Logizomai - reckon

De Maria says:

September 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm

Joey Henry says:August 31, 2012 at 10:05 pmThe material is written in haste thus not edited.

No problem, just don’t use that as an excuse after it is proven wrong. ; )

But, this should suffice for now. I’ll continue looking at Romans 4 usage of logizomai in the next installment. This merely provides the background of the next installment:

If you say so.

Excurcus:

Excurcus?

Logizomai in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4 …. (a) Reason about – To think about something in a detailed and logical manner – ‘to think about, to reason about, to ponder, reasoning’(b) Keep Mental Record – To keep a mental record of events for the sake of some future action – ‘to keep a record, to remember, to bear in mind’ …. (a) (rationes conferre) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over; a. to take into account, to make account of …. The semantic range is wide from mere thinking, reminding, judging, keeping a mental record/list to crediting to one’s account.

Ok.

The act itself is a mental exercise.

Does God “logizomai”? And if He does, is it merely a mental exercise?

It always involves value judgments/opinions towards the contextual realities of the object. In most cases, four factors are involved when doing the act: (1) The one making the act, (2) the basis of the opinion, (3) the object of the act and (4) the conclusion (judgment/opinion) derived from the basis of the act. It should be noted that the falsity or validity of the judgement/opinion is dependent on the falsity or validity of the second factor, i.e. the falsity or validity of the basis of the opinion. That is why it should be highly emphasized that when analyzing the falsity or validity of the conclusion made, we get to know the context and reality of the reason (the why) of the conclusion. The context grounds the validity of the judgment/opinion. At times the basis is on the objective/inherent value of the object (3). At other times the basis are the abstract and contextual realities about the object. This is especially true as logizomai was used to translate the Hebrew word chasav (4).

All this is important if the Subject is a human being. The subject is the one performing the action. In this case it is God. Therefore none of the above is pertinent since God’s “logizomai” or “reckoning” is always perfect. Not only that, but God’s “logizomai” is always “efficacious”.

A little example might help showing the nuance of the word usage. Illustrations do not convey a perfect understanding but might help show some important points. One usage of the word will be like this: “I consider this worn out plastic toy to be valueless.” The act of “reckoning/considering” is grounded upon the inherent value of the toy. As it is worn out and it is just a plastic, it is in point of fact rubbish. But another usage will be like this: “I consider this worn out plastic toy to be priceless because this is mom’s precious gift to me.” This time, the “reckoning/considering” is grounded upon the contextual realities about the object not necessarily its inherent reality. It is true that the toy is rubbish (the beholder is not deceived but acknowledges its inherent reality) but it is also true that since this toy is a gift from his mom, that he considers it priceless (as against the inherent value as valueless).

Thank you. You have just proven the Catholic doctrine of the merit of our works.

You see, God is the Judge. And God judges that our works have merit IN HIS EYES. Therefore, God imbues our works with merit. As was so eloquently spoken by St. Augustine, “What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace, and, when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts to us? (Letters 194:5:19)”

This example highlights the emphasis made previously. It is not necessarily wrong to assign a “conclusion” about the object that is not congruent to its inherent reality. In other words, as has been emphasized previously, the falsity or validity of the judgement/opinion is dependent on the falsity or validity of the second factor, i.e. the falsity or validity of the basis of the opinion as the beholder perceives it.

This is irrelevant as there is no falsity when it comes to God’s “logizomai” (i.e. reckoning).

Due to differences in semantic range between Hebrew and Greek, it is essential to be careful to see the context in which the word is utilized. For example, in the oft repeated quotation from O. Palmer’s scholarly work, “Genesis 15:6: New Covenant Expositions of an Old Covenant Text”, he notes:

“As Genesis 15:6 records the first occurrence in scripture of the word “believed,” so it also records the first occurrence of the term “reckoned” (???). Yet the construction of the phrase and the subsequent usage of the term within the Pentateuch justifies a rather specific understanding in the sense of “account to him a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him.”

