12/7/95
Romans 6:6 says "For this we know, that our old self has been crucified with him, that our sinful body might be rendered inoperative, so we should no longer be slaves to sin". In this verse one event has triggered a cascade of further events. Because Christians have been crucified with him, their sinful bodies have been rendered inoperative, resulting in their not belonging t as slaves.
According to Dr. Don. Alexander, there are two primary views as to the identity of the old self. The first view is that the old self is synonymous with our sinful natures. I will define the sinful nature as the impulse or the desire to sin. People who hold this belief think that it is possible in this life to reach a state where they can live without sinning. The second view states that the old self is our old relationship with God, or our old life in Adam. Our "old self" is our old relationship with God before becoming a Christian, and the "new self" is the new relationship a Christian enjoys with God after becoming a Christian. In my paper I will attempt to convince the reader that this second interpretation holds true.
If a human being is crucified, they clearly come out of the other side of the experience dead. In all cases throughout history save the crucifixion of Jesus, the person crucified remained dead. Also, no one who has been killed only ended up "mostly dead" as was the case with the hero Wesley in the movie "The Princess Bride".
Therefore, whatever the definition of the old self is, before its crucifixion it was alive and afterwards it was dead. There should be evidence of the old self before its crucifixion, and afterwards it should cease to exist with no opportunity for resurrection. There is no room for any shades of gray.
According to Buttrick (476), sin still present in the life of a believer can be explained by that believer not having fully died to sin. Furthermore, he attributes the death to sin as a secondary effect of a Christian's death to the world: "In principle, and in some degree in fact, the believer has died to the world and therefore to sin . . . but this death is by no means actually complete and will not be till the new life has fully come" (my italics, 477). My interpretation of Buttrick's statement "died to the world and therefore to sin" is that Christians have somehow transcended the world and worldliness, leaving sin behind.
There are many flaws in this reasoning. First, it undermines most of the aspects of death as a metaphor. Death is (except through supernatural intervention through resurrection) both permanent and complete. Second, the verb "crucified" is in the aorist tense, aorist meaning a past, factual occurrence that has occurred (Alexander). Finally, Buttrick demotes the death to sin to a side effect of a Christian's death to the world. He suggests that because a Christian is no longer tied to the world he is no longer tied to sin, as opposed to the conventional thinking that one not tied to sin is no longer tied to the world.
I would argue that Christians are indelibly linked to the Earth until Christ's return. We still obey all the world's laws. Our bodies are not modified in the least. After conversion to Christianity, a person still needs food and drink, and remains attracted to the profane desires of the flesh. For these reasons I disagree with Buttrick's idea regarding the Christian's death to the world leading to their death to sin.
Sin occurs in everyone, even among believers. This is known both from experience and scripture. James wrote to Christians "Confess your sins one to another and pray one for another" (James 5:16). If Christians did not sin, why would he tell them to confess their sins to one another? In yet further scriptural evidence of sin in all Christians: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:9).
Suppose the old self is synonymous with our sinful natures that has been crucified and therefore no longer exists in the believer. How then can sin be present? This leads to the core of the problem with the view that the old self is synonymous with the sinful nature; it is evident that Christians can sin.
The second view of the old self is that it denotes our old life under the lordship of Adam, while the new self is our new life under the Lordship of Christ (Alexander). This terminology of lordship is primarily a relational phrase. A person who truly becomes a Christian turns from a state where they do not desire to follow God to a state where they do desire to follow Him.
When one is baptized, one symbolically joins in the crucifixion of Jesus. "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were also baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3). This occurs immediately at the point of becoming a Christian. As stated in the NIV Bible Commentary, "Clearly this union is not something gradually arrived at through a process of sanctification" (552).
Although our co-crucifixion, or "synestaurothe" in Greek (Fitzmyer), is symbolic, we share in the new life of Christ's resurrection. "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the father, we too may live a new life" (Rom. 6:4). This leads to the conclusion "In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11).
In this way, defining the old and new self as our old and new relationship with God as opposed to the death of our sinful nature, we more easily hurdle the question of existing sin in a Christian. If we no longer had a sinful nature (the impulse to commit sins) Christians would no longer sin. It would not be that we lacked the capacity to sin, it would be that we would not want to. As it is, however, all Christians sin, experientially proving the existence of the sinful nature in the Christian.
Being dead to sin removes us from any debt that we owe to it. We no longer must be punished for our sins as a form of repayment. As a result, the threat of punishment should no longer motivate us to follow God. Furthermore, our old relationship with sin has been severed through our "death" to it. Conversely, we are newly alive to God. It is now possible for us to develop a relationship with him. When we were "dead" to God before our "resurrection" through Christ, it was impossible for us to truly follow him. After all, we were dead! Now, however, we are responsible for knowing his laws and following him. Like a college student who no longer follows his parents' rules anymore when he has moved out, when he returns to visit he is expected out of love and respect to once again obey them. In the same way, out of love and respect we should follow God's laws.
There are two other parts to Romans 6:6 that need to be addressed. As stated in the introduction, the crucifixion of the old self leads to the body of sin being rendered inoperative, which further results in the Christian no longer being a slave to sin.
The phrase "sinful body" should not be taken to mean that the body itself is sinful. The Greek word for body, "soma", can sometimes mean a person's total being, not just their physical self. According to Buttrick, "sinful body" means "the self as the organization of the sinful impulses inherent in the flesh" (476), while Gaebelein defines it as the body's capacity to act as the vehicle of sin (552).
Buttrick assigns the "sinful body" the role of the source of sin in a person, while Gaebelein limits it to the tool by which sin is carried out. By either of these definitions, if the "body of sin" were rendered inoperative, sin would no longer be present in a Christian. Since we know that sin does exist in Christians a better definition of "body of sin" is necessary.
Fitzman defines the "body of sin" as "the whole person considered as earth-oriented, not open to God or his Spirit, and prone to sin" (436). What would happen if this version of "body of sin" were rendered inoperative? For a person to be a Christian they should not be earth-oriented, they should be open to God and his Spirit, and should not be prone to sin. In the word "prone" we find a wonderful qualifier stating both that Christians are less likely to sin yet allowing for the fact that it remains possible.
Paul personified sin as a malign power to which people in their old state were bound to in thralldom, (Buttrick, 477). After the conversion event, however, a person's status does not transfer from slavery to freedom, but from a lower state of slavery (slave to sin) to a higher level of slavery (slave to Christ) (Alexander).
In the time of Paul people often sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. To whom they were slaves was in itself a matter of prestige and status. For instance, if a person was a slave to an important person other slaves and even free men would step out of the way in a sign of respect to the slave's master (Alexander). In the same way, to become a slave of Christ is a level of higher status than to be a slave to sin.
The slavery of a believer to Christ carries both benefits and obligations. The benefits include the joy of a relationship with God, salvation, and the answering of prayers. The obligations include unconditional obedience and unquestioning loyalty. In my view, most Christians seem to want to focus on these benefits and downplay the obligations. In the words of DeGarmo and Key, "He died for me, I'll live for Him."
Bibliography
Alexender. (1995). Lectures from the course "Holiness in the Biblical perspective". Arden Hills, MN: Bethel College.
Barclay. (1975). The Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Barker and Kohlenberger III. (1994). Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary (Vol 2: New Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Buttrick. (1954). The Interpreter's Bible. New York, NY: Abingdon Press.
Fitzmyer. Romans. (1993). NY, New York: Doubleday.
(1994). Zondervan NIV Study Bible Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.