71 - Are You Trying to Resuscitate Your "Old Man?" [B]

Are You Trying to Resuscitate Your “Old Man?”
Romans 6:5–10
Romans Lesson #071
August 23, 2012
www.deanbibleministries.org

There is one school of thought that pastors who refer to Greek and Hebrew are just showing off. That is not true—or it shouldn’t be true. It is a point of validation of translation. It is important to understand these things because translations, especially in difficult passages, are often victims of the translator’s theological proclivities or limitations. We need to always be careful of that. It doesn’t mean we can’t understand the text in the English translation without going to the Greek or Hebrew but sometimes there are passages that need a little more help in getting to what they are saying because a strict translation can’t fully grasp all of the nuances that are embedded in the original language. We certainly never want to communicate that we shouldn’t read out English Bible because we might get confused. If we are reading Greek or Hebrew we are going to get confused over other things. No language is perfect and Greek does not solve every problem; it can muddy the water as much as clear the water.

The foundation in Romans chapter six is understanding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If we don’t grasp that in terms of our foundational, mental framework for interpreting the details in our lives, if that is not the glasses we are wearing when we look at our life, we are not going to respond biblically in terms of our spiritual life and spiritual growth. Everything must be placed within the context of who we are as image bearers of God, what that means and who God is. Once we grasp that then the application gets fairly simple.

There are two basic ways to understand the term “old man.” One is that it is the sin nature, but that just doesn’t work because the sin nature is still alive and well in our bodies. But the old man is dead. There is a real separation there that has occurred and that is the foundation for Paul’s who argument.

If the sin nature is dead then we have a problem with Romans 6:14–25 which depicts the believer’s struggle with sin. We have a problem with sin, it is not dead, but the old man is dead. Romans 6 teaches very clearly: the old man is dead, crucified with Christ in the baptism by the Holy Spirit.

In the long discourse Paul had in Colossians chapter two is a depiction of the positional removal of the power of the sin nature, which is what occurs in the baptism by the Holy Spirit. What came out of that was some conclusions. For example, Colossians 2:20 ^NASB “If you have died [and you did, 1^st class condition] with Christ …” That is picture that Paul talks about in Romans 6 in relation to the baptism by the Holy Spirit. Romans 6:2, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it? [3] … all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (Colossians 2:20) … [6] knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him}.” So again, we died with Him. [7] “for he who has died is justified from sin.” That is what Colossians 2:20, 3:1, 3 are all talking about. We died with Him; we are raised with Him.

Colossians 3:3 ^NASB “For you have died …” It is not you died if you act like it. You died; it is a statement of reality. You died at that instant; the old man died. “… and your life is hidden with Christ in God”—present reality. [5] “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead …” He shifts from positional to experiential. The reality is that you are dead to the old man, not to the sin nature; you are dead to everything you were before you were saved. But you are still living that way. We all do that, we put ourselves back under the tyranny of our sin nature. Now we have to experientially separate ourselves from that power of the sin nature; we have to put to death our members which are on the earth.

Colossians 3:8 ^NASB “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, {and} abusive speech from your mouth.” He uses the term APOTITHEMI, which has this picture of removing clothes. It is experiential. But what we are removing here is certain actions, certain sins that characterize sin nature control; not the old man.

Colossians 3:10 ^NASB “and have [past tense, statement of reality] put on the new self …” Aorist participle, it is a done deal and not a process. We have put on a new identity, a new person.

Colossians 3:9 ^NASB “Do not lie to one another …” It is a present tense command, which means that right now we are not to lie to one another. “… since [because] you [already] laid aside …” Past tense, so the action of that participle occurs prior to lying to one another. He is stating a previous reality. “… the old self with its {evil} practices.” That happens because the old man is dead. And you have “put on the new man” – also past tense, so he is referring to a positional reality. This is so important. You are not the person you were. That is the old man; you have a new identity and a new capability, new disposition.

