81

ROMANS 5.1-11 AS A RHETORICAL BRIDGE

Patricia M. McDonald, SHCJ

Department of Religion and Religious Education
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064, USA

The involved question of why Paul wrote the Letter to the

Romans continues to be the basis of much debate.’ Of late,
scholars have tended to see the need to consider the rhetorical
situation of the work.’ One of the positive results of this has
been to throw into relief parts of the letter other than those on
which attention has traditionally been focused. In particular,
W. Wuellner’s and R. Jewett’s attempts at establishing the
rhetorical type of Romans were concentrated to a large extent
on the opening and closing sections of the letter. More

recently, A.B. du Toit has successfully shown Paul’s persua-

sive intent as it appears in Rom. 1.1-17.33
In the course of his article, du Toit also pointed out the main
risk run by enterprises such as those of Wuellner and Jewett:
that of distorting the text to make it fit into a particular
rhetorical pattern. In his own article, then, he is careful to fol-
low ’a more text-centered approach’.4
The following essay, like du Toit’s, is text-centered, the text
in question being the comparatively little-studied Rom. 5.1-11.
In the context of the rhetorical effect of Romans, this pericope
is of prime interest. We are proposing here that it can be
regarded as a rhetorical bridge between the apostle and the
Roman Christians. That is to say, in these eleven verses Paul
for the first time in Romans draws repeated attention to the de
faccto unity that exists between himself and those to whom he
is writing: along with all who believe, they constitute ’we’. The

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
82

unity is not of Paul’s making but of God’s: ‘we’ are those whom
God has justified by faith (dikaidthentes oun ek pisteds, 5.1).
The apostle and the recipients of the letter are united because
they have accepted God’s gift to them.
The plan of the paper is as follows. After an initial introduc-
tion to the pericope (Section 1 below), we shall show how, in
these eleven verses, Paul definitively establishes with the
Roman believers a firim rhetorical unity that he has been
preparing from the start of the letter (Section 2) and will go on
to sustain with the minimum of effort in subsequent chapters
(Section 3). The conclusion is summarized in Section 4.

1. Introduction to Rom. 5.1-11

Romans 5.1-11 is far from being the most studied passage in
Romans. Indeed, one might even go so far as to say that it has
suffered from neglect. Admittedly, it has routinely received
attention from those attempting to determine the literary
structure of the epistle5 and has recently been the focus of sev-
eral dissertations.’ Beyond this, though, full-length articles on
the pericope are rare,7 and, so far at least, it has not been the
subject of a monograph.
Yet it is an intriguing passage in many respects. Contrary to
initial impressions, these eleven verses are very much a unit:
clear boundaries8 enclose material that is both distinctive in its
unity of reference (’we’, those justified by faith) and distinct
from what precedes and follows it.’ The passage is further
held together by the reuse in later verses of vocabulary from
earlier parts of the section. A particularly clear example of this
is the modified sorites (chain syllogism) of w. 2-4 (-5a), but the
technique is all-pervasive and culminates in v. 11, where no
word is without an equivalent in the previous ten verses.
In addition to being a unity in itse1f,the ’passage has unifying
functions of at least three different kinds: literary, theological,
and rhetorical. That is to say, it can be shown that Rom. 5.1-11
is a bridge passage with respect to its literary content, theologi-
cal significance, and rhetorical purpose. The first two of these
will be mentioned briefly before we go on to the main topic of
this paper, the rhetorical bridge.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 83

The pericope functions as, first, a literary bridge because it

contains a mixture of vocabulary, some components of which
tend to be characteristic of either Romans 1-4 or 5.12-8.39
but not of both. This feature of 5..1-11 has been noted by earlier
scholars, although none of them has reflected on it to any
extent.10 Nor will that be done here: it remains a task for the
future. The matter is complex: at least ten vocabulary groups
variously link 5..1-11 with the rest of Romans 1-8.i1
Secondly, it can be shown that 5.1-11 is a theological bridge
in the sense that this pericope takes up and develops ideas
found earlier and lays the foundation for what follows, par-
ticularly in 5..12-8.39. For this, it is significant that in the
course of 5.1-11 Paul starts to replace with more personal-
relational terms his earlier stress on justification that charac-
terizes Romans 1-4: the latter process (dikai6thentes-, w. 1, 9)
is in vv. 10-11 replaced by the image of reconciliation, as is
fitting in a pericope in which believers have peace with and
access to a God whose love for them is shown by Christ’s death
on their behalf (vv. 1-8). During subsequent chapters of
Romans the components of the resulting unity are gradually
extended and specified until the climax is reached in 8.3.1-39,
in which ’our’ union with God is shown to be unbreakable. 12
Thus, Paul presents the content of salvation itself as a perma-
nent, all-encompassing ’bridging’ effected by God.
The . focus of this article is the third bridging function, the
rhetorical. In these eleven. verses, Paul simply states his unity
with those who are to read his letter. As noted, the theological
basis of this unity is God’s justifying initiative and the human
response of faith. Even before Paul made contact with, the
Roman Christians, he and they were, in reality, united by
their common faith. 13 However, as will be seen in Section 2
below, in the early chapters of Romans Paul refers to this
either indirectly (1.1-15)14 or not at all (1.16-4.22). By con-
trast, in 5.1-11 he makes explicit his unity with his readers by
repeatedly and for the first time in Romans referring to him-
self and them as ’we’, those now justified by faith. The Roman
Christians find, therefore, that they are indeed bound to Paul.
As will be seen in Section 3, Paul sustains that unity by occa-
sionally reverting to the use of the first person plural in the
material that follows 5.1-11. By means of this strategy (to

