Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The logic connection between Rom 4:1-8 and 9

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: moon AT mail.sogang.ac.kr, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The logic connection between Rom 4:1-8 and 9
  • Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:38:29 -0500

Hi, Harold,

could you tell us why the second reading is more reasonable?

Doesn't Paul state 4:9b-10 as if the answer to the question 9a is obvious,
that is, is "to the uncircumcised as well"? The connective OUN in 4:9a
may be taken to mean "therefore" (strong connection) or "then" (less strong
connection). If we take OUN to mean "therefore", then we can take
the question 4:9a to be a rhetorical question.

HH: I don't think "therefore" makes much sense here. Verses 1-8 do not naturally lead up to the question in verse 9. Rather, verse 9 is the beginning of a new paragraph. This is the way that NIV and HCSB treat it.

So, I would like to listen to your argument for the second reading.

HH: earlier you wrote:

The question of Rom 4:9a is important to understand Rom 4:

This blessing, then - is it given (only) to the circumcised or
to the uncircumcised also?

This question reminds us of the question of 3:29:
Or, is God the God of Jews only? not the God of Gentiles also?

It indicates that the issue Paul addresses in Rom 4:1-9 is quite
similar to the issue Paul addresses in Rom 3:27-31.

HH: It could.

Anyway, my question is how this question is logically connected to the previous
paragraph 4:1-8. I can think of two ways to link 4:9a to the previous
paragraph. I would like to hear comments about each.

(1) The first key to interpretation is to ask:
Is 4:9a a rhetorical question or a genuine question?

HH: I think it's somewhere in between. While one might expect, on the basis of 3:30, that this blessing would be on the uncircumcision, it is possible for God to give blessings to the circumcision and not to the uncircumcision. So there might be some uncertainty. And even if the blessing is on both circumcision and uncircumcision, one might ask how that came about or could be?

Suppose that 4:9a is a rhetorical question. Then
it means that the paragraph of 4:1-8 implies
the answer "also to the uncircumcised" to the question. Then, we can
reasonably assume that by "EX ERGWN" (from works) and "CWRIS ERGWN"
(apart from works), Paul refers to the works of Torah, which can be
done only by the Jews who possess Torah.

HH; It is not obvious that Paul refers to the Torah. Abraham did not have the Torah, which was given after his time. So no one would think of the Torah in reference to him.

If both Abraham and David (or the person whom he refers to) were
justified apart from works of Torah, which only the uncircumcised [do you mean "circumcised"?]
can perform, it would imply that the blessing of justification
is given to the circumcised (represented by David) and to the uncircumcised
as well (represented by Abraham).

HH: Paul only introduces these categories in verse 9, so there's no special reason to try to retroactively insert them into verses 1-8.

Rom 4:9b-10 confirms or explain the answer "also to the uncircumcised",
implicit in the paragraph 4:1-8, by means of a clearer argument.

HH: Paul really introduces the topic of circumcised and uncircumcised in verse 9 (although it was mentioned in 3:30), and deals with it in the following verses. It is not obvious at all that Abraham should be thought of an uncircumcised. He was the father of the Jewish people and the first one who practiced circumcision. So when one thought of Abraham, one would naturally think of him in terms of circumcision. But Paul argues that when righteousness was reckoned to him he was still uncircumcied. That is a thought many, or perhaps most, people might not have apart from Paul bringing it up.

(2) Suppose that 4:9a is a genuine question, whose answer is not implied
in the paragraph 4:1-8 or vaguely implied in it.
Then 4:9b-10 provides the answer to the question. In this case,
"not from works" or "apart from works" does not necessarily
imply that the blessing is also given to the uncircumcised.
That claim should be further argued. Then we do not have
to assume that by "EX ERGWN" (from works) and "CWRIS ERGWN"
(apart from works), Paul refers to the works of Torah, which can be
performed only by the Jews.

HH: Paul introduces the topic in verse 9 and then deals with it in the following verses. Once one realizes that Abraham can be considered as a representative of the uncircumcised, due to 4:10 or 4:10-24, then one can go back to 4:1-8 and think of him there in terms of an uncircumcised person. But otherwise one would not naturally do so.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page