together with (us) will imply that the Spirit literally submits to our weakness. This is a reasonable objection; it would be meaningful, however, if exponents of this explanation understood it in a sense of a' literal submission of the Spirit to our weakness - which they did not.The Spirit assists us in our weakness without the disadvantage of being absorbed into our spirit. In this action of his, he remains entirely God's Spirit. In short, the CTOV— must neither be neglected nor regarded as a mere strengthening adjunct.

^^Kasemaim, Perspectives on Paul, 1971 » P » 1 3 2 .

207

2. What is "our weakness11? The help of the Spirit is necessary because of "our weakness". Depending on the reading we adopt, the word might claim one of the two interpretations: if we read the Byzantine plural ToiiS ofc'frfc.vJ&Uus (our infirmities), for which the evidence is weak, the reference will be to general moral weaknesses; but the Alexandrian and Western readingrefers to a specific infirmity. Due to lack of strongevidence for the Byzantine plural, we prefer the Alexandrianreading. The note of a specific weakness has led somescholars to make this equation: = we Honot know how to pray. The alternate view singled out is that"our weakness" is the total human powerlessness in this world.} lThe usage of c* reveals that the Greek word is avery comprehensive term which covers the range of weaknesses which characterise us in this life. Stahlin examined the material data of Vc-i^ # He noted four main meanings of the word: (1) "weak" or "to be weak" originally inthe physical sense; (2) sickness; (3) impotence, (figuratively);

economic weakness. He subdivided the first meaning into U: (a) is used in a comprehensive sense of thewhole man, e.g. 1 Pet. 3s7» Mt. 26:U1, Rom. 6:19 etc.; (b) the sphere where God’s might is exhibited - he cited Rom. 8:26 under this meaning; (c) sin; (d) religious and moral weakness.We do not have any evidence of the use of carryingthe meaning of "inability to pray". The closest to it is Rom. 6:19 where Paul had the religious and moral weakness of

1 Ur Stahlin, TDNT, 1, pp.U90ff.; see also C. Brown (eda), NIDNTT, 3, 1978, pp.99^ff.

208

the in mind. But we cannot make a case out ofthis for the simple reason that no one spoke of prayer as weak except here — this accounts for the lack of reference of this usage.

However, we think there is more to herethan just inability to pray. Earlier Paul had spoken of thewhole of creation and "we ourselves" groaning for the revelation of the sons of God. This revelation will see the end of our subjection to . in effect, we groanbecause we want to be rid of pstT «*co . We suggest that"our weakness" in v.26a is a reference to our subjection to |JoCTc*,\.c>T<y; (v.20). In order to establish this view, however,two questions need to be discussed: (l) Does 'vj

/ frefer to pri/T <*\.o “C *yS and (2) if it does, what does |MiAlo imply?

c / (l) The adverb UDcroCO \oOS Qf Rom. 8:26 which is translated by "likewise", "similarly" may indicate one of two things: (a) it may attribute the action described to a newsubject (Matt. 20:5) J (b) it may introduce a new action bythe same subject, similar to something described earlier

c | _(Mk. 14:31; Lk. 13:5? bk. 20:31). In both cases, wOSlinks Rom. 8:26f. to the preceding verses.

(a) i. Some exegetes assign the reference ofto the action of w . 24-25# Meyer expressed this when he

149wrote "as we wait patiently, so the Spirit helps" andMurray "as hope sustains us in suffering, so the Holy Spirit

1 50helps our infirmity". Supporters of this view are O'Neill (p.141), Harrison (p.95) and Schmidt (pp.l49f«). The problem

^^Meyer, Romans, II, p.86f. n.1.1 50Murray, Romans , p 0 311•

209

with this explanation is that it presents an incorrect comparison. No action similar to 0'’0,'j=WvV.X<=,v isattributed to either hope or to patience in the preceding context. Vv. 2k and 25 merely describe the life of the Christian in this present age, as he groans for the consummation* Besides, hope can hardly be considered as acting in the same manner as the Holy Spirit, since hope itself arises from the believer’s conviction (itself a gift of the Holy Spirit) that he is a son and heir of God.

(ii) The other option is to carry the reference oft /vJS'o(oi\OS a step further back into the preceding context.

co(viTvmS will then introduce a third subject whichgroans: "even as creation groans, as the Christian groans,

151so the Spirit himself groans ..." Supporters of this vieware Sanday and Headlam (p.213)» Cranfield (p.^-21), Paulsen(p.122), Black (p.123)» de Goedt (p.29)» This explanationsees a close relationship between the groans of creationof "we ourselves" and of the Spirit. These three groansappear linked by a gradation marked by the increasingimportance of the subjects; creation, we ourselves, and theSpirit. Besides, the action which Paul reports of thesecharacters are qualified in terms drawn from the samepredicate. This explanation is commendable.

(b) But Brownson argued against this view, that"it is difficult to see how the groans of creation or of believers can constitute a ’helping1 action similar to that described by this verb".152

151Nygren, Romans. p.336.^^Brownson, Protestant Exegesis (Diss. Princeton), p.137*

210

He opted for a third connection; "as the Spirit assures us of our sonship, so also he helps us in our weakness". Supporters of this view are Vaughan (p»73)» Knox (p.522).This explanation relates the whole preceding section of w . 1*1-25 to our passage. It must be admitted that this view has some advantages; (i) it keeps in focus the underlying theme of the passage that the Spirit’s work within the believer confirms him in his hope; (ii) there are identical expressions in v .16 and v .26 — e.g. ojVto ~o andthe (r W — compounds. It is clear to us that in the reappearance of similar expression in v.26, Paul is carrying on the argument of the earlier verses; but in spite of this, we suggest that a link between v .26 and w . 1*1— 17 on the strength of ^g unacceptable; it will be stretching the adverb too far. In its other appearances inPauline writers (1 Cor. 11;25» 1 Tim. 2;9; 1 Tim. 5:25;

t iTit. 2:6) the reference of oJsto(.io \a}S is to the immediate preceding verse. Besides, the argument against (ii) can be disputed. The explanation is not to be seen as drawing attention to the fact that the groans of creation and "we ourselves" constitute a "helping" action. Rather, the adverbial phrase depends on "not only .... but also". Thus we will render the resemblance as this - we groan .... and in the same way the Spirit groans but his groans constitute help.

153In v.22, creation groans because it has been subjected153 t 'How much of created reality does refer? SeeCranfield, Romans, p.*111; Murray, Romans. p .301* We acceptthe view that ' k t/o-is refers to sub-human creation.H. K. Gieraths in his dissertation Knechtschaft und Freiheitft — .■■■■■■III ■! 1 1 u i.iL . h— ■ ... i— w ....... . »' Iim n i'in r H*nder Schopfung. Eine historisch exegetische Untersuchung zu R ^ ^ r ~ 8 ;19-22 t"~TBonn).1950. argues for this vie^7~in' relation to Rom. 1;21ff. See also Kasemann, An die RBmer, pp„22*if. Gleichwohl wird mit Recht heute zumeist primfran clip ausser— — - -■*-•> -1— n n 4-1,-*-, -1 jit-, + . _ imH H -i p T’ ■nrlmi/?' TTd.Va v\ t<Ti£C/522

211

to )«*,”T<*v.oT S # Xt waits anxiously and expectantly for therevelation of the sons of God because it wants to be rid of this m ye also groan because we want to be rid ofjocK votvoTr^ # jf» subjection to is the underlying

cause to our groanings, will it not be correct to seeas the underlying cause to the Spirit's groans as

well? We suggest it is. The groans of the Spirit are necessary because of our subjection to ydToU^lv^S »which is the cause of our suffering and pain in the preceding verses and is the cause of our inability to pray,

(2) Three things must be noted about \ • firstit is a state or condition that characterises creation as we

t _/know it now; second, the aorist indicates thatthe act of subjection was begun and completed in the past,

> 1 j tits effects continue, however, and third, the tip 6A(tfcK indicates that the state is only provisional and will come to anend. Three main meanings of the word group joOfotLoS can be

15^ / \observed in the LXX and the NT, (a) it is applied to wrongor consciously false statements; (b) it is applied as adescription to wasted endeavours; a designation of thetransitoriness of beauty, of youth and the life of man andas a designation for lack of order, reason and righteousnessin human life; (c) it is applied to idols; the making of

I _idols and of their worship. Thus the word grouprepresents to the people concerned, a lack of morality, truth, success, decency, meaningfulness, fulness of power, religious knowledge etc. What is specifically lacking to the people

15^ 'For a discussion of y)o(.-fcxto£ and the word group, see C,Brown (ed,), NIDNTT, 1, p.550.

212

concerned musty however, be determined for every passage, from its context. What meaning does cUO-Cv S in Rom.'8:20 demand?

Various explanations have been given to .(See Cranfield, Romans. p.413 for a list of these explanations).We accept that the thought here is of subjection to man’sidolatry, which exploits the irrational creation. This ideawould have been known to Paul in Rom. 1:21ff. There we findthe Apostle speaking of man who believes in idols instead ofthe true God and gives divine honour to images. Such an

t _/explanation also reinforces the interpretation of ^ kuciSas irrational creation. Thus in Rom. 8 j19-22, Paul wasexpressing the idea of idol worship. Irrational creation hasbeen subjected to man who believes in idols and gives divinehonour to these idols who are formed from the material

15 5creation. Gieraths argued this point convincingly explaining as signifying the resultant moral corruptionand S'b'oXfcvk as the creation’s bondage to man’scorrupt abuse of it. To understand ^Tc^voTv^s here as a reference to idol worship is correct, but we must go a step further. We suggest that the most important point is not the act of idolatry' but the consequence of it: idol worshipis characterised by futility on the part of those who engage in it and frustration of the sub-human creation for not being able to fulfil the purpose of its existence. Because man places his faith in idols, his actions are characterised by

1 *5 5 tiGieraths, Knechtschaft und Freiheit der Schopfung. (Diss.Bonn).

213

1 5 6emptiness; everything in his experience of life in thisworld is empty of meaning or worth, "Our weakness",therefore is this emptiness or futility which characterisesour existence; it clouds our thinking, our sense of directionand blinds us to the true goals of life. In fact all ourefforts to achieve something on our own are ultimately futile.An area of activity affected by our ineffectiveness, isprayer. As long as we remain in this condition, there willbe no effective purpose to our actions. It was God who sub-

* 157jected us to ^MToU©T*|<j This subjection was done inhope, which means that some day in God’s own time, thisprovisional state will be changed. It is only God who canchange this state and release men from the encirclement offrustration and futility. To ease the frustrations andfutility, however, the Spirit is sent to help us; to give effective direction to our lives.

1560epke, TDNT, 3, p.660; Bauemfeind, TDNT, k t p.523.1 57Karl Barth, in his comments on this verse seemed to approach the view that Jesus, by his death at Golgotha, subjected creation to , "There seems to me to be no doubthere as well, Paul is simply thinking of Jesus Christ who in his death as we have heard again and again, has made an end of man, has made and pronounced his verdict. Along with man, the whole world suffers from the fact that this has happened.At Golgotha, the final word has been spoken concerning man and his whole world .,, there is only dying life. That is why here and now creation in all its glory can only be a groaning creation". The Shorter Commentary on Romans, p.100, But in his Epistle to the Romans, p,309» he stated that it was God who subjected creation. It appears to us that Barth’s comments cited here is more of a meditation on the meaning of Christ’s crucifixion than on the exegesis of v«20. Most commentators take O bxroToc ocS as a reference to God, The active form of the verb iicrof <*<rcrfc-w is used by Paul to describe a divineaction (1 Cor, 15*27f; Eph, 1:22; Phil, 3*21). Besides, the subjection was linked to hope and hope is the reason for the

# it will be unreasonable to attribute to man (Adam), the bestowing of eschatological hope on creation.

214

Thus, it will be incorrect to equate "our weakness'* with our inability to pray; it is rather a result of* the weakness. "Our weakness" is the subjection to yMT oiCOT y S and its resultant frustrations and emptiness.

3. Why did Paul claim that we did not know how to pray?The answer to this question derives from the above discussion. Despite the numerous teachings on prayer, the Christian still cannot pray. This is so, because we are ignorant of God's will. This ignorance is not due to lack of faith or lack of exposition of the word of God. It simply results from our subjection to . Every aspect of our lives isaffected by this emptiness and ineffectiveness. Since our prayers are affected by ^MTc^o-T^S f it means that our inability to pray is not a transitory condition. It cannot be removed through some special teaching or instruction in a definite technique of prayer. So long as we remain subjected to y=CTcM_o't^S we will remain ignorant about the will of God and our inability to pray will thus remain. No man can really pray and no man will be able to pray.

4. How is the believer related to the Spirit's groans ofintercession? X*yCo L represent the

groans of the Spirit himself. But the believer is involved in two ways. (a) In v.23 Paul speaks of Christians, groaning in their present existence for liberation from intransitoriness and decay in favour of a mode of being in a world that belongs to God alone. This is the place of the Christian's

215

action. Thus in v.26, the Spirit, by his groans, is identifying himself with an already groaning cosmos. Thus we see an indirect role of the believer here. It is his (the Christian’s) groans of suffering which possibly necessitates the help, and subsequent intercession of the Spirit.

(b) A much more direct relation is, however, to be found. The Spirit intercedes in us. Some scholars do not

t 1 - 3 /think so. Schneider writes that VJ’Xt pGV < T T t ^ jo S does not refer

"to something which takes place in us ... the process which Paul has in view is thus a process in the heavenly and divine sphere".158

Michel also thought that the intercession of Rom. 8:26f. is1 5 9a heavenly apocalyptic event* But we know that in Rom.

8:15, 16, it is from within us that the cry "Abba Father" is issued with the help of the Spirit. In Rom. 5:5» t V T oClS

Y'ljJujv/ is an indication that G o d ’s love has been

poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. In Rom.8:27» the phrase o Tc S makes itcertain that it is in our hearts that God looks for and hears

16othe aspirations of the Spirit. Thus any interpretationthat seeks to find the venue of the Spirit’s intercession in the heavenly sphere is unacceptable.

Thus, apart from the fact that the Spirit’s groans of intercession are on behalf of the Christian, the Christian is related to the Spirit’s groans in two ways. By his groans the Spirit is identifying himself with the present suffering

158J. Schneider, TDNT. 7 t P . 6 0 2 .

^^Michel, Romerbrief. 19&3» P « 2 0 7 .

^^Goedt, "The Intercession of the Spirit", Cone. 9 i8, 1972, p*3^.

216

of* Christians and irrational creation and most important, the Spirit's groans of* intercession take place in the heart of the Christian.