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
84

which ,5.1-11 is the key), the apostle firmly captures his audi-
ence and thereby increases considerably the effectiveness of
his letter to these Christians who are largely unknown to
him’5 but whose good will he considers vital to the next stage of
his missionary project.

2. lVlaking the Connection: from 1.1 to 5.11

Paul’s firm commitment to the Roman believers is expressed
at the very start of his letter to them. He experiences it in two
ways. First, it is a divine call to be apostle of the Gentiles ( 1.1-
5), among whom they are included (1.6). Secondly, it is an
obligation that he owes them (1.14) and must fulfill. by
preaching the gospel to them (1.15). In this way, the ’slave of
Christ’ indicates his (unsought for) potential bondedness with
the Romans and shows by his deferential attitude to them&dquo;
that he hopes for but cannot presume reciprocity.
In this section, 1.1-15, Paul does not use the first person plu-
ral to denote himself and his readers.17 The nearest he gets to
this is in v. 12, where he expresses his desire to be encouraged
along with them (sympcxr.acklethenczi). This, however, is still
merely a future possibility. The basis on which Paul’s hope
might be fulfilled is the faith that he and his readers share, but
even here the apostle concludes by distinguishing the two

groups. 18 Apart from once addressing them as adelphoi (v. 13),

he does not at this stage include himself with them. Paul’s
emphasis in Rom. 1.1-15 is rather on himself as apostle and on
them as the object of his ministry, although they could not
have failed to notice that he refers both to himself and to them
as kletos (vv. 1, 6, 7), and that their own faith (’known world-

wide’, he says in v. 8) corresponds to ‘the .obedience of faith’

that is the aim of his ministry (v. 5). That he and they do, in
reality, form q unit denotable by ’we’ is implicit in the expres-
sions j?esoM Christou tou kyriou hemon (1.4) and theou patros
hemõn (1.7), but, as these are formulaic and would be recog-
nized as such by the readers, nobody could accuse Paul of
forcing himself into their company. To summarize: what
prompts Paul to initiate contact with the Roman Christians is
the divine dispensation by which God and Jesus Christ
became, respectively, ’our Father’, and ’our Lord’., and Paul

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 85

himself was appointed as apostle to the Gentiles. i9 He hopes

(indeed, v. 11, yearns) for a closer association with them, but
that is not yet a reality.
After this introduction, Paul proceeds to give the theme of
the letter and to establish that justification is indeed by faith
(1.16-17; 1.18-4.22). In these chapters the tone is altogether
different from that of the exordium (1.1-15): there is no direct
appeal to the good will of the Roman believers, who are in fact
all but lost sight of. They would certainly have been familiar
with the diatribe style of much of this section and would
therefore have known that Paul was not necessarily address-
ing their situation in its particularity but was perhaps func-
tioning as a teacher who had a general idea of their circum-
stances .20’Thus, it is evident from 2.1-3 that the readers were
expected to have recognized and condemned the pagan way of
life delineated in 1.18-32 (and, presumably, if the cap fitted,
they were to wear it).21 They would have known, also, that
Romans 2 as a whole depicts what are taken to be typical atti-.
tudes of the Jews among them.22 When, in the following
chapter, Paul nails down (with scriptural proof-3.10-18) his
conclusion that all without exception (pantes) have sinned and
fallen short of God’s glory (3.23), the Roman believers could
_ not have failed to recognize themselves as included in both the
condemnation and the subsequent divine offer of justification
through faith (3.21-31).
So the Romans are by no means excluded from the schema
depicted in Rom. 1.18-4.22, but Paul does not draw attention
to its particular relevance to them, in distinction from its gen-
eral application. In a letter in which diplomatic considerations
play a part, the reason is obvious: in 1.18-4.22 no one appears
in a good light except God, Christ, and Abraham.
.

