AOSIS OpenJournalshttp://www.openjournals.co.zainfo@openjournals.nethttp://www.hts.org.za0259-94222072-8050Negotiating creation in imperial times (Rm 8:18−30)
Appreciation for the literary qualities and structural function of Romans 8:18−30 abounds. Recently, some attention has also been given to ostensible anti-imperial sentiments in the letter that Paul directed to a Jesus-follower community in the heart of the Roman Empire. Tensions and ambiguities inherent in this passage become more pointed when it is read with attention to the interplay between creation, conflict and empire. The focus of this contribution is on how creation is portrayed and negotiated in Romans 8:18−30, given its underlying Jewish setting which ought to be filled out by the imperial-infused environment. Acknowledging an anti-imperial thrust in Romans 8:18−30 but reading from a postcolonial perspective offers the advantage of accounting specifically for ambivalence typical of conflict situations characterised by unequal power relations, all of which are appropriate and vital for the interpretation of this passage.
Jeremy Punt1
1Faculty of Theology, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
This article is an edited version of a paper read at ‘Creation, Conflict and Cosmos: A Conference on Romans 5−8’ at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ, United States, 02−05 May 2012.
Jeremy Punt
jpunt@sun.ac.za
Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, Stellenbosch,
South Africa127669110.4102/hts.v69i1.1276
06 June 201203 Oct. 201226 Feb. 2013Punt, J., 2013, ‘Negotiating creation in imperial times (Rm 8:18−30)’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1276, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.1276
© 2013.The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS OpenJournals. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.Situating the argument
Paul’s argument in Romans presented the process of the divine recreation of the cosmos as (to use modern terms) the sequel that has become the prequel to the story of divine liberation: God turning back the clock and remaking, redoing, since his most recent work has been seised and has thus been compromised. In Romans, the recreated cosmos is an understanding and expression framed according to Jewish sentiments, forcefully expressed in an imperial-infused environment, in a letter directed to a community living in the heart of the Empire. Theologically speaking, the two central elements informing Paul’s notions about recreation were eschatological expectation and divine incarnation. These were influenced by apocalyptic and sapiential Judaisms, which in the process fused two horizons, namely an eschatological future and a restored creation (Ruether 1996:47−61). Rooted in his Jewish traditions, with resounding intertextual echoes and suffering as prelude to redemption, Paul’s argument in Romans tilted towards the apocalyptic. Moreover, and also in focus here, Jewish ideas were stretched beyond their original scope in the negotiation of creation in contrapuntal way within the Roman imperial setting – as testified to in Romans 8:18−30.
True to imperial style, the Roman Empire had the keen resolve to assert its dominion over both creatures and creation, claiming for itself the right to rule over the cosmos. According to the reigning 1st-century Greco-Roman imperialist cosmology, the Romans had already brought about the golden age of peace and prosperity. In a world formatted by such convictions, Paul’s understanding of recreation was primarily moulded, however, by Jewish apocalyptic notions. And, his views did not make for a good fit with imperial designs. The dissonance was in no small way due to the formative contexts of apocalyptic thinking, which was formed amongst people who experienced their existence in society as threatened to such an extent that life was experienced as senseless and which gave rise to a new ideological understanding. Marginal groups that were formed as a result were in conflict with society at large, living by the conviction that a fundamental break with the present was required, a break which was linked to new possibilities. In apocalyptic self-understanding accompanied by high levels of pessimism about the current state of affairs and the present time, the own group is often perceived as suffering unjustly and in any case estranged from the majority and their symbols of meaning. This appears to be the pervading sentiment of Paul’s letters too, and his anticipated new world was one characterised by God’s rule, by judgement over the majority and by justice for the faithful minority, for the disadvantaged. In a powerful argument in Romans 8, Paul’s rhetoric engaged themes and assumptions about the created world that were widespread and influential in the Roman Empire.
