Reading Romans
[I've been having a discussion over at Drinking Deeply about Total Depravity, which has become a discussion of Romans interpretation. This (long) post is an installment in that discussion. If you're interested, I suggest you pick up the thread from the beginning.]
I think I was unclear and/or mistaken on a lot of important points in my last comment. This is an attempt to repair that.
(One specific point of unclarity: I made it sound as if there was no difference at all between the believer and anybody else; clearly that's not what Paul is saying.)
The goal here is to outline a reading of Romans 7.7-8.11 that coheres with its context. I'm making up a lot of this as I go, but my reading is definitely heavily influenced by this paper by N.T. Wright, which I read a while back. Unsurprisingly, I'm unconfident in a lot of what I'm saying. Correction and criticism is (as always) much appreciated.
***
First, the big picture. The passage in question is continuous with the discussion of sin, the law (i.e. Torah), and grace starting at the end of ch. 5. In fact, I think the last two verses of chapter 5 are a good summary of the argument that runs up to the middle of chapter 8:
Before that, Paul summarizes his argument up to that point: "death spread to all men because all sinned" (5.12); but "while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (5.6), reconciling us to God through the justification of faith. In chapter 6, then, he takes up the implications this has for our relationship to the law, sin, and grace. Here is Paul's main imperative, which governs the whole discussion in 6.1-8.11:
He argues that the grace of God releases us from the law and from sin in one stroke: it is because we are no longer under the law that "sin will have no dominion over" us. And it is because we are free from sin that we are free from death--"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (6.23).
Paul then goes on to explain this reasoning in ch. 7 and 8: why is it that being no longer under the law makes us free from sin?
***
We were "in the flesh", captive to sin, which produced death in us (6.21). This sin was "aroused by the law"--so when we were released from the law, we were free of what held us captive.
This is confusing---is the law sin? "By no means!" (7.7) Then in 7.7-8.11 (finally we reach our original question), Paul talks about what the law is.
"Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin" (7.7) and so "when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died" (7.9). Because of the law, I am seized on by guilt where before there was none; sin which was dormant in me springs to action. The law pokes the hornet's nest in my soul.
Why does the law (which is good) do this? "...In order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure" (7.13). What was invisible and at peace becomes a visible battleground. And so the law brings about a split in the person, a state of war where originally sin had untroubled dominion. This is the split that Paul describes in 7.14-20:
I recognize sin whereas before I did not, and in recognizing it I also recognize the Good. And so the same stroke that makes me a captive, in a sense makes me free: "it is no longer I who do it"--but what a terrible sense! I am demolished, disintegrated.
And just as I am disintegrated, the law itself is split: "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (7.22-23). And there's the rub: the war that the law begins the law cannot win, for when it enters me even the law itself becomes fleshly. And so I am a captive under the law, captive to sin, captive of my own flesh.
"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7.24-25)
***
But! in the hour of despair, the trumpet is sounded:
The law at work in me was weakened by my own nature, and so became a law of sin and death, driving me to despair. But "the law of the Spirit of life" has set me free from this:
This sums up again the argument that has been made earlier in Romans. God sent his son to die for the ungodly, and as we share in his death we are liberated from our own flesh: our flesh dies with Christ. We "died to that which held us captive"--the law of the flesh, the law of sin (7.6). And so we no longer walk "according to the flesh", but are now free to walk "according to the Spirit", living by the law which is not "the old written code" but which is "the new life of the Spirit" (7.6).
And here Paul describes two ways of life, set in dramatic contrast: "those who live according to the flesh", and "those who live according to the Spirit". This parallels the split described in chapter 7, and the implication is: which side will you take in the war over your soul? This brings the discussion back home to the question raised back in 6.15: "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Only now the answer should be obvious. We were captives of the flesh, and were set free by God's grace. Would we then keep our minds "set on the flesh", "hostile to God", unable to please him--just as we were under the law, only fighting on the side of death? "By no means!"
