THEOLOGY III: North Carolina School of Ministry

The first question to consider is, what is theology? We begin with an explanation of what it is not. Theology is not a study of doctrine or dogma. Doctrines and dogmas are statements of belief connected to systems of belief or religious orders. Doctrine in the Christian sense is invariably supported by reference to scripture. To study doctrine means to study its origin, formulation, implication, and place in the system to which it belongs. Therefore, doctrine is limited to the belief system of certain people, groups, religious orders, denominations or religions, but theology is the overarching study of God as he is found in the Bible, and often includes philosophical implications and extrapolations of what that means in terms of metaphysics in general. Theology involves a careful, but sometimes speculative and philosophical analysis of what the Bible says about God, and what can be known about God by observation of material creation generally. Although Christian theology is based on the Bible, certain things are indeed revealed by God about himself in creation, but these revelations are confirmed and expanded to the point of clarity by his revealed Word (the Bible).

The term theology comes from two Greek terms, θεὸς (theos) and λόγος (logos). The term λόγος can be translated by the noun word in English, with the meaning of words themselves, as elements of speech and communication, but also includes concepts like a revelation, reflection, teaching, message, accounts, doctrine and the act of speaking.[1] λόγος can refer to the processes of the mind, including a reason for something, thinking, study, the process of reasoning and is used as a title for Jesus (). In this way, theology is broadly speaking the study, of God, based on his revelation of himself. In Christian theology, the assumption is made that what can be known about God has been revealed by God, both generally in nature and creation, and particularly and specifically in the Bible, the Word of God (cf. ; ).

Theology is different in type and scope. Christian theology in its purest form is the study of God as he is revealed in the Bible, the Word of God. Whereas doctrinal studies focus on a study of statements and belief systems - how to understand and interpret them; theology is concerned with a study of the Bible, and provides the raw material for the formulation of doctrinal and positional statements about God. Theology formulates the understanding from which we derive doctrinal and positional statements of the particulars of what we believe.

The key difference between doctrinal studies and theological studies is that doctrinal studies seek to understand and interpret statements of belief, whereas the study of theology is concerned with understanding the revelation of God from the Word of God, which will eventually lead to the formulation of statements of belief or doctrinal position. In our case we are not concerned with theology that has nothing to do with Christianity, that is pure metaphysical speculation, or that is one of the specialized theological branches into which Christian theology has been subdivided. We are focused on Christian theology in the sense of what has been revealed about God in the Bible, the 66 authoritative books, comprised of the Old and New Testaments.

WHAT KIND OF THEOLOGY

It might not surprise us to know that there is more than one approach to ‘doing’ theology, the study of what the Bible says about God. We will mention just two, systematic theology and biblical theology. These two approaches employ different methodologies. Systematic theology is more deductive and speculative, using logic and extrapolation from specifics and what is known to draw conclusions about what is not known or revealed. The goal of systematic theology is to be as thorough and as complete as possible and to cover every topic as fully as possible. Systematic theology is often speculative, i.e., the doctrine of the Trinity. Biblical theology, on the other hand, is inductive, seeking to interpret the data, as specific elements of the revelation, and is less concerned with a systematic correlation or speculative extrapolation. This does not mean biblical theology is unconcerned with the consistency of theological conclusions, but rather than the study of say, the love of God, is rendered in its native environment, the Word of God, rather than being analyzed as a concept and rendered in a series of bullet points. In this way, systematic theology can often be academic and scholastic, with less concern for practical application or implication, and favor thoroughgoing statements of content. Biblical theology, on the other hand, is more focused on an understanding of what we can know about of God from the original revelation found in scripture, and where the implications once understood demand a personal and moral response to God’s voice is heard through these words. Systematic theology is interesting in content and implications of the content in terms of meaning in the pure sense. Biblical theology is interested in the content and implications in the sense of a moral response to the message of God in the Bible. While we do have an interest in both kinds of theology, we need to know that systematic theology has as its primary goal an accurate and complete statement of the truth concerning God and may extrapolate or speculate beyond the text through the use of logic and reason. Biblical theology has as its goal an accurate understanding of how God has revealed himself through inductive interpretation, in order to secure a response from humanity with respect to his call for reconciliation and fellowship.

Our text for these classes takes the systematic approach. Arrington’s Christian Doctrine: A Pentecostal Perspective, Volume Three, leans heavily on a discussion of theological concepts supported by scripture. We, however, will take a more biblical approach, that is we will analyze and evaluates the concepts in our discussion from a biblical perspective, without necessarily trying to systematize them within the framework of an overarching theological framework. In other words, we will trace and evaluate theological concepts within their native environment in the progressive revelation of God’s Word generally. Furthermore, for the sake of time, we will narrow our focus to two topics, under a single general heading, and we will confine ourselves to prominent exemplars in scripture of the points under discussion (knowing that much more could be said, and many more scriptural passages could be adduced in support of a more comprehensive and thorough understanding of these topics).

THEOLOGY 3

We must begin with a statement about some fundamentals in doing theology. The first thing we must do is to discuss the origin of our knowledge about God.

THE BIBLE

We assume that the Bible is the foundation for all theological studies, and for most Christians that would be absolutely true. Views on the Bible, its importance and nature, are varied. While most orthodox-evangelical Christians would have a high view of the Bible, calling it the revelation of God, God’s (holy) Word, others have a lower view of the Bible, that it is a human book of supreme importance, but quite ordinary human writing. First, we need to understand on what grounds this difference of opinion rests. Secondly, we need to consider where the notion of the high view of the Bible comes from, that it is the inspired revelation of God and his plan of redemption for humanity.

The Difference: Opinions about the importance and nature of the Bible divide into two camps. The Bible is either an example of elevated but quite extraordinary human literature, thoroughly human in every respect of composition and origin, or it is the revelation of God, written by human beings under the guidance of God, in order to communicate a message of reconciliation to humanity. Some hold views somewhere between these two extremes that the Bible contains the revelation of God but is not entirely infallible or without error. We will not spend a long time arguing in the negative, opposing the first view, but we will concentrate on demonstrating reasons for believing in a high view of the Bible, and what the implications are of that high view. For ‘proofs’ of the authority of the Bible, divine inspiration, as well as the miraculous nature of the Bible, see works by Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Craig Lane, etc.

How can we know? How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? What evidence is there that the Bible is, in fact, the revelation of God to a lost humanity, with whom he is seeking reconciliation? The simple and most straightforward answer to these questions is that the Bible claims to be a special and complete revelation of God, God’s plan of redemption and of the message of the gospel, which once believed brings salvation and eternal life (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). This claim rests on a common idea often articulated in the Bible from beginning to end, that it is and contains the Word of God, that God has spoken in a way whereby he intended to be heard by humanity and his people in particular. Beginning with Adam, God is seen as desiring and engaging in deliberate communication and fellowship with humanity, those he created ().[2] Indeed, the whole business of the Bible appears to be about the loss and restoration of the fellowship between God and those he created in order that he might engage with them in conversation and communion (). Every important person and significant character in the Bible has the distinction of being someone with whom God communicates and talks.

The terms scripture or scriptures, occurring 54 times in the NIV, mean what has been revealed and spoken by God, and which have been written down for the record.[3] In the NIV, the phrase the word of God occurs 40 times, 3 in the OT and 37 in the NT. In two instances in the OT the expression means a specific prophetic word revealed by God, to be communicated with someone by the man of God (; ). The characteristic phrase for God speaking in the OT is the phrase word of the Lord, which occurs 221 times (look these up in an electronic concordance). In 106 of these occurrences, the full phrase is “the word of the Lord came” with reference to the person to whom a revelation was made, and who was to then take action based on God’s communication with them. In Proverbs, a reference is made to the word of God in the sense of a body of revelation about God (). In the full body of what God has said to his people is often called your word, meaning the entirety of God’s revelation to his people, occurring 25 times is what God wishes to say even in the present to his people (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ). Although spoken and recorded in the past, the psalmist views the written word as what God wishes to say to his people in the present. If God is engaged in anything with respect to humanity, according to the Bible, he is talking (see footnote 3, below). And if God is speaking, it is primarily through his written word, which constitutes the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.

For this reason, the NT uses the phrase the word of God as a way of expressing the idea that God has spoken to his people and is speaking to them through the written record that constitutes the Old Testament. Many times the New Testament refers to the writings of the OT as the word of God, meaning that in the view of the NT writers, the OT as a whole represents what God said ( and continues to say) to his people and through them to the world at large (cf. ; ; ). By calling the OT the word of God, the most obvious idea is that God has spoken in a way by which he intended to be heard and understood.

Very often, however, references to the word of God in the NT are to the message of gospel that originated in the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, who proclaimed the arrival of the promised kingdom of God, calling it good news of salvation (εὐαγγέλιον (or cognates) – occurring 118 times in the NT, often translated gospel). This good news is viewed as a message from God which invites those who hear it to be reconciled to God, because not only does he desire it, but has taken the initiative to make reconciliation possible. To respond to the message in a positive way, that is to accept the offer of reconciliation, repentance (turning away from sin through a sincere repudiation of it) and faith (trust in the provision God has made for reconciliation to be possible) in God are required – God made provision of redemption through Jesus Christ, which leads to pardon for sin for those who respond (; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ). In other words, not only are the OT scriptures called the word of God, the revealed message of God to his people and to humanity in general, the gospel, including the words and teaching of Jesus himself and the preaching about him later in the church by the apostles, was also considered to be the word of God, in exactly the same sense.

God had been actively engaged in communicating with humanity from the outset of creation, revealing himself, his plan of redemption, and his desire for reconciliation to his people. Lately, through the completed revelation found in the Bible he is still communicating his message of forgiveness and reconciliation (). This is where we start in considering the Bible, its claim to be a record of God’s communication with men, by which he can be understood by anyone willing to listen.

The evident foundational dynamic of this communication by God is revelation. The purpose of any communication is to impart information, the revelation by one person of something that it is desired another person should know, either about themselves, their feelings, and ideas, or to impart knowledge of which the other might not have or be aware. This is no less true of God’s communication with men, both in the original giving of the word of God and now to those of us who are reading it in the Bible (as a completed or finished revelation from God). The goal is for God to impart an understanding, a revelation of himself, his love, his desire to redeem humanity, and the provisions he has made to make reconciliation to himself possible so that it is accurate, genuinely authoritative and correct. What we know about God must be accurate and truthful if we are to know God as he is and understand his purpose. Rather than leaving it up to humanity to beat a path to the knowledge of God, he has chosen to reveal himself. Any attempt by humanity to discover God is bound to fail because of man’s flawed perception on account of sin and the limitations it now imposes on the race. Furthermore, an infinite God, though perceived and faintly understood from nature and human experience, cannot possibly be accurately and thoroughly comprehend in character, being, nature, and purpose by finite beings. God must draw back the veil to reveal himself to us. As such, reconciliation is God’s attempt to normalize (reconciliation) relations between God and his creation so that the fellowship, communion, and interaction begun at creation might continue into eternity. But for humanity to understand his purpose, God must reveal it to them. So God started at the beginning speaking with people and has been speaking to them ever since about his redemptive and reconciliatory purposes since sin entered creation to threaten the relationship (cf. ). In the Bible, we discover that not only has God been talking to the human race, but he plans to continue to do so forever and ever (, ).

Revelation: What is revelation? In the NIV the word revelation occurs 21, implying God is making something known something that was not known previously. In scripture, revelation as a technical term refers to God making something known, which was not formerly known and which he desires to be understood by those who are recipients of the revocation. Revelation, then, is all about making something explicit, of creating understanding. Αποκάλυψις originally meant to uncover something. BDAG notes that in our literature, it is used only in an exalted sense, that God is making himself known by uncovering what can be known about him to the minds and perception of human beings.[4] In this sense, revelation is a technical term for God making himself known.

When Paul speaks of the revelation of the mystery of the gospel hidden in the past but made known through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (), he is referring to something that God took the initiative to make known. In and 3, Paul speaks of the mystery of the gospel that was hidden in the past, that God fully intended to save both Jews and Gentiles through one act of redemption and to reconcile them to God and one another at the same time (). This Paul calls this a mystery revealed by God to the church through the NT apostles and prophets, in the light of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It was not fully understood or appreciated until God made it known.

Peter also tells us that through the OT prophets God gradually revealed more and more of his plan of redemption, but that they were not fully aware of all of its implications at the time they set it down (). It was not until the full revelation from God in Christ that the plan of redemption could be fully known. The disclosure of that plan is found in Christ, his incarnation, death, and resurrection, which also fully and perfectly reveal God and his purposes to the world (, , ; ). What he means is that although God was in the world reconciling men to himself, the full implications of God actions and efforts at redemption were not previously known in the OT, they were a mystery, until Jesus Christ came to reveal the extent and full scope of God’s purpose (). This means that according to Paul and Peter, the revelation of God and his redemptive plan is clearer in Christ than it was previously before Christ came. Nevertheless, from the beginning, after the fall in , God was in the world working his plan of salvation even before Christ came (cf. ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ). In that sense, the revelation of God’s purpose is considered to be progressive and became complete with the incarnation of Christ (; ; ; ).

Two Types of Revelation: Theologians differentiate between two types of revelation general revelation and special revelation. These are not arbitrary categories dreamed up by scholars but are descriptions of genuine biblical concepts.

General Revelation - The Bible itself speaks of creation as a form of revelation about God. In , the psalmist declares that creation, as the handiwork of God, speaks to every nation and ethnicity about the power and majesty of God and that there is not a single language in the world where this revelation is not understood or has been seen (). Interestingly enough, the psalmist goes on to link this revelation of God in creation, his greatness, and power, with a knowledge of God’s precepts and statues (morality) (). In other words, even general revelation is not morally neutral, but points to the holiness and purity of God, and his demand for righteousness from his creation. It is also linked to the written revelation of the word of God.

Psalm 19:7–14 NIV

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb. By them your servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward. But who can discern their own errors? Forgive my hidden faults. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me. Then I will be blameless, innocent of great transgression. May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Material Creation as Revelation: Paul picks up on this idea in when he prepares to give a full account of his theology of redemption and salvation. He begins with the affirmation found in , that material creation provides a more than adequate revelation of God (). He says that the invisible qualities of God are clearly revealed from what he had made and can be observed in creation, leaving men without excuse when refusing to acknowledge God (). In fact, in the rest of the chapter, Paul explains how the failure of humanity to acknowledge God as he is disclosed through creation is not the result of a lack of information or perceptibility, it is not the inability to find evidence for God, but the deliberate suppression of the truth that may discovered about him from creation (, ). This has never been truer than in our day where the evidence of the most recent and exciting discoveries, again and again, confirm the thesis that creation is the result of design.

Romans 1:18–20 NIV

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The notion that creation reveals God is summarily dismissed as untenable by the scientific-establishment where the prevailing philosophical view is methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical presupposition not rooted in objective proof derived from the application of the scientific method, but instead, it rules out miraculous causes a priori. The definition of miraculous is any explanation that does not explain reality in terms of material causes, meaning supernatural causes. In other words, a theory like intelligent design is dismissed out of hand as an explanation for the origin of the universe because it might imply a supernatural creator like God in the Bible. What becomes just as clear is that it is the implications of intelligent design that are odious and objectional to naturalistic scientists, because it implies there is a designer, like the God of the Bible, who might lay claim to having authority over what he has created, and who might also impose moral restraints on humanity.[5] In , Paul pinpoints what has become true in modern the scientific-establishment in particular, the truth is often suppressed, and God ruled out as a matter of phlisophical assertion, not by evidence. Paul goes on to uncover the reason for the suppression of the truth about God, that it is a choice made by those who wish to avoid the implications and who refuse to give God glory (admit who he is and honor him as creator and sovereign over what he has made). Their suppression of the truth is manifested in their obstinate and uncompromising refusal and even to contemplate or test the hypothesis that God created the heavens and the earth. In a rare candid moment of straightforward openness, Richard Lewontin, a “Darwinian fundamentalist” admitted in a January 9, 1977 article:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”[6]

Morality and Human Conscience as Revelation: If it turns out that there is a reasonable case for creation by God (and such a case can be made scientifically), the moral implications of such an acknowledgment would be unbearable for humanity in rebellion against him. Paul gives moral implications as the reason for the suppression of the truth, and scientists today are not afraid to admit this is their reason for rejecting the hypothesis of a supernatural creator, who is the God of the Bible (, ). The chief reason to reject God as creator, Paul says, is once acknowledged, human beings would be obligated to accept that God has authority as the moral-law giver to expect righteousness from his creatures. It was the nature of the original sin to question the authority of God to make moral requirements on Adam and Eve (). The rejection of that authority and the headlong rebellion against the rule of God over his creation is what has precipitated the sin and misery of our age. When men recognize that the evidence points to God as creator, then they will have to bow to him as sovereign and accept the moral implications of his rule. The suppression of the truth is not about science or supposed scientific objectivity, which science patently shuns when it seeks to avoid many of the implications of its discoveries; it is about refusing to accept the implications of a creation by God, that he is sovereign and has the authority govern his creation and to impose his moral requirements on those who has created.

Romans 1:18–20 NIV

Romans 1:21–32 NIV

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

That an objective moral code exists is something that many have argued against, unsuccessfully since morality and notions of justice are common to all people of all ages and ethnicities, an explanation of which cannot be convincingly proven or conjectured from biology alone. The problem with a Darwinian explanation for the existence of a sense of morality and justice in the human race is that so much of it utterly contradicts the Darwinian model because morality and justice work in human beings and whole societies in ways that do not uphold the principles of mutation and natural selection. Morality and justice as principles that govern societies and human beings tend to support and protect the weak against the strong and resist the notion that those with power ought not to be retrained. That principles of morality and justice are at work practically in our world cannot be ignored, and the origin of the deeply ingrained sense of right and wrong, of evil versus good, and why we expect to receive fair and just treatment from society as a whole requires explanation.

Paul speaks of the law of the intrinsic and universal sense morality and justice written in the conscience of every human being, both Jew and Greek, as a principle that links all humanity to God and that makes them accountable to him for their moral decisions and position with respect to what he requires (). Even those who have not had the ‘special revelation’ of God in the past, like the Jews (Gentiles), who are heirs of the covenants and promises of God (), are not without a witness to God in their conscience. They possess a witness to objective and governing morality and justice, to what is right and wrong, good and evil, and the presence of this sense points to the existence of a personal moral lawgiver, to God (cf. ; ). Paul concludes that no matter what the disposition of men with respect to ‘special revelation,’ on account of ‘general revelation’ in creation or conscience, they are without excuse when they stand before God in the judgment (). The rest of our discussion will deal with special revelation, the revelation contained in the Bible, as the Word of God.

Special Revelation – The first principle in considering revelation is that God has made himself known, and disclosed his plan of salvation. God took the initiative and acted first (cf. ). The second thing about revelation is that it is progressive, with a greater understanding coming with the passage of time, unfolding through the events of history which are recorded in the Old and New Testaments. The third thing, implied by both of these two observations, is that God’s revelation or self-disclosure has occurred in connection with his active participation in the history of what he purposefully created. Beginning with the man he placed in the garden, a man he called out from the rest of the nations and world, Abraham, through a nation, Israel, God has revealed himself to the entire human entire through his active involvement with them (; Dent. 7:6; 14:2; ; ; ; ). God is no absentee landlord; all scripture argues against this deistic notion.

For us, this means that God’s revelation of himself is not primarily propositional (a systematic theology), but an organic revelation in connection with his dealings with creation, humanity, and his people. It has come as a historical revelation, occurring in connection with a series of unfolding events in which God has been involved, guiding and working out his own purposes. God’s interaction with his people in connection with those events has given us our foundational understanding of God and his purposes in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, through the incarnation of Jesus (), many of the promises and prophetic announcements by which God declared ahead of time where he is taking creation, have found their fulfillment. The events of the Old Testament had as their objective preparing and bringing about a redemptive act through the incarnation of the Son of God, his death as a sacrifice for sin and his resurrection, in order gain the victory over death and sin, the results of man’s initial rebellion. (cf. ; ). So while revelation discloses the nature of God, it also discloses his working, purpose, plans, and a critical understanding of how human beings can be restored to God or reconciled (; ). So we conclude that at its most basic level, God’s revelation of himself is primarily historical, purposeful, and redemptive.

Prophetic/Prophet/Prophecy: In seeking to answer questions about how this revelation has come to us, and how reliable it might be, we now turn to some familiar theological ideas. In scripture, the term prophecy is used to refer to speaking, mainly extemporaneously, but definitely under the direct and immediate influence of the Spirit of God.[7] In the NIV the term prophecy occurs 44 times, and usually refers to a message given to a man to speak to others on God’s behalf, and which is delivered extemporaneously to the audience under a conscious anointing from God through the Spirit (cf. , ).

The prophetic gift and anointing has to do with speaking God’s word on God behalf, to an audience in need of hearing and responding to God. The prophetic word and act communicate the revelation of God, God’s will, or God’s purposes and plans to those with whom he is communicating through the prophet. There are examples of this throughout the Word of God, and we need not list them here. It is part of the meaning of divine revelation (what God has revealed about himself) that God has not only done so by his actions in history but that he has also explained himself through the inspired record of his dealings with his people, and through selected spokesmen who have proclaimed his message (word) and/or recorded in written form what God has done and said to his people and all creation. The Bible is essentially a record of God’s dealing with his people, and the explanation he has given of his actions, thereby revealing himself, his nature, his purpose, and his desire for reconciliation with a fallen (and alienated) race which he created originally for fellowship with him.

When the prophet (one anointed and inspired to speak on God’s behalf) speaks, he is communicating what God wants to say to his people, and that he is expecting a response from them. This is indicated in the numerous examples of God instruction to is spokesmen that they speak on his behalf (cf. , ; , ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , : 25:2; 27:2; ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , , , ; ).

The prophetic messages of the OT were both predictive (future) and expository (present). While there are numerous examples of predictive prophecy in the OT, the majority of the prophetic books are concerned with an expository message to Israel, about their desertion of God, their moral failure, and the consequences of a failure to repent and turn back to God (cf. ). The underlying text of expositional prophecy in the OT is the law of God, contained in the first five books of the Bible. The record contained there, especially how it relates to God’s election of Israel as a witness to the world, and their redemption from Egypt to be a people belonging to him under the terms of a covenant upheld by his law, is the foundation of the indictment against Israel’s immorality (moral failure in the sight of God) and their abandonment of him in worship and loyalty (in order to embrace the worship of the gods of the nations around them, a sort of worldliness if you like). The context of their prophetic, expository preaching is Israel’s moral failure and rejection of God.

Nevertheless, the prophets predict a golden age to come in the future, when Israel will be loyal to God, under the terms of a new covenant, not based on the law, but on a transformed heart and the operation of the Spirit in their lives (; ; ; ; ; ; ). It is in the context of this expository and evangelical preaching of the message of God by the prophets, as a direct result of the instruction of God to speak, from which the great predictive prophecies come. Predictive prophecy flows out of the great preaching of the prophets who announce both Israel’s future destruction and their redemption. In this way, predictive and expository prophecy are not separate things, or of a different sort, but are interrelated and of the same kind, equally inspired by God. The former flows out of the later.

In any case the point is that the prophetic messages of the OT have been recorded in the Bible, along with a record of the historical events and circumstances surrounding them. Many of these written records are attributed to the prophets who originally spoke at the time the events were occurring, and as they gave warning to God’s disobedient people about God’s displeasure. In scripture we have prophecy first appearing in written form, rather than as audible speech, and other instances of what God had said through his spokesman preached first and the being written down later (; , ; , , ; ; ; , ; ; , ; ; , , ; ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; , ; , , ; , , , ; , ; ; ; ; ; , ; , , , ; ; , , , , 36; 16:19; 17:37; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 22:13, 16; 23:3, 21, 24, 28; 24:5; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; , ; , , 41; 35:4, 12, 25, 26, 27; 36:8; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , , , , , , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , , , ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; , , , ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ;17; 2:15, 24, 27, 29, 3:4, 10; 4:17, 23; 7:6; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3-4, 9, 15, 21; 16:22; , , ; , ; ; ; , ; ; , ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; , , ; , , , ; , , ; ; ; ; ; ).

Four things are now patently obvious. First, God has been speaking continuously to humanity since the creation, by inspiring specially chosen and anointed spokesmen who have relayed his urgent word, with the expectation that those who heard it would respond to God. Secondly, that God has revealed himself to humanity through his creation, and that this revelation is regarded by God to be sufficient for men to draw right conclusions about him, and to be accountable for their rejection of God. Closely related to that, God has revealed himself and his moral requirements to men through their conscience. Thirdly, God has revealed himself through his activity and personal involvement in the unfolding history of the world since its creation, while at the same time speaking to humanity through the record of his dealings in the Bible. This revelation is progressive from the perspective of humanity, as the growing significance of what God discloses becomes clearer over time, and leads to an even greater understanding of God and his purposes. This revelation has unfolded not haphazardly, but deliberately according to a plan, which God has made more explicit by what he has said in scripture, beginning in Genesis (3:15). The most significant fulfillment of what God predicted through the Old Testament prophets has already come about in Christ (), but more is to follow. Fourthly, from the very beginning, God’s purposes and plan have been recorded in written form, both in the OT and NT, so that there is an enduring record of what God has done, intends to do, and what his purposes and goals are, with respect to redemption and reconciliation of men to himself. We now turn to a consideration of the nature of the written record of the revelation of God that we find in the Bible.

Inspiration/Inerrancy/Infallibility/Illumination: Some questions immediately come to mind, when we begin a consideration of the Bible as the record of the revelation of God. First, how do we know that it is an accurate record? Are there errors in the record itself, or in any of the supporting facts or assertions? Secondly, how did the words come to be written, and does it matter what exactly was written? If it matters, is it essential what words are used and how they are joined with other words to communicate the ideas expressed? Maybe, it would have been enough for the writers to express simply the substance of what they knew or what God said, without us having to worry about the details of the how the ideas are communicated, or what words were chosen to convey meaning. Thirdly, how confident can we be in the text as we have it handed down to us? Fourthly, how authoritative is the text? Fifthly, how do can we be sure that the versions we have today, admittedly not in the original language in which the documents were first written, are accurate representations of what was intended by the original author when he first penned the autograph?

The last two points are critical because accuracy and reliability effect the authority of the text as we now have it in our own language. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, we need to have confidence in four things with respect to the transmission of the text and creation of the versions currently in our possession and in our language:

1. Accuracy – That the original text in Greek or Hebrew (Aramaic) is a reliable record of what God intended the author to write. “An inerrant Bible cannot contain falsehood, fraud, or deceit in its teachings or assertions.”[8] The Bible is a trustworthy record of what God intended to communicate, and is without error. That the original is without error in fact or content. This impinges on the theology of inerrancy.

2. Reliability – The Bible or word of God cannot and will not fail in its intended purpose to accomplish its goal of communicating God’s message of salvation and redemption to humanity or of providing an adequate and accurate revelation of God.[9] The Bible is not the exclusive means by which God has made himself known, but it is by far the clearest and fullest. To know God, his purposes, and of his offer of salvation, we need the Bible. This impinges on the theology of infallibility.

3. Meaning – That the original communicates God’s intended message and is an accurate representation of his meaning when he inspired the authors to write. This impinges on the theology of Inspiration.

4. Interpretation – That we can confidently recover the meaning of the text as God intended it to be understood, discerning between what is timeless and authoritative truth and what is anachronistic. This impinges on the theology of illumination. The theological discipline that is concerned with interpreting the text as we have it is called hermeneutics, and relies on informed judgment on three things:

a. Authorial Intention: Understanding what the author intended to say when he wrote, what he originally meant to his intended audience. This is the first step in reading and studying the text, to correctly discern its meaning in its historical context.

b. Inspired Meaning: Understanding what God means by what he inspired the author to write. This is the second step, and we assume that there is continuity between the author’s intended meaning, when he wrote under the inspiration fo the Spirit, and God’s meaning.

c. Interpreted Meaning: Understanding the implications and meaning of the text in the contemporary setting, so as to take seriously as an authoritative word from God which must be obeyed and requires an appropriate response. This is a third step that identifies what is timeless and authoritative and what is historically bound and is not intended for the saints of all the ages.

With respect to these three criteria, we recognize that authorial intention and inspired meaning have to do with the theology of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy, and govern the authority and reliability of the text so that it is considered to be without error or mistake. Interpreted meaning has to illumination, how the Holy Spirit helps us through study to arrive at an accurate and clear understanding of the meaning of the text and how it is to be applied to our lives in the contemporary setting. The authority of our interpretation of the text and our theology, unlike the original text itself, is not absolute. Opinions, doctrines, interpretations, and theological reflection on the text must all be weighed and carefully compared to the plain meaning of the text to verify the accuracy of their representations of the content of the word of God. Opinions and interpretations vary. Theology does not have absolute authority. Its authority is relative to the accuracy of its representation of the inspired meaning of the text.

Inspiration – The place to start when considering how the Bible came to be written, is with a claim the Bible categorically and unmistakably makes for itself, that it is inspired by God. Before we answer the question of what inspiration consists of, let us consider the claim. Three prominent NT scriptures support the idea that the Bible is inspired by God.

In , Paul asserts to Timothy that all scripture is inspired by God. Paul had been speaking to Timothy about his upbringing, and how he was raised knowing the ‘Holy Scriptures,’ by which he means the OT as a completed written record, the Bible of first-century Judaism and early Christians, like Paul (). The word translated holy is not the usual Greek word, but a word that means sacred, or connected to worship of Judaism and the temple (ἱερὰ). The emphasis is on the law and the Jewish scriptural tradition. These sacred writings Paul calls God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) (). This gives us a clue to how Paul and the Jews, in general, viewed the Word of God as having come from the very mouth of God himself, formed from the breath of God himself speaking to his people. The Word of God contains precisely those thoughts and words that God himself intended to be written and recorded. The words themselves are somehow linked to an intentional selection on God’s part, and accurately convey what he meant to communicate, precisely how he wanted it to be communicated.

2 Timothy 2:15 NIV

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 NIV

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

A second important passage occurs in , where Peter discusses the origin of OT scripture. Peter repudiates the idea that the narrative about Jesus was a cleverly constructed story, asserting that he and his fellow apostles were eyewitnesses of the events that took place, and that had been recorded. He claims to have personally seen the ‘majesty’ of Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. He heard the voice of God himself confirm Christ’s identity as the Son of God, his beloved Son (). This assertion that Peter and the others were eyewitnesses is at the heart of the gospel record of Jesus ministry, death, and resurrection (cf. ; ; ; ). Peter reaches back and in this passage to include the OT in the accurate eyewitness record of God’s action and words to his people and the world in general. The accuracy and reliability of the witness for Christ and the NT events is also assured for the OT, written down by prophets who were inspired by God (). What they recorded was not from their own imagination or interpretation of what they saw or heard, but rather they accurately recorded what God inspired their hearts to write, through the Holy Spirit, who bore them along, like sailing ships are driven by the wind (). What Peter claims is that OT scripture was the product of the mind and inspiration of God, and not the private exercise of the imagination of individuals who set the words on paper. Scripture was not the product of the will of men (οὐ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου).

2 Peter 1:12–21 NIV

So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly enough, Peter’s analogy of the Spirit carrying the writers along is a wordplay on the Greek word for Spirit (πνεύματος), which doubles up for the nouns breath and wind in English. In both Greek and Hebrew the same words can be translated spirit, wind, and breath, and the writers of the Bible sometimes engage in puns or wordplays (the most notable of which is in , and the parable/vision of the dry bones). Peter’s analogy comes close to Paul’s God-breathed. Between the two descriptions, we get a picture of inspiration that eliminates the free exercise of the will and imagination of man, in favor of the mind of men moved by the Spirit of God. Through the Spirit, the content and even of the very words found in scripture are said to have originated in the mind of God.

Verbal – Traditionally theology has used two words to define the extent and process of inspiration of scriptures, which themselves are not biblical but describe in a helpful and qualifying way what Paul and Peter appear to mean about inspiration. The first of the words is verbal inspiration. To say that the Bible is verbally inspired is to say something like what Paul says, that the Word of God is God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) (). The implication is that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit had something to do with the selection of the very words that composed what was written down.

There are instances in scripture when various characters in the text or writers make an argument that depends on the very words used, and where they invest in the selection of those words the authority God’s intention. By this, we mean that the choice of certain words is critical to what is communicated and their selection has full divine sanctioned through inspiration. Inspiration to the level of the words chosen is called, in theology, verbal inspiration. An illustration of the importance of verbal inspiration can be seen in Paul’s argument about the ‘seed’ not ‘seeds’ of Abraham (). Jesus made the point that the Psalms called those whom God had appointed leaders “gods,” where he is making a play on the concept of gods, God, and leadership authority, and using a rhetorical rebuttal of their rejection of his claim to be the Messiah ().[10] There are all rots of subtle word plays in the scriptures where the meaning on a passage, idea, doctrine or thought hangs in the selection of a word. The OT is full of names that were chosen because of their phonetic similarity to the circumstances in which they were selected or used. Individual words are important and significant in scripture. And Paul says that they are God-breathed, that he had something to do with the selection of the words used by the writers. Furthermore, this implies that all scripture is inspired by God, and not just portions or passages, which contain essential theological or moral concepts, as some scholars have contended ().[11] Paul does not give us that option, and references to the authority of God’s Word in the Bible itself assumes that every page is equally authoritative. Paul makes the most prolific use of the OT than any other writer, to the point that even in places where he is not directly quoting scripture, he is alluding to it or paraphrasing, so that almost every thought or expression, even in the casual sections, is somehow connected to correspondings element in the OT.[12]

However, to say that the Bible is verbally inspired does not imply that the writers were nothing more than stenographers, or dictation machines, setting down the only words God dictated into their minds. There is a vast difference in content and style in the Bible. For example the Bible contains narrative, poetry, gospel, epistles, apocalyptic and prophetic literature, and what is wisdom literature. There are within each of these classes a whole variety of writing styles. For example, it is often commented that Luke and Hebrews are among the best Greek writing in the scriptures, whereas Mark is plain, bordering on rough Greek. The style of Paul’s letters are quite different from the gospels and Acts, and Daniel and Revelation have an affinity for one another in style. Zechariah contains some apocalyptic elements that resemble Revelation. Ecclesiastes is almost secular in its style and reasoning, and Song of Solomon is passionate if not erotic.

Scripture is clearly not monolithic in form, expression, content or its portrayal of theology. It has variety. As each writer wrote, he wrote in his own style, from the perspective of his own culture, background and time, with his own experiences and knowledge, but all the time influenced by God. It was a divine-human cooperation. The idea of divine-human collaboration is the hallmark of God’s redemptive activity, whereby his plans are made in his own mind, but depend on the cooperation human beings, so that every activity of God has an incarnational element involved in it, including the writing of the Bible. Furthermore, we might say that the incarnation of Christ is a fit metaphor for how God works in creation to accomplish his purposes, and we have every reason to believe he is still working in the same way through church (; The church Christ’s body – cf. ; ).

Plenary – When Peter says that the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit, he was referring to the process by which God inspired the scriptures as a whole. The Bible has perspective, purpose, structure, plan, consistency, movement, and development of themes. It is not static, or two dimensional. It breathes with life, and as the progress of scriptures unfold, so does the breadth of revelation of God, his purpose and redemptive action. In other words the structure of the individual texts, as well as the whole Bible as a combination of 66 books, exhibits the intentionality of the divine mind. The Spirit bore the writers along to produce a unified book of scripture, made up of dozens and dozens of parts, all perfectly integrated to render a single message and unfolding revelation, employing about 40 writers over a period of about 1,600 years. The idea that the unity and total consistency in scripture is some kind of comic accident is untenable. It is the result of the divine mind working through the process of inspiration to convey a message, that is simple on the one hand, but brilliantly multifaceted and spectacularly intricate on the other. This fact is described by the phrase plenary inspiration, where plenary means inspired in the complete and entire the whole as the Bible is finally constituted.

Inerrancy – It is often said by preachers and theologians that the Bible is without error. But just what does that imply? Without what sort of error is it? First, of all it is essential to state that the inerrancy of scripture has to do with the original documents written by the original authors, under the inspiration of God.[13] These are often called the autographs, and none of those documents still exist, they are long gone. It is important to note that inerrancy is not claimed for copies, translations, paraphrases or commentary (even by talented and trustworthy leaders or saints). It is up to believers to evaluate copies and versions of scripture, all of which are translated from original languages, to maturely determine how faithful to the original text they are.

To be inerrant means that the text does not contain errors in fact or content, and are reliable containing no falsehood, mistake, or deceit. Although this claim has been greatly challenged, especially in the German scholastic period of the late 19th century, the Bible has yet to be proven to be in error of its facts and claims, and indeed, as is the case with the creation story in Genesis, recent science has actually done a lot to substantiate biblical assertions about the origin of the universe. Scientists may not be very thrilled about the implications of their discoveries when they point to design, but their findings and work tend more and more in that direction. At the moment there is a passionate religious and stalwart refusal in the scientific community by some against accepting the implications of what they are finding. Archeology and other disciplines have also gone a long way to verifying the factual content of the Bible. Even though two centuries ago doubt was cast over many of the historical detail of scripture, more and more evidence is turning up to verify the accounts as they have come down to us, and this notably evidenced in Luke’s gospel and Acts, where his highly technical references to things, people, places and practices have been found to be totally consistent with recent discoveries. Indeed, the ground has been consistently cut from beneath the skepticism of 18th and early 19th century biblical scholarship, rendering vast amounts of it irrelevant overnight.

Infallibility – Related to inerrancy, with a similar meaning, but a different perspective is the assertion that scripture is infallible. To be infallible means scripture is without error or mistake in its prescriptive assertions about God, creation and the kingdom of God, present and future, and maybe entirely relied upon as true and truthful. Inerrancy has to do with accuracy of the facts and content; infallibility has to do with the pronouncements and prescriptions of scripture, its predictive prophecy. Its assertions about God and redemption are incapable of being wrong or in error. What the Bible says about human beings, their need for salvation, the future, and God prescription for salvation, joy, and satisfaction in life are all authentically accurate.

Authoritative/Authority – If scripture is inerrant and infallible, if it is a record of the revelation of what of God has done and said, and if it contains a message from God that requires a response or that demands faith and obedience to God, if its words originate from the mind of God and have been communicated to us through inspiration by the Spirit, scripture is authoritative. It the Bible contains a prescription for how human beings can reconnect with God after having fallen into sin, and who is sovereign over his creation and rules over it, the scripture is authoritative in its prescriptions for reconciliation to God, and it must be obeyed. It cannot be ignored. God makes his appeal through scripture to humanity, and that appeal is contained in the written pages of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible has the authority to speak for God, and its assertions and contents carry divine authority to demand that people respond to God, because the Bible contains what he wishes to say to them about creation, their condition, his grace and love, his desire for reconciliation, and the imminent danger of divine judgment on the persistently wicked and unrepentant.

The scriptures have come down to us through a series of copies made over vast periods of times by scribes and others, until about the 16th century, when the moveable-type printing press simplified the production of copies. It is beyond the scope of this class to discuss the transmission of the text from the original to the present day. But here are a few facts. When a copy of the book of Isaiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was from 1,000 years earlier, compared to the oldest copy in existence to that time. When the two were compared, it was discovered that they were amazingly similar to a degree that there was no question that the essential text had come down through the entire period with remarkable accuracy, justifying complete our confidence in the text itself. There are no original copies of any ancient book scholars rely on for ancient history, including Homer’s Iliad, and Caesar’s Gaelic Wars. While the Bible is no except to this, the numbers of ancient copies and fragments from which we get our text of the NT runs into the 1,000’s. There are at least 5,000 Greek texts, and around 20,000 early versions in other languages and the complete NT is cited in the patristic writings, of which there are 24,000 examples. The earliest of the NT copies can be placed well into the first century (before 100 A.D.), and some as early as 60 A.D., less than 30 years after Christ. One NT quote, part of a church creed it is believed, is found in Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, and is considered be from within a very few years of the resurrection of Christ, well within the lifetimes of those who saw and knew him (cf. ). Homer’s Iliad is the next most highly attested ancient document, with 643 copies, dating from the 13th century, which is quite unremarkable when you think that it was composed around 800-875 B.C., a period of nearly 1,400 years! No credible scholar doubts or quarrels with the text of the Iliad! There is no question that we have to a degree of certainty of 99.9% the original text of the NT. The accuracy of the NT text is beyond serious question. Its transmission is quite miraculous, adding a level of evidence to its supernatural nature. It is quite literally the Word of God that authoritatively demands a response from sinful human beings.

Illumination – It is one thing to acknowledge that we have an accurate, inerrant, infallible and authoritative text, but it is quite another to understand and interpret the text accurately so that we grasp what it is that God really means by what he says. The essence of good communication is to accurately convey through words and other means what you want someone else to know so that their conclusion about what you mean is precisely what you intended to communicate. What you intend to communicate must be accurately understood by the person receiving it for proper communication to have taken place. Hearing and understanding communication is the task of interpretation. We do this every day, whenever we hold a conversation or read a book, listen to a conversation or listen to a show or in some other way receive an act of communication from another. The key to understanding the meaning of the one communicating is interpretation what the original speaker or writer intended to say before we then draw conclusions of how to respond, apply, implement, or act based on our understanding. The first key to understanding the message of the Bible is to discover as much as possible about the intention of the original author. The science of understanding the Bible and interpreting it is called hermeneutics. This is especially tricky with ancient documents, because we have to take into account original language, historical setting, cultural setting, geographical setting, who the author is, to whom the author was writing, and the purpose for writing, as well as needing to know what type of literature we are dealing with, and how it fits into the entire revelation of God in the Bible as we know it (composed of the full 66 books, divided into two testaments).

One might think this is a hopelessly subjective task, incapable of any objective conclusions. But that is not true. Certain rules, procedures, and common sense principles, protect scripture from the kind of wild interpretations that we sometimes, and that we are justified in rejecting (i.e. the feminist Bible, the socialist Bible, The Queen James Version, etc.). The Bible promises illumination for understanding the Word of God, coming from the very source that originated the revelation and inspiration, the Holy Spirit (cf. ; ; , ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ). That God illuminates his word to the serious reader is axiomatic in the church, and that the Spirit is God’s agent of illumination is clear.

Illumination does not mean that the Bible can mean anything that you personally want it to mean (relativism). It does not mean that we can engage in the kind of interpretation that says something like, “what this verse means to me…” as though somehow the Bible is a collection of sayings which are chiefly of personal and subjective significance. Before we assess what the Bible is saying to us personally, or how it is challenging us, we must first understand what God originally intended to say. We must hear it in its original context, to hear and understand it in our context. How the Bible effects us by its message is tied first to what the author originally intended to say to the original hearers, and how that impacts humanity with an unchanging message and principles which need to be applied to us.

TOWARD A THEOLOGY OF THE INDWELLING SPIRIT

INTRODUCTION

Pentecostals tend to view Pentecost in isolation to the rest of the Bible, and as a one-off event toward the beginning of the church, with implications for the future. Very little consideration is given to a theology of the presence of God and the New Testament theology of the indwelling Spirit and how they are related to one another.

We begin with a statement. There is continuity and discontinuity in the theology of the indwelling Spirit and the presence of God as they are found respectively in the New and Old Testaments. In this section we will not be able to go into close detail but will content ourselves with an overview. However, we need to state at the outset that there is a relationship between the presence of God in the Old Testament, first in Genesis and later among his people Israel, the incarnation of Christ, the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, and the Pauline theology of the indwelling Spirit.

Let us start our consideration by first listing the principle elements in the Old and New Testament that go into a comprehensive theology of the indwelling Spirit:

1. The creation of man to image God to creation, and the presence of God in the garden ()

2. The selection of a man and nation through which God would reveal himself to a fallen world ()

3. Israel, Moses and the tabernacle in the wilderness, the pillar of cloud and fire

4. The incident with the glory of God revealed to and Moses ()

5. The event with the 70 leaders anointed with the Spirit and prophesying ()

6. References to those who were filled with the Spirit and who acted or spoke for God

7. The temple and the ark as the footstool of God’s throne (maybe a contribution to our understanding by David himself ()

8. The departure of God’s presence from Israel because of a persistently wicked Israel ()

9. The promises of God that he would pour out his Spirit universally on his people at a future time when his dealings with them would change dramatically (; )

10. The incarnation of Christ, Anointed One (Baptized and Spirit-filled) (; ; ; )

11. Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit and power after his departure (; )

12. The Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit fell on the church as God previously promised to Israel ()

13. The Spirit in the early church, and repeated infillings, both initial subsequent specific empowerings for ministry or action (, , , et al.)

14. Paul’s theology of holiness involving the indwelling Spirit (; )

15. Paul’s theology of the church and saints indwelt by the Spirit as temples of God through the Spirit (; )

16. Paul’s theology of the Spirit equipping the saints to serve God and his kingdom (;; )

17. The final state of creation when the presence of God will be with men, and he will dwell with them to be their God, while they will become his people ()

There are in the Bible several overarching themes that act like supporting structures to our understanding of God, and much of our theology is related or connected to these themes. These overarching themes provide continuity and anchor points that help us to grasp the implications of what the Bible reveals about God. For example, redemption is an overarching theme that is first stated overtly in by God when cursing the serpent. The promise is made that the seed of the woman would conquer the seed of the serpent, initiating a hope that God would reverse the effects of Adam’s original sin, reconciling by reconciling to God. The later sacrificial system in Israel, Passover commemoration, and the promise of a redeemer, with prophetic statements about his rejection (; ), and propitiatory death (), all culminate with the incarnation and arrival of Christ who is described publicly by John the Baptist as the “…Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” (). This is further advanced by Jesus own prediction of his death and resurrection, and of the portrayal of his death as a sacrifice for sin on behalf of those who believe in him. Paul and the other apostles thrash out the theology and implications of this in their preaching in the early church and their letters, using the Old Testament and the old covenant as a basis for understanding the mission of Christ in the context of God’s redemptive program. Finally, Revelation shows Christ as the crucified yet risen Lamb of God, sitting on the throne with God, whose propitiatory work is done, now preparing to finally conquer Satan and sin on the earth to establish a new heaven and earth. In this way, the head of the serpent is truly crushed, although the basis for this utter defeat is timed to the moment of Christ’s death and resurrection. Through his incarnation and propitiatory death, Jesus has not only crushed Satan’s head, but he has made possible reconciliation to God, through the redemption, which God promised in the beginning. There a number of these overarching ideas and themes that carry forward from the Old Testament and find fulfillment in the New.

We want to briefly talk about one of these themes that is pertinent to our consideration of the indwelling Spirit in connection with holiness and Pentecost. It is not often stated that, but should be clearly understood that the critical element to both holiness and Pentecost is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. The indwelling Spirit is as much a key to holiness as it is to Pentecost, although to some on the surface it may not seem so clear. In this section of our study, we want to take a quick overview of the overarching theme in the Bible of the presence of God (glory, Shekinah), and the indwelling presence of the Spirit.

The Presence of God, the Image and Likeness of God and Fellowship with God (): In the creation account, when God makes man, he announces his intention that man should be created in the image of God and in his likeness, and that man, as God’s representative, in his image and likeness, is to rule over all he has created (). It is then asserted that this is exactly what God did, creating them male and female. The point appears to be that humankind would image God to creation, as a reflection of God’s character, nature, and being, particularly his holiness, grace, and love. The creation of the garden as a special place for this first pair seems, from the second creation account in , to be launching pad from which the dominion of which God spoke is to be extended by his representatives throughout the earth. So every provision is made in the garden, which is well-watered and grown, so that man through his work and cultivation will extend this Edenic perfection throughout the earth. But there is something else about the garden, it is a place of communion and fellowship with God, who appears in the cool of the day to spend time with Adam (). Many (e.g. G. K. Beale, Walt Kaiser, Bruce Walke) have made the observation that the carving and embroidering of palms and angels in the temple and tabernacle and on their furnishings is designed to capture the idea of the original Edenic plan of man’s communion with God in the garden that he planted for him in the beginning. Space does not allow us to explore the appearances of God to Abraham and Jacob, prior to the burning bush, where Moses first encounters the presence, glory, and Shekinah of God as a physical manifestation, where he expresses his intention to liberate Israel in order to dwell among them as their God ()

Exodus 3:7–10 NIV

The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.”