Roman Empire and (as) cosmic order
Rome saw fit not only to devise policy to suit its own interests but also reinvented history to serve imperial purposes (Mattingly 2010:75−93). On the one hand, imperial ideology is of course in a vital way an exercise in history-making. The Empire underwrote its conquest of geopolitical space in the form of imposing a singular and matching order upon various peoples around the world. In other words, imperial discourse was heavily invested in making memory given the relationship between re-membering memory and re-writing history. A shared historical narrative was created through inscriptions and statues in particular to reproduce the emperor’s power, to give it legitimacy: ‘power was written into the physical fabric of provincial towns’ (Revell 2009:107). On the other hand, imperial ideology was also about the recreation of the world and the world-order writ large (cf. Kahl 2010; Lopez 2008). In its concern about the interests of the Empire, imperial ideology’s cosmological assertions about the current world order were supplemented by claims about the world remade.
Many examples of the ideological investment and claims about empire remaking the world can be cited. An early instance, Virgil’s description of Aeneas’ shield, ‘the most symbolic object mentioned in the whole of the Aeneid’
(Vella 2004:2), is particularly instructive. Virgil’s description of the shield of Aeneas (Aeneid 8.626−731) is written as anticipation of the inception and splendour of the Roman Empire, prefigured also in the battle of Actium and its aftermath. As for the shield’s version of the battle of Actium, the ideological concerns of the Roman Empire found their expression primarily in the contrast between the imperial forces and its opponents. The Western imperial forces led by Octavian – already named Augustus by Virgil – is characterised by unity, control and order, and, importantly, exhibits cosmic order in their reliance on and support by Apollo, the fastener of Delos. In sharp contrast, Marc Antony in his alliance with Cleopatra personified the East, who was ascribed notions such as disparity, loss of control and chaos. The Eastern forces were disorderly, incoherent, savage, barbarian hordes with their wealth and power no match for the one imperial unity, moulded out of conquered nations into an unending Empire (Aeneid 1.279; cf. Quint 1989:3−6). Significantly, such imperial re-membering or recasting of history was not limited to distinctions between friend and foe; it also remodelled cosmos as imperial ideology sought to align empire and world.
Virgil’s description of the battle of Actium extends its imperial gaze and ideological impact beyond a fight for supremacy within the Empire or for the control of its vast territories, power and wealth. He portrayed the struggle between the two armies as also having cosmic implications. The very integrity of the natural creation is at stake as the mythological analogies between the uprooted Cyclades islands (8.691) and mountains attacking each other (8.692) and the battleships of Octavian and Antony seem to suggest. The notion that Delos is loosened from its moorings and mountains are becoming the weapons of giants amounts to nothing less than ‘a decreation of the cosmic order’
(Quint 1989:7). It was the cosmological dimensions of the battlefield that illustrated the broader reach of these events of which the religious dimension included the involvement of the gods. Large-scale, cosmological events were not restricted to military events or political moves in ancient times where religious connotations saturated the understanding and portrayal of such events. The overt and particular religious aspect of the Western force being supported by the acknowledged gods such as Neptune, Venus and Minerva (8.699), and Apollo in particular (8.704−705), is offset by the ‘monstrous gods’ (omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis, 8.698) of the East, presented as the gods of war and disorder. Through the skilful framing of the battling groups with their divine consorts, the superiority of the West in rationality, temperament and even their gods were emphasised. It is only when the Furies of War, Discord and Strife have spread confusion and destruction that Apollo intervened. As the God of Western rationality, the disorder and violence of the Eastern soldiers and Cleopatra were not ascribed to Apollo’s appearance, but in their panic (6.704−708), they became the embodiment of chaos and violence. Notwithstanding their equal involvement in the hostilities and its violence, especially here in the context of a civil war, the violence of war becomes the norm of the East in contrast to the West whose soldiers are marked not by war but by order and appeasement (Quint 1989:8).
Imperial ideology dictated a vision of the world subservient to the Empire, redescribing and in fact re-membering history and thereby formatting the cosmos for the Empire’s sake. Paul’s claims about the world and its recreation are reminiscent of imperial ideology. The logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 1−8 culminated in 8:18−30 in his vision of a corrupted world on the verge of a divine made-over, a recreation. In Paul’s understanding, God was not only the author of recreation but also closely associated with the plight of people. Amidst much discussion about the meaning and implications of the Spirit’s intercession with ‘wordless groans’ (τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις, 8:26), the sentence underlines the connections between the divine, suffering and recreation. Paul’s argument relies on the scriptural notion that God suffers with his people in unjust suffering (Ex 2:23−25; 3:7−8), that, in fact, God suffers because of his people’s unrighteousness (Jr 3:19−20) even when God is the author of the suffering (Hs 11:8). The point here is that the groaning of the Spirit identifies with the groaning of the creation.
