ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 45 #49

Romans 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 Gods 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 14,1517; 17,2728 and Wis 13,5 and on the equivocal meaning of
pohma, 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
Adams fall, especially in Rom 1,23, and a dependence of this section more on
Gen 1,2026 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 toc poimasin, 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 Gods providence and interventions in human affairs. Thus for Michel the poimata 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 Kasemann 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

2
3
4
5
6

Whether they [toc poimasin] signify all Gods 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] 133143, here 139
M.D. Hooker, Adam in Romans I, NTS 64 (1960) 297306.
M.D. Hooker, A Further Note on Romans I, NTS 132 (1967) 181183.
14 1966, 100.
O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer

(KEK 4), Gottingen

W. Michaelis, rw ktl., TDNT 5,315382, here 380.

E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids 1980, 42.

ZNW 100. Bd., S. 4558

Walter de Gruyter 2009

DOI 10.1515/ZNTW.2009.003

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 46 #50

46

Erwin Ochsenmeier

creation, in temporal blessings, in wrath and judgment, and in salvation.7

For Barth the word poiemata in the LXX and in the NT actually denotes not
things or matters (LXX Isa. 29.16 is the only exception) but deeds or acts .8
Though this minority reading is sometimes briefly mentioned9 or explicitly
rejected10 , it is not unusual even for major studies and commentaries not to
evoke it at all.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.12

7
8

10

11

12

A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans, Philadelphia 1949, 106.

M. Barth, Speaking of Sin (Some Interpretative Notes on Romans 1.18 3.20) SJTh 83
(1955) 288296, here 291. See also J.F. von Flatt / C.D.F. Hoffmann, Vorlesungen uber

den
Brief Pauli an die Romer,

Tubingen

1825, 84; A.F. Tholuck, Kommentar zum Briefe Pauli

an die Romer,

Halle 1842, 85; R. Haldane, Commentary on Romans, New York 1853, 58;
A. Barnes, Romans, Notes on the New Testament: Explanatory and Practical IV, New
York 1870, 36, who explicitly rejects the idea that Paul refers to the creation; B. Gartner,
The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (ASNU 21), Uppsala/Copenhagen 1955,
136138; J. Behm / E. Wurthwein,

now ktl., TDNT 4,9481022, here 950; A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Romerbrief,

Calwer 3 1959, 57; A. Viard,

Saint Paul Epitre

aux Romains (SBi), Paris 1975, 57; J.G. Cook, The Logic and Language
of Romans 1,20, Bib. 74 (1994) 494517, here 507508, except for Isa 29,16 where he sees a
reference to creation; K. Haacker leaves the possibility open and suggests that one should
not be over-precise in defining pohmma so as to limit it to the works of creation. Accordingly, he translates it as seine Taten, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer

(ThHK 6),
Leipzig 1999, 49; etc.
While Moo favors a natural revelation, he acknowledges that if p has a temporal meaning the acts of God in history may also be included, but he does not take that option
into account thereafter (D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [NIC], Grand Rapids, Mich.
1996, 105). Similarly, according to Ridderbos, a reference to Gods acts in history is possible but doubtful, H. Ridderbos, Aan de Romeinen (CNT), Kampen 1959, 44.
H.A.W. Meyer, Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch uber

des Brief des Paulus an die Romer

4 1865, 66; H. Schlier, Der Romerbrief

(KEK 4), Gottingen

(HThK 6), Freiburg 1977,

52; R.H. Bell, No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans
1.183.20 (WUNT 106), Tubingen

1998, 4546 who rejects the meaning of acts in history

on the basis of Isa 29,16 and Ps 142,5LXX; S. Legasse, Leptre de Paul aux Romains
(LeDiv.Comm. 10), Paris 2002, 129 n. 51.
C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC), Edinburgh 1975, 114; U. Wilckens,
2 1987, 105107.116
Der Brief and die Romer

I (EKK 6/1), Zurich/Neukirchen-Vluyn

121; J.D.G. Dunn, Romans I (WBC 38A), Dallas 1988, 5758; J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans
(AncB 33), New York 1993, 280281; R. Jewett / R.D. Kotansky, Romans (Hermeneia),
Minneapolis 2007, 155156.
This article is an expansion and complete rework of an argument presented in E. Ochsen
meier, Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 13: Etude
e xegetique et
theologique (BZNW 155), Berlin / New York 2007, 92101.320323.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 47 #51

Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History

47

1. Exegetical Choices and Strategies

1.1. First Argument: The Parallels
One argument often encountered to support the traditional reading is the existence, in addition to Ps 18 LXX, of lexical and conceptual parallels to Rom
1,20 in the Judeo-Hellenistic, Stoic and overall Greek and Latin traditions that
indicate a link between the creation and the knowledge of God; the fact that
one can or should reach a knowledge of God through the contemplation of
the universe.13 Of these parallels Wis 13 is the one most often used in detail.14
Pauls vocabulary and argument would be more typical of Hellenistic Judaism
and of the philosophical literature of his days. In using Stoic ideas Paul would
show a breadth and a boldness in his apologetic strategy.15
1.2. Second Argument: The Tautology
Another recurring argument used in interpreting Rom 1,20 derives from the
meaning assigned to pohma. Since the latter is interpreted as denoting Gods
created things or the creation, p ktsewc ksmou cannot mean from the
creation of the world in the sense of origin or source of knowledge.16 Such a
reading, though grammatically possible,17 would lead to a tautology. It would
make no sense for Paul to say that Gods rata can be seen by the created things from the creation. Therefore Paul must mean that Gods invisible
attributes have been seen in his creation since the world was created. Murray
clearly shows the circular argument when he says: The things that are made
13

14

15
16

17

These parallels (Plato Resp. 507b; Wis 1216, especially 13,19; Ep.Arist. 142; PsSol 8,7;
Philo, Praem. 4148; Opif. 5962; Josephus, Bell. 4,533; Ps Arist, De mundo 6,399b;
Cicero, Tusc. 1,28.70; etc.) are mentioned by most detailed commentaries. See also
G. Bornkamm, Die Offenbarung des Zornes Gottes Rom
13, in: idem, Studien zum
Neuen Testament, Munchen

1985, 141153; Cook, Logic (see n. 8), who emphasizes

that Pauls vocabulary in Rom 1,20 usually appears in philosophical contexts (514);
J. Woyke, Gotter,

Gotzen,

Gotterbilder:

Aspekte einer paulinischen, Theologie der Religionen (BZNW 132), Berlin / New York 2005, 393411.
For lexical parallels with Rom 12 see W. Sanday / A.C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC), Edinburgh 5 1902, 5152, for whom in
his life St. Paul must have bestowed upon the book of Wisdom a considerable amount
of study?(52); T. Laato, Paulus und das Judentum: Anthropologische Erwagungen, bo
1991, 118119.
Dunn, Romans I (see n. 11), 58, see also 74.
E.H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, London 1886, 6. See already Origen,
Comm. Rom., I 16.5; John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom., 3.2. This meaning is mentioned but
rejected by Fitzmyer, Romans (see n. 11), 280; F.J. Leenhardt, Leptre de saint Paul aux
Romains (CNT[N] 2/6), Geneva 3 1970, 37; Legasse, Romains (see n. 10), 219 n. 50; Moo,
Romans (see n. 9), 105 n. 64.
Moule mentions both approaches as valid without choosing, C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom
Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge 2 1960, 73.

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. 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, there would
be some tautology.18
2. A Fresh Reading
2.1. Context and Main Idea
Despite the difficulties in defining the structure of Rom 1,183219, its general
idea is somewhat clear. Those to whom Paul is referring are rightfully subject
to Gods wrath and judgment for God has made himself known to them. They
have known God but have not reacted appropriately (diti t gnwstn to
jeo fanern stin [V. 19]; diti gnntec tn jen [V. 21]). They are thus
without excuse (whether as a result or a purpose). In short, knowledge or revelation entails responsibility. This is where V.20 comes into play. It develops
V.19 (gr) which, taking diti as introducing an explanation, itself supports
V.18 which starts the argument supporting the thesis of 1,1617. Pauls idea
is further developed in V.2132. Remarkable here is the concentration of the
vocabulary of revelation (pokalptetai [V. 1718]; fanern, fanrwsen
[V.19]); knowledge (t gnwstn [V. 19]; gnntec [V. 21]; pignsei [V. 28];
pignntec [V. 32]); truth and lie (tn ljeian [V. 18.25]20 ; t yedei [V. 25]);
wisdom and intelligence (dialogismoc [V. 21]; sofo mwrnjhsan [V. 22];
non [V. 28]); the invisible made visible (rata kajortai [V. 20]); etc.
Having known God these people have not glorified him and thanked him as
they should have but have become vain in their reasoning, their hearts have
become darkened (V.21), they have become fools (V.22) and idolaters and have
worshipped the creature instead of the Creator (V.2325). Rom 1,20 is thus
central to this section of Romans since it explains how the knowledge of God
was actually reached.
The connections with the surrounding context are worth noticing. The
ideas this pericope develops are introduced in 1,17 by the use of Ps 97LXX and
Habakkuk, both of which center on Gods visible revelation and the fact that
18

