No. 3. >> Thank you for this introduction to the epistles. Is there anything else that we should know about how people in the First Century communicated that would be helpful in understanding the epistles? I know I sometimes agree with the statement in II Peter that Paul's epistles are in some places difficult to understand. >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Well, David, you wouldn't be alone with that feeling. I know often when I read Pauline epistles, I feel the same way. That passage from II Peter that you're referencing is II Peter 3 beginning at Verse 15 where it says at count on the patience of our Lord as salvation just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. And he does in all of his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do the other Scriptures. So here we see Peter write there are some things in them that are hard to understand. And so David, you're not alone in that feeling that often reading Paul's epistles can be very difficult when it comes to simply trying to understand what Paul is saying, what he means, why he's saying it in this way. And David, I would have to admit that in my studies of Paul very often I'll have to sit back and scratch my head and wonder: What is going on here? What is Paul doing? And so David, it's nice to know that there's actually New Testament testimony that we would not be alone in this. But I imagine that those people that are being discussed in II Peter, those people who are twisting what Paul says, it could be that they are taking some statement that Paul has made, perhaps Paul's declaration of grace and twisting it to defend their own position. Paul himself addresses people that have taken his words and then used grace as a defense for living in open sin. And Paul would say that those people are twisting what he said. Nevertheless, very often Paul's argumentation can be very dense and when you look at the whole scope of the letter, it may be kind of difficult to understand what exactly is Paul doing right here in this specific context. And so anything that could help us better understand how Paul is writing and how he is arguing and making his case would be very beneficial. And so here, David, I would like to introduce a -- the topic of rhetorical criticism. Now, David, rhetorical criticism is a specific field in biblical studies where the scholars look at how biblical authors through their use of language attempt to persuade and convince the readers of the truth of what they are saying. And then beyond that perhaps they try to persuade and convince the readers to change their course of life. To do what the authors are asking them to do. Now, considering that an epistle is a written correspondence by which one person tries to speak directly and almost immediately to another person or group of people who nevertheless live at a distance, we then should be aware that very often in the epistle, people will be trying not to just, communicate information to communicate ideas. But very often to persuade. To convince the recipients. So that they would think differently. And then maybe act differently. And so this is one purpose of rhetoric. Rhetoric is that part of language which tries to in a very artistic way it tries to persuade. It tries to convince. It tries to change attitudes, to bring about a new course of action in the people who are on the hearing or the receiving end. And so it has been proposed by rhetorical critics that the Apostle Paul employed classical Greek rhetorical argumentation and techniques in his epistles. And so that therefore, understanding this would be very helpful for understanding Paul. Now, it can be said that at this time in the First Century AD when Paul wrote, rhetoric had actually become its own unique field of study. So that people would actually go to universities, academies, and study rhetoric the same way today somebody might go and study the law or medicine. And not only was rhetoric an important field of studies in the First Century, it remained so even in the early Christian centuries. And then a lot of ways rhetoric died out in the Middle Ages. But in the age of Renaissance and the Reformation, there was a revival of an interest in the study of the classical rhetorical style. Now, one question that is asked is: Even if rhetoric was a field of study in the First Century, did Paul have any interaction with that field of study? And now the opinions on this vary from both extremes. There are some scholars who would argue that Paul grew up as a boy in Tarsus where there was actually an academy devoted to rhetoric and he may have been influenced by that as a young boy and carried that with him into his adult life. On the other extreme there are the people who would argue that Paul had absolutely no contact or no interaction with the study of rhetoric. And I would say that the truth is probably in the middle. Some scholars believe that Paul actually grew up in the city of Jerusalem, not Tarsus. Nevertheless, because there was this interest in rhetoric in the culture and in the world at that time, it would be hard to believe that an educated person like Paul, even though he