The New Obedience

The New Obedience

THE NEW OBEDIENCE

SECTION 42. INDICATIVE AND IMPERATIVE

The preceding discussion has made clear how much the new life is a work of God. This life finds its origin in the death and resurrection of Christ, comes into being through the Holy Spirit, and in its realization in the individual man is new creation, regeneration, etc., that is to say, the fruit of the working of divine power. The farthest thing from the apostle's mind is the notion that this new life is to be explained on the basis of man himself, as an ethical transformation that is realized from the slumbering powers for good in him and which thus can be denoted as a new birth and can be related to the death and the resurrection of Christ by way of resemblance. On the other hand, it is evident that this new life is not to be understood as a transcendent stream of life that pours into man from the outside and which develops in him eo ipso and whereby there would no longer be any place for human responsibility and decision in the real sense of the word.¹ For Paul also describes the new life in all sorts of ways as the new humanity, the illumination of the nous, the renewal of the heart, and as the body and the members becoming subservient to the will of God. This nature of the new life has become clear to us in particular from the significance of faith in it, as the way in which the new creation of God is effected and communicated in the reality of this earthly life, and is to be characterized as new obedience. From this same point of view we shall now attempt to deal with the moral content of Paul's preaching.

Again it is primarily a matter of the inner relationships and structures of his preaching and doctrine. We face here specifically the phenomenon that in the more recent literature is customarily designated as the relation of the indicative and imperative. What is meant is that the new life in its moral manifestation is at one time proclaimed and posited as the fruit of the redemptive work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit — the indicative; elsewhere, however, it is put with no less force as a categorical demand — the imperative. And the one as well as the other occurs with such force and consistency that some have indeed spoken of a "dialectical paradox" and of an "antinomy."²

This confluence of indicatives and imperatives is so general in the epistles of Paul (as in the whole of the New Testament³) that we may confine ourselves to a few characteristic examples. So far, first of all, as the relationship of Christ's death and resurrection is concerned, the indicative is here fundamental, that those who are in Christ have died to sin (Rom. 6: 2). This whole pronouncement, however, is directed toward stimulating human responsibility and arousing to activity: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body... and do not present your members any longer as weapons of unrighteousness in the service of s i n . . . " (vv. 12, 13). The redemptive indicative of dying and rising with Christ is not to be separated from the imperative of the struggle against sin. No less striking in this respect is Colossians 3: 3ff., where in response to: "For you have died, and your life is hid in God, " the command at once resounds: "Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, " etc. Having once died with Christ does not render superfluous putting to death the members that are on earth, but is precisely the great urgent reason for it. The same applies to the categorical pronouncements concerning life in and by the Spirit. On the one hand it can be said of that life in the manner of the indicative: "the law of the Spirit of life has made you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death" (Rom. 8: 2, 9); on the other hand, in the manner of the imperative, which subsequently seems to make the first categorical redemptive pronouncement conditional: "so then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if you live after the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live" (vv. 12, 13). The imperative thus is founded on the indicative ("therefore, " v. 12). But the succession of the imperative is also a condition ("if, " v. 13) for that which has first been categorically posited with the indicative. In the same way the pronouncements in Galatians 4 and 5 which in a categorical manner attest to the receiving of the Spirit (4: 6ff.), being born after the Spirit (4: 28ff.), living by the Spirit (5: 25), are followed by the summons to walk after the Spirit (5:16, 25), and the warning not to go astray because God will not suffer himself to be mocked and what a man sows he will also reap, whether corruption from the flesh, or eternal life from the Spirit (6: 7ff.). And finally, so far as the pronouncements are concerned that have reference to the new life as a creation of God, here again we find the same duality. At one time it is said of the new man that he has been created in Christ (Eph. 2:15; 4: 24), and exists in him (Gal. 3: 28); then again, that those who are in Christ "have" (active) put off the old man and "have" put on the new man (Eph. 4: 21ff.; Col. 3: 9ff.); and this "putting on" of the new man now signifies receiving a share in Christ sacramentally through baptism (Gal. 3: 27); then again a mandate as the daily responsibility of the church: "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 13:14).

Now as regards the relationship to each other of these two different ways of speaking, it is immediately clear that the imperative rests on the indicative and that this order is not reversible. For in each case the imperative follows the indicative by way of conclusion (with "thus, " "therefore"; Rom. 6; 12ff; 12: 1; Col. 3: 5, et al. ). In each case following the calling of the new life is set forth as the object of the positive redemptive pronouncements ("so that, " "in order to, " etc.; cf. Rom. 7: 4; 2 Cor. 5: 15, et al. ). The relationship intended here is surely given its clearest expression in Philippians 2:12f.: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. "

The word "for" in the second clause furnishes the ground for the appeal in the first. It is the same relationship and the same "for" that is met with in Romans 6: 14: "sin will not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace. " God does not work and has not worked in his good pleasure because man has worked his salvation with fear and trembling. The contrary is true: because God works and has worked, therefore man must and can work. For God works in him what is necessary for his (human) working. The working of man, therefore, takes place "according to the working of Christ, which works in him in power" (Col. 1: 29; Eph. 3: 20), the good works they do have been prepared by God "that they should walk in them" (Eph. 2: 10), and the good work that God has begun in them he will carry on (Phil. 1: 6). What the new man manifests in new life, what he works or exhibits in fruit of the Spirit and good works, he works out of and by the strength of God, out of the power of the Spirit and by virtue of his belonging to Christ. There can be no doubt whatever concerning this relationship. Indicative and imperative thus do not represent a certain division of property in the sense that the indicative denotes the divine and the imperative the human share in the new life, or that the imperative arouses the believer to what God has done for him so that from his side, too, he not fail to give an answer. All this would set next to each other those elements in the gospel and in reality which lie in each other, and would thus lead to a new legalism. The imperative is grounded on the reality that has been given with the indicative, appeals to it, and is intended to bring it to full development.⁴

On the other hand, however, the following will have to be taken into consideration.

(a) When we say that the imperative rests on and appeals to the indicative this must not be taken to mean that the indicative vindicates a given situation that exists apart from the imperative and which only needs to be brought into action by the imperative. For the imperative not only has the function of bringing the new life denoted by the indicative to manifestation, but is also a constant touchstone for the latter. And that not only because it is the criterion for the right functioning and self-realization of the new life, but also because it repeatedly places the new life itself under the condition of the manifestation of life demanded by the imperative. Characteristic here is the use of the imperative as answering clause (apodosis) after a conditional first clause (protasis); thus, for example, in Colossians 3:1: "if you then were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above. " "If" in the first clause is certainly not merely hypothetical. It is a supposition from which the imperative goes out as an accepted fact. But at the same time it emphasizes that if what is demanded in the imperative does not take place, that which is supposed in the first clause would no longer be admissible⁵ (cf., e. g., Rom. 8: 9; Col. 2: 20; Gal. 5: 25).

This making of the indicative conditional on the execution of the imperative (cf. Gal. 6: 7ff. ) does not reverse the order and is likewise not intended only to unmask hypocrites. It applies as well to believers themselves. In the new obedience the new life must become evident, and without the former the latter cannot exist. The explanation of this relationship lies in the fact that the reality described by the indicative, however much to be appreciated as the gift of God and the new creation, yet exists in the way of faith (cf. above, Section 40); while, conversely, the execution of the imperative is not in the power of man himself, but is no less a matter of faith. Indicative and imperative are both the object of faith, on the one hand in its receptivity, on the other in its activity. For this reason the connection between the two is so close and indissoluble. They represent two "sides" of the same matter, which cannot exist separated from each other.

(b) This is not to say, however, that the imperative is only another form of the indicative, because the indicative denotes nothing other than the possibility which by the observance of the imperative must repeatedly be realized anew. According to this actualistic conception the new life consists only in actual decisions of faith, and a distinction can no longer be made between "life by the Spirit" (denoted by the indicative) and "walking by the Spirit" (demanded by the imperative);⁶ indeed, the Spirit himself would mean fundamentally"⁷ nothing other than the possibility of the new life unlocked by faith and would thus be described as "the power of futurity."⁸

But in this way the content of both the indicative and the imperative becomes denatured. The distinction between the two does not consist only in the fact that the former posits as a possibility that which is demanded in the latter. The indicative speaks of the new life also as an antecedent being; one is undoubtedly able to say (with Bultmann) that according to Paul this new life is genuine life precisely in the fact that it is active in the concrete possibilities of life,⁹ but it is no less true that (likewise according to the nature of real life!) it is determined in its decisions and expressions from within and — as the new life — has received the actual possibility for the new "walk" just through this inner reversal. One is doubtless not to conceive of this "life by the Spirit" as a state of being that exists separate from faith, but rather as a life by the same faith as that through which walking by the Spirit must take place. But it nevertheless represents a continuity, not only of walking, but also of a renewed nous and of an enlightened heart, in short, of a renewed manhood (cf. above, Section 39). And it is likewise the building up of this continuity of the new life that is advanced and demanded by the continuing imperative. For the content of the imperative, too, does not consist merely of actual decisions and "acts, " but is determined no less by the continuity and the progress of the new life as the upbuilding of the new manhood.

(c) By way of conclusion we may say that the imperative is grounded on the indicative to be accepted in faith once and for all and time and again anew. Because believers may know themselves as dead to sin and alive to God, they must present their body and their members to the service of righteousness. The imperative preaches rebellion against an enemy (sin), concerning which faith may know and must know again and again that it has been defeated. Thus, too, the relationship of the continual and the actual in the new life becomes clear. The new life is a life and not a succession of signs of life. Nevertheless it is not a dormant but a militant life, a life by faith. Where faith slackens, the situation of Romans 7 becomes actual once again. The imperative is only fulfilled when faith is vigilant, militant, sober (1 Cor. 16: 13; 1 Thess. 5: 6, 8ft; Eph. 6: 11ft). To that extent every imperative is an actualizing of the indicative. Yet it is not lost in that: it seeks the fruit of faith and of the Holy Spirit in sanctification (Rom. 6: 21, 22; Gal. 5: 22); it is directed toward the "more and more, " toward the increasing and abounding, toward the growth and progress of the new life (Rom. 5: 3; 2 Cor. 8: 7; 9: 8 f f ; 1 Tim. 4: 15).