19

20

J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NIC), Grand Rapids, Mich. 1967, 39 (italics mine).
The same type of reasoning is found in Meyer, Romer

(see n. 10), 66; Cranfield, Romans

(see n. 11), 114; C.K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC), Peabody, Mass. 2 1991,
35; Fitzmyer, Romans (see n. 11), 280; etc.
For a recent survey of some proposals see Jewett, Romans (see n. 11), 149150; Ochsenmeier, Mal (see n. 12), 8588.
Many suggestions have been made for the meaning of ljeia. Given the references to
cognitive language in this pericope and in Romans and the other uses of ljeia in the
epistle (1,18.25; 2,2.8.20; 3,7; 9,1; 15,8) the word should probably be linked to the idea of
a known revelation and norm.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 49 #53

Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History

49

he is made known by his works of salvation and judgment.21 Psalm 97LXX

calls Israel to rejoice for God has made marvelous things (jaumast pohsen; V. 1), he has made his salvation known (gnrisen) to the nations, all the
ends of the earth have seen it (edosan [V. 23]), he has revealed his righteousness (pekluyen tn dikaiosnhn ato [V. 2]), the Lord comes to judge
the earth with righteousness and the peoples with equity (V.9). The earth and
its elements are invited to join in praising God (48). As for Habakkuk, he
complains that the righteous one ( dkaioc [1,4; cf. 1,13; 2,4]) is oppressed by
iniquity and by evil people (sbeia [1,3]; sebc [1,13]), but God does not
save (o sseic [1,2]). Eventually the oppressors will turn to idolatry only to
find their idols deaf and incapable of saving (2,1819) in contrast with the God
who talks and manifests himself by his salvation and judgment. The earth will
be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (plhsjsetai g
to gnnai tn dxan kurou [2,14]). Habakkuk heard Gods voice and
considered his works (katenhsa t rga sou [3,2]). God will be known in
the midst of two beings (n ms do zwn gnwsjs [3,2]). He will save
his people (xljec ec swteran lao sou to ssai toc qristoc sou
[3,13]). Habakkuk will rejoice in the God of his salvation (swthra, swt
[3,13.18]), the God who is his power (krioc jec dnamc mou [3,19]). Psalm
97LXX and Habakkuk both evoke Gods judgment against those who oppress
his people and pay no attention to his deeds, revelation, justice, as well the
knowledge of the Lord through his deeds and his salvation. One can hardly
miss in these two passages key vocabulary and themes from Romans. Pauls
argument will obviously continue in Rom 2 as the recurring vocabulary and
concepts of inexcusability (1,20; 2,1), judgment and works (1,32; 2,15), truth
(1,18.25; 2,2.8.20), and wrath (1,18; 2,5.8) demonstrate.
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 pohma. While is not
unusual for commentators to simply take for granted the meaning created
things, the things that are made for pohma,22 this is actually rarely what the
word means. In the NT the word is used only here and in Eph 2,10 where

21

22

Ps 97,2 is the only passage in the LXX that combines so closely pokalptw and
dikaiosnh. For a justification for seeing a reference to Ps 97, see Ochsenmeier, Mal (see
n. 12), 6971. See also the parallels with Isa 52,710.
So, often without any discussion whatsoever, Cranfield, Romans (see n. 11), 114; Dunn,
Romans I (see n. 11), 58; Wilckens, Romer

I (Rom
15) (see n. 11), 106, or, more recently,
Jewett, Romans (see n. 11), 155; E. Lohse, Der Brief an die Romer

(KEK 4), Gottingen

2003, 87; Woyke, Gotter

(see n. 13), 410.441.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 50 #54

50

Erwin Ochsenmeier

pohma refers to the believers as Gods deed, having been created in Christ.23
Of the twenty-eight uses in the LXX (fourteen in the plural, fourteen in the
singular), twenty are found in Ecclesiastes.24 The word designates what people do, the good and evil they perform in their daily lives (1 Sam 8,8; 19,4;
Ezra 9,13; Neh 6,14; Eccles 1,14; 2,4.11.17; 3,17.22; 4,34; 5,5; 8,9.14; 9,7.10;
12,14). It is also associated with God (Ps 63,10LXX; 91,5LXX; 142,5LXX;
Eccles 3,11; 7,13; 8,17; 11,5). Each time the word is used in the Psalms it
is always in parallel with rga (63,10; 91,56; 142,5) in a context related to
Gods actions against evil people (Ps 63) or Davids deliverance and protection (Ps 91,5; 142,5).25 In Ecclesiastes (sg. in 3,11; 7,13; 8,17b; pl. in 8,17a;
11,5) it refers to Gods acts, but without specific reference to the original creation. In 7,13 the context is about pondering the flow of time; 8,17 evokes
the things that God has done under the sun; 11,35 refers to the rain, the
wind, the clouds, and the seasons. The only exception might be the notoriously difficult passage of Eccles 3,11. There humankind has not found the
things that God has made from beginning to end (m er njrwpoc
t pohma pohsen jec p+ rqc ka mqri tlouc). If many
see here a reference to Gen 1, the p+ rqc ka mqri tlouc prevents
limiting the sense to the original act of creation and indicates an expand of
time.26 Finally in Isa 29,16 the image of the potter is a clear use of a creational idea, but it is applied in a comparison to what God will do in a specific historical context. One should notice that in Ps 91,5LXX the fool and the
one without understanding do not comprehend Gods works (Ps 91,7LXX).
Eccles 8,17 complains that humankind cannot understand what lies behind
Gods acts, even if one should try (see also Eccles 11,5; 7,13). But these affir23

