Romans 1.20

“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 45 — #49Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History by Erwin Ochsenmeier (147 Av. Madoux, B-1150 Bruxelles) As commentaries show, though the meaning and grammatical function of almost every word of Rom 1,20 is open to debate, a majority reading prevails as to its overall meaning. In broad lines, Paul would be saying that those to whom he is referring have known certain things about God from the contemplation of the world since its creation even though some of God’s attributes are invisible; however, these people have not reacted appropriately to this knowledge and are thus without excuse. Objections have been raised against this reading. Based on a comparison with Acts 14,15–17; 17,27–28 and Wis 13,5 and on the equivocal meaning of po–hma, Owen for example rejected the idea of a knowledge of God by nonJews in Rom 1,20.1 He was criticized by Hooker who advocated a reference to Adam’s fall, especially in Rom 1,23, and a dependence of this section more on Gen 1,20–26 than on Ps 105,20 LXX.2 Later on Hooker altered her analysis and placed emphasis on a more direct dependence on Ps 105 LXX.3 Another interpretation of Rom 1,20 has been suggested for at least two centuries that, if valid, could reorient the understanding of the pericope. Indeed, if toÿc poi†masin, one of the key terms of Rom 1,20, is usually interpreted as referring to the creation or the created things, a few commentators have suggested that it also or primarily evokes God’s providence and interventions in human affairs. Thus for Michel the poi†mata are not “Gottes Gescho¨ pfe … sondern seine Werke und Taten in Scho¨ pfung und Geschichte …”.4 For Michaelis “the ref[erence] might well be specifically to history including providences in individual life”.5 According to K¨asemann Paul refers here to the “very reality of the ‘works,’ which include historical experiences …”.6 Similarly for Nygren Paul “knows that God reveals himself in all His works, in 1 2 3 4 5 6 “Whether they [toÿc poi†masin] signify all God’s works, or only some of them, and if only some whether they refer to the humans self (as St Augustine supposed), to history, or to nature we cannot tell” (H. P. Owen, The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom. I and Acts XVII, NTS 51 [1958] 133–143, here 139 M.D. Hooker, Adam in Romans I, NTS 64 (1960) 297–306. M.D. Hooker, A Further Note on Romans I, NTS 132 (1967) 181–183. 14 1966, 100. O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer ¨ (KEK 4), Gottingen ¨ W. Michaelis, Âràw ktl., TDNT 5,315–382, here 380. E. K¨asemann, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids 1980, 42. ZNW 100. Bd., S. 45–58 © Walter de Gruyter 2009 DOI 10.1515/ZNTW.2009.003 K. Cook. Mich. ´ Saint Paul Epitre aux Romains (SBi). 85. Bib. Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch uber ¨ des Brief des Paulus an die Romer ¨ 4 1865.D. R. Der Romerbrief (KEK 4). Uppsala/Copenhagen 1955. Tubingen ¨ 1998.Comm. New York 1853. A. Aan de Romeinen (CNT). No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18–3. ¨ noËw ktl. he translates it as “seine Taten.F. This article is an expansion and complete rework of an argument presented in E. 280–281. The Epistle to the Romans (ICC). Jewett / R. 2 1987. Zurich/Neukirchen-Vluyn ¨ 121. Ochsen´ meier. Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Romerbrief. Edinburgh 1975. except for Isa 29. Bell. Berlin / New York 2007.D. Fitzmyer. 136–138. Viard. Moo. Kampen 1959.F. J.8 Though this “minority reading” is sometimes briefly mentioned9 or explicitly rejected10 . 155–156. M.20. 105). New York 1870. von Flatt / C. he acknowledges that if ÇpÏ has a temporal meaning “the acts of God in history may also be included. here 507–508. Wurthwein. Commentary on Romans. ¨ Tubingen ¨ 1825. Philadelphia 1949. Mal. J. Schlier. Similarly. 84. J. Barnes. Speaking of Sin (Some Interpretative Notes on Romans 1.16 where he sees a reference to creation. and in salvation”. souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1–3: Etude e´ x´eg´etique et th´eologique (BZNW 155). C. H. in temporal blessings. TDNT 4.” Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer ¨ (ThHK 6). 44. 74 (1994) 494–517. New York 1993.G. here 950.16 and Ps 142. G¨artner. B. 36. 129 n. Grand Rapids. Schlatter. 29. 49. The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (ASNU 21). The Logic and Language of Romans 1. 51. Meyer. here 291.B.20 (WUNT 106). L’´epˆıtre de Paul aux Romains (LeDiv. Romans (AncB 33). Paris 2002. 92–101. Ridderbos.” but he does not take that option into account thereafter (D. a reference to God’s acts in history is possible but doubtful. Nygren. Commentary on Romans. . Freiburg 1977.W. Gottingen ¨ ¨ (HThK 6). Romans (Hermeneia). 57–58. A. Accordingly. A.116– Der Brief and die Romer ¨ I (EKK 6/1). 1996. See also J. 106. Paris 1975. ¨ Halle 1842.J. 58. Minneapolis 2007. U. L´egasse. Notes on the New Testament: Explanatory and Practical IV. The Epistle to the Romans [NIC]. Leipzig 1999.20) SJTh 83 (1955) 288–296. 