Iii The Life In Sin
III
THE LIFE IN SIN
THE LIFE IN SIN
A. SIN AS MODE OF EXISTENCE
SECTION 15. THE PRESENT WORLD. AEON, COSMOS
The unfolding of the Pauline doctrine of salvation demands first of all a deeper insight into the manner in which man and the world have fallen into sin and have need of the redemption revealed in Christ. Further analysis demonstrates that here again the fundamental structure of Paul's preaching is of decisive significance, and that therefore, in approaching the Pauline doctrine of sin, we must not orient ourselves in the first place to the individual and personal, but to the redemptivehistorical and collective points of view.
An obvious indication to this effect is given at the very outset in the manner in which Paul repeatedly speaks in summary fashion of the life-context before and outside Christ and of the human mode of existence in that life-context. This applies particularly to the idea "world" (cosmos) or "this world, " as well as to "this [present] aeon, " which essentially corresponds to it. Both ideas play a great part in Paul's redemptive-historical way of thinking, inasmuch as they —cosmos more in a spatial, aeon in a temporal sense — constitute the description of the totality of unredeemed life dominated by sin outside of Christ. This is the case, for example, when it is said in Galatians 1: 4 that Christ give himself to deliver us "from the present evil aeon"; or likewise when in Ephesians 2: 2, with the utilization of both terms, the former manner of life (the "once") of the church is described as walking according to "the aeon of this world, " and this world-aeon is thereby denoted as the life-context dominated by sin and finding its determination in sin.
The apostle does not stop with these general qualifications, however, but he explains them further, especially in connection with "this world" and "this aeon, " by speaking of the powers of evil, misery, and death that hold sway in this world. What he terms in Galatians 1: 4 "this present evil aeon, " elsewhere as "the power of darkness, " is set over against the royal dominion of Christ (Col. 1:13); and in Ephesians 2: 2 he further qualifies walking according to "this world-aeon" as following the course of "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience. " The world is therefore in its unity and totality the domain of demonic powers, which he denotes as "angels, " "principalities, " "powers" (Rom. 8: 38; 1 Cor. 15: 24; Col. 2: 14, et al. ), "the world rulers of this darkness, " "the evil spirits in heavenly places" (Eph. 6: 12), of which Satan, as the "god of this aeon" (2 Cor. 4: 4), is the head (cf. Rom. 16: 20; 1 Cor. 5: 5, et al. ).
There is no doubt whatever that this subjection of the world to spiritual, demonic powers in Paul does not go back to an original dualism between God and the world, or between God and the powers. For it is true of all that is in heaven and on earth, and in particular of thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, that they have been created in Christ (Col. 1: 16), just as they have been conquered and reconciled (pacified) in him (Col. 2: 15; 1: 20); they belong to the creation of God (Rom. 8: 39), and are, even in their activity of enmity against God and tyrannization of men, subject to God (2 Cor. 12: 7). Similarly, these powers have no original control over the world, but the whole of the groaning creation has been subjected to vanity by God himself (Rom. 8: 20). Nevertheless, it is the dominion of these powers that determines Paul's outlook on the present world. It is they who represent the "vanity, " the worthlessness and senselessness to which the whole creation, groaning and looking with eager longing for redemption, has been subjected (cf. Rom. 8: 19-23 and 8: 38, 39). For not only sin, but also suffering, oppression, anxiety, and adversity belong to the dominion of Satan (1 Cor. 5: 5; 2 Cor. 12: 7; 1 Tim. 1: 20; 1 Thess. 2: 18). Elsewhere these demonic threats to human existence, such as oppression, persecution, hunger, want, danger, and sword, are themselves represented as personified powers that attempt still to separate the believer from the love of Christ (Rom. 8: 35), just as death is his "last enemy" (1 Cor. 15: 26), which employs sin as its instrument (1 Cor. 15: 56; cf. Rom. 8: 38f).
In particular, however, it is the fact of its having fallen into the power of sin itself that determines the content of the concept "world. " Although "cosmos" is also used in a more general sense1 (as created world [Rom. 1: 20], as human living space [Rom. 4: 13; 1 Cor. 14: 10]), it usually means the human situation qualified by sin, or mankind itself. Cosmos is the world turned away from God, rebellious and hostile toward him (cf. Rom. 3:16, 19; 2 Cor. 5:19), depraved mankind that is headed for judgment (Rom. 3: 6; 1 Cor. 11: 32). As such believers are redeemed from the present evil aeon (Gal. 1: 4), the cosmos has been crucified for them and they for the cosmos (Gal. 6: 14), they are considered as no longer "living in the cosmos" (Col. 2: 20), and they must not let themselves be conformed to this aeon (Rom. 12: 2). It is evident in these and many other pronouncements to what degree in Paul's thinking the "world" as a self-contained life-context stands over against God and his kingdom, and therefore can appear in a personified sense as the singular subject of human sin and depravity: the world does not acknowledge God (1 Cor. 1: 21); it withstands him in its wisdom; it is without prospect in its sorrow (2 Cor. 7:10); indeed the " pneuma of the world" is even spoken of as a power determinative for all the thinking and doing of men, which places itself over against the Spirit who is of God (1 Cor. 2: 12).
It is this conception of cosmos which in principle determines Paul's view of human nature outside Christ. A differentiation is made, to be sure, in Romans 11: 12, 15 between Israel and the world;2 when it is said in Romans 3:19, however, that "the whole world" is deserving of punishment before God, all men are very explicitly included without distinction, Jews as well as gentiles. To belong to the world means to be a sinner, to participate in sin and to experience the judgment on sin (I Cor. 11: 32). For Paul, therefore, sin is not in the first place an individual act or condition to be considered by itself, but rather the supra-individual mode of existence in which one shares through the single fact that one shares in the human life-context3 and from which one can only be redeemed by being taken up into the new life-context revealed in Christ (Col. 2: 13).
SECTION 16. THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN. FLESH, ADAM
With this conception of sin as coinciding with being in the world the universality of human sin results of itself. This fundamental notion concerning human nature finds expression in the epistles of Paul in all sorts of ways, directly and expressly, but also indirectly and by way of supposition. As regards the former, one may point in particular to the extensive indictment of Romans 1: 18-3: 20, by way of proof that outside Christ there is no salvation; To this end both Jews and gentiles stand indicted (Rom. 3: 9): "For there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3: 22, 23). For proof of this universality of sin Paul appeals both to experience (in his sketch of depraved heathenism [Rom. l:18ff. ]), and to the assent of Judaism itself accused by him (Rom. 2:1, 21-24), and he concludes his telling indictment with an extensive appeal to the Scriptures: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, all together have become unprofitable... " (3: 10-20; cf. 2: 24).
A further explanation of this universality of sin is not given here. There is incidental expression here again that it is not the separate sins of men, but the paramount power of sin which is the predominating idea (Rom. 3: 9;4 cf. Gal. 3: 22). But in this pericope Paul does not go further into the nature and origin of this solidarity in sin.
No less characteristic of this conception of sin as universal mode of human existence is the striking use, highly typical of Paul, of the qualification "flesh" (sarx). On the one hand, "flesh" has for him the significance of what is human in its weakness, dependence on God, and perishableness in itself; on the other hand, "flesh" is the pregnant and very specific description of man in his sin, and the coinciding of being human and being a sinner is therefore expressed in it.