The cosmological impact of the imperial remaking of the world, however, went further. For 1st-century people, the connection between the inherent, innate order of creation and codes of morality was given and therefore important. As Sutter Rehman (2004) puts it:
Paul’s speaking of sin refers to the daily reality of life in the Roman Empire, the imperium romanum. His idea of sin is expressed in categories of domination and not those of guilt or action. (p. 78)
When Paul re-invoked the notion of evil, it was not simply about wrong but about evil, that is, about the distortion of what life and the world is meant to be. In short, imperial cosmology presents an interesting template for framing Paul’s cosmological views. In this, my focus is on the ideological dimensions and dominations of imperial discourse rather than on the material or ecological realities of imperial destruction.
Romans 8:18−30 as imperial-inflected text
Notwithstanding the apparent support listed and required for imperial authority in the very explicit Romans 13:1−10, traces that suggest both criticism (whether implicit or direct) of imperial ideology as well as an attempt to construct another vision of the world can be found in Romans. However, life in a geo-political context of uneven power relations was not necessarily and certainly not only about subversive resistance. Postcolonial work in particular shows that the embracing of symbols of power is a strategy of control, not simplistically a sign of submission. A postcolonial optic is sceptic about simple oppositions and speaks of ‘negotiation’ in terms of the exercise of power by both the ‘dominant’ and the ‘dominated,’ as it recognises the complexity and reciprocity of the interaction. In exploring what can be called the subservient submissiveness found in the Pauline letters, one has to be careful not to dumb down Pauline sentiments to the political in a narrow sense. The cultic element in the Pauline notion of participation in Christ, of possessing and being possessed by a saviour, can be seen also as a claim to or an exercise of power. Participation in Christ made present what was otherwise distant and functioned simultaneously as the supreme act of identity declaration.
Formulating his argument in Romans 8:18−30 within the very context of imperial cosmic claims, Paul addressed a community confronted by imperial ideology that was inscribed in daily life in various ways. In his letter, Paul approached a community largely unknown to him, living in the heart of the Empire in Rome, the locus of many disturbances, some of which had disastrous consequences such as the (at this stage, recent) expulsion of Jews by Emperor Claudius in 49 CE. Paul’s letter appears to have been an effort to secure support for his mission as he apparently needed help with its intended expansion to the West and therefore had to show himself as friend and not foe of Jesus or his followers (cf. Longenecker 2011:272−274). Our focus is on Romans 8:18−30, the position of which in the letter is at once indicative of its strategic importance and also illustrative of the letter’s grain and texture. The passage plays a key, connecting role in the argument of the letter in three ways. Firstly, as the climax of the discussion in chapter 8 and of 8:17 in particular, it builds on notions of freedom from slavery (8:2, 21), resurrection (8:11, 23), sonship and adoption (8:14−17, 19, 21, 23), the role of the Spirit (8:6, 11, 15−16, 23, 26-27) and suffering (8:17, 18−23, 26) and glory (8:18, 30). Secondly, it is also the culmination of Romans 6−8 and even of Romans 1:18−8:30 as it provides an argument on the reversal of human failure and restoration of people, the ‘cosmic outworking of salvation in strong Adam terms’ (Dunn 1988). Thirdly, Romans 8:18−30 sets the tone for Romans 9−11 with its argument on God’s faithfulness explained according to traditional Jewish motifs. The blessings typically seen as belonging to Israel have now become the inheritance of all (cf. Dunn 1988).
A central element in Romans 8:18−30 involves the portrayal of the cosmos, its current state as well as its anticipated future. A portrait is presented of an overpowered, subjected creation that groans for redemption and whose remaking is emphasised by Paul – a portrait that does not escape the ambiguity of Paul and his argument’s position vis-à-vis the Empire. Nevertheless, in all three of these respects (considered separately below), echoes of Paul’s Jewish traditions shine through in portrayals which contrast significantly with the cosmological image presented by imperial ideology.
