OF
CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY
ÒThe kingdom of the heavens is similar to a bit of
yeast which a woman took and hid in half a bushel of dough. After a while all the dough was
pervaded by it.Ó Jesus of Nazareth
ÒAnd his gifts were that some be apostles, some
prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers for the equipment of the
saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we
all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. .
.to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no
longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of
doctrine.
. . .Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in
every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body,
joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each
part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.Ó Ephesians
4.11-16
ÒYou must have often wondered why the enemy [God] does
not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any
degree he chooses and at any moment.
But you now see that the irresistible and the indisputable are the two weapons,
which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as
His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would
certainly do) would be for Him useless.
He cannot ravish. He can
only woo. For His ignoble idea is
to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet they;
merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. . . . Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in
fact, at least from their conscious experience, all supports and
incentives. He leaves the creature
to stand up on its own legs--to carry out from the will alone duties which have
lost all relish. . . . He cannot ÒtemptÓ
to virtue as we do to vice. He
wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand. . . Our cause is never more in danger than
when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our enemyÕs will,
looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have
vanished, and asks why He has been forsaken, and still obeys.Ó
Uncle Screwtape, C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
In considering
the theme of ÒperfectionÓ according to the New Testament, we must not limit our
reflections to the two places where the term ÒteleiosÓ is used--Matthew 5.48
and 19.21. We must inquire where
the matter of perfection is being referred to in the four Gospels, in the form
of the Imitatio Christi in particular.
In the first
passage, Christ speaks to this in the framework of The Sermon on The Mount,
which constitutes the climax of a series of logia, vs. 43-47 (cf. P.J.
du Pleissis,, Teleios: The Idea of Perfection in The New Testament
(Kemper, 1959, p. 168), if not the whole series of antithesis of chapter five
which is colored by a conscious contrast with the legalistic piety of the
Scribes and Pharisees who do not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves and
hinder those who were entering.
(du Pleissis, op cit, p. 168; W.D. Davies, The Setting of The Sermon
on The Mount, 1964; compare with G. Friedhamder, The Jewish Sources of
The Sermon on The Mount (Library of Biblical Studies, ed. H.M. Orlinsky,
1969, p. 84; R. Schnackenburg, Christian Existence According to the New
Testament, I 1967; pp. 140-146). Already from this contextual relationship
the word in Matthew 5.48 cannot be considered as an isolated moral imperative
which would imply the teaching of ethical sinlessness or perfectionism (see
esp. H. Hindlisch, The Meaning of The Sermon on The Mount (E.T. 1950,
pp. 19ff; 121ff.)
The meaning of the
term spirituality is uncertain partially because Scripture uses so many images
and concepts to teach us about our Christian experience. Among the most salient images and
concepts are several that have implications for our understanding of Christian
Spirituality, including fruitfulness, growth, maturity, sanctification,
holiness and love.
While none of
these biblical images is the same as spirituality, each contributes to our
understanding the above. These are
just some of the concepts which contribute and fuse victorious Christian
living. We must therefore place
Christian spirituality in Postmodern perspective. Paul declares that the true measure of Christian spirituality
is Love (I Corinthians 13.1-3--compare with 14.1-25). Love creates community (John 13.34),
provides motivation (II Cor 5.14), prompts obedience (John 14.26), transforms
character (Colossians 3.12-17), provides purpose (I Peter 4.8-10), stabilizes
relationships (Col. 3.12-17, Philippians 2.2), compels concern (I John
3.16-18).
We have noted the
wellspring that vitalizes and characterizes the true Christian life where there
is always fruitfulness, growth, maturity, sanctification, holiness and love. (1) Fruitfulness in the Old Testament
is the product of plants or the offspring of annuals or human beings. Fruit also represents the consequences
of human choices and acts. Isaiah
5 is a powerful example of this use.
God personally planted His people Israel as a farmer plants a vine. God placed His people in good ground
and tended them carefully.
Although He looked for justice and righteousness, the fruit that Israel
produced was bloodshed and cries of distress.
The New Testament
uses fruit in the same three senses where it refers to words and actions and
reveals a personÕs character (Matthew 7, Luke 6). Perhaps the central passage is John 15.1-26. Here Jesus is
pictured as the root and trunk of the vine, to which believers as branches are
linked. Jesus warns, Òapart from
me you can do nothingÓ (vs. 5).
Jesus emphatically declares that only intimacy is maintained by
obedience, saying, ÒIf you obey my commands, you will remain in my loveÓ (vs.
10).
The Book of
Galatians uses fruit in essentially the same as the Old Testament. The fruit which grows from the sinful
nature of human beings is Òsexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry
and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition,
dissensions, factions and envy, drunkenness, orgies and the likeÓ (Galatians
5.19-21). In contrast, the Holy
Spirit produces a fruit in the believer, which is a quality both of our inner
life and of our relationship with others.
The Holy SpiritÕs fruit in human lives is Òlove, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, fruitfulness, gentleness and self controlÓ (vs. 22-23).
Fruitfulness is not spirituality.
But the life of the spiritual person, lived in intimate relationship
with Jesus and marked by obedience to Him, will be rich in the love, joy, peace
and patience, which GodÕs inner work provides.
(2) Growth--of the three Greek words
linked with the word growth in the New Testament, the most powerful is ÒauxanolauxoÓ
(grow). Used 22 times, the word
group (see the Domain Lexicon) suggests natural processes which God has
structured into His universe. The
word is used of plants, human development and of numerical growth of the Church
(see the ÒgrowthÓ word in Acts; the domain contains numerical as well as
spiritual maturity).
In II Corinthians
10.15, the individual believers grow in faith, in knowledge of God (Col. 1.10),
and in grace (II Peter 3.18).
There is also corporate growth for the body of Christ as it matures
(Ephesians 2.21; 4.15-16). All
such spiritual growth is superintended by God (I Cor 3.6-7; Eph 2.21;
4.15). Christian growth, however,
is not automatic, nor are believers passive. Christians are to feed on GodÕs word (I Peter 2.2; Hebrews
5.11-14) and to be rooted deeply in relationship with others in the community
of faith (Eph 3.1-19; 4.13-16. Growth
is not spirituality, yet the spiritual life draws us to the process of growth
(I Cor 3.7). All disciples are
responsible to stand firm in the will of God (Col. 4.12).
(3) We attain Maturity as we bond
with other believers, living together as ChristÕs Church (Eph 4.12,13); as we persevere
in our trials (James 1.4) and as we exercise our faculties by using GodÕs word
to guide our choices (Heb 5.14).
Maturity is not spirituality, yet the spiritual person is on the way
toward maturity.
(4) Sanctification--There are two
Greek words translated in this domain (hagiazo and hagiasom). These same words mean Òmake holyÓ and
ÒholinessÓ which suggests that the concept of sanctification and holiness
overlap and at times are identical.
Hebrews 10.29 affirms that JesusÕ blood has sanctified the
believer. Ò. . .by one sacrifice
He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy (vs. 10.4) (Note the participle, constantly being
made). The New Testament is
emphatically clear that we fall short of actual holiness. Our ÒstateÓ does not match our
Òstanding.Ó The New Testament
emphasizes a process of sanctification by which we stand; Jesus prayed that
followers might be sanctified by GodÕs word (John 17.12,19). The Holy Spirit is also spoken of as
the agent of sanctification (Romans 5.16; see also I Cor. 1.2, 6.11). Paul emphasizes the process--Òmay your
whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
ChristÓ (I Thess. 5.23).
Sanctification is both a reality and a process. Christ has won it for us; the Holy Spirit
continues to empower our growth in holiness. Sanctification is not spirituality but spiritually is rooted
in ChristÕs sanctifying work on the cross and by His resurrection.
(5) Holiness--This vital concept is
developed in both the Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew term means Òto be consecratedÓ or Òto be
dedicated.Ó Thus the Holy is set
apart in the faith of Israel. Like
holiness is both cultic and moral, morally Israel was called to be holy
Òbecause I, the Lord your God, am holyÓ (Leviticus 19.2). The Old Testament stressed strict
separation between sacred and the holy.
The New Testament emphasizes a dynamic inner holiness which remains
unaffected by external contact with the unclean. A marvellous example is expressed by JesusÕ encounter with
the Pharisees who were upset and angry at Jesus, whom they accused of keeping
company with tax collectors and sinners.
The PhariseesÕ concept of Holiness demanded strict separation from
sinners and could not grasp His meaning.
