A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

OF ROMANS 1:1-5:21
WITH ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE
RHETORICAL FUNCTION OF 5:1-211

MARTY L. REID
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest NC 27587

In recent discussion biblical scholars have agreed upon one conclusion:

The Apostle Paul has been stripped from his historical context.2 In a literary-
critical study entitled Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Richard Hays
determines that

the mainstream Western Christian tradition running from Augustine

through Luther (in its Protestant branch) to Bultmann has rendered a
reading of Paul fixated on individual salvation.3

From a Jewish perspective, Alan Segal contends that the Christian church over
time has falsely depicted Paul as an angry rhetor, propagating "a radical
condemnation of Torah and Judaism."4 Thus, we have lost track of Paul by
interpreting him as an opposer to Judaism, a Judaism that practiced self-

lr
rhis paper was presented at the Southeastern Regional Meeting of the Society
of Biblical Literature in Atlanta, Georgia, on 17 March 1991. Some revisions have been
made for publication.
2
For a recent assessment see Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha
in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testament, Sec. 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 1-30; and James D. G. Dunn, "The New
Perspective on Paul," in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians
(Louisville: Westminster and John Knox, 1990) 183-214.
3
Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven and
London: Yale, 1990) 159.
4
Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee
(New Haven and London: Yale, 1990) 282.
256 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES
salvation and volition.5 Segal, like others, has helped correct our understanding
of Paul's Jewish context. Consequently, any future study must attempt to rescue
Paul from the straitjacket of the Lutheran hermeneutic, "justification by faith."
In short, the methodological task signifies the need to interpret Paul from a
different perspective.
In a seminal article published in 1976, Wilhelm Wuellner proposed that
the Pauline letters be considered primarily as "argumentative discourse" along
the lines of traditional or new rhetoric.6 Wuellner's thesis has provided a point
of departure for considering the plausibility of a rhetorical approach to the
Epistle of Romans. Since Wuellner's study, a number of works have appeared,
the most substantive being Neil Elliott's monograph, The Rhetoric of Romans:
Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and PauVs Dialogue with Judaism?
These studies have demonstrated that rhetorical criticism can shed new light on
our understanding of the form and function of the Pauline letter.
The purpose of this paper is to offer a rhetorical analysis of Romans 1-5
with attention to its argumentative structure. Methodologically, I follow a
procedure for rhetorical criticism suggested by George Kennedy. The approach
includes five major stages: (1) determination of the rhetorical unit, (2) definition
of the rhetorical situation, (3) determination of the rhetorical species, (4)
rhetorical analysis of the structure of the text, and (5) a critical reflection upon
the way in which the argument met the rhetorical exigence.8 By employing

5
Ibid., 283.
6
Wilhelm Wuellner, "Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An
Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate Over Romans,' CBQ 38 (1976) 330-51,
republished in The Romans Debate (rev. ed.; ed. Karl Paul Donfried; Peabody MS:
Hendrickson, 1991) 128-46. Traditional rhetoric follows the conventional patterns of
Graeco-Roman rhetoric represented in the handbooks of antiquity, while the so-called
new rhetoric is based upon the universal patterns of persuasion found in all forms of
speech and discourse. For further discussion see Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca,
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame and London: University
of Notre Dame, 1969); and The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and
Response (ed. Ray D. Dearin; New York and London: University Press of America,
1989).

^ e i l Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and

Paul's Dialogue with Judaism, JSNTSup 45 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).
For a helpful summary see Jean-Nol Aletti, "La presence d'un a modele rhtorique en
Romains: Son role et son importance," Bib 71 (1990) 1-24.
8
George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism
(Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina, 1984) 33-38. As a classics
scholar, Kennedy wrote this book to provide an additional tool for New Testament
interpretation which would complement other critical methods. He includes numerous
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 257

Kennedy's methodology, this study also introduces the practice of rhetorical

criticism.9

DETERMINATION OF THE RHETORICAL UNIT

Kennedy mentions that the analysis begins by identifying the rhetorical

unit, similar to locating the pericope in form criticism. He advises that the
chosen text have "a discernible beginning and ending, connected by some action
or argument."10 At minimum, the rhetorical unit should include five to six
verses. The optimum length, however, represents a major portion of a chapter
or even several chapters of the entire document under consideration. In other
words, Kennedy emphasizes, exegetically speaking, that the rhetorical unit must
be of such nature that a complete text can be discerned. In addition, since the
text functions as a rhetorical unit, a complete argument or exigence should be
present. As will be demonstrated in this study, Romans 1-5 includes a number
of rhetorical units.
In the case of the Pauline letter, the starting point for the analysis is the
epistolary prescript. In Romans the prescript includes verses 1-7. At the closing
of the text under consideration, the argumentative patterns in 5:21 and 6:1
provide contextual evidence for placing a transition at Rom 5:21. First, there is
the hina clause in verse 21 which indicates a conclusion to the preceding
argument. A transition then follows with the rhetorical question (Ti oun
eroumen) in 6:1a. Thus, for our purposes Romans 1-5 reveals a discernible

