Suffering in Romans

By Siu Fung Wu and Todd D. Still

Most of the Jesus-followers in Rome would have been familiar with socioeconomic hardship. Suffering was a daily reality either for themselves or for someone they knew. Many lived below or just above subsistence level. Some were slaves, homeless, or chronically sick. Followers of Christ might have experienced persecution because of their refusal to take part in the local religious festivals. Suffering is, of course, a significant theme in Rom 5:1-11 and 8:17, 18-39. Paul mentions various types of affliction many times in these texts. How might Paul's audience have understood them? In Suffering in Romans Siu Fung Wu argues that Paul speaks of the vocation of the Jesus-followers to participate in Christ's suffering, with the purpose that they may be glorified with him. Indeed, their identification with Christ's suffering is an integral part of God's project of transforming humanity and renewing creation. It is in their faithful suffering that Christ-followers participate in God's triumph over evil. This is counter-intuitive, because most people think that victory is won by power and strength. Yet the children of God partake in his cosmic victory by their suffering, aided by the Spirit and the hope of glory.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Jul 23, 2015
• ISBN: 9781498208741

Siu Fung Wu

Siu Fung Wu was a factory worker, software developer, pastor, and global education officer before he became a New Testament academic. He is the author of Suffering in Romans and editor of Suffering in Paul. In addition to academic writings, he has written numerous articles on Christian living and leadership. He loves the Bible and longs to see the church embody the gospel in everyday life.

Book preview

9781498208734.kindle.jpg

Suffering in Romans

Siu Fung Wu

Foreword by Todd D. Still

19812.png

SUFFERING IN ROMANS

Copyright © 2015 Siu Fung Wu. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-4982-0873-4

eisbn 13: 978-1-4982-0874-1

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Wu, Siu Fung

Suffering in Romans / Siu Fung Wu.

xx + 288 p. ; 23 cm. —Includes bibliographical references and index(es).

isbn 13: 978-1-4982-0873-4

1. Bible. Romans—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Suffering—Biblical teaching. I. Title.

BS2665.3 W87 2015

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, 1993, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Foreword

Preface

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Aim and Approach of Study

Chapter 2: Social Location of the Audience and Ancient Worldviews on Suffering

Chapter 3: From Adamic Humanity to a New Humanity in Christ

Chapter 4: The Work of Christ and the Eschatological Spirit

Chapter 5: The Vocation to Participate in Christ’s Suffering

Chapter 6: Cosmic Renewal and the Purpose of Suffering

Chapter 7: Participating in the Triumph of God

Chapter 8: Overall Conclusion

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Bibliography

I dedicate this book to my mother

Foreword

For all of its predictable patterns and outcomes, life is not without surprises. The same is true of New Testament Studies.

When I first turned my attention to the subject of suffering in Romans (5 and 8), I was surprised by the sparse scholarly treatment of the topic.¹ I remember wondering at the time—namely, the spring of 2012—how much longer it would be before a Pauline specialist filled this lacunae in the secondary literature.

I was nonetheless surprised one year later when I was contacted by Melbourne College of Divinity (now University of Divinity) to examine a doctoral thesis entitled Suffering in Romans by Siu Fung Wu. And a pleasant surprise it was. In that study, now Dr. Wu treated with clarity and care the theme of suffering in Romans 5–8 with special reference to 5:1–11 and 8:14–39 and persuasively demonstrated the centrality of the subject in that pivotal portion of Paul’s magisterial letter to Roman believers.

You need not be surprised, however, as to what lies in front of you in this thesis-turned-monograph. Herein you will find a serious, scholarly study that offers salient insight into a long-neglected topic in an oft-interpreted text. Indeed, it is the most comprehensive and persuasive treatment to date.

Far from surprising, Paul regarded suffering to be part and parcel of both the human condition and of Christian commitment.² This investigation of suffering in Romans is made all the more meaningful, at least to my mind, by the fact that Dr. Wu and his family are no strangers to grief and pain. What is more, I harbor the hope that this courageous work will enable readers to make better sense (of Paul’s understanding of) the sufferings of this present time (Rom 8:18), knowing that not even suffering can separate us [i.e., ‘Christians’] from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (8:39; cf. 5:5).