When we accept the explanation that it is the Holy Spirit himself who groans, we are faced with a problem. Does this imply that the Holy Spirit is also suffering (as irrational creation and "we ourselves" are)? is used inthe LXX as an expression of human complaint,because of an oppressive situation such as that experienced by the Israelites during the Egyptian tyranny,or for personal suffering (Exod. 2:23f*, 6:5)« In Job 24:12, there is mention of the goraning of the soul of the wounded — fcOTfcv/ frV •But here jit is a reference to the human spirit. Nowhere in the NT is the Holy Spirit said to be in pain or said to groan.

it"Der Paraklet fungiert als Fursprecher, er ruft zur Busse, erdecktdie sunden auf, er ftthrt in die Wahrheit usw ... aber er seufzt nicht". 161

Niederwimmer found parallels to groans by the Spirit ingnostic literature where there is mention of groaning andmoaning of the souls enclosed in the matter or in the materialbodyl^ He observed that these parallels are similar toPaul's in the sense that there is talk of the soul and inPaul of the spirit which shouts for salvation from the depthsof the humam heart. But he rightly observed the differences

*l 6 1Niederwimmer, "Des Gebet des Geistes", TZ, 20, 1964, p.261,"1 6 2See the Naasener hymnus in Hipp. ref. v, 10.2 and also The Corpus Hermeticum — the Kore Kosmus 33 (in W. Scott., Hermetica 1, 1924, S.474, 20ff.).

217

between these two parallels; in Paul, it is not a question of the groaning of the divine substance linked with matter, and besides, there is no mention of a substantial homousion of the divine and human self* Paul clearly distinguishes between the divine and the human spirit (Rom* 8:16, 1 Cor.2:11) and in Rom. 8;26f., between the divine spirit and the human heart *

Niederwimmer appears to be placing Pauline thought herewithin gnostic ideas and again outside it. In fact he placesthe idea expressed by Rom. 8:26c between Jewish paracletetradition and gnostic spirit myth and concludes that"welchen Sinn diese Stellung im Einzelnen hat, kann man

"16 *3lediglich vermuten". Although Niederwimmer is right inhis observations here, one wonders whether the groans here cannot simply be explained. Paul was not describing the Spirit in physical pain. We suggest that the "groaning” of v . 2 6 c represents prayer (see pp.228-231) • The Spirit intercedes with prayer. The groans of v.22 and v.23 must not be given the same reference as that of v.26c. (i) The first set of groans are set in a situation of suffering; the Spirit's are not. (ii) The cosmic groans do not constitute intercession; the Spirit's groans are.

5• How must we understand CTTfcMaCypQl c^Vo^SoyfOL ? Asoutlined on pp. 198—203 some scholars have taken the vTTfcJosv|

as reference to glossolalia. They are Diodore,rrChrysostom, Althaus, Lietzmann, Hamilton, Kasemann, Balz and

^■^Niederwimmer, "Des Gebet des Geistes”, TZ, 20, 1964, p.261.

218

others. But is this an adequate explanation of the Greek words?

16^Schlatter opposed this glossolalic explanation. He argued that (i) a glossolalic explanation will mean that the weakness that Paul is describing here will be an affliction of a few individuals; speaking with tongues is considered by Paul to be a gift given to certain individuals only,(ii) The groans of the Spirit are described as ,which means "unspoken”,but are understood by God who searchesthe heart, Glossolalia was understood and interpreted by theman with the gift of interpretation. Thus it will be rightto assume with de Goedt that

"if prayer of the speaker in tongues is translatable, it is necessarily distinguished from the groans of which Paul claims that he who searches hearts knows the desire which they express ,,,,"165

(iii) Glossolalia is a gift of thanksgiving and of singing166of God*s secrets, not of groaning, Schneider observed

that"groaning takes place by reason of a condition of oppression under which man suffers and from which he longs to be free because it is not in accord with his nature, expectation or hopes"

Kasemann disputed these arguments. He observed thatit cannot be accepted that "Christian prayer" as a principle"never really knows anything about God’s will or what its own

168content ought to be". If the Apostle's statement is

16bA, Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit : ein V^ommentqr -gum Romerbrief, 1959» p»280,^^Goedt, "The Intercession of the Spirit", Cone, 9*8, 1972,P.32.166H. Greeven, Gebet und Eschatologie, p.153* l67Schneider, TDNT, 3, p.602.168 iKasemann, Perspectives , p• 131 •

219

understood as such, it contradicts everything that the NT has otherwise to say on the subject, for it will take away from prayer its meaning and assurance. He pointed out that Schlatter’s argument, stated at (a), failed to realise that the situation envisaged by v .26 is one of a worshipping assembly. The assembled congregation

is wrongly interpreted. It means "unspeakable”. He also disputed point (c) ,that although the church may have understood glossolalia as adoration and heavenly doxology, Paul did not; for him glossolalia is "the plea of the groaning",

First, his statement that it is improbable to think of Christian prayer as not knowing anything about God’s will or what its content ought to be, is right; but what he failed to realise is that Paul was speaking of our prayer, which so long as it is ours, remains under this ever-present nature of ignorance and ineffectiveness. Paul was radically expressing this human failing. Second. it is difficult to accept his "congregational setting" of v.26. There is nothing in the text of v.26 to compel us to confine Paul’s

"makes it clear that the charismata do not belong to individual Christians; the individual only avails himself of them representatively"

and"in the common worship of the church they are recognized as the joint possession of the whole congregation."169

He disputed Schlatter’s argument stated at (b),that

170"the cry of the tempted for liberty".11We can take Kasemann to task on his criticisms.

17°0p. cit., P.135f.

220

171reference here to a worshipping assembly. Thus the factstill remains that a glossolalic interpretation will excludesome Christians from the help of the Spirit. This must notbe the case for in Chap. 8, Paul is speaking of all those

> —who are £\J X^(<rTtO . When Paul uses the first personplural in this chapter, he is speaking as a representativeof all believers. Thus no Christian is excluded from whathe says in our verse (this is evidenced by O'J'** 0«-co<yvifcv )and therefore ,each is included in the help of the Spiritdescribed. The Spirit is said to intercede for all theSaints not only for those who have charismatic gifts.Third, it must be pointed out that even if X*yfoS £sinterpreted "unspeakable",rather than "wordless",(Schlatter)it does not necessarily make CTTfcMaO^c c. vol

glossolalic. Besides, on careful examination of 'XryTo S ,it will be found that the distinction in meaning between"unspeakable" and "wordless" is less illuminating than it

172first seems. Wedderbum pointed out that the word "unspeakable" can be used both literally and metaphorically in English. Literally the word can mean (a) "that of which it is physically impossible to speak or (b) "of which one is not allowed to speak". Metaphorically, "unspeakable" means, that which it is not proper to speak or of which one will rather not speak. Hence if something is literally "unspeakable",

^Michel, Romerbrief. p.208 ; Delling, Worship in the New Testament. 19£>2,™pT23 n.4.172A. Wedderbum, "Rom. 8:26f. Towards a theology of Glossolalia?" SJT, 28, 1975, P.371.

221

it remains "unspoken”, or it is being used metaphorically.

"Paul may be referring to words which God can utter, but which are for men literally •unspeakable* • •• or he may mean that they are words which it is not permissible for him to divulge", 173

None of these apply to glossolalia; particularly to the public

Though the human tongue serves as a tool for the divine Spirit, it is the human tongue that speaks,and it does so in some sort of language — be it angelic or human language which

divulged, for the utterances were made in public and were interpreted. In short, there is little evidence in the history of

"this phenomenon to suggest that those having such experiences felt themselves bound to keep silent about them",175

of 2 Cor, 12:4,Besides, interpreting the word ’unspeakable* in the

metaphorical sense, does not take us far towards the sense

simple reason that the cries of the speaker in tongues are not being castigated as improper, , there is little

On examining Kasemann’s parallel text, 2 Cor, 12:4, Wedderbum came to the conclusion that

ituse of it which Kasemann sees lying behind Rom, 8:26f.

174can be interpreted. The contents of glossolalia were also

Hence it does not qualify for the description

that will be required by Kasemann*s interpretation, for the

222

evidence of this Greek adjective being used in the metaphorical way* Fourth, there is no evidence that glossolalia was ever thought of as expressing the idea of the oppressed for liberation,nor has it ever been interpreted as a sign of weakness and suffering, Paul did not. In Ac, 2, it is associated with the bold and joyful proclamation of the Gospel, In Ac, 10:46, ToW yA <5*<roivS is associated with XovoV TuC>V “os • Also in 1 Cor, l4:l6ff,,

/-v Iprayer which is seems to be equivalent to6'^Xoy€rW and £vy>C.o( /hcrTdW , Glossolalists looked on the phenomenon as a sign of strength and spiritual perfection. Recent studies on glossolalia have tired to answer the question whether glossolalia is or was a symptom of psychopathology? Knox has pointed out that the Cl8th and Cl9th occurrences of glossolalia were hailed by adherents as a sign of spiritual and emotional strength and health,while religious and non-religious sceptics alike, interpreted the phenomenon as a sign of emotional instability or a manifestation of

*1 *7emotional illness. This view can well represent theattitude towards glossolalia during Paul’s day, Glossolalistswill never subscribe to the view that to speak with tonguesis to show signs of emotional instability, and regressivepathological experience or, in context of our passage,

11suffering. Kasemann’s statement then is a misrepresentation of the evidence on glossolalia.

176R, A, Knox, "Behavioural Science Research on the Nature of Glossolalia”, JASA, 19^8, p,75»

223

Against Balz* rhetorical question as to what prevents us from understanding Rom, 8:26f, in the same way as 1 Cor, l4:7f* (see p.202), Osten-Sacken replied that in 1 Cor, 14, the glossolalic speech is understood by the speaker himself' and also by other people who are able to understand it, but according to Rom, 8:26, only God can understand the wordless groans, In effect Rom, 8:26 is not the same as 1 Cor, 14,

One main point has been brought out in the above dis-itcussion — that is, Kasemann’s argument for a glossolalic

interpretation of v ,26 is incorrect; but one further questionneeds to be asked: does Paul’s estimation of the value ofglossolalia elsewhere suggest that he may want to introduce apositive reference to it in Rom, 8:26f,?

In 1 Cor, 14:2, Paul made a statement that when a manspeaks in tongues, he is addressing God not man; that is

’•the gift of tongues opens a new dimension to a man’s prayer life. He actually longs to pray whereas before it had been an effort”,178

In Ac, 10:46, one gets the impression that tongues enable aman to praise God at a depth unknown previously. In thehouse of Cornelius, the new converts ’’spoke with tongues andglorified God”, On the day of Pentecost this was very muchthe same. The crowd realised that the Apostles were praising

God for his wonderful works (Ac, 2:11-13)* It may also bethat in Eph, 5:19 and Col, 3:16, Paul is alluding to singing

"*^P« von der Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 als Beispiel Paulinischer Soteriologie, 1975» p,271f*

Green, 1 believe in the Holy Spirit, 1975, p,163,

224

in tongues,"It is an undeniable fact that when men receive this gift of the tongues they find themselves free to praise and thank and adore and glorify their heavenly father as never before",179

It is not surprising therefore that Rom, 8:26 has been interpreted in terms of glossolalia.

There is no reference in any of the canonical gospels to ’speakiing in tongues’, Jesus never spoke of it nor didhe promise it to his followers. Matt, 6:7 seems "to deprecate

180any kind of unintelligble utterance in prayer". But thereis a passage at the end of the Markan gospel 16:9-20 which seems to suggest that Jesus spoke of "speaking with tongues". But the passage in question is not found in any Greek manuscript earlier than the C5th and is not mentioned by any writer earlier than Eusebius, the C4th bishop and church historian. There is the possibility that this passage was composed and added to some manuscript of the gospel sometime in the c2nd which would be a reflection of the beliefs on the question of glossolalia in the C2nd,

The picture is different in the book of Acts, In three instances, it makes mention of speaking in tongues as a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit: (a) the Pentecoststory; (b) the conversion of Cornelius and (c) in 19s1—7» at Ephesus when Paul encountered a group of twelve who had had John’s baptism. These received the Holy Spirit and spoke

180F, W, Beare, "Speaking with Tongues, A Critical Survey of the NT evidence", JBL, 83, 1964, p.229.

225

with tongues and prophesied when Paul laid his hands onthem after their rebaptism.

Apart from these occurrences in Acts, the only sectionof the NT where glossolalia is discussed, and here in detail,

181is 1 Cor, 12-14, The lack of reference to the phenomenonin the NT, suggests that ’tongue speaking1 played a relativelyminor role in the NT, and that Paul possibly dealt with the phenomenon here, not because he considered it important in its own right, but because it was a problem to the Corinthian church. Further evidence to this is that in the two listings of spiritual gifts given in 1 Cor, 12, tongues, and its interpretation were mentioned last. In Eph, 4:11— 12 and Rom, 12:6—8, there also appears two lists of spiritual gifts and offices, tongues are not mentioned at all. If "speaking in tongues" was considered an outstanding endowment of the Spirit, it ought to have been specified here.

On careful reading of the Corinthian passages, it appears that Paul, in his exposition on the concept of glossolalia, gave both a negative and a positive assessment of it.

With the analogy of a "body with many members", Paul advised the Corinthian church that they must not all desire the gift of tongues (it seems that those who did not have the gift of tongues were tempted to feel somewhat inferior to those who did) since the church will not be a very good body

181 It has been argued that there are significant differences between the glossolalia reported in Acts and that which took place in Corinth, See A, Hoekema, What About Tongue Speaking?1966, p,82.

226

if* every member of it performed exactly the same function.All members of the body of Christ are necessary. This rulesout the supposition that the ability to speak with tonguessets a person off from other believers as one who hasreceived a fulness of the Spirit which others have notreceived. Glossolalia,without interpretation,is to bestrongly discouraged in the assembly (14.5— 12, 19)» Heobserved that there was something childish about thisfascination with tongues and urged them: "Do not be childrenin your thinking, be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature"(l4:20). Paul also insisted on the rights of the mind:

"If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is it then? I willpray with the Spirit, and I will pray with theunderstanding also. (14:14—15).

Paul will certainly not agree with any suggestion thatintelligible speech, prayer, and song was in anyway lessspiritual or gives any less evidence of the presence of theHoly Spirit within us than the unintelligible utterances of"tongues"jin which the mind of the speaker is not engaged;he will rather speak five words with his mind in the assembly

182than ten thousand words in a tongue.Paul's criticism of glossolalia here seems to have been

against the phenomenon as practised in Corinth, not against the phenomenon per se. One can deduce from 2 Cor. 12:2f,j 14:12, 23f 27f., 33a, 40 something of the confusion and disorder in the Corinthian church. Members of the church•jOp

Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, pp.243» 424, n.233«

227

intentionally work themselves up into a state of* spiritual ecstasy striving to become vehicles of* inspired utterance.

On the positive aspect, Paul wrote that he speaks in tongues a great deal more than all the Corinthians (14:18) and is willing for the Corinthians to experience this

•I Q Ocharisma (14:5). He valued glossolalia because he considered it a charisma, an inspired utterance; the Spirit speaking through him. He also considered it a kind of prayers "he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but toGod" (1 Cor. 14:2) and he thought of it also as a speaking of

184the language of heaven. These favourable comments onglossolalia seem to suggest that Paul knew of another formof glossolalia different from the Corinthians —

"a glossolalia which can be readily controlled (14:28) .... a glossolalia which is a speaking of actual words; a glossolalia, that is to say, which was ecstatic only in the technical sense of being automatic speech in which the conscious mind played no part, but not ecstatic in the more common sense of ’produced or accompanied by 1oe exalted states of feeling, rapture, frenzy’".