JesusÕ holiness overcomes evil and even brings healing to the sinners,
for JesusÕ holiness is inner and a dynamic quality of His life. Paul applies this theme in his letter
to the Corinthians. ÒI have
written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Cor 5.9-10). No behavior which threatens the
individual or the ChurchÕs commitment to Jesus is acceptable. Holiness remains essential to our
calling. God still commands us to
ÒBe holy, because I am holyÓ (I Peter 1.16; 2.11; Col. 2.20-23). We are GodÕs chosen people, Òholy and
dearly lovedÓ (Col. 2.12), and our commitment is to kindness, humility,
gentleness and patience.
(6) Love--Love must be included in
our last of the images vitally linked with Christian spirituality. The Corinthian Church was a problem
Church. The problem of gifts (chps
12-14) is not an ultimate criterion of true spirituality; love in chapter 13 is
the answer to true spirituality.
Love in the individual and the Christian community is crucial for our
present discussion. (1) Love creates
community (Jn 13.34); (2) Prompts obedience (14.21,23); (3) Provides motivation
(II Cor 5.14); (4) Transforms character (Col. 3.12-17); (5) Provides purpose (I
Pet. 4.8-10); (6) Stabilizes relationship (Phil 2.2) and (7) Compels concern (I
Jn 3.16-18). Love (agape)
(Jn 3.16) is the wellspring, which vitalizes and characterizes the truly
Christian life. Our love is our
response to GodÕs love (I Jn 4.7; I Pet. 1.22, Eph. 5.2). Love is not spirituality but true Christian
spirituality could not conceivably exist apart form a deep and overflowing love
(see summaries in Laurence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words
(Zondervan Pub., 1985).
The magistral
passage of scripture describes the ChurchÕs ministry, the nature of
spirituality for all the people of God.
The Church of Jesus Christ is a crucible of spirituality guiding persons
in faith and ministry for the ÒedifyingÓ of the entire body of Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ must
encourage Christians in the pursuit of a mature spiritual life--Òtogether
participating in the perfecting of the saints....Ó
The spiritual
legacy of the scriptures perhaps can be categorized under three factors: (1) Spirituality informs every facet of
the ChurchÕs life. It is not
limited to certain ÒsacredÓ moments when the people of God are being
indefinably Òpious or spiritual.Ó Through
spirituality, The Church of Jesus Christ seeks to conform to the Òmeasure of
the stature of the fullness of ChristÓ (Eph 14.11). Christ is the center, the model for the ChurchÕs spiritual
identity; (2) Spiritual maturity is inseparable from theological nature. To be a Christian means growing up in
the faith so that we are no longer children, tossed about by Òevery wind of
doctrine,Ó easily manipulated by every new theological fad or super apostle who
appears on the scene (II Cor 11.13-14).
Rigorous theological investigation, prayer and study are also a part of
the spiritual pilgrimage that leads to theological maturity; (3) Spirituality
leads to action--a caring response to human need. Constantly carrying out the Samaritan example. Jesus spent much time both Òspeaking
the TruthÓ as well as Òdoing the truthÓ--offering tangible response to the
outcasts of His society. Christian
spirituality entails more than spiritual observations of the human
condition. Spiritual exploration
will help us experience GodÕs presence and express GodÕs love in the Church and
throughout our postmodern global village.
In our postmodern
twenty-first century, all kinds of people are yearning to be Òspiritual.Ó New Agers, Roman Catholics,
Evangelicals and secular humanists have attached such a diversity of opinion,
the confusing condition overwhelms definitions. So often among diverse groups from all over our country,
spirituality is slippery and individualistic; but what does all of this have to
do with the biblical mandate for His Church Òto be Holy as I am HolyÓ? (See my paper, ÒPostmodern Spirituality
As Contentless, Highly Subjective and Culturally Irrelevant.Ó The literature on the Postmodern view
of spirituality is legend.)
The challenge is
so enormous that our brief paper will seem futile to some. The ensuing account attempts Òto map
out our spiritual journey.Ó What
does Christian Spirituality mean?
The foundation of
the Gospel Message is that God initiates something in our lives. Spirituality is not grasping and
groping after God. It is no more
an individualistic accomplishment than is salvation, sanctification or bodily
resurrection only when God draws near that we might draw near to Him (James
4.8). God is not only the source
for spirituality, but God is also the goal.
GodÕs priority in
spirituality has several implications:
(1) It encourages and enables us to continue down paths, even
when the going is arduous. God
will provide the resources we need to follow the spiritual path. GodÕs priority also enables us. ÒI believe, help my unbelief.Ó (Mark 9.24) (2) GodÕs
priority guides us. There
is a direction in the spiritual journey.
It is not just a walk with God, it is a path that leads somewhere. The destination is none other than
Jesus Christ, the human face of God.
The Gospel according to Hebrews says Òlet us run with perseverance the
race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our
faithÓ (Hebrews 12. 1,2) (3) GodÕs priority cautions us. Spirituality is one area of our journey
in discipleship that we cannot dominate.
Our rhythm of spiritual life must be Òwait upon the Lord.Ó The spirituality of discipleship has
its own trajectories of growth. The language of spirituality is relational (see my study on
all the Òone anotherÓ passages in the New Testament). Though our source for mapping our spiritual journey
must always be the Word of God, we surely can benefit from the spiritual
classics such as the following:
Michael Horton, In
the Face of God (Dangers and Delights of Spiritual Intimacy (Word
Publishers, 1996); Donald Coggan, The Prayers of The New Testament
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967, pb.); Dallas Willard, The Divine
Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God (Harper and Row, 1998);
and Richard J. Foster, Streams of Living Water: Celebrating the Great
Tradition of Christian Faith, esp. the section on ÒSignificant Movements in
Church HistoryÓ, pp. 303-378, (Harper, 1998). FosterÕs work marvellously traces the changing paradigms of
the Spiritual Journey in the History of The Church: (1) Imitation: The Divine Paradigm; (2) Contemplative
Tradition: Discovering The Prayer-Filled Life; (3) Holiness Tradition:
Discovering the Virtuous Life; (4) Charismatic Tradition: Discovering
the Spirit Empowered Life; (5) Social Justice Tradition: Discovering the
Compassionate Life; (6) Evangelical Tradition: Discovering the
Word-Centered Life; (7) Incarnational
Tradition: Discovering the Sacramental Life.
(Compare these
alternative paradigms in the context of Mark Nolls, Turning Points: Decisive
Moments in the History of The Church (InterVarsity Press, 1997). My paper, ÒQualifications For All
BelieversÓ (Moral Description for All Disciples in the New Testament). Only Òable to teachÓ is not used to
describe all Christians throughout the New Testament. There is only the Priesthood of Believers versus the CEO
concept of leadership and discipleship presented in the New Testament.
Building on the
Scriptures as the foundation for our Spiritual Pilgrimage, some of the classic
works on Christian Spirituality are: (1) AugustinesÕs, The Confessions;
(2) The Desert Fathers (the denial of life on earth has been the
incalculable enriching of it); (3) The Little Flowers of St. Francis
(the story of the Little Poor Man of Assisi); (4) The Imitation of Christ
by Thomas aÕKempis (a book of meditations directing the Christian life); (5) The
Freedom of The Christian by Martin Luther; (6) The Interior Castle (St.
Teresa of Avila, seven mansions of the soulÕs spiritual growth); (7) The
Book of Common Prayer, a manual of prayer and worship; (8) The Practice
of The Presence of God (Brother Laurence), the secret of unbroken
fellowship with God; (9) PilgrimÕs Progress by John Bunyan, an allegory
of ChristianÕs journey from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City;
(compare this with C.S. LewisÕ book, PilgrimÕs Regress); (10) Journal
of John Woolman, a Quaker witness against slavery and other social evils;
(11) The Self Examination, Soren KierkegaardÕs spiritual reality of
cross-bearing; (12) Way of the
Pilgrim (Russian Orthodox, ÒWanderer for ChristÓ who found the secret of
prayer without ceasing); (13) Creative Prayer, E. HermanÕs principles
and practice of prayer; (14) Prayer, O. Hollasby on instruction for an
effective prayer life; (15) The School of Charity, Evelyn Underhill
(meditation and Inner life; (16) Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
(prerequisites and patterns of community living).
