Article contents
What Shall We Say that Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Extract
In Romans 4 Paul appealed to the precedent of the patriarch Abraham to argue three points on the basis of the Jewish scriptures. First, righteousness was reckoned to Abraham because of his faith and not because of his observance of the law (Rom 4:1–8); second, righteousness was reckoned to Abraham before Abraham's circumcision (4:9–12); and third, God's promise to Abraham and his “seed” came through faith, not through the Mosaic Law (4:13–17a). All three points are based on Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6 and closely related texts. Paul appealed to Abraham in order to show that Abraham was meant to be the father not only of the circumcised but also of the uncircumcised (Rom 4:11–12,16–17). Paul also insisted that what was written about Abraham was meant not only for Abraham but also for those who believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (4:23–25).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1995
References
1 Abraham also appears in 2 Cor 11:22. See Berger, Klaus, “Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen,” MThZ 17 (1966) 47–89Google Scholar.
2 For example, the Galatians' experience of the Holy Spirit is through faith and not through observance of the law (Gal 3:1–5); the justification of the Gentiles is through faith and not through observance of the law (Gal 3:6–14); their inheritance is through the promise and not through the law (Gal 5:15–18); their sonship or inheritance is through faith and baptism and not through the law (Gal 3:26–4:11); their relationship with Paul was established through their faith and not through their observance of the law (Gal 4:12–20); the Galatian Christians are heirs as sons of the free woman (Sarah) and not as sons of the slave woman (Hagar) (Gal 4:21–31).
3 See Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 146–48Google Scholar.
4 The hermeneutical principle of ה05D5;ש הרזב (“equal ordinance”) is the second of Hillel's seven rules (חו05DA;מ) (t. Sank. 7.11 [Zuckermandel 427]; introduction to Sifra [Weiss 3a]; Abot R. Nat. A 37 [Schechter 110]). See Strack, Herman Leberecht and Stemberger, Gunter, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 20–21Google Scholar. The situation, however, is more complicated than it seems at first. In quoting Deut 27:26 and Deut 21:23, Paul used the identical word for “cursed” in both places (ὲπικατάρατος). In the LXX, however, ὲπικατάρατος is found only in Deut 27:26; Deut 21:23 has κεκαταραμένος. The words for “cursed” are also different in the Masoretic Text (ךךא in Deut 27:26; חלקin Deut 21:23). Paul may have been quoting from memory, or he may have changed κεκαταραμένος to ἐπικατάτάρατος to make his point.
5 For the association of Deut 21:23 with crucifixion, see 4QpNah 3–4 i 7–8 and 1 lQTemplea 66.11–13. See also Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” To Advance the Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 125–46Google Scholar.
6 From its context in Galatians, the promise made to Abraham included all of the blessings Paul mentioned, especially those in Gal 3:14, that is, the reception of the promise of the Spirit through faith by the Gentiles. See Betz, Galatians, 156.
7 What this common legal practice actually was, however, is not clear. In Greek and Roman law a testament could be changed at any time. Paul may be referring to a specifically Jewish institution (אירב תגתמ) that could not be changed. How widespread was that institution? See Betz, Galatians, 155–56; Selb, Walter, “Διαθήκη im Neuen Testament: Randbemerkungen eines Juristen zu einem Theologenstreit,” JJS 25 (1974) 183–96.Google Scholar
8 Sir 44:21; Jub. 12.24; 13.4, 19–21; 14.5,7, 13, 18; 15.9–10, 19; 16.17–10,26,28; 18.15– 16; 19.21–25; 21.22, 25; 3 Mace. 6:3; lQapGen 21.10, 12; Pss. Sol. 9.9; 18.3; 4 Ezra 3:15; Ps-Philo 18.5; 23.5; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.203; Her. 8, 86, 313–14; T. Abr. 2.6; 8.7 [Recension A]; Apoc. Abr. 20.5; T. Mos. 3.9.
9 For a discussion of this difficult passage, see Betz, Galatians, 238–52.
10 On the notion of Ishmael persecuting Isaac, see Josephus Ant. 1.12.3 § 215; t. Sota 6.6 (Zuckermandel 304); Gen. R. 53.11; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 22:1. For a discussion, see Betz, Galatians, 250–51.
