[JSNT 65 (1997) 47-66) ABRAHAM'S FAITH AND GENTILE DISOBEDIENCE: TEXTUAL LINKS BETWEEN ROMANS | AND 4* Edward Adams Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Kings College, London A number of scholars have detected in Rom. 4.20 a backward reference to 1.21.! Paul’s comment in 4.20 that Abraham “gave glory to God’ {800g S6Eav tH Ged) recalls his earlier statement in 1.21 that the Gentiles refused to glorify God (yvdvteg tov Gedv ody ae Bedv €80Eaoav). The effect of this textual linkage, in the flow of Paul's developing argument, is to suggest a contrast between Abraham’s faith and the Gentiles’ failure. Abraham, in his trustful response to God, did precisely what the disobedient Gentiles of Rom. |.18-32 declined to do. * Ancarly version of this article was given as a paper at a research seminar at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King's College, London. f am grateful for the helpful feedback J received on that occasion. | would also like to thank Dr John M.G. Barclay and Dr Francis B. Watson for their careful reading of the earlier draft and for their valuable suggestions. 1. See C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Episile to the Romans, | (London: A. & C. Black, 1957), p. 98: B. Byme, Inheriting the Earth (Homebush, NSW: ‘St Paul Publications, 1990), pp. 56-57; C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1975), p. 249: J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC, 38a; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), pp. 221, 238; J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 388; E. Kisemann, Commentary on Ramuns (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: London: SCM Press, 1980), p. 125: FJ. Leenhardt, L'épitre de Saint Paul aux Romains (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1957), pp. 73-74; L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). p. 212; A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans (London: SCM Press, 1952), p. 182: U. Wilckens. Der Brief an die Ramer. | (EKKNT: Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), p. 276 a. 895.48 Journal for the Study af the New Testament 65 (1997) In this article it is proposed (a) to identify additional textual associa- tions between Romans 4 and Romans 1 and to show that the contrast between Abraham's faith and Gentile disobedience can be pressed fur- ther than is often thought; (b) to suggest that this contrast pattern assumes and builds upon a tradition about Abraham which is known to have been in existence at the time, namely, the tradition of Abraham’s rejection of idolatry and discovery of the creator and (c) to consider how the echoes of Romans 1 in ch. 4 fit into the overall line of thought which Paul is developing. Before doing so, it is worth briefly summarizing the content and purposes of Rom. 1.18-32 and 4.1-25 in their literary and argumentative context. 1. Romans I. 18-32 and 4.1-25 Within the larger exposition of Rom. 1.18-3.20 in which Paul sets out the human plight as a negative foil for his later discussion of the meaning and implications of salvation in Christ, 1.18-32 forms an indictment against the Gentile world. The subsection develops the thesis, set out in v. 18, that God’s wrath is being revealed against human sinfulness. The failure of the Gentiles to give glory to God in 1.21 is the core sin which has provoked the divine wrath, the treadmill of sin and its consequences documented in the verses that follow. Rom. 1.18-32 clearly depicts a pattern of religious (vv. 18-25), moral and social decline (vv. 26-32).? The refusal to acknowledge God and to give him due thanks in response to his gracious self-disclosure in his cre- ation (vv. 19-21) has led to idolatry (vv. 22-25) which in tum has led to ‘deviant’ sexual behaviour (vv. 26-27) and to sinful conduct in general (vv. 28-32).9 The repeated ‘God gave them over’ in vv. 24, 26, 28 emphasizes that the whole process was instigated by God. Paul never actually specifies ‘Gentiles’ or ‘Greeks and barbarians’ (cf. v. 14) in this subsection. Indeed he speaks in seemingly broad terms of ‘humanity’ (dv@permoy, v. 18). This has prompted some interpreters to infer that he is intending to implicate Jews in this passage as well as Gentiles. But the fact that Paul appeals to God's creational revelation as 2. In broad terms, Rom. 1.18-32 falls into the category of “decline of civilization narrative’: see 5.K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 88-100. 3. Cf. Deut. 28.13-14; Hos, 5.15-6.11; Ezek. 36.25-32; Wis. 14.22-29; 2 Apoe, Bar. $4.17-22; I En. 99.7-9; 2 En. 10.1-6; T. Naph. 3.1-5.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 49 the standard by which these people are judged (vv. 19-20) strongly tells against such a conclusion. The Jews are judged by God, according to Paul, on the basis of their possession of the law (2.12-13, 17-28). More- over, the passage very closely reflects standard Jewish invective against the Gentiles, especially that as found in Wisdom of Solomon (particularly Wis. 13.1-19; 14.22-31).‘ It is not until 2.1 that Paul begins to accuse the Jews, implicitly from 2.1 to 2.16,° then explicitly from 2.17 to 2.29. His rhetorical tactic is to gain Jewish approval in 1,18-32 by reiterating an established line of Jewish critique of the immoral Gentiles, and then to turn the tables on his implied Jewish critics in 2.1 by pronouncing that they are just as guilty, aiming to achieve a rhetorical effect similar to that of Nathan’s charge against David in 2 Sam. 12.7. At 3.21, Paul tums to the solution to the human plight offered in the gospel. It is to establish his claim that God justifies by faith and not by the works of the law (3.28), a principle which holds for Jew and Gentile (3.29), circumcised and uncircumcised (3.30) alike,* that Paul takes up in 4,2-15 the ‘crucial test case’? of Abraham. The example of Abraham is of such importance to the debate in which Paul is engaged because in contemporary Judaism the patriarch was viewed as the model of faith- fulness and obedience to God who demonstrated his obedience by observing the law 4. 