But Paul doesn't use question marks here. Paul echoes what he said before in the imperative mood, this time in the indicative mood. The command---"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions" (6.12)---becomes a declaration: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you" (8.9)." But this declaration is also a prediction--for in fact, we are still in the flesh, "this body of death" (7.24).
The victory is completed at the final resurrection, when "The body that ... is sown in dishonor ... is raised in glory" (1 Cor. 15.43). This future victory is sealed in the present: "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (8.16).
The war is won: the war will be won.
***
I hope that the above offers a compelling way of reading Romans 6-8, which hangs together coherently and makes sense of some confusing passages. (If you don't think so, I want to know.) Now I want to bring this back to the original question. What does any of this have to say about the question of Total Depravity?
Well, the passage certainly has a lot to say about sin. It is made abundantly clear that sin affects everybody (Universal Depravity), but that God's people are set free from sin. Okay, we agreed on that much already. What about the extent of sin?
Clearly it runs deep. Romans 7.13-24 shows that we are so far under the dominion of sin that it is not nearly enough for us simply to know what is good. This is in contrast with the Greek thinkers: Plato diagnosed the human predicament as a problem of ignorance. Paul says, no! even when I see that the law is good, it is still beyond my power to do what it commands.
(Paul echoes Plato on a lot of points in this passage, putting the conflict in terms of "mind" and "flesh"---but he parts ways with him on crucial points. The solution to the predicament is not merely to liberate the soul from the body, as Plato thought; but rather the Spirit will "give life to your mortal bodies" (8.11). But I digress.)
I think the case is strong for a version of Total Depravity: that every human faculty is affected by sin---or more evocatively, mxu's "Radical Depravity": the problem of sin goes right to the root, right to the very core of our being. Sin is not merely a question of flawed knowledge or flawed desires. "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out" (7.18).
But what about "Total Total Depravity": that every human aspect is entirely sinful, that there is nothing good at all in humanity? I don't think this passage decides that question one way or the other. We see that sin thwarts every effort toward the Good. But I see no evidence that Paul in fact thinks there is nothing good whatsoever in the person so thwarted. Or again, "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot"---but I see no evidence that (even if Paul really thinks that describes a particular set of people) Paul thinks that there is nothing good, nothing of value in such people whatsoever. He describes the state in extreme terms---for of course it is bad! very bad! to be so enslaved to the passions, so set against God. But I still see no case here for TTD.
(And if we look elsewhere, I think there's a good case to be made against TTD. But there's enough on the table as it is.)
I think I was unclear and/or mistaken on a lot of important points in my last comment. This is an attempt to repair that.
(One specific point of unclarity: I made it sound as if there was no difference at all between the believer and anybody else; clearly that's not what Paul is saying.)
The goal here is to outline a reading of Romans 7.7-8.11 that coheres with its context. I'm making up a lot of this as I go, but my reading is definitely heavily influenced by this paper by N.T. Wright, which I read a while back. Unsurprisingly, I'm unconfident in a lot of what I'm saying. Correction and criticism is (as always) much appreciated.
***
First, the big picture. The passage in question is continuous with the discussion of sin, the law (i.e. Torah), and grace starting at the end of ch. 5. In fact, I think the last two verses of chapter 5 are a good summary of the argument that runs up to the middle of chapter 8:
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (5.20-21)
Before that, Paul summarizes his argument up to that point: "death spread to all men because all sinned" (5.12); but "while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (5.6), reconciling us to God through the justification of faith. In chapter 6, then, he takes up the implications this has for our relationship to the law, sin, and grace. Here is Paul's main imperative, which governs the whole discussion in 6.1-8.11:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (6.12-14)
He argues that the grace of God releases us from the law and from sin in one stroke: it is because we are no longer under the law that "sin will have no dominion over" us. And it is because we are free from sin that we are free from death--"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (6.23).