was a Jew, would not have any interaction in this field of studies. And so the truth is probably in the middle. That Paul probably never was officially trained in the rhetorical style. Nevertheless, as an educated man, as an educated Jew and also as a Hellenic Jew, a Jew who was very much of the Greek culture, there's a good chance that Paul somewhere in his life interacted with this field of studies. It's in the same way that anyone who has a general good education today will have some familiarity with the sciences of psychology, biology, sociology, that they can converse in a basic and intelligent way in those subjects. In the same way probably Paul had some knowledge of Greek rhetoric. And then very likely that Paul could have employed some of these techniques, some of these tools, especially when he wrote his epistles in an attempt to persuade. Now, we can point out here that in I Corinthians 2 Paul goes out of his way to tell the Corinthian Christians that when he actually preached the Gospel to them, he did not make use of any special argumentation or rhetoric. But he simply presented to them Jesus Christ and him crucified. He just preached the Gospel. So some scholars would say: See, there's the evidence that Paul did not use rhetoric. However, when we actually read his epistles, it's very easy to see that Paul was a very great persuader, a very great debater. He made very good use of arguments of various kinds in his attempts to persuade his recipients to adopt his beliefs and to change their behavior. And we can also note that in the epistles it is very clear that this is exactly what Paul is trying to do. That he is not only trying to teach doctrine, that he's trying to persuade. For instance, consider the epistle to the Galatians. Paul in that epistle is trying to set forth clearly what the Gospel is. He is teaching. At the same time he is trying to convince them that his apostleship is indeed a true apostleship. That he has the authority to teach the Gospel the way he did. And he's trying to persuade the Christians in Galatia to stop listening to the false teachers in their midst and to adopt the pure Gospel that Paul brought to them originally. So Paul is both trying to teach and persuade and change the Galatians beliefs and change their behavior. Consider also I Corinthians. Here Paul is not only teaching on the various subjects such as the gifts of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, the Lord's Supper. But Paul is actually writing to give his opinion, express his thoughts, on certain problems that are dividing the church in Corinth. And he's trying to persuade them to adopt his beliefs. And to change their attitudes. And to change their behavior the way that he dictates. So again, one goal in these epistles is Paul is trying to persuade. And so he uses argumentation. For instance, Paul will use Scripture as a proof text, as evidence to prove the points he's making. You don't believe me? Well, here is what the Scriptures say. Or Paul will often use arguments from everyday life, sometimes legal arguments. In Romans 7 Paul tries to picture our relationship to the law in terms of the example of a woman who is married to her husband. As long as she's married, she's under her husband's authority. As soon as her husband dies, she's free. So in the same way as soon as we have died through baptism, we're free from the law. Paul will also use such an example in the book of Galatians, Chapter 3. Where now he compares our relationship to the law as to an underaged child who is under the supervision of a guardian or a tutor. This child is full heir of all that his father has left him. However, he cannot truly make use of it until he's old enough. So in the meantime, a guardian is placed over him. And Paul explains that this is what the law was to Israel until Jesus came. And so Paul will often give logical examples from everyday life to prove his point. And then sometimes Paul will also make very deep emotional appeals. He does this in Galatians 4 when he reminds the Galatians of how they received him when he first came and preached the Gospel to them. He says that they received him like an angel from God. That they received him like Jesus Christ. Then he asks them: What has changed? Here Paul is actually trying to speak to them on an emotional level and to move them in such a way that they would indeed do what Paul wants and reject those false teachers and go back to the pure Gospel that Paul preached to them originally. And so we can see, David, that Paul does make use of rhetoric. And this would be true I guess whether he was actually educated or formerly knew about Greek rhetoric. And so when we read Paul, David, I think it's often very helpful to look at Paul's arguments. And then to stop and sit back and ask ourself a question: What is Paul trying to do right here? He's making a point. How is he making his point? When we ask those questions we can better understand what's going on as Paul is making his arguments. And then we might also ask the question: How does Paul expect his recipients to hear this, to receive it, what does he want them to think and how does he