basics of pauline ethics

INDICATIVE AND IMPERATIVE: THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF PAULINE ETHICS

by WILLIAM D. DENNISON

INTRODUCTION

I N OUR day, the evangelical community is experiencing concern over the discipline of ethics. This concern is justified because it is becoming apparent that the ethical problems which have permeated secular society are also increasingly becoming the ethical problems of the evangelical community. Therefore, the evangelical community, especially those within it who labor in the areas of theology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology have found themselves struggling to answer the ethical problems which confront us. This is understandable since many of the ethical problems which we are facing are extremely complex. However, it seems to this writer that there is little reflection in these areas upon the hermeneutical structural issue of methodology, i.e., What is the structure of Biblical ethics?; or, at least as far as the perspective of this article is concerned, What is the structure of Pauline ethics?1 The nature of such questions probes much deeper than merely the Biblical application of ethical directives, i.e., principles for daily living. What is at stake is a balanced foundational structure of ethics for the new covenant com-munity. It is my concern that the evangelical community reflect fruitfully upon recent New Testament interpretation about the basic structure of Pauline ethics. If the basic structure and balance is to be found in the in-dicative and the imperative (where recent interpretation believes it is), then we must ask. Are we Pauline in the basic structure of our ethical for-mulations and are we employing this structure in our everyday walk in Christ?

*We too often see in the approaches taken (also, I might add, in pastoral counseling) a hermeneutic that views its task to be little more than a direct application of biblical injunc-tions (Old Testament as well as New) to man's contemporary ethical questions and prob-lems rather than first discerning the structure of ethics which is presented in the Bible.

55

56 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Our comments thus far necessitate proceeding in two directions: 1) to demonstrate by a brief historical survey that recent New Testament in-terpretation has indeed discovered that the indicative and the imperative is the basic structure of Pauline ethics;2 and 2) to show the basic formula-tion and content of this structure in the writings of Paul himself.

BRIEF HISTORICAL SURVEY In this century New Testament interpretation has focused upon

eschatology as a central motif in the theology of Saint Paul.3 It is inter-esting to note that corresponding with this development has been an in-terest in the "ethics" of Paul per se as a separate topic of investigation. New Testament interpreters have become very interested in under-standing the relationship of Paul's ethics to his eschatological framework.4 Assuming Paul's eschatological framework, they have

2It will be apparent that in our brief historical survey of Pauline interpretation we will not focus exclusively upon evangelical interpretation. This is due to the fact that we are surveying two grammatical terms that have historically come to distinguish the Pauline structure of ethics. Though the terms have arisen from liberal interpretation, it does not follow that these terms and their theological content are themselves liberal. The terms merely state the structure of Paul's ethics. As a matter of fact, what we will soon discover is that Paul's content, which is most essential to his structure, is totally in alignment with the evangelical faith.

3This position can be found in three well-known critical scholars: Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters (London: A. & C. Black, 1912); C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936); and Rudolf Bult-mann, "History and Eschatology in the New Testament," New Testament Studies, I (1954), pp. 5-16. This position was held as early as 1911 in the evangelical community by the out-standing exegete, Geerhardus Vos, in his article "The Pauline Eschatology and Chiliasm," The Princeton Theological Review, IX (January, 1911), pp. 26-60; cf. also his works on "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," Biblical and Theological Studies (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912), pp. 211-259 and The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1930), pp. 1-41.

4This can be demonstrated in chapter three of Vos's The Pauline Eschatology which is en-titled, 'The Religious and Ethical Motivation of Paul's Eschatology." Though Vos did not use the two grammatical termsindicative and imperativeto distinguish Paul's ethical structure, one cannot read him without realizing that the theological content of those terms was taught in a proper balance by him. We hope to make this evident in the next section. Also in the context of ethics and eschatology one may consult D. H. Wendland, "Ethik und Eschatologie in der Theologie des Paulus," Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 41 (1930), pp. 757-7S3, 793-811; and J. H. Burtness, Eschatology and Ethics in the Pauline Epistles: A Study of Six Current Interpretations [Schweitzer, Dodd, Barth, Nygren, Bultmann, Cullmannl (Princeton: Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1958).

THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF PAULINE ETHICS 57

realized that the Pauline construction of the indicative and the imperative plays a fundamental role in the structure of his eschatological ethics. Therefore, a discussion of the relationship of the indicative and the imperative has become a focal point for most serious deliberations concerning Pauline ethics. It is in light of this development and his own exegesis that Herman Ridderbos defines what is meant by these two grammatical terms in Paul's theology.

What is meant is that the new life in its moral manifestation is at one time proclaimed and posited as the fruit of the redemptive work of God in Christ through the Holy Spiritthe indicative; elsewhere, however, it is put with no less force as a categorical demandthe imperative.5

This sentiment summarizes the Pauline structure as it has been understood since the late 19th century.

The work of Paul Wernle, Der Christ and die Sunde bei Paulus (1897), is very important in the formulation of the relationship between the indicative and the imperative. Basically, he understood that relationship as a tension or contradiction. He states that the indicative is expressed in Paul by speaking of the Holy Spirit as the power which takes man from this world order and transfers him into a higher world order. However, concerning the imperative, he says that the Spirit is a high, divine potentiality in man in which the Christian himself participates in the road to victory.6 Wernle concludes that we have "an ethic of miracle and an ethic of will here quite abruptly merged into one another."7 By the designation of a double-ethic and the use of such language as "abruptly merged," Wernle is content to understand that there was a tension or contradiction between the two moods without making any serious attempt to see how they are fused together in the life of Paul. At this time, this represented a radical conclusion. Before Wernle, H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti8 and Hermann

'Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, tr. John Richard DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), p. 253. For the use of the indicative and the imperative in Greek grammatical structure see Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Latest reprint 1973), pp. 6, 7, 80.

'For support of this understanding of Wernle see Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968), p. 247.

7Paul Wernle, Der Christ und die Sunde bei Paulus (Freiburg i. . und Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J. C. B. Mohr, 1897), p. 89.

*Die Ethik des Aposteh Paulus in ihren Grundzugen dargestellt (Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck und Ruprechts Verlag, 1880), pp. 25, 105.


von Soden9 spoke of the new life as a "spontaneous" result of an "in-terpntration" (Ernesti) or "fusion" (von Soden) of the power of God and man's will.10 Wernle had divorced himself from such interpretation by merely observing an "intermingling" between two separate ethical concepts which contradicted each other. It is quite probable that the reason Wernle did not attempt a fusion in this aspect of Paul's thought was because he described Paul's theology as "enthusiastic." In other words, when one becomes a Christian, sin is no longer a factor in one's life, i.e., he or she becomes sinless. Thus the imperative commands of the will are viewed as contradictions to the indicative's miracle of sinlessness. Wernle's double-ethic presented New Testament interpreters in the field of Pauline ethics with a problem: What is the relationship be-tween these contradictory concepts of the indicative and the imperative?

Hermann Jacoby11 rejected Wernle's "enthusiastic" interpretation of Paul. Jacoby stated that the imperative is used by Paul as exhortation for man to accomplish in fact what God's grace had accomplished in princi-ple (indicative). He wrote that Paul viewed the new life in Christ as a work of God and man, grounded in what God does (indicative), brought about by what man does when guided by the Spirit (imperative).^Chris-tians are engaged in an "ethical process" in which during their Christian life, they "actually become what they are in principle."13Jacoby did not understand Paul's structure as two separate concepts which were con-tradictory; instead there was a dialectical distinction of "principle" (in-dicative) and "actuality" (imperative) existing only within the one ethical framework of the believer's "communion with God."14In this framework Jacoby thought that he had overcome the non-fusion contradictory for-mulation of Wernle by understanding the two moods dialectically. Jacoby's understanding of "principle" (indicative) is nothing more than an abstract concept of God's grace which the believer can never in fact realize or experience unless he brings it into actualization (imperative) by

9 "Die Ethik des Paulus," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, II (1892), p. 145.

"Cf. Furnish, op. cit., p. 245. llNeutestamentliche Ethik (Knigsberg i. Pr.: Verlag von Thomas und Oppermann,

1899). "Furnish, op. cit., p. 250.

"Jacoby, op. cit., pp. 316-317.