1.23 (cai fokay thy ddEov tod aeGapton Geo} év Guordpatt...) bor- rows the language of Ps. 106 [Lxx 105].20 (kai WAAdEaveo Thy Sofav abu ev Opordpar...) and Jer. 2.11 (6 5é Aads pou HAAdEato Thy 868av atob}. Both Old ‘Testament texts refer to Israel's fall into idolatry, the former to the golden calf incident (cf. Exod, 32), the latter to Israel's abandonment of Yahweh for Baal wor- ship. Several commentators have taken these echoes to mean that Jews are included as well as Gentiles in Paul's indictment of idolatry, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, [, pp. 105-106; Dunn, Romans /—8, pp. 72-73. However, it is more likely, as Fitzmyer states, that Paul ‘is simply extrapolating from such incidents in the history of the chosen people and applying the ideas to the pagan world’: Romans, p. 271. 5. Cf. Cranfield, Romans, I, pp. 138-39. 6. By appealing to the Old Testament example of Abraham, Paul is also able to show that his gospel of justification is upheld by the law (3.31 cf. 3.21b). 7. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 196. 8 On Abraham's faithfulness, see, e.g... 1 Macc. 2.52: Jdt. 8.25-27; 4 Macc. 16.19-25. On Abraham's faithfulness in keeping the law, see, ¢.g., Sir. 44.20; Philo, Abr. 3-6; 2 Bar. $7.2; Jub. 15.1-2; 16.20-21; cf. Gen. 26.5. For the various portrayals of Abraham in intertestamental Judaism, see further N.L. Calvert, “Abraham and Idolatry; Paul’s Comparison of Obedience to the Law to Idolatry in Galatians 4.1-10", in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds.), Panl and the Scriptures of50 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) The unit may be understood to some extent as a midrash on Gen. 15.6.” ‘On this analysis, the exposition is introduced in vv. 1-2, and the key text, Gen. 15.6, stated in v. 3. The meaning of €Aqyio@n is defined in vv. 4-8, and that of éxictevoev in vv. 9-21. The proposition is restated in v, 22, and an application to the contemporary situation is given in vv. 23-25.'° The main thrust of Paul's argument may be summarized as follows, First (vv. 1-8), Abraham was reckoned as righteous without reference to works but solely on the basis of his faith in God. The parallel text Ps. 32.1-2, which Paul uses to illuminate Gen. 15.6 (on the strength of the catchword AoyiGopct, utilizing the interpretive principle of gezerah Shawah), demonstrates that God's reckoning of righteousness (or his non-reckoning of sin) is a free and unmerited act of grace. Secondly (vv. 9-12), Gen. 15.6 shows that Abraham being reckoned as righteous was sequentially prior to him being circumcised. Circumcision was but the sign or seal of the righteousness which he already had while he was uncircumcised. Abraham's fatherhood (cf. Gen. 17.4-5), therefore, is not confined to those who are circumcised. Because faith is the determining factor, all who share Abraham's faith and exercise it as he did, regard- less of whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised, belong to his family. Thirdly (vv. 13-17a), God's promise did not come to Abraham through the law, but through faith. Faith, therefore, and not adherence to the law determines who are the heirs to the Abrahamic promise. Fourthly (vv. 17b-21), Abraham's faith was neither more nor less than unqualified trust in and dependence on God. This emerges from the fact that Abraham believed in God’s promise that he would have a son in spite of the physical evidence to the contrary, that is, his old age and Sarah's barren womb (Gen. 17,1-18,15). Fifthly (vv. 23-25), Abraham's being reckoned as righteous serves as the model for the justification of Christians, They too are reckoned as righteous through faith, and their Hsrael (ISNTSup, 83; Sheffield: ISOT Press, 1992), pp. 221-37; esp. pp. 225-35; G.W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (SNTSup, 29; Sheffield: ISOT Press, 1989), pp. 179-99; H. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul's Understanding af Gad in Romans (NovTSup, 53: Leiden: Brill, 1980), pp. 117-69; 5. Sandmel, Phifo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (New York: Ktav, augmented edn, 1971); F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 136-38, 9. Dunn, Romans !-8, pp. 197-98; cf. Moxnes, Theology, pp. 108-109. 10. Cf. Dunn, Romans f-8, p. 198.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 51 faith is also placed in the God who brings life out of death—the God who brought life out of the deadness of Abraham's body and Sarah’s womb and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Abrahamic faith is thus the prototype of Christian faith. 2. Further Links Between Romans 4 and Romans I As stated above, the link back to 1.21 in 4.20 has often been noted by interpreters. In addition to this backward reference, several other verbal and thematic links between Romans 4 and Romans | can be highlighted: (a) tov Sikatodvta tov doeBi im 4.5 and doéPeayv kai déixiav in 1.18; (b) the theme of God the creator in 4.17b and 1.20, 25; and {c) Suvatéc in 4.21 and Sdvayte in 1.20." First, the collocation of &xatém and dasPijg in 4.5 calls to mind the conjunction of éoéfe.o and déixia in 1,18,'7 Suconde and détxia {though déixio to a lesser extent) are common in Paul. doeBrg and aoéfevo, however, are not: in the undisputed epistles they occur else- where only at Rom. 5.6 and 11.26, respectively, and in neither instance in combination with a 5ix- or ddix- word." In the LXX, do@Bevo denotes sinful and transgressive conduct.’ Such behaviour is character- istic of the nations (Deut. 9,5), In 1.18, doéBere and aéixica form a hendiadys, governed by néoa, summing up the state of the Gentile world before God.'* In 4.5, God is characterized as tov Suxorobvte tov Il. On the verbal links between Rom. 1,18-32 and 12.1-2, see, e.g., M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans #2.1-15.13 (ISNTSup, 59; Sheffield: SOT Press, 1991), pp. 81-83. On the links between Rom. 1.18-32 and 8.18-30, see, ¢.g., N. Walter, “Gottes Zorn und das “Harren der Kreator”, zur Korrespondenz zwischen Romer 1,18-32 und 8,19-22", in K. Kertelge, T. Holtz and C.P. Marz, Christus Bezeugen: Fesischrift far Wolfgang Trilling zum 65. Geburtstag (Leipzig: St Benno, 1989), pp. 218-26. Dunn, Romans #8, p. 467, On the textual links between Rom. 4 and 14-15, see A.T. Lincoln, ‘Abraham Goes to Rome: Paul's Treatment of Abraham in Romans 4’, in M1. Wilkins and T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early ‘Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (ISNTSup, 87; Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 163-79, 12. The pairing of doéfe.a and déixia is found in the LXX at, ¢.g., Ps. 72 (73).6; Prov. 11.5; Mic. 7.18-19, 13. Outside the undisputed epistles, doers occurs in 1 Tim. 1.9, and acéfera at 2 Tim. 2.16; Tit. 2.12. 