examples from the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Pauline epistles which the
introductory student would find instructive. Two additional works written by George
Kennedy worthy of consideration include The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton:
Princeton University, 1963); and Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian Secular Tradition
from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1980). The
impact of Kennedy's work upon New Testament studies is represented by a number of
articles written by his former students in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament
Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, ed. Duane Watson, JSNTSup 50 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
9
In addition to the literature already cited, other introductions include James L.
Kinneavy, Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry (New York and
Oxford: Oxford University, 1987); Burton Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); and Edward P. J. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the
Modern Student (3rd ed.; New York and Oxford: Oxford, 1990). For a more technical
discussion see Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 2/3; Mnchen: C. H. Beck, 1974); and Heinrich Lausberg,
Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik (10th ed.; Mnchen: Max Hueber, 1990).
10
Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 34.
258 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

beginning and ending (sometimes referred to as inclusio) which Kennedy calls

for in the determination of the rhetorical unit.11

DETERMINATION OF THE RHETORICAL SITUATION

After the preliminary determination of the rhetorical unit, the next step
involves the establishment of the rhetorical situation.12 Three universal factors
in rhetoric include the speaker or writer, the audience, and the discourse. In
defining the rhetorical situation, the interpreter proceeds much like the form
critic in analyzing the Sitz im Leben where an attempt is made to relate the
rhetorical unit to its sociological setting. As classicly defined by Lloyd Bitzer,
the rhetorical situation encompasses a

complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual

or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed
if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain
modification of the exigence.13

In Rom 1:11-15, Paul indicates that he had never visited the church at
Rome but desired to do so for the purpose of mutual encouragement. In
addition, he sought to legitimize his apostleship and gospel to his audience.
Paul's position is especially apparent in the extended prescript (1:1-7) and the
preliminary thesis (1:16-17). In the conclusion (perorado14) of the letter, Paul

n
Here it must be stressed that I am not suggesting that Romans 1-5 necessarily
functions as one rhetorical unit. I simply want to demonstrate the contextual basis for
viewing Rom 1:1-5:21 rhetorically. Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 33-34) notes that in
the case of larger works, such as the Epistle of Romans, discerning self-contained units
is not always immediately evident. For this reason, he stresses that the interpreter must
identify signs of opening and closure. For further discussion of inclusio see Quintilian,
Inst. orat. 9.3.34; and Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 303.
12
Even though the various stages of rhetorical criticism are presented in a
sequential order, it is more appropriate to understand them as a circular process. As
Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 33) explains, "the detailed analysis of later stages may
in fact reveal aspects of the rhetorical problem or a definition of the species or stasis
which was not obvious on first approaching a passage."
13
Lloyd Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 4-
6, quoted by Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 33-34.
14
Quintilian (Inst. orat. 6.1.55) indicates that "the terms epilogue and peroration
both clearly indicate that they form the conclusion of a speech." Unless indicated
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 259

revealed that he was motivated by his desire to win the monetary and spiritual
support of the Christians at Rome for future missionary endeavors (15:22-32).
Thus, Paul's participation with his audience was constrained by an exigence of
"mutual encouragement" (See esp. 1:11-12).
Among the persons involved in the rhetorical situation, Kennedy
estimates that "the most important are often those who make up the
audience."15 In the reading of Romans, recent commentators have emphasized
the importance of Paul's discussion of "the strong" and "the weak" in the
paraenesis of 14:1-15:7.16 Since the letter was directed primarily to a gentile
audience (1:6, 13, 14-15), "the weak" can be interpreted as Jewish-Christians
who were scrupulously adhering to dietary regulations (14:2). Apparently,
strained Jewish-gentile relations existed, which fostered a lack of mutual
acceptance and tolerance.
Historically, we can reconstruct the return of Jewish-Christians (and
Jews) to Rome during Nero's accession to the throne in A.D. 54. Upon their
return, they soon discovered that the character of the Christian community had
radically altered with the infusion of non-Jews. The gentiles' reluctance to
embrace these returning exiles forced the Jewish-Christians to hold on to their
covenantal nomistic traditions with even more rigor.17 We can hypothesize that
the situation at Rome at the time of Paul's writing was one of distrust and
intolerance. Consequently, part of Paul's purpose was to squelch the boasting
that persisted on both the Jewish and gentile front.18 Paul's argument, in its

otherwise, translations of the handbooks on rhetoric are taken from the LCL. For further
discussion of the perorations function see Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 147-66.
15
Ibid., 35.
16
Jeffery A. Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans:
Toward a New Understanding/* NovT 32 (1990) 317-39.
17<i
Covenantal nomism" is a term formulated by E. P. Sanders (Paul and
Palestinian Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 25) to describe the religious
framework of first-century Palestinian Judaism. He defines covenantal nomism as "the
view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that
the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments,
while providing means of atonement for transgression." The majority of Pauline scholars
have accepted Sanders's reassessment. Throughout this study, I am assuming this
reconstruction and seek to show how Paul's particular response to the rhetorical situation
reflected in Romans grew out of his own covenantal convictions. For further discussion,
cf. R. David Kaylor, Paul's Covenant Community: Jew and Gentiles in Romans (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1988).
18
For a similar treatment, cf. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans, 43-67.
260 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