11 Five of the first six persons in Rome whom Paul greets (Rom 16:3–7) can be plausibly connected with Ephesos (Prisca, Aquila, Epaenetus, Andronicus, and Junia). Prisca and Aquila are placed in Ephesos in 1 Cor 16:19; Acts 18:26 (see also 2 Tim 4:19). Paul described Epaenetus in Rom 16:5 as the “first fruits in Asia for Christ.” Ephesos is in the province of Asia, and the fact that Paul mentions Epaenetus immediately after Prisca and Aquila suggests he was connected with them. Paul described Andronicus and Junia in Rom 16:7 as his “fellow prisoners.” Since Paul was probably imprisoned at some point in his stay at Ephesos (Phil 1:7,12–14; Phlm 23; Col 4:10), Andronicus and Junia may also have been from Ephesos. There was a good deal of travel, then, by early Christians between Ephesos and Rome. Since Paul probably wrote his epistle to the Galatians from Ephesos in 53–54 CE, it is easy to see how Roman Christians would have been aware of the contents of Galatians and the problems it may have created. For the question of the relationship of Ephesos and Rome to the textual history of Romans, see Harry Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Studies and Documents 42; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977). Gamble convincingly shows the integrity of Romans 1–16 and that it was originally addressed to Rome (pp. 56–95).
12 Parallels between Rom 3:21–31 and Rom 4:1–25:
13 I base this division of Romans 4 partly on literary cues and partly on considerations of content. Rom 4:1–8 and 9–12 each begin with a question (4:1, 9), which is then answered in the following verses (4:2–8, 10–12). Rom 4:13–17a deal with the promise to Abraham's seed and how it is mediated. While Rom 4:17b–22 are loosely connected to Rom 4:17a grammatically, their concern is not the promise or its mediation but a dramatic retelling of part of the Abraham story in order to bring out the depth of Abraham's faith as well as its similarity to the faith of believers in Jesus. Rom 4:22 quotes Gen 15:6 to conclude Paul's interpretation of this verse. Rom 4:23–25 explicitly applies the interpretation to the typologically similar situation of believers in Christ. This division of Romans 4 is basically that found in commentaries on Romans. With some variation see the following: Sanday, William and Headlam, Arthur C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 97–118Google Scholar; Dunn, James D. G., Romans 1–8 (WBC 38a; Dallas: Word, 1988) 198, 226–41Google Scholar; Wilkens, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer (3 vols.; EKKNT 6; Zürich/Einsiedeln/Cologne: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–82) 1. 260–85Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–79) 1. 103Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, Joseph A. S.J., Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 369–92.Google Scholar
14 There are two issues connected with Rom 4:1. The first concerns εύρηκέναι. Some manuscripts (א*, A, C*, 81, 365, 1506, and the Coptic versions) place it after ὲροῦμεν; others after ήμῶν (33, 1881, Byz al); and in a few it is not found at all (B, 6, 1739). The most likely solution is that originally εὑρηκέναι stood after έροῦμεν. Were it not originally in the text, it is difficult to explain why any copyist would have added it. In addition, εὑρηκέναι after έροῦμεν makes better sense and has stronger external support. The word εὑρηκέναι may have dropped out because of homoeoarkton with έροῦμεν. See Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 509Google Scholar. The second issue concerns the punctuation and translation of Rom 4:1. Hays, Richard B. has argued that Rom 4:1 should be punctuated and translated as follows: “What shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?” (“Have We Found Abraham to be Our Forefather according to the Flesh?” NovT 16 [1985] 76–98)Google Scholar. While tempting, this punctuation and translation awkwardly leave the infinitive εὑρηκὲναι without an expressed accusative subject. This is not the case with the other instances of τί ὲροῦμεν cited by Hays (Rom 3:5; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30). Other problems with Hays's position are cited by Dunn, Romans 1–8, 199.
15 It was not uncommon in Jewish literature of this period to see Abraham already as an observer of the law (Sir 44:20; 2 Bar. 57.1–2; Philo Abr. 276). Abraham's observance of the law is a recurring theme in Jub. 11.14–23.7.
16 A number of Jewish texts highlight Abraham's faith or trust in God (for example. Sir 44:19; 1 Mace 2:52; 2 Mace 1:2; Ps.-Philo 23.5). This is especially the case with Philo of Alexandria (Spec. Leg. 3.228; Deus 4; Mig. 43–44,132; Her. 14,90–93,96–99; Mut. 181–87,201–02; Praem. 49; QG 3.2,58; 4.17). In Sir 44:19 and 1 Mace 2:52 Abraham's faith seems to be connected with the story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. More commonly, as in Paul, this interpretation of Abraham is connected with Gen 15:6 (1 Mace 2:52; Ps.-Philo 23.5; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.228; Mig. 43–44; Her. 90–93,96–99; Mut. 181–87; QG 3.2) or with the story of God's promise of a child to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18 (Mig. 132; QG 3.56, 58; 4.17). Unlike Paul, however, none of these texts considers significant the fact that Abraham's faith and justification in Gen 15:6 were prior to his circumcision and consequently “apart from the law.”
17 Rom 4:2 is a suppressed enthymeme or rhetorical proof. The full form of the enthymeme would have been: if Abraham were justified by works, he would have something of which to boast before God; but Abraham was justified by faith and not by works; therefore Abraham does not have anything of which to boast before God. Enthymemes were often rooted in syllogisms but were often not expressed in syllogistic form. See Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.13; 2.22.1–3; Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.41.77; Quintilian Inst. 5.14.24–26.
