Scholars have attempted to identify enthymemes in Pauline letters. According to Harper’s (1973) study on Aristotle’s enthymemes, an enthymeme is any “argument containing a claim and reasons to support the claim” (Harper, 1973:309). Enthymeme is “an assertion supported by another statement” (Debanne, 2006:29). While scholars debate over whether enthymeme has unstated premises, Antoine C. Braet (1999), after investigating Aristotle’s rhetoric, concluded that one of the defining features of enthymeme in Aristotle’s rhetoric is implicit premises. Particularly, he argued, such a feature stands out in an oratorical situation and is “always characterized by the omission of those parts of the argument which are known to the audience and which they can fill in for themselves… [therefore] at least one extra premise must be assumed …[which] can be reconstructed by means of Aristotelian forms of Argument” (Braet, 1999:107–108).
Marc J. Debanne (2006) investigated enthymemes in the letter of Paul. He adduced Rom 13:8-10 as one of the evidences for the existence of enthymemes in the letter of Paul (Debanne, 2006:183). He identifies the following syllogism:
Major premise: Any principle which prohibits wronging a neighbour fulfils the Law. Minor premise: The love principle prohibits wronging a neighbour (Rom 13:10a). Conclusion: The love principle fulfils the Law (13:10b).
Although Debanne’s identification of enthymeme in 13:8-10 has contributed to the analysis of the textual unit, it does omit other unstated premises that are working in the argumentation process. Further, ‘any principle’ in the major premise seems to go beyond Paul’s context of argument, and it cannot be adduced from the letter itself. Instead, Paul formulates his thesis with one rationale and two supporting reasons:
Thesis: Love one another (13: 8b)
Rationale: for [any Jesus follower] who loves the other has fulfilled the Law (13:8c) Reason 1: for “love your neighbour as yourself” summarises the Law (13:9b) Reason 2: [for] love does not do wrong to a neighbour (13:10a)
Conclusion: Therefore, love fulfils the Law (13:10b)
The rationale and the two supporting reasons to be true must have unstated assumptions. For instance, Paul reasons, “any Jesus follower who loves the other has fulfilled the Law.” But he has never stated the
97
reason for the introduction of the Law in the injunction of love. The diagram on page 101 maps Paul’s reasons and probable assumptions and conclusion. The assumptions are crucial to understanding why Paul is insisting on loving one another and its connection to the fulfilment of the Law. Three assumptions are discernible: 1) Jesus followers should fulfil the Law; 2) all the commandments of the Law are about doing right to a neighbour; 3) all the commandments of the Law prohibit doing wrong to a neighbour. Each assumption will be discussed below:
3.4.2.1 Assumption # 1: Jesus followers should fulfil the Law
The verse, “for [any Jesus follower] who loves the other has fulfilled the Law” (13:8c) functions as a ground for the injunction of love. Particularly, γὰρ, according to Robbins (1996a), introduces the rationale as the basis or proof of the thesis. Cranfield (1975:676) proposes two alternatives for the purpose of γὰρ in 13:8c: either as reason or explanation. Still, one can also think of it as “result.” However, whether γὰρ introduces a reason, an explanation, or a result, no significant difference exists in terms of its function so long as it is a ground for Paul’s claim. Cranfield’s (1975:676) reading of γὰρ as explanation of the impossibility of paying the debt of love is entirely unconvincing. Firstly, Paul is not discussing the impossibility of loving the other insofar as he believes that love is a gift from God through the Spirit (5:1-3). Reading love as an unpayable debt is a long standing conviction since the patristic period but Murray (1959:156) rejects such reading arguing for its practicability. Secondly, the injunction of love presupposes the existence of love within the believing community and Paul warns them not to pretend it (12:9). Thirdly, Cranfield’s reason is based on theological commitment that if γὰρ is providing reason, then there will be theological inconstancy for no one can fulfil the Law. Such reading dismisses what Paul has been arguing and developing in the previous section of the letter. Paul already argued for the reason why it was impossible to keep the Law and the solution to the problem in chapters 7 and 8 of the letter. For Paul, it is possible to keep the Law in the realm of the Spirit. Therefore, it is impossible to downplay the importance of the Law because of theological predilection.