14, TDNT, V, pp. 187-88. 15. TNT, V, p. 190. Since the phrase is comprehensive, not analytical (Dunn,32 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) ce fij—the God who justifies the ungodly'"—and Abraham is set forth as the model of God's justification of the ungodly.!” A twofold implica- tien can be drawn from this portrayal of Abraham in the light of 1.18. As doeBng, Abraham's initial status before God, prior to his being reck- oned as righteous, was exactly that of the ungodly Gentiles portrayed in 1.18-32. The implicit association of Abraham with the Gentiles is unmis- takable. But as justified, Abraham’s new status and orientation toward God through faith is the very antithesis of that of the disobedient Gentiles of 1.18-32. Second, the focus on God the creator in 4.17b picks up the theme of God as creator in 1.20 and 25. The thought of God as creator emerges in 1.20 with the words and ktice@s KéouoN, ‘since the creation of the world’, the act of creation clearly being viewed as the work of God. God’s activity as creator is further implied in this verse by moujjpato, which in the context plainly means the things created by God. And in 1.25 God is specifically designated creator, «ticag. According to 1.19- 20, the Gentiles have been equipped with a fundamental knowledge of God the creator, mediated by God's revelation in nature—a revelation which has been operational ever since the creation of the world. But instead of honouring and gratefully acknowledging their creator, which they ought to have done, they exchanged the truth they had been given for the lie of idolatry, preferring to direct their worship to the creature/ created thing rather than to the creator himself (EceBdc@nouv xci éiatpevoay ti] KticeL xopé toy «tioavre, 1.25). As these Gentiles bad been, Abraham is confronted with God the creator—the one who calls into existence that which has no existence (kaXodvtog 1é phy Svea sg 6vta). But unlike the Gentiles of Romans 1, Abraham acknowledges Romans !-8, p. 55), ibere is no need to see in it a distinction between sins against the first and sins against the second tables of the law, i.e., sins against God and sins against fellow human beings: contra A. Schlatter, Gotres Gerechtigkeit (Stuttgart: ‘Calwer Verlag, 1935), p. 49, 16. The phrase tov Sixoiotvta tov doef from an Old Testament point of view is a definition of gross injustice: Exod. 23.7; Prov. 17.15; Isa. 5.23, P. Stuhimacher states that, Paul ‘coins a new description of God which is highly paradoxical and of great rhetorical power’: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), p. 72, 17, The contention of W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam (The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. 101) that tay Sixmodvia Tov coef is “not meant as a description of Abraham’ completely undecmines the logie of Paul's argument in Rom. 4.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 53 and places his faith in the life-giving God. Abraham’s simple and unreserved trust in God the creator contrasts with their ‘sophisticated’ ($dexovtes elvan codoi, 1.22) rejection of the revelation of the creator in favour of idol-worship. Thirdly, the Svvertds of 4.21 recalls the Sivapte of 1.20.'8 According to 1.20, through God's revelation in creation, the Gentiles had the capacity to perceive not only the existence of the creator, but also his nature—his ‘invisible qualities’ (1% dépata adtoi)—as eternal power and deity: i te dié1o¢ adtod Sovapic Kol Berdth¢.'* Sdvopn in this verse connotes specifically God’s creative power. Paul takes up a point well established in Hellenistic Jewish circles: from the created universe, human beings may deduce the divine Sivauteg that stands behind and above it.” Because the Gentile world spurned the revelation of God's divine nature and power, ithas been left without excuse (dvanoaayit0Us) and deservedly meets God's wrath. In 4.21, Abraham is depicted as being fully convinced that God has the power to accomplish what he has promised to do (ninpodgopnbeic Sti 6 émhyyeAtar Suvatds éotv Kal motjoa)."! It is God's power which guarantees the promise. From the immediate context it is clear that the power referred to is God’s creative and resurrecting power (4.17b). Only through a display of such power could the obstacles of Abraham's advanced age and Sarah's barren womb be overcome (4.19). Abraham’s recognition of and confidence in God's creative capacity throws into sharp relief the disobedient Gentiles’ stubborn refusal even to acknowledge it. Taken together with the reminiscence of 1.21 in 4.20, these further textual links with 1.18-32 and 1.18-25 in particular, are sufficiently clear, accessible, plausible and numerous as to be identified, with some degree 18. Cf. also évedvvapidn in 4.20. The passive is probably a divine passive, ‘was strengthened’ (by God): so Cranfield, Romans, 1, pp. 248-49. 19. As H.P. Owen observes, Paul, anticipating his polemic against idolatry in 1.23-25, is emphasizing in 1.20 precisely those characteristics of God which distin- guish him from idols: see H.P. Owen, ‘The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom. 1 and Acts XVII’, NTS $ (1958-59), pp. 133-43, p. 134. 20. Wis. 13.4, Ep. Arist. 132; Philo, Somn 2.220; Josephus, Apion 2.167. The notion that the creation of the world is a manifestation of God’s power is clearly arti- culated in the LXX (Jer. 34.5; 39.17). 21. Cf. Gen. 18.14, On the theme of God's omnipotence in Philo see, Somn. 2.136; Jos. 244; Spec. Leg. 1.282; with specific reference to Abraham's faith see Abr. 112; Queest, in Gen. 3.2.56. See further Moxnes, Thealogy, pp. 146-55.54 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) of confidence, as definite textual echoes.?