This brief study
precludes serious analysis of the history of this controversy, but I will give
suggestions as to the extent of Church discussion of the issue. Any serious engagement with the history
of Spiritual Formation in the individual disciple and the body-corporate-of
Christ sends us first to the three general characteristics of ÒPerfectionist
MovementsÓ: (1) All types of
perfectionism arose as a reaction against contemporary religious moral lethargy
or apostasy. (2) All perfectionist groups, if not in the
beginning, led to the establishment of a more or less separate religious
community apart from the main body of believers (cf. Monasticism became
incorporate with the Roman Catholic Church as a legitimate way of perfection). (3) The creation and recognition of a
new standard or authority became the source of ÒindividualisticÓ
perfectionism. The higher
standard/authority was invariably a new revelation or a new interpretation
(hermeneutic). (See particularly
H.K. LaRondelleÕs work, Perfection and Perfectionism (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 1984).
The Old Testament
cultural context of especially Mesopotamia and Egypt, expressed mythopoetic
concepts of perfectionism. The
same holds for perfectionism in non-Christian religions, Hinduism, Buddhism,
etc. The Qumran community was
supreme example of preoccupation with Ôreligious perfectionism.Õ The same emphasis is evident in
Graeco-Roman concepts of perfectionism.
We will limit our New Testament analysis to just two issues, (A) Romans
7 in the first section of our study.
We must keep in mind that not one
congregation of disciples mentioned in the NT is still alive today, but the
Church is; and (B) Warning Exhortation sections in Hebrews; we operate with
biblically grounded holistic hermeneutic versus the use of a number of
radically disparate passages of scriptures as Òproof texts.Ó
Serious attention
would need to be paid to the Distinctive Idea of Divine Perfection in
the Old Testament, especially human perfection in IsraelÕs protology. The function of Genesis 1, Men -the Imago
Dei, function of GodÕs rest and blessing on the seventh day, perfection,
the aim of Òprobationary command,Õ GodÕs answer to The Fall, human
perfection in IsraelÕs cultus and ethos, culture, Imitation Dei, the
religious, moral ground plan of the Psalms and Wisdom literature does not define perfection as sinlessness (see esp. Perfection in cultus and
ethos: Sinlessness in Psalms 15.19; individual confessions of innocence and
perfection in Pss. 7, 18, 26, 37, 101, 119, eg. Rabbinic and Hellenistic
perfectionism.
Qumran
perfectionism see esp. H. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; H.H. Brownlee, The
Meaning of The Qumran Scrolls and The Bible; L. Bronner, Sects and
Separation During the Second Jewish Commonwealth; Josephus, Wars II,
8; Antiquities; H. Braum, Qumran
XVIII ch. I and und das New Testament I/II extensive bibliography in
vol. II, section 3-5; B. Rigaux, ÒRevelation des magisteries et Perfection a
Qumran de New Testament.Ó NRS,
IV 1957-88, 23-70.
The Qumran community
did not hesitate to call themselves Òthe perfect onesÓ (IQ. S.3.3 Temimin 4.22;
8.1). ÒThe men of holy integrity
(IQS.8, 20) and the Òcouncil of holinessÓ (IQS, 8.21). The multitude of regulations for
ceremonial purity and intense exclusivism. . . and to Òpreserve their holinessÓ
(B. Gaertner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament). A deep consciousness of menÕs inherent
sinfulness is especially prevalent in the Thanksgiving hymns or Psalms.
As is widely
known, the doctrine of predestination, at least since Augustine, has always
tended to prevent to neutralize the idea of human meritorious and
law-righteousness, i.e., all forms of synergism. Strangely enough in late Medieval Scholasticism, the
doctrine of predestined grace (sola gratia) could be combined at the
same time with the doctrine of justification of works alone (solis operibus)
(See H. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, pp. 175ff.) The tension between absolute
Justification and non absolute Sanctification from Roman Catholic sacerdotalism
to the Wesleyan revolution and pentecostal absolute sanctification as a second
work of grace--Òcomplete sanctification.Ó
Beyond the New
Testament period the most important representative of Perfection is the
apologist Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr. TatianÕs ascetic ethical imitation of Christ is the definite
perfectionist element. Implicit in
this viewpoint is not only that Christ ÒcanÓ be imitated, but that all true
disciples ÒmustÓ imitate Him. (see
Irenaeus, Adn.Haer., I, 28; Eusebius EH, IV, 29 regards Tatian
the origin of Perfection, in Tatian, Oration to The Greeks.)
The fertile
Phrygia Valley was the geographical home of The Montanist Movement. The
movement was called ÒThe New ProphecyÓ before and ÒThe Phrygian HeresyÓ after
its excommunication. This movement
produced several persons who claimed to have Òparticular prophetic
charion.Ó The imminent return of
Christ was fundamental for their emphasis on the perfectionism of the bride of
Christ. The Montanist movement represented prophetic inspiration rather than
Jesus and His disciples. Only
those who followed new Montanist prophecy were Òtrue spiritualistsÓ (pneumatkoi).
The guiding
principle of the Novations were to establish and maintain a Òpure Church.Ó The Novations called themselves the
Catharists (katharoi) (Eusebius vi, 43).The moral purists after
NovationÕs excommunication began to organize the Òholy counter ChurchÓ
(Eusebius, EH, IV, 43). The
emphasis on the Òcommunio sanctoriumÓ and the sanctified life of the baptized
believers surely preserved an important element of apostolic Christianity. Ultimately, the Novation churches
speedily ceased to be any stricter than the other groups in their renunciation
of the world. (Harnack, History
of Dogma, II, p121).
Another group
with emphasis on perfectionism was Pelagianism. Pelagius was strongly influenced by Aristotelian and Stoic
philosophy and ethics. He desired
to lead the Church to Òmonarchist, ascetic perfectionÓ Harnack, V. pp.
170ff). His concern for Òsinless
perfectionÓ appears most strikingly in his letter to the noble virgin
Demetrias. Pelagianism only became
ÒproblematicÓ and even heretical when Augustinianism became its forceful
counter, which ultimately triumphed at the Council at Carthage (418 A.D.). PelagiusÕ call to sinless perfection
(amartetos) after baptism was not an innovation. Both Justin and Athanasius
were Pelagians before Pelagius in this respect. The other critical Pelagian emphasis was justification sola
fide. Augustine failed to
perceive this Pelagian feature and only after the recovery of the of his
Exposition of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul in the 20th century (J.A. Robinson,
3 volumes 1922-1931 reprint 1967 and R.F. Evans, Four Letters of Pelagius,
1968, pp. 34ff. and his Pelagius Inquiries and Reappraisals, 1968, p.
xiv. Augustine refers to Pelagius
work in The Peccatorum Metos et Remissione, III, 1.1 as he discusses
PelagiusÕ three major errors: (1)
Denial of original sin; (2) Meritorious character of grace; (3) Possibility of
sinless perfection after baptism (this emphasis will appear again in the
Wesleyan Theological Paradigm (see esp. FergusonÕs Pelagius (Cambridge,
1956, p. 47). Pelagius uses the
verb perficere in various semantic domains in his expositions, always
referring to ÒaccomplishmentÓ of good works (complete list of his use of
perficere in Four Letters, p. 81; see also Pelagius expositions of II
Cor. 5.9; 4.13, 16; 6.23; Gal. 3.11).
PelagiusÕ insistence that we can be without sin is an emphatic assertion
of the doctrine of creation by a just God--Òit is nothing more and nothing
lessÓ (Evans, Pelagius, pp. 22, 100-106). By adjudging the Pauline
doctrine of fide in an exclusively judicial sense, Pelagius divorced the
sola fide from the way of sanctification. This judgment places him closer to Seneca and Stoicism than
to Pauline theology. Since
Pelagius wanted to be orthodox, he came to define grace as the infused capacity
for sinlessness. Augustine sought
to respond to Pelagius in his De Natara et Gratia. (See my discussion of ÒgraceÓ in
Pelagius and Augustine in my forthcoming Narrative Displacement in The
Nature of Grace)
The biblical
paradigm of holiness, both Old and New Testament, excludes the notion of
inherent sinless perfection. The
decision of the Council at Carthage in 418 A.D. is justified in rejecting the
static moral perfectionism of Pelagianism (see C.J. Hefele, A History of The
Councils of The Church from Original Documents, II, 11896 E.T., pp. 458ff.)
PerfectionismÕs
long history continued through the Christian Platonist of Alexandria. Clement calls this sinlessness
ÒdeificationÓ which later penetrates Eastern Theological Orthodoxy (see Flew, Idea
of Perfection, p. 142ff).