This relation of the indicative and imperative is altogether determined by the present redemptive-historical situation. The indicative represents the "already" as well as the "not yet. " The imperative is likewise focused on the one as well as the other. On the ground of the "already" it can in a certain sense ask all things, is total in character, speaks not only of a small beginning, but of perfection in Christ. At the same time it has its basis in the provisional character of the "not yet. " Its content, therefore, is not only positive, but also negative. The paraenesis must also forbid, warn, indeed threaten (Gal. 6: 7ff. ). At the same time there is in the "not yet" the necessity for increasing, pushing ahead on the way that has been unlocked by the "already. " The whole character and content of the Pauline paraenesis and of the new obedience is contained in nuce in these different points of view.

SECTION 43. THE THEOCENTRIC POINT OF VIEW. SANCTIFICATION

Before going into the concrete content of the Pauline paraenesis it is of importance, in close connection with what has been discussed in the preceding section, first to attempt a general approach and typification of this new obedience. Of particular consequence here is the manner in which in Romans 6, the chapter so fundamental for this whole subject, the significance of the new life is characterized as a moral reversal. To that end the moral life pattern of the old and the new man are placed over against each other. While it is true of the old life that it is governed by "the reign of sin in your mortal body, that you should obey the lusts thereof" and in the placing of the members of this body at the disposal of sin "as weapons of unrighteousness" (vv. 12, 13), the new obedience consists in the fact that believers "must place themselves at the disposal of God, as men who have been brought to life from the dead" and who "present their members to God as weapons of righteousness. " Similarly the old life of those who have now become believers consisted in this, that they "were slaves of sin, and were free of righteousness" (v. 20). Now, however, they are "made free from sin and become servants to God" (v. 22). The great antithesis between the "now" and the "once, " between the "you were" and the "you are, " thus does not lie in being free as such, for the old man had his freedom, in that he "was free of¹⁰ righteousness" (v, 20). Likewise the distinguishing mark of the old did not lie in servitude as such, for the new life, too, is characterized by servitude, obedience, indeed by being at another's command as a slave and placing oneself at the disposal of God and righteousness. The difference thus lies in the nature of the freedom and in the new directedness of the servitude, or, in other words, in the theocentric character of the new obedience. It is in this fact that the new life manifests itself as "life from the dead" (vv. 11, 13), and it is therein that the redemptive-historical framework of the Pauline paraenesis, too, becomes visible. As Christ in his death died to sin and by his resurrection lives for God (Rom. 6: 10), so the new life in its moral manifestation is to bear the stamp of having died and been raised with Christ, in that it breaks away from the jurisdiction of the old center (that of sin, the flesh, the old "I") and the centripetal powers ("the lusts") pertaining to it, to find the new meaning of its existence and center in God. It is this radical reversal of direction and orientation in which the new life must be distinguished in the most fundamental manner from the old, in its unity ("your body") as well as in its various concrete and individual aspects of life ("your members").

With this theocentric determination of the Pauline paraenesis the connection with the anthropological viewpoints has at once been given. It is only in this directedness toward God that the true manhood is able to come to development. Once again this finds expression in so many words in Romans 6. As the wages that sin gives are death, so servitude to God means life (vv. 22, 23). Likewise the liberty to which the church is called and in which it is to stand fast (Gal. 5: 1) signifies a freedom from all that threatens and hinders life, the true manhood. For while the mind of the flesh is death and brings imprisonment along with it, the mind of the Spirit is life and peace (in the sense of "salvation"; Rom. 8: 6, 8). And while the works of the flesh prevent man from inheriting the kingdom of God and thus the true life (Gal. 5: 19 22), the fruit of the Spirit means joy and peace (Gal. 5: 22; Rom. 14: 17), and freedom from fear (Rom. 8: 15). Time and again the church is accordingly admonished and awakened to this freedom, peace, and joy (Gal. 5: 1; 1 Thess. 5: 16; 2 Cor. 13: 11; Phil. 3: 1, et al. ). In the doing of the will of God is the promise of this and of the future life (I Tim. 4: 8). And elsewhere Paul calls the object of the divine reproof, which he also describes as "training, " that "the man of God" may come to completeness and be perfectly equipped (2 Tim. 3: 17; cf. 1 Tim. 6: 11).

However much one is thus able to say that in the Pauline paraenesis the anthropological point of view coincides with the theological and is comprehended in it, it is perfectly clear on the other hand that the former is subordinate to the latter and arises from it, and that one cannot reverse the order. Man's freedom is in subservience to God, and without this servitude freedom has no place in the Pauline paraenesis. This servitude to God likewise does not come into view only insofar as it is necessary to give man freedom, joy, and peace; on the contrary, "for God" and "to God" are the motive and ultimate object of this obedience, as of all things (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 31; Col. 3: 17).

To what degree this theocentric viewpoint predominates in the whole of the Pauline paraenesis, even in all its individual and concrete applications, is clear as well in the point of departure for the extensive paraenetic section of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 12-15), namely, in 12: 1, 2. Here again appeal to the redeeming activity of God in Christ takes precedence: "I exhort you therefore, brethren, by¹¹ the mercies of God, " an appeal in which the church is determined not merely by its moral obligation, but also by the origin and possibility of its obedience. Further, the life pattern of the old aeon ("becoming conformed to this world") is here again set over against that of the new life ("becoming transformed"), and the paraenesis is directed toward the new manhood ("the renewing of your nous"). In summarizing the content of the whole of the following paraenesis, however, the words of Romans 6 are again employed: "put your bodies [yourselves] at the service of God, " which is then further qualified as a "living, holy sacrifice acceptable to God, a spiritual service, " just as the renewing of the nous, too, must have its object and result in the fact that the man thus transformed and withdrawn from the schema of the present world will be prepared and able to "prove what the will of God is, the good, well-pleasing to God, and perfect. "

The theocentric point of view — so we may conclude — constitutes the great point of departure of the Pauline paraenesis. The content both of the separate commandments and of the general ideas in which this paraenesis taken together is defined is to be approached from it.

The first concept that may be mentioned as such is righteousness. In Romans 6 it occurs no less than five times as a general definition of the new obedience (in vv. 13, 16, 18, 19, 20), as the antithesis of sin, death, impurity, lawlessness. Even from the repeated contrast with "sin" the all-embracing character of the concept righteousness is evident, as also its primary content and specific nature as directed toward God. This is corroborated by further analysis of the righteousness intended here. It is entirely oriented to the Old Testament equivalent s^edāqâ, as a denotation of that which is well-pleasing to God, the doing of his will, the keeping of his covenant; it can be qualified in general as piety, obedience, and faithfulness toward God.¹² It rests on the proclamation of the will of God to his people and on the moral character of the relationship between God and those to whom he has made himself known and whom he has placed on his side. It harks back thus to the deepest foundations of the Old Testament revelation and religion. As such this idea of righteousness can incontestably maintain its place in Paul's epistles alongside of and over against the much more pregnant forensic use of the concept.¹³ Moreover, it can exhibit still other nuances, at one time in a more general sense denoting conformity with the will of God (Rom. 6: 13ff.; 14: 17; 2 Cor. 6: 7; Eph. 4: 24; 6: 14; Phil. 1: 11; 2 Tim. 3: 16; 4: 8); then again, in addition to other more specific virtues, acting as a separate manifestation of the new life in the more restricted sense of: to do the right (Eph. 5: 9; 1 Tim. 6: 11; 2 Tim. 2: 22), sometimes even in the special sense of charity (2 Cor. 9: 10; cf., e. g., Matt. 6: 1, et al. ).

Of no less importance for insight into the theocentric character of this new obedience is the central and repeatedly recurring concept of sanctification. In Romans 6:12ff. it is also employed again and again to denote the object and the Irait of the new obedience.

For as you have placed your members at the service of impurity and of lawlessness unto lawlessness, even so now place your members at the service of righteousness unto sanctification (v. 19).

But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification (v. 22).

For a correct insight into the specific significance of the idea holy (hagios), which appears in Paul under various denominatives (hagiasmos, hagiotēs, hagiōsynē), it is necessary to recognize that it does not in the first instance have a moral content. It is rather, as is evident in particular against the Old Testament background, a general qualification of the people of God, also employed originally in close connection with the cultus. As chosen by God out of all the peoples and placed on his side, Israel is holy (Exod. 19: 5, 6). Paul, too, starts from this holiness (Rom. 11: 16), and transfers it to the New Testament church. Its holiness is situated above all in that it has been sanctified in Christ. He has, as a man his wife, appropriated the church to himself, made it his possession (1 Cor. 1: 2; 6: 11). For this reason it can be said that Christ has become to us wisdom, justification, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1: 30); in this context one must by sanctification understand in the first place being appropriated and dedicated to God.¹⁴ In the same sense there is mention ol "called saints" (Rom. 1: 7; 1 Cor. 1: 2 — the "holy assembly" of the Old Testament [Exod. 12:16; Lev. 23: 2, et a/.¹⁵]; cf. 2 Tim. 1: 9), "holy and beloved" (Col. 3: 12 —in which also, as appears from the preceding "elect of God, " the chief emphasis lies on having been appropriated by God and placed on his side), in general, too, the expression the "church of the saints" (1 Cor. 14: 33, et al. ), or simply "the saints" (Rom. 15: 25, 26, et al. ) as a description of the church.

