Romans 9: Background
Over the last few months, I've been posting on Romans 9. You can check out what I've posted thus far here and here and here.
Before I go any further in this series, I want to stop and evaluate a key concept in Paul's writings that plays into the subject at hand: the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. In my opinion, most of the teaching on this subject within the last 100 years has seriously abused the text. Most modern teachers believe in Romans and Galatians Paul describes the struggle that a Christian faces between two different metaphysical natures that are within the believer. The flesh is viewed as the old sinful nature (see the NIV). And the Spirit becomes a part of the new nature within the believer.
Growing up in a traditional Baptist church, I always had accepted this view. It wasn't until I took a class on Romans at Frontier that I began to see problems with this view. Something just didn't add up right. As I started to ask questions about the text, the teacher became frustrated with me and said that this is just the way it is. "That's what all the godly people I know believe." Since then, I have found that several great scholars have also questioned the two-nature scheme that is so popular today. I would recommend these books to those interested in the subject.
Gordon Fee has written an excellent book called Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. There's a couple of chapters on this subject.
Doug Moo's NICNT commentary on Romans is a powerhouse volume. He nails Romans 7. It's wonderful.
Walt Russell has written a great article on the subject that can be found in Christian Perspectives on Being Human edited by J.P. Moreland.
As I read Romans 7-8 and Galatians, I slowly began to realize that the two-nature scheme didn't cut it. As Walt Russell writes, "We have read Paul's descriptions of human behavior metaphysically, rather than historically. We have taken his ethical statements primarily as abstract anthropological descriptions of 'parts' of the Christian; rather than as historical descriptions of the whole identity of persons." In other words, Paul is not discussing to two different natures, but rather two different ways of living life. This is most obvious in Romans 8:5-11.
So as I read the text, this conclusion becomes obvious to me. You are either in the flesh or in the Spirit, but you can't be both. Gordon Fee writes, "The strong contrasts in Romans 8:5-8...do not deal with internal conflict. Paul is again describing the two kinds of existence, and indicating their utter incompatibility. Those who walk according to the flesh--and it is clear in context that this does not mean believers, but those still outside Christ--'have their minds set on what the flesh desires' (v. 5)....That simply does not describe Christian life, not in Paul and not anywhere else."
Before I go any further in this series, I want to stop and evaluate a key concept in Paul's writings that plays into the subject at hand: the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. In my opinion, most of the teaching on this subject within the last 100 years has seriously abused the text. Most modern teachers believe in Romans and Galatians Paul describes the struggle that a Christian faces between two different metaphysical natures that are within the believer. The flesh is viewed as the old sinful nature (see the NIV). And the Spirit becomes a part of the new nature within the believer.
Growing up in a traditional Baptist church, I always had accepted this view. It wasn't until I took a class on Romans at Frontier that I began to see problems with this view. Something just didn't add up right. As I started to ask questions about the text, the teacher became frustrated with me and said that this is just the way it is. "That's what all the godly people I know believe." Since then, I have found that several great scholars have also questioned the two-nature scheme that is so popular today. I would recommend these books to those interested in the subject.
Gordon Fee has written an excellent book called Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. There's a couple of chapters on this subject.
Doug Moo's NICNT commentary on Romans is a powerhouse volume. He nails Romans 7. It's wonderful.
Walt Russell has written a great article on the subject that can be found in Christian Perspectives on Being Human edited by J.P. Moreland.
As I read Romans 7-8 and Galatians, I slowly began to realize that the two-nature scheme didn't cut it. As Walt Russell writes, "We have read Paul's descriptions of human behavior metaphysically, rather than historically. We have taken his ethical statements primarily as abstract anthropological descriptions of 'parts' of the Christian; rather than as historical descriptions of the whole identity of persons." In other words, Paul is not discussing to two different natures, but rather two different ways of living life. This is most obvious in Romans 8:5-11.
5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.Start with v. 9. This is pretty clear. The person who is in the flesh cannot be a saved person. According to the text, this individual does not have the Spirit of God. This person does not belong to Christ. Then, look at v. 8. This person cannot please God. His mind is set on death and hostile to God and cannot submit to His laws. Those in the flesh must be unsaved people. On the other hand, the person, who is in the Spirit, belongs to Christ. His mind is set on life and peace and the things of the Spirit.
9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you (ESV).
So as I read the text, this conclusion becomes obvious to me. You are either in the flesh or in the Spirit, but you can't be both. Gordon Fee writes, "The strong contrasts in Romans 8:5-8...do not deal with internal conflict. Paul is again describing the two kinds of existence, and indicating their utter incompatibility. Those who walk according to the flesh--and it is clear in context that this does not mean believers, but those still outside Christ--'have their minds set on what the flesh desires' (v. 5)....That simply does not describe Christian life, not in Paul and not anywhere else."
posted by Daniel | 4:51 PM
10 Comments:
First of all, thank you very much for adding my name to your blog list. I appreciate it.