Paul then goes on to explain this reasoning in ch. 7 and 8: why is it that being no longer under the law makes us free from sin?
***
For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. (7.5-6)
We were "in the flesh", captive to sin, which produced death in us (6.21). This sin was "aroused by the law"--so when we were released from the law, we were free of what held us captive.
This is confusing---is the law sin? "By no means!" (7.7) Then in 7.7-8.11 (finally we reach our original question), Paul talks about what the law is.
"Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin" (7.7) and so "when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died" (7.9). Because of the law, I am seized on by guilt where before there was none; sin which was dormant in me springs to action. The law pokes the hornet's nest in my soul.
Why does the law (which is good) do this? "...In order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure" (7.13). What was invisible and at peace becomes a visible battleground. And so the law brings about a split in the person, a state of war where originally sin had untroubled dominion. This is the split that Paul describes in 7.14-20:
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. (7.14-17)
I recognize sin whereas before I did not, and in recognizing it I also recognize the Good. And so the same stroke that makes me a captive, in a sense makes me free: "it is no longer I who do it"--but what a terrible sense! I am demolished, disintegrated.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. (7.18-19)
And just as I am disintegrated, the law itself is split: "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" (7.22-23). And there's the rub: the war that the law begins the law cannot win, for when it enters me even the law itself becomes fleshly. And so I am a captive under the law, captive to sin, captive of my own flesh.
"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7.24-25)
***
But! in the hour of despair, the trumpet is sounded:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. (8.1-3)
The law at work in me was weakened by my own nature, and so became a law of sin and death, driving me to despair. But "the law of the Spirit of life" has set me free from this:
By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (8.3-4)
This sums up again the argument that has been made earlier in Romans. God sent his son to die for the ungodly, and as we share in his death we are liberated from our own flesh: our flesh dies with Christ. We "died to that which held us captive"--the law of the flesh, the law of sin (7.6). And so we no longer walk "according to the flesh", but are now free to walk "according to the Spirit", living by the law which is not "the old written code" but which is "the new life of the Spirit" (7.6).
And here Paul describes two ways of life, set in dramatic contrast: "those who live according to the flesh", and "those who live according to the Spirit". This parallels the split described in chapter 7, and the implication is: which side will you take in the war over your soul? This brings the discussion back home to the question raised back in 6.15: "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Only now the answer should be obvious. We were captives of the flesh, and were set free by God's grace. Would we then keep our minds "set on the flesh", "hostile to God", unable to please him--just as we were under the law, only fighting on the side of death? "By no means!"
But Paul doesn't use question marks here. Paul echoes what he said before in the imperative mood, this time in the indicative mood. The command---"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions" (6.12)---becomes a declaration: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you" (8.9)." But this declaration is also a prediction--for in fact, we are still in the flesh, "this body of death" (7.24).
But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. (8.10-11)
The victory is completed at the final resurrection, when "The body that ... is sown in dishonor ... is raised in glory" (1 Cor. 15.43). This future victory is sealed in the present: "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (8.16).
The war is won: the war will be won.
***
I hope that the above offers a compelling way of reading Romans 6-8, which hangs together coherently and makes sense of some confusing passages. (If you don't think so, I want to know.) Now I want to bring this back to the original question. What does any of this have to say about the question of Total Depravity?
Well, the passage certainly has a lot to say about sin. It is made abundantly clear that sin affects everybody (Universal Depravity), but that God's people are set free from sin. Okay, we agreed on that much already. What about the extent of sin?
Clearly it runs deep. Romans 7.13-24 shows that we are so far under the dominion of sin that it is not nearly enough for us simply to know what is good. This is in contrast with the Greek thinkers: Plato diagnosed the human predicament as a problem of ignorance. Paul says, no! even when I see that the law is good, it is still beyond my power to do what it commands.