As a result of that, Colossians 3:12 ^NASB “So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” These are specific virtues; it’s not talking about the new man here. The new man was put on. Because you now have a new identity, now you need to take control of actions in terms of your own life in producing those virtues. That is produced by your walk by the Spirit.

The old man died when we trusted in Christ and we became a new person in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:17. The Colossians 3 passage tells us that the old man has been put off; the new man has been put on. This happened at salvation with the baptism by the Holy Spirit.

When we go to the parallel passage in Ephesians 4 it gets a little funky. The reason is that the grammar in the Greek is different; it is fuzzy. In Ephesians 4:20-24 the key verbs related to putting off the old man, v. 22, and being renewed, v. 23, are infinitives. Then “put on” in v. 24 is another infinitive. Infinitives have, to say the least, a little bit of a complex grammatical function.

In the first three chapters of Ephesians Paul goes through the underlying doctrines related to the spiritual life. Then in chapter four he starts talking about the practical implications of what he has said in the first three chapters. Ephesians 4:1 ^NASB “Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called.” He is obviously talking about the Christian life. The imagery of the walk is, how do you live moment by moment in the Christian life? In the next section from verse 7 to 14 he talks about the foundation for this. And the foundation is that first of all you have to have a pastor-teacher who is going to equip you to do the work of the ministry. A pastor-teacher is going to teach you the Word and until that happens you are as lost and as hopeless as you can be in trying to figure it all out.

Then he is talking about what has happened in terms of the Gentiles. Ephesians 4:17 ^NASB “So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, [18] being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” So that tells us that there is a twofold problem: ignorance because their heart is blind. (Romans 1 says they are blind because they have chosen to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.)

Ephesians 4:20 ^NASB “But you did not learn Christ in this way.” In other words, you didn’t learn Christ this way, i.e. in terms of the perverse behavior of the Gentiles. [21] “if indeed you have heard Him [and you have, 1^st class condition] and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus.” He makes this statement that you have been taught by Him and you have been taught this truth. What truth have you been taught? In most Bibles verse 21 ends with a colon. That is important and good grammatical identification, because what it is telling us is that verses 22–24 are identifying that truth/doctrine that we have learned about Christ. This truth is related to our life in Christ. So he is not talking about how to get into Christ. We are in Christ and this is the truth that we have learned.

Ephesians 4:22 ^NASB “that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside [should be understood as: have already put off] the old self, which is being corrupted [ongoing process] in accordance with the lusts of deceit.” The sin nature corrupts and corrupts and corrupts. The “deceitful lusts” is the core motivator in the sin nature. [23] “and that you be renewed …” Now he changes from a past tense or an aorist infinitive to a present infinitive. What he is really saying is: “you are to be renewed in the spirit of your mind”—not in the spirit of your feeling, not in the spirit of your emotions, your mystical liver-quiver, but in your mind. The Christian life starts with knowledge again and again and again. [24] “and [you have already] put on the new self, which in {the likeness of} God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” This sounds if it is just read in most English translations that you “put off”—that sounds like a command—and “put on”—that sounds like a command. That is the fuzziness here. It is not an imperative; it is an infinitive. But the odd thing is that there is the use of the infinitive that can be imperatival, and so there are many people who take this as an imperatival infinitive, which means that it contradicts Romans 6 and Colossians 3.

There are four key verbs here. Remember that in Greek grammar infinitives and participles are always tied to explaining something about the main verb. The main verb here is “taught” (v. 21), and what follows v. 21 is an explanation of the truth that they have been taught in the past. There are three of these infinitives that are mentioned there. Put off and put on are both aorist tense infinitives, which is a past action, although outside of the indicative mood time is not that important in terms of understanding tense; it is more the kind of action that is there. Then “be renewed” is ongoing action, a present infinitive. Put off and put on reflect APOTITHEMI, the same word as in Colossians 3:9. And “put off” is an aorist middle infinitive. The aorist means it is past action, the middle voice means that the individual receives the benefits of the action, and it is an infinitive, which means that it is not a finite verb, and that is where we get into the grammar problem. And ENDUO, which is the opposite (put on) is the same grammatical construction; it is an aorist middle infinitive. But in contrast to those that are in the past there is a present passive infinitive, “be renewed.”