* Indeed, it may be argued that these echoes are strong enough to be taken as conscious and deliberate allusions to the earlier passage. This textual linkage functions to establish a structural pattern of contrast between Abraham and the rebellious Gentiles, and between Abrahams faith and the Gentiles’ disobedience. For a contrast such as this to be rhetorically effective there must be a sufficient degree of similarity between the characters set in opposition so that the differences can stand out.?? But one struggles to find any significant points of comparison between the situations of Abraham and the rebellious Gentiles. The figures of Abraham in Romans 4 and the Gentiles portrayed in 1.18-32 do not appear to stand in an obviously analogous or parallel relation. The terms on which they encounter God are vastly different. The Gentiles encounter God indirectly through his creation; Abraham encounters God directly and personally. The circum- stances in which Abraham acknowledges the presence and power of the creator (in response to God's promise of a son) are quite different to the circumstances in which the Gentiles of 1.18-25 fail to do so (in response to God's creational revelation). Also, in 1.18-25 the Gentiles, having rejected the knowledge of God the creator, fall into idolatry. In Romans 4, no connection is made between Abraham and idolatry; there is, for example, no comment to the effect that Abraham renounces or repudi- ates the worship of idols, It is perhaps, then, little wonder that the addi- tional echoes of 1.18-25 in ch. 4 have failed to catch the eyes of scholars, or that interpreters have been disinclined to push the contrast between Abraham and the immoral Gentiles beyond the more obvious link back to 1.21 in 4.20. Yet, as noted above, a basic affinity between these Gentiles and Abraham (or more precisely, between these Gentiles and Abraham prior to his justification by faith) is very strongly implied by the echo of 1.18 in 4.5, even though no exact points of contact are specified. 22. Cf. Hays’s tests for hearing echoes (with reference to Old Testament echoes): R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 29-32. See also Thompson's discussion of criteria for evaluating allusions and echoes (with reference to the traditions of the sayings of Jesus): Thompson, Clorhed, pp. 30-36. 23. The contrast between Adam and Christ in Rom. 5.12-21 works so power- fully partly because Paul is able to draw clear parallels between them: each stands at the beginning of an epoch; each is a determinative figure whose actions affect the destiny of all/many.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 35 The answer to this anomaly, it may be suggested, lies not in the text of Romans 4 but in a tradition lying under the text, presupposed and alluded to by it. 3. The Tradition of Abraham's Rejection of Idolatry and Discovery of the Creator In a line of Jewish reflection on Abraham developing in Paul’s day, the patriarch is remembered as one who rejected idolatry and astral-worship in favour of the worship of the creator God.** The tradition has a clear social function—to legitimate the inclusion of Gentile proselytes in the Jewish community.” Abraham provides a model for proselytes who leave behind family and religion to follow the true God. This reinterpretation of Abraham's migration and call in Gen. 11.27-12.9 is based on Josh. 24.2-3, where it is implied that God brought Abraham out of idolatry. This portrayal of Abraham can be found already in Jubilees 11.16-17; 12.1-21 (second century BCE). /ub, 11.16-17 states of Abraham, the lad began understanding the straying of the land, that everyone went astray after graven images and after pollution. And his father taught him ‘writing. And he was two weeks of years old. And he separated from his father so that he might not worship the idols with him. And he began to pray to the Creator of all so that he might save him from the straying of the sons of men, and so that his portion might not fall into the straying after the pollution and seomn.”* 24, See Calvert, ‘Abraham’, pp. 225-35; W.L. Knox, ‘Abraham and the Quest for God", HTR 28 (1939), pp. 55-60; H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Newen Testament (Munich: Beck, 1926-28), I, p. 195. 25. Calvert, ‘Abraham’, p. 227; AJ, Guerra, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose. Genre and Audience of Paul's Letter (SNTSMS, 81: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995}, pp. 109-110. Cf. Philo, Virt, 219: Abraham ‘is the standard of nobility for proselytes, who, abandoning the ignobility of strange laws and monstrous custom which assigned divine honours to stocks and stones and soulless things in general, have come to settle in a better land, in a com- anonwealth full of true life and vitality, with truth as its director and president’. (All quotations from Philo are taken from F.H. Colson, et al. [eds.] (LCL, 12 vols.; London: Heinemann, 1929-53). In some strands of rabbinic tradition, Abraham is portrayed as the father of proselytes: Tanh. B. 320; Pesig. R. 08a. See Hansen, Abraham, pp. 197-98. 26. Quotations from Jubilees and Apocalypse of Abraham are taken from OTP.36 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) In Jub. 12.1-5, Abraham warns his father Terah of the error of idolatry, stressing the folly of deifying lifeless images which are merely the works of human hands, He exhorts him instead to, Worship the God of beaven, who sends down rain and dew upon the earth, and who makes everything upon the earth, and created everything by his word, and all life is in bis presence. (12.4) Terah recognizes the truth of Abraham's entreaty but bids his son keep silent on the matter, knowing that to decry the worship of idols in public would cost them their lives (12.6-8). Many years later, Abraham and Terah eventually make the break from their idolatrous surroundings and leave behind Ur of the Chaldees (12.15). In the land of Haran, where they re-settle, Abraham sits up through the night to observe the stars. Discerning in them the hand of God, the thought comes to him, If he desires, he will make it rain moming and evening, and if he desires he will not send (it) down: and everything is in his hand. (12.18) This leads Abraham to praise ‘the Most High God’, who is alone God and the creator of everything (12.19). According to Philo (Vir¢. 211-16), Abraham was the son of an astrologer,”’ one who deemed the stars and the whole universe to be gods. Philo asks rhetorically, ‘What could be more grievous or more capable of proving the total absence of nobility in the soul than this, that its knowledge of the many, the secondary, the created, only leads it to ignore the One, the Primal, the Unereated and Maker of all, whose supreme excellence is established by these and countless other attributes of such magnitude that no human Teason can contain them? (213) Perception of this truth and divine inspiration induced Abraham to leave his country, kin and ancestral home, 27. Philo's assumption that Abraham believed in astrology prior to his call/conversion (cf. Abr. 69-70) is paralleled in other Hellenistic Jewish sources: the Orphic poem quoted in Aristobulus (= Eusebius, Prep. Ev.) 13.13.5; Pseudo- Eupolemus (= Eusebius, Prep. Ev.) 9.17.3-4, 8-9; 9.18.2; Atrapanus (= Eusebius, Prep. Ev.) 9.18.1; Josephus, Ant. 1.158; 166-68. Pseudo-Eupolemus, Atrapanus and Josephus credit Abraham with teaching astrology to other peoples.