Todd D. Still

DeLancey Dean and Hinson Professor

Baylor University, Truett Seminary

Waco, Texas, USA

1. The work of J. Christiaan Beker was an exception. See, e.g., his Suffering and Triumph in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,

105

–

19

; and Vision of Hope for a Suffering World,

26

–

32

. Note now also my "Placing Pain in a Pauline Frame: Considering Suffering in Romans

5

and

8

,"

73

–

86

,

228

–

30

.

2. See esp. Rom

5

:

3

;

8

:

17

–

25

. Cf. also Phil

1

:

29

;

1

Thess

3

:

3

–

4

. Note, too,

1

Pet

4

:

12

–

13

; James

1

:

2

; Matt

5

:

11

–

12

.

Preface

This monograph is a slightly revised version of my PhD dissertation, which was submitted to University of Divinity, Australia, in 2013. It is a daunting task to undertake a project on the topic of suffering. I am deeply aware that suffering is an experiential matter, not theoretical or abstract. Yet my research project was an academic endeavor, and hence by necessity I could not approach the subject in a more pastoral manner. Here I would like to ask my readers for their understanding if aspects of this book fall short of their expectation. Also, I do not for a moment think that I have sufficiently covered the issues around suffering, or that my view is error-prone. My research has enhanced my understanding greatly, but I know that is it only a drop in the ocean in the vast field of study.

There were many challenges during my study. I had a young family when I started my research. I was studying part-time and had a busy job that required a lot of mental and emotional energy. I was able to complete the study because of the gracious hand of God. Not only that he sustained me in my struggles, he also placed people in my life to help me. Here I would like to take the opportunity to thank each of those who assisted me in my journey.

I thank Professor Keith Dyer, my supervisor in the first eighteen months of my study. He played an instrumental role in the early part of the project. Keith is not only a fine scholar, but also a man of grace and kindness. His encouragement over the years is much appreciated. I want to express my sincere gratitude to Revd Associate Professor Sean Winter, my main supervisor for three years. His expertise in Pauline theology and superb supervision skill was crucial to the success of my study. During the course of my research, I had a couple of very difficult years at work. Eventually I lost my employment and regular income. Professor Winter was very supportive during my ordeal. I am grateful to him for his encouragement. I also want to thank Professor Mark Brett, a friend and thoughtful scholar at Whitley College, who read one of the chapters in my thesis and gave me valuable feedback. Mark is one of the most sincere followers of Jesus I know.

I am very grateful to many friends who supported me with their gifts, resources, and prayers. Here I want to specifically mention Hans and Lucia Baars, David and Geraldine Fenn, and our family friends from the 1980s, Dorothy and Daniel Man. I thank them for walking with me and standing by me. I deeply appreciate their friendship and assistance. All of them are exemplary disciples of Jesus.

I would like to thank Professor Todd Still for his willingness to write a foreword for me. I know that it was God who had led me to Professor Still when he informed me that he liked my work and encouraged me to seek publication. It is an honor to have a respected Pauline scholar recommend my work. My thanks also go to Dr. George Wieland, who shares with me the passion for the urban poor and the New Testament. I am greatly encouraged by Dr. Wieland’s comments on my work. I must mention another two divine moments during the course of my research. First, I came across Professor Timothy Gombis’s blog and his book The Drama of Ephesians. His publications gave me plenty of food for thought about participating in Christ’s suffering and death. Second, my research project coincided with my work in aid and development. For nearly seven years I sought to walk with the poor, who suffered under the weight of corrupt socioeconomic systems. Their resilience in the face of suffering and oppression gave me valuable insight into how Paul’s letter might be read. There is much to be learned from the poor.