If 13:8c is a proof of the thesis, then why does fulfilling the Law become the basis for the thesis? No explicit answer is provided. Nevertheless, there must be a solid ground for Paul to claim that fulfilling the Law to be a reason for carrying out the injunction of love. First, fulfilling the Law is the big question in the letter; therefore, it connects to the previous discussions of the letter. Particularly, it functions as an answer to Paul’s insistence that the believing community upholds the Law (3:31) and fulfils the righteous requirements of the Law (8:4-8). Wright (2002:724) also perceives that 13:8-10 looks back to 2:17-29
98
just as 12:1-2 looks back to 1:18-32. Paul’s goal is to bring the obedience of faith for the sake of his [Jesus] name among all the nations (1:5). Yet, those who do not obey the Law are a cause for the blaspheming of God’s name among the Gentiles (2:24). Those who are in the flesh do not submit to God’s Law therefore cannot please God (8:7), but the Jesus followers are called to seek what is pleasing God (12:1-2). Such background discussion of the Law elucidates that the Jesus followers are expected to fulfil the requirements of the Law, although Paul did not explicitly state it, he used fulfilling the Law as a reason for loving one another. Without the assumption that the Jesus followers should fulfil the requirement of the Law, fulfilling of the Law cannot be a ground for Paul’s claim for loving the other.
3.4.2.2 Assumption # 2: All the commandments of the Law are about doing right to a neighbour
Γὰρ again occurs in 13:9a providing a reason for the summation of the second table commandments and the other commandments, which in turn serves as motivation for the rationale. Paul lists only four prohibiting commandments: no adultery, no killing, no stealing, no coveting, but he omits the fifth one - no lying. Nygren (1949:434) wrongly concludes that the Law is always characterized by negative quality prohibiting and straining sin. Nonetheless, the fourth and the fifth commandments, “keep the Sabbath” and “honour your parents”, are positive commands. Likewise, Paul summarises the commandments with a positive commandment from Lev 19:18 “love your neighbour as yourself.” Fredrikson (2014:803) has shown that the second table of the ten commandment is about justice towards others. Justice is doing right towards the other. Similarly, love, though not in the Ten Commandments, is one of the commandments of the Law that apparently speaks of the right relationship towards the other. Paul is not reasoning to supplant the Law with Love. Instead, he is building his case that loving one another will allow the Jesus followers to fulfil the Law. Love is a term that Paul uses to designate the application of Law-recommended actions towards a neighbour. In his summary of the Law, his unstated premise is that all the commandments of the Law are about doing right to a neighbour that can be expressed in the language of love with the Law being its content.
99
3.4.2.3 All the commandments of the Law prohibit doing wrong to a neighbour
Paul’s second reason “love does no wrong to a neighbour” is not introduced by γὰρ but it stands as a reason to support the first rationale. However, it is closely connected to “love your neighbour as yourself.” It explains what it means to love a neighbour as oneself: it is not doing wrong to a neighbour. If this is granted, then the Law delineates what wrongdoing is. Since loving a neighbour summarises the Law because loving a neighbour means not doing wrong to a neighbour, then the assumption goes: the Law prohibits doing wrong to a neighbour. Paul does not explicitly state this but assumes that his readers know it from his argument; not least because he lists the specific commandments that prohibit evil.
Love one another Thesis statement:
For, any Jesus follower who loves the other has fulfilled the Law( 13:8c) Stated reason:1
For, "Love your neighbour as yourself" summrizes the Law (13: 9a) Stated reason:2
[for] Love does not do wrong (13:10)
Stated reason:3
Therefore, love fulfills the Law ( 13:10b)
Conclusion
All the commandments of the law prohibit doing wrong to a neighbour
Unstated Assumption
All the second table of the commandments of the Law are about
doing right to a neighbour
Unstated Assumption The church in Rome should fulfill the
Law
100