Pagans

Paul shows that with Abraham long before the Law was given, Abraham’s faith was “reckoned” to him as righteousness.

In secular Greek, the verb λογίζομαι (logizomai) was used for determining the amount of a debt (Demosthenes Or. 27, 46).  The LXX uses λογίζομαι to translate חשׁב, a verb that is normally translated in as “think” or “account,” but it is used to count some action as “guilt” or “sin.” Psalm 32:2 is a good example of this: “blessed is the man against who the Lord counts no iniquity.”  In Genesis 15:6 (quoted by Paul here in Romans 4:3), the word is use to say that Abraham’s faith was considered to be as righteousness.  Heidland  (TDNT 4:284-92) makes the point that there was nothing intrinsically good about the belief of Abraham. It is only because it pleased God that his faith was considered to be righteousness.

This is in contrast to the view of the Jews of the first century who saw Abraham’s faith as meritorious. For example, in 1 Macc 2:51-52 says ^“Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?” This is an important parallel text to Paul since it uses the same exact words as Gen 15:6 cited in Rom 4. The first seven chapters of the Apocalypse of Abraham are a narrative of Abraham’s realization the gods his father Terah makes are nothing but wood and stone. After Abram has demonstrated that he is a good monotheist, God rewards him with the Abrahamic Covenant. In Jubilees Abram is a righteous man who was already seeking the God of Heaven when the Lord calls him. In this book, the Lord gave Abram the ability to read Hebrew, a language which had not been spoken since the time of the fall.

But all these legendary developments of Abram as a righteous man or a proto-Jew are not at all the sort of thing we read in the Hebrew Bible. There is no reason given for Abram’s call in Gen 12, nor is there any indication that Abram was a monotheist prior to his call.  He was simply told that God would give him a son, and he believed that promise. God counted that belief as righteousness, even though it might not qualify as righteousness

Paul gives this word an additional theological meaning in the New Testament. Paul uses the word here and in Galatians 3:6 to described God’s declaration on the believer in Christ, making him righteous. This is the crux of salvation, moving the believer from death to life. For Paul in Romans 4, it is the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15 that “counts” as righteousness rather than his works (submitting to circumcision in Gen 17, sacrificing his son in Gen 22).

But how does this work? How is it that Paul can compare Abraham’s belief in the promise of a child to a person in the present age believing in the death of Jesus as payment for sin? Does Romans 4:22-25 say that God “imputes righteousness” to the believer on account of their faith, or does this text say that God declares the believer righteous because of the faithful act of Jesus on the cross?

Paul shows that with Abraham long before the Law was given, Abraham’s faith was “reckoned” to him as righteousness.

In secular Greek, the verb λογίζομαι (logizomai) was used for determining the amount of a debt (Demosthenes Or. 27, 46).  The LXX uses λογίζομαι to translate חשׁב, a verb that is normally translated in as “think” or “account,” but it is used to count some action as “guilt” or “sin.” Psalm 32:2 is a good example of this: “blessed is the man against who the Lord counts no iniquity.”  In Genesis 15:6 (quoted by Paul here in Romans 4:3), the word is use to say that Abraham’s faith was considered to be as righteousness.  Heidland  (TDNT 4:284-92) makes the point that there was nothing intrinsically good about the belief of Abraham. It is only because it pleased God that his faith was considered to be righteousness.

This is in contrast to the view of the Jews of the first century who saw Abraham’s faith as meritorious. For example, in 1 Macc 2:51-52 says ^“Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?” This is an important parallel text to Paul since it uses the same exact words as Gen 15:6 cited in Rom 4. The first seven chapters of the Apocalypse of Abraham are a narrative of Abraham’s realization the gods his father Terah makes are nothing but wood and stone. After Abram has demonstrated that he is a good monotheist, God rewards him with the Abrahamic Covenant. In Jubilees Abram is a righteous man who was already seeking the God of Heaven when the Lord calls him. In this book, the Lord gave Abram the ability to read Hebrew, a language which had not been spoken since the time of the fall.

But all these legendary developments of Abram as a righteous man or a proto-Jew are not at all the sort of thing we read in the Hebrew Bible. There is no reason given for Abram’s call in Gen 12, nor is there any indication that Abram was a monotheist prior to his call.  He was simply told that God would give him a son, and he believed that promise. God counted that belief as righteousness, even though it might not qualify as righteousness

Paul gives this word an additional theological meaning in the New Testament. Paul uses the word here and in Galatians 3:6 to described God’s declaration on the believer in Christ, making him righteous. This is the crux of salvation, moving the believer from death to life. For Paul in Romans 4, it is the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15 that “counts” as righteousness rather than his works (submitting to circumcision in Gen 17, sacrificing his son in Gen 22).

But how does this work? How is it that Paul can compare Abraham’s belief in the promise of a child to a person in the present age believing in the death of Jesus as payment for sin? Does Romans 4:22-25 say that God “imputes righteousness” to the believer on account of their faith, or does this text say that God declares the believer righteous because of the faithful act of Jesus on the cross?

Romans 2:14-15 seems to refer to Gentiles who are moral, “doing the law by nature” and that they “have the law written on their hearts.”   After reading Romans 1:18-32, we might have had the impression that the Gentile world was a seething pit of sensual hedonism.  But now Paul says that there is a category of people that might be called “righteous Gentiles.”  Who are these “moral Gentiles”?  C. E. B. Cranfield lists the following possibilities:

• Pagan Gentiles who fulfill God’s law because of their own morality and therefore merit his favor.
• Hypothetical moral pagan Gentiles.
• A secret hidden faith known only to God that is mysteriously in some Gentiles hearts, or to the works that expresses this faith.
• Gentile Christians, with two variations.  Some take the “who do the things of the law”  as referring to the Gentile Christian’s faith, others take the phrase as referring to a Gentile Christian’s  works of obedience (Sabbath? Alms?).

