“`html
A Grammatical and Rhetorical Analysis of Romans 4:1
This exegetical study of Romans 4:1 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 23, 2001. The initial query highlights a significant divergence in the translation of Romans 4:1, contrasting a common rendering, exemplified by the NIV (“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?”), with an alternative interpretation, notably advocated by Lenski. Lenski’s translation posits a different syntactic structure: “What then shall we say? That we have found Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to the flesh?”. This interpretation is defended by arguing that “Abraham” functions as the object of an implicit “we shall say” and “our forefather according to the flesh” as a predicate object, thereby emphasizing physical ancestry as the subject of the inquiry.
The central exegetical issue in Romans 4:1 concerns the grammatical function of Ἀβραὰμ and the infinitive εὑρηκέναι within the interrogative clause Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;. The primary ambiguity lies in whether Ἀβραὰμ functions as the accusative subject of the infinitive εὑρηκέναι (meaning Abraham is the one who “found”), or if it acts as the object of εὑρηκέναι where an implied “we” is the subject (meaning “we found Abraham”). Compounding this is the scope of the phrase κατὰ σάρκα, which could modify either “forefather” or the act of “finding.” These grammatical uncertainties lead to significantly different interpretations of Paul’s rhetorical strategy and the theological point he intends to make regarding justification and Abraham’s lineage in the subsequent chapter.
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;
(Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The Nestle 1904 edition places the perfect infinitive εὑρηκέναι before Ἀβραὰμ. The SBLGNT (2010) positions εὑρηκέναι after τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν, resulting in the word order: Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα; This difference in word order can subtly influence how readers connect κατὰ σάρκα to the preceding elements.
- While not explicitly in Nestle 1904, the Textus Receptus (TR) variant reads πατέρα instead of προπάτορα. SBLGNT, like critical editions, maintains προπάτορα.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual tradition for Romans 4:1 presents minor but noteworthy variants. The reading πατέρα (father) is found in a few Western manuscripts (e.g., D* F G lat co), contrasting with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts and critical editions (א A B C D1 Ψ 075 0150 M latt syrp,h,mg goth arm geo slav) that support προπάτορα (forefather/ancestor). While both terms denote ancestral relationship, προπάτορα might subtly emphasize a more distant or foundational ancestor, aligning with Paul’s broader theological arguments about Abraham as the progenitor of faith.
The placement of the verb εὑρηκέναι (to have found/discovered) also exhibits variation. The NA28 and SBLGNT (2010) texts differ in its exact position, with NA28 placing it before Ἀβραὰμ and SBLGNT after τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν. Other traditions place it after κατὰ σάρκα. The critical text (NA28) reads: Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;
- ἐροῦμεν (from λέγω, future indicative, 1st plural): This verb signals a rhetorical question, characteristic of Paul’s diatribal style. According to BDAG (2.a.β), it serves to “introduce a topic for consideration or debate: τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν;“
- εὑρηκέναι (from εὑρίσκω, perfect active infinitive): This means “to have found/discovered.” The perfect tense denotes a completed action with enduring results. BDAG (1.a.γ) defines it as “to discover, find out, ascertain, learn” or (1.b) “to find by search or inquiry, attain, gain, get, acquire.” While a user noted the rarity of this specific perfect infinitive use in Paul, other New Testament instances of εὑρίσκω in the perfect tense exist (e.g., John 1:41, 1:45; Rev 3:2), often conveying a discovery with lasting implications.
- Ἀβραάμ: As an indeclinable proper noun, its grammatical case (and thus its syntactic role) is inferred from its context.
- προπάτορα (accusative singular): “Forefather, ancestor” (BDAG `προπάτωρ`). Its presence here clarifies the specific relationship Paul is addressing.
- κατὰ σάρκα (prepositional phrase): “According to the flesh” (BDAG `σάρξ` 3.b). This phrase typically refers to the physical or natural sphere, often in contrast to the spiritual. Its placement at the end of the verse allows for it to modify either the preceding noun phrase (“our forefather”) or the verb (“discovered”).