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 57 knowing that if he stayed the delusions of the polytheistic creed would stay within him and render it impossible for him to discover the One, who alone is eternal (dit&10¢)** and the Father of all things, conceptual and sensible, whereas if he removed, the delusion would also remove from his mind and its false creed be replaced by the truth (weBapyocapevn, Thy wend S6bav cig ddterav).™ (214) Alluding to Gen. 15.6, Philo comments, And, therefore, he is the first person spoken of as believing in God, since +he first grasped a firm and unswerving conception of the truth that there is one Cause above all, and that it provides for the world and all that there is therein. (Virt. 216) Abraham’s rejection of the polytheism in which he had been reared and his discovery of the true creator God is also described by Philo in Abr, 68-72: [The Chaldeans) concluded that the world itself was God, thus profanely likening the created to the Creator. In this creed Abraham had been reared, and for a long time remained a Chaldean. Then opening the soul's eye... he followed the ray and discerned what he had not beheld before, a chario- teer and pilot presiding over the world and directing in safety his own work, assuming the charge and superintendence of that work and of all such parts of it as are worthy of the divine: care, (69-70) Abraham came to this recognition of the existence of God, according to Philo, by examining himself as a microcosm of the universe. As an invis- ible mind controls the members of the body, Abraham inferred, so the world has a king who holds it together and govems it with justice (71- 7a) 20 In Rer. Div. Her. 97-99, Abraham's migration is allegorized in terms of the migration of the soul, from astrology to real nature study, from insecure conjecture to firm apprehension, and to give its truest expression, from the created to the uncteated, from the world to its Maker and Father.>! (98) 28. CE. diStoc abtod Sivaic, Rom. 1.20. On etemity as a basic quality of God for Philo, see Virt. 65. 29. Cf. penipAakav tiy adjderav tod Beod ev tip wedder, Rom. 1.25. 30. On this see Sandmel, Philo‘s Place, pp. 114-15. 31. Cf. also Gig. 62-64; Mut. Nom. 16-17.58 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) In similar fashion, Josephus (An. 1.155-56) maintains that Abraham was the first boldly to declare that God, the creator of the universe, is one... This he inferred from the changes to which land and sea are subject, from the course of the sun and moon, and from all the celestial phenomena; for, he argued, were these bodies endowed with power, they would have provided for their own regularity, but, since they lacked this last, it wax manifest that even those services in which they cooperate for our greater benefit they render not in virtue of their own authority, but through the might of their commanding sovereign, to whom it is right to render our homage and thanksgiving (edyopioria)*? Abraham’s perception of the error of idolatry and his coming to a knowledge of the one true God is narrated in Apocalypse of Abraham 1-8 (first to second century CE). During a series of incidents in which some idols made by Terah are either damaged or destroyed (chs. 1-6), Abraham reasons that these images, crafted by human hands and so easily replaced, cannot be true deities. In ch. 7, which may be an interpo- lation,? Abraham by rational deduction and by observation of the external physical world, concludes that there is one God who has cre- ated and governs everything. He reasons that idols cannot be gods since they are consumed by fire. Fire cannot be divine since it is quenched by water. Water is subject to earth, and earth is dried by the sun. The sun cannot be divine since it is obscured by the moon and clouds. The moon and stars cannot be gods since they dim their light during the night (7.10-11L). Abraham thus declares to Terah, Listen, Terah my father, I shall seek before you the God who created all the gods supposed by us (to exist). For who is it...who made the heavens crimson and the sun golden, who has given light to the moon and stars with it, who has dried the earth in the midst of the many waters..,and who has sought me out in the perplexity of my thoughts? (7.10-11) Abraham yearns for this God to reveal himself (7.12). In response to his plea, a mighty voice from heaven announces, “You are searching for the God of gods, the Creator, in the understanding of your heart. | am he’ (8.3). In these texts, common themes emerge: Abraham is reared in an idol- atrous context, he realizes the error and folly of idolatry (and astrology), 32. Cf. aby we Gedy E5dEacuv i ndEapiomoay, Rom. 1.21. Quotation taken from the Loeb translation. 33, See R. Rubinkiewicz, in OTP, Il. p. 684.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 59 he rejects idolatry, and he arrives at a knowledge of the existence and providential power of the creator through sensory perception (specifically through observation of the celestial phenomena™) and/or deductive reason. 4. This Tradition as Underlying the Contrast Pattern of Romans 4.5, 17b-21 and 1,18-25 It may be posited that Paul founds his contrast between Abraham and the Gentiles of Rom. 1-18-25 on this Jewish tradition concerning the patriarch. An implied reference to the tradition would certainly provide the points of contact between Abraham and these Gentiles lacking in the text but which seem to be required by Paul’s argument. Abraham, as depicted in this line of Jewish theological reflection, in fact serves as a striking reverse fit to the description of Gentile disobedi- ence in |.18-25: Abraham discerned the folly of idolatry (vv. 21, 22); he realized the absurdity of exchanging the glory of God for images of moral human beings, birds, animals and reptiles (v. 23); he grasped the distinction between creator and creation and refused to turn the truth about God into the lie of idolatry; he perceived God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and deity, from observation of and rational reflection upon God's created works (1.20);% Abraham knew and acknowledged God and gave him due thanks (1.21). The appropriateness of the figure of Abraham as the reverse image of the picture Paul paints in 1.18-25 is plain to see. An awareness of the tradition of Abraham tuming from idolatry to the one true God on the part of both Paul and at Jeast some of his Jewish readers does seem to be presupposed in 4.5.7* The characteriza- tion of Abraham as an ungodly Gentile is most readily understood against the background of this tradition, insofar as it makes Abraham a former idolater and polytheist,”’ It is noteworthy that Paul asserts rather than argues for Abraham's prior ungodliness. Paul evidently does not 34. This notion is also found among the rabbis: Gen, R. 39.1. 35. The words vootpeva xaGopétat in 1.20 suggest the use of both sensory petception and critical reasoning in the apprehension of the knowledge of God. 36. The Roman Christian community appears to be of mixed Gentile—Jewish constituency; with Gentile believers probably in the majority: 1.5-6, 13-15: 11.13-31; 15.7-12, 15-16, 37. So Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 205.60 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) expect this point to be either an alien or a particularly controversial one for his readers, but appears to assume their familiarity with the notion. It must be stressed, though, that while the tradition of Abraham’s fejection of idolatry and discernment of the creator provides the ratio- nale and justification for the contrast pattern of 4.5, 17b-21 and 1.18-25, it does not set the terms for it. Paul draws out his main points of con- trast with the disobedient Gentiles of 1.18-25 not from Abraham's early religious experience as depicted in this tradition, but from God's specific promise of a son and progeny as outlined in Gen. 15.5-6 and Abraham's unswerving trust in that promise despite his old age and Sarah's barren- hess as recounted in Gen. 17.1-18.15. Nevertheless, it is not unlikely that, by stressing Abraham's acknowledgment of the presence and power of the creator in Rom. 4.17b-21, Paul is hinting that Abraham, in this much later incident, was displaying in his response to God qualities of faith which emerged in and marked his arrival at a knowledge of the one true God. Before moving on, it is worth pausing to consider why it is that Paul bases his exposition of Abraham's faith on Gen. 15.5-6" and 17.1- 18.15 rather than on Gen. 11-27-12.9 and the tradition which grew out of it.” The answer must surely be that, however important Abraham's 38. Throughout the argument of Rom. 4, particularly in 4.13-22, Paul interacts with a number of Jewish traditions of Abraham of which he seemingly expects his readers to be aware. See Moxnes, Theology, pp. 117-206. 39, Paul is of course reflecting on Abraham's faith in Rom. 4 and Gen. 15.6 is the only place in the Genesis narrative where Abraham's faith is spoken of as such. So it is natural that Paul should fix on this verse. So Dunn, Romans J-8, p. 202. ‘Gen. 15.6 also links Paul’s key terms riotig and Sucatosivn. 40. Gen. 11.27-12.9, the story of Abraham's migration and call, however, is not necessarily excluded from view in Rom. 4. It is significant that Gen. 15.6-7 connects Abraham’s trust in God's promise of a son and descendants with his departure from Ur of Chaldees. God's pledge to Abraham of a son is depicted by the Genesis narra- tor as of a piece with God's call of Abraham out of Mesopotamia to the land which would be given to him to possess. In sympathy with the Genesis text, therefore, it may well be that Paul sees a deep inner resonance between these two episodes. Philo, as we have seen, connects Abraham's faith in Gen. 15.6 with his migration. Gen. 1.27-12.9 and Gen. 15 are also tightly connected in the Apocalypse of Abraham. This is reflected in the structure of the apocalypse: chs. 1-8 are based loosely on Gen, 11.27-12.1, and chs. 9-32 on Gen. 15. A possible indication that Paul does in. fact see an interrelation between the two incidents is his apparent combination of Gen. 15.6 and 15.7 in Rom. 4.13, where he states that Abraham received the promise that he should be heir of the world (to cAnpavdauoy anitov elvo. Kecucy)ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 61 renunciation of idolatry and his discovery of the creator from the testi- Tony of God’s created works may have been, in Paul’s understanding, for the formation of Abraham's justifying faith, these events do not con- stitute the defining moment of that faith. For Paul it is not enough to say with Philo that the faith which God credited to Abraham as righteous- ness comprised a firm grasp of the truth that ‘there is one Cause above all, and that it provides for the world and all that there is therein’ (Vir#. 216). The faith by which Abraham was justified entailed at least a con- ception of God’s deity and eternal power, in the terms of Rom. 1.20— but plainly, for Paul, it involved more than this. Hence it is to explicate the distinctive nature of Abraham's faith that Paul concentrates on Gen. 15.5-6 and 17.1-18.15. From these texts, Paul can show that his faith was marked by the following features. It was personal. Abraham's faith was directed toward a God of whom he had a direct and personal knowledge. It was faith in God’s spoken word, God’s promise (4.18, ‘in accordance with what had been said’). It was oriented to hope (4.18),"! a confident expectation that God would fulfill his promise. It was crisis- related, manifested in a situation of need (4.18-21). It recognized the hopelessness and impossibility of the human condition, yet trusted in God completely to resolve the crisis, to bring life out of death (4.17b, 19). Moreover. the linkage of Gen. 15.6 with Ps. 32.1-2 in 4.6-8 implies that the justifying faith exhibited by Abraham had to do with the for- Biveness of sins. None of these features of Abraham’s faith can be found in the tradition of his rejection of idolatry. It is precisely these aspects of Abraham's response to God which so neatly for Paul prefigure and anti- cipate Christian faith. And among the argumentative aims of Romans 4, the concern to prove that Abraham is the model for Christian faith takes priority over the concer to show that Abraham is an example of what the Gentiles failed to do. Even so, these argumentative purposes are not through the righteousness of faith (Gixaioodwn xiotede). Sicatociny xictews clearly picks up Gen. 15.6 and to KAnpovopov aitov eiver Kécpou probably echoes thy yhy wabty KANpovopFeat in Gen. 15.7, which in tum refers back to Gen. 12.1. See Moxnes, Theology, pp. 195-96 n. 245. (Paul takes up the extended form of the promise—where. the land becomes the whole earth, or the world to come—from later Jewish tradition, ¢.g., Sir. 44.21; Jub. 17.3, 22.14; 32.19; 1 En. 5.7; Philo, Soma. 1.175; 4 Ezra 6.59; 2 Apoc. Bar. 14.13, Mek. Exod. 14.31). The subtle intertextual interplay may suggest that Paul views Abraham's response to ‘God's call to leave Mesopotamia for the promised land as a nascent expression of the faith which God would subsequently account to the patriarch as righteousness. Al. Cf. Heb. 11.1. 