Sometimes when we are reading the Bible, we can come across passages that seem at first sight to contradict each other on a spiritual matter. When this happens, we need to dig a bit deeper to try to resolve things.

The unregenerate and pleasing God

A good example of this sort of apparent contradiction concerns whether unregenerate people can please God.

On the one hand, here are the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 8:7-9:

‘7 The mindset of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit to God’s law. Indeed, it is unable to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you.’ (CSB)

Paul’s contrast here between being in the flesh on the one hand, and being in the Spirit and having the Spirit of God live inside a person on the other hand, shows that ‘those who are in the flesh’ in this passage are unregenerate people. And Paul is clear in v. 8 that such people cannot please God.

On the other hand, in Acts 10:1-4 Luke writes:

‘1 There was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment. 2 He was a devout man and feared God along with his whole household. He did many charitable deeds for the Jewish people and always prayed to God. 3 About three in the afternoon he distinctly saw in a vision an angel of God who came in and said to him, “Cornelius.”

4 Staring at him in awe, he said, “What is it, Lord?”

The angel told him, “Your prayers and your acts of charity have ascended as a memorial offering before God.’’ ’ (CSB)

There can be no doubt that in v. 2 Luke is praising Cornelius. And his praise clearly implies that Cornelius pleased God to some extent. Verse 4 also clearly implies the same. It is true that this passage doesn’t use the words ‘please’ or ‘pleasing’, but there is no doubt that it is teaching that Cornelius pleased God to some extent.

However, it is certain that Cornelius was unregenerate at this time. In Acts 11:14 Peter tells the Jerusalem church that God arranged Peter’s meeting with Cornelius, so that Cornelius and his household could be saved. So at the time referred to in Acts 10:1-4, which was before Cornelius met Peter, he was certainly unsaved. And because he was unsaved, he was certainly unregenerate.

Therefore, according to Paul, before Cornelius met Peter and was saved and regenerated, he couldn’t please God. But according to Luke, before Cornelius met Peter and was saved and regenerated, he did please God.

So what on earth are we to make of this? Who is right? Paul or Luke?

The answer is that they are both right! Let me try to explain.

Implied comparisons

Something crucial we need to understand here is the existence of implied comparisons in language. We use these all the time, whether we realise it or not.

A good example to illustrate this is air temperatures.

In the town where I live in Scotland, the average daily maximum temperature at the warmest time of year, in late July, is 19 degrees Celsius (66 degrees Fahrenheit). Suppose, however, that on a certain late July afternoon the temperature reaches 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit). On this day I would say to my neighbours, ‘It’s a hot day today.’

Contrast this with the experience of someone who lives in Phoenix, Arizona. Suppose that on a late July afternoon the temperature reaches no more than 26 degrees Celsius. On this day, this person would say to his neighbours, ‘It’s not a hot day today.’

So we have exactly the same temperature at the same time of year, at the same time of day, at two places in the northern hemisphere. Yet in one place it’s hot, and in another place it isn’t hot!

There is of course no contradiction here. Instead, both I and the man who lives in Phoenix are making implied comparisons.

When I say, ‘It’s a hot day today’, what I mean is, ‘It’s a hot day today compared to what is normal at this time of day, at this time of year, in this part of the world.’

And when the man in Phoenix says, ‘It’s not a hot day today’, what he means is, ‘It’s not a hot day today compared to what is normal at this time of day, at this time of year, in this part of the world.’

However, neither I nor the man in Phoenix bother saying all this, because there is no need. Those listening to us know perfectly well that we are making these implied comparisons.

Let me put things another way. If I have a threshold of, say, 25 degrees Celsius for considering the weather hot, then 26 degrees is above the threshold and I say it is hot. But if a man in Phoenix has a threshold of, say, 34 degrees for considering the weather hot, then 26 degrees is below the threshold and he says it is not hot.

A biblical example of implied comparisons

I have given an example of implied comparisons from everyday life. Let me now give a biblical example, one that has to do with human righteousness.

In Romans 3:10, in his discussion of human sinfulness, Paul says in no uncertain terms:

‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’

In this verse Paul is obviously not talking about the righteousness that is reckoned or imputed to those who have faith in Christ. Rather, he is talking about how people live – what they do, say and think. And he is clear that in that sense no one (apart from Jesus, of course) is righteous.