However, it is quite otherwise with Rom. 5.1-11, which, with

its brief introduction (4.23-25), constitutes the rhetorical con-
tinuation of the exordium of the letter, Rom. 1.1-15. For here
in ch. 5 Paul has once more in the forefront of his mind those
to whom he is writing. Since, ex hypothesi, his readers are still
with him, he can assume that in the exordium he achieved his
purpose of making initial contact with them. He can further
assume that subsequently in 1.18-4.22 he conveyed to..them
the universal problem of human sinfulness and God’s solution

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
86

to it. So now the apostle and his readers are beyond the stage of
preliminary encounter. By showing his and their common
acceptance by God, and by doing so against the backdrop of the
dire alternative (1.18-3.20), Paul has to a significant extent
bridged the gap between himself and these believers whom he
mostly does not know personally.
The transition is made in 4.23-25, where what was applied
to Abraham (v. 23) is shown as applicable also to ’us, ~.. who
believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead’.
Then, throughout 5.1-11., the apostle and his readers form one
group, ’we’. Paul makes this point very strongly by means of
repetition: the eleven verses contain a total of eighteen first
person plural elements,23 with only vv. 4 and 7 lacking a direct
reference to ’us’. In this pericope, then, the Roman Christians
are viewed no longer as typical of groups (Jews and Gentiles),
as was the case in 1.18-4.22. Nor are they being considered as

components of an all-inclusive but still impersonal pantes, as

they were in 3.21-26.~ Instead, -in 5.1-11 Paul speaks for the
first time in Romans of the life that he and the Roman believ-
ers share as Christians.25
From this point on, what binds Paul and his readers is no
longer the rhetoric of one who is being carefully diplomatic,26
but belief in the same God. Paul has hinted at this in referring
to himself and them as ’called’ (1.1, 6, 7) and to their common
faith (1.12), and also in speaking of Jesus as ’our Lord’ (1.4)
and God as ’our Father’ (1.7). The fact is, that they are
’brethren’ (1.13). However, he does not develop the conse-
quences of all this until he has shown in all its starkness the
extent of humanity’s plight and God’s response to it (1.18-
4.25). He can then once more address his readers directly and
presume to include them with himself in the group of believers
designated ’we’, because of what God has done in Christ. In the
light of Paul’s arguments of 1.18-4.25, they can extricate
themselves from this association with him only by denying
that they are believers; but in that case they will be putting
themselves into the undesirable condition that Paul summed
up so graphically in 3.10-18.
So Rom. 5..1-11 forms a rhetorical bridge between Paul and
the recipients of Romans in the sense that in these verses Paul
makes firm the somewhat tenuous contact with the Roman

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 87

Christians effected by careful diplomacy in 1.1-15. That con-

tact is replaced by a connection that is as firm as the Romans’
faith in God. By simply presuming throughout 5:1-11 that, as
believers, they and he constitute one group, ’we&dquo;. Paul uses a
technique of epideictic rhetoric to unite his readers with him-
self. This is effective because the basis of the unity referred to
in 5.1-11 is his own and his readers’ prior response to the same
act of God.,

3.
Sustaining the Connection: from 5.1 to 8.39
Between 5.1 and 5.11,. by taking for granted in one statement
after another the unity in faith of himself and those to whom
he is writing, Paul establishes a rhetorical unity with them.
Subsequently in 5.12-8.39 he sustains the Romans’ awareness
of that, unity by occasionally reverting to the use of the first
person plural. The pattern is much the same as in the earlier
chapters of Romans’. There, sections in which Paul associates
himself with the Romans (1.1-15; 5.1-11) are separated by one
in which he seems to be distancing -himself from them: in
1.18-4.22 the second and third person plural predominate.
Similarly, from 5.1 to 8.39 passages in which the apostle uses
the first person plural are separated from each other by those
in which he does not. In this way, the: ground Paul gained in
5.1-11 is held without his needing to remind them overtly of
his and their unity in Christ, the basis of their rhetorical unit-
edness with him.
Thus there is an immediate contrast between 5.1-11 (with
its concentration .on ‘us’) .and 5.12-21. The only first person
plural element in the latter passage is the last word, hemon,
part of the designation of Christ..as ’Jesus Christ our Lord’
(5.21). Otherwise, Paul uses only the third person in 5.12-21.
He does, however,. refer in this section to: believers’ solidarity
with Christ, the one through whom people are to be justified
(vv. 17-20).
The first person plural is again taken up with the start of
Romans 6. Between 6.1 and 6.8 there are thirteen verbs with a
first person plural subject and three further expressions that
are equivalent’. 27 Even if; as seems probable, the use- of the first
person plural here is confessional in origin ’21 there is, never-