It holds in a special sense for the idea of holiness understood in this way, however, that it not only points toward the privilege of the church of being permitted to be the people of God — the redemptiveindicative, therefore — but that it denotes no less the moral condition that answers to this state of holiness, according to the rule "be ye holy, for I am holy. " Along with this, Christ enters the picture by the Spirit as the author of sanctification. He has reconciled the church through his death, to present it "holy and without blemish and irreproachable" before him (Col. 1: 22; cf. Eph. 5: 26, 27). In this combination "holy" clearly has the significance of moral perfection. This holiness comes about through the Holy Spirit. God has chosen the church to himself from the heathen, as beloved by the Lord and sanctified by the Spirit (2 Thess. 2: 13). But this sanctification then involves active dedication to God by the church itself, the condition of moral holiness that cor- responds with its calling and election. This last element of "answering to" the grace of having been appropriated to God the apostle likes to express with the concept "worthy": "to walk worthy of the calling wherewith you were called" (Eph. 4: 1), or "worthy of the gospel" (Phil. 1: 27), or "worthy of the Lord" (Col. 1: 10), or "worthy of God, who has called you, " etc. (1 Thess. 2: 12), just as, conversely, one can speak of acting (eating and drinking) in a manner unworthy of this holiness (I Cor. 11: 27, 29). "Worthy" in Paul's train of thought of course has nothing to do with meritoriousness, but the motive lying in it is entirely derived from the gracious activity of God, by which he sanctified the church to himself and thus made it worthy of his calling (2 Thess. 1: 11).

In the unfolding of this principle of moral holiness the cultic motif comes very markedly to the fore as well — understood now in a spiritual sense. As the holy people of God the church is the "holy temple" of God (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; Eph. 2:21). Believers are therefore to present their bodies¹⁶ as a living, holy sacrifice, well-pleasing to God — their spiritual¹⁷ service (Rom. 12:1; cf. 15:16). That which is dedicated and sanctified to God must be pure and without defect. Holy can for this reason also act as a synonym of spotless, blameless, undefiled (cf. Col. 1:22). Christ has sanctified the church (appropriated it to himself) that he might present it before him without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that it might be holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:26). This is clearly sacrificial terminology (cf. 1 Pet. 1:19), in which the moral holiness of the people of God is given expression (cf. Eph. 1:4).

In the same sense as between "without blemish"¹⁸ and "holy" there is an original (cultic) connection between "holy" and "pure."¹⁹ This whole complex of ideas is expressed very clearly, for example, in 2 Corinthians 6:14ff., where as the (holy) temple of God the church is warned against contaminating association with unbelievers and idolaters. There is then reference to the appropriation of the church by the Lord and to his commandment that it is to be separate from the world (vv. 16ff.). To this the apostle links the admonition in 2 Corinthians 7:1: let us then "cleanse" ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and the spirit and perfect our sanctification in the fear of God. This cleansing from the flesh, etc., is here intended spiritually, of course (cf. Rom. 12:1), but terminologically it has its origin in cultic purification, in order thus to be "holy." We meet with the same combination in Ephesians 5:26, which we have already cited in this connection, where the cleansing resulting from sanctification (as appropriation) and necessary for holiness (as moral condition) is related to baptism (cf. also Phil. 2:14). Similarly, in a somewhat different train of thought but once again in close connection with the cultic, there is mention in I Corinthians 5:7 of the "purging out of the old leaven." Likewise in Romans 6:19 (im-)purity stands in close connection with sanctification. Further usage then gives it a more general meaning of moral-religious purity (1 Tim. 1:5; 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:21, et ai). Accordingly one is able to ascertain that the categories of holiness in Paul refer more to the new moral condition than to moral activity itself.²⁰ The latter is especially defined as cleansing, as cultic "cleansing" once provided priests and people with holiness before God. In the well-known passages of Romans 6 sanctification is consequently spoken of as the fruit and object of having been made free from sin (vv. 19, 22).

The various words we find for the concept holy (holiness) in Paul naturally bring this out in a shaded fashion. Paul speaks of hagiasmos (sanctification), hagiotēs and hagiōsynē (holiness). The latter denote the condition of holiness but occur only a few times in Paul (2 Cor. 1:12;²¹ 7:1; 1 Thess. 3:14; in Rom. 1:4 hagiōsynē does not have the holiness of the church in view). Moreover, hagiōsynē in both instances has the nuance of the glorious, blameless aspect of holiness as the condition in which the church has to be before God and with a view to his coming.

The action noun (nomen actionis) hagiasmos (sanctification) occurs more often. In the most comprehensive sense of appropriation and moral renewal it occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:30: "Christ has become to us . . . from God . . . sanctification. . . . " Frequently hagiasmos also signifies the object of active sanctification by the Spirit, and thus denotes the condition of holiness (as hagiōsynē). So, for example, in Romans 6:19, 22; in a more active sense in 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:15. The meanings of sanctification and holiness are very close, however, and it is difficult in translation always to choose the right word. The subject of hagiasmos is Christ (1 Cor. 1:30), the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), implicitly also the church itself (1 Thess. 4:3ff.), although the verb hagiazein always has God, Christ, or the Spirit as its subject, but nowhere in Paul's epistles the church or individual believers. With the concept sanctification it is of course a matter of moral holiness, but in a specific sense and from a very definite point of view, namely, of the moral condition answering to the fact of having been appropriated to the Lord. It is moral renewal sub specie electionis and sub specie ecclesiae.

A special use of hagiazein is to be met with in 1 Corinthians 7:14: "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified in [or by] the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in [or by] the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean (akatharta), but now they are holy" (hagia). Holiness here, just as the holiness given by Christ himself to the church, has a strongly "objective" character. Because it is a question in this context of unbelievers, one will not be able to think of appropriation by Christ and inner renewal by the Holy Spirit, but of such a state of holiness whereby the marriage no longer lies in the sphere of the life of the world apostate from God and abandoned to the power of darkness. The unbelieving party is to that extent comprehended in the believing party and must be judged by him (or her) and not the reverse. For that the apostle also appeals to the fact that "your" children are not "unclean" but "holy." Although not everything is plain here — who are "your" children here? are baptized or unbaptized children thought of, and are they then incorporated into the church or not?²² — even so we shall have to proceed from the cultic-theocratic background of the concepts "unclean" and "holy." "Unclean" then means to be "in the world" and to lie under the jurisdiction of the powers ruling there; "clean" means to be under the claims and sphere of influence of the divine appropriation. In 1 Corinthians 7:14 the natural relationships of life constitute the medium for such a sanctification, a sanctification that by its very nature can be considered of broader purport than that of marriage and family but also has reference to other life relationships. The question as to whether Paul will have the sanctification of the children of believers regarded exclusively from the viewpoint of this natural life relationship (in the same manner, thus, as the sanctification of the unbelieving partner in the marriage) is bound up with the question as to whether or not the children were baptized and incorporated into the church, a question that cannot be answered in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:14 alone.²³

In addition to hagios and its derivatives, hagnos, hagnotēs, hagneia (not hagnizō and hagnismos), and hosios and hosiotēs also occur in Paul, in the sense of holy and holiness. This terminology plays a much smaller part, however (in harmony with the usage of the LXX). Although the original background of hagnos in many respects coincides with that of hagios, in Paul it simply has the significance of morally clean, pure, innocent, chaste (cf. Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 5:22; Tit. 2:5; 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:2; 2 Cor. 6:6; 2 Cor. 7:11 [innocent]; 11:2 [chaste]; Phil. 1:17 [with pure intentions]). Still narrower is the significance of the use of hosios in Paul (and in the New Testament generally). The cultic significance scarcely has any part here (1 Tim. 2:8?); the word is employed in the general sense of clean, pure (cf. 1 Thess. 2:10), and is closely connected with the general term "just" (Eph. 4:24; Tit. 1:8). From this it may appear that, from a redemptive-historical point of view, of this complex of ideas hagios with its derivatives has by far the greatest significance.²⁴

The specific significance of the concept sanctification as the comprehensive objective of the Pauline imperative is therefore unmistakable: the whole new life is qualified by it as the answer in purity to the gracious election of God, as the dedication of oneself to God in blamelessness as a holy sacrifice. The religious, theocentric character of the new obedience surely finds its most pregnant expression in the concept of sanctification; just as, conversely, the ground and origin of this obedience is designated nowhere more clearly than here in the free, electing grace of God.

SECTION 44. THE TOTALIT ARIANPOINT OF VIEW. PERFECTION

A no less important general aspect of his paraenesis, closely connected to the fundamental structure of Paul's proclamation of redemption, is the totalitarian character of the new obedience demanded in it. Yet again one can approach this in more than one way. First there is the totalitarian character of the relationship in which the church is placed by Christ's work of redemption to all things²⁵ and by which the paraenesis, too, is determined in its compass. We shall go into this in still more detail in treating "life in the world."²⁶ In addition, however, there is the viewpoint that the whole man is involved in the saving activity of God in Christ. Because everything has been given in Christ, everything can also be asked in him, quantitatively and extensively as well as qualitatively and intensively. Next to the theocentric this totalitarian point of view pertains to the most essential and characteristic feature of the Pauline paraenesis.²⁷

Here again Romans 6-8, 12, so important for our subject, are of decisive significance. As sin is a totalitarian regime that claims the whole man for itself (Rom. 6:12, 13; 7:14), so the new man must place his body (himself) and all his members (all his actions and potentialities) at the disposal of God. As having come to life from the dead (Rom. 6:11, 13), he is to be obedient to God with all his heart (6:17), and with a renewed nous to ask himself what is pleasing to God (Rom. 12:2). The willing as well as the doing, the body as well as the soul and spirit, are involved in God's gift and therefore in his demand (Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 8:10fï.; 1 Thess. 5:23). And as God has made those who are in Christ rich in all things (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 9:11), so God will be served by them in all things. All things ought to take place to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17; cf. Phil. 2:14); in all things they are obedient (2 Cor. 2:9); all things should be done in love (1 Cor. 16:14). Filled with all wisdom and spiritual knowledge, believers must walk worthy of God, to please him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work, strengthened with all power unto all patience and longsuffering (Col. 1:9-11). The Pauline paraenesis is full of the words "every" and "all," and is in this way rendered in a totalitarian and uncompromising style, in a difficult to reproduce but highly distinctive manner.