The completion of my PhD is a good occasion to remember those who played a significant part in my academic endeavor and faith journey. Johnny and Kim Chan, as well as Irene Chan, taught me to love the Scripture when I was a young Christian in the 1980s, and for that I am grateful. I thank Revd Professor John Nolland and Revd Dr. Kevin Giles for supervising my MPhil thesis. My MPhil provided me with the best preparation for the PhD. Revd Dr. Giles was the one who encouraged me to do an MPhil in Pauline studies. Professor Nolland is a first-rate scholar and a kind man. It was a privilege to study under his supervision.

My most heartfelt thanks go to Catherine, my wife and faithful companion. She has stood by me through many trials and hardships for almost twenty-seven years. I can honestly say that without her I would not have made it through these years of intense studies. I also want to specifically mention my son, Caleb. I have shared with him many research findings over the years, and it is amazing how he is able to absorb the information despite his young age. It has been a delight to share my journey with him. His ability to grasp complex concepts and think outside the box is a special gift from God.

The genesis of my research topic traces back to my childhood when my mother suffered from a heart condition that resulted in a disability. We were garment factory workers in East Asia and had little income. My mother’s sickness added a lot of pain and affliction to the family. We experienced many socioeconomic hardships that few people in Australia (my home now) can ever imagine. But my parents showed me that one could persevere in suffering and face it with dignity. I want to thank my father, who taught me that one could stand strong in the face of adversity. But most importantly, I dedicate this book to my mother, who passed away twenty-two years ago. She demonstrated profound resilience and tenacity in her suffering. Not only that she lived with her physical limitations with extraordinary endurance, she also faced the social exclusion associated with her disability with remarkable courage. She was a loyal follower of Jesus.

Finally, I thank God for his unfailing love in the past thirty-three years, ever since I said my first prayer to him. Following Jesus is not easy, and indeed Paul says that the children of God will suffer with Christ (Rom 8:17). But he loved us and gave himself for us (Gal 2:20). So, we are not ashamed, for we know the one in whom we put our trust, and he is able to guard what we have entrusted to him on that day (2 Tim 1:12). I pray that this book will bring glory to the crucified Christ and risen Lord.

Siu Fung Wu

February 2015

Abbreviations

Abbreviations for the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha follow The SBL Handbook of Style (1999). Other abbreviations are listed below.

ABR: Australian Biblical Review

AnBib: Analecta Biblica

ANE: Ancient Near East

ANTC: Abingdon New Testament Commentaries

AOTC: Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries

BDAG: Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BCOT: Baker Commentary on the Old Testament

BECNT: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BHT: Beiträge zur historischen Theologie

Bib: Biblica

BSac: Bibliotheca Sacra

BZ: Biblische Zeitschrift

CBQ: Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CIL: Corpus inscriptionum latinarum

CTR: Criswell Theological Review

DJG: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

DLNTD: Dictionary of Later New Testament Development

DNTB: Dictionary of New Testament Background

DOTP: Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch

DOTWPW: Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, Writings

DPL: Dictionary of Paul and his Letters

EKKNT: Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

EvQ: Evangelical Quarterly

ExpTim: Expository Times

FoiVie: Foi et Vie

FRLANT: Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament

HBT: Horizons in Biblical Theology

HTS: Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies

ICC: International Critical Commentary

JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature

JL: The Journal of Religion

JSNT: Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup: Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JSPL: Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters

JTI: Journal of Theological Interpretation

JTS: Journal of Theological Studies

L.A.E.: Life of Adam and Eve


LBL: Loeb Classical Library

LNSM: Louw, J. P., E. A. Nida, R. B. Smith, and K. A. Munson, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988, 1989.

LNTS: Library of New Testament Studies

LSJ: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

LXX: The Septuagint

MT: Masoretic Text

NCC: New Covenant Commentary

NIB: New Interpreter’s Bible

NIBC: New International Biblical Commentary

NICNT: New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC: New International Greek Testament Commentary

NovT: Novum Testamentum

NSBT: New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT: New Testament

NTS: New Testament Studies

OCABS: The Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies

OT: Old Testament

OTL: Old Testament Library

PNTC: Pillar New Testament Commentaries

PSB: Princeton Seminary Bulletin

QSS: Dead Sea Scrolls

SBL: Society of Biblical Literature

SHBC: The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Series

SJT: Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS: Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SNTW: Studies of the New Testament and its World

TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.