8-12.62 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) necessarily unrelated. The backward reference to 1.18 in 4.5 indicates that justification by faith, as exemplified by Abraham, the justified GoeBng, overtums the predicament of 1.18-32, One may legitimately draw the conclusion that it is by manifesting a proto-Christian faith that Abraham is able to offer the glory which God as creator demands. 5. The Echoes of Romans 1.18-25 in the Argument of Romans 4 How does an awareness of these echoes and the contrast pattern illumi- nate Paul's line of thought in the passage? It may be suggested that the textual associations serve Paul’s argumentative aims in the following ways. First, the affinity created by these links between Abraham and the ungodly Gentiles of 1.18-25 gives added force to Paul’s presentation of Abraham as the model of justifying faith not only for Jews but also for Gentiles. Paul reminds his readers, in 3.29-30, of the oneness of God,” insisting that since God is one, the one God must be the God of Jews and Gentiles and must relate to both groups in the same way. In Romans 4 Paul demonstrates how this unity in God's way of working with Jews and Gentiles is exemplified in Abraham. Abraham is set forth as a model of how God justifies the circumcised and the uncircumcised alike on the basis of faith. To this end, Paul presents Abraham as a figure with whom both Jewish and Gentile believers can identify. Jewish believers, of course, share an ethnic identity with Abraham. In terms of linear descent, he is the father of the Jewish people. Paul does not dispute this point, carefully introducing Abraham into his argument at 4.1 as the Jewish patriarch (cf. 9.5), though by adding the words Kata odpxe he signals at the outset that this level of understanding of Abraham is going to be increas- ingly put into the shade as the argument proceeds. The echoes of 1.18- 25 function to establish points of contact and to lay common ground between Abraham and Gentile Christians. The figure of Abraham illustrates and legitimates the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. It is not that Abraham is for Paul an 42. Probably evoking the Shema, the basic confession of Jewish faith (Deut. 6.4), though see Guerra, Romans, pp. 76-77, 84-101, who argues that Paul is rather appealing to the ‘One God’ topos in Jewish anolovcetic literature.ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 63 example of how God accepts Gentiles as proselytes.” Rather, the case of Abraham indicates how God justifies Gentiles while they remain Gentiles. Three times over in vv. 11-12, it is emphasized that Abraham was in a state of uncircumcision—év (ti) dxpoBvotig—when he was accepted by God. While this means that Abraham was justified before he had submitted to the rise of circumcision, dxpoBvetia is probably also intended to signify Abraham's ethnic status at the time (4.9; cf. 2.26-27). In other words, Paul emphasizes that Abraham was still a Gentile when he was declared righteous through faith. Paul thus deftly and provoca- tively stands the traditional view of Abraham as the ideal pious Jew on its head. Indeed, though Paul presents Abraham as the father of both circumcised and uncircumcised believers, such are the Gentile believers’ points in commen with Abraham that they can more readily identify with him than Jewish believers! His Gentile origins, his religious back- ground, his former idolatry and ungodliness, his conversion from pagan- ism to the one true God, and his ethnic status when justified make Abraham's close association with Gentile believers unmistakably clear. Jewish believers can truly claim Abraham as their father, Paul stresses, only if they follow in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham which he had as a Gentile (y. 12). In a quite remarkable fashion, therefore, Paul uses. Abraham to make the Gentile route to God the standard and rule. Secondly, the implication of the contrast pattern of 4.5, 17b-21 and 1.18-25 is that Abraham's faith and God's reckoning of it as righteous- ness as described in Romans 4 reverses the Gentile folly, and God’s judgment upon it, as set out in 1.18-25. This fits into Paul’s larger sote- riological scheme of plight and solution. The echo of 1.18 in 4.5 inti- mates that God's justifying of the ungodly, exemplified in Abraham, is ‘the remedy to the problem of 1.18-32 (and 1.18-3.20 as a whole). ‘Faith reckoned as righteousness’ reverses the core sin of the Gentiles and the verdict of condemnation which had become theirs as a result. It heals the rift between Gentile humanity and God, in view of their failure to acknowledge him. Justification by faith rescues human beings from the sentence of death imposed in 1.32 and draws them into the sphere of 43. This is probably another reason why Paul in Rom. 4 refers to the tradition of Abraham's renunciation of idolatry allusively rather than explicitly. As noted above, the tradition was used in intertestamental Judaism to legitimate Abraham as the model proselyte, and this is precisely the opposite of what Paul wants to prove in this chapter: so E. Kasemann, "The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4’, in Perspectives on Paul (Landan: SCM Prece 1O7T]) 1 8664 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) life (4.17b). It enables men and women to secure the relationship with God forfeited in 1.18-32 and to give him the glory and honour which is rightfully his, but which they have been unwilling to offer. Thirdly, the backward references to 1.18-25 in 4.17b-21 highlight the correspondence between the theological categories of ‘creation’ and ‘redemption’ in Paul's thought,“ and particularly in the soteriology of Romans.