24

25

26

Notice the singular pohma despite the plural smen, followed by the plural ktisjntec.
The fact that the context is creational does not necessarily mean that pohma itself refers to
the creation. The participle ktisjntec may provide additional, more precise information
than pohma. Against Bell, No One (see n. 10), 45.
The TLG gives 29 occurrences with the Vaticanus variant t poimata instead of t
rga in Judg 13,12, which is an indication of the semantic overlap of the two words.
The word could but does not necessarily refer to the creation in Ps 142,5LXX. One wonders if David would be more comforted by remembering Gods past deeds in his favor or
the creation. Against Bell, No One (see n. 10), 45, who does acknowledge that the word
only probably refers to the creation. In the context of the psalm David in oppressed and
remembers Gods works (melthsa n psi toc rgoic sou n poimasin tn qeirn
sou meltwn; V.5). Notice the parallel rgoic-poimasin. David evokes Gods truth and
rigtheousness (n t lhje sou n t dikaiosn sou; V.1), the same vocabulary
found in Ps 97 and Rom 1,1618. One of the functions of David in Romans is precisely to
be a model of hope in light of Gods past acts of salvation, as was illustrated by the use of
Ps 97 in Rom 1,17, see Ochsenmeier, Mal (see n. 12), 209215.
See T. Kruger,

Kohelet (Prediger) (BK 19), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 171176, who mentions Ep.Arist. 187294; T. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NIC), Grand Rapids,
Mich. 1998, 119.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 51 #55

Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History

51

mations should not be taken in an absolute sense. Thus, in Ps 63,10LXX,

people announced Gods works and drew lessons from his deeds. As mentioned before, if in Ps 91,5LXX those who are stupid, i.e. those who do not
pay attention to God, know nothing, such is not the case of the Psalmist
who praises God for his works. In conclusion the word pohma is used in the
LXX in a general sense, with different nuances, to refer to what a person or
God does. It is the context, as one should expect, that will give a more precise meaning to the term. The word is not used in contexts that evoke Gods
creation, with the possible exception of Eccles 3,11 and, tough less likely, Ps
142,5LXX.
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. It refers, in the singular or
plural, to poetry (Abr. 23; Congr. 77; Det. 124125; Fug. 42; Vit.Mos. 1,3;
Plant. 131), or to created things (Congr. 61.62). Again, the context will determine the meaning. The word is not used in Josephus or in the early fathers. As
Braun indicates, the vocabulary in poie- is rarely used in the Stoic tradition to
talk about the deity.27
This brief study confirms that in the NT, the LXX, or Philo, pohma
rarely means created thing but usually acts, deeds. Should this be the
meaning in Rom 1,20, it would provide a simple explanation to the use of
the plural toc poimasin and accord with the usual meaning of the word.
Paul would not be referring to acts of creation, but to Gods deeds in history. This would also easily explain the option of an instrumental dative for
toc poimasin.28 Therefore, one should at least allow for the possibility that
in Rom 1,20 Paul refers not only to Gods creation but also (mainly?) to his
works in history, especially if other elements in the immediate and broader
context in Romans favor such a reading.
If pohma does not mean created things it logically follows that the
tautology argument loses much of it relevance. Paul could mean the acts [of
God] since the creation of the world or as seen in the created world. To
27

28

H. Braun, poiw ktl., TDNT 6458484, here 459. Braun also remarks that if the vocabulary in poie- can be used to refer to God as creator in the LXX, it also oftentimes evokes
Gods works in history. As is already evident from Gen 1,1.7 and 3,7.13, the verb itself
simply means to make. It is the context that will indicate what is made. The verb is not
specific to creational contexts. Braun adds that in the NT the vocabulary is rarely used in
creational contexts (Acts 14,15 and 17,24 would be exceptions) and often for Gods punishing and redeeming activity (45950, 464). Yet later, when referring to Rom 1,20 he says
For Pl. [Paul] the works of creation (poimata R. 1:20) certainly guarantee Gods basic
knowability along the lines of Stoicism de facto, however, ungrateful man refuses this
knowledge, so that in very unstoic fashion he has been thrust into vices by reason of his
culpable idolatry (463).
So Tholuck, Romer

(see n. 8), 84; Wilckens, Romer

I (see n. 11), 108; J.H. Moulton,

A Grammar of the New Testament Greek III, Edinburgh 1963, 240: probably.