Genesis 1:26–28 NIV

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Moses, the Shekinah, Sinai, the Tabernacle, the Glory and 70 Elder and the Spirit: When Moses finally led Israel out of Egyptian slavery, the presence of God was seen to dwell among his people, in a physically tangible token of a pillar that had the appearance of a cloud during the day and of fire by night (; ). This manifestation of God’s presence among his people was later called The Shekinah, meaning “the One Who Dwells,” with the obvious implication that God now dwelt among his people.[14] At Sinai, this manifested presence of God found its fullest expression in the thundering voice of God giving his commands to the nation, coming from the violently burning mountain (). In forging the covenant with his people God declared his desire and intention to dwell among them, to be their God and for them to be his people. This would require that they become holy because he is holy (). It was the condition for the covenant to survive in terms of God continuing to dwell among them. The often repeated formula in the Old Testament and picked up in the New, is that God will be Israel’s God and they would be his people, and that God desired to dwell among them (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).

Leviticus 11:44 NIV

I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground.

There are two highly suggestive and significant incidents in the life of Moses and his experiences in the wilderness that advance the theme of the presence of God among his people. The first has to do with the golden calf incident, under the shadow of Sinai, where the glory of God was burning on the mountain (), and the second has to do with an exhausted Moses finally gaining a concession from God to appoint leaders to help him in the work of leading the people ().

First, while Moses was on the mountain, and gone a very long time, the people became restless and demanded that Aaron make gods for them to worship because they “didn’t know what had become of Moses” (). Even though the Shekinah of God was still visible on the mountain, shortly before they had heard his voice like a trumpet reciting the law to them, and that just that very morning they had collected and eaten manna, they concluded that God and his representative Moses had somehow failed or abandoned them ()! Their disregard for God’s word and commands and their propensity for growing weary with serving and obeying him is magnified in this narrative, where a stiffnecked, easily discouraged, and fickle people look for a more exciting outlet for their pent up emotions and religious inclinations. The engagement in the worship of the calf idol was more of an out of control party than anything else (, ). This propensity for abandoning faith in God to embrace the false gods of the surrounding nations had to do with them growing weary with obeying God and serving him, and because they wanted to be like those other nations without the moral constraints placed on them by their covenant with God. This attitude comprises the story of their entire Old Testament history beyond the exile.

In the context of this incident, three critical aspects of the presence of God among his people are highlighted. First, when Moses returned to find the people cavorting about in worship of the golden calf, he broke the tablets of the law, written by the finger of God, and set about restoring order in the camp. God had threatened to destroy the nation and make a new nation out of Moses and his descendants. Moses pleaded with God and interceded with him on behalf of the people, offering to stand in their place under the judgment of God (). In the course of the conversation, God told Moses that he would no longer go with Israel up to the Promised Land, because of their persistent sinning. If he does, God warned Moses, he might be provoked into totally destroying them from off of the face of the earth (). After confronting the people and dealing with their transgression, Moses went outside of the camp, to a tent that he had set up for the purpose of having a place to go for communion with God (). It was a place he regularly visited, usually each evening, for time with God in prayer. When he entered the tent, the cloud of God’s presence and glory descended on it and covered it while God spoke to Moses face to face ()! This tent he called the Tent of Meeting, and when Moses later built the tabernacle, the Holy Place and Holy of Holies constituted the new Tent of Meeting, inside the courtyard, and the Shekinah of God rested on the Holiest Place when Israel was not traveling. In this way, The One Who Dwells was associated with a tent as a meeting place, and the Shekinah of God became the tenting or tabernacling presence of God among his people. The fact, that the tabernacle incorporated garden imagery is provocative and suggestive of its connection to Eden and God’s intended purpose of fellowship and representation, which now transferred to his people Israel.

In the conversation that ensued between the Lord and Moses on that occasion, Moses refused to accept God’s proposal for them to go up unaccompanied by his presence to the Promised Land (). In a tense moment during the exchange, Moses “persuaded” God to “change his mind” and go up with them, because if he did not, Moses said, there would be no way to tell the difference between Israel and all the other nations in the world (). It was the abiding presence of God, his indwelling presence that set Israel apart as a different and holy people, who belong to God. So God both dwelt among his people in fellowship with them, and they were his representatives to the nations around them. Without his presence they were no better or different than any other nation. Moses knew this and stood his ground until God agreed to not withdraw his presence. So Moses connected the presence of God in close communion with a mark of distinction for those who belong to him. God purposed to be in fellowship with his people, who were then to represent him to the world. However, this covenant with God had conditions. His people must represent him accurately in a number of ways, two ways in particular. They were to be holy (morally upright in heart, character, and conduct), and they were to be compassionate toward one another (providing social justice, and treating one another unselfishly). These two ideas roughly correspond with the often-repeated formula that Israel was to love God supremely and their neighbor as themselves (; ). To love God supremely is to live in holiness, because it is to obey God from a heart fully devoted to him, which Deuteronomy makes abundantly clear (cf. ; ; ; ; ). In this way God would continue to dwell among and maintain fellowship with his holy people.

When the tabernacle was constructed in the Holy of Holies was a piece of furniture called the ark of the covenant. It was a wooden box overlaid with gold and a lid, with two cherubim facing inward in a bowing posture, also made of gold. On the ark once a year the blood of the Atonement Sacrifice was sprinkled, and so the lid of the ark became known as the ‘mercy seat’ or the place where atonement was made. It was treated as though it were the throne from which God reigned as king among his people. This imagery is prominent in where believers are encouraged to come before the throne of Christ boldly (by faith), to obtain mercy in their time of need (). In any case, when the Shekinah of God rested in the camp, it rested over the Holy of Holies in a way reminiscent of God sitting on his throne in heaven. So Israel considered God to be enthroned among his people in the tabernacle, which was set up in the dead center of the camping nation, during their time in the wilderness (cf. ; ).

Later on, this became true of the temple that Solomon, built. Writing after the construction of the temple the historian who compiled 1 Samuel (from earlier records), called the LORD, the One Enthroned Between the Cherubim, not at all meaning in heaven, but the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle and temple (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Some of references to the enthronement of God are opaque in that they imply that he is enthroned in heaven, where his throne might properly be considered to be, but also on earth among his people, with special reference to the location in Jerusalem, Zion, in the temple, in the Holy of Holies, and in connection with the mercy of the ark of the covenant. He is enthroned in both places simultaneously (; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , cf. ). It seems to be David that first articulates the idea that while God is enthroned as LORD in heaven, earth is the footstool of his throne, and in particular the temple that will be built after he is gone (; cf. ). This dovetails with Israel concept of the tent of meeting being the place where God is enthroned among his people, but David has taken the idea a step further to incorporate the idea that where God is enthroned on earth in the temple or tabernacle, it is joined and interconnected so as to be of ‘one piece’ with his throne on heaven.

To illustrate this, Solomon built a magnificent golden throne with an ornate and equally impressive footstool, both of was were considered to be one piece with throne overall (). So when Israel worshipped at the footstool of God’s throne, they worshipped at the temple, in the presence of God who was reigning in heaven on his throne at the same time as dwelling, reigning and present among his people on earth (; ). While David crystalized this imagery, Isaiah made a full statement on it when he said that heaven is God’s throne and earth is his footstool meaning that the throne of God extended to earth, so that God reigned and dwelt among his people at the temple. David’s vision was that the ark was the location of the throne-footstool of God among his people (). When Isiah saw the Lord high and lifted up, with his robe filling the temple, this is not just a heavenly vision, it is a vision of the enthroned majesty of God in heaven, with his manifested presence in cloudy glory – his feet as it were – resting upon the footstool of his temple, on the ark, in the Holy of Holies (). It is clearly in the temple that this manifest presence of God is seen because the temple foundations tremble at the vision and cries of the angels!

Israel was to go up to Jerusalem three times a year, and we have the psalms (songs) of accents () that vividly describe the celebratory mood as they come into the presence of God at the temple to worship and fellowship with God around the sacrifices and rituals. The picture is not unlike the idea of God meeting with Adam in Genesis. In this way, the imagery of God’s presence among his people, as their reigning king, in communion with his people is drawn together to reflect the original intention of God when he created Adam to image him back into his creation. We do not have space to explore the idea, but the reigning monarchs of Israel sat on Israel’s throne, to represent God’s rule among his people, and to reflect his rule among them in much the same way Adam was commanded to take dominion over creation and to do so by reflecting the character of God.

But this is only part of the story. Space will not allow us to discuss or cite all of the relevant scripture, but in summary, we need to note that Israel’s battle with disobedience, idolatry, and sin is what created the rift between God and his people. The continual threat hung over them that if they did not repent and live in obedient holiness before God under the terms of the covenant to which they agreed, God would not only desert them but eject them from the land he had given them. This is precisely what occurred. In the glory of God (Shekinah, the reigning presence of God over the ark and Holy of Holies) is seen lifting, and albeit, reluctantly and slowly leaving Jerusalem. If Israel will not reflect God in true holiness and selfless consideration for one another, God will not continue to dwell among them (in fulfillment of the terms explicitly laid down at Sinai - cf. ; ; ; ; , ;; ).

After Moses had successfully interceded with God for the people over the golden calf incident, he turned to a personal request, that God should “reveal” his glory to Moses (, ). Remember that he had seen the Shekinah of God in the burning bush, the pillar of cloud and fire, and on Mt. Sinai. It may seem redundant to us, but Moses wanted confirmation, explicit confirmation of an indisputable nature if he was to carry the burden of these people any longer. This request met with a partial response from God, who offered to let him see his glory in a rather indirect way, as the after-effects of his passing by (). So Moses was to be covered by the hand of God in the cleft of the rock, and when God’s hand was removed he was to see the after-effects of God’s glory from where God had passed by, the after-glow if you like. In essence, the glory of God seen in the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah, of which the pillar of cloud and fire was a physical manifestation, Moses could not see in the naked raw sense but was allowed to glimpse its manifestation after God passed by. But during the process of passing by, God engages a running commentary, describing his glory as it passed by while God hid Moses' face in the rock (). The description of the glory of God, as rendered by God himself, describing what his glory looks like is stunning!

Exodus 34:6–7 NIV

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

“The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”[15]

The leading feature of God glory, the leading way in which God views himself and his nature as creator and sustainer, is as a God of compassion, gracious, slow to anger and overflowing in love, faithfulness, and merciful love. Far from the traditional western portrayal of God as a vindictive, legalistic, and an overly moralistic tyrant, he is revealed to Moses as supremely loving, gracious and compassionate toward his creation and his people in particular. And yet he is no pushover. He will, for the sake of his own holiness and justice hold the sinner responsible, by punishing the persistently guilty, even if the sin continues unabated to the third and fourth generation. He will in fact, never accommodate himself to sin, or grow accustomed to it, so that he will glibly overlook it. His wiliness to forgive and be reconciled to his people is boundless, but he will not give persistent wickedness and wicked people a pass. Judgment is inevitable, although mercy is offered freely. In this way, the Bible shows that the presence or glory of God is not an ephemeral, ethereal quality of God nature reaved in some startling way, but a substantive aspect of his being, nature, and character which gives witness to his love, compassion and grace. For the presence of God to be among his people, and to find physical manifestation as the Shekinah of God, is the same as God to dwelling among his people in the full revelation of his nature in terms of compassion, mercy, love, and grace, and at times in judgment and correction as well. However, it appears from this incident, which becomes paradigmatic in future God references to the nature of God in scripture, his approach to his people is fronted or the leading edge of his glory is his compassion, love, mercy, faithfulness, and reluctance to be driven to anger and judgment (). In other words, for the glory of God, his presence, to be among his people meant that God lived and walked with his people dispensing love, grace, and mercy. It is only where these are persistently and finally rejected that ultimately he will hold the sinner and rebellious person accountable through judgment and punishment.

However, it doesn’t quite end there. There is another significant incident that occurs in the life of Moses at a critical juncture. Moses exhausted and weary with the task of leading the people asked God for help and confirmation of his favor on him (). The backdrop to this incident is the complaining and grumbling of the people over the food they have been eating, the manna, daily since they left Egypt. They were bored with it and wanted meat. Their dissent became so acrimonious God began to punish them (). On this occasion, Moses requested that God fulfill his promise to give him help in leading the people (). The Lord sent the people quail to eat, but he told Moses to select 70 elders to join him outside of the camp, and he would take the (S)spirit that was upon Moses (the anointing that empowered him through the presence and indwelling of God), and put it on these leaders to equip them to serve and lead, under Moses authority and direction. When the seventy gathered, and God imparted the Spirit to them, they immediately began to prophesy (). Notice that in connection with the impartation of the Spirit, the cloud came down upon them, the same cloud that dwelt over the tabernacle, and the same cloud that covered the tent when Moses went into it commune with God face to face.

Two of the leaders were not present, late or delayed for whatever reason. This odd circumstance became the occasion for the first indication of God intention concerning the Holy Spirit and his people, and as a reflection of what he really desired and intended in connection with his presence and glory among them. When Eldad and Medad prophesied in the camp (they too were anointed, and the Spirit was imparted to them, Joshua, concerned for Moses position, reputation, and authority among the people, told Moses to rebuke them (). Moses reply is stunning and prophetic. “I wish all of God’s people were prophets and that he would put his Spirit on all of them!” (). The scope of these words is stunning from the perspective of Pentecost, and the promises that Jesus made about the coming of the Spirit after his resurrection and ascension.

Numbers 11:29 NIV

But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”

Picking up the Mosaic theme, Joel prophesied that a time was coming in the last days when God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh and their sons and daughters would prophesy, along with old and young men, servants and handmaidens (). On the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted Joel and pointed to the experience of the 120 as the fulfillment of this promise. Luke in his theological history in Acts and the gospel demonstrates that the coming of the Spirit, first to Jesus, and then to the apostles, was in fact what God intended to bring his presence to dwell among his newly redeemed people! We add to this that between this incident in the wilderness and Pentecost, there are promises of the coming of God Spirit in Isaiah and Ezekiel, and examples of the power of infilling of the Spirit in the lives of the judges, Saul, David, and the later prophets. By these, they are both equipped to supernaturally serve God and most characteristically, to prophesy or speak in God’s behalf with anointed authority. It is this pattern, including the LXX descriptive phraseology that Luke picks up and uses in his historical account of the incarnation and coming of the Spirit.

Jesus, the Apostles, and Pentecost: The prologue of John’s gospel () opens with a statement about the pre-incarnate existence of Christ, the λόγος or Word. For our purposes we want to acknowledge two things. First that the Word, the λόγος, is God (), equal and coexistent with God the Father in the beginning before anything was made (). He is therefore equal with him in creation. The implication is that whatever God did in creation, the Word was equally involved, responsible, and participatory (). So if the purpose of God is to bring light into the world, that is knowledge of himself, the Word is involved in that enterprise with God as coequal with him (). The coming of the light was God’s way of making himself known to his creation, to offer redemption, and reconciliation to himself (). So when the Bible talks about the presence or glory of God among his people, or the knowledge of the glory of God filling the earth as the waters cover the sea, it is reference to a pervasive fellowship with God in the coming eschaton (; ; cf. ). In other words, there is a connection between the glory and presence of God among his people and his fellowship and relationship with them.

John 1:4–5 NIV

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:2 NIV

He was with God in the beginning.

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The process of conveying the knowledge of God, of making him known by revelation, and offering communion with him through reconciliation began in the Old Testament, but came to its most effective and fullest expression in the incarnation of Christ (cf. ; ; ; ). He came first to Israel, with whom God has a covenant, and among whom he once dwelt, but he was rejected and ignored (). This process of revealing God through his interaction with humanity in the incarnation of the Word in Christ John calls the coming of light (). By this he means that coming to know God is a type of illumination of the hearts and minds of men, which casts out the darkness of sin and overcomes it ().

John makes a statement here of great significance in light of what we have considered above. He says that the eternal, preexisting Word became flesh and that he dwelt, among us (). The importance of this statement is that in Christ God actually appeared among men when his presence came to Israel to offer salvation and reconciliation to God through him. The term dwelt has connections to the idea of tenting or tabernacling[16] and reaches back to the days of the tabernacle and the glory of God that dwelt in the Holy of Holies.[17] God’s presence had left Israel (cf. ), but with the incarnation of Christ, God made himself flesh and reappeared among his people – not in the Shekinah of the Old Testament tabernacle and temple, but instead as the fully human Christ, dwelling among his people Israel, revealing God to them (). Jesus had made God known (cf. ). But the one had come to make God known, also came to be the Lamb of God “who takes away the sins of the world” ().[18] So John sees in Christ the reappearance of the presence of God among his people, through the incarnation of the Word, the λόγος made flesh. At the same time as making God known, so that, as John remarks, the glory of God can be seen in him (), he came to present himself to God as the propitiation for their sins in order to open the door to pardon and reconciliation.

In the rest of the prologue from verse 14 to 18, John makes the mode of this revelation clear. Jesus reveals God “full of grace and truth.” (). He images God in the way that Adam and Eve were to image God. John clarifies his reference to Christ with three complementary things, by which Jesus as the incarnate Word was superior to the one who announced his arrival, John the Baptist (). These are, First the eternality and superior nature of Jesus, even though he became flesh (cf. ; ). Secondly, the revelation of God as the Father is something that everyone has tasted in terms of his fullness that is graciously poured out on all men, once blessing on another, so that no one has escaped the graciousness of God. How God described himself to Moses in the cleft of the rock has been played out in God’s constant care and provision for all men, in his dealings with them, without respect. The problem is that men largely have ignored it or repudiated the originator of the blessings they have received (). John paints the picture for us that even before the incarnation God has revealed himself to humanity through his persistent and generous grace, from blessing to blessing, continuously (NIV), whereby when one blessing is finished another begins ().[19] But Jesus will bring to light and make available and reveal an even greater grace from God than that through his sacrifice. Thirdly, the law has revealed God in his holiness through Moses, but Jesus has revealed God in grace and truth (). In this statement we have come full circle to , there the leading edge of God’s approach to men is in compassion, mercy, pardon, and faithfulness, or as John put it here “grace and truth.” So Christ is now the physical, tangible, fleshly manifestation of what Moses only heard described to him when the glory passed him by, sheltered in the cleft of the rock by the hand of God. Jesus became the glory of God revealed in flesh, the manifestation of God’s grace and truth. Again, the life and demeanor of Christ and even his death and resurrection declare more concretely than ever the glory of God precisely the way God described it to Moses. Jesus came to dwell among his people () as the concrete manifestation of the glory of God, full of grace and truth (). In this way, the if you have seen him you have seen the Father (), and although no one has seen God, in his unveiled glory or essence (), the One and Only Son had come to make him/it known ()!

Luke’s approach is similar to John’s in that he demonstrates in his gospel and Acts that God has returned to his people, through the incarnation, and significantly for Pentecostals, the outpouring of the promised Holy Spirit. His gospel and Acts are two volumes of the same work and are highly structured historical theologies. The gospel and Acts bear the marks of overlapping structures, themes and motifs that all go to reinforce Luke’s theology of the incarnation of Christ and the coming of the Spirit. For our purpose we want to note Luke’s theology of the Spirit, as the restoration of the presence and glory of God among his people. By opening his gospel with references to a sudden outburst of Holy Spirit activity (Zechariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna and Simeon), Luke intends to show that the promise of God in the Old Testament concerning the outpouring of the Spirit was beginning with the immediate events leading up to the birth and incarnation of Christ (, cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). These promises of the coming of the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament, are connected, so far as Luke is concerned, with the eschatological coming of the kingdom of God. Just as Mark (1:14-15) notes that with the arrival of Christ the kingdom of God has broken into this present age, Luke demonstrates how with the coming of Christ and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit, the kingdom of God has come in power to bring salvation to the lost, and its arrival is part of the divine plan for the last days (, cf. ).

For that reason, Luke sees in the baptism and anointing of Jesus with the Spirit () and parallel with the 120 receiving the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (), as connected to the fulfillment of God’s promises in Isaiah to send his Spirit-anointed Messiah to preach the good news of the gospel (), and to pour out his Spirit on his people (, cf. ; ). In order to draw out the correspondence between the promises of the Old Testament and the fulfillment in the New Testament life and ministry of Jesus and the early church, Luke adopted the language of the Old Testament (LXX) to describe Spirit phenomena in the early church after Pentecost, phrases like filled, came upon, full of, etc. He also adopted John the Baptist’s language of Spirit baptism (; ; ; ; ). Furthermore, Luke seems to have noted certain aspects of the Spirit’s activity and its results and adapted these to create motifs to describe what he was witnessing in the early church where the Spirit is active among the believers.

When the Spirit came on the Old Testament saints they often spoke and prophesied, and they were equipped to act in power on God’s behalf. Speaking in tongues for Luke was a natural and expected manifestation of the baptism or infilling with the Spirit (cf. ; ). Just as the Spirit inspired prophecy in the Old Testament, he inspired prophetic speech in the early church, including speaking in tongues. When the Spirit came upon the early church, they spoke as they were enabled and anointed by him, and they acted in power. Luke seems to have developed his understanding partly from the incident in the wilderness where God took the Spirit from Moses and put on the 70 elders, and they prophesied and were enabled to lead the people (cf. ).[20] Also, Luke seems to have found similarities between the Spirit’s infilling of Saul, who prophesied, and Peter, Paul, and the other apostles.

The point that we have been making is that with coming of Jesus and his Spirit-anointed ministry, followed by Pentecost and the Spirit in the church, the glory of God returned to his people, just as he promised. The Pentecostal theology of Luke is complemented by the Spirit theology of the Apostle Paul. Paul and the Temple: While all of the New Testament writers recognize with the coming of Christ, the kingdom of God has burst into this present age and will find its fulfillment and consummation in the return of Christ; Paul uniquely presents the Holy Spirit as indwelling the church corporately and believers personally or individually, making them the temple of God. For Paul, the Holy Spirit under the new covenant has become the presence of God among his people in a way anticipated by the temple and promises of the old covenant but in a more personal and corporate indwelling of God himself.

This indwelling presence of God through the Spirit engages many of the dynamics that are expressed in the old covenant law, but which were only imperfectly understood and practiced until salvation through faith in Christ was made possible through his incarnation, death, and resurrection. These dynamics include the centrality of holiness, made possible through the power of the indwelling Spirit, the power of God working through certain people, now engaged through the Spirit in the life of every believer in the church (; ; ), and communion with God in worship and devotion, which under the old covenant was more remote on account of the temple, but through the Spirit has become warm, close, and intimate (cf. , and Moses tent of meeting). Paul saw a continuity between the presence of God’s glory in the Old Testament temple and the indwelling Spirit in the church and individual believers under the terms of the new covenant. Paul more than any other writer outside of Luke, explores the role of the Spirit in the lives of believers and the church. It is to Paul we owe our understanding of the church as the new temple of God, under the new covenant established through the shed blood of Jesus. Because of this, there is a new intimacy and fellowship between God and his people, whereby he no longer dwells in a physical temple or behind a veil, but bodily temple of believers corporately and personally where they are surrendered to him in salvation and for holiness. These he empowers through the Spirit to serve him and proclaim the good news of the gospel to his creation, giving witness to them through their obedience to God (cf. ; ).

We first meet Paul’s temple language in , where he has been dealing with disunity and factious relationships in Corinth. He warns them that through divisiveness, they are destroying the new temple of God because through the Spirit God dwells among his people in their corporate fellowship with one another (). The church is more than a group of people; it is where God dwells through the Spirit, in a way reminiscent of, but far superior than, the Old Testament temple. So whereas the glory once dwelt behind the veil, the Spirit now dwells and is at work among God people as they engage in fellowship with one another in the church. In connection with this in chapter 6, Paul warns them that what they do with their physical bodies individually matters, because they are the temple of God (). They are to honor God in their bodies through holiness because God through the Spirit he dwells in them – they have been bought, spirit, soul, and body with a price (the sacrificial death of Christ), so that they are now Individually and corporately the temple of God.

In Ephesians, describing the mystery of the gospel, that Gentiles and Jews would be united in salvation through the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross, Paul uses the analogy of the temple (). Whereas the Old Testament temple separated Jews from Gentiles, due to the operation of the law, through Christ those divisions have been broken down, and Jews and Gentiles have been united into a single “temple,” in which God dwells through his Spirit. Corporately the church is the temple of God, because God’s presence or glory dwells there by his Spirit. This metaphor of corporate independence finds its most important expression in Paul’s “church as the body of Christ” metaphor, in which he likens individual saints to the parts of a body all interdependently functioning for the benefit of the body and one another (). The key to this metaphor is that the body is indwelt by the Spirit, who empowers the body with gifts. The Spirit works in and through each person to bind each to the other so that a diversity of saints is forged into a Spirit-empowered community and fellowship, where the body as a whole thrives and grows (; cf. ). The idea of the gifts of the Spirit as manifestations of the Spirit’s presence is not incidental. The operation of the gifts provides evidence (manifestations) of the presence of God among a unity of saints because the Spirit is dwelling in them personally and corporately (). In this way, Paul views the church as the new temple, empowered and indwelt by the glorious power of God through the agency of the personal presence of his Spirit.

Furthermore, the temple language of Paul ensconces his deep conviction concerning the indwelling Spirit as the key to holiness and service for God for believers, the saints. In Paul explore holiness and concludes with the idea that the indwelling Spirit is the key to righteousness in the life of the saints. In , and Paul explores the giftings of the Spirit in the context of the church corporately, both in ministry to itself internally and for serving God externally, in terms of its mission to the world.

New Heaven, New Earth, and a New Temple, a New Eden: We cannot leave this topic without a word about . In those chapters John describes a new heaven and earth, comprised of a new Jerusalem, which is really a new temple 1,400 miles cubic (, ). But the key to the new creation is that God will be there in eternal fellowship with his people, and there will be no more separation (). In describing the city in chapter 22, it is like Eden and contains many of the features of Eden (). And that is the point! It is a new Eden, where God’s people will serve him and live with him in eternal communion, reigning with him in eternity! What the church has become in Christ, a place of reconciliation, fellowship, and service to God, whose presence is among the saints, will find an eternal reality in the new heaven and earth. God will dwell among his people, and he will be their God, and they will be his people ().

The church stands in the interim between the remoteness of the previous temple with its glory on the mercy seat behind the veil, and the future intimacy and fulfillment of God original intention for Eden, to provide a place to be in fellowship with humanity who serves him with obedient devotion. Through the Spirit, God has invested his presence into the lives and fellowship of his people, whose sins are forgiven, who are sanctified by the blood of the Lamb, and who are now empowered for righteousness by him. He both uses them to accomplish his mission to the world and at the same time, engages in fellowship and intimacy with them through the Spirit since he personally indwells each of them and the church corporately. This is the biblical vision of the temple, the Spirit, the presence, and the indwelling of God among his people.

TOWARD A THEOLOGY OF THE INDWELLING SPIRIT

HOLINESS

(Reproduced from HOLINESS RECONSIDERED by Paul F. Evans)

SHALL WE CONTINUE IN SIN?

()

In Paul asks what seems to be an odd question: “Shall we go on sinning, so that [the] grace [of God] may increase?” The literal way the question is framed by Paul is, “Shall we remain in sin…?” (ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ). ἐπιμένω means remain, stay put, or stay in place, and can metaphorically mean to continue to do or practice some behavior or lifestyle, such as observing the covenants and commands of God.[21] The verb is in the present tense, emphasizing the continuation of habitual sinning, following justification, on the premise that God’s grace is sufficient to overcome sin, even to its greatest extremity (; cf. ). Paul hypothetically advances the notion that an argument might be made for those who are justified to continue in habitual sin, in order (ἵνα) to provoke the operation of God’s grace, presumably to bring glory to God somehow through its exercise (cf. ).[22] The subjunctive, translated with a future conditional tense in English, could be rendered, “Should we remain in the condition of or continue in the habitual practice of sinning…?” The oddity of the question is that since sin is at heart of the problem between us and God, and sin required the sacrifice of God’s son (, ), who shed his blood and died to secure our salvation (, ), by what possible logic could sin be allowed to continue after salvation? Paul’s response is immediate and strong: “By no means!” (). Paul makes no bones about it: sinning cannot continue after salvation.[23] This is the premise for everything in the discussion that follows, a discussion that continues through , that sinning is no way to live for the justified believer. The question seems to be raised by a hypothetical arising from the foregoing discussion (οὖν). Its basis can probably be found in the strong assertions Paul makes about how abundant grace is, overpowering sin, and whether it might be moot to be too concerned about sin, because grace is well able to deal with it.[24] Indeed, one could argue that sin exalts God by providing a reason for the exercise of grace.[25] Paul repudiates any notion that sin has a positive role to play in the life of the believer and disciple of Jesus Christ after salvation ().[26]

Since the beginning of Romans, Paul has been making a case for salvation, in the sense of being reconciled to God (cf. , ), with the forgiveness of sins (, ; cf. ; ; ; ) resulting in justification and freedom from the penalty, and wrath of God against sin (; ; ). Paul powerfully demonstrated in chapter 1 that sin is what has caused our alienation from God, as a result of both immorality and rebellion against his sovereignty (). The only response sin can expect from God is wrath, his settled and resolute refusal to accommodate himself or his purposes to it. In chapter 2 Paul argues that both Jews and Gentiles are under the same condemnation and stand on level ground before God, needing forgiveness and justification through Christ, if they are to be reconciled to God (, , , , ; , ). Paul concludes in his argument with the observation that no one is righteous before God and cannot be without the intervention of Christ and the exercise of faith (, ; ). Not even meticulous religious observance of the law can overcome the terrible deficit of sin, which is why circumcision and the Law of Moses is of no particular advantage, because it is clear that even Jews are condemned as sinners, and possession of the Law does not automatically result in righteousness ().

But in fact, God has intervened on behalf of sinful humanity, Jews and Gentiles, by sending his Son Jesus Christ to make atonement for sin, with his own blood shed on the cross (). This is grace because God acted out of his own volition, out of love for us, even though we did not merit, nor could merit forgiveness and justification (; ; , ; cf. ; ; ; , ; Tm 1:9; ; ; ). Grace means that God has made free provision without cost to those who are recipients of salvation through faith (; , ). Such a provision is not conferred automatically. A response to God’s gracious intervention or acceptance of his provision by way of faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross is required (; ; cf. ). Once exercised, such faith brings peace with God, as we are justified in his sight and reconciled to him (). Peace with God means to be reconciled to God and the warfare between us coming to an end, with a relationship of children to their father established (cf. ; ). Paul ends chapter 5 recounting the vast expansiveness of the grace of God (cf. ). Grace covers sin entirely, even in the vast depth of its immorality in God’s sight and in the full scope of its historic pervasiveness. If sin has abounded in the scope and depth of its manifestation, God’s grace has abounded easily beyond it, through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (cf. ). In , the discussion moves to the question of sin and sinning after faith and forgiveness, after justification and after reconciliation to God (cf. , ). “Sin” as an issue subsequent to salvation appears to be Paul’s concern.

As Paul’s discussion goes forward, it becomes even clearer that he is concerned with believers not becoming slaves to sin and sinning again following their initial experience of salvation (cf. , , , , , ; , , , ). We should not overlook the point of departure for Paul’s arguments in statements like “died to sin” (), “baptized into Christ Jesus” (), “buried with [Christ]” (), “united with [Christ]” (), “crucified with [Christ]” (), and his conclusion that a cessation of sinning is implied by the experience of being united to Christ in salvation (, ). In every other place, baptism as a rite is significant of salvation, and for Paul a metaphor for spiritual placement into union with Christ consistent with salvation (cf. ). As such it implies that salvation is for Paul at its most basic level a spiritual union with Christ. Paul’s use of the phrase in Christ signifies those who have experienced salvation (cf. ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; , ; , , , ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).[27] Baptism is not primarily significant of a postsalvation experience or one subsequent to salvation but is consistent with salvation itself. Those who are in Christ or saved are so precisely because they were mystically baptized into Christ () and into the historical death of Christ (), in order that they might also mystically experience, in a similar way, a resurrection from the dead, with the result that life going forward comes under new management (, ).[28] This is the context in which Paul states that we should “no longer be slaves to sin,” where the point of departure is salvation, or justification and regeneration through faith in Christ (). In verse 12 Paul tells his readers to refuse to allow sin to reign in their physical bodies, in the sense of obeying its evil desires, or appetites that tend toward sin, because where sin rules it provides the impulse toward sinning (). Sin as a ruling principle is not to hold mastery over the believer going forward (). Furthermore, if we think that occasional lapses into sin are harmless, Paul warns his readers that to whatever they yield obedience, to whatever impulse or influence they submit, it will become their master (). If they offer their bodies to even lapses into sin, the result will be slavery to the impulse to go on sinning![29]

Paul’s language is reasonably clear, even in the early verses of , and the rest of the chapter simply unpacks Paul’s meaning. His readers were once slaves to sin (the sin principle that produces sinning) and have been set free through a mystical spiritual union with Christ, of which baptism is symbolic and the context is God’s grace (), involving faith that procures justification (). He means for them to understand that sinning is no longer appropriate for those who have believed in Jesus Christ for salvation, because in salvation the sin principle, which is a chief producer of sin in us, has been crucified in a union with Christ. God has morally and spiritually transformed them through union with Christ in his resurrection, as well as his death, in order for them to live a new life (). But even with that, they are not immune from falling back into slavery to sin just because they are saved (this is clear from ), or else the questions Paul raises in verse 1 and 15 would be moot.[30] To fall back into slavery to sin can only lead to increasing levels of wickedness and immorality that will result in death and judgment (, , ). Persistent or continued sinning is never static or innocuous; it leads to slavery and death according to Paul and should be resisted and overcome (). Indeed Paul argues that just as much as his readers were once slaves to sin, through salvation they are now to be slaves to righteousness; they are under the hand of a new master producing different results, obedience that leads to eternal life (, , ). Such slavery to righteousness is in actual fact slavery to God himself, through obedience to his will, and involves the Spirit (as we shall see later) (). So it is far more than an issue of immorality coming under condemnation and judgment once again, but Paul is vitally concerned about obedience that leads to righteousness and eternal life ().[31] Sin has the power to reassert its grip on our thinking and affections, if its presence is allowed to continue, incidents of sin tolerated or where persistent sinning arises again in our lives.[32] And the result is death (). So Paul calls on his readers to adopt a resolute mind-set that counts sin as dead and that asserts the power of the new resurrected life in Christ ().

In , Paul lays down his rationale for why sin cannot persist, why the principle of sinfulness cannot rule over the new life of the believer going forward from the point of salvation. His conclusions relies upon two temporal markers: the historical death and resurrection of Jesus himself and the fact that at the moment of personal faith in Christ leading to salvation, the believer’s old life (sins and sinning) is somehow identified with Christ in his historical death and the transformed new life going forward with his resurrection at the time of the salvation. So Paul argues that since the old life of the believer has suffered death, has been crucified with Christ, he can no longer live under the terms and principles of it but must accept and surrender to a new life, which is analogous to the resurrection of Christ ().[33] The new life is not to be ruled by the principle of sin but rather by righteousness (more about this later) (). For example, in answer to his own hypothetical about whether sin as a principle should continue after salvation, he answers absolutely not, because believers are baptized into Christ’s death at the moment of salvation in order to be raised up in mystical (union) connection to Christ’s resurrection to a brand new life in which the power of the sin principle has been broken (). The apostle makes this explicit by asserting that if we are united with Christ in death, we are also united to him in resurrection; the one demands the other, leading to a new life, a life in which sin no longer dominates (). Paul’s premise is that the resurrected life of Christ was of a totally new order of living (cf. ), and so the life of the believer after salvation is of a totally new order as well, as a result of the mystical union with Christ’s resurrection (; ). Throughout this passage Paul obviously has two temporally marked events in mind, which are mystically linked to one another through the personal faith of each believer: the historical death and resurrection of Christ and the believer’s personal experience of salvation. It is hard to reach any other conclusion in this context.

That Paul has in mind an initial personal experience of salvation is implied by his reference to baptism, which in the New Testament follows as evidence and testimony of repentance and faith. But baptism is now employed symbolically by Paul here to mystically link that personal experience of salvation with the historical death and resurrection of Christ, as somehow shared between Christ and the believer as a result of coming to know Christ through salvation (). This analogy is only really made possible because baptism is a rite connected to salvation and is symbolic of a radical departure from sin through repentance and an exercise of faith by those who are saved. But at the same time, there is an existential connection in Paul’s mind between faith in Christ for salvation, which is symbolized by baptism, and the actual historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that an authentic and real, genuine corresponding death of the old life of sin, and a resurrection to a new life of righteousness occurs. Baptism, as a marker of saving faith and experience, Paul claims is also an enactment or portrayal of the spiritual mystery inherent in salvation, which not only justifies, but also regenerates.[34] Baptism is an outward enacted testimony of the inner reality of what has occurred in the heart and life of the believer (cf. ). In this way, baptism testifies through a dramatic witness to the transformational power of salvation. That salvation utterly transforms the life of the believer, the rest of the New Testament is in total agreement.[35]

Jesus spoke of being born again in a conversation with Nicodemus that had at its heart Nicodemus’s frustration at the utter impossibility of starting life all over again with different results ().[36] Jesus’s answer was straightforward; what he had in mind was a spiritual rebirth, a transformation of the heart and soul by an operation of the Holy Spirit that would create a new person, going in a new direction, with different result in terms of the final outcome ()! When Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman, he offered her not only living water but also a new well to drink from, producing different results from her previous way life and experience (; ). Paul also speaks of the fact that salvation is transformational. Anyone who is in Christ—that is, who is saved—is a new creation; the old has passed away and the new has come (). In another place Paul speaks of the utter turnaround from the sins and transgressions of the old life that lead to death to life in Christ, a euphemism for salvation (). In Colossians Paul states that living a life worthy of the Lord, to please him, is premised on our having been rescued from the kingdom of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of God, which is the result of redemption, the forgiveness of sins—salvation is the point of departure for the transfer to have taken place (). What is more significant and helpful in this discussion is how Paul often develops his ethical exhortations on the premise that his readers are in Christ, or saved (cf. , ; ; ; , ; ; , ; , ; ; ; , ; ; ; , ; Tm 3:13; 2 Tm 1:9, 13). Their ethical behavior going forward is of a different order precisely because of the change that has occurred in their status as a result of salvation, by which their whole life now operates in a new sphere—in Christ (cf. , , ). Peter agrees with Paul, when he says that we are called to holiness, where holiness has to do with a morally and ethically changed life consistent with the holiness of God himself, made possible as a result of salvation (calling) (). Peter’s readers are to rid themselves of any kind of hypocrisy and immorality, because it is inconsistent with the new birth and with having been morally and spiritually purified by salvation (; ). John also supports Paul’s conclusions, that there must be an ethical and moral change from coming out of salvation, and that we should find ourselves walking in the light as a result (conducting our lives in holiness) ().[37] He claims that if we say we have not sinned we lie, but upon confession of our sins, not only will the blood of Jesus Christ lead to the forgiveness of our sins, but to a total moral cleansing from all unrighteousness, resulting in a change of disposition and habit (; , ).[38] John posits that walking in the light does not preclude all possibility of sin, but that we are saved from habitual sin (cf. ; , ).[39] One way to explain John is in Pauline terms, that sin cannot be allowed to and should not dominate the life of the spiritually transformed, born-again believer. John is seeking to show that it would be incongruent for sin to habitually persist after salvation (). This is what Paul appears to be seeking to establish in , that the continuation of sinning (habitual sin) after salvation is incongruent with what actually occurs at salvation.

THE ANALOGY OF BAPTISM

In , Paul unpacks the implications and logic of his baptismal analogy. A death that is associated with Christ, or in union with him, Paul says, implies a resurrection, also united or associated with Christ (). Clearly Paul believes that although baptism itself is an analogy of the spiritual realities involved in salvation, there is in fact an actual mystical union between the believer and Christ in the experience of salvation, whereby an actual death of the “old life/self,” (the meaning of which Paul clarifies in chapter 7) occurs, followed by a resurrection of a “new life/self,” the implications of which Paul further explains in chapter 8. Suffice it to say, Paul believes that salvation produces an actual transformative changed in the believer’s life that amounts to a death and resurrection (cf. ; , ). What dies is the old life of sin and sinning. But there is also a corresponding resurrection. What is raised is a new life, which has at its core righteousness and holiness (cf. ; ). This is a moral and spiritual transformation that Paul is talking about, and he is concerned with the disempowering of sin, and the empowering of righteousness in the life of the believer. Paul’s concern about the power of sin to enslave human beings into a life of persistent immorality, disobedience, and rebellion against God is woven throughout these three chapters (cf. , , , , , ; ; ).

The result of the transformative change, of which baptism is analogy, is that “anyone who has died has been freed from sin” ().[40] They are freed from sin because the spiritual/moral transformation of regeneration has not only introduced a new principle of life but also put to death the old life ().[41] In , Paul states that the result of this death is the “doing away with the body of sin.” The thrust of this verb is to put a stop to, to destroy, invalidate, or bring something to an end.[42] The age-old debate of whether the old, carnal nature is destroyed or merely rendered inoperative is moot. Paul sees the old life as crucified, and its power and influence done away with. It is powerless to continue to exercise its control over the believer. And the point of departure for rendering powerless the old life is salvation. How else are we to understand his original question in verse 1, and his explanation using a baptismal analogy, which is something appropriate to salvation? The term “body of sin” is a Paulinism that is synonymous with other phrases he uses to describe the sin principle as the inherited, controlling influence that leads to sinning, and which has been influentially dominant in human nature since the fall. [43] clearly claims that it is on account of a crucifixion, somehow sharing in the historical death and resurrection of Christ through a mystical union with him (Paul’s “in Christ” assertions), that the body of sin is destroyed. It is quite literally what dies at salvation, according to Paul. The result is freedom from the tyranny of sin as a life principle and a resurrection to a life under the sovereignty and control of the Spirit leading to righteousness!

A FULL SURRENDER OF THE WILL TO GOD

In many ways is the hinge upon which the whole argument advanced in swings. Having argued for a transformed life, to which the sin principle can no longer lay claim, or exercise power over, Paul’s calls on his readers to personally and deliberately recognize and count on the reality of their union with Christ (in respect to what he has just described). After verse 14, Paul’s advances the discussion beyond habitual sinning after salvation, concluding that it is no longer appropriate to continue sinning where the power of the sin principle has been broken by justification/regeneration, because the believer is no longer under bondage, slavery to the sin nature. He argues that as a result of union to Christ, and the resurrection to new life, the believer is now a slave to God and to righteousness.[44] What comes after is surprising, because Paul seems to ask the same question again in verse 15 as he has just asked in verse 1, and answered. But in fact it is a different question. “Is occasional sinning permissible, then?” (). Or we could render it with the dynamic equivalent, “Is an occasional moral lapse a big deal?” Paul’s answer is as equally strong as his response in verse 2, “Absolutely not!” or “Even occasional sinning is a huge deal!” (). The reason Paul refuses to countenance even occasional sinning turns out to be that in his estimation and thinking, sinning has the power to enslave us again to the habits and practices of the old life and self, to the domination of sinful impulses and practices. The discussion through about verse 19 is danger of falling back into bondage to sin.

This is a serious warning from Paul that sin can and will enslave us once more if we are not vigilant (cf. ). Even occasional lapses into sin carry the danger of producing enslavement to habitual sinning going forward (). So the early argument against habitual sinning comes full circle to address lapses into sinning, all pivoting around the idea that Paul’s readers must more consciously and determinedly buy into the idea of being dead to the old life and alive to a new, resurrection life, through faith in Christ (). The basic logic of chapter 6 seems to go something like this. Habitual sinning cannot be allowed after you are saved (justified/regenerated), because you are no longer under the control/slavery of the sin principle, but under the impulse and power of a new life as a result of a resurrection similar to Christ’s—neither can occasional lapses into sin be tolerated or left unaddressed in the life of the justified/regenerate believer, because to do so risks or will indeed result in enslavement to sin and sinning again, ultimately producing death (, ). The point at which the two pivot, between habitual and occasional sinning, the transition from consideration of one (3–10) to consideration of the other (15–19), occurs at verses 11–14, and with an imperative controlling the argument of this section. begins with a present imperative, a command, an instruction, or exhortation to Paul’s readers, and by extension to disciples of Jesus Christ generally. First let’s look at the meaning of imperative and then at its implications.

introduces an imperative, which the apostle proposes as the appropriate course of action for his readers. The imperative involves them making a calculation about the reality of how things are in their spiritual lives as a result of an experience of salvation (justification/rebirth). He enjoins a new way of looking at their spiritual lives going forward in light of what occurred in salvation. It is an exhortation to adopt of a new attitude, with a corresponding ongoing conscious awareness of and dependence on the underlying spiritual reality of their newly regenerated lives. Since justification/regeneration involves a mystical and spiritual union with Christ, specifically with his death and resurrection, resulting in the death of the old self and resurrection to a new life, they are to live going forward with that fully in mind (cf. ). But Paul’s exhortation may imply a little more than that. The adverbial phrase (οὕτως καὶ—so (you) also) throws the grounds for urging the action of the imperative, count on, back onto the previous discussion of union with Christ in his death and resurrection, which has produced the corresponding actual death of the old self and a genuine resurrection to new life. In other words, the rationale for the action of making a fresh calculation (exercise of appropriating faith) that God has provided a genuine impetus to produce a new life of holiness/righteousness is found in what Paul argued earlier as actually being the case—they are indeed dead and have been raised with Christ. It is the imperative mood of the verb that is the force behind Paul’s exhortation to adopt a resolute attitude toward rejecting habitual sinning (). Therefore, there is a sense in which they are now to more consciously accept and appropriate the implications of God’s provision in salvation (justification/regeneration). He is calling on them to respond in fresh faith right now as believers to what he has assured them is actually the case in their lives, that there has been union with Christ bringing about the death of the old self and a resurrection to a new life. When they originally put their faith in Christ, faith brought them into the experience of salvation with its provisions in Christ for a new life through a spiritual and mystical union in his death and resurrection. So now Paul is encouraging his believing readers to make an additional calculation, to appropriate by faith, the power of God that is inherent in salvation, an experience they already possess, and to make a deliberate, conscious submission of their mind and will (a calculation) to God and his provisions, in order to actually follow through to a new life (). By new life, as the context makes clear, Paul means a life of habitual holiness and righteousness that arises from a changed, born-again heart, one no longer dominated by the power of the flesh or old self, because these have been put to death with Christ ().

Obedience or response to the imperative can only occur if we take seriously what Paul has previously described as the provision that God has made through salvation for living a holy life going forward; only if Paul anticipated that his readers would accept the force of the imperative and respond to it appropriately; only if they would be willing to accept his exhortation to freshly appropriate those provisions toward a new life without balking; and only if they would recognize the need to more assiduously pursue holiness/righteousness than they had hitherto done since their initial experience of salvation. The imperative implies that in Paul’s mind at least, with respect to the Romans, in the immediate context (and all who read the epistle by implication), a more serious pursuit of holiness/righteousness (right inward morality and outward ethics) might be appropriate, and that an improvement could be achieved by a definite and fresh submission of the will and mind to what is essentially already provided in salvation through Christ. And in any case, he called on them to a deeper and more conscious acceptance and appropriation of something that after all is actually the case in their current experience of salvation, something that has been affected in them by the Spirit through a mystical union with Christ’s death and resurrection.

The imperative, λογίζεσθε, is second person, plural, present tense, and addressed to Paul’s readers and by extension to subsequent readers of the letter. The verb has the basic meaning of take an accounting of, counting on something, reckoning, or to consider in the sense of mentally reasoning it out or accepting it.[45] Paul uses the word in this sense in , where he speaks of the consciences of Gentiles accusing or excusing themselves with respect to morality. , like , is a moral/ethical context. In , λογίζεσθε is used of love refusing to keep a mental record or list, an accounting, of how it has been wronged.[46] In other contexts this verb is used of holding a view of something, an opinion (e.g., ), and in Paul uses it in a commercial context as reckoning wages to someone’s account for having worked, or as a calculation of what is legitimately owed.[47] At the root of the word is a mental assessment of something, the calculation of a balance sheet, inventory, or state of affairs, with the implication that it will affect things going forward. We could put Paul’s sentiment this way: “Carefully consider what I have just said and act on it,” or “Make a decision through a full acceptance of what we have previously demonstrated and act accordingly in the future.” The point is that there is a mental process of assessment, and a full acceptance of the implications of what has occurred as a result of salvation implied by the imperative. They are to yield themselves to the transformative power of salvation through an act of mental assent and surrender to God. Paul’s imperative is tantamount to calling on his readers to make a fresh surrender of their wills to God in full acceptance of the implications and power of salvation. The imperative, then, signals a definite surrender and fresh appropriation of the realities involved in their union with Christ with respect to sin and righteousness.

