Romans: A Visual and Textual Guide
High Definition Commentary: Romans (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014)
Steven E. Runge


Introduction


How Is the High Definition Commentary Different?

What you are about to read is derived from a rigorous discourse analysis of the Greek text of Romans. Discourse analysis doesn’t look just at what is said, but how it’s said. By looking at how Paul phrased things in Greek, we can see the progression of his thoughts. The phrasing of every sentence in the New Testament presupposes decisions about communication—the same kinds of decisions we make every day.

In this commentary, I lead you through the linguistic devices Paul used and show what we can learn from them. It’s a guided tour of the Greek text—highlighting important issues without getting into all of the nitty-gritty details.


Why I Wrote This Commentary

Commentaries either give you the big picture or all the detail. But I think what most of us really want is a commentary that gives the details we need without losing sight of the big picture. That’s what this commentary strives for.

In the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the Lexham High Definition New Testament, I annotated the significant discourse devices that aid us in biblical interpretation. These volumes have one drawback: They place the responsibility on you to synthesize the data into a cohesive analysis. In this volume, I synthesize the conclusions that can be drawn from my analysis of Romans and make them easy to understand.

Discourse studies have a reputation for complexity. Some joke that it rivals nuclear fission or brain surgery. But here’s a secret: As a speaker of any language, you actually know a lot more about discourse devices than you might imagine. We rarely think about these issues—we just do what makes most sense to communicate our message.


The Power of Discourse Analysis

Choice implies meaning. If I choose to say something this way as opposed to that way, I must have a reason for doing so. While my analysis of the Greek New Testament and descriptions of discourse devices in the Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament equipped me to write this commentary, I do not claim to know what Paul was thinking or what he had in mind as he wrote. Instead, I operate on the assumption that our use of language is based on our communication objectives. If we use a particular device that usually accomplishes a certain effect, then we can assume the biblical writers used language in the same way. Context is the final arbiter.

Most commentaries provide the scholar’s interpretive conclusions using statements like “Paul is doing [fill in the blank] here.” They give you the conclusion, but they don’t show you how they got there. This commentary helps you understand what is going on under the hood, linguistically speaking.

The primary job of pastors and teachers is exposition: drawing out the meaning of the text so that we can all faithfully apply it to our lives. When I teach, my goal is not just to give you the answers; it’s to teach you how to find the answers. The same is true of this commentary. I will help you understand the flow of Paul’s argument so you can see how the pieces fit together as a whole. I want you to learn how to find answers on your own and be able to teach others—whether in a small group, a Bible study, a class, or in a sermon.


Why Graphics?

Graphics represent ideas well, especially complex ideas. The graphics in this commentary explain the text and help you (and others) retain its meaning.


Explaining

While the graphics in this commentary help you better understand a passage, the real audience for them is the person you are teaching. The slides help you explain key ideas using something other than a translation or a verbal description. They do not replace those resources, but they serve as another tool in your tool belt.


Retaining

Good graphics pay dividends into the future. Visual aids help us correlate and recall information. How many times have your long-forgotten memories been triggered by an old photo? We may not completely understand how the mind works, but visual signposts play a role in retention and recall. Most passages in this commentary have several graphics tied to a key idea. Some break down a complex idea into steps; others present a difficult idea in a new, memorable way.


How to Use the Graphics

As a message closes, there is the inevitable “So what?” question. The slides accompanying this commentary will help you answer that question. The slides can help you do more than just make a point as you are teaching. You can also repeat a graphic used earlier in your message in your conclusion and application. It will not only trigger memories, but it will also help people retain information. The same holds true when you review graphics from previous weeks. Like flashbacks in TV shows, repeating the graphic associated with a key idea will trigger memories. Just a brief glimpse stimulates greater recall than using a verbal summary.


My Goal for This Commentary

I want you to better understand why Paul wrote Romans and how he organized it. I hope doing so changes your life like it has mine.

The electronic edition of the High Definition Commentary: Romans is available for Logos Bible Software and includes ready-to-use versions of all graphics for use in Proclaim, PowerPoint, and Keynote. You’ll find it online at Logos.com/HDRomans.