want them to respond? And when we ask those questions, I think we can better unpack what Paul is doing. And now one benefit of rhetorical criticism is it does ask the Bible reader to ask these kinds of questions when they study the Apostle Paul. Now, I would say talking pastor to future pastor and to someone who is working in the parish, these become very valuable when it comes to preaching on Paul. Because if we know what Paul is trying to do, if we know how he's trying to make his case, what arguments he's using, if we know what he's trying to get his recipients to think and believe and how he wants them to respond, well, David, I would say this almost gives us our own sermon outline when we preach on Paul. We then should try with our own congregation to do the same things. To get them to see the point in the same way. To get them to think along the same terms. To get them to respond in the same way. So very often you might find a sermon outline coming out of your own study of a Pauline pericope when you ask these questions. Now, rhetorical criticism however would go further and they would try to make the case that Paul actually employed the standard techniques and forms of argumentation when he wrote his epistles. And so I would like to mention in particular the work of a scholar by the name of H.D. ***Bets. And what Bets argued was that the letter of Galatians actually corresponds to the six-fold structure of a classic Greek speech. Six things that the orator would do as he makes his case. Bets tries to make the case that this is actually what Paul does in Galatians. And I actually believe that Bets is onto something. So I would like to introduce you to these six -- these six parts of the classic Greek outline. Because I'm going to be referencing them as we study Romans, as well. Okay. Part 1 of the six-part outline would be the introduction or what is technically called the exordium. In the introduction the orator would usually establish the reason and purpose for his letter and speech and then give the recipients the basic theme that he's going to be discussing. Part 2 would be the narration, what was technically called the ***narratio. And in Part 2 the author would narrate the events that are related to the issue at stake. Part 3 would be the proposition. Or what is technically called the ***propositio. And in this third section the author would state the basic propositions that he believes to be true. And then this would be followed by the fourth part, the confirmation. Or the ***provotio where the author would now set forth his arguments to prove the proposition that he has stated. The fifth part, this would often vary from speech to speech or from letter to letter. But the fifth part could be a refutation or what would technically called the refutatio where the author now refutes his opponents, those who disagree with him. But very often especially in Paul's letters this fifth part would be an exhortation or what was technically called the ***exhortatio or what was technically called paranesis. And this would be where the author exhorts his recipients to respond to his arguments in a specific way. To actually do certain things in response to what he has argued. And then finally the sixth part would be the conclusion. Or what was technically called the ***paratio. And here the author would review his arguments, review how he has called for his recipients to respond. And then he would close out his speech or close out his letter. Now, I make mention of these six parts because I believe that these six parts are evident in some way not only in the letter of Galatians but also in the book of Romans. And as we study the book of Romans, I will sometimes refer back to this six-part outline of the classical Greek speech which I believe that Paul actually was making use of when he wrote the letter to the Galatians and when he wrote the letter to the Romans. At the same time this classic six-part outline is not present in every single one of Paul's epistles. So I wouldn't want you to go and think: Well, I can look for all six of these things in I Corinthians for instance. In I Corinthians I think Paul is actually addressing specific concerns one by one until he reaches the end of the epistle. However, I do think that both Galatians and Romans exhibit this classic six-part outline. Now just one other issue to bring up not related to Paul. But Dr. Charles Arand who teaches in the Lutheran Confessions, has tried to make the case that Philipp Melancthon when he wrote the apology to the Augsburg Confession actually follows this six-part rhetorical structure. The six parts that I've outlined. And then Dr. Arand tries to show and tries to teach people how to read the apology according to what Melancthon is doing. How he was arguing by stating his theme, narrating the events that relate. Making the proposition. Proving his proposition. And then finally as we see in the apology refuting those who believe contrary. And so very interesting we find rhetorical arguments being made by Paul. And in the same way Philipp Melancthon writes and tries to make his case to the apology of the Augsburg Confession.