There is no doubt that this is Paul’s call to response and action on the part of his readers, and on the basis of his previous reasoned discussion of union with Christ’s death and resurrection (οὕτως καὶ—so (you) also). He is clearly asking them to respond to his assessment of what he has laid down as the experimental (to borrow a word from Noel Brooks) reality for the saved person. Noel Brooks, in Scriptural Holiness, argues that there is a difference between the potentiality of sanctification and the actuality of it in the believer’s life (we will address this and other issues like it from the traditional homiletic in the synthesis section).[48] Paul appears to be encouraging his readers to live their lives under the full implications of what he has just demonstrated to be the reality behind their personal experience of union with Christ (in Christ). Furthermore, this imperative can be considered to be an ingressive imperative that is an exhortation to begin (from this point on) to look at things differently and to make a fresh to calculation on the power of salvation, implying that possibly they have not fully appropriated that provision up to this point.[49] Paul is encouraging them to begin at this point in their spiritual journey adopting a new attitude and way of thinking about their experience of salvation. Since for Paul faith is the superlative spiritual appropriating agency for the provisions of God, when he calls on his readers to calculate themselves as dead to sin and alive to God, just as they actually are through their union with Christ as a result of their experience of salvation, he means for them to adopt a certain attitude or mind-set going forward from that point on. The purpose for this new attitude is to more decisively engage the provisions of God for producing the outcome of a life of righteousness and holiness, and of leaving sinning far behind. Beginning with a conscious acceptance in the minds of his readers, Paul’s exhortation is about going forward from that point. Paul expects them to take full account and stock of their new life in Christ, and of the fact that the old life is now gone and done with for good!

There is, as we have said, a very strong emphasis here on a calculation of the mind that has an effect on conduct. There is in the exhortation an implied, even assumed, interplay between the mind and the will that both will accept and submit to the command. At the heart of the imperative is the idea that Paul’s readers will process Paul’s exhortation through their minds and in terms of their will. Paul is asking them, not only to accept the call mentally, but also to genuinely submit their will to the pursuit of the holiness and righteousness of the new life.[50] It is this sense that λογίζεσθε may be an ingressive (a command to adopt a new action or attitude from this point forward). At the very least, we can say that Paul is exhorting or commanding his readers to adopt a new attitude or way of thinking, involving a calculation of the mind and will.

The present tense of λογίζεσθε means exactly what we have stated several times above, that Paul is talking about something ongoing or habitual. This time Paul is thinking not of habitual sin, but habitually reckoning on a death and resurrection. Paul in fact seems to envision a new starting or jumping-off place for holiness and the creation of a fresh momentum for holiness, through an act of calculating on the provision of God made in salvation. The imperative calls for a new habitual way of thinking about what God has provided through their personal experience of salvation, leading to genuine and practical holiness/righteousness in their daily lives going forward.[51] In the early part of chapter 6, he asks if sinning is appropriate going forward. His conclusion is, absolutely not! If his readers are not to continue sinning as they go on from salvation, then what is habitually appropriate? If they are to live the new life successfully in terms of holiness/righteousness and ethical and spiritual change, then Paul exhorts them to adopt the right frame of mind or attitude, one that is commensurate with the reality of their spiritual condition as a result of union with Christ, and they are to maintain that attitude going forward. We cannot know what the situation was in Rome, but we do know from the epistles that Paul addresses tensions between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church. If there are problems in Rome that amount to carnal attitudes or behavior, Paul may be subtly suggesting a way forward in the context of the tension in their relationships with one another through the adoption of a changed attitude and mind-set.

What does this all mean? That Paul is in fact invoking a change of mind and attitude on the part of his readers is made even clearer by the emphatic use of the pronoun with the imperative followed by the reflexive pronoun (ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς). “So you should also calculate yourselves personally to be dead with Christ and raised to a new life.” With inflection of one’s voice laying strong emphasis on the “you” and “yourselves,” we can come close to understanding Paul’s focus. His exhortation appears, on the surface at least, to be pointed sharply at them (the believers in Rome), as if he were calling them down for an absence of the right attitude and behavior.[52] Whatever the case might be, Paul’s exhortation is very strongly put to make the point: “You count on yourselves as being dead, for sure to sin” (). This makes the change in mind that Paul is calling for both emphatic and decisive. In fact the whole verse is full of emphatic language, with the μὲν, indeed, strongly underscoring the call to submit themselves in their attitude and thinking to the reality of the death of the old self on the one hand, and to resurrection to new life in Christ on the other (). “Consider yourselves dead indeed to sin” not just theoretically or potentially but in reality through union with Christ. Paul asks them to appropriate what has already been provided in salvation (historically through Christ) and that has been actually spiritually transacted in their personal experience of it (through union with Christ). Paul is after the beginning of a radical change in their thinking and attitude going forward from this point. We must observe that Paul is clearly writing to believers in Rome, and that they are saved. He is not seeking their salvation but their commitment to a life of holiness.[53] If his readers were not saved already, the points Paul makes in verses 1–10 are moot because he assumes that it is through the experience of salvation that the provisions for conquering sin have been made on the basis of their union with the death and resurrection of Christ. There is no such provision made in the experience of the unsaved!

What Paul now calls for is a change in their attitude and minds, a submission of the will that will result in some kind of decisive appropriation of that provision in reality, resulting in a habitual counting on it from this point on (ingressive present), and leading to genuine and practical holiness (). Some might consider Paul’s call for a change in mind and attitude to be merely a general exhortation to believers or that he is making a didactic point. But in light of the seeming undercurrent of tension in the Roman church between the Jewish and Gentile communities, and the strongly emphatic language in verse 11, it seems that Paul is alluding to issues of sufficient magnitude in the lives of the saints in Rome, that they require a decisive change of heart and mind for the sake producing better conduct, particularly in light of the threat to relationships in the church there. What we mean is that Paul is putting forward a case for a decisive point of departure from a previous way of thinking and behavior that will affect future conduct in order to produce genuine holiness/righteousness.

AN END TO SLAVERY TO SIN

Verses 12–14 seem to unpack Paul’s meaning in verse 11 and give something of the rationale for the exhortation. Further intensifying the command of verse 11, Paul calls on his readers to resolve to “(do) not let sin reign in their mortal bodies” (verse 12). Verse 13 explains what Paul means. They are to not use their bodies and its various members to sin but rather as instruments of righteousness (practical holiness). Paul’s concern here is obviously with practical holiness, which is what he probably means by righteousness. Righteousness stands in contradistinction to the habitual sinning of verse 1. The thrust of Paul’s exhortation is still the outcome of union with Christ, but now considered in terms of habitual righteousness. In verse 1 Paul dismisses the idea of habitual sinning following salvation. As a result of adopting a settled attitude of acceptance with respect to union with Christ, and what the implications of that union are, Paul sets the goal of habitual righteousness, or practical holiness. The death of the old life is not the goal of Paul’s exhortation, it is not the absence or destruction of the sin nature that he is striving to underscore or argue for, but rather for the newness of life in Christ, and union with his resurrection! This newness of life finds its fullest expression, not in an absence of habitual sinning, but in the production of righteousness or practical holiness through the members of the physical (mortal—τῷ θνητῷ) body.

That Paul means the physical bodies of his readers is clear from ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι (in your mortal, physical body) (). The realm where all of this is to be worked out is in the physical, mortal realm, through their bodies. This should not surprise us, because the opening remark was about the continuation of habitual sinning. All along Paul has been concerned with and working up to the outcome of their salvation in terms of actual behavior going forward after salvation. The concern is a practical, one not a theoretical one. The reality that stands behind this is God’s provision in Christ’s death and resurrection, their union with Christ, and a fresh adoption by faith of the right attitude that surrenders the will to God’s provision and their union with Christ. However, the outcome aimed at has always been an actual and practical change in behavior and lifestyle on the ground, where it is visible to a lost and dying world. The Romans were not called to be secret or meditative saints, or monastic religious practitioners, but rather genuine disciples of Jesus Christ in the real world, whose transformed lives live out the holiness of God in the arena of daily living as a witness to the world (cf. ; ).

The conjunction οὖν means that Paul infers from the imperative that they must not, under any circumstances, allow sin to reign in their mortal bodies (verse 12). If they have truly submitted their will to the full implications of union with the Christ and adopted a new attitude, then sin cannot dominate their behavior or be allowed to work itself out through their physical bodies, in terms of actions or habitual behavior. The word Paul uses, translated as reign (βασιλευέτω), is also imperative, but in the third person, with sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) as the subject of the verb. In other words, “the sin” (singular) must not reign in their moral and physical bodies. Βασιλευέτω has at its heart the idea of kingdom or kingship, and hence “to reign.” Again we have the picture of an ongoing state of affairs. Sin cannot rule in the bodies of disciples of Christ. That is, sin must not find a ready means of expression through the physical capabilities of their mortal bodies. He will go on to say that their bodies have now been reserved for righteousness, the expression of holiness in terms of practice and practical outcomes. Sin cannot dominate their behavior, in other words. At this point we are beginning to get into the territory that Paul will cover in depth in chapters 7 and 8, where he describes the powers of sin to dominate and regulate behavior, and how the power of sin has been replaced by the power of the Spirit, who is capable of producing righteousness in us.

Paul prefigures where he is going in the next two chapters. They are no longer slaves to sin but instead have become children of God, led by the Spirit, with righteousness as the outcome (, , , , ). The important point he makes here is that sin has power to dominate behavior, which in turn finds expression in practical terms through the agency of the mortal body. His readers have, de facto, been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, so that there is a transformative principle of life now at work in them, so they must be on their guard against allowing the influence of sin to reassert itself as a principle for producing action and behavior. It cannot be allowed to reign. Neither sin nor sinning can be left unchecked and unchallenged in their lives.

The question is what Paul means by sin. Does he have in mind the sin principle, or the old self that he says has been united with Christ in his death? Does he mean sin as a generic or general principle in the human psyche leading to the acting out of carnal desire, from which even the saved are not totally free until death? In light of verse 15, it seems more consistent to see Paul’s assertion in verse 12 as a warning against allowing sin as a principle to reassert its control, through habitual sinning or failing to take sinning seriously enough, and in light of verses 11–14, that his readers should keep on reckoning on sin’s death and on a resurrection producing a new life. The ingressive aorist of verse 11 is a present tense and underscores a habitual action, which nevertheless has a decisive beginning or starting point. Paul’s “do not let sin reign” seems to be a logical extension of that same idea—that they are to never let their guard down but to go on counting on their union with Christ for victory over sin as a principle of action and also over sinning as habitual behavior. Once they have fully accepted the implications of their transformative union with Christ, they are to go on relying fully on its power of death and especially of resurrection to a new life to produce righteousness and to totally exclude sinning. In this way their bodies have now become the vehicles, not of habitual sinning, as they once were, but of habitual righteousness instead![54]

Paul sometimes seems to conflate two related ideas in the term sin, the principle that urges us toward sinning by acting on our desires and the habitual practicing of sinning, the continual doing of what is disobedient to the will of God. Sin seems to include both ideas in verses 12–13. At the heart of the discussion, at this point, seems to be Paul’s “fear” or concern that sin, as a principle that urges the will to respond to desire in disobedience to God (verse 12), and sinning, a continuous practical disobedience to God, which can become entrenched again in the life of a believer, even from the seed of a single act of disobedience or sin left unaddressed or taken lightly (cf. , ). Such a circumstance can result in sin compelling or coercing the obedience (ὑπακούειν) of the physical body to evil desires, resulting in the formation of the habit of sinning, constantly acting on sinful desires (ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ) that seek expression through the members of their physical bodies (, ). In verse 14 Paul calls this the mastery of sin, or our enslavement to sin. It seems a little circular to us. But in Paul’s mind sinning (the habitual sinning of verse 1 or the lapses of verse 15) and sin as a principle moving the will to action (as in verses 3–10; 7:7–25) can, if we let our guard down, beat a pathway back to slavery to sinfulness as a state of being or habit. Paul is arguing that sin is not a light matter but demands vigilance on the part of the believer. We can never let our guard down or switch to moral and spiritual autopilot. Sinfulness once aroused through sinning (habitual or discreet acts of sinning) can enslave us again, and the power of sin may indeed dominate our lives and attitudes once more.[55] It is important to be vigilant. Actually Paul’s argument in can be stylized as a discussion of what principle will be allowed to produce or influence the behavior of the believer’s life. He first argues that the sin principle has been put out of business through salvation and that they are to embrace that truth firmly through a decisive acceptance of the reality of their union with Christ (). He goes on to argue, after a lengthy description of the power of the sin principle to enslave even a law abiding Jew like himself (cf. ), that God has provided a new principle of action in us through the Holy Spirit, who by his indwelling presence, is capable of producing the righteousness of God in our lives as a matter of habitual practice, through his influence replacing the influence of sin, the sin nature (cf. , ).[56]

Principally Paul is seeking to argue for giving sin and sinning no quarter at all in the new life of the saved believer, as evidenced by the language of verse 12 that sin cannot be allowed (Μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία) to reign in their mortal bodies (τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι) (). Although the old self is crucified through union with Christ, there is still the danger that sinning can lead slavery to sin, if they again offer their bodies and its members to sinful behavior or actions (cf. ).[57] Paul is seeking to have his readers take seriously the power of sin and sinning in their lives as a potential source for enslavement to sinfulness, the very condition they have just escaped through faith in Jesus Christ. As dire as this seems, Paul will argue that the power of the Spirit ultimately, and their relationship to God as sons, will provide a powerful dynamic to preclude this danger and to enforce the righteousness of God in them (cf. ). But for right now Paul is building his argument, and he isn’t finished with the power of sin yet. He will describe its enslaving power even for a law abiding Jew such as himself, and the impossibility of freedom except through Christ, and the impossibility of righteousness apart from the Spirit ().[58] Additionally, if we build our theology of holiness only on this one half of , we will fail to grasp the full implications of what Paul says God has provided through salvation. The death of the old self and even the resurrection to new life are only part of the picture; he has yet to go on to the role of the Spirit (cf. ).

His readers are, in fact, to surrender or present their bodies and their members to God (imperative of command or exhortation) (τῷ θεῷ) (; cf. ). Here again we have the idea of a decisive act of surrender, followed by a habitual surrender to God, this time of the physical members of the body. In verse 13 we meet what has been touted as a lynch pin of sanctification-theology in the holiness tradition, the famous (infamous) Greek aorist tense.[59] In the space of one verse Paul uses the verb παρίστημι twice, both times as an imperative, but once in the present (παριστάνετε) and once in the aorist tense (παραστήσατε). The Romans are to no longer go on presenting their bodies and its members as instruments (weapons) of sin or sinning (). There are at least a couple of instances in where Paul juxtaposes the present and aorist tenses in his argument.[60] The verb παριστάνετε is present tense, meaning Paul has in mind a habitual or repeated presentation of the members of their bodies to act sinfully. It corresponds with the question in verse 1 about continuing to sin. This is, in Paul’s way of seeing things, the condition of the unsaved (ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν), who are constantly setting themselves before sin, offering their bodies to sin at every opportunity to satisfy their desires. But they are not unsaved; they are united to Christ in a mystical way that has provided grounds for a new life, so they are to present themselves, their bodies, to God. Παρίστημι, to put something in a place, or possibly to hand over, gives us the sense of Paul’s meaning here. They are not to be in the habit of putting themselves in an environment or situations where sin is possible, encouraged, or solicited. This is practical advice for the believer, who is dead to sin. He is to avoid continually placing himself in the environment of sin, thereby persistently presenting his body to opportunities for sin or its possibility. The power of sin to enslave once more is an ever-present possibility. And the danger lies precisely in the deliberate or even thoughtless accession to sinning. Instead they are to thoughtfully (λογίζεσθε) present themselves decisively to God (τῷ θεῷ) as a matter of resolute and final action![61] There is a dramatic distinction between the present and aorist with respect to aspect here; the latter seemingly refers to a resolute and decisive act on the part of the readers in response to Paul’s exhortation. We cannot help but see in these imperatives, especially the aorist, παραστήσατε, a compliment to the ingressive exhortation of verse 11, but with an emphasis on the decisiveness of the action.[62] In this way Paul unpacks the implications of verses 11 and 12, in terms of practical living, and the desired outcome, righteousness. There is a decisive component of submission to God, ratified by thoughtful ongoing, often repeated, habitual submission of the mortal body and its members to righteousness.[63] Morality and ethics after all do involve decision making, and Paul argues that based on an acceptance of their union with Christ, they should habitually bend their minds to righteousness.[64] And make no mistake, it is the practical outcome of salvation in terms of righteousness that Paul has in mind throughout chapters 6 through 8.[65] N. T. Wright argues that grace does not imply a lack of effort on the part of the believer; on the contrary, a great deal of work is involved in achieving virtue and character with respect to forming habits and patterns of righteousness, which does not contradict grace but rather is facilitated by it.[66] We would only add here that the place for the all important grace in the habitual practice of righteousness is defined by the role of the Spirit in the life of the believer, whom God has given to us in order to produce righteousness through his constant influence and indwelling presence so that the whole thing, from salvation from sin to righteousness in terms of conduct, relies on grace (cf. ; ; , ; ). One way to paraphrase Paul’s meaning here may be to say, “Sin shall no longer rule over your life and behavior or actions, not because of the power of the law to restrain sin, but because of God’s gracious provisions in salvation and through your union Christ” ().

SLAVES TO RIGHTEOUSNESS

Righteousness is one of those thorny words (cf. ). Anyone trying to define the word as it is used biblically runs the risk of being impaled on the horn of traditional Reformation orthodoxy, with its almost pathological fear of a works-righteousness theology. In an effort to avoid works righteousness, Reformation theology and its children have gone to extremes to keep works out of the equation altogether, even to the point of calling faith-initiated repentance and responding to the gospel “works,” which are excluded by the election of God. Paul apparently doesn’t struggle with righteousness as inclusive of not only justification by faith but also moral behavior and ethical actions, expressed through means of the mortal body of the saved, and by means their physical members (, ). From the start of our consideration of this passage, we have had to acknowledge honestly that Paul’s concern is with the behavior and actions of those who are saved. He appears to argue against the continuation of sinning in those who have been saved, which is a matter of actions and behavior. If this entire passage is not about behavior, and therefore by implication about ethics or righteousness in terms of concrete action, what is it about? How else are we to understand the question in verse 1, other than a reference to sinning, habitual or repeated disobedience, in terms of behavior and action? To argue otherwise is to ignore the plain meaning of Paul’s rhetoric and logic. Furthermore, Paul’s logic ultimately places what he calls righteousness (obedience to God) next to sinning (disobedience to God) as sort of opposites to one another, with the implication that they share some common property—they both have to do with behavior and practicality in connection with what is done with the mortal body and its individual parts (cf. ). And in turn this underscores that in this context by righteousness Paul means habitual practice that reflects godliness, morality, and obedience to God or Christian ethics in action; these Paul assumes find expression through the physical bodies of those who have been saved as a result of faith in Christ (cf. , ). Whatever else righteousness includes, it includes at least this in . In other places Paul calls obedience to God good works: what the law requires but could not produce, and what comes between salvation and the goal (telos) of the Christian life (which is to be conformed to the image of Christ), not at all meaning works of the law (ἔργων νόμου) as a means justification, of reaching the goal or for producing righteousness, but good works as the outcome of salvation and the result of the presence, influence, and power of the Spirit in the believer’s life, fulfilling the will of God through obedience (cf. , ; ; ; ; ).[67] In any event, righteousness often has a practical, ethical component in Paul, reflecting a concern for right behavior (cf. ; ; ; , , , , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Tm 6:11; 2:22; 3:16). Paul clarifies that his mission is to call Gentiles to faith that produces obedience, the practical follow through that accompanies genuine salvation by faith (; ). Righteousness, after all, involves obedience as a matter of practical behavior that conforms to the will of God (). If we take Paul’s question in verse one seriously to mean habitual sinning, in the sense of bad behavior or actions involving the physical body, then we must take righteousness similarly to mean good behavior or right actions involving the physical body, or obedience. Indeed this is Paul’s expressed meaning, which is clear from the phraseology, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires” () and “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (). At the heart of Paul’s use of the term righteousness in is the notion of ethical and moral action and behavior.

Paul’s use of the term righteousness often includes an ethical dimension, something that cannot be disputed (cf. , ; ; ; , , ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; Tm 1:9; 6:11; 2 Tm 2:22; 3:16). That Paul means for us to understand that his trajectory in this passage is ethical and practical righteousness is confirmed overtly in , where he explicitly says that the purpose of the aforementioned death and resurrection is that we might bear fruit to God (). That he has actual practice or behavior in mind is clarified by the following verse that discusses the outcome of a life controlled by sinful passion (). Paul did not draw boundaries around righteousness to exclude good works in order to protect justification by grace and faith from an encroachment of possible works righteousness. Instead Paul clarified what is implied over and over in the Old Testament: that righteousness includes right standing with God (justification), a right heart (integrity, purity, holiness), and ethical implications (right behavior and action). In Paul’s epistles where he addresses ethics, he presupposes justification (right standing with God) through grace and faith, and regeneration or transformation (a right heart—see chapter 6:3–10; 8:14–17) as a result of salvation. Furthermore, salvation (that is, justification and transformation) does not exist in a vacuum but is part of the restoration to God’s original purpose (telos) for humanity, which includes right and ethical behavior, as a reflection of his glory and image (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; also ). Paul insists that the fruit of the Spirit is practical in terms of attitude, behavior, and works (; cf. ; ; ; ), and his copious ethical imperatives bear witness to the fact that Paul expected the salvation of his converts to produce a radically different way of living in terms of practical behavior or ethics, particularly in connection with their fellowship and relationships to with another.

There is no evidence in Paul of a Reformation-like paranoia over a perceived threat from works righteousness that may arise from an emphasis on ethics or obedience. Paul does not retreat, nor is he guarded when giving ethical instructions to his readers by way of the numerous imperatives throughout the Pauline corpus.[68] The assertion that all New Testament reference to righteousness must exclusively mean imputed righteousness, and categorically excludes works of all kinds that may impinge on justification by God’s grace without works, is unwarranted and even unnecessary. To say righteousness includes right behavior does not negate the fact that righteousness also means justification by faith. Both are included in the concept of righteousness in the New Testament. Imputed righteousness is righteousness laid to the account of the believer as a result of the exercise of faith and God’s grace, without any contribution from the believer, so that in Paul’s mind we stand in fact justified or right before God without merit of our own (cf. , , , ; , , ; , , , ; ; ; ; ; , , , ; ; ; , ; ; ; ).[69] Paul certainly does maintain absolutely without compromise that we are saved by God’s grace and through the exercise of faith and that we are declared righteous in the sight of God because sin has been pardoned (cf. ; , , , ; , ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; , , ; , , ). But we must equally avoid the extreme of reading out of Paul’s discussion of righteousness clear ethical concerns. To recast his use of the term righteousness as just one more way of referring to justification by faith, truncates his theology of salvation. Paul is not afraid of some sort of accidental back pressure from works that will contaminate justification by faith, except where believers, like the Galatians, let their guard down to embrace the law as the impetus for Christian ethics and living.[70] Paul is clear from the outset that righteousness as both right standing before God and as godly ethics is by faith and, therefore grace, from first to last (). So when Paul considers sinning and righteousness in chapter 6, he has turned from justification by faith in chapter 5 to the ethics and practice of the postconversion life. It should be absolutely clear that he is not violating his firmly held and stated positions in chapters 3–5, that justification is by grace and faith alone, but that he had moved on to another, albeit related topic. He is in fact asserting that salvation produces or should produce right behavior, habitually and consistently.

It simply will not do to force all uses of the term righteousness into a Reformation mold that excludes works (behavior and ethics) altogether, because that ignores works (behavior and ethics) as a genuine anticipated outcome from salvation as a matter of God’s original design (cf. ; ; ; ). Our definitions of righteousness, when we read Paul, should take into account that Paul means justification by faith and includes dimensions of ethical behavior commensurate with the transformed, cleansed life of the believer in Christ (cf. ). Contextual evidence shows this, that Paul has a much broader view of righteousness than some have supposed, and that he is capable of using righteousness in reference to morality and ethics to mean right action and behavior, or godliness. A case in point is our passage. Paul is speaking very practically in (cf. 13) and obviously refers to imparted righteousness, righteousness as a matter of Christian living, manifested by the actions and behavior of those who are saved, but which is nevertheless the product of God’s. Indeed this is Paul’s overarching argument in chapters 6–8; not only has grace imputed righteousness, but grace imparts righteousness too, in a real and practical sense, through the Spirit (cf. ).

Although we do not have the time and space for a full discussion of Old Testament concepts behind the terms holy and righteousness, it is probably fair to say that Paul’s use of these terms derive much of its significance from his Jewish background and understanding of the Jewish scriptures. A study of the principle terms or root behind קדשׁ (Qôdesh), rendered by the idea of sacredness or what is holy in English, will yield surprising evidence that the basic notion is that of setting something, someone, or someplace aside in some way or sense for God or the worship of God.[71] Although holy can and does imply morality and ethical conduct—that is, conduct commensurate with being holy—at the heart of the term is the idea of being set apart for God and for worship or the use of God, and therefore of being sacred, clean, and pure in the spiritual and moral sense, and of being not available for profane use. The emphasis is on moral and spiritual purity. Righteousness, צֶדֶק (ṣeḏeq) and cognates, on the other hand, seem to have a wider range of meaning, from being just, justice and innocence, to ethical, right, and moral behavior. There is a basic assumption behind righteousness—that of doing what is right and required by God from a genuine heart of integrity, or a heart that is right with God, and that is, therefore, morally and spiritually pure in God’s sight. The basic meaning of צֶדֶק (ṣeḏeq) is the idea of straightness or what is straight, meaning what measures up to the accepted standard, or is honest (in connection with measurements and weights).[72] By extension צֶדֶק (ṣeḏeq) can refer to right behavior that measures up to a standard of some sort. At the heart of the biblical concept of righteousness is the relationship between right behavior and a right heart, or what we often call integrity. Integrity is a right heart acting in right ways. Arguably the overarching principle expressed by צֶדֶק (ṣeḏeq) in the Old Testament, when everything is considered, can be viewed as the idea of right relationships—between man and God, between men and others in community with them, and between action and inner purity or motives. We could call this integrity. Whatever term we choose, a right heart with God, the right treatment of others, as well as right ethics and mortality are involved in the term righteousness in the Old Testament.[73]

One way to wrap our minds around Old Testament righteousness in terms of relationship is to realize that the term righteousness captures the essence of the relationship and balance between the commands to love God and to obey him, which effectively makes the grounds for ethics or right action a right, sincere, and genuine heart toward God (cf. , ; ; , , ; ; ; ; , , ; Jo 22:5; 23:11; , ; ; , ; , ; ; ; ; Ez 3:20; 18:20, 24, 26; 33:12, 13, 18; ; ; ; ). On the divine side of this equation, God’s own righteousness is often characterized by faithfulness, where faithfulness is right and gracious action flowing from his holiness, the inward integrity, and moral purity of his character and nature. God’s righteousness is often described in terms of the interplay between his love for humanity and his actions toward them. This is captured by the record of God’s historical interaction with Israel represented by the Old Testament, and is summarized by the phrase “covenant of love,” the terms of which balance his love and action toward his people, so that he is consistent with his own nature, purposes, and promises (cf. ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). In any case the point we are making here is that both for us and for God, righteousness means moral and spiritual purity linked in proper relationship to right behavior or action. Righteousness speaks to both sides of the equation—to purity and integrity on the one hand and to right action on the other, where the one is the product of the other, and where the latter supports the former. This is the exact point Paul is making in .

The strange sounding concluding statement in verse 14 of the section 11–14, “Because you are not under the law, but under grace…” gives us pause. Why does Paul introduce the law here? How does the law impact this discussion? First, we realize that the law is never far from Paul’s mind when it comes to a discussion of righteousness, and he makes mention of it often in his epistles. He will soon recount his epic struggle with sin under the supervision and shadow of the law, and how utterly unsuccessful he found it for producing the righteousness the law required. Second, we note that sin has lost its mastery, not because of superior effort or morality, but because of an introduction and experience of grace through Jesus Christ. This point Paul makes in ; salvation introduces them to grace for forgiveness and as the environment in which they now live as disciples and believers. N. T. Wright draws the analogy of the Jewish temple and the priests who lived in that environment, saying that as a result of faith in Christ, the disciples of Jesus Christ now live in an environment of grace ().[74] This is entirely consistent with what we have just said, that grace is a crucial element in producing righteousness in terms of obedient behavior after salvation. Grace is never far away; it is in the very air we breathe as believers in Christ. Since Paul is writing to Jewish believers as well as to Gentiles, his point is well made that since they have been saved through faith in Jesus Christ, and the mastery of sin is broken, righteousness is not now established by reverting to law, but is effectively established by grace. Paul will firmly impress this point on his readers in chapter 8, where he remarks that the righteousness expected by the law is now being produced by those who walk in the Spirit, with the result that it is the product of grace, not the law (). In any event, this concluding remark anticipates the discussion of the Spirit in chapter 8.

SIN AND SINNING LEAD TO DEATH, RIGHTEOUSNESS TO HOLINESS AND LIFE!

Surprisingly Paul seems to ask the same question in verse 15 that he asked in verse 1: “Shall we sin?” Or so it seems at first blush. The NIV brings out the difference in the two questions by using the present continuous form—“go on sinning?”—in verse1 and in verse 15 the punctiliar form, “Shall we sin?” The difference is subtle but obvious; the one refers to continuous or habitual sinning and the other seems to refer to single, or discrete, individual acts of sin.[75] However, the similarity in English belies the use of two different verbs, ἐπιμένω in verse 1, meaning to remain or continue, and ἁμαρτάνω in verse 15, meaning to sin or behave in way that is contrary to the will of God.[76] In verse 1, ἐπιμένωμεν is followed by an object in the dative, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, a cognate of the verb ἁμαρτάνω, in verse 15. In this way the two verses express essentially a similar meaning—“Shall we sin going forward?”—but from different perspectives. The verb ἁμαρτάνω and the noun ἁμαρτία refer to disobedience to God, immoral behavior, wickedness, and so on, the very actions Paul has condemned in chapter 1 as coming under the wrath of God. It is sin after all that is the focus of grace in that God offers forgiveness and salvation from it. Sinning and sin are the kinds of behaviors that are congruent with the unsaved life, the unbelieving life, and not with the life of a transformed disciple of Jesus Christ, united with Christ through baptism into his death and resurrection (). But there is a subtle but definite difference in Paul’s meaning here. For example, in verse 1, the verb, ἐπιμένωμεν, is present, active subjunctive, first person, plural. In verse 15, the verb, ἁμαρτήσωμεν, is aorist, active, subjunctive, first person, plural. The difference lies in the tense and mood of the verb, respectively. Since in the subjunctive mood and tense does not indicate time, in this case it indicates aspect—how the action of the verb is to be conceived: as continuous, repeated, habitual, or as a simple, complete act.[77]

Having answered the first question, “Shall we remain in sin?” continuously or habitually, Paul moves to a different but related question about specific, and perhaps isolated, cases of sin.[78] Paul is simply covering his bases. If habitual or continuous sin is not acceptable behavior for the disciple of Christ, then maybe occasional lapses are not very serious and are covered by the overarching grace of God.[79] The answer to the question in verse 15 is the same as it is to the question in verse 1: “By no means!” (, ). Sin cannot be given quarter at any level, it is to be avoided at all costs. Paul’s argument seems to be that a quantitative difference, how much sin is committed, is irrelevant because single acts of sin and habitual sin are qualitatively the same; both have power to enslave and both lead ultimately to death (). This is the explanation for his rigidity, as Paul explains the reason for his surprising strictness concerning sin. Sin has power to enslave, and even isolated incidents of sin, when not taken seriously and confessed, have the potential of bringing us back into bondage to the habit of sinning (). It is not the weakness of grace that Paul is afraid of, as though grace might fail somehow, but it is the power of sin to enslave those who practice it that he warns his readers against. And that means even isolated, individual acts of sin have the potential of producing enslavement. Whatever or whomever you obey becomes your master; if you yield to sin, it will exercise its control over your life. Paul’s meaning seems to be something like this: that you will continue to be (in the future) (ἐστε) a slave of the one to whom you present yourself as servant in order to obey their commands in the present (παριστάνετε, ὑπακούετε) (). In other words, the decision in the moment can have future consequences beyond the individual act of sin itself, resulting in the disciple of Christ once more coming into slavery to sin as a habit. It is a dire but practical warning, as we all know if we are honest with ourselves.

However, even with the warning, there is good news. The principle works both ways! First, Paul sets forth a logical conclusion. Presenting oneself as a servant to sin will inevitably lead to slavery to sin, which in turn leads (εἰς) to death (). Slavery to sin will not end well; it leads to death, and the implication is, from what has gone before, that the disciple of Christ, transformed though he may have been through salvation, will be in danger of death if he should become a slave once more to sin. Sin and slavery to sin lead to death. However, obedience, the true opposite of sin (which is disobedience to God), just as surely leads to righteousness (δικαιοσύνην) (). Instantly we notice that Paul does not juxtapose life with death but rather righteousness. Life is automatically implied, of course, but Paul’s overarching concern is righteousness in terms of right conduct in the life of the transformed believer. The focus of Paul’s discussion here is righteousness, which is at least at some level concerned with ethics, but also implies a right heart.

We are at the heart of the matter here, the issue Paul has been addressing all along: What conduct should flow from the transformed life? (cf. , ). By taking the transformation implied and imparted through salvation seriously, through a definitive affirmation of the mind and will, Paul expects his readers to present or offer themselves to God continuously and habitually for obedience, which leads to habitual righteousness in terms of conduct and life (, ). At the back of this presentation of themselves to God, and the corresponding refusal to present themselves as servants for sin, is the decision previously solicited from them by Paul, to fully affirm and accept the reality of the transformation of their lives through a union with Christ in salvation ().

In order for this to make sense, we must not forget what righteousness is, as we have discussed above: it is right conduct coming from a right heart, with implied right attitudes toward and relationships with others. Paul is talking about lifestyle—what we call holiness—but what he seems to call righteousness.[80] And at the heart of it is transformation through union with Christ, affirmed by a subsequent submission and acceptance of the will, followed up on by the habitual presentation of our lives to God in obedience to his will through the Spirit. That we have correctly understood Paul is confirmed by his summarizing remarks in verse 17: that we were once slaves of sin, but that it is no longer the case.

The results of union with Christ and submission of the will to God include us finally being free from the control of sin as a principle ruling our lives ()! This is the touchstone of Wesleyan holiness! That God has freed us from inevitability of the sin, due to our slavery under the impulse or control of the flesh, or fallen human nature. But that freedom seems to be premised on not a subsequent death of the fleshly nature following salvation but on the union with Christ at salvation, in which the old man is crucified with Christ and by which we are raised to new life, wholeheartedly embraced by a decision of the will through faith that begins at some point after salvation to more consciously and deliberately seize upon the reality of this transformation, all with the result that our conduct is radically transformed going forward (). Under these circumstances, Paul affirms, we are truly free from sin—free from the record of our past, free from its contamination of our nature, and free from its dominance on account of genuine a submission of our will and heart to God.

In verses 19–23 Paul sets out to illustrate what he just said in everyday life (). In this example Paul seeks to contrast the basics of life before and after salvation. Just as his readers had once presented or offered their bodily members as slaves to sin, so now they are to offer them to be slaves of righteousness instead (). That Paul refers to their bodily members again (τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν), betrays the essentially practical nature of Paul’s concern here in terms of righteousness or behavior, action, and conduct. The verbs used in both clauses are the same, a form of παρίστημι, first in the indicative mood and then in the imperative (παρεστήσατε, παραστήσατε, respectively). The first, παρεστήσατε, is aorist, is a statement referring to their past, prior to their union with Christ, when they habitually presented the members of their bodies to sinning. It is tempting to see some significance in the use of the aorist here as a description of the settled condition of the unsaved life, as one irrevocably given over to sin. But as many modern New Testament grammarians would say, the aorist may well be simply unmarked, and context must determine aspect. Paul implies that the condition of the unsaved life is one of the continual, repeated, or habitual presentation of one’s bodily members to sin. This conclusion is implied and supported by his first question, which seeks to establish the discontinuity between the habitual conduct of the new life of the believer, since union with Christ has occurred, from the habitual conduct of the old life of unbelieving prior to that (). The aorist here may well belie the condition of habitual surrender of the members of one’s body to sin.[81] However, since they are now believers, they are to present their members, παραστήσατε, aorist imperative, to be servants of righteousness (). Following past Wesleyan expositors on the use of the aorist, we might be tempted to see this as a definite and final act or presentation of our bodily members to God for the sake of righteousness—possibly the one that reflects the submission and surrender called for by Paul in . But in the context, it will not do! Since the first aorist obviously reflects the ongoing situation of the unbelieving life, in its repeated or habitual surrendering of the bodily members to sin, so here we should probably understand that Paul has in mind the condition of the saved and surrendered life, in a state of continual or habitual surrender to righteousness.[82] To adopt a habitual and continual surrender of our lives to righteousness is exactly what Paul argued for at the beginning of the chapter.

The final prepositional phrase, εἰς ἁγιασμόν, catches Wesleyans and Reformed theologians equally off guard.[83] It seems to imply that holiness is a product or result of successful righteousness (). In an environment petrified by the prospect of the (re)assertion of works righteousness or legalism, we struggle to glom on to its proper meaning. It is certain that Paul is not asserting that righteousness, in the sense of works of the law, produces holiness, in the sense of salvation and purity, since this idea is anathema to him, as we see in so many places in his epistles (cf. ; ; , , , , , , , ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ; ; , ). All possibility of that is put to a sudden end in the opening of chapter 7, where the law is declared no longer relevant for righteousness to those who are alive in Christ through union with him in salvation ().[84]

So what does he mean here? First, the preposition εἰς with the accusative ἁγιασμόν may express a result righteousness that produces or results in holiness. Or the phrase may have the ordinary force of the preposition with the accusative, meaning righteousness moving in the direction of holiness, and thus result. Paul’s intent is not hard to discern: righteousness has holiness as its goal and intended result. At this point we must admit to a fundamental classical holiness-Pentecostal homiletical fallacy, whereby we often confound and conflate the meanings of holiness and righteousness, as though they are synonyms, sharing identical sematic domains. They may well have overlapping domains of meaning, but they are hardly identical in meaning, as a cursory examination of the Old Testament would confirm. Holiness is not primarily right standing with God, which is what justification-righteousness signifies (verb—δικαιόω, noun—δικαιοσύνη). The underlying Greek word translated in English into righteousness is δικαιοσύνη. Δικαιοσύνη is a cognate of the verb often translated justify. The Reformation tendency to reduce the term righteousness in all of its forms to essentially right standing with God belies the range of meaning that δικαιοσύνη has in Paul, some of which includes right conduct or ethics. Certainly in verse 19, δικαιοσύνη must include right conduct, because the context and theme of the entire chapter demand it. After all, Paul’s overarching concern is right conduct following salvation, and the immediate context here is the presentation of our bodily members, to sinful or to right action. Holiness, on the other hand, in the Old Testament, is used in a variety of ways that imply moral and spiritual purity, and can include integrity and corresponding right action. But holiness in the Old Testament is primarily used for being pure in the eyes of God, and therefore separated to him for his use and enjoyment.[85] Clearly, as Paul has stated, habitual sin will undermine an original transformative union with Christ and lead once again to death. Paul is concerned or focused on ultimate outcomes. Sin produces death; righteousness does not produce life, but holiness, in terms of the ultimate outcome. Here Paul seems to assert the opposite idea of what sin will produce (death)—that habitual submission and surrender of our members to righteousness supports and has as its goal genuine maturity and final purity in the sight of God. Certainly Paul sees holiness as established through union with Christ, but it is also has an ongoing component role in Christian life and character, capable of growth and development. Furthermore, lest we think that grace is being squeezed out by this argument, Paul’s position with respect to ongoing righteousness (ethics) and the development of holiness (purity) is that they are produced by the impetus and power of the Holy Spirit at work in the believer’s life. The believer in union with Christ is led by the Spirit, maturing and growing into full-grown conformity to the image of the Son of God (). This is grace from first to last, or as Paul put it in a very Reformation-like way, faith from first to last ()! We look in vain for works righteousness here. What we do see is right standing with God (justification), leading to right conduct through the impetus of the Spirit (righteousness), resulting in mature holiness (conformity), all achievable because of the grace of God that starts the process through transformative union with Christ and perfects it through an ongoing experience of the moral enabling of the Spirit.

As Paul winds down in preparation for a transition, in which he will illustrate what he means, he rounds off his argument in verses 20–23. “You were servants of sin,” he says. “You were free from the requirements and restraints of righteousness” (). The opposite is also true, that having been freed from sin they are now obligated by the new relationship through union with Christ to conform to the righteousness of God as slaves (). Obedience is required, and this is at the heart of righteousness, conformity of conduct to the nature of the new relationship we have with God in Christ. Clearly, Paul is still concerned with conduct. It would be redundant at this point to say when you were a sinner you were not right with God! Quite literally in verse 20, Paul says that we were free from the demands that righteousness placed on us when we were in sin. But we are not in sin anymore. We are now in Christ, because of our union with Christ in salvation. And so the opposite is implied. We now have an obligation to righteousness, or right conduct (; ). There was no benefit or payoff when we were slaves to sin, except death (). The benefit derived from union with Christ, in terms of ultimate outcomes, again is holiness, and the final result is eternal life (). Habitual sin ultimately leads to death is Paul’s point, even if there had been a previous union with Christ. That union must result in an ongoing organic operation of the Spirit and union with Christ that produces righteousness, if there is to be mature and final holiness, conformity to the image of the Son of God. Sin cannot be allowed into the equation at any point, and must be ruthlessly avoided. His last remark, which we often quote to unbelievers, appears here to be a warning to the saved. “The wages of sin is death” (). Death will result if habitual sin is allowed to dominate our lives, even if there was once union with Christ. This is a serious warning that brings the arguments of verses 1–11 full circle, from the incompatibility of ongoing habitual sin in the believer’s life, to dire consequences of it in terms of producing ultimate death. Holiness/righteousness is not an optional extra for the believer; it is something that we must pursue as a matter of ongoing development in our spiritual lives, since it is of importance to God (cf. ; ; Tm 6:11; 2 Tm 2:22; ). Sin cannot be overlooked or dismissed as inconsequential, because serious outcomes flow from the ongoing presence of habitual sin, or even instances of sin that remain unaddressed in our lives (, ). But eternal life is the gift of God, on account of grace (; ), grace that forged the original union with Christ through faith and that produces righteousness and mature holiness through the Spirit ().

SHALL WE CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE AGAINST SIN?

()

On the surface, it appears that in Paul digresses with a discussion of the legalities of marriage, but in actual fact he is employing a second analogy. In the analogy was baptism, in chapter 7 it is marriage, in chapter 8 it is adoption (sonship) versus slavery. In , then, Paul employs a total three pivotal analogies: baptism (), the legalities of marriage (), and adoption (sonship) over slavery (). We should take this structure seriously, because at each stage in the argument and logic of chapters 6–8, Paul illustrates his point about righteousness to make it clearer.[86] If we thoughtlessly and glibly pass over the analogies to what many believe is the substance of the argument in each case (in this case verses 7–25), we will miss the contextual interpreters and may draw wrong conclusions. Unfortunately, in this chapter, many Wesleyans jump to the step of creating theology out of Paul’s personal testimony (), almost totally ignoring the contextual analogy (). Paul’s testimony does not appear to be making a case here for a postconversion struggle against the sin nature.[87] We treat , Paul’s illustration of union with Christ by analogy of marriage and the law, as fly-over territory. This is a serious mistake, because it forms the foundation for his personal testimony that follows. Paul backs his analogy of marriage and law by way of illustration with a personal testimony of his own experience (). And by way of his personal testimony draws his argument about union with Christ from chapter 6 in even tighter. His testimony and the analogy are integrally linked to one another and both should be given their due weight in the overall logic of his argument. Furthermore, Paul’s testimony seems to be designed to show how powerful sin is, powerful enough to bring even a law-abiding Jew like Paul into bondage. He is powerless to extract himself from sin’s enslaving power without a liberating experience of union with Christ (). And that is the point of the law/marriage analogy, that his union with Christ brought about a death to sin and obligation to the law, in order to unite him with another, Jesus Christ, who through the Spirit, will produce righteousness in his life, by the Spirit’s constant leading (, ). The law cannot produce righteousness, and Jews know this, Paul says, but God has made provision for righteousness through the power of the indwelling Spirit for Jews and Gentiles, a power that produces sons out of slaves, on account of their union with Christ (). Undoubtedly we are supposed to see chapter 7 in this kind of light.

In this way, the marriage/law analogy and personal testimony of Paul contribute to the flow of the entire argument as he continues to address more concretely what he has spoken of more theoretically in chapter 6, the power that sin has to enslave us. Slavery to sin is undoubtedly real, as any Jewish reader might testify from their own experience of sin and the law. The law could not and did not restrain sin; on the contrary, it simply underscored its presence and further impugned the conscience before God wherever sin is found. The danger of enslavement to sin is thus highlighted as Paul moves toward the declaration of the provision of God’s victory over it (). This enslavement, Paul will argue, is not a matter of failure to adhere to the rule of the law but the presence of the sin nature that undermines righteousness at every turn of the road, even in the lives of law-abiding Jews! Union with Christ breaks the power and rule of the flesh and the law; the indwelling presence of the Spirit provides the positive momentum going forward that produces genuine righteousness, as those who are saved no longer yield to the flesh, but rather follow the leading of the Spirit as sons of God (; ).

By his own personal testimony, Paul is demonstrating to his Jewish readers that the law is of no help either before or after union with Christ for producing righteousness, and that they cannot expect help from the law.[88] Salvation does not clear the way for the law, because righteousness is produced by faith from beginning to end (; cf. ). The law has simply brought us to the place where we are aware of sin (). We must look to another place for help and deliverance from sin and for righteousness going forward. There is an underlying sense in , Paul’s personal testimony, that he is still addressing the central idea of chapter 6, how righteousness might be produced in the life of the believer.[89] If the law cannot produce it, what can? If sin cannot persist after union with Christ, if it is inappropriate and incongruous, how will righteousness come about as the normalized outflow of the believer’s life following union with Christ, especially in light of the failure of the law? Evidently we cannot now look there for help! We must look somewhere else! That somewhere else, in the flow of Paul’s argument is the power of the Spirit, who indwells and leads the life of the believer (). With the submission of the believer’s will to the inevitable logic and implications of salvation, which embraces the reality of the death of the old life as a result of transformative union with Christ, along with a powerful resurrection to a new life, Paul will argue that it is the presence and leading of the indwelling Spirit (cf. ) that now effectively produces righteousness in those who are in Christ Jesus, because it is he who now animates the new life of the believer (). [90]

DEATH OF THE OLD LIFE, RESURRECTION TO NEW LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

The first clue as to where Paul seems to be going comes in verse 1 with the comment that he is speaking to people who know the law (γινώσκουσιν γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ) (). This of course can include former God-fearing Gentiles who are now believers in Jesus Christ, who belong to the church at Rome. But he certainly is addressing a Jewish constituency there. The phrase those who know is one word in Greek, γινώσκουσιν, a word that implies experience of the law, not merely academic knowledge. Constantly in Romans there is a tension between Paul addressing the Jewish and the Gentiles believers in the church. Each group has come to Christ from different religious and spiritual backgrounds and experiences, but both need union with Christ if they are to be saved, despite some advantages accrued to Jews (, ). Often Paul wants to demonstrate the rationale for why Jews and Gentiles need a similar experience of Christ (cf. ; ). This split-background congregation produces unique challenges to unity and fellowship in the church, a fact often reflected in the epistle to the Romans (cf. ; ; ). Paul shows concern for what might hinder their fellowship with one another in the context of church life (; –1–15:13). The duality shows up quite strongly in the final chapters, where Paul addresses the eschatological position of Israel (cf. ) and lays down some principles for how the two culturally diverse groups must get along with one another in the context of their newly established relationship in Christ, particularly in the context of the corporate gatherings of the church and between believers socially because both are part of the same olive tree (cf. ; ). So it is not a stretch to feel that Paul may have his Jewish readers more consciously in mind as this present section unfolds as it does.