Clement seems to be the
historic origin of two levels of grace (saving changes): (1) From unbelief to
faith and (2) from faith to knowledge.
The Gnostic Christian is already deified (cf. H.E.W. Turner, The
Patristic Doctrine of Redemption, 1952, p. 79).
The high point of
perfectionism was reached in Origen.
He was a master of spiritual life, possessed by the idea of experiencing
the ideal of Christian perfection (see esp. Danielou, History of Theology,
p. 56 and W. Voelker, Das Voilkomenhertsideal des Origenes, 1931). His theory of perfection underlies his
hermeneutics, exegesis and spirituality.
ÒJust as there is a movement onward from the literal meaning to the
allegorical meaning, so there is a transition from the common faith to gnosis
and there is a progress from ordinary Christian life to perfection,
spirituality forms the inward dimension of this ladder.Ó (Danielou, ibid, p. 60) OrigenÕs perfectionism ultimately entails
to restoration of all things in their original perfection. This is the apokatastasis panton
of Acts 3.19 (Harnack, II, pp. 377-78; Danielou, Origen, pp. 209-220;
271-310).
Perfectionism
in Monasticism: Monasticism is the boldest attempt to attain to Christian
perfection in all the long history of The Church, according to R.N. FlewÕs Idea
of Perfection, p. 158, esp. 158-88, Òdu Plesis, Teleios , in the New
Testament. In monastic perfection
the Imitatio Christi came to mean perfect renunciation and Òcomplete
impassivity as regards actual livingÓ (Flew, ibid, p. 167ff.).
One ultimate
consequence of the Monastic way of life was the necessity of and the
legitimization of a double moral standard within or alongside the Church
(Harnack, H.D, II 94, 123; and his Monasticism--Its Ideals and Its
History (NY,, ET, 1895, pp. 44ff).
Note the development between clergy and laity and the development of
Sacerdotalism, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church is the sole source of grace from
the womb to the tomb. The
immorality in the Church was the cause of LutherÕs revolution. The Church sold indulgences, i.e. they
paid for future sins not yet committed.
AquinasÕ use of
(1) mertum de congino and (2) meritum de condigno was based in his assumption
that GodÕs justice demands the separation (see esp. H. Oberman, Forerunners
of The Reformation, 1966, p. 132).
AquinasÕ Aristotelianism molded the soul apart from any act of the
will. This led Aquinas to conclude
ÒBy every meritorious act a man merits the increase of grace, equally with the
consummation of grace which is eternal life (Summa Contra Gentiles, I,
II g 114 a.8, 3). History now
justifies the conclusion that both Monasticism and Monastic apocalypticism must
be defined as forms of ascetic perfectionism. Both movements failed in this
mission.
The first
Scientific Revolution, the Industrial and French Revolutions, the coming of
Capitalistic Democracy and Compulsory Education incited Wesleyan men to believe
once more that ÒmanÓ was capable of self-perfection. The new view of autonomy, i.e., freedom from the ChurchÕs
domination, came to full fruition in Classical Liberalism. The four assumptions of classical
liberalism were (1) the inherent goodness or ultimate reality of nature; (2)
the perfectibility of man; (3) the animality of man and (4) the inevitability of
progress. Even on the surface,
these presuppositions are diametrically opposed to any form of classical
Christianity concerning human sinfulness, rejection of the Òimago dei," man
was reduced to the trousered ape and cultural and economic utopia was slow in
human hands. Long before our postmodern trivialization and privatization of
God, scientific development removed God from every parameter of reality. The work of scientific development from
Galileo, Newton, Marx, Darwin, Freud and Nietzsche announced that ÒGod was
DeadÓ, i.e., no longer necessary in our cafeteria of alternative
explanations--the modern mind was intact!
But we enter the world of Einstein, Creek, Monad, and DNA in our
postmodern culture, which rejects True Truth and Objectivity; now all
reality is Socially Constructed and we live at the cafeteria of Tolerance and
Diversity!
Each time an
outbreak of preoccupation with perfectionism happens, both culture and the
Church is as fragmented and dysfunctional as if God was absent from the
human scene. Where is God when I
need Him? JobÕs mournful lament is
still manÕs only answer. In Christ
manÕs search for God and personal and social holiness is over! Does Postmodern man need God? For what reasons? Here we are at the cultural turning
point of the 21st Century where millions are turning to sex, drugs and
non-Christian religions and all forms of New Age Pantheism. What must be our response? We must
worship God by the constant renewing of our minds (Romans 12.1-2). Your mind matters! Without our awareness of how we got
here we can provide no positive response to the greatest challenge in the
history of The Church! We are
called to ÒUnderstand the TimesÓ!
If we are to
constructively address our Postmodern Challenge, we must study Romans 7 and the
exhortation passages in Hebrews.
The biblical data
pertaining to the Imago Dei are found in both Old and New
Testaments. The classical liberal
theology asserted PaulÕs view was based on Hellenistic mystery religions
asserted by comparative religion schools.
The claim that PaulÕs teaching on the Image is indebted to the private
mystery cults in Egypt, Phrygia and Persia, particularly those of Isis, Attis,
Cybele and Mittra with their goal of salvation secured through personal union
with the god or goddess. The mystery
religions made frequent references to the divinization of the believer and
human absorption into God (always in the shadow of all forms of ÒimitationÓ and
Òperfectionism.Ó (W. deBoer, The
Imitation of Paul) The
biblical doctrine of the doctrine of the Imago Dei is always in the setting of
creation and redemption. On this
claim rests the biblical assertions of the Òinherent dignityÓ and worth of all
persons, i.e., infinite worth of the human person. The biblical discussion turns on the Hebrew words selem
and demut and the corresponding Greek terms eikon and homoiosis
(Gen. 1.26,27; 5.1,3; 9.6; I Cor 11.7; Col 3.10; Jas 3.9) (E.I. Tinsley, The Imitation of God
in Christ)
To project God in
manÕs image is therefore a heinous form of idolatry confounding creation with
the creature (Rom 23). This
distortion reaches its nadir in the worship of the beast and his image or
statue (Rev. 14.9ff). There is no
real clash between the Old and New Testament concerning the survival of the
Òimago deiÓ after the fall. The
New Testament also speaks of the divine nature in the Ònatural manÓ (I Cor
11.7; Jas 3.9). But the central
message is redeemed manÕs renewal in the image of Christ. Only man was given dominion over the
animals and charged to subdue the earth, that is to consecrate it to the
spiritual service of God and man.
Note how the biblical data completely rejects postmodern pantheism and
its identification of animals and the environment.
This study will
not address the implication of
creation and the Imago Dei in light of Freud, et. al or the
neurobiological revolution which reduces the mind (self) to the brain and the
brain to a low grade computer, i.e., resurgent theme of Òman the MachineÓ
(see my papers--ÒThe Neurophysical Revolution: Shaping
Forces of the Counter CultureÓ; ÒThe Counter Culture Meets the Neurophysical
Revolution: The Demise of the Person in PostmodernismÓ; note also the
implications of both Eastern/Western Iconograph and the biblical hostility to
all forms of Idolatry).
We must also note
the certain interpretations of Imago Dei; Òhuman nature,Ó Òbody,Ó Òsoul,Ó
Òspirit,Ó are modified in any discussion of The Incarnation and the post
biblical developments of Mariology/Immaculate Conception. J. Meyendorf, Byzantine Theology: J. Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon;
J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, III ÒSpirit of Eastern
ChristendomÓ; E.O. Connor, ed., the Immaculate Conception.
To the Old
Testament picture of man, the New Testament adds the graphic exposition of his
sonship through the adoption of grace (John 1.12) and his new role subsequent
to his rescue from unregenerate race in the family of redemption (Ephesians
1.3). At the time of our crowned
ChristÕs return, He will mediate to the members of the body powers and virtues
that belong to the members as an earnest of their future inheritance (II Cor
1.22; Gal 5.22; Eph 1.14). ManÕs
destiny is therefore not simply an endless existence but is moral--either life
redeemed and fit to enter His presence, or a life under perpetual divine
judgment.
But we must also retrace the historic
steps from the 15th to the 21st centuries the quiet mysticism of Thomas aÕ
Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, which has influenced all branches of
Christianity. In our own times, James Stalken, Imago Christ (1889) is
perhaps still the best source to trace the steps of ÒImitationÓ; although the
book by Charles Sheldon, In His Steps has sold more than 20 million
copies. Perhaps now John BunyanÕs
devotional classical work, PilgrimÕs Progress (compare with C.S. LewisÕ
PilgrimÕs Regress). ManÕs entire
genre of literature has sought to seek and imitate Jesus Christ as the ÒmodelÓ
of our spiritual life. There is
not one single passage of scripture that states or implies that to imitate
Christ is to imitate his sinlessness.
The perfect ones (teleios) will always remain receptive and
teachable, growing in Christian theology and knowledge.
The tenor of
Romans 7.14ff. has been interpreted mainly as applying either to the unborn but
morally conscious man, who wants and strives to be good until he despairs of
himself or to the Christian who through the effective spiritual power of the
law, still observes an inner discord in himself between his reborn heart or
mind and his flesh, i.e., its defiling passions. It should be obvious that in the latter situation, when
Romans 7.14-25 is applied to the Christian believer (eg. Paul) every kind of
perfectionism which proclaims a transformation into inherent holiness or the
possibility of realized ethical sinlessness before the glorious advent of
Christ is judged and exposed as a myth.
Suppose we assume at this point that Paul has sketched for us in Romans
7 is the profile of the Òbattling believer.Ó We have then as excellent basis
for reflection on the PerfectionistsÕ view of man. WE must keep in mind the very fact that the man of Romans
7.14ff. has the holy law of God, in contrast with Òthe natural manÓ who does
not have the Law of Moses (Romans 2.14).
It is commonly
stated (in Romans 7.7,13) that the proper objective or theme of Romans 7.7-25
if the function of the law with respect to sin or justification. However, to consider the theme of vs.
7-25 as the function of the function of the law for men as such seems to
objectify the law and to abstract its function from its living relation with
the crucified Christ and the Christian believer, within the baptismal theology
of Paul. The function of the Law
of God cannot be conceived as a theme by itself (see BonhoefferÕs Ethics,
p. 326 on the three uses of The Law), since the Òholy lawÓ is only given in
correlation with the promise/covenant of atoning grace. To consider the function of law in
Romans 7 without the promise/covenant setting with the Christological-soteriological
framework is a presupposition not only out of order in PaulÕs ÒTheolegia
curcisÓ as developed in the previous chapters of Romans, but also in the
promise/covenant theology as a whole (the issue is the correlation between the
Law of God and Grace).
How or when did this
moral man ever come to the point of crying out (to whom?) or confessing his own
ÒwretchednessÓ and moreover at the same time explaining his thankfulness for
redemption by Jesus Christ? The
real problem of Romans 7 does not seem to be how the law is driving Òthe
natural manÓ to be convicted of his moral wretchedness which then would make
him already Òan anonymous Christian,Ó so that Òat a certain momentÓ (?) the
spark of ChristÕs all sufficiency fittingly can be discharged from the other
side. This issue has been a
crucial problem at least since the Reformation: How could there be Òcomplete JustificationÓ without
Òcomplete Sanctification.Ó This
discussion runs from Luther and Calvin, et. al to the Wesleyan perfectionism
emphasis and every facet of the Pentecostal/Holiness Movement from the 18th to
the 20th century.
The crucial issue
in this discussion is how, in what way, the man of Romans 7 ever came to his
conviction of ultimate self-condemnation and simultaneously of existential
redemption in Christ. (We need to
keep before us the ÒconversionÓ accounts in Acts and PaulÕs entire theology of
baptism.) Note the most crucial
passage in the New Testament concerning baptism is in Romans 6.
Is not the
simultaneousness of both religious experiences in vs. 24-25 already an
indication that the holy law and Christ are correlated and thus indissolubly
connected in the existential experience of faith? How futile in PaulÕs
estimation is the efficacy of the law itself, i.e., divorced from ChristÕs
atonement, even with unbelieving Jews who have the law and read it fervently,
becomes strikingly apparent from his explanation in II Corinthians 3 and
4. The reading of Moses of the Old
Testament without the life giving spirit through faith in Christ is only a
killing letter, not because the law as such kills, but because a kalymma
lies over the hardened mind or hearts (kardia) of those who want to be
justified by law. The law can only
condemn to death those who are not in Christ, because of sin, i.e., their
unbelieving sinful heart, mind and soul (see Christ in the Old Testament in
StephenÕs speech in Acts 7, esp. Luke 24, the resurrected Christ in the Old
Testament).
It is PaulÕs
outspoken conviction that only the glorious light of the cross of Christ
reveals law in its proper work of condemning of all law - righteousness as sin
before God. ÒI bear them witness
that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For, being ignorant of the
righteousness that comes from God and seeking to establish their own, they did
not submit to GodÕs righteousness.
For Christ is the end of The Law, that everyone who has faith may be
justified (Romans 10.2-4). (A
believerÕs baptism becomes also his death before the law)
It is of crucial
significance, however, that Paul describes this crucified Òold manÓ in 6.6 as
Òsinful body;Ó in Galatians 5.24 as Òthe flesh with its passions and desires,
in Colossians 2.11 as Òthe body of flesh (to soma tes sarkos) and in Romans
7.24 Òthis body of deathÓ (to soma tou thanatou). All of these passages signify not the human body as such,
but its Òsinful way of existence.Ó
The new man in Christ is not the corrected or cleansed old man!
In PaulÕs concept
of baptism, he seems to have built in the anti-perfectionist reservation that
the Christian cannot as yet claim the quality of the resurrected body of
Christ. While expressing the union
of the Christian with ChristÕs death in the perfect tense, he avoids this tense
for their union with ChristÕs resurrection, using here only the future tense
(compare with Col. 2.2, the resurrection is immediately related to faith). If we want to define whether the
subject of Romans 7.14ff. in its inner struggle is the natural or the Christian
man, whether his struggle fits the existence kata sarka or kata pneuma
before the holy law in Romans 8, the struggle with the flesh as such cannot be
the decisive criterion since they Òhave died to the law through the body of
ChristÓ (Roms 7.24), but rather the commitment of the heart or mind to the
flesh or holy law, coram deo. In
order to establish the theological meaning of confession Òwretched man that I
am! Who will deliver me from this
body of death?Ó (vs. 24), we first have to ascertain the meaning of the body of
death in its relation to the law of God and manÕs social ethic (see esp.
Schweitzer, TDNT, VII p. 123,
1-12 and 135)
The theme of
Romans 7 seems not to be the unassailable dignity of the law as such,
but the law in its dominating and condemning efficacy on a person as long as he
lives in the Òold man or sinful death-body, i.e., as long as the law of sin
operates in man, vs. 1-4. This
general principle receives its significant application; however with reference
to the two seemingly rhetorical questions of Paul, whether the being discharged
from the law through faith in the crucified body of Christ (vs. 4,6) finds its
cause in the nature of the law itself.
Is the Law sinful (vs. 7) and does the law bring death to me (vs.
3-14-25) reveals how the law fails on the man outside of Christ; otherwise, if
the theme concerning the law is no longer the condemnation of the law, as in vs.
1-6, but the goodness of the law; this would disturb the entire tenor of Romans
5-8 and stand in contrast with 7.1-6.
Paul therefore stresses the inalienable goodness and holiness of The Law
of God (vs. 10-12); at the same time disclosing the real cause of the
condemnatory efficacy of The Law.
The Law of God only condemns the Òlaw of sin and deathÓ which reigns in
the flesh, vs. 13,18.
Consequently, an should not cry for deliverance from the Law of God but
for deliverance from his own body of death with its inherent law of sin (vs.
24).
The crucial
issues that remain to be concentrated on are the question of whether vs. 14-25
intend to indicate the death of the sinful body, in spite of manÕs moral
militancy, or the militant resistance of the crucified death-body to the
spiritual law or reign of Christ in the baptized man.
From earliest
time, debate regarding the nature of PaulÕs religious experience in Judaism has
centered in Romans 7.7-25. Origen
and most of the Greek Fathers viewed this message as a reminiscence of life
under the Law and they have been followed by such scholars as John Wesley, A.
Deissmann, H.J. Thackery, A.S. Peake, J.S. Stewart and C.H. Dodd. In opposition, Augustine and the Latin
Fathers interpreted this passage as reflecting PaulÕs post conversion
experience, which finds analogy in the inner conflicts of every true
Christian. Agreement with this
view has been voiced by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and A. Nygren, esp. W.G.
Kummel, Romer 7 und die Dekehrung des Paulus (Leipzig: Hinrich 1929, pp.