entirety, emphasizes participation in the covenant community in light of the

apocalypse of "God's righteousness" (Rom 1:16-17).19

DETERMINATION OF THE RHETORICAL SPECIES

Kennedy stipulates that determination of the rhetorical species can be

crucial in interpreting the rhetorical unit.20 The ancient handbooks basically
follow the Aristotelian classification of deliberative (symbouleutikon), forensic
(dikanikon), and epideictic (epideiktikon).21 Aristotle describes deliberative as
hortatory or dissuasive, forensic as accusatory or defensive, and epideictic
treating the subject of praise and blame.22
Furthermore, Aristotle explains that each rhetorical species is related to
a particular time: the deliberative to the future, because the speaker always
advises about things to come; the forensic to the past, because accusation and
defense are related to things which have been done; and the epideictic to the
present, for praise and blame focus upon the existing condition of things.23
Kennedy estimates that the three genres of ancient rhetoric are "in fact
applicable to all discourse."24 New Testament scholars have demonstrated,
however, that assigning a Pauline letter to one of the three species is not an easy
task. For example, the Book of Romans has been categorized as apologetic,

19
Cf. Crafton, "The Purpose of Romans," 320-28.

Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 36.

21
Although in practice the three species of rhetoric had been employed well before
the time of Aristotle, he was the first to devise a systematic and scientific art of rhetoric.
Consequently, Aristotle's rhetorical system practically became canonical within Graeco-
Roman rhetoric and subsequently provided a foundational basis for the teaching of
rhetoric during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. For further discussion see Frank Witt
Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians, JSNTSup 30 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1989) 31-32.

^Aristotle, Ars rhet. 1.3.3. Deliberative speeches most often took place in the
councils where arguments for or against certain actions by the body politic were
presented. The normative locus of forensic (or judicial) rhetoric was the law court where
the rhetor acted as either defender or prosecutor. A primary example was Demosthenes'
speech, "On the Crown." Epideictic rhetoric was utilized in funeral speeches where the
occasion called for the praise of an individual. One of the most famous examples is the
funeral speech of Pericles found in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War 2.35.
Consult Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric, 31.
23
Aristotle, Ars rhet. 1.3.4.

^Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 19.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 261

deliberative, epideictic, and also paraenetic. Consequently, recent discussion

has questioned the rigid application of Aristotle's categories to the Pauline
material, as suggested by Kennedy.26
While these concerns necessitate continued discussion about this
methodological step, in my judgment the Epistle of Romans primarily follows
the patterns of epideictic rhetoric.27 Its purpose was to strengthen the
disposition toward a particular action "by increasing adherence to the values it
lauds."28 In the exordium29 Paul introduces his argument by praising the
Roman Christians for their participation within the covenant (1:6-7, 8). In
addition, the diatribal argumentation employed by Paul was most characteristic
of epideictic rhetoric in the ancient world.30 Even in 1:18-3:20, Paul's rhetoric

^For a summary of the positions, see Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans, 60-67.

^ o r example, although Thomas Olbricht ("An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis

of 1 Thessalonians," in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham
J. Malherbe, ed. David Balen, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne Meeks [Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990] 225) views the identification of genre as useful, he argues, in his analysis
of 1 Thessalonians, that to locate a document among the three genres is precarious. In
his response to Kennedy's (Rhetorical Criticism, 19) suggestion that the three genres are
"in fact applicable to all discourse," Olbricht (225n51) contends throughout his analysis
"that it is not helpful to promote a hardening of Aristotle's categories, especially in view
of his own warnings against such a stance." How scholars go about determining the
rhetorical species of the Pauline letters obviously will continue to be discussed. One can
safely say that the present state of affairs is in a state of flux. The problem of
deteimining rhetorical species seems to be the lack of text-specific criteria.
27
This position was first suggested by Wuellner ("Argumentation in Romans,"
330-51) and is followed by Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 152-56), Robert Jewett
("Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter," INT 36 [1982] 3-20; "Following the Argument
of Romans," Word and World 6 [1986] 382-89), David Aune (The New Testament in Its
Literary Environment [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987] 219-21), Crafton ("The Purpose
of Romans," 317-39), and A. H. Synman ("Style and the Rhetorical Situation of
Romans 8.31-39," NTS 34 [1988] 218-31).

^Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 50.