^•^See J. C. Hurd, The Origins of 1 Corinthians. 19^5» p.281.184See Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, pp.243f•, where he discusses the question: did Paul think of glossolalia as a language? His conclusion is here stated.•jOeOp. cit. . P . 2 4 3 . Hollenweger distinguishes between two forms of speaking in tongues: what he called "’hot’ speakingin tongues" which can be described as ecstatic and "’cool’ speaking in tongues" which is sometimes mystical. The form of glossolalia which Dunn refers to is the second one. See The Pentecostals . p.3 ^ *

228

Paul's position then is a discouragement of the Corinthian type of glossolalia because,it was not helpful to the church at large. To him, the right form of glossolalia is inspired prayer or speech. In Rom. 8:26, Paul is talking about Spirit-inspired prayer. Could he have equated the two then? From Paul's estimation of glossolalia (not the Corinthian form) ,it is possible to think of such an equation but when we take into consideration the other criticisms outlined above, it seems unlikely. This is even more so when we bear in mind that Paul did not expect members of the church to possess one particular spiritual gift. The church will not be a good body as a result. Since Paul is speaking of all Christians in v .26 ,the opposite will be the case if we are to think of the Spirit—inspired prayer in v.26 as glossolalia. The idea will be: let everyone speak in tongues if the Spirit is to intercede for us. We cannot accept this. Also, nowhere is glossolalia connected with intercession. Thus KSsemann andhis supporters are simply wrong when they explain jJol

what are they? The combination of these two words appears only in our passage. Thus to distinguish what stands behind the phrase, it will be necessary to examine the words

/

as glossolalia.

If CTTfc-vk j are not glossolalia,

individually. translates "a groan" or "groaning".186There are five main applications of it. (a) It was used

to express groaning at childbirth (Gen. 3s16, Jer. 4:31)J4 Q /?

J. Schneider, TDNT, 7» pp.600-603.

229

(b) It was also used to express personal suffering or sorrow(Ex. 2:24; 6:5; Jd» 2:18; Job 3:2k etc); (c) It was used toexpress grief for the dead (jn. 14:16); (d) It was used asa sign of penitence (Ma. 2:13)* (e) It was used to expressprayer to God (Ps, 78(79)*11) etc. With its connotation ofprayer, point (e) is of importance to us. In Ex. 2:24 (also6:5), although the groaning is an indication of Israelitemisery under the Egyptians, it is a prayer to God. That"God hears their groanings" — just as one might say "Godheard their prayers",is an indication of this. The resultwas that God remembered His covenant with Abraham and thusset out to deliver the Israelites. In Ps. 78(79)11* althoughthe idea of suffering is implied, the groaning of theprisoners "coming before God", primarily refers to "requeststo God for help". God is to listen to the requests of the

/prisoners. In Tob. 3s 1 (s) leads to prayer andmay be indicative of it. In these passages, the groans, which show the distress of the people concerned, also represent some form of requests to God. There is no indication what the contents of these groans are, but the context indicates that God understood them. They are also indicative of the intense desire to want whatever they involve; they depict the sincerity of the people involved in groaning,and they are the simplest way by which the people cone earned can convey their wants to God.

Thus 'groans* have the sense of prayer. In such cases they denote intense desire for the acceptance of the requests.

230

They also show the sincerity of the people concerned.The above view is strengthened by Philo*s comments

on Ex. 2:24. In Migr. Abr. 155 (see also 15)» we read"for the understanding is conscious of its feebleness, and when it cannot obtain what it is longing for, it weeps and groans";

this thought is continued in Det. Pot. Ins 93"But he who is good and gracious does not reject those who pray to him especially when sighing under Egyptian labours and sorrows they crysincerely and simply. For then, says Moses thewords mount up to deity (Ex. 2:23(24)), who hears them and redeems them from the evils which come upon them"•

When we take these two passages together, two main deductions can be made: (l) The groans of the Israelites in Ex. 2:24are simple and sincere prayer to God. (2) As a result of these groans they were saved from their enemies.

In Test. Jos. 7 :2, Potiphar’s wife says "I have a pain at my heart, and the groanings of my spirit, oppress me

(TP^MOV KsxpSto<s \<eCL oc Too T l s y i c o

KOOOT )• The TWfcO =-<Tc£ clearly refers to the humanspirit and the groans express her sexual craving for Joseph;(see also 9:4f.) they also show how serious she was in herdesire to copulate with Joseph. This can be inferred fromher numerous attempts to trap him. The meaning that can be

/inferred (sighs of love) of in. this passage, hasno bearing on the meaning of prayer which we have noted; but it is a good example to show the earnestness which must be linked to these groans.

In the NT, the verbal form appears in about six places (Mk. 7:34; Rom. 8:23? 2 Cor. 5:2, 4; Heb. 13:17? Jam. 5:9)

231

occurs in two passages: Acts 7:34 andRom, 8:26, In the Acts passage, appears in

—- /

reference to Ex, 2:24 and thus it will be reasonable to assume that it carries the same meaning as it did in its original passage. In Rom, 8:26, it is used in a context of prayer. In view of its usage in Ex, 2:2k; 6:5; Ps, 78(79) : 11 , Tob, 3* 1(S) to denote prayer (also understood by Philo as prayer), and taking into consideration the prayer context of the word, it is reasonable to accept that Paul used CTT^v,d to denote prayer; the intensity and sincerity

of it cannot be over emphasised.

’•unspeakable, unutterable”. The word does not appear in the LXX and its only appearance in the NT is in our passage.

or unexpressed groans; that is no language at all is involved, or (b) unspeakable or unutterable groans; that is, they cannot be expressed in ordinary human speech. In support of the first translation, we can cite the two classical references given by Arndt-Gingrich: Anthologia Palatina (Philodemus)

’’The lamp, Philaenis, the silent confidant of our secrets, — make it drink deep of the dew of oil, and then go away. Love alone hates a living witness. And, Philaenis, shut the folding door. As for you and me, beloved Xantho, — 0 lover—loving bed, now at once learn the rest of the Paphian's arts”;

secret (see also Cyranides 19:19)* From the text itself, it can be deduced that since God knows the Spirit's intention beforehand, there is no need for the groans to be spoken.

translates ’’wordless, unexpressed” or

^ then will translate (a) wordless

5:4 (3)

in this translation, c* \rylcS has the sense of "wordless”,

232

For the second translation, proponents sometimes see a parallel

"inexpressible" or "not to be spoken"; the revelation which Paul received was either (1) so sacred that he was forbidden to speak of it or (2) the revelation was beyond his comprehension so that he could not express it* This parallel word

was forbidden to express the groans. It has been suggested in connection with this that "inexpressible" describes not the Spirit's incapacity but the human. However, on careful examination of the two translations, it is observed that the difference in meaning is negligible. If the groans are inexpressible, it implies that there are no words sufficientenough to express them in which case they remain unexpressed,

\ . f v¥e suggest then that by >.vYT'0U Paul meant "wordless",with the sense that not only does language fail to describe the mysterious content of the groans,but they are not issued in words at all. This meaning preserves the fact of our incomprehensibility of the groans,

6, How does v,26 relate to v,27? V,27 is needed to clarifystatements of v,26. Three clauses are of importance:(a) fc PofUVWV To<S K^P^cocSis commonly used of God in the OT,(1 Sam, 16:7; 1 Kg. 8:39; Ps. 7:10; Prov. 15:11). It does not

reference in of 2 Cor. 12ik which translates

(Kasemann) does not make clear the meaning ofbecause it suggests that either (a) the Spirit did notunderstand his own groans as to express them or (b) that he

1 87For a discussion of TDNT. 3, pp.605-607.

233

occur in Pauline writings; its occurrence here suggests someimportance. Here, it clarifies the venue of the Spirit’sintercession. Apart from Lk. 21:3^-, Ac. 14;17 and tfom, 5:5where "the thought of the heart as the central organ of thebody and the seat of physical vitality is found", V<c<c)v.<*.expresses "the inner life of man and the source or seat of all

188the forces and functions of soul and spirit ..." Thus\<o p b stands for the inner being of man in contrast to his external side, the ^ potruaTfoV • the religious life of man is rooted here. It is to this centre of man which God turns in his search. In the light of this, the intercession of the Spirit is related to the human self in the closest possible way. Although they are the Spirit’s intercessions, they arise from the centre of man’s being.(b) Tv “ o vlvifcvivC.£ shows howthe intercessory prayer of the Spirit is heard. The olcltV does not have the sense of favour or approval (although one can rightly say that God looks with favour on the Spirit’s intercession in Christians),it is intended to contrast God’s infinite knowledge with the Christian’s human limitation. The Christian does not understand the wordless groans of the Spirit; God does. The expression TO ~0Oappears in v.27 and v .6 and nowhere else in the NT. In v.6 , Paul, by the expression, means the mind created and fostered in us by the Holy Spirit. The same meaning cannot be read

•J QQinto v.27. In its appearance here Paul is thinking only

l88Behm, TDNT, 3» pp.608-6l4.l89Cf. Schrdewind, "Seufzen", NRA, 1952, p.83.

23^

of the mind of the Spirit for this explains why God understands the wordless groans.(c) A reason for the effectiveness of the Spirit's intercessory groans is expressed in O X k. c* •SL\_HV is given a causal interpretation by the RSV but manyexegetes prefer to give it an explicative sense

h Tv. j.s better taken to mean 'that1 than 'because' or 'for', since the clause it introduces explains not why God knows the Spirit's intention but what He knows in knowing it".190 ----

God knows the mind of the Spirit under any circumstances. Thus, the idea presented is that God recognises the Spirit's intercession to be in accordance with His will. This is what we were unable to do which necessitated the Spirit's intercession. Barth noted therefore, that God

"makes himself our advocate with himself, that he utters for us that ineffable groaning, so that he will surely hear what we ourselves could not have told him, so that he will accept what he himself has to offer".191

We conclude that Rom. 8:26f. speaks of our inability to pray. This inability is a characteristic of all Christian prayer. Nobody is able to pray. The cause of our inability is our ignorance of God's will. We do not know God's will because we have been subjected to )ctT<*co~cv S and po(.

tA^ToUoTr^S may refer to man's idolatory which exploits the irrational creation and Cj^opc^ the moral corruption which results from it but as they apply to the Christian, it is rather the result of man's idolatory which must be stressed - ineffectiveness, frustration and emptiness characterise our

^^Cranfield, Romans t p.k2k; Black, Romans. p.12^.191Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans, p .102.

235

existence. By ourselves, we cannot know the will of God and pray accordingly, so long as we remain subjected to

• Subjection to ^dTcUoTvyS will come to an end with the revelation of the sons of God and the redemption of our bodies. For this, irrational creation, as well as we ourselves, groan. But in the meantime, the Spirit helps us.His help constitutes intercession on our behalf. The Spirit intercedes with "wordless groans". The "groans" are the Spirit’s and that he utters them shows that he identifies with an already groaning cosmos. Although the groans are the Spirit’s, the Christian is not removed from them, for they are uttered within him. We are not to explain these in terms of glossolalia; the "groans" simply refer to prayer; because we do not know how to pray, the Spirit intercedes with prayer. In Rom, 8:26f, therefore, Paul gives us the most important criterion to effective prayer — "pray in the Spirit",

236

CHAPTER FIVE

HOW DOES ROM. 8:26f. INTEGRATE INTO ITS CONTEXT?

Having examined the explanations of Rom. 8:26f., itis only proper to See how the passage fits into the mainstreams of thought of its context. In Rom. 8, Paulexamines in detail the role of the Spirit in the life ofthe Christian. We can divide Rom. 8:1-25 into threeunits. In the first unit, Paul discusses what life inthe Spirit entails ( w .1-11). In Chap. 5» Paul had notedthat Christians have been liberated from the wrath of Godthrough His profound love (vv.1-11). The liberation wasfrom sin ( w . 12-21), from death (6:1-4) and also fromthe law as means of salvation (7:1-6). This liberationmeans for the Christian the beginning of a new life; alife in the Spirit. Life in the Spirit means the Spiritbecomes the inner directive of Christian behaviour - allChristian actions, aspirations, and attitudes are nowbrought under his guidance. Life under the control ofthe Spirit stands in sharp contrast to life in the flesh.Spirit and flesh do not denote

"a physiological locus of being, but a certain mode of living according to contrasting realities to which are assigned a determinative function of human acts and thoughts".^

^J. Pathrapankal, "The Spirit of Sonship Rom. Chap. 8", Biblebhashym, 5» 2(3) » 1976, p . 185*

237

If we may bring in evidence from elsewhere, (Gal. 5 s■ 19-22), life in the Spirit is characterised by love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, a belonging to Christ, and above all life; the negation of these are characteristics of life in the flesh. A remarkable feature of these verses (w.1-11) is the ease with which Paul uses the phrases "God’s Spirit", "Christ’s Spirit", "the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead" and "Christ in you". Any possible confusion is clarified by Dodd's comments that

"this apparent equation, 'Spirit of G o d ’ ='Spirit of Christ' = 'Christ within you' is characteristic of Paul among New Testament writers. We may perhaps trace the lines of his thought thusj First, for Paul as for all Christian thinkers, Christ was in the fullest way the manifestation of God, and His whole life and person the expression of the divine Spirit. Further, it was the common postulate of primitive Christianity, ••••, that the Church was a fellowship of the Spirit, a community of those who had received the Spirit of God through faith in Christ. The one Spirit constituted the one Body. But, for Paul, with his mystical outlook, that Body was the Body of Christ, manifesting the new humanity of which He was the inclusive Representative. Hence in every member of it, possessing the Spirit of God, Christ was in some measure present and active, since the man a member of His Body (as the whole of any organism is in some sort active in every part of it). Thus the community might be indifferently. regarded as constituted by the Spirit of God, or by Christ as a 'corporate personality' and the individual as possessed by the Spirit of God or by Christ dwelling in His member. Christ Himself, as the 'second Adam' was a 'life-giving Spirit' (1 Cor. 15s^5)".^

^Dodd, Romans, p.123f.

238

To have the Spirit is to belong to the body of Christ and therefore, a personal appropriation of his redemptive work and all that he stood for.

In the second unit (w.12— 16), Paul expounds a positive element of life in the Spirit; our adoption as sons of God. This unit begins by referring to the obligations which rest on the Christian. Our obligations as Christians are not to the flesh to live according to it; it is to the Spirit which results in life. The life promised in the Spirit, "is no mere not—dying" but life as sons of God. Our adoption as sons of God through the gift of the Spirit not only enables us to call God "Abba", it also makes us heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ (v.17)*

As soon as Paul touched on the idea of inheritance as something to be received by us as co-heirs with Christ, he could not but introduce the way in which this inheritance is made possible — # if wesuffer with Christ, we shall be glorified. Paul’s description of this suffering forms the third unit (w. 18-25)* The cause of our present suffering is that irrational creation and "we ourselves" have been subjected to )c>(VoU.TrjS' ;it has been so throughout the ages. But

somewhere in the future, there will be an outbreak of freedom in the superabundance of glory. Into this, the children of God will enter with Christ; so will the irrational creation whose destiny is linked to "we ourselves".

239

Within this context of* suffering, Paul suddenly starts to talk about prayer (v.26). What made him introduce this idea of prayer in the passage of suffering?If we take w.26, 27 out, can the passage on suffering stand on its own? We will concern ourselves in this chapter to find answers to these questions.

