A Reexamination Of Calvin’s Approach To Romans 8:17

By William N. W. Pass III

[William N. W. Pass III is Pastor, Grace Community Bible Church, Victoria, Texas.]

Romans 8:17 sets forth a remarkable concept: “co-heirs with Christ” (NIV). To contemplate the magnificence of a resurrection life is challenging in itself. But to add to this the idea of having a share in the inheritance with the One who is “heir of all things” (Heb. 1:2), the eternal Son of God, is even more challenging. And yet to motivate his readers Paul asked them to envision that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18).

It is curious that the most widely accepted approach to Romans 8:17, as set forth by John Calvin,[1] undermines the motivational force of Paul’s exhortation by offering an explanation that raises doubt as to the certainty of his conclusion. For Calvin, being “co-heirs with Christ” is part of the salvation “package” and so is bestowed on all believers without distinction. This article examines Calvin’s approach with a focus on the problem that calls into question the reliability of this conclusion and offers an alternative.

Evidence Of An Unsolved Problem

Calvin’s commentary on Romans contains references to commentaries by Ambrose, Beza, Chrysostom, and Peter Martyr.[2] Calvin’s view, however, seems to have set the standard for the treatment of this verse by commentators in recent centuries, including Chalmers, Liddon, Godet, Meyer, Hodge, Moule, Parry, Barnhouse, Cranfield, Harrison, Dunn, Moo, Schreiner, and Jewett.[3] With some minor variations their views on this verse follow Calvin’s, namely, that salvation is the basis for co-heirship with Christ. From these authors Meyer and Barnhouse were selected for further evaluation because each takes a different approach to this verse. Meyer sees εἴπερ (“if”) in verse 17 as conditional, and Barnhouse sees it as unconditional.[4]

Calvin’s Approach

Calvin divided Romans 8:17 into two parts, indicated by the headings under which he discussed the verse: “If we are children” (v. 17a) and “if indeed we share in his suffering” (v. 17b).[5] (The authors noted above also follow this division.) Calvin took the words “if we are children” as the evidence (the protasis) on which to confirm the certainty of the inference that believers are also “heirs of God” and “co-heirs with Christ” (the apodosis). From this Calvin concluded that being heirs and being co-heirs with Christ are inferences from being “children,” both of which are related to salvation (vv. 15-16). “It is for children that inheritance is appointed: since God has adopted us as his children, he has at the same time ordained an inheritance for us.”[6]

Written as a first-class conditional sentence,[7] verse 17a assures the “children” of their salvation, but it also motivates them to “despise with boldness the enticements of the world”[8] in light of the coming resurrection glory (v. 18) as “heirs” and “co-heirs.” Calvin then discussed the εἴπερ clause (in v. 17b) separately. His division of this verse is as follows:

v. 17a Evidence (protasis): “Now, if children [of God],

Inference (apodosis): [then] also heirs; heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ,

v. 17b if indeed [εἴπερ] we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

Calvin began his explanation of verse 17b by stating, “We are fellow-heirs with Christ, provided we follow Him in the way in which He Himself has led us, in discerning our inheritance.’ ”[9] By translating εἴπερ as “provided,” Calvin implied the presence of a condition. Later, however, he removed the conditional force of εἰπερ. He wrote that Paul was pointing out “the order which the Lord follows in ministering salvation to us, rather than its cause. . . . He does not argue about the source of our salvation, but the manner in which God governs His people.”[10]

But this presents a discrepancy. The translations of εἴπερ in the heading (“if”) and in his initial statement (“provided”) retain the conditional force commonly expressed by εἴπερ.[11] But Calvin’s explanation that Paul denoted “the order . . . rather than its cause,” removes the condition.

Herein lies the problem. To retain the conditional force of εἴπερ (“if”) is to add “suffering with him” to “children” as a condition of being “heirs” and “co-heirs,” which adds suffering to faith as a condition of salvation. But this contradicts Calvin’s view that justification is by faith alone.[12] To remove its conditional force by explaining “suffering with Him” in terms of how “God governs His people,” is to add “suffering with Him” to faith as a defining attribute of what it means to be a believer. “Suffering with Him” now becomes the test of saving faith, and the absence of suffering indicates the absence of saving faith.