29
Quintilian (Inst. oral. 4.1.5) explains that the exordium provided the introduction
to the speech. A more detailed analysis of the exordium in Romans is given below.
30
Barbara Wallach, A History of the Diatribe from Its Origin up to the First
Century B.C. and a Study of the Influence of the Genre upon Lucretius III 830-1094
(diss.; Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, 1974). I owe this reference to Wuellner, "Argumentation
in Romans," 349n93.
262 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES
seems primarily to instruct rather than to defend.31 Elsewhere, the epideictic
strategy is especially observed in the paraenesis of Rom 12:1-15:13. Even
though paraenesis received little attention by ancient rhetors,32 George Lyons
indicates that its discussion was related to either deliberative or epideictic
rhetoric.33 In addition to the encomiastic form of epideictic, an invective
pattern was also present. This rhetorical convention is conveyed by Paul in Rom
15:7: "On some points I have written to you very boldly" (RSV).
Hermeneutically, Paul develops his argument from a covenantal
framework, based upon the notion of dikaiosyn theou. This expression-which
I take to refer to God's covenantal faithfulness-is introduced in the preliminary
thesis of 1:16-17 and is further developed in the proposition (propositio)34 of
3:21-31.35 We can thus conclude with Wuellner that

The apparent judgment, or role, which Paul expects the Romans to

perform, is for them to affirm the communal values which [he and

31
For discussion see Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the
Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1981); and Paul Achtemeier, Romans,
Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox,
1985) 73-76.
32
Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1886) 50-51.
33
George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding, SBLDS
73 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984) 220.

the ancient speech, the propositio was sometimes inserted between the
statement of the case (narratio) and the proof section (probatio). in the most detailed
discussion of the ancient handbooks, Quintilian (Inst. orat. 4.4.1-9) explains that the
function of the proposition was twofold: (1) to provide a recapitulation or summary of
the major argument in the narratio, and (2) to present a smooth transition to the
probatio. See also Lausberg, Literarischen Rhetorik, sec. 43.
35
This would mean that the theou in 1:17, 3:21, and 3:22 should be interpreted
primarily as a subjective genitive. See, e.g., Ulrich Wilckens (Der Brief an die Rmer,
3 vols., EKKNT 6/1 [Zrich and Kln: Benziger and Neukirchener, 1978, 1980, 1982]
1:187): "Jedenfalls also ist der Genitiv theou hier [ w 21, 22] wie in 1,17 ein genitivus
subjectivus, nicht ein genitivus auctoris." Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC 38a
(Dallas: Word Books, 1988) 41. Dunn, interpreting dikaiosyn theou in a covenantal
sense, suggests that the genitive (theou) should be seen as both objective and subjective.
Thus this Pauline expression denotes an attitude of God as well as describing "God's
meeting of the claims of his covenant relationship . . . with the emphasis on the latter."
My analysis basically agrees with Dunn's interpretation.
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 263

they] . . . share in being agents of faith throughout the world. We

expect therefore the use of the epideictic or demonstrative genre.36

DETERMINATION OF RHETORICAL STRUCTURE

After detennining the rhetorical species, Kennedy suggests that the

analysis involves a consideration of the material in the text: its subdivisions, the
persuasive-effect of the various units, and how they function together holiscally
to meet the rhetorical situation.37 Before I begin this stage, some
methodological premises are in order. First, rhetorical structures, or outlines,
were never interpreted as rigid templates in antiquity. For this reason, the value
of standard patterns is only heuristic. When examined, few documents unfold
in a perfect pattern.38
Second, the possibility, and probability, remains that an overlap exists
between characteristics of the species and topics for persuasion. Finally, the
standard form of rhetoric was based on the pattern of the judicial speech, as
seen, e. g., in Quintiliano discussion.39 According to Aristotle, "the necessary
parts of a speech are the statement of the case and proof. These divisions are
appropriate to every speech, and at the most the parts are four in number-
exordiwn, statement, proof, epilogue."40 The arrangement of these compo-
sitional units provided a theoretical construct for a thesis, complete argument,
or elaboration. The ancient handbooks refer to this arrangement as taxis41
From this vantage point, I will consider the rhetorical structure of
Romans 1-5.1 begin with the identification of the exordium, whose function was
to introduce the speech, acknowledge the situation, and establish the ethos of the
speaker.42 The exordium in Romans includes 1:1-15. Its structure is determined

36
Wuellner, "Argumentation in Romans,'* 337.
37
Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 37.
38
Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 49.
39
Quintilian, Inst. oral. 4.2.11. For further discussion see Kennedy, Rhetorical
Criticism, 23.

^Aristotle, Ars rhet. 3.13.2-3.

41
See, e.g., Aristotle, Ars. rhet. 3.13-19. For discussion cf. Martin, Antike
Rhetorik, 211-44; and Lausberg, Literarischen Rhetorik, sec. 46.2.
42
Quintilian explains (Inst. orat. 4.1.5) that the "sole purpose of the exordium is
to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to
the rest of our speech. The majority of authors agree that this is best affected in three
ways, by making the audience well-disposed, attentive and ready to receive instruction*'
264 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

by two sub-units: the epistolary prescript43 (vv 1-7) and the Thanksgiving (vv
8-15). The traditional prescript included a recitation of the author, recipients, and
greeting. In the analysis, particular attention must be given to the expansion of
these elements.
In Rom 1:1-6 Paul provides an extended description of his mission and
gospel. Of particular significance is Paul's self-designation (kltos apostlos),
which underscores the undergirding basis of God's mercy and grace in his
ministry. In addition, verse 1 introduces the claim that Paul was set apart for the
proclamation of the gospel (eis euangelion theou). Here Paul establishes his
ethos before his audience and also prefaces the thesis of his argument. After the
introduction of his gospel in 1:16-17, Paul then develops his argument in the
propositio (3:21-31). Although covenantal language is not always explicit in
Paul's rhetoric, one can detect a covenantal orientation.44 The exordium betrays
this substructure with the introductory inclusion of the (passive) verbal adjective
kltos and the genitive theou in verse l.45
In verses 2-6, Paul imparts an explanation of his gospel: its fulfillment
of the Old Testament Scriptures (v 2), its christological core (vv 3-4), its relation
to Paul (v 5), and its relation to his audience (v 6). The shift to the first person
plural in verse 5, followed by the statement of his audience's reception of the
gospel in verse 6, subtly suggests that the Christians at Rome had already taken
part in his ministry. Here, Paul refers to their corporate communion and, as
mentioned earlier, writes to persuade them-at least in part-to embrace him and
his future missionary endeavors.
The second part of the exordium includes the Thanksgiving of 1:8-15.
In this unit Paul focuses upon his relationship with his audience. He commences
by praising the credibility of their faith (v 8). Then the apostle's desire to visit
Rome is affirmed (vv 9-10). In verses 11-15, the reason (causa) for the letter is
given with the thesis stated in verse 11: "For I long to see you in order that I
might impart some spiritual gift to you that you may be strengthened." The
explanatory phrase in verse 12 reinforces Paul's rhetoric of mutual

43
Even though the ancient handbooks do not include the prescript as part of the
rhetorical discourse, it does function much like the exordium by establishing the ethos
of the speaker, introducing topics, and making the audience well-disposed. For this
reason, we should perhaps categorize the prescript as a quasi-exordium, following Duane
Watson's (Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter,
SBLDS 104 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988] 41) suggestion. For the sake of simplicity,
however, and because of its rhetorical function within the letter, I have chosen to view
the prescript as rjeginning the exordium. Hughes (Early Christian Rhetoric, 50) opts for
this approach in his analysis of 2 Thessalonians.
"Cf. Kaylor, Pauls Covenant Community, 1-19.

^Cf. also kltoi Isou Christou ( 6) and kltois hagiois ( 7).

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 265

encouragement.46 Here the argumentative strategy closes on two fronts: (1) the
social problem of mutual intolerance within the community, and (2) the
relationship which Paul sought to inaugurate with his audience. Thus, it seems
that the phrase dia tes en alllois psteos ( 12) targets the sociological
dimensions of the rhetorical situation. Even so, the notion of covenant seems to
undergird Paul's argument, as he concludes the exordium in 1:14-15 by noting
his obligation to the gentile (vv 13b-14) and Roman community (v 15). The
47
exordium climaxes with the inclusio of euangelisasthai in verse 15.
In his discussion, Quintilian emphasizes the use and function of the
transitio (transitus, metabasis). In the structure of Paul's argument, Rom 1:16-17
provides a transition between the introduction (exordium) and the statement of
the case (narratio)?* Additional insight concerning the rhetorical function of
verses 16-17 can be gained by considering Quintilian's directions concerning the
formulation of the narration (narratio): "Sometimes we may fortify our case in
advance by a preliminary summary from which we proceed to the full statement
of facts." 49 Quintilian also advises that if the narratio is somewhat long and
complicated, "we shall do well to prepare the judge for it." 50 We can therefore
conclude that 1:16-17 has a twofold rhetorical function: (1) to provide a
transition between the exordium (1:1-15) and the narratio (1:18-3:20), and (2)
to signal the major thesis of the argument which is expanded in the proposition
(propositio) in 3:21-31.
Paul commences the statement of his case by way of an introductory
formula in Rom 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel." As Wuellner
proposes, the interpreter should consider Paul's letters as argumentative51 in the
sense that discourse is employed "to influence the intensity of an audience's

^Introduced by touto de estin, verse 12 is grammatically subordinate to verse 11

and therefore supplies further amplification. For discussion of the explanatory
(epexegetical) infinitive with the demonstrative, see BDF, sec. 394.
47
Cf. with eis euangelion in verse 1.

^Quintilian (Inst. orat. 4.1.76) states that "on all occasions when we have
employed the exordium, whether we intend to past to the statement of facts or direct to
the proof, our intention should be mentioned at the conclusion of the introduction, with
the result that the transition to what follows will be smooth and easy." For further
discussion see Lausberg, Literarischen Rhetorik, sec. 54.
49
Quintilian, Inst. orat. 4.2.71-72.
50
Ibid. 4.1.79.
51
Wuellner, "Argumentation in Romans,** 330.
266 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES
adherence to certain theses. In 1:16a Paul's epideictic intention of
presenting the character of his gospel and its mode of argumentation becomes
clear.53
In a rhetorical setting, Aristotle encouraged the use of logical argument
in oratory in one of two forms: either inductive or deductive.54 In verse 16,
Paul employs deductive argumentation in the form of a statement and a
supporting reason, a form of proof known as the enthymeme.55 As Kennedy
notes, "Behind any enthymeme stands a logical syllogism" composed of a
major and minor premise.56 In this text the major premise would be: "The
gospel is the power of God," a premise which would be universal and
acceptable by definition. The minor premise would then follow: "Paul's gospel
represents the power of God," a premise which was not necessarily acceptable
to his audience.
Central to my thesis is the interpretation of Rom 1:16a. Paul's refutative
statement of his position toward the gospel should not be interpreted either
psychologically (Cranfield57) or in a confessional sense (Ksemann58). Rather,
the argumentative statement, as an "echo"59 of lament psalms and exilic
prophetic texts,60 rhetorically refers to God's covenantal faithfulness. As
Richard Hays argues, Paul's unashamedness is thus based on the fact that "the

52
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 14.
53
Cf. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 219-21.

^Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 16-17.

55
Ibid., 16.
56
Ibid. Aristotle (Ars rhet. 1.2.8) calls an enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism and
an example a rhetorical induction. See also Lausberg, Literarischen Rhetorik, secs. 371-
72.
57
C. . . Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979) 1:86.
58
Ernst Ksemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans)
22.
59
Hays (Echoes of Scripture, 38) refers to Paul's literary figuration of the OT texts
as metalepsis, where the reader, signaled by their echoes, "is required to grasp together
old text and new."

^ a y s (ibid., 38-39) suggests that Paul's declaration is taken from Ps 43:10

(LXX), Ps 24:2 (LXX), Isa 28:16 (LXX), and Isa 50:7-8, emphasizing that the semantic
group of epaischunomai consistently occurs in the lament psalms and prophecies from
which Paul draws his righteousness terminology.
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 267

gospel is God's eschatological vindication of those who trust in him-and

consequently of God's faithfulness."61 With this somewhat puzzling
affirmation, Paul sought to legitimize his position on the basis of God's
faithfulness.
Verse 17, which completes the rhetorical unit of the preliminary thesis,
furnishes a supporting maxim for the enthymeme in verse 16.62 "Fol in it [the
gospel] the righteousness of God is being revealed." As before, the dialogue
centers upon God's covenantal faithfulness. Consequently, dikaiosyn theou
should not be interpreted either forensically or ethically but in a covenantal
sense to describe God's act in Christ of restoring the relationship between
himself and humanity. As Paul argues, the revelation of the gospel is based on
God's faithfulness and has a salvific faith as its goal.63
Following the presentation of the thesis in 1:16-17, the statement of the
case is given in the narratio (1:18-3:20) which rehearses the circumstances and
clarifies the stasis (stasis).64 Jean-Nel Aletti has offered a rhetorical analysis
of Rom 1:18-3:20 which correctly identifies 1:18 as its proposition (propo-
sitio).65 Corollary to the revelation of God's righteousness is the revelation of
God's wrath. Rhetorically, the intent of 1:18-3:20 was to prove that God's wrath
falls upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Since this was the case, both the
Jew and gentile were placed on equal footing before God. Rom 3:20-21

61
Ibid., 39.

^Kennedy (Rhetorical Criticism, 17) states that often a maxim (gnome or

sententia) follows which supports the enthymeme.
63
This exegesis indicates the force of the repetitionalfigureek psteos eis pistin,
taken, respectively, as a genitive of source followed by the adverbial accusative of
purpose. Cf. Hays's (Echoes of Scripture, 40-41) translation ("out of faithfulness for
faithfulnes") and discussion.

^In the formulation of the speech, the speaker was encouraged to define the basic
issue of the case, referred to as stasis theory. According to Kennedy (Rhetorical
Criticism, 18) the ancient handbooks describe four basic forms of stasis: fact (or
conjecture), definition, quality, or jurisdiction. Quintilian (Inst. orat. 3.6) offers the
simplest discussion.
^Based on a judicial framework, Aletti (*'Rm 1,18-3,20: Incoherence ou
coherence de Fargumentation paulinierme?" Bib 69 [1988] 47-62) offers the following
rhetorical analysis: propositio (1:18), narratio (1:18-32), probatio (2:1-3:19), perorano
(3:20).
268 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

concludes the narratio, presenting the antithesis ("all flesh shall not be justified
66
before him [i.e. God] on the basis of the law") to the thesis in 1:16-7.
A transition then follows in Rom 3:21a. After explaining the statement
of facts in 1:18-3:20, Paul resumes the theme of God's covenantal faithfulness
introduced in 1:16-17. Along with its literary function, the introductory formula,
nyni de, also signifies, theologically, the eschatological presence of God's
righteousness along with the consummative perfect (pephanertai) in 3:21.67
The structure of 3:21-31 can be outlined as follows: thesis (vv 21-22),
explanation (vv 23-26), and implication (vv 27-31).
With the main statement in v 21a (chris nomou dikaiosyn theou
pephanertetai), Paul's rhetoric seeks to establish that the covenant relationship
is maintained by other means than Torah observance. As in Rom 1:17,
dikaiosyn theou refers to God's covenantal faithfulness, which is more fully
defined in 3:22. This text advances the notion that God's faithfulness has been
demonstrated through faith, and the object of that faith is Christ.68 On the one
hand, Paul presents the antithesis of 3:20; on the other hand, the formula in 3:22
is very similar to the rhetorical figure, ek psteos eis pistin, in 1:17.
Rom 3:22 emphasizes that the sole requirement for entrance into the
covenant relationship is faith, reinforced by the emphatic pantos. The
explanatory statement in verse 22c reemphasizes this universal dimension of the
gospel. For Paul, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile; all persons
participate in the covenant through faith in Christ.69 The implication of this
proposition appears in 3:27-31, where Paul argues that all boasting is excluded.
In the letter's rhetorical context, Paul wanted to prove that the gospel did not
require gentile Christians to become Jews in order to become true children of
Abraham. The rhetoric also implies that gentiles, in light of their sharing within
the covenant, had no reason to boast. The final conclusion to the propositio in
3:31 is that the gospel does not nullify but demonstrates the law. Paul
substantiates his position in Rom 4:1-25 by drawing from the Torah itself, which
argued that Abraham was righteous before God through faith. Structurally then,
3:31 not only provides the peroration to the propositio but also cues the
beginning of the proof section (probatio) in chapter four.

66
The cohesiveness of this unit is reinforced by the usage of the adjective pas in
1:18 (epi pasan asebeian kai adikian anthrpn) and 3:20 (pasa sarx). For further
discussion consult ibid., 50-53.
67
Cf. also the present tense of apokalyptetai in Rom 1:17 and 1:18.

^For further discussion of this Pauline concept, cf. Richard B. Hays, "Pistis and
Pauline Christology: What is at Stake?"; and James D. G. Dunn, 'Once More, Pistis
Christou," in SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 714-44.

>Cf. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 166-67.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 269
The probatio, whose function was to provide proof for the argument,
is introduced by a rhetorical question ("What then shall we say?") in Rom 4:1a.
Quintilian indicates that even in the proof many passages may function as the
exordium by beginning with a thesis statement.70 The subject of the proof is
thus introduced in 4:1b: "what had been gained by Abraham, our forefather,
according to the flesh?" The logic of the proof in 4:1-25 includes the following
progression: (1) an argument from scripture ( w 1-8), (2) an argument from the
rite of circumcision (vv 9-12), (3) an argument from the significance of the
Torah (vv 13-15), (4) an argument concerning the establishment of God's
promise (vv 16-22), and (5) peroration (vv 23-25). Here, Paul employs one of
the most cogent proofs for his position, namely that Abraham's righteousness
was based on faith.
A basic approach in the exegesis of Paul's portrayal of Abraham has
been to view "Abraham in Jewish writings as the quintessence of legalism, the
paradigm of self-righteousness which Paul deliberately contradicts."71 G.
Walter Hansen, however, represents the prevailing scholarly position:

The presence of both God's covenantal-promises and Abraham's

righteous behavior in the various portraits of Abraham is sufficient
basis for concluding that in Jewish literature Abraham is portrayed in
the context of covenantal nomism. Some texts . . . emphasize the
priority of the covenant with Abraham over the Mosaic Law and
interpret Abraham's faith primarily in terms of a response to the
covenantal promises. Other texts . . . interpret the Abrahamic covenant
in terms of the Mosaic Law and view faith as a response of obedience
to that Law. . . . Paul's use of the Abraham story is more closely
aligned to the first emphasis.72

Paul closes his argument in Rom 4:23-25. Here, he reinterprets the

Abrahamic covenant christologically by making Abraham's faith analogous to
faith in the resurrection of Jesus. In Abraham's relationship with God, one finds
embodied that which came to fruition in Jesus Christ. Thus, the argument proved
that grace and faith, not Torah and circumcision, were the essential ingredients
in the relationship between God and the covenant community.73
The second proof for Paul's position is given in Romans 5. In the
consideration of its rhetorical function within the structure of the letter, we
entertain one of the most critical questions in the interpretation of Romans.

70
Quintilian, Inst. orat. 4.1.75.
71
G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts,
JSNTSup 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 175.

^Ibid., 199.

^Cf. Kayior, Paul's Covenant Community, 87.

270 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Patricia M. McDonald describes the present state of affairs: "Rom 5.1-11 is far
from being the most studied passage in Romans. Indeed, one might even go so
74
far as to say that it has suffered from neglect."
Part of the problem lies in the chapter's contextual ambiguity. Much of
the discussion centers upon two alternatives: Either 5:1-11 should be connected
to what proceeds and should thus be construed as part of the first main division;
or 5:1-11 represents a significant break in the scheme of the argument. C. . B.
Cranfield represents a very traditional approach to the problem by concluding
that 5:1-8:39 embodies the second division of the letter by drawing out "what
75
having been justified by faith means." While we can readily recognize the
immense contribution of Cranfield's commentary, I would suggest that his
approach to the structure of the letter represents an undue dependence upon the
Lutheran hermeneutic of "justification by faith." Or, we might say that
Cranfield's understanding of the structure of the argument in Romans is more
reformational than Pauline.
A rhetorical analysis, it seems to me, can move us beyond such an
impasse. In the progression of the argument, Rom 5:1-21 can be understood as
the second proof within the probatio (4:1-11:36). We can characterize the
argument as a christological proof composed of two major sections: (1) the basis
of peace and hope ( w 1-11), and (2) a comparison between Adam and Christ
(vv 12-21).
The introduction to the proof is given in Rom 5:1a (dikaithentes oun
ek psteos). In the previous context Paul presented his proposition (3:21-31) and
provided a significant proof against a Jewish front for his position (4:1-25).
Therefore, the introductory statement in 5:1a summarizes the previous argument
in 4:1-25 and, in addition, establishes the connection between the following two
arguments in 5:l-25.76
Rom 5:1-11 presents the christological basis of peace and hope with the
thesis statement in 5:1b: "we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ." The use of the first person plural is significant in that Paul unites
himself with his audience on the basis of God's covenantal faithfulness
demonstrated through Christ. The rhetoric implies that the only way in which
Paul's audience could deny their unity with him (and with each other) was to
deny their unity with God through Christ. Paul does not give them that option.
The only option in the context of eschatological hope is made clear in the

