April 26, 2011
Romans 8:18-25 (NRSV)
18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Introduction
Since Martin Luther, no scripture has been more fundamental for the Protestant doctrine of justification than the book of Romans. Before questioning whether this in itself is justifiable, we must first ask whether these doctrines have done justice to Paul’s own theology. More than any other epistle in the Pauline corpus, the seemingly generic tone of Romans lends itself to abstract theologizing, far removed from the context in which it was written. Many Christian commentators have marveled at the complexity of Paul’s rhetorical structure in the development of the themes of grace and the Law, salvation, justification, and the opposition between the “flesh” and the “spirit” with which Paul struggles, and have come to view the letter as a summary of Paul’s theology rather than a letter addressing a concrete situation.
Following Luther, many Protestants have gleaned from Romans a doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide), as opposed to the works that prevail in James’ “epistle of straw.” They have located salvation in the redemption from our bodies and this fallen creation, and a retreat from the corrupted flesh to the pure spirit. Most strikingly, all of these notions have developed into a doctrine of personal salvation through the individual’s faith relationship to God which ignores the relationship of the individual believer to the community, to humanity at large, and to the rest of creation.
The inadequacy of such readings of Paul’s theology becomes readily evident when our attention is directed at one of the most climactic passages in the epistle: 8:18-25. By examining this pericope in its social, historical and scriptural context, it can become a new hermeneutical lens for the epistle as a whole, as well as a vital corrective to many of the misguided and harmful trends in Pauline theology. In it, Paul challenges us to expand our individualistic hope for personal spiritual fulfillment to an all-embracing hope for the redemption of our very bodies and the liberation of the entire earth from the futility of suffering and decay. During this time of unprecedented devastation, degradation, and destruction of life in all forms, these challenging yet hopeful words of Paul perhaps resound even more poignantly than in his own time.
Literary & Redaction Criticism
Authorship
There is nearly unanimous agreement within serious biblical scholarship that St. Paul is the genuine author of the Epistle to the Romans. The only remaining question concerning its authorship and redaction is the precise role played by Paul’s secretary, Tertius, in producing the final written form of the letter (cf Rom. 16:22). Cranfield identifies the three possible solutions to this question:
” (i) that he wrote the letter in long-hand to Paul’s dictation, or (ii) that he took it down in short-hand as Paul dictated it and then subsequently wrote it out in long-hand, or (iii) that, acting as a much more independent secretary, he himself composed the letter in accordance with Paul’s instructions.”
Most commentators more or less agree with Cranfield’s subsequent conclusion that, of these, (i) and (ii) are the most plausible given the painstakingly deliberate complexity of Paul’s rhetorical construction, and, by implication, the weight of the letter’s importance to Paul at the time he wrote it.
Genre and Purpose
Romans was most likely written sometime during the mid 50’s C.E. (Jerome Murphy-O’Connor narrows more precisely to the winter of 55-56), while Paul was still in Corinth. At the conclusion of Paul’s mission in Asia and Greece, he was preparing to return to the church in Jerusalem with the collection he had taken up—a rather risky endeavor considering the mounting tension throughout Paul’s missionary work between the Pauline cohort and the so-called “Judaizers.”
Due to the increasing hostility of the group of Pharisaic Jews (to whom Paul had formerly belonged) toward the now Gentile-infused Jesus movement and the ultimate frustration of his recent missionary attempts, Paul was ready to open a new chapter and a blank slate. Returning to Jerusalem with the collection was his only lingering obligation before he could begin a new mission to Spain. The adversity attested to throughout his correspondence with the churches in Galatia and Corinth make it easy to understand why Paul was so ready to move on. This also explains the thematic and theological continuity between these letters and Romans: since Paul was beginning his blank slate by eliciting the support of a church he had neither founded nor visited, and thus was implicitly unaware of its specific situation and problems, Paul laid the groundwork by expounding the very problems that plagued his most recent missionary efforts.
Since his aim was to make such an impression as to win the support and assistance of the Roman church with his planned mission to Spain, Paul makes full use of his extensive philosophical, scriptural, and rhetorical education (both Jewish and Greek) to create his strong argument that God both desires the salvation of all creation and has enacted the very plan that will make make it happen.
Because he does not know what or by whom the Roman Christians have been taught, and since the house churches in Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles, he frames this argument in an all-encompassing narrative whereby God redeems the whole of creation. Though the narrative itself draws deeply from the Jewish scripture tradition, Paul also uses the Greek philosophical genre of diatribe—a dialogue written to both censure and persuade its audience.