1. Sounds to me as though this fellow is adding to Scripture. As Scripture says, “reckon him righteous” but nowhere says, “which does not inherently belong to him”. You and Palmer are reading this into Scripture.

2. Nor does it make sense. God is not unjust. God does not give to anyone that which is not due to that person. As it is written:

Romans 3
King James Version (KJV)
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

The phraseology may not in itself exclude absolutely the possibility that the faith of Abraham was considered as his righteousness. But the context strongly pushes in another direction. The whole point is that Abraham trusts God rather than himself for his blessedness. His hope centers totally on God and his word for life.”

That is true. But that is why Abraham works. Because his faith in God is so strong. And that is why God reckons him righteous. Because he acts upon his belief. He acts upon his faith in God.

These are not conclusions made out of the blue. In a cursory search of the exact Hebrew word form from Genesis 15:6, there were two occurrences that has that word form (one in Genesis and another outside of the Pentateuch):

1. Genesis 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.2. 1 Samuel 1:13 Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman. 

In each of these occurrences (Genesis 38:15 and 1 Samuel 1:13), the acts of reckoning have basis grounded upon the contextual realities of the object as perceived by the beholder.

In both those cases the beholders are fallible men who were mistaken in their “logizomai”.

Judah “reckoned” her a “prostitute” because in reality she had covered her face. Eli “reckoned” Hannah to be drunk because the contextual reality as perceived by Eli considered the facts as pointing to that conclusion (a. Speaking in her heart, c. Only her lips moved and c. Her voice was not heard). These acts of reckoning have basis upon the contextual realities and not merely the inherent realities of the objects of the act of reckoning. The Hebrew word chasav functions more to this effect than the strict objective reckoning of the Greek word logizomai dealing commonly with numbers and business transactions.

So far, nothing to the point. How does any of this help you? It seems a multiplication of words to no purpose.

The second occurrence of the Hebrew word chasav does not have the exact same form as in Genesis 15:6. But it is noteworthy again how it is used. This is in Genesis 31:15. The same word form occurs only in Job 18:3 and Psalm 44:23. 

1. Genesis 31:15 Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also entirely consumed our purchase price.2. Job 18:3 Why are we regarded as beasts, As stupid in your eyes?3. Psalm 44:23 Yet for your sake we are killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.

In each of these passages, we know that the beholders (i.e. the ones making the judgment) are performing the act of reckoning not based upon the inherent reality of the object but their contextual reality.

But again, the comparison is unproductive. Does God judge falsely, in your opinion?

In that, even if the conclusion does not correspond to the inherent quality it is still perceived as such by the beholder without making his conclusions unacceptable. For example, Rachel and Leah are inherently Israelites but contextual realities made their father treat them as foreigners. We note that humans are not beasts (or cattle) but metaphorically speaking the speaker thought that humans are regarded as such because of their stupidity. The speaker in Psalm do not literally die “all day long” and they are not “sheep” in actual sense but in a metaphorical sense based on contextual realities, they are considered to have died (though still living) and reckoned to have a status of a “sheep to be slaughtered”.

And that is the difference between Protestants and Catholics. When God reckoned Abraham righteous, Protestants believe it is a metaphorical righteousness. Whereas we believe that God Himself reckons righteously and perfectly without error. That’s the difference and explains why Luther said that we become “snow covered dung heaps.”

I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so (Luther’s Works, Vol. 34, page 184).

In Psalm 32:2 (Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit), the Hebrew word form utilized is the same as in Job 41:27, 41:24, Lev 17:4, 25:31, 2 Sam 19:20, Prov 17:28, Isa 29:16, 29:17, 32:15. Out of the 17 occurrences of the word form, only 5 (Psalm 36:5, 40:17, Prov 16:9, Isa 10:7 and Dan 11:24) has the unique Hebrew meaning of “plan, plotting, devising or thinking”. All others points to the context where the object takes a “conclusion” based upon its contextual reality and not its inherent reality.

Great example. If you remain consistent, then you believe that God metaphorically considers this man righteous. Whereas, we believe God actually counts this man righteous.