By his explanation of suffering Calvin effectively restored the condition that his explanation of εἴπερ had removed. This approach undermines the certainty of his conclusion. So Calvin’s answer to the question, Is suffering a condition of salvation? is “no” with regard to εἴπερ but “yes” with regard to how “God governs His people.”

Meyer’s Approach

Although Meyer followed Calvin’s division of verse 17, he differed from Calvin on two key points. First, he understood that “co-heirs with Christ” is synonymous with “heirs of God.”[13] Second, he retained the conditional force of εἴπερ.[14] The latter solved one problem (Calvin’s “special pleading” for the nonconditional use of εἴπερ), but the former precipitated another: “suffering with Him” now became a condition for salvation. Although Meyer rejected this position,[15] his statements lead to that conclusion. He said, (a) if suffering is the “presupposition involved in [i.e., the condition for] joint-heirship,”[16] (b) and if “joint-heirship” is “in substance the same” as “heirs of God,”[17] (c) then suffering is the presupposition of (the condition for) “heirs of God.”

Meyer’s approach then rests on a syllogism that must be broken in order for his explanation to stand, that is, in order for suffering to be the basis of co-heirship with Christ, but not of “heirs of God,” even though the two are “in substance the same.”

While Calvin gave priority to the theology (justification by faith alone) at the expense of the grammar (εἴπερ not indicating a condition), Meyer gave priority to the grammar at the expense of theology. This is precisely the choice that confronts all who follow Calvin’s approach to this verse. Yet this dilemma is rarely viewed as a “red flag” that warns that such approaches and the resulting conclusions are suspect.

Barnhouse’s Approach

Within half a century Barnhouse and others had departed from Meyer and returned to Calvin’s nonconditional use of εἴπερ: “The last part of our text sometimes confuses people since it appears to present a condition.”[18] He evaluated the six other occurrences of the particle in the New Testament in support of his conclusion “that it is not a phrase implying doubt.”[19] However, his argument cannot be sustained, and ultimately his discussion demonstrates the difficulty of removing the word’s conditional force.[20]

However, Barnhouse differed from Calvin’s view on suffering when he wrote, “These sufferings are not the ordinary sufferings of this life”;[21] rather they are sufferings that stem from the fact that believers are united with Christ.[22] Barnhouse called this “sympathetic suffering.” This forced him to exclude voluntary suffering from his definition in an attempt to keep suffering from being added to faith as a condition of salvation.[23] This in turn was consistent with his conclusion that εἴπερ does not introduce a condition.

For Barnhouse then εἴπερ did not indicate a condition, but the fact of “sympathetic suffering” in the life of the believer. However, this did not solve the problem. Rather the “sympathetic suffering” view only confirms that without suffering there is no union with Christ. So, as with Calvin, Barnhouse has restored by his explanation of suffering, the condition he had removed by his explanation of εἴπερ.

The Nature Of The Problem

Those who like Barnhouse follow Calvin and assign a non-conditional force to εἴπερ inevitably reinsert the condition through their explanation of suffering. Those who like Meyer follow Calvin but assign a conditional force to εἴπερ, are left to explain how suffering is the condition of having co-heirship with Christ, but not the condition of being “heirs of God.”[24] Within Calvin’s paradigm this problem has yet to be solved.[25]

The Source Of The Problem

The problem derives from Calvin’s division of the verse. When εἴπερ is taken to express a condition (Meyer’s view), it cannot, as a dependent clause, stand alone. But neither can it be attached to the conditional sentence (in v. 17a) without adding works (suffering with Him) to faith as a condition of salvation. When taken not as a condition, but as the certain fact of suffering in the life of the believer (Calvin and Barnhouse), the clause can logically be attached to what precedes it. However, no example of this use of εἴπερ is in Greek grammars or lexicons.[26]

Calvin’s reason for dividing the verse as he did is based on his assumption that all of verse 17 speaks of salvation. However, nothing in the text requires it, and in fact this salvation-only reading creates a problem.

