In the first 4 chapters of Romans, Paul shows that all of us, religious or not, are sinful and deserve judgment and death. He shows us that through faith alone, in Christ alone, we are forgiven, our sins are covered over, and we are justified before God solely by the death of Jesus.
In chapters 5-8, Paul begins to show us who we now are through the life of Jesus. We are not just sinners who are forgiven, who still have an old sin nature, who someday will get to replace it when we get to heaven. We have been filled with the Holy Spirit and as we learn to walk in faith in that Spirit, we develop character, perseverance, and hope. Not only were we reconciled to God, we became full of the life of Christ! (Rom 5) Not only did our sin nature die with Jesus, we are freed from slavery to sin, and our new spirit is alive and a slave to Christ alone! (Rom 6).
Romans 7 is perhaps one of the most misinterpreted and controversial passages in the bible. On first read it sounds like Paul is confessing to us what you and I often feel and have often heard taught – that we want to do good, but we are sinners by nature, and the sinful nature we have keeps us doing what we hate. I am altogether evil, and will be until I’m fully redeemed in glory, so I need to deny myself from acting out who I really am. That is not what this passage affirms! You do not have two natures battling within you, and living the Christian life is not about denying who you really are to attempt to become what you should be.
The confusion begins with the chapter divisions. Rom 7:1-6 is completing the thought from chapter 6 with an example. Rom 7:7- 8:11 is a new section emphasizing how different who we are in Christ is to who we were before. The second confusion is with the Greek words translated “sinful nature” in vs 5 and vs 18 in many translations, which should be translated “flesh”. It is just flesh, not a second nature battling within.
The next part of the confusion is whether Paul is referring to himself as a believer, or what he was like as a law abiding Jew before he knew Christ. Many might identify with and say this passage is just like how they feel as a believer. But that is not what Paul is referring to. Note in vs 5 he says “when we were controlled by” the flesh, ie. before we knew Jesus, back when we were slaves to our flesh. Vs 14 also affirms that he is speaking as to when he was a “slave to sin”, but in 6:22 he just told us that in Christ we are no longer slaves to sin! Therefore, this passage is written describing himself when he was a law abiding Jew, before he had a new spirit.
Now try reading the passage from this perspective – vs 1-6 as an a completion of chapter 6, and vs 7-8:11 as a new topic beginning with a review of his life before Jesus and a picture of his life in the Spirit, and inserting “flesh” when you see “sinful nature” in Chapters 7 and 8.
Rom 7:1-6 once our “sinful nature” was our flesh enslaved by the law to sin, but now that nature is dead, we are not enslaved to it, and we have no more obligation to it than a widow does to her dead husband – we are free to pursue a new life married to Jesus. We are now free to live by our new “nature” –our new Spirit housed until heaven in our flesh.
Rom 7:7-25. Paul contrasts this new life in the Spirit with the old life in the flesh by reflecting back on the frustrating conflict he felt trying to obey the law as a Jew. He willed to do good, but he was a slave to the sin that reigned in his body. Who will rescue him from this body of death? God will through Jesus! In fact, he will do it twice, or at least in two parts. First we are recreated in Christ and filled with His Spirit now (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 2:20), and later we will lose our flesh (I Cor 15:50-55). Both of these themes are emphasized in one of the most powerful chapters in the New Testament. But that is for tomorrow!
Let me end on a personal note. I spent many years struggling as a Christian to deny myself, reckon myself dead to sin, and freed from sin (when I was convinced that I was not), and feeling as frustrated as Paul did before he knew Jesus. Maybe that is where you are now. Romans 5-8 released me from that as I finally understood who I am in Christ and began responding to that in faith. I’m not a sinner, nor do I have a sin nature, nor am I even who I was before I knew Jesus. I’m more than forgiven and justified, I’m a new creation altogether, filled with the Spirit of God, a partaker of the divine nature, and am being conformed to the likeness of Jesus, my spirit crying out to know Him from deep within. I am a son of God, of a holy nation and kingdom of priests, an ambassador chosen by God and gifted to serve Him uniquely. My spirit doesn't even want to sin, so I ruthlessly starve fleshly habits and instead offer myself willingly, eagerly as an instrument of God. I am a saint, and in faith I will walk in the Spirit and the works He has given me! Once you see this, the entire New Testament will confirm that it is true. Walk on with me fellow saint!
hook's note: Mark Owen is an elder and community pastor for Ethnos.
Welcome.
Welcome to everyone reading through the New Testament in 2007. Each day, there will be a new post for the day's reading. You are invited to share your thoughts about what you've read, by adding comments to that post.
If you'd like a PDF version of the Introduction/Outline to Revelation, click here.
If you'd like a PDF version of the Introduction/Outline to Revelation, click here.
4 comments:
Re: flesh.
So, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?
On the meaning of 'sarx', the Louw & Nida NT Greek-English Lexicon, written for translators, has this to say:
"Some scholars understand the meaning of 'sarx' as being a person’s ‘lower nature’ rather than simply ‘human nature,’ but the distinction between lower nature and higher nature seems to be primarily one arising out of typical Greek thought rather than out of the Semitic background which seems to be so pervasive in the use of the term 'sarx' in such contexts in the NT. There are, of course, contexts in which 'sarx' does refer to that psychological factor in man which serves as a willing instrument of sin and is subject to sin."
Need to lose those lexicons, too much interpretation! The word just means "flesh". Like it says on studylight.org:
flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
Your flesh does have muscle memories, brain linkages, chemical attractions, but it has no "nature" at all.
