Last week I ended my commentary on Proverbs 28.19 with the conclusion that the overall thrust of the passage taught that the people of God need divine instruction (i.e. the Word of God) to keep in step with God and the community of faith, and that without God’s instruction, vis-à-vis the Bible, preaching, parental and pedagogic instruction (i.e. Christian education) the people lose their way, and their joy, and they are destroyed. Then I pointed to a brief overview of biblical history would indicate that this is exactly what happened to Israel and Judah when they strayed from divine instruction. While they may have retained some outward conformity to biblical norms, it was not enough to keep them on track, which led to their eventual destruction. That leads us to today as I continue on the subject of perishing from casting off restraint vs. the blessedness of living in covenant with God. The Apostle Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans as if he is addressing Proverbs 28.19 with an entire letter. He’s not, but it is clear that his address, especially to the Jews, that Paul has in mind the difference between authentic righteousness rather than nationalistic righteousness. With that dichotomy in mind, I turn to Romans 12.2, which instructs the community of faith to avoid outward conformity (more specifically to the world) and to pursue internal transformation:
“Do not be conformed to this world,
but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,
that by testing you may discern what is the will of God,
what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12.2
In the epistle to the Romans, Paul opens the letter with commentary on the human condition and need for God in the life of both Jew and Gentile. Paul then proceeds to explain that both are in the same predicament; both Jew and Gentile need the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ. What is different, says Paul, is that the Jew has grown up with this life-education model of tôrah, or instruction, as was explained earlier in this chapter, while the Gentile has been devoid of this kind of covenant tutelage. Paul feels the need to instruct Gentile Christians on how to live rightly, according to covenant. After Paul has rearticulated to both Jews and Gentiles what right living is, according to covenant, and why it is so important, Paul begins in Romans 12.2 to expound on the idea that this new way of living that can only be experienced through transformation, which Paul says comes about through the renewing of the mind.
Of first note, this entire passage is written in the form of a command, indicating that there is an expectation that the reader should take some kind of initiative, and that the task is something he or she can accomplish. In other words, Paul expected them to do something about it and not just wait for it to happen to them “miraculously.” In this verse, the Apostle Paul, contrasts the verbs conforming and transforming. Some have argued that there is no significant difference between the two words, while others are convinced that the two verbs are antonyms as basic as inward and outward.[1] In the writings of Paul, conforming is “bad” or at least undesirable while transforming, in contrast, is “good” and possible. Thus the major considerations in this text are: 1) what does it mean to be conformed to this world? 2) Exactly what does Paul mean by transformation? 3) And what does the Apostle Paul mean when he speaks of the renewing of the mind?
Let’s begin with the English word, ‘conforming’, which is suschêmatízesthe, in the Greek and is translated: form or to mold after something. [2] This word is tied to the dative word ‘to aioni’ (this world or this age) and together they mean that Paul did not want them to be molded into this present age.[3] The “present age” is in contrast with that which Paul desires them to be transformed into. N.T. Wright on this subject notes that, ‘“The way of the world is’ is a powerful, insidious force . . . ”[4] However, what is objectionable specifically, apart from the fact that it is not the will of God, is not spelled out for the reader. So what is it that Paul wants them to not be like? The implication from the broader context of Romans would seem to be that Paul wants them to live in contrast with a life full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, etcetera, the way-of-life, described in Romans 1.29-32.[5] (Don’t forget Paul did not divide the letter into chapters and verses, or those often ridiculous headings.) Paul wrote a letter and the whole letter has cohesive thoughts that run from front to back.
The word in juxtaposition is the word for transformation, metamorphoûsthe, is the word from which the English word metamorphosis is derived. The word is typically used in reference to physical change, like the change from caterpillar to that of a butterfly, but it has been used in religious literature to sometimes refer to changes that cannot be perceived by the natural eye.[6] The use of the word, which is not uncommon in Hellenistic mythology, often refers to moments when divine beings take on human form or when people are transformed into other beings by use of mystical ritual (i.e. magic).[7] In Christian literature, the use of metamorphoûsthe, as to the change of spiritual condition, only occurs two times and both times are in the writings of Paul (2 Corinthians 3.18 & Romans 12.2). In both texts, Paul used it to communicate a kind of change that cannot be perceived by the eye, yet is a perceivable reality.[8] This is seen more clearly, when one considers the contrast between the transforming of the mind and the conforming to the world.
So how do these two words work together and against one another? The Greek word ‘suschêmatízesthe’ which is translated conforming in the English Standard Version (ESV) is concerned with the outward (schêma) while transforming is concerned with the inward (morphé), meaning that Paul is looking for a change at the deepest level and not just posture or attitude that can be changed at will.[9]
Paul continues the phrase, with the word, ánakainôsei, translated in the ESV as renewal, which is unique to Christian literature[10] and simply means to renew or restore. The combination of these words, ‘transformation’ (metamorphoûsthe) and ‘renewal’ (ánakainôsei), Dunn believes, may indicate some sort of balance of continuity and discontinuity with the Jews’ previous understanding of covenant righteousness, but that Paul is also indicating that some fundamental attitudes must be changed and a new perspective taken up.[11] Christianity and Judaism, while rooted in the same narratives, have significantly different understandings of what it means to be the people of God, and what the intended outcome is meant to be. What then is the new perspective Paul wants them to adopt?
