Truth On Tough Texts
ISSUE 37 - August
2009
What
is the “Old Man”?
Romans 6:6
THIS ISSUE OF TOTT BEGINS OUR FOURTH year
in this ministry. It is has truly been a joy to write
and distribute this work. We have had many encouraging
comments, questions, and support from readers and words
fail in expressing our thankfulness and gratitude. We
pray it will continue to be a blessing to many. We would
love to hear from
you.
& &
&
To begin
this fourth year, we turn to a “tough text” that is
without question one of the most important verses in
Scripture concerning sanctification and Christian
living: Knowing this, that our old man is
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Sadly, however, this verse is also one of the most
misunderstood and most often misinterpreted verses of
Scripture.
Understanding the Issue
Again, this verse
(and it’s context, of course) is the very foundation for
living a holy life. Why? Because it serves to remind us
every day that we are no longer this old man, that he is
gone. It reveals that the old man was crucified
(past tense in the Greek) and has been destroyed. But
what exactly is the old man?
That is the issue. And until
that is understood, the doctrine of sanctification
itself cannot be understood.
This verse has been
a battleground for centuries. The question has been not
whether we become holy in Christ—all agree there—rather
how this holiness is brought
about.
One theory of
sanctification has been dubbed the Eradication
Theory. Ever since the esteemed John Wesley
formulated it, this doctrine has been widely believed
and taught. The teaching is that “entire
sanctification,” that is, sinlessness, the complete
purging of “inbred sin,” “the old nature,” “the flesh,”
comes through a “second blessing.” Through a process of
continually purging sin and the old man, the Christian,
by his efforts, finally
reaches the goal of sinlessness. This teaching is based,
oddly enough, on Romans 6:6, that having yielded
everything to Christ, we by faith identify ourselves
with Him in His death and believe that our “old nature”
is “crucified with Him” and therefore “destroyed.” Since
we “reckon” ourselves “dead indeed unto sin” (v. 11), we
will actually experience the eradication of sin. But as
we’ll see, this teaching is based on a very basic
misreading of the
text.
A second view of
sanctification is the Counteraction Theory.
Simply stated, this teaches that sanctification comes
not by eradicating our inherited sin-bias, but by
counteracting it, working
against it, suppressing it; by our daily efforts of
“dying to self” and “crucifying the old man,” we
suppress the “old nature.” This comes, it is taught, by
an inward “joint crucifixion with Christ” that
counteracts the “old nature,” “renders it inoperative,”
for the time being, but which can be reactivated at any
moment. We must then crucify ourselves again to render
the “old nature inoperative” again. Like the Eradication
Theory, however, this too is based on a fundamental
misreading of Romans 6:6 and its
context.
What is so strange
about both these views is that they are based on the
idea that Romans 6:6 refers to something in the present,
something that happens in our own experience; in other
words, it is something that we do in our efforts,
something that comes as result of our own struggling
against sin. But that is the exact opposite of what
the text SAYS.
This leads us to
consider first what the old man is not, and then
what it is.
What the
“Old Man” is Not
Now, I want to say
the following as clearly and as singularly biblically as
I possibly can. My reason for that little introductory
statement is because the term old man has been sorely
misunderstood, so much so, in fact, that it is often
called by another completely different name that is not
once used in Scripture.
Terminology is
essential on any issue. Some teachers, however, seem to
disagree with that truth when it comes to this issue and
just dismiss it by saying, “Well, we are just arguing
semantics. Why make a big deal of terms?” We submit,
however, that words matter very much when Truth is at
stake. One of the passions of my life and ministry is
that words matter; they make
a difference in doctrine. How many false doctrines, and
even entire cults, have been created because of the lack
of precision?
One such term that
has been around for many years in the teaching
concerning sanctification and holiness is the term “old
nature,” as in the expression, “The Christian has two
natures, the old nature and the
new nature.” But that is an
extremely unfortunate statement. To make matters worse,
there are some organizations that make this a matter of
fellowship, inexplicably insisting that anyone who
denies the “two natures” is virtually
anathema.
That attitude has
greatly puzzled me for several years, because the clear
fact of the matter is that to be accurate in our
terminology—and if words matter we must be accurate—we
must recognize that Scripture simply does not SAY we
have two NATURES. The common teaching is that we
have two natures that are warring against one
another. But we repeat, and are compelled to insist,
that Scripture does not say that. Yes, we most
certainly do have a war going on (Rom. 7), and we will
examine that later, but to be precise, the Bible
does not say that this war is between two
natures.
In fact, Scripture
doesn’t even use the word “nature” either in our text or
in another important text on this issue: “That ye put
off concerning the former conversation the old man,
which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph.
4:22). In both cases, we find the Greek palaios
(old), which means “old in the sense of worn out,
decrepit, useless,” and then anthropos, which
means man, not a mere “part” of a
man, such as a “nature” or “self,” but the whole man,
every aspect of him.