Form Criticism
After an epistolary introduction and four chapters of bringing the Jewish and Gentile addressees into the dialogue, Paul develops the theological implications of his argument in chapters 5-8. The first four chapters describe the captivity of all humankind, Jew and Gentile, to the power of sin and then the righteousness of God, who has already made a way for all to be liberated from sin’s destructive power through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
The section in chapters 5-8 develops the “already” but “not-yet” completed plan of God’s redemption by rooting the hope of future reconciliation in the context of enduring present suffering. Paul refers to the particular Jewish traditions of Adam’s sin and God’s promise of redemption to Israel to make a universal argument: Adam’s sin represents the need of all humankind to be renewed and conformed to its true identity, of which Jesus is the true image, and thus the promise of restoration made to Israel applies to all people. This section comes to a climax in chapter 8 with the conclusion that it is the presence of the Spirit which enables the “firstfruits” of the new humanity God is calling together to overcome the devastating power of sin in this life (vv. 1-17) and which gives the future hope of the glorious redemption of God’s whole creation (vv. 18-30). In this framework, the pericope of verses 18-25 is concerned in particular with explaining why the present condition of suffering and abuse endured by the entire created world is a source of hope rather than hopelessness.
There is an introductory thesis that relates present suffering to future glory (v. 18), followed by an explanation of the wider cosmic context of God’s creation suffering at the hands of fallen humanity but nevertheless groaning together with humankind in expectation of God’s new creation (vv. 19-23), after which the hope of this unseen future glory is again contrasted with the present existence of suffering in an unredeemed world (vv. 24-25). In the verses that follow, the groaning of creation and the children of God is related to the groaning of the Spirit who intercedes on their behalf (vv. 26-30), and who ensures the finality of their hope for redemption (vv. 31-39).
Textual Criticism
While scholars have identified as many as 15 different forms of Romans in the manuscript tradition, the essential integrity of 1:1 to 14:23 is virtually unquestioned. The multiplicity of variants primarily concerns the relationship of chapters 15 and 16 to the rest of the epistle.
The pericope of 8:18-25 is thus part of the earliest strata of Romans attested to in the manuscript tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that it exists in its entirety on P46 (circa 200 C.E.), which is regarded as one of the earliest and most reliable extant manuscripts.
The majority of variations in the early manuscripts appear to result from either a scribal visual error (replacing the original with a similarly spelled word, such as the replacement of κτισεως, creation, with πιστεως, faith, in one manuscript) or from an attempt by the scribe to add grammatical clarity.
One possible exception which bears on the interpretation of the text is the debate about whether the first word in verse 21 was originally οτι (“that”), as it appears in P46, and as followed by the Nestle-Aland text, or the causal διοτι (“because”) as argued compellingly by Cranfield and Jewett.
While both options still yield essentially the same overall meaning, the latter variant gives greater weight to the preceding words of verse 20. Nevertheless, most disagreements of interpretation among commentators concern how best to translate the passage into English. Of these, the most problematic has been the debate concerning what is and is not included by the word κτισεως (“creation”) beginning in verse 19. Barth argued that the term means “in the first place and above all man in general,” and, though he concedes that it can also be inclusive of all creation, he concludes that since “the world was created for the sake of man, to be dominated by man,” Paul’s use of the term in Romans 8 applies primarily “to man as the center of God’s creation.”
Most recent commentators have diverged from this interpretation, arguing that since creation’s groaning is addressed separately from that of humankind, and in parallel fashion, it makes the most since to assume Paul means specifically non-human creation. Furthermore, the structure of the pericope gives primacy to the groaning of the creation, and not that of humanity, which further erodes the plausibility of Barth’s position.
Source Criticism
The overarching theme of present suffering and future glory, as well as the contrast between the seen and unseen in this pericope exemplify the thematic continuity between the issues Paul took up with the Corinthians and his letter to the Romans (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-17). Additionally, the connection between αποκαραδοκια (“eager longing” in v. 19) and bodily redemption (v. 23) is reminiscent of the same connection Paul makes in Philippians 1:20, the only other time he uses this word.
The most significant source for Paul’s material here, however, is rooted in the understanding of creation and redemption developed in Genesis and the prophetic books. On face value, the use of κτισεως (v. 19) refers to God’s ordered creation in Genesis 1-2, as opposed to the Roman personified understanding of Mother Earth, but Paul’s contrast is more subtle. He does, in fact, use personification, but in a way that specifically contradicts the Roman understanding: in contrast to roman depictions of Mother Earth as relaxed and reclining, Paul shows the creation leaning forward and craning the neck in “eager longing” of redemption (v. 19-23).
These verses make it abundantly clear that the “glory” in verse 18 does not envisage a future immortality for individual Christian believers; in continuity with the Jewish tradition, it refers to both the restoration of God’s presence with the people and the redemption of all creation (cf Isa. 6:3; Num. 14:21; Ps. 72:19). The notion in verse 20 of the creation’s unwitting subjection to futility is deeply rooted in biblical tradition. The most obvious source for this is the curse in Genesis 3:17, but this need not be taken as a ‘fall’ of creation; instead, the text shows that the ground is cursed because of Adam’s sin.