As was mentioned before, in this specific text, the reader is only told that being transformed by the “renewal of your mind” will allow one to “discern what is the will of God.” (Some have argued here that Paul did not mean to say that one would be enabled to discern, but that it is something that every renewed person will have already done in the process of being renewed.[12]) The implication is that a renewed mind is a discerning mind.
N.T. Wright is instructive when he says, “Being trained to think “Christianly” is the necessary antidote to what will otherwise happen.”[13] In other words, the specifics are not as important, as much as the transformation that will result when the mind is renewed. Whatever that renewal of the mind produces, that will be the desired outcome. Philip Melanchthon, Martin Luther’s student and fellow Reformer, believed that this was, “the will of God set forth in his commandments and promises.”[14] Calvin echoed Melanchthon, and went on to say that, “The world praises itself, and takes delight in its own inventions; but Paul affirms, that nothing pleases God except what he has commanded. The world, in order to find perfection, slides from the word of God into its own devices; Paul by fixing perfection in the will of God, shows that if any one passes over that mark he is deluded by a false imagination.”[15] These assertions by Calvin and Melanchthon were that the will of God, and the law, along with its promises, are what Paul meant when he said “the will of God” in Romans 12.2. While their inferences are more speculative than Wright, it would seem that Calvin and Melanchthon’s inferences are reasonable in light of Paul’s statement in Romans 2.18, which equates knowing the will of God with knowing the law.[16] Looking over the whole of Romans chapters 12-15, this section seems to be a treatise on Christian living in which 12.1-2 would be the opening introduction. In that case, the will of God is summed up in the ideals expressed by Calvin and Melanchthon, in as much as the topics in chapters 12-15 are all in keeping with this theme of the will of God as being the same as the law of God. This of course assumes that by the “law of God,” Paul meant the spirit of the law, rather than the very letter of the law.
The last part of the phrase, noós, translated mind in this text, in the ESV, was widely used in Hellenistic philosophical and religious thought to articulate a concept of reason, which was an equivalent with spirit.[17] In Philo’s fusion of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish religion, there is a sense of cosmology and mysticism associated with the word.[18] However, in the New Testament, 21 out of 24 times, Paul uses the word, with no connection to any mystico-religious use.[19] Neither is it equated with the words pneúma (spirit) or psuché (soul) as in the popular usage of the Greeks.[20] Instead, Würthwein, a Greek Scholar, argues that it is a moral word and is strictly associated with disposition or moral consciousness.[21] This makes the use of this word in the New Testament, and especially in the works of the Apostle Paul, distinct. Reading the text, with this understanding of the mind as the moral conscience, makes the most sense in the larger context of the passage. This is probably referring back to the whole idea of surrendering the body as an act of worship.[22] The point is that the change of mind that Paul suggest, from the Romans 12.2, is not a new thought or idea, but a completely different way of thinking, that makes the mind as if it were new. Two great thinkers go in very divergent processes at this point. Karl Barth felt that this change was simply repentance and a shift toward ethical behavior,[23] but John Calvin thought that the mind of humanity was actually opposed to the work of God, and that renovation of the mind was absolutely necessary before one could prove what is the will of God.[24] While Calvin’s estimations of the unconverted mind are harsh, they draw the contrast of the text to a fine point. Metamorphosis, the process of change, leaves little of the previous incarnation of mind before Christ, and leads the disciple into a new consciousness, that allows him or her to test and approve what God’s will is. If that is true, then what does Paul mean when he says, ‘that by testing you may discern what is the will of God’?
Well, I have a lot more to say about that, but this is getting long, so I will continue that thought in next week’s edition (Part III of "Without Vision the People Perish.")
[1]Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 435.
[2]συσχηματιζεστε in the The Greek New Testament, ed. Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Alen Wikgren (London: UBS, 1966), ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 12:2.
[3]“συσχηματιζω” in Walter Bauer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed., rev. William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1952), 803.
[4]N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2010), 152.
[5]Romans 1:29-32, ESV.
[6]J. Behm, “μεταμορφόω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:755-759.
[7]Ibid.
[9]Morris, 435.
[12]Morris, 436.
[13]Wright, 151.
[14]Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer, (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1992), 213.
[15]John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1947), 455.
[16]Romans 2:18.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid.
[23]Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans. Trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns. (London: Oxford, 1933), 434-438.
[24]John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1947), 454-55.
Enjoyed Part two of your blog; Hal: Am looking forward to reading part three of next week's blog.
ReplyDelete