"Ibid., p. 291.


the Holy Spirit's abiding presence in his life. Thus the nineteenth century ends with a dialectical interpretation of the relationship of the indicative and the imperative in Pauline literature. Also at this time, no one stated that this relationship was the basic structure of Pauline ethics. It was merely one rubric under Paul's total ethical picture.

Both the dialectical interpretation of the indicative and the imperative, and the understanding that they were an aspect of Paul's total ethical presentation continued into the first quarter of the twentieth century. However, in 1924 Rudolf Bultmann wrote an article in which he focused upon the theological aspect of Paul's ethics.15 In an attempt to grasp the structure of Paul's theological ethics, Bultmann described the indicative and the imperative as the basic structure of Pauline ethics. Thus this arti-cle marked the turning-point in the history of interpretation concerning the basic formula of Paul's theological ethics. No longer was the in-dicative and the imperative a mere aspect of Paul's ethics, but as of 1924 it had been formulated as the key in understanding the totality of his ethics.16 From this time forward Pauline exegetes would either reject, reformulate, or accept Bultmann's interpretation.17

15"Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,

XXIII (1924), pp. 123-140. "Thomas C. Oden, Radical Obedience: The Ethics of Rudolf Bultmann (Philadelphia:

The Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 94-95, says the following concerning Bultmann's con-tribution: " . . . the way in which Bultmann relates these two dimensions of the Christian proclamation, a dialectic that doubtless constitutes one of his most constructive contribu-tions to ethics." Concerning both the distinct contribution of Bultmann to the structure and formulation of these two moods Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 48n., writes that "this relationship of imperative to indicative seems first to have been seen by Rudolf Bultmann."

17It is safe to conclude that those who reject the indicative and the imperative as the most basic structure of Pauline ethics are those who have ignored it or have failed to ask and struggle with the ethical structure of Paul's theology. Typical examples are: Paul Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950) and L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of New Testament Ethics (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1947). Most ex-egetes have attempted to reformulate Bultmann's understanding in both content and struc-ture. Concerning structure, they will acknowledge the two moods; however, they will em-phasize the one or the other as the more basic key. For example, emphasizing the indicative was Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, tr. William Montgomery (Lon-don: A. & C. Black, Ltd., 1931), pp. 293ff., while Hans Windisch, "Das Problem des paulinischen imperatives," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XXIII (1924), pp. 265ff., stressed the imperative. There are those who agree with Bultmann's balanced conclusion of the basic structure of Paul's ethics but in many instances will not agree with Bultmann's dialectical understanding nor how he formulates its content. Falling into this


Bultmann opposed those who stated that there was a logical contradic-tion between the indicative and the imperative. The imperative is grounded in the believer's justification and is "derived from" the in-dicative. His later writings declare that the two moods are "hidden" within one anotherthey cannot be separated because they form an "in-ternal unity."18 Thus he was not sympathetic to Wernle's formulation of a contradictory double-ethic. Furnish correctly summarizes Bultmann's argument against Wernle as follows:

Against Wernle, Bultmann argues that Paul does not hold righteousness or "sinlessness" to involve a change in the "moral quali-ty" of man or to be something perceptible in his life. As an "occur-rence" of grace, justification is only perceptible to faith and can only be believed.19 However, we must exercise extreme caution when we read that

Bultmann interpreted the indicative and the imperative as "hidden within one another" or expressing an "internal unity" between each other. The caution is warranted because this is to be understood dialectically and existentially as two different sides of the same coin. For Bultmann the dialectic means "die Einsicht in die Geschichtlichkeit des menschlichen Seins" (the insight into the true historicality of human existence).20 In this

category are such liberal theologians as Furnish, op. cit., pp. 224-227; Oden, op. cit., pp. 94-140; Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1967), pp. 77ff.; the evangelical exegetes George Elton Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), pp. 524-525, and Herman Ridderbos, op. cit., pp. 253-258. This by no means includes all the names that could be placed in these categories.

"Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1948-1953), p. 428.

"Furnish, op. cit., p. 263. Bultmann, The Old and New Man in the Letters of Paul, tr. Keith R. Crim (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1967), p. 11, also writes the following concerning Wernle's double-ethic: "Sinlessness would have to be taken as a postulate, with the result that the imperatives directly contradict the indicatives, and alongside an ethic of miracle there now appears an ethic of will. This seems to me to be the primary mistake of this interpretation, since Paul bases the imperatives on the fact of justification, deriving them from the indicatives."