The Structure of Romans

Based on the content of the book of Romans, we can be sure that Paul wants Roman believers to fully understand the gospel. But then in 1:11–13, he mentions wanting to come and visit the church and to be mutually encouraged. Scholars often disagree about the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans—and it has to do with how he structured his letter.

Paul outlines his first big idea—his desire to visit Rome—in 1:8–10, and supports it in the following verses with his reasons for wanting to visit. From a rhetorical point of view, this supporting information is a digression from the main argument. The main argument doesn’t resume until he signals a return to it. The thing is, Paul doesn’t return to the big idea of his visit until chapter 15.

The first half of Romans 1 consists of one big idea (wanting to visit) followed by a series of supporting motivations. The first is the desire to see them (1:11), and several others follow in verses 16a, 16b, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Each supporting motivation is a digression from the main argument, sidestepping onto an embedded argument line. By the time we reach 1:20, we are a number of steps removed from Paul’s big idea of wanting to visit. In verses 19–20, Paul begins an embedded theme that runs all the way through chapter 4. Romans 5:1 returns to the argument line begun in 1:16–17. Finally, in 15:22 Paul resumes his original big idea of wanting to visit.

The same kind of sidestepping took place when my daughters used to ask me “why” questions when they were younger. “Why is the sky blue, daddy?” “Well, it’s because of the.…” “Why?” “Well, it’s because.…” Each question relates to the one right before it, but the final one has almost no connection to the first. We see the same kind of thing here in Romans when we try to connect Paul’s desire to visit and the wrath of God being revealed.

Another way to think about how these supporting digressions connect to one another is by adding rhetorical questions to make the connections more explicit. Here is a typical series of digressions, presented as though Paul is responding to hypothetical question.

Development of Thought: In the first few verses of the chapter, Paul offers a series of supporting statements that provide a rationale or support for what immediately precedes. The longer the series continues, the further away he moves from the original line of thought. The Greek word introducing these supporting statements is typically translated as “for.” These statements do not advance the current line of thought, but sidestep onto a digression.

One reason it has proven so difficult to identify a single purpose for the book of Romans is how often Paul steps off the main argument line into a supporting digression. There is no single purpose—but there is a hierarchy. I’ll say more about the structuring later in the commentary, but I hope this discussion will give you a general idea of Paul’s organizational strategy.


Why organize this way?

So what motivates Paul to write this letter in the first place? Why structure things so the exposition of the gospel motivates his desire to visit? We have no record that Paul had previously visited Rome, so the people would likely not have known him other than by reputation. This places Paul in an awkward position when it comes to exercising apostolic authority over them. Since he has no personal relationship with the church in Rome, it makes sense that Paul uses a less direct approach than he did in 1 Corinthians or Galatians.

By structuring his letter with all of these motivating digressions, Paul makes his main purpose more palatable to his readers. Instead of focusing on wanting to come and correct wrong notions about the gospel (and the consequences of those notions), his big idea is wanting to visit and be mutually encouraged. All the talk about the gospel is to help the Romans understand why he wants to visit. The same proposal also explains why he leaves out the little detail about wanting their support for the missionary trip to Spain he has planned. There is no mention of this destination until Romans 15:24. Why not? Because without the common ground of a relationship, he could have no expectation that they would respond positively. By first laying out his gospel message and winning over the church with his letter, Paul creates a familiarity with the believers, making them much more likely to support his missionary efforts. His exposition bridges the relational gap that existed between him and his audience.

Romans is an amazingly complex letter, and not just because of its theology. Paul’s lack of a personal relationship with the church appears to have influenced the way he structured his letter. Rather than knocking down the door and plowing ahead—what we might have expected from Paul—we see a kinder, gentler approach. What does this mean practically? We find Paul using indirect approaches, like feigning a lengthy list, apparent misstatements and so on. This indirect approach is seen at lower levels within a sentence and at higher levels in the letter’s structure.