In this connection the question arises as to how we have to conceive of the working out of this totalitarian imperative and the possibility of its realization in this life, in other words, the question of moral perfection. There is occasion to treat this question particularly in relation to the idea of sanctification discussed in the previous section. For we have seen that this sanctification for Paul denotes a condition of moral blamelessness that comes about in the way of purification.²⁸ As such it is defined further as that which is "blameless," "without spot or wrinkle," "in which no fault is to be found." This holiness and blamelessness are often spoken of in a final sense (Rom. 6:19; Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Col. 1:22), and what is thought of here is especially the future revelation of the saints at the appearing of Christ (1 Thess. 3:13; 1 Cor. 1:8). Yet the present historical character of this sanctification and blamelessness is in no sense relinquished. It is precisely the intention that the church may rise in this life to such a position of holiness that at the appearing of Christ it may go to meet its Lord without blame. For this reason Paul says that God will confirm the church to the end, that it may be without blame in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 he prays that "the God of peace may sanctify them in every way²⁹ and that their spirit, soul, and body may be kept without fault and blameless at the coming of Christ."³⁰ The reference is thus to the object and result of its present sanctification.

On the basis of this and similar pronouncements some have come to the view that in Paul's conviction every truly baptized person, every real possessor of the Pneuma, every truly redeemed person, is free from sin, has crucified the passions and lusts, is a new man who has once again become obedient and under the prompting of the Spirit no longer falls into sin. This applies to Christians in general, at least insofar as they have truly been baptized, etc.; in particular this sinlessness is supposed to have been maintained as incontestable by the apostle on the ground of his own life from and with Christ.³¹ Others place all the emphasis on the summons to perfection and fighting against sin joined to these indicatives of holiness, but are still of the opinion that Paul holds out the prospect of blamelessness in sanctification not only as a goal to be pursued, but also to be attained; indeed, that, certainly for himself in the first place, but surely also for every Christian, he describes perfection as a victory in the struggle against sin, in which one in fact leaves sin behind him.³²

One thing at least is indisputable: however much the apostle may speak in positive indicatives of being set free from the power of sin and of death, this does not mean that believers therefore eo ipso have left sin behind them as ground already conquered. If this were so, the constant admonition, continually renewed, would be incomprehensible. He describes the life of believers time and again from the double viewpoint of battling on the basis of victory and of gaining the victory on the basis of the battle.

The first viewpoint proceeds from the victory of Christ. Because Christ has died to sin, they are to live out of the consideration of faith that they too are dead to sin (as ruler), but live for God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:11). This living for God in Christ Jesus is now repeatedly described, however, in the terminology of a battle,³³ which not only starts from the victory that lies behind (in Christ), but also extends toward the victory that lies before (in the life of believers). It is in this way that the apostle speaks of his own service. Although this consists most profoundly in the proclamation of the victory of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54, 57), which is still more graphically described as being led by Christ in his triumphal procession³⁴ (2 Cor. 2:14), it is at the same time itself a military service, a going to war (2 Cor. 10:3, 4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:7), under the leadership of Christ as general (2 Tim. 2:3). And Paul sometimes speaks of this service, in which he knows himself to be armed from head to foot (2 Cor. 6:7), in a highly warlike manner: in this campaign it is a matter of demolishing strongholds and entrenchments and making prisoners of war for Christ (2 Cor. 10:3ff.). The life of those who have been made free by Christ now bears this same character of military service. It is indeed militia Christi.³⁵ It also occurs as such in the context of Romans 6: do not place your members as "weapons of unrighteousness"³⁶ at the command of sin, but of God as "weapons of righteousness" (v. 13). And the same thought is to be found in Romans 13:12, where there is mention of putting on "the weapons of the light." Here in the first place it is the moral struggle that should be thought of, as is evident from the context of Romans 6 and from the parallel "works of darkness" — "weapons of the light" in Romans 13. That battle must be fought by believers placing their "members," that is to say, their whole manifestation of life,³⁷ at the service of God. There is thus no question of having already left the "stage of sin" behind. In the strength of Christ's victory sin is precisely to be combatted.

With what earnestness this exhortation is given and in what context this battle is to be viewed may appear still further from the familiar "armor"-pericope (Eph. 6:11ff.), where twice there is mention of the "whole armor of God" ( panoplia tou Theou), which is then distinguished in all sorts of particular items of armor (cf. 1 Thess. 5:8). Here again the concern is, if in a more inclusive sense, with the struggle against falsehood and unrighteousness, as appears from the designation of the parts of the armor (cf. 1 Thess. 5:6ff.), and in general with perseverance in the faith and the life springing from it (cf. vv. 6, 18ff.).³⁸ This struggle stands in a much wider context, however: it is waged not against "blood and flesh, but against the principalities, the powers, the world rulers of this darkness, against the evil spirits in the heavenly places" (v. 12). Thereby the believers' conflict of faith, in its moral aspects as well, is related to the continuing eschatological antithesis between the powers of darkness and the kingship of Christ (Col. 1:13). This is also the effect of what is said in Romans 13 concerning the passing of the night, the proximity of the day, and in this connection the changing of armor ("the weapons of the light"). Whereas elsewhere it is declared of these powers that Christ has subdued them and, as it were, has harnessed them to his triumphal chariot (Col. 2:15),³⁹ and delivered his own from their power (Col. 1:13), in Ephesians 6 the point of view of the "not yet," at least of the "not yet fully," finds expression (just as in the formulation of provisionality in Rom. 13:12: "the night is far spent, the day is at hand"). Thus the redemptivehistorical point of view also has its moral implications.

The same thing becomes perceptible in Paul's warnings against the danger of "temptation" and, in close connection with this, against Satan. That Satan is thought of as the author of temptation is evident from such passages as 1 Thessalonians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Timothy 3:7. While on the one hand Satan and his whole power have been subjected to the power of Christ, and the church is comforted with the knowledge that God will shortly crush Satan under its feet (Rom. 16:20), on the other hand his power and influence continue in the temptation of men, also believers (1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess. 3:5). In this light we shall also have to understand the other warnings against temptations leading to sin, even though in these Satan is not expressly mentioned (1 Cor. 10:13; Gal. 6:4 [4:14]; 1 Tim. 6:9). The apostle, moreover, comforts the church that God is faithful and will not suffer it to be tempted beyond its capacity, and that accordingly no temptation beyond the human has overtaken it.⁴⁰ Nevertheless he points to the example of ancient Israel, and he voices the warning: "let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. 10:12). All these references to temptation are thus determined by the same point of view we met with above: in a moral respect, too, believers are still in a threatened position. The victory of Christ does not remove the necessity for vigilance and soberness.

We shall have to consider from the same redemptive-historical point of view the pronouncements that speak of the continuing lust of the flesh in believers. Of primary importance here are the words of Galatians 5:17: "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other, that you may not do the things that you would."

Elsewhere Paul says concerning this rule of flesh and Spirit: "but you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9). This ascertainment is not nullified by Galatians 5:17. For first of all being "in the Spirit" does not mean that the Spirit takes hold of the human ego to such an extent that it is no longer exposed to the power of the flesh. Rather the pronouncement of Romans 8, too, is intended as a stimulus and basis for not living after the flesh, but allowing oneself to be led by the Spirit and thus no longer to be liable to the service of the flesh (cf. vv. 12fï.). With that, however, what is said in so many words in Galatians 5:17 is also presupposed, that believers have not yet been taken out of the arena in which Spirit and flesh contend with each other for power. Galatians 5 adds to this train of thought that the power of the flesh still asserts itself in them to the extent that "they do not the things that they would."⁴¹ This "would" can scarcely mean anything other in this context than that which believers desire to perform in conformity with God's will⁴² (cf. Phil. 2:13). Because of the continuing influence of the flesh, specifically of its "lusting," this willing is no unchallenged affair, but it is hampered at the point of its execution. This is not to say that, because believers do not act in conformity with what they will and as often as they will, they continue in one way or another in slavery after the flesh. That would be to revive the situation delineated in Romans 7:14ff. of having been sold and being dead under sin. In Galatians 5:17 the apostle employs the still continuing influence of the flesh, however, as an argument ("For.. ..") for allowing oneself to be led by the Spirit and as a warning not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. He also says that when they do this, they no longer find themselves in the moral impotence that marks the situation under the law. The great difference between Romans 7:14ff. and Galatians 5:17 is thus that the former is written out of the situation of the flesh; the latter on the other hand takes the standpoint of the Spirit.⁴³ From the manner in which the influence of the flesh and not doing what one wills are spoken of in Galatians 5, too, it is evident, however, that the situation of Romans 7 recurs, if not in principle, then incidentally,⁴⁴ when believers do not live by faith and thus not from the liberty given them by the Spirit. Inner discord is not thereby declared to be of the essence of the Christian existence, but the situation of believers is designated as a situation of conflict, also in a moral sense, in which unremitting watchfulness is necessary and which leads to victory only when they place themselves time and again under the leading of the Spirit. It may therefore be posited on the one hand that believers have left behind them the mode of existence of the flesh and life under the law because in Christ and by faith in him they have once died to them; on the other hand, it may also be said, e mente Pauli, that the with and over against each other of the old and new are for believers a continuing reality, because and insofar as they remain exposed to the lusts and temptations of the flesh. The liberty given in Christ in the Spirit may and must regard sin as a conquered power, but not as an enemy who can suffer no further defeat in the sense of moral perfectionism. It is a liberty that calls men to battle just because this is no longer a hopeless affair (Rom. 7), or exhibits the character of an uncertain struggle, but one which, because the issue has been settled in Christ, may be fought and won in the Spirit and the power going forth from him.

