Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: moon AT mail.sogang.ac.kr
  • To: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>, "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The logic connection between Rom 4:1-8and 9
  • Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:36:51 +0900

Thanks, Harold for your comments. I do not necessarily believe
what I am arguing below. I argue for the sake of argument, and want
to see where it is going.


[Moon]
> >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.
>

=> [Moon] Why? Even if we take OUN to mean "then", 4:9a would mean:

Given what was said in the previous paragraph, what can we say, then?
Can we say that this blessing is only on the circumcised or also to
the uncircumcised?

If verse 9 is simply the beginning of a new paragraph, why does it begin
with OUN?




> >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.
=> Please see below for the implication of this agreement.
>> >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.
>

=> [MM] The issue of "only the circumcised or the uncircumcised as well"
runs from Rom 3:27 to the end of chapter 4. So, I am not retroactively
inserting this category 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.

=> [MM] In the same way, when the Jewish people thought of Abraham,
they would have thought that Abraham did works of Torah,
and was justified as a member of Israel. So, it was meaningful
for Paul to argue that Abraham was not justified from works of Torah.


> 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.
>


Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Dept of Media Technology
Graduate School of Media Comm
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea





  • Re: Re: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The logic connection between Rom 4:1-8and 9, moon, 04/05/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page