(Paul echoes Plato on a lot of points in this passage, putting the conflict in terms of "mind" and "flesh"---but he parts ways with him on crucial points. The solution to the predicament is not merely to liberate the soul from the body, as Plato thought; but rather the Spirit will "give life to your mortal bodies" (8.11). But I digress.)
I think the case is strong for a version of Total Depravity: that every human faculty is affected by sin---or more evocatively, mxu's "Radical Depravity": the problem of sin goes right to the root, right to the very core of our being. Sin is not merely a question of flawed knowledge or flawed desires. "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out" (7.18).
But what about "Total Total Depravity": that every human aspect is entirely sinful, that there is nothing good at all in humanity? I don't think this passage decides that question one way or the other. We see that sin thwarts every effort toward the Good. But I see no evidence that Paul in fact thinks there is nothing good whatsoever in the person so thwarted. Or again, "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot"---but I see no evidence that (even if Paul really thinks that describes a particular set of people) Paul thinks that there is nothing good, nothing of value in such people whatsoever. He describes the state in extreme terms---for of course it is bad! very bad! to be so enslaved to the passions, so set against God. But I still see no case here for TTD.
(And if we look elsewhere, I think there's a good case to be made against TTD. But there's enough on the table as it is.)
Posted by Jeff on Sunday, November 12, 2006
7 Comments:
Ok, so here are the big questions I have:
How do we define "good" apart from what is pleasing to God?
I see them as one and the same, and it seems that you are arguing that "having no good in them" is different from being hostile to God, not submitting to God's law, and actually being unable to submit to God's law.
Where's the difference?
And if there is a difference, by your reading, choosing to follow the spirit (with the mind at least) must be something that's not pleasing to God (maybe not "displeasing", but certainly not "pleasing"). Is that correct?
As a whole, I agree with your reading of Romans 6-8, with the additional qualification that Romans is written to a believing church and thus this passage is primarily describing the already not-yet tension for the believers.
Ah! Good question.
I don't think I can define "good" in more basic terms, but I'll go with you that being pleasing to God is a necessary and sufficient condition. (Whatever is good pleases God; whatever pleases God is good.)
Now I think I see your argument. Let's say Bert is some fallen person, prior to grace (whatever that means exactly).
1a. Pleasing God is a necessary condition for being good.
2a. Bert cannot please God.
3a. Therefore, Bert is not good.
Sound argument, but nobody claimed Bert was good (nobody who affirms Universal Depravity, anyway). You want the stronger argument:
1b. (Same as 1a)
2b. Nothing about Bert pleases God.
3b. Therefore, nothing about Bert is good.
That's also a valid argument. Thing is, I don't see any support for premise 2b in the text. It's a lot stronger than 2a, which is clearly supported. Do you see support for 2b? Or have I misconstrued your argument?
So, in answer to your last question, I think it's perfectly plausible and consistent with Romans that fallen Bert desires to do good, and that his desire to do good is pleasing to God. That doesn't mean that Bert successfully pleases God. Just having some good feature doesn't make you good.
Does that help any?
I fully endorse your qualification, by the way. I took it for granted, and forgot to say explicitly, that my "we" and Paul's "you" is the church.
whoops, didn't mean to switch between "cannot" and "does not" in those two arguments. make them both the same; i don't think it matters which one you go with.
Oh! I had totally misunderstood your objection then. I need to go back and reread what you wrote. I think I misread you and understood you to be arguing for the position that Romans 8 referred to all people. My apologies. Thank you for clarifying that.
ok
So I basically agree with you on Romans 6-8. I'm sure there are specific points that we don't entirely see eye to eye on, but as a whole, that's excellent.
I think if I'm allowed to point to my radical depravity post and remark that from the mind flows all other things (as the Bible equates the mind with the heart, which is a point I've addressed in earlier posts). If the mind is evil, it will bear evil fruit.
1c) Pleasing God is necessary condition for being good.