74
Patricia M. McDonald, "Romans 5.1-11 as a Rhetorical Bridge," JSNT 40
(1990) 82.
75
Cranfield, Romans, 1:253-54.
7<
To suggest that the inferential oun in 5:1 is primarily related to 4:1-25 and
secondarily to 3:21-31 is perhaps the most provocative aspect of my analysis. For further
discussion cf. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 242-44.
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 271

peroration in verse 11: "reconciliation."77 The proof then, in 5:1-11, provides

a rhetorical bridge between Paul and his audience, following the conciliatory
strategy of epideictic rhetoric.78
The second part of the christological proof (5:12-21) presents a
comparison between Adam and Christ. The complexities of this passage are
numerous, and it is beyond the limits of this paper to address all the issues. In
the progression of the proof, 5:12-21 most likely draws its conclusion from the
thesis in 5:1-1179 The structure of verses 12-21 is as follows: (1) the entrance
of sin through Adam ( w 12-14), (2) the dissimilarity between Adam and Christ
(vv 15-17), (3) the similarity between Adam and Christ ( w 18-19), and (4)
peroration (vv 20-21). The argument climaxes with a conclusion concerning the
role of the law in God's purpose. The christological formula, dia Iesou Christou
tou kuriou hmn, functions as an inclusio to the entire proof in Romans 5.

CONCLUSION

As the final step to the analysis, Kennedy suggests a reconsideration of

the entire unit in order to determine "its success in meeting the rhetorical
exigence and what its implications may be for the speaker or audience."80 The
rhetorical exigence of Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians can be described
as one of "mutual encouragement" introduced in the exordium (1:1-15). Of
particular importance is the thesis statement in 1:11-12. The theological and
hermenutica grid by which Paul attempted to sharpen the audience's faith and
adherence to certain values was the notion of God's covenantal faithfulness
demonstrated through Christ. Theologically, Paul wanted to prove that the sole
requirement for covenant membership was the "obedience of faith" (hypako
psteos, 1:5) for both the Jew and the gentile.
In the exordium Paul begins to initiate a rhetorical bridge between
himself and his audience. By their inclusion within the covenant community,
they had participated already in his ministry. Only later, in the peroratio does
Paul reveal his motive of gaining their spiritual and financial support.
Commentators in the past have been puzzled as to why Paul does not mention
this in the introduction of his letter. A rhetorical analysis, however, indicates
that Paul is following the conventions and patterns of epideictic rhetoric.
A second part of the rhetorical exigence required Paul to place Jewish
and gentile Christians on equal footing. Paul's intention, as often assumed, was

"Cf. McDonald, "Romans 5.1-11," 84-87.

^Cf. ibid., 86-87.
^Cranfield, Romans, 1:271.
80
Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 38.
272 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

not to bash the Jewish position. In fact, Paul's rhetoric functioned primarily to
constrain "the strong" party of the gentile element (even though Paul employed
a Jewish front in the narratio to argue for the sinfulness of humanity). In Paul's
argumentation, there were no theological grounds for either party to boast within
the covenant.
The paraenesis in Romans suggests that a divisive element existed
within the community. Epideictic rhetoric includes both positive and negative
forms: both encomium and invective. The latter is indicated in the peroration:
"On some points I have written to you very boldly" (15:15, RSV). Thus, a final
part of the rhetorical exigence was to unite the factions within the Roman
community and to clarify the issue of status within the covenant. The purpose
of epideictic rhetoric was to bring about a change of attitude or a deepening of
values. The community's covenantal membership, prompted by God and enacted
through Christ, required reciprocity-between God and the believer and between
"the strong" and "the weak" within the community. In sum, Paul's intention
was epideictic in that he wrote (1) to introduce his understanding of the gospel,
(2) to celebrate the Roman Christians' faith, and (3) to strengthen their
adherence to the beliefs and pragmatic practices of the gospel.
In closing, Wuellner's proposal of viewing the Pauline letters as
argumentative discourse requires serious consideration. Rhetorical criticism
seems to offer a text-centered methodology by which the relationship between
the speaker, the audience, and the form of the discourse can be ascertained. In
the interpretation of Romans, this approach moves us in the right direction by
establishing these relationships, issues that more traditional approaches in the
past have not always made clear.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.