Calvin assumed this view because of his effort to reconcile James with Paul. “As Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be reckoned righteous.”[27] In other words Calvin held that all believers will live righteously. This was later formalized into the doctrine known as the perseverance of the saints. As Hodge wrote, “The orthodox doctrine does not affirm certainty of salvation because we have once believed, but certainty of perseverance in holiness if we have truly believed . . . the only sure evidence of the genuineness of past experience [justification by faith, alone].”[28] For Calvin a person who does not suffer with Christ is an unbeliever. Therefore Calvin’s view on perseverance limited him to a salvation-only reading of Romans 8:17.

As a result Calvin’s view makes no allowance for a distinction between “heirs of God” and “co-heirs with Christ.” This distinction, however, is important for it means that while all believers will enter the kingdom by virtue of their being “heirs of God,” that is, His children, not all will necessarily enter as “co-heirs with Christ.” This view has substantial exegetical support, and this warning may well have been a key point in Paul’s larger argument.

An Alternative Approach

The starting point for this alternative approach is to forgo the assumption that all of verse 17 is to be understood as addressing the subject of salvation. The verse should then be divided as follows:

v. 17a “Now if children [of God, then] also heirs, heirs of God;

v. 17b [then] co-heirs with Christ, if [εἴπερ] we suffer with Him, in order that [ἵνα] we also might be glorified with Him.”

This approach reads as two first-class conditional sentences, not one. The first (v. 17) refers to salvation, but the second (v. 17) refers to an aspect of sanctification. And the ἵνα clause (“in order that”) relates only to the apodosis of the second conditional sentence.

The arguments for a nonconditional use of εἴπερ (Calvin and Barnhouse), are no longer necessary; εἴπερ does present a condition (Meyer), but not of salvation.

This division of the verse is not without precedent in Romans 8. Verses 9-10, and 13 include first-class conditional sentences. In each case these paired conditional sentences form a contrast. In verses 9 and 10 the contrast is emphasized by the chiastic structure, which places the emphasis on the central elements. In verse 9 the emphasis is on the contrast between the protases, the presence or absence of the Spirit, which gives evidence of the apodoses.

B (apodosis, inference): [Then] you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,

A (protasis, evidence): if [and assuming it is true that] the Spirit of God is dwelling in you.

But

A´ (protasis, evidence): if [and assuming it is true that] anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,

B´ (apodosis, inference): [then] this one is not of Him.

This order is reversed in verse 10, where the emphasis is on the contrast between the apodoses, death and life, which are inferences from the evidence that “Christ dwells in you.” The employment of μὲν . . . δὲ supports the conclusion that the protases of the two conditional sentences are identical, but that the restatement of the protasis has been elided and is to be supplied by the reader.[29]

A (protasis, evidence): Now if [and assuming it is true that] Christ [is dwelling] in you,

B (apodosis, inference): [μὲν, then], on the one hand, the body [is] dead because of sin, but

B´ (apodosis, inference): [δὲ, then], on the other hand, the spirit [is] life because of righteousness,

A´ (protasis, evidence): [if and assuming it is true that Christ is dwelling in you].

Except for the subject matter, the “redivision” of verse 17 is identical to that of verse 10, in which paired first-class conditional sentences are set in contrast to each other and structured as a chiasm, in which the contrast between the central elements (the apodoses) is attested by the μὲν . . . δὲ construction: “on the one hand heirs of God but on the other hand co-heirs with Christ.”[30]

v. 17 A (protasis, evidence): Now if [and assuming it is true that we are] children [of God],

B (apodosis, inference): [μὲν, then] on the one hand, [we are] also heirs, heirs of God,

B´ (apodosis, inference): [δὲ, then] on the other hand, [we are] co-heirs with Christ

v. 17 A´ (protasis, evidence): if [and assuming it is true that] we suffer with Him, in order that we might be glorified with Him.