THNTC: Two Horizons New Testament Commentary

THOTC: Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary

WBC: Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT: Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

ancient Sources

Epigraphy collection

CIL: Corpus inscriptionum latinarum

Aelius Aristides

Or.: Orationes: Orations

Alexander of Aphrodisias

Mixt.: De Mixtione

Caesar

Bell. Civ.: Bellum Civile

Cicero

Off.: De officiis

De Or.: De oratore


Fam.: Epistulae ad familiares


Flac.: Pro Flacco

Tusc.: Tusculanae disputationes


Demosthenes

Phae.: Against Phaenippus

Gaius

Inst.: Institutiones

Homer

Il.: Ilias: Iliad

Horace

Carm.: Carmina: Odes

Juvenal

Sat.: Saturae

Livy

Hist: History of Rome

Ovid

Fast.: Fasti

Philo

Fug.: De fuga et inventione

Plato

Resp.: Respublica: Republic

Tim.: Timaeus

Polybius

Hist.: Historiae: Histories

Seneca

Ep.: Epistulae morales

Helv.: De Consolatione ad Helviam Matrem

Nat.: Naturales quaestiones

Suetonius

Claud.: Divus Claudius

Virgil

Aen.: Aeneid

Georg.: Georgica

1

Aim and Approach of Study

Aim of study

The theme of suffering occupies a significant place in Paul’s letter to the Romans. It appears prominently in at least two passages, namely, 5:1–11 and 8:14–39. These are situated at strategic locations within Romans, for they bracket the central section of the letter: 5:1—8:39. There are more than fourteen terms representing different forms of suffering, with a concentrated enumeration of trouble and distress in the affliction-list in 8:35.¹ But, surprisingly, there is no major monograph that specifically studies the theology of suffering in Romans.

The aim of our inquiry, therefore, is to determine the theology of suffering in Romans from the perspective of Paul’s first audience. The approach of our study will be audience-focused, paying special attention to how a first-century audience in Rome might have interacted with the rhetorical strategy, the literary construct, and the use of Israel’s Scripture of the letter.

Because of space limitations, our study will focus on Rom 5–8, with exegesis of 5:1–21 and 8:1–39. There are good reasons why Rom 5 and 8 are chosen. First, the most prominent passages that explicitly refer to suffering are 5:1–11; 8:14–17; and 8:18–39, and they obviously require our attention. In order to capture the rhetorical strategy of the pericopes within which these passages are located, the entire argument of 5:1–21 and 8:1–39 will need to be examined. Second, as will be argued, the section 5:1—8:39 constitutes a distinctive section of the letter, and the fact that 5:1–11 and 8:17–39 bookend this section makes the study of Rom 5 and 8 a fitting choice.

In the current chapter we will first outline why an audience-focused approach should be taken, and how this will work in our exegesis. We will then discuss how the letter’s use of Israel’s Scriptures will be useful to our inquiry.

Audience-focused approach: reasons, the term theology, and some significant studies

In a traditional author-focused approach to Romans, the interpreter seeks to determine Paul’s intention for the letter. That is, the interpreter asks: What does Paul intend to convey to his audience through the text? In this approach, one may try to work out the apostle’s intended purpose in writing the letter, and how his own suffering might have influenced his teaching. Our approach, however, is audience-focused.² That is, our question concerns how the audience might have heard the letter as they interacted with the text, given their experience of suffering in first-century Rome. As mentioned, there are substantial references to affliction in Romans. Implicit in these texts is an audience that is suffering, to whom the letter speaks and provides comfort, encouragement and instruction. Indeed, these texts serve to invite the audience to identify with the letter’s description of and teaching on suffering, and to respond by taking appropriate action. By analyzing the functions of these texts, we can gather information about what the letter might have conveyed to the audience and how the audience might construe a theology of suffering.