1. Osten-Sacken argues that in Rom. 8:18—27. Paul has3taken up and worked over a tradition. His arguments are

here outlined. N W T o l v o T i ^ S ( v . 2 0 ) ,

(v.22) , STUVotV , <S'TfcroCYfcjcS t *•=* Ac*. Vyro.fi ( v . 26 ),

are terms which appear in Rom. 8:18-27 but do not occurin the other genuine Pauline letters. The expression

SfcT is aiso a hspaxlegomenon. There are also termsand particles in this passage which occur in other Paulinepassages - passages which have been shown to containtraditional fragments and taken over by Paul. The word

Ao~pwcr*S (v.23) is attested twice in Paul -Rom. 3i24; 1 Cor. 1:30» these passages have been shown to

’ _ 1be traditional. The verb GVTvJyVsWtrW used with thec S r 1preposition UTT€r > appear in v.26 and v.3z+» the latter is

a traditional formula. —^-cry,0“fv<OS‘ (v.26) also appears

3 11Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 , pp.78-104.

240

in the traditional, almost stereotyped, material of the"Abendmahls paradosis" (1 Cor* 11:23-25)* A l t e * ,which appears three times in Rom. 8:18-27 (vv.19» 23» 25)and thus can be said to belong to the theme of thispassage, also appears in 1 Cor, 1:7* Gal, 5 s5 5 Phil. 3t20.Phil, 3t20, 21 has been shown to be a pre-pauline trad—

4itional fragment. In 1 Cor. 1:7-9 also, Paul uses traditional formulation,^ In Gal. 5:5» y 0 wNfcuyooc£rl< (TttTTtvOS €rAm<v!c< C$\u.°<<JOS~Vj\/r|S fsounds quite Pauline but the statement also sounds overloaded in view of the piling up 6f central terms - / - ■ > v ' r /U G T H S , tAWiS , dvKo(tO(rovA . Besides, the landers tanding of £-ATTt.£> as what is hoped f or^ in the expression 6-AuI^X <XWt-U.it ICtCrQcKL suggests an eschatological thinking which is not Pauline but is characteristic of the "Deuteropaulinen", For Paul,SAlTiS characterises

"nie das Erhoffte, sondern st-.ets die Hoffnung als Struktur gottgemassen Lebens bzw,- die 1 spes qua speratur’”,6

4 "See E. Guttgemanns, Per leidende Apostel und sein Herr, FRLANT 90 (Gottingen), 196(1, pp.240ff,~^He foliows a lead from E. Lohmeyer in Per Brief an die Philipper. (Gottingen), 1961, p.157, and marshalls evidence that Phil. 3s20, 21 represent a pre-pauline hymn. R. H. Gundry in Soma in Biblical Theology. SNTSMS 29, (CUP), 1976, pp.177f. argues against this pre-pauline view.5Osten-Sacken hoped to give evidence for this in the near future in the ZNW. This article, if it was written, was not available to the present writer.6 "Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 . p*81.

2b 1

The inference then can be drawn that in Gal, 5*5 Paulwas using stereotyped expression, >AlvOl<.ot A h \sis used in Paul in different ways. It characterisesindividual revelations which are given to definitereceivers and contain special information (1 Cor, 1^:6,26; 2 Cor, 12:1, 7} Gal, 1:12; 2:2), It also describes,as in Rom, 8:19» the event of the future eschatologicalrevelation (Rom, 2:5} 1 Cor, 1:7)» This second use of theterm is not characteristic of Paul, He takes it over fromtradition. A n O IS has the second meaning in1 Cor, 7*9 which Osten-Sacken sees as proven to containpre-pauline traditional material; and also in Rom, 2:5where Paul is seen to be arguing with traditional expressions,

_ /To these words, Osten-Sacken adds KTiCriS # jn Rom, 1:20,Ki I CIS j_s usecj to refer to the creation of the world

at a moment of time. In Rom, 1:25 KTRTiS is to beunderstood comprehensively as creation in the sense ofmen and animal world. In Rom, 8:39» K “ ‘V(S has themeaning individual creation whereby he seems to think

/especially of angelic powers. It is linked to K ^ W c S in 2 Cor, 5*17} Gal, 6:15 as a characterisation of the new existence of believers, Osten-Sacken points out that outside Rom, 8:18-27» kC~fcris has no significant position in Pauline Theology, appears only twice inPaul (Rom, 1:25} 1 Cor, 11:9) and words like K.7fcrfj:\ f

derivatives of the root K7/— are not found in Paul, Thus it is surprising that lit/Vis' appears four

2k2

times (w. 19, 20, 21, 22) in the passage Rom. 8:18—27 and in contrast to Rom. 1:20, 25» 8:39t is positively emphasized. Considering the irrelevance of the idea of |onCTiS in Paul elsewhere, the emphasis of it in Rom.

8:18-27 suggests the use of a non-pauline material.is also added to the list of words. Osten-

Sacken translates the expression'wv i00 J&toCj:]:lug iif or the freedom of the glory of thechildren of God". He calls to mind that So in Paulgenerally has the meaning of divine brightness and glory. But such a meaning in Rom. 8:21 will obscure its sense. Moreover, in contrast to stand £>Cv)X&l<*. andCreation is meant to be freed from the slavery which transitoriness causes, into freedom which is given with < o . Thus as a contrast to here has

the precise and uniquely possible meaning of intransitoriness. This special use of is no longer attestedelsewhere in Paul. He also draws attention to the fact that it is only in Rom. 8:18-27 (v.26),in the genuine Pauline letters, that TWfcvjyo is regarded as a kindof an angelic intercessor,as it appears, for example in the apocalyptic literature of ancient Judaism. The statement that the Spirit intercedes for the Holy ones is strange in view of other usage of in Paul.

Stylistically, Osten-Sacken found the G Afc-0 icx.

expression in Rom. 8:21 with its three fold genitive as well as the use of with the accusative in Rom. 8:20,

2*43

surprising. He also noted that the expressions VJioV and ~b\oio<, f in Rom* 8:1*4-17 and elsewhere in Paul(Rom: 9:26; Gal. 3:26; Phil. 2:15) with only one exception (Rom. 9*8), are used without the article but in Rom. 8:18-27» they appear with the article. He finds the expression

c c /UUfc p of Rom. 8:27 peculiar, for it is onlyc>in this passage that the adjective ,a<.'Y,0£ derived from

the noun stands absolutely and without the article inj %Pauline letters. He also emphasises the expression °40TO

v — -> . ) ^TO uVfcO c where c'°io£ stands with an articulatednoun. /\OTOS joined to appears only inRom. 8:16 and Rom. 8:26 in Paul; the form of the expressionis rare in Paul. Its few occurrences are in passageswhich contain pre-pauline traditional material (2 Cor.11:1*4-) or in prophetic words and blessings which have beenproved to be of pre-pauline origin. Thus he assumes withgood reason that the form of the expression is dependenton stereotyped linguistic usage. In Rom. 8:18-27»

j /d\OTOS plus an articulated noun occurs twice

( v . 21 - ^ ; v . 2 6 - TO )#

The fact that the first o<0T0 ~0 expressionappears outside w . 18-27 (v.16) does not diminish the force of this observation. If the Apostle took over the a,u|°

0 expression in v .26 from tradition, theexpression in v.16 could be dependent on the linguistic usage of the tradition cited a little later by him.

Osten-Sacken also pointed to tensions in the sequence of thought in the passage and in its relation to the

2hk

context in support of his view that in Rom, 8:18-27,Paul has taken over pre—formulated material. For example,the uncertainty we find in the passage as to whether

c. /il3C‘ol'0‘tv*J£refers to w.2^f • or to those sayings in w , 2 2

and 23 (see pp. O.c>1$fof this dissertation),and the seeming incompatibility of the "Abba" call in Rom, 8:15f» and

kX<kVyt©L of Rom# 8:26. In Rom. 8;15f. the "Abba" call testifies to the pneumatics that they are the children of God; they are therefore, assured of their divine sonship by means of the "Abba" call; the groaning of the Spirit according to Rom, 8:26f,, is excluded to them because in its meaning it is known only to the one who searches hearts.

Osten—Sacken1s thesis that in Rom, 8:18-27 Paul is using traditional material, is very attractive. But we find some of the points he raised debatable,

(a) To argue that in Rom, 8:18-27 there are terms which do not appear any/here in genuine Pauline letters and thus Paul must be using traditional material is unacceptable; for it suggests that Paul had certain words which he always used and thus is not capable of thinking and using new words when the occasion demands,

(b) At least one of the passages which Osten-Sacken cites as representing pre-pauline tradition is debatable, Gundry argues against the pre-pauline view of Phil, 3*20 (see n,^)« If the traditional view of this passage is doubtful, must we accept the conclusion he draws from it that in Rom, 8:18-27 is traditional?

2^5

(c) We do not accept the idea that there is tension in the sequence of thought in Rom, 8:18-27• We noted on p, <£U0 that it is wrong to think that refers tow,24f . ‘JO- CTdto” refers unquestionably to the groansof w , 2 2 and 23» Besides, there is no tension between

c _ iRom, 8; 18-27 and its context, Abba O l*\P is not

- / 5 v / vwholly incompatible to O' as Osten-Sacken will want us to see. The emphasis of these phrases must not be placed on the recipients (even , we do not accept the view that the "Abba" call testifies to the pneumatics that they are the children of God; see pp,126— 127)J the emphasis must be placed on the result of these actions.The "Abba" call is an indication that we are sons of God; the Spirit's intercession brings us into divine favour.Both these acts therefore, bring us into fellowship with God,

(d) The words that Osten-Sacken cites do not prove that Rom, 8:18-27 is from a single tradition. It may be that two or more traditions have been brought together here. If this is the case, then even though Paul uses traditional material, the passage will also bear some Pauline originality because he will have to achieve some coherence with the various traditional materials which he may have brought together here,

(e) We must also ask whether the tradition had a structure, Osten-Sacken does not say. If it did, then we expect that Rom, 8:18-27 had some kind of pre-pauline form. From our own examination of biblical writings, the

motif of the Spirit*s intercession is not directly- mentioned before Paul*s, The appearance of this motif in the Rabbinic writings and the pseudepigrapha has been recognised to be too late to have influenced Paul* Thus there is no evidence that the motif of the Spirit’s intercession is pre-pauline. If not, then Rom* 8:18-27 did not come from a single tradition and possibly did not have a recognizable structure.

In view of the above criticisms, the "traditional material" view does not appear helpful in our attempt to find sin answer to the question : why did Paul speah of prayer in the context of suffering? The "traditional material" view as argued by Osten-Sacken, only shows that in Rom* 8:18—27 are some traditional words and phrases but the entire outlay of the passage could be Pauline, He brought together various materials and made sense out of them*

A 0 T, Hanson outlines some similarities betweenRom* 8:18—27 and the Psalms* His observations also seemto show that there is a tradition behind Rom* 8:18-27*He recognises that Rom* 8:19-21

"is in fact a sort of Christian midrash on Ps. 89:^6-48, In particular, Ps. 89s^7 seems to be behind Rom* 8:19-20 (it is Ps. 88:^7-9 in the LXX and Ps. 89:^7-9 in the MT"7

2*47

v.46 "How long, 0 Lord? Wilt thou hide thyself forever?How long will thy wrath b u m like fire?

v,47 Remember, 0 Lord, what the measure of life is, for what vanity thou hast created all the sons of menI

v.48 What man can live and never see death?Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?

V.47 is very much like Rom. 8;19» 20 for mention is made/in both passages of creation and tvy? . The LXX

/ a I c / t ^ /reads: “f'-5 ^ vtffo <rTo< crvS ^\T^'T^S TOOS vA o o S translates

"Remember what my being is; for hast t hou created all thesons of men in vain?". Hanson translates M'CTOCT i«=\(riS.as "hope". He notes that it is very likely that by

t /\jUOCrTo\OHS the LXX translator meant "hope, sourceof confidence",

L 1"for this is how he uses 'JIToG~To<vS~iS inother contexts; for example, to translate the Hebrew tiquah ’hope1 in Ruth 1:12 andEzek. 19:5? and in Ps. 39:7 (LXX 3 8 :8 , MT g39:8) it translates tocheleth ’expectation1."

c i _Arndt and Gingrich write on O TVo <rT<* cr't.S’ that"the sense ’confidence’, ’assurance' must be eliminated, since examples of it cannot be found".9

But the meaning essence, actual being, reality is well attested. In view of this comment, we do not think that Hanson’s translation is right. He also suggested the possibility that

^Ibid,9Arndt and Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p.847*

2k8

"Paul's Gr^ek translation of Ps . 89:^7 may have read ^ ov c pot io kv=k or v<° p°< ^for Aquila is quite fond of these, or cognate, words to translate words in Hebrew meaning 'hope, wait, expect'. In Ps, 39*7t for example, Aquila (has \<o( oc\ &©\t.\o<. where the LXX has

bko<rro«.s-is # Aquila translates the same Hebrew word tocheleth with K=Kpo<,icK(a in Prov, 10.28".10 '

But we must note that there is no direct link betweenCheled and cX\\ok,o\po^£cvM =< and thus, as he himselfadmits, the above suggestion must be rejected as one ofpure conjecture,

Hanson observed a closeness in thought sequence betweenPs. 89 and Rom. 8:18-25.

Ps. 89 and Rom. 8:18-25w.38-^5 In these verses,

there is a vivid account of the sufferings of the Messiah

v. 18 In this verse, Paul refers to the sufferings of the present time.

v . -6 The "how long, 0, Lord ..." saying, corresponds to —

v. 19 Where Paul speaks of creation waiting with eager longing for the future revelation of the sons of God.

v.U7 In this verse, the Psalmist asks whethe^ God has made (feKTt «r=»cs ) all men for vanity( »nfodvAjs)?

v. 20 The Psalmist's question corresponds to the Pauline statement that creation has been subject to

v.^8 This verse refers to the transience and mortality of all human beings

v.21 In this verse, Paul says that all creation is to be set free from its bondage to decay.

^Hanson, Studies. p. 3^.

249

Further, Hanson found similarities between Ps.44 (LXX 43)and Is,50:8 and parts of Roms8 but most significant forus he thinks that Ps. 44:21 (LXX 43:21) may have been inPaul's mind when he wrote Rom. 8:26, 27* He thinks thatthe verse in the psalm "for, he knows the secrets of theheart" corresponds to the Pauline saying that

"for he who searches the heart of men knows what is the mind of the Spirit",

Is it correct to see a close link between Rom, 8:26, 27and Psalm 44:21 on the grounds of common phraseology?That God searches the heart of man, is not the importantthought of Rom, 8:26, 27, Besides, the designation ofGod as the knower of hearts is common in biblical writings(1 Kg. 8:39? 1 Chron. 28:9? Lk. 16:15? Ac, 1:24).

Hanson's observations show that there are at leasttwo traditions behind Rom. 8:18-27. Besides in Rom, 8:19-21Paul speaks of the subjection of irrational creation to

/yks<To<.LoT £ but it will be released from this bondagewhen the sons of God are released. What Paul says here isalso well grounded in tradition.^ 4 Ezra 7s11ff« reads

"... when Adam transgressed my statues, then that which had been made was judged, and then the ways of this world became narrow and sorrowful and painful and full of perils coupled with great toils. But the ways of the future world are broad and safe, and yield the fruit of immortality",

To this corresponds the saying which is attributed to R. Shemuel according to Gen. R. 12:6

11 fBalz, Heilsvertrauen, pp.42ff.? Kasemann, Commenta: on Romans. trans, by G. W. Bromiley, 1980, p.233.

250

"Although, things were created in their fulness, when the first man sinned they were corrupted, and they will not come back to their order before Ben Perez (the Messiah) comes".

From the above examination, we recognize the possibility that there are two or more 0T ideas behind Rom, 8 s18-27* But it does not help us to answer the question: why does Paul suddenly start to talk about prayer in v,26? None of the traditions mentioned above show evidence of a link between suffering" and "prayer".

2, "A frequent feature of apocalyptic thoughtis that the ending of the old age and introduction of the new, will be marked by a period of severe distress such as the world has never known - sometimes thought of as a heightening of ordinary woes or under the figure of childbirth, ,,.".12

Rom, 8:18—27 has this characteristic. It is not surprisingtherefore that Kasemann who understands w,26f. as theclimax to 8:18-27# should also understand the passage in

13apocalyptic terms. We must examine the apocalyptic nature of Rom, 8:18-27 and how w,26f, fit into the apocalyptic theme. This may provide an answer to our question.

In Rom, 8:18, Paul speaks of the glory that awaits Christians, With the introduction of the themethe whole argument of Rom, 8:18-27 assumes an eschatological12Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 1977# P*313«^Kasemann, Perspektiven, p .233> Kasemann, Romans, pp,230-239> Schniewind, "Seufzen", NRA, 1952, p,9^» Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology, p,36.

251

dimension, describes an eschatologicalreality where present conditions do not obtain anymore*The connected verb c H T T o K ^ a t t e s t s to this.In Paul, it occurs only in eschatological contexts. The eschatological theme of the verses is attested to also by the words C * T T O a n d m

R-V\ which is not attested outside the letters of Paul, stands in Phil, 1 :20 next to and signifiesconfident expectation. Perhaps with a view to the whole of creation, Paul wanted to avoid the more personal and as it were confident term hope here and at the same time to make clearer the indefinite desire to look out and to strive after, means concentratedwaiting and thus expresses that the whole of creation is in a state of expectancy, waiting confidently for the revelation of the sons of God, This word appears in Paul, more often in the sense of eschatological expectation.Thus, the expectation of irrational creation, "we ourselves" is also eschatological.

The eschatological theme of w . 19—25 is linked immediately to w,26f« in two ways: (a) the groans of the Spirit whichidentify him with an already groaning cosmos; (b) the phrase otUb^pX^y/ T O O ^fcO^oCvOS

(a) It has been suggested that the groans of creation and "we ourselves" is a reference to the labour pains under

14 "Schlier, Romerbrief, p,259»

252

which according to OT prophetic and apocalyptic view,1 5the messianic age is born, Calvin wrote

11,,, it hence follows that they groan like a woman in travail until they shall be delivered.But it is a most suitable similitude; it shows that the groaning of which he speaks will not be in vain and without effect; for it will at ^ length bring forth a joyful and blessed fruit11.

The figure of speech in w . 19-23 is said to be a familiarone to 1QH.6 3:7-10.17

"And I was in distress,As a woman in travail bringing forth her first child; For her birth pangs wrench,And sharp pain upon her birth canal

(or, with her birth throes),To cause writhing in the crucible of the pregnant one, For sons have come to deathly birth canal,And she who is pregnant with a mein is distressed by her pains;

For through deathly contractions she brings forth a male child,

And through infernal pains, there bursts forth from the crucible of the pregnant one,

A wonderful Counsellor with his might And a man is delivered from the birth canal by the pregnant one".

Two questions must be asked. (i) To whom does the ’child*in the hymn refer? Is it a reference to the Messiah, the

1 5Black, Romans, p.122; Murray, Romans, p.305? Schlier, RBmerbrief, pp,263f.5 Meyer, Romans, II, p.80.16Calvin, Romans, p.306.17Black, Romans, p.122; The Scrolls and Christian Orxgins.1961, pp,T^9f.

253

18Teacher, or a people? (ii) Do the groans of the womanhere refer to the birth pangs of the messianic age? Thefirst question does not affect the main issue in ourdiscussion in this chapter; the second does. There isa general c onSQx\sv*S that the hymn is of the messianic age.A close parallel to it is found in Rev. 12:Iff.

"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars;she was with child and she cried out in her pangsof birth, in anguish for delivery".

The imagery is the same — a pregnant woman groaning inlabour. Mounce commented on the passage that

"in John’s vision the woman in travail is ’the true Israel in her pre—Messianic agony of expectation’".19

The same imagery appears in Jn. 16:21, used by Jesus ofhis resurrection.

18¥. H. Brownlee thinks the male child refers to the Messiah. "The ’Wonderful Counsellor’ of the Hymn, drawn from Is. 9i5 could hardly be any other than the Davidic Messiah of Is. 9:6; and the ’man’ (gebher) of that passage would naturally therefore, be drawn from 2 Sam. 23s 1 and Zech.13:7"• See "The Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament", NTS. 3» 1956, pp.12-30» esp, pp.23—26. Vermes identified the ’gebher* not with the Messiah but with the Teacher, drawing his support from Ps. 37:23f«* in a midrash pesher to Ps. 37• See Quelques Traditions de la Communaute^ de Qumran, 1955, pp.5^ff• Black also argued that the hymn is not speaking of the birth of an individual but of a whole community. "The reference to the begetting of 'sons’ (banim) makes it quite evident that it is a people and not of an individual that the author is thinking. But it is clearly a people with a ’messianic mission’ (Wonderful Counsellor); and the eschatological setting of the hymn suggests that its subject is the birth pangs of the Messiah in the sense of the emergence through trial and suffering of the redeemed Israel". See The Scrolls t p.150*19Mounce, Revelation. p ,237 J Morris, Revelation, pp.156f.; Kiddle, Revelation, p.220.

25k

"When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish,fbrthe joy that a child is born intp the world".

The simple meaning of this passage is that the shortsorrow of Good Friday and the following day give place to

20the joy of Easter, But as most Johannine scholars admit,the analogy has a deeper meaning. The groaning of a womanat childbirth is used as an allegory to the emergence ofthe Messianic age. From the passages cited above, wefind that "the messianic salvation which relieves theaffliction of the people is compared to the relief andjoy of childbirth and it was from these and likepassages that "the Jewish doctrine of heble ha-mashiah,

21•the travail pains of the Messiah’"t were drawn. Itrefers to a period of trouble which must intervene before

22the final consummation. In the cosmic groaning of Rom. 8:22, 23, it will be correct to find the same messianic reference. Although no allegory of a woman at childbirth is used, the groans represent the present period of suffering and pain which contrasts sharply with the calm and peace of the age to follow.

20Barrett, John, p.411; Brown, John, II, p.732.21 - r , . ,Ibid.22Ibid.

255

If* the groans of* w #22 and 23 refer to the birth pangs of the messianic age, then the Spirit's groans of intercession must be understood with the same apocalyptic background; the sighs or groans of v .26 recall the same word in verb form in w . 2 2 and 23« In both cases, it is a groaning after or sighing for an eschatological fulfilment still outstanding. The Spirit's groans of inter—

/cession thus probably involve a request for the speedy ushering in of the promised glory and ensure that we shall not be found wanting when the promised age finally

) ____ \ o I(b) The phrase \vo 5y-VjV ^oo fT\j tvj cCf OS integratesthe Spirit into the future age. The apostle used °< here as something given to man by God and conveys the idea that what the believer has already received is a foretaste and a guarantee of what he still hopes for. The gift of the Spirit and his subsequent workings, is the first fruits the

"first sheaf of the harvest of the End, that is the beginning of the eschatological harvest of redemption".23

) \ _ /^est taken as synonymous with the commercial

metaphor • both describe the Spirit as thefirst instalment, down payment, guarantee of the complete inheritance which awaits the resurrection of the body (2 Cor. 1:22; 5s5» Eph. 1:14). In both metaphors, that

23Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit. p.311» see also Hamilton,The Holy Spirit and Eschatology. p.19»

which is given is a part of the whole. Thus Dunn

"for Paul also, the gift of the Spirit meant both the realisation of eschatology and reaffirmation of itj so much is implied by his use of the term Hpf3 ; the present possession of the Spirit means that part of the future bliss is already attained and equally that part still remains future, still unpossessed.

needs to be mentioned, A new light was thrown on the useof this word in Rom, 8:23 by ¥, Schubart in 1919* Hepublished as the first part of the fifth volume of theBerliner Griechische Urkunden, a papyrus which containedan abstract of portions of the Code of Regulations issuedby the Dept, of Special Revenues in Roman Egypt, A partof the code read: a >«- —i r 'C * c A c L y vojU

T) VXJS otcrrG cWtU^vNoS C llN . W \ W l

writes"so for Paul, the gift of the Spirit is the first part of the redemption of the whole man, the beginning of the process which will end when the believer becomes a spiritual body,,,"

Barrett expresses the same idea that

There is another interpretation of which

W o o (j>OTfe|0 C.W ku ^ptc-voOCHS W oX tT fc rW •CHS

This was translated thus

2k-Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p ,311,25Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition,P.153.

257

"if a woman, being a citizen (i,e, of Alexandria) marries an Egyptian in the mistaken belief that he is also a citizen, she is not liable to penalty; and if both parties present birth certificates, their children preserve the status of citizens",

is here used as a technical term for the birthcertificate of a free person. Prof, Stuart-Jones acceptedthis meaning and interpreted the general meaning of theRoman passage as follows:

"When we read the passage which begins at verse 16, we see that St, Paul is here arguing that our claim to spiritual freedom is based on the witness of the Spirit to our sonship, just as in Egypt the t o poTrc>vrys-vs of theparent was among the documents put in evidence in the procedure of by whichclaims to privileged status were judged; and that inspite of this, inspite of the fact that we have, as it were, obtained through the mediation of the Spirit the certificate which entitles us to be registered as the sons of God — we are still awaiting our formal release from the bondage of the flesh and the law",26

C, C, Oke echoed Stuart—Jones and argued strongly that"in our NT lexicons, in addition to the primary meaning of &TSb(p’>C^ , * first fruits* or * the earliest crop*, * the pick* and its metaphorical uses, we should have this sense of *birth—certificate * or * certification*",27

Oke manages to build a case for his conclusion but we aredoubtful how well this meaning of "birth certificate" canfit into Rom, 8:23, It is clear that the context of v,23is highly eschatological. Words like o<,\\ov<o< Xvj^\S,

f £~Xtv\S are indications of this eschatological

26H. Stuart-Jones, " /“Vnbu^n YTVfc<>Yio<“oS>"» JTS« 23» 1922, pp.282f. 1 1 V27C. C, Oke, "A Suggestion with Regard to Rom, 8:23”»In t,, 11, 4, 1957* pp,455-460; see p,46o for quotation.

258

_ Itone. The interpretation of ^ WdypY. as 'first

fruits' or 'guarantee' fits better this eschatological context. Besides, in the other two occurrences of

> __ iin the epistle, (11:16} 16:5)» the word

referred to a section of a whole; what affected that section followed on to the whole. Thus it is reasonable to explain vCO VWyj^vvOS that the Spirit

is the preliminary payment and is a guarantee for the future, complete payment, which is still outstanding.V.23 then becomes a summary of the whole preceding section of Rom. 8. The indwelling, freeing, normative, leading, witnessing action of the Spirit are only 'first fruits' in the present of the complete action of the Spirit in the future.

Thus w . 2 6 f . fits well into the apocalyptic, theme of Rom. 8:18ff. The Spirit's intercession is an action of "first fruit". By interceding for us, he keeps us in God's favour during the present waiting so that we are not rejected by God in the future age. His intercession also gives the Christian confidence in the present period about his final acceptance in the future. We must find in his present intercession a suggestion of a further corresponding future action. With an assurance that the Spirit's present intercession will also be ours in the future, coupled with Jesus* ever-present intercession at the right hand of God assures Christians that we shall remain in the love of God forever.

259

3, It is true that Rom. 8:18-27 is steeped in apocalypticthoughts. But, that Rom. 8:18-27 is apocalyptic, does notanswer the question how "suffering" came to be linkedto "prayer". In the NT are passages which throw lighton this question of "suffering" and "prayer". Thesynoptic writers report that Jesus, before his arrestwent into Gethsemane to pray. (Matt. 26:36-46; Mk. 14:32-42; Lk. 22:39-46). The evangelists indicate that hewas greatly distressed and sorrowful. Xt is importantthat it was in this state that Jesus prayed that the cupof his sufferings might be removed from him. The directinference here is that Jesus prayed to God at the hour ofsuffering. In Heb. 5*7 which reflects his prayer atGethsemane, we read

"in the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear",

"Loud cries and tears" are suggestive of suffering. Itis also worth noting that in the Synoptic accounts ofthe crucifixion, among the statements purported to havecome from Jesus* lips on the cross, three of these (Lk.2 3 :3*+» Lk. 23*46; Matt. 27*46 par Mk. 15*3*0 are cries ofprayer to God,

In the early church also, "suffering" and "prayer"are seen in close relationship. In Ac. 4:1-22, Lukereports the initial persecution of the disciples by theSadducees. The occasion was the healing of a lame manby Peter at the gate of the temple of Jerusalem. A great

260

concourse of people followed Peter to Solomon's portico where he preached to them. Peter and John were arrested by the temple guard at the command of the Sadducees; and the next day they were tried by the Sanhedrin. Peter delivered a bold address proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah through whom alone is salvation (^:8-12). The disciples were warned to discontinue their teaching. Despite these threats from the supreme council of the land, the disciples prayed for divine strength to enable them to speak with all boldness in the face of opposition. In Ac. 5:^0» "the apostles were flogged and ordered once more not to speak in the name of Jesus. This suffering and shame did not daunt their spirits. They rather rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name of their master. It is not a mere coincidence that Stephen prays when being stoned to death. When Peter was imprisoned by King Herod, there was an all night prayer session for his safety. To this passage also, we must add Ac, 16:16-*I0.At Philippi, a slave girl possessed by a spirit of divination was being exploited by her owners to satisfy the superstitious desire of the pagan Philippians for soothsayers. Paul exorcised the spirit from the girl; whereupon enraged by the financial loss, her owners had Paul and Silas arrested, flogged and imprisoned. Here also, there is the unmistakable note of prayer as Luke writes

"but about midnight, Paul and Silas werepraying and singing hymns to God. . . 11

261

We must also draw attention to passages in whichChristians are encouraged to pray during times ofsuffering* These passages are: Matt, 5s44 (Lk* 6:28)",,, pray for those who persecute you", Matthew hasS\.di VC\*1, a general term drawn from the vocabulary of

* ;persecution, Luke has which also belongsto the vocabulary of persecution, Rom, 12:12 "Rejoicein your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant inprayer". It is prayer which keeps up our hope and patiencein times of persecution, Rom, 15:30f, reads

"I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf ,,, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea ,,,"•

Paul requests this because he anticipates that persecutionawaits him in Judea from unbelieving Jews and also he

r y 28is not sure of a good reception for his #Jam, 5s13 "Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray".