It is in close connection with this that we are to understand the pronouncements that speak of the "perfection" and "blamelessness" of the life set at liberty by the Spirit. In so doing, as regards the concept "perfect,"⁴⁵ one must be very much on his guard against an exclusively moral interpretation and in general against the idea of a quantitative state of moral perfection flawless in all its parts. The perfection of believers refers above all to the totalitarian character of the fullness of the redemption in Christ. Here again, however, there is a clear correspondence of the usage of indicative and imperative.⁴⁶ One meets with the former in those passages in which participation in the fullness of Christ is the prominent idea of "perfect" and "perfection" (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28; 4:12). To this idea then is joined the thought of the maturity and adulthood of the Christian life as the full working through and unfolding of the salvation given in Christ, with respect to the provisional and temporal (1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13) as well as to the definitive and eternal (1 Cor. 13:10; Phil. 3:15). Christ is the prominent idea of "perfect" and "perfection" (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28; 4:12). To this idea then is joined the thought of the maturity and adulthood of the Christian life as the full working through and unfolding of the salvation given in Christ, with respect to the provisional and temporal (1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13) as well as to the definitive and eternal (1 Cor. 13:10; Phil. 3:15).

The thought of the full unfolding and appropriation of what has been given in Christ and thereby of adulthood and maturity emerges very clearly in Ephesians 4:13, where there is mention of the building up of the church.⁴⁷ Here "perfect," in the sense of full-grown, having come to full development, stands over against children yet underage. One may observe this same contrast between I Corinthians 2:6ff. and 3:1ff., and in 1 Corinthians 14:20. And Colossians 1:28 will have to be interpreted in the same manner. Thus he is "perfect" who inwardly and in the manifestation of his life has appropriated the content of the Christian faith in the right way.⁴⁸ As such "perfect" also has an ethical significance, of course, although this does not come to the fore in Paul (cf. Eph. 4:14ff.; 1 Cor. 2:6ff.). Love in particular is related to perfection as "the bond of perfectness" (Col. 3:14; cf. Eph. 4:16 and 1 Cor. 13:8-13, where the perfect is also placed over against the childish). One must not so conceive of this bond, however, as though love itself were perfection; it is rather the means or the sphere by which and in which the church comes to this spiritual maturity.

In the well-known passage of Philippians 3:9-15 Paul speaks in a still more inclusive sense of being perfect. Although on the one hand he describes himself and the church as "perfect" (v. 15), namely, come to maturity in their judgment, just before, in verse 12, he has said: "not that I have already obtained it, or am already become perfect. . . ." Here again it is a question of more than moral perfection; it is one of the appropriation of the full salvation in Christ, ultimately of nothing less than being glorified with Christ (v. 11), "the perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13:10.

If there is thus a clear distinction to be pointed out between this concept of perfection and that of ethical perfectionism and if one cannot simply appeal to the former for the latter, it is evident from this idea of adulthood and maturity that the new life knows growth, advance toward perfection. And this is also true in a moral sense, of course. To be sure, in Ephesians 4 these pronouncements are applied in the first place to the church as such.⁴⁹ But it may not be inferred from this that Paul does not⁵⁰ intend to summon every individual Christian to be a perfect, mature believer. From the sequel to Ephesians 4:13 it is sufficiently clear that this last is also the case. Therefore the frequent mention of increase of faith (2 Cor. 10:15), of "the harvest of righteousness" (2 Cor. 9:10), of growing into a holy temple (Eph. 2:21; cf. 4:15; Col. 2:19), of bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the right knowledge of God (Col. 1:10), of abounding more and more in thanksgiving (2 Cor. 4:15), joy (2 Cor. 8:2), the work of love (2 Cor. 8:7), in every good work (2 Cor. 9:8), etc., is also a clear indication of the character of the Christian life and of moral freedom. There is an ascent to be perceived in it (cf. Rom. 5:3ff.), not an ascent that is a matter of course and automatic, but in the exercise of faith. On this account Paul can urge on to the perfecting of holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1), and he can make blamelessness the holy goal of those who have been made free in Christ (Eph. 5:27; Phil. 1:10; 2:15). He speaks of that particularly in relation to the appearance of Christ to be expected, as a gift that God is to give to the church (1 Cor. 1:8), and which he therefore asks of God for the church (1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23), but for which it must also prepare itself in its scrupulous distinguishing and doing of what God asks of it (Phil. 1:10).

We may say in summary that the dominant viewpoint from which Paul considers the Christian life is not the remaining temptation of the flesh, but the power of the Spirit conquering all sin. The idea that the believer must remain stuck fast in a small beginning is certainly not in harmony with his indicative and imperative pronouncements of perfection. But he thereby always points toward the future and nowhere proceeds from the idea that the church has already reached a state of sinlessness or were able to rest in it. He speaks of a posse non peccare, not of a non peccare, and much less still of a non posse peccare as the picture of the Christian life. It is faith in the power and faithfulness of God (1 Thess. 5:24), not the moral result reached in the church, that makes him hold up blamelessness and spotlessness before the church as mandate and final goal, in the midst of all the present temptations and imperfections.

SECTION 45. UNITY AND MULTIPLICITY. THE CONCRETENESS OF THE PARAENESIS

If we now go further into the content of the Pauline paraenesis, we are faced with what is at first glance a confusing multiplicity of concepts, motives, and viewpoints, with the help of which Paul gives expression to the ethical effect of the gospel. An exhaustive treatment of this material demands a separate study,⁵¹ and would go far beyond the boundaries of a general description of the content of Paul's preaching. We wish therefore to characterize the content of this paraenesis somewhat further by providing a summary from several points of view.

The first thing that can be of service here is the distinction of the unity and the multiplicity in this paraenesis. Under the unity, then, are to be understood all the summarizing pronouncements and concepts in which the whole of the new obedience is qualified, for example, when there is mention of having been made subservient to righteousness, or of presenting oneself to God as a sacrifice (Romans 6, 12); and under the multiplicity the many separate commandments and prescriptions in which the content of the new obedience and righteousness is given more concrete form.

It is of importance to place all emphasis on both the unity and the multiplicity. So far as the unity is concerned, it is unmistakable that the content of the obedience demanded by Paul is primarily an indivisible matter, at bottom to be reduced to a unity. He speaks of it in the singular as "each man's work" (1 Cor. 3:13-15; Gal. 6:4), the "good work" (Phil. 1:6), "the work of faith" (1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11); similarly "the fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22; cf. Rom. 6:22), the "fruit of righteousness" (Phil. 1:11; cf. 4:17). Galatians 5:22 is of special importance here because this "fruit" of the Spirit is further differentiated in a multiplicity of Christian virtues. It admits of being summarized in one word, love. "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor. 16:14); "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13:10; cf. Gal. 5:14). In Christ nothing other is of any avail than "faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6), just as it can be said elsewhere that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).

Emphasis has rightly been placed on the fact that in this conception of the unity and indivisibility of the new obedience there comes to light on the one hand the agreement of Paul with Jesus, and on the other the great distinction between the Pauline and the rabbinic ethic. So far as the latter is concerned, it is well known that the rabbis, even though among them attempts are not lacking to reach unity from multiplicity, still sought their strength especially in elaborating the will of God as much as possible and in carrying on a casuistry that extended like a net over all of life. Although, so far as we are able to see, Paul does not in so many words broach the antithesis with the old synagogue in his epistles, it is clear that his paraenesis bears a totally different character and has received the clear stamp of the righteousness and fulfillment of the law maintained by Jesus over against the Pharisees and Scribes.

On the other hand one cannot close his eyes to the highly varied and in part very detailed character of the Pauline paraenesis. His epistles contain a multiplicity of individual admonitions, commandments, and advice, in which he holds before the churches their Christian calling not only as a unity but also in all its concrete multiformity, and he himself frequently expresses his paraenesis in the plural (cf. 1 Thess. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2, et al.). However distinctive his characterization of the new obedience in the singular as "the good work" may be, he speaks with equal positiveness of "good works" in the plural (Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 5:25; 6:18; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; cf. 2 Cor. 9:8; Col. 1:10; 2 Thess. 2:17). In this respect the nomenclature of the paraenesis entirely corresponds with the anthropological distinction favored by Paul between "the body" (the unity of the human mode of existence coming to outward expression) and "the members" (individual, concrete acts; cf. Rom. 6:12ff.; 12:1; Col. 3:5, et al.).

The opinion has frequently been held, to be sure, that the multiplicity of the separate commandments stands in a certain relationship of tension with the essence of the new life as living in and walking by the Spirit, standing in liberty, etc. Some have wished indeed to conclude from this that the new obedience does not permit itself to be dictated to in individual commandments on pain of once again lapsing into legalism. With regard to the unmistakable multiplicity of the individual prescriptions and commandments in Paul's epistles scholars have come to all kinds of theories: to the degree that the eschatological consciousness in Paul himself and in the church grew weaker, he is said to have been compelled to take a stand on all kinds of concrete questions of practical life; or the original moral enthusiasm of the new ideal of life is said to have received a more and more necessary corrective in the pedagogical precepts of the apostle. Others have taken precisely the reverse position and have wished to see in the concrete individual commandments a still necessary (but in the long run superfluous) transitional situation of the Christian churches not immediately ripe for moral freedom, while still others do not want to conceive of these individual commandments as abiding and binding precepts, but as a current particularizing, with reference to certain concrete situations, of the one commandment of love and liberty.⁵²