In other words, we believe God looked at the man’s soul and found neither iniquity nor deceit therein. Whereas, you believe God looked in that man’s soul and found iniquity and deceit therein and closed His eyes to it.

The “conclusion” may not be in congruence or correspond to the inherent reality of the object but because of contextual realities about the object, the conclusion is understandable (not absurd) and justified in the eyes of the beholder.

The beholder is God in this case. God sees the heart of a man.

In conclusion then, it is justified to say that the correct understanding of Genesis 15:6 in the sense of “account to him a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him” (as Robertson concluded) has strong contextual and linguistic basis.

If you believe that you can compare human judgement to God’s.

Having briefly explained the Greek and Hebrew semantic ranges and our conclusion regarding Genesis 15:6, we can now study how Paul utilized the word logizomai in Romans 4. I see Paul expanding the meaning of that word by incorporating the Hebrew and Greek sense of it.

Thanks for all of this. It is a textbook example of the difference between Catholic exegesis and Protestant. It is the reason why Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 3:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

You are focusing on the letter of the word without even taking a second to consider that the SUBJECT of the phrase in question, is God.

(As a side note: Nick always says that “logizomai” does not mean to “transfer”. As has been explained already (and I hope he gets the explanation), no one has said that “logizomai” has the meaning of “to transfer”. No one! And he will fail to cite scholars who do so.

I don’t know who is lying then, because this is documented in the OP:

Imputation is relatively simple concept, despite the term itself being somewhat outdated. Reformed pastor and writer Dr Joel Beeke explains the concept as follows:

Imputation signifies to credit something to someone’s account by transfer, i.e. God transfers the perfect righteousness of Christto the elect sinner as a gracious gift, and transfers all of the sinner’s unrighteousness to Christ who has paid the full price of satisfaction for that unrighteousness. (Justification by Faith Alone)

Concurring with this definition, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church issued an important “Report on Justification”in 2006, stating,

“We need to be reckoned or accounted (logizomai) as righteous in God’s sight and imputation is the way that we as a confessional church understand the Scriptures to speak of that transfer of righteousness(cf. WLC 71)” (p74).

That is in the very first paragraph after the subheading, “What is imputation?”

His failure to distinguish the theological concept from the lexical meaning confused his thinking process at this point…..

I don’t think so. So far, it seems to me that you have multiplied words and confused yourself. Your efforts remain self contradicting.

The theological concept may convey a “metaphorical transfer” of status whereby the beholder considers or reckons the “righteousness of the Messaiah” to be ours by faith.

Case in point right there. First you say it is not about “transfer”. Then you say, “metaphorical transfer”.

The concept of transfer is metaphorical in that it occurs only in the mind of the beholder.

In this case, the beholder is God. You know, the One “in whom we live, move and are”, THAT God (Acts 17:28).

We don’t get to see “righteousness” floating around from one person to another.

Because there is no such transferrence. God sees what is actually going on in every man’s heart, all at the same time. He is just that powerful.

We do and can conceptually understand that the nature of “substitution” can be pictured out in our minds as a “transfer of status” whereby what Christ accomplished we accomplished although it was Christ who did it on the cross and his resurrection for us and in our behalf.

There you go again, contradicting yourself. No one has said that “substitution” is transference. Except you.

Since, lexically the meaning of logizomai always involves a mental activity or judgment the theological expression conveying the picture of accounting books whereby the value of Christ’s sacrifice is transfered to our books (credited) is not a far fetch picture.

And again, now transferring Christ’s sacrifice to our books.

It is not saying that logizomai includes in its semantic range the verb “to transfer” as words don’t have context and therefore lacks the whole picture of the concept. More to this point later.)

Joe, you are simply confusing yourself and attempting to confuse us. It would be more honest if you simply said to Nick, “You’re right.” The only way to accept your teaching is to transfer upon it some logic and metaphorically claim it is true.

But it isn’t and I won’t.

[More to come]

Ok. God willing, I’ll be here.

Sincerely,

De Maria