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 p+ rqc ksmou (Mt 24,21) and p katabolc ksmou
(Mt 13,35; 25,34; Lk 11,50; Heb 4,3; 9,26; Rev 13,8; 17,8).29 But none of these
parallels offer the expression found in Rom 1,20 and all contain a word that
denotes a temporal reference (katabol, rq) which is not necessarily the
case in Rom 1,20 if, as is usually recognized, ktsic does not indicate the act of
creation.30 What may tip the scale in attributing a temporal reference to p
ktsewc is not the argument of the partial parallels but similar expressions
in PsSol 8,7 (nelogismhn t krmata to jeo p ktsewc orano
ka gc dikawsa tn jen n toc krmasin ato toc p+ anoc)
and Josephus, Bell. 4,533 (p tc ktsewc mqri nn; cf. Eccles 3,11) where
p+ anoc in PsSol 8,7b and mqri nn in Bell. 4,533 confirm a chronological perspective. The genitive ksmou also favors the temporal option since the
understanding of p ktsewc as a frame of reference would lead to the rather
awkward idea that Gods orata can be seen from the created world of the
world.31
Finally one must briefly raise the issue of the syntactical function of p
ktsewc ksmou. Does this modify 1) toc poimasin, as those who see a tautology seem to think; 2) kajortai through noomena (Gods rata being
understood are seen since the world was created);32 or 3) t rata ato
(Gods 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 10,6 and
Heb 4,3, in all the parallels mentioned (Mt 13,35; 24,21; 25,34; Lk 11,50; Rev
13,8; 17,8 as well as Mk 10,6; 13,19; 2 Pet 3,4 and Rev 3,14) the construction
in p followed by the double genitive modifies what immediately precedes
it. This is usually the case too in the NT with the other construction in p

29

30

31
32

33

To these one could also add p rqc ktsewc in Mk 10,6; 13,19; 2 Pet 3,4 and rq
tc ktsewc to jeo in Rev 3,14.
The word is generally taken to mean creature, creation in the sense of thing created or
creation in the sense of act of creation. This last sense is unusual. Here Paul uses the
word ktsic in a sense unknown to Hellenistic writers not in the Jewish tradition. Cook,
The Logic, 508 (see n. 8). See also J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, London,
1961, 225.
See Ochsenmeier, Mal (see n. 12), 98100.
Haacker, Romer,

45 (see n. 8); Jewett, Romans, 155 (see n. 11). Since this point is usually
not treated with precision, one is sometimes hard pressed to know which option commentators follow.
Suggested by O.P. Schjott,
Eine religionsphilosophische Stelle bei Paulus. Rom.

I,1820,
ZNW 4 (1903) 7578 and Kasemann, Romans, 41 (see n. 6) and rejected by A. Fridrichsen,
Zur Auslegung von Rom
1,19 f., ZNW 17 (1916) 159168 who is followed by Fitzmyer,
Romans, 280 (see n. 11); Wilckens, Romer,

104 n. 174 (see n. 11); etc.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 53 #57

Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History

53

followed by a double genitive.34 All in all, it is hard to come to a firm decision

between the last two alternatives.
2.3. The Parallels
As mentioned before, the existence of parallels to Rom 1,20 in the JudeoHellenistic tradition is oftentimes evoked to support the natural theology reading. This approach raises several questions. First, at the conceptual level, several of these texts are parallels only if we interpret Rom 1,20 as teaching a natural theology. Second, quite a few of these parallels actually integrate history
and providence as a path to the knowledge of God. A few examples demonstrate this.
In Ps.Aristotle, De Mundo 399b the context evokes a force that, though
unseen (tathc ortou ka fanoc [399b12]), neither prevents it from
working nor people from believing in it. This unseen being is seen by its deeds
(ratoc osa toc rgoic atc rtai [399b15]). We should think likewise of God, who is strong in power (Tata qr ka per jeo dianoesjai,
dunmei mn ntoc squrottou [399b1920]) and who, though unseen by
mortal nature, is seen in his works (jerhtoc p+ atn tn rgwn jewretai [399b22]). Though the idea of creation is not absent from the context,
the focus is on the fact that this unseen force and God are operative in wars;
in internal affairs; in short, in history.
Similarly in OrSib 3,845 the context of the oracle is a pronouncement
against idolatry. There is only one God, eternal and invisible (ratoc rmenoc atc panta; 3,12; see also 1,810) who cannot be seen with the eyes
(17, see also 4,12) and who rules the world (3,19). Though he is the creator
of all things (2028), people worship dumb idols (2935) and are behaving
immorally (3646). They should have glorified God (doxzein at te jein
[Frgm. 1,20]) and acquired knowledge (gnte d katjmenoi sofhn [1,31]).
He is the one who will send the rain, earthquakes, famines, plagues, etc. (1,32).
God is going to judge and intervene. Notice here several verbal and conceptual
parallels with Habakkuk and Rom 1.
Likewise, if Philo uses the term ratoc to refer to Gods invisibility35
and the noetic vocabulary to evoke the knowledge of God,36 it is linked with
34

35

36

This is true in salutations (1 Cor 1,3; 2 Cor 1,2; Gal 1,3; Eph 1,2; Phil 1,2; Col 1,2; 2 Thess
1,2; 1 Tim 1,2; 2 Tim 1,2; Tit 1,4; Phlm 3) but in other passages as well (Rom 1,7; 5,4; 7,2;
8,2.21.35.39; 2 Cor 3,18; 7,1; Col 1,7.23; 2.20; 2 Thess 1,9). My argument differs therefore
from Schjotts

and Fridrichsens since they both depend on a natural theology reading of

Rom 1,20; Greek philosophical concepts, and the use of parallels in the Judeo-Hellenistic
literature; and not on grammatical parallels.
Cher. 101, Opif. 31; Post. 15; Conf. 138; Somn. 1,72; Vit.Mos. 2,65; Decal. 120; Spec.Leg.
1,20; 2,165; 4.31; Leg.Gai. 290. 310.318; QEx 1,237; etc.
Her. 280; Congr. 25; Abr. 69.73; Decal. 59; Spec.Leg. 1,20.46; etc.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 54 #58

54

Erwin Ochsenmeier

Gods providence, his acts in history.37 Thus in the often quoted parallel of
Praem. Philo calls his reader to admire nature and accept as good everything
that happens in the world without malice (toc n t ksm prattomnoic
[Praem. 34]). God is the creator and the guide of the universe (tn poihtn
ka gemna to pantc [41]). The contemplation of the world leads one to
conclude in the existence of providence. It is a law of nature that the cause of
things takes care of the thing produced (ka ti prnoian nagkaon enai;
nmoc gr fsewc pimelesjai t pepoihkc to gegontoc [42]). The
Demiurge is surmised from his works, which in the context include the works of
providence (43.23, see also Abr. 78). The doctrine of creation and providence
are so interdependent that to negate the creation is to cut the root of providence
(Opif. 910).38
Finally if Wis 13 offers undeniable parallels to Rom 1, one should notice
that the overall context in Wisdom is of Gods actions in history, especially in
reference to the Exodus, by which God has shown his strength and his power
(11,20; 12,15.17), and his righteous rule (12,1519). In Wis 12, he has shown
his strength by his power demonstrated in his righteous progressive judgment
of the inhabitants of Canaan. His power may be questioned, but he has manifested it to the unbelievers (ndeknusai pistomenoc p dunmewc teleithti; 12,17). Here of course a difference surfaces. In Wisdom people dit not
reach a knowledge of God by his creation or his deeds (13,19; 14,1221;15,11,
see also PsSol 2,32; 2 Bar 54,17). Given the importance of the vocabulary of
knowledge in Romans, this is a major difference.39 Therefore not all agree that
Wis 13 offers much help in understanding Pauls thought.40

37

38

39

40

Opif. 170172 is considered as a convenient summary of Philos view on providence. For

Philo providence is intextricably linked to the Jewish God who acts in history. For a study
on providence, its link with cosmology and the praise of the creator in Philo see D.T. Runia,
Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (PhAnt 44), Leiden 1986, 148155.241
242.396399.426466; see also P. Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ
77), Tubingen

1999.
This is to be linked with Stoic philosophy. This is evident in another parallel to Rom 1,20
sometimes mentioned, Epictet, Diss. 1,6,1920, but this text is part of the discussion on
Providence (Per pronoac), which advocates seeing the artisan in his works of providence
too (Diss. 1,6,1.42).
For the differences between Romans 1 and Wisdom see Owen, Scope, 138 (see n. 1);
Kasemann, Romans (see n. 6), 4143; Michaelis, TDNT 5380381; Bell, No One (see n.
10), 7677; Cook, Logic (see n. 8), 506; Jewett, Romans (see n. 11), 154.