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 88

theless, a strongly personal dimension to what Paul writes in

this first part of Romans 6.29 Paul, the Christians in Rome
(and also those in Jerusalem and the churches that Paul
founded)3° have in common their acceptance of baptism. ‘We’
who have been justified by faith (Rom. 5.1) are also marked
out as a group by baptism, the solemn ritual by which each
person entered into the mystery of Christ’s death and resur-
rection and, therefore, into association with all the other bap-
tized. The rhetorical effect of using the first person plural in
connection with baptism is very powerful. For just as they
would be unwilling to dissociate themselves from those
justified by faith (5.1), Paul’s readers would tend to accept
without question the implied association with him in the
community of those who, through baptism, are ‘dead to sin but
alive to God in Christ Jesus’ (6.11).
There are two more first person plural verbs in Rom. 6.15.31
They are related to those in 6.1-8 inasmuch as they rephrase
in terms of being under grace the issue of whether ’we’ are to
sin. This verse, 6.15, follows a short section (6.9-14) in which
the third person singular and second person plural occur. The
remainder of Romans 6 contains only the latter form, as
indicatives and imperatives.32 The first part of ch. 7 ends with
three verses referring to ’us’ (7.4-6),33 and the next section
begins with ti oun eroumen? (7.7), a feature of the diatribe
style that serves to include the readers in the following testi-
mony given in the first person singular (7.7-25).
Thus, in Romans 6 and 7 verbs with a first person plural
subject occur in three groups (6.1-8.; 6.15; 7.4-7) in the midst of
other material: Paul is still including himself with his readers.
. He continues this practice in ch. 8.; throughout which verbs
with a first person plural subject or reference occur sporadi-
cally (but with, a particular and significant concentration
towards the end of the chapter)34 and refer always to the same
group as does 5.1-11.~ There are no such verbs in chs. 9-11.1

4. Conclusion
In Rom. 5.1~11, the deferentially diplomatic attitude by which
Paul established initial contact with the Romans is replaced by
a confident assumption of the unity that he has with them, as

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 89

he indicates in these verses the present and future conse-

quences of their (and his) justification by God. He is no longer
deliberately introducing himself to believers who (for the most
part) do not know him, but is writing to those who are, like
himself, involved, in a de. facto unity that is of God’s making
and that they liave accepted. His readers now find that their
lives are indeed bound up with that of Paul: they can elude it
only by choosing to deny ’the one who raised Jesus our Lord
from the dead’ (4.24), .and Paul certainly does not give them
the opportunity for this. By his occasional use of the first per-
son plural in what follows (5.12-8.39), Paul continues to
remind his readers from time to time of the bond between
them. In this way, he gently uses the advantage that he has
gained in 5.1-11.
One further question should be asked here: why does Paul
wait until 5.1-11 to establish this firm unity with his readers?
Part of the answer has been suggested already: for the
Romans, accepting Paul’s overtures and their God-given
unity with him is infinitely preferable to the situation of the
unjustified described earlier in the letter. Now that they have
seen the alternative, Roman believers may well feel more
inclined to admit Paul’s claims on them.
The rest of the answer may be deduced from the poetics of
the pericope itself. For this bridge passage that opens the ma-
jor section 5.1-8.39 achieves its effects on the reader by means
of multiple presentations of unitive motifs. It is in 5.1-11 that,
for the first time in Romans, Paul describes the life of faith; he
does so by depicting God and believing humanity as newly
bound to each other by an event that is first termed
justification (vv. 1, 9) and then reconciliation (vv. 10-11). Both
the bonding and its maintenance result from the outpouring of
divine love (vv. 5-8). As we shall see below, in v. 10 God is fur-
ther depicted in different terms as relating to others.
Thus, in 5.1-11 Paul is presenting Christian life as consti-
.
tuted.by personal relatedness. This is, then, a most suitable
point for him to consolidate the somewhat tentative overtures
that he made to Roman believers in.1.1-15.. At the same time,
he is laying a foundation of Christian solidarity on which, he
will build in subsequent chapters and which will provide the
grounds for his parenesis in chs. 12-15 (and part of 16), where