2c) Bert's mind is set on the flesh, hostile to God, unable to please Him
3c) All things that Bert does or thinks from his mind. (definition of mind as seat of intellect)
4c) All things that Bert does or thinks is hostile to God, unable to please Him (Matthew 12, evil treasure bears evil)
5c) Nothing that Bert does or thinks is good.
As a side note, I don't think Romans 3 can be that easily dismissed. Yes, Paul is proving that both Jews and Greeks are under sin, but does that mean that the verses he's quoting aren't entirely accurate in their description? Can't he be using them to prove one point when they prove a far stronger one?
And if you have verses against TTD, feel free to email or comment them to me (supporting argument included or not), I'll try to incorporate them into future blog posts. No point in me just playing solitaire =p
We're making progress!
First off, the conclusion of the argument you just gave is weaker than the one I was arguing against. I thought the claim was "Nothing about Bert is good", but in fact apparently what you're saying is "Nothing that Bert does or thinks is good." That's a big difference, and takes care of a lot of my worries. Maybe Bert's actions and thoughts are thoroughly crooked---but even so he's (in Natalie's words) "still by far the most ridiculously awesome thing on this planet." There's a lot of good a person can have besides good actions and thoughts; like being beautiful or creative or strong or brilliant. And humanity--even fallen humanity--is all of those things. "What a piece of work is man!" If we agree on that much, then we agree on what I saw as the main issue.
(Which of course is not to say that even those excellencies are entirely good. Even the beauty and brilliance of humanity is corrupt. But that doesn't negate what I've said.)
As for the weaker conclusion, I sort of agree. I'll go with you on "Nothing that Bert does or thinks is entirely good", but I wouldn't say "Everything that Bert does or thinks is entirely bad." Maybe there's no disagreement here. Is there? (Even if there is, at this point our disagreement may be shrinking to nothing. That's good.)
I didn't mean to be dismissive of Romans 3 (you're talking about my remark in passing when I lay out GD and UD?). But I do think the interpretive principle you lay down is a dangerous one: "Can't he be using them to prove one point when they prove a far stronger one?"
Well, yes. Anything you say has more consequences than just the ones you intend. But the meanings of the individual sentences are governed by the meaning of the whole argument. This is especially true when the sentences express strong claims. There's a lot of hyperbole in the world, not least in scripture. This, I insist, is not remotely to its discredit. But it does make a big difference in how we interpret---and I suspect this is affecting our main discussion as well.
Ok, so hmm... it feels like it's one step forward to you and one step in a different direction to me.
I agree with you that there can be something "good" inside of Bert. The image of God, for example, which is sufficient reason for God to forbade the killing of people without (explicit) divine warrant to Noah (this is set off in contrast to the "take and eat" command of the animals).
Yet, there is something else about my definition of Bert, that would render him, I think, completely bad.
You say he can be "strong, beautiful, creative, or brilliant." Well, yes, by the culture's measurements of strength, beauty, creativity, and brilliance. But those attributes, which may be used for good and God's glory in a Christian, are perverted by man's evil desires to build towers of Babel. So in that sense, i would say even though Bert appears strong, creative, brilliant (to us), to God, he's still in the same state unconverted average Joe (if Bert himself is unconverted), worthy of no reward, at enmity with God, unable to please Him.
So yes, I think we're in agreement with what you saw as the main issue.
What I was driving at was that man is unable to contribute at all to his salvation, he is hostile to God.
Taken in more specific step, given a choice between having faith (obedience) and not, man in his sinful state (set on the flesh), chooses not. This sets the stage for the other 4 points. If I could actually work up the motivation to continue posting, you'd have seen that =p but alas Mickey is not a machine.
Regarding Romans 3, I wasn't implying that you were being dismissive, and since I brought it up as part of a list at the end of my post, it probably isn't quite fair for me to demand a complete exegetical argument for it, so I"m willing to let it rest. I'm sure we'll get to a similar text (where we can discuss those hermeneutical issues you raise) soon enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home