See also S. Lyonnet, La connaissance naturelle de Dieu: Rom 1, 1823, in: idem, Etudes
sur leptre aux Romains (AnBib 120); Rome 1989, 53 n. 132; Michaelis, TDNT 5,380.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 55 #59

Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History

55

3. The OT as a Background to Rom 1,20?

The problems raised by the parallels are such that deciding on the background of Rom 1,1832 is still much debated. For Davies Pauls argument in
Rom 1,20 would be sound Rabbinic doctrine the dress in Rom. I, 2 is Hellenistic but the body is Rabbinic.41 According to Kasemann, though there are
traces of Hellenistic philosophy, In Paul, however, 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 .42
Several features indicate that Rom 1,20 should indeed be interpreted in
light of the OT. The use of Ps 97LXX and Habakkuk in Rom 1,17 naturally
points in that direction. Furthermore many have advanced other OT passages
as background for interpreting different parts of Rom 1,1832 (Adams story;
Gen 13; Deut 4; Ps 93LXX; Ps 105LXX; Jer 2 etc.).43 Finally, if part of Pauls
vocabulary allows for parallels with the Judeo-Hellenistic literature, several key
terms of Rom 1,1920 are not uncommon in the LXX and support the idea
that even in Rom 1,20 Pauls thought is entirely Jewish even though he may
be talking about non-Jews. Two brief examples, besides pohma, demonstrate
this.
As mentioned earlier, a key difference between Paul and some of the parallels often put forward for Rom 1,20 presupposes that the people referred to
by Paul have known God or something about him (V. 19.21). It is worth stressing that if one looks at the vocabulary in gnw- used by Paul (gnwstc [V. 19];
ginskw [V. 21]; pgnwsic [V. 28]; pignskw [V. 32]), there is no case in
the LXX where the Jews or the nations have known God through the creation,
but there are many cases where they have, or were supposed to have, known
him by his acts in history, oftentimes in reference to the Exodus.44 Therefore,
41
42

43

44

W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1948, 29.117.

Kasemann, Romans (see n. 6), 3536. Similarly Gartner, Areopagus Speech (see n. 8), 136
37, 143144. See also Owen, Scope (see n. 1), 138; Bell, No One (see n. 10), 62; D. Zeller,
Der Brief an die Romer

(RNT), Regensburg 1984, 55; M.A. Seifrid, Unrighteous by Faith:

Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18 3:20, in: Justification and Variegated Nomism
II, ed. D.A. Carson / P.T. OBrien / M.A. Seifrid; Tubingen

/ Grand Rapids 2004, 114. The

problem of the relationship between language, concepts, and influences is not unique to
Paul of course. For the same issue in Philo related to cosmology and the influence of Plato
see for example Runia, Philo of Alexandria (see n. 37), 837.
Even Dunn, who suggested reading Rom 1,1832 through the influence of Stoic vocabulary sees allusions to Adam in Rom 1,19, Dunn, Romans I (see n. 11), 58, 60.
The cases where God is the object of knowledge, with jec used in the accusative, are
rare (1 Sam 3,7; 1 Chr 28,9) but other constructions with the vocabulary in gnw- refer
to a knowledge of the Lord or that God is God through history (Exod 6,7; 7,17; 16,12;
29,36; Deut 4,39; 7,9; 29,5; 1 Kings 18,3637; 2 Chr 33,13; Ps 45,11; Isa 52,6; 60,16; Ezek

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 56 #60

56

Erwin Ochsenmeier

if Paul were to say in Rom 1,20 that God has been known through his acts in
history, he would be echoing a common theme in the LXX, whether he was
referring to Jews, non-Jews or both.
Another indicator is the use of dnamic. Commentators are probably
right in considering the rata to be in apposition with dnamic and jeithc
in Rom 1,20.45 Paul seems to be saying that what is not immediately visible
Gods power and deitycan be discerned when Gods acts are understood.
Whether Gods power and divinity are included in the rata or not the fact
remains that they form the basis for the knowledge attained in V.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 Gods works for his people in the OT is striking. Gods power
is made known to Israel and the nations by his acts of judgment and deliverance. In short, Gods power is revealed in the OT to Jews and non-Jews mostly
through his deeds in history. That is the way one knows who the Lord is.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 1,4.16.21; 9,1722; 15,19). The association of the vocabulary of
demonstration and power actually started the epistle with the mention of the
resurrection of Christ (1,3448; see also 4,2324; 15,1819). Therefore, from a
lexical and grammatical perspective, one could read Rom 1,20 as meaning that
Gods power and deity can be seen by Gods acts in history and that, when
these are understood, one gains a knowledge of God. Such a reading coheres
with the rest of the epistle, the vocabulary used by Paul, and the OT context
of Rom 1,20 and does not contradict the Judeo-Hellenistic literature.
This should not be construed as implying a radical separation in Pauls
theology between Gods acts in history and his being the creator of the world.49
This is obvious already in Rom 1,25. Gods being the creator is conceptually
linked with his sovereignty and action in the world. God is the creator, there-