20Rudolf Bultmann, "De Bedeuntung der 'dialiktischen Theologie' fur die neutestament-liche Wissenschaft (1928)," Glauben und Verstehen (Tubingen: Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, 1954), I, p. l i a . Cf. also Robert D. Knudsen, "Rudolf Bultmann," Creative Minds in Con-temporary Theology, ed. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), p. 139.


case the New Testament kerygma seems to state that the new creation is an accomplished factindicating a state of existence (indicative) while on the other hand the imperative assumes that the Christian existence is not an accomplished fact. Thus the way this paradox is brought together dialectically is in Geschichte, which refers to "a level of true occurrence, a decisive time or time of decision."21 It is in the realm of Geschichte that man's existence is truly and concretely historical. It is the realm beyond the subject-object relationshipit is existential. It is here that man is "always involved in projecting his possibilities in terms of a particular understanding of himself and his world."22 What man finds himself to be depends only on his decisions in which he can gain or lose himself.23 For the Christian the decision is to believe in the once-for-all event of Jesus Christ. One can only be related to this event in faith (decision). The Christ-event is not open for neutral historical investiga-tion; it is only for faith. The Christ-event is not merely belief in the crucifixion of Christ (which Bultmann does believe actually happened in history), but also belief in the resurrection of Christ (which is not an ac-tual historical occurrence). The Christ-event (death and resurrection) has kerygmatic significance for man's salvation only in the sense that it is for faith. Knudsen comments:

For faith the kerygma is that Jesus has died and is risen again.

"Knudsen, "Rudolf Bultmann," p. 139. Knudsen also points out that "Geschichte can be understood only by distinguishing it carefully from both the particular event (on a certain calendar date) of ordinary history and the timeless principle or meaning which is supposed to be above history."

"Ibid.

"Knudsen (ibid., p. 140) summarizes Bultmann's concept of being and Geschichte; "In true history, one does not set his world, himself, and the other as objects over against himself as a subject. In the spirit of Martin Heidegger, Bultmann seeks to go beyond this distinction of subject and object. Heidegger has said that the very possibility of making this distinction is dependent upon something more fundamental, one's being-in-the-world. In brief, I do not have my being, which I then relate to my world; my being is itself being-in-the-world. I do not exist as an isolated self, which is then related to the other; my being is being-for-the-other. Bultmann has applied this existential thinking to his theology. At the heart of his criticism of generalizing thought is the idea that I am not related to myself as to something outside of myself, for example, an ideal to be attained for a true explanation or understanding of myself; only in relation to what is absolutely and completely concrete-historical, even as my being is also exhaustively concrete-historical." Knudsen discusses Heidegger's concept of being which influenced Bultmann more extensively in "Roots of the New Theology," Scripture and Confession, ed. John H. Skilton (N.P: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 260-268.


Bultmann is certain that it is an actual historical occurrence that Jesus was crucified. He is just as sure that Jesus did not rise actually from the dead. In the kerygma there is the intertwining of the historical and the unhistorical. They are both present in what is the object of faith.24 In returning to Bultmann's formulation of the indicative and the im-

perative, these moods can only be "hidden within one another" or have an "internal unity" in the realm of Geschichte, in which the being of man believes in the Christ-event for his own human existence. The indicative is the Christian, who as a new creature existentially believes in the Christ-event and therefore the verdict of justification is already (eschatologically) given in his human existence. For Bultmann, the in-dicative can only be realized or laid hold of in the Christian's experience by the imperative, i.e., man's daily existential decision to walk in the obedience of God by faith in the Christ-event. There is no possibility within Bultmann's formulation that the actual historical death and resur-rection of Christ can be part of the experience of the Christian believer. Therefore, we must exhibit extreme caution with respect to Bultmann's concept of "hiddenness" or "internal unity" because it is dialectically and existentially formulated.

