# Reading Romans - literary style an obstacle?



## Eoghan (Nov 1, 2009)

I am trying to read through Romans and am finding the twists and turns of the narrative as convoluted. It does seem to be a unique style of writing which seems to cause problems for us "modern" readers. Is it a diatribe?


----------



## bookslover (Nov 1, 2009)

Part of the reason is that Greek is a very flexible language. You can get away with much longer sentence structures in Greek (see Ephesians 1:3-14, for example) than you can in English. So, in a sense, the convolution is built-in. Also, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that's just Paul's natural writing style. He can cram more information into one sentence than most other people can in an entire paragraph!

I don't think it's a diatribe. It's just Paul's amazing mind at work.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 1, 2009)

Eoghan, I would treat it as similar to a diatribe. Usually you can't force wholesale a literary form on an epistle, but there are elements of diatribe clearly visible in Romans. Following the pattern of statement-question/objection-answer helps out a lot, especially in Romans 3, 4, 6, and 9.


----------



## Eoghan (Nov 2, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Eoghan, I would treat it as similar to a diatribe. Usually you can't force wholesale a literary form on an epistle, but there are elements of diatribe clearly visible in Romans. Following the pattern of statement-question/objection-answer helps out a lot, especially in Romans 3, 4, 6, and 9.



That is wht I am having to do Charlie, it just does not scan well! Once you realise that it is a style and not an attempt to confuse the reader, it makes a bit more sense.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 2, 2009)

My pastor is preaching through Romans right now ... you'll likely find his sermons illuminating.

Bethel Presbyterian, Leesburg, VA - Sermons


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 2, 2009)

Having some idea about the structure of the letter going in is a good idea.

After all, we aren't the first recipients/readers. So there's already a history of reading this item.

I don't think the letter is *in the slightest* off the cuff, or filled with "digressions", or the like. It exhibits a highly organized structure, and a strong logical flavor (as someone said, the question-response format is an important element, which Paul uses to prosecute his overall case).

Paul is writing to a church he has never been to see, and had no part in planting (indeed, no apostle had been). He desires to go (he knows some of the Christians who have relocated to Rome), because he does wish to "establish" them--technical language--which would include the "imparting some spiritual gift" to them (extraordinary gifts being signs of the apostles).

And this blessing of them has a further motive (one he doesn't openly state until the end of the letter). He wants "missionary support" from them. He want a new base of operations, from which he plans to extend his gospel labors to Spain.

So, what else is needful? He needs to give out the content of his gospel, that is, the content of the message he preaches to the lost. If YOU are being asked to support a missionary, don't YOU want to know what sort of preaching you are going to be supporting?

So, starting at Rom.1:16-17, we have the gospel-theme of the letter presented. Rom.1:18 begins the presentation of the "good news" by first presenting the "bad news," that is, "wrath revealed." This is followed after 2 chapters, at 3:20, with "righteousness revealed." So far, the general structure of the first 11 chapters.

Ch.12 begins the "practical" portion (a general pattern we see frequently in the letters: doctrine-application). All we're talking about is basically the gospel-realities worked out in the details of actual issues in people's lives. Paul may be addressing general problems, or specific problems in their church, of which he has heard news.

Bottom line, this letter shows ample evidence of much prior thought, and careful planning and organization, prior to a single word put to ink-on-parchment. Prior knowledge of something of the structure will be of service to us, who do not have the benefit of immediate relation to the material, or access through the original language.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 3, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Eoghan, I would treat it as similar to a diatribe. Usually you can't force wholesale a literary form on an epistle, but there are elements of diatribe clearly visible in Romans. Following the pattern of statement-question/objection-answer helps out a lot, especially in Romans 3, 4, 6, and 9.



The same pattern governs the flow of Paul's thought in ch 7 (vv. 1ff, 7 ff and 13ff are all blocks answering the questions posed in the initial verses) in ch.1:19-3:31 where Paul explains why he is not ashamed of the gospel and in chapter 4 where he asks about the Jewish forefathers relationhip to faith.


----------



## Eoghan (Nov 3, 2009)

*Galatians a forerunner of Romans?*

One of the Commentaries (FF Bruce?) made the observation that as one of Pauls latter letters, it is a polished version of Galatians. Paul has had time to think through much of his theology and is not writing to counter a heresy or danger (as in Galatians).

I found that a helpful observation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 3, 2009)

Interestingly, in his commentary on Romans Calvin frequently criticizes Paul's writing style. He points out weakness in Paul's analogies and gaps in logic, but always notes that Paul's underlying point is clear and true. Calvin argues that God uses imperfect men with flawed writing styles to convey His truth - more to His glory that He can use a mediocre writer like Paul to deliver some of the most profound truths of Scripture.


----------