* In this epistle, Paul is especially concemed to highlight the continuity of God’s redemptive purposes with his purposes as creator." The stress on this continuity is apparent in the double-designation of God in 4.17b.*7 The description of Ged as the one who gives life to the dead and who calls into existence that which has no existence correlates God's redeeming activity very closely with his activity as creator. God’s redeeming work, it is implied, stems from his role as creator. The allusions to 1.18-25 at 4.17b-21 betray this theological emphasis. The God in whom Abraham trusted is the God who is made known to all through his self-disclosure in nature. The God revealed particularly to Abraham in the course of salvation-history—the climactic point of which is the appearance of Christ—is the God who is revealed universally in creation. Moreover, the creative-resurrecting power in which Abraham had confidence is the same power which is evident to all as the creative energy which stands behind creation. This creative power (60vaptg) is manifested supremely in the gospel events (Rom. 1.16), particularly God's raising of Christ from the dead (Rom. 1.4; cf. 1 Cor. 5.14; 2 Cor. 13.4; Phil. 3.10).4* Abraham's knowledge of God was obviously fuller 44. The classic treatment of this theme is J.G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption: A Stady in Pauline Theology (NovTSup. 26: Leiden: Brill, 1971). 45. See, ¢.g., PJ. Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation: Auanta, GA: John Knox. 1985), pp. 15-26; Byme, Inheriting: S. Kraftchick, ‘Paul's Use of Creation Themes: A Test of Romans 1-8", Ex Auditu 3 (1987), pp. 72-87: B.E. Shields, “Creation in Romans" (unpublished PhD, Tiibingen, Evangelisch-theologisch Facultit an der Eberhard—Karls-Universitiit, 1980). 46. Creation motifs figure clearly in the argument of Rom. 1=1 1 at 1.18-32; 2.7, 14-15; 3,23; 4,17b-21; 5.12-21; 7.7-13; 8.18-23, 29-30; 9.17-24: 11.23-27: 11.36. 47. The first part of the designation—God gives life to the dead (too Gt@oro.obvto¢ tots vexpoic) corresponds to the second of the Eighteen Benedictions (cf. Jos. Asen. 8.9-10; 20.7). on which see Moxnes, Theology, pp. 233-39. O. Hofius CEine altjtidische Parallele zu Rim. iv. 17b’, NTS 18 [1971-72], pp. 93-94) high- lights the similarity of Rom. 4.176 with 2 Macc. 7.28: in both texts, God's creatia ex nihito is linked with his power to raise from the dead. AR TWhie hw Mleddl'c Sense thar Brel lerere til ew eet Pee 214 1840ADAMS Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience 65 and more concrete than the knowledge of God available in creation according to 1.19-21, And Abraham had a clear awareness that the God to whom he relates is the redeemer God (there is no notion of God as tedeemer in 1.18-32, only of God as creator and judge). Yet to Abraham, this God was fundamentally the creator God, who redeems as he creates (4.176). In glorifying God, Abraham renders to God the very response which, according to 1.21, he is due as creator. Abrahamic faith it is implied, is, at its most basic, creaturely submission to the creator. To give glory to God is to fulfill the goal which God had in view in creating humanity (cf. Rom. 3.23)” Abrahamic faith, justifying faith, realizes that goal,” By means of the contrast pattern of 4.5, 17b-21 and 1.18-25, there- fore, the figure of Abraham serves Paul as a symbol for the unity of God's creative and redemptive purposes. 6. Conclusion To summarize then, the textual links between Romans 4 and 1.18-25 can be shown to extend beyond the oft-noted reminiscence of 1.21 in 4.20. The echoes of the earlier passage in the later set up a structural contrast between Abraham's faith and Gentile disobedience, a contrast likely to have been intended by Paul. It is probable that underlying this reversal pattern is the tradition of Abraham's rejection of idolatry and. discovery of the creator. The contrast scheme, it has been proposed, adds force to Paul’s argument in Romans 4 on several different levels: Abraham is more clearly seen to be a model of God's acceptance of the Gentiles; justifying faith is more clearly seen to be the reversal and the resolution of the plight of 1.18-32; God's saving activity is more clearly seen to be consonant with his role as creator. The structural contrast between Abraham and the Geatiles of 1.18-25 is only one of many aspects of a multi-faceted argument in Romans 4. The purpose of this article has been to place this particular strand of Paul’s portrait of Abraham under close and careful scrutiny and to sharpen its profile within Paul's argument (and not to accord it a greater importance than it has in the text). It is recognized by scholars that 49. Cf. Ps. 8.5. For the restoration or intensification of the primal glory as a futuce hope, see f En. 50.1; 2 Apac. Bar. 54.15, 21; CD 3.20; 108 4.23. 50. That the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy is stated in Rom. 15.8-9 as 4 goal of Chriet’s mission (cf. 15.6).66 Journai for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997) Abraham serves for Paul in Romans 4 as, in some respects, a prototype of Christian faith. It has been the contention of this article that Abraham also stands, though to a lesser extent, as the antitype of Gentile disc obedien nce. ABSTRACT A series of textual links between Romans | and 4 suggests that Paul is setting Abraham's faith in opposition to Gentile disobedience. The contrast is probably ‘based on a Jewish wadition about Abraham, in circulation at the time, which casts the patriarch as a former idolater who reasoned from the creation to the creator. These. textual associations, undergirded by this tradition, lend weight to or illuminate several features of Paul's argument in Romans 4; Abraham as the exemplar of God's acceptance of the Gentiles; justifiction by faith as the reversal of the pattern of sin in Rom. 1.18-32; the continuity between God's revelation as creator and his revelation as redeemer. microfiche and 16mm or 4 (35oun film. For information Sef about this publication - of the mere then 13,000 titleu ee offer, complote and mail the coupon lo: University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI148106. Call us toll-free for an itamediate response: 800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan, Alaska and. Hawait: 313-761-4700,