114. J. S.F.11 One wonders whether lexical and methodological issues raised by the two main arguments used for the majority reading as well as contextual indicators do not warrant a closer look at this minority option.G. it is not unusual even for major studies and commentaries not to evoke it at all. Kotansky. 57. according to Ridderbos. 66. Hoffmann.D. Dallas 1988. ¨ Calwer 3 1959. A.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 46 — #50 46 Erwin Ochsenmeier creation. 57. etc. R. While Moo favors a natural revelation.H.. 105–107. Haldane.A.7 For Barth “the word poiemata in the LXX and in the NT actually denotes not things or matters (LXX Isa. who explicitly rejects the idea that Paul refers to the creation. in wrath and judgment. Wilckens. Romans.5LXX.948–1022. Vorlesungen uber ¨ den Brief Pauli an die Romer. Kommentar zum Briefe Pauli an die Romer.16 is the only exception) but deeds or acts ”. Barth.320–323. R. 52. 10). Behm / E.E. Dunn. Cranfield. 45–46 who rejects the meaning of acts in history on the basis of Isa 29. Romans I (WBC 38A).12 7 8 9 10 11 12 A.18 – 3. Haacker leaves the possibility open and suggests that one should not be over-precise in defining po–hmma so as to limit it to the works of creation.A. Tholuck. H. H. Leenhardt.F.533. Cambridge 2 1960. Paul must have bestowed upon the book of Wisdom a considerable amount of study”?(52). Romans (see n. Comm. . Romans I (see n. Since the latter is interpreted as denoting God’s created things or the creation. See already Origen.2. Edinburgh 5 1902. Cook.) are mentioned by most detailed commentaries. 141–153.20 “usually appears in philosophical contexts” (514). Åbo 1991. Bell. 118–119.20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History 47 1. 4. in: idem. Stoic and overall Greek and Latin traditions that indicate a link between the creation and the knowledge of God.5. Romains (see n. Paulus und das Judentum: Anthropologische Erw¨agungen. C. Praem. L´egasse. Moule mentions both approaches as valid without choosing. The Epistle of St. 8). Moule. Gotter. Wis 12–16. 37. John Chrysostom. 3.. Sanday / A. See also G. Second Argument: The Tautology Another recurring argument used in interpreting Rom 1.2. Cicero. Paul to the Romans. Rom. Woyke. etc. De mundo 6. Romans (see n. Hom.28. especially 13. Bornkamm. Tusc. 64. 41–48. Ps Arist. 11). of lexical and conceptual parallels to Rom 1. 507b.C. 11). Rom.20 derives from the meaning assigned to po–hma. Moo. This meaning is mentioned but rejected by Fitzmyer. 142. Philo. Opif. J. Murray clearly shows the circular argument when he says: “‘The things that are made’ 13 14 15 16 17 These parallels (Plato Resp. Theologie der Religionen (BZNW 132).20 in the Judeo-Hellenistic. L’´epˆıtre de saint Paul aux Romains (CNT[N] 2/6).16 Such a reading. Geneva 3 1970. for whom “in his life St.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 47 — #51 Romans 1. 280. Die Offenbarung des Zornes Gottes Rom ¨ 1–3.15 1. T. 393–411. Munchen ¨ 1985.13 Of these parallels Wis 13 is the one most often used in detail. the fact that one can or should reach a knowledge of God through the contemplation of the universe. in addition to Ps 18 LXX. 10). 6. who emphasizes that Paul’s vocabulary in Rom 1. Logic (see n.70. E. Berlin / New York 2005. F. I 16. It would make no sense for Paul to say that God’s ÇÏrata can be seen by the created things from the creation. 51–52. PsSol 8. Ep. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC).Arist. Headlam. First Argument: The Parallels One argument often encountered to support the traditional reading is the existence. 105 n. For lexical parallels with Rom 1–2 see W. 58. 1.1–9.17 would lead to a tautology. Studien zum Neuen Testament. Çp‰ kt–sewc kÏsmou cannot mean “from the creation of the world” in the sense of origin or source of knowledge. 50.1. Exegetical Choices and Strategies 1. ¨ Gotterbilder: ¨ Aspekte einer paulinischen. 9). Gifford. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 219 n. ¨ Gotzen. Dunn. though grammatically possible. In using Stoic ideas Paul would show “a breadth and a boldness in his apologetic strategy”. see also 74.399b. Therefore Paul must mean that God’s invisible attributes have been seen in his creation since the world was created. Laato.H. 59–62. 73. London 1886.J.D.14 Paul’s vocabulary and argument would be more typical of Hellenistic Judaism and of the philosophical literature of his days..7. Josephus. 8) the word should probably be linked to the idea of a known revelation and norm. 18. Ochsenmeier. diÏti gnÏntec t‰n jeÏn [V. 19]. their hearts have become darkened (V.7. 21]. 149–150. Romans (see n.18. Given the references to cognitive language in this pericope and in Romans and the other uses of Çl†jeia in the epistle (1.25]20 .19]). knowledge (t‰ gnwst‰n [V. 22]. . 35.17 by the use of Ps 97LXX and Habakkuk. They are thus without excuse (whether as a result or a purpose). 32]). Paul’s idea is further developed in V.2.1. 114. taking diÏti as introducing an explanation. Those to whom Paul is referring are rightfully subject to God’s wrath and judgment for God has made himself known to them. The Epistle to the Romans (NIC). 20]). 25]). 11). 