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
90

disunity among believers seems to be a major cause for con-

cern.
Fundamental to 5.1-11 is the repeated and sustained use of
the first person plural in these eleven verses. ‘We’ are those
who, justified by faith, have received access to our present
graced state (5.1-2). That is to say, because of God’s justifying
action, believers share, here and now, a common mode of exis-
tence. This entails rejoicing in both the hope of God’s glory (v.
2) and the afflictions of the present which, paradoxically, lead
to an increase in that hope (vv. 3-4). Those who believe are,
further (v. 5), recipients of God’s love and the Holy Spirit,
which are the basis for their hope. Paul then expresses the
same truth in a different way: Christians’ experience of

justification (v. 9) and being reconciled to God (v. 10) guaran-

tees their future salvation. Thus, in their present and future
existence (and in their sinful past, too!), believers are in reality
united with each other.
Underlying all this is, of course, the action of God and the
resulting relationship of believers to God. Between 5.9 and 5.10
there is a switch in metaphors that affects significantly the
way in which that is described. In v. 10, Paul moves from the
forensic-sounding dikaioo3’ (being justified) to a more per-
sonal-relational katalass(5 (being reconciled). He does so in a
verse in which other elements make a similar change. Thus,
those who benefit from God’s reconciling action are not merely
inadequate (asthenis) or malignant (asebis and hamartdlos)
vis-A-vis God, as they were in vv. 6 and 8: they are God’s ene-
mies (ecltthros, v. 10).38 Further, for the first time in this peri-
cope and, indeed, since Rom. 1.9, Christ is in 5.10 referred to as
God’s Son. In 5.10, then, and on into v. 11, Christians are
shown as reconciled to a God who is himself presented as
relating to others inasmuch as he can have enemies and does
have a Son who died.
Overall in 5.1-11, therefore, Paul is presenting believers as
united with God and (implicitly) with one another through the
reconciling effects of the death of God’s Son, a death that
demonstrates God’s love for sinful humanity .(v. 8.). The
dynamics of this pericope require that the reader admit that
we believers (including Paul) are united with one another

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 91

because we are justified by faith in a God who is in relationship

with Christ and with us who were formerly God’s enemies.
The apostle goes on to create a similar conviction, first, in
5.12-21 through his reference to the solidarity that believers
now have with Christ, and then in 6:1-11,. by pointing out the
union with Christ effected by baptism. If the Romans took
seriously the unity of faith referred to in 5.1-11, the solidarity
with Christ portrayed in 5.12-21, and the death to sin entailed
by baptism (6.11), they would see for themselves that the sit-
uation that appears to lie behind many of the exhortations of
12.1-15.13 and 16.17-20 was quite inappropriate. Indeed,
much of Romans after 5.11 can be understood as Paul’s devel-
oping the theme of how believers are united with God and the
whole of creation (ch. 8), the Jewish people (chs. 9-11), one
another (chs. 12-15; 16.17-20), and Paul himself (15.22-33).
The introduction of this highly significant theme is made in
the unitive and relational language of 5.1-11.

NOTES

1. In addition to the list of references given by J.D.G. Dunn, Romans

1-8 (Word Biblical Commentary, 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988), pp. liv-lv,
see, inter alios, Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and Gentiles. A Socio-
logical Approach (SNTSMS, 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986); Walter B. Russell III, ’An Alternative Suggestion for the
Purpose of Romans’, BSac 145 (1988), pp. 174-84; P. Stuhlmacher, ’The
Theme of Romans’, AusBR 36 (1988), pp. 31-44.
2. See, for example, W. Wuellner, ’Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation
in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried—Karris Debate over
Romans’, The Romans Debate (ed. K.P. Danfried; Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg, 1977), pp. 152-74, and his later article, ’Where is Rhetorical
Criticism Taking Us?’, CBQ 49 (1987), pp. 448-63; R. Jewett, ’Romans
36 (1982), pp. 5-20. Unlike Wuellner
as an Ambassadorial Letter’, Int
and Jewett, who see Romans as an example of epideictic rhetoric, S.K.
Stowers (Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity [Library of Early
Christianity, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], pp. 114, 128) regards
the letter as protreptic (persuasive) because in it Paul is introducing
himself as a teacher, thereby preparing Roman believers for the teach-
ing activity that he hopes to engage in when he gets to Rome.
3. See A.B. du Toit, ’Persuasion in Romans 1.1-17’, BZ 33 (1989), pp.
192-209.
4. Ibid., p. 196.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
92

