I was reading Romans chapter 6 the other day, and what the Apostle Paul says there brought to mind, as it always does, Bob Dylan's classic "Gotta Serve Somebody" from 1979. Back in the fall of that year, I was newly married and had pulled up our stakes to move from Philadelphia to Texas for my first semester of seminary in Dallas. Rumors of Dylan's apparent conversion to Christianity were swirling following the August release of his new album, Slow Train Coming, but I was too busy with my studies to look too deeply into it. That is, I was too preoccupied until I took time off from my books to watch Saturday Night Live on October 20, hosted by Monty Python's Eric Idle. When Dylan, his tight backup band, and backup singers appeared on stage, I was blown away, and not merely because of the atypical, funky sound of the song. The lyrics! Dylan is, without question, the greatest songwriter of the rock era, and had often written prophetically as one of the primary voices of his generation. And here he was again, penning a song in an entirely unexpected vein. "Gotta Serve Somebody" is unmistakably a "gospel" song, but it isn't overly preachy, let alone self-righteous. It is direct and to the point, but not overtly confrontational in its message, to wit, that none of us are truly autonomous beings; each of us lives his or her life in service to a power or powers to whom we must render obedience.*
In making this claim, Dylan was doing nothing more―or less!―than paraphrasing the words of Paul in Romans 6:16, which the apostle assumes his Roman readers would readily understand by experience. Verses 15-23 read as follows:
What then? Should we sin, because we are not under Law but under Grace? Certainly not! Don't you know that to the one you habitually hand yourselves over** as slaves for obedience―you are slaves to the one you obey, whether of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God! You once were slaves of Sin, but now have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were handed over. Now, having been set free from Sin, you have been enslaved to Righteousness.
I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you used to hand your bodily members over as slaves to Impurity and Lawlessness, leading to even more lawlessness, so now hand your members over as slaves to Righteousness, leading to sanctification. For when you were slaves of Sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then―things of which you are now ashamed, for their end result is death! But now, having been set free from Sin and enslaved to God, you have your fruit leading to sanctification, and their end result is eternal life. For the wages of Sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (trans. JRM)
Paul is being deadly serious here. For him, there are two options for human existence, and two options only, both of which are cast in terms of the subservience of a slave to a master.** These two masters, in the apostle's scheme, are Sin**** and God.***** These relations of bondage bear diametrically opposite fruit (lawlessness/"righteousness"****** and "sanctification") and inevitably lead to contrasting ends ([eternal] death/"eternal life"*******). Ironically―and it is here that Western presuppositions about human autonomy can become particularly unhelpful ―manumission from the former slavery leads to a freedom consisting in a transfer of ownership and, hence, allegiance, namely, slavery to the one who secured that freedom. Because of the deadly seriousness of this contrast, Paul makes sure to emphasize to his "freed" readers the necessity of placing themselves at the disposal of the God who freed them from their former servitude to Sin.
As always, it seems, Paul is walking a theological tightrope here. "Justification"―acquittal at the bar of God's justice and the proleptic declaration that a person is a member of his covenant family―comes by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, without contribution from either "works of the law" (i.e., works done as the entail of the Mosaic covenant; Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:20) or "works" of moral righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Yet at the same time Paul insists that "eternal life" at the end of the line only comes as a consequence of ethical "righteousness" and sanctification which are the fruit of obedience in servitude to God. This is a tightrope that many Protestants fall off in their zeal to maintain the first of Paul's emphases. How, then, does Paul maintain this tension?
The key is to understand what the apostle is arguing in chapters 5-8 of Romans. In short, his aim is to argue that Jews and Gentiles alike, who are in the present already "justified" by faith in fulfillment of God's covenant promises to Abraham, have a sure hope of eternal life (cf. the inclusio of Romans 5:1-11 and 8:28-39, which tie together the whole section). The basis for his seemingly brash confidence is to be found, not in some naïve belief in human ability to persevere or in some magical understanding of the efficacy of a "once-for-all" decision of "faith," but rather, and only, in Christ himself, in particular his role as an inclusive representative of his people, on analogy with the role of the first man, Adam (5:12-21). Just as Adam's sin led to the reign of sin and death over all his progeny, so Christ's one "righteous act" of obedience resulted in "justification leading to (eternal) life" (dikaiōsis zōēs) for the "many" he represented (5:18). The introduction of the Law into the Adamic situation, as difficult as this must have been for the former Pharisee Paul to learn, was (deliberately!) counterproductive, simply aggravating the problem of sin until "Grace" came in Christ to "superabound" (hypereperisseusen, 5:20) at the point of Adamic humanity's―both that of Gentiles and Jews (cf. 3:19-20)―spiritual nadir (5:20-21). For Paul, Adam and Christ thus must be understood as representatives of two "ages" or "aeons:" the old humanity and the new, eschatological humanity, the latter of whom are the beneficiaries of the fulfillment of God's covenant promises.