There is absolutely
no argument to be made, therefore, that old man refers
to anything except something old in the person that is
now gone, not a supposed “nature” that cannot be
controlled. This, then, leads us to consider what the
old man really is.
What the “Old Man” Is
Let us examine four
major points on Romans 6:6.
First, Romans 6 is located in what can be called the
“judicial section” of the Epistle, not the
“experiential.” In other words, just as Ephesians, for
example, is divided into doctrine (1–3) and
practice (4–6) Romans has a similar structure.
While chapters 1–8 are judicial (i.e.,
doctrinal), as they show how God saves the
sinner, and chapters 9–11 are unique to Romans as they
are national, explaining how the Gospel relates
to Israel, chapters 12–16 are experiential
(practical), as they demonstrate how the Gospel bears on
our practical conduct. Romans 6, therefore, deals
with what GOD alone has accomplished JUDICIALLY,
not what WE do EXPERIENTIALLY.
Second, and this is the key to the whole issue, all
the verb tenses in Romans 6 are past tenses, either
the aorist or the perfect. In other words, every verb
tense that refers to our identification with Christ in
His death refers to that identification being
completed in the past. Romans 6:6, therefore,
does not say that our “old man is being
crucified” or that our “old nature must be
crucified,” rather it says that our “old man was
crucified” way back when Christ died and that it was
completed then and there. It does not say
(as some teachers insist) that we must each morning get
up and “crucify ourselves again to sin.” Rather it
inarguably says that by God’s judicial act, not
by our experiential effort, the old man was crucified
and therefore destroyed.
Third, this brings us to the precise meaning of the
term old man. If this doesn’t mean “old nature” or
“inbred sin” that we must either eradicate or
suppress—and it does not mean either one of
those—what does it mean? The old man can refer to one
thing and one thing only: all that we were in
Adam, that is, all the guilt,
penalty, power, and dominion of sin that was in Adam.
Now, we immediately
want to ask, “But I do still sin—why?” We’ll deal
with that in a moment. The point that must be
understood first is that sin is not the rule of life
like it was before. We are not dominated by sin as
we once were. The old man, the person we were before
salvation is gone because of what Christ accomplished on
Calvary. We are not sinless, but we are no longer
dominated and controlled by sin.
While sin used to rule, it is now Christ Who
rules.
To make this
practical, how often have we all used the excuse, “Well,
I just can’t help it; I’m a Christian, but because of my
old nature, I just can’t help but sin?” Such an attitude
is defeatist and actually justifies our sin. The fact
is, as we’ll see, we most certainly can “help it”
because we are no longer dominated by sin. Sin is no
longer the rule, it is the
exception.
Paul then
continues, that the body of sin might be destroyed.
Destroyed is katargeo, “to
render inactive, put out of use, cancel, bring to
nothing, do away with.”[i] Because it is in a
past tense, like all the verbs in the passage, it
declares that the body of sin (a synonym for old man)
has been nullified, put out of use, done away with
completely in the past. It was through the cross that
God put the old man out of action. That body of sin no
longer hangs on us as like an anchor to sink us into the
ocean of sin; God has removed it and freed us from sin’s
dominion.
As J. Sidlow Baxter
masterfully summarizes, here is the
positional meaning of Romans
6:6 according to the language of the
text:
·
OUR OLD MAN—all that
we were in position and relation to Adam, with all our
culpability and
condemnation.
·
WAS CRUCIFIED WITH
HIM—was judged and executed in the once-for-all death of
Christ.
·
THAT THE BODY OF
SIN—the whole Adam humanity as guilty before
God.
·
MIGHT BE
DESTROYED—completely done away in the judicial reckoning
of God.
·
THAT WE SHOULD NO
LONGER BE IN BONDAGE TO SIN—that is, no longer in
legal bondage through judicial guilt.[ii]
Fourth, we now
consider the role of what is called “the flesh.” This
answers the question, “If I was crucified with Christ in
the past, and the old man is dead, and the body of sin
has been put out of action, why do I still sin?” Paul
knew this question would arise, so right after he writes
Romans 6, he writes Romans 7, where he laments over “the
flesh.” Even though the old man is gone, even though sin
doesn’t rule and dominate, “the flesh” remains.
Some insist here, “It’s the same thing to say
‘the flesh’ and ‘the old nature.” But to that we ask in
response, how can these be the same when they are
different words? We must be precise. We still sin not because of the “old nature”—a
term that immediately implies something inbred that we
can’t control—but because the
new spiritual man is still in the physical body and must
still contend with the infirmities of “the
flesh.”
The Greek
for “flesh” is sarx, which occurs 96 times in
Paul’s Epistles (including five in Hebrews). It refers
to the physical body 37 times (e.g, Rom. 2:28), to
humanity or that which is human 25 times (e.g., 3:20),
and to inherent evil in the human nature 27 times
(e.g., 7:5). Romans 7:5, in fact, clearly defines this
third use of “flesh”: “For when we were [Greek imperfect
tense, “were and continue to be”] in the flesh, the
motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our
members to bring forth fruit unto death.” “Motions” is
an Old English term for “impulses,” which is the idea in
the Greek pathema, from pathos
(English, “pathology”), “which describes the emotions of
the soul, i.e., human feelings, and impulses which a man
does not produce within himself but finds already
present, and by which he can be carried away.” In
Classical Greek, “it acquired a predominately negative
meaning, that of passion.”[iii] We can, indeed, be
carried away by our passions. In short, “the flesh”
is the animal and selfish inclinations, the
self-centered perversity and propensity inherent and
co-existing in our humanity.