That Paul is addressing the Jewish believers principally by his analogy of marriage and its relationship to the law is supported by his point is that Christ has freed them from adherence to the law as a producer of righteousness (). And this can only mean the moral of law of the Old Testament, and not civil law in general, because Paul refers to the law that aroused his conscience with respect to disobedience to God, producing the fruit of death in him (). Clearly it is not marriage per se Paul is concerned with here; rather, this is a discussion of marriage as an analogy of the relationship of believers to Christ, particularly applicable to Jewish ones, who are used to thinking of the law as a source of righteousness. But going forward from union with Christ, the law is as powerless to produce righteousness as it was prior to union with Christ.[91] Obviously, although this applies principally to Jews, it has relevance to Gentiles as well, as we will see and as Paul makes abundantly clear in Galatians. To illustrate his point, Paul will recount his own disappointing experience with the law, especially its powerlessness to produce the righteousness God demands.[92] The law, Paul will argue, is ineffective for producing righteousness, and the power of the Spirit is required for successful righteousness to come out of the transformed life of the believer, in terms of right conduct (). Chapter 7 is a pivotal point in his argument that will bridge the gap between the discussion of the transformative union with Christ (chapter 6), which requires ratification by the ascent of the will and a determined decision to embrace its implications more fully (), and believers walking in the Spirit as sons of God (, ). The latter amounts to transformed disciples conducting their lives going forward under the full influence (leading) of the Holy Spirit (), becoming mature sons of God, having turned their backs on their former slavery to sin (sin that ruled their former conduct through the influence of the flesh prior to their union with Christ) ()! The scope of Paul’s logic is simply breathtaking, and there is a consistent forward march of the theme of righteousness, in terms of sanctified conduct, that propels the argument forward at every stage while pervading its logic at every point along the way.[93] The end of the process foreseen by Paul is that we will finally be conformed to the ethical image of the Son of God, in true righteousness of heart and life (holiness—, ), which is the goal of transformative union with Christ, followed by the active indwelling leading of the Spirit (cf. ). The heart of salvation for Paul is not a last-minute rescue from judgment but the transformative power of God producing the image Christ in us, the righteousness of Christ in disciples of Christ (cf. ).

Another reason for thinking that Paul particularly has the Jew in mind by using this analogy of the law is that Paul states that a person who dies is freed from the requirements of the law (). By making this argument, Paul is bringing his Jewish readers into the same condition through union with Christ in his death as his Gentile readers, who are now dead to sin and dead to the law as well as the flesh. In any event, through union with Christ, both are dead to their former ways of life and brought to a new way of life through a union with Christ, a morally and spiritual transformed resurrection life. In this way Paul does something similar in his logic as he did in chapters 1–2 (but this time in reverse), concluding that both Jews and Gentiles have the same sin problem needing salvation, regardless of their original backgrounds, law or not. In this case, however, Paul shows how both Jews and Gentiles are positioned through union with Christ’s resurrection to produce righteousness going forward by the same means of the Spirit, showing that both are united under the Spirit after salvation, whereas both were united under sin before (despite Jews having the law) (cf. ). Sin is sin, whether in Jew or Gentile. Death through union with Christ to the former way of life followed by a resurrection to a new life in the Spirit is the means to successful righteousness. The Gentile is dead to the former life of sin as it is culturally evident in the Roman world, and the Jew is dead to the former way of life as it is culturally expressed by law observance. Both are equally concluded under the judgment of God as sinners. Both are equally raised to a new life under the influence of the same power of the Spirit through union with Christ in his resurrection.[94] In any event, Paul says, both are dead with respect to their former way of life! Paul seeks to show that the death of the “old self” for the Jew is also a death to the law, or deliverance from living strictly by its requirements in hopes of producing righteousness acceptable to God, which is impossible because of the sabotaging control of sin. The old life of the Jew entailed strict observance of the law, the early part of chapter 7 seeks to demonstrate that even those who were under the law have been saved to a radically new life, free from the law. Paul can only describe this as a resurrection, with the implication that the law and the “old self” are no longer in control—the Spirit is. In chapter 8, Paul will argue that everyone who is saved is brought into the life of the Spirit, whether Jew or Gentile, because the condemnation to live in slavery to sin or the law has been lifted (cf. ).

AN ILLUSTRATION FROM THE LAW AND MARRIAGE

At first discusses the legalities of marriage (), which are then applied by way of analogy to freedom from sin and the sin principle (). The implication is clear, that at the point of death to sin, through union with Christ, we are no longer bound to the law or to sin. Paul appears here to be particularly engaging his Jewish readers in the church at Rome, for whom the law is key. The analogy from the law is used in a similar way to the baptismal analogy in chapter 6. Although Paul talks about the law and marriage, he is in actual fact still engaged in a discussion of sinning, the sin principle and victory over them—this the balance of the chapter makes clear by way of personal testimony ().

Of course this is not just a Pauline question. But it is a question that occupies the minds of many believers. To what extent can we expect to have victory over sin as believers in Jesus Christ? To many this section describing the awful struggle with sin as a principle appears to be awkwardly sandwiched between the discussion in chapter 6, discussing the death of the old life, and chapter 8, discussing the power that animates the new life. Actually Paul engages in a frank description of his own struggle with the universally experienced human impulse to sin, which is at the core of the sin problem. What makes Paul’s testimony all the more poignant is that he had this battle in a Jewish cultural and religious context, much of it at the heart of Judaism’s central nerve center in Jerusalem, under the training of Israel’s greatest teachers. His hitherto undisclosed personal struggle should have been mitigated by all of the advantages of the law and covenants of God with Israel in which he was fully engaged as a younger man (). Instead these “advantages” produced disappointing results with respect to righteousness, failing to restrain sin in his life by means of the influence and application of the law.[95] Paul concluded that the law was powerless to deliver him from the sin impulse, which he knew existed in him (). He also concluded as a result of his own experience of Christ that it takes the power of the Spirit to restrain sin and to produce the righteousness God demands from his people (; ). Since Paul opens the analogy with the words “for I am speaking to men who know the law,” there is a clue to the background for this analogy, and the Jewish cultural context of the logic that it entails, just as we have laid out above (Cf. ).

There has been any number of theories about the last half of the chapter where Paul describes the struggle he had/has with sin and the impulse to sin (cf. ).[96] Was Paul describing his own personal experience? Did he intend to imply that that his experience was somehow representative of the common struggle everyone has with sin and the impulse to sin? Was Paul’s struggle normative somehow? In other words, was Paul speaking as a Jew or as a human being, or both? Is this sort of struggle peculiarly Jewish? Does Paul mean to imply that this is a postconversional struggle, and that it is universally representative of everyone who is saved? Does Paul in fact resign himself to reality of the continued struggle with sin after conversion (as some believe—cf. ) or does he ascribe a decisive victory over it through union with Christ (cf. )? These are the questions we must grapple with before we can rightly understand chapter 8.

There are striking parallels between the analogies of baptism (involving a death and resurrection) and marriage law (involving the death of a partner). In both cases it is at the point of death that freedom is found and a new life begins. In death to the old life (and arguably of the old self—cf. ) results in a resurrection to a new life, free from the control of sin (cf. ). In the second analogy of , involving marriage and law, a death also occurs that frees a person, this time from the requirements of the law—literally frees them from being bound to strict observance of the law. Furthermore, through union with Christ “to another,” a new life begins after death has broken the bond that was formerly in control. In both cases a new life is brought about by the death of the former way of life. The main point in both analogies is that the former way of life loses its claim to the allegiance by the person who has died! In a masterful irony, death becomes not an end point but the beginning of a new life. Following death there is a resurrection, and the new life begins without the restrictions, boundaries, controlling impulses, and necessities of the old life![97] It is hard not to notice that the analogy of the law is particularly applicable to Paul’s Jewish readers. And it is tempting to read the description of Paul’s struggle with sin and the impulse to sin against the background of the law having particular jurisdiction over Paul’s life because he is a Jew. Paul even admits that it was the claim the law had on him as a Jew that awakened his consciousness to sin and made it all the more difficult to live without it and to overcome it (, ). So we should probably read verses 14–22 in light of Paul’s experience as a Jew who is seeking to find true righteousness but instead finds nothing but condemnation from the law as a result of the insurmountable inner impulse to sin! He gives as the reason for this impulse to sin a universal flaw in human nature (affecting Jews and Gentiles alike), which he calls the law of sin and death (carnal nature, old self, old man, etc.) (). The flaw constantly brings him into bondage to sin by operating in him as a controlling power, despite the presence of the law, which has no power to restrain sin, but rather condemns every failure when sin occurs. In this way his desire to produce righteousness is continually frustrated by sin, and not aided by the law, because the presence of the sin nature is waging war against the desire for righteousness in his mind, effectively making him a prisoner to sin in his body (practical living) (). The law in this case can offer no effective remedy for sin or for producing righteousness (; ). Although he agrees with the law that righteousness is God’s best, he is powerless to follow through in producing it (, ). And so once more we are back at the heart of the matter, the need to produce the righteousness of God, and our basic inability to do so without some kind of help from God.

The overarching premise in this section (7:1–6), then, is parallel to the premise of chapter 6, that death frees the believer from the law, or in the case of chapter 6, the necessity of sin. This Paul states up front as he begins with the marriage/law analogy (). Using the analogy of marriage, Paul demonstrates that a woman whose husband has died is free to remarry (). The law binds her in marriage to her husband as long as he lives. But when he dies, the law can no longer require her to be bound or loyal to him.[98] In fact, she is free to be married to another and not come under the condemnation of the law as an adulterer (). Before he dies, if she has sexual relations with another man, she is a law breaker, and the law condemns her (Ron. 7:3a). But when her husband dies, the law has no power to condemn her as an adulterer if she (re)marries. She has been released from the power of the law’s condemnation of her because her husband is dead. By analogy, Paul claims that the believer is released from the condemnation of the law and from its imprisonment to the old life. Paul will explain how it is that the law, which is holy, could possibly be responsible for imprisonment to sin, which is due to its lack of power to bring about righteousness (either intrinsic or ethical), which in turn is due to sin’s domination of the person on account of a flaw in human nature (). But for now he is simply observing the fact that the law has power to condemn us as long we are alive to sin (i.e., not in union with Christ), just as the law has power to condemn a woman for adultery as long as she is bound to her husband while he lives. The law, Paul then concludes, imprisons us in sin because it condemns the sinner, but it offers no effective remedy. The remedy it fails to offer is not simply justification but liberation from the flaw that causes habitual sinfulness in humanity.

Masterfully alluding to the previous chapter and the implications of union with Christ, Paul asserts that through the body of Christ, his sacrificial death, his readers have themselves died to the law, in order to belong to someone else (). Just as the woman is released from the requirements of the law to live with her husband now that he is dead, so when we died to sin with Christ in a union with his death, we were similarly released to be joined to another, to Christ in union with his resurrection! In Paul’s logic, building on the same premise as chapter 6, the death and resurrection of Christ, the disciple has been released from the law through Christ’s death and his union with it in salvation, only to be joined to the risen Christ in a totally and radically new life, one capable of bearing fruit for God (). Union with Christ had as its purposeful goal (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ) to bring about a new union to another (ἑτέρῳ), to the one God raised from the dead (τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι—the appositional clause further describes and designates the identity of the one called another). Now, if we read this in isolation from its context, we may fail to properly understand that it is the logic of chapter 6 that stands behind this analogy and line of reasoning. The believer has died by identifying with the death of Christ through union with Christ, but has at the same time been raised to a brand-new life by identification (through the same union) with Christ in his resurrection, producing a life over which sin has no claim (). Here Paul adds that the law no longer has any claim either to condemn the product of the new union or to offer itself as a potential contender to become the producer of righteousness. The law has simply lost its claim: both its power to condemn and its claim to be the means for producing the righteousness of God—or, as Paul puts it here, fruit for God—because death has put an end to the role of the law altogether ()! Instead fruit for God will come out of the newly released life through the Spirit, as the life released from sin and from the law follows his leading (cf. ; ). In order to properly demonstrate the power of the Spirit to produce righteousness, Paul must first eliminate any other contenders to show that the leading of the Spirit is the only hope for the believer for producing righteousness ().

In verses 5 and 6, Paul explains why the law is powerless to affect righteousness. The opening phrase says it all. When we were in the flesh, or as the NIV has it, in the realm of flesh (ὅτε γὰρ ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί), the law did nothing but arouse the passion of sin that bore fruit leading to death, a result of the condemnation of the law ().[99] The law does not produce the lusts and passions of sin, but it cannot overcome it either, and as a result, the law simply shines the light of righteousness on sinful passion and brings condemnation on sin. While Paul clearly says that law does not produce lust, it does exacerbate it, since it can offer no remedy, only condemnation. It is in this way that the law arouses passion. The law has no delivering power, only power to condemn, and thus to produce death. The key to Paul’s logic here is that the law operates in the realm of the flesh, the realm of unredeemed human nature—that is, nature under the control of the passions or interests (τὰ παθήματα) of sin that find their effective means of expression through the members of our body (ἐνηργεῖτο ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν) (). This is exactly the same logic Paul used in chapter 6 (vv. 13, 19). The point of his analogy is that righteousness is only possible if we are released from the realm of the flesh by death of the old self. This is accomplished by union with Christ. We were in the flesh (ἐν τῇ σαρκί), but now we are in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) (, , ). Union with Christ has brought about at the same time death to sin (and the law) and through identification with the resurrection of Christ, a resurrection to new life, intended to produce righteousness as fruit for/to God (ἵνα καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ θεῷ) ().

Paul summarizes the argument so far in verse 6 by saying that now (in our present union with Christ), since we were already dead to what once bound us (sin), we have been released from the claim of law in order to serve God in the new way of the Spirit rather than the old way of the written code.[100] The law cannot be reasserted as a means for producing righteousness, because those who are united to Christ have died to the law. By calling it the old way Paul unites the old life of the flesh, particularly applicable to Gentiles, and the old life of law keeping, particularly applicable to Jews, as having been done away with through union with Christ in order to produce a totally new way of life through the Spirit. Clearly, Paul wants his readers to fully appreciate that they have been released from the claim of the law (its condemnation and demand for righteousness without providing the lightest aid), because we are dead to sin and the law as a result of our union with Christ. There is a sort of logical order here that puts death through union with Christ before release from the jurisdiction of the law, so that the law loses its power to exercise its control over those who have died through union with Christ. Like the woman who is released from the obligation of her marriage to her husband through his death, we are free to be joined to another, the one who has been raised from the dead ().

While in chapter 6 that union “to another” is to the risen Christ, Paul now widens the focus to include the Spirit, whom he will call the Spirit of Christ, so that the union with Christ and the experience of the Spirit are essentially the same thing (). Actually, Paul introduces for the first time in the argument the goal of his logic, that righteousness will in fact come as a result of a new life lived under the influence of the Spirit (; , ). The new way of the Spirit juxtaposed to the old way of the written code is deliberately allusive to his previous logic in chapter 6, where the old-self is crucified with Christ, in order for a new-self to come to a totally and radically new life through a corresponding resurrection. Here Paul not only makes it clear as to what that new life is, it is a life of righteousness, but how that righteousness will be produced and what will animate that new life to produce fruit for God—it is the Spirit of God (). By finishing off with the seeming throwaway phrase, not in the old way of the written code, Paul draws his argument full circle. The old life was under the control of sin, under the condemnation of a powerless law, but the new life is under the control of the effective Spirit. It will not be until chapter 8 that he fully takes this up, but he has given us forewarning of where he is going. What follows is a discussion of the laws role, in order to properly identify its role, and to remove any question that the law might be evil, since it led to condemnation and death, and has failed to produce freedom from sin. In that context, Paul will further clarify what he means through his own personal testimony.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE AND POWERLESSNESS OF THE LAW

In Paul deals with the role of the law and answers a potential criticism of his evaluation of the law in the previous section. Far from having a negative and low view of the law, Paul explains that he has a very high view of the law as spiritual (). It is the highest good and an expression of the righteousness of God. The problem is, using himself as an example, I am unspiritual. By this Paul probably doesn’t mean what we think he means! In a consummate work on the Holy Spirit, The Empowering Presence of God, Gordon Fee contends that Paul’s use of the term πνευματικός means what has to do with or belongs to the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God.[101] So Paul is not simply saying that the law is from another realm but that it operates in the context of the Spirit of God; it belongs to the character and realm of God and holiness/righteousness. However, Paul laments, I am unspiritual, or literally fleshly (ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι), I don’t operate in the realm of the Spirit (). In other words, without union to Christ. He is not even operating in the same environment as the Spirit, and any attempt to apply the law in the environment of the flesh is doomed to failure. It is not until he has been united with Christ, died to the flesh and been raised to the new life of the Spirit, that he can even begin to operate in the realm where genuine righteousness is possible (cf. ). So the law is not sinful as some would suppose that Paul is implying, but it simply is not operating in the same environment as where we live before our union with Christ. The law has no power to offer to the realm of the flesh that can bring relief from sin and sinning. To be in the flesh (; , , , , , , , , ) means to be living with an internal moral and spiritual environment where the principles and passions of sin reign. The law does not reign in that realm. Being in Christ means to be living in an environment where the principles and passion of the Spirit operate and reign (, ). In that realm the righteousness of the law comes about because of the Spirit at work in a totally morally and spiritually transformed life now joined to Christ ().

Although the law is not sinful, its power to affect righteousness, and to produce genuine change in the environment of the flesh, the untransformed life, still not yet united with Christ, is limited or nonexistent (, , , ; ). Paul maintains in other places that the law can neither lift the condemnation of sin nor produce the righteousness God requires from those whose lives have been saved (cf. ; , ; ). Once in the realm of the Spirit, the law is obsolete, because the Spirit will produce the righteousness the law demanded in the first place but was powerless to produce before (). This is the background to Paul’s argument and logic: that the law, though holy, has become an instrument that arouses sin in the lives of those who are not saved. The law simply cannot operate in the realm of the flesh, because it is connected to the realm of the Spirit. Sin, however, is not the fault of the law, but of sinfulness in human nature. Unredeemed humanity cannot operate in the realm of the Spirit without radical transformation, even if some aspire to righteousness. Such righteousness is out of reach, belonging to the realm of the Spirit.

Paul explains what he means by sin being aroused by the law in verses 7–8 (τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου), that the law identifies sin specifically and personally to us, so therefore it brings consciousness of sin to the fore. It is doubtful as some might argue that the law actually promotes sin, and Paul is certainly arguing against such a conclusion. Because the law is spiritual, it operates in the realm of the Spirit; the consciousness of sin comes from the law as it identifies what is sinful, immoral, and contrary to the will of God. This the law does personally and specifically. Such a revelation underscores that our whole nature is rife with and permeated by sin and sinful passion. It is in that sense that sin is aroused by the law, it is made known thoroughly, along with the underlying condition of sinfulness that promotes sin in us. The revelation is a shock to say the least and disheartening (cf. ). That we are correct in this assessment may be arguably confirmed from Paul’s testimony (), which recounts his battle with sin and sinfulness in the context of a law that could not deliver him but only condemn him by underscoring the fundamental flaw in his nature.

Verse 8 clarifies Paul’s position with respect to the law and sin. It is sin, the whole thing, including what he will identify later as the law of sin and death, a universal, inherent, fleshly bent toward sinning that thwarts all efforts to produce righteousness and that actually produces every kind of desire (covetousness: πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν) in Paul (and not the law) (ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα ἡ ἁμαρτία) (). The commandment affords the favorable circumstances for sin’s manifestation somehow (διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς). The grammar of the passage traces the logic; sin (the subject) seizes (the verb) an excuse (object) through the law (prepositional phrase), to produce (second verb) in Paul (prepositional phrase) every kind of desire (object of the second verb). Sin both seizes the opportunity and produces every kind of desire in Paul. Sin in our natures pushes past the law to seize an opportunity to act on desire. The law is powerless to prevent it. The use of διὰ with the genitive of the commandment (τῆς ἐντολῆς) means that the commandment is viewed as the intermediate or indirect and not the ultimate agent of the action of the verb.[102] The law is a secondary cause of producing desire, and not the ultimate or direct cause. That distinction goes to sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία). While the law is part of the equation, it is not the direct agent for producing every kind of desire, rather sin is. And this is Paul’s point about the powerlessness of the law to restrain sin, in spite of being spiritual. What Paul will go on to show is that the law is passive! It fails to restrain sin! Not only can the command not produce righteousness, but it cannot restrain sin. The law stands in the equation as a passive force failing to restrain sin. His subsequent testimony corroborates this view of the law. The role of the law is to convince the sinner of his sin (verse 13), but it has no power to actually ameliorate sin or sin’s effects, and certainly cannot deliver the sinner from the condemnation that falls on sin from God.

That we are right about this is confirmed in verse 9 by Paul’s strange testimony that sin sprang to life because of the commandment, and he consequently died! He obviously means that prior to his consciousness of the commandments of God, he was also not aware of his sin, or at least of its seriousness with respect to the condemnation of God upon it. The arrival of the law into his thinking brought home the reality of his condition before God, with the result that he died, became aware of the condemnation of God. The result of his discovery of sin through the law was that he became consciously culpable before God, and a requirement was laid upon him to do something to put things right! But just what must be done? It soon became clear (from the following testimony) that adherence to the law was not only impossible, because sin in him undermined every effort to get right with God, but the law could also not lift the condemnation of God on his sin, and his condition as illuminated by the law remained unchanged despite his newfound knowledge of sin through the law. The law could not remedy the underlying problem that has stymied Paul’s newfound interest in holiness, which is sinfulness in his nature (law of sin and death). The inherent presence of sin in his nature only produced sinful actions and had given rise to every kind of desire (verse 8). Furthermore, the entrance of the law not only could not lift the condemnation on his sin but also failed to overpower the inherent sin in Paul’s nature. Therefore the law utterly failed to affect any kind of transformation in his nature or change in his position before God. Even knowing the law, Paul is no better off in his struggle against sin. The law cannot restore him to God by lifting the condemnation of sin found in its code through forgiveness or pardon for past transgressions; it can provide no grounds for reformation of his nature, either. This frustration is palpable in Paul’s contorted and agonizing description of his personal struggle with sin prior to knowing Christ (cf. ).

Paul’s logic goes deeper still in verse 10. He extrapolates from the position in verse 9 that the commandment that was intended to bring life (has as its goal holiness before God) actually had the opposite effect and brought about death![103] Instead of life, the law has brought condemnation and death on the persistent sin produced from a life not in union with Christ and under the domination of the carnal nature. It is the law of sin and death, that the untransformed carnal life inevitably produces sin that ultimately leads to death. The law can only condemn the sin; it cannot liberate the sinner, because it is powerless in itself to overpower the carnal nature. In this way, Paul makes it clear that the cause of the law’s failure is not the law itself, but as Paul constantly reaffirms, the sinful nature (cf. , ). The problem lies in the domination of his life by a principle that produces sin, which he calls the sin, carnality, and sometimes old man (cf. ; , ; , , , ; ; ; ), and until the sin principle is overcome, he cannot produce holiness and he cannot gain victory over sinning (cf. ). The law is undermined not because there is something sinful or wrong with the law but because his nature is incapable of properly responding to the law without a transformative union with Christ (). The law is spiritual (of the realm of the Spirit), but he is not; he is carnal, sold under sin (a slave) (, ). At the provocation of the law toward righteousness, Paul found that he was bound to the world of sinfulness through an indwelling carnality, the flesh, and that he could not transcend it, no matter how hard he tried—it will take more than law to lift him out of this dilemma (cf. , , ; ; ). The law that was supposed or intended to “find” (produce) life in Paul actually led to the discovery that he was inwardly dead to God (produced death) (verse 10).

In verse 11, Paul reaches back to verse 8 and restates the logic, but this time adding that sin has actually perpetrated a deception through the commandment and put him to death (διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἐξηπάτησέν με καὶ διʼ αὐτῆς ἀπέκτεινεν). In other words, the presence of sin in him overpowered the law and brought about condemnation, not the deliverance he had expected from the law (; )! The law that speaks of holiness and life was “used” by sin’s presence to bring Paul under the law’s condemnation and a death sentence instead. It is in this way that the law is indirectly the agent of producing every kind of desire in verse 8. Sin deceived Paul in that it covered up the reality that the law could never produce righteousness in him because it could do nothing about his nature. Try as much as he might, Paul was unable to overcome the presence of sin in his life (cf. )! Because of the presence of sin in his nature, to produce righteousness in his life, it would require more than mere reformation; it would take transformation, the kind he had spoken of in connection with union with Christ. It would take the death of the old life and resurrection to a new life. The presence of sin in his nature obscured the limitations of the law, and although sin continuously undermined every attempt at producing righteousness, it deceptively held out the hope that maybe, just maybe the law might eventually prevail in the battle over sin to produce righteousness if it was just given long enough.[104] Ironically Paul found in reality that the law could not even bring about reformation, let alone genuine transformation, because it could not overpower the influence of sin in Paul’s nature—it was dead certain in Paul’s mind at the point of this discovery that the law could never go on bringing about the persistent righteousness for which God was looking from his people. As a Jew, for Paul this discovery was a serious setback and spiritual crisis. It looked like transformation was beyond the scope and power of the law. Paul seeks through his testimony to demonstrate all of this. Transformation, he affirms, comes about only through union with Christ, and righteousness flows from that union through the presence and power of the Spirit in the believer’s life (cf. ; ). Since neither transformation nor persistent righteousness can be earned or obtained by obeying the law, they are the product of grace and faith from first to last (cf. ; ).

In this way Paul can assert that the law is good, holy, and just before God (verse 12). The law is not responsible for the dilemma he finds himself in, but rather sin is, the fallen and embittered inherent human nature, responsible for our rebellion against and hostility toward God (cf. ). Sin has simply overpowered the law, which has failed to restrain sin in sinful man (cf. ; ). The law was undermined by sin, although it is holy, good, and just. In this way, no argument could ever be made that the law, which enshrined the holy way of life, actually became directly responsible for Paul’s sin and death (), although it is indirectly responsible for his death on account of its condemnation of the sin it found in him (διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς) (, ). The bottom line is that the law brings knowledge of sin, but it cannot deliver from sin. What the law did do was through the recognition of sin to bring about Paul’s knowledge of his deadness in the sight of God, and confirmed the utterly desperate sinfulness of sin in him, with its unacceptability to God (). Although the law enshrines the life of holiness, it is indirectly involved in Paul’s condemnation to death by condemning sin as unholy and under God’s wrath. The law condemns to death those who are dominated and ruled by sin. This is how Paul views the indirect way in which the law has been used by sin to bring about condemnation and death. But still the ultimate cause for his condemnation is sin in his nature. Sin is recognized as sin because the law condemns it, and in condemning sin, it also condemns those who practice sin and are controlled by the sinful nature.

PAUL’S TESTIMONY OF HIS STRUGGLE WITH SIN

Now begins the section that contains the personal testimony of Paul (). What follows is a summary of the implications he has discussed played out in his personal testimony and experience (). Although many have seen the section of Paul’s testimony as a description of his personal journey, some have argued that it is not to be understood in the context of his prior association with the law as a Jew.[105] If we are right (a big “if” for some of my readers, no doubt), then Paul’s personal testimony has as its background his loyalty to the law in his previous life, as a Jew. Wesleyans have often interpreted Paul’s testimony as a postconversion struggle with inbred sin, over which he gains victory through a definite application of the sanctifying power of God, whereby the sinful nature is finally put to rest.[106] Testimonies abound in the holiness movement of such struggles and of a definite experience of postconversion sanctifying grace. While these testimonies are hard to dispute in and of themselves, it is not for us to read that back into the text here. Rather we should ask what is Paul’s testimony, and under what circumstances does he testify? As we have argued above, it makes perfect sense of the context to posit that Paul is testifying about a period in his life where he struggled for righteousness in his life, but found he failed because of the powerful presence of sinfulness in his nature that persistently brought him into captivity to sinning. That we are correct in interpreting that this is the essence of Paul’s struggle can be adduced from the question Paul asked at the opening of this whole section, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (). The whole section seeks to answer this question. This question stands at the heart of Paul’s concern and logic, and he is moving inexorably toward an answer to this question. If we answer, as many have, that we have no choice but to struggle with sin (in a sort of life and death, touch and go way as Paul’s describes here) until we die, we contradict Paul’s basic affirmation about sin, “Absolutely not!” (). To leave it at that, is to leave the whole question of why Paul goes on and on in the remainder of chapters 6, 7, and 8 about victory over sinning if it is so impossible to achieve! He gives every encouragement that victory is not only possible but that through the Spirit God has provided for it. Paul is unfolding the reasons with his bold “Absolutely not!” in these chapters and through his drawn-out logic. If, as some say, Paul is describing the ongoing struggle of the believer with sin after conversion, then we are forced to ask then, how is this “newness of life,” and in what respect have we been “raised with Christ to a new life” (, )? The whole premise and logic of is that we have died to sin as a controlling principle through a union with Christ! How can Paul now go back and say that in actual fact the best that this union can provide is a lifetime of deathly, disappointing, and unsettling struggle against the sin we are supposed to have died to? At this point, such an interpretation defeats Paul’s own internal logic and therefore must be rejected. As we have seen, his logic in concludes that the law has failed because of inherent sin in his nature. Now he is about to describe this struggle in terms of his own experience.[107]

Let’s make a supposition at this point based on Paul’s previous assertion that the law is good, just and holy, and intended to bring about life, not death, and that because of this, the law actually aroused a desire in him for holiness and righteousness (, , ). However, sin deceived him in that the law’s call to righteousness was undermined by sinfulness in his nature, and he found that he was unable to attain what he desired, a desire that the law had aroused in him.[108] It seems to be this struggle between the desire for holiness aroused in Paul’s mind and his inability to perform it that gives rise to the tension described in his personal testimony (, ). Furthermore, if the arousal of a desire for righteousness by the law instead turns up his utter inability to attain righteousness because his nature is flawed by sin, then we have grounds for understanding why the law put him to death rather than produced life. And we have grounds for understanding that the law is the intermediate agent, at the hands of sin. This supposition has the advantage of taking the previous logic and context into account as a background for his testimony. The explanation of his testimony need be no more complicated than this. In any case, any explanation that does not take into the account the prior protracted contextual logic involving union with Christ and its implications and the discussion of the law is bound to fail to properly discern Paul’s meaning here.[109]

In support of our supposition, at the head of his testimony Paul makes the admission that while the law operates in the realm of the Spirit, he operates in the realm of the flesh (verse 14). The NIV’s softening of the language here is a mistake, support for which is given , as though Paul is speaking merely about spiritual immaturity here. He is not! He is speaking about a life-and-death struggle with sin, not a battle over milk and meat! The NIV’s “unspiritual” is actually σάρκινός, or flesh. The contrast Paul makes here is not between mature and immature but between what belongs to the realm of the Spirit and what belongs to the realm of the flesh. Paul cannot mean that he is saved here, because the condition of being in the flesh is antithetical in to being in union with Christ, according to his previous logic (, , ; ). Besides, he goes on to describe himself as being sold (as a slave) to sin (πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) ().[110] Slavery to sin is a condition that Paul has argued is antithetical to new life in union to Christ (chapter 6). He cannot mean he is saved and still a slave to sin when he has argued extensively against the possibility of such a condition for those who have been united to Christ in his death and resurrection. This is the introduction to his testimony, which some will say is a description of the postconversion struggle with the sin nature. Paul is giving his readers the reason for his unsuccessful attempts at attaining righteousness under the supervision of the law because the untransformed nature of the flesh undermines the endeavor from the outset.

At this point someone is bound to point out that Paul is speaking in the present tense. This need not be anything more than a historical present (examples of which can be found in Mark, Matthew, John, Acts, and Revelation)[111] and commonly used even in English as well, when clearly referring to a past events (e.g., κατεργάζομαι, γινώσκω, πράσσω, ποιῶ, θέλω, σύμφημι). The use of the present continuous tense accomplishes two things. First, it makes the passage very vivid and draws the reader in, possibly even to personally identify with the condition Paul is describing. Secondly, it makes it clear that Paul is speaking not about a transitory moment of temptation but a continuous struggle against sin in which he was persistently engaged in his life at that time. Here it may be the aspect of the present that is more important than time, in the sense that it is both dramatic and demonstrative.[112] It is the persistence of his condition and struggle that is in view here, not so much the time represented in the present tense. In fact, the context argues against a postconversional struggle if we are prepared to accept the context and take it seriously in the whole passage from chapter 6 through chapter 8.

Whereas a clause-by-clause analysis of Paul’s rhetoric might become bogged down in detail, the general drift of his flow of thought is clear. Paul laments that he finds himself not doing what he desires (righteousness—of the law), but the things he does not desire to do, he in fact does (sin) (verse 15b). In other words, Paul finds that he is not totally in control of his behavior. And that is really the point of the testimony, to demonstrate that his behavior is being controlled by sin in him. In fact, he further opines that sin in him governs his behavior rather than his desire to what is good and what the law requires (cf. , , ). By this Paul means that he finds himself persistently acting in a way he would rather not. He draws down on the logic that if he is constantly doing what he would prefer not to do, something must be at work in him that is undermining his desire to do good (follow the law in this case), something that he calls sin (verse 17b). So the problem that Paul faces is twofold: he is powerless to obey the law and to do its righteousness, and he is constantly doing what is contrary to the law, thus violating it and coming under its condemnation (verses 18–19). In any event, righteousness in the sense of what the law requires is out of his reach because of sin in his nature (verse 19). His conclusion is that sin living in him is producing impotency with respect to obeying the requirements law. Rather the result is the sinfulness that the law condemns (verse 20). Paul’s meaning is clear, and straightforward, he cannot consistently practice genuine righteousness and he cannot avoid persistent sinfulness, because of the flaw in his nature, which he calls sin living in me (verse 20). His meaning is then very simple and clear.

We could take the implications of Paul’s statement one step further and say that Paul argues that without union with Christ, there is no effective foundation for him to produce consistent righteousness, because his nature is dominated by sin. A transformation is needed that will put sin in his nature to death and produce a new life, one out of which righteousness can arise. Again, this is the point! In chapter 6, using baptism as an analogy, Paul argues that union with Christ does precisely that, it puts to death the old life and gives birth to a new resurrection life. In chapter 7, using marriage and the law as an analogy, Paul argues that the death of the old life through union with Christ has freed him from the tyranny of the law (obligations and requirements of righteousness and its condemnation for failure to live up to it), that he might experience in Christ a new life capable of producing righteousness as a direct result of the union. In any event, in verses 21–25, Paul draws his own conclusions and summarizes the implications of his previous testimony. The bottom line is, he says that he has, on account of his own experience, found that there is a law, a principle, at work in him that prevents him from doing the good he wants to do because evil is constantly present (in his nature) (verse 21). By this Paul clearly means not that he cannot do isolated acts of goodness but that he is incapable of consistently producing (read: habitually practice) righteousness.[113] He is drawn to righteousness; he even desires it. The law aroused that desire in him. We certainly know that Paul was a serious-minded Jew attempting to be loyal to first-century Judaism prior to his conversion (; ; ; ; ; ). He was sincere and dedicated. However, in , we have the testimony of Paul from the perspective of the inner turmoil of his life in Judaism that he found himself unsatisfied and unsuccessful in righteousness.

We should take note of a number of features of the testimony. First, in verse 15 Paul laments that in contradistinction to the law, which operates in the realm of the Spirit, he operates in the realm of the flesh, of his fallen humanity. Now it is clear that Paul doesn’t simply mean the law is spiritual (lowercase s) and that he is merely human after all when it comes to resisting sin and temptation. This is implied by the NIV’s translation of this verse. This interpretation is excluded by his admission that he is “sold under sin,” implying much more than mere human imperfection (which, by the way, John Wesley admitted does exist). The metaphor is clearly one of slavery to sin, or the impulse to sin. He has become in some way a slave to sin. The participle, πεπραμένος, presupposes a condition that was initiated at some point in the past but which continues to exercise the control of slavery to sin in his life. Paul has discovered through his interaction with the law that has awakened a desire for righteousness that in fact he is incapable of doing it consistently and of overcoming sinfulness because in his fallen nature, he is a slave to the impulse to sin. The important point is that prior to his interest in the righteousness of the law (), there was already in his nature a flaw that held him slavery to sin, and that when the law came, it did nothing but awaken his consciousness of it. It did not deliver him from it. This accords well with what Paul asserts when he argues in , defending the law from a charge of acting in alliance with sin.

Secondly, Paul uses three synonyms translated in English as “do”: κατεργάζομαι, πράσσω, and ποιῶ (). Is there any significance, or is this stylistic? To be sure this probably has some stylistic or rhetorical purpose. Paul’s testimony proper begins in verse 15 and ends in verse 20. Verses 14 and 21 are introductory and form a conclusion, respectively. We might diagram the elements of verse 15 as follows, and they represent a summary of the entire problem faced by Paul:

γὰρ

ὃ κατεργάζομαι

οὐ γινώσκω·

γὰρ

ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω,

ἀλλʼ

ὃ μιςῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ.[114]

Here are three units marked by conjunctions; two are explanatory (for), and the last is an adversative clause, with but. The flow is simple. The explanatory for that starts this section links what follows to what has preceded by way of an explanation of how Paul came to the conclusion that the law was spiritual and he carnal and how he concluded that he and the law were operating in different worlds. It had to do with what his experience of seeking to obey the law and consistently failing to produce righteousness, while actually persistently sinning. First, he laments, “I don’t understand what I’m doing?” “For what I wish [to do], I do not do [πράσσω].” At first Paul admits that he knows what the final outcome will be on balance, in terms of what his life will produce (κατεργάζομαι),[115] presumably because he is not in control, and this he will confess in a few moments (). On balance the outcome is negative, failing to the good he desires and doing the sin he wishes he could avoid. By way of explanation, he admits that he is not in control. Paul says that in terms of habitual behavior (πράσσω),[116] he found himself consistently doing things he did not wish to do. In English an adversative at this point would and does seem odd, but Paul has just made a negative assertion: “I do the things I do not wish to do.” By way of an adversative, he says essentially the same thing but without the negative (οὐ) (hence the ἀλλʼ): “The things I hate I do.” However, the exchange of πράσσω for ποιῶ may indicate that the former has more to do with habitual practice and the latter with individual acts, more isolated acts. The picture Paul seems to paint is of a life incapable of producing righteousness but that habitually acts sinfully, even at critical moments of decision.

Δὲ

εἰ ὃ οὐ θέλω

τοῦτο ποιῶ,

σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ

ὅτι καλός.[117]

The logical conclusion is this: “If I consistently do what I do not want to do, then I uphold (affirm) the verdict of the law—that I am evil.” This is a conditional (if-then) clause with two present tense indicatives on either side of the condition. In this case “εἰ with the indicative of all tenses denotes a simple conditional assumption,” in which reality is emphasized.[118] In other words, when Paul says, “If I do what I would rather not do, then I agree with the law that I am in fact evil,” he is simply asserting the reality of the case that he has found to be the fact: he is a sinner. “The law has in fact judged me correctly. I am justly under its condemnation, the evidence of which is the fact that I consistently do what I should not do, nor even wish to do! Furthermore, the inevitable conclusion must be that I am flawed in some way.” Therefore, in verses 14–15 Paul is moving toward the conclusion that without Christ, humanity is flawed in some way that predisposes us to sin and makes it impossible for us to consistently obey the law or to produce righteousness. Paul posits that the reason for his moral failure and inability to practice righteousness is a flaw in his nature; his conclusion is confirmed by the law’s indictment of his behavior, with the verdict that he is a sinner.

Νυνὶ δὲ

οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ

ἀλλὰ

ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἁμαρτία

ἐν ἐμοὶ[119]

Going back to κατεργάζομαι, Paul emphatically states that what his life produces in terms of what he hates he cannot control, but rather it is the result of sin that lives (dwells) in him (). Paul is obviously using a metaphor that sin inhabits his nature and produces sinning in his life against his desire to actually produce the righteousness, a reality of which he has become aware from an encounter with the law. Sin is an unwelcomed lodger in his human nature, one he would dearly love to evict. The emphatic use of ἐγὼ lays the ultimate cause for Paul’s sinning on the sin living in his nature against his better judgment or the desire for holiness aroused by his knowledge of the law. God had awoken a desire for righteousness in him, through something that we might equate with conviction, using the law. However, Paul is not avoiding responsibility for sin but rather is decrying his inability to avoid doing it. His desire for righteousness is being sabotaged at every turn (verse 21). This is what Paul states clearly in verse 18 as a conclusion—that there is nothing good (capable of producing righteousness) living in him. He finds his nature not endowed with an inherent capacity for doing righteousness, but rather with a capacity only for sin.

Γὰρ

οἶδα

ὅτι

οὐκ οἰκεῖ… ἀγαθόν

ἐν ἐμοί,

τοῦτʼ ἔστιν

ἐν τῇ σαρκί

μου ·[120]

The perfect tense verb οἶδα indicates the present condition of a past action, which in this context is a historical present. In other words, Paul indicates as part of his testimony that the discovery of sin in his nature, at some prior in the past, led him to the conclusion (at a time consistent with the time represented by his testimony) that his nature was flawed. Carrying the metaphor forward, Paul specifically locates the problem of where sin is active in him: my flesh (τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου). We should analyze this a little more closely. Paul opines that he has discovered that the reason for his failure to produce righteousness and the reason for persistent sinning is that there is nothing good in his flesh, but rather sin dwells there. This is immensely important, because Paul is speaking of his human nature, his flesh, untransformed by a union with Christ. There is nothing good naturally occurring in his nature that is capable of producing righteousness. On the contrary, sin occurs naturally his nature, with the result that it constantly produces sin and sabotages any desire he might have for righteousness, which he says was aroused by his encounter with the law (). Again, we must take Paul seriously in the context that any such desire for righteousness has been aroused by an encounter with the law as a Jew. He cannot follow through because there is something about his nature, his flesh, that sabotages every effort, and instead produces sin and as a fruit or outcome of sin, death (κατεργάζεσθαι, εἰς τὸ καρποφορῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ) ().

What is or where is this flesh? Rivers of ink have been spilled on the topic. Wesleyans in particular have posited the idea that the flesh is the inherent quality of sinful humanity that persists even after salvation, until it is crucified in sanctification as a second definite experience, obtained by faith, analogous to salvation itself. Is my flesh, as Paul calls it, compartmentalized, a discreet aspect of human makeup that can be excised in some way, or did Paul mean to say that my flesh was descriptive of a pervasive influence throughout our human nature that needs a transformative death and resurrection?

Some will say this is too subtle a difference, and maybe it is. However, if we take Paul seriously in the context of the entire flow of his argument from chapter 6, it seems more likely that Paul is arguing that the fundamental quality of his nature is changed by a union with Christ, as a result of identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ. Indeed, union with Christ produces newness of life, the very quality of life Paul seems to have sought as a foundation for producing the righteousness of God, according to his testimony. My point is that Paul has come to the conclusion that sin is a flaw in his humanity, his flesh. We can clearly see why in chapter 6 Paul argues sinning cannot continue after union with Christ, because our human nature is fundamentally transformed by that union, specifically, we have died to sin and been risen to a new life in Christ (). The antidote to sin in me (ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία), in my flesh, is union with Christ, involving a union in his death and resurrection, the death of the old self and a resurrection of a new self (, ).

If, and I say if, Paul meant that sin in a pervasive influence in human nature, then what seems clear to me is that we cannot take Paul seriously in chapter 6 about having been crucified and raised with Christ, and at the same time maintain that there is still a such a significant residual element of sin in one’s nature controlling our behavior until we are sanctified. The power of sin must, by Paul’s logic, be broken to some significant degree at salvation, regardless of what we believe occurs at sanctification, if we accept the flow of Paul argument. It makes the flow of Paul’s argument self-defeating if the power of sin still remains unaffected. To posit that the full power of my flesh continues to exist, engaging a postconversional struggle, is chilling, because it would mean that sin continues to sabotage righteousness and hold the believer hostage to sinning after union with Christ, in spite of Paul’s insistence that habitual sinning is inconsistent with such a union.[121] The whole thing devolves in self-defeating logic. Surely no one could imagine that salvation leaves the believer so disempowered against sin, when Paul has elsewhere has said that in Christ we are new creations, the old has gone and the new has come (), and insists that union with Christ produces a resurrection to newness of life ()! Paul’s logic about the flaw in his nature is that it has made him powerless to prosecute righteousness and holds him captive to the sin he would rather not do (Ron. 7:15, 18b, 19–20). If the condition persists beyond union with Christ, whereby sin remains in control or human nature is somehow unaffected by regeneration to the same degree as prior to it, then we cannot reasonably expect the outcome to be significantly different than the one Paul describes in his testimony.[122] We are in the untenable position that the condition with regard to sin and sinning is not much changed after salvation, which contradicts not only Paul but also Wesley. But Paul has already made the point that salvation is a transformational union with Christ that has changed the equation to break the power of sin and sinning, in order to produce a new life (). Unless we are prepared to say that union with Christ does not occur until sanctification, at a point subsequent to salvation, then we have to seriously consider our logic in the light of what Paul says here. By ignoring Paul’s conclusions concerning union with Christ and the implications for sin and sinning, we rob salvation of its transformative-regenerative power, and it becomes mere pardon with no dramatic effect upon our nature. Clearly the New Testament generally does not allow for that view of salvation, but that it is entirely transformative. It cannot be transformative and at the same time leave the disciple of Christ bound to a principle that Paul describes as totally morally debilitating to the point of sabotaging righteousness and consistently (read: habitually) producing sin.[123] It is much more likely that Paul means for us to understand that victory over sin comes from a union with Christ, in which the old life is crucified and we are raised to a new life. In that case, as Paul argues in , sinning is no longer appropriate for the disciple of Christ after salvation, but rather we have become slaves of righteousness, and at some point we need to vigorously grasp and ratify our death and resurrection in Christ through a reckoning, embracing it thoroughly into our thinking, and into the core of how we regard ourselves and live our lives ().

Γὰρ

παράκειταί μοι,

τὸ θέλειν

δὲ

τὸ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ[124]

That our interpretation is correct is confirmed by these next two clauses. “It is in me to wish for but not to do good” may be a fairly accurate rendering of verse 18b, where κατεργάζεσθαι means the effective outcome of his life in terms of his conduct. Paul desires the outcome of his life to be the good he wishes, but in spite of what he wishes, he cannot effectively pull it off. Explaining why he concludes that sin must be dwelling in his nature, he says that the desire is present, but not the ability. It is precisely his inability to produce good as the effective outcome of his life in terms of conduct and an inherent slavery to sin that indicates that there is a flaw in his nature. The adversative, δὲ, contrasts Paul’s genuine desire to produce righteousness (καλὸν) and his inability to do so (κατεργάζεσθαι…οὔ). Good is simply not the ultimate outcome of his life, despite his desire for it. No wonder he calls himself wretched in verse 24. That Paul infers a battle is raging is not in dispute; it is a battle between a desire for righteousness, presumably awakened by his encounter with the law, and a pervasive fault in his nature that predisposes him to sinning rather than to righteousness.