The relationship of Jacoby, i.e., "become what you are in principle," Bultmann understands as being too idealistic. Bultmann's perceptive analysis sees that Jacoby's concept of "principle" (indicative) is merely an "idea" of the perfect man which must be realized in the endless ethical progress of "actualization" (imperative).25 Bultmann writes, "In this idealistic sense the transcendence of 'perfection' is conceived as the 'idea's' transcendence, and man's relation to it is regarded (Stoically ex-pressed) as a 'progressing' or a 'tending' toward it."26 However, Bultmann declared that the concept of the indicative found in Paul's writings indicated an actual state of existence by faith (not a "principle"). The believer's new creation is an accomplished fact in which the old man has actually passed away having been justified in what Bultmann calls the Christ-event (crucifixion and resurrection believed by faith). Man was actually justified and therefore through grace by faith walks by obe-dience; the indicative is the foundation for the imperative.27 Thus he

"Knudsen, "Rudolf Bultmann," p. 142. 25Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, tr. Kendrick Grobel (New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), I, p. 332. "Ibid. 27Ibid, p. 333.


defends the phrase "become what you are," but he does not defend Jacoby's idealistic formulation of "become what you are in principle."

Though Bultmann denounced a logical contradiction between these moods, he understood their relationship to be an antinomy.28 Confusion arises when Bultmann defines a true antinomy as "statements that con-tradict each other but still belong together, statements that arise out of a common situation and as a result are intimately related."29 Why does the term "contradict" appear when he has stated that he opposes a logical contradictory interpretation of the indicative and the imperative? Since the evangelical community does not define its concepts with such com-plexity, it makes it extremely difficult to penetrate the understanding of such existential-dialectical definitions. However, on the basis of what we have said thus far, we can at least make some observations concerning Bultmann's definition of antinomy. We recall that Jacoby rebelled against the two contradictory ethical concepts of Wernle by stating that there was a dialectical relationship of the two moods under one ethical concept of "communion with God." Therefore, Bultmann in agreement with Jacoby, understands a logical contradiction as that which sets up two distinct premises which are not unified but are distinctively con-tradictory to each other. In the case of Wernle, this would mean that Paul has set up two distinct ethics which have no unity. For Bultmann, a true contradiction, i.e., an antinomy understood dialectically, can and does exist only within one unified ethical formulation as Jacoby had stated. In the case of Bultmann, the key unifying theological content within the dialectical indicative and imperative is eschatological justifica-tion. He writes:

It is the concrete, empirical man who is justified, whose sins are forgiven. Consequently, the relationship of the one justified to the other world is not something that exists apart from or alongside his concrete actions and fate. The concrete man who acts and suffers [im-perative] is also the one who is justified [indicative], and his actions and his fate have taken on a new significance.30

Thus we must understand that Bultmann makes a distinction between a logical contradiction and a true contradiction. He feels that the latter is

"Bultmann, The Old and New Man in the Letters of Paul, pp. 7-8. Also cf. Bultmann, "Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus," p. 123.

"Bultmann, The Old and New Man in the Letters of Paul, pp. 7-8. 30Ibid., p. 25.


legitimate as long as it is contained within one unified rubric of eschatological justification conceived dialectically.

In Bultmann we have not escaped a dialectical interpretation of the in-dicative and the imperative as he placed it into the depths of existential thought. However, his formulation is a somewhat better statement than those previous to him, and most significantly, he sees that the basic structure of Pauline ethics is found in a balanced and unified under-standing of the two grammatical moods.

Hans Windisch's article "Das Problem des paulinischen Imperatives" was written in response to Bultmann. Windisch was concerned that Bultmann had overlooked the sacramental perspective in Paul as the key to his ethics. In particular. Windisch accused Bultmann of neglecting baptism. According to Windisch, Paul's imperative may be described as, "what has become real in the invisible sphere of the divine activity" must be made visible in the earthly sphere.31 Thus baptism teaches the idea that there has been a qualitative change in the one baptized, and this is experienced in a visible form by the Christian community. The one bap-tized has completely broken with the old man and is now the new man. By being baptized, imperatively speaking, one has made visible what was invisible. Windisch does not agree that justification is the key to Paul's ethical content; instead the key is found in the sacraments. He also stresses the point of view that the Christian community is controlled by the ethical imperatives expressed in the sacramental perspective. Win-disch's stress of the imperative in a sacramental context has regressed from Bultmann's statement of Paul's balanced formulation of the in-dicative and the imperative.