39 (italics mine). truth and lie (tòn Çl†jeian [V. A Fresh Reading 2. Having known God these people have not glorified him and thanked him as they should have but have become vain in their reasoning. gnÏntec [V. wisdom and intelligence (dialogismoÿc [V. They have known God but have not reacted appropriately (diÏti t‰ gnwst‰n to‹ jeo‹ fanerÏn ‚stin [V. etc. Murray. sofo» ‚mwrànjhsan [V. 9.20. C.25.19 (gàr) which. Remarkable here is the concentration of the vocabulary of revelation (Çpokal‘ptetai [V. Romans (see n. no‹n [V. fanerÏn. 15.18 which starts the argument supporting the thesis of 1.K.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 48 — #52 48 Erwin Ochsenmeier are obviously the created things which are observable to our senses. 280. 3.8.18–3219. Cranfield. The ideas this pericope develops are introduced in 1. 2. This is where V.20 is thus central to this section of Romans since it explains how the knowledge of God was actually reached. For this reason it appears necessary to understand the phrase ‘from the creation of the world’ in a temporal sense … If we were to regard it as intimating the source from which this perception of the invisible attributes is derived. 17–18]. 85–88.18 2. Rom 1. 21]. ‚pign∏sei [V. 10). the invisible made visible (ÇÏrata … kajorêtai [V. Peabody. It develops V. knowledge or revelation entails responsibility. Many suggestions have been made for the meaning of Çl†jeia. 19]. there would be some tautology”. 28]). Romer ¨ (see n. The connections with the surrounding context are worth noticing. 2 1991.16–17. Mass. 21]).22) and idolaters and have worshipped the creature instead of the Creator (V. Context and Main Idea Despite the difficulties in defining the structure of Rom 1. 11). Barrett.23–25).1. Fitzmyer. The same type of reasoning is found in Meyer. Mich. etc. 66. tƒ ye‘dei [V. 12). itself supports V.21). they have become fools (V. 1967. Romans (see n. its general idea is somewhat clear. Grand Rapids. 28]. both of which center on God’s visible revelation and the fact that 18 19 20 J. Mal (see n.20 comes into play. ‚pignÏntec [V. In short. 11).21–32. ‚fanËrwsen [V. For a recent survey of some proposals see Jewett. The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC). he has made his salvation known (‚gn∏risen) to the nations. swt† [3. 2–3]). Eventually the oppressors will turn to idolatry only to find their idols deaf and incapable of saving (2.18–19) in contrast with the God who talks and manifests himself by his salvation and judgment.18]). 1.18. 11). 410.32. So. For a justification for seeing a reference to Ps 97.9).3].7–10. 106. Romans (see n.14]). Der Brief an die Romer ¨ (KEK 4).13. E. 69–71. or.2]).8.4. While is not unusual for commentators to simply take for granted the meaning “created things.18. Gottingen ¨ 2003. V.21 Psalm 97LXX calls Israel to rejoice for God has made marvelous things (jaumastÄ ‚po–hsen. truth (1. God will be known in the midst of two beings (‚n mËs˙ d‘o zºwn gnwsj†s˘ [3.8) demonstrate. 13). all the ends of the earth have seen it (e“dosan [V. 11). Paul’s argument will obviously continue in Rom 2 as the recurring vocabulary and concepts of inexcusability (1. cf.4]) is oppressed by iniquity and by evil people (ÇsËbeia [1. 2. he has revealed his righteousness (Çpekàluyen tòn dikaios‘nhn aŒto‹ [V. 2. 58. 11). more recently.19]).20. as well the knowledge of the Lord through his deeds and his salvation. the things that are made” for po–hma. 1). He will save his people (‚x®ljec e c swter–an lao‹ sou to‹ s¿sai toÃc qristo‘c sou [3. the Lord comes to judge the earth with righteousness and the peoples with equity (V. 11). 2]). judgment and works (1.13]). Psalm 97LXX and Habakkuk both evoke God’s judgment against those who oppress his people and pay no attention to his deeds. Habakkuk will rejoice in the God of his salvation (swthr–a. The earth and its elements are invited to join in praising God (4–8). and wrath (1.2. see Ochsenmeier.5. 114. revelation.2]). he complains that the righteous one ( d–kaioc [1. The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (plhsj†setai ô g® to‹ gn¿nai t†n dÏxan kur–ou [2.441. justice. Habakkuk heard God’s voice and considered his works (katenÏhsa tÄ Írga sou [3. Gotter ¨ (see n. 12). often without any discussion whatsoever. Wilckens.1–5). 2.2]). The Tautology What is interesting in the above quote from Murray and the argumentation used by many commentators is the central role give to po–hma. 87.20). Jewett. Romans (see n. Romans I (see n. See also the parallels with Isa 52. As for Habakkuk. Cranfield.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 49 — #53 Romans 1. but God does not save (oŒ s∏seic [1. 155. 2. Woyke.1). In the NT the word is used only here and in Eph 2. Lohse.10 where 21 22 Ps 97.13]). the God who is his power (k‘rioc  je‰c d‘nam–c mou [3.2. Çseb†c [1. One can hardly miss in these two passages key vocabulary and themes from Romans.20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History 49 he is made known by his works of salvation and judgment.25. Romer ¨ I (Rom ¨ 1–5) (see n.22 this is actually rarely what the word means. 2. Mal (see n.13. 2.2 is the only passage in the LXX that combines so closely Çpokal‘ptw and dikaios‘nh. Dunn. . ¨ Kohelet (Prediger) (BK 19). 7. The participle ktisjËntec may provide additional. 187–294. But these affir23 24 25 26 Notice the singular po–hma despite the plural ‚smen. It is also associated with God (Ps 63.13 the context is about pondering the flow of time.5. 