But this begs the question, which Paul immediately asks: If indeed "Grace" superabounded in the context of the Law's failure, should we not persist in sin so that grace could abound even more (6:1)? It is here, in answer to this question, that one of Paul's fundamental theological convictions becomes evident: Because God's "grace" is actualized in Christ's inclusive, representative act, this grace which justifies also necessarily transforms those taken up in its grasp.******** He first answers his rhetorical question with a characteristic "Certainly not" (mē genoito), and then follows by asking the penetrating question, "We who have died to sin (hoitines apethanomen tēi hamartiai)―how can we possibly still live in it" (6:2, trans. JRM)? Later, in verse 6, the apostle explains this "death to sin" in terms of our "old man," that is, the person we were, before we were converted, in solidarity with Adam,********* being "co-crucified" (synestaurōthē) with Christ (6:6a). He then describes a sort of two-tiered purpose (hina) to this co-crucifixion: first, that "the body of sin," in other words, the person we are in our interaction with the fallen, Adamic world, might be "rendered ineffective;"********** and then, secondly, that as a result we should no longer give service as slaves (douleuein) to Sin (6:6b).
When did this "death" occur? It is tempting to suggest that this co-crucifixion, being an event of corporate solidarity, refers to the historic, once-for-all death of Christ at Calvary itself.*********** But Paul makes it clear in verse 2 that this "death to sin" occurs at baptism, the moment when a believer is existentially united with Christ, and therefore the moment when Christ's representative, salvation-historical act becomes the baptisand's own death. Thus united with Christ, his resurrection also both guarantees the believer's future resurrection (6:8) and, what is vital for our present purposes, means that we should now "walk in newness of life" (6:4). Paul's point to the believers in Rome is a simple one: You are no longer the persons you once were; therefore, you can no longer live the way you once did. Thus they must "reckon themselves" to be dead to sin and alive to God by virtue of their being "in" Christ Jesus (6:11).
But, as always, things are not as simple as they might appear to be at first glance. Yes, we are "dead to sin" by virtue of our union with Christ. Our "old man" was nailed to the cross with him. We are now "alive to God" by virtue of our solidarity with Christ in his resurrection. We are, in a word, people of the new aeon who have definitively been severed from identification with Adam. But this "eschatological" identity doesn't deliver us from the inexorable physical death associated with Adamic humanity. Nor does it preclude the vestigial effects of the sin connected to it either. Hence Paul exhorts us not to let Sin reign in our mortal bodies (6:12), nor to hand our "members" over to sin as "weapons" of unrighteousness (6:13).
Anyone who has spent time in Paul's letters will recognize that this "indicative/imperative" dynamic is characteristic of the apostle's moral exhortation, and I believe it provides a window through which to peer clearly into the fundamental theological substratum of his thought. God had, in Christ, acted apocalyptically to inaugurate the eschaton, the "last days" in which he would fulfill all his promises to Abraham and the people of Israel. The church, for Paul, is the eschatological people of God, the "true circumcision" whose hearts have already been circumcised, the "Israel of God" who receive the Spirit as the promise of Abraham, and who have proleptically received the verdict of "not guilty" in advance of the judgment on the last day. But this new age to which we belong is not yet present in its entirety, but exists in a sort of "eschatological" tension with the continuing old age, the age of Adam, the age of sin and death. In the meantime, God's people, who have been united with the crucified and risen Lord through faith/baptism, must continue to present themselves to God for his service. In other words, the "newness of life" made possible and necessary for believers by Christ's resurrection doesn't occur automatically, but only through concerted moral effort on their part.
Many have summed up the apostle's inner logic in terms of "become what you are." Better, in Jimmy Dunn's words, to see it in terms of "becoming what you are becoming."************ There is no room for complacency in Paul's vision for the Christian life. Christians must remain ever vigilant and work daily so as not to fall back, treat their justification as a legal fiction, and succumb to their erstwhile master, Sin. And, I believe, it is salutary to linger a while on Paul's implicit warnings in Romans 6:15-23 in order to feel their full force. Dylan, long ago, said "You're gonna have to serve somebody." He was right. The question is, whose slave are you?
*Of course, not all were pleased with Dylan's turn to evangelical Christianity. Of his most vocal critics, none were as scathing as his friend and peer from across the pond, former Beatle John Lennon, who shortly before his death wrote an "answer" song entitled "Serve Yourself," released (finally) on the 1998 John Lennon Anthology. In parody of Dylan's lyrics, Lennon sang, "Well you may believe in devils, and you may believe in lords/But if you don't go out and serve yourself, lad, ain't no room service here."