Γὰρ

οὐ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν

ἀλλὰ

ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν

τοῦτο πράσσω[125]

In these beautifully balanced clauses, Paul places a negation in front of the verb to wish (θέλω), although in the first case it controls the verb I do (ποιῶ), and in the second case it controls the verb I wish (θέλω). The relative pronoun (accusative, object of the verb θέλω in each case), what (ὃ), changes positions relative to the verb θέλω in order to express meaning in a balanced pair of clauses. Ἀγαθόν follows ποιῶ in the accusative as the object and antithesis of κακὸν, bad, the object in the accusative of πράσσω in the second clause. Therefore, ὃ θέλω ἀγαθόν and ὃ θέλω κακὸν have symmetry, with similar meaning, the good/bad I wish…The ἀλλὰ strikes the opposite outcomes in terms of Paul’s desire. He does not do the good he wants but rather the bad he does not want or wish to do.

Notably, Paul switches up verbs between the clauses, from ποιῶ to πράσσω, from what might be construed as good acts, seen individually or as specific obedience to the commandment or law, to more habitual and persistently occurring acts of sinning. The law had awakened a desire in him for righteousness, which Paul has pursued in an effort to produce it through specific and targeted efforts of obedience, but instead his life has produced nothing but persistent sinfulness. And all of that is contrary to his desire (θέλω).

In verse 18 in particular we notice that Paul has employed two synonyms often translated by the single English word good. Ἀγαθόν (accusative here) occurs twelve times in Romans, and three times in chapter 7 (verses 13, 18, and 19). Καλός or καλὸν (the nominative and accusative forms, respectively) also occur three times in (16, 18, and 21). The pattern is similar; both ἀγαθόν and καλὸν appear earlier in the chapter and then reoccur as synonyms in the logic of this section containing Paul’s testimony. Is this rhetorical flourish or is there semantic nuance?[126] Lawrence Richards says that these words are mostly synonymous, with only shades of different meaning.[127] According to Louw and Nida, καλὸν can mean good in the sense of moral good, what is of value and fitting or beautiful in appearance.[128] Ἀγαθόν can also mean moral good in general but according to Louw and Nida may imply generosity or benefit to others or have a practical quality.[129] In other words, if a distinction can be made at all, and that is not at all certain, in this case, καλὸν emphasizes good character, flawlessness, harmony, and balance, and ἀγαθόν can emphasize good acts or morality in action.[130] We might say that καλὸν is an inherent quality, whereas ἀγαθόν is a manifested or apparent quality. As tenuous as this might be, it is tempting to see the use of these synonyms as underscoring Paul’s chief concern here, which is righteousness. Somehow good in chapter 7 must be connected to commandment of the law in the flow of this argument, because it is what Paul is aspiring to produce in his life, something acceptable to the law (ἀγαθόν), something the law does not condemn as sin. Indeed by good he must mean the righteousness that he refers to in chapter 6, where we have noted Paul is concerned about outcome in terms of behavior, and that it might be acceptable to God. In the Old Testament sense, righteousness (what is acceptable to God) involves dimensions of inward and outward morality, of heart purity and right behavior, including right treatment of others. The inward dimension is particularly directed toward God, and is part of what constitutes worship and devotion, or as the Old Testament also calls it, love of God (cf. ; , , ; ; , ; Jo 22:5; 23:11; ; ; ; ; ; ).[131] But devotion and a right heart with God cannot exist apart from right conduct and right treatment of others. Furthermore, we find Old Testament doctrinal statements concerning righteousness, in this context goodness (ἀγαθόν) and its character (καλὸν) in the law itself (which is Paul’s frame of reference in this passage), and this is expressed particularly well in Deuteronomy by the dualism love God and obey his commands—an inward purity resulting in outward expression in terms of life and action.

If we are right about Paul’s testimony here, this is the crux of the tension he feels. In verse 18 he seems to insinuate that the good (ἀγαθόν) he wishes to perform in terms of action is just not in him, because (explanatory for, γὰρ) he cannot achieve the condition of goodness (καλὸν) inwardly that would make it possible. Paul cannot produce (κατεργάζομαι) καλός, goodness of disposition and heart, because of the sin that dwells in him, the exact opposite condition to what he is seeking to establish in his inner being (cf. verses 17–18).[132] There is a massive problem because of the lack of genuine inward purity. The right conditions in his heart don’t exist for righteousness to be properly practiced in his life. Sin is sabotaging an albeit altruistic desire for holiness and leading his life instead to produce sin. Paul finds himself incapable of achieving a fully functioning righteousness in terms of what the law requires, which is integrity, a right heart producing right action. At this very point in the argument we are no doubt at the nub of Paul’s dilemma and the cause of his pain. The answer is union with Christ, the death of the old life and a resurrection to new life that at the same times destroys the power of sin to rule over him, and establishes, through resurrection, the internal conditions for giving expression to righteousness externally. Hence the question at the beginning of chapter 6, “Shall we go on sinning? By no means!” (). Why not? Because God has literally changed the internal dynamics through union with Christ in order to produce a different outcome in terms of conduct (cf. ).[133] In this way Paul’s testimony reaches back to chapter 6 in a frank exposure of his own struggle with sin and a desire for the righteousness espoused by the law.[134]

Δὲ

εἰ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ,

οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ

ἀλλὰ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἁμαρτία

ἐν ἐμοὶ[135]

The conclusion Paul reaches in verses 17 and 20 is that the problem is sin living in him. This concluding statement (verse 20) is preceded by an identical clauses earlier (verse 17), in which Paul laments that he cannot actually produce the good he wishes to produce because sin resides in his nature. This is a matter of existential reality to him. It is not a hypothetical, as some may want to argue. He is stating the condition in his nature that he is dealing with in his encounter with the law and with respect to his desire for righteousness. To argue that Paul is making a hypothetical case by way of illustration in support of a doctrine of sanctification is to violate the spirit of this passage altogether. In verse 16, and here in verse 20, the resulting clauses that provide the result of a previous conditional clause using indicatives indicate that Paul is viewing this as the reality of the case in his own situation and life.

Paul is incapable of avoiding what he does not wish to do. The reason for that is that sin is living in him; effectively, sin is in control. Therefore, Paul has reached the conclusion that it is because sin lives in him that he cannot do the good he wishes but seems doomed to persistently do the sin he would rather not. The ἐν ἐμοὶ is in fact locative; the sin is in him, in his personality, in his life, in his body, in his being, in some way. In verse 16 Paul pinpointed the location of the problem of sin more specifically in his flesh. What is meant by that is up for grabs! But let’s assume at this point Paul is referring to his humanity in some way, prior to union with Christ because he claims that after that union the old self is crucified with Christ, and the body of sin, which is responsible for enslaving him to sin, has been destroyed or done away with (rendered ineffective) (cf. ). Somehow sin is rooted or lives in him and has a controlling influence over his behavior, but the enslavement has now been broken through union with Christ, by identifying with him in his crucifixion (Εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ)[136] (). But it is equally true that union with Christ results in a new life through a similar identification with Christ’s resurrection, resulting in what amounts to resurrection to a new life (ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα) (, , , ). This much seems clear.

In , Paul is arguing for the initiation of a radically different and new life, without the continuation of sinning and enslavement to sin characteristic of the old one, starting from the point immediately after union with Christ occurs through faith in Jesus Christ that justifies and brings peace with God (; ).[137] In this way, Paul sees union with Christ as actually and existentially, morally, and spiritually transformative. Paul believes that somehow union with Christ breaks the power of sin’s enslavement, an enslavement that formerly exercised control from within his humanity/nature over his behavior. And it is this point that his testimony seeks to make clear. In chapter 8 Paul will take up the implications of that deliverance. But for now, he is describing in terms of his own experience how union with Christ transformed his life by first describing the extent to which sin had a grip on it prior to this union taking place, even though as a law-abiding Jew he had a desire for the righteousness of God. It is this kind of reasoning above and the implications of what Paul actually says (regardless of our own doctrinal reservations), particularly in , that renders an interpretation of verse 25b impossible that has Paul finally deciding he must acquiesce to a postconversion life of continued mortal combat with sin, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, still in the grip of sin somehow in his nature, a combat of the fruitless order he has just described, which can only be broken by eventual natural death![138] On the contrary, Paul describes a moral victory over sin through union with Christ in this life, a liberation from its enslavement and a resurrection to a new life. Paul is not describing some minor advantage in the war with sin but a radical victory over it. He has just stated in chapter 6 that union with Christ has categorically rendered the power of sin ineffective ().[139] It is the contention among many Wesleyans that the location of this sin is the fallen human nature that controls the will, even after salvation. But that is not what Paul seems to imply here. He merely asserts that in his flesh, in his humanity, prior to union with Christ, sin is in control, and that after union that the enslavement to sin is broken.

The Calvinist may raise the objection of “total depravity” to say Paul could not possibly desire righteousness as an unsaved Jew prior to salvation. The assumption is that human depravity excludes any interest or possibility in goodness before God. But surely the scriptures do not bear witness to this, but rather the opposite. There are genuinely good people in the world, even religious ones, who have some sense of God and moral conscience. But that does not save them in the sense of biblical redemption, because of a lack of acknowledgment of sin before God. Whatever righteousness is, it is not simply good works. Rather, as we have seen from the Old Testament, it is integrity whereby obedience to God is produced from a heart in submission to God, or that loves God. Therefore, although a desire for righteousness may exist, it cannot be properly produced without a prior adjustment to an individual’s standing and relationship with God. Righteousness without right relationship to God is merely human goodness at best, rote religiosity at worst. Neither one is sufficient in the eyes of God, to which scripture testifies again and again. However, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, sinfulness, or human depravity, does not necessarily imply that all conception of good has been totally eradicated from humanity or from the life and mind of the individual sinner.[140] On an existential level we are forced to acknowledge that morality exists in the world, or else total lawlessness would follow without restraint of any kind, leading to a much crueler world than we currently inhabit. Paul makes it clear in that the full moral consequences of sin and lawlessness are in fact being restrained by God in human society at this point, prior to the return of Christ. On the contrary, scripture teaches and even posits as one of the elements of the value of humanity to God is that humanity even in his fallen condition bears a shadow of the original divine image (; ).

Paul has already argued in chapters 1–3 that God has equipped every person with a conscience, an innate moral compass, and an objective testimony in nature, witnessing to right and wrong (; ). Furthermore, Paul argues that for the Jew, conscience and law operate together to produce awareness of righteousness and sin (; ). That Paul himself should not only be aware of righteousness, but desires it, conforms perfectly well with what we know existentially and what scripture teaches us about human moral aspirations (; ). Lewis saw this as part of a triad, where by truth produces knowledge of and desire for what is genuinely beautiful, and beauty is consummated in what is supremely good, and that human beings, even in their sinful state can recognize genuine instances of all three.[141] The admiration of right and recognition of its beauty, an aspiration to attain it, to recognize truth and aspire to it, are often what it takes to draw the unbeliever to God in the first place. Paul only argues that because of the flaw in his nature he could not attain it as a personal attribute or reality in his own life, he had no means by which to approach righteousness until his union with Christ occurred. Indeed, Paul argues that sin in his nature bound him to the very ugliness of sin and moral failure that tormented his sensibilities toward holiness and righteousness awakened by the law (). The law awakened his desire for righteousness, but could not provide the means and help he needed to attain it (). Upon reflection, Paul concluded, the powerlessness of the law was the result of a flaw in his nature whereby sin controlled the environment of his life responsible for producing his behavior (, , ). The problem was that before his union with Christ, the grounds required for righteousness to flourish in him simply did not exist.

A summary of Paul’s conclusions follows in verses 21–25 in preparation for the discussion of how union with Christ has replaced the impulse to sin with the power of God that leads to righteousness through the indwelling Spirit (). He has discovered from his battle with sin and its enslaving power that he is powerless to produce righteousness and therefore to overcome a defect in his nature, whereby sin exercises control over his behavior. That we are to conclude that Paul is describing an existential reality in his own life is confirmed by how he frames his conclusion: “I find…” (verse 21a). The conclusion was personal to Paul. What he has discovered from his own experience he now frames as a conclusion, positing that it is a universal principle: sin exists in the humanity of each person and enslaves him or her to sin. The present tense of the verb, the participle and the infinitive, seems be gnomic, expressing a universal truth about humanity’s depravity. The desire to do good is actually in him, but it is continually sabotaged by the presence of sin in his nature. Paul does not seem to question that humanity is capable of desiring good and even righteousness. After all, without such a desire and recognition, conviction that leads to faith and salvation would be impossible. We need not conclude that all goodness or concept of morality in humanity is excluded by sin, only that its presence is not sufficient or capable of overcoming the inherited sin nature that undermines it, and that sin cannot be overcome by moral sensitivity alone. Paul was drawn by a desire for the righteousness, which he discovered in the law, but he was powerless to achieve it, although he tried vehemently to do so (; ). Paul is describing a condition and time in his life when he was existentially conflicted over righteousness and the law. Again Paul is not stating that this is currently the present condition of his life, but by using the present tense, that it was once so. He extrapolates his own experience as a universal principle that he has found to be the case in all humanity: sin undermines good in us through promoting persistent moral failure. I know this is pessimistic, but whatever we finally do philosophically with Paul’s conclusion, we are not at liberty to change its meaning.

PAUL’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SIN IN HIS NATURE

The implications of Paul’s conclusion follow in verses 22–25, and the first statement is controversial: “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.” What does Paul mean? Could he possibly mean that in spite of it all, he is still a prisoner in some way to sin after his union with Christ, as some theologians argue (cf. verse 23)? In which case, verse 25 is Paul’s final acknowledgment that he will never be totally free from the power of sin in his nature but is destined to do battle against it, presumably as he matures in his Christian life, until he dies. This is how many take Paul’s statements here. But it simply will not do to have Paul resign himself to a lifelong battle with sin, when in the context (before and after this short passage) he exalts in freedom from sin’s slavery, and that any acquiescence to sin amounts to acceptance of slavery to it with the ultimate outcome being death! The whole flow of the argument in chapter 6 has to do with Paul demonstrating that following his union with Christ, he is no longer a slave to sin because the old self is dead, and he has been raised to a new life (). We cannot have it both ways. Either Paul is a new person, for whom the slavery of sin has been broken, or a defeated person who is still battling sin in his nature. He has not left us the option of a middle ground. Given his dramatic testimony, to opt for the latter is to admit that to all intents and purposes Paul has resigned himself to live under tyranny to sin in his humanity for the rest of his life, even after union with Christ, with the practical outcome that he is more likely to practice sin than righteousness! This is a flat-out contradiction of the opening sentiment in chapter 6. Chapters 6 and 7 are moving inexorably in the direction of the conclusion that the power of sin has been broken in some definite and meaningful way, through union with Christ, broken enough for Paul to say he is a totally new person (; cf. ). However, we interpret these opening clauses they cannot violate and override the flow of the logic in such a way they would make Paul’s argument absurd!

Paul states that he welcomes the righteousness of the law, with or in his inner man (verse 22). The verb means to embrace something enthusiastically or with joy. The fact that the verb is in the present tense does not mean that Paul is necessarily referring to his current experience, as we have demonstrated above, but only that he is continuing in the vein he adopted earlier of expressing universal human experience using the historical present in his own testimony. It would be like saying one finds that so and so is true, in English. It is hard to locate the “inner man” of verse 22. Like the “in my flesh” of verse 18, where no good dwells, it defies exact, conceptual, pinpoint, locative precision. But then, Paul is not parsing somatology (where in his body or being something is located), but rather speaking generally of the dynamics he has found, which are at work in his humanity,[142] and sin appears to dominate. In his “inner being” (τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον), he delights in the law, but the dominating principle of sin is at war against the law of his mind (τοῦ νοός). Louw and Nida interpret ἔσω as the inner emotional, psychological, and spiritual human solar system, or integrated and overlapping aspects of the animating principle in the human body, which somehow also perfectly integrates into this physical system, so that all of it operates seamlessly, with each supplying its impulses and desires to ultimately culminate in action.[143] Paul is not nearly as interested in parsing these elements as later systematic theologians would be but represents them in their individual elements or as a whole producing a particular outcome as a result of the overarching controlling principles of sin and death or the law of the Spirit.[144] That at some conscious level Paul embraces, even delights in the law and its righteousness, but at another level sin makes compliance impossible, and even sinning inevitable is some sense, should not give us pause. It is this duality that Paul is seeking to demonstrate as the reason for his moral and ethical powerlessness before God. Until spiritual and moral transformation occurs to address this duality, Paul remains hopeless in the arena of righteousness, principally because the grounds do not exist in him—that is, his nature and being—to produce it. He has already confessed that it was the law that awoke his interest in and knowledge of righteousness, although before this awareness fully dawned on him, he acknowledges that he was just as much a sinner (, , ). The law or principle of sin operates in his flesh, in the solar system of his humanity, and its power is so devastatingly strong that it will take more than the power of his will and mind to overcome it. Paul has discovered a paradox in his humanity, and it is devastating to righteousness. That is, simply put, his point.

In verse 23, the lament that will carry on through verse 24, begins. He lamented that what he welcomed he was powerless to carry out, because another principle at work in his humanity was undermining his desire for righteousness; the law of sin dominated his life and behavior. Clearly it is outcomes that Paul is concerned with here and is seeking to illustrate. The outcome in terms of righteousness is doomed because his nature is flawed somehow. This brings us full circle to the problem that initiated the discussion in the first place: Shall we go on sinning because we are not under law but under grace or so that grace might find an opportunity for exercise to the glory of God, more and more (, )? No! Why? Because union with Christ has destroyed the power of sin to dominate the lives of those who belong to Christ (; ). And that is the crux for Paul; union with Christ has broken the principle of sin and death as a result of us identifying with Christ in his death and resurrection. Sinfulness, persistent sinning, is inconsistent with the newly established character of the believer who is now in union with Christ. Sin does not and cannot dominate in that new environment, which elsewhere Paul and the New Testament clearly portrays as thoroughly morally and spiritually transformative.[145] In this way, verses 22 and 23 juxtapose the law of God, with which the law of his mind agrees, to the law of sin and death, which opposes and undermines it, making genuine righteousness impossible to achieve. The one is the principle or law that reaches for righteousness, and the other—the principle or law of sin and death—produces persistent sinning and leads to death. Paul seems to imply that both are capable of exerting influence on his behavior in some way, though clearly the principle of sin dominates the landscape prior to union with Christ, which brings relief (; ). Paul sees the two as at war in him in his life (verse 23).

Here is what appears to me to be a devastating blow to the argument that the war between the sin principle and the new principle of righteousness continues after salvation.[146] The thrust of Paul’s logic is that as long as the war continues, sin will continue to dominate and render him powerless to produce righteousness. The logic of Paul’s argument is headed to the place where he can profess that a victory has been won over the principle of sin and death, which has been crushed through union with Christ in order that righteousness might become possible (). It is incongruous with the trajectory of his argument to say that Paul finally settles at the end of chapter 7 for a sort of tepid or partial victory! Indeed everything at the end of chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 8 reeks of victory: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” and “Therefore there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” The exclamation interrupts the flow of the argument, only momentarily, before the summary resumes in verse 25b, bringing the entire summary of verses 21–25 to a close.

If we ignore the chapter division, we notice the symmetry of the introductory expression in verse 25 and chapter 8 verse 1, involving Ἄρα οὖν and ἄρα νῦν, respectively. The first as a result therefore indicates a logical inference—namely, that Paul found himself to be enslaved to the law of God in his mind, but in his flesh to the law of sin. It is a fitting and balanced statement that sums up what he has said at great length above. The exclamation appears to be a spontaneous outburst of gratitude and joy in light of what he has just laid down, consistent with what he has asserted in chapter 6: that through union with Christ he has indeed been delivered from the power of sin. The second pair, ἄρα νῦν, express not a logical inference but a temporal result! Paul’s exclamation in verse 25a becomes an assertion in chapter 8 and verse 1 that the condemnation has been lifted, that in the present, now (νῦν), he no longer stands under condemnation for sin(s) or to the tyranny of its power, as the next few verses make clear.

In this way the exclamation in verse 25a, “Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ!” is an affirmation that deliverance from the power of sin is not only possible but also that he has personally experienced it through union with Christ—union with Christ that has freed him from enslavement of sin. The exclamation is, after all, an appropriate response to an equally gut-wrenching cry, “Who will deliver me from this body of death (or subject to) death.” Now Paul is not speaking of the physical body, but his humanity (the whole solar system of his being) riddled with sin that ultimately leads to death (cf. , ). The fact that the exclamation answers the question of whether deliverance can be had with the emphatic positive affirmation that deliverance is possible in Christ, means Paul personally found deliverance from the power of sin and that he believed that it was universally available to every believer in union with Christ. Paul does not as some say simply concede that he will never be free from the influence of sin until he physically dies. His exclamatory and somewhat dramatic question and equally exclamatory answer presuppose deliverance! The grounds for that deliverance has provided the grist for the flow of his argument and logic since the beginning of chapter 6, with roots early in chapter 5, where Paul talks about moral character emanating from the new position assumed by the believer in grace on account of the exercise of faith (). In this way, Paul laid the foundation for salvation producing moral character on account of faith even in chapter 5 and shows that standing in grace is synonymous with union with Christ. Such a union provides the spiritual foundation for righteousness or Christian character and includes producing righteousness in terms of behavior.

But there is still a question that needs to be answered. How does union with Christ, transformative as it may be, actually build momentum and impetus toward righteousness? Paul answers the question almost right away in the first few verses of chapter 8 and them unwraps the implications of his assertion, that the Spirit takes over where the law of sin and death leaves off, at a point of departure that is coterminous with union with Christ. The death of the old self through union with Christ has broken the dominating power of sin, to replace it with the new life of resurrection and the active leading and influence of the Spirit.

THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL EMPOWER US AGAINST SIN

()

The temporal ἄρα νῦν, consequently now, takes us from the hypothetical, epitomized by Paul’s personal testimony to the actual state of affairs after union with Christ (). The locative to those who are in Christ Jesus (τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) refers back to the union with Christ in chapter 6, where we are baptized into Christ, into his death and resurrection. So the removal of the condemnation is cotemporaneous with union since it is union that brings about the locating of the believer in Christ. Far from being a few scattered ideas and thoughts, turns out to be a tightly reasoned piece of Pauline logic, in which each piece hangs on the framework, together forming a whole. The condemnation, of which Paul now speaks, is lifted only for those who are in Christ Jesus, not for those who are attempting to follow the law; that much should be abundantly clear by now. Indeed this is the triumphant moment that Paul’s testimony reaches for all along, when the condemnation of the law has been lifted and the power of sin broken at the same time. He acknowledges not only a legal acquittal but also that he has been released from the sin defect in his nature through an act of union with Christ that put to death the old life, the source of the defect, and which has raised him to a new life, as a transformed person. If our interpretation of the context is correct, condemnation here refers not merely to a judicial sentence against sins but also the dreadful moral consignment of being bound over to the power of sin because of a defect in our nature. It is this condemnation that has been lifted, and consequently both the sentence and moral impediment are removed (cf. ).

Condemnation, κατάκριμα, means to judge someone guilty or to render a verdict of guilty.[147] Paul uses this word in a number of places. In he warns the Jews that since they see Gentiles as guilty before God, they too will be declared guilty, condemned, if they do the same things. Condemnation, Paul says, followed the first sin and has brought all of humanity under its curse, by which, no doubt, he means the wrath of God and its corrupting influence and consequence (). Here Paul clearly refers to God’s response to the sin of the first pair, whom he declared guilty and banished from his presence (cf. ). Their punishment was banishment from the presence of God, as well as a curse upon their present existence, whereby the consequent ramifications would work themselves throughout their lives and the entire environment in which they lived, something Paul would soon address in this chapter (cf. ; –123; ). The result was that through descent from Adam all of humanity stand under God’s condemnation on sin and have become heirs of its corruption and consequences, so because of that all men have become guilty of sinning (). The magnitude and expansiveness of the offense has only increased since the first sin ()! The condemnation of God on sin has been pronounced, and all men stand condemned under that curse, because sin has been passed on to the whole race (). The condemnation of God on sin will become final and irrevocable at some point in the eschaton (). In this way, Paul uses the word κατάκριμα and cognates in the sense of being pronounced guilty or standing guilty before God (cf. , ; ; , ; , ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). However, for Paul the curse of sin includes both the condemnation of God and its corruption of human nature and the environment in which God placed mankind. Although it is not included in the basic definition of the word by itself, in the context of , condemnation has a broader appeal than simply the wrath and judgment of God on sins; it includes deliverance from slavery to a sin principle (; ).

There is no doubt that from a post-Reformation perspective we have a tendency to interpret the term condemnation in an almost exclusively judicial sense when we come across it and related terms in the New Testament. Righteousness, justice, judgment, and condemnation are all aspects of salvation that seem to have as their frame of reference the judicial idea that God’s offended holiness must be atoned for before reconciliation can occur.[148] God will not simply overlook sin without dealing with it and its consequences. Similarly he will not allow human beings to simply ignore it, as though it is no big deal or a serious, virtually insurmountable impediment to reconciliation. In any event, make no mistake, the object of redemption is reconciliation, the restoration of fellowship between God and those whom he created for relationship with him in the first place. Since the advent of sin, it has become clear that reconciliation cannot occur except on God’s terms, and that humanity has no power to affect reconciliation on its own initiative or terms, or by its own efforts at righteousness (cf. , ; ; ).[149] The impediment to relationship between humanity and God is just too great to overcome from the human side of the equation. So we ask ourselves, what is the reason reconciliation cannot occur, initiated from the human side? Does Paul give us a clue? This is undoubtedly where Paul’s testimony and the logic of the preceding section take on their most powerful dimension and significance. What he discovered was that not only was he a sinner (this the law informed him about), but there was also a defect in his nature that bound him to sin and sinning so that he could not avoid it, no matter what! Furthermore he was unable to produce the righteousness the law called for and that somewhere in his mind he desired at the provocation of the law, once he had come to know it (, ). He also found that not only could he not make up for his past sins through obedience to the law but that he could not overcome the sin defect in him by obeying the law. He was particularly powerless to overcome the sin defect by simply obeying the law in a way that it would be transformative of his nature, producing the righteousness God was looking for.[150] This righteousness is required not just in terms of behavior but also in terms of the requisite inward condition or disposition of heart and life toward God.[151]

The cry that goes up at the end of chapter 7 is a cry of pain at the realization that Paul had found that he was bound to the dying flesh of the old life, no matter what sensibilities toward righteousness had been awakened in him by the law. He had not only done wrong but was also intrinsically wrong.[152] What Paul found was that transformation of his nature will take more than reformation of his behavior. And this was the sticking point! This is the bottom line that Paul found to be true, and it is why he says we cannot be saved by the works of the law. Furthermore, this encapsulates the whole redemptive problem: humanity is powerless to initiate and affect transformation toward a righteousness of heart and life, and in any case any amount of “good works” cannot make up for or overcome the sins already committed.[153] It is impossible to pay the penalty for sin and also survive its execution, because it involves banishment from God, death (; ). It is an impossible paradox to think that the penalty can be endured and paid at the same time since it involves eternal, irremediable death, banishment from the presence of God. For this reason Jesus came and endured the penalty himself on our behalf (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) so that God could in fact waive it for those who repent and accept the offer of pardon on the basis of his redemptive sacrifice (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ). The remedy for sin is pardon on account of repentance, and faith that embraces the redemptive sacrifice of Christ (cf. ). This is consistent throughout the New Testament as the basis for the forgiveness of God. It takes a divine initiative for reconciliation to occur, because forgiveness and transformation are required.[154]

It is, therefore, clear that when Paul exclaims with greater passion than before, that condemnation no longer exists for those who are in Christ Jesus, he means more than that he has been simply “declared” righteous before God! Although that is undoubtedly included, Paul has in mind a broader deliverance that includes freedom from the condemnation of living in enslavement to sin as well (cf. chapter 6 and 7 as a whole and progression of logic) (; ). The removal of condemnation is a lifting of the sentence of death that hangs over the sins he has committed, but it also involves the putting to death of the old life and a resurrection to new life through union with Christ (cf. chapters 5–6). In this way, the lifting of condemnation encompasses a full deliverance from sin, not merely a judicial one. Paul can truly say that anyone who is in Christ has been located into him through union with him and is a new creation—the old has gone and the new has come (, , ; ; cf. )! Correspondingly, Paul can say that because we have been relocated in Christ through union, we now persistently stand in grace, the grace into which we were initially introduced by faith and through justification; meaning that whatever life is now, it is life characterized by the operation of God’s grace in us (cf. ; ). Grace is, therefore, the environment of righteousness in the life of the believer going forward, because of the operation of the Spirit in us, every bit as much as it is the grounds for reconciliation to God! The operation of grace going forward as the grounds on which we now stand produces results in our lives in terms of righteousness as the result of the Spirit’s working (; ). He who baptizes us into Christ in the first place to save us now produces righteousness of conduct and character in us (i.e., holiness) (cf. ; ; ; ), all for the glory of God (cf. ; ; ). Righteousness of character becomes possible because through the grace of God, as we pursue righteousness of conduct, the sons of God are now led by the Spirit rather than by the impulses of the flesh, the old self, which has been put to death in Christ through union with him (; cf. ).[155]

Is there anything more in the current passage that confirms these conclusions? Well, yes. The phrase in Christ Jesus in verse 1 is the key to the removal of the condemnation. Removal of condemnation is contingent on being in Christ. But this location in Christ in chapter 8 does not stand here in a vacuum, nor is it a new innovation at this point in the flow of the argument. It is related to the previous discussion of union with Christ in chapter 6, whereby there is a transformative death and resurrection that affect the outcome of our lives in terms of behavior. Whatever Paul means here, it is certain that at least these two things follow. First, transformative union with Christ must produce different results in terms of behavior (). Second, the condemnation of God on sin, and to living in slavery to sin, is broken in Christ (). Both are a state initiated through union with Christ. The outcome in terms of producing a righteousness God demands from his people () is now possible, Paul argues, as the result of the removal of the sin defect, the old self, which makes it impossible to achieve, even for a law-abiding Jew with an awakened conscience and desire for it, like Paul!

The impression that Paul includes liberation from the power of sin in his assertion that condemnation has been lifted is found in verse 3, where sin is also condemned (κατέκρινε) in the death of Christ. Paul pictures the tables turned on sin so that instead of bringing condemnation, it stands condemned itself, through Christ’s sacrificial offering. Paul obviously means that the power of sin has been broken. It had once weakened the flesh and made righteousness impossible (). But as a result of being broken, sin no longer restricts those for whom condemnation has been lifted and who now walk in (line with) the Spirit, with the result that genuine righteousness is being produced, a righteousness epitomized by the law (). The desired righteousness, awakened by the law, now becomes possible, for those who now live under the influence of the Spirit, and not under the influence of the flesh (). Union with Christ has put the flesh to death, with its controlling power over the behavior of unbeliever’s life, in exchange for the Spirit’s influence over a newly transformed life raised from the dead in further union with Christ ().

Indeed verse 2 clarifies Paul’s meaning by describing the lifting of the condemnation of God as not just the forgiveness of sins but also as freedom from continued slavery to the law of sin and death, which produces persistent sinning (to put it in terms he uses in chapter 6). This confirms categorically that Paul has a broader conception of freedom in the term condemnation than mere acquittal by God from past offenses. A real possibility for producing righteousness is made available going forward by the operation of a new law, or principle: the principle of the Spirit of life (verse 2) (to put it in terms of chapter 7). If the law of sin and death is the principle of living in slavery to persistent sin that leads to death, then it is clear that engaging the new operational law, that of the Spirit of life, makes us slaves of God (δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ), the result of which is holiness and eternal life (). In other words, the principle of the Spirit of life can in fact produce the righteousness Paul was seeking in his former condition as a law abiding Jew, signaling that not only has the condemnation of past sins been lifted, but that those who are now in Christ Jesus (verse 1), because of transformative union with Christ in his death and resurrection, have been released from slavery to sin in their natures (verses 2–4)! The removal of condemnation includes past sins and slavery to sin, in Paul’s flow of logic.

Paul explains the failure of the law to produce righteousness in him in verse 3. There are two weaknesses that sin in his nature exploited to produce moral failure. The first was the powerlessness of the law to transform and overcome sin (defect of nature) in Paul (cf. chapter 7). The law could not produce the inward condition of purity and integrity implied by the term righteousness, required as a ground for righteousness in terms of conduct, consistent with inner purity/integrity. Secondly, sin in Paul’s nature made him a slave to persistent sinning, making righteousness impossible even when he desired it (cf. chapter 7). Clearly the law was not at fault for his sinning (cf. ), but it was powerless to deliver him from persistent immoral behavior because it could not reform him. It was because of the weakness of the flesh, which he discovered as a result of his exposure to the law, that Paul finally came to the conclusion that the law could not produce righteousness, and that he was compelled to look elsewhere (; ).[156] The fault in his nature, which he discovered as a result of trying to obey the law, weakened his resolve and ultimately his ability to produce righteousness. He was undermined at every turn by his nature. He could produce neither works of righteousness nor affect an inward disposition of righteousness through the law, and the reason was that his nature was fundamentally flawed by an inward condition in his humanity, which ultimately made him a persistent slave to sin. The law was not ultimately culpable for Paul’s moral failure, because he failed morally as a result of sin in his nature (). However, by lifting the condemnation on sin as a result of forgiveness and through a corresponding and coterminous union with Christ, he was simultaneously liberated him from the condemnation of living under its power to enslave him to persistent sinning, as a result of that transformation.[157] The Spirit of life may now perfect righteousness in those who are in Christ, as they walk in cooperative union with the Spirit of God (; ). So it is in the sense that union with Christ has resulted in a change of his nature, and on account of that transformation, Paul has been freed from condemnation to a lifetime of slavery to sin. When condemnation was lifted, it simultaneously freed Paul from judgment on sin and slavery to sin.

THE SURRENDER OF TIED TO AN ONGOING SURRENDER TO THE SPIRIT

The preceding and following discussion leads us to conclude that Paul believed that in salvation God forgave and justified the believer, and also that through moral and spiritual transformation, salvation freed him from the power of the sin principle. With the sin principle broken and replaced with the principle of the Spirit of life, righteousness of life and action is now possible, arising from a transformed and sanctified life controlled, not by the impulse of the flesh, but by submission to the Spirit (verse 2, 4, 14–17; cf. ). It is in this light that we must take Paul’s ingressive command in with urgent significance, that those who have been joined to Christ, must make the conscious choice to go with the Spirit from this moment forward, to resign their will to his leading. Even after their initial salvation, Paul calls on his readers to adopt a specific attitude toward sin and Christ, now that they are joined to him, one that will govern their actions and minds going forward from this point on. By this “new” consecration, they are to reaffirm the first premise, that they are dead to sin, and to embrace the second premise that they are to walk in submission to the Spirit as a result of being raised to a new life before God. This new life comes to the full realization in practical terms, through righteousness, which implies that a transformation has occurred in their natures through union with Christ. The gradual, but definite development of Christian character toward the perfect image of Christ in the coming eschaton, follows the transformation through consistent submission to the Spirit (; , ). In this way, it is not the gradual exsanguination of sin over a lifetime but the development of mature holiness and righteousness Paul has in mind, following a definitive break with sin in their natures. Paul seems to have detected a hesitation in his readers, a failure to fully follow through on the implications of their transformative union with Christ (, ),[158] and so he calls them to surrender again more fully.[159] Such a surrender may indeed be repeated many times in the believer’s life, but is a categorical call involving a definite calculation of the will, and an initial surrender of this specific type to God, subsequent to their conversion, under the terms and power of the transformative experience of union with Christ, but this time specifically with righteousness in view as its ultimate goal (cf. ).[160] In this way Paul calls on his readers for a further exercise of ingressive faith/reckoning for the transformative union of Christ to produce on its potential for righteousness in their hearts’ lives.

In Paul makes essentially the same point, but from a more practical perspective, when he says that those who keep in step with the Spirit will not do the works of the flesh (cf. ). It is a conscious recognition and acceptance of the implications of union with Christ, which in Romans Paul expresses in terms of the controlling principle of the law of sin and death versus the principle of the Spirit of life. What Paul is seeking to get his readers to come to, by an act of appropriating faith, is the submission of their wills to God through the Spirit, in order to actually produce righteousness in their lives ().[161] He will repeat this same injunction and encapsulate the entire logic of , but in a different, more practical way in , where he warns his readers not to be squeezed back into the mold of the world’s culture. They must take the step of decisively, wholly presenting themselves to God as a living sacrifice, so that their bodies (whole being in terms of heart and life) might completely belong to God, with the anticipated outcome that they will do his good, pleasing, and reasonable will (). In this way, is not merely about the lifting of condemnation on sin, and so about pardon and forgiveness, but about everything that is implied in union with Christ, specifically liberation from bondage to the sinful nature that produces sin.

Paul speaks of being in grace in chapter 5 and in Christ in chapter 6. These are two aspects of the same reality whereby a person is repositioned or relocated spiritually as a result of salvation, through faith in Christ. The result is justification in chapter 5 and transformation in chapter 6. These are all aspects of the same reality, of salvation. Paul’s favorite way of visualizing the child of God is to see him as in Christ, a locative motif, whereby someone has been totally repositioned most favorably with respect to God. To be in Christ is to be viewed by God as having been thoroughly included in the full provision of the redemption accomplished by Christ’s earthly ministry and mission. In other places Paul describes this relocation in terms of the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God, or his Son (). To stand in grace means to be in a position of experiencing the perpetual favor of God (). Such relocation into grace excludes persistent sinning (as Paul argues in chapter 6), which is the cause of alienation from God in the first place. But to be clear, Paul goes on to describe how being in grace produces Christian character and ultimately lends substance to the hope of the final consummation of salvation (cf. , ), which is the trajectory of his logic in chapter 8—the eschatological fulfillment of God’s intended purpose for his people, in terms of a completed transformation, which includes the physical body (, ). This is the concept expressed by the term hope in chapter 5, which resurfaces in chapter 8 (cf. –25). In chapter 5 Paul is concerned with justification, in chapter 6 with moral transformation, and in chapter 8, final transformation. But the terminus of salvation in glorification of the body, initiated by a moral transformation through union with Christ, necessarily moves through a radical outflow of righteousness, and the formation of Christlike character (; ). The result is an outflow of practical living that honors and glorifies God in this life, and that does not allow sin to persist after initially surrendering to him for pardon and forgiveness (). The trajectory of initial surrender for forgiveness and the subsequent surrender of reckoning is the full development of the moral and spiritual potential that relocation into grace and Christ implies. Together they lead to producing genuinely mature disciples of Christ, in whom an inward change of heart and mind has occurred, followed by the consistent practice of righteousness as a result of surrender to God and following the lead of the Holy Spirit (; ; cf. ).

In this way righteousness as moral behavior and appropriate conduct is consistent with a trajectory that ultimately leads to eternal life, just as persistent sin is consistent with a trajectory that leads to death ().[162] In this way, Paul places practical righteousness under the grace of God, as consistent with it and produced by it (through the Spirit), on account of a transformational union with Christ that has liberated the believer from slavery to sin and to the influence of the Spirit. From the perspective of chapter 8, the standing in grace of chapter 5 gives the believer access to grace in terms of the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit to replace the now defunct influence of the defective former self. In light of this we can now see how chapter 5 relocates the believer in grace, and therefore into a position from which God can operate to affect character and behavior going forward.

The Incompatibility of the Flesh and the Spirit (5–8)

From verses 5 to 17 Paul will unpack the implications of what he has said so far before drawing out the eschatological implications of it all. Without understanding what we have just discussed regarding the relationship between chapters 5 and 6, we will not properly discern Paul’s meaning when he asserts that the operation of the flesh and the Spirit are mutually exclusive (). In light of his triumphant cry in chapters 7 and 8, Paul obviously does not propose a perpetual war between the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit of life throughout the lifetime of the believer, in some sort of tortuous and unresolved parody of righteousness that leaves him no better off than a conflicted, law abiding Jew! Rather, Paul proposes that through union with Christ the law of sin and death has been rendered inoperable, and not least because of the ongoing operation of the law of the Spirit of life.[163] The law of the Spirit is to govern the behavior of the believer, and the apparatus through which the Spirit’s influence will find expression is the mind, affecting the will, a mind no longer controlled by the flesh, but by the Spirit (; ; cf. ).[164] Verse 5, then, seems to be a curious restatement of what Paul has already covered until we realize that is exactly the point, to summarize in preparation for a discussion of the eschatological implications. The introduction to that discussion occurs in verse 17 with the affirmation that we have become sons of God and heirs with Christ. The eschatological implications will be fulfilled in those who are children of God, walking under the influence and leadership of the Spirit.

In verse 5 Paul states in general terms the basic antithesis he described in chapter 7 as a personal testimony. He contends that there is a mutual exclusivity between the mind that follows the influence of the flesh and the mind that follows the influence of the Spirit (φρονοῦσιν, φρόνημα), where he means what the mind dwells and ponders on, and which affects the disposition of the will and intention.[165] It was in his mind that the law awakened a desire for righteousness, and in his mind he found he had no capacity to produce it and was defeated (). And it is the ongoing surrender and transformation of the mind to the will of God that Paul encourages in his readers to engage in order to be successful in righteousness (). So Paul observes that what is produced in terms of living (behavior) is the result of what dominates the mind. Those who are dominated by the flesh, which in Paul/Romans thought means the old self crucified through union with Christ, are intent on or motivated to pursue the things that have to do with, or belong to the flesh (5a). This would be sin, or disobedience to God. Obviously this is a moral statement. To pursue the things of the flesh, means to pursue in terms of conduct what the flesh desires, the sinful things that our flawed humanity was seeking to give expression to, and of which God does not approve. Here φρονοῦσιν means attitude or what is the predominant thinking of our minds, meaning intention.[166] Paul pictures those who are governed by the flawed principle of the flesh, the old self, or the law of sin and death, as motivated to pursue an expression of sinful desire through their conduct. In other words, the very thing complained of in chapter 7, he now restates more generally, that the person ruled by the flesh, the law of sin and death, will seek opportunities to give expression to the flesh in their practical conduct.

However, the opposite is also true. Paul is getting at intentionality here! Those who have come under the influence of the Spirit as a result of union with Christ, bringing genuine transformation to the table, will intentionally seek to give expression to righteousness because of the leading of the Spirit (verse 5b). The key to righteousness in terms of the inward condition of the heart and disposition is a transformative union with Christ, but with respect to behavior it is coming under the influence of the Spirit, who is capable of producing in us the intention of acting in righteousness. Since it is the Spirit that does it, it is grace! The law is never responsible for a successful outcome in terms of righteousness cf. , )! The mind and disposition have been changed, and the key influencers of behavior have also been changed through union with Christ. What the law could not do because it could not transform the sinner, only condemn him, God has done through the sacrifice of Christ, who put sin to death, its penalty and its power, through his sacrificial death (). And again the lifting of condemnation has brought freedom from judgment on sin, and from slavery to its dominating influence.

“Those who are according to the flesh” is a strange, literal translation of Paul’s words in verse 5a. As the NIV has it, it probably means something like those who live according to the flesh. But, as we have seen in our discussion so far, we know that Paul means more than the externals when he talks about living in righteousness. To be according to speaks to essence, internal disposition, and intentionality and not merely external behavior or vice versa; externals imply the right inner disposition. In fact, the second clause addresses externals under the epithet things of the flesh as emerging from a disposition obsessed with or preoccupied with matters of the flesh (5b). We should probably understand Paul refers to those who are controlled by the flesh, have a fleshly mind-set, and are disposed toward acting on the desires of the flesh. By flesh Paul means what he has meant all along, the inner dispositional factors of the old life, inherent in sinful humanity, which are the controlling influencers of behavior and decision making, and which in the natural way of things inevitably produce sin in a person’s life. In Paul’s experience the domination of the flesh, or in this context being according to the flesh, having one’s disposition ruled by the mind-set of the flesh, meant that righteousness was impossible to achieve. Indeed, sin was inevitable. In these verses Paul is setting up a contrast between those who are influenced by the flesh and those who are influenced by the Spirit.[167]

The point for Paul is that to be of the Spirit means that there has been a fundamental shift in disposition, or in the words of verse 6, mind-set (φρόνημα) (cf. ). Now if that is true, we must accept Paul’s earlier premise here, that such a shift is connected to being crucified with Christ and being raised to new life with him ().[168] But at the same time we must also accept that Paul calls on his readers to more fully embrace the implications of this change through a fresh appropriation of it by faith (). This is not an entirely new “salvation” but a better and fuller appropriation of the provisions of their initial experience of salvation. However, there is an element of definiteness about Paul’s ingressive, imperative command for them to exercise their faith more fully, and it is based on his exhortation and fuller explanation of the implications of what is included in that initial salvation (cf. , ). We could oversimplify this by summarizing Paul that sin is out and righteousness is in, now that you are saved! However, Paul took great pains to explain why sin is out and righteousness is in, and to secure a renewed, ingressive, and ongoing commitment to the proposition. It is because salvation brings about a change in disposition, so that the control of the flesh over behavior has been brought to an end in favor of control by the Spirit that sin is out and righteousness is in.[169]

As in , Paul is prepared to take it a step further. Continual surrender to the flesh leads to death; the mind-set of the flesh will ultimately produce death (6a). But surrender to the Spirit, the habitual life of following the leading of the Spirit, leads to life, while at the same time producing righteousness (6b). The result of surrender to the Spirit is life and peace, eternal life and continued peace with God (). Paul goes on in verse 7 to explain why the outcome of continual surrender to the flesh brings death. It is because the flesh is at war with God and cannot submit to the law of God, it is just not able to (7)! Here Paul explains the dilemma of chapter 7 that without union to Christ, in his natural unsaved condition, his inward disposition (flesh) was at war with God, unable to surrender to his law. Everything in his nature cried out against the standard of God’s righteousness as it can be found in the law, in favor of pleasing itself and satisfying its own appetites and desires (cf. ). In other words, two things are against the unsaved individual: a nature that is at war with God, and which repudiates his standard of righteousness as it is found in the law, and continual disobedience of God in terms of behavior, which actually violates God’s law. The two together, both at variance with God, the one producing the other, make reconciliation impossible without radical transformation, which itself can only occur through transformative salvation. And this is why Paul, as a law-abiding Jew, could never find satisfaction until in salvation though union with Christ he experienced that radical transformation. The flesh, the disposition opposed to God, the mind-set of belligerent self-interest, Paul says, is not able to submit to God (οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται) (). It will take something radical to bring about submission to God in order to produce righteousness, a transformation of disposition, of mind-set, the neutralization of inherited sin nature.

Paul takes it one step further again. Those who live under the control of the flesh are not only unable to submit to the law of God, but they are also unable to please God as well (). To please someone is to cause them to be happy with you, to affirm their pleasure in you in some way or for some reason.[170] The grounds for reconciliation to God, or peace with God, is justification, God’s approval, according to Paul, occurring on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice in those who believe in in him (). Here Paul affirms as long as the flesh controls us, our disposition ruled by self-interest, habitually producing sin, opposed to God and unable to submit to his law, that it is in fact utterly impossible to gain the approval of God.

One of the biggest buts in the Bible occurs in verse 9. The direction of Paul’s argument and logic changes at this point. He now opens up the implications of living by the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι). He has dealt with the implications of slavery to sin and has hinted at its antithesis, slavery to righteousness and to God (cf. , ). In chapter 8 Paul explores the implications of slavery to righteousness and to God, under the paradigm of adoption as children of God and heirs with Christ (). It is reconciliation to God and transformational union with Christ that has resulted in a new relationship to God through the Spirit, one that is responsible for the acquisition of a new position and status, as well as a new disposition, making children out of former slaves through adoption (). In verse 9 Paul begins to flesh out what must be at the heart of his argument in this section, that the Spirit is not only the primary influencing factor in the life of the believer, but through his indwelling he affects adoption to God as children (9). His readers are no longer controlled by the flesh and are therefore not slaves to sin. They are controlled by or operate under the influence of the Spirit because the Spirit of God dwells in them.

When Paul spoke of the principle of the Spirit of life in verse 2 and what the Spirit could do in those who conducted their lives under his influence, he only hinted at what he now explicitly declares: that the Spirit of God dwells in them. In some way, through union with Christ, the new relationship with God makes it possible for God to dwell in, or conduct himself in and through, the lives of those who belong to him as children. In this way God’s image is reflected in them to the world, indeed to all creation, as God originally intended when he made Adam and Eve (; cf. ; ). In this way God’s original purpose for humanity is restored more perfectly in those who are radically saved through union with Christ.