Although it is exceedingly difficult and for our purposes unnecessary to give an exhaustive treatment of this complicated usage in Paul, yet this twofold significance of flesh should be somewhat further elucidated.5
The basis for the former ("flesh" as mankind) is indeed the fact that "flesh, " in the same sense as "body,"6 can mean the concrete material corporeality of man, for example, when Paul speaks of "the circumcision of the flesh, " in the outward, physical sense of the word (e. g., Rom. 2: 28ff.), or of being present or absent "after the flesh" (Col. 2:1-5). In the same sense as "body, " "flesh" can denote the whole man in his physical existence (cf., e. g., 2 Cor. 4:10, 11, where "body" and "flesh" are used synonymously; cf. also Gal. 4: 13; 2 Cor. 12: 7). Yet for Paul "flesh" has a much more inclusive meaning even in this first sense. Just as the Old Testament concept "flesh" (e. g., Isa. 31: 3; Jer. 32: 27; J o b 10: 4), or "flesh and blood, " it denotes in Paul especially the human as such and taken by itself, as distinguished from and in contrast to the divine. There is not yet here per se an indication of human sinfulness, but only of human limitation and weakness; for example, when Paul says that he did not confer with flesh and blood (Gal. 1: 16), that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15: 50), that we do not have to wage war against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12), or that no flesh may glory in the presence of God (1 Cor. 1: 29). Regarding this meaning of "flesh" one is thus able to conclude with Gutbrod: "As the whole man, man is therefore sarx, absolutely distinct from God, i. e., he has nothing divine in him, which is not yet to say that he is evil, but simply that he is man, who is created, and not God, who created him."7
Now it is remarkable, and in a special sense characteristic8 of Paul, that "flesh" can also be for him the description of man in his sin and depravity. One need compare only a few of the most distinctive pronouncements:
For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions... were at work in our members... (Rom. 7:5)
. . . . I am carnal, sold under sin (Rom. 7:14). For the disposition of the flesh is death . . . ; because the disposition of the flesh is enmity against. God; for it does not submit to the law of God; indeed, it cannot; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom, 8:6ff. ),
Now what the works of the flesh are is plain: fornication", uncleanness, . . . (Gal. 5: 19).
For he that sows upon [the field of] his flesh, shall of the flesh reap destruction (Gal. 6: 8).
. . . among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, acting according to the desires of the flesh... and we were by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2: 3).
In these pronouncements, however differently formulated, sin and the flesh are identified with each other: to be "in the flesh, " to be "carnal, " and the like mean to sin, indeed to be under the power of sin. This relationship of identity of sin and flesh is one of the most distinctive and radical data of Pauline anthropology. What is important for our present context is that there is here a new indication of the universality of sin, in that flesh on the one hand is a description of all that is man, and on the other of the sinful in man.
The pericope Romans 5:12-21 — which we have already cited frequently, and which deals with the Adam-Christ parallel — is of particular importance for insight into this universality of sin as mode of human existence in this world. To be sure, one cannot say of this pericope that it is intended to give an explanation either of the universality of sin or of the manner of its propagation. But we do receive a further insight here into the nature of the solidarity in sin as the apostle conceived of it. For the intention of Romans 5:12-21 is to point out that the connection that exists between the righteousness of Christ and the life of his people has its préfiguration or type in the connection between Adam's sin and the death of his descendants.9
In order to make this clear to his readers, Paul comes to the pronouncement so important for the whole structure of his doctrine of sin and redemption: "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned... " (Rom. 5:12).
The meaning of this much discussed pronouncement, if one takes into consideration the whole context of Romans 5, in our opinion10 cannot be in doubt. One man has given sin access into the world; he has, as it were, opened the gate of the world to sin. So sin has entered in, here represented as a personified power (cf., e. g., v. 21); through and with sin death has come in as the inseparable follower and companion of sin. The words then follow: "and so [i. e., along this way opened by the one man] death passed unto all men, for the reason that all sinned. " The final words give a further explanation as to how death, through one man, has passed and could pass unto all men. This happened because "all sinned, " namely, on account of their connection with the one man; therefore Adam's sin was the sin of all, and in that sense it can hold for them that they all sinned. This union of all with and in the one is, as we have already seen,11 the governing idea of this pericope, and it is in that idea that Paul indicates the typical significance of Adam with respect to the Coming One.
Many wish to understand the words, "for the reason that all have sinned, " as referring to the later personal sins of all.12 This is impossible, however, for more than one reason. First of all, even the words "and so death passed unto all" point to the entering in of and granting of passage to sin and death into the world through the one man. Were one to understand the concluding words of verse 12 of the personal sins of all, then this passage of death would rest once again on the sins of all, and "and so" would lose its exclusive reference to what precedes.13 That this is not the meaning of the text appears from the following considerations:
(a) From the argumentation of verses 13 and 14, Paul appeals here to the period before the giving of the law, because the death of men then living cannot be explained from their "own, " personal sin, but must have had its cause in the sin of Adam. There was sin then, too: "for until the law [came] there was sin in the world. " The sanction of the law (death) did not as yet apply, however. For where there is no law, there is also no transgression (cf. 4: 15), and "sin is not imputed when there is no law. " Nevertheless, at that time also, death reigned over those who did not transgress in the same manner as Adam, that is, who were not confronted in the same manner as Adam with the divine command and the sanction on it. It is thus apparent that it was not their personal sin, but Adam's sin and their share in it, that was the cause of their death. The final words of verse 12b cannot thus be understood otherwise than in this corporate sense.14
(b) That in the sin of all (v. 12) it is not a matter of the personal sins of Adam's descendants but of the one, fixed, first transgression that was the sin of all by virtue of their relation to the first Adam, is also unmistakably apparent in the sequel. Paul speaks here repeatedly of the one transgression or the transgression of the one, which resulted in death for all:
for if by the trespass of the one the many died (v. 15).
for the judgment led upon the ground of one [trespass] to condemnation (v. 16).
for if by the trespass of the one death came to reign (v. 17).
as by the trespass of one it came to condemnation for all men (v. 18).
To be sure, some wish to combine this concentration on the sin of the one with the personal sin of the many, by looking on the latter as a consequence of the former.15 It is obvious, however, that in all these pronouncements the point of Paul's argument is not directed toward the designation of the connection between the one sin of Adam and the universal sinfulness of his descendants, but on the sentence (of death) that the one sin of Adam has brought on all men, because they are all included in the sin and in the death of the one (cf. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22).16 In bringing judgment on all by his sin, Adam is also the type of the Coming One, as is evident in all the parallel statements mentioned above.