It is unmistakable that in the NT, there is a close relation between "suffering" and "prayer"} prayer is the source from which the Christian draws his strength to endure suffering. This idea is also found in the OT,More than once, we read that Israel cried to the Lord in times of disasters (Exod, 2:23} Exod, 3*7, 9s 22:23?Job 3^:28 etc). We have noted on p, 121 that "to cry out" to God has a sense of prayer. For Paul to speak of prayer within a context of suffering, thus, will not be a

28See Murray, Romans, p ,222.

262

new idea to biblical writings. The Israelites have prayed when suffering under oppressive rules or when faced with other national disasters like war, famine etc, Christians have been asked to pray in times of suffering and they have prayed for strength when being persecuted,Xn this light, Osten-Sacken's position that Paul in Rom, 8;18—27 worked over a tradition comes into prominence again. By speaking of prayer in the context of suffering, Paul was echoing an idea which goes back to OT times,Xt is, however, clear that in Rom, 8:18-27, Paul was not using a single and a well-structured tradition. We can outline four OT ideas which have been brought together

(a) the subjection of creation in Gen, 3s17-19»(b) the eschatological expection of a glorious future;(c) Israel cried (prayed) to God in times of need;(d) God knows all hearts,

Rom, 8 :26f., is a necessary follow-up to Rom, 8:18-25; for prayer helps us to hold on to our faith in times of suffering. In prayer, we draw hope and assurance that there will be peace and calm after the storm.

263

CONCLUSION

"Today it is still puzzling, troublesome, divisive; for some it is the essence of the Christian faith, to others it is incomprehensible and repellent"**

This statement sums up adequately the position of most NTscholars on Rom. 8:26f, It is time that Rom. 8s26f. has noparallels in the NT and is an alien body even in Paul. Butthis uniqueness must be limited to the fact that it is onlyin these verses that it is said that (l) we do not know howto pray as we ought and (2) that the Spirit intercedes withunutterable groans. Beyond these statements, we suggest thatthere is nothing ’incomprehensible' or ’repellent’ in thepassage.

Although the Spirit’s intercession is mentioned only in this passage, we think the motif arose out of ideas prevalent in biblical writings. In our examination, we recognized four main factors that gave rise to the motif of the Spirit’s intercession. (a) Heavenly intercession in Jewish thought. Paul was aware of these thoughts and being a Jew, he must have been influenced by them, (b) The Spirit as a heavenly being. In Jewish thought, heavenly beings are capable of intercession. Thus angels, and dead righteous people are considered intercessors. The Spirit is a heavenly being and this must qualify him as an intercessor. (c) Jesus as a heavenly intercessor. There is clear evidence for this in the NT. In Paul’s thinking, Christ and the Spirit are

1Wedderbum, "Rom. 8?26f.", SJT. 28, 1975, p.296.

26k

closely related} a transference of function is probable,(d) Advocacy attributed to the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit as bearing witness to the defense of the disciples and to Jesus himself before earthly courts. To bear witness in Jewish legal system has the connotation of advocacy and so Jesus* contemporaries must have understood his sayings in Mk, 13*11* 15*26 and l6:8ff. as having advocatorytones,

Thus the motif of the Spirit's intercession represents Paul's reflection on ideas which were known in his day.He is the first to speak clearly of the Spirit as an intercessor but the ideas behind it are not original to him.

Besides, Rom, 8:26f, is not the only passage where the Spirit is related to prayer. The theme of 'Spirit and prayer' is expressed in a number of NT passages} Jn, ki2Jt 2k;Rom, 8:15* 16} Eph. 6:18} Jude 20 etc. We examined and deduced from these passages that (l) the Spirit is the author of effective prayers, (2) "Prayer in the Spirit" refers to prayer inspired and energized and sustained by the Spirit of God, (3 ) "Prayer in the Spirit" does not necessarily have a reference to glossolalia. It has to be determined from the context. Besides in 1 Cor, 1^:1^-, we noted that Paul preferred intelligible worship for the sake of edification of the church to glossolalic utterances. These points help us to a fuller understanding of Rom, 8:26f, By these,

c^UTo T& i n v , 26c is clearly identified as theHoly Spirit, Also, we became cautious, as a result, of.the

265

glossolalic interpretation of* Rom. 8:26f. In fact we rejected this explanation.

That inferences can be made from other NT passages towards gin understanding of Rom. 8:26f., shows that the passage is not entirely an alien body in the NT. It is in harmony with teachings elsewhere in the NT.

This harmony is also seen in v.26b. To say that Christians do not know how to pray sounds strange but this strangeness is removed once we realise that Paul qualifies this statement with the expression . We do notknow how to pray as we ought. The "as we ought" corresponds to - fcov. Thus Paul says that we do not know how topray because we do not know God*s will. This is a basic truth about prayer. The whole of creation has been subjected to frustrates all our actions,including our prayers; thus our inability to pray. This inability to pray is no transitory condition which can be removed through some special teaching or instruction in a definite technique of prayer. But the Spirit makes up for what is lacking in our prayers by his intercession. He intercedes for us because he knows the will of God and prays accordingly. Prayer is effective, if it is according to God*s will. With such an understanding of v.26b., Paul*s claim does not contradict what obtains on prayer in the NT. Man, on his own, cannot know the will of God. It is possible through Christ and his Spirit. We must draw attention to 2 Cor. 12:7-10 and James 4:3# The Corinthian passage reads

266

"And to keep me from being too elated by tbe abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of satan, to harassme, to keep me from being too elated* Threetimes I besought the Lord about this that it should leave me} but he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness* , ,,"

"Three times" signifies that Paul prayed earnestly and2repeatedly for the removal of the thorn. The sense of the

response is that Paul's prayer was not answered according to how Paul prayed _or wanted it. This does not mean that Paul did not know how to pray but simply that what he thought was necessary and thus requested, was not in accordance with God's purpose. The James passage reads "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions". The sense is that our prayers are not answered because what we ask for and the use we put them to, are not proper. They are not what God wants us to have nor wants us to do. The thought of these two passages are similar to Rom, 8:26b, In Lk, 11:1—4 (and par,), the fact that the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray is an indication that on ourown, we cannot know how to pray. The disciples needed Jesusto teach them how to pray, we need the Spirit to help us in our prayers. That our prayers must be in accordance with the will of God is also expressed positively in 1 Jn, 5sl4f,It reads

"we are quite confident that if we ask him for anything and it is in accordance with his will, he will hear us} ,,,"

Thus we cannot say that Rom, 8:26b is alien in NT writings.

2Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p ,314,

267

We recognized a crisis in Church piety, The relevance of Rom* 8:26f* to this crisis must be noted* According to Rom* 8:26f* it is necessary to pray "according to God's will". Since we do not know God's will, it means that our prayers must be sober* Some modern prayers seem to dictate to God not only what he should do, but the means He should use to do the will we ascribe to Him* These are characteristics of bad prayer. We must realise that prayer is the work, not of man, but of God; not man's achievement but God's gift*

"The passionate yearning which is poured forth in prayer, does not spring from man'snarrow heart but from God's eternal love to _allure and to draw man upwards towards itself".

Prayer is God's gift, because it is possible through theSpirit whom He sends us. That God gives us the means to prayto Him effectively shows His love for the Christian* Thus wecan say that love of God is the matrix in which our prayersand their efficacy are nurtured and maintained* It is properfor us to reciprocate this love by allowing the Spirit towork in us. He will help us to pray according to God's will*

In Rom* 8:26* also, Paul was underlining our obedienceto God as an essential element of prayer. Possession of the

Spirit is evidence for our sonship* In v«26, therefore, topray in the Spirit implies praying as sons of God* Anessential aspect of sonship is obedience which thus makesit a positive factor to prayer, Jesus* prayers are heard(jn, 11:Mf,) because he does the Fatherfe will (Jn* 8j29),

^Heiler, Prayer, p„109

268

Similarly, when we pray, God desires to respond; but He cannot condone disobedience anywhere in the life of the Christian, because He is holy and righteous. Failure to obey God's wishes constitutes unrighteousness and disrupts harmony with Him. Because He loves His disobedient child,God cannot apparently "reward" disobedience by responding positively to our prayers hence giving the impression that sin is ever less than a direct offence against His nature.To do so would '•spoil” the child and effectively reinforce disobedient action. Thus when the Father does not respond to the prayers of His disobedient children, He is acting consistently with His loving, yet also essentially holy, nature. But He does not leave us without any means of access to Him. We have the work of Christ and now the help of the Spirit.

In Rom. 8:26f. also, Paul did not have glossolalic utterances in mind. The 'unutterable groans' signify intense prayer. This tells us that Christian prayer must be in "plain speech". Modern prayers are formal and well structured. Its language (and that of worship in general) is hardly simple and the subject only occasionally related to present day circumstances. God knows what we need, thus a simple direct prayer is all that is necessary — a groan in the Spirit.

Another factor which a consideration of Rom. 8:26f. brings out and has relevance to the crisis in the church piety is unselfish prayer. To speak of the Spirit's prayer as intercession depicts the importance Paul attached to

269

intercessory prayer. Intercessory prayer was the very centreof his devotional life. He himself prayed unceasingly forthe salvation and spiritual growth of his churches, andexhorts them unceasingly to pray for themselves and fortheir brethren. Wiles gave an apt description of it:

"within the very centre of the apostle’s existence lay an inescapable intercessory element, profoundly affecting his understanding . of the gospel and the exercise of his ministry".

We learn from this that in as much as we pray for ourselveswe must also pray unselfishly for others.

Our prayers must also have a sense of urgency. Wededuce this from the eschatological note in vv,26f. Thisagrees with Paul’s own prayer practices; he was alwaysconscious of living "before God" already in the last days,with parousia and judgement close at hand and dominated bythe belief that his readers and he himself will stand shortlyat the judgement seat of Christ,

The points we have outlined above show what .the Christian can do towards solving this crisis in church piety. But what can the Spirit do? In the first place, the Spirit helps us to pray according to the will of God, This implies that our prayers are made simple, unselfish and the requests we make are those which God wants us to have. Thus if we pray in the Spirit, we are bound to observe a change in Go d ’s response to our prayers. If our prayers are effective, there will be no crisis in church piety. Thus an understanding

^Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, p,296.

270

of Rom. 8:26f. contributes towards solving the crisis in modern church piety.

Rom. 8:26f, is looked on by glossolalists as sanctioning "speaking in tongues". We rejected the view that the verses speak of ecstatic utterances. Instead, we recognized that Paul is speaking about Christian prayer in general. The essential point is that prayer does not have to be ecstatic before God hears it. In fact God is much more inclined to respond to a simple clear prayer, if it accords to His will. Far from stressing the importance of ecstatic utterances,Rom. 8:26f., is indirectly intended to throw attention away from it. Pentecostals can pray in tongues, but it is essential also to pray in simple and clearly understood words.

In a nutshell, the teaching of Rom. 8:26f., is essential to Christian faith. By understanding it, we enrich our prayer life and the effectiveness with which we can communicate with God.

272

SUMMARY

This dissertation examines four aspects of Rom, 8:26f.:(a) the source(s) of the motif of the Spirit’s intercession,(b) Spirit-prayer passages and how they contribute to an understanding of Rom. 8:26f., (c) the interpretation of Rom. 8:26f., and (d) how Rom. 8:26f. integrates into its context.

(a) Apart from our passage, there is no direct ' mention of the intercession of the Spirit in the NT.Thus, it was necessary to find the possible source(s) of the motif of the Spirit’s intercession. In our investigation, we noted that the idea of intercession was common in the OT, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings, the Rabbinic writings and those of Philo. For the exercise of it, gin individual could call on the patriarchs, prophets, kings, priests, righteous people gind angels; but we did not find any direct reference of the Spirit’s intercession. But the significance of the examination is twofold; (l) that the Jews had a doctrine of intercession shows that Paul, who was b o m a Jew and lived under the Jewish law, was aware of the necessity of intercession and possibly drew on this background; and (2) it is evident from the examination that heavenly beings are capable of intercession — angels and dead righteous men are noted as intercessors. The Spirit is a heavenly being and thus it was easy for Paul to speak of the Spirit as an intercessor gind it would have been

273

traderstood by his contemporaries. Paul may have been influenced in Rom. 8:26 also by Jesus* role as an intercessor. There is clear evidence in the NT that Jesus interceded for men during his earthly ministry and is interceding for Christians in heaven. Paul speaks of Jesus and the Spirit in similar terms although not suggesting an identification of "persons". Such a closeness of the functions of Jesus and the Spirit in Pauline thought may have suggested a transference of Jesus' role as an intercessor, to the Spirit. We also noted that Paul may have been influenced in Rom. 8:26f. by Jesus’ teaching on the Spirit in Mk. 13:11 and in the Paraclete sayings. In Mk. 13:11* Jesus promised the help of the Spirit to his disciples in time of trouble. The Spirit's aid involves helping the disciples to defend themselves. We took this to mean a bearing witness to the defence of the disciples by the Spirit. "To bear witness", in Jewish legal system, had the sense of advocacy and thus Jesus' contemporaries would have understood his saying in Mk. 13:11 in an advocatory sense. Similarly, although the functions of teaching, guiding into truth, abiding with the disciples, do not suggest any advocatory sense, we understood the functions "he will bear witness to me" (jn. 15:26f.) and"he will convince the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement" (jn. 16:8-11) in a forensic sense and concluded that in the Paraclete sayings of Jn, 15:26f., and Jn. l6:8ff., the Spirit is presented as an advocate.

274

»

Thus we recognize four main factors that gave rise to the motif of the Spirit*s intercession, (l) Heavenly intercession in Jewish thought} (2 ) the Spirit as a heavenly being; (3 ) Jesus as a heavenly intercessor and (4) Jesus* teaching on the advocacy of the Spirit,

(b) Rom, 8:26f, is not the only passage where the Spirit is related to prayer. The theme of "Spirit and prayer" is expressed in Jn, 4:23* 24; Rom, 8:15f,;1 Cor, 14:14; Eph, 6:18; Jud, 20, It is evident from these passages that (1) The Holy Spirit is the author of effective prayers; (2) to "pray in the Spirit" must not necessarily suggest ecstatic utterances. For the sake of edification of the church, Paul prefers intelligible worship to glossolalic utterances. The significance of this discussion in relation to Rom, 8:26f,, is that it helps to identify okOlO (v,26c) clearlyas the Holy Spirit; for effective prayer, which Rom, 8:26f, is about, is possible only through the Holy Spirit, It also drew our attention to the fact that a prayer can be Spirit-inspired without being ecstatic and thus necessitated our examination of cr TfcN[cA.y in v,26c,

(c) An historical survey of the interpretations of the key phrases in the verses revealed that there are at least two differing explanations of each phrase.This made us question the adequacy of these explanations.

275

In our re-examination, we explained Rom. 8:26f. thus:The cause of the world's groaning ( w . 2 2 f 2 3 ) is that we have been subjected to mataiotes: it is also the cause of our weakness and hence our inability to pray.Mataiotes represents futility and emptiness in our lives. Thus our lives and actions, so long as they remain in the sphere of mataiotes. lack direction and purpose* Thus we are ignorant of God's will and cannot pray accordingly. Then, the Spirit helps us in our weakness and with our prayers, by interceding for us with unutterable groans. These groans are uttered by the Spirit himself from the heart of the believer. They are wordless but understood by God. The groans do not represent ecstatic utterances; they represent sincere and earnest prayer to God.