You've insulted my good buddies Louw & Nida. To their defense!
This comment will be fairly lengthy, and somewhat technical, but I want to make sure everyone who is reading the blog is very clear on what Mark has said in his previous comment, and on what to expect when you read the blog -- especially if you're using the "word of the day" definitions. Mark, feel free to chime in, agree, disagree, expand, etc.
The translation of 'sarx' has caused controversy for a long time. One side of the argument is that sarx has just a couple of meanings: flesh; and body, depending on context. Another contingent expands that set of definitions to include all the definitions listed in the "word of the day" on the blog. Yet another contingent expands that meaning to include the NIV translation, "sinful nature".
This issue also raises the question as to which lexicons (dictionaries) provide the best information for us to make decisions about meaning. Most of the tools we have today use what critics call "glosses", and not complete definitions. A gloss would be a proposed translation in the target language for a word in the source language. Glosses are useful because they're short. But they can be misleading. Among other reasons, glosses tend to reflect the history of translation of a word, which can include outdated usages like we read in the KJV. Here's an example so that you can understand what a gloss is, how it differs from a definition, and the possibility of misunderstanding:
The Greek word asthenes was our word for the day a few days ago, from Romans 5:6, translated in the NIV as "powerless". You can see the word of the day entry, here. All the entries for a word of the day are structured like this:
- the English word from NIV
- the verse number
- a transliteration of the Greek word
- the Strongs #
- a series of "definitions", that start with the entry from Strong's, may include the definitions from Barclay Newman, and finally the entries from Louw & Nida's lexicon.
Generally, I include all the possible definitions for the word, unless it's an obvious stretch for the usage in context. For example, unless we're talking about tennis, there wouldn't be a need to include the definition of "love" as "zero in tennis". You are given a list of definitions, though, even if only one is most appropriate for the context, if the others are close in meaning. That way you get a fuller picture of the word, and you can make some decisions about what makes the right sense in a given passage.
Back to asthenes. The Strong's definitions are always glosses. In this case, the Strong's entry in the first line in the W-O-D entry reads: "without strength, weak". Skipping to the Louw & Nida definitions, there are three, and they each start with the word "pertaining". Here are two of them: "pertaining to a state of limited capacity to do or be something"; "pertaining to a state of helplessness in view of circumstances". I think you can see how the definitions are more complete than the glosses, and may provide a fuller understanding of the word within a given context. When it came time to translate the word, the NIV translators chose to use the strongest meaning of the word, powerless, instead of just weak.
We're almost finished, hang in there. Going back to the issue of which lexicon to use, the move today is away from lexicons that either provide only glosses, or have an excessive amount of theological discussion inside the "definition". Or better put, both of those types of lexical resources need to be understood for what they are. The ideal lexicon will provide true definitions, possible (and identified) glosses, be neutral theologically, and take into account the usage of the Greek word both in the New Testament, and in general usage in the world of the 1st and 2nd century Roman empire. We have no perfect lexicon today, but the two that seem to stand out are the Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and the lexicon known by the acronym BDAG (google it). Both lexicons take into account general Greek word usage, provide extended definitions, and break the comments out well enough that they are identifiable as such.
You get the Louw & Nida definitions on the blog because the other resource is really expensive.
Let's finish the discussion as it relates to 'sarx'. Many if not most commentators read "flesh" as having multiple meanings typically along the line of "carnal desire" or either "human nature" or "sinful nature". Obviously the NIV translators liked "sinful nature". F.F. Bruce, for example, describes no less than six nuances for Paul's use of the word 'sarx'. This is the contingent that presumes the widest possible set of definitions for 'sarx'. My own thought is that "sinful nature" is easily misunderstood, setting up the kind of dichotomy of thought Mark described as his personal experience, and why his idea of simply using the word "flesh" has such value. And the contrast between flesh and spirit is something we all understand.
As to lexicons, and Mark's comment about L&N (my defense):
1. The studylight.org lexicon lists the same set of definitions as L&N, not limiting 'sarx' to only "flesh".
2. In case anyone misunderstood, the quote from L&N was their final comment about 'sarx' that advised against using "sinful nature", because it went too far from the usage in Paul's world.
So what?
Two things that I hope you'll take away from this lengthy comment. First, that the definitions I'm supplying are from a resource that is as neutral as I can find, with little interpretation, contrary to what Mark poked at in his comment. Second, that Mark's original post is dead on in explaining what Paul is communicating, and that we are new creations through Christ.
I think that is an accurate way to discuss Lexicons and I appreciate your last line. My objection to using the full listing in the context, is that the majority of the definitions don't fit the context and so obscure the point. Like having a fifteen minute dialog on tennis, your wife might lose that you meant you "love" her!
I think we have to be careful in assuming the NT writers used words as they were used in their times. Jesus used apostle and disciple very differently than their times. Paul uses baptism, overseer, flesh, and other words differently. Letting the bible interpret the word is important. I use the Lexicon you refer to as BDAG because it limits its use of Greek to christian writings, not all Greek of the times, which caused us such problems when we discussed women and also homosexuality at Ethnos. I have the 2nd edition, Bauer, which gives 8 usages which are all very physical and unregenerate.
Hopefully we haven't lost the key point for the reader in this theological discourse. The real question is after reading Rom 5-8 is your old self dead or still fighting against you? Are you a new creation filled with the divine nature or are you a dual natured, inherently sinful, worthless failure? If we've confused you - ask!
Post a Comment