On the other hand, in Luke 1:6 Luke says the following about John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth:

‘Both were righteous in God’s sight, living without blame according to all the commands and requirements of the Lord.’ (CSB)

Like Paul in Rom 3:10, Luke is not talking here about the righteousness that is reckoned to people by faith. Instead, when he says that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God’s sight, he is talking about how they lived – what they did, said and thought. The rest of the verse makes this clear.

So according to Paul, Zechariah and Elizabeth were not righteous in how they lived, but according to Luke, they were righteous in how they lived. And again, the way to make sense of this is to understand implied comparisons in what Paul and Luke say.

When Paul says that no one is righteous, he means that no one is righteous compared to how people were originally designed by God to be, i.e., perfectly righteous.

And when Luke says that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous, he means that they were righteous compared to how people typically are. People are not equally sinful. Some are better than others, and Luke is saying that Zechariah and Elizabeth were better than most, probably much better than most. (His statement that they lived without blame is best understood as a hyperbole.)

Let me put this another way. If the threshold for calling someone righteous is perfection, as it is for Paul in Rom 3:10, then Zechariah and Elizabeth didn’t meet this requirement, so he would say that they weren’t righteous. But if the threshold for calling someone righteous is to be significantly above average, as it is for Luke in Luke 1:6, then they did meet this requirement, so he says that they were righteous.

This is closely parallel to what counts as hot weather that I discussed above.

Can unregenerate people please God?

We are now ready to think about how to reconcile Paul’s teaching in Rom 8:7-9 that unregenerate people cannot please God with Luke’s teaching in Acts 10:1-4 that the unregenerate Cornelius did please God.

The answer is that implied comparisons are being used in both passages.

When Paul teaches that unregenerate people cannot please God, he means that they cannot please Him compared to a standard of pleasing Him that Christians are able to meet.

And when Luke teaches that Cornelius pleased God, he means that he pleased God compared to what unbelievers are usually like.

In other words, Paul is working with a higher threshold of what can be described as pleasing God than Luke is.

Paul’s threshold for what can be described as pleasing God is high enough that unregenerate people cannot meet this requirement.

It is noteworthy, however, that Paul’s threshold for what can be described as pleasing God is not right at the top of the chart, i.e., it is not perfection. When Paul says that unregenerate people cannot please God, he is certainly implying that regenerate people can please Him. Yet not even the most sanctified saint can live anything close to a sinless life. Sin taints everything Christians do, say and think. So even the most holy saint continually displeases God to some extent.

Therefore, in Rom 8:7-9 Paul is working with a definition of pleasing God that is high enough to exclude unregenerate people but low enough to include Christians.

However, in Acts 10:1-4 Luke is working with a lower definition of pleasing God, one that is low enough to include the best unregenerate people (as well as Christians, of course).

Avoiding a misunderstanding

It is important to stress that this whole discussion has really been  about how different people use language differently. Whether the air temperature can be described as hot or not depends on what a person is comparing it with. And the same is true for whether someone can be described as righteous or not, or as pleasing to God or not.

When I say that Luke has a lower threshold than Paul for what he would describe as pleasing to God, I am not for a moment suggesting that Luke has lower moral standards than Paul. He is just categorising things a bit differently. That is the point.

Luke would have agreed with what Paul says in Rom 8:7-9 that unregenerate people cannot please God according to how Paul would define pleasing God. And Paul would have agreed with what Luke says in Acts 10:1-4 that unregenerate Cornelius did please God according to how Luke would define pleasing God.

There is no good reason to think that these passages contradict each other. Paul and Luke are just defining things a bit differently, that’s all.

See also:

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

The Bible Is Often Very Imprecise about Things

It Is Never Right to Tamper with the Bible to Make It “More Helpful”

The Problem with Drawing Conclusions from a Few Bible Proof Texts

I have been a Christian for over 30 years.  I have a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Edinburgh.  I am a UK national and I currently live in the south of Scotland.  Check out my blog, The Orthotometist, at maxaplin.blogspot.com