It appears for Paul that the point of departure from the moral control of the flesh is union with Christ, a condition that is the result of justification and transformative regeneration, which also brings peace with God and access to God’s grace as a continual condition of life going forward (). It is no accident that Paul talks of the grace in which we now stand and have access to (), because for Paul this is significant of the total change in living conditions for the believer as a result of faith in Christ and pardon of sins. However, this change is not merely environmental, even in the spiritual sense. It is organic, because the resulting union with Christ has broken the power and control of the flesh, especially in connection to behavior, through a thorough reformation of disposition and mind-set (τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη·), and in its place put the control or leading of the Spirit (, ). Paul uses a number of descriptive phrases to describe what it is to be under the control of the Spirit, of which in the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι) is one, and led by the Spirit (πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται), according to the Spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα) and the mind of the Spirit (τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος) are equivalents (, , , ). It is submission to and the influence of the Spirit in the lives of those who through union with Christ have bidden farewell to the old life that makes genuine godliness in terms of righteousness finally possible. It was the one thing Paul, the law-abiding Jew, longed for before he met Christ (, )! We might even say that Paul explains the new life of union with Christ, the resurrection to new life in chapter 6, as the indwelling Spirit of God, where a new impetus for righteousness replaces the influence of the flesh. He is after all the Spirit of life and peace, the Spirit who gives new life and produces and maintains reconciliation to God through righteousness (in its holistic sense of integrity and conduct) (). All of this is under the matrix of grace, the grace in which we now stand as a result of justification (cf. ). The point we seek to establish here is that justification and holiness are by no means passive, an imputed condition, but are imparted as genuine holiness of conduct and life through the indwelling power of the Spirit.[171] This is after all the point of the logic of this whole section, isn’t it?

The phrase in verse 9 confirms this conclusion with the assertion, “The Spirit lives in you.” And make no mistake: it is an assertion, not a wish or conditional clause since εἴπερ again takes us back to the point at which the change in status and conditions occurred through union with Christ, as the point at which the Spirit of God began to live in us (9). This conclusion is confirmed in the last part of verse 9 where Paul also asserts that anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ (εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει), elsewhere the Spirit of God, Spirit of life (and peace), Spirit, or Holy Spirit, does not belong to Christ (οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ). Possession of the indwelling Spirit is the mark of union with Christ and belonging to Christ. Union with Christ and possession of the indwelling Spirit are part and parcel of the experience whereby a person who believes is justified before God, at peace with God, and now gains continual access to the grace in which he presently stands (). This ongoing operation of grace is nothing less than the influence and presence of the Spirit of God in the life and mind of the transformed believer. Later the indwelling Spirit will be described as the Spirit who affected adoption as sons, and whose leadership confirms sonship (). The Spirit that indwells and who perfects holiness is the Spirit who affected the initial union in terms of adoption. That the indwelling of the Spirit commences at the point of union with Christ and is the chief animating component of the resurrected life goes without saying! So just as Christ was raised from the dead by the Spirit of God () and lived again anew to God (, ), so every believer is raised to new life by the Spirit, in union with Christ in order to live an animated and empowered life through the Spirit to the end of producing the righteousness God demands. In this way Paul can affirm unequivocally that salvation is a matter of faith from first to last, because not only is righteousness in terms of justification the result of grace and faith, but it is also righteousness as a matter of conduct, produced by the grace of God through the provision and influence of the indwelling Spirit ().[172]

Transitioning to the Eschatological Implications

Righteousness, which is an underlying theme in this whole argument, resurfaces in verse 10 to confirm that Paul is still speaking about conduct going forward from initial union with Christ (cf. ).[173] As Paul transitions to the eschatological implications of transformative union with Christ, he is about to demonstrate how this will work itself out in the lives of those who are controlled by the Spirit, and to show that this is all leading to the consummation of the coming eschaton (). That our conclusion concerning Paul’s continued concern for right conduct is correct is confirmed by verses 12 and 13, where Paul’s transition to eschatological considerations is again rooted in the implications of life in the Spirit for the present. He means not living under the domination of the flesh with respect to practice and conduct in this present age. To have been initiated into the coming age through union with Christ in his resurrection to new life means that they cannot again be dominated by the principles and sins of the present age, which elsewhere Paul calls the fundamental or basic elements and philosophies of this world (cf. ; , ). These operated in their flesh at one time. There is a sense in Paul’s thinking that they have entered into the kingdom and power of the age to come, as a result of union with Christ, whereby they have been raised to a new life with Christ, and are now enabled by the Spirit (; ). In Ephesians, Paul calls this “being seated with Christ in the heavenlies” (, ; ; ; cf. ). In this passage and elsewhere, we cannot help but see Paul’s concern that his converts not be brought back into bondage to the sin and power of this present age, but rather to live as citizens of the kingdom of God, in whom the principles of the coming age are at work through the Spirit. The Spirit is the deposit of that age in in the present age guaranteeing the final consummation at the eschaton (; ; ; ).

The question that began the section was about the possible continuation of habitual sin (). God forbid that we should continue in habitual sin following union with Christ (). The implication is that habitual righteousness should follow union with Christ. Those who make righteousness exclusively and restrictively synonymous with justification in every Pauline instance have missed the implication in of the question about habitual sin and the relationship of the believer to grace going forward. Paul is concerned with the sort of conduct that flows out of the life united to Christ through salvation. Righteousness in this context must have something to do with conduct. It is the Spirit that empowers and enables righteousness in the lives of those who have been joined to Christ, so that grace produces the fruit of righteousness as much as it is responsible for the initial transformation involving pardon and justification.

Verse 10 contains a pair of balanced conditional statements containing an if-then clause, and which might be represented by A-B, A’-B’ separated by an adversative.

A If Christ is in you…

B Then the body is dead on account of sin

But

A’ If the Spirit is in you…

B’ Then you live on account of righteousness

Since the elements in this statement are balanced, whatever it means to be “dead because of sin,” it must have a similar point of departure as to “live on account of righteousness.” At this point we must look ahead to verse 11, where Paul assures his readers that in whomever the Spirit dwells, there is hope of even a renewal of the physical body, or in other Pauline terms, a resurrection of the body, glorification. It appears on the surface at least that Paul means by the term Spirit (πνεῦμα) what he has meant all along, the Holy Spirit, and not spirit, the sanctified human spirit! Here is where the holiness movement faces its greatest challenge. What if sanctification theology of flesh versus spirit is in some error here due to an artificial or not-so-biblical dichotomous construct of flesh and spirit? Does Paul actually means to juxtapose flesh and Spirit? I think that he does. Although Paul recognizes the transformed human life through union with Christ as a new creation and a change of disposition and mind-set (τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος) (; ), he does not place it at the epicenter of the life of righteousness. He does in fact place the indwelling presence of the Spirit at the heart of holiness as the impetus for righteousness in the life of the believer, because it is the leading of the Spirit that replaces the influence of the flesh. In verse 10 that is clearly what is meant. The physical body is dead as a result of sin, but those who have experienced transformative union with Christ live precisely because of the indwelling Spirit. It is the Spirit of God that brings life and reformed conduct, godliness, and righteousness. In that way it is all by faith and grace.

No one is claiming that Paul does not acknowledge that a transformation of the inner disposition of a person’s life and heart has occurred through union with Christ. But we do maintain that this is not what Paul refers to by πνεῦμα. Paul means Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The key to righteousness is not the merely transformative union with Christ alone, but an ongoing indwelling presence of the Spirit afterward! This is what actively facilitates the newness of life in chapter 6 rather than the vague assertion that transformation alone automatically leads to holiness. Indeed Paul’s concern that an allowance might be made for habitual sin following transformative union with Christ is evidence that Paul is concerned for his readers to go on to embrace the sanctifying implications of the indwelling Spirit with respect to righteousness—godliness—going forward. Paul clearly had more confidence in the power and presence of the Spirit to produce righteousness than he did merely leaving it in the hands of unaided, albeit transformed human nature (cf. )! Paul argues that habitual sin is inconsistent with the indwelling Spirit from whom the newly saved believer takes his lead, and that righteousness, habitual godliness, is now made possible for those who follow his lead (in those who had previously followed the lead of the flesh).

If this is not what Paul means, then why does Paul raise the subject in the first place, that habitual sin cannot continue after union with Christ? Surely if transformative union with Christ was all that was needed to produce godliness, then the whole passage from through is moot. Paul premises successful prosecution of holiness not on the ability of the renewed and transformed human nature to perform and carry through but on the leading and power of the indwelling Spirit. And in this way righteousness is entirely down to grace.[174]

Now returning to verse 10. Paul makes the amazing observation that even in Christ, the physical body is dead. The body is not renewed or transformed, at least not yet (cf. 11). The physical body is not renewed, does not experience transformation at the point of union with Christ. The reason for the deadness of the body is sin, the curse, a topic that Paul will take up in verses 18–25. Clearly Paul is making reference to mortality of the body, the physical body (σῶμα). But the person is not actually dead, even if they have a mortal body, because of the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit brings life, imparts life, eternal life (), life that commences at union with Christ, and which has an ongoing dimension and quality of power and godliness through the indwelling Spirit. The deadness of the physical body does not lead to total deadness in this present age! Even if the body is dead, because of sin, the curse, the Spirit is the author of life and godliness in the life of the believer who is joined to Christ. The life of the coming age is already at work in those who have been joined to Christ by the Spirit. Now the reason for the deadness of the body is sin, the curse (cf. ). In the same way the reason for life, for genuine, fulfilled, godly, and powerful life, is righteousness! Righteousness permeates the nature and being of those who are joined to Christ with genuine, meaningful life through the Spirit. The Spirit of life in this way brings the blessings of righteousness into the experience of those who are joined to Christ. Paul truly sees this as a penetration into this present age of the life of the age to come, through the indwelling Spirit. Elsewhere this is the kingdom of God, and it is the rationale for Paul’s assertions that we are not of this world, and that we belong to God because he has bought us at a heavy price (cf. ; ; ).

In verse 11 Paul goes on to take this assertion to its conclusion, that if the Spirit dwells in the life of the believer, even the cursed and dead body will eventually be brought to the same life of the resurrected Christ (cf. ). The Spirit that raised Jesus will continue to abide in those who are joined to Christ until he has brought about a similar resurrection of their physical bodies (cf. )! The body is dead presently because of sin, but it will be raised in the future because of the indwelling Spirit, through whom new life is already at work in those who are joined to Christ. The Spirit is the deposit placed in us by God here and now that anticipates the life to come, with its power, perfection, and purity in eternity, by working those things in us as we live life in the present age (; ; , ; ). The life that is at work through the Spirit produces righteousness. And since sin results in death and alienation from God, righteousness results in life and fellowship with God. But again let us emphasize that it is the Spirit who is the author and perfecter of this righteousness (cf. ; , ; ; ). As Paul observed in chapter 7, it is never merely the product of rule keeping, and it is always predicated on transformative union with Christ, which initiates the indwelling of the animating Spirit. In the latter part of chapter 8, Paul will unpack the eschatological implications of this more fully, but for now he simply acknowledges that the presence of the Spirit will eventually result in resurrection and glorification of the body.

In verse 12 Paul comes to the implications of everything he has been saying since chapter 6 and verse 1, contained in the tightly reasoned logical argumentation of this entire passage. The therefore (Ἄρα οὖν) is a strong inference that focuses on the resulting situation that follows principally from union with Christ (cf. Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν—verse 9).[175] Such a union Paul has argued has produced new life through radical transformation that has literally put to death the old life so that habitual sin is no longer appropriate conduct. The implication is that habitual godliness (righteousness) is in fact the appropriate conduct for those who are joined to Christ in transformative union. Furthermore, union with Christ has brought about the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life to take over the role of influencing the outcome in terms of conduct, producing righteousness. Paul’s readers are to accept and commit themselves wholeheartedly to this remarkable proposition (). As Paul states elsewhere, they no longer belong to themselves but to God, who has bought them at a great price, and they should now glorify God in their physical bodies too (; cf. )! This is righteousness, and it comes from the power and presence of the Spirit!

The crux of the issue for Paul is a sense of obligation (ὀφειλέται). Paul affirms that we are in actual fact under obligation, a debtor to someone or something, but it is emphatically not to the flesh![176] In this way Paul plays off of the earlier metaphor of slavery to the dominating principle of the flesh, the law of sin and death. Although free from slavery, we are (ἐσμέν) (present tense) most assuredly in debt, but not to the flesh! By this Paul means precisely what he was trying to demonstrate in chapter 6, that as a result of union with Christ, there is no longer any reason for us to live according to the flesh (τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν), or to conduct ourselves in terms of behavior and deportment the way we once did when the flesh (carnal and untransformed human nature, following its own wishes) was in control of things, and influencing the will. To have no obligation to the flesh is to say what Paul says in , God forbid, we are dead to sin. Its grip has been loosed. We have been released from it to live a new life toward God (). Indeed it was God’s purpose in union with Christ to free us from a moral obligation to the flesh, to obey it in its lusts and desires that are contrary to the righteousness of God (). The trajectory of this argument is that we are now obligated to God that through the Spirit so that we might produce righteousness instead! Once we were slaves to sin, but through union with Christ, we are now debtors to God and under obligation to him to conduct ourselves in righteousness—that is, godliness and integrity ().

In the single biggest blow to a “once saved always saved” theology, Paul states that if we do live according to the flesh or conduct ourselves or behave in a way that is consistent with the flesh, in the future (μέλλετε) we will die (εἰ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε μέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν) (13a)![177] Indeed, Paul has been mitigating the continuance of habitual sin from the onset of his argument, beginning in the first verse of . Sin will kill us and destroy us even after we have experienced union with Christ, if indeed we do not allow the indwelling Spirit to animate and empower a life of righteousness.[178] That Paul is concerned with conduct going forward after union with Christ is made emphatically clear by the unambiguous language τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος, the deeds or conduct of the body (13b). The use of the word for practices or deeds (τὰς πράξεις) and body (σώματος) is clearly focused on conduct.

It is important to note what Paul does not say here, as well as what he does say. Verse 13 contains two balanced elements that have as their foci the flesh and the Spirit, respectively. The first half of the verse is a conditional statement in the indicative, meaning that there is a future certainty about the outcome if the condition is met. If you live presently (ζῆτε) under the dictates of the flesh, Paul warns, in the future you will die (μέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν)! It is a blunt and unambiguous statement that defies being blunted by nuanced interpretation! This statement precisely answers the questioned raised in —Shall we continue in sin? If we live habitually in sin, we will if fact die—the wages of sin is death (cf. , )! This much of Paul’s concern seems clear.

We might expect him at this point to make the complementary observation: if you live under the dictates of the Spirit, you will live! But in fact that is not what he says. Instead Paul makes a supporting statement in the form of a negative. Because life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, it cannot be earned by righteous conduct. Life is a gift from grace. So Paul is consistent with his earlier contention that works cannot earn salvation (and Reformed theologians all breathe a sigh of relief). The second half of the verse makes the complementary rather than antithetical observation that the indwelling Holy Spirit is the power behind overcoming the deeds or conduct of the body (habitual sin), effectively putting them to death as recurrent behavioral patterns (εἰ δὲ πνεύματι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε).[179] In this way Paul answers the question of how we are to overcome sin and temptation to sin following union with Christ. Even though clearly we are not without some measure of bodily appetites still, and are still capable of sin after union with Christ, it is the power of the indwelling Spirit, replacing the control of the flesh (old life) that makes it possible to put habitual sinful conduct to death. The result is, of course, that we will live, and will not fall prey to death brought on by habitual sinning once again (ζήσεσθε)!

There are two things that beg to be acknowledged at this point. Paul places the power for producing right conduct and overcoming sin in the domain of the Spirit who lives in us. The dative by the Spirit means through the working or instrumentality of the Spirit (πνεύματι). Sin is overcome in the life of the believer not by the sanctified human spirit necessarily, but by the power and presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit! The result is that in the future we will live (and not die because of continued habitual sinning) (ζήσεσθε). The specter of death as a result of the recurrence of habitual moral failure is ameliorated by the power of the Spirit at work in us. The Spirit puts the evil conduct associated with sin to death. In this way Paul has brought us full circle to the death of the old self as an act of the Spirit in connection with union with Christ in salvation, by which we now stand in this grace of the ongoing power of God, capable of producing righteousness in us, not merely in terms of justification, but of conduct as well. Secondly, Paul implies that habitual sinful conduct is put to death following union with Christ, precisely because the presence and indwelling power of the Spirit has taken over from the controlling influence of the old self and life!

The implications of this are enormous. From verse 14 to the end of the chapter, Paul will unpack those implications for his readers, even to the point of assuring them that if God no longer condemns them, then who in the world possibly could ()! The indwelling Spirit has brought us into adoption as children of God, and as heirs with Christ of the eschatological future of which Christ is the primary mover and recipient, in order that we will in fact participate with him in it, as God draws his redemptive plan to its final conclusion (, ; cf. ). Meanwhile, the Spirit helps us in our weaknesses and infirmities by connecting us to the divine throne room of God on account of his intercessions for us, especially when we are at a jumping off point mentally or emotionally or because of some trial, or maybe when we are experiencing some temptation ()! He will in fact keep us anchored to God’s will even when the temptations and trials are almost impossibly overwhelming, because he is a deposit of the life of the eschaton in us for right now in this present age, so that God’s eschatological power is already at work in those who are joined to Christ ().[180] When things become intolerably rough, nothing in this world can in fact separate us from the love of God, and every circumstance will ultimately produce the good for us that God has ordained (, )! Furthermore this fact of God’s overarching plan and control makes us not sheep in danger of being slaughtered, as the psalmist lamented (cf. , ), but conquerors, more than conquerors, through Jesus Christ, because every eventuality of this life is countermanded by the power of God in us to produce what is for our good (). In this way Paul can make two extraordinary claims: first that God can make every circumstance produce good in our lives (), and that God has predestined all who are joined to Christ in union to be finally conformed to the image of his Son—that is, to attain the goal of full righteousness, inwardly and outwardly (). The ultimate and final step of that conformity will be the adoption of even our bodies, dead as they are because of sin, but alive on that day on account of the indwelling Spirit, so that they are glorified on the day of Christ’s return (; ; cf. ). So Paul warns his readers, this is not a time for acquiescing to any pressure that leads to failure and sin, but rather to be moved to determination and immovability of commitment to the service of God (). There is far too much at stake.

The Eschatological Bridge—Being Led by the Spirit

In verse 14 Paul begins unpacking the implications of having the indwelling Spirit in us, who is capable of producing the righteousness of God while at the same time putting to death the evil conduct of the former life. This he does with an explanatory “for” (γὰρ). Those who are led by the Spirit of God—that is, align their conduct with the Spirit’s urging and influence—are sons (children) of God (14). True sonship means to belong to the family of God through transformative redemption and adoption and to conduct oneself consistently with the family standards of behavior. Paul makes a big deal about Christ and his obedience to God, and Jesus set great store by the fact that because he and the Father were one, he both obeyed him and cooperated with him while sharing his glory and purpose (cf. ; , ; , , , ; , , , , , ; , , , ; , ; , , , ; ; , , ; , , ; ; ). In the same way Paul will claim that union with Christ is just one step in the process that leads to conformity or unanimity with the family of which God is Father and that holiness is an integral part of how the family of God conducts itself. Sons in particular are to live in obedience to God, just as Jesus did. This is where the leading of the Spirit comes in. To follow the Spirit’s leading is to obey God in terms of conduct, and it is this that is the mark of true sonship. Of course, at the heart of obedience is appropriate conduct, which in terms of our discussion can be characterized as holiness, which is righteousness or sanctified living.

In the opening sentence of verse 14, Paul asserts that as many as obey or follow the Spirit’s leading are true sons of God (ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ).[181] In this way following the leading of the Spirit of God is a mark of actually being children of God. Here the genitives “of God” in both halves of the sentence are identical and complementary of one another. This reinforces what Paul has contended all along—that the status of actually being children of God is a result of the presence of the Spirit of God, and of submitting to his leadership (ἄγονται). It is the Spirit through his leading that produces conduct consistent with sonship. Louw and Nida define ἄγονται as influencing the conduct and behavior of others by urging them to follow a course of action.[182] The Spirit, having taken up his place in those who are joined to Christ in union, now directs and influences their conduct toward obedience to God. However, the point is made in both directions by the passive ἄγονται. The subject of the verb is acted upon. The Spirit leads and they are led by him.[183] Two complementary dynamics are at play in this verse: the direction or guidance of the Spirit (his influence or leading) and the voluntary submission of the sons of God to that leadership in obedience to God. Furthermore, that the verb is in the present tense indicates that Paul is right back where he started: the habitual action of those who now belong to Christ (cf. & 8:14). At this point we are right in the middle of what Paul was seeking to achieve in chapter 7, obedience to God, to the extent that it could be considered as righteousness in his sight. To his dismay, his efforts never rose to the level of consistent morality, let alone righteousness, because sin constantly interposed itself between him and obedience to the law of God. Now, however, it is possible through the Spirit to live a fulfilling life of obedience to God because we are led not by a dead law or carnal nature but by the living Spirit of God (cf. )!

Paul declares the new state of affairs: that not only have we been joined to Christ, but we have also taken hold of the power of God for righteousness through the indwelling Spirit. The Spirit received as a result of union is not a spirit of bondage to fear but of adoption to sonship (15). It is important once again not to divorce this statement from it greater context, as though Paul intended for it to stand alone here in isolation. It is not fear in general Paul refers to but the fear and disillusionment that he describes in chapter 7, where every attempt to meet the requirements of God is itself met with failure as a result of recurring sin. There is a palpable fear in Paul’s description of his former state of bondage and slavery to sin. In other words, following union with Christ we are not again (πάλιν) brought into a bondage to fear of moral failure or to habitual sin, as a result of some inner compulsion to sin, which is inherent in our nature.[184] There is nothing to fear from the former life and its power to enslave us to sin, or to the fearful, imminent prospect of moral failure. The indwelling Spirit has produced in us the grounds for moral success, in terms of the righteousness of God! And so the spirit of slavery is defeated by the Spirit of adoption, producing the victory cry, which is “Abba!” Through the Spirit we are adopted into the family of God as sons who are being successfully led by the Spirit in a life of righteousness (not utter flawlessness, or the impossibility of moral failure, but consistent moral conduct and behavior). The old life has lost its claim on us and the power to enslave us, as long as we are in submission to the Spirit.

The transformation and union, along with the indwelling Spirit, has resulted in our adoption into the family of God as sons. And it is the possession of the Spirit that is the seal and mark of that adoption (; ; ; )! Finally we are like him, children who can identify and interact with their heavenly Father because the life that the Father wants to produce in us is already at work through the Spirit. To be sure it will require a final component of conformity at the eschaton (Rom8:29–30) when we are glorified and our bodies changed (), but the point that Paul is at pains to make and will exploit to the end of the chapter is that it is already at work in us through the Spirit. Although there is one more step in the adoption process, that of the resurrection of our bodies (11, 23), we already have in our possession the first fruits of the eschaton and the guarantee of that final step occurring in the future (). This guarantee is the present reality of the indwelling Spirit, who leads us in obedience to God for the sake of righteousness (cf. ; ; ; ). No wonder we find ourselves already calling out in conviction to God as Father, because the new life of the Spirit is at work in us already! Fear of recurring sin and going back is excluded, it is overcome by the assurance of the Spirit, eliciting a cry of “Abba!” Furthermore, the Spirit’s witness now confirms the witness in our own spirit—that we are in fact children of God (16).

To summarize then, in verse 15 Paul contrasts the spirit of slavery to fear with the Spirit of adoption, which initiates a cry of recognition within us that God is our Father (15–16). This in turn builds on the assertion in verse 14 that those who are obedient to God on account of the indwelling Spirit are in fact the true children of God. The subtle inference is that those who seek the righteousness of the law, as Paul once had, never reach that position or that level of assurance. Paul would agree, I think, and the depths of despair that he reached as a result of slavery to the law of sin and death reverberate throughout his testimony in chapter 7. This is because the law cannot do what the Spirit in fact does—that is, join with our own inner being in agreed witness that we are children of God, nor can it put to death the conduct of the old life, because it cannot affect a moral transformation and produce a moral impetus toward righteousness.[185]

In verse 16 we meet one of those rare instances in Paul where πνεῦμα means the saved and regenerate human spirit. Traditional holiness dogmatics have made a conjectured antipathy between the flesh (unregenerate human nature, involving the soul and mind) and the spirit (regenerate human spirit, to which life is given through new birth), which supposedly coexist with one another in a state of conflict after salvation, the major factor that requires resolution through sanctification (a postconversion crisis in which the flesh is finally crucified, in order to allow the spirit to take control of the now cleansed and sanctified life).[186] So under this model, conduct is regulated morally from that point on principally by the ascendancy of the born-again spirit. However, when it comes to moral impetus, Paul rarely makes reference to the human spirit, the born-again or regenerate component of human nature (as we commonly view it in holiness theology). Instead Paul favors emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God, who from his vantage point of indwelling the life of the believer makes provision for a moral impetus toward righteousness (, ; ). Arguably there appears to be little in the Pauline corpus that supports a postconversional tension like we have just described, and to which we allude in our homiletics, where a warring dichotomy exists between the carnal and spiritual natures after salvation.[187] Certainly, we should admit that our homiletics are more often than not explanatory of New Testament data, rather than carefully considered analysis of the text, exposition or exegesis.

If Paul rarely addresses spirit, he chooses rather to emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God, especially when it comes to morality, conduct, and righteousness (cf. ; ).[188] Where Paul speaks of the “born-again nature” or regenerate human spirit, it is in the sense of total moral transformation coming out of salvation, and he uses phrases like “new life,” “new way of the Spirit,” “new creation,” “new mind,” and “new self” (; ; ; ; , ; ). By these he seems to mean the total moral and spiritual transformation of human nature as a result of salvation to the extent that the believer and his life are no longer ruled by sin or the desires and attitudes of the old life or self, which were in control when the believer was without God in this world (cf. ; ; ; ). This is to be dead in trespasses and sin (), without life toward God. It is to lack the capacity for righteousness and for fellowship with God (cf. , , ; ). Union with Christ brings about a resurrection, which is a spiritual, moral awakening to new life on a thoroughly transformed level. The idea of being raised to new life through faith in Christ is the same as being born again. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit, meaning some organic aspect of human personality brought to life through transformative salvation, where the Spirit of God confirms the internal impression that we are now children of God.

Paul uses πνεῦμα (and cognates) about 171 times in his epistles. Where Paul unequivocally refers to the human spirit, he more often seems to mean the essence of human personality or inner being, capable of being transformed by God or affected by salvation (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; ). A number of times the adjective (πνευματικὸν) is translated by the English word spiritual. But this is subtly deceptive, because what we mean in English by spiritual and what Paul means by πνευματικὸν are different. [189] In his book God’s Empowering Presence, Gordon Fee does a thorough investigation of Paul’s usage of πνευμα and cognates. He concludes that Paul’s distinction between the Holy Spirit and a human spirit can be fluid in some instances, sometimes inferring both at the same time. The vast majority of times, however, context clearly indicates that by πνευμα Paul means the Holy Spirit.[190] Similarly, where in English spiritual has the connotation of what is not material or what belongs to the spirit world (which Paul calls the heavenly realms in Ephesians), by πνευματικὸν Paul actually means what belongs to or finds is source of origin in the Holy Spirit. In other words, we should expect to encounter the Holy Spirit in most cases where we find πνευμα, especially when unqualified by adjectives, and only conclude that Paul means something else when we have good reason to from the context.[191] So it is critically important to understand precisely what Paul means by “our spirit” (πνεύματι ἡμῶν) in this context, and to properly identify the role of our spirit or the Holy Spirit. Here in verse 16 is an instance where the Holy Spirit and our human spirit are juxtaposed and yet teamed together in some way that has to do with our salvation.

Fee observes that Paul is apparently capable at times of almost conflating the roles of our spirit and the Holy Spirit, so they overlap somehow. This occurs most frequently in his discussion of spiritual gifts. Fee uses the designation S/spirit to indicate that Paul means some sort cooperative interplay between the two.[192] Fee’s point appears to be that Paul finds in the interactivity between the Spirit of God and the human spirit of the redeemed and transformed man or woman a level of overlapping and blending that contributes significantly to the life and experience of the believer in his relationship to God, enabling dimensions of activity and ministry that are miraculous; and we would add in the context of our discussion to the possibility of genuine integrity, righteousness, holiness, and morality such that God would find it entirely acceptable. Furthermore, Fee’s approach maybe a useful way to understand how the witness of the Spirit joins with the conviction of our own spirit to confirm and agree that we are indeed children of God. There is a sort of interactive interplay between the two that contributes to the experience of the believer with respect to his salvation and relationship to God. We might even regard this as model for the fellowship that we now have with God through Jesus Christ, a fellowship by which our lives are conjoined to the life of God through the Spirit, making us participants in the divine nature, leading to godliness, integrity, and character (; cf. ). In any event this overlapping witness is a sign of an integral unity between the Spirit of God and the spirit of the child of God, and that what has occurred is an organic union through Christ, which has initiated a process of moral and spiritual change. This process began with a total spiritual and moral transformation, having the effect of putting the old life to death and initiating a new life animated and indwelt by the Spirit of God, creating a brand-new inner environment of the heart and mind in the life of the believer, one in which the carnal nature is no longer the ruing or controlling factor. This new life is designed to culminate in final conformity to the image of God Son, where it is finally characterized by true and final righteousness. No wonder a cry of “Abba!” arises from those whose lives have been so changed by and joined to God!

There is in these circumstances then a combined witness that stands in mutual agreement, with the indwelling Spirit of God and our own human spirit somehow organically linked to one another as a result of transformational union with Christ, and confirming at a conscious level of the mind that we are in fact already children of God. This confirmatory witness stands in spite of the fact that we have not yet reached full conformity to the image of Christ, something reserved for the coming eschaton ()! Adoption is a present reality. So is sonship, whereby those who are joined to Christ actually begin to live in genuine righteousness before God through the leading of the Spirit (14). Furthermore, we may see in this mutual witness more perfectly illustrated the essence of the relationship between God and transformed humanity, organically joined to Christ. It is a cooperative relationship with God through obedience to the leading of the Spirit of God, producing righteousness. It is initiated through transformative union with Christ, which makes the new life possible in the first place, so that those so transformed, indwelt, and led by the Spirit might at last and in fact know that they belong to God as sons.[193] We were adopted as a result of union with Christ; we are made into full sons through the leading of the Spirit, culminating finally in conformity to the image of the Son upon the return of Christ. By completely and utterly embracing the Spirit of God and what he is doing in our lives, there is elicited from us not just a cry of the recognition of our position as sons but one of such confidence in our position before God that it is a most intimate and filial outburst (). We now realize with joy and confidence that we are no longer slaves to fear, fear of returning to slavery to habitual sin. But instead we are now children of God, experiencing the life of those who are adopted into the family of God through the Spirit, with the potential of coming into final conformity to the image of God’s Son in the future eschaton (cf. ; ).

And if in fact we are children of God, Paul goes on to say, when the eschaton does arrive, we will not only be conformed to his image, but will be considered heirs of God…and if heirs of God, then joint-heirs, fellow-heirs with Christ of all that God has purposed through redemption (cf. ; ; ). To be an heir of God is an analogy Paul uses to emphasize the ultimate benefits that will come to those who stand with Christ until the end and in the last day (cf. 17b; ; ; ). The analogy of inheritance is not meant to imply the death of God but hitherto unrealized benefits that will be ultimately conferred upon those who are the children of God.[194] To be an heir of God and co-heirs with Christ means that the benefits are conferred jointly upon Christ and those who belong to Christ. There are several things implied by this. Christ shares the inheritance of his redemptive work with those whom he has redeemed because through incarnation and redemption he participates in their humanity, and they share his place in the family as sons of God (cf. ; ; ; ; ). For Paul the final culmination of sharing a joint experience of humanity with Christ is his own resurrection to perfect righteousness at the commencement of the eschaton, but only if he is willing to endure the suffering and hardships of this life in the meantime (17b; cf. ). In this way Paul sees yet another way in which the life of Christ or of God overlaps the life of those who belong to him, in that Christ has participated in the experience of humanity through incarnation, and the believer will participate in the eternal life of Christ and of his final righteousness through resurrection. It is in this sense that we are fellow-heirs with Christ, that there will be total conformity to the image of the Son in that day.

The subtle but undeniable inference is that this will only occur if we follow through and endure with him until the end, in order that we might be glorified with him (17b). We are abruptly brought back to , and the question of whether habitual sin may persist after union with Christ. Well, no, of course not, because that is not the trajectory of union (cf. ). The goal of union is final conformity to the image of Christ, to be made like him in righteousness and true holiness (cf. ; ; ). To be joined to Christ means to begin a journey that leads to final righteousness, initiated through transformative union now and developed and matured by the leading of the Spirit, to be finally perfected with the adoption of the body at his return at the commencement of the eschaton. Paul’s tightly reasoned series of building inferences encircle the principle that he has been grasping for since chapter 6, that sin cannot continue habitually after union with Christ. Sin simply will not lead to the final holiness and righteousness that God has purposed for those who are in Christ ()!

In verse 17 this truth resurfaces under the rubric of suffering with Christ. Habitual sin must be overcome and resisted and the hardships of this life endured in order for us to reach the goal God has set for those who follow the leading of the Spirit to the end (cf. ). Paul is calling for the follow through that must accompany union with Christ if the goal is to be finally realized in us and reached by us. It is not enough to experience union if we do not go on to be led by the Spirit. Being led by the Spirit is the only way for the transformed life to experience the power of the eschaton here and now! This power of the Spirit both puts to death the conduct of the old life and makes possible righteousness in this life, prior to Christ’s return. There is an obligation to endure and follow through after salvation/union, and it is to this particular point Paul is seeking to draw his readers’ attention. Union with Christ is not the destination; conformity to the image of Christ is, and there is a process or a journey between the one and the other that must transpire in the power of the Spirit of God (by grace), producing the righteousness of God in us who obey his leading.[195] The warning about endurance is not about simply putting up with generic suffering in this life, but a subtle warning that we must follow through after salvation, and that habitual sin cannot be allowed to dominate those who belong to Christ. Instead, the presence of the indwelling presence of the Spirit must put to death the practices of the body, in favor of obedience to God, of being led by the Spirit as faithful sons.

Sharing the inheritance with Christ is not premised on a simple profession of salvation but on genuine union with Christ that produces a radically changed life. Now since Paul sees this as a matter of grace and not law, then we should not find ourselves raising the issue of a danger of works righteousness. Indeed nowhere does Paul say in fact that we are joint heirs with Christ if we perform acts of righteousness. But he does say that the habitual sin leads eventually to death, and that the deeds of the body are themselves destroyed by the indwelling Spirit, which means that habitual sin should no longer dominate those who are joined to Christ. Under the circumstances of union with Christ that results in adoption into the family of God and the leadership of the Spirit that makes us sons of God, we have become heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—it is not because of a profession but because of a genuine moral and spiritual transformation. In this way, it is union with Christ and the destruction of the power of the old life to hold those who are saved in bondage to habitual sin that produces morally transformed children of God. We now call God “Father” because we have been adopted into the family through union and participate in the life of the family through the Spirit, involving obedience to his leading. We are not co-heirs with Christ because we profess salvation but because we are in actual fact children of God through adoption and the Spirit! Our adoption has resulted in finding ourselves empowered through the Spirit to finally live in obedience to God as sons, and because we are sons, we are co-heirs of God with Christ.

Whatever we may conclude about the above remarks, one inference cannot be easily dismissed. Paul rejects the idea that those who have once professed salvation but who have gone back to living in habitual sin can in fact claim that they will eventually be heirs with Christ.[196] Paul’s logic precludes this completely. Habitual sin leads to death (, , ), even after union with Christ, if we fail to fully embrace the implications of what union with Christ implies. On the other hand, for those who follow the leading of the Spirit and who experience the death of the practices of the body through the indwelling Spirit, then there will be, we think, a certain inevitability in the type of conduct habitually produced. This Paul calls righteousness. In this way the Spirit produces the very success that Paul was looking for in but could not find under the law, even as a law-abiding Jew. The righteousness of which Paul speaks in chapter 6 and laments that he could not attain through the law in chapter 7 is now regularly manifested and achieved, as he states in chapter 8, and this is because of the Spirit, making it a matter of grace, not works (cf. ; ; ; ). Union with Christ leads to a transformed life through the Spirit, a righteousness predicated on obedience to the Spirit’s leading, and ultimately, in due course, after endurance that follows through to the end, producing full conformity to the image of Christ in final righteousness, as heirs with Christ, glorification (resurrection) in the eschaton that is to come.

There are three lines that converge at verse 17 in Paul’s logic in this section of Romans. They form the basis for Paul to unpack the significance of co-heirship with Christ in the rest of chapter 8 (18–39). They are that we have been joined to Christ through salvation. The Spirit of God is at work in us as a result of union to produce the righteousness of God and to confirm our sonship. The trajectory of union is total conformity to the image of Christ as sons of God who share in his inheritance the benefits and outcome of God’s final redemptive purposes.

A SUMMARY

Union with Christ in chapter 6 is obviously coterminous with the lifting of condemnation and adoption in chapter 8, which is also the point at which the Spirit takes over from the crucified old self, in order to produce the new life of chapter 6, a life of sonship and obedience leading to final and perfect conformity in righteousness! This new life is a life in which habitual sin does not dominate, but rather obedience to the leading of the Spirit. Being led by the Spirit is a euphemism for obedience to God or conduct consistent with the righteousness God requires. It is at the same time indicative of being true “sons of God.” Living as obedient children of God in response to the Spirit’s leading finds a complement in the Spirit of adoption who is responsible for union with Christ in the first place (15). Therefore, the arrival of the Spirit at union with Christ to produce a new life of resurrection power and righteousness, in which habitual sin no longer dominates, is also the moment at which entrance into the family of God occurs through a process analogous of adoption. We are included as children of God in the family of God not because we were born naturally into it as obedient sons but because we have been adopted into the family as transformed children through union with Christ and as obedient sons through the Spirit, in the context of God’s predetermined purpose, to conform us fully to the family likeness, so that we might also become heirs of God on account of the Spirit, whose lead we now follow (cf. ). It is because of grace we were adopted through union, and by grace that we mature into the family likeness through the operation and leading of the Spirit. And it is by grace that final conformity will occur at the coming of Christ. The arrival of the Spirit at the point of union with Christ to take over from the crucified old self means that we have simultaneously been adopted into the family of God as his children and brought to obedience to God as well. This is something we must not overlook. The cry of “Abba” may in fact be the cry of the child, but the outcome in terms of conduct led by the Spirit is indicative of sonship and maturity! And this maturity consists of obedience to the leading of the Spirit, who has put to death the practices of the body or of habitual sin. In this way, Paul demonstrates what newness of life consists of in chapter 6. It is obedience to the leading of the Spirit. And he demonstrates where it is going: to final and full conformity to the image of Christ. Such union to Christ and to the Spirit places us in a position of being co-heirs with him of all the redemptive purposes of God for creation. So here we have it, the essence of the sanctified life in the Pauline sense: transformed people living by the impulse of the Spirit who once lived under the impulse of the flesh but who are now sons of God and heirs with Christ of God’s ultimate design for all things. The prospect of producing righteousness then is not left to a tenuous reliance on the transformed human spirit but to the powerful influence and leading of the Spirit of God in the life of the fully redeemed and utterly transformed and justified believer!

TOWARD A THEOLOGY OF THE INDWELLING SPIRIT

PENTECOST

When it comes to the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Pentecostals are separated theologically from other doctrinal positions that see Pentecost as the salvation experience of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. It is sometimes argued that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost because it was the birthday of the church, and they were saved following the ascension of Christ. They received the Holy Spirit as part of their salvation experience. But the problem with this view is that the apostles clearly demonstrate faith in Jesus Christ before his ascension and most of them believed in him as the Messiah, savior, and redeemer, even before his death and resurrection, and confessed to their faith (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ). Furthermore, Jesus promised the coming of the Holy Spirit, not as an experience of salvation, but as equipping for evangelism, mission, and witness (; ). The Spirit baptism was to be missional. Nowhere in Acts is the baptism in the Holy Spirit portrayed salvifically, but something that occurs subsequent to salvation (; ; ; ; ; ). Despite the argument that we cannot “do” (devise doctrine) theology from narrative material in the Bible, that we must rely upon propositional truth (stated theological principles such as we find in the epistles of Paul), Luke manifestly portrays his account of the Spirit as a theology, in which he records what is normative for the church with respect to the infilling of the Spirit.[197]

Briefly, let us note that the evidence from a comparison of Luke and Acts as two volumes of a single work shows that Luke has carefully and deliberately crafted his historical narrative as a theology of Jesus (cf. ; ). Jesus is the Spirit-empowered Son of God. Luke also demonstrates through a meticulous investigation of the historical facts and making thorough use of Old Testament (LXX) themes and motifs involving the Spirit, that the infilling of the Spirit in the first century has to do, not with salvation, but God empowering his people for vocation (mission and service), where the characteristic evidence of the Spirit’s infilling is inspired speech.

It seems that God, through the inspiration of the Spirit, manifestly chose narrative to communicate a theology of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Luke appears to deliberately “do” theology in Luke and Acts using historical narrative, employing very complex and intricate interweaving of themes, ideas, motifs and the truths about Jesus’ ministry and the ministry of the early church which he researched from eyewitnesses. In that theology, Luke demonstrates that there is continuity between what Jesus began to do through the power of the Spirit in the gospel, and later continued to do through the Spirit in Acts in the Spirit-empowered church, after an initial but repeated baptism in the Spirit after his ascension and at Pentecost (, ; ).

Paul does not teach a theology of the Holy Spirit’s baptism for empowering after salvation in the same way Luke does or that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Rather, Paul addresses the Spirit as the abiding presence of God among his people, making the church and his people his new covenant temples. The power of God at work in the church and the life of the believer is not viewed by Paul from the perspective of an initial endowment but from the perspective of an abiding presence that equips them for service and righteousness. So some have argued that a theology of Spirit baptism and the initial evidence of speaking in tongues based on Luke’s narrative in Acts is entirely without support from the rest of the New Testament or the Bible as a whole. But this argument completely misses what Luke seeks to show at the beginning of his gospel (). Luke reveals a sudden breaking out of the Holy Spirit’s power around the time of Jesus birth and connected to it, and that this is the fulfillment of the promise in Joel that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh in the last days (). Beginning with Spirit-inspired speech of Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Anna, Simeon, then Jesus himself, Luke shows that this sudden appearance of the Spirit filling people and inspiring prophetic speech is the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament that in the last days the Holy Spirit would be poured on all God’s people and they will prophecy (). The wish of Moses in finds its consummation in Pentecost. For Luke, this outpouring of the Spirit is the sign of the coming kingdom of God, which he had promised to Israel and which with arrival of Christ had now broken in on this present age, bringing good news of salvation and reconciliation to God. For Luke it is precisely the suddenness of the arrival of the Spirit that is critical to his theology, as he demonstrates that God had finally fulfilled his word and that what Joel promised, Moses wished for and Ezekiel and Isaiah anticipated has now become normative for believer in the church. While Paul emphasizes the stative sense of the Spirit’s abiding presence in the church, Luke emphasizes the outbreaking power of the Spirit in the church.

If we concede that Luke wrote intending to demonstrate through his history that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah and had come in fulfillment of the promises of God, then we must take the theology of the Spirit seriously too. We cannot accept one side of Luke’s theology and deny its validity on other matters. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter stood and proclaimed that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit was the fulfillment of the promise of God (; ). In other words, Luke shows that the context of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring on the Day of Pentecost is the coming of the kingdom of God, beginning with the birth of Christ, and continuing with empowering God’s people to carry out the mission of preaching the gospel after Christ’s ascension. The church takes on Christ’s mission empowered with the same Spirit, just as Jesus promised the must and should(; ). Luke is obviously “doing” theology by demonstrating these connections in his narrative, and we are compelled to pay attention to his whole narratival theological scheme and not to cherry-pick what we like and don’t like, what we will and will not accept as valid for the church today. So when Paul and the other apostles do not address Pentecost in the way Luke does, we should not make the mistake of interpreting Luke/Acts by the theology of the Spirit in Paul or squeezing it into a Pauline mold. Both men have manifestly different purposes in writing and are not addressing the same things, topics or issues with respect to the Spirit. Until we have allowed Luke to speak for himself we should not force another theological framework on his contribution, solely because it is narrative and not propositional material. When we give Luke a fair hearing, we discover he says nothing that is contradicted by the other apostles, and nor does he contradict them.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as Empowering - In the context of Pentecost, the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit has to do with empowering God’s people for mission (). Jesus said that salvation is an operation of the Holy Spirit (). To be born again of the Spirit means to be reborn (morally and spiritually transformed into what Paul calls a new creation – ) by the operation of the Spirit (). The Holy Spirit is the source of the new birth (spiritual transformation, regeneration). Paul says that we are brought into the church by the Holy Spirit who baptizes us into one body, the body of Christ (). By our consecration to God in salvation, our bodies become temples of the Holy Spirit when (). If we do not have the indwelling Spirit we are not saved, we do not belong to God, and we are not one of his children (). So clearly, the Holy Spirit is indispensable to the salvation experience at its inception and afterwards.

Acts 1:8 NIV

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Nevertheless, Luke demonstrates a different perspective on the activity of the Holy Spirit, as an empowering of the disciples of God for the work and mission of the kingdom of God! Jesus promised his disciples that they would be endued with power (not saved) when the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they would become witnesses (; ). Even in John’s gospel where Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit’s coming is discussed from a different viewpoint to Luke, there is a strong sense in which his coming is vocational, designed to equip them to continue the work that he had started was going to leave to them after his departure (, ; ; , ). When Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit at work in the body through the operation of spiritual gifts, and that the indwelling of the Spirit underlies functionality in the church as the body of Christ (; ; ), he and John are supporting Luke’s hypothesis that the indwelling of the Spirit is vocational, that it is an equipping for service and ministry. There is considerable support for Luke’s theology of the Spirit, including Paul’s discussion of tongues and prophecy as an aspect of the Spirit’s activity in the church. Jesus’ promise of the Spirit is clearly shown by Luke to be an impartation of the same power that he had as a result of the anointing of the Holy Spirit at his baptism (cf. ; ; ; ). Nothing else in the New Testament makes us feel we should reconsider our position, that Luke is presenting a normative theology of the Spirit.

Luke 24:45–49 NIV

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 1:8 NIV

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Luke answers the question as to whether the baptism of the Holy Spirit is contemporaneous to or subsequent salvation portraying it as empowering the church for service and missions in the kingdom of God. It is consistent with the historical record of Acts to consider the baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent (after) salvation because it is vocational, that is empowering for service and mission. In the disciples were gathered together expecting the promise of Jesus to be endued with power, and not to be saved or cleansed from sin (; , ). When Peter stood to speak about the outpouring of the Spirit, he explained it to his Jewish hearers as what they had been anticipating in connection with God’s promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the last days, when the kingdom of God was to come into the present age (). From these Old Testament promises (Moses, Joel) the in immediate anticipated evidence of the Spirit’s coming as an impartation of power to serve was inspired prophetic speak (; cf. ). Joel promised that in connection with Spirit’s infilling on all flesh, they would prophesy (; cf. ).

