What does it mean that the ungodly knew God?

Explanation:

Paul writes that although the ungodly knew God, they did not honour or give thanks to God. What he means is that although humans know enough from creation to worship God, they fail to do so. For Paul says in Romans 1:20 that God’s power and deity are revealed through what he made. Then, in Romans 1:21 he writes that although they knew, they did not worship or thank him. The notion that people might worship and thank God because of what he reveals about himself through creation is a typical Jewish line of thinking.^4,5 For example, in Judges 2:10–11 we read that the generation of Israelites after Joshua did not know the Lord, which led to idol worship. In other words, they did not know the Lord in the sense that they did not acknowledge him through worship and thankfulness. Likewise, the psalmist asks God to pour his anger on the nations that do not know him, that do not call on his name.⁶ In other words, to know God is not just to acknowledge his existence, but to call upon and worship him (Psalm 79:6). Paul makes a similar point in Romans 1:21. Although the ungodly know God in the sense that through creation they know they ought to worship and thank him, they fail to do so.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that the passages it offers for support are not very strong. In Judges we read that the generation after Joshua fails to know the Lord, and chases after idols (Judges 2:10–11), but this could mean that the judges failed to know anything about God. That is, the author of Judges may not be saying that the judges failed to know God in the sense that they knew about him but failed to worship him, but in the sense that they did not even know about him. Likewise, when the psalmist cries for God to pour his anger on the nations who do not know or call upon God, he may be saying that they neither know that he exists nor call upon him. So it is not clear that Paul’s statements in Romans 1:21 align with a Jewish line of thought that held that humans know God in the sense that humans know enough from creation to praise and thank him.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument is not plausible. For it wants us to hold that the generation after Joshua did not know anything about God, including the fact that he exists, so they worshipped Baal instead. It is not plausible that the generation after Joshua did not even know God existed, for Joshua’s generation was faithful to God, which implies that they would teach their children about God and all he had done. In fact, Judges 2:7 says that the people and all the elders who had seen all that the Lord had done served God. But, when that generation passes away, the next generation does not know God (Judges 2:10). It is not plausible that the author means that parents served God heartily while the next generation did not even know God exists. Thus, when the author says they did not know God he must mean they were not motivated to worship and thank God. Of course, this is the same line of thinking employed by Paul in Romans 1:21. Likewise, the psalmist associates knowing God with calling out to him, which implies that knowing God entails calling out to God.

Explanation:

Paul’s point here is that through creation, the ungodly know that God exists, and they know they ought to worship and thank him, and yet they do not. We can detect that this is Paul’s meaning because he has strongly emphasized three times in this section that the ungodly can know God through creation.⁷ First, Paul says in Romans 1:19 that what can be known about God is plain to them. Then, in Romans 1:20 he writes that God’s power and divinity have been clearly perceived since creation. Finally, in Romans 1:21, Paul explains that although they knew God, they did not worship or thank him. Implied in Paul’s remarks is that God has revealed himself through creation, such that the ungodly ought to worship and thank him but they do not.⁸ This is why the ungodly are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Given Paul’s emphasis on the fact that these know God, are without excuse, and fail to worship and thank God, we can detect what Paul means. He means that the ungodly not only know God, but they know they ought to worship and thank God, and yet they fail to do so.

Counterargument:

The fact that Paul repeatedly says the ungodly ought to know God does not mean they also ought to worship and thank God. Clearly, they are obliged to know God. Paul is insistent on this by saying that God has made himself known (Romans 1:19), his invisible qualities are clearly perceived (Romans 1:20), and although they knew God, they did not honour him (Romans 1:21). The ungodly ought to have known God. Still, he does not say that they ought to have known and worshipped God. That is, he does not say that God has made himself known along with the fact that he ought to be worshipped and thanked. Rather, God has made himself known. In other words, the obligation to know God is stated clearly, but not the obligation to worship and thank him.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument overlooks the fact that Paul not only says the ungodly ought to know God, but he also says they are without excuse (Romans 1:20). What makes them without excuse is the fact that they not only know that God exists, but they know they ought to worship and thank him. That the Creator ought to be worshipped and thanked is obvious from the fact that the Creator is the one who gives the very gift of life. Knowing God exists coincides with knowing that one ought to worship and thank him. For Paul, one expresses the fact that he knows God by acknowledging his dependence upon him and living in reverent thanks.⁹

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. Paul seems to clearly indicate that God has revealed his power and deity to all, so that all know they ought to worship and thank God.

Explanation:

Paul says that although God has made himself known through creation so that the ungodly knew God, they did not honour or give thanks to God. What Paul means is that natural revelation is not enough to know that one ought to honour and give thanks to God. We can detect that this is Paul’s meaning because he says that they became futile in their thinking.¹⁰ The term carries the sense of a process of reasoning.¹¹ So Paul is saying that although they knew that God exists, their reasoning process could not bring them to recognize that God deserves our thanks and worship, but instead, their thinking became futile. That is because natural revelation is not enough to encourage one to worship and thank God.

Counterargument:

There are grammatical clues that suggest that when Paul says they knew God but did not honour or thank him, he means that they ought to honour and thank him because they knew enough about him from natural revelation to do so, and yet they did not. We can detect this is Paul’s meaning because he says that the end of Romans 1:20 that they are without excuse. He then opens Romans 1:21 with because. In other words, Paul is giving the reason why they are without excuse: they knew God but did not worship or thank him. Now, if natural revelation is not enough for the ungodly to know that they ought to worship and thank God, then the ungodly have an excuse. Their excuse is that natural revelation only allows them to know God exists but is not enough to encourage them to worship and thank God. But this is not what Paul says. He says they are without excuse because they knew God but still did not worship and thank him. That is, they knew enough through natural revelation to worship God, but failed to do so.

Explanation:

When Paul says that they knew God but did not honour or thank him, he means that natural revelation is not enough for humans to know God. We know this is what Paul means because he says at the end of Rom 1:21 that their hearts were darkened. It is important to understand that in the Bible, the notion of the heart is associated with the thinking and will of man in relation to God. Paul is saying that the heart of man is fallen such that natural knowledge of God only leads to idolatry and futility. This suggests that natural revelation is not enough to praise and thank God, but that the gospel must first penetrate the heart.¹²

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the conjunction but at the beginning of Romans 1:21b. Paul says that although they knew God, they did not praise or thank him, but. This conjunction is used to denote something like instead, or rather. So Paul is saying that although they knew God, instead of praising and worshipping him, they became futile in their thinking and their hearts were hardened. In other words, their hearts are hardened as a result of not giving proper praise and thanks to God, even though they knew they should. According to this view, they do not praise and thank God because of their hardness of heart, but Paul is saying it is the reverse. It is because they do not praise and worship God when they know they should that their hearts are hardened.

The weakness of this view is that it seems to read things into the text. For theologically, we are taught that we cannot come to know God without God’s grace. God penetrates our hearts through the Holy Spirit, so that when we hear the gospel preached, we respond positively. Thus, this view seems to assume that because natural revelation is not enough to know God, Paul is likely not saying that through natural revelation we know we ought to praise and thank God. The problem is that we should not read our theology into the text, but ought to deduce it from the text. And Paul seems to clearly say that the ungodly know they ought to praise and thank God but fail to do so.