Romans 4:11

An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 4:11-12: The Teleology of Abraham’s Circumcision and the Imputation of Righteousness

This exegetical study focuses on Romans 4:11-12, a pivotal passage in Paul’s argument concerning justification by faith. Specifically, it addresses the grammatical and theological nuances of the two consecutive εἰς τὸ + articular infinitive constructions, particularly the second phrase, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην. The central exegetical issue revolves around whether this construction expresses divine purpose, a resultant outcome, or a combination of both, and the precise scope of its application within Paul’s broader theological framework of Abraham as the father of all believers.

καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι καὶ αὐτοῖς τὴν δικαιοσύνην, καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• SBLGNT (2010) omits the conjunction καὶ before αὐτοῖς (v. 11).
• SBLGNT (2010) omits the definite article τὴν before δικαιοσύνην (v. 11).

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The textual apparatus of NA28 (28th edition) supports the omission of both καὶ and τὴν in the clause εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι αὐτοῖς δικαιοσύνην. While these words are present in older text-types, including some represented in the Nestle 1904 edition, the shorter reading is preferred by critical editions due to strong manuscript evidence (e.g., P⁴⁶, א, A, B, C, D) and the principle that scribes are more likely to add articles or conjunctions for clarification or harmonization than to remove them. The omission of καὶ results in an asyndetic construction, potentially emphasizing the directness of the imputation. The absence of τὴν renders δικαιοσύνην anarthrous, which often emphasizes the quality or nature of righteousness rather than a specific instance of it, though context is always key.

Lexically, several terms are crucial for understanding this passage:

• σημεῖον (sēmeion): “sign, mark, token” (BDAG, 922). Here, it refers to circumcision as an outward indicator of an inward reality.
• σφραγῖδα (sphragida): “seal” (BDAG, 984). Circumcision functions not merely as a sign but as a seal, authenticating or confirming the prior reality of righteousness by faith.
• δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē): “righteousness, justice” (BDAG, 248). In Paul, this term signifies God’s attribute, His act of justifying, and the state of being righteous before God. Kittel (TDNT, II, 192-210) extensively discusses its theological depth, noting its forensic and relational aspects.
• πίστεως (pisteōs): “faith, trust, belief” (BDAG, 816). For Paul, πίστις is not merely intellectual assent but active trust and reliance, the means by which righteousness is received. Kittel (TDNT, VI, 204-230) highlights its significance as the antithesis to works of the law.
• λογισθῆναι (logisthēnai): The aorist passive infinitive of λογίζομαι, meaning “to reckon, count, credit, impute” (BDAG, 597). This forensic term is central to Paul’s doctrine of justification, indicating that righteousness is credited to an individual by God’s grace, not earned. Kittel (TDNT, IV, 284-288) emphasizes its legal and theological import in contexts of imputation.
• ἀκροβυστίᾳ (akrobystia): “uncircumcision” (BDAG, 34). This term denotes the state of Gentiles, contrasting with περιτομῆς (circumcision), thereby highlighting the universal scope of justification.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical construction εἰς τὸ followed by the articular infinitive (purpose/result clause) is key to interpreting this passage. This construction can express either *purpose* (in order that, to the end that) or *result* (with the result that, so that). In many instances, especially when divine intention is involved, purpose and teleological result often converge, making a sharp distinction difficult and sometimes unnecessary.

The first clause, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, is generally understood as expressing God’s *purpose* in giving Abraham the sign and seal of circumcision. Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal, with the purpose that he might be the father of all who believe while uncircumcised. This connects directly to Paul’s argument that Abraham’s righteousness was reckoned *before* his circumcision (v.10), making him a prototype for uncircumcised believers and establishing a theological basis for Gentile inclusion.

The second clause, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, is the primary focus of the exegetical inquiry regarding its precise nuance (purpose vs. result) and scope. Grammatically, it functions in parallel to the first εἰς τὸ clause, indicating a similar relationship to the preceding context. Some scholars argue for a strict *purpose* interpretation: God’s ultimate purpose in making Abraham the father of uncircumcised believers is in order that righteousness might also be imputed to them. Others emphasize the *result*: Abraham’s established fatherhood results in righteousness being imputed to them. Given the divine initiative implied throughout Romans 4, a teleological result that reflects God’s purpose seems most appropriate, where the outcome is precisely what God intended.

Rhetorically, the entire statement from καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς can be understood as an explanation or elaboration dependent on the previous verse (v.10), which asks “How then was it reckoned?” The phrase, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised,” functions as a parenthetical explanation clarifying the nature of circumcision in Abraham’s experience. It was not the *cause* of righteousness but its *seal*, pointing to a prior, faith-based justification. The two subsequent εἰς τὸ clauses then delineate the dual *purpose* or *consequence* of this divine ordering: to establish Abraham as the father of both uncircumcised and circumcised believers, ensuring that righteousness is imputed to all who believe, regardless of their status.

The pronoun αὐτοῖς in the second clause explicitly refers back to πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας (all those who believe through uncircumcision). Therefore, the imputation of righteousness directly applies to this group. This reinforces Paul’s argument that justification by faith is universally available to Gentiles, paralleling Abraham’s pre-circumcision righteousness.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical structure of the εἰς τὸ + articular infinitive clauses in Romans 4:11-12 strongly suggests a teleological relationship. While a strict distinction between “purpose” and “result” can be debated, it is often more accurate to understand this construction, especially in theological contexts of divine action, as denoting an intended outcome or a divinely ordained consequence. Abraham’s circumcision served not as the *means* to righteousness, but as a *sign* and *seal* of a righteousness already possessed through faith, established for the *purpose* of making him the father of all believers, both uncircumcised and circumcised, *with the result that* righteousness would be imputed to them.

The scope of the second clause, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, specifically applies to “all those who believe through uncircumcision,” underscoring the universal accessibility of justification by faith. The absence of καὶ and τὴν in critical texts like NA28 further emphasizes the directness and qualitative nature of this imputation.

Considering these points, here are three suggested translations:

1. …a seal of the righteousness that comes from faith he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe while uncircumcised, in order that righteousness might be imputed to them.

   This translation emphasizes a clear divine purpose for both clauses, highlighting the intentionality behind Abraham’s role and the imputation of righteousness. It conveys God’s plan for Abraham to serve as a paradigm.

2. …a seal of the righteousness that comes from faith he had while uncircumcised, with the result that he became the father of all who believe while uncircumcised, leading to righteousness being imputed to them.

   This option leans more towards the consequential aspect, viewing Abraham’s established fatherhood as naturally producing the outcome of righteousness for believers. It highlights the direct flow from Abraham’s status to the believers’ imputation.

3. …a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had in uncircumcision, to the end that he would be the father of all who believe through uncircumcision, whereby righteousness is also reckoned to them.

   This translation attempts to capture the dual nature, using “to the end that” for the first clause’s purpose and “whereby” for the second clause, suggesting a mechanism or condition under which righteousness is imputed. The “also” (from the potential “καὶ”) is included for slight emphasis on universality.