18 Bell. 5.9.4 § 380.
19 The phrase κατὰ σάρκα in Rom 4:1 does not have a negative connotation. The same is true of its use in Rom 1:3; 9:5. For another view, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 199.
20 While one should not make too much of it, it may also have been important for Paul that Ps 32:11 spoke of the righteous (δί καιοι) boasting or exulting (καυχᾶσθε) in the Lord. Both of these themes are obviously important in Romans.
21 The use of τοῖς in both Rom 4:12b and 12c indicates that Paul was writing about two separate groups (that is, Jews and Gentiles) and not simply about one group (Jews only). Grammatically Rom 4:12bc stand in a chiastic parallelism with Rom 4:11b–12a depending on Rom 4:11, rather than as a phrase depending on Rom 4:12a. See James Swetnam, “The Curious Crux at Romans 4,12,” Bib 61 (1980) 110–15.
22 See, for example, 2 Bar. 78:4; 4 Bar. 4.10; Pss. Sol. 9.9–10; Ps.-Philo 23.4; 32.1; Josephus Ant. 11.5.7 §169; 14.10.23 §255.
23 “Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations…. Therefore he [God] assured him with an oath that the nations would be blessed through his seed” (Sir 44:19, 21 referring to Gen 17:4–6); “and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by you” (Jub. 12.23); “and you [Abraham] will be the father of many nations” (Jub. 15.6); Abraham's descendants “from whom [were to come] peoples and kings” (QG 3.54 interpreting Gen 17:6); “the multitude of peoples, which are made many through you [Abraham]” (Ps.-Philo 23.7); God revealed to Abraham “how great nations and kings would spring from him [Isaac]… Abraham then inquiring concerning Ishmael also, whether he was to live, God made known to him that he would live to an advanced age and become the father of great nations” (Josephus Ant. 1.9.5 §§191–93 on Gen 17:1–8, 11–22); God “foretold that their race would swell into a multitude of nations, with increasing wealth, nations whose founders would be had in everlasting remembrance” (Ant. 1.14.4 §235 on Gen 22:15–18). Jewish views of Abraham's relationship to non-Jewish peoples, however, are complex. Several texts emphasize Abraham as a culture-bringer, especially as a teacher of astrology to the Egyptians and Phoenicians (Artapanus, Frag. 1 [Eusebius Praep. Evang. 9.18.1]; Pseudo-Eupolemus [Eusebius Praep. Evang. 9.17.3–4,8]; Jub. 11.18–24; Josephus Ant. 1.8.2 §§167–68). Many texts claim that Abraham is the ancestor of particular Gentile peoples: Moab and Ammon (Ant. 1.11.5 §205–6 [Gen 19:30]); Assyria and Africa (Cleodemus Malchus and Josephus Ant. 1.15 §§238–41; 2.11.1 §257 [Gen 25:1–6, the descendants of Abraham by Keturah]); Arabia and Nabataea (Ant. 1.12.4 §§220–21 [Gen 25:12–15]; Jub. 20.11–13); the Spartans (1 Mace 12:6, 21; 2 Mace 5:9; Ant. 12.1.10 §226; 14.10.22 §255). Paul, however, showed no interest in Abraham either as a culture-bringer or as the ancestor of any particular Gentile people or group of peoples. His interest is in the more general notion that Abraham was the father of many nations and that these nations would prosper or be blessed because of him.
24 In Romans Paul always takes σπέρμα as a collective noun (1:3; 4:13, 16, 18; 9:7–8, 29; 11:1).
25 The selective and dramatic retelling of biblical stories was quite common in Jewish literature of this period. For examples of such selective retelling of stories about Abraham, see Jub. 11.14–23.7; 1QapGen 18–22; Ps.-Philo 6.1–8.14; Testament of Abraham;Philo De Abrahamo; Josephus Ant. 1.6.5–17 §§151–256; and Apocalypse of Abraham.
26 The exact sense of the phrase καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα in Rom 4:17b is problematic. Simply taking the phrase ὡς ὄντα to mean “as if they existed” makes no sense in this context. It is better to take the phrase as an elliptical consecutive clause (“so that they exist”). For phrases with similar meaning, see 2 Bar. 21.4; 48.8.
27 1 Cor 9:9–10; 10:11.
28 Rom 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15; 2 Cor 4:14; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 1 Pet 1:21. See Cranfield, Romans, 251.
29 The formula seems to have been based on Isa 52:13–53:12.
30 For the traditional character of Rom 3:25–26a, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 163, 170–76, 180–82; Wilkens, Römer, 1. 190–201. For the opposing view that Rom 3:25–26a are Pauline, see Cranfield, Romans, 200–218.
- 4
- Cited by