Having said that, we are aware that the lived experience of affliction of the audience in ancient Rome would have had an impact on the way they understood Romans. The existential nature of suffering means that the experience of the audience most likely played an important role in their understanding of the texts that speak of affliction. Although we cannot reconstruct the real audience of Paul, we nonetheless have access to historical information about life in first-century Rome. In the following I will argue that, in order to achieve a fruitful study, we need more information about the audience than the one that is exclusively implied by the letter. We need to describe the audience in light of the socio-historical situation of first-century Rome, so that the theology of suffering we seek to determine is not unconnected with the experience of the members of the house churches in Rome.

Also, we need to note that we do not use the term theology to denote a systematic account of faith and belief, for rarely do ordinary members of a first-century audience develop an orderly system of doctrine. Neither can we assume that after hearing the letter the members of the audience will formulate a well-thought-through belief system concerning suffering. Instead, theology of suffering refers to the audience’s perspective on suffering in light of what they hear from the letter and their lived experience of pain and affliction—a perspective on life that provides purpose, direction, comfort and practical resources in the face of trouble and distress. In other words, the theology of suffering we try to determine concerns the audience’s understanding of suffering as they interpret the texts of Romans. We will soon outline how this audience-focused interpretation of Romans will work in our exegesis, but before that we will first discuss why such an approach might be preferable to an author-focused one.³

Why an Audience-Focused Approach?

First, and importantly, an audience-focused approach allows us to be sensitive to the existential and experiential nature of suffering. By asking the question of how an audience would have understood the letter, we have a tool to explore the relationship between the text and human experience. That is, it allows us to explore how the letter can assist its recipients in their times of need and encourage them as they experience pain and sorrow. An audience-oriented approach may shed light on our inquiry in ways that otherwise would not be possible.

Second, an approach that asks how the audience interacts with the text allows us to determine their understanding of suffering even though the purpose and the main themes of Romans are not primarily related to the experience of suffering. There is no consensus among scholars concerning the purpose of Romans, although Paul’s mission to Spain and the intra-communal disharmony within the house churches are commonly recognized as Paul’s reasons for writing the letter.⁴ But none of the main proposals of scholars understands suffering to be the primary purpose of Romans. Likewise, even though the theme of suffering is prominent in Romans 5–8, rarely do scholars see it as a matter that has significant theological implications for understanding the letter. Yet an audience-focused approach can legitimately ask how the audience would have understood the letter’s references to suffering and how as a consequence they may have hope in times of pain and hardship.⁵

Third, an audience-oriented approach helpfully limits the scope of our inquiry to a manageable size. By focusing on the audience, our question is not so much about Paul’s overall theology of suffering. If it were, then we would have to frequently cross-reference other Pauline letters where the apostle’s exposition of suffering, hope, and endurance is present (e.g., 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians). Also, we would have to carefully work out how Paul’s view of suffering should be placed within his overall theology in the letter, which is in itself a subject of enormous scholarly debate. This would have meant a much larger research project.

Fourth, an approach that focuses on the interaction between the text and the audience is not hampered by the likely mismatch between the types of suffering experienced by Paul and the audience. Persecutions by members of the Jewish communities, for example, would have constituted a significant part of Paul’s affliction.⁶ But there is no evidence of widespread persecution of Christ-followers in Rome at the time,⁷ let alone persecution by the Jews.⁸ But despite that absence of evidence, the affliction-list in 8:35, for example, is often interpreted through Paul’s own suffering, especially via the use of similar terms in other Pauline letters.⁹ While this helps us to understand Paul’s theology of suffering, it does not inform the interpreter of how such an important text would have impacted on those who experience hardship in Rome.¹⁰

Fifth, an audience-focused approach can be fruitful even though Paul does not have a close relationship with the Roman believers. As far as we know, Paul did not establish the church in Rome. Nor had he visited them at the time of writing. Whatever Paul’s own theology of suffering, he was not speaking to an audience who had substantial fellowship or any shared experience of suffering with him (as opposed to, for example, Phil 1:5–7; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:8–9).¹¹ But Romans can still provide resources for the audience in their suffering, regardless of Paul’s lack of close relationship with them. This takes place via the letter’s rhetorical strategy and by virtue of its frequent use of the language of suffering, hope and endurance.