This explains the connection in the preceding verse to the “revelation of the children of God”—since it was through human fault that creation was subjected to futility (cf Eccl. 1:2; 2:1-17; Job 31:38-40), the creation longs for the restoration of humankind to its true calling: caring and preserving creation (Gen. 2:15). The link between the “groaning” of nature and human sin can be seen in Joel 1:5-20, in which the earth suffers at the hands of human indiscretion and laments the humans’ iniquities long before they themselves began to suffer and repent. This resembles the primacy of creation’s groaning and subsequent human groaning in Paul’s construction. In opposition to the Roman myth that a human being attempting to play God (Caesar) can restore the world to an ideal state, Paul invokes a Jewish tradition (Gen. 3:17-19) in which humans attempt to play God and subsequently ruin their relationship with God, each other, and nature.
One further connection can be drawn between the structure and content of this pericope and Paul’s situation in Corinth. The subordination of humanity to creation in sequence and by the implication of “but not only…but we ourselves” (v. 23) seem to deliberately contradict the sort of exceptionalism and enthusiasm of the fabled spirit people in Corinth. Here, Paul associates the Spirit and the “firstfruits” of glory, however charismatic they may be, with the context of vulnerability and suffering. This is also highly significant for Paul’s audience in Rome who were suffering at the hands of the same Caesar who was revered and glorified as divine by the Roman civic cult.
Social-Historical Criticism
The elaborate interweaving of Jewish scripture tradition with Greek and Roman themes is no accident; it is Paul’s deliberate rhetorical strategy aimed at bringing together the Jews and Gentiles of the Roman churches. Apparently, the early followers of the Jesus movement in Rome sparked so much agitation amongst the city’s Jewish population that the emperor Claudius was moved to expel an unspecified number of Jews from Rome in 49 C.E.
Regardless of how serious and extensive this expulsion was, the very fact in itself testifies to the potentially tense atmosphere between Jewish and Gentile converts a few short years before Paul wrote his letter. To accomplish his goal of bringing both camps together (cf. Gal. 3:28), Paul had to steer between the Scylla of uncritical appropriation of Jewish and Roman-Gentile themes and the Charybdis of excessively harsh and alienating rhetoric which would only multiply the tension and augment opposition to his mission. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that Paul’s main polemic is directed against the “gospel” of the Roman Caesar-cult, not against the Jewish faith. Thus, Paul’s thesis in verse 18 declares that the glory is to be revealed “to us” as opposed to the imperial claim of glory for Caesar alone.
The allusions to Roman cultic beliefs in this pericope are manifold. The context of the “suffering” referred to in verse 18 and onward is the suffering of the Roman underclass who experienced harassment and deportation every day, and the idea that nature is suffering and “groaning” runs directly counter to the Roman cultic view of nature as idyllic.
Furthermore, the location of Paul’s redemption as a future event is designed to contest the argument, put forth by Virgil, that Augustus had fulfilled a sort of messianic expectation to reclaim Roman prosperity and usher in a golden age for the whole world. As Jewett summarizes, “Paul cuts thru this propagandistic nonsense to refer directly to the παθηματα (“passions, sufferings”) suffered by Roman believers…in following a suffering Christ.”
The “futility” to which creation has been subjected was brought on by the military conquests and economic exploitation of Caesar that led to ruined cities, barren and torched fields, cleared forests, and polluted streams. Paul’s other reason for hedging against such imperial claims is that he is trying to recruit the support of the Roman churches for his subsequent mission to Spain; he is attempting to persuade Romans to submit in loving service to the “very barbarians that Rome believed it must subdue in order to bring about the golden age.”
Though this makes the Romans seem like an odd choice for Paul to seek out for assistance, he had little choice. Since there were scarcely any diaspora Jews in Spain, and very few Greek speakers, Paul needed the Romans as a cultural and linguistic liaison; he could truly accomplish very little there without their help.
Praxis
This pericope hedges against any individualization of Pauline justification by demonstrating that for Paul, salvation is inconceivable without a whole new creation. The fate of the entire created order is inextricably bound up with that of the human beings to whom God has entrusted the earth’s care.
Though this hoped for redemption will be consummated in the future, the life of the redeemed children of God can be entered even now. As these children learn to how to live in God’s family, “their altered lifestyle and revised ethics begin to restore the ecological system that had been thrown out of balance by wrongdoing (1:18-32) and sin (Rom. 5-7).” The call to this life and its commitment to an unseen hope may be even more crucial today than in Paul’s own time.
Bibliography
Barth, Karl. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1959.
Braaten, Laurie J. “The Groaning Creation: The Biblical Background for Romans 8:22.” Biblical Research 50 (2005): 19-39.
Cranfield, C.E.B. Romans: The International Critical Commentary. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark Ltd., 1975.
Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. In Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Eldon J. Epp, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Lawson, J. Mark. “Romans 8:18-25—The Hope of Creation.” Review & Expositor 91, no. 4 (1994): 559-565.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. New York: United Bible Societies, 1973.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Toews, John E. Romans: Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 2004.
Heretical Rhetoric 