Rather than accept Meyer’s conclusion that “heirs of God” and “co-heirs with Christ” are synonymous, it is better to see μὲν . . . δὲ as contrasting the two.[31]

“Co-heirship with Christ,” then, is not the result of being “heirs of God” (as Calvin taught), nor are the terms synonymous (as Meyer believed). “Heirs of God” is the inference (B) from the evidence (A), “if children [of God].” But in contrast to this, being “co-heirs with Christ, that we might be glorified with Him” is the inference (B´) from the evidence (A´), “if we suffer with Him.”

Paul, then, was not referring to the general resurrection glory as “heirs of God,” but instead he pointed to a glory unique to those who will be co-heirs with Christ because of having suffered with Him in obedience. This is what the believers were commended for by the writer of Hebrews, who exhorted his readers not to give up. “But remember the former days, when . . . you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property. . . . Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that [ἵνα] when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised” (Heb. 10:32-36).[32]

The exhortation in verse 36 shows the voluntary nature of the choices these believers made, knowing that suffering would accompany obedience. The “witnesses” (12:1) looked ahead by faith (chap. 11) to the “great reward” (10:35) as motivation to endure the suffering that comes with obedience, as did Christ (12:2).

Evidently some in the church at Rome, having had their sins forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ, concluded that personal sins were now of no real consequence. That this error was present, seems evident from the fact that each of the questions Paul raised was corrective in nature.

“So when you . . . do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?” (2:3). “But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?” (3:5). “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” (3:7). “Why not say . . . let us do evil that good may result?” (3:8). “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase?” (6:1). “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?” (6:15) (author’s translations).

Each question reflects a point of view held by at least some of these saints (1:7-8). To the first question some evidently would have answered, “Yes! We will escape God’s judgment of personal sins,” perhaps pointing to the cross and the impossibility of “double jeopardy.” Some may also have reasoned that there is a sense of injustice in punishing believers who by their lies magnify the truthfulness of God; that there is a certain legitimacy to sin in the life of a believer when something “good” results; that because believers are not under the law, the prohibitions no longer apply and in any case violations cause grace to abound, for “where sin abounded, grace abounded more.”[33]

The attempt to justify personal sins by these rationalizations stems, Paul argued, from the “old self” that seeks to retain its control as “master” over the believer in order that sin might continue to reign in one’s mortal body so that he obeys its evil desires. Such rationalizations certainly revealed the lack of a “renewed mind” (12:2), apart from which the lifestyle exhorted by Paul is not possible—“that we should no longer be slaves to sin,” rather, we should “offer [our]selves to God as living sacrifices.”

Paul, then, set forth the possibility of believers being “co-heirs” as motivation to righteous living, warning that although personal sins can never again bring the believer under eternal condemnation, that “to continue in sin that grace may abound,” or “because we are no longer under the law,” or “that good may result,” will incur God’s judgment, that is, the loss of co-heirship with Christ in His kingdom. This is consistent with Paul’s warning to the Corinthian believers: “If [and assuming it is true that] any man’s work is burned, [then] he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as [only escaping] through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15).[34]

The idea that some believers will “suffer loss” as a consequence of unrighteous living is inconsistent with Calvin’s view that all believers will persevere and enter the kingdom as co-heirs with Christ. The potential to receive or be denied co-heirship is more in line with Jude’s words that co-heirs with Christ will “stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy” (Jude 24). Also Paul wrote that Christ will present faithful believers “before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” (Col. 1:22). And John encouraged believers to “abide in Him, so that when He appears” they “may have confidence” (1 John 2:28). And Christ promised a measure of authority in ruling with Him in civil and spiritual matters, as a reward for faithfulness: “He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations . . . as I also have received authority from My Father” (Rev. 2:26-27, italics added). And, “Hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God” (3:11-12, italics added).

Conclusion

Calvin’s view of Romans 8:17 presupposed a salvation-only reading. This presupposition dictated his division of the verse, which in turn raised the question of how to explain the force of εἰπερ without adding works (through “suffering with Him”) to faith as a condition of salvation. The explanations offered by Meyer (that εἰπερ is conditional) and by Barnhouse (that εἰπερ is unconditional) demonstrate that this is not possible. These approaches lead to the erroneous view that co-heirship is both unconditional, an inference of being God’s “children,” while at the same time co-heirship is conditional, as implied by “suffering with Him.” This is a tenuous basis for concluding that co-heirship is unconditionally bestowed on all believers without distinction.