5. See, for example, A. Feuillet, ’Le plan salvifique de Dieu d’après

l’Epître aux Romains. Essai sur la structure littéraire de l’Epître et sa
signification théologique’, RB 57 (1950), pp. 336-87, 489-529; idem, ’La
citation d’Habacuc ii.4 et les huit premiers chapitres de l’Epître aux
Romains’, NTS 6 (1959-60), pp. 52-80; S. Lyonnet, ’Note sur le plan de
l’Epître aux Romains’, RSR 39 (1951-52), pp. 301-16; idem, Exegesis
Epistulae ad Romanos: Cap. V ad VIII (Except. Rom. 5,12-21 ) (Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1966); J. Dupont, ’Le problème de la structure lit-
téraire de l’Epître aux Romains’, RB 62 (1955), pp. 365-97; U. Luz,
’Zum Aufbau von Röm 1-8’, TZ 25 (1969), pp. 161-79; R. Scroggs, ’Paul
as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 1-11’, Jews, Greeks and
Christian Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Festschrift for W.D.
Davies; ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp.
271-98.
6. See W.W. Crump, ’The Structure and Soteriology of Romans in
Light of the Function of 5.1-11 in the Argument of the Epistle’
(unpublished dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1979);
C.D. Myers, ’The Place of Romans 5.1-11 within the Argument of the
Epistle’ (unpublished dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary,
1985); P.M. McDonald, ’Romans 5.1-11: The Structure and
Significance of a Bridge’ (unpublished dissertation, The Catholic Uni-
versity of America, 1989). See also P.M. Hedquist, ’The Pauline Under-
standing of Reconciliation in Romans 5 and II Corinthians 5: An
Exegetical and Religio-historical Study’ (unpublished dissertation,
Union Theological Seminary, Virginia).
7. Examples include N.S.L. Fryer, ’Reconciliation in Paul’s Epistle to
the Romans’, Neot 15 (1981), pp. 34-68, and the first two of a series of
four articles by G. Helewa published in Teresianum between 1983 and
1987. They are: ’"Riconciliazione" divina e "speranza della gloria" sec-
ondo Rom. 5.1-11’, Teresianum 34 (1983), pp. 275-306, and ’Fedele è Dio.
Una lettura di Rom. 5,1-11’, Teresianum 36 (1985), pp. 25-57. Although
much shorter, N.A Dahl’s influential article ’Two Notes on Romans 5’
(
S T 5 [1951], pp. 37-48) should also be mentioned here.
8. See vv. 1, 11. The phrase dia tou kyriou n &h
m
emacr; sou
omacr; ē Christou is
I
used for the first time in the epistle in 5.1 and is repeated in v. 11 (note
too the permutations of it in 5.21; 7.25; and 8.39). The opening and clos-
ing verses of 5.1-11 also correspond to each other: they refer to ’us’
believers as justified by faith (v. 1) and as having received reconcilia-
tion (v. 11), states which 5.9-10 showed to be equivalent.
9. Rom. 4.23-25 provides a connecting link with ch. 4.
10. Those who have expressly used the term ’bridge’ to designate 5.1-
11 are B.H. Throckmorton Jr ( Adopted in Love. Contemporary Studies
in Romans [New York: Seabury, 1977], p. 30) and J.A.T. Robinson
Wrestling with Romans [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979], p. 59).
(
They were, of course, thinking in purely structural terms. Others give
evidence of the same insight by noting the forward and backward links
of the passage (see e.g. M.-J. Lagrange, Epître aux Romains [EBib;
Paris: Gabalda, 1950], p. 99; X. Léon-Dufour, ’Situation littéraire de

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 93

Rom V, RSR 51 [1963], pp. 83-95; Luz, ’Aufbau’, p. 178 and n. 44) or by
their disagreement on whether 5.1-11 starts, concludes, or is the

penultimate pericope of a major section (for a summary of which see

Léon-Dufour, ’Situation’, p. 83 n. 1).
11. The sections with which Rom. 5.1-11 has vocabulary links include
Rom. 1—4 (pistis); 1.18-4.25 (kauchaomai and cognates, org ,
ē
); 3.21-31 (charis in 5.2 and 3.24; ’the hope of God’s glory’
s/asebeia
ē
aseb
in 5.2 and 3.23; Christ’s haima in 5.9 and 3.25); 4.24-25 (e.g. the use of
the first person plural; the designation of that group as believers and
sinners who are justified; the reference to the death and raising [or
risen life] of ’our Lord’); 1.18-5.21 (dikaios, hamart
); 5.12-21 ō
los
ō poll
(
mallon); chs. 5-8 ē
apothn see also thanatos, ,
(
ō;
sk ōē and pneuma,
z
each of which is used once earlier in the dogmatic part of the letter but
becomes much more frequent after 5.11); Rom. 8 only ; ō h
z
ō
(s ē agap
ē
tou theou; God or Christ as being or acting hyper n
&h
m
)
emacr;
omacr;
; Rom. 1-8
dikoio
(
ō).
12. In Rom. 9—11 Paul goes on to show how, despite appearances to
the contrary, the Jews are included in this saving plan of God.
13. They were also potentially connected through Paul’s God-given
commission as apostle of the Gentiles (see e.g. Rom. 1.5-6), but Paul’s
careful phrasing of the opening section of his letter shows that he does
not take for granted that they have accepted his apostolic authority.
14. See also 4.23-25, where ’our’ justification is being viewed as still in
the future.
15. The position taken here is that, although Paul knew some of the
Christians in Rome (ch. 16 being integral), Romans is essentially his
self-introduction to believers living in that city.
16. See particularly Rom. 1.8-13. In v. 8, Paul seems to be implying
that the Romans too are, in their own way, agents of faith throughout
the world. In the following five verses the apostle tries to leave his
readers in no doubt of his good intentions in their regard: that he has
not already visited them is the result of God’s will and not because of
any negligence or lack of concern on his own part.
17. The subject of elabomen in v. 5 is obviously Paul himself, for at
this point he is putting before the Romans his particular responsibility
for Gentiles.
18. He writes (1.11-12): ... epipoth nai en hymin dia
ō symparakl
th
ē
ē all
t
s lois piste
ē s hym
ō n te kai emou. The sym- of the infinitive
ō
expresses a possible future unity of those at present separated, and
lois indicates that both parties possess the faith even now. How-
ē
all
ever, the concluding hym n te kai emou draws attention to their exist-
ō
ing state of separation.
19. An adjective that readily comes to mind in connection with the
opening of Romans is ’diplomatic’: with care and tact, Paul is acting
on behalf of another. This aspect of the letter has been especially stud-
ied by R. Jewett (’Romans’; see n. 2 above). Jewett acknowledges a debt
to Wuellner (’Rhetoric’) in understanding Romans as an epideictic
work. He relies, too, on T. Burgess, ’Epideictic Literature’, Studies in

