knowledge of God in Romans 1:18-23: Exegetical and theological reflections, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2000 by Young, Richard Alan

Bell & Howell Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted

In Rom 1:18-23 Paul says that all humans stand under the judgment of God because they have forsaken God and worshiped idols. His argument presupposes that somehow they had acquired a knowledge of God for which they are held accountable. This poses several questions. How do humans have this knowledge? When do they have it? And what precisely is this knowledge? The problems are compounded by human sinfulness and divine mystery. How can finite, sinful humanity come to know the infinite, holy God? Kierkegaard says that there is an "infinite qualitative difference" between God and humans.1 Nevertheless, Paul assumes such knowledge and claims that it is universal.

Three responses have been offered. All three have been referred to as general revelation. Thus to employ the term "general revelation" without qualification would only confuse the issue. (1) Some say that the Creator left behind clues or "tracks" in creation from which all persons can logically reason to a thematic knowledge of God. This is commonly called "natural theology."2 (2) Some say that God personally reveals the divine presence through the medium of creation to all persons.3 Those who take this position usually assert that only God's personal self-disclosure can rightfully be called "revelation." If a personal self-disclosure is in view in Romans 1, then it would be indirect; that is, it would be analogous to the episode of Moses and the burning bush, but on a universal scale.' (3) Others say that all persons have a vague, unthematic awareness of God by virtue of recognizing that they are finite creatures living in a contingent world.5 The recognition of creaturely finitude awakens a faint, intuitive awareness that there is something beyond. It depends on neither ratiocination nor divine self-disclosure.

None of the three views can be established with absolute certainty, since each encounters its own set of difficulties. The purpose of this essay is to help bring unthematic awareness (option 3) back into the conversation as a plausible option.

I. EXPLORING PAUL'S SYMBOLIC WORLD

One way of uncovering what Paul could have meant in Rom 1:18-23 is to investigate factors that possibly influenced his thinking. It is commonly assumed that one of the primary influences on Paul's thought is his Jewish heritage. Numerous passages in the OT speak of the ineffability of God (cf. Job 11:7-8; 26:14; 36:26; Ps 145:3; Eccl 11:5; Isa 40:28; 55:8-9). From these texts, it is reasonable to assume that the Jewish mind questioned the idea that one could come to a knowledge of God through reason.

However, the Judaism that influenced Paul was that of middle Judaism, which Gabriele Boccaccini has shown to be a rather diverse phenomena with multiple strands. Within middle Judaism is the Judaism of the Hellenistic Diaspora, which John J. Collins argues also consisted of various strands.7 Collins says that some strands sought identity through shared ethical values, while another strand sought identity by appealing to revelation and transcendence.8 However, Collins comments that there were some "persistent tendencies" and common themes amid the diversity, such as monotheism and God as Creator. 9 But even these unifying themes were expressed in various cultural and religious settings and do not reflect "a single, monolithic normative Judaism."10 Despite this complex situation, we can still make some general comments about more or less common themes that may have influenced Paul.

Some strands of Hellenistic Judaism did appeal to natural law to establish a common link with their culture, but it appears that appealing to natural theology was more problematic.ll This general premise is supported by numerous passages from Hellenistic-Jewish literature. This Jewish reserve stands in sharp contrast to the openness to natural theology in much of the Greco-Roman literature.

1. Greco-Roman literature. Plato would agree that the maker of the universe is "a hard task to find." Nevertheless, he argues that there is a way. The universe is patterned after the eternal, so that with the aid of reason one can discover from the orderly motions of the physical world "that which is abiding and stable" (Timaeus 28A-30C). The capacity to think of God is based on the belief that humans have a rational soul that is akin to the soul of the universe (Timaeus 32A-35A). This correspondence of minds becomes the basis for Plato to reason inductively to God and to construct a metaphysical system.

Cicero taught that one can gain an awareness of the author of the world through his deeds. "When then we behold all these things and countless others, can we doubt that some being is over them, or some author ... some governor of so stupendous a work of construction?" (Tusculan Disputations 1.28.70). But Cicero, like Plato, moves beyond simple awareness to the idea that the human mind can actually comprehend God. He says the human capacity to comprehend God is based on the belief that the mind of God and the mind of humanity are of the same nature. "And indeed God Himself, who is comprehended by us, can be comprehended in no other way save as a mind unfettered and free, severed from all perishable matter" (Tusculan Disputations 1.27.66-67; cf. 1.29.70). Cicero contends that even if our minds are not completely unfettered, we are still able to comprehend much about God by inductive reasoning.