91. 11. the good and evil they perform in their daily lives (1 Sam 8. 209–215.14. There humankind has not found the things that God has made from beginning to end (mò e’r˘  änjrwpoc t‰ po–hma Á ‚po–hsen  jeÏc Çp+ Çrq®c ka» mËqri tËlouc).25 In Ecclesiastes (sg. Grand Rapids. Neh 6.11. 5.4.11.16–18.7LXX).12.5). 142. Against Bell. 2. 45.17b. 9. 8. 11.11. 142. 12.1). 4.26 Finally in Isa 29. 45. One wonders if David would be more comforted by remembering God’s past deeds in his favor or the creation. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000.3–4.17. and the seasons. 8. 19. 142.14). who does acknowledge that the word only “probably” refers to the creation. but it is applied in a comparison to what God will do in a specific historical context.5) it refers to God’s acts.5LXX. but without specific reference to the original creation. The Book of Ecclesiastes (NIC). even if one should try (see also Eccles 11. Mich. The TLG gives 29 occurrences with the Vaticanus variant tÄ poi†mata instead of tÄ Írga in Judg 13.14. T.5.11. Each time the word is used in the Psalms it is always in parallel with Írga (63. 12). One should notice that in Ps 91. the Çp+ Çrq®c ka» mËqri tËlouc prevents limiting the sense to the original act of creation and indicates an expand of time.3–5 refers to the rain.5LXX the fool and the one without understanding do not comprehend God’s works (Ps 91.17a. having been created in Christ.5LXX. Eccles 3. Notice the parallel Írgoic-poi†masin.Arist. 171–176. pl. in 3.10. 7.7. 10). the wind. The word could but does not necessarily refer to the creation in Ps 142. Kruger. Mal (see n.24 The word designates what people do. see Ochsenmeier. In 7. V.13.5) in a context related to God’s actions against evil people (Ps 63) or David’s deliverance and protection (Ps 91. 11. 119. No One (see n. as was illustrated by the use of Ps 97 in Rom 1. Longman. No One (see n. One of the functions of David in Romans is precisely to be a model of hope in light of God’s past acts of salvation.13.9. 7. 91.4. If many see here a reference to Gen 1. twenty are found in Ecclesiastes.23 Of the twenty-eight uses in the LXX (fourteen in the plural.5). followed by the plural ktisjËntec. V. which is an indication of the semantic overlap of the two words.5LXX. The only exception might be the notoriously difficult passage of Eccles 3. the same vocabulary found in Ps 97 and Rom 1.17. The fact that the context is creational does not necessarily mean that po–hma itself refers to the creation.10.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 50 — #54 50 Erwin Ochsenmeier po–hma refers to the believers as God’s deed. In the context of the psalm David in oppressed and remembers God’s works (‚melËthsa ‚n pêsi toÿc Írgoic sou ‚n poi†masin t¿n qeir¿n sou ‚melËtwn. 10).16 the image of the potter is a clear use of a creational idea. 3. David evokes God’s truth and rigtheousness (‚n t¨ Çlhje–¯ sou … ‚n t¨ dikaios‘n˘ sou.22. Ezra 9.17 evokes the things that God has done under the sun. .13).10LXX. Eccles 8. fourteen in the singular). in 8.17. Against Bell.5). who mentions Ep.17.8.17 complains that humankind cannot understand what lies behind God’s acts.14. the clouds. 8.13. 8. 1998. See T.5–6. more precise information than po–hma.5. Eccles 1. is rarely used in the Stoic tradition to talk about the deity. 131). Paul could mean the acts [of God] “since the creation of the world” or “as seen in the created world.20 Paul refers not only to God’s creation but also (mainly?) to his works in history. 1. Edinburgh 1963.10LXX.15 and 17. 124–125. with different nuances. tough less likely. Det. This would also easily explain the option of an instrumental dative for toÿc poi†masin. Wilckens. especially if other elements in the immediate and broader context in Romans favor such a reading. So Tholuck. however. know nothing.7. Braun adds that in the NT the vocabulary is rarely used in creational contexts (Acts 14. people announced God’s works and drew lessons from his deeds. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek III. 240: “probably. 23. those who do not pay attention to God. The word is not used in contexts that evoke God’s creation. 11). one should at least allow for the possibility that in Rom 1. Yet later. 84.20. the context will determine the meaning. Congr. when referring to Rom 1. 42. TDNT 6458–484. Braun.62). in Ps 63. ungrateful man refuses this knowledge. so that in very unstoic fashion he has been thrust into vices by reason of his culpable idolatry” (463).13. Again. Vit.” but to God’s deeds in history. 61. As is already evident from Gen 1. Romer ¨ (see n. Fug. 108.27 This brief study confirms that in the NT.1. deeds. A brief look at the Judeo-Hellenistic tradition as represented for example by Philo shows that the term is not used for the act of creation or for the world considered as a creation in an unambiguous way.” Should this be the meaning in Rom 1.. If po–hma does not mean “created things” it logically follows that the tautology argument loses much of it relevance. In conclusion the word po–hma is used in the LXX in a general sense.11 and. Ps 142. Braun also remarks that if the vocabulary in poie. or Philo. it also oftentimes evokes God’s works in history.28 Therefore. such is not the case of the Psalmist who praises God for his works. the LXX. Paul would not be referring to “acts of creation. here 459.24 would be exceptions) and often for God’s punishing and redeeming activity (459–50. as one should expect. 