(d) The•theme of Rom. 8:18—25 is suffering but in w .26, 2 7 t Paul speaks of prayer. Does this involve a change in Pauline argument here, or is w.26f. a continuation of the theme of w . 18-25? We think that Rom. 8:26, 27 is a necessary follow up to Rom. 8:18-25# Three factors point to this. (1) In w.18-27» Paul is using traditional ideas; although it is not a single and a well-structured tradition. (2) Rom. 8*18-27 is steeped in apocalyptic thoughts which suggest a thought of argument. (3) "Suffering" and "prayer" are seen linked in OT as well as NT passages. In those passages, they do not represent a break in the writer's argument; thus

276

the link of Rom, 8:18-25 and w,26f. must not be explained otherwise.

This study shows that the teachings of Rom, 8:26f,, <y<% essential to Christian faith and prayer.

277

A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

There are several places throughout the dissertation where full references have been given in the footnotes; for example, detailed references of patristic literature, as well as literature on the reformers, are given in the notes. Thus it is pointless to relist all the materials here again. What follows therefore is based on our subjective evaluation of the material. Reference works which appear in the list of abbreviations are not included; we have included works, which we have consulted but have not cited in the dissertation.

Unpublished works are distinguished by asterisk marks.

PERIODICALS

Agourides, S. "The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus", TU,102 (1967/68), 137-45. (SE-IY).

Allmen, J. J. Von. "The Theological Meaning of CommonPrayer", SL, 10 (197*0, 125-136.

/ /Audet, J. P. "Affinites litteraires et doctrinales duManuel de Discipline", RB, 59 (1952), 219-38; (1953), *11-82.

Austin, M. R. "Can Intercessory Prayer Work?", El, 89, 11 (Aug. 1978), 335-339.

Bahr, G. J. "The Use of the Lord’s Prayer in the Primitive Church", JBL, 84 (1965), 153-159.

Barrett, C. K. "The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel",JTS. NS 1-2 (1950/51), 1-15.

Beare, F. W. "Speaking with Tongues", JBL, 83, (196*0,229-246.

Beasley-Murray, G. "Jesus and the Spirit" in Melanges/Bibliques en hommage au R. P 0 Beda Rxgaux,

ed. A. Descamps, DucvAlot, ( 1969) , 463-478.

278

/ tBenoit, P. "Nous gemissons attendant la deliverance denotre corps (Rom. 8:23)"» RSR. 39, (1951 ) * 267-280.

Best, E. "The Interpretation of Tongues", SJT. 28, (1975), 45-62.

Bickermann, E. J. "The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs", JBL. 69, (1950), 245-260.

Bieder, ¥. "GebetswirkUotaUcifc und Gebetsmoglichkeit bei Paulus: das Beten des Geistes und das Beten im Geist, TZ, 4, (1948), 22-40.

Blair, H. A. "Romans 8:22f. and some pagan AfricanInstitutions", TU, 102 (1967/68), 377-381. (SE-IV).

Boomer, J. "Is the prayer of petition and intercession still meaningful?", Cone., 9:8, (1972), 72-82.

Boros, L. "Prerequisites for Christian Prayer", Cone.,9:8, (1972), 52-62.

Boyd, R. "The Vork of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. AnExposition of Rom. 8:26, 27". Interp.,8, (1954), 35-42.

Brown, R. E. "The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel", NTS,13, (1966/67), 113-132.

Brownlee, ¥. A. "Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament", NTS, 3, (1956), 12-30.

Butler, B. C. "The Two ¥ays in the Didache", JTS. NS12, (1961), 27-38.

279

Cambier,

Craddock,

D a l o , R|

Davies, J

Dietzel,

Dugmore,

Dunn, J.

Duprez, A

Fahy, T. Gaugler,

Gnilkey,

J. "La priere de 1*Esprit fonderment de l’esperance, Rom. 8 :26, 27", AS, 4l, (1970), 11-17.

F. B. ''The gift of the Holy Spirit and theNature of Man", Bnc., 35, 1, (197*0, 23-35.

W. "The Intercession of the Spirit", Exp.. 4,(1896), 5th Series, 186-193.

. G. "Pentecost and Glossolalia", JTS, NS3,(1952), 228-31.

— — "The Primary Meaning of PARAKLETOS" , JTS ,NS4, (1953), 35-38.

A. "Beten im Geist". Eine religionsgeschichtliche Parallele aus den Hodajot zum paulinischen Gebet im Geist", TZ, 13, (1957), 12-32.

C. ¥. "Lord’s Day and Easter" was published inthe Oscar Cullmann Festschrift volume,Neotestamentica et Patristica. 272-281.(Nov. T . 6 , (1962) Supplements),

D. G. "2 Corinthians 3s17 — The Lord is theSpirit", JTS. NS21, (1970), 309-320.

, "Note sur le r&le de 1*Esprit - Saint dans la filiation du Chretien. Apropos de Gal. 4:6", RSR. 52, 3, (1964), 421-431.

"Rom. 8:16-25", ITQ. 23, (1956), 178-181.E. "Der Geist und das Gebet der Schwachen

Gemeinde*Eine Auslegung von Rom. 8:26",IKZ. 51, (1961), 67-94.

L. "Can Modern Man Pray", Newsweek. 72, (Dec. 30, 1968).

280

Goedt, M.

Grayston,

Greenlee,

Greig, J* Griffiths

Grundmann

Gundry, R Hill, E.

Hunter, A

Jones, H, Jones, P.

Kremer, J

de "The Intercession of the Spirit in Christian Prayer (Rom, 8 s26, 27)”, Cone,, 9:8,(1972), 26-38,

K. "Not Ashamed of the Gospel", SE, 2, (1964),569-73.

3, H, "A suggestion with regard to Rom, 8:23",BT. 11, (1960), 91-92.

C. G. "Abba and Amen", SE, 5, (1968), 3-13., D, R. "The Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor, 3:17-18)",

ET, 55, (1943-44), 81-83., ¥, "Der Geist der Sohnschaft, Eine Studie zu

Rom, 8:15 und Gal, 4:6 zu ihrer Stellung in der Paulinischen Theologie und ihren

Grundlagen", DP.1, (1963), 172-192.

, "Ecstatic Utterance", JTS. NS17, (1966), 299-307. "The construction of three passages from St.

Paul (Rom. 8:20, 21)», C B Q . 23, 3, (1961), 296-297.

, "Crux Criticorum - Matt, 11:25—30: A Reappraisal", NTS. 8, (1962), 241-249.

S. Tr tvl °iToS> ", JTS. 2 3 , (1922), 282-2 83.R. "La priere par 1*Esprit: Eph. 6:18", RR,

27, 3, (1976), 128-139., "Jesu Verheissung des Geistes" in Die Kirche

des Anfangs. Festschrift fur Heinz Schurmann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed, by R. Schnack^nburg et al., St, Benno-Verlag GmbH, Leipzig, 1977.

281

Lambrecht, J. "Present World and Christian Hope* AConsideration of Rom. 8:18—30", Jeev.«8 , 43, (1978), 29-39.

Lampe, G. W. H. "The New Testament Doctrine of ",SJT, 17, (1964), 449-462.

Maur, H.-J. der auf. "The Difficulties of Common Prayer Today", SL, 10, (1974), 167-188.

McCasland, S. V. "Abba, Father", JBL. LXXII, (June 1953), 79-91.

Meyer, P. W. "The Holy Spirit in the Pauline Letters.A contextual exploration", Interp.. 33, 1» (1979), 3-18.

Mowinckel, S. "Die Vorstellungen des Spatjudenturns vom heiligen Geist als -Fursprecher und der johanneische Paraklet", ZNW. 32 (1933), 97-130.

Moule, C. F. D. "The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures", CQ.3, 4 (1971), 284-6.

Niederwimmer, K. "Das Gebet des Geistes : Rom. 8:26f.",TZ. 20, (1964), 252-265.

Oke, C. C. "A suggestion with regard to Rom. 8:23", Interp.. 11, 4, (1957), 455-^60.

Owen, H. P. "Stephen's Vision in Acts 7*55-56", NTS. 1, (1954-55), 224-226.

Parratt, J. K. "The Witness of the Holy Spirit: Calvin,the Puritans and St. Paul", E£, 41, (1969)» 161-168.

282

Pattison, E. M, "Behavioural Science Research onGlossolalia", JASA. (1968), 73-86.

Pathrapankalf J. "The Spirit of Sonship in Rom. 8",Biblebhashym. 5, 2(3), (1976), 181-195.

Pesch, R. "Die Vision des Stephanus Apg. 7» 55f. im Rahmen der Apos telgeschichte" ,fexWi6, 2, (1965), 92-107.

Petrausch, J. "An analysis of Rom. 8:19—22". IER. 105, 5, (1966), 314-323.

Preiss, T. "The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit",Interp.. 7, (1953), 259-280.

Rickards, R. R. "The translation of te astheneia hemon(in our weakness) in Rom. 8:26", BT, 28,2 (1977), 247-248.

Schoenberg, M. W. "HUIOTHESIA : The word and the institution", Scripture. 15, (1963), 115-123.

— — ——— — — — "St Paul's notion of the AdoptiveSonship of Christians", Thomist. 28, (1964), 51-75.

Schniewind, J. "Das Seufzen des Geistes. Rom. 8:26, 27".NRA. (1952), 81-103.

Schweizer, E. "The Son of Man", JBL, 79 (i960), 119-29.Seitz, 0. J. F. "Two spirits in man: An essay in biblical

exegesis", NTS. 6, (1959/60), 82-94.Stacey, W. D. "Paul's Certainties II. God's purpose in

creation, Rom. 8:22-23", ET, 69, 6, (1958), 178- 181.

Stott, W. "A note on the word KYPIAKH in Rev. 1:10",NTS. 12, (1965/66), 70-75.

283

Strand, K. A. "Another look at 'Lord's Day* in theEarly Church and in Rev. 1:10", NTS, 13» (1966/67), 174-81.

Sweet, J. P. M. "A sign for unbelievers: Paul's attitudeto glossolalia", NTS, 13, (1966/67),2 4 0 - 2 5 7 o

Sweetnam, J. "On Rom. 8:23 and the expectation ofsonship", Biblica. 48, 1, (1967), 102-108.

Taylor, T. M. "'Abba Father' and Baptism", SJT. 11,(1958), 62-71.

Vos, G. "The Eschatological Aspect of the PaulineConception of the Spirit", Princeton Theological Seminary, BTS. (1912), 211-259.

Wansborough, H, "Speaking in Tongues", The W a y . 35, 1, (1974), 23-35.

Wedderburn, A. J. M, "Rom. 8:26 — Towards a theology of glossolalia?, SJT, 28, (1975), 369-377.

Vorden, T. "Christ Jesus who died or rather who hasbeen raised up (Rom. 8:34)", Scripture,10, 10, (1958), 33-43.

COMMENTARIES

Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. M atthew. Doubleday and Compe Inc., New York, 1971.

Althaus, P. Der Brief an die Romer (NTD6). Gottingen, 1966. Arichea, D. C. and Nida, E. A. A Translator's Handbook on

Paul's Letter to the Galatians, U B S ,

Stuttgart, 1976.

284

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St, John. SPCK, London, 1955*

— — -- — A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,A & C Black, London, 1957*

■........... ■■ ■" First and Second Corinthians, A & C Black,\ _ o n c \ o n 5 c\<\4 V°l'l3 «*

Barth, K. The Epistle to the Romans, trans. by E. C. Hoskyns from the sixth edition, OUP, London, 1933*

— — A Shorter Commentary on Romans, SCM Press, London, 1959*

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Comment airy on Mark 13. Macmillan andCo. Ltd., London, 1957.

__ (ed.) The Book of Revelation (NCB),Oliphants, London, 197^»

Bernard, J. \\. A Critical and Exegeticalthe Gospel According to St. John. 2 Volumes, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1948.

Best, E. The Letter of Paul to the Romans, CUP, London,1967.

Black, M. Romans (NCB), Oliphants, London, 1973*Bligh, J. Galatians. Univ. Press, Detroit, 1966.Bonnard, P. L ’Eplbtre de St. Paul aux Galates. Delachaux

et Niestle editeurs, 1972.Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the

Johannine Epistles. T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1912.

Brown, R. E. The Gospel According to John, 2 Volumes,Doubleday and Comp. Inc., New York, 1970*

285

Bruce, F. !

Bultraann, :

Burton, E.

Charles, R

Cranfield,

Dibelius,

Dodd, C. H

Duncan, G,

Ellis, E.

Gaebelein,

F, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TheTyndale NT Commentaries),Grand Rapids,

1963.R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans, by

G. R. Beasley-Murray, et al,, Basil Blackwell, London, 1971*

de Witt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1921,

Testament, 2 Volumes, Oxford Clarendon

Press, London, 1913•C, E, B, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC),

(2 Volumes), Vol. 1, T & T Clark,

Edinburgh, 1975•M, Die Pastoralbriefe, JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck),

Tubingen, 1966,, Romans (MNTC), Hodder and Stoughton, London,

1932.The Johannine Epistles (MNTC), Hodder and

Stoughton, London, 19^7*The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel,

CUP, London, 1953*S, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians,

Hodder and Stoughton, London, 193^*E, Luke" ) fF, E, (ed,) The Expositor*s Bible Commentary,

Vol. 10 (Romans-Galatians), Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 197^*

286

Gaugler, E. Der Brief an die Romer, 1. Teil : Kapitel 1-8 (Proph,), Zurich, 19^5*

Gnilka, J. Der Philipperbrief, Herder.Freiburg, Basel,

Wien, 1968,Grayston, K. The Letters of Paul to the Philippians and

to the Thessalonians (CBC), CUP, London,

1967.Green, E. M. B. II Peter gind Jude. Tyndale Press, London,

1968.Green, H, B. The Gospel According to Matthew (NCB), OUP,

London, 1975*Hendriksen, W. The Gospel of John, Banner of Truth Trust,

London, 1973*- -— — — — — Ephesians « Banner of Truth Trust, London,

1972... I " 1 and II Timothy and T i tus, Banner of Truth

Trust, London, 1972,Hering, J, The Epistle to the Hebrews, trans, by A. W,

Heathcote and P, J. Allcock, London, 1970* Hill, D. The Gospel of Matthew (NCB), Oliphants, London,

1972.Hoskyns, E. C. The Fourth Gospel, ed. by F. N. Davey,

2 Volumes, London, 19^7*Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,

W m # B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1977* Kasemann, E. An die R o m e r . JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck),

Tubingen, 197^*ians. trans. by G. W.

Bromiley, Wm. B« Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1980.

287

Kirk, K. E, Epistle to the Romans, London, 1937*lo ftKuhl, E, Der Brief des Paulus an die R o m e r . Leipzig, 1913*

Kuss, 0, Der Romerbrief. Lieferung 3» Regensburg, 1978. Lagrange, P. M. J. Epitre aux Romains, Paris, 1950. Leenhardt, F. J. The Epistle to the Romans - a commentary,

trans. by H. Knight, London, 1961.Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel.

Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis,1961.