So what is the thrust of this? Verse 21 is really introducing a prior statement, a prior teaching, something that Paul taught them before. But he is couching this in indirect discourse. Example: ‘I told him to go to the store.’ That is indirect discourse. If I say: ‘I told him, go to the store,’ that is direct discourse; giving a direct quotation. If it is indirect discourse I am simply saying, I told him something; it is not giving the direct quote. If you move from the indirect to the direct, at least in the Greek, there is something significant that goes on there. If you go from the direct command, I told him, ‘Go to the store’ and then say it as indirect, ‘I told him to go to the store,’ the tense of the original command is preserved. Another example: ‘He claimed to have gone to the store’ is indirect discourse, and then, He made the claim, ‘I went to the store’ is a direct discourse.

In Greek you do the same thing, you have direct and indirect discourse. An indirect discourse is not giving a quote of what was said in the past, it is saying for example, ‘I taught you this: that Christ died for your sins’ or ‘You are to forgive one another.’

A second example: In the first statement we say, ‘I taught you that you put off the old man.’ The “that” in there tells us that it is indirect discourse. If it was direct discourse it would be like, ‘I taught you, you put off the old man.’ It is referring to something that was said in the past; it is a statement of reality. But if I transferred that statement to an indirect I would say: ‘I taught you that you put off the old man.’ But there is something ambiguous in this, because in the Greek it could also be translated, ‘I taught you, put off the old man’—an imperative. So the grammatical structure could go one of two ways. You could legitimately translate it as a statement of reality: ‘I taught you that you have put off the old man’ or, ‘I taught you to put off the old man.’ Both are legitimate translations.

In the early 20^th century (several errors crept into our understanding of Greek grammar around the turn of the century) an error crept into Greek grammar that there was no instance of an aorist infinitive in the New Testament that represented an original statement of an aorist indicative. Going back to our previous example, the original statement is: I taught you. That is past tense. But when I taught you this in the past I said, You put off the old man. That is referring back to that; that is the original statement. This would be an indicative mood when it was originally stated, but when converting this into an indirect discourse and use an infinitive it would be, I taught you that you put off the old man. Now it gets fuzzy.

The statement that “There is no instance of an aorist infinitive in the New Testament that represented an original statement of an aorist indicative.” We are saying he is wrong.

Historically all such aorist infinitives were translated as aorist imperatives, including Ephesians 4:22. That is why when we read it in our English translations it reads like it is an imperative: I taught you that you put off. It comes across sounding like it is an imperative because of this principle. But the problem is not only a grammatical problem: it contradicts the usage in Romans 6 and Colossians 3. The solution to this is that the mood, i.e. trying to decide if this is imperative or indicative, actually derives from the mood of the controlling verb. The problem is that about 95 per cent of the uses where there is an aorist infinitive in an indirect discourse statement in the New Testament, the controlling verb … in the others it is, I urge you to [colon]. The main controlling verb has an imperatival sense which is transferred to the infinitive, but when it is just stated here ‘I taught you” there is no imperatival sense in that main verb in v. 21. It is just a statement of reality. And there are only about two or three of these in the New Testament.

This is important because it has serious theological implications. Because if we are still trying to put off the old man then the old man isn’t dead. But on this basis we can understand that what Paul is saying here is, I taught you something—I taught you that you have already put off the old man. That is what he says in Romans 6 and Colossians 3. Why? Because the old man is dead. That is what happened at the baptism by the Holy Spirit.