How often do we
think that Satan is our greatest enemy? While in the
spiritual realm, he is certainly the ultimate foe, our
greatest enemy in our personal experience is ourselves,
our flesh. As Martin Luther wrote, “I dread my own heart
more than the pope and all his cardinals, for within me
is the greater pope, even self.”
So, it’s not that we
have “two natures” or “two minds.” We are not spiritual
schizophrenics. We are not beings with a split
personality or bipolar disorder, where one nature or
personality is trying to suppress the other. Rather we
have two “states of mind,” the spirit and the
flesh. We are now “partakers of the divine
nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the
world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:4; emphasis added). The
divine nature is present because the Holy Spirit
regenerated our dead spirit, now making it alive and
empowering it by His continuous indwelling. But at the
same time, while our “spirit indeed is willing . . . the
flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). This explains why the
words “pride,” “proud,” and “self” are
never used in a positive way
in Scripture. Pride is of the flesh, and it is the
flesh, our passions, our impulses, that are our problem.
Recognizing this
distinction enables us to understand the truth of the
text by expanding the translation of Romans 7:15–25.
Meditate on the willingness of the spirit (the
divine nature) but the weakness of the
flesh:
For that which I
[the flesh] do, I [the spirit] allow not:
for what I [the spirit] would, that [I] [the
flesh] [do] not; but what I [the spirit]
hate, that do I [the flesh].
If then I [the
flesh] do that which I [the spirit] would
not, I [the spirit] consent
unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I [the
one undivided personality] that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me [the one me, not “us”]. For I [the
spirit] know that in me (that is, in my flesh,)
[the flesh] dwelleth no good thing: for to will
is present with me [the spirit]; but how to
perform that which is good I [the spirit] find
not. . . .
For I [the
spirit] delight in the law of God after the inward
man [the spirit]: But I [the spirit] see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind [the spirit], and bringing me [the one me,
not “us”] into captivity to the law of sin which is in
my [not “our”] members. O wretched man that I
[the flesh] am! who shall deliver me [the
total me] from the body of this death? I thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself [the total me] serve
the law of God; but with the flesh the law of
sin.[iv]
So within
the one “total me” there is the
spirit and the
flesh. The question that now arises is, “How does
the spirit rule? How do we deal with those passions and
impulses that remain? How do we deal with this flesh?”
Indeed, if Paul had stopped with Romans 7, we would have
cause for deep depression. But Paul did not stop there.
He goes on in Romans 8 to reveal the wondrous truth that
the indwelling Holy Spirit provides the victory over the
flesh. In fact, “the flesh” is never mentioned in
chapter 8 without the Holy Spirit also being
mentioned (vs. 1, 3–4, 5, 8–9,
12–13).
We have, therefore,
been freed from sin in two ways: freed from the old man
positionally by the past action of Christ (Rom.
6) and then practically
(experientially) from “the flesh” by the indwelling Holy
Spirit (Rom. 7–8). Ponder this:
We do not have
the inability to sin, but we do have the ability not to
sin.
Did you get it? Have
we reached sinless perfection? Have we reached the point
where we no longer sin? Certainly not. But we still have
the ability not to sin; we can still claim the victory
over sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. No longer can
we say, “I just couldn’t help it. It’s just part of my
nature. It’s just who I am.” Yes, we can “help
it” because of the Holy Spirit. Even though our passions
and impulses are strong, we can claim the victory,
something that is impossible to claim when we insist
that sin is still part of our nature. We are now “partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world
through lust” (2 Pet. 1:4).
As I
Corinthians 10:13 then declares: “There hath no
temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but
God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted
above that ye are able; but will with the temptation
also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear
it.” God promises that temptation to sin will never
overwhelm us, that even our passions and impulses do not
control us.
How often do we try
to run and hide from the sins that defeat us, or worse,
try to excuse them? Each one is the wrong approach. We
can and must face our passions and impulses. In the
power of the Holy Spirit, we can say, “I’m not afraid of
you. I’m not going to run away from you. I claim God’s
power in my life to deliver me from myself. I’m
not the old man, so I’m not going to act
like the old man.”
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology (Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 1, p.
73.
[ii] In my humble opinion, Baxter’s
trilogy on the Christian doctrine of sanctification is
unequalled: A New Call To Holiness, His Deeper
Work In Us, and Our High Calling
(Zondervan).
[iii] Brown, Vol. 3, p.
719.
[iv] Adapted from Baxter, His
Deeper Work in Us (p.
136).