Finally, it should be noted that other scholars have profitably employed audience-oriented approaches in interpreting Romans. Even though one might not agree with all their conclusions, few would disagree that they have made fresh contributions to scholarship. It is worth surveying some of these scholarly works so as to highlight their significance and the way an audience-focused approach is incorporated into their exegesis.

Previous Audience-Focused Studies of Romans

The following survey will highlight the importance of the audience in understanding Romans. The most notable recent work that focuses on the audience is Stanley Stowers’s A Rereading of Romans. Stowers highlights the inadequacy of the traditional historical-critical method.¹² He emphasizes the importance of the audience in the text, who are explicitly stated to be Gentiles (1:5; 11:13).¹³ For Stowers, there is an encoded implicit reader that may be called an ideal reader.¹⁴ With this in mind, Stowers goes on to suggest a rereading of Romans that seriously takes into account the rhetorical strategy of the letter.¹⁵ The result is a fresh reading that truly pays attention to the interaction between the text and the audience.¹⁶ For our purposes, we note that the notion of an implied audience in Stowers’s approach provides an effective way to explore the relationship between the text and its recipients, and how the text may influence the attitudes and life patterns of the audience. In our analysis we will pay attention to how Romans is heard by its implied audience—although, as will be shown, our audience is somewhat different from a pure implied audience.

Like Stowers, Heil has written a commentary on Romans that focuses on the implied audience.¹⁷ He says that the audience we meet in Romans is not a real or actual Roman audience but an implied or intended epistolary audience created and established by the author through the text of the Epistle.¹⁸ Heil’s commentary is brief, but it is probably the only commentary that uses a reader-response approach.¹⁹ The following summarizes Heil’s methodology.

Calculating the responses of this implied audience, then, is . . . controlled by rhetorical analysis of the text. The implied audience or reader is also distinguished from ourselves as actual contemporary readers. We are called upon and challenged to assume the position of the implied audience of the text if we wish to fully experience the emotional, attitudinal and mental persuasions the Letter is intended to communicate. By experiencing its desired rhetorical effects we can better comprehend and appreciate the Letter’s message.²⁰

Here Heil highlights the advantage of the approach in detecting the experience of the audience, which is particularly useful to our inquiry because of the existential nature of suffering. Our approach will be similar to Heil’s, except that in our case a strictly pure implied audience is somewhat restrictive. For the purposes of our inquiry, we have to take into account the social and historical sources contemporary to Paul. As we will soon discover, we need a more nuanced and socially engaged description of the audience.

Like Stowers and Heil, in his Arguing from Scripture Christopher Stanley attempts to determine how Paul’s audience responds to the rhetorical strategy of his letters, although Stanley’s interest lies specifically in Paul’s scriptural citations. For our purposes, we note that Stanley recognizes that there is a difference between the implied and actual audiences. As a result, he devises a method to explore the rhetorical effectiveness of Paul’s strategy of using explicit biblical quotations to support the argument of his letters.²¹ The first step of Stanley’s study is to analyze the rhetorical strategy of each cited Scripture.²² The second is to estimate how audience members with varying degrees of biblical literacy might have responded to Paul’s biblical argumentation.²³ In other words, Stanley attempts to determine how different types of audience would have heard the texts. In doing so he takes care to note the dialogue between the reader and the grammatical, literary, and rhetorical codes embedded in the text, whether intended by the author or not.²⁴ Like Stanley, we recognize the importance of examining the dialogue between the audience and the text, and like him, we realize that there is a discrepancy between the implied and actual audiences. Although (unlike Stanley) we will not specifically identify different types of audiences, we will define the audience in terms of their likely living conditions and socioeconomic situations.