The recapitulation in verses 18 and 19 speaks to the same purpose, where the parallel broken off in verse 12 ("therefore, as . . . ") is again picked up and completed: "So then as through one trespass [or; through the trespass of one] it came to condemnation for all men, even so through one act of righteousness [or: through the act of righteousness of one] to justification unto life for all; for as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one will the many be made righteous. "
For that which occupies us in this section, the pronouncement that "the many were constituted sinners" is especially of importance. This is often translated: have become sinners. The objection to this is not that the verb used here could not be translated by "become" (although the striking expression employed here is not usual for it and therefore points in another direction17), but that the translation "become" of itself is suggestive of the moral and inner condition, the sinfulness of the many. In the context, however, something else is undoubtedly intended, namely, the reckoning of the many as sinners on the ground of Adam's sin and their share in it.18 This is apparent not only from the parallel expression in verse 19b: "will be constituted righteous, " which likewise has a forensic and not a moral significance, but also from the preceding pronouncements, which describe the share of all in Adam's sin again and again as a sentence extending to all and not as the transmission of moral deficiency.
On the other hand, this forensic conception of "were constituted sinners" does not signify, any more than "be constituted righteous, " an abstraction of the actual situation of sin in which the world finds itself since sin was granted passage and entered in by the one. Paul does not speak of that any further in this context because in Romans 5: 12ft. his object is a different one, namely, the involvement of the many in the one (Adam and Christ). But this does not, of course, alter the fact that by the entrance of sin into the world the situation has been profoundly changed. Sin has begun its calamitous regime. To be constituted sinners also means therefore to have been placed under the power of sin and death (cf. v. 21). Paul does not intend this in verse 19, however, as a personal and inner depravity, as the individual sinfulness of the many, but as having been subjected to the judgment that underlies this situation of death and sin.19
In summary it can thus be said with respect to Romans 5:12-21 that the universality of sin as moral depravity is not taught here in so many words; that the share of all men in the sin of Adam is indicated, however, and as its consequence they have been brought under the dominion of the power of sin and death. The presupposition of the whole chain of reasoning lies in the inclusion in the supraindividual situation of sin and death represented by Adam. Here again the basic structures of the Pauline theology are not individualizing, but redemptive-historical and corporate. It is a matter of two different modes of existence, that of the old and that of the new man, which are determined by two different aeons, and concerning which an allembracing decision has been made in Adam and in Christ.
How this universal and collective character of sin is individualized in the life of all men is elucidated in a moving fashion particularly in those sections of Paul's epistles in which he deals with the inadequacy and impotence of the law.20 Already in Romans 5: 20 he speaks of the law coming in besides, by which the trespass that began with Adam only became more aggravated still. And in Romans 7: 8-11 he goes expressly into this sin-provoking and sin-increasing significance of the law. In this confrontation of man with the law the situation of the first man in a certain sense returns, in the reviving of sinful desire and in the "deceit" of sin (cf. Rom. 7:11); now, however, with this fundamental difference, that sin has already come into the world and has dominion, so that sin can then manifest itself in all its force (Rom. 7: 13). The sin of Adam thus becomes personal sin, from which it appears as well that the universal and supra-individual character of sin involves no reduction in the responsibility of Adam's descendants. However little the connection between these two viewpoints forms a separate point of discussion in the epistles of Paul that have been preserved to us, it is certainly made clear in this way that sin is not a matter that may be said to be foreign to man himself and for the dominion of which he is able to excuse himself. Everyone will have to give an account of himself to God (Rom. 14:12), and each man will bear his own load (Gal. 6: 5). The universality of sin is not, however, the sum total of separate, individual sins, nor is the responsibility divided; rather, Paul sees the latter — at least so far as his basic conception is concerned — as a share of all in this universal sinfulness, the fleshliness of all that is man. Sin itself, however, does not thereby become less sinful, i. e., it is not deprived of its ethical character. This can also become clear to us as we now go further into the essence of sin as described by Paul.
SECTION 17. THE ESSENCE OF SIN.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL OR THEOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGICAL OR THEOLOGICAL
Not infrequently, particularly on the ground of what has been said above concerning the significance of cosmos and flesh as indications of the sinful life-context and the sinful existence of man, a certain dualism has been inferred in Paul's view of man. Some have even spoken of a metaphysical, cosmic dualism that is said to underlie his anthropology and by virtue of which the sin of man is said simply to consist in his belonging to the material world as a reality in itself dark and hostile toward God.21 Representatives of the history of religions school have associated themselves with this explanation and related it to the gnostic mysticism of the Hellenistic mysteries, on which Paul is then said to have been dependent.22 Others have spoken of an anthropological dualism in the sense of the Greek antithesis of the outward and inward man, whereby the first would represent the lower, sensual and the second the higher, God-related element of man, to which the significance was ascribed of having to keep the first under control.23 In all these conceptions sin bears a natural character, and its seat is sought in the human as such, or in the sensual nature of man.
These conceptions, though long propagated, no longer find much favor, after having been amply and conclusively opposed from various sides. Without going into all their facets and with a reference to that which must yet be introduced in connection with other anthropological ideas in Paul, it can be ascertained that the ideas world and flesh afford no basis for such a conception of sin in Paul. It is unmistakable that sin is not a cosmic but an ethical quantity, i.e., that it is not an original principle standing independently over against God, to which the world and man have fallen prey apart from their own will, but that it has entered into the world through man (Rom. 5: 12), and for the first man, too, bore the character of transgression of the divine command and of succumbing to temptation (1 Tim. 2: 14). And so far as "flesh" is concerned, it appears from all the evidence that this idea for Paul (a) embraces much more than the sphere of the sensual, and (b) by no means coincides with corporeality. With regard to the first, we need only point out that "flesh" in Paul embraces all that is man, not only the body (Col. 2: 11), but also the inner man, the nous (Col. 2: 18), and that the sin of the flesh does not therefore consist only in the sensual, but no less in the spiritual (Gal. 5: 18ff,; 1 Cor. 3: lff. ). And with respect to the second, that for Paul sin and corporeality do not coincide is evident not only from his belief in the resurrection of the body, but also from the explicit distinction he makes for himself as a believer between "flesh" as temporal and as sinful mode of existence (2 Cor. 10: 3; Gal. 2: 20). The essence of sin is thus in no way to be inferred from such a sensual conception of "flesh. " We likewise read nothing in Paul of an evil inclination created by God or placed in man, as this is spoken of in Judaism.24
If sin is not thus to be inferred from humanness as such, it is another question how one is to approach and define the essence of sin in the Pauline doctrine of sin. Of concern here are above all two different kinds of conception, that of the anthropological and that of the theological approach.