45

46

47

48
49

20,20; 28,26; 34,30; Jdt 2,10; etc.). One could argue that knowing the jeithc could refer
to knowing who God (the Lord) is.
Tholuck, Romer

(see n. 8), 83; Cranfield, Romans (see n. 11), 114; Jewett, Romans (see n.
11), 155.
Job 31,14; Wis 13,4; see also Rev 4,11; Philo, Leg.All. 3,97; Spec.Leg. 1,45; Opif. 7, 21;
Josephus, Ap. 2,167; Ep.Arist. 132
Deut 3,24; Josh 4,24; 1 Kings 20,28; 21,18; Jer 16,21; Hab 3,2.13.18.19; 2 Macc 9,8; 3 Macc
2,6; etc. This is mentioned too by W. Grundmann, dnamai ktl., TDNT 2,284317, here
291. 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, he does not bring up this point
in his comment on Rom 1.20. There Paul would be pursuing a line of thought common
in Hellenistic Judaism (306).
See Zeller, Romer

(see n. 42), 56.

As rightly mentioned too by Haacker, Romer

(see n. 8), 49.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 57 #61

Romans 1,20: Knowing God Through His Acts in History

57

fore he is the only one who rules the world and should be acknowledged as
such. This idea is clearly present not only in Ps 97 and Habakkuk but also in
a large number of other passages in the LXX50 , in the intertestamental literature51 , and in many of the parallels suggested for Rom 1,20, as we have seen.
Yet, the vocabulary used in Rom 1,1921, the focus of the passage and the context indicate that in Rom 1,20 it is Gods deeds in history as a means of revelation of his power and deity and of way to known him that Paul has in view.
4. Conclusions
If Gods invisible qualities have been clearly seen, as the history of
interpretation of Rom 1,20 shows, it is safe to say that Paul has not shown
how this was done in a clear way. We have defended here the possibility that
Rom 1,20 could be read to refer not to the possibility of knowing God by
the creation but primarily by his acts in history. This interpretation establishes
a connection with Ps 97 LXX and the book of Habakkuk and coheres with
the use of the OT in Romans. It may also help explain the n atoc in 1,19;
Gods revelation in Rom 1 would refer to his manifestation in history among
the Jews and the nations (cf. Lk 1,2). Since toc poimasin could evoke the
rains or the seasons (cf. Eccles 11,35), the interpretation defended here would
eliminate any perceived contradiction with Acts 14,17 and 17,2334.52 It also
integrates the passage within the thread of the book of Romans and its use
of the vocabulary of the power of God. In addition it accounts for the fact
that in Romans Paul will not use the argument of Gods revelation through
his creation but through a message revealed and transmitted by the prophets
and apostles that explains and brings out the significance of Gods intervention in history. In Rom 1,1632 Paul may be using some Judeo-Hellenistic and
Greek philosophical vocabulary, 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. Should this interpretation be correct, in Rom
1,1823 Paul would be echoing a fairly common OT theme, which should not
be surprising given the importance of the OT as the interpretive background
50

51

52

Deut 32,6; Job 38,1; Ps 95,5LXX; Prov 1,32.3637.47; Isa 40,18.25; Wis 1213; Dan 14,5;
Jdt 9,12.
1 Enoch 1,4; 2,15,3; 60,1123; 84,3; 101102; Jub 1,2729; 12,15.1821; 22,27; 32,18
19; PsSol 18,1012; etc. See also H. Bietenhard, Naturliche

Gotteserkenntnis der Heiden?

Eine Erwagung zu Rom.
1, TZ(W) 12 (1956) 27588, here 285286.
In Acts 14,1517 God has demonstrated who he is not by the creation (Acts 14,15) but by
his blessings through time (14,17). In Acts 17,2233 though God is said to be the creator,
no mention is made of the possibility of knowing him by the creation. Idolatry there does
not result from rebellion but ignorance. To go from ignorance to knowledge necessitates
the announcement of the Good News, i.e. of Gods interventions in history, not a better
look at the creation.

ZNW 2009-1 2009/1/7 12:57 page 58 #62

58

Erwin Ochsenmeier

of Romans. Should this interpretation of Rom 1,20 have any validity, it would
have significant consequences for the use of the passage in philosophy. Pauls
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.