However, in 1939 the balanced formulation that Bultmann had presented reemerged in a lecture given by Gnther Bornkamm in Halle and Knigsberg, Prussia.32 Focusing on Romans 6, Bornkamm seems to have seriously considered both arguments of Windisch and Bultmann in stating his position concerning the indicative and the imperative. It is ap-parent that the sacrament of baptism is foundational in his interpretation pf the two moods. However, Bornkamm, unlike Windisch, will not allow the imperative to be the exclusive manner in which to understand

"Windisch, op. cit., p. 271.

"This lecture is entitled, "Taufe und neues Leben bei Paulus" (Baptism and New Life in Paul) and is published in Theologische Blatter, XVIII (1939), pp. 234-242. It appears in English in Early Christian Experience, tr. Paul L. Hammer (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1969), pp. 71-86.


the sacrament. He declares that both moods are in solidarity with one another.33

Though it is evident that Bornkamm agreed with Windisch concerning the lack of emphasis that Bultmann displayed about the sacrament, Bornkamm nevertheless agreed with Bultmann in his balanced formula-tion of the grammatical moods. Bornkamm then attempted to go beyond Bultmann by defining an antinomy as an "apparent contradiction."34His lecture is an attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction in Paul's thought. He believes that the entire section of Romans 6:1-11 is a rejec-tion of the "pseudo-dialectical" thesis set up in 6:1. According to Born-kamm, the question which faces us from the outset in Romans 6 is: "does not the indicative take away the impact of the imperative?; does not the imperative limit the certainty and the validity of the indicative?"35The answer from Bornkamm's lecture is "no" to each question. As mention-ed, they are in solidarity with each other. The believer's life by virtue of what has happened in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (in-dicative) is a life of "service in the new being of the Spirit" (imperative).36 Bornkamm describes the new conduct of the believer as being "already included with the being; it is the release of a life open to God."37 It is at this point that we see the importance of baptism, because "the hidden-ness of the new life is the basis for the necessity of the doctrine of baptism itself and the basis for the impact of the imperative...; all the im-peratives of Paul have their basis in what has happened to us through Christ in baptismand all imperatives, which are to be obediently laid hold on here and now, can be summarized in the words: 'seek the things that are above' (Col. 3:1)."38 It is in a correct understanding of Paul's doctrine of baptism that the antinomy or apparent contradiction of the two moods is resolved according to Bornkamm.

"Ibid., p. 71 (English version): ".. .The question becomes important in that both in-dicative and imperative are solidly related to each other. The indicative establishes the im-perative, and the imperative follows from the indicative with an absolute unconditional necessity."

"Ibid., pp. 71-72. 35Ibid., p. 71. 36Ibid., p. 80. 37Ibid., p. 80. 3eIbid., pp. 81, 82, 84. One should notice that Bornkamm continues Bultmann's concept

of hiddenness.


Bornkamm went beyond Bultmann with respect to one other point. Like Bultmann, Bornkamm was alarmed with the idealistic interpretation of Paul's grammatical structure: "become what you are in principle." However, Bornkamm was not entirely satisfied with the phrase in which Bultmann found comfort: "become what you are." Bornkamm rather labeled the concept "once-now."39 The "once" refers to what has happen-ed to the believer in the "decision" of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as it is sealed to us in baptism (indicative), while the ""now" is the present activity of God in the life of the believereffecting the fruits of the new life sealed to us in baptism (imperative). Bornkamm's new phrase is not to be seen as a radical departure from Bultmann; rather it should be understood as Bornkamm's own term from his study of Paul. It follows from his own interpretation and his own critical presupposi-tions. He is not destroying Bultmann, but he is building upon him.

Bornkamm continues the interpretation that the basic structure of Pauline ethics is the indicative and the imperative. In light of the writings of both Bultmann and Windisch in 1924, Bornkamm has a more mature, unified, and developed understanding of the relationship of the two moods. Though there is much insight into Romans 6 in his lecture, the evangelical must realize that Bornkamm uses such terms as "decision, Christ-event, faith, