“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of Genitives in Romans 2:4
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Genitives in Romans 2:4 is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Feb 6 03:14:29 EST 2003. The initial inquiry raised a question concerning the grammatical construction of Romans 2:4, specifically why a series of genitive nouns appears in the verse rather than accusative forms, with the exception of the noun *χρηστότητος* being explicitly noted in the discussion.
The main exegetical issue at hand is the precise syntactic relationship between the verb *καταφρονεῖς* (from *καταφρονέω*, “to despise, scorn”) and the subsequent string of genitive nouns: *τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας*. Understanding this grammatical relationship is crucial for accurately translating and interpreting Paul’s indictment of those who show contempt for divine attributes.
ἢ τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας καταφρονεῖς, ἀγνοῶν ὅτι τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς μετάνοιαν σε ἄγει;
(Nestle 1904, equivalent to NA28)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The primary difference between the Nestle 1904/NA28 text and the SBLGNT (2010) in this verse lies in punctuation. SBLGNT places a comma after *καταφρονεῖς*, preceding the participle *ἀγνοῶν*. This is a minor orthographical difference that does not alter the fundamental lexical or grammatical meaning of the clause.
Textual criticism (NA28): The text of Romans 2:4 presents a high degree of stability in its wording across various manuscript traditions. The phrase containing the genitives and the verb *καταφρονεῖς* is consistently attested, with no significant word-level variants in the critical apparatus of NA28. This consensus strengthens confidence in the originality of the Greek text being analyzed.
Lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
- καταφρονέω (katafroneō): According to BDAG, this verb means “to consider as of little worth, despise, disdain, scorn, treat with contempt” (BDAG, 2000, s.v. *καταφρονέω*). Significantly, BDAG notes that this verb frequently takes a genitive object (BDAG, 2000, s.v. *καταφρονέω*, 2.a.α). KITTEL (TDNT IX, 339-342) further elaborates on *καταφρονέω* as expressing an attitude of “looking down upon” or “scorning,” typically directed toward an object in the genitive case.
- πλοῦτος (ploutos): “riches, wealth, abundance.” In this context, it often refers to the abundance or lavishness of a quality, here specifically “the richness” of God’s goodness.
- χρηστότης (chrēstotēs): “goodness, kindness, generosity, benignity.” This refers to God’s inherent moral excellence and benevolent disposition.
- ἀνοχή (anokhē): “forbearance, patience, tolerance.” This denotes God’s willingness to withhold immediate punishment.
- μακροθυμία (makrothymia): “patience, steadfastness, endurance, longsuffering.” This refers to God’s prolonged patience in the face of human provocation, distinguishing it from *ἀνοχή* by emphasizing the duration and emotional restraint.
- ἀγνοῶν (agnoōn): The present active participle of *ἀγνοέω* (agnoeō), meaning “to be ignorant of, not to know, misunderstand.” It functions adverbially, describing the manner in which the despising occurs.
Translation Variants
The grammatical analysis reveals that *καταφρονεῖς* functions as the main verb, taking a series of genitive objects. The initial query in the b-greek discussion highlighted the use of genitives instead of accusatives. The answer lies in the specific government of the verb *καταφρονέω*, which, like many verbs prefixed with *κατά-* (e.g., *καταγινώσκω*, *καταφεύγω*), characteristically governs the genitive case for its direct object. Therefore, *τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ*, *τῆς ἀνοχῆς*, and *τῆς μακροθυμίας* all function as direct objects of the verb *καταφρονεῖς*.
The phrase *τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ* presents a double genitive construction. *αὐτοῦ* is a possessive genitive dependent on *χρηστότητος* (“his goodness”). *τοῦ πλούτου* modifies *τῆς χρηστότητος*, likely functioning as a genitive of quality or apposition, emphasizing the abundance or lavishness of God’s goodness (“the richness of his goodness” or “his rich goodness”). This intensifies the attribute being despised. The subsequent genitives *τῆς ἀνοχῆς* and *τῆς μακροθυμίας* are parallel to the preceding phrase, indicating that all three divine attributes are the objects of scorn. The participle *ἀγνοῶν* (“not knowing” or “being ignorant”) adds a crucial rhetorical layer, suggesting that the contempt is compounded by a lack of understanding regarding the salvific purpose of God’s patience.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegesis of Romans 2:4 confirms that the string of genitives is syntactically sound, governed by the verb *καταφρονεῖς*. The cumulative effect of these genitives underscores the manifold and profound nature of God’s attributes being treated with contempt. The adverbial participle *ἀγνοῶν* highlights the profound spiritual blindness of those who despise such divine benevolence. Any effective translation must capture both the direct object relationship of the genitives and the critical nuance provided by the participle.
- Do you despise the riches of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, being ignorant that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
This translation emphasizes the “riches” as belonging to the kindness, and then lists the other attributes as direct objects of despising. The participle is rendered as a dependent clause. - Or do you show contempt for the abundance of his goodness, his tolerance, and his longsuffering, not realizing that God’s goodness is intended to lead you to repentance?
This version uses “abundance” to reflect *πλοῦτος* and offers slightly different synonyms for the divine attributes, while the participle is translated as “not realizing” for a more active sense of ignorance. - Are you spurning his rich kindness, his patience, and his endurance, failing to understand that God’s kindness is guiding you toward repentance?
This rendering treats “rich kindness” as a unified concept, using “spurning” for *καταφρονεῖς* to convey strong contempt, and translates the participle as “failing to understand” to capture the volitional aspect of ignorance.
“`