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
94

Classical Philology 3 (1902), pp. 89-261. On pp. 110-12 Burgess lists the
23 types of the genre that Menander recognized in his Peri Epideik-
n the 19th of them is presbeutikos logos (p. 112), an ambassador’s
;
ō
tik
speech. Although Jewett suggests that ’Romans is a unique fusion of
the ’ambassadorial letter’ with several of the other sub-types in the
genre’ (’Romans’, p. 9), he focuses on the main sub-type and finds,
particularly in the opening (1.1-17) and closing (15.14—16.23) of the let-
ter, a number of features that are characteristic of ’a cautiously
diplomatic letter’ (’Romans’, pp. 12-19; the quotation is from p. 12).
20. S.K. Stowers (
The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans
[SBLDS, 57; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981]) makes well the connec-
tion between Paul’s, use of the diatribe style in Romans and his func-
tion as a teacher. Stowers’s conclusions stand despite the fact that in
this letter Paul’s self-designation is apostolos (1.1), that he terms his
duty to the Gentiles euangelisasthai (1.15) and k & emacr; (10.8), and
ryssein
that there is in Romans no vocabulary denoting ’teacher’, ’school’, or
’pupils’.
21. From 2.17 onwards it is clear that ch. 2 as a whole relates to Jew-
ish attitudes, but this is not evident at the start of the chapter, so the
immediate rhetorical effect would have been that all readers who had
reacted with horror to the behavior detailed in 1.18-32 would have felt
themselves included in 2.1.
22. See e.g. C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans (2 vols.; ICC n.s.; Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 1975), I, pp. 138-39.
23. In addition to ten verbs with a first person plural subject (in vv. 1,
2, 3, 9,10,11), there are three possessive adjectives (vv. 1, 5, 11) and five
pronouns (vv. 5, 6, 8) that refer to ’us’.
24. The justification of which Paul writes in 3.21-26 is for ’all who
believe’; in marked contrast to Rom. 5.1-11, there is no use of the first
person plural in this part of Romans 3. Correspondingly, pantes is not
found in 5.1-11.
25. Prior to 5.1-11, Paul set up his tentative relationship with his
readers in the exordium (1.1-15), as noted above. In what followed, the
first person plural was used a number of times but did not convey the
strong sense ofa group consisting of Paul and Roman believers that is
found in 5.1-11 and (therefore) thereafter. Thus, in 3.9, the subject of
proechometha is probably ’we Jews’ (see e.g. Cranfield, Romans, I,
pp. 137, 188, and O. Michel,Der Brief an die Römer [MeyerK, 4; 4th
edn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966], pp. 97, 98). Other-
wise, the subject of first,. person plural
verbs before 5.1 is either general
and equivalent to ’one’ (as in ti eroumen? [3.5], oidamen [3.19], and ti
oun eroumen? in 4.1) or is Paul himself, a kind of authorial plural
which, in these particular instances, is unlikely to have involved the
readers to any significant degree ēblasph phasin tines
(
moumetha,
ē legein, poi
h
mas &
s omacr; in 3.8;
and
ē
men tiasametha
ē
pro in 3.9; logi-.
zometha in 3.28, katargoumen and histanomenin 3.31). The exception
is 4.24-25 where, however, justification is still being regarded as in the
future, as the expression mellei logizesthai shows (v. 24).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
 95