Overpowered, subjected creation
As a Jew, Paul shared the Jewish notion that creation is subjected against its own will (Rm 8:20) and described its position as characterised by destruction or corruption
(φθορά, 8:21) and futility (ματαιότης, 8:20). That creation (κτίσις) refers here to the world and probably also its inhabitants is generally accepted. Although the language reminds of the ‘thorns and thistles’ bequeathed to the earth in Genesis 3:17−19, understanding ὑπετάγη as divine passive (see Jewett 2004:36) is probably too strong. Paul’s damning analysis of the state of the cosmos contrasts with the popular Roman myth that the emperor would have already restored the world to a paradisiacal state. The emptiness evoked by ματαιότης depicts a situation reminiscent of Ecclesiastes 1:2, broader devastation than the resultant corruption alluded to in Romans 8:21. The Hebrew Bible told the story of how idolatrous desires for unlimited dominion over the garden destroyed the original purpose of creation which was to express goodness (Gn 1:31) and reflect divine glory
(Ps 19:1−4). In the contemporary world, Roman action was destroying the world through imperial ambitions, military conflicts and economic exploitation which resulted in ruined cities, depleted fields, deforested mountains and polluted streams.Paul’s vision was not limited to the current sufferings (τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ) of believers, to be expected by followers of Jesus (cf. 8:18), as he contrasted these with the future glory (πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν) shared in eschatological solidarity with Jesus. In fact, with the apocalyptic disclosure of God at hand, believers become partakers in it (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, 8:18; ἡ γὰρ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται, 8:19), in contrast to the imperial claim that Caesar and only Caesar is associated with glory. The seldom-used ἀποκαραδοκία (also in Phlp 1:20) refers to ‘confident expectation’, that the creation awaits the emergence and empowerment of those who will take responsibility for its restoration (τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2:19). Not only do these converts take the place of Caesar in imperial propaganda, but rather than using weapons against their enemies, their conquest is by persuasion. The matter at hand concerns the rightful dominion over the earth, rather than a modern-day concern with the almost magical transformation of nature. Paul described a cosmos in dire straits!
Creation’s groaning for redemption
Parallel to Jewish tradition (cf. 1 Enoch 7:6; Ps 65:13−14; Is 24:4, 7; Jr 4:28; 12:4) and Roman imperial use, Paul personified the entire cosmos (πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις) as a range of animate and inanimate objects on the earth and in the heavens, a holistic, interdependent system with life and development of its own. However, rather than making claims about nature’s joy at deliverance through Augustus, Paul in contrast heard only agonised cries from the cosmos (συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει). As emphasised by the preposition συν (‘together’; and borne out by 8:23), it was a shared experience for believers and creation alike. They shared both the groaning and the longing for new life. Paul assumed some acquaintance amongst the recipients of his letter with the idea of the corruption of nature (οἴδαμεν γὰρ), a notion he may have sourced from Second-Temple notions of mourning and suffering caused by the burden of human exploitation (cf. Is 24:4−7). Groaning that lasts ‘until now’ (ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν) excluded the long-held Augustan premise of a golden age, as inaugurated by the Saecular Games of 17 BCE, the purpose of which was to celebrate the birth of a new age in which specifically the fertility of Mother Earth played a prominent role. At the time of Paul’s writing of Romans, cosmological groaning complicated the notion that Nero ushered in a golden age of undisturbed peace. At the same time, Paul’s terminology invoked gender associations which were not unfamiliar in imperial ideology.
The imperial portrayal of Octavian in Virgil’s description of the shield of Aeneas (Aeneid 8.675−728) exemplified the use of gendered notions. Unity, control and order were expressed in masculine terms (patriumque…sidus, 681; and the role of Agrippa, 682) whilst, conversely, the enemy from the East took on a female identity (Aegyptia coniunx, 688). Relating the otherness of the East to the otherness of the other sex, Cleopatra ended up receiving more attention on Aeneas’s shield than Antony. This rendition highlighted the belief that the forces inherent in the East, in the cosmos and in the human psyche were feminine (Quint 1989:4, 8). The association of the East with fertility is made present by the Nile as the East is manifested in this and other rivers such as the Euphrates, Rhine and the Araxes at the Empire’s frontier, rivers being analogous to fertility (1.726−728). Eastern fertility is identified with ‘the cyclical fluid fertility of woman’, both of which are identified with nature’s creative potential (Quint 1989:10). As much as the Empire conquers space, its victory over the river expands the imperial cosmic reach, and with the river as Heraclitean symbol of flux, it signified the Empire’s victory even over time (Quint 1989:10).