**Cf. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 180: "Paul's concern is to rule out the possibility of neutrality … From a Christian standpoint it becomes apparent that the example is not merely one possibility among others but the basic constitution of mankind as such."
***The verb is paristanete, from paristanō, a late variation of paristēmi. Paul's use of the present tense here makes it clear that what is in view isn't merely random sinful acts, to which all of course are prone, but to a habitual placing oneself at the disposal of someone or something for their service.
****Greek hamartia, here personified, as is characteristic for Paul, and portrayed as an apocalyptic power holding people in its grip.
*****That the second "slavemaster" is indeed God is made clear in verse 22. Earlier Paul had spoken metonymically of slavery to a personified "Righteousness" (6:19) and, most peculiarly, of slavery to "obedience" (hypakoē) (6:17) to a "pattern" (typos) of teaching to which they had been "handed over" (paredothēte). Certainly Paul means by this that the slavery of a follower of Jesus consists in obedience to God in the form of obedience to authoritative teaching. At one level, this "obedience" corresponds to the "obedience" of Jesus by which his people are "constituted righteous" (Romans 5:19). But Paul's interesting phraseology reflects, I believe, his confident assertion in verse 14 that "sin will not exercise lordship over you (kyriousei understood as a temporal future), for you are not under Law, but under Grace." The Law, as Paul startlingly asserts in Romans 5:20, didn't help, but rather exacerbated the problem of human sin―at least by intensifying its seriousness by turning sin into transgressions (cf. Romans 3:19-20); more likely by numerically increasing its prevalence (graphically illustrated in the soliloquy of Romans 7:7-25). It was the reign of "Grace," enacted by the one "gracious act" (dikaiōma, 5:18) of Christ, that overturned Sin's baneful dominion (Romans 5:21). Rather than being "handed over" to the Law, the Roman Christians had been "handed over" to a "pattern" of teaching, almost certainly the fundamental baptismal confession, "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9), which summarizes the Christian's obligation in a nutshell. Also significant is Paul's seemingly off-hand comment that the Romans had obeyed this teaching "from the heart" (ek kardias), which speaks, not of fervency (="wholeheartedly;" contra Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993] 444; cf. NIV), but rather of source, denoting the interiority of their motivation, a clear allusion to the promises of the New Covenant (Romans 2:25-29; cf. Ezekiel 36:26-27).
******Greek dikaiosynē. The multivalence of this term in Paul's writings is famous, which has led to much confusion here. Though the term is used by Paul in terms of a legal status of being "in the right" before God (e.g., Romans 4:3, 5; 5:17, 21), this makes little sense in this context. Nor is it likely to be a shorthand for "the righteousness of God" (dikaiosynē theou) (cf. Romans 1:17; 3:21; 10:3) in the sense of God's powerful saving activity in faithfulness to his covenant promises (contra N. T. Wright, "Romans," in The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 10 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2002] 545). The contrast with hamartia, "sin," makes most likely the view that the "righteousness" in view is "right" moral conduct pleasing to God. Cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996) 400.
*******Note that, in contrast to John, for whom "eternal life" is a present possession for a "believer" in Jesus, for Paul it is the end product and thus still future.
********Note that, as a Protestant, I fully agree with the fundamental, notional distinction Luther made between justification and regeneration/sanctification. Nonetheless, though distinguishable, they can never be divorced from one another. They are a package deal.
*********The corporate character of Paul's conception of the "old man" and "new man" vis-à-vis the Christian becomes evident in Colossians 3:9-11, where the Christians' having "put off" (apekdysamenoi) the old man and "put on" (endysamenoi) the new man―both aorist, causal/circumstantial participles―is used as the basis for his command to the Colossians not to lie to one another. Cf. also Ephesians 4:22-24, where Paul writes that the Ephesians had been taught that they had "taken off" (apothesthai) the old man and "put on" (endysasthai) the new man. Thus understood, the infinitives apothesthai and endysasthai are used in indirect discourse following the verb edidachthēte, "you were taught." Cf. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 214-18. Contra, inter alia, NIV, NRSV, both of which see the implied mood of the indirect discourse as imperative. So also Moo, who, citing F. F. Bruce, states that "their [i.e., the two infinitives in Ephesians 4:23-24] dependence on the verb [edidachthēte] makes an imperatival reading more likely" (374 n.114). I have one question: Why? Syntactically, there is no reason the indirect discourse could not imply an indicative rather than an imperative. Similarly, there is no lexical basis for his claim. Certainly, had Paul meant clearly to express an implied imperative, he could have used an unambiguous term like parelabete.
**********Greek katargēthēi. Though katargeō can carry the sense of "abolish," the context rather supports the notion of rendering powerless or inoperative. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, who more than a century ago helpfully rendered it "paralyzed" (William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902) en loc.
***********So Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 62-64.
************James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988) 337.
No comments:
Post a Comment