464). that will give a more precise meaning to the term. the verb itself simply means “to make.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 51 — #55 Romans 1. The verb is not specific to creational contexts. Moulton. Thus. 8).H. It refers.Mos. It is the context. J.5LXX. to “poetry” (Abr.20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History 51 mations should not be taken in an absolute sense. or to created things (Congr.e. Plant. the vocabulary in poie. i. poiËw ktl. with the possible exception of Eccles 3.” . it would provide a simple explanation to the use of the plural toÿc poi†masin and accord with the usual meaning of the word.5LXX those who are stupid.” To 27 28 H.20 he says “For Pl. As mentioned before.3. As Braun indicates. The word is not used in Josephus or in the early fathers.can be used to refer to God as creator in the LXX.” It is the context that will indicate what is made. 1:20) certainly guarantee God’s basic knowability along the lines of Stoicism … de facto. [Paul] the works of creation (poi†mata R.7 and 3. po–hma rarely means “created thing” but usually “acts. Romer ¨ I (see n. to refer to what a person or God does. if in Ps 91. in the singular or plural. 77. 3. one is sometimes hard pressed to know which option commentators follow.31 Finally one must briefly raise the issue of the syntactical function of Çp‰ kt–sewc kÏsmou.7b and mËqri n‹n in Bell. as is usually recognized. The genitive kÏsmou also favors the temporal option since the understanding of Çp‰ kt–sewc as a frame of reference would lead to the rather awkward idea that God’s äorata can be seen “from the created world of the world”.50. Çrq†) which is not necessarily the case in Rom 1. as those who see a tautology seem to think. Schjott. 280 (see n. 508 (see n.34. etc. 225. Jewett. Barr. Lk 11.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 52 — #56 52 Erwin Ochsenmeier make a decision between the two alternatives commentatorsoftentimes suggest the parallels in Çp+ Çrq®c kÏsmou (Mt 24.35.14.6 and Heb 4. Romans.14) the construction in ÇpÏ followed by the double genitive modifies what immediately precedes it. cf.4 and ô Çrqò t®c kt–sewc to‹ jeo‹ in Rev 3. 174 (see n.533 (Çp‰ t®c kt–sewc mËqri n‹n. 4. Romer. 41 (see n.35. 25. 98–100.8.P. 12). 2) kajorêtai through noo‘mena (God’s ÇÏrata being understood are seen since the world was created). Rev 13. ZNW 4 (1903) 75–78 and K¨asemann. Haacker.6. See Ochsenmeier.19. 17. in all the parallels mentioned (Mt 13. 8). “The Logic”.” “creation” in the sense of thing created or “creation” in the sense of act of creation.32 or 3) tÄ ÇÏrata aŒto‹ (God’s attributes have been invisible since the creation of the world)?33 To support this last position one could adduce that with the exception of Mk 10. 155 (see n. ¨ 104 n. ¨ 45 (see n. 6) and rejected by A.8. ¨ I.29 But none of these parallels offer the expression found in Rom 1. This last sense is unusual. Bell. Wilckens.26.533 confirm a chronological perspective. Lk 11. 24. Does this modify 1) toÿc poi†masin. 4. The word is generally taken to mean “creature.34. ZNW 17 (1916) 159–168 who is followed by Fitzmyer. See also J. The Semantics of Biblical Language.20 and all contain a word that denotes a temporal reference (katabol†.4 and Rev 3.20 if.” Cook.18–20. 17.50. Zur Auslegung von Rom ¨ 1. 9. 2 Pet 3. Rev 13. 13.21. Since this point is usually not treated with precision.11) where Çp+ a ¿noc in PsSol 8. Romans. Fridrichsen. . Eccles 3.30 What may tip the scale in attributing a temporal reference to Çp‰ kt–sewc is not the argument of the partial parallels but similar expressions in PsSol 8.8). Mal (see n.3. 11). kt–sic does not indicate the act of creation. Heb 4. 25. Romer. Romans. Rom.19 f. 8). ¨ Eine religionsphilosophische Stelle bei Paulus.6. 11).21) and Çp‰ katabol®c kÏsmou (Mt 13. “Here Paul uses the word kt–sic in a sense unknown to Hellenistic writers not in the Jewish tradition. Suggested by O.. This is usually the case too in the NT with the other construction in ÇpÏ 29 30 31 32 33 To these one could also add Çp‰ Çrq®c kt–sewc in Mk 10. London. 2 Pet 3. 11). 1961. 13.8 as well as Mk 10.7 (Çnelogisàmhn tÄ kr–mata to‹ jeo‹ Çp‰ kt–sewc o‘rano‹ ka» g®c ‚dika–wsa t‰n je‰n ‚n toÿc kr–masin aŒto‹ toÿc Çp+ a ¿noc) and Josephus.19. 2 Thess 1. Though he is the creator of all things (20–28). 2. Likewise. 1 Tim 1.20. Somn. This unseen being is seen by its deeds (ÇÏratoc ofisa toÿc Írgoic aŒt®c Ârêtai [399b15]). First.4. A few examples demonstrate this.21. Eph 1. This approach raises several questions. people worship dumb idols (29–35) and are behaving immorally (36–46). 