26. Paul does, of course, revert to this sort of language at the end of
the letter: see 15.14-16.23.
27. The thirteen verbs are: eroumen and epimen men (v. 1);
ō
apethanomen and somen men (v. 3 [2x]; syne-
ē (v. 2); ebaptisth
z ē
men and ē
ē
taph s omacr; (v. 4); gegonamen and esometha (v. 5);
peripat
&
men
apethacnomen, pisteuomen, and syz somen (v. 8). Three equivalent
ē
expressions occur in v. 6: ho pakaios n &h
m
emacr; anthr
omacr; pos synestaur
ō ;
ē
th
ō
hina katarg
th to ma
ē ē hamartiets; tou keti
ō s
s t ē douleuein mas
m ē
h
ē harmartia. Even if the initial eroumen (6.1) is the author’s
t
reflection, cast in the first person plural (see also Rom. 4.1), it still
serves to invite, Paul’s readers over to his side. All the other verbs and
expressions in this list refer unambiguously to the action or experi-
ence of the group designated ’we’.
28. Michel, Römer, p. 148.
29. See K.H. Rengstorf, ’Paulus und die älteste römische Christen-
heit’, SE II (TU, 87; Berlin: Akademie, 1964), pp. 447-64, p. 458, ’Die
Taufe ist für das gesamte Urchristentum, Paulus eingeschlossen, das
Unmittelbarste und Persönlichste, was einem Menschen widerfahren
kann—so unmittelbar und persönlich wie das eigene Sterben’.
30. The question of whether Paul’s use of the first person plural is
part of his wider unifying intention belongs to the area of ’theological
bridging’: see Section 1 above.
31. They are men ō and esmen.
s
ē
hamart
32. The only exception here is the parenthetical v. 19a, in which Paul
speaks briefly of himself, anthr
pinon leg
ō ...
ō
33. The relevant words and constructions are: men ō
s
ē
karpophor
(7.4); ē sai (referring to ’our bodily members’) (v.
men and karpophor
ē
men, kateichometha, and ste
5); kat
th
rg
ē ō douleuein mas
h ē (v. 6).
h
In 7.4 the switch from the second person plural to the first comes with
ō This develops ideas from the preceding section,
s
ē
karpophor
men.
especially 6.21-22, but connects too with Paul’s fundamental hope
expressed in 1.13: that he might ’have fruit’ ( ō) also among
karpon sch
the Romans.
Note, too, in 7.1 Paul’s first use of adelphoi since 1.13. Verse 4 con-
tains the stronger adelphoi mou. He will subsequently use such forms
of address in 8.12; 10.1; 11.25; 12.1; 15.14, [30]; 16.17.
34. They occur in 8.4 (en min ē tois... peripatousin); 8.12 (
h opheiletai
esmen); 8.15 ); krazomen 8.16-17 (esmen tekna/kl
( ronomoi, sympa-
ē
); 8.23 ē
schomen, and syndoxasth
men
ō (
&
n
n...
t aparch echontes,
emacr;
ē stenazomen ... apekdechomenoi); 8.24 ō
h
...
meis es 8.26
(
);
men
ē
th
proseux oidamen); 8.28 (oidamen); 8.31 (ti oun eroumen?);
ō
(
metha,
8.36 ( ; 8.37 ō
thanatoumetha, elogisth
men)
ē hypernik See also the
(
).
men
sustained first person plural reference of 8.31-39.
35. The possible exception is the ti oun eroumen? in 8.31, which, like
the occurrences of the same or an equivalent expression in 3.5; 4.1;
and 6.1, could have a general reference. However, in view of the con-
centration of Paul on the Christian group in ch. 8, a general reference
in 8.31 is not very likely.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015
96

ē in 10.8, of which the subject is obviously

36. Apart from ryssomen
k
Paul himself, the only expression containing verbs with a first person
plural subject in Rom. 9-11 is the evidently rhetorical ti oun eroumen?
that occurs in 9.14, 30.
37. Words of the dik ē group are used to translate the OT sedeq and
cognates. For dikaios, BAGD offer ’of men upright, just,righteous,
like saddîq conforming to laws of God and man, and living in accor-
=

dance with them’. The semantic field of these words is (at least
metaphorically) legal, even though Rom. 5.8 makes it clear that the
driving force behind God’s action was divine love, and vv. 6-8 show that
Christ’s act of dying was anything but what the beneficiaries deserved.
38. The primary meaning here is the passive, ’hated’, which fits the
context better than the active sense. As F.L. Godet noted (Commentary
on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [2nd edn; New York: Funk and

Wagnalls, 1899], p. 195), ’the enmity must above all belong to him to
whom the wrath is attributed’. Nevertheless, the active meaning
should not be excluded entirely, for the echthroi are synonymous with
the hamart
loi of v. 8 and, as Rom. 1.18-3.23 has established, they are
ō
without doubt rebellious.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 23, 2015