The impression of subsequence is further supported by the events of , where a new anointing of the Holy Spirit seems to have come upon those who were already saved as a result of Peter’s sermon. As a result of prayer, they were not being saved but empowered, with the result that the Spirit through the church performed great miracles and enabled them to minister to one another (). In , even though the Samaritans believed, were saved and baptized, they had not as yet “received the Holy Spirit” (the baptism of the Holy Spirit experienced in ), that empowered them for service in the gospel (). In , Paul was saved and repented on the Damascus Road but received the Holy Spirit afterwards when he was prayed for by Ananias to receive the Spirit and his sight (). In the household of Cornelius the near-simultaneous experience of salvation and Spirit baptism may seem confusing until we realize that Cornelius was already devout and believed in God. He had not heard about the salvation that is in Christ. But the Holy Spirit did fall on them, and they received the Holy Spirit with the evidence experienced by the apostles, which served to confirm their reception of the same gift that empowers believers for the work of the gospel (). When Paul found a group of disciples in Ephesus, he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit after, since, they had believed (). They had not heard that the Spirit had come, because they had believed on the preaching of John the Baptist (). Surely they had heard John prophesy about the one who would baptize in the Spirit? What they had not heard was that Jesus had come and ascended and the Spirit had already been poured out, as the Old Testament, John, and Jesus had predicted. Upon their confession and after their baptism, Paul laid hands on them, and they received the baptism in the Spirit, with the evidence experienced in the upper room earlier (). Paul’s question and the sequence of events are significant. This comes out rather more clearly in the original, where Luke states that “they were baptized… the Spirit came on them when (or as) Paul place his hands on them, and they began to speak in tongues and prophesy” ().[198]

The Initial Evidence of Speaking in Tongues: The question of speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit often raises heated debate. What we do know this? On the Day of Pentecost, the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (). Furthermore, it was the speaking in tongues that caused such a stir in Jerusalem among the foreign-born Jews who had come for the feasts of Passover and Pentecost, and who heard the praises and wonders of God expressed in their own language by untrained Galileans (). Tongues was a speech-evidence that something divine having occurred. When Peter stood to explain the occurrence, he told them that inspired prophetic speech was part of the promise of made by , and that was to serve as evidence that God had finally poured out his Spirit “on all flesh.”

Acts 2:1–4 NIV

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Luke consistently demonstrates in his gospel and Acts that prophetic speech is a primary result and evidence of the presence and anointing of the Holy Spirit. Examples of are John the Baptist, filled with the Holy Spirit from before birth (, ), Zechariah enabled to speak after the encounter with the angel, was filled with the Holy Spirit and “…prophesied, saying…” (), Elizabeth, who reacting to the baby leaping in her womb, was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke (), Mary responded in what is clearly the context of the Spirit’s anointing on her to conceive and spoke prophetically as the Spirit led her (), Simeon, who had been waiting for the Messiah, and led by the Holy Spirit came to the temple the day of Jesus dedication and spoke as the Holy Spirit came on him (, ), closely followed by Anna the devout widow (), and Jesus, who at the commencement of his ministry was anointed with the Spirit at his baptism, returned to Nazareth in the power of the Spirit to begin his preaching ministry, starting in his home synagogue (; , , ). When Jesus lifted his voice to pray in the Spirit, he spoke under that anointing () Jesus taught his disciples to expect the anointing of the Holy Spirit to produce inspired speech for witness, for the effective proclamation of the gospel (; ; ).

Luke shows that the immediate and instantaneous result of the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was prophetic or inspired speech in tongues, of the disciples (). In and 19, Luke makes the connection again, in that tongues and inspired speech immediately follow the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that this has evidentiary value, signaling the reception of the Holy Spirit. After an initial Spirit baptism, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit are often given fresh anointings, as the situations demand, with the result more often than not that inspired speech or prophetic activity follows (cf. ; , ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).

For these Luke demonstrates a reliance on the Old Testament, including such passages as and references to Saul being filled with the Spirit and prophesying, including references in the prophets including especially Joel. The 70 in and Moses expressed wish that all of God’s people be filled with the Spirit and prophecy is the background for the promise in Joel, and the historical framework for understanding the significance and theology of the and subsequent infillings. Where those upon whom the Spirit falls speak prophetically. He even adopts and adapts the language found there to demonstrate what he sees occurring in the early church following Pentecost, and in that way links it to the promise of God that in last days he would pour out his Spirit on all of his people, not just the prophets and leaders! It is hard to ignore the implications in Luke-Acts, that Spirit-baptism is accompanied by anointed witness and prophetic speech.

The Promise of Pentecost for the Future (, ): Contrary to the cessationist view, that the baptism in the Spirit was only for the apostles, the early church and apostolic age, prior to the completion of the New Testament and that miracles, in general, have ceased in the present age, Luke clearly sets the promise of Pentecost in the context of the entire church age as available to all believers who repent, believe, and are baptized (are saved). The promise is not just to the Jews and their descendants, but also to those who are a far off and everyone the Lord our God calls. An argument from that now that the perfect has come, the completed Bible, tongues and prophecies have ceased is weak, and an example of special pleading. Nothing in the context of allows such an interpretation, by making perfection a reference to the completed canon. Paul is clearly speaking of the end of the age and the coming of the eschaton at the return of Christ as when perfection comes. This is the perfection of glorification when tongues and prophecies will cease!

When the people at Pentecost saw the results of the Holy Spirit’s baptism and heard Peter’s explanation, that this was the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises for the last days, that Jesus whom they had crucified was actually the Messiah, and that God had raised him from the dead, conviction set in and they asked what they must do (). Peter’s reply is now a Pentecostal classic - repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and you (too) will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (), because the promise (of the Spirit) is to you, your children, those far off and everyone God calls (). Therefore, God promised the Holy Spirit Jews, to their children (the next generation), to Gentiles and to everyone God calls (to repentance and service in the kingdom of God). There is no foreseeable limit to the gift of the Spirit. That Peter means in the future gift of the Spirit will be in the same vein as they have witnessed it in the 120 is assumed in the context.

The problem with our generation is that we lack conviction about a baptism in the Holy Spirit following salvation. We are not particularly God is prepared to give us such a gift, and that it is not earned. Many have unconsciously thought that it must be wrestled from him. We struggle with the idea that the promise is genuinely universal, encompassing every generation, and every believer regardless of ethnic background. We are much more likely to think that it is only for the leaders in the church, rather than for all believers. Whereas we are familiar with the doctrinal statement that "We believe that the Pentecostal Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire is obtainable by a definite act of appropriating faith on the part of the fully cleansed believer, and that the initial evidence of the reception of this experience is speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance," but we are often ambivalent to the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a necessary and important gift from God.

Luke incorporates two major ideas to describe the interaction of the Holy Spirit with believers so as to empower them supernaturally. They are not exactly synonymous. He refers to the disciples as FILLED with the Holy Spirit and as FULL of the Holy Spirit (cf. Noel Brooks). Luke is capable of speaking of an initial baptism or infilling with the Holy Spirit, repeated in-fillings of the Holy Spirit that come at special times and for special purposes on the already Spirit-filled believer, and of being full of the Holy Spirit, in the sense of an abiding presence of the Spirit in the life of the disciple of Christ.[199]

To be filled with the Holy Spirit means to be initially baptized in the Holy Spirit or to receive anointing or infilling of the Spirit at a particular time for a particular purpose or circumstance. We have discussed at length above the significance of Pentecost and the baptism in the Spirit. Acts describe an experience which is so amazing and miraculous that it staggers the mind, a powerful supernatural manifestation of God's power that gripped a group of 120 of Christ's followers who had gathered at his command in an upper room following his ascension. The experience propelled them out onto the streets of Jerusalem speaking the wondrous works of God in a variety of unknown tongues ().

In Luke's history of the church this is not the only time that this occurs. The same thing happens in Samaria (), with Saul the persecutor of the church (), to Gentile believers in the house of Cornelius a Roman centurion () and to some Ephesian believers who newly heard of Christ (). This was what the “Father had promised” and was sent by Jesus, for which He commanded the apostles to wait in the city (). The expressed purpose for this baptism in the Spirit and power is their inspired witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus (; ). It is vocational in nature, equipping them to serve the gospel of God and his kingdom.

However, Luke speaks of further infillings, even of those who have initially received the Spirit. He also speaks of those who are full of the Holy Spirit, in connection with their qualifications to serve the purpose of God in this kingdom and church (cf. , , ; ; ). In other words, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not a single or even final experience, but initiates a state of being full of the Spirit, so that there is an abiding, indwelling presence of God that empowers the Christian life of discipleship, particularly in connection with service and gospel witness. In this way the initial and subsequent infillings of the Spirit, as well as the abiding fullness of the Spirit, all have to do with being empowered and equipped to serve God effectively in the work of the gospel and his kingdom. The idea of being full of the Spirit, of the abiding presence of the Spirit in the disciple of Christ, bridges the gap between the theology of Luke and Paul, for whom the indwelling Spirit is the key to power, fellowship, unity, mission, leadership, and holiness. Therefore, Pentecost is about an abiding and indwelling presence of the Spirit in and among God people, to empower them for their witness (to represent him in the world) and to do so in holiness (imaging God accurately to his creation, especially lost humanity).

Before we leave the topic of Pentecost and the notion that the abiding presence of the Spirit joins the theologies of Luke and Paul at a critical point, we need also to note that they intersect over the topic of speaking with other tongues. In three out of the five direct examples of Spirit-baptism cited by Luke, the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues is mentioned. The 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (), as did the believers in the home of Cornelius () and the Ephesian believer's that heard the new message of Christ from Paul (). Paul also speaks of speaking in tongues in , where he associates it with personal private prayer, and a special form of prophesying for the edification of believers, where interpretation is required. Paul states that he speaks in tongues more than any of them at Corinth, but that he would rather speak only a few words in a known language in the congregation, in order to be understood and his hearers to receive the benefit of encouragement. In this Paul speaks of the same basic gift as Luke. Speakers who speak spontaneously in languages they have not formally learned, that may or may not intelligible to those around them, but which nevertheless communicate something of value from God and about him are examples of speaking in tongues. Paul and Luke overlap here, where the difference is not so much of nature, but of use, circumstance, and purpose. So we leave Pentecost and move on to discuss the indwelling Spirit in connection to spiritual gifts in the church.

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

()

When Paul said, “Now about spiritual (gifts), I do not want you to be ignorant…” he was signaling in his letter a change of topic. Many of us are ignorant about spiritual gifts. Such ignorance does not signal a diminished mental capacity, but rather a “not knowing” (ἀγνοεῖν). Paul is seeking to correct their ignorance, their not knowing how spiritual gifts are supposed to operate, and their purpose. A lot of Christians today don’t understand or know about spiritual gifts, and some are even afraid of them. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church because many were suffering from ignorance about spiritual gifts, and others were abusing them, not least speaking in tongues. Their particular problem was spiritual gifts exercised with enthusiasm (passion), but without proper restraint and controls and for wrong motives or reasons (, , ). Paul will argue for the orderly exercise of spiritual gifts in their worship services so that the people might be encouraged and edified by the moving of God through his Spirit in the worshipping congregation (; ). So for Paul the chief value of spiritual gifts is that when they are exercised it should be in a way that benefits the congregation by encouraging the people or strengthening and building up their spiritual lives (edification) – they must contribute to the spiritual advancement and growth of the saints and the church (cf. ; ).

The goal for exercising spiritual gifts is to encourage, build-up, and strengthen the body of Christ, by benefitting believers in the congregation through the manifestation of the Spirit’s presence among his assembled people. Paul warned the Corinthian church that they were in error with respect to spiritual gifts because of an element of pride in the church. Some seem to boast about which preacher was their mentor (), while others boasted about their superior spiritual “wisdom” (knowledge and understanding of the things of the Spirit). Their pride was often demonstrated or manifested by the indiscriminate and uncontrolled exercise of tongues, so that there was a lack of order in the worship (; ; ; ). Paul seems to accuse them of general disorder in their fellowship and worship, citing many problems in the church. At the same time some boasted about their freedom in the Spirit by speaking in tongues at every opportunity, without regard to decorum, a sense of occasion, and without interpretation so that others could benefit from the exercise (). They failed to show humility and concern for one another, as when the poor went hungry in the church meals before celebrating the Lord’s supper, while the rich ate and drank plenty (). There is nothing “spiritual” or particularly praiseworthy in that Paul says, despite the public display of tongues (). The exercise of spiritual gifts does not prove the superior spirituality of certain people in the church, but rather their lack of spiritual maturity and sensitivity to God is displayed by their lack of concern for one another, the sin in the church and disunity among them.

Paul calls this ignorance confusion, and disorder (, ) that begs correction. Rather than shutting down spiritual gifts altogether (as has happened in the church over the centuries) (), he began to explain to them about their place and use and to train the Corinthians how to properly and beneficially exercise spiritual gifts for the sake of the congregation. Paul even told them to earnestly desire the right gifts for the right occasions, exercised for the right motives (love for others, rather than self – ) and in the right way (). So the answer to ignorance about spiritual gifts or even their abuse is not to disbar them from church gatherings, but to train the saints in how to employ them properly under the leadership and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Manifestation (): So we transition to a consideration of spiritual gifts and their operation with the following observations. Paul’s opening statement signals that he is beginning the consideration of a new topic, which the NIV translates spiritual gifts (). The word gifts is supplied and is not in the original text. The term translated spiritual is, in fact, a plural, neuter adjective, used substantivally (τῶν πνευματικῶν), which means spiritual things. The word gifts is supplied from the context, because Paul calls the list of items in verses 8-11, “gifts” in verse 4 (χαρισμάτων). He also describes them as services (5) and workings (6) and says that collectively they are manifestations of the Spirit (7). In other words, where spiritual gifts operate as workings and services (ministrations), they not only bring practical benefit to the church, but are a witness to the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the assembly of God’s people.[200] Paul’s underlying premise for this section of his letter is that if the Spirit is present among God’s people, then there ought to be unity, humility, care, and concern for the weak or needy, all of which seemed to be lacking in the Corinthian church. So the discussion of spiritual gifts here in the letter to the Corinthians impinges on two Pauline concerns, disunity in the church and abuse of spiritual gifts as a result of a lack of concern for one another. As the gifts indicated that God was among them, they also required a right spirit in them. So Paul is challenging the underlying attitudes and behavior of individuals in the church that promote disunity and display a selfish lack of concern for others. Disunity and the lack of concern for others are incongruous and incompatible with the presence of God among them, and with the life and mission of the church, where each one is part of a body concerned with the welfare and overall health of the whole congregation, as well as individual members of it.

Paul categorically denies that the manifestation of spiritual gifts is an indication of the deeper or superior spirituality of any one or more individuals. Rather, in other places, Paul argues that the mark of maturity in the saints is godliness of character reflected by the fruit of the Spirit (cf. ). You will come closer to evidence for spiritual maturity in the saints by observing the fruit of the Spirit than by taking note of the gifts of the Spirit they exercise. At one time the Corinthians were in spiritual bondage to mute idols (the gods of Greece and Rome) (), the worship of which often involved frenzied activity, sometimes of a sexual nature, in the idol’s temples.[201] Paul’s point in is that worship in the church is not at all like that, nor does it bear any resemblance to anything they experienced in the idol’s temples. People may yell out because they have lost control in the Corinthian temples, but in the church services the manifestation of spiritual gifts is always under the control of the prophet, and there is always to be appropriate order in the worship (; 32-33). In other words, you can be absolutely sure that if someone ecstatically cries out “Jesus is cursed” it is not the Holy Spirit that inspired it. Despite the claim of the one who “exercises the gift.” The inappropriate or disorderly exercise of spiritual gifts betrays the absence of the Spirit’s control. On the other hand, the proper and orderly exercise of spiritual gifts is a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit among the worshipping saints. The gifts are a manifestation of the Spirit and an indication of the presence of God among his people. The importance of spiritual gifts, then, is that they are ultimately a concrete and tangible manifestation of the presence of God in the church and among his people. But they are exercised in a way that is characteristically orderly and for the benefit of the congregation, not the individual operating the gift.

Unity And Diversity, Variety of Gifts (): Not just in , but in and , Paul makes the point that there are many gifts in the church manifested by the Spirit through the saints, but that at the same time there is unity among them. Somehow in the church there is variety and diversity in gifts, ministries, and callings which are held together by unity through the Spirit. This is no more clearly stated than in , where Paul declares that the unity of the church is the creation of the Spirit that must be supported by the strongest efforts of the saints to preserve it through maintaining peace with one another.

In Paul’s discussion of the church as a body of believer’s joined to one another in fellowship through their common experience of salvation by faith in Christ, Paul often plays off of a tension between an inherent diversity and unity. That there is diversity in the church is not a surprise. Despite the initial reluctance of the Palestinian Jewish Christians to accept Gentiles into the church without circumcision, the early church quickly incorporated Jews and Gentiles, something to which Paul’s epistles continually allude in his treatment of unity, and the avoidance of offensive and critical judgment of one another. Furthermore, the church quickly drew vast followings from the poor, but also significant numbers of rich and influential people came to Christ. Many of the early believers were slaves, which meant that slaves and freedmen were thrown into close fellowship with one another from the beginning. Added to this, large numbers of the early believers were woman, and this challenged the gender prejudices inherent in Roman, and other local societies. So the church was ethnically, socially, economically and politically diverse from the outset (cf. ; ; Gal. 2:28; ; ). Paul addresses this in our passage where he acknowledges this diversity, but that the saints have all been united into one church through baptism (being united with Christ through emersion) into one body, or one church ().

Intrinsic diversity in the church consistent another dimension of diversity, the variety of gifts, ministries, and manifestations that have their origin in the Spirit (). There are, according to Paul, a great number of spiritual gifts that operate in the church and through individual saints, as the Spirit enables them (, , , ). This variety of gifts turns out to be a strength and not a liability to the church, because of the full range of service and provision is made by God through the Spirit for the welfare of the church and its members individually. The variety of gifts redound to the common good of the saints and the church (). So diversity in the church is a net advantage when individual saints surrender to the control and guidance of the Spirit for the operation of spiritual gifts and ministries.

Diversity in the church operates through unity connected to two aspects church life. First, there is one Spirit who dwells in the church and is the author and operator of the gifts. Secondly, there is only one church, operating as the body of Christ, one fellowship of believers among whom corporately the gifts operate and are manifested (). At first, due to the unique problem of individualistic and selfish exercise of spiritual gifts in Corinth, Paul emphasizes the unity of their source in the Spirit, and that where they are properly in operation, they support the unity of God’s Church and not the individualistic and personal spirituality of the individual (). In a masterful analogy, involving one of the most powerful early Trinitarian formulas, Paul states that the gifts are distributed by one Spirit, represent many services that come from the same Lord (Jesus), and are the result of many powerful outworkings of the one God (the Father) (). Here Paul enlists the theological proposition of the diversity and unity in the Godhead, as an illustration and foundation for understanding the unity and diversity in the church. The essential unity of the church is like the unity of one God, despite the diversity of persons in the Godhead. The is one church, just as there is one God.

Employing the body as a metaphor, Paul illustrates how the church is both a unity and diversity (). There is only one church, united through a common experience of salvation in Christ, baptized (submerged into) one body (;). The body (the church corporately) is a unity made up of a diversity of parts so that the diversity is a function of and supports the unity of the entire body (cf. ). Each part is vital to the life and health of every other part so that the entire body as a unity might thrive. Furthermore, the individual parts depend upon the proper function of the other parts individually in the context of their proper connection to the body as a whole for their own survival and function. The foot cannot abandon the body because it is jealous of the function of the hand (). Neither can the ear abandon the body because it is displeased that it is not an eye (). The eye cannot properly operate in its function without the ear; the foot cannot function fully without the unique contribution of the hand (). If the body were one part or member, then it would cease to be a body, which by very nature is a diversity of parts all functioning together in unity and for a common purpose, its mutual benefit and development (). So Paul concludes that there is, in fact, one body made up of many parts, a diversity and a unity that operate in perfect synchronicity with one another through the indwelling the Spirit. The Spirit as the presence of God among his people indwells the church corporately while also indwelling the individual saints personally. This indwelling presence of God through the Spirit in both senses operates the gifts and ministries of the church through them and among them. In this way, both the church corporately and the bodies of the saints individually are, in Paul’s words, temples of the Holy Spirit, who lives in them and operates through them (; -20).

Orderly, Decorum, Decently (): The point at which Paul wished to arrive in his discussion of spiritual gifts is their orderly and decent use or exercise in the assembly of the saints (). Everything in the discussion from the start of chapter 12 through chapters 13 and 14 have brought him to the final instructions and correction of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. In many ways, we might characterize as foundational to Paul’s appeal and these instruction, so that the prior lengthy passage provides the rationale that stands behind the instruction and correction. Spiritual gifts are unlike the ecstatic outbursts they had been used to in the idols' temples (). Spiritual gifts, as diverse as they are, operate from the perspective of the unity of their origin in the Spirit, and in the context of unity in the church: not unlike a body, each part depending on the other for its survival and function (). The independent and selfish use of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church, which underscored other elements of schism among them, is not characteristic of the presence of God among them. The proper exercise of Spirit gifts actually is a manifestation of the Spirit, or God’s presence among his corporate people, in assembly and fellowship with one another. Therefore, their operation must be in line with the way God operates and with his righteousness to be effective and genuine expressions of the outworking of God. Where the gifts are working through selfishness, and in the self-interest of certain Corinthian believers, or where there is habitual sin in the life of the person using the gifts, they are not genuine manifestations of God’s presence in the church.

The key to unity, and of the authentic operation of spiritual gifts for the benefit of the church and the common good of the saints in the church is love, which is ably described in . Genuine love the guiding principle for exercise of the gifts, tongues and prophesy in particular, and spiritual gifts generally, at its aim is to build up, edify and support the body, the church as a whole – this is common good Paul has in mind (; ).

Paul illustrates his perspective using the troublesome gift of speaking in tongues. We infer from Paul’s use of tongues as an example of how the gifts must operate for the good of the body, that this is where a great deal of the trouble lay in the Corinthian church with respect to their corporate worship, which in turn underlies a considerable portion of the letter.[202] His first shot across their bows sets the tone for the rest of his discourse. After affirming the unity and diversity of the body, and the principle that spiritual gifts are for the common good, Paul drills down to the proper exercise of speaking in tongues and the gift of prophecy to illustrate what he means by common good. The one speaking in tongues, speaks to God and not to people, because no one can understand them unless it is interpreted (). He is making a point about the unintelligibility of tongues. Tongues is of limited value in the corporate worship setting unless it is interpreted, so as to make the message intelligible to the other members of the congregation (, ). Prophecy is of higher value because it is a message conveyed in an intelligible language to the congregation and therefore conveys meaning through a revelation, word of encouragement or knowledge (). Already, by the first few verses we can see where Paul is going; he is favoring prophecy over tongues in the corporate worship of the church. He makes an extended argument about the value of intelligibility over unintelligibility () and concludes that their eagerness for spiritual gifts should extend to what has value in the corporate setting, namely prophecy because it edifies and builds up the church (). His point is clear, prophecy in the corporate worship service is of greater benefit, and therefore value, than speaking in tongues without interpretation.

What follows next gives us a clearer picture of the problem in Corinth, with respect to tongues (). The prolific use of tongues in corporate prayer leaves the hearers disconnected from the one praying because they are unable to understand what is said (). Indeed, even the mind of the speaker is not enlightened (), meaning that in this case the only one who is blessed is the one who is praying, and the hearers are merely spectators. In Paul’s earlier analogy of the body and assertions about the role and importance of spiritual gifts, such a display is counterproductive to the purpose and goal of corporate worship, to build up the church, to edify the body and to strengthen the saints. Essentially Paul is saying that speaking profusely in tongues in the corporate worship setting is selfish and fails the test of validity for operating spiritual gifts, namely to be a blessing to the church and assembled saints.

In case some may think we have exaggerated the case, we go on to read Paul’s other remarks. In a treatise on tongues, Paul explains that it serves as a sign to unbelievers (cf. ), but that prophecy is of value to believers (). But in the corporate worship setting if there are unbelievers present and everyone is speaking indiscriminately in tongues, without interpretation, then an unbeliever that happened in will think that they are all raving mad (μαίνεσθε) (). To confirm that this is a correct interpretation of Paul’s means, consider the wording. If the whole church should gather together (for corporate worship) (ἐὰν οὖν συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη), and at the same time (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ) everyone is speaking in tongues (καὶ πάντες λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις), the uninitiated or unbeliever (ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι), will say (ἐροῦσιν) (make it public) that you are raving mad (ὅτι μαίνεσθε) ().[203] However, if everyone should prophesy (προφητεύωσιν), the uninitiated or unbelieving will come under conviction and be exposed to a knowledge of the judgment of God by you (ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων) ().[204] The prophesying will expose the secrets of their hearts, and they will fall down before God and acknowledge that God is indeed among you (). While the former has the effect of convincing the outsider that they are mad, the latter has the effect of confirming that God is indeed present in the gatherings of the saints ().

The point Paul seems to make is a matter of degrees and relative value. While tongues is a sign to unbelievers, in excess and without intelligible revelation from God through prophesy, it will not convince the unbeliever. Earlier he remarks about the 10,000 words in tongues versus five intelligible words of prophecy (). The issue is about degree and value to the assembled saints, and Paul is arguing that the prolific use of tongues without interpretation is of limited value, whereas the gift of prophecy can build up the church, making it superior to tongues. Verse 26 confirms this conclusion further, by Pauls’ acknowledgment of their passionate participation in the worship gatherings. When they assemble, everyone has something they want to contribute, but it is better if it is intelligible, rather than predominantly unintelligible, like tongues. The problem in the Corinthian church was the overuse, and abuse of tongues in the corporate gatherings for worship, and the failure to engage in what builds up the church or is for the common good. In this way Paul tackles both the motives of selfishness and of pride, in the overuse of tongues.

Following the discussion of tongues versus prophecy, Paul lays down some rule for orderly worship. First, he acknowledges with approval their enthusiasm and passion to participate and contribute (). There is no reason to think that Paul is being pejorative. But everything must be done in an orderly way, without one trampling on another, and so that all may hear, understand, and be blessed (). The goal is edification. The purpose (πρὸς) for the participation of each person and each element is edification (οἰκοδομὴν) of the church as a body and saints as individuals (). Οἰκοδομὴν means to increase the potential of someone, with a “focus on the process involved.”[205] We would use the phrase, “to build someone up,” meaning to equip and fortify them, as well as to provide support and encouragement to them in pursuit of living the Christian life and serving God. This support and encouragement is received from the congregation in worship under the leadership of the Spirit, where ministry occurs in connection with the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, among other things. For that reason, Paul encourages them to limit the number of messages in tongues on a given occasion to two or three, followed by interpretation (), because without interpretation there is no exhortation and therefore edification. Similarly, where there is an overabundance of tongues-speaking, and no interpretation, in the assembly, the individual is blessed, but the other congregational members are left “unfruitful” in understanding and cannot participate meaningfully, by joining in with your worship ().

Interestingly, Paul places the responsibility for knowing that an interpretation is forthcoming on the discernment of the one who would proffer a message in tongues (). There are to be no drive-by tongues in the church, where the speaker expects someone else to take up the slack by interpreting if they do not discharge their duty! Two or three may prophesy, one at a time, presumably so that they can be heard and their message of encouragement understood and properly appreciated (). But the ones prophesying must be prepared to have their message evaluated by others in the congregation, who are to exercise judgment and discernment about what was said ().[206] In another place on the same topic. Paul makes the comment that the Thessalonians are not to despise (reject) the gift of prophecy,[207] but rather test prophecies, and to hold on to what is good ().[208] In other words, the congregation is not to be naïve but to realize that all prophecy comes packaged in the humanity of the speaker. They are to discern the core message and essential content. They are to evaluate it for truth and to let the packaging or additional wordiness go. The idea is that each message will come packaged in the personality and humanity of an individual, and the message should not be rejected or accepted based on the person or the delivery, but instead, be judged on the merits of its he contents!

This leads us to the assumption of what lies behind Paul’s instructions, which he articulates in a prescriptive formula, “the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets” (). This is something that we in southern Pentecostalism do not often take seriously. In this verse, Paul reaches back to , where he stated that uncontrolled ecstatic outbursts, without self-control, are characteristic of the trance-like states of pagan worship and not of the operation of the Spirit of God. The former tends toward disorder and frenzy, whereas the gifts of the Spirit operate in an environment of peace, order, and decorum. Paul foundational premise, the thesis statement of the entire section on spiritual gifts is the one exercising the gifts does not lose control, not mentally nor emotionally, even when the worship and exercise of the gifts are accompanied by great joy and excitement. God is characterized by order and peace, and disorder is the antithesis of how he works. The Corinthian penchant for uncontrolled and rabid tongues-speaking was not an indication that God was among them after all, but that something was seriously wrong within the fellowship to which they belonged.

The wording in verse 32 is significant.

καὶ

πνεύματα ὑποτάσσεται προφήταις

προφητῶν

γάρ

οὐ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς

ἀκαταστασίας

ἀλλὰ

εἰρήνης[209]

The spirits belonging to the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets. The spirits of the prophets should never be considered to be beyond the self-control of the one exercising spiritual gifts.[210] This did not happen in inspiration when the Bible was given to the writers, and it will not happen now among those who are operating in the gifts. If we are carried away and in worship or there is excess that is more distracting than helpful, it does find its origin in the Spirit of God, but in a lack of control in the worshipper. The rationale for Paul's assertion here is that God is not a God of disorder, disturbance, tumult, or unsettledness, but he is a God of peace, where the statements are parallel to one another in the original, coming off of the same verb “he is.” It is incongruous with the nature of God for the worship of God to be chaotic and frenzied like the worship found among pagans. This does not mean that it is without joy, emotion, singing and may sometimes be boitrous or celebratory, but that it never gets out of control or degenerates into self-serving emotionalism that draws attention to the individual rather than to the glory of God or the encouragement and edification of the body, the church.

The spirit of the prophets that is that part of their human nature which responds to the moving of the Spirit of God, and which is prompted to the exercise the gifts of the Spirit by God, is not an irresistible urging but something that remains under the supervision of their spirit.[211] Each can bring a word, a gift, and encouragement, but in an orderly sequential way, that exhorts and edifies. Prophets and those speaking in tongues to not need to clamor to the heard or seen (for their own glory). The number of messages in tongues may be limited by the voluntary exercise of the discretion on the part of the saints in the assembly. Through self-control, prophets can speak and exhort one at a time so that what they have to say can be heard, appreciated and evaluated (). Furthermore, if one is speaking and becomes aware that others would like to speak, the first speaker must exercise self-control and be seated, so that everyone is given a chance to participate (). In this way, Paul anticipates the overzealous who do not give room for others or the glory seeker who is using the opportunity for themselves. They are to exercise self-control and sit down (before they are sat down).

Paul does not forbid or denigrate the use of tongues at all (). The temptation is that if tongues is such a problem, forbid it in public worship, and do away with it. This is not Paul’s way at all. Paul pushes them not to take the easy way out, but to press for the proper and appropriate exercise of all of the gifts. The body doesn’t need to be absent one of the gifts, just because people are too hard-headed to exercise the gift appropriately. Tongues has value. Paul rejoices in his own use of tongues in his private prayer life and devotions before God, boasting that he probably speaks in tongues more than any of them in Corinth (), which might be saying something! He argues for the appropriate and mature use of tongues, in both private worship and the assembly so that the church is encouraged and edified (cf. , ).

The superiority of prophecy lies in its intelligibility (). Tongues are not immediately understood, prophecy is, and has the power to bring encouragement to the assembly. The profuse use and prolific speaking in tongues in corporate worship is not a mark of spirituality but can produce confusion among the saints, if there is no sense of its connection to the corporate assembly and the goal of edifying one another. So the one who speaks in tongues must pray to interpret because the goal is to bring exhortation to others in the assembly.[212] Paul assumes that the speaker can exercise control, and has discernment enough to know when there is a message to benefit the congregation so that it will be interpreted. This is a rational calculation that responds to the impression of the Spirit, and it is something deliberately engaged by faith on the part of the spirit of the prophets themselves. Prophecy and tongues are not raw outbursts of emotion or uncontrolled spiritual excitement (ecstasy); they are pouring out of a Spirit urged heart to share a message from God.

Conclusion: There are, then, two reactions to the persistent dangers of overzealousness with regard to spiritual gifts. First, there is a tendency to resist the exercise of spiritual gifts, and secondly, to give too much credence to spiritual gifts, as though they are authoritative on the level of the Word of God itself. Both reactions are equally unbiblical. The New Testament makes it clear that spiritual gifts have value and are not to be ignored or resisted with respect to their free exercise within certain well-defined limits (; Thess. 5:19-22). It also makes it clear that spiritual gifts do not carry absolute divine authority, and they are to be accepted on their merits, with discernment and good spiritual judgment ()

So what is the authority and value of spiritual gifts? Paul not only permits spiritual gifts, but he endorses them, even the troublesome gift of tongues. Paul argues for their correct use in the context of worship in the assembly and lays down some guidelines. Worships should be orderly and decent (not wild and out of control) (). The purpose of spiritual gifts in the worship service context is the corporate benefit of the congregation at large, to edify, encourage and build up the saints (; ; ). He [Paul] argues that the chief benefit of spiritual gifts is not revelatory, that is to provide new information, not found in the word of God, but for edification, the growth and strengthening of the church and the saints.

Paul’s guidelines presuppose some things about spiritual gifts and their authority. First, spiritual gifts do not carry absolute revelatory authority, because a prophet can choose to be seated and give place to another for the exercise of spiritual gifts; speakers in tongues can chose to be silent or limit themselves voluntarily in the assembly.[213] Some prophets in the early church in many cities were never recorded or their words written down, meaning their utterances had relative value to the specific congregation and saints for that time, place and circumstance (; ). Only what is recorded and compiled into the Old and New Testaments have absolute value, as the unchanging Word of God. The Bible is, in fact, a very special and small part of the full extent of revelation of God that has come to humanity since creation and holds a unique, irreplaceable place in the inspired activity of the Spirit. Its place, authority, inspiration, and infallibility are unique and unparalleled.

This principle extends to utterances and instances of spiritual gifts at work in churches and among the saints today. Therefore, no word uttered under the leadership or anointing of the Spirit in the context of spiritual gifts to today is considered infallible or to have absolute divine authority, in the same way the Bible does. The church, the mature especially, is to test, judge and evaluate spiritual manifestations to discern what is of spiritual value, with the implication in that they are only obligated to accept and hold onto what is of evident value. The rest can be ignored. The value of spiritual gifts is that they build up and edify believers, they may serve as a sign to unbelievers under certain circumstances, they serve to confirm, inform and guide the members of the church (), they are manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the church and give evidence of God presence among his people (), they promote the unity of the body by creating mutual dependence on one another, only operating correctly in an environment controlled by love (), and spiritual gifts make room for every saint to participate in the life and ministry of the church, while playing a part in the mission to build the kingdom of God through the gospel.

[1] Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, Vol. 399; Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–, Vol. 4, 74.

[2] 253 times the words “the Lord said to” occur in the NIV. “The Lord spoke to” 18 times. “The Lord spoke” 9 more times. “Says the Lord” 87 times.

[3] The phrase γέγραπται occurs 62 times, all but two of which refer to the scriptures (Old Teatment) as the written record of what God has said to his people, and which contains a relevant message up to the present time. The verb is in the perfect tense underscoring it the past action of recording the Word of God with the result that it is currently stands written. In other words, the stative idea of the perfect tense underlies how the Word of God is to be viewed, a historical record that stands in the present time as a witness to what Gods has and is saying. That it it has present binding force (cf. .

[4] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 112.

[5] We note here that whatever the ultimate cause for the universe might be thought to be, it must by definition operate beyond and outside of the current laws by which the material universe now operates. This is because at the beginning of the universe which all scientists acknowledge as a principle in fact (the Big Bang), not only did matter come into existence, but so did all energy, time and the laws by which the material universe works. This mean that whatever cause brought energy, matter, time and the laws of physics into existence at definite point considered its beginning must by definition be supra-material, supra-energetic, supra-temporal and surpa-cosmological. In other words, the cause necessarily must be supernatural, beyond and above what is natural, sufficient to provide an explanation for its origin and existence. Logically, any cause for the know uiniverse must of necessity be supernatural. But this is ruled out by science, not because it is an illogical conclusion, but because of its implications with respect to the God and the Bible, especially where a personal explanation is hypothesized ().

[6] The New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997, p. 31.

[7] Although the Bible speaks of false prophecy, we are here concerned with what is usually meant by prophecy, a word spoken under the immediate and direct inspiration of God, usually seen to be mediated through the Holy Spirit.

[8] Sproul, R. C. (2009). Can I Trust the Bible? (Vol. 2, p. 38). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.

[9] Grenz, S., Guretzki, D., & Nordling, C. F. (1999). In Pocket dictionary of theological terms. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 66.

[10] The term in the original passage, , is elohim meaning gods when not used of YAHWEH. Elohim is a plural noun translated by the singular noun God in English, where the Hebrew uses the plural to represent the full range of the nature and glory of God comprehended in a single word. The Shema makes it clear that God is regarded as one God, and not many God’s even though the tem elohim is used. In this way, Elohim becomes a proper name for the God of the Bible and of the Hebrews (cf. ).

[11] Tramel, Terry. The Beauty of the Balance: Toward and Evangelical-Pentecostal Theology. Franklin Springs: LifeSprings Resources, 2009, 25.

[12] Cf. Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Baker Academic; Reprint edition (July 1, 2013)

[13] Tramel, Terry. The Beauty of the Balance. 29.

[14] Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988, 1943.

[15] The New International Version. (2011). (). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[16] Moulton, James Hope & George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1914-1929, 578. Mouton and Milligan demonstrate clearly from non-literary sources that the key idea in the verb is the idea of dwelling in a tent, and this is born out in the word group to which the verb belongs.

[17] Borchert, Gerald L. . Vol. 25A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996, 119. Borchert notes that the consonants in he Greek word for “dwell,” skēnoun bear a phonetic resemblance to the consonantal stem of the Hebrew, skn, the word Shekinah, meaning God’s glorious presence among his people.

[18] Cf. Borchert, Gerald L. . Vol. 25A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996, 119; Tenney, Merrill C. “John.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, 33; Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, Vol. 2, 128; Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887, vol. 2, 51; Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. St. John. Vol. 1. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909, 18.

[19] Tenney, Merrill C. “John.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, 33.

[20] For a fuller treatment of this topic, including the ideas expressed here read The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke, and Spirit, Scripture and Theology, both by Roger Stronstad, and Spirit and Power by William and Robert Menzies, Conversion, Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, by Howard Irvin, Initial Evidence, by Gary Mcgee, and Mighty in Word and Deed, by James Shelton.

[21] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 655.

[22] Grant R. Osborne, Romans: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 148–149.

[23] The basic idea of the present tense raises the issue of the continuation of sinning after salvation. Indeed, having given his reasons for objecting to any notion of continuing in sin after salvation, Paul will go on to ask a similar question, about whether lapses into sin are acceptable for the believer after salvation, where the verb is an aorist, subjunctive indicating a conditional or hypothetical, but not necessarily continuous action (). The subjunctive aorist in verse 15 further supports the thrust of the question in verse 1, that is continuation versus discrete or specific acts of sin. Otherwise Paul is simply repeating the same question in verse 15, from verse 1 that he has taken great pains to answer in the intervening space. For now the question is about habitual sin after salvation.

[24] Cf. J. H. King, From Passover to Pentecost, 4th ed. (Franklin Springs, GA: Advocate Press, 1976), 75–76.

[25] E. F. Harrison, “Romans,” in F. E. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 10: Romans through Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 68.

[26] Paul literally exclaims, “May that never be!”

[27] “In Christ” or “in him” referring to Christ, “in God,” are all phrases that indicate spiritual union with the divine through faith (, ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; , , ; ; ; ; , , ; , ; ; , ; ; , ; ; , , ; ; ; ; , ; Tm 1:1; 2:10). These are used routinely by Paul but are not unique to him, and can be found in John and Peter (cf. ; ; ; , ; , ; , ; ; ). We call it mystical in that its nature cannot be fully explained in purely human terms because it is essentially spiritual, but its effects in terms of results can be readily seen in the life of the believer. Luke follows Jesus and John the Baptist in using baptism as a metaphor for receiving the Holy Spirit, where it is clear that the initiatory rite connected to salvation is not in view. Paul’s reference to baptism into the Spirit and body in is likewise consistent with salvation initiating the relationship of the believer with God and the church and signifies belonging to the church or body of Christ as a result of salvation.

[28] We cannot miss the thrust of Paul’s argument here. Sin (the principle of sin) is no longer to be the ruling master of the life of the believer, but instead righteousness must reign and become master (, ).

[29] N. T. Wright deals with this in his book After You Believe, under the rubric of character that supports biblical virtue, or what we would call here in Pauline terms, righteousness.

[30] Paul embodies the idea of taking care not to fall back into sin, in an imperative in which he urges them to adopt an attitude of recognition of the implications of salvation, especially with respect to the death of the old life and resurrection to a new life, a life no longer controlled by sin. If this is not what Paul intended, a warning to be careful and aware of the danger of falling back into the old habits and ways, then why would he bring up the subject?

[31] At this point we are on grounds our forefathers feared and Calvinists fear most of all: the fear of works righteousness. Paul seems to say in the latter part of that habitual sin leads to death and the practice of righteousness (habitual obedience to God) leads to eternal life (; , ). But that is not at all what Paul means. Just as he argued in chapter 2—that those who obey God will reap eternal life and those who disobey death—Paul does not negate faith but assumes moral purity as the starting place (). But it is clear, as Paul goes on to say, that no one is righteous in the sight of God, neither Jew nor Gentile, and such righteousness is impossible without first the restoration that faith offers through Jesus Christ (this is the burden of ). Additionally, as it will be made clear in and 8, Paul posits a new impetus for action in the life of the believer, not present before salvation, but present as a result of transformative justification/regeneration, which has put the old self to death and brought about a resurrection to new life. This new life has at its core the influence of the indwelling Spirit, which replaces the influence of the old self, or flesh (). This is what Paul prefigures in his discussion of the mastery of sin in . Walking in (conducting one’s life under the influence of) the Spirit produces righteousness and obedience to God, which of course leads to eternal life. But Paul’s underlying contention is that life in the Spirit is a matter of grace (not works), because God is its point of origin and production just as initial salvation is a result of grace, because it is initiated by God, and supplied through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. Genuine righteousness is a matter of the Spirit’s influence in producing it, and therefore it is from grace. Paul states this very thing explicitly in (where the law has been ruled out and, therefore, raw works righteousness as a fundamental operating principle for attaining holiness and producing righteousness). He says that the crucifixion of the flesh was designed precisely to lead to a life of holiness and righteousness made possible by the power and influence of the Spirit as a result of the transformation wrought in initial salvation (; ). It was for good works that we were originally created, but these are produced in us through the transforming power of salvation and the influence of the Spirit (cf. ).

[32] Cf. King, From Passover to Pentecost, 77–78.

[33] This surrender Paul will describe as yielding to the influence of the indwelling Spirit in chapter 8.

[34]Here is one of the interesting elements of the historical homiletic of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church[italics purposeful? ]. [good question: I italicized this throughout to signify the fact that I was referring to a denominational doctrinal position represented in the traditional preaching on the topic of sanctification or by our statements in the articles of faith. There is a difference in the hermeneutics in our literature and carefully considered writings and the more intemperate preaching of the white-hot pulpit! My thesis is that as a church we have gone more with the preaching than the carefully considered interpretation, to the detriment of a balanced and biblical understanding of the issues involved in holiness/sanctification. I noted in my preface an intention to do use italicization in this way, also for the terms righteousness and holiness. I need your opinion here. Help!!!] In questions on the subsequence of sanctification, much is made of justification, whereby sins are forgiven, and of sanctification as a real impetus for moral and spiritual transformation. But by referencing justification (very often used alone) without factoring in regeneration, it seems to me, we miss what Wesley immediately saw as a weakness in the logic of some in his ranks, that initial salvation is not sufficiently transformative until it has been ratified by subsequent entire sanctification. This, however, flies in the face of New Testament teaching, and Wesley sternly corrected those who did not attribute sufficiently transformative power to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, that it not only broke the power of sin, but actually initiated genuine holiness. This is one of the most dangerous flaws in our contemporary preaching of our doctrine of sanctification, in my opinion.

[35] J. Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.: 1999), Sermon 83.

Many persons that are not only upright of heart, but that fear, nay, and love God, have not spoken warily upon this head, not according to the oracles of God. They have spoken of the work of sanctification, taking the word in its full sense, as if it were quite of another kind, as if it differed entirely from that which is wrought in justification. But this is a great and dangerous mistake, and has a natural tendency to make us undervalue that glorious work of God which was wrought in us when we were justified: Whereas in that moment when we are justified freely by his grace, when we are accepted through the Beloved, we are born again, born from above, born of the Spirit. And there is as great a change wrought in our souls when we are born of the Spirit, as was wrought in our bodies when we are born of a woman. There is, in that hour, a general change from inward sinfulness, to inward holiness. The love of the creature is changed to the love of the Creator; the love of the world into the love of God. Earthly desires, the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life, are, in that instant, changed, by the mighty power of God, into heavenly desires.

Ibid. Cf. Noel Brooks, Scriptural Holiness (Franklin Springs, GA: Advocate Press, 1967), 33–35, 42, 44–47, 49–50.

[36] Subsequent theology of regeneration is built on the idea of being born again, with the implication that it represents a totally new beginning with God and a second chance at starting over again, with the prospect of achieving morally and spiritually different results.

[37] To walk in the light is to conduct one’s life going forward under the moral imperative of salvation. It is to engage in an ongoing fellowship with God, in whom is no darkness at all, whereby ongoing and habitual sin is absolutely excluded as incompatible with the relationship (; , ).

[38] Cf. Ned Sauls, “Initial Sanctification: ,” in The Effects of Entire Sanctification on the Human Nature, ed. Herbert Carter and Ned Sauls (Dunn, NC: Pentecostal Freewill Baptist Church, n.d.). Salvation does not simply introduce the new nature into the equation along with the unregenerate old nature, but affects a genuine spiritual and moral change in the condition of the heart, life, and soul of the one who is born again. Righteousness is both imputed and imparted; it is right standing with God (or justification), and it produces changed moral and ethical habits in terms of ongoing behavior. Furthermore, Sauls repudiates the Augustinian/Calvinistic two-nature dichotomy that is remedied only at death. He also shows that N. J. Holmes, coming from a Presbyterian background, adopts a two-nature dichotomy in his explanation of sanctification. N. J. Holmes, “The Effects of Entire Sanctification on the Human Nature: ,” in God's Provision for Holiness (Greenville, SC: Holmes Theological Seminary, 1969), 11–13. The importance of this conversation is that from the two-nature perspective, and as it is articulated by Holmes, the old nature continues unabated without any transformational effects from salvation, until a subsequent, entire sanctification occurs, practically ruling the behavior of the new believer. However, this seems not to accord with the New Testament’s view that moral and spiritual transformation actually do occur at salvation, changing behavior. A plain reading of Paul’s apparent logic in reveals that when mystical union with Christ occurs at salvation—of which baptism is an illustration—a death of the old life and resurrection to new life also occur, where sinning is no longer appropriate and the control of the sin principle must not be allowed to assert itself again. After all, Paul does in fact say that the “old self” is dead through union with Christ in his death in order that the body of sin (sin principle) might be done away with, thereby ending our slavery to sin ().

[39] Cf. Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 28–32, 51–67. John Wesley taught what he called Christian perfection, by which he meant a radically altered temperament, but Wesley freely admitted that it did not free us from all errors in judgment, and did not make moral error impossible.

[40] This anticipates Paul use of the law as an analogy, in that death frees a person from the requirements of the law. A dead person is not bound by law ()!

[41] This plain explanation of Paul’s meaning would seem to be at variance with N. J. Holmes (cf. God’s Provision for Holiness, 12–13).

[42] Louw and Nida, 165.

[43] Old self (), slaves to sin (, , ), slavery to impurity (), the law (), sin living in me (, ), a law in the sense of a principle (, ), law of sin and death (the principle of…) (; ), body of death (); law of sin (), sinful nature (, , , , ), sin (), sinful mind ().

[44] Cf. Tramel, 152.

[45] Louw and Nida, 582; G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 288. N. T. Wright calls this mental deduction or thinking it through. He says you have to get your mind in the game, with respect to Christian virtue and character, which we call righteousness, holiness, and sanctification in this paper. N. T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 154–155. Is that what Paul is calling for in and 13, that answers to the notion of a second definite work of grace in our doctrinal position, the idea that we must firmly and decisively get our mind right with respect to righteousness, by bending more consciously and definitively our will to the mastery of the Spirit (cf. )? We shall explore this more in the synthesis section.

