Biblical Eloquence in Romans 6:16-23

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans is a brilliantly framed exhortation aimed at congregations of Roman believers.  Not surprisingly, in addressing this intellectual audience, the author of the letter, Paul, employs his exceptional knowledge of rhetorical skills in attempt to persuade the group of newly converted Christians to live the gospel as taught by the Savior Jesus Christ.

In Romans 6, many examples of rhetorical elements can be found.  The following is a brief analysis of two: 

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The first illustrations we can clearly identify are the examples of paradox found in the above text.  According to Silva Rhetoricae, a paradox is "a statement that is self-contradictory on the surface, yet seems to evoke a truth nonetheless."  One would not think that by becoming a servant one is being made free.  Yet that is exactly what Paul is implying.  There are two masters: sin and righteousness.  Yielding oneself to sin leads to deal.  Becoming a servant of righteousness leads to freedom and ultimately eternal life.  Thus is the paradox: Freedom through servitude.  

The significance of this usage of paradox is that it invites the audience to think about who they are serving and what will be the end result.  It also seems to hammer home the principle that service or work in some form will be required.

Another example found in the prose above is one of anthypophora.  Again relying on the definitions provided by Silva Rhetoricae, an anthypophora is "a figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one's own questions."  Paul is seen here reasoning aloud when he asks what are the results of being a servant of sin.  He immediately answers his question when he says the result is death (meaning spiritual death).

The significance of Paul quickly answering the question he had barely posed is that it doesn't allow the audience to come up with excuses or rationalize improper behavior.  He quickly shoots down all attempts of justification by sternly stating sin leads to death. 

One thing that has been troubling me in my analysis is verse 23.  What is the rhetorical device used?  I don't know.  Sin leads to wages of death while righteous lives are touched by grace and blessed with the gifts of God.  A wage seems to be something deserved, while a gift is undeserved.  I don't think it is paradox.  Your thoughts?

 

 

Beep, beep!

Would the world be better off without the confining rules of the road? Most certainly not! [anthypophora] What would ensue would be detrimental to everyone, drivers and walkers alike [division]. Chaos, danger, blaming! [asyndeton] That is what would happen.

This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for the rules that guide road conduct. I’m am grateful for the happy green lights [personification], the cautious yellows [metonymy], and the warning reds. I am grateful for the yield signs and right of way laws that allow me to get to and from work without question about who can drive, where, and when.

I am grateful for clarifying ambiguity, the ability to correctly place blame in the instance of collision, and for the steps that keep me safe and sound and free from the guilt of causing an accident. It is no small thing to get into an accident and be unsure about fault [litotes]. With all the gazillion [hyperbole] idiotic things that I see happen on the road WITH the laws, I would hate to see what would happen without them!

If I had the choice of any car, I would not be driving my frail, little, and old Geo Metro, Leonard, but as it is, he’s all I’ve got and I’m glad to know that I am a bit more [degree] safe because of the laws.

Does St. Augustine like Anthypophora? Yes, he does.

Anthypophora is when you ask a question and then immediately answer it, or raise an objection and then resolve it. In De Doctrina Christiana St. Augustine states that “the speaker ought to be especially careful to give assistance to those who cannot ask [their questions]” (Book IV, Paragraph 25]. The reason for this is because when giving a speech it is inappropriate for the audience to ask questions, so the speaker must take care of that for them.

In his “Sermon 211 for Lent” he points this out by saying this is his time to speak and their time to listen in silence. As such he raises many objections/questions and then resolves them. Among them are

1.   Paragraph 2: Perhaps we think darkness is like being shut in prison.
2.   Paragraph 3: Perhaps you want to forgive your brother, but he won’t accept it. 
3.    Paragraph 6: There are many here, one example is “Am I going to say ‘go…beg pardon of him?’ no.”

An unanswered question could leave someone feeling left out

 

By raising these issues and then answering them he is doing his audience a favor. He is following his own rule for addressing large crowds. The effect is to ensure that everyone is learning, for if someone is stuck and cannot get past an issue, that person will not be able to follow along as the speaker continues for he will have a bad taste in his mouth and will sour at the speech being given. This would be a lament for the speaker. For his desire is to teach, and if he is turning them off by not answering their questions then they cannot learn what he is there to teach them.

Ascending through Biblical Rhetoric

Psalms 24: 3-4
"3.Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who should stand in his holy place?
4. He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully."

Adhortio
A commandment, promise, or exhortation intended to move one's consent or desires
Ok, admittedly this may be a stretch, especially since other passages in the Bible exemplify this much better but maybe this will help someone else so they can use it. In a sort of roundabout way, though not quite like circumlocution, God is promising His people that if they follow the standards  in verse four they will get the blessings in verse three in attempt to move them to desire to be good.

Antonomasia
Substituting a descriptive phrase for a proper name, or substituting a proper name for a quality associated with it
"The hill of the Lord" and "his holy place" is in reference to the temple or even to the celestial kingdom, but rather than saying temple, David, the author of this Psalm, makes the scripture more eloquent by describing the holiness of the place and allowing the readers to infer as to where he is talking about.

Anthypophora
To ask and immediately answer one's own questions.
This is rather obvious in this passage, but it allows David to pique his audience's interest and make them ask themselves, "yeah, what would allow me to get to God's presence?" Thus they pay more attention to the answer to the question as opposed to just skimming over the scripture with the attitude of it being "just another commandment."

Taxis
To divide a subject into its various components or attributes.
The subject of the second verse is the type of person who can ascend to the hill of the Lord. David uses Taxis to break down the characteristics, or adjusts, of a person who would be able to achieve that level of salvation and makes it easier for his audience to visualize what type of person they need to be.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

While reading one of my favorite passages of scripture in the Bible, I started to notice some patterns and rhetorical devices that we had learned in class.  Here is the passage of scripture in Romans chapter 8:

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The passage starts by asking a question that is then answered which I remembered to be a rhetorical device.  I looked it up on Silva Rhetorica and this is known as anthypophora, a figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one’s own questions.  This makes us as readers contemplate if there really is anything in the world that can separate us from Christ’s love.  He goes on to state that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. 

What is interesting about how the question is answered is that the answer is elongated.  There is an obvious use of division in describing what could potentially separate us from Christ’s love but in verses 38 and 39 we see the repetition of the word “nor” at the beginning of the phrases and this is known as anaphora.  This repetition makes us repeatedly consider all the possibilities that could potentially separate us from his love which he negates and states that none of these could succeed in taking away Christ’s love for us.  It makes his love much more powerful through this use of anaphora and division.