2 Cor 1. who is strong in power (Ta‹ta qrò ka» per» jeo‹ dianoeÿsjai.3. Spec.39. neither prevents it from working nor people from believing in it. and not on grammatical parallels.46.2. My argument differs therefore from Schjott’s ¨ and Fridrichsen’s since they both depend on a natural theology reading of Rom 1.8–10) who cannot be seen with the eyes (17. eternal and invisible (ÇÏratoc Âr∏menoc aŒt‰c âpanta.237.20.31]).2. in internal affairs. Col 1. several of these texts are parallels only if we interpret Rom 1. Col 1.3.72. Abr. earthquakes. QEx 1.2.18.7.8–45 the context of the oracle is a pronouncement against idolatry. Second. 2 Tim 1. 1. Notice here several verbal and conceptual parallels with Habakkuk and Rom 1. the existence of parallels to Rom 1.Aristotle.Gai. quite a few of these parallels actually integrate history and providence as a path to the knowledge of God.65. Congr. Her. De Mundo 399b the context evokes a force that. etc. Greek philosophical concepts. Cher.20]) and acquired knowledge (gn¿te d‡ katjËmenoi sof–hn [1. 15. if Philo uses the term ÇÏratoc to refer to God’s invisibility35 and the noetic vocabulary to evoke the knowledge of God.7. (1. 310.4. 2 Thess 1. 69. They should have glorified God (doxàzein aŒtƒ te j‘ein [Frgm. 101. Vit. 1.318.2. the focus is on the fact that this unseen force and God are operative in wars. etc.3. Similarly in OrSib 3. 4. 120. it is hard to come to a firm decision between the last two alternatives. 7. 2. see also 1.73. Tit 1.2.20 as teaching a natural theology. Decal.36 it is linked with 34 35 36 This is true in salutations (1 Cor 1.2.20. Spec. Decal.20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History 53 followed by a double genitive.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 53 — #57 Romans 1.9).35.20. famines. see also 4. There is only one God.34 All in all. though unseen (ta‘thc Çoràtou ka» Çfano‹c [399b12]). 2. The Parallels As mentioned before. 3. Post.12. 280. and the use of parallels in the Judeo-Hellenistic literature. Phil 1. plagues. Leg. He is the one who will send the rain.19). 31. 25. though unseen by mortal nature. 138. Opif. 2. Though the idea of creation is not absent from the context. 2 Cor 3. We should think likewise of God. Phlm 3) but in other passages as well (Rom 1.12) and who rules the world (3. in history. . 7.32).2. 59.Leg.23. etc. 1.Leg. God is going to judge and intervene. 290. 8.2. is seen in his works (Çje∏rhtoc Çp+ aŒt¿n t¿n Írgwn jewreÿtai [399b22]). In Ps.20 in the JudeoHellenistic tradition is oftentimes evoked to support the natural theology reading.1.165.2. 5. Conf. 1. at the conceptual level. Gal 1.31. in short.Mos. dunàmei m‡n Óntoc  squrotàtou [399b19–20]) and who. Cook. 154. The doctrine of creation and providence are so interdependent that to negate the creation is to cut the root of providence (Opif. 11). 12. 138 (see n.20 sometimes mentioned. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (PhAnt 44). Tubingen ¨ 1999. Etudes sur l’´epˆıtre aux Romains (AnBib 120). his acts in history. Rome 1989. 132. Bell. 1). Here of course a difference surfaces. Runia. Romans (see n.32. La connaissance naturelle de Dieu: Rom 1. Leiden 1986. but he has manifested it to the unbelievers (‚nde–knusai Çpisto‘menoc ‚p» dunàmewc teleiÏthti.39 Therefore not all agree that Wis 13 offers much help in understanding Paul’s thought. Diss. Frick. 506.1. Epictet.17). ´ See also S. Given the importance of the vocabulary of knowledge in Romans.426–466. 148–155. Lyonnet.6. but this text is part of the discussion on Providence (Per» prono–ac). God is the creator and the guide of the universe (t‰n poihtòn ka» ôgemÏna to‹ pantÏc [41]).23. 76–77. Michaelis. 12. its link with cosmology and the praise of the creator in Philo see D. 6).396–399. 1. In Wisdom people dit not reach a knowledge of God by his creation or his deeds (13. It is a law of nature that the cause of things takes care of the thing produced (ka– Ìti prÏnoian Çnagkaÿon e⁄nai.12–21. which advocates seeing the artisan in his works of providence too (Diss. in: idem. K¨asemann. which in the context include the works of providence (43.40 37 38 39 40 Opif. No One (see n.38 Finally if Wis 13 offers undeniable parallels to Rom 1. Michaelis. His power may be questioned. 1. The Demiurge is surmised from his works. Romans (see n. 34]). especially in reference to the Exodus. In Wis 12.15. . Jewett.15.15–19). TDNT 5. 41–43.17).42).19–20. 10). 8). see also PsSol 2. and his righteous rule (12.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 54 — #58 54 Erwin Ochsenmeier God’s providence. 14.241– 242. For a study on providence. Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 77). 78). 18–23. see also P. For Philo providence is intextricably linked to the Jewish God who acts in history. 170–172 is considered as a convenient summary of Philo’s view on providence. TDNT 5380–381.11. one should notice that the overall context in Wisdom is of God’s actions in history.20.1–9. Logic (see n. by which God has shown his strength and his power (11. nÏmoc gÄr f‘sewc ‚pimeleÿsjai t‰ pepoihk‰c to‹ gegonÏtoc [42]). This is to be linked with Stoic philosophy. For the differences between Romans 1 and Wisdom see Owen. Philo calls his reader to admire nature and accept as good everything that happens in the world without malice (toÿc ‚n tƒ kÏsm˙ prattomËnoic [Praem.6. The contemplation of the world leads one to conclude in the existence of providence. This is evident in another parallel to Rom 1. 