Most Pauline scholars spiritualize and individualize Paul’s inheritance language and see little to no coherence between Paul’s various expressions of inheritance. In The Politics of Inheritance in Romans Mark Forman attempts to correct this predominant view by arguing that Paul’s language of inheritance is best understood as a material and corporate inheritance within its socio-political context. He argues that Paul is consistent with other Second Temple Jewish interpreters when he expands the OT promise of inheriting the land to include the whole world—a geographical, this-worldly inheritance (esp. Jubilees). Forman finds the political context suitable to Paul’s eschatological framework because it is characteristic of eschatology to critique the present situation. Forman also argues that the Roman church consisted of the economically marginalized, those for whom the claims of the Imperial cult were but mere fiction. The Imperial cult’s principal claim is that Caesar is appointed and blessed by the gods to bring material blessings, peace, and stability to Rome, and consequently this benefits all those under his rule. From this basis Forman wants to hear Paul’s inheritance language in the same way that Paul’s Roman audience would have heard it. According to Forman, the Roman church would have heard Paul’s claim of her inheritance as a counter-imperial narrative. In order to demonstrate this, he does not attempt a technical-lexical approach, nor does he attempt to demonstrate the possible influences on Paul’s political agenda, but rather he limits his study to a literary and thematic focus and attempts to demonstrate the conceptual likeness between Paul’s narrative and the narrative of the imperial cult.

Although Paul emphasizes different aspects of inheritance to fit the context of his argument, his conception of it consists of the same content, which can be gathered by asking three central questions: What is inherited? Who will inherit? How will they inherit? According to Forman, Paul’s appropriation of the Abrahamic tradition in Rom 4:13–25 answers these three questions. Romans 4:13 answers the question of what will be inherited: “you will inherit the world,” which retains the original promise of universal sovereignty embedded in it (p. 70). The world they will inherit is the eschatological, renewed world that God is restoring through the believing community. This leads to answering the second question of who will inherit the world: the descendants of Abraham (4:14–18). In Rom 4:19–21 Paul partly answers the question of how they will inherit anticipating the fuller answer in Rom 8:17–39—by God’s grace through faith (Rom 4) and by suffering as Christ did, at the hands of the Romans (Rom 8). Forman perceives a connection between the this-worldly character of inheritance in Rom 4 and the promise that Abraham’s descendants will exercise universal reign when Paul calls the Roman church “heirs of God” (those who inherit God’s promise to Abraham) and “joint heirs with Christ” (8:17)—claims that dovetail with “glory,” “creation,” and “children of God” (p. 108). Paul claims that they are “more than conquers” because they suffer in Christ, and this subverts the Empire’s claim to glory that was obtained through acts of conquering. Furthermore, Forman opts for the textual variant “inheritance” in place of “people” in Rom 11:1 (“has God forsaken his inheritance?”). Forman argues that while Paul intensifies the pathos towards Israel’s plight, Paul has in view the final step of restoration—the salvation of all Israel (11:28). All Israel may not mean every individual Jew, but rather “the reference is communal and far-reaching” (p. 165). Forman also argues that his interpretation of “inheritance” in Romans is reinforced by “inheritance” in Galatians (3:16, 19, 21, 26–29; 3:15–18), 1 Corinthians (6:9–10; 15:50–54), and Colossians (1:12, 3:24). Finally, Forman maintains that Rom 13:1–7 should be read on two levels—first, straightforwardly as expressing the acceptance of the Empire for the sake of survival; and second, ironically as critiquing the absurd claims of the Empire on the grounds that Caesar has only received power by God’s will (p. 241).

Forman is to be commended for a well-written, well-argued thesis. He has diagnosed a problem in Pauline scholarship, found the gaps in current research, and built an intriguing argument. Although I do not want to minimize the “spiritual” blessings that many interpreters perceive as primary for Paul’s inheritance language, I think it is important to realize the physical element of Paul’s inheritance language. Forman helps to further our understanding of the physical side of inheritance. His argument is bolstered by a number of echoes from the Hebrew Scriptures. Particularly helpful is how Forman links Rom 4:13–18 and 4:19–21 via an echo of Isa 54:1–3.

However, Forman assumes that Paul’s inheritance language is essentially material and that this has political implications for Paul’s audience. Forman has constructed his argument in such a way that land is, seemingly, always assumed, and Rom 4:13 is the centerpiece. Yet, can this verse bear the weight? If the land is so significant to Paul’s concept of inheritance, then wouldn’t he make it more explicit in his argument? When Forman moves the focus of his argument to what can be deduced from a political context, I find Forman’s argument less helpful. In particular, I do not think a two-level reading of Rom 13:1–7 is convincing.

The Politics of Inheritance in Romans is a helpful contribution to our understanding of Paul’s concept of inheritance. Forman demonstrates the coherence of Paul’s own understanding of inheritance and Paul’s argument in Romans.

---