According to the first the Pauline conception of what sin is rests in an anthropological prior understanding. This is supposed to admit of being gathered from the anthropological conceptual materials of which Paul makes use, and in this way to form the point of departure for the right understanding of the whole of Paul's soteriology. This method of approach is employed in particular by Bultmann. According to him, underlying Paul's whole "theology" is a certain pre-theological "understanding of Being" (in which he then finds a striking concurrence with the view of man in the present-day philosophy of existence), which one must first perceive if he wishes to grasp the purport of the whole of his preaching.25
This pre-theological understanding of Being is said particularly to have found expression in Paul in the use he makes of the concept "flesh. "
Bultmann repudiates the view that his idea denotes only the "sensual nature" of man or something of that sort. Rather, "flesh" typifies man's total mode of existence. In this understanding he proceeds from the significance of "flesh" as the designation of the sphere of the visible, the "available, " that which one has at his "disposal" (the tangible) and as such the sphere of the transitory and temporal. Now sin, to be sure, does not consist in the "carnal, " natural, transitory existence as such, but in permitting oneself to be determined by the "flesh" thus qualified. This takes place when man lives "after the flesh, " that is to say, permits himself to be tempted into seeking his life, his happiness, his freedom in this sphere. Not only is the desire for material things involved, but also every striving to acquire for oneself a basis for life, advantage, merit, on the ground of what falls within the reach of human possibilities and which one has at his disposal. In particular the "works of the law" belong to this, on the ground of which man attempts to secure himself against judgment. This "living after the flesh" is the basic form and summary of human sin. It is at the same time man's misery. On the basis of this life after the flesh man can never come to him-"self, " his destiny as man, his real "existence. " He falls as a slave into that from which he thought himself able to derive safety (securitas). And over against that Paul places the life after the Spirit, the principle of the miraculous, divine power of life, that is, the sphere of that which does not lie within man's reach and which he does not have at his disposal, but which lies within the possibility of God. T o decide (entscheiden) for this, to surrender oneself to this, is the life of faith of which the New Testament speaks. It is the trust to which the gospel summons man that just in this invisible reality, which he does not have at his disposal, life and liberty, his true existence, are situated.
The objection that we have against this view is not that it establishes a very close connection between the anthropological and the theological. That sin is also a perverting of true manhood and that, conversely, the salvation that has appeared in Christ restores man to his real destiny pertains, as we shall see still further, to the heart of Paul's preaching. Our objection is of another kind. It consists in the first place in that the idea of true manhood and thus the idea of the nature and the essence of sin as attack upon it, do not admit of being inferred (as a pre-theological Daseinsverständnis) from the significance that certain anthropological ideas, specifically the idea "flesh, " have in Paul. And in the second place, closely connected with this, that the anthropologicaltheological relationship, as it functions in Paul's doctrine of sin and redemption, in this way undergoes a radical change.
So far as the first is concerned, it is no doubt true that the concept "flesh" is for Paul in-the first place the denotation of the human in its weakness and transitoriness. But it is another matter whether the criteria can be derived from this significance for the Pauline idea of sin. It is our opinion that in this manner one entangles himself yet again in a certain, if very refined, dualism. For however true it may be that there are in Paul certain pronouncements in which sin admits of definition as the attaching of oneself to and permitting oneself to be determined by this human-in-itself26 (which Bultmann then describes as the tangible, visible, etc. ), this is not to say that the nature and essence of sin in Paul can be approached from the visible-invisible, tangibleintangible contrast. The criterion for what sin is does not lie especially in permitting oneself to be led and determined by the human-in-itsvisibleness and limitedness, but in the human as existence perverted and turned away from God. What is deceptive in Bultmann's interpretation is that with the idea of sin as "flesh" he starts once again from the flesh as the humanly limited, etc., as though it were especially therein that the point of contact for sin lay;27 whereas for Paul "flesh" denotes sin in the whole of its purport as turned away from and averse to God. Sin can be described, therefore, not only as "living after the flesh" (Rom. 8: 5), but likewise as "being in the flesh" (Rom. 7: 5; 8: 8, 9). "Flesh" is thus a description of sin itself, in the most inclusive sense of the word (cf. Gal. 5: I3ff.; Rom. 8: 3ff.; Eph. 2: 2, 3), and not only of that sin in which man makes his limitation and weakness the measure of all things. Rather, it can justly be said with Gutbrod that the sin of man consists in that he does not want to be flesh (in the sense of "man-inweakness and transitoriness"), does not want so to be flesh as it has been given him to be, as the foundation of a life after the will of God.28
If one asks why in denoting this sinful human principle Paul so much prefers to use the word "flesh, " while a corresponding usage does not occur elsewhere, it should be pointed out that more than any other anthropological idea "flesh" was pre-eminently suited to form the redemptive-historical contrast to "new creation, " the "life in [and after] the Spirit. " For "flesh, " more than all these other ideas, denotes man in his temporality and transitoriness. Involved here, as we shall see still further,29 is the characteristic distinction between "flesh" and "body" in the Pauline usage. The body passes "over" into the new creation; the flesh does not. Flesh is man insofar as he belongs to the mode of existence of this world and perishes with it. Therefore, given the radical reversal Paul sees coming about in human existence, "flesh" is preeminently the concept that is able to denote the old existence, which has identified itself with sin. In the same way, on the other hand, "Spirit, " as designation of the divine life, the creative and miraculous, again and again represents the new creation in Paul's epistles.30 Flesh and Spirit thus constitute a dualism, yet not a metaphysical or a natural, but a redemptive-historical dualism that also embraces the ethical. For this reason flesh can describe the sinful-in-itself, without the Pauline doctrine of sin coming to rest fundamentally on an anthropological and not on a theological basis.
The principal objection against this anthropological approach to the Pauline doctrine of sin and redemption, however, is a different one still. It consists in the fact that in this way the real order of things is reversed. For it is not a pre-theological understanding of human existence that determines Paul's view of the nature and essence of sin; rather, his thoroughly theological concept of sin is decisive for correct insight into his "anthropology. "
In order to demonstrate this we take our starting point in the well-known pronouncement in Romans 8: 6ff.: "For the disposition of the flesh is death; but the disposition of the Spirit is life and peace; for the reason that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. "
According to this pronouncement the disposition and mind of the flesh is so reprehensible and fatal (for authentic manhood) because it means enmity against God. The point of departure for the thought does not lie thus in a certain conception of authentic manhood (man in his Eigentlichkeit), the corruption (death) of which would therefore be sin because in authentic manhood lies "at the same time" the good, that which was intended by God.31 For then one is reversing the order. What signifies death for man is that he lives in enmity against God. Therein lies the destruction of manhood, and it is from thence that this must be understood in its anthropological implications. The theological (sin) does not arise sub specie hominis, but the anthropological (death) sub specie Dei.
This determination, both of the essence of sin and of true manhood, finds its explanation in the fundamental fact that underlies all the pronouncements on man, from whatever point of view they may be given, namely, the creation of man by God. Even though little separate attention is paid to this creation of man in Paul's epistles (cf., however, 1 Cor. 11: 8-12; Eph. 3: 9; Col. 1: 16; 2 Cor. 4: 6; 1 Tim. 2: 13), this fact is for Paul so fundamental and self-evident that any doubting of it would make his whole gospel unintelligible (cf. 1 Cor. 8: 6; Rom. 11: 36). It is also in harmony with this that Paul speaks of the man in Christ as a "new creation" (kainē ktisis; 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6: 15; cf. Eph. 2: 10, 15; 4: 24; Col. 3: 10), which in the nature of the case presupposes his original creation by God.