Paul’s metaphorical descriptions of creation and recreation were not as elaborate but included the biological metaphors of birth and children. Developing a notion found in
Romans 8:18 already, believers were included in the suffering of creation (Rm 8:23). Whilst believers are ‘having’ (ἔχοντες) the first-fruits of Holy Spirit, they are nevertheless ‘awaiting sonship’ (υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι) as future fulfilment. Believers participate in the suffering of the world, yet they treasure the hope that the full and undistorted dominion of God’s children will one day manifest itself in context of the restored creation. It is telling, though, that Paul put the emphasis on the ‘redemption of our body’ (τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν), which saw the body claimed as the basis for communicating and interacting with the world. His thought holds no redemption from the body as some form of individual sense of detachment. Rather, he proposes redemption of the body as part of the socially transformed creation, no longer subject to ‘corruption’ (cf. Jewett 2004:45). It is limiting to interpret the birthing metaphor of Romans 8:22−23 as reference only to pain and suffering with the consequent implication of quiet endurance and patience. As has happened in much mainstream interpretation, suffering then becomes a condition of humanity, and the emphasis shifts to the metaphysical benefits of salvation. When birthing is about more than suffering, pain and producing children, the emphasis shifts to hard work and bodily exertion for the sake of a new life in the face of resistance – and, as a consequence, the cultural denigration of bodilyness or corporeality is challenged (Sutter Rehman 2004:74−84). The language of pain and suffering in Romans 8 comes close to lament, especially when used together with credo recital and songs of thanksgiving. As a form of subversive speech which begins in pain and ends in praise, lament always begins in a context of suffering and always functions as an appeal (Keesmaat 1999:97−135). Groaning is not tantamount to resigned patience but participatory resistance aimed at the future realisation of new reality. It means that creation is to be re-created, to be made over!
Remaking creation
In Jewish tradition, new-creation language was invoked for individual converts (cf. Genesis Rabbah 39.4), for the community of faith (e.g. Is 65:17−19) and for the cosmos (e.g. Is 56−66). New-creation language in Paul’s thinking had twin characteristics. On the one hand, reconciliation saw believers reconciled to God and the imperative to work for the reconciliation of the world to God through Christ. On the other hand, new creation was about the rejection of worldly standards, as for example in ethnic divisions between Jews and Gentiles or in individual rivalry (Levison 1993:189−190). Paul’s claim that creation itself will be set free from Adamic distortion (8:21) built upon a significant theme in Jewish prophecy and apocalyptic (cf. Is 11:4−5; Jubilees 1:29; 1 Enoch 24−25; 91:16−17; 4 Ezra 13:26; Sib Or 3:744−745; 750−751). Echoing a matrix of ideas rather than specific texts from the Scriptures of Israel, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy in particular, Paul connected the disruption and death of natural ecological systems with human corruption (φθορά) flowing from the human predicament described as enslavement (δουλεία, cf. 8:15). In contrast to imperial ideology, the overcoming of ecological disorder is depicted as a divine gift central to which, moreover, were God’s children (εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ, 8:21) rather than the emperor, priest or empire (Jewett 2004:39). The restored creation will serve the purpose of liberating the children
of God.In Romans 8:24, the argument is not about a Greek philosophical notion of the invisible world perceptible only at rational level but rather about a Jewish apocalyptic notion. According to imperial ideology, ‘the length and breath [sic] of the Roman Empire culminated in the rule of Augustus‘ as Aeneid 8.724−728 makes clear (cf. Vella 2004:10). Paul, however, portrayed salvation not through hope but in terms of hope. Used three times in short succession, ἀπεκδεχέσθαι (8:19, 23, 25) marks the character of the in-between time as primarily one of eager waiting. This is a period not of resigned or stoical suffering, and neither is it one of mere anguished groaning or careless enthusiasm. Rather, it is a period of patience with a vibrant quality (δι’ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, 8:25). By associating the charismatic Spirit with human vulnerability (τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν, 8:26), Paul’s cosmology excluded the notion of human beings transformed into deity as was found in the civic cult’s apotheosis of emperors
(cf. Jewett 2004:44). Central to Paul’s argument was that God had ensured the best for his faithful (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, 8:28), a programme of action that was not dependant on whims but was tied to God’s larger purpose with the world (κατὰ πρόθεσιν, 8:28; cf. προέγνω in 8:29). In this, he shared the characteristic Jewish thought of God’s (pretemporal) purpose moving history and through history moving it to its intended end (cf. Ps 33:11; Pr 19:21; Is 5:19; 19:17; 46:10; Jr 49:20; 50:45). The human being as likeness of God (τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 8:29) was not only a Jewish notion, but given the position of the Adam theme in the letter (Rm 1:22–24; 3:23; 5:12–19; 7:7–13; 8:20), the Jewish tradition is probably influential here too. The resurrected Christ is described as the pattern of the new humanity of the last age, the firstborn (of the dead) of a new race of eschatological people (πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς) in whom God’s design from the beginning of creation is at last fulfilled.