[46] Louw and Nida, 582.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Brooks, Scriptural Holiness, 60.

[49] Ingressive describes how the action of the imperative is to be construed, as beginning at that point.

[50] In chapter 8 we will see that what Paul has in mind is actually a submission to the Spirit, as the supplier of the impetus to the new life of holiness, thereby replacing the sin principle that was the impetus of the old life toward sinning.

[51] The implication of Paul’s use of an ingressive present in is that it indicates an action begun at that point, but which is viewed as ongoing or habitual going forward from there.

[52] Chapters 14 and 15 show that there may have been considerable tension in Rome over Jewish scruples that are putting pressure on the unity of the church. Assuming that Paul is not writing Romans in a clinical vacuum, although he is writing an in-depth analysis of his gospel, it is clear that he is, as he characteristically does in all of his other epistles, addressing the real issues on the ground in Rome as well. Paul demonstrates throughout his letters that he is capable of both writing profoundly and practically at the same time. The fact that he addresses the issue of “not sinning” in the early part of chapter 6 does not mean that Paul is simply dealing with an ethical abstract of life going forward from salvation, but may indicate that Paul has concerns about his readers’ performance, their sinning, their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and their relationships with one another.

[53] This is the only possible interpretation of the context that has at its heart a repudiation of a habitual life of sinning for the saved disciple of Jesus Christ.

[54] Paul appears to know nothing of the tension that pervades much of the more recent historical, holiness-Pentecostal debate over whether the old self is actually destroyed by sanctification, without the possibility of reasserting its influence, or is simply rendered inoperative but not totally annihilated. There is a tension in Paul’s assertion that they are dead in the death of Christ and raised to new life in his resurrection, and his third person imperative that asserts that sin should not be allowed to reign (exercise authority and control) and produce sinning in their mortal bodies! On the surface of it, Paul appears to fear that sin will reassert its grip on them, and therefore they should be vigilant. However, it is perfectly consistent with what Paul will soon contend (cf. ): sinning carries with it the danger of the reassertion of sin as a dominating force, principle, or habit for the believer, even if it is only an occasional lapse. Paul does not contradict himself or waver, even if he does not relieve the tension for us moderns as to whether the old self can undergo a diabolical resurrection! For Paul there is a link between the domination of sin as a principle that produces sinning, and of sinning, either as a lapse or as a habit that can lead to the dominion of sin as a force to produce further sinning in the future. Simply put, Paul appears to posit the idea that the two can run in both directions simultaneously, feeding one another until there is a full collapse into unrighteousness and even death (cf. ). Paul does not leave room for a once-saved, always-saved philosophy, nor does he leave room for once sanctified, always sanctified!

[55] Whatever we conclude, with respect to the power of the old life to reassert its power over the sanctified believer, Paul appears to have a concern that sin as a principle can indeed regain a grip on the believer who does not take sin seriously enough. This is the only way we can make sense of Paul’s labored discussion, which to our mind seems redundant at times. Paul will go on to argue that the Spirit has replaced the influence of the sin nature or sin, and this is where the power comes from to overcome temptation and sin in the future.

[56] It is in this lengthy discussion of the power of the sin principle that enslaves that we get a feel for why Paul is concerned.

[57] Here Paul seems to agree with Ezekiel, that to have a “former righteousness” is of no consequence when a righteous person turns from his righteousness to sin (Ez 33:12, 13, 18). Ezekiel says in such a case the formerly righteous person will die and come under the judgment of God. Similarly, Paul warns his readers that to have been saved but to submit to sin once more will only inevitably lead to slavery to sin and ultimately to death and to judgment ().

[58] If we are right about this, then it is clear that we cannot build a doctrine of sanctification on just part of Paul’s argument when he has not finished building an argument that logically carries on through Romans chapter 8. It is an illegitimate exegesis that lifts out of context in order to construct a doctrine of sanctification without allowing the full implications of Paul’s logic to weigh in on the conclusions we draw. Paul’s theory for what produces righteousness in the life of the believer is the power of the indwelling Spirit. If we build our theology prematurely before considering Paul’s entire argument, as some have done, reflected in our own past teaching, it will result in an almost entirely negative concept of how righteousness occurs, depending on a sort of abstinence from sin and sinning rather than the trajectory Paul’s argument really takes: righteousness comes about as a result of transformed life continually influenced and guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit (cf. ; ). Paul will ultimately claim (here and in ) that not only is salvation the result of grace, but that even righteousness in the sense of good works is produced by grace, as a result of God’s provision of the indwelling Spirit, creating in us an impetus leading to holiness (cf. ; ).

[59] There has been much disagreement with Wesleyans on the weight that the aorist tense can bear with respect to sanctification. For example, Noel Brooks, in Scriptural Holiness, summarizes the idea, claiming that consistent with the view of a majority of grammarians he had access to, the aorist tense represents a single action that is complete and finished in past time, in contradistinction to the present that represents an action that is continuous, habitual, or repeated at the time, and that the aorist in this case represents a finished action that tends toward a theology of subsequence. This view was so popular in the early days of holiness teaching in the twentieth century that the theology and articulation of sanctification dogma depended heavily on the aorist tense as the lynchpin of subsequence. However, grammarians today have reversed their opinion about the aorist tense and often call it the unmarked tense, the use of which does not automatically imply any particular aspect of the verb except what can be inferred by context. In that case the aspect of the verbs under consideration in must be determined by context. It is context—the fact that Paul puts the same verb side by side in the present and aorist tenses—that gives us a clue to the importance of aspect for the tenses’ meaning. Added to this is the clue that verses 1 and 15 ask virtually the same question, except the tense of the verb in verse 1 is present and in verse 15 is aorist. It is this difference that gives us important clues as to the distinction between the two questions, a distinction that does in fact have at its heart the aspect of the present and aorist in this specific context.

[60] The most famous is between verses 1 and 15. We shall see that it is the aorist tense that distinguishes the substance of the question in verse 1 from the similar question in verse 15.

[61] The unqualified aorist cannot sustain the claims made for it by the early holiness rhetoric in a vacuum, just because it is the aorist. But surely juxtaposed with the present here, we have a clue that Paul intends to make a distinction in aspect between them. In fact, Paul’s use here will help us understand how he intends us to understand the aspect of the aorist in verse 15, in distinction to the aspect of the present in verse 1.

[62] Paul makes a similar argument to the Corinthians concerning sexual sins and participation in idols’ temples: that their bodies are not their own but belong to Christ and are bought with a price, and that it is not appropriate for them to present themselves to the sin of sexual immorality, using what essentially belongs to God through redemption ().

[63] Cf. Wright, 142–159.

[64] Ibid., 156–157.

[65] It is the same concern Paul has in Galatians, where it appears that Judaizers have argued to Paul’s church in Galatia that without the law there is no impetus or momentum toward righteousness. Paul counters that once the law is reintroduced into the equation for righteousness, the grace of God is short circuited, and that in actual fact God has provided impetus and momentum toward righteousness through the personal experience in each believer of the indwelling Spirit. Righteousness is after all the fruit of the Spirit and not of the law.

[66] Wright, 125.

[67] Indeed we might discern that the question Paul answers in Galatians is not how we can be saved, whether it is by law or by Spirit, but rather how we can produce the righteousness that God requires from those who belong to him. The answer Paul gives is that righteousness is through the Spirit (cf. and 5). Paul’s concern is for how the Galatians will reach the goal of their faith in Christ through grace, just as they were originally saved by grace. Are they to reach the goal now that they are saved through the law, and therefore must be circumcised? Absolutely not! They are finished in the Spirit, just as they were saved by the power of the Spirit. And that might be the heart of the issue here in . Acceptable godliness comes not from a compulsion to obey the law, that never addresses the need for forgiveness of sin nor the carnal perversion of human nature—in the minds of some law abiding godliness expects to atone for sin and overpower carnality in order to become acceptable to God—but rather from the power of the Spirit acting upon a forgiven and thoroughly transformed person, because of God’s grace and faith in Jesus Christ, in order to reach the final goal of being conformed to the image of God’s Son.

[68] Even in Galatians, where we might properly expect Paul to hold back on ethical instructions for fear of creating a perception of new “law-giving,” he does not. At the same time Paul can promote to the role of the Spirit as the producer of righteousness in the life of the believer and issue imperatives to his converts on how they should live and work out their lives as disciples of Christ. This is a pattern we see in Paul throughout his epistles: defending justification by faith and grace, and even defending the notion that righteousness as ethical behavior is a product of God’s grace through the Spirit, but still laying down imperatives and requirements that he expects his readers to meet. Paul simply does not see an incongruity between the idea of grace and committed and faithful obedience.

[69] Cf. Wright, 125, 157–158, 159.

[70] Paul’s answer to the Galatians was that God has provided the Spirit as the impetus for ethics in the life of the believer and the law is ruled out for ethics in the same way it is ruled out for justification in the first place (). Paul makes the same point in .

[71] Cf. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 872–874.

[72] Ibid., 841–843.

[73] Cf. A. C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 888.

[74] Wright, 149–150.

[75] E. F. Harrison, “Romans,” In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 10: Romans through Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 73.

[76] Louw and Nida, 655, 772.

[77] Supra n. 57.

[78] Harrison, 73.

[79] Paul’s imaginary interlocutor of verse one might go on to suggest that maybe isolated acts of sin are automatically covered by God’s abounding grace, in a similar fashion to the way he might have suggested that we could go on sinning after salvation because God’s grace would cover our sin. The difference is a merely quantitative difference, not a qualitative one in Paul’s mind.

[80] If I were sure some would not censure me, I would suggest that we adopt more and more Paul’s terminology and talk about righteousness in our discussion of sanctification. We should, however, at least recognize as a matter of biblical exegetical maturity that we have often given the label holiness to what Paul often applies the term righteousness.

[81] This is not at all what we would have expected if we had adopted past assertions about the aorist tense, that it is necessarily punctilliar in terms of aspect.

[82] Use of the aorist cannot sustain the weight of aspect often placed on it by mere virtue of its presence, and we must accept context as the final determinant of that aspect.

[83] It could arguably be asserted that understanding this prepositional phrase correctly could provide a vital key to a better homiletic of the doctrine of sanctification in the contemporary holiness-Pentecostal environment.

[84] After a discussion of why the law is so powerless in the arena of producing righteousness, Paul argues that it is the Holy Spirit that provides the relevant power and impetus for righteousness for those who are alive through the union with Christ at salvation.

[85] If we could determine that Paul may use holiness in its more basic Old Testament way often enough, which arguably he often seems to do here, his concern is with moral purity.

[86] In chapter 11 Paul will employ yet another analogy, the analogy of the olive tree to which a wild branch has been grafted and its natural branches cut off (). In chapters 3 and 4 Paul used the analogy of Abraham’s faith and circumcision as an illustration or analogy of the theological principle of faith over law, when it comes to righteousness, or justification before God. These analogies are part of a Pauline style of argument in Romans, and should be carefully weighed and understood, because they advance his argument and its logic.

[87] I know that at this point I have departed from the view of some of my best friends and colleagues, and from a large body of traditional homiletic in the IPHC, but in the context it seems obvious to me that Paul is not arguing from a postconversional perspective, but rather from the point of view of someone, himself probably, struggling with the desire for righteousness, relying on the law for help, but failing miserably. To me the context bears no other interpretation if we take the analogy in verses 1–6 seriously, and we have to strain the personal testimony section to make it apply to a postconversion situation. Furthermore we have to strain the early part of chapter 6 to posit the idea that union with Christ is only partially transformational, leaving us in a significant predicament with unaddressed remnants of sin in our lives. This in turn leaves us in a contradiction to Paul’s assertion in , where he states that anyone who is in Christ (union) is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come. The idea that after salvation we are not fully prepared for righteousness is actually the opposite to what Paul seems to argue, that sin is so totally vanquished in our union with Christ, that we are to conduct ourselves differently. Paul’s argument is that union with Christ has sufficiently broken sin and its power, so as to provide no justification (not even the persistent presence of a sin nature) for its continuance after salvation! Wesley himself held to the notion that sin and its power is shattered by regeneration. Whatever sanctification was to Wesley it was not to make up for a deficit in salvation as some homiletics have claimed or inferred in the holiness tradition. If we blunt that argument by positing that the flesh is still significantly active or in control enough after salvation to doom the new believer to the power of sin, then we cut the legs out from the logic in Paul’s argument, and provide justification for sin’s continuance—but not because of an overabundance of grace, as Paul supposed might be argued, but rather because a remnant of sin that is not addressed in salvation. Paul repudiates the idea that any reason for sin to persist exists after union with Christ. Rather Paul argues for two things. First, we are to more fully embrace our union with Christ by a conscious submission of the will () (sanctification as a definite post conversion experience, as an ingressive, the beginning of something new and distinct from original union with Christ). Secondly, we are to more fully embrace the influence and leading of the indwelling Spirit, who is capable of producing righteousness in our lives (). It is the Spirit’s influence that replaces the influence of the flesh, that makes righteousness possible in the believer who is join in union to Christ. I think that I have shown above that we do not need to argue for from this passage for a postconversion struggle with the flesh to demonstrate that Paul called upon his readers to engage a postconversion submission of their will and faith to more fully embrace their union with Christ, in order to live a sanctified life (righteousness). In this way I believe that our doctrinal statements are eminently correct and should be properly represented to the next generation, as representing how God equips the believer for holiness (righteousness—right conduct from a right heart).

[88] Cf. Harry E. Jessop, Foundations of Doctrines (University Park, IA: Vennard College, 1938), 214.

[89] My conclusion is that this is precisely the point of Paul’s personal testimony. Paul’s concern throughout, from through 8:29, is righteousness, conformity to the standard of God in terms of integrity of heart and life, in order to reflect the image of Christ.

[90] It is important to synthesize these ideas in a Wesleyan context, to see how they relate to traditional Wesleyanism. Paul has denied that the influence of the flesh can persist beyond union with Christ, leaving the new believer hopeless in the face of sins domination. Instead Paul insists that his readers ratify its death in the death of Christ through an appropriating act of faith that submits the will more fully to God in recognition of the full implications of union with Christ (). He also posits that the Spirit takes up the work of animating the resurrection life of the believer (), through his presence in them. The union that brings the believer to death and resurrection in Christ, is not neutral, then, but is endued with power through the Spirit with the goal of producing righteousness.

[91] Paul is always anxious to undercut any argument that the law can produce righteousness after salvation, because dependence on the law for righteousness (in terms of ethics) ultimately undermines reliance on Christ for justification before God (, , , ; , ; ). And as we have seen in chapter 6, a big part of Paul’s focus is ultimate outcomes after initial salvation, whether habitual sinning leading to death or righteousness leading to holiness, and full conformity to the image of Christ (). Paul is seeking to show that righteousness is a matter of faith from beginning to end (). Salvation (transformative union—justification—forgiveness and pardon) is, therefore, a matter of grace and righteousness (ethics fruit of the Spirit in ) is also a matter of grace on account of the role of the Spirit ().

[92] The flaw appears to be in Paul’s estimation, that the law cannot produce the inward conditions that are a prerequisite to genuine righteousness. Its weakness is located in its inability to overpower the carnal nature (). If righteousness involves integrity, as it seems to in the Old Testament, then Paul is looking for more than mere technical legal adherence (cf. Phi. 3:6). Indeed, without the right inward condition of the heart and soul he is doomed to be a slave to sin that continually arises in his life, because of the sinful nature to which he is bound. It is precisely this union with Christ that set him free from the law and from the power of sin, because it put to death the old self and raised him to a new life in Christ, bringing slavery to sin to an end ()! Union with Christ broke the power of sin in his life and introduced him to the inward power of the Spirit that makes righteousness consistently possible through his leading ()!

[93] We have little choice it seems to me, but to consider Paul’s logic in the passage as we have interpreted it so far here, and as it appears to be presented by Paul in chapter 7, that the power of sin appears to be broken at the point when union with Christ occurs and not subsequently to it.

[94] Which obviously implies that although Jews and Gentiles come from such divergent backgrounds as the law and Roman paganism, both are united in the power of the resurrection to the same life in the Spirit, capable of producing righteousness (). The Jew is freed from law observance and sin, and the Gentile is freed from sin too.

[95] As deeply divided as the theological community is on the interpretation of this passage, I do realize that this explanation will not do for many. However, I am attempting, among other things, to make sense of the placement of the analogy, argument and conclusions in the literary and historical context of Romans. A careful reading of the letter as a whole will show that Paul carefully, sometimes alternately, balances his approach to appeal to his Gentile and Jewish readers in Rome, where the church was mixed. In some ways, at times Paul appears to be seeking to establish peace and unity between the two factions (; ). In any event, from to the end of the book there is an interplay between the two ethnic groups that bounces off of the arguments and discussion. It seems to me that to make sense of , the fact that the law is at the heart of the analogy (cf. chapter 2), we must at least take seriously what the Jewish perception might be.

[96] It has been argued that Paul is describing his own unending, post conversion battle with the impulse to sin, which at best he can only retrain through his faith in Christ. Others have suggested that Paul is describing his struggle with sin in a Jewish context, where the law is supposed to restrain the sin impulse. Others have suggested that Paul has contrasted a hypothetical, either pre or post conversional account of the struggle with the sin impulse. Most agree that at the heart of the account is the impulse to sin, which Paul calls the flesh, the old man or the law of sin and death.

[97] Although Peter may use a similar idea in his epistles (, , ; ; ; ), this is Paul’s unique and powerful theological contribution to the sanctification/righteousness debate, which is of particular interest to Wesleyans.

[98] Some may object that Paul is employing civil law—not Jewish—here in his illustration, and that this in no way constrains us to believe that he is speaking as a Jew, and that this invalidates our earlier contention concerning the essentially Jewish point of reference for his personal testimony. But this really will not do. It is Paul that conflates this example of civil and moral law, because his analogy demands it. That he refers to the law as informing him that he has coveted makes it clear that he does indeed subsume the two under a single analogous illustration, where the Old Testament law is in view, condemning covetousness, something that no civil law does. It is covenant law not civil law that informs Paul that he is a sinner (Rom 7:7:7–12). The fact that he uses the civil law at first is part of the logic of his argument. Some may think it not elegant, but it is his logic nonetheless, and it is straightforward and easy enough to follow.

[99] This raises another issue that Paul will address beginning in verse 7: Is the law evil because it cannot deliver from sin and condemns, and it seems to exacerbate the problem of lust?

[100] The aorist participle signifies action prior to that of the main verb, indicating that it is our death as a result of union with Christ that has released us from the law (ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα). The reference to written code lends further weight that Paul is referencing the Jewish moral law (οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος).

[101] Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 24–32.

[102] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek beyond the Basics; An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, with Scriptures, Subject and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 124, 164, 368–369, 432–434.

[103] Paul’s argument that the command has as its goal to bring life is the logical corollary to the assertion that the misdeeds of the flesh perpetrated in the body bring death or lead to death (). Life and holiness are interchangeably seen as the goal of persistent righteousness, just as surely as persistent sin leads to death. The problem with the commandment is that it cannot produce persistent righteousness, because every demand its makes is undermined by the influence of the flesh/sin that consistently leads to sinfulness, where no union with Christ has taken place.

[104] The problem is, as we will soon see, the law can never overpower the sin nature, and offers no transformative power through forgiveness and pardon of sins. Its role is limited to condemning the sin and the sinner. What slowly dawned on Paul, and is the trajectory of his argument, is that until there is a transformation of nature, through union with Christ, with a requisite substitution of the presence and influence of the Spirit for the influence of the sin nature, holiness/righteousness will never be possible in the life of the disciple of Christ.

[105] In R. H. Mounce, The New American Commentary: Romans, vol. 27 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 151–154. Mounce comes down on the side of a postconversion struggle and Paul’s candid testimony of the struggle he was having since he got saved. But surely it will not do to totally ignore Paul’s previous discussion of the law, as though his testimony is some kind of impromptu ejaculation of spontaneous honesty unrelated to the flow of logic of the entire section. Boa concludes that Paul is speaking of a persistent tension with which the believer must be satisfied until liberated from it by glorification. But surely we are not to suppose that after union with Christ the new resurrection life is a life of a persistent, unrelenting, life-and-death struggle with sin? This contradicts or seems to contradict Paul’s assertions in chapter 6 that we are no longer slaves to sin. What Boa argues for is still slavery to sin of sorts. Kenneth Boa and William Kruidenier. Holman New Testament Commentary: Romans, vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 196. Harrison notes that Donald Davis finds a logical contradiction to view Paul’s testimony of a deathly struggle with sin after union with Christ, from which he stated he had been released. We also argue that this is effectively that Wesleyans have often argued for a similar apparent contradiction. Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 84. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown seem to think that Paul’s struggle with sin is in light of the law, the result of his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road, and the result of subsequent reflection. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 237–239. This view has as an advantage—at least it takes into account—the context and discussion of the law and the fact that Paul’s testimony certainly seems to be a postconversion reflection of his previous life as a law-abiding Jew. An argument some have raised against this being descriptive of Paul’s preconversion, while still in Judaism wrestling with the law and righteousness in a sinful state, is Paul’s testimony in of his own “faultlessness” with respect to the law. But Paul’s relationship to the law in the context Judaism as a system, which is the root of his argument in Philippians, is not the same as his discussion here of the inner struggle of his heart, where he is privately confronted by the holiness of the law, but found himself wanting in his heart. Righteousness is after all (Old Testament) integrity, whereby the heart and lifestyle match one another in devotion to God. In Philippians Paul discusses what he had given up religiously in hopes of obtaining genuine righteousness in the end. In Romans Paul describes what is happening inwardly to actually produce righteousness as a matter of lifestyle, but is failing somehow. In both contexts righteousness is the ultimate goal. What Paul found was that righteousness could not be gained through the practice of Judaism nor could it be produced through personal, loyal adherence to the law as a principle of life, precisely because a meticulous practice of the law’s demands was persistently undermined in him by his sinful nature. The law, therefore, only left him condemned, not delivered or ennobled.

[106] We have described in great detail our view that for Paul, union with Christ results in the crucifixion of the sinful nature at regeneration (), but that a subsequent affirmation of this is elicited from his readers by Paul (), whereby they ratify the reality of new birth with a total submission of their will to God. That Paul employs an ingressive verb means that he is speaking to transformed and born-again believers, whom he is seeking to encourage to adopt a new attitude toward sinning, now they are saved. To think of this is some other way is to undo the logic of the imperative in . The imperative is of no value to the unsaved, because the requisite conditions (transformative union with Christ) do not yet exist. The imperative presupposes prior union with Christ for its effect.

[107] It has been suggested that this is not entirely autobiographical, but it is certainly presented as being sufficiently biographical (use of the first person pronouns) as to be taken as descriptive of how Paul views his own struggle with sin.

[108] Some will argue that if the sinful mind is at enmity against God and hostile to him, how could a desire for holiness be aroused in Paul in his unregenerate state? But that is naïve. It is a matter of fact that many people desire holiness who are not saved, while their base nature is opposed to God making it impossible to attain righteousness, a desire or longing for holiness of goodness is not automatically excluded. Indeed that is why transformation is required. Paul’s personal testimony in means that he had a desire for holiness de facto, even in the days of his unregenerate Judaism. It need not be argued that such a desire was aroused only after he was saved. What is in view in Romans is the inadequacy of that desire to produce its object, without a transformational union with Christ and the power of the Spirit to follow through. The point is, that Paul makes, is that even the tutelage of the law could not by itself produce the righteousness that Judaism claimed it could. This is the very condition Paul speaks of as a fact in Judaism before the arrival of faith, a futile grasping after an elusive righteousness (cf. ). In the passage, Paul anticipates a certain amount of tension, angst if you will, that an underage son might experience because under the law he cannot exercise his rights as heir until he comes of age. Coming of age is represented by the arrival of faith bringing righteousness to full maturity (). It is an attractive idea to see the tension of the son under the law in , as somewhat explanatory of Paul’s struggle under the law in !

[109] I have yet to see a convincing argument that does so, that also gives reasonable support for the idea that Paul is engaged in a postconversion struggle with sin.

[110] The perfect participle πεπραμένος may indicate what is apparent in the rest of the passage: that Paul appears to be engaging the use of a “historical present,” for rhetorical effect, describing his past experience in the present tense. Even those who support a post conversion interpretation of this passage must concede that Paul is speaking in the present tense of his experience of the past, since presumably he does not consider himself to still be a slave to sin. However, others do precisely believe that Paul considers himself to be a slave to sin, and the deadly struggle with sin in his nature, despite being saved. In which case the present is taken literally. However, the opening perfect participle may in fact belie that line of reasoning.

[111] , ; ; ; ; ; ; , , ; ; , ; , , ; ; ; ; , , ; , ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; 19:35; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ).

[112] Paul’s fondness for using Old Testament expressions, allusions, and even rhetorical devices has been abundantly documented. Keil and Delitzsch show use of the historical present in the Old Testament, and Paul appears to use the present as a device to suit his purpose in some contexts (e.g., ; but cf. ; , ; ; ; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), vol. 7, 343; vol. 10, 76, 236).

[113] In my humble opinion, this is the significance of the present tense used throughout this passage. It is not indicative so much of time as much as aspect, the consistent, ongoing and faithful production of righteousness or persistent, habitual moral failure as a result of sin in his nature. The present becomes a rhetorical device for underscoring Paul’s moral dilemma.

[114] M. W. Holmes, , The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Logos Bible Software, 2010)

[115] Louw and Nida, 803.

[116] Ibid., 511.

[117] M. W. Holmes 2010, .

[118] F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 189.

[119] M. W. Holmes 2010, . Even though some might argue that the νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι refers back to Paul’s original union with Christ, and so confirms that this testimony as post conversional, it is probably better to understand it as being consistent with the context and use of the historical present tense. Paul is merely arguing within the grammatical framework he originally chose, the present tense, and νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι is consistent with use of the present.

[120] Ibid., .

[121] This is quite literally the historical position of many in the holiness movement (see below).

[122] Indeed some of the holiness homiletic has made the point that the saved but unsanctified are powerless to overcome sin and sinning until they have received the second blessing. It is this very point made by holiness preachers that sanctification is needed for victory over sin and sinning.

[123] At this point, I confess that if I take Paul’s description of the sin nature seriously as something that defeats righteousness and constantly produces sin against one’s will, it is hard to imagine what exactly the transformative power of salvation might be. If we do not believe that salvation transforms to the extent Paul seems to suggest in , until some postconversion point, then we find ourselves contradicting Paul’s foundational analysis and overarching logic for why sin and sinning must cease—namely because we have been united to Christ in his death and resurrection, as a result of salvation.

[124] M. W. Holmes 2010, .

[125] Ibid., .

[126] While we all feel that we know what good is, good and goodness are hard to objectively quantify or explain. It may be that goodness is like beauty: a great deal of it is in the eye of the beholder. And yet in this context we instinctively know what Paul means by good: it is obedience to the law and commandment of God. Paul is speaking of moral purity and spiritual fidelity to God. And he finds that he is, in his natural human condition without Christ, incapable of producing it. This is quite literally the shocking discovery and conclusion to which he had come, as a result of his experiment with the law.

[127] Lawrence Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Basingstoke, Hants, UK: Marshall Morgan and Scott Publications, Ltd., 1988), 316.

[128] Louw and Nida, 694.

[129] Ibid., vol. 2, p. 129; vol. 1, p. 741; cf. Richards, 316.

[130] Richards, 316.

[131] Even a cursory examination of the Old Testament concept of loving God will show conclusively that devotion to God requires integrity, that purity of heart is to be matched with obedience to God and his law, and that this is what constitutes righteousness in his eyes (cf. ). Righteousness is never mechanical obedience, and it is never merely devotion without obedience and generosity.

[132] Some will complain that the synonyms do not support this interpretation. I agree that in and of themselves they do not, but they do insinuate it because of the flow of the argument and thought. It is clear that on the level of plain meaning of the passage, this is the conclusion Paul reaches. The synonyms simply provide further indirect support, shoring up Paul’s stated position.

[133] I do not seek to imply that this whole line of reasoning rests on the use of the synonyms καλὸν and ἀγαθόν, but that their use is indicative of what Paul is saying in this chapter, and in his personal testimony in particular. He has discovered an internal problem, he calls sin that prevents him from successfully obeying the commands of the law, and behaving righteously. Indeed, although he may do some good, the presence of sin in him indicates that he still does not have a grasp of righteousness, as the law describes in in the Old Testament, the integrated harmony between character and action, between purity of heart and behavior.

[134] The advantage of this line of reasoning is that it takes the entire context of Paul’s argument along with the flow of its logic into account, in order to understand the purpose and interpretation of his testimony. It also avoids the pitfall, prevalent in some traditional holiness homiletics, of interpreting Paul’s testimony without serious consideration of the context and its place in the flow and logic of total argument, which does not properly conclude until at least chapter 8 and verse 29.

[135] M. W. Holmes 2010, .

[136] M. W. Holmes, .

[137] Cf. Tramel, 142–146. Brooks, Fingertip Holiness, 4; Scriptural Holiness, 46; Biblical Validation for Sanctification, 21. Title, pp.?

[138] This is the view of many non-Wesleyan theologians.

[139] The problem we often have with this is existential. Does Paul’s claim represent the realities of the saved life? But surely that is not the question here. Then question is this: What did Paul mean? And it certainly seems that Paul is claiming that union with Christ has in some way rendered the power of indwelling sin ineffective.

[140] David J. Baggett, Gary R. Habermas, and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis as Philosopher (audiobook).

[141] Ibid.

[142] Surely this is a correct conclusion, given that Paul finally described the spiritual dilemma in terms of antithetical principles, the laws of either sin and death or the Spirit of life ().

[143] Louw and Nida, 319.

[144] I would even say a this point that it is the “need” on the part of the modern, western theological mind to parse the elements of humanity to an exact degree that has confounded their interpretation of , and in other places, where we have read back into the text our “imagined” and firmly congealed distinctions. There is a flexibility in New Testament somatology that is frustratingly vague to our conceptual approaches in theology.

[145] With this conclusion John Wesley agrees!

[146] This is as devastating to certain holiness homiletics as it is to the Reformed and evangelical position that the principle of sin persists until physical death occurs.

[147] Louw and Nida, 555.

[148] Cf. Osborne, 95–100.

[149] It is this final case that Paul sought to prove and lay down for his readers, that as a law abiding Jew he could not affect reconciliation to God by keeping the law. It took union with Christ for that to occurs, and everything implied in that union with respect to transformation.

[150] Noel Brooks, Fingertip Holiness (Franklin Springs, GA: Advocate Press, n.d.), 5–6.

[151] This is consistent with what we know about Old Testament righteousness, that it is a matter of love (disposition) and obedience (behavior). To downplay God’s requirement of righteousness of behavior and action, because we are afraid of a works-righteousness salvation theology, is to deny a fundamental aspect of the gospel, that God saved us to do good works and to live righteously before him (cf. ). Indeed, Paul argues that persistent unrighteousness after union with Christ will ultimately lead to death (, , ). In this way Paul confirms that persistent righteousness is consistent with inner loyalty and faith in God, and persistent sin is consistent with inward dissolution, and rejection of God. This is precisely why Wesley identified holiness with supreme love for God, because in the Old Testament obedience is based on love. The thing is, as Paul found, righteousness is not just a matter of behavior, it is a matter of the purity of the heart and right standing with God, and righteousness in terms of behavior must come from that position. In this way the law failed because it does not address the fundamental problem, the problem of the heart and disposition. It takes the transformational work of the Spirit through transformative union with Christ, where sins are forgiven and pardoned, and sinners born again, to produce righteousness from the position of a changed nature, and of relocation to a sphere of his living in Christ. Cf. Brooks, Fingertip Holiness, 4.

[152] He could not overcome the wrong in him, in order to try and make up for the wrong that he had done, assuming that God would accept such an approach, which of course he would not. But that is precisely the approach Paul and many other good law abiding Jews were taking toward righteousness, and toward God. The idea that a careful prosecution of righteousness would somehow overcome past sins, might be founded on a misreading of the Old Testament—passages like simply do not allow it! What is often missed is that even the Old Testament required repentance and a change of heart before God would accept the person. So in , God calls on his people to repent and live! Salvation was never premised on the works righteousness. Works always followed repentance and redemption.

[153] Brooks, Fingertip Holiness, 5.

[154] Noel Brooks acknowledges this in his works on holiness, where he posits that sanctification begins at salvation, and that salvation is transformative with respect to our nature, and is not just a judicial release from the penalty of sin. The New Testament certainly supports such a notion (cf. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; , ). See also Brooks, Scriptural Holiness, 41–46, 49; Brooks, Fingertip Holiness, 6–10; Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, Sermon 43, III, 4).

[155] Cf. Wright, 27–71.

[156] Consistent with the earlier observation that the law is good, Paul’s use of the genitive in in verse 3 to say that it was not an inherent weakness in the righteousness of the law that has caused the problem, but an inherent weakness in his flesh that undermined the law (τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός). There is no question about the validity of the law, and there is no weakness in it per se, but it is undermined in its purpose in a secondary sense through the flesh (διὰ τῆς σαρκός). By expressing himself in this way, Paul is consistent with the observations he made earlier about the intrinsic value of the law with respect to holiness. The law is not at fault, but the flesh is.

[157] We must say that the whole tenor of Paul’s argument, especially in late chapter 7 and early chapter 8, leads us to feel that the outcome of union with Christ and pardon for sin, seems to have surprised him, in that the experience was thoroughly transformative of his nature. Paul does not seem to have anticipated this, but finds confirmation of God’s intentionality in the promise of the new covenant, particularly with its promised gift of the eschatological Spirit (cf. ; Ez 18:31; 36:26–27; ; , ; ).

[158] Cf. ; , ; .

[159] If not this, then what does Paul mean by the ingressive command, “Start reckoning on your union in the death and resurrection of Christ, when it comes to sin!” (see )? Is this normative for all believers? It most certainly would seem to be, in that such a radical transformation of nature requires a corresponding change in mind-set and thinking (cf. ).

[160] Whereas their initial surrender to God in salvation had eternal life, cleansing, pardon, reconciliation and even transformation in view, Paul calls on his readers to consciously recognize and embrace the goal of transformative union with Christ, the goal of righteousness of heart and life.

[161] This is the subject of his struggle in and lies behind the progression of his logic in chapter 8—that spiritual transformation leads habitual righteousness through an ongoing surrender to the Spirit (cf. ).

[162] Paul is not contradicting grace here, merely stating the obvious in the logic of his unfolding argument that persistent sin after salvation will lead to inevitable alienation from God and to death, just as surely as it does in the unrepentant unbeliever.

[163] Cf. Tramel, 163–166.

[164] Ultimately Paul’s flow of thought will carry forward to the eschatological implications of union with Christ in terms of glorification, but for our purposes, we will leave off at verse 17.

[165] Louw and Nida, 351.

[166] Ibid.

[167] Have we been inadvertently guilty of creating a false dichotomy of flesh and spirit? Whereas Paul in sets the flesh against the Spirit with respect to righteousness, we have set the flesh against spirit on account of hermeneutical tunnel vision in chapter 7 so that it fits our dogmatic model. If we acknowledge that this may have happened in our preaching (possibly less so in our exegesis), and that our preaching may not be entirely biblical at times (not really representing what Paul means here), then at least some of the existential difficulty may disappear if we honestly correct ourselves, based on a more exacting exegesis. At the same time we may be freed from trying to develop a logical doctrinal corollary to explain why believers still struggle with sin and temptation after union with Christ, and particularly after sanctification, employing an erroneous flesh-spirit dichotomy. Righteousness then becomes a matter of submitting to the power and consequences of union with Christ, that is to the control of the Spirit. Such surrender is both a crisis of realization and fresh appropriation, as well as continued yielding of the will to the influence of the Spirit (; ). We freely admit that we may still imperfectly follow the Spirit at times, but the flesh no longer dominates us as it once did. A flesh/spirit dichotomy may not be quite the correct biblical construct, in that it leads many to think that desire which could possibly lead to sin is eliminated altogether, which clear from experience everyone of us can testify, it is not. What it does mean it that the habitual surrender to desire that leads to sin is conquered in favor of habitual surrender to the impulse and leading of the Spirit. After all that is the battle Paul admits to having in chapter 7. The former is the way we have popularly preached it in the holiness pulpit of the past, but the latter may be the better way to represent it in our current time!

[168] We are not seeking grounds for a new experience of cleansing so much as we are accepting that the cleansing of salvation is sufficient, particularly if it is embraced by a new and fresh exercise of faith, based on a better understanding of the provision made.

[169] Behavior as a result of the influence of nature and disposition whereby bodily and mental appetites are more or less unrestrained by notions of righteousness, and where sin predominates even in the face of a wish or hope for attaining righteousness.

[170] Louw and Nida, 299.

[171] Here is where Reformation and Calvinistic theology and Wesleyanism part ways. The former may posit the necessity of the continual presence of sin until death, the eschaton, and glorification, but the latter is convinced that genuine holiness is not only demanded by God in terms of conduct but also made possible through the Spirit. While the one champions the perseverance of the saints on the premise of irresistible grace, the other believes in the perseverance of the saints on account of the power of the Spirit—which Paul contends is based on the grace in which we stand, a provision made by God for the success of the saints with respect to the demands of his law and holiness. Grace does not have to be irresistible to succeed if we take seriously Paul’s premise that union with Christ has produced a total transformation of the mind and nature of those who have been justified through Christ, and who are not joined to him. It is a failure to take Paul’s theology seriously at the existential level that necessitates irresistible grace.

[172] In this way Paul shows no evidence of the Reformed and Calvinistic horror of the specter of works righteousness creeping in surreptitiously by the back door, giving rise to the need for a complex theology of predestination and the sovereignty of God. Paul can affirm that because of the indwelling Spirit, righteousness of standing (justification) and righteousness of conduct are equally the result of grace. Neither relies on the initiative of the flesh, but both depend on the initiative of God. In the latter is about the ongoing process following a crisis union with Christ, we can declare with some confidence that Paul understood ongoing righteousness of conduct as a product of God grace, as much as initial salvation. This is confirmed by and Paul’s discovery that without transforming union with Christ, even a law abiding Jew could not possibly produce the righteousness demanded by the law in an effort to finally please God. The law only served to underscore that there was a fundamental flaw present in sinful human nature ().

[173] Or how else are to understand the notion of the law being fulfilled in those who walk in the Spirit, and the previous failure of those who are controlled by the flesh ()? Righteousness may include justification here, which undoubtedly it does, but it also encompasses conduct, because of the reference to the Spirit who leads and produces what the law could not!

[174] Transformed human nature is not without importance here, but we are arguing that Paul does not place the impetus for righteousness on transformed human nature, spirit, but on the Spirit of God, who dwells in the believer.

[175] M. W. Holmes 2010, .

[176] Louw and Nida, 670.

[177] M. W. Holmes 2010, . Note the shift from the present, ἐσμέν, to the notion of a future outcome.

[178] At this point some might raise the objection that no one is perfect (flawless) and without sin in “word, thought and deed every day,” as it is often framed. To this reasoning we must undoubtedly raise an objection: it is inconsistent with the spirit of Paul’s argument here, and even opposes it. It is precisely the inevitability of sin that Paul argues against, in favor of an “inevitability of righteousness” through the Spirit! Nevertheless, if I were to venture an opinion here, Paul distinguishes between habitual ongoing sin after union with Christ (), and individual, isolated occurrences of sin in our lives (). Furthermore from the argument Paul makes in , it is clear that he is concerned primarily with the former, but warns that the latter has power to enslave us to the dictates of the flesh again if left unaddressed. Paul is clearly concerned about the domination of sin through the flesh, and that it not reoccur after salvation has taken place through union with Christ. In chapter 6 Paul makes a big deal of the fact that where the flesh dominates and produces sin, it can only lead to death (). We cannot live if we are controlled by the flesh! Union with Christ cedes the animating factor as far as our conduct is concerned to the Spirit, having wrested it from the flesh. Sin is not entirely excluded as impossible, even by Paul, but it cannot be allowed to assume it previous hold on us as it once did through the flesh. So Paul is NOT talking about sinless perfection, as some have accused holiness theologians of teaching and claiming (not altogether unjustly at times), but about the habituality of sin/righteousness going forward from the point of union with Christ. We are reminded of John’s comforting exhortation, that if anyone sins, we have legal representation before God, someone who will plead our cause, the one who was the sacrifice for our sins in the first place (). If we confess our sins, God is just, he will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness ().

[179] M. W. Holmes 2010, .

[180] It was the conviction of the New Testament church that the power of the age to come had already broken through into this age, leading to a partial realization of the promises that God had made in the Old Testament concerning the arrival of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit was not merely charismatic as we Pentecostals have majored on, but his coming was to be intimately bound up in the moral reform of the people of God, and for the production of righteousness and a righteous people (cf. Jer 34:31–34; Ez 18:31; 36:26–27). The Spirit in the new age would ensure that the people of God, eschatological Israel, would finally realized the righteousness that God demanded from them represented in his law to Old Testament Israel. This would come as part of the terms of the new covenant that would replace the old one. If the new covenant was to accomplish anything it was to produce righteousness in God’s people, and to do so by the Spirit of God.

[181] M. W. Holmes 2010, .

[182] Louw and Nida, 464.

[183] This point is important theologically, because it speaks to the dynamic that makes righteousness possible, and that puts to death the conduct of the former life.

[184] πάλιν is a further indication Paul has in mind the state of affairs going forward after union with Christ, until eschatological realization is reached.

[185] In this way the entire logic of Paul’s reasoning comes full circle into a cogent argument for why habitual sin cannot persist after union with Christ. By the time we get to chapter 8 Paul has answered at great length the question he raised in chapter 6 and verse 1 that most commentators and readers have dismissed and long forgotten by the opening verses of chapter 7. But it persists throughout the logic of Paul’s reasoned treatment until the end of chapter 8. If we take this question seriously and accept that Paul is providing an answer to it at length, then the whole passage radiates with new light and a fresh understanding for the dynamics of holiness and the sanctified life!

[186] Cf. William B. Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being the Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical, Vol. III (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1879), 201–206.

[187] I know that this statement will fall hard on some ears. But until we can honestly admit, as some of us have sometimes expressed, that we have reservations about how we have represented and interpreted the Pauline text in our homiletics, and admit that we have at times engaged in hermeneutical special pleading to make the data fit these homiletical models which are so dear to us, we will continue to be unable to honestly evaluate the text without prejudice. I hope to show in this paper ultimately that our doctrinal position as stated in the IPHC Manual is defensible as a dogmatic statement, even if our homiletics could use some careful reflection. Furthermore, I feel that part of our problem is that our models worked for a previous generation, as a tool for understanding the issue of holiness and righteousness, if not the text, but that we should admit that they may now lack the poignancy required to clarify and elicit the same response from today’s disciples. In particular, though I hesitate to say it here, we have to answer the dilemma faced by people who have come to expect more from the sanctification experience than they perceive is actually delivered, based on our preaching, particularly in terms of an anticipated absence of temptation or desire. We all know that sanctification does not end desire, temptation or appetites. But our preaching has often encouraged such a hope. What Paul seems to argue for is the power of the Spirit to influence and guide the conduct of the believer from the vantage point of his indwelling presence, and for a categorical, cognitive, acceptance by faith subsequent to salvation that begins a new attitude toward the goal of our salvation, involving righteousness, holiness and an ultimate conformity to the image of God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

[188] There appears to be little or even, arguably, an absence in Paul of the tension we allude to in our homiletics, involving a warring dichotomy between the carnal nature and spiritual nature (transformed, born-again spirit) following a union with Christ in salvation. Indeed, Paul does not even speak to this state of affairs, if we allow that is in fact a testimony of Paul’s moral struggle under the law, and as an unsaved but law-abiding Jew awakened to righteousness by the moral law of God. And there is a great deal to commend this view to us, as we have seen above.

[189] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 28–32.

[190] Ibid., 1–36.

[191] We often assume that an anarthrous use of πνευμα is equivalent to spirit, but this is by no means the case.

[192] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 25–26.

[193] Our human spirit, transformed and sanctified as it may be, is not engaged in some vain attempt at producing righteousness or overcoming the conduct (practices) of the body, unaided by God or without the dynamic power of his grace at work in us through the Spirit to accomplish it. Rather our spirit is where the awesome realization occurs, that God is making it all come together in us through the operation of his Spirit. All of this is eliciting a sympathetic cry of “Abba,” from our spirit, as it dawns on us that we are actually sons of God in the present, awaiting only the moment of eschatological full conformity.

[194] Analogies are not intended to correspond in every aspect of their comparison to reality, on a one to one basis. They are chosen because of a certain correspondence in some detail or another that illustrates the point being made and clarifies the significance of what is being discussed or shown. For this reason students of the Bible should not push analogies beyond their intended boundaries, especially the parables of Jesus or narratives in the Word of God. Analogies are never intended to obliterate the factual boundaries of the thing they illustrate, but to clarify some aspect or aspects of them through the use of perceived correspondence, for the purpose of bringing greater conceptual apprehension.

[195] To posit a “once saved always saved” theology at this point is to short-circuit Paul’s intent in this passage. It is not the journey begun but completed that the Spirit has his eye on. Through the Spirit, God intends to finish what he started in terms of producing final righteousness in us, in the sense of genuine integrity and full, mature, Christlike character before God. This is accomplished not by overlooking habitual moral failure after salvation but by producing righteousness in us through the leading of the Spirit, who dwells in us, putting to death the works and practices of the body!

[196] Or else his question in chapter 6 and verse 1 is meaningless and moot.

[197] If we took this argument seriously then we could have no theology of sin, of holiness, etc. which are all advanced through in narratival passages of scripture, especially in the Old Testament, where our foundational understanding of God and his purposes are found. A vast portion, even a majority of our theology could be said to come principally from biblical narrative, without which we would an impoverished theology of creation and theology of redemption through the death and resurrection of Christ. Certainly our knowledge of Christ and his redemptive mission is found in narrative, the gospels. This argument is patently based on special pleading.

[198] They were baptized into the name of Jesus for salvation, Paul then laid hands on them, following or contemporaneous to this, the Holy Spirit came on them, after which they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Clearly, the resception of the Spirit follows a confession of salvation.

[199] This latter idea in Luke overlaps with the Pauline theology of the Spirit’s indwelling presence.

[200] Cf. .

[201] Paul also addresses those in the Corinthian church that were using prostitutes in the idol’s temples, because their wives practiced marital celibacy ().

[202] Earlier Paul had addressed irregularity in the love feast and communion service (cf. ), and some matters of conventional (customary) modesty among the woman when participating in the worship through prayer (), and in our context a doubtful passage about women remaining silent in church (; cf. 11:5).

[203] Holmes, M. W. (2011–2013). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (). Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature.

[204] Holmes, M. W. (2011–2013). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (). Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature.

[205] Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, vol. 1, 675.

[206] If you exercise spiritual gifts in the congregation, there is to be no complaining, “Who are you to judge me?” or “Jesus said we are not to judge one another?” Paul says spiritual gifts are to come under the critical evaluation of the mature in the congregation (especially leaders and elders).

[207] Because spiritual gifts are potentially difficult, the temptation exists to resist their exercise altogether. This tendency Paul forbids outright. They are not to reject prophecy, but make the effort to exercise the gift properly and appropriately.

[208] The word test in is a word that implies the examination or evaluation by paying close attention to something. It may imply discerning the difference or making a distinction (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 231). In our context it may mean to discern between what is of value or not in a particular instance of prophecy. Paul’s point is that we are to recognize through examination the value of prophetic speech. In the word test means to determine through examination what is genuine, like precious metal is tested to establish its authenticity (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 255).

[209] Holmes, M. W. (2011–2013). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (). Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature.

[210] Cf. .

[211] Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, vol. 467.

[212] Please note that Paul is not prohibiting all tongues speaking in the church, or assembly, but a loud individualistic worship without regard to the corporate setting, or for the benefit of the other members of the assembly. Tongues speaking in worship is appropriate, but when it operates under the conviction that it brings a message, then interpretation is required. In Corinth, disorganized and rabid tongues-speaking was open to the charge of being insanity to those who do not understand, and was particularly unhelpful in the business of bringing edification, the goal of corporate worship!

[213] Cf. . iii

Related Media

Related Sermons