One of the chief consequences of this creation of man by God in Paul's epistles is the thought of human responsibility to God. Just as all things are not only of and by, but also to God, so man as well (Rom. 11: 36). Out of knowledge of God as his Creator man is also to glorify and give thanks to God (1 Cor. 10: 13), and the corruption that has entered in through sin consists just in the fact that this does not take place (Rom. 1: 21; 1 Cor. 1: 21). These same fundamental ideas govern the Pauline pronouncements on human life. It is not simply a matter of the existence given by God to man, but above all of the question for what, or, still better, for whom man lives and to whom he dedicates his life. All this is not expressly and systematically expounded in Paul's epistles, but the extent to which it underlies his whole view of man can be inferred from the fact that he again and again designates as the object of the salvation that has appeared in Christ that man should no longer live for himself, but for God (Gal. 2: 19; cf. 2 Cor. 5: 15; Rom. 14: 7, 8; 6: 10, 11). The essence and the God-appointed nature of human life lie in this directedness of man toward God, which is most closely bound up with his creation by God. It is not only as creature that man has the ground of his being in God, but life in the pregnant sense of the word for him also lies in having been directed toward and dedicated to God (of which Paul speaks, for example, when he says that the law was given us unto life [Rom. 7: 10], and that the just shall live by faith). If man turns aside from God, however, and does not live for God, but for himself and sin (Rom. 6:10ff. ), he thereby abandons himself and falls into death. The anthropological pronouncements are thus founded in the theological: "Whereas God is the creator of man and at the same time wishes to be his Lord, man has a life which includes in it the possibility and the demand to be lived for him as this God-given life."32
Now all this defines the essence of sin. Sin must be understood out of the relationship in which God has placed man to himself as his creature and in which he has given and held out the prospect of life to him. For this reason sin in its essence is rebellion against God, refusal to be subject to him (Rom. 8: 7), enmity against God (Rom. 5: 10; 8: 7; Col. 1: 21), disobedience (Rom. 11: 32; cf. Gal. 3: 22; Eph. 2: 2; 5: 6, et al). One can define it as man's willing-to-have-command-of-himself, wanting-to-be-as-God.33 It is on that account also the violation and corruption of true manhood. As such it can be defined as foolishness (Rom. 1: 23 ; 1 Cor. 1:19), worthlessness, vanity, darkness, being alienated from the true life (Eph. 4: 18), without God and therefore without hope (Eph. 2: 12), being dead (Eph. 2: 1, 5; Col. 2: 13; Rom. 7: 10). For as life and good lie in respect for the right relationship to God, so sin means turning manhood into death (Rom. 7:I2ff. ).
This enmity and disobedience toward God furthermore, just as the turning from true manhood, finds its expression and form in the transgression of the law. For the law is the norm appointed by God for man's relationship to God and for true manhood.
When Paul speaks of "law" in this sense — he is also able to use the word in the wider sense of norm, binding, and so forth (cf., e. g., Rom. 7:2ff., 22ff. ), or to intend by it certain parts of the Pentateuch or of the rest of the Old Testament Scripture (cf., e. g., the play on words in Gal. 4: 21, as well as the quotations from "the law, " as in Rom. 3: 10-19) —he means in general the law of Moses (cf. 1 Cor. 9: 9; Rom. 10: 5). He speaks of it in an undifferentiated sense, i. e., without expressly distinguishing between its various constituent parts, but in doing so he has the moral demands of the law especially in view, in particular those of the decalogue (cf. Rom. 13: 8-10; Gal. 5: 14; Rom. 2: 17-22). It is the special privilege of Israel to have received this law, a matter to which Paul draws attention or alludes in a great many connections (cf. Rom. 2:17ff.; 9: 4, et al. ).
Yet the knowledge of the law is not confined to Israel. Very closely bound up with the view of man as creature of God is the fact that to the gentiles as well all knowledge of the law cannot be denied (Rom. 2:14ff, ). Although they do not have the law as expressed in the form in which it was given to Israel, they do "by nature" (physei) that which is required by the law. This "natural" knowledge of the law has often been related to certain ideas from the Stoic ethic, according to which there is in every man a natural moral law, which corresponds to the rational, cosmic structure of law.34 It can justly be pointed out, however, that for Paul "nature" was not, as for the Stoics, the real and highest norm, which then made itself felt in the law as its subjective reflection,35 but that for him "by nature" has an entirely different background. He thereby speaks very definitely of the law and by that means qualitatively the same law as that which had been given to the Jews. To be sure, the gentiles do not have this law itself, but when in the course of time they nevertheless do what the law demands (ta tau nomou), they show that the "work" required by the law has been written in their hearts; indeed, they are, by so doing, a law to themselves, namely, that one specific law (Rom. 2: 14, 15).36 These last words do not thus denote human arbitrariness or that man is his own law, but rather the superior power of the will of God, from the knowledge of which man cannot entirely fall away. Even in the absence of the written law, he must inevitably set before himself the will of God himself expressed in it. For this reason the passive voice of the words "the work of the law [or, that the law requires] written in their hearts" is also to be understood as: written by God. For not only is the writing of the the law in general the work of God (Exod. 24: 12, et al. ), and not only in particular is the writing of it in the hearts of men to be attributed to no other (Jer. 31: 33; 2 Cor. 3: 2, 3), but it is true above all that the law of which Paul speaks in this whole context is the law of God. God declares himself thus to man, even though one does not belong to the people of the law and the law is not known to him in that concrete sense. The incidental37 works of the law of the gentiles prove this, despite all their ungodliness. How Paul intends this must surely be understood in the light of Romans 1:19ff., 32, as fruit of continuing divine revelation. God continues to reveal himself as God even to man who is apostate and "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. " Being "without God in the world" (Eph. 2: 12) is therefore not to be understood apart from the connection with Romans 1: 19. And it is this revelation of God through which the sense of responsibility in man cannot be lacking (Rom. 1: 20), even though he suppresses it. It also maintains in him, in spite of himself, the awareness of what death and life mean for him (Rom. 1: 32), awareness therefore also of true manhood. This is not detached from his awareness of God, however, but springs precisely from it. The consciousness of manhood is implied in the consciousness of God and of his law. Man is man in the relationship in which God has placed him to himself and to his law.
No doubt all the questions that here arise have not been resolved with these incidental pronouncements on the "natural" knowledge of God and of the law. Not all sin is transgression of the law in an equally conscious sense. Elsewhere Paul says, as we have seen, that sin is not imputed where there is no law (Rom. 5: 13; cf. 4: 15), and by the law he means the law of Moses. For this reason there is a difference of responsibility in proportion to one's knowledge of the law (cf. Rom. 3: 19), but this can detract nothing from the essence of sin (Rom. 2: 12). Sin is apostasy from God, refusal to be subject to him; it is also and for this reason lawlessness, disobedience, violation of the divine order of law. It is accordingly described as such by Paul in all sorts of ways.38 Sin is in its essence transgression of the law appointed by God for man; it is on this account that sin is such a dreadful reality, bringing disaster in its train. Its strength is the law, that is, what makes it so fatal is that it is transgression of the law (1 Cor. 15: 56).
B . THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN
SECTION 18. THE WRATH OF GOD
It holds furthermore for sin, its universality thus established and uncovered by the law in its dreadful character, that it does not remain without consequences. Because sin is not a natural force or a condition in which man participates against his will, the result of sin does not bear the character of a fate to which man falls prey or simply of a natural process of destruction in which he is included, but, on the contrary, of a punishment that God decrees on him. As such the result of sin is given expression by Paul under a great many aspects and with the utilization of various terms.