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core interpretive challenge in Romans 4:1 lies in assigning the correct subject to the infinitive εὑρηκέναι and determining the scope of κατὰ σάρκα. Two main interpretations emerge from the grammatical possibilities and contextual considerations:
Interpretation A: Abraham as the Subject of εὑρηκέναι (Traditional View)
Grammatical Analysis: In this dominant interpretation, τί functions as the direct object of the infinitive εὑρηκέναι. Ἀβραὰμ is understood as the accusative subject of the infinitive within an indirect discourse construction governed by ἐροῦμεν (“we will say”). The phrase τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν acts as an appositive to Ἀβραὰμ, providing further identification. The modifying phrase κατὰ σάρκα is typically understood to qualify this appositive, meaning “Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh.” The overall structure is therefore: “What (object) shall we say that Abraham (subject), our forefather according to the flesh, has found/discovered (verb)?” This aligns with standard Greek syntax for accusative-and-infinitive constructions in indirect discourse.
Rhetorical Analysis: This reading presents Paul asking what Abraham, our physical ancestor, found or discovered concerning the means of justification. This sets up the following verses (Romans 4:2-3), where Paul immediately explains that Abraham was justified by faith, not by works. This interpretation coheres strongly with Paul’s consistent use of Abraham as an exemplary figure to illustrate justification by faith for both Jewish and Gentile believers. The context of Romans 3:27-31 emphasizes justification apart from the law, making an inquiry into Abraham’s “discovery” of this principle highly relevant.
Interpretation B: “We” as the Implicit Subject of εὑρηκέναι (Hays/Lenski/Wright View)
Grammatical Analysis: This alternative view, advanced by scholars like Hays, Lenski, and N.T. Wright, treats Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν as a complete rhetorical question (“What then shall we say?”). The subsequent infinitive clause, εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;, is then understood as a separate rhetorical question. To make this work, it requires an ellipsis of the verb ἐροῦμεν (or a similar verb like “Is it true that we say…”) to govern the infinitive, with “we” as its implied subject. Furthermore, Ἀβραὰμ would be the object of εὑρηκέναι, and τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν a predicate accusative (with an implied “to be” verb). The phrase κατὰ σάρκα is then understood to limit “forefather” in an exclusive sense, implying “only according to the flesh.”
Rhetorical Analysis: Under this interpretation, Paul is asking if the readers (specifically Jewish readers) *have found* Abraham to be their forefather *merely according to the flesh*. The implied answer is a resounding “no.” This sets up the argument that Abraham is not *only* a physical ancestor but also a spiritual father through faith, thereby allowing Gentiles to be his true descendants. Proponents argue this aligns with Paul’s diatribal style, where τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν often introduces a false inference that Paul intends to refute. However, a significant counter-argument is the absence of a subsequent μὴ γένοιτο (“God forbid!”), which is Paul’s typical emphatic denial following such false inferences elsewhere in Romans (e.g., 3:6, 3:31, 6:2, 6:15, 7:7, 9:14).
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The grammatical and contextual evidence strongly supports the traditional interpretation (Interpretation A), where Abraham is the subject of εὑρηκέναι. The alternative reading (Interpretation B), while grammatically possible with the postulation of an elliptical verb and a less direct syntactic relationship, strains the natural flow of Paul’s argument and lacks the typical rhetorical markers Paul uses for refuting false inferences. Paul’s characteristic use of τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν serves as a discourse marker to introduce a new topic for exploration, and the subsequent clause naturally presents Abraham as the direct subject of this inquiry into his “discovery” of justification by faith, laying the groundwork for the rest of chapter 4.
- What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, discovered?
This translation maintains Abraham as the active subject of the verb “discovered” and clearly links “according to the flesh” to his ancestral role, directly leading into the discussion of his justification by faith. - What then shall we say Abraham, our physical forefather, found out?
This rendering emphasizes the “finding out” aspect of εὑρηκέναι and uses a slightly more colloquial phrase for κατὰ σάρκα, presenting a clear rhetorical question about Abraham’s pivotal realization. - What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather only according to the flesh?
This alternative, while syntactically challenging, reflects the interpretation where “we” are the implied subject of “found,” posing a question about the nature of Abraham’s fatherhood (physical vs. spiritual).
“`