What this means is this. Historically error crept in in the early 20^th century, that all aorist infinitives should be translated as an imperative. That may be true in 90–95 per cent of the uses in the New Testament but that is because the main verb is imperatival. But there are about three or four cases where the main verb is not an imperative, and in those it is talking about a past action that was simply described as a reality. So we translate Ephesians 4:21 in this way: “If indeed [and you have] been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: [22] that you have already put off the old man …” That is what Paul had taught them previously. Then he describes the old man here, the same way he did in Colossians. “… which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.” That is the characteristic of the old man, the unbeliever, the person before regeneration. In [23] he shifts to a present infinitive, “and are being renewed in the spirit of your mind.” Present tense action: you are being renewed. [24] “and have already put on the new self [man], which in {the likeness of} God has been created [past tense] in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” We are being renewed according to the image of Christ because we have put on this new identity.

Paul is declaring what he did in Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ.” The old man is dead, and we have to grasp that if we are going to understand our new identity in Christ. “…and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh [physical life] I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” The old man is dead; now the issue is our volition.

Spiritual death is separation from God; positional death means we are separated from our old man and we are separated from the tyranny of the sin nature. Now the new man has to learn how to live like a new man. We have to learn that new identity. This is clearly stated in passages like 2 Corinthians 5:17 ^NASB “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” It is final; it is not a process. Galatians 6:15 ^NASB “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” Romans 6:4 ^NASB “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” That is the whole point of this. We can walk in a new quality of life.

The next six verses in Romans 6 consist of two sets of three. Romans 6:5-10 ^NASB “For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.”

Verses 5, 6 and 7 have the same grammatical structure as verses 8, 9, and 10. Both begin with an “if” clause stating the reality of something. The middle verses in both sections start with a verb for knowing. It is GINOSKO, OIDA in the other. It is a causal participle, emphasizing that because we know something—again it is emphasizing that we have to know certain things if we are going to go anywhere in the Christian life. Then the last verse explains an implication.

These also pick up some main ideas, like death and resurrection. In v. 5, “if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death.” We were united with Christ by baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Notice it is a logical structure. It starts with an assumption in verse 5, then a principle we should know in verse 6, then a concluding implication in verse 7. The concluding implication of verse 7: “for he who has died has been justified from sin.” This becomes the assumption of verse 8: “if we have died with Christ.” He is going to build on that to a conclusion.

Romans 6:5 ^NASB “For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection.” Probably at first blush every one of us would say that this is talking about phase three. That would be wrong. This is not talking about the future resurrection but the experience of that new resurrection life and power now. What this passage is talking about is our new life in Christ now. The future tense at the end of the verse, “certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection,”—resurrection is the picture and the portrait of our new life in Christ. Death is analogous to our break with the old man; the resurrection is analogous to our new life in Christ.

So we have those same ideas, death and life. If we died with Christ we believe that we shall also live with Him. That theme all through Romans 6 is that the life here is not future life after we die but the quality of life that we have here and now—the abundant life that Jesus talked about in John 10:10.

In verse 6 he talks about the principles of something: “knowing this, that our old self [man] was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with [abolished], so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.” It has the idea of nullifying the power of the sin nature so we won’t be experientially slaves to sin anymore. That is parallel to v. 9 which talks about the fact that after Christ was raised from the dead death no longer had any authority over you. So the point is, your sin nature no longer has authority over you.

Romans 6:7 is the explanation: “for he who has died is justified [declared righteous] from sin.” Verse 10, “For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all …” It is a point in time action that changes everything after it. “… but the life that He lives, He lives to God.” Death means that the sin nature no longer has the right to rule, so why keep trying to resuscitate the old man and give the sin nature power? What this is saying is that the sin nature is a tyrant and whenever we sin we are just saying, it is okay for the sin nature to dominate my life. We are just going to live like a dead person with the corrupting influence of the sin nature. This is what happens with a lot of believers who are living in carnal or temporal death. They put themselves under the authority of the sin nature and as a result are still living like an unbeliever.

The point in using 1 John 1:9 is that you can recover from sin, not so you can continue to sin. The emphasis is staying in fellowship, not getting back into fellowship.

Romans 6:11 ^NASB “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” The most irrational thing any of us can do is to let the sin nature dominate our life.