Cranfield rejects the first possibility because it is incompatible with Romans 3:9, 20, 23.  he rejects the second because there is nothing in the context that indicates Paul is speaking hypothetically.  He settles on the last possibility, that Paul has in mind Gentile Christians who are acting ethically. Edwards makes an excellent point against Cranfield  by point out that these cannot be Christians because Paul has not even mentioned Jesus yet, nor has he introduced the idea of salvation (Romans, 70).  At this point in the argument, men are still trying to please God on their own, whether a Law keeping Jew or a Moralist Gentile.

Aristotle (Wikipedia)

James Dunn seems to take the first possibility. He understands “nature” as belonging to the phrase “do the things of the Law.”  This means there are Gentiles who, by their nature, respond to “general revelation” and are in fact rather moral in most respects.  Aristotle may be an example who Paul has in mind.  His Nicomachean Ethics often has the same high moral standard of the Jewish Law.  There are many examples of Roman Moralists who encouraged honesty, loyalty, and other excellent virtues.  Obviously no Greek or Roman would argue for a Sabbath, or circumcision as a sign of one’s loyalty to God, but those things were given specifically to Israel anyway.  (After I wrote this post I ran across this wikipedia “virtuous pagans.”  Check it out….)

This might be a bit of a surprise to learn that there are non-Jews who were generally moral and upright people.  We tend to have a fairly low opinion about the morality of the Gentile Roman world, but some were in fact more “moral” than some Jews!  (Compare Seneca with Herod the Great, for example!)  One cannot say that all Romans are hedonistic pagans, some were in fact  ethical and moral.  Paul points out they are still in need to Christ because they cannot live up to their own moral knowledge, but they are “closer” than the Gentiles described in Romans 1:18-32!

This observation has some fairly important application for our lives.  Christians cannot say things like “atheists are unethical and immoral.”  While I disagree with their conclusions on the existence of God, there is a possibility that they are living their life as ethically and morally as me (perhaps even more ethically!)  Seems to me that Christianity represents itself as “holy” when in fact individual Christians seem to sin in the exact same (skanky) ways as the world.  Are there “Moral Atheists” and “Immoral Theists”?  Absolutely!

How would this observation effect our interaction with people outside of the Church?

Romans 2:14-15 seems to refer to Gentiles who are moral, “doing the law by nature” and that they “have the law written on their hearts.”   After reading Romans 1:18-32, we might have had the impression that the Gentile world was a seething pit of sensual hedonism.  But now Paul says that there is a category of people that might be called “righteous Gentiles.”  Who are these “moral Gentiles”?  C. E. B. Cranfield lists the following possibilities:

• Pagan Gentiles who fulfill God’s law because of their own morality and therefore merit his favor.
• Hypothetical moral pagan Gentiles.
• A secret hidden faith known only to God that is mysteriously in some Gentiles hearts, or to the works that expresses this faith.
• Gentile Christians, with two variations.  Some take the “who do the things of the law”  as referring to the Gentile Christian’s faith, others take the phrase as referring to a Gentile Christian’s  works of obedience (Sabbath? Alms?).

Cranfield rejects the first possibility because it is incompatible with Romans 3:9, 20, 23.  he rejects the second because there is nothing in the context that indicates Paul is speaking hypothetically.  He settles on the last possibility, that Paul has in mind Gentile Christians who are acting ethically. Edwards makes an excellent point against Cranfield  by point out that these cannot be Christians because Paul has not even mentioned Jesus yet, nor has he introduced the idea of salvation (Romans, 70).  At this point in the argument, men are still trying to please God on their own, whether a Law keeping Jew or a Moralist Gentile.

Aristotle (Wikipedia)

James Dunn seems to take the first possibility. He understands “nature” as belonging to the phrase “do the things of the Law.”  This means there are Gentiles who, by their nature, respond to “general revelation” and are in fact rather moral in most respects.  Aristotle may be an example who Paul has in mind.  His Nicomachean Ethics often has the same high moral standard of the Jewish Law.  There are many examples of Roman Moralists who encouraged honesty, loyalty, and other excellent virtues.  Obviously no Greek or Roman would argue for a Sabbath, or circumcision as a sign of one’s loyalty to God, but those things were given specifically to Israel anyway.  (After I wrote this post I ran across this wikipedia “virtuous pagans.”  Check it out….)

This might be a bit of a surprise to learn that there are non-Jews who were generally moral and upright people.  We tend to have a fairly low opinion about the morality of the Gentile Roman world, but some were in fact more “moral” than some Jews!  (Compare Seneca with Herod the Great, for example!)  One cannot say that all Romans are hedonistic pagans, some were in fact  ethical and moral.  Paul points out they are still in need to Christ because they cannot live up to their own moral knowledge, but they are “closer” than the Gentiles described in Romans 1:18-32!

This observation has some fairly important application for our lives.  Christians cannot say things like “atheists are unethical and immoral.”  While I disagree with their conclusions on the existence of God, there is a possibility that they are living their life as ethically and morally as me (perhaps even more ethically!)  Seems to me that Christianity represents itself as “holy” when in fact individual Christians seem to sin in the exact same (skanky) ways as the world.  Are there “Moral Atheists” and “Immoral Theists”?  Absolutely!

How would this observation effect our interaction with people outside of the Church?