In the following section we shall still have to deal separately with the function of the law in the new life. Here we wish to confine ourselves to rejecting the view that the Pauline conception of the new life does not really admit of being reconciled with the laying down of individual precepts and commandments, and that their occurrence in the epistles of Paul would require further explanation. We have to do here with a conception of liberty and "Christian" autonomy that stems more from the world of the Enlightenment and Kantian philosophy than from that of Paul. The whole idea that these individual precepts, were one compelled to grant a binding character to them, would signify the way back to the Jewish legalism so forcefully opposed by him, is obviously alien to Paul's own world of thought. We have already seen how much as a matter of course, after having first emphatically rejected man's own righteousness before God as a dead-end street, he nevertheless qualifies the whole of the new life as servitude to "righteousness," in the religious-ethical sense of the word. And the same thing applies to the concept of "work" and "good works." That man is justified without the works of the law does not for a moment prevent him from vigorously demanding good works as the fruit of the new life and giving all kinds of prescriptions, commandments, advice, for these good works. If the nature of the new life and the new obedience demanded on the basis of it is in conflict with being subjected to new precepts and commandments, then Paul's epistles from first to last are no longer comprehensible; for they are full of them. That the continuing practical concerns of the church and all kinds of concrete situations in which the young Christian church required guidance and direction gave the apostle occasion time and again to provide all sorts of precepts and commandments is surely self-evident and constitutes an important viewpoint in judging all these concrete prescriptions. But nowhere does he so represent the situation as though his interference with the practical moral life of the church were really a concession to practice and an evidence of the weakness of its spiritual life. Rather, he appeals for this to his special commission as an apostle of Christ. He writes to the Romans, for example, that although he is persuaded that they themselves, too, are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able also to admonish one another, he has nevertheless by way of a reminder written somewhat boldly to them. And this, so he adds, in virtue of the grace of God given to him (of his apostleship), to be a minister of Christ Jesus for the gentiles in the holy priestly service of the gospel, so that the offering of the gentiles might be acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:15ff.). Here Paul qualifies his apostolic office as that of the priest who is to exercise supervision over that which is offered in the sanctuary, and it is in virtue of this ministry which has been charged to him that, although convinced of their good intentions, knowledge, etc., he has nevertheless given clear instructions for their moral conduct and their relationships to one another. And, to mention yet another passage, in Colossians 1:26ff. Paul appeals likewise to the discharging of the office given to him, in virtue of which his proclamation of Christ consists in "admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that he may present every man perfect in Christ to God." Here again it is evident from the repeated "every man" how much the apostle counted it his duty not merely to proclaim Christ "in general," but also in a pastoral and pedagogical sense to see to the guidance and instruction of the church in its particular questions and needs. Undoubtedly in the process questions arise that are connected with the interim character of the time before Christ's parousia (1 Cor. 7; 1, 2 Thess.). But the express treatment of them is even so only a certain aspect in his preaching, and it would be a complete misjudgment of the nature of the Pauline paraenesis were one to choose to posit that its effect would be none other than to give the church a little practical guidance in view of the unexpected failure of the parousia to arrive. Here again the principal viewpoint of all Paul's proclamation does not lie in the absence as yet of the parousia of the Lord, but in the revelation of his death and resurrection that have already taken place. And it is accordingly in this that the individual commandments and precepts appear again and again to have their root and deepest motive (cf., e.g., Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 5:6-8; 2 Cor. 8:8, 9; Phil. 2:5, et al.). In all these passages it is clear that it is not the fact that Christ has not yet appeared that compels the apostle to concern himself with the progress of the life of the church, but that he is constantly intent, by all manner of moral precepts, on bringing to manifestation and development that which it has already received in Christ.

In view of this last point one will have to guard against seeing the concreteness of Paul's paraenesis exclusively as a current particularization, referring to the present situation, of the one great commandment and not as the giving of general rules. No doubt the apostle does not give a system of ethical rules and precepts. His precepts often have reference to specific situations in the churches, give answers to questions that have reached him. Thus the paraenesis on "the strong and the weak" in Romans 14 and 15 and in 1 Corinthians 8ff.; on the disputes in Corinth (1 Cor. 3), on the lack of discipline, going to law before unbelievers, abuses in the Lord's Supper, order in the congregation, in I Corinthians 5, 6, 11, 14, etc. This is by no means to say, however, that these precepts consist only in a current application of the commandment of love, which may indeed be important and instructive, but yet not of universal validity. For two things are to be borne in mind here.

In the first place, the apostle, even when he goes into all sorts of current questions concerning the life of the Christian church of the time, does not restrict himself to the giving of specific solutions or prescriptions that were of importance for specific occasions, but rather he teaches the church to approach and to answer these questions and situations from general points of view. One need only think, for example, of the broad pastoral treatment both in Romans and 1 Corinthians of the problem that was apparently such a burning issue in the church of the gentile Christians of the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols. This treatment is not confined to a few concrete instructions, but it teaches the church to judge these questions from a muliplicity of viewpoints. It upholds the liberty of eating and drinking in view of the redeeming work of Christ as well as from the consideration that the earth and all that is in it has been created by God and is therefore not to be rejected. It is no less forcefully brought to the forefront on the other hand that love for one's brother and the good of the church must in everything be the standard and rule of conduct. Furthermore the apostle warns against the rash and proud use of liberty, an occasion of falling also for those who think that they stand. The concrete situation repeatedly leads to general moral viewpoints and rules of life. The examples here lie ready to hand: in Colossians, where Paul wages war against a syncretistic tendency, he goes far beyond the actual situation in his admonitions and gives precepts that, besides being for the church of Colosse, are of very general purport (cf., e.g., 2:20; 3:1ff.). The same holds for such paraenetic pronouncements as those in 1 Corinthians 6:12ff.; 10:23ff.; 2 Corinthians 9:7; and 1 Timothy 4:5ff.

In the second place, however, it must be posited no less emphatically that, along with this paraenesis which has reference to specific situations, Paul also gives a great many prescriptions and commandments of which this last cannot be said, or at least does not appear to be the case. This holds not only for the admonitions that are kept very general, as, for example, in Romans 6:12ff., but in many instances also for all sorts of special and concrete prescriptions. Thus, for example, in Romans 12:3-21; 13, chapters in which a great number of concrete commandments are given without it being possible to determine with any certainty that a specific occasion for them existed in the church at Rome. And the same thing applies to most of the paraenetic closing chapters in the Pauline epistles. One may conclude from this how much the apostle felt the need to give the churches guidance in a moral and pastoral respect, too, not only in current problems that cropped up among them, but also in a more general sense. And one may gather at the same time how far removed he was from the standpoint of many of his later interpreters, with their assumption that the new life and being-in-the-Spirit has no need of such concrete precepts and that anyone who lives by the Spirit will on that account know how he is to walk by the Spirit. Even more than from his giving answers to and entering into concrete questions or situations it is evident from these more generally intended precepts how comprehensive Paul's paraenesis is, from how many points of view he regards life and how many situations his commandments cover. It has been repeated endlessly that Paul gives no systematic ethic, and this is indeed beyond discussion. But this does not mean that in his paraenesis there is no line or "system" and that his precepts consist only in disconnected admonitions without interrelationship. This is perhaps most apparent in the so-called Haustafeln (schedules of household duties) in which various groups of persons are successively addressed. But elsewhere, too, this "systematic" aspect is to be observed. In 1 Corinthians 7 the apostle deals extensively with all sorts of questions concerning marriage. In Romans 12:3-20 the concern is with the manner in which believers are to live from the new disposition both among themselves and in their associations with unbelievers. Elsewhere we meet with precepts for ecclesiastical life in the more institutional sense of the word, and one is able to speak of the beginning of a liturgical and ecclesiastical order (1 Cor. 14; 1 Tim. 2, 3, and 5). From all this it is evident that though there is no question here of a finished structure of precepts and commandments, and though an "ethic" of motives rather than of cases is to be spoken of, yet Paul is in no way averse to concrete guidance and precepts, on the one hand, and to obedience closely conforming to them on the other. That with this he did not wish to render inoperative the moral activity and independent judgment of the church itself, but by his example and determination of position intended just to stimulate it, is said in so many words in more than one place and will have our attention still further. The main thing in all this, however, is not what was most to be respected: his apostolic authority or the moral activity of the church; the chief thing for him was that the church both in obedience to his precepts and by its own insight and sensitiveness for the things that really matter should exhibit the image of the new life no longer subjected to sin, but dedicated to God.

That — finally — in his paraenesis the apostle did not create something completely new, but in a great many ways, both in a material and in a more formal sense, associated himself with what had been said before him and with what for his purpose was fundamental or useful goes without saying. An exhaustive treatment of the moral, conceptual, and motivational materials in Paul's epistles would have to demonstrate this in detail. In general it can be established that on the one hand there is to be found in them a clear connection with Old Testament definitions; on the other hand it is evident especially in the emphasis that Paul, too, places on the commandment of love and in the manner in which he interprets this in how profound a manner the preaching of Jesus entered into the apostolic paraenesis. Elsewhere he defines the moral vocation of believers in terms and schemata that appear in many ways to have their parallels throughout the entire contemporary intellectual world of the apostle; the specifically Christian purport of these does not so much lie in the terminology as in the general context in which they have been taken up into the Christian preaching.⁵³

SECTION 46. TERTIUS USUS LEGIS

After all that has been said in the foregoing on the theocentric and totalitarian character of the new obedience as well as on the unity and diversity that are to be observed in the paraenesis to this obedience, the question now arises as to whether and in what way the norm of the new life thus described is to be determined. To be sure, important directives are already implied in the characterizations mentioned above; for they speak of the character of the new obedience as directed toward God, led by the Spirit, unconditional, and all-embracing. In Paul's concrete commandments in particular various points of view may be pointed out that are of the greatest importance for defining the content of what he denotes in general as righteousness, sanctification of life, good works. The question remains, however, as to where it is that the apostle himself in his precepts and commandments derived the norms for the new obedience required by him, as well as to the manner in which in its moral judgment of itself and in its own activity the church is able to receive correct insight into the will of God to be accomplished by it. In particular it should come up for discussion here whether and, if so, in what sense the law continues to function in the Pauline paraenesis as the source of the knowledge of the will of God and as the standard for the new life.