The most inclusive and most radical idea for what is intended here we find in the frequent expression "the wrath of God. " On the one hand, with this term the punishment of sin is denoted in its whole extent; on the other hand, it is qualified in a pregnant manner as a personal expression of God himself. In Paul's usage the former stands in the foreground: the wrath of God there does not so much have the significance of a divine emotion or of a movement within the divine being as indeed of the active divine judgment going forth against sin and the world. It is surely too one-sided to say39 that the wrath of God denotes nothing other than his judgment. "Wrath of God" not only says something about what God does, but also about what he is in doing it.40 The word "indignation" (thymos) also points to this, a term that is used in Romans 2: 8 along with "wrath, " and still more than the latter denotes divine passion. This does not alter the fact that by the wrath of God usually the working of the divine wrath is intended, as may appear from the combinations "wrath to come" (Rom. 5: 9; Eph. 5: 6; Col. 3: 6; 1 Thess. 1: 10) and "day of [God's] wrath" (Rom. 2: 5). It is also clearly evident from the way in which in Romans 1 and 2 — where Paul speaks at length of the wrath of God — mention is made particularly of the effectuation of this wrath. "Tribulation and anguish" stand in Romans 2: 9 as synonyms of "wrath and indignation. " In all these pronouncements the idea of the working of God's wrath predominates above that of the emotion.41
Further, it appears that every thought of an unbridled and normless exercise of vengeance, such as is to be found in the heathen representations of the wrath of the gods, is entirely lacking here. Likewise, it may not be inferred from the fact that "the wrath" is frequently spoken of in an absolute sense (e. g., in Rom. 5: 9; 12: 19; 1 Thess. 2:16 — in agreement with the usage of the Old Testament as well42), that the wrath of God is a power operating independently, a personification of an evil working of calamity no longer standing under God's control.43
Rather, God's wrath is altogether determined by his righteousness and holiness. Again and again the apostle places both in the same context, for example, when God's wrath and "righteous judgment" (dikaiokrisia), or God's wrath and "righteousness" {dikaiosynē) are used as synonyms (Rom. 2: 5; cf. vv. 2, 11; 3: 5). The working of God's wrath is the realization of the curse he has attached as sanction to his holy law (Gal. 3: 10). He can say as well, therefore, that it is the law that works God's wrath (Rom. 4: 15), and he does his utmost in Romans 1: 19ff to show that the revelation of God's wrath does not fall on the gentiles apart from the knowledge of the true God, so that they are not to be excused.
Now this wrath of God is spoken of time and again as an eschatological reality.44 This appears from the repeated reference to the coming wrath (Rom. 5: 9; Eph. 5: 6; Col. 3: 6; 1 Thess. 1: 10), which will be revealed on "the day of God's wrath" (Rom. 2: 5). Then the righteous judgment, the divine sentence, is to be executed (Rom. 2: 5; 5: 16, 18; 8: 1; cf. 8: 33, 34; 2 Cor. 3: 9). Description of this event is always exceedingly restrained. It does not serve to increase or satisfy knowledge about it, but to warn against the commencement of its reality. The possibility of averting the wrath of God lies just in its future character and in the preaching of it. In that sense one can say that the element of reserve is also implied in this future character of the divine wrath.45 God still reserves to himself his definitive decision.
This does not mean, however, that the revelation of the wrath of God is posited as only a possibility. The most central pronouncements of Paul on the wrath of God point to its revelation as eschatological reality already in the present, together with the revelation of the righteousness by faith. This occurs in the first main division of Romans, in which, after the thematic definition of the gospel in 1:17, the alternative is set forth with great force: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven. "
This pronouncement, which forms the starting point of an extensive delineation, must be understood in close connection with the revelation of the righteousness that is by faith, made central in verse 17. In both cases it is a matter of an eschatological reality, 46 which is "revealed, " becomes visible, makes itself felt. That is not to say, so far as the wrath of God is concerned, that it would only now have become visible together with the righteousness that is by faith,47 but indeed that in it the final judgment of God to be expected upon sin is in process of revealing itself and coming to execution; and that in an unmistakable way. For it reveals itself "from heaven, " i.e., before the eyes of all, in such a way that everyone is able to see it48 (cf. Acts 14: 17; Luke 21: 11; 17: 24). This is further indicated in the manner in which God utterly abandons to error and sin those who turn away from him.
By linking this twofold revelation so closely together Paul wants to make his readers feel even more strongly the accent of the gospel. The eschatological reality thrusts itself forward in all respects — such is his intention — on the one hand as righteousness, acquittal, and on the other as wrath, the exercise of judgment. And the latter serves as proof49 that it is only in the way of the righteousness proclaimed in the gospel that redemption and life are possible.
Already from this context it may appear with what earnestness Paul speaks of the wrath of God and how real this is for him; it is evident as well how incorrect it is to represent the situation as though behind this God preached by Paul, who is angry and saves, there nevertheless stands the hidden God, "the God of all mercy, " who will ultimately save even the obdurate and reprobate;50 equally, how arbitrary it is to posit with Ritschl that the idea of judgment in Paul may be said to have had validity only in his polemic with the Jews and was intended only dialectically.51 Indeed, one can go further and say that it is just the content of the gospel that opened Paul's eyes to the tremendous reality of the wrath of God. For as long as man stands on legalistic ground, he is in many respects still living in the hope that through his knowledge of the law and through the merit of the works of the law he may be able to escape the wrath of God (Rom. 2: 3); the wrath of God is for him only a possibility. In the light of the advent of Christ and of the significance of his death and resurrection, however, the judgment of God on sin (Rom. 3: 26), and along with that the impossibility of achieving righteousness for oneself outside Christ on the ground of one's own works of the law, have become completely clear. The reference to the wrath of God constitutes, therefore, the impressive accompaniment to the proclamation of the gospel. The knowledge that "the Lord is to be feared" forms one of the most powerful and urgent reasons for Paul's apostolic zeal to persuade men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5: 11ff. ).
On the other hand, it may never be forgotten, and is evident even from the foregoing, that it is always as a minister of the gospel that he speaks of the wrath and of the condemnatory judgment of God. The wrath and the enmity of God are not for a moment in contradiction with God's reconciliatory will and love, and pointing to the wrath of God has the constant intention of disclosing to man God's grace and love in Christ. Indeed, the object even of the working of God's wrath itself is to cause his plan of redemption to triumph. Here we must examine a pronouncement into which it has often been thought necessary to read the impassive and arbitrary character of the wrath of God, namely, Romans 9: 22. With the utilization of the figure of the potter the apostle speaks here of "the vessels of wrath, which were prepared for destruction, " and which "God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering. " However much God's omnipotence is here placed in the forefront, two things ought to be kept in view: first, that the phrase "the vessels [or objects] of wrath,52 prepared for destruction, " refers to impenitent sinners, who on account of their sin were53 "prepared, " ready, ripe for destruction and as such were used by God in order to demonstrate the power of his wrath in them; and second, that God did so in order54 the better to make known the riches of his glory on the objects of his mercy. To put it concretely: Pharaoh's hardening is made to serve the more clearly to elucidate God's redemptive work with respect to his people. Paul then employs this example to show how the hardening of the Jews, too, has been made subservient to the riches of the world (Rom. 11: 12). God's wrath places itself in the service of his love. And that not only for the sake of the gentiles, but also of the Jews themselves, for whom the hardening need not signify a definitive judgment (Rom. 11: 11), but who just in their hardening are still to be provoked to jealousy.