Lietzmann, H. An die R o mer. Tubingen, 1971*Lindars, B. The Gospel of John (NCB) Marshall, Morgan and

Scott, London, 1972.Loane, M. L. The Hope of Glory: An Exposition of the Eighth

Chapter in the Epistle to the Romans. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1968.

Lohmeyer, E. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1970*

Marshall, X. H. The Gospel of Luke. Paternoster Press, Exeter, 1978.

- ■.,— — - The Epistles of John. Wm. B. Eerdmans, Q*-c\v\c\1978.

f A >Masson, C. L 1Epitre de Saint Paul aux Ephesiens. Paris,

1953.McNeile, A. H. The Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1915»Meyers, H. A. ¥. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 Volumes,

trans. from the fifth edition of the German by Rev. J. C. Moore and Rev. E. Johnson,T. & T Clark, Edinburgh, I87U.

288

— ---------- A Critical and Exegetical Handbook to theGalatians. trans. from the fifth edition of the German by G. H. Venables, T & T

Clark, Edinburgh, 1873*iiMichel, 0. Der Brief an die Romer. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,

Gottingen, 1963*Mon t e f i o r e , H. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews

(Black*s NT Commentaries) A & C Black, London, 196^.

Morris, L. The Gospel According to Jo h n . Marshall, Morgan and Scott: London, 1972.

The Revelation of St. John: an introduction andcommentary. Tyndale Press, London, 1969*

Mounce, R. H. The Book of Revelation (NLC), Marshall, Morgan and Scott, London, 1977*

Mussner, F. Der Galaterbrief. Herder. Freiburg. Basel. Wien,

197 .Murray, J. The Epistle to the Romans. Marshall, Morgan and

Scott, London, 1960.Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of Ma r k . A & C Black, London,

1968.Nygren, A. Commentary on Romans. trans. by C. C. Rasmussen,

Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 19^9* O'neill, J. C. Paul*s Letter to the Rom a n s . (Pelican books),

Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975*Osten-Sacken, P. V. D. Romer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer

Soteriologie« Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,

Gottingen, 1975*Pallis, A. To the Romans. A Commentary. Liverpool, 19200

289

Paulsen, H. Uberlieferung und Auslegung in Romer 8 .Neukirchener Verlag, Mainz, 197^•

Plummer, A. St. Luke. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1922. — —— The Epistle of Jo h n . Cambridge Univ. Press ,

1900.Robinson, J. A* St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.

Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1903. Robinson, J. A. T. Wrestling with Romans. SCM Press, London,

1979.Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C. A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1902.ItSchlier, H. Der Romerbrief. Herder, Freiburg, Basel, Wien,

1977.Schmid, J. The Gospel According to M a r k , trans. by

K. Condon, Mercier Press, 1968.Schmidt, H. W. Der Brief des Paulus an die R o mer.

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin, 1962. Schnackenburg, R. Die Johannesbriefe. Herder, Freiburg,

Basel, Wien, 1963.Das Johannesevangelium, 3 volumes, Herder,

Freiburg, Basel, Wien, 1975.Schveizer, E. M a r k , trans. by D. H. MadVig, SPCK, London,

1971.Matthew, trans. by D. E. Green, SPCK,

London, 1976.Scott, E. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians. to

Philemon and to the Ephesians. Hodder andStoughton

The PastoralLondon, 1930.

Epistles. Hodder and Stoughton,

London, 19^8.

290

Taylor, V. The Gospel According to St, M a r k , Macmillan and Co. Ltd; London, 1952.

Vaughan, C. J. St. Paul*s Epistle to the Romans. Macmillan and Co. Ltd; London, 1859*

Vincent, M. R. The Epistle to the Philippians and toPhilemon. T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1922.

Ward, R. A. Commentary on I and XI Timothy and Titus.

Word Incorporated, Waco, 197^.Westcott, B. F. St. Paul,s Epistle to the Ephesians.

Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1906.Zahn, T. Der Brief an die Romer. Leipzig, 1910*

OTHER LITERATURE

Altaner, B. Patrology. trans. by H. C. Graef, Nelson, London, i960.

Arthur, W. Pray in the Spirit, Victory Press, London, 1 9 7 0 .

Bain, J, A. The Prayers of the Apostle P a u l . London, 1937* Balz, H. R. Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung. Strukturen

der paulinischen Eschatologie nach Romer 8 , 1 8 . - 3 9 * Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munchen, 1 9 7 1 .

Barrett, C. K. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition.SPCK, London, 1 9 7 0 .

— New Testament Essays. SPCK; London, 1 9 7 2 .

Bernardin, J. B. The Intercession of Our L o r d . Columbia

Univ. Press, New York, 1 9 3 3 .

Betz, 0 . Der Paraklet, Brill; Leiden, 1963.

Black, M. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. London, 1961. Braude, W. G. The Midrash on the Psalms . 2 Volumes,

Y't'Le UnivD Press, New Haven, 1 9 7 6 0

291

Braun, H .

* Brownson,

Buchsel, F

Bultmann,

Burrows, M

Buswell, J

Champion,

Conner, W.

Conzelmann

Cross, F.

Cutten, G.

Cullmann,

Qumran und das Neue Testament, Band 1, JCB

Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1966.I. E. Protestant Exegesis of Rom. 8:26, 27 :A History

and an Evaluation, Diss. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1963*

' Per Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament, C. Bertelsman Guttersloh, 1926.

I. Theology of the New Testament. 2 Volumes, trans, by K. Grobel, SCM Press, London,1952.

, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Seeker and Warburg,London, 1956.

, 0. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1975*

j, G . Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of P a u l . Oxford, 193^»

T. The Work of the Holy Spirit. Broadmann Press, Nashville, 19^9.

• H. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. SCM Press, London, 1969.

1. Jnr. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Gerald Duckworth and Co, Ltd., London, 1958.

B. Speaking with Tongues; Historically and Psychologically Considered. Yale, 1927.

). The Christology of the New Testament. SCM

Press, London, 1959»— Christ and Ti m e . London, 1951*awin«iiiihiii r ” 9

292

Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus. trans. by D. M . Kay,T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1902.

— — Jesus-Jeshua, trans. by P. P. Lever toff ktav

Publishing House Inc., New York, 1971. Danby, H. The Mishnah. O U P , London, 1974 .Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. SPCK, London,

1948.Delling, G. Worship in the New Testament, Darton, Longman .

and Todd, London, 1962.Dunn, J, D. G. Jesus and the Spirit. SCM Press, London,

1975. ---------------- Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.

SCM Press, London, 1977.Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel.

CUP, London, 1963.* Engelson, N. I. Jnr. Glossolalia and other forms of

Inspired Speech according to 1 Cor. 12-14. Diss.,Y a l e , 1970.

Epstein, I. (ed.) The Babylonian Talmud. 35 volumes,The Soncino Press, London, 1935-1952.

Falk, Z. W. Hebrew Law in Biblical T i m e s . Wahrmann Books, Jerusalem, 1964.

—— — 1 ■ Introduction to Jewish Law of the SecondCommonwealth. 2 Parts, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1972-78.

Fuller, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology.Scribners, New York, 1965.

Gaster, T. The Dead Sea Scriptures. Anchor Press, New York,

1976.* Gieraths, H. K. Knechtschaft und Freiheit der SchBpfung

Eine historisch-exegetjsche Untersughung Zil

293

Goodspeed,

Greeven, H

Green, M.

Hamilton, ]

Hanson, A.

Harvey, A.

Hawthorne,

Hay, D. M.

Head lam,- A, Heiler, F.

Hendry, G.

Hester, J.

Rom. 8, 19-22. Diss., Bonn, 1950.E. Problems of New Testament Translation.

Chicago Univ. Press, 19^5.' Gebet und Eschatologie im Neuen Testament.

Drud und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, Guttersloh, 1931#

I believe in the Holy Spirit. Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1975.

r. Q. The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in P a u l .Edinburgh, 1957.

T. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology.SPCK, London, 197^.

Jesus on Trial. A Study in the Fourth Gospel. SPCK, London, 1976.

G, (ed.) Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. W m « B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1975.

Glory at the Right Hand. Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Abingdon Press, New York,

1973.St. Paul and Christianity, London, 1913.

Prayer, trans. and ed. by S. McComb and J. Edgar Park, OUP, London, 1932.

S . The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology.SCM Press, London, 1957.

D. Paul’s Concept of Inheritance. A Contribution to the Understanding of Heilsgeschichte.SJT Occasional Papers, 14, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1968.

Heufelder, E.

Hewitt, C. M.

Hill, D. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings,SNTS Monographs 5»

CUP, London, 1967.Hoekema, A. A. What About Tongue Speaking? Paternoster Press,

1966.Holwerda, D. E. The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the

Gospel of John, J.H. Koh N.V. Kampen, 1959•Hooker, M. D. The Son of Man in M a r k , SPCK, London, 1967*Howard, ¥. F. Christianity according to St. J o h n ,

Duckworth, 19^3*Hoyle, R. B. The Holy Spirit in Paul, London, 1927.Hunter, ¥. B. The Prayers of Jesus in the Gospel of Jo h n ,

Diss., Aberdeen, 1979.Isaacs, M. E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in

Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament, Heythrop Monographs, London,1976.

Jeretnias, J. The Prayers of Jesus, SCM Press, London,

1967.— -— — New Testament Theology. Pt. 1 (The Proclamation

of Jesus), SCM Press, London, 1971.Jewett, R. Paul's Anthropological terms, E. J. Brill,

Leiden, 1971.Johansson, N. Parakletoit Lund, 19^0,Johnston, G. The Spirit - Paraclete in the Gospel of John,

CUP, London, 1970.

M. Per Geist betet in uns, Erwagung uber Rom, 8:26-27. Meitingen Freisig Kyrios- Verlag, 1973.

K, Life in the Spirit: A Study of theHistory of Rom, 8:12— 17, Diss,,Durham,1968/6 9 .

295

Jonge, M.

K&semann,

Knox, V.

Kummel, W

11Kung, H. Kuyper, A

L a d d , G.

Leaney, A

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.A Study of their Text, Composition, and

Origin, Assen, 1953*(e d .) Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve

Patriarchs , E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1975*The Testament of Twelve Patriarchs, A Critical

Edition of the Greek T e x t . E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1978.

E. Perspectives on Paul. (Original title,Paulinische Perspektiven. Tdbingen, 19^9 ) » SCM Press, London, 1971•

The Testament of Jesus according to John 17* trans. by G. Krodel, Fortress Press,

Philadelphia, 1978.L. St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles,

CUP, London, 1961.• G. The Theology of the New Testament. SCM Press,

197*.——— - Promise and fulfilment; the eschatological

message of Jesus, trans, by D. M. Barton, SCM Press, London, 1969#

The Church, Burns and Oates, London, 1967.. The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. by H. de

Vries, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1975*E. A Theology of the New Testament. Lutterworth

Press, London, 1975*. R. C. The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning,

SCM Press, London, 1966.

296

Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek Lexicon, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1966,

Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. Sie4\Christ and Spirit in the

New Testament, FesfesOxrtVc COP, T O .Malatesta, E. (ed.) The Spirit of God in Christian Life.

Paulist Press, New York, 1977*Manson, T. ¥. The Savings of Jesus (study Edition), SCM

Press, London, 1975*Marche1, ¥. Abba Pere. La priere du Christ et des

Chretiens. AB, Biblical Institute Press,

R o m e , 1971•Martin, R* P. ¥orship in the Early Church. Marshall,

Morgan and Scott, London, 1964.Metzger, B. The New Testament. Background, Growth and

Content, Lutterworth Press, London, 1969• Miguens, M. El Paraclito (Jn. 14-16), Franciscan Press,

Jerusalem, 1963*Moltmann, J. The Church in the Power of the Spirit.

SCM Press, London, 1977*Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology.

Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, 1938.M o ule, C. F. D, The Holy Spirit. Mowbrays, London, 1978, Mowinckel, S. He that Cometh trans. by G. ¥. Anderson,

Oxford, 1956.* Nelson, J. L. The Groaning of Creation. An Exegetical

Study of Rom. 8:18-27. Di s s ., Union

Theological Seminary, Virginia, 1969*Pesch, R . Naherwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion im

Mk. 13. Patmos-Verlag, Dusseldorf, 1968.

297

Prenter, R, Spiritus Creator, trans# by J, M, Jensen,

The Muhlenberg Press, 1953*Quasten, J. Patrology, 3 volumes, Spectrum Publishers,

Utrecht-Antwerp, 1950—60,Richardson, A. An Introduction to the Theology of the

New Testament, SCM Press, London, 1969*Ridderbos , H, Paul, An Outline of* His Theology, trans,

by J, R, de Witt, SPCK, London, 1977,Robertson, A, T, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament

in the Light of Historical Research,Hodder and Stoughton, London, 191^*

* Robertson, C, Hie Nature of New Testament Glossolalia,Diss,,Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975*

Scharleman, M, H. Stephen — A Singular S a int, A B 3 ^ ,Pontifical Biblical Inst,, Rome, 1968,

Schelkle, K, H, Paulus, Lehrer der Vater die alt kirchlichenAuslegung von Romer 1-11, Patmos-Verlag,

Dusseldorf, 1956,Schlatter, A, The Church in the New Testament Period,

trans, by P, P, Levertoff, SPCK, London, 1961.

Schnackenburg, R, The Church in the New Testament, B u m s

and Oates, London, 197^«Sheets, J, R, The Spirit Speaks in Us: Personal Prayer in

the New Testament, Wilkes-Barre, 19680 Snaith, N, H, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,

London, 1950*Stalder, K, Das Werk des Geistes in der Heiligung bei

Paulus, EVZ-Verlag, Zurich, 1962,

298

Stanley, D

Stendahl, 1

Strack, H.

Streeter,

Swete, H,

Toal, M, F

Todt, H. E

Torrey, R.

Trites, A.

Urbach, E.

M# Boasting in the Lordi The phenomenon of prayer in St. Paul. Paulist Press,

New York, 1973.Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays.

SCM Press, London, 1977.L. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash

Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1931.

!. H. Concerning Prayer, Its Nature, itsDifficulties and its V a lue. Macmillan and Co., London, 1916.

I. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Macmillan and Co., London, 19°9.

— The Ascended Christ. Macmillan and Co.,London, 1912.

The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers,Vol. 2, Longmans Green, London, 1958.

The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition,

SCM Press, London, 1965.A, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit as

Revealed in the Scriptures and in Personal Experience« Fleming H. Revell and Co.,New York, 1910.

A. The New Testament Concept of Witness. CUP,

London, 1977.E . The Sages — their concepts and beliefs,

2 volumes, Magnes Press, Hebrew Univ.,

Jerusalem, 1975.

299

Wiles, G. P. Paul*s Intercessory Prayers. The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St. Paul, SNTSMS, CUP, 197*+.

Wiles, M. F. The Divine Apostle. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church.

CUP, London, 1967.Wolfson, H. A. Philo. 2 volumes, HUP, 19*+8.Yates, J. E. The Spirit and the Kingdom. SPCK, London,

1963.* Zojrn, R, Die Furbitte im Spat.judenturn und im Neuen

Testament. Diss., Gottingen, 1957*

a study of romans 8.26f.pdf

Documents

work possible

university of cape coast

university of aberdeenoctober

microform edition proquest

title of book

page numbers

wife rosilta

consistent encouragement