Corpus-Paul

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

> 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