These pronouncements in Romans 9 and 11 show quite patently to what degree in Paul's preaching not only the killing power of the law, but also the working of God's wrath against sin that lies behind it are not detached from the divine redemptive work in Christ, but are rather seen cooperating closely with it. The dreadful reality of God's wrath is not thus robbed of its mysterious depth, nor is the place of God's wrath in the whole of God's work for man made transparent. But the certainty is explained with which Paul could write to the church of Thessalonica that God has not appointed us to wrath, but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5: 9).
If one inquires further as to the way in which this wrath of God is even now revealing itself and making itself known as an eschatological reality, here again the close connection between the theological and anthropological points of view is to be pointed out. The theological: for the revelation of God's wrath consists in the disturbance of the relationship in which God has placed man to himself. It is not merely a negative privation of God's communion; it consists in "alienation" (Col. 1: 21; cf. Eph. 2: 12; 4: 18), "enmity, " not only in the sense that human enmity raises itself against God (Rom. 8: 7; Col. 1: 21), but also that for man God has become an enemy (Rom. 5:10; 11: 28). But likewise the anthropological: as communion and life with God imply true manhood, so alienation from God means the corruption, indeed the destruction of human existence. It is particularly from this viewpoint, too, that Paul points to the revelation of the wrath of God in the life of man under the power of sin.
Two ideas come to the fore here, summarizing the whole of the corruption of sin: in the first place death, the wages of sin in the most inclusive sense of the word (Rom. 6: 23); in the second place the bondage of sin, moral impotence, in part to be characterized as inner discord.
Of these two descriptions of the punishment on sin, the first is naturally the most comprehensive and fundamental. Death is the fully developed fruit of sin. It is the just sentence of God (Rom. 5: 12ff., 18), and at the same time the "natural" and inner consequence of sin; it is that at which sin, as it were, aims and in which it achieves its triumphs (Rom. 5: 21); it is the fruit that one reaps when he sows to the flesh (sin) (Gal. 6: 8; cf. Rom. 7: 5). Death is therefore the end of sin (Rom. 6: 21), not simply as conclusion, but as result, as that in which sin reaches its objective (Rom. 6: 16).
Death is thereby not only a punishment that puts an end to life, but a condition in which the destiny of life outside Christ is turned into its opposite. This applies to death at the end of the earthly life. It is corruption (Gal. 6: 8), destruction (Rom. 9: 22; Phil. 3: 19), in the active sense of the word55 (cf. Rom. 2: 8ff. ), the absolute antithesis of the life intended by God and saved by Christ.
In addition to the future, however, sin brings forth death already in this life. Thus Romans 7: 25 speaks of deliverance from "the body of this death" (possibly:56 "this body of death"). However one chooses to translate the expression, it is certain, as appears from the whole context (cf. vv. 5, 10, 13), that Paul is speaking here of a condition of death that has already set in. For by "body" he means not merely the material organization of the body, but man in his present mode of existence, that which he elsewhere calls the "body of sin" (Rom. 6: 6), or "of the flesh" (Col. 2:11).57 Thus death works itself out in the sinful life of man. Romans 7: 9, 10 speaks of that in a very telling and explicit manner: "when the commandment came, sin began to live, but I began to die; and the commandment which is unto life, this I found to be unto death. " This "dying" is not to be taken as introspection, acquiring an eye for guilt and punishment,58 but the sin-ruled condition of his existence,59 which can be called dying because it is cut off from the true life for God (Rom. 6: 11ff. ), because it is a life for death (Rom. 6: 16). It is what Paul in this same context of Romans 7 calls "being sold under sin. " Sin brings death because it does not consist merely in separate acts whereby man remains himself, but is a power that corrupts him in his true manhood before God in such a way that he can do nothing other than sin (Rom. 8: 7), so that even the fear that thereby arises within him (Rom. 8:15), and his sorrow concerning it, cannot remove this condition, but is only the more productive of death (2 Cor. 7:10). This has been correctly described in this way,60 that the insight of man into the hopelessness of his condition, into his "being worthy of death" (cf. Rom. 1: 32), in no respect whatever introduces change into his existence, but rather must be reckoned a part of this dying. Elsewhere Paul speaks to the same effect of being dead through trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1, 5; Col. 2: 13), and he defines this condition further as living in and doing sin in all sorts of ways, as being under the wrath of God (Eph. 2: 3). Conversely, the new life can be qualified even in the present time as arising from the dead (Eph. 5: 14), as being "alive from the dead" (Rom. 6: 13). In all this the reality of death is apparent, as it even now works itself out through sin.
The second general denotation of the corruption of sin is that of the bondage, the impotence, the imprisonment in which man finds himself by and under sin. To be under sin, to be captive or shut up under sin, is the fate that the sinner brings on himself (Rom. 3: 9; Gal. 3: 22). Sin is represented again and again as a personal power, a lord, under whose mastery man has been sold as a slave and is henceforth required to live (Rom. 7: 14). This idea is elaborated in a great variety of ways, particularly in Romans 6:12ff.: "Do you not know that him to whose service you present yourselves, you must also obey as slaves, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience... ?" (v. 16). The committing of sin therefore brings the slavery of sin along with it, in which one is obliged to place himself at the disposal of the demands of sin (vv. 13, 17, 19, 20; cf. Tit. 2: 3; 3: 3). Elsewhere Paul speaks of the debtor, prisoner of war, military conscript, one taken into custody of sin (Rom. 8: 12; 7: 23; Gal. 3: 23), in short, the punishment of sin works itself out as a deprivation of human liberty, and so also of the conditions of true manhood: that one not direct oneself to sin as one's lord, but to God (Rom. 6: 11).
The explication of these general descriptions is one of the most characteristic features of Paul's doctrine of sin. The following section deals with it.
SECTION 19. THE CORRUPTION OF MAN
The corruption of sin that is described in its universality as death and bondage has its effects furthermore in the various aspects of human existence. We come into contact here with the peculiar anthropological concepts and ideas that Paul employs. So far as the death and bondage brought about in man by sin are concerned, one can distinguish two different ideas in particular: first of all, the corruption of sin in the "inward man, " the nous, the "heart, " which from there extends itself in the (sinful acts of the) "outward man, " in his "body, " and in his "members. " With the second idea the reverse sequence is in the foreground: the external man, the body, the members, appear to have been brought under the control of sin in such a way that the inner man, too (the nous, the heart, the will), is unable to offer resistance to the superior power of sin in the body. In the first case one could speak of the corruption of sin, which asserts itself from within over the whole of human existence; in the second case, of the bondage of sin, which, operating through "the body, " holds the inward man in its grasp as a prisoner. The first idea is to be demonstrated particularly from the description of the corruption of sin in such passages as Romans 1 and Ephesians 4; the second dominates the well-known delineation of the power of sin in Romans 7: 14ff.