The alternative view presented in this article eliminates this conflict by reading Romans 8:17 as including two conditional sentences. The first, “heirs of God,” deals with salvation, a standing that is true of all believers, whereas the second, “co-heirs with Christ,” speaks of the believer’s sanctification, as a motivation for faithful living. This approach solves the problem, for it retains the conditional force indicated by εἴπερ, without adding suffering to faith as a condition of salvation. However, it requires abandoning Calvin’s paradigm, a salvation-only reading of the verse.

Notes

1. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. Ross MacKenzie, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 171.
2. Ibid.
3. Thomas Chalmers, Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 2nd ed. (New York: Robert Carter, 1843); H. P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961); F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1934); Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistle to the Romans, trans., rev., and ed. William P. Dickson (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884); Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965). H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1899); R. St John Parry, ed., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921); Donald Grey Barnhouse, God’s Heirs, vol. 7 of Expository Messages on the Whole Bible (reprinted in four volumes as Exposition of Bible Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963]); C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1987); Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988); Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998); and Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).
4. Chalmers (1823) followed Calvin (1539) in assigning a nonconditional force to εἴπερ. Approximately sixty years after Chalmers, Meyer, Liddon, Godet (in the 1880s), and Joseph H. Thayer in 1889 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [New York: American Book, 1889], 172) argued for its conditional force. Parry, Barnhouse, and Cranfield (1899-1980s), shifted back to an nonconditional force. Then Dunn, Moo, and Schreiner (1988-1998) returned to the conditional force of εἴπερ, and Jewett (2007) returned again to an nonconditional force. Although both Dillow and López argue for the conditional use of εἴπερ, they are not included here because they do not use Calvin’s approach as their starting point. See Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle, 1993), 374; and René A. López, Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver (Springfield, MO: 21st Century, 2005), 173.
5. Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 301.
6. Ibid. (italics added).
7. In this type of Greek conditional sentence the proposition (the “if” clause, the protasis) is assumed true as a basis for confirming the certainty of the conclusion (the “then” clause, the apodosis) (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 683).
8. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 171.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid. (italics added).
11. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 279.
12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:748-49 (3.11.19).
13. “Not something greater than κληρον θεοῦ (‘heirs of God’), on the contrary in substance the same, but specifically characterized from the standpoint of our fellowship with Christ” (Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistle to the Romans, 317).
14. “This fellowship of suffering Paul regards as that which must be presupposed in order to the attainment of glory, of participation in the δόξα of Christ (εἴπερ, as in ver. 9),” pointing to His experience as evidence: “just as necessarily and truly . . . that in the case of Jesus Himself His suffering . . . was the condition of His glory” (ibid., 317-18).
15. Melanchthon’s view is evidence of this point: “not as indeed as meritum, or pretium vitae aeternae but as obedientia propter ordinem a Deo sancitum” (“Not as indeed as merit, or the price of eternal life . . . but, obedience on account of the order established by God”) (Philipp Melanchthon, quoted in ibid., 318).
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., 317.
18. Barnhouse, God’s Heirs, 117.
19. Ibid., 117-18. The six other occurrences of εἴπερ are in Romans 3:30, 8:9; 1 Corinthians 8:5; 15:15; 2 Corinthians 5:3; and 2 Thessalonians 1:6. A seventh occurrence, perhaps in 1 Peter 2:3, is debated.
20. Barnhouse attempted to argue for the nonconditional force of εἴπερ in Romans 8:17 by noting that its presence in 1 Corinthians 15:15b did not raise doubt as to the resurrection (Barnhouse, God’s Heirs, 117-18). However, his argument fails because his paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 15:55 affirms the certainty of the resurrection while retaining the conditional force of εἴπερ (then “Christ is not raised, if you are going to adopt the argument that there is no resurrection at all” [ibid., italics added]).
21. Ibid., 119. Calvin said that “various afflictions . . . compared with the greatness of that glory, are of very little importance” (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 171).
22. Barnhouse, God’s Heirs, 119-20.
23. “It is very important to note that this suffering is not voluntary suffering” (ibid., 119).