74-109) for position of Fathers and Reformers and German scholarship.
A third type of
interpretation has arisen in denial of the biographical implications of both
pre and post conversion views.
Such men as H. Lietzmann, H. Windisch, W.G. Kummel, G. Bornkamm, M.
Dibelius and C.I. Mitton on representative figures. Most of those who oppose the biographical interpretation
view of the passage as depicting mankind in the general sense. Some insist that it is mankind in
general because it is mankind in Adam; while the Bartians prefer to speak of
mankind in the non-historical and primal existent present. This position stems not from exegesis,
but the implications of the influence of naturalistic, positivistic views of
scientific development. The
problem cannot be resolved as long as postmodern hermeneutics, anti science and
revisionist history dominate the theological arena. From the perspective of Darwinian naturalistic evolution in
Genesis 1-11 in the mytho-poetic milieu of the ancient Middle East preclude
that Adam be a Òreal historical person.Ó Therefore the entire discussion is
dismissed as academic nonsense.
When the biblical narrative of creation is rejected in the name of
scientific development, then no appeal can be made in Romans and Galatians to
establish the biblical view of Adam and The Fall (II Cor 11.3; I Tim 2.11; Rom
5.2-21; 12.2a) resulting in human sin.
All discussion remains in the mytho-poetic-existential categories. Sin after the Freudian revolution, is
interpreted as neurosis which can be modified by psychoanalytic counselling. Human alienation after Marx is ÒcausedÓ
by socio-economic environmental factors.
Postmodernism totally rejects the discussion as trivial nonsense.
The issue
concerns the subject and temporal reference of the early section of chapter
7.7-13, 14-25 as crucial for Pauline teaching. The question is: Does Romans 7.7-13 portray a preconversion
experience of Paul? This question
regarding the subject in this passage has traditionally appeared to be the more
easily answered by the problems involved.
The prima facie evidence of the constant repetition of Òego,Ó and the
analogy of experience as revealed in both biography and the soul of the
interpreter, have led most commentators to view the subject as quite obviously
Paul himself. In the
aforementioned classical article by Kummel three passages in the Talmud cite where
ÒIÓ is used as a stylistic form, a stilform (Mishnah Ber 1.3, Mishnah
Abath 6.9 and Ber 3a). These are
Talmudic examples where the first person is biographical. Yet the late date of the reference
cannot be used as proof that PaulÕs use of ÒIÓ is not autobiographical.
There is new
evidence from the Qumran on the question (compare Romans 7 and columns 10-11 in
IQS); in the context of the discussion of the gifts of salvation, knowledge,
righteousness, strength and glory, there is a sudden cry, ÒBut I belong to
wicked humanity and to the assembly of perverse flesh. . .Ó (IQ.S 11.9-10 trans
by W.H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (BA SOR SS. Nov 10, 1951). Further quotations reveal the believer
fully conscious of his election of God and his acceptance in the community.
K.G. KuhnÕs
brilliant article sheds light on Romans 7. We have in this text the same I as in Romans 7; it is the
same I not only in regard to style, but especially in regard to theological
connotations. ÒI is here, just as
in Romans 7, not meant individually or biographically; it is gnomic,
descriptive of human existence.
The I in this Qumran passage as in Romans 7 signifies the existence of
mankind, which is flesh.Ó (K.G.
Kuhn, ÒNew Light on Temptation, Sin and Flesh in the New TestamentÓ Scrolls
and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl, 102).
In the context of
this discussion, we cannot forget the significance of Galatians 1.14, Phil
3.46, Acts 22.3; 26.5 in which PaulÕs religious life in Judaism is described as
having been blameless amemptos and strict akribeia, akribes. Do these passages reveal PaulÕs
legalistic pride? We now know of a
nomistic, even anti legalistic piety, which existed amidst the strictest of
Qumran society (The Qumran Scrolls speak often of being blameless or free from
ÒfaultÓ in keeping the commandments of the Lord (IQS. 1.9; 3.9; CDC, 2.15;
32). It was the person and work of
Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of IsraelÕs promised hope and not an early dissatisfaction
with the Law that made all the difference, thereby transforming the zealous
Rabbi Saul into the zealous Apostle Paul.
In order to come
to grips with this problem it is of vital importance to understand the
theological meaning of vs. 9-11, i.e., the phrase, ÒI was once alive apart from
the law (choris nomou), but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died)
vs. 9). Could this be PaulÕs
description of his own Rabbinical experience before and when he was apprehended
by Christ? Or is he describing
Òhappy childhood-hippies and freer in retrospect, no doubt than it ever really
was--before the troublesome conscience awoke?Ó (see C.H. Dodd, Ridderbos,
Murray and Althaus on Romans 7 in their commentaries). Writing Romans 7 from the standpoint of
an apostle of Jesus Christ, his evaluation may well be compared with the
retrospective descriptions of his religious experience in Philippians 3.6-10
and Galatians 2.19-20. Just as the
rich young ruler himself asserted that he had kept all the divine commandments
(Matt. 19.20), while from the Christian standpoint he had not attained to the
law at all (eg. Israel, Romans 9.31; see my paper, ÒPaulÕs Missionary
Manifesto: Romans 9-11).
So Paul now
counts his legalistic life as a Pharisee he previously regarded as the perfect
life--Òas to the righteousness under law blamelessÓ (Phil. 3.6 ÒlossÓ and
ÒrefuseÓ 3.8) because he had felt no condemnation by the Law! Although the revelation of Jesus Christ
brought to Paul the realization that Christ is the ÒendÓ of all righteousness,
Christ did not abolish the just requirements of the law to him (see Rom 3.31;
7.10-12; 8.4 and 9.31); on the contrary, only through being apprehended by
Christ was the holiness of the law brought home to his conscience with its
condemning power, revealing his transgressions. ÒFor I through the law died to the law, that I might live to
GodÓ (Gal 2.19). In the following
verse he explains his death of self to be his crucifixion with Christ so that
he was no longer living in the old self, but Christ in him (vs. 20). In other words, in Gal. 2.19f Paul is
identifying the coming of the law in its condemning power with the coming of
Christ to him. As a good Pharisee,
Paul would sooner or later deal with self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisees
(Jesus said, Òexcept your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the
PhariseesÓ).
Does not Romans
7.4, just as Galatians 2.19, define the spiritual death of the ÒbrethrenÓ
Christologically? They have ÒdiedÓ
to the law through the body of Christ (see also Rom 6.6; Gal 5.24). We therefore take the position that the
power of Christ or the Spirit underlies the dynamic and fruitful activity of pneumatikos
law coram Deo in Romans 7.9-25; I Cor 15.10; Gal 2.20, II Cor
10.3-5. The sin reviving efficacy
of the law is Christologically determined from beginning to end! (see R.H. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle
of Liberty (Baker, 1976, esp. pp. 86ff.) (eg. the significance of the translation Òthe body of this
deathÓ or Òthis body of deathÓ note ÒnousÓ as the natural capability of man)
The mind, (nous)
or inner man, (eso anthropos) is clearly determined by the new covenant
experience of delighting and willing obedience. This ho nomos may not be robbed of its religious pneumatikos
character by changing it basically into the concept of lex naturae like
a constraining principle (Sanday and Headhans, Romans 7.2) The man has ÒdelightÓ in the law of God
is a description given only to the children of the covenant (eg. Ps 1.2;
119.35; 47).
We must now come
to the crucial question--with which of the two contrasted objective ways of
existence in Romans 8.1-13 is the battle of Romans 7 to be identified? The subject of Romans 7.9-24 can never
be identified with the existence in which the mind or heart is set on the
things of the flesh (Schweiger TDNT Vol II, p. 132 s.v. sarx; Ridderbos,
Paul, p. 108), and therefore has to be identified legally with the
existence in which the mind or heart is set on the things of the Spriti, while
the body is dead because of sin (8.10-13). We could summarize this identification with three
considerations: (1) The ÒsubjectÓ
of Romans 7 must be identified with the perfect Christian of Romans 8 because
there is a corresponding recognition of the delight in the holy law of God coram
Deo of Romans 7 (7.16,21,22,24; 8.5b,7); (2) The inner man or mind of
Romans 7 hates and opposes self, the old man (vs. 14,15) (note the sharp
contrast with mind of the flesh, Ònous tes serkosÓ in Col. 2.18) and repents of
his own wretchedness (vs.24), which corresponds to the battle of the Christian
with his (legally) Òdead bodyÓ in Romans 8.10-13 (Paul repeatedly has to summon
the Christians to fix their phronein on Christ (Phil 2.5; Col 2.2, egs
Bertram TDNT, IX, pp. 228, 10-23); (3) The battle with the indwelling
power of sin in Romans 7 (which seems to know no victory and only defeat is
still basically different from the sinful walk or ethos sarka in
Romans. The non-Christian in
Romans 8 still has the heart and mind phronema of the old man or body,
which is ego centric, his mind being set on himself and hostile to God and His
law (vs 5a,7) in contrast to the man in Romans 7 (vs. 22-25).