9–10). this is a major difference.37 Thus in the often quoted parallel of Praem. Scope. 53 n.17).T. see also Abr.380. he has shown his strength by his power demonstrated in his righteous progressive judgment of the inhabitants of Canaan. 2 Bar 54. 143–144. Isa 52. K¨asemann. Regensburg 1984. Carson / P.19. and influences is not unique to Paul of course. 60. 8). No One (see n. or were supposed to have. Philo of Alexandria (see n.).20 Paul’s thought is entirely Jewish even though he may be talking about non-Jews. concepts.18–32 is still much debated.7. are rare (1 Sam 3. 7. Furthermore many have advanced other OT passages as background for interpreting different parts of Rom 1. I.20 presupposes that the people referred to by Paul have known God or something about him (V. in: Justification and Variegated Nomism II. a key difference between Paul and some of the parallels often put forward for Rom 1.17.20? The problems raised by the parallels are such that deciding on the background of Rom 1.A. 60. 58. The OT as a Background to Rom 1. with jeÏc used in the accusative. 29. The use of Ps 97LXX and Habakkuk in Rom 1.A. Davies. gin∏skw [V. known him by his acts in history.44 Therefore.16. 136– 37. 2 is Hellenistic but the body is Rabbinic”.19–20 are not uncommon in the LXX and support the idea that even in Rom 1. 1). Ps 93LXX. 19]. 32]).“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 55 — #59 Romans 1. Deut 4. things are not quite so simple … Characteristic of Paul is what he does not adopt and the great restraint shown in what he does adopt … The sphere of Hellenistic discussion concerning true service of God is thus abandoned and the path of the OT preaching about obdurate hearers is entered … ”. Ps 105LXX. Seifrid.17 naturally points in that direction.36–37. 1 Kings 18. 55. though there are traces of Hellenistic philosophy. 35–36. The cases where God is the object of knowledge. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. Dunn. ‚p–gnwsic [V. “In Paul.7. ‚pign∏skw [V.9) but other constructions with the vocabulary in gnw. however. D. 138. Similarly G¨artner. London 1948. 8–37. M. Areopagus Speech (see n. As mentioned earlier. 62. Zeller. 16. several key terms of Rom 1. Gen 1–3. For the same issue in Philo related to cosmology and the influence of Plato see for example Runia. oftentimes in reference to the Exodus. For Davies Paul’s argument in Rom 1.6. Romans (see n.11. D.43 Finally. 10).A. 1 Chr 28. demonstrate this. if part of Paul’s vocabulary allows for parallels with the Judeo-Hellenistic literature.9. Bell. 29.18–32 (Adam’s story.42 Several features indicate that Rom 1. Scope (see n. Deut 4. Jer 2 etc.T. 21]. 7.117. 37). but there are many cases where they have. 6). 29. 11). O’Brien / M.used by Paul (gnwstÏc [V. there is no case in the LXX where the Jews or the nations have known God through the creation. ed. 114. Ps 45. who suggested reading Rom 1. The problem of the relationship between language. Even Dunn.20 should indeed be interpreted in light of the OT. 41 42 43 44 W. Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18 – 3:20.20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History 55 3. besides po–hma. 19.41 According to K¨asemann. Seifrid.13. Two brief examples. 28].D.18–32 through the influence of Stoic vocabulary sees allusions to Adam in Rom 1.39. Ezek .36. It is worth stressing that if one looks at the vocabulary in gnw. See also Owen.12.21). Romans I (see n.refer to a knowledge of the Lord or that God is God through history (Exod 6. 2 Chr 33.5.20 “would be sound Rabbinic doctrine … the dress in Rom. Tubingen ¨ / Grand Rapids 2004. Der Brief an die Romer ¨ (RNT). there- 45 46 47 48 49 20. 21.49 This is obvious already in Rom 1. Romer ¨ (see n. etc. Josephus. etc. God’s power is made known to Israel and the nations by his acts of judgment and deliverance. God’s power is revealed in the OT to Jews and non-Jews mostly through his deeds in history.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 56 — #60 56 Erwin Ochsenmeier if Paul were to say in Rom 1. Jer 16. 34. when these are understood. God’s being the creator is conceptually linked with his sovereignty and action in the world.20 and does not contradict the Judeo-Hellenistic literature.30. Jewett.20 that God has been known through his acts in history.11.167. d‘namai ktl. Job 31.20 as meaning that God’s power and deity can be seen by God’s acts in history and that. Romer ¨ (see n. In short. 1 Kings 20. Wis 13. 3 Macc 2.16. 56. This should not be construed as implying a radical separation in Paul’s theology between God’s acts in history and his being the creator of the world.24. one could read Rom 1.14. Romer ¨ (see n. 2. 15. Josh 4.17–22.Arist. That is the way one knows who the Lord is.4.45.45 Paul seems to be saying that what is not immediately visible– God’s power and deity–can be discerned when God’s acts are understood.20. 15.47 This is not unimportant for the understanding of Romans since in the epistle the vocabulary of power is associated several times with the vocabulary of revelation (Rom 1. 83. This is mentioned too by W.20. 28. here 291. The association of the vocabulary of demonstration and power actually started the epistle with the mention of the resurrection of Christ (1. 