In Romans 8:29−30, Paul’s argument dispelled any final doubts about the agent of recreation as he deliberately set the timeline of cosmic and human history between two markers, pre-temporal purpose and final glorification as the completion of that purpose. This is not without some irony. Despite the fact that humans were so reluctant to bestow the glory upon God that He rightfully deserved (Rm 1−2), God now nevertheless bestows glory upon humans.
Romans 8:18−30, empire and ambiguity
Given such comparisons, the tension between imperial cosmology and Paul’s portrayal of it is evident. To recognise the influence of his Jewish traditions is important, but to resolve the tension between imperial and Pauline cosmologies as an unfortunate clash of traditions is tantamount to a disregard for both the ubiquity of empire in the 1st-century and the address of the Romans letter. However, the intentional fallacy is only one of many dangers in seeing a more deliberate explicit or subtle implicit (hidden transcripts) attempt by Paul to push back empire, to subvert imperial claims, to challenge imperial ideology. Be that as it may, his argument in Romans 8:18−30 involved Paul in the struggle for rightful dominion over both its inhabitants and the very earth itself.
Paul would not have been the only 1st-century author to voice, even if only in an implicit way, discontent towards the Empire. Regardless of the overbearing ideological power of the Roman Empire, criticism against it was not absent, either from within or from without, and not only about isolated, pragmatic concerns. For example, some internal criticism of the imperial ideological onslaught of the Empire can be heard in Lucan’s Civil War. Lucan’s depiction of Julius Caesar’s defeat of Pompey at Pharsalia as forerunner of Octavian’s victory at Actium plays on the notion of the victory of superior, disciplined Western forces over the mixed bag of disparate groups constituting the Eastern army whose unreliability outweighed their numerical superiority (Civil War 7.360−368; 7.269−274, 525−544). Whilst Lucan’s analogy attempts to explain the demise of Pompey and his republicans, it also portrays Actium as being less about a celebrated triumph of the Empire over foreign adversaries than about the continuation of Rome’s civil wars and the ultimate destruction of her liberty. Such subtle criticism of imperial ideology should not go unnoticed.
When Paul took up cosmological notions reminiscent of the Empire and when he construed a worldview opposite to imperial ideology, did it constitute or imply a challenge to Roman power? As his argument in Romans 8:18−30 may suggest, it can be read as a contrast and even a challenge to it. However, more is at hand as Paul’s vision for the cosmos differed from imperial versions in agency more than in nature – it remained a question of dominion, rightful dominion, but dominion nevertheless. The contrast between imperial discourse and Pauline thinking should not overrun the ambiguity typical of uneven power situations. Depicting the covenant with God as creator in polar opposition to the ideology of empire, the religion of creation versus the religion of empire (e.g. Howard-Brook 2010), may too easily skirt around the ambivalence of the context. Paul’s negotiation of power in an imperialist context for example included the claim that the believers waited to be adopted as sons (8:23), which explicitly was ‘the redemption of our bodies’ and implicitly a claim about the true inheritors of the cosmos – in imperial style. Paul’s argument rested heavily on gender-based metaphors, as seen when his focus shifts from creation as a women giving birth to his appeal on ‘sonship’. In groaning together, the emphasis is not only on the Spirit’s bond with people as the people’s involvement with the Spirit also deserves attention.
