III.
Form, Structure,
Movement
Having considered the historical and literary context of Rom
8:18-25, it is now possible to discuss the form, structure, and movement of the
passage.
Though Paul is vague as to his specific purpose for writing
Romans, one surmises that Paul is writing in preparation for his visit to the
churches, to establish a rapport with the membership (of whom few if any, it
must be emphasized, were Paul’s own converts) while covertly constructing his
authority and power.[i] For this
reason, Romans is often referred to as an epideictic, or demonstrative,
epistle, the principal purpose being to overcome divisions and foster a sense
of collectivity[ii]—the
divisions in the churches clearly would have represented a major threat to
Paul’s power and authority, and the unity of the churches would have been in
Paul’s best interest for practical reasons as well since he was expecting the
assistance and support of the believers on his mission to the Iberian
Peninsula. The passage under current consideration, which is marked by its use
of first person plural pronouns “we” and “us,” appeals to a common history of
salvation, and ultimate resolution in “hope” and “patience,” would seem to play
into such a purpose of attempting to resolve or at least displace
interreligious disputes.
Many modern commentators also emphasize the “poetic quality”
of this passage,[iii] as
distinguished from the surrounding, more involved (though no less affective)
discourses on the Law and Israel’s salvation, with Witherington going so far as
to say that in this passage Paul’s “prose style almost becomes hymnic.”[iv]
Indeed, a straightforward reading of this text allows the reader to marvel at
the literary character of the passage. As Paul shifts gracefully from the two
long, multi-clause sentences in vv. 19-23 to the four sharply simple sentences
in vv. 24-25, his subject matter and narratory style shifts from a
micro-chronicle of creation[v] to
a micro-discourse on hope. However, I have reservations about focusing on the
literary merit of the passage without first committing to a thorough and
rigorous investigation into its theological and political implications. Though
Paul speaks to his readers with a different voice in this passage, to make that
the basis of a facile and totally artificial distinction between generic modes
seems to me to follow a strategy that acknowledges the conspicuousness of the
passage in relation to the surrounding sections only to submerge it beneath
those sections and minimize its importance relative to the rest of the letter.
In the detailed analysis that follows, then, I want to focus on the way this
passage represents the ideas of Paul. I will divide the passage into the
following five sections and discuss each in turn:
1.
Proclamation of the imminent revelation of glory (v.
18)
2.
The anticipation
of creation (v. 19)
3.
The narrative of creation (vv. 20-22)
4.
The “inclusive exclusion” of the believers (v. 23)
5.
Hope defers the ultimate resolution (vv. 24-25)
[i] Witherington, Paul’s
Letter to the Romans, 1-2.
[ii] Jewett, Romans, 42. Jewett himself prefers an
adapted version of this thesis and calls the letter a hybrid form of the
“ambassadorial letter” (44); Jewett’s variation takes into account the fact
that Paul was not acquainted with most if not all of the members of the
churches to which he is writing.
[iii] See, for instance, Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
404; Christoffersson offers a similar (but less theologically compromised)
summary of the literary merit of the passage in The Earnest Expectation of the Creature, 28.
[iv] Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 221.
[v] See Cherryl Hunt, David G. Horrell, and Christopher
Southgate, “An Environmental Mantra? Ecological Interest in Romans 8.19-23 and
a Modest Proposal for Its Narrative Interpretation,” Journal of Theological Studies 59.2 (2008) for an admirable attempt
to reconstruct of the implicit narrative of ecological collapse and restoration
envisioned by Paul. The climax of this narrative, the authors suggest, is not
the final adoption or revelation of the children of God—it is the liberation of
nature from subjection to human whims!