11).8.28. Despite his assertion that even in the NT “there is distinctive adoption of the OT view of the power of God active in history and setting its goal”. 8). the vocabulary used by Paul. Ep. Opif. Ap. Hab 3. Another indicator is the use of d‘namic. See Zeller.25.97. There Paul would be “pursuing a line of thought common in Hellenistic Judaism” (306). TDNT 2.284–317.26. and the OT context of Rom 1.18. he would be echoing a common theme in the LXX. 42).4. 9.23–24. Tholuck. 132 Deut 3. see also 4. 7. God is the creator. 21..3–448. from a lexical and grammatical perspective. 8). Such a reading coheres with the rest of the epistle. As rightly mentioned too by Haacker. 114. non-Jews or both. Therefore. Commentators are probably right in considering the ÇÏrata to be in apposition with d‘namic and jeiÏthc in Rom 1. . Grundmann. Romans (see n.18. 2 Macc 9.19.10. one gains a knowledge of God. Leg. whether he was referring to Jews.13. Whether God’s power and divinity are included in the ÇÏrata or not the fact remains that they form the basis for the knowledge attained in V. 155. Cranfield.20.2. Romans (see n. Spec.6. 3. 1.18–19). One could argue that knowing the jeiÏthc could refer to knowing who God (the Lord) is.).Leg.21. see also Rev 4. Philo. he does not bring up this point in his comment on Rom 1. Jdt 2.24.21. 11). 49.All.19. If the Scriptures and the Judeo-Hellenistic literature affirm the knowledge of God by his power and the demonstration of his power by the creation46 the recurrence of the vocabulary of power in context of deliverance and of the manifestation of God’s works for his people in the OT is striking.19). 32.18–23 Paul would be echoing a fairly common OT theme. In Rom 1. Jub 1.19.16–32 Paul may be using some Judeo-Hellenistic and Greek philosophical vocabulary. Ps 95. here 285–286. Isa 40. 2.11–23.5.15) but by his blessings through time (14. See also H.4. in Rom 1. In Acts 17. TZ(W) 12 (1956) 275–88. as the history of interpretation of Rom 1.15–17 God has demonstrated who he is not by the creation (Acts 14. which should not be surprising given the importance of the OT as the interpretive background 50 51 52 Deut 32.10–12.27–29.12. Wis 12–13. etc. Since toÿc poi†masin could evoke the rains or the seasons (cf.e. not a better look at the creation. 12. Job 38. It may also help explain the ‚n aŒtoÿc in 1.2). Naturliche ¨ Gotteserkenntnis der Heiden? Eine Erw¨agung zu Rom.20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History 57 fore he is the only one who rules the world and should be acknowledged as such. To go from ignorance to knowledge necessitates the announcement of the Good News. .6. Should this interpretation be correct. no mention is made of the possibility of knowing him by the creation.17 and 17. ¨ 1. 60.20 it is God’s deeds in history as a means of revelation of his power and deity and of way to known him that Paul has in view. In addition it accounts for the fact that in Romans Paul will not use the argument of God’s revelation through his creation but through a message revealed and transmitted by the prophets and apostles that explains and brings out the significance of God’s intervention in history. In Acts 14. This interpretation establishes a connection with Ps 97 LXX and the book of Habakkuk and coheres with the use of the OT in Romans. Conclusions If “God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen”. as we have seen. i.3.20.1.18.1–5. Lk 1. of God’s interventions in history. PsSol 18.23–34.3–5).27.5LXX. We have defended here the possibility that Rom 1.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 57 — #61 Romans 1.19–21. Dan 14. the vocabulary used in Rom 1. Bietenhard. it is safe to say that Paul has not shown how this was done in a clear way. Yet. God’s revelation in Rom 1 would refer to his manifestation in history among the Jews and the nations (cf. but he weaves it into an OT point of view that will satisfy an audience obviously concerned that the Gospel he preaches is the fulfillment of the OT promises. 4.25.20 shows. Eccles 11.22–33 though God is said to be the creator. Idolatry there does not result from rebellion but ignorance.36–37.1–5.18–21. in the intertestamental literature51 .20 could be read to refer not to the possibility of knowing God by the creation but primarily by his acts in history.52 It also integrates the passage within the thread of the book of Romans and its use of the vocabulary of the power of God. the interpretation defended here would eliminate any perceived contradiction with Acts 14. the focus of the passage and the context indicate that in Rom 1.18– 19. This idea is clearly present not only in Ps 97 and Habakkuk but also in a large number of other passages in the LXX50 .47. 22. 84. Jdt 9.17).32. Prov 1. 1 Enoch 1. and in many of the parallels suggested for Rom 1.3. 101–102. 20 have any validity. Paul’s words would no longer be central to the debates on natural theology and general revelation only. but would also contribute to the theology and philosophy of history.“ZNW 2009-1” — 2009/1/7 — 12:57 — page 58 — #62 58 Erwin Ochsenmeier of Romans. . it would have significant consequences for the use of the passage in philosophy. Should this interpretation of Rom 1.