It can be
observed that the spiritual man in Romans 8 is not described in his actual,
empirical battle with self! In
other words, the passage Rom 7.9-25 and 8.1-13 should not be contrasted with
each other on the presupposition that Rom 7 knows no spirit or victory and the
Christian in Romans 8 knows no flesh (vs. 13) or defeat. While Romans 7 describes in terms of
personal exemplary experience, the actual Christian battle and self
consciousness before God (Rom 8.1-10) seems to present more the two
antagonistic objective ways of being in GodÕs sight either being hatu pneuma
en pneumati or being kata sarka, en sarki (see esp. Forerster. TDNT
II p. 412, 20ff, a comparative exposition between Romans 7.14-25 on the
existence of religious self understanding of the Christian in the state of
justification).
The only other
reference to wretched talaiporos occurs in Revelation 3.17. Here it is a reproof by the glorified
Christ, which He addresses to the Church of Laodicea in order to break through
their false self esteem, which this church has in her own self consciousness
(vs. 17). Christ calls them to
repentance (vs. 19).
In Romans 7 we do
not get the impression that Paul is dealing with the non-Christian ÒbrethrenÓ
who knew the law (vs 1, 14). ÒWe know that the law is pneumatiko but I
am sarkinos, prepramentos hypo ten hamartian. This is surely PaulÕs confession of his new covenant
experience, vs. 9-12, which he presents as a continuing reality; instead of
radical despair derived from his own analysis, he is aware of divine
forgiveness!
PeterÕs letter
shows remarkable correspondence to Pauline Theology. Peter shows transference of divine election of Israel in the
chosen believers in Jesus Christ, who then are addressed as Òa chosen race, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, GodÕs own peopleÓ in order to testify of the
Òwonderful deeds of God in salvation history (I Peter 1.2; 2.9-10). The character of the perfection
imperative, however, will be colored by oneÕs interpretation of the kingdom of
heaven (basileia ton ouranon), the nature of which determines its
entrance requirements and its relation to Jesus as the Messianic King. The Sermon on the Mount is set
in an eschatological framework (cf. R.N. Flew, Idea of Perfection in
Christian Thought, p. 4) are directed to the ultimate establishment of the
Kingdom of Glory, yet it is true that the eschatological Kingdom is not the
exclusive point of view. JesusÕ
radical religious intensifying and concretizing of the ethos of love of grace
remains basic. Matthew presupposes
the redeeming and healing reality of Òthe gospel of the kingdomÓ for this
perfection imperative (see Matt. 4.23f) the Kingdom of God is both present and
eschatologically future).
The eschaton
is already effective in the person of Jesus without denying its final
eschatological fulfilment (chp 7.13f; vs. 21-23) (W.G. Kummel, Promise and
Fulfilment: Eschatological Message of Jesus E.T. 1961, p. 108ff) The ethos of the Sermon on The
Mount is not addressed to the Gentiles or the self righteous but to the praying
children of the heavenly father (Kittel, TDNT I p. 5f, esp. Schrenck,
ÔabbaÕ pp. 984-987 ÒpatesÓ esp. 985)
The audience is addressed as Òthe Salt of the EarthÓ, Òthe Light of the
WorldÓ and is characterized by their praise and exaltation of their ÒFather who
is in heavenÓ (Matt. 5.13-16).
They do not boast in their righteousness but hunger and thirst for
righteousness,Ó seeing first their FatherÕs kingdom and His righteousness (Matt
5.6; 6.33 they love and serve God with an undivided, i.e. whole heart (Matt.
6.24).
Jesus describes
them in Matt. 3.5 as the meek (praeir) who will inherit the earth; with the
description Jesus identifies them with the meek or righteous or blameless and
perfect. In the Old Testament
those who walk perfectly (tamim, Ps 15.2) according to the covenant
cultus. This intimate relationship
of the Sermon on the Mount with the living Old Testament sanctuary worship
precludes fundamentally the notion of theological perfectionism in ChristÕs
perfection--imperative also presupposes the redemptive indicative, i.e., the
perfect forgiveness of sins. Just
as in the Psalms the religious requirement of perfection as the covenantal imitatio
Dei is conditioned and motivated by the historic salvation of the divine
Exodus deliverance, we find ChristÕs call to perfection conditioned and
motivated by His own redeeming acts of healing, exorcism and forgiving of sins
(cf. J.S. Banks in A Dictionary of The Bible, ed J. Hastings III, p.
909, 745; perfection labors under an unnecessary polarization of Old and New
Testaments which only The Theology of Promise can fuse without contradiction;
W. Guthrod, TDNT IV, pp. 1029-1037, nonos, for analysis of the
destruction of cultic, ceremonial or nationalistic requirements but only moral
ones are not mentioned.
Especially
Matthew and John intend to reveal why the Old Testament Imitatio Dei is
mow made manifest as the Imitatio Christ, or following the good
shepherd, the Son of God. We do
not use Imitatio Christ in the medieval moralistic sense of copying or
reproducing the life of Christ as for example Francis of Assisi or Thomas aÕ
Kempis (see BerkowerÕs critique in Faith and Sanctification, pp.
136f.). It can only mean to us the
obedient religious, moral following of Christ, His words and deeds, rooted in
the redeeming cultic communion with Him.
The New Testament
concept of Imitatio is worked out by W.P. de Boer in his work, The Imitation
of Paul: An Exegetical Study
(Doctoral Thesis, Kampen Press, 1962). He indicates that the problem of imitation is primarily one
of semantics (pp 67,68), he concludes (p 69), ÒFor the sake of clarity, . . .
it is preferable to use the term . . . where the believer is conforming his
life to the example of Christ.Ó We
most use the term with the relationship of redemptive indicative and redemptive
imperative over against each moralistic distortion, as is expressed by
Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification, chp 7, the Imitation of
Christ. We must never seek to
ÒovercomeÓ the unbridgeable grief between sinful men (even redeemed) and the
sinless Christ (who alone is perfect--we donÕt need an example, we need a
savior); Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics I, 1966, abridged from
volumes I and II, 1958-59) rejects the concept of piety of imitatio p.
185. Biblical discipleship always
involves Imitatio)
To follow Christ
means to be born by His atoning cross (E. Schweizer, Lordship and
Discipleship, E.T. 1960), p. 20; see esp. II Cor 5.14). Luther correctly says, ÒIt is not the
imitation that makes us sons; it is sonship that makes imitators.Ó Both Luther and Calvin worked a
theological ethic of Imitation)
This dynamic evangelical concept of the transforming imitatio Christi is
worked out in E.C. Tinsley, The Imitation of God in Christ
(Philadelphia, 1960, chps 8-10).
Matthew
identifies Jesus as the perfect son of David with the faithful remnant of
Israel, who conquered where Israel of old failed in history. Even in the crucifixion, Jesus suffers
as the fruitful Ebed Yaweh (cf. Isaiah 53, to save Israel). On the other hand, Matthew with the
perfect Lord of David identifies Jesus the covenant God of promise. Yahweh, who remains faithful to His Promise/Covenant
(see my essay on PaulÕs use of Habbakuk in Romans and Galatians, ÒThe just
shall live by faith.Ó The
Hebrew text can mean, Òthe just shall live by GodÕs faithfulnessÓ or the
individual believers. Without
GodÕs faithfulness to His promise all of our faith would be futile.
Jesus calls His
disciples to imitate Him both as the saved remnant and as the saving remnant
(Matt. 5.13,14). ÒThe acts of the
Apostles might well be called the imitatio Christi of the Church under the
ÒServant of the Lord ChristologyÓ (LaRondelle, op cit p. 169). Jesus calls His disciples to absolute
obedience, not His interpretation of the Torah as the Rabbis or some
captivating ideas as the Greek philosophers. His call was for Òultimate decisionÓ and Òabsolute surrenderÓ
to His person as Messiah, as the One who speaks and acts in GodÕs stead (see
esp. Rengstorf, TDNT IV, pp. 447, Mathetis, disciples, esp. p.