To assist in this task, we will draw on Peter Oakes’s insights found in his Reading Romans in Pompeii. Oakes provides a fascinating study of the social profile of a first-century audience in Rome and suggests a reading of the letter from the perspective of people in that audience. Using the archaeological evidence in Pompeii, Oakes carefully reconstructs a plausible description of a model craft-worker house church in Rome.²⁵ He then proposes a fresh reading of specific passages and themes in Romans in view of this audience.²⁶ What Oakes is trying to do, as I understand it, is to determine the audience’s social location using all the data available. In this way he paints a good general picture of the audience’s life, without claiming that the actual audience can be identified. He then reads Romans by asking how such an audience would have heard the letter given their particular social location.

Oakes’s work demonstrates that an audience-focused approach to Romans can be fruitful even though his constructed audience is somewhat different from the implied audience. Indeed, in a moment I will argue that the pure implied audience, albeit useful in instructing our reading of the text, will not yield the best result for our particular inquiry. In Chapter 2 we will discuss a plausible social location for the audience in relation to their suffering in Rome, in order to better ascertain the type of audience Paul speaks to in his letter. Our intention is not to identify the real recipients of the letter, but rather to provide a more nuanced social description of the audience that can enrich our exegesis.²⁷

The above not only demonstrates the benefits of reading Romans from the perspective of the audience, it also highlights the fact that an audience-oriented approach is often used in conjunction with rhetorical analysis, as well as the tools available in literary, grammatical and socio-historical analyses. The approach taken by this study will be similar. The above survey has also shown that there is a difference between the implied and real audiences, which is a matter that we will recognize in our methodology. Now we are ready to outline the approach of our exegesis.

The audience-focused approach in our exegesis

Audience or Text?

As mentioned, our exegesis will be audience-focused. We will also explore how the audience might have heard the letter as they interacted with the text, given their experience of suffering in first-century Rome. This approach takes note of the fact that any account of the audience’s understanding of the text cannot be independent of the text itself. But this raises the question of where does meaning lie? Does it lie in the audience or in the text? That is, does meaning exist in the text independent of its reader? Or is it the audience that determines how the text should be understood? In an essay on intertextuality, Moyise challenges the assumption behind the historical-critical method that texts have only one single meaning,²⁸ and in particular the presupposition that a text taken from one context and transposed into another will result in a single resolution.²⁹ Moyise alerts us that meaning is always bought at a price and meaning can only result if some interactions are privileged and others are silenced.³⁰

What this highlights is the fact that there is always an interaction between the audience and the text. The text plays a crucial role in how the audience perceives the meaning of its message, but at the same time the audience will read the text in light of their life experiences. It also underlines another benefit of an audience-oriented approach for our inquiry, in that we do not neglect the voice of an audience that has firsthand experience in suffering. Our purpose here, however, is not to resolve the question regarding where exactly meaning lies. Yet we know that there is an implied audience in the text of Romans, without whom the meaning of the text exists in a vacuum. The text has the function of assisting this audience to acquire an understanding of suffering, and we can attempt to find this understanding in the text by examining its rhetorical strategy and literary construct.

Also, since suffering is an experienced reality and since the text has been written within a particular historical context, we must be more specific in describing who the audience is, so that we can ask specific questions about how they would have heard the letter in relation to their experience of affliction. At the same time, we need to have a reasonable understanding of the symbolic universe shared between the text and the audience, so as to be successful in determining the communication between the letter and its audience. As Lategan says, there have to be shared convictions between the text and the audience, in order for the text’s directives to work and for the readers to actualize the text.³¹ In other words, communication takes place when the text and the hearers share the same worldview.³² By symbolic universe we mean, borrowing from Byrne, a comprehensive system of knowledge expressed in language, symbol and myth, serving to define, legitimate and give meaning to institutions and individual identities and to social interactions between them.³³

We know that the audience in our analysis cannot be Paul’s original audience, for we do not have access to them.³⁴ But we do have fairly good access to the historical situation in Rome and are able to determine the social systems, political realities, and worldview that the letter and the audience share. We can, then, define the audience within a particular socio-historical context with a certain level of precision, without claiming that we are speaking of the real audience. In this way, the description of the audience is more nuanced than the ideal implied audience—in the sense that we are carefully placing the audience in a particular socio-historical situation, namely, that the audience consists of followers of Jesus who live in first-century Rome and are familiar with suffering. In other words, we are still primarily interested in the implied audience, but at the same time we are aware of the reality that an overemphasis on the ideal implied audience will somewhat limit the value of our investigation.