Secondly, thanks for the interesting discussion, it's helping me in two ways, it's helping me really read the Bible and really giving me a better understanding of my beliefs.
And thirdly, this is very weird (and it's starting to happen too often for it to be coincidence) but today at work, a very nice woman who I think is Baptist was reading her Bible and I asked her what she was reading. She said she was flipping around at different verses but that her main focus was on Romans. I said, "Really, what part?" At which point, she read Romans 8: 5-11 to me and then I started thinking about what she said. Very weird.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you learned and the conflict. Is it that modern teachers are saying that you can be in the flesh and the spirit at the same time?
If so, I would have to agree with you that you can't be both. The way that I interpret Romans 8 is that Paul is comparing two kinds of people. Those who have their lives centered on God and those who have their lives centered on sin (specifically sins of the flesh.) A person whose life is centered on sex (and there's probably as many back then as there are now), it will lead to sin and death but for those who center their life on God it will bring peace and life.
Thank you again.
Dennis
Wow.
Every single link you gave is absolutely fantastic.
The wise reader will heed his advice here:
Gordon Fee has written an excellent book called Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. There's a couple of chapters on this subject.
Doug Moo's NICNT commentary on Romans is a powerhouse volume. He nails Romans 7. It's wonderful.
Walt Russell has written a great article on the subject that can be found in Christian Perspectives on Being Human edited by J.P. Moreland.
-mike
Mike,
I think that we might have more in common than I first thought. I might lean more towards Fee's theology, while you lean towards Moo's. What do you think of that assessment?
Dennis,
I probably should have given more of an explanation of the two-nature scheme. Most evangelicals from the dispensational tradition today read this as if Paul was discussing two natures within the Christian (Check out Charles Ryrie's Balancing the Christian Life. Surely you've heard the illustration of two dogs fighting within. The white dog and the black dog. These two natures fight for control of the saved individual.
In my opinion, I can't understand the text in this way. I don't understand Galatians 5 that way either.
I still have Russell's article in my old Hermeneutics course pack. Quite an interesting read.
I would agree that I am more in agreement with Moo than I am with Fee but Fee is a great scholar who has done fantastic work and is always worth the read (except maybe the NIV bible ... hehe jk).
In Christ alone,
mike
Ouch! I think that NIV is a decent translation for what it tries to do. Of course, the one of the exceptions to that is their lousy translation of "flesh" as "sin nature." That's unbelievably awful.
hahah! You caught it! Yes, NIV does lead us astray with the sin nature paraphrase.
mike
I can agree that Romans is speaking of born again and not born again, but I also think it is speaking of our flesh warring against our spirits (Paul speaking of doing those things he wishes he would not do and not doing the the things that he should back in Romans 7...and we know that Paul is born again). I think it is expounded a bit more in Galatians, especially 5:16-17.
This is why I think we are trichotomous beings. Our spirits war with our flesh. That is why we must WALK in the spirit. We must be renewed in our souls (mind, will, emotions) by the washing of the water of the word.
If Galatians is not talking about Christians having to struggle, why does Paul warn Christians to walk in the spirit and not to be envious? Why DO we then as Christians struggle with our flesh if that is impossible?
I agree that he is contrasting saved vs. unsaved, but I think that he is telling us that we NOW have the POWER through Jesus to NOT fulfil the lusts of the flesh if we will but submit to His Spirit.
I guess I should go read the article by JP Moreland and see what he has to say.
Ooops. It is a book. I thought it was an article. So I can't read it. :-(
Dawn,
It's an article by Walt Russell found in a book by J.P. Moreland.
I understand the "flesh/Spirit" in a different way than most dispensational folks do. Maybe I'll post so more on it later. Galatians 5 and Romans 7 are key texts on the issue.
(Paul speaking of doing those things he wishes he would not do and not doing the the things that he should back in Romans 7...and we know that Paul is born again).
There is a strong minority of scholars who believe Chapter 7 refers to a person before he is saved and chapter 8 refers to the person after he is saved.
Throughout church history there has been much disagreement on this issue. You note that Paul is a believer, true, but there is something called the Historical present where a person tells a story in the present tense but it is really occuring in past time. This happens mostly in the Gospels, but there is no legitimate reason that it cannot be true here (although in Wallace's Greek Grammar he would disallow it).
Paul is not only a believer, but he was also a Jew under the law. He could be writing about his experience as a believer (although several things suggest otherwise), but he could also be speaking of a non-believer.
Hopefully that clarifies without having to deal with it in too much depth. We can discuss it further if you'd like.
In Christ alone,
mike
Post a Comment
<< Home