447 for comparison between Jesus, The Rabbis and Greek philosophers.
Exceeding the
righteousness and love of the Scribes and the Pharisees, Christ requires
perfection, i.e., undivided holy love from the sons of the heavenly Father, not
in order to become sons of God, but to be or manifest themselves as sons of God
(see esp. Mt. 5.43ff; 22.39; Lk 6.35; Lev 19.18-34; Dt. 14.1, Israel as sons of
God (see extra discussion in Strack-Billerbeck I, pp. 371-373). In Matthew 19.21 Christ replies to a
question from the rich young ruler, ÒWhat must I do to inherit eternal life?Ó ÒIf you would enter keep the
commandments.Ó (Mt 19.17; Mk
10.19; Lk 10.26-28, esp. 18-20)
The question exposes no experimental knowledge of grace as the way to
salvation. The reply of the young
ruler was, ÒAll these I have observed; what do I still lack?Ó The questions reveals the inner
dissatisfaction about the first claim but also the prevailing Pharisaic
misconception of IsraelÕs Torah, i.e., basic lack of the redemptive cultic
perfection or transforming experience.
He was lacking the very essence of the Imitatio Dei, the motivation of
perfect love (see esp. Mk 10.21;
Lk 18.22).
The Messianic
call to be teleios, therefore, is not a high or a different way to the
kingdom but the intensification or radicalizing of them in following Christ.
When we consider
the use of terms teleios and hagios in PaulÕs writings, we observe one
overall and supreme characteristic: the Christo-centric soteriology and cultic
motif (see esp. du Plessis, op cit, pp. 176-205). The Pauline ethic of perfection and
holiness never is reserved only for a selected elite class (Rom 12.2; I Cor
2.6, 12.10; 14.20; Eph 4.13; Phil 3.12-15; Col 1.28; 3.14). ÒIf we reflect for a moment on PaulÕs
use of the word teleios it is clear that the particular that is the most
distinct aspect of perfection as he envisaged it, was the fullness of the
redemptive state or the supreme soteriological bounty of belief in Jesus
Christ. . . they are perfect because they received the full donation of the
redemptive work of Jesus.Ó (du Plesssis, op cit, p. 205)
The Old Testament
cultic present of Yahweh is rooted in the historical redemption of the covenant
God. Paul applies this cultic
salvation reality of the O.T. to the indwelling of the Sprit of Christ in His
body, the Church (hemeis gar naos theou esmen zontos - II Cor 3.18; 6.16b;
13.5; I Cor 3.16,17; Gal 2.20, Eph 2.19-22; 3.16-18, 5.18) The celtic structure of Romans 12.1-2
is clearly prepared by the structure of Romans 6, where the ethical imperative
of vs. 12ff, 16-19 is founded on the Christological salvation history and the
transforming cultic redemption of baptism. The cultic death of the old self in baptism is not pictured
as being only manÕs activity but with God in Christ (Col. 3.3). The new will therefore cannot be
described as a purely ethical but rather the empirical aspect of the
transformation so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory of the
Father, we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6.4ff.).
ÒSo you also (houtor
kai hymeis) must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ
JesusÓ (Roms 6.11) From chapters 6
to 12, Paul turns once more to the ethical implications of baptism with the
renewed appeal. Òby the mercies of
GodÓ to consecrate the whole bodily existence as a sacrifice accepted by
God. By the ÒbodyÓ Paul indicates
the total man, including his mind (nous), Rom 12.2). ÒFor Thou alone art holyÓ (Rev 4.8-11; 5.9; 15.4; Isa 6
--ÒHoly, Holy, Holy is the Lord God AlmightyÓ
Now for a brief
study of perfection in the Hebrew Epistle. In this word of exhortation the author presents his
appeal to go on to perfection (6.1) within the framework of a Christologically
determined salvation of history and eschatology. Perfection in Hebrews is described in this analogy as propitiation
for sin, of which the atonement services of the Old Testament, i.e., high
priest, are mere shadows.
(telesios, 2 times in 5.14; 9.11; teleioun, 9 times in 2.10; 5.9; 7.19;
7.28; 9.9; 10.11; 10.14; 11.40; 12.23; teleiotes, 6.1; teleiosis 7.11; teleiotes,
12.2; telos, 5 times, 3.6; 3.14; 6.8; 6.11; 7.8 (see du Pleissis, op cit pp.
118, 206-233).
Of all the
writings of the New Testament, Hebrews most explicitly and thematically relates
the apostolic ethos of perfection to the Christological culture, Christ
being the exclusive High Priest and His death on the cross was a once-for-all
atonement for sin. His work as the
Cross and Resurrection was finished!
(See my study outline of Hebrews: ÒThe Gospel According to
HebrewsÓ) ÒThus perfection of the
saints in Hebrews is, by virtue of its Old Testament roots and the consummation
in Christ, a soteriological and redemptive historical concept. . . . Perfection on this analogy is described
by the propitiation for sin, of which the cultic propitiation services of the
Old Testament high priests are mere shadows.Ó (du Plessis, op.cit, p. 239)
The reality of
perfection therefore, can only be received in the cultic way of Òdrawing nearÓ
Òusing the framework of cultic Old Testament tradition to provide basic motifs
he arrives at a provocative image of the perfection of the saints. It is drawing near to God, (Schneider,
see art. TDNT II, p 682) and they who do so become beneficiaries of
salvation and are called the people of God.Ó (du Plessis, op.cit. p. 231)
There is a unique
fact or in the qualification of the term teleios in Hebrews. Rooted in the Christological soteriology
the author emphasizes a double characteristic in the life of the teleios;
one the one hand, the teleios are not Òdull of hearingÓ (5.1) which
indicates that. The God of promise
covenant, who called Israel to be holy, now calls the Church to the same
holiness. But as He who called you
is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct (anastrophe) (see 1.18;
2.12; 3.1,2,16; Eph 4.22). God
called both Israel and His Church to holiness (Ps 15.19).
I Peter
immediately connects the moral obedience with the continuous mediatorial
efficacy of the blood of Christ (I Peter 1.2). In I Peter baptism is characterized specifically as the
redemptive cultus (soizei baptisma, 3.21), which points beyond an external
symbolic ritual of baptizing, the cleansing of the conscience (syneideseos
agathes, see also Acts 2.38; 3.19; 26).
The whole ethos of the baptized Christian becomes the Imitatio Christi
as total communion with Christ and therefore as the following in His footsteps,
as sheep following their shepherd (I Peter 2.19-225). This means concretely that in all social expression
following their Lord to manifest Ògood behaviorÓ (anastrophe) in ChristÓ (I Peter
3.16) and with a Òclear conscienceÓ are to render service by the strength which
Christ supplies in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus
Christ.Ó (I Peter 2.18ff; 3.1ff; 3.7; 4.11)
Appendix--Some
Problem Texts:
I John 3.9 - must
be placed in total context of JohnÕs writings especially the context of this
versus I and II Peter reveals the practical nature of the knowledge of God and
Christ in the way of Sanctification.
Both letters are concerned with progressive sanctification Ògrow up to
salvationÓ (I Pet 2.2; II Pet 3.18; compare Gal 5.6ff as from to the spirit, I
Cor 9.25-27)
ChristÕs abiding
all sufficient offering of ChristÕs body is stressed repeatedly by the perfect
tenses in Hebrews 10.10,14); three perfect tenses (1) cleansed, vs. 2; (2)
sanctified, vs. 10; (3) perfected, vs. 14, do not primarily indicate the way of
progressive sanctification.
Christian Perfection and Sinlessness: If we were to try the entire Old and
New Testaments in order to face the question directly whether Christian
perfection is identifiable with ethical/sinlessness in the New Testament our
final answer must in the negative.
ChristÕs life and
ministry (cf. see my paper, ÒThe Only Expected Man in History: Luke 24, The
Messiah in the Old TestamentÓ) indicates GodÕs promise more powerfully to bring
about the covenant, fellowship between God and Israel (Hebrews 10.2) many texts
require more critical analysis than our study could perform, the real problem
concentrates itself on the meaning of Galatians 5 and Romans 7 and 8 within the
framework of the total apostolic message.
James Strauss
Professor
Emeritus
Lincoln Christian
Seminary
Lincoln, IL 62656