In other words, does Paul’s deft and subtle appropriation of imperialist notions leave him unaffected, or did his cosmology also show signs of the attraction of empire, as is suggested in the linear teleology within which he framed divine recreation? Empire’s ideology and its carriers cannot easily be separated from one another, as exemplified in how epic tends to equate power and narrative. A narrative teleology that develops out of an epic linearity stands in close companionship to imperial power: All events lead to an ultimate, imperial-defined end. Whilst the victorious in an epic project their present power proleptically onto the future as well as trace its legitimating origins to the past, such presentations of power depend on their capacity to maintain themselves over time, and its staying power requires narrative in order to present itself. In a mutual edifying relationship, then, the story of the victorious is identified with narrative meaning itself whilst the power of victory allows the construction of narratives that join beginnings purposefully to ends (Quint 1989:27).
Conclusion
Recognising the impact of Paul’s Jewish identity and its adversarial implications for an imperial worldview, whether incidentally or intentionally connected, remains important. In viewing the cosmos as a living organism, Paul followed not only in the footsteps of his Jewish tradition but used language prevalent in Roman imperial discourse too – not to mention terminology and concepts remarkably similar in environmental discussions today. On the one hand, Romans 8:18−30 shows the integrated nature of Pauline language – integrated concerning both socio-political and spiritual-theological aspects of and claims to creation and its remaking! On the other hand, Romans 8 also shows how religion includes strategies for transforming irresistible and indifferent powers into entities with which negotiation and barter are possible. Such powers are transformed not only into manageable portions but are also appropriated, are taken up as ‘part of us’, in transformations that are not adequately described as merely political resistance given the ambiguity of power and its influence of all involved.
Acknowledgements
Financial support via the NRF Rated Researchers’ Incentive Funding is gratefully acknowledged.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
1.Bassler, J.M., 2007, Navigating Paul: An introduction to key theological concepts, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, London.
2.Bourdieu, P., 1990, The logic of practice, University of Stanford Press, Stanford.
3.Campbell, D.A., 2005, The quest for Paul’s Gospel: A suggested strategy, T&T Clark International, New York, London.
4.Cranfield, C.E.B., 1982 [1975], A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, T & T Clark, Edinburgh. (International Critical Commentary).
5.Crossan, J.D. & Reed, J.L., 2004, In search of Paul: How Jesus’s apostle opposed Rome’s empire with God’s Kingdom: A new vision of Paul’s words and world, Harper, San Francisco, New York.
6.Dunn, J.D.G., 1988, Romans 1−8, Word Books, Dallas. (Word Biblical Commentary).
7.Dunn, J.D.G., 1999, ‘Spirit speech: Reflections on Romans 8:12−27’, in S.K. Soderlund & N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the people of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D Fee on the occasion of his 65th birthday, pp. 82−91, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Cambridge.
8.Elliott, N., 1994, Liberating Paul: The justice of God and the politics of the apostle, Orbis, Maryknoll. (The Bible & Liberation, vol. 6).
9.Elliott, N., 2007, ‘Political formation in the letter to the Romans’, in R.L. Brawley (ed.), Character ethics and the New Testament: Moral dimensions of scripture, pp. 179−190, WJK, Louisville. PMid:17094019
10.Elliott, N., 2008, The arrogance of nations: Reading Romans in the shadow of empire, Fortress, Minneapolis. (Paul in Critical Contexts).
11.Faber, R., 2000, ‘Vergil’s ‘Shield of Aeneas’ (Aeneid 8. 617−731) and the Shield of Heracles’, Mnemosyne 53(1), 49−57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685250052822027
12.Fitzmyer, J.A., 1993, Romans, Doubleday, New York. (Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 33).
13.Fretheim, T.E., 2005, God and world in the Old Testament: A relational theology of creation, Abingdon, Nashville.
14.Gaventa, B.R., 2007, Our mother Saint Paul, WJK, Louisville, London.
15.Georgi, D., 1991, Theocracy in Paul’s praxis and theology (Gott auf den Kopf Stellen), transl. D.E. Green, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
16.Gowing, A.M., 2005, Empire and memory: The representation of the Roman republic in imperial culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (Roman Literature and Its Contexts). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610592, PMCid:1560004
17.Horsley, R.A. (ed.), 1997, Paul and empire: Religion and power in Roman imperial society, Trinity Press International, Harrisville. PMCid:1050919
18.Horsley, R.A. (ed.), 2000, Paul and politics: Ekklesia, Israel, imperium, interpretation: Essays in honor of Krister Stendahl, Trinity Press International, Harrisville.