We are faced here with a much discussed question. After all that has been said above on the "incidental" significance of the law,⁵⁴ as well as on freedom from the law as means of salvation — which the apostle declares with such great vigor⁵⁵ — it is not strange that many have arrived at the idea that the norm for the new life can no longer be derived from the law.

The Lutheran Bishop Anders Nygren, for example, takes a very radical stand on this in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. According to him, Paul's pronouncements on having been released from the law, on Christ as the end of the law, etc., must be taken as absolutely having done with the law, and one may not attempt to grant entrance to the law in another way.

Thus Nygren writes, for example, with respect to the words of Romans 7:6, " . . . but now we have been discharged from the law," that Paul describes the role of the law in the Christian life "in a way that has often disturbed his theological interpreters." One had perhaps expected — so he writes — that the law no longer acts in that life as a power of destruction, but as an assisting agency that gives us instructions as to how the Christian life is to take shape ("the third use of the law"). Paul says the opposite, however. For him the law pertains entirely to the old aeon and is one of the powers of destruction under which we were held prisoner; therefore the new life is characterized by the fact that we have been made free from the law.⁵⁶ Similarly, he writes on Romans 10:3: "With full confidence Paul can tell how through Christ there is really an end to the law." For the law had as its purpose (a) to stop every mouth; (b) to insist on righteousness. This has now become reality in Christ. "The day of the law is past. Christ is the end of the law, the terminus of the law, the law's [telos]."⁵⁷

However much such a conclusion seems at first glance to lie in the line of Paul's absolute rejection of the law as the means to righteousness, on more careful inspection it appears that it does not do justice to the whole of his pronouncements concerning the law. For whatever the great emphasis with which he speaks of having been discharged from the law and calls Christ the end of the law, in other places, as it were self-evidently, he time and again harks back to the law, namely, when he wishes to define the content of the new obedience and the express will of God for the new life. The principal pronouncements to be considered here are the following:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God [has done]..., that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:3, 4).

Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he who loves the other has fulfilled the law. For the commandments... are summed up in this word: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself... ; love therefore is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:8-10).

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God (1 Cor. 7:19).

. . . to them that are without law, I became as without law — although not without the law of God, for I stand under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21).

Serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Gal. 5:14).

Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2).

Now the attempt has been made so to interpret these pronouncements that on the one hand the positive significance of the law is recognized, but that on the other there would be no question in these passages of a tertius usus legis for believers. When it is said in Romans 8:4 that the requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, Nygren, for example, acknowledges that there is mention here of the positive "purpose" of the law, as well as of the fulfilling of the law, but in his opinion this may not be understood of a fulfilling of the law by believers of which they would then be capable by the power of the Spirit, but only of fulfillment by Christ "and by the fact that we 'are in Him.' "⁵⁸ It is our conviction, however, that a false antithesis is made here. For the words "in us" are followed by "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." And this is what is intended by "the fulfilling of the requirement of the law."

How great the difficulties are with which one is faced when he chooses to couple these positive pronouncements on the law with an absolute rejection of the continuing normative significance of the law appears most clearly from Nygren's explanation of Romans 13:8-10. In his opinion there is no conflict with the absolute interpretation of Romans 10:4. And he endeavors to make this plausible as follows: Since the law is negatively directed against sin, Christ, who is righteousness, signifies the end of the law. And the same applies to love. Where love is, nothing occurs that the law forbids. Therefore the words "Christ, the end of the law" and "love, the fulfilling of the law," would be expressions for the same thing.⁵⁹

It is evident, however, that this explanation could hold only if Paul called love "the end" or "the making superfluous" of the law. He speaks of the fulfilling of the law, however, as something that is required of believers (v. 8) and which presupposes a continuing significance of the law. For that matter, it is very difficult to maintain as the general characteristic of the essence of the law that it is only negatively against sin and not positively for righteousness and requires this.

Most interpreters, even those who suppose that Paul speaks very unequivocally of the end of the Mosaic law, are therefore of the opinion (on the ground of these unmistakable positive pronouncements) that in one way or another he also retains the law. Thus Bultmann speaks of two sorts of appreciation of the law in Paul, indeed really of two sorts of law, on the one hand of the law as the eternal and abiding will of God, on the other of the law that with Christ has been done away. This latter is then said to appear in Paul especially as the "law of Moses," and as the "incidental" law really does not go back to God, but to angelic powers (Gal. 3:19ff.).⁶⁰ Others speak of a distinction in Paul between the immanent will of the law itself and the will of God, which has made itself known in the giving of the law. Of this Romans 8:4 and Romans 13:8-10 are supposed to speak; it is that which the Spirit brings about in the life of Christians. But it may not be concluded from this that Paul still ascribed to the law itself and to its legal demands a positive normative role for the moral life in the sense of the tertius usus legis.⁶¹ Still others speak of Paul's "unschematic manner" of speaking. When in Romans 8:4 and 13:8-10 Paul speaks without prejudice of the "fulfilling of the law" he means that the Christian really attains to the Judaistic ideal by the operation of love. However: "the ideal is the same in name only, but in fact is something other: on the one hand faithfulness to the law working casuistically; on the other the operation of the divine Spirit without looking back at the 'dead' law."⁶² And to mention still another distinction: G. Bornkamm writes, in connection with Galatians 5:14, that "the point of the passage is not the question of the setting aside of the law, but rather its fulfilment through the deed. [Peplērōtai] (gnomic perfect) thus refers to more than the obvious summarization of the law in the love-commandment, namely its complete fulfillment in love.'"⁶³

If we survey the whole, so far as the positive significance of the law is concerned, the following may be noted by way of summary.

(1) However much, speaking out of the Jewish conception of the law as the means of salvation, Paul emphatically places the negative significance of the law in the foreground, on the other side the so-called "third use" of the law is also unmistakable in his epistles. After all that has been said on "having died to the law," Christ as "the end of the law," etc., the abiding significance of the law as the expression of the will of God is maintained with a certain self-evidentness.⁶⁴ Nor is there materially the slightest opposition between the one and the other. One can perhaps wonder at the fact that it all takes place so "silently" and that the apostle, at least in the epistles that have been preserved to us, apparently felt no need to go further into this relationship. But the same thing applies to the very positive manner in which he speaks of "good works" and "righteousness" as well. This involves the fact that it is absolutely impossible, without having recourse to arbitrariness and artificiality, to deny this double significance of the law, namely, both as pedagogue to Christ and as rule for the new life, either on the one side or the other, or to distinguish both aspects even terminologically from each other.⁶⁵ One will therefore not be able to maintain that love or the Spirit or even Christ is the norm and the rule of conduct of the new life, at least if this would mean a substitution for the law.

The pronouncements on love in Romans 13:8-10 and Galatians 5:14 are unmistakable in this respect. Love functions here not as a new Christian ideal or as a new norm, which comes in the place of the law or makes it superfluous. It is precisely required here as the summary of the law (anakephalaioutai; Rom. 13:9). In other words, the law does not find its criterion in love, but just the reverse, the requirement of love is so imperative because in it lies the summary of the law. This detracts nothing from the great significance of love as the summary of the law and thus the criterion for the fulfilling of the law: in this respect Paul's canticle of love, no less than Jesus' radical commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, is a matchless unfolding of the deep and unmistakable content of the law, an unfolding that can be such a radical and previously unattained pinnacle because it forms the reverse side of the preaching of God's unimaginably great revelation of love in Jesus Christ (cf. Phil. 2:5ff.; Rom. 12:1; Eph. 3:18, 19). But this detracts nothing from the significance of the law as the expression of this love and as source for knowledge of the will of God. Every antithesis men would make here between the binding character of love and the notbinding character of the law is to be rejected in the light of Paul's clear pronouncements.

The situation is no different with respect to the appeal to the Spirit. When the Spirit is repeatedly spoken of in connection with liberty and obedience, he undoubtedly acts not only as the possibility, but also as the norm of the new life. The Spirit is not only the power that subdues the dominion of the flesh; everyone who permits himself to be led by the Spirit is thereby led in a definite direction. The expression "to walk according to" the Spirit (kata Pneuma peripatein; Gal. 5:25) also speaks of a standard: Spirit and flesh not only represent two different powers, but also two different ethical principles. They both have their own "purpose," are both, in a contrary sense, bent on something.⁶⁶ The Spirit stands over against "the lusting" of the flesh (Gal. 5:17).

This does not mean, however — and in this context all the emphasis must lie here — that the Spirit as the standard and norm of the new life sets himself over against or in the place of the law and that he who walks after the Spirit or is led by the Spirit no longer has any need of commandment or law. However much this conception has been propagated in all sorts of literature on Paul,⁶⁷ it is in flagrant conflict with the explicit pronouncements of the apostle. We must not here permit ourselves to be misled by the sound of some words. When in Galatians 5:18 Paul says "If you allow yourselves to be led by the Spirit, you are not under the law," it can appear as though for believers the knowledge and validity of the will of God were no longer situated in the law, but in the Spirit. Here again,⁶⁸ however, what is meant by "under the law" is the condition of impotence and condemnation to which man is subjected outside faith and the life-giving power of the Spirit. A moment later, in verse 23, it can accordingly be said that the law is not against such (i.e., those who allow themselves to be led by the Spirit). That the dispensation of the Spirit does not abrogate the validity and the requirement of the law, but precisely confirms this and brings it to fulfillment is not to be denied. The work of the Spirit consists precisely in the working out of the law in the life of believers (Rom. 8:4: "that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit"). The difference between the "mind of the flesh" and the "mind of the Spirit" lies precisely in this, that the flesh does not submit itself to the law of God, nor can it do so (Rom. 8:7). Nowhere in Paul's epistles do we find anything of a spiritualism that with regard to the content of God's will makes an antithesis between the law and the Spirit, the decree coming from without and the inner disposition.⁶⁹ The law itself is holy and spiritual (Rom. 7:14), and thus cannot be placed over against the Spirit; it is not made superfluous by the Spirit, but rather established. "Letting oneself be led by the Spirit" consists also in learning anew to discern and prove the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2), qualifications that with a little variation are elsewhere applied to the law (Rom. 7:12).

(2) Yet with the above everything has not of course been said. This is evident in particular from those pronouncements which have a bearing on the relationship of Christ and the law. Even though one understands the pronouncement of Romans 10:4 that "Christ is the end of the law" of the pedagogical significance of the law⁷⁰ and nothing has as yet been prejudiced with respect to the continuing normative purport of the law, nevertheless with the advent of Christ the validity of the law in its historical form has not remained the same. Of importance in this context is the pronouncement in 1 Corinthians 9:21,⁷¹ where Paul amplifies his declaration that to those that are without law he became as without law with the words: "although not without the law of God, but bound by the law of Christ." This passage contains three elements in which the relationship of Christ and the law in its continuing significance is clearly expressed:

(a) The law no longer has an unrestricted and undifferentiated validity for the church of Christ. In a certain sense the church can be qualified as "without the law."

(b) The law of God is not thereby abrogated.

(c) This continuing significance of the law can be qualified as "being bound to the law of Christ" (ennomos Christou). All three elements can be further elucidated from all the epistles of Paul.

As to (a), that the law of Moses in its particularistic significance as making a division between Jews and gentiles is no longer in force constitutes the foundation of Paul's apostolate among the gentiles. He speaks of it as "the law of commandments, consisting in ordinances" and as "the middle wall of partition." It holds for the law functioning in this way that it has been pulled down and rendered inoperative (Eph. 2:14ff.; cf. Gal. 2:14; 4:10; 5:2ff.; 6:12; Col. 2:16ff.; 3:11; also Rom. 2:26ff.; 3:30; 4 passim; 1 Cor. 7:18, 19). This holds above all for circumcision, but in general for "living as a Jew" (Ioudaizein, Ioudaikōs zēn; Gal. 2:14), as a description of those regulations which had the effect of maintaining the line of demarcation between Israel and the gentiles in a ritual-cultic and social respect. To be sure, in the epistles that have been preserved to us nowhere is a distinction made explicitly between the moral and the ceremonial, particularistic parts of the law, but materially Paul, certainly continuing to build on the antecedent missionary preaching (cf. Col. 2:6ff.), nevertheless starts from such a distinction. In Colossians 2:16ff, with regard to the keeping of dietary regulations, feasts, new moons, or sabbath days, we find the typical expression: "which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ's."⁷² In comparison with the administration of redemption that has commenced with Christ, all these prescriptions are but provisional and unreal, as a shadow exhibits only the dim contours of the body itself.⁷³ Herein is the important viewpoint that with Christ's advent the law, also as far as its content is concerned, has been brought under a new norm of judgment and that failure to appreciate this new situation is a denial of Christ (Gal. 5:2).

In regard to (b), however great the significance of all this is for correct insight into the continuing requirement of the law, one cannot say that with Christ another law has come or that for Paul "the law of Christ," or simply "the law," may be said to mean the eternal and abiding law of God and that he spoke of it in conscious contrast with or distinction from the law of Moses. Some, to be sure, are of the opinion that one must not translate Romans 13:8 by "he who loves the other has fulfilled the law," but by "he who loves has fulfilled the other law," whereby the law of Christ as "the other law" would have been set in the place of or alongside the law of Moses.⁷⁴ But this translation is a labored evasion of the obvious, and the unmistakable intention of the text, viewed also in the light of Galatians 5:14, is otherwise. So far as the law of Moses is concerned, when Paul gives expression to the continuing demand of the law, he cites the decalogue specifically.⁷⁵ One can hardly make contrasts here between "Moses" and "Christ," nor between "the law" and "the law of Moses." And this holds, too, for the qualification "the commandments." However true it is that Christ has abolished "the law of commandments, consisting in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), this does not alter the fact that it is said elsewhere that what really matters is the keeping of God's commandments (entolōn; 1 Cor. 7:19), and that in concrete cases an explicit appeal can be made to an individual "ordinance" in the law of Moses (Eph. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:9ff.). Also the contrast between the unity (of the law of Christ) and the multiplicity (of the law of Moses), however meaningful this distinction may be in a specific context (cf. Mark 12:32ff.), must be rejected as false, if it is intended⁷⁶ to oppose the continuing significance of Moses.

As for (c), if one asks himself what the material content is of the expression "bound to the law of Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21), the answer will lie in the fact that Christ suo modo represents the law of God and thus the law of Moses. Not only does Christ by his Spirit bring about a new bond to the law in the hearts of believers,⁷⁷ whereby the law retains its force as the expression of the will of God in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3), but Christ also represents the new standard of judgment as to what "has had its day" in the law and what has abiding validity (Col. 2:17). Finally, one should point out the interpretation of the law given by Christ, to which Paul appeals in more than one place (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10ff.), which determines the expression of Galatians 6:2 as well, namely, that he who helps to bear the sin of his brother "fulfills the law of Christ."⁷⁸ There can thus be no doubt whatever that the category of the law has not been abrogated with Christ's advent, but rather has been maintained and interpreted in its radical sense ("fulfilled"; Matt. 5:17); on the other hand, that the church no longer has to do with the law in any other way than in Christ and thus is ennomos Christou.

(3) Finally, how much Christ, the law, the Spirit, and love constitute a unity may appear from a comparison of the following parallel pronouncements:

For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but being a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this rule [canon], peace upon them,... (Gal. 6:15, 16).

For in Christ Jesus neither does circumcision avail anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith, working through love (Gal. 5:6).

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of God's commandments [is what really matters] (1 Cor. 7:19).

The new creation brings a new canon, a new standard of judgment, along with it. This is above all redemptive-historical in nature. It does not mean exemption from the law, or "Christian autonomy," but life in accordance with the rule of the new and no longer of the old. This can also be called faith that is active through love; or the keeping of God's commandments; or, as it is said in a similar pronouncement in Philippians 3:3, serving God by the Spirit. The combination of these pronouncements is so interesting because the canon given with the new creation (Gal. 6:16) appears to represent the category of the law (1 Cor. 7:19) as well as those of love (Gal. 5:6) and of the Spirit (Phil. 3:3). There is thus present a reciprocal definition and delimiting of motives. It can appear on the one hand that the law once given is no longer all-important. The content of the will of God is also determined from Christ as the Inaugurator of the new creation. Therefore to serve God by the Spirit means not only a new possibility of performing the law, but also a new view of the law, that of faith in the fulfilling work of Christ. For this reason the Christian life can be qualified as a "spiritual service" ( logikē latreia), in which the sacrificial service no longer consists (as in the law) in the offering of sacrificial animals, but of the living self-sacrifice of believers (Rom. 12:1, 2), and holiness and blemishlessness no longer consist in that which is external and in the flesh, but in what is inward and in the Spirit (Phil. 3:3; Rom. 1:9), and in the liturgy of faith (Phil. 2:17). On the other hand, this "spiritualness" is nothing other than the work of love and the keeping of the commandments and ordinances of God.

That it does not come here to a precise delimitation of what is new and old, of what has been done away and what retains its validity, is surely characteristic of the new situation. This also puts an end to the "legalistic" view of life in the sense that the law would cover all "cases" of the Christian life and the right use of the law would consist only in a logical particularizing of the individual pronouncements of the law. Over against this, however, stands the fact that the whole of the law and the whole of life must be understood in the light of the salvation revealed with Christ, and that insight into the will of God for concrete life situations is no less dependent on faith in Christ, being led by the Spirit, and the inner renewal of man than on the knowledge of the law. As little as one may not divorce the former from the latter (see above), so little may the reverse take place.

That — finally — the apostle does not give the transient and the abiding, the special and the general aspects of the law in more detail, will have to be explained from the fact that he wanted to make the church understand its own responsibility and spiritual activity in these things and that in the new situation in which the young gentile churches found themselves he not only wished to be helpful to them in terms of spiritual counsel and instruction, but also endeavored to bring them to moral and spiritual independence. Those pronouncements point to this, for example, which insist on "proving" the will of God, "distinguishing" those things which "matter," etc.:

. . . and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may discern what the will of God is, that which is good and well-pleasing and perfect (Rom. 12:2).

And this 1 pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in insight and all perception, in order to discern the things that really matter (Phil. 1:9, 10).

For this cause we . . . do not cease to p r a y . . . for you, that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual insight (Col. 1:9).

Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17).

From these pronouncements, which can be augmented with others, it is evident that for knowledge of the will of God the right inner disposition must be present. These pronouncements, which speak of inner renewal, perception, etc., to be asked of God in order to distinguish the things that really "matter" (ta diapheronta) and what the will of God is, etc., are a remarkable parallel to what is said in Romans 2 of Judaism, which boasted in the possession of the law, not only as the means of salvation but also as the source of knowledge for the will of God, and which is addressed by Paul as follows: "You know the Will and are able to distinguish the things that really matter, because you are instructed in the law; you are confident that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, an instructor of children, having in the law the embodiment of the knowledge of the truth."

Over against this proud consciousness of having the law, knowing "the Will," and being able to distinguish the things that really matter, the purport of Paul's exhortations to the church is unmistakable. And that not only because these churches as yet stood only at the beginning and had not yet reached maturity in the knowledge of the will of God (cf. Col. 4:12); likewise not only because for them the law no longer applied to the same extent as for the Jews and they therefore could not appeal in the same measure to the written word of God for knowledge of the will of God; but above all because for this knowledge of the will of God that inner renewal and illumination is necessary of which Paul speaks again and again with such great emphasis. This does not mean that the "givenness" of the will of God in the law is repudiated or set aside, but the right application of what may count as "God's commandments" is made dependent on an inner condition that is conformable to the content of the commandment of God. In that sense it must certainly be said that being led by the Spirit, that prayer and faith are no less necessary for the knowledge of the will of God than exact attention to the commandments and ordinances of the law of God as the holy and spiritual expression of his will.

↑ Back to top