24. Exegetical support for this position comes in the form of a syntactical “Gordian Knot.” This view requires that the condition introduced by εἴπερ (“if we suffer with Him”) modifies the apodosis of the previous conditional sentence (then “heirs of God” and “co-heirs with Christ”). Two distinctly different conditions now “share” the same apodosis, but only “if children” is taken as the protasis. In addition, it must be argued that the εἴπερ clause modifies the apodosis in such a way as to “divide” it, so that “if we suffer with Him,” modifies the second element (“co-heirs”), but not the first (“heirs of God”). The result is that “if children” stands as the condition of “heirs of God” and “co-heirs with Christ,” until the εἴπερclause is read. Then the clause “if we suffer with Him” severs the two and becomes the condition of “co-heirs with Christ.” Ironically the disjunctive force of μὲν . . . δὲ, denied by the division of the verse, is now required by the explanation.
25. “Paul then progressed in his argument that as children of God believers are also heirs—heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” (George C. Gianoulis, “Is Sonship in Romans 8:14-17 a Link with Romans 9?” Bibliotheca Sacra 661 [January–March 2009]: 74). Gianoulis’s comment seems to indicate that he accepted Calvin’s approach.
26. For example Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 172. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich include the idea of “since,” but they give no examples (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 220); and F. Blass and A. Debrunner give no examples (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 237, §§ 454).
27. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:816 (3.17.12).
28. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology Re-written and Enlarged (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1878), 544. This position continues today. “Faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (James 2:14-17)” (John F. MacArthur Jr., The Gospel according to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], 23).
29. E. W. Bullinger cites Romans 7:3 as an example of this need to supply a thought: “At the end of verse 3, therefore, the other hypothesis must be supplied (mentally if not actually)” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible [London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 55).
30. No textual variation indicating an absence or alteration of the construction is cited in Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1975); or in Kurt Aland, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993); or Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).
31. Dillow noted, “In every usage of these particles in this way in Romans, they are always contrastive and never conjunctive: 2:7-8, 25; 5:16; 6:11; 7:25; 8:10, 17; 9:21; 11:22, 28; 14:2, 5; 16:9” (The Reign of the Servant Kings, 376). López follows Dillow on this point (Romans Unlocked, 174-75). Wallace included μὲν . . . δὲin his translation of Romans 8:17, but his discussion of the verse is limited to illustrating a genitive of association. However, his comment supports the conclusion that co-heirship is associated with Christ in the δὲ clause (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 129). The second protasis (the εἴπερ clause) then specifies the nature of that association: “if we suffer with Him.”
32. The aorist subjunctive Μὴ ἀποβάλητε in verse 35 confirms the volitional aspect of the action of the verb “do not throw away” (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 463, 469, 723). The ἵνα clause in verse 36 confirms that the obtaining of the promised “great reward” (v. 35) is conditioned on obeying the prohibition, “do not throw away your confidence.” The “great reward,” then, is not unconditionally bestowed on every believer, but is received only by those who do not lose heart and do not throw away their confidence. In throwing away their “confidence” they would be avoiding suffering by being disobedient. Believers then are encouraged to accept the suffering that comes with obedience, rather than choosing disobedience in order to avoid suffering, for then they would forfeit the “great reward.”
33. J. Budziszewski presents an insightful analysis of the dynamic that produces, sustains, and proliferates this mentality (The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man [Dallas: Spence, 1999]).
34. Maximilian Zerwick noted, “Paul seems to be speaking in general . . . but the form [of the conditional sentence] is that of a concrete condition . . . which suggests that Paul is in fact thinking of a particular case or cases” (Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith [Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963], 102, § 347. It is probable that the “cases” were some of Paul’s readers and that he had set before them the consequence of perpetuating their spiritual immaturity (3:1), namely, that the works of such an “infant” lifestyle will not be rewarded but are destined for the “fire.” As F. Godet concluded, “Then he will see himself refused the reward of the faithful servant, the honorable position in Christ’s kingdom” (Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans., A. Cusin [Edinburgh: Clark, n.d.], 1:189).