And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
And not only [they] but ourselves also, х ou (G3756) monon (G3440) de (G1161), alla (G235) kai (G2532) autoi (G846)] - rather, 'And not only so, but even we ourselves;' that is, besides the inanimate creation,
Which have the first-fruits of the Spirit - meaning, not 'the Spirit's first-fruits,' but 'the Spirit as the first-fruits' of our full redemption (compare 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30 - where the meaning is not "by which ye are sealed," as if the Spirit were the Author of the sealing, but "with which" the Spirit being Himself the seal). The Spirit, given to believers as "the first-fruits" of what awaits them in glory, moulds the heart to a heavenly frame, and attempers it to its fixture element.
Even we ourselves - notwithstanding that we have the first-fruits of heaven already within us,
Groan within ourselves - both under that "body of sin and death" which we carry about with us, and under the manifold "vanity and vexation of spirit" that are written upon every object and every pursuit and every enjoyment under the sun;
Waiting for х apekdechomenoi (G553), see the note at Romans 8:19] The adoption - meaning the revelation or manifestation of the adoption
[To wit,] the redemption of our body - from the grave; for (as Bengel notes) that is not called liberty by which we are delivered from the body, but by which the body itself is liberated from death.
Such seems to us the simplest and most natural interpretation of this noble passage. But it has been much controverted. No one passage, indeed, has given rise to more controversy, and whole treatises have been written to discuss and expound it. Though the interpretations put upon it have been many, they are all reducible to three: First, that "the whole creation" here means the whole created universe.' Such is the strange view of Olshausen, who views it, however, in a mystical sense, as the yearning of all creature-life after its destined perfection. But unless it be maintained that the whole created universe was "made subject to vanity" through the sin of man, which would be absurd, this interpretation must be rejected as a mere dream. Next, that "the creation" here means, 'the rational creation,' or 'mankind in general.' So Augustine, Locke, Stuart, Webster and Wilkinson. But how could it be said that mankind in general were 'unwillingly subjected to vanity,' since in this very Epistle the sin that brought this vanity upon them is represented as their own (Romans 5:12); and how could it be said that the rational creation, or mankind in general, were 'subjected to vanity, in hope of being delivered from the bondage of corruption into, the liberty of the glory of the children of God,' or, finally, that they are now "groaning and travailing in pain together, waiting for the adoption"! etc.
It remains, then, lastly, since "the creation" here cannot mean Christians-for in Romans 8:23 they and it are expressly distinguished from each other-that it must mean, 'that creation which forms part of one system with man, yet exclusive of man himself.' So (although with considerable diversity in minor particulars) the great majority of interpreters-as Irenaeus and Chrysostom of the fathers; Erasmus, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Beza, Melville and Ferme, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Cocceius, Reiche, Fritzsche, Neander, Tholuck, Meyer, DeWette, Philippi, Alford, Hodge, Wordsworth. If for man's sake alone the earth was cursed, it cannot surprise us that it should share in his recovery. And, if so, to represent it as sympathizing with man's miseries, and as looking forward to his complete redemption us the period of its own emancipation from its present sin-blighted condition, is a beautiful thought, and in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture on the subject. (See 2 Peter 3:13.)