We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Romans 8.26f. has no parallel in the NT. A. J. M. Wedderburn writes,
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 NT scholars on Rom. 8.26f. Its strangeness derives from three basic ideas. First, this is the only passage in which it is asserted that the Christian does not know how to pray as he ought. This is an exception to what is otherwise said of prayer in the NT. Second, this is the only passage in biblical writings where the Holy Spirit is described explicitly as an intercessor. Third, the passage appears disjointed from its context. The guiding thought in vv. 18–25 is suffering but in v. 26, Paul talks about prayer. Can these themes be related in a single unit?
page 165 note 1 Wedderburn, A. J. M.; ‘Rom. 8.26 – Towards a theology of glossolalia?’, SJT, 28, 1975, p. 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 166 note 2 Käsemann, E.; An die Römer, 1974, p. 31.Google Scholar
page 166 note 3 Zahn, T.; Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, 1910, p. 412Google Scholar; see also Greeven, H.; Gebet und Eschatologie im Nenen 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 measureGoogle Scholar. See also. Kühl, E.; An die Römer, 1913, p. 298Google Scholar. This explanation of uncertain knowledge of prayer is also expressed by Barrett, in A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1957, p. 168.Google Scholar
page 166 note 4 Lagrange, P. M. J.; Épître aux Romains, 1950, p. 213.Google Scholar
page 166 note 5 Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C.; A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1902, p. 213.Google Scholar
page 166 note 6 Huby, J.; St Paul: Épître aux Romains, new ed. by Lyonnet, S., 1957 (1940), p. 303Google Scholar. See also Lagrange, , Epitre aux Romains, p. 211Google Scholar; Jülicher, A., ‘Der Brief an die Römer’ in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2, 1917, p. 284.Google Scholar
page 167 note 7 Käsemann, ; An die Römer, p. 231Google Scholar, Cranfield, C. E. B.; The Epistle to the Romans Vol. 1, 1975, p. 421.Google Scholar
page 167 note 8 Barrett, ; 2 Corinthians, 1973, p. 314.Google Scholar
page 168 note 9 Pesch, R., Naheruiartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mark. 13, (Düsseldorf), 1968, p. 133Google Scholar; Schmid, J., The Gospel according to Mark, 1968, p. 237.Google Scholar
page 169 note 10 Trites, A. A., The New Testament Concept of Witness, London, 1977, p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Harvey, A., Jesus on Trial. A Study in the Fourth Gospel, London 1976, esp. pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
page 169 note 11 Harvey, , Jesus on Trial, p. 109.Google Scholar
page 169 note 12 Falk, Z. W., Hebrew Law in Biblical Times, 1964, p. 70.Google Scholar
page 169 note 13 Falk, , Introduction to Jewish Law of the 2nd Commonwealth, 1, 1972, p. 104.Google Scholar
page 169 note 14 Betz, O., Der Paraklet, 1963, pp. 73–116 where he deals with intercession; he scarcely distinguishes witnessing from intercession.Google Scholar
page 170 note 15 Behm, , TDNT, 5, p. 803.Google Scholar
page 170 note 16 Holwerda, D. E., The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the Gospel of John, 1959, p. 58.Google Scholar
page 171 note 17 Although a note of advocacy is present in Mark 13.11 John 15.26f. and John 16.8–11, it would not be right to equate them to the intercession of Rom. 8.26f. (1) A sense of proclamation of the Gospel is involved in the Markan and Johannine passages which is not present in the Roman passage. (2) The Spirit's intercession in Rom. 8.26 is linked to prayer but the Gospel allusions have no prayer connotation.
page 171 note 18 Some scholars, thinking that in John 4.23, 24, Jesus was contrasting external worship with inward worship, have taken ‘spirit’ to refer to the human spirit. These include Morris, L., John, 1972, p. 270Google Scholar; Hendriksen, W., John, 1973, p. 167Google Scholar; Johnston, G., The Spirit — Paraclete in the Gospel of John, 1970, p. 45Google Scholar. But this is an erroneous view. In Greek NT, the term without a qualifier usually means the Holy Spirit. Besides in John, πνευ^μα denotes the sphere of divine essence and occurrence as distinct from human (3.6–8). See Brown, R., John, 1, 1970, p. 180Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , Die Johannesbriefe, 1963, p. 437Google Scholar; Barrett, , John, 1955, p. 199Google Scholar; Dunn, , Jesus and the Spirit, 1975, p. 353.Google Scholar
page 172 note 19 Mitton, C. L., Ephesians (NCB), 1976, p. 228.Google Scholar
page 172 note 20 E. Käsemann sees Rom. 18–27 as an apocalyptic passage with vv. 26, 27 as its climax. Käsemann, , Romans, 1980, pp. 230–239Google Scholar; Paulinische Perspektiven, 1969, p. 233. See also Schniewind, J., ‘Das Seufzen des Geistes. Rom. 8.26, 27’ NRA, 1952, p. 96Google Scholar; Hamilton, N. Q., The Holy Spirit in Eschatobgy in Paul, 1957, p. 36Google Scholar; Obeng, E. A., A study of Rom. 8.26f. (Ph.D. Diss. Aberdeen), 1980, pp. 250–258).Google Scholar
page 173 note 21 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; 3.7, 9; 22.23; Job 34.28 etc.). By speaking of prayer in the context of suffering, Paul was echoing an idea which goes back to OT times.