So, both the text and the socio-historical situation of the audience are important as we explore the theology of suffering in Romans. Indeed, the interaction between the text and the audience (as the latter engages in the interpretive process) is also important. It is in light of this that we ask the question throughout our exegesis: How might the audience have heard the letter?³⁵ With this in mind, we will proceed to define the letter’s audience.

The Audience in Our Inquiry

As mentioned, the text of Romans, especially in 5:1–11 and 8:14–39, implies an audience that experiences suffering, to whom the letter gives encouragement and instructions. For example, the hope of glory in affliction is mentioned in 5:2–5. Implicit in the text is the assumption that the audience in Rome does have experiences of suffering. Likewise, the affliction-list in 8:35 infers that the Romans audience has experienced some of the trials in the list, and the text serves to affirm that no hardship can separate the audience from God’s love. Thus, at the most basic level, the audience in our inquiry consists of anyone in first-century imperial Rome who experienced affliction at the time when the letter was delivered to them in the early reign of Nero (around 56–58 CE). Although the affliction-list in Rom 8:35 specifies a wide range of suffering, it seems best to see the items as non-exhaustive but representative of many possible types of suffering (see the exegesis in Chapter 7). In other words, it is preferable to treat the audience as a community of believers who experienced a range of hardships and afflictions. The actual existence of an audience living with hardship is not without historical evidence. In our next chapter we will examine the social location of Paul’s audience in first-century Rome, where I will argue that they experienced socioeconomic hardship and religio-political injustice. This general picture of the audience and their social world will assist us in our exegesis.

To reiterate, at the most basic level, our interest lies in how an audience familiar with suffering in Rome would have understood the letter. We can be fairly confident that the suffering of Paul’s first audience included socioeconomic hardship and religio-political injustice, and this general profile will assist our inquiry. It is with this audience in mind that we will carry out our exegesis.

How Will the Exegesis Work?

As we examine each relevant passage in Romans, we will ask in what ways the text evokes images of affliction, and how it generates ideas and concepts that relate to suffering. For example, the language of hope in affliction may invoke images of the audience’s present hardship in Rome, as well as providing them with hope for a better future (5:1–5; 8:24–25). We will also ask how the text provides the audience with resources to understand the purpose of their suffering. How does the text help them face the reality of pain and sorrow? For instance, the Spirit’s intercession is a resource for the audience to face injustice and trials, despite their hurt and agony (8:26–27). We will also ask whether the text invites the audience to respond to its instruction. If it does, what does it ask them to do? For example, the letter exhorts the audience to hope and endure (5:3–5; 8:24–25), which requires them to take heed and persevere in suffering despite the pain.

Throughout the exegesis we will pay attention to how the socio-historical location of the audience might have influenced their understanding of suffering. For instance, we will ask how socioeconomic hardship might influence their understanding of the notion of hope of glory, for being poor would not be glorious in Greco-Roman culture. Another example would be how the audience might understand the language of peace in Rom 5:1, given the fact that members of the Christ-community might have been sold into slavery as a result of successful Roman conquests. Their daily experience would have been incompatible with Rome’s propaganda of the pax Romana.

These questions will be asked as we carry out a careful study of the text that employs the appropriate analytical tools at our disposal. Our discussion will investigate the rhetorical strategy and literary construct of the letter. For example, Rom 5:1—8:39 is bookended with the repeated theme of hope of glory in suffering. This serves to persuade the audience that the purpose of suffering is glorification. Our analysis will also pay attention to any narrative structure that is present in the text. As we will see in Chapter 3, we do not assume that Paul is telling stories in his letter, but that narrative structures may be constructed from the information available in the text, which consists of certain characters and a trajectory of events.³⁶ For instance, as will be argued, the story of Adamic humanity is implicit in Rom 5:12–21, where sin and death entered the cosmos, with implications for suffering in this world. In each case, our exegetical