19.Horsley, R.A. (ed.), 2004, Paul and the Roman imperial order, Trinity Press International, Harrisville.
20.Howard-Brook, W., 2010, ‘Come out my people!’: God’s call out of empire in the Bible and beyond, Orbis, Maryknoll.
21.Howell, D.N. Jr, 1994, ‘The Center of Pauline Theology’, Bibiotheca Sacra 151(601), 50−70.
22.Jewett, R., 2004, ‘The corruption and redemption of creation: Reading Rom 8:18−23 within the imperial context’, in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman imperial order, pp. 25−46, Trinity Press International, Harrisville.
23.Kahl, B., 2010, Galatians re-imagined: Reading with the eyes of the vanquished, Fortress, Minneapolis. (Paul in Critical Contexts.)
24.Keesmaat, S.C., 1999, ‘Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, suppl. ser. 181.
25.Levison, J.R., 1993, ‘Creation and new creation’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin & D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his letters, pp. 189−190, InterVarsity Press, Leicester.
26.Longenecker, R.N., 2011, Introducing Romans: Critical issues in Paul’s most famous letter, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
27.Lopez, D.C., 2008, Apostle to the conquered: Reimagining Paul’s mission, Fortress, Minneapolis. (Paul in Critical Contexts).
28.Martin, D.B., 1995, The Corinthian body, Yale University Press, New Haven, London.
29.Mattingly, D.J., 2010, Imperialism, power, and identity: Experiencing the Roman empire, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
30.Meech, J.L., 2006, Paul in Israel’s story: Self and community at the cross, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. (AAR Academy Series). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0195306945.001.0001
31.Michaels, J.R., 1999, ‘The redemption of our body: The riddle of Romans 8:19−22’, in S.K. Soderlund & N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the people of God: Essays in honor of Gordon D Fee on the occasion of his 65th birthday, pp. 92−114, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Cambridge.
32.Moo, D., 1996, The epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
33.Perkins, J., 2009, Roman imperial identities in the early Christian era, Routledge, London. (Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies).
34.Punt, J., 2012, ‘Empire and New Testament Texts: Theorising the Imperial, in Subversion and Attraction’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68(1), Art. #1182, 11 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1182
35.Quint, D., 1989, ‘Epic and Empire’, Comparative Literature 41(1), 1−32, viewed 09 March 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1770677
36.Segal, A.F., 2004, Life after death: A history of the afterlife in western religion, Doubleday, New York.
37.Sobrino, J., [1978] 2002, Christology at the crossroads: A Latin American approach, Wipf & Stock, Eugene.
38.Stowers, S.K., 1994, A rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles, Yale University Press, New Haven, London.
39.Sutter Rehman, L., 2004, ‘To turn the groaning into labor: Romans 8:22−23’, in A. Levine & M. Blickenstaff (eds.), A feminist companion to Paul, pp. 74−84, Feminist companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings, vol. 6, T&T Clark, Continuum, London.
40.Revell, L., 2009, Roman imperialism and local identities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41.Ruether, R.R., 1996, ‘Gender Equity and Christianity: Premodern Roots, Modern and Postmodern Perspectives, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 50(1–4), 47–61.
42.Vella, H.C.R., 2004, ‘Vergil’s Aeneid VIII and the Shield of Aeneas: Recurrent Topics and Cyclic Structures’, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 5(A.1), 1−17, viewed 24 February 2012, from http://www.ut.ee/klassik/sht/2004/vella1.df
43.Wallace, D.R., 2008, The Gospel of God: Romans as Paul’s Aeneid, Wipf & Stock, Eugene.
44.Westerholm, S., 1997, Preface to the study of Paul, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. PMCid:1128947
45.White, J.L., 1999, The apostle of God: Paul and the promise of Abraham, Hendrickson, Peabody.
46.Yonge, C.D., 1993, The Works of Philo Judaeus, transl. C.D. Yonge, H.G. Bohn, London PMid:8132921