Before going into this further (see below, p. 121), it is not superfluous to catch a sharper glimpse of at least the most prominent of these anthropological ideas.61
Outward and inward man
We can start here from the distinction occurring a few times in Paul between "the outward man" and "the inward man"62 (Rom. 7: 22; 2 Cor. 4: 16; Eph. 3: 16). Although the pronouncements given in these places are highly important for our subject,63 the distinction itself is of a very general and formal significance, describing the outward, visible, physical, and the inward, invisible, spiritual side of human existence. The latter is also denoted in Romans 7: 22, 23 by "mind" (nous), and mentioned in contradistinction to "body" and "members. " Similarly, "inward man" in Ephesians 3:16 is in many respects equivalent to "heart" mentioned in the same context. No general anthropological conclusions are to be drawn from this, however, e. g., of a dualistic man consisting of two "parts, " or of a more or less "real" or "essential" part of man. Rather, the complete description—outward and inward "man"—points in another direction; man does not only "have" an outward and inward side, but is as man both "outward" and "inward, " exists both in the one way and in the other. The relationship between this outward and inward man is indeed of especial importance in the definition of die corruption of sin. All this is to be perceived in its specific significance, however, only when we have first formed a clearer idea of such differentiated concepts as "body, " "mind" (nous), "heart, " et al. The expression "outward and inward man" is to be taken only as a general, "coarse" distinction.64
Body
For correct insight into the anthropological implications of the Pauline doctrine of sin, the role that is ascribed to the body (sōma) is of special importance. "Body" in Paul has a very comprehensive significance. One can take his point of departure here in the general popular usage by which "body" denotes the tangible and visible organism in which various "members" are to be distinguished. In that sense Paul speaks, e. g., of bearing the marks of Jesus in his body (Gal. 6: 17; cf. 2 Cor. 4: 10), of giving up the body to be burned (I Cor. 13: 3), of the seat of the sexual life in the body (Rom. 4: 19; 1 Cor. 7: 4; Rom. 1: 24), concerning the body as personal, physical presence (2 Cor. 10: 10). In this sense "body" is frequently synonymous with "flesh, " insofar as flesh sometimes also denotes only the material corporeality of man (cf., e. g., Rom. 2: 28— circumcision "in the flesh"; Col. 2: 1, 5—being present or absent "after the flesh").
Closer inspection teaches, however, that "body" and "flesh" (in this restricted sense of the word) are not thought of as the external "constituent part" of man, as the material casing of the real, inner man, but rather denote the man himself according to a certain mode of his existence. This is evident from the manner in which Paul frequently speaks of the body as of the concrete mode of existence, co-extensive with man himself (cf. Rom. 12:1: "present your bodies a living sacrifice"; cf. also Eph. 5: 28, where "himself" and "his body" are used promiscuously; similarly Rom. 6: 12, where there is mention first of "the body" and in conjunction with it of "your members" and immediately following that, as a synonym, of "yourselves"; cf. also 1 Cor. 6: 15 with 12: 27: "do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" and "you are the body of Christ, and each for his part [his] members"). In the one instance the subject of the being members-of-Christ is "your bodies"; in the other, without a difference of meaning, it is the personal pronoun "you."65 One finds the same comprehensive use of body in those places where body means approximately the earthly human life with the inclusion of death; so, e. g., when Paul says (2 Cor. 4: 10) that he at all times bears about in his body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in his body; or when in Philippians 1: 20 he expresses the earnest hope that Christ will be magnified in his body, and adds to this: whether by my life, or by my death (cf. also Col. 1: 22). When Paul, moreover, speaks repeatedly of the human "members" ( mele), the same thing is expressed. But the members point still more concretely to the different possibilities of acting, obeying, sinning, which man possesses in his bodily existence, for which reason, e. g., the "putting to death of the members which are upon the earth" can be spoken of (Col. 3: 5), whereby one is not to think of some form or other of self-mutilation, but of the struggle man has to carry on in and with himself against sin. In this personal sense, too, "flesh" can sometimes be used as the equivalent of "body" or "members" (e. g., in 2 Cor. 4: 10, 11, where "body" and "flesh" are used synonymously in describing the whole man in his temporal bodily existence).
With this equating of "body" and "flesh,"66 however, one should not lose sight of the different points of view from which both descriptions regard man in his earthly mode of existence. "Flesh, " even when it does not have the pregnant significance of human sinfulness, always has man in his weakness, transitoriness, especially in view; "body, " on the contrary, represents the image of man as he was created by God, was intended for God, and will therefore be saved from death by God. When in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul speaks of the resurrection, he lays all the emphasis on the one hand on the fact that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and on the other, that man will be raised according to his physical existence. Not as though the human body, as it now is, were not to die and perish. This body belongs to the transitory, to the flesh. It is, however, another, a spiritual body, that will be raised. Flesh is not spoken of in the same sense, i. e., that there will be a spiritual flesh. "Resurrection of the flesh" not only does not occur in Paul, but for him is a scarcely conceivable terminology (1 Cor. 15: 50). "Flesh" in Paul is distinctive of the temporal and earthly character of human existence; "body" can also denote the future and heavenly.67
It is evident from all this, on the one hand, how much man in the whole of his existence is "body, " insofar, that is, as he cannot manifest himself in any other way than as a physical being, and experiences therein his responsibility as a man. It is also clear on the other hand, however, that there is a Gegenüber of the "I, " the inward man, the nous (see below) on the one side, and his "body" on the other. The body is even then not only the physical and tangible, but man in his self-realization, which must receive its determination from "within. " This relation which man has to his body (himself) finds expression, for example, in the pronouncement that believers are not to yield their bodies (their members) to sin (Rom. 6: 12ff., 19); that they must put to death their "members upon the earth" (Col. 3: 5); must present their bodies to God as a sacrifice (Rom. 12: 1 f. ), etc. In the same sense (namely, as equivalent of the reflexive) the body can be described as the organ or means in which and by which man is to experience his responsibility before God. Thus Paul says (e. g., in 2 Cor. 5: 10) that each one will receive that which he has done "through his body" (dia tou sōmatos), whether good or evil. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 6: 13, that the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord. Likewise he prays in 1 Thessalonians 5: 23 that the spirit, the soul, and the body of his readers may be kept blameless at the parousia of Christ, which of course does not refer to their bodily well-being or their health, but to that which they have done and will prove themselves to be in and through their bodily existence. In all these passages "body" is on the one hand not to be thought of detached from man himself, as though it were only the material-sensual organization: man not only "has" a body, but is a body. On the other hand, it is in this being a body that there is the possibility of the distinction between man and himself, between the " I " and its self-realization in thoughts and acts. In Paul's mode of expression this last can assume the form of a body that occupies a position of independence toward the "I, " which has its own "lusts" and its own "practices, " which the " I " is to put to death (Rom. 6: 12; 8: 13; Col. 3: 5). It is in the harmony of the " I " and "the body" that the unity of human existence ("outward" and "inward") is disclosed, in the good as well as in the evil; on the other hand, it is in this distinction between the "I" and "the body" that there is also the possibility of inner discord in human existence, as this is portrayed for us with vivid colors, particularly in Romans 7:14ff.