Here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:
11In the same way, you (pl.) also [should] be considering yourselves (on the one hand) [to be] dead ones to the sin, but (on the other hand) living ones to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12Therefore, the sin shall not be ruling in your (pl.) mortal body, that [you are] obeying the strong desires of it. 13No longer be presenting your members [as] tools of unrighteousness to the sin, but present yourselves to God as ones living out of dead ones and your members [as] tools of righteousness to God, 14for sin will not rule over you (pl.), for you (pl.) are not under law but under grace.
In the last post, I tried to record what I thought to be the most significant practical observations which I drew from my study of these verses. In this post, I want to record a number of what I suppose we can call exegetical observations. I don’t know that any of this will matter to anyone else, but I want to record these thoughts in case I come back later to this passage and want to remember them.
First, I have made a point of v.11 being the first imperative of the book of Romans: “In the same way, count yourselves…” Someone could object that this particular Greek verb (translated “count”) could be either indicative or imperative, either “You are counting yourselves,” or “Count yourselves…” the verb itself is in what we call the Greek present tense and in that the indicative and imperative are identical, thus the difference must be drawn from the context. In this case, v.11 is immediately followed by the “Therefore, let not sin rule…” of v.12, where the form of the negative “not” would not be used with the indicative. In v. 12, it is clearly imperative. Also, in verse 13, the “do not offer” is adversatively joined with “but rather offer,” where the first is the same present tense form (where indicative and imperative are the same), but the adversative is an aorist, in which case, they are not the same. It is definitely imperative. Since the two verbs are joined, it makes no sense if the first is indicative but the second imperative. On the basis of all these considerations, I think it conclusive that, in fact, v.11 is to be translated as an imperative. That is why it was stated it so emphatically, even though I did not acknowledge the exegetical considerations which I felt supported my translation.
Speaking of tenses, it is interesting that in v.13, the first “present the members…” is a present tense, while the second “present yourselves” is an aorist. In Greek, tense is not so much about time, as about the kind of action. A present tends to be something on-going or habitual, whereas an aorist is what is called “punctiliar,” which can be a “point in time” or a gnomic sense of just simply stating a fact. I tried to depict this distinction in my fairly literal translation above with my “No longer be presenting your members…but present yourselves…” The two tenses are different and obviously Paul chose them deliberately. I’m thinking it makes good sense that the first is a present, as it is modified with the adverbial “no longer,” which lends itself logically to the idea of ceasing something on-going. As far as the second “present” and it being a punctiliar aorist, some people would say the “presentation of yourselves to God” is a one-time event, supported by Wesleyans and those who hold to what is called “entire sanctification.” I may add some thoughts about that later, but I am personally convinced what the Bible teaches is progressive sanctification, in which case the gnomic “present yourselves” would be simply stating what you should do, without necessarily making any big deal of when or how many times, etc.
One thing I thought very odd was in v.12, where we read, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body.” In the “your mortal body,” the “your” is a plural, while the “mortal body” is singular. I tried ot depict this in my translation simply by indicating the plurality of “your” with a parenthetical “pl.” The translation “your” doesn’t bother us in English, since “your” is the same whether singular or plural. However, knowing the Greek is actually plural to me is something odd to be pondered. I still haven’t figured out what to do with that. For now, I’m just noticing.
Also, in v.12, we’re told, “Therefore, do not let sin rule in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.” One might ask what the “its” is referring to. In other words, are they the evil desires of sin or of your mortal body? Which do they come from? In this case, the Greek answers the question unequivocally, since, in Greek, “sin” is feminine while “body” is masculine, and the “its” is masculine. The evil desires are definitely being said to originate from the mortal body.
This is why, in the last post, I had no problem seeing the real problem for us originating from our Adamic bodies. Sin is obviously the big problem, but I think it highly significant for us all to see the actual difficulty as coming from within ourselves and not see it as simply “sin” out there somewhere causing us trouble. Like someone once pointed out, you can put a piece of wood on a hook, drop it in the water, and generally speaking, the fish will ignore it. On the other hand, put a big, fat, wiggly night crawler on it, and the fish will jump at it. Why the difference? The fish himself has no “desire” to eat wood, while the worm looks to him positively delicious! The difference is in the “desires” of the fish himself. The same is true of us and our “temptations.” The wood isn’t tempting. The worm is. And why? It all goes back to the desires within us.
I don’t want to elaborate on this now, but that leads us back to our need of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and the problem with our “wanter.” Left to myself, I’m doomed because what I “want” is invariably wrong. A fish wants what a fish wants. Personally I don’t find the wood or the worm appealing. I’m not a fish. I have no problem being “tempted” by worms on hooks. However, I am an Adamic sinner and I want what an Adamic sinner wants. There are plenty of things that do tempt me. I need another Spirit within me to help me instead want good things, right things, godly things. My point is simply to note that, even our text supports my assertion that the problem is arising from within ourselves. The “evil desires” are originating from “our mortal bodies.”
I suppose somewhat along those same lines, it is interesting that what we are presenting in v.13 is “our members.” This is clearly referring to the physical members of our bodies. Sin and righteousness cannot be simply theoretical or hypothetical. Whether we sin or act righteously, we will do it very specifically one way or another with the members of our bodies. I sin with my mouth, my eyes, my hands, my feet, and even with my mind, but always with the members of this body. At any given moment, if I would evaluate my behavior, I can ask what am I doing with my members? In other words, I can ask, “Where are my feet taking me right now, at this very moment? Am I on my way to do good or, if I’m honest, am I heading for trouble?” I have of late been trying to be very conscious of my mouth. Even as I’m listening to another person (with my ears, by the way), I’m trying to be praying, asking the Lord to help me say words that will represent Him well. What would Jesus say? Every single time my mouth is moving, I’m either speaking good or evil. My words are either somehow expressing love or not. God help us all be more aware of what our body is doing, what our “members” are up to!
One final observation—in v.14, when it says, “For you are not under law but under grace,” I want to note that the word “law” is inarticular. In other words, it is not “the Law.” It is simply “law.” The statement in this verse is not arising from a question of whether we are or are not still under “the Law” (as referring to anything we can take from Old Testament or Mosaic Law). The statement is simply referring to “law” in general or perhaps we could call it the law principle? A born-again Christian does not live under the law principle, the legalistic, performance-based approval system (which by the way is what everyone does naturally). Instead, we live under the grace principle, where we are loved not for what we do or don’t do, but because the Father loves us, which He is free to openly express precisely because Jesus has already paid for our sins.
If I could just throw in this thought, although legalism is the very air us humans breathe (it would seem), yet we ourselves do know something of grace. What I mean is this—consider your children. Do you only love them when they do well? Certainly there are some very wicked, twisted adults out there who do not love their children. However, for any normal parent, can we all agree we love our kids no matter what? In fact, is that not precisely why it hurts so much when they do not do well? Love wants the best for them. It wants to see them happy and making good decisions. But no matter how well they do or don’t do, we always have and always will love them. No matter how far they stray, our arms will always long to welcome them home. We love them “just cuz.” What is that? Grace.
What you and I must do and what Paul is calling us to here in the book of Romans is to realize when it comes to God, we are the children. He doesn’t call Himself “Father” for nothing. Us Christians need to learn to see ourselves as children, as people living under the grace principle, not law. God loves us in Christ “just cuz.”
I love the verse Zeph. 3:17: “The Lord your God in the midst of you is mighty; He will save, He will rejoice over you with joy; He will rest in His love, He will joy over you with singing.” Those words describe exactly what my heart does over my three children, Daniel, Ruthie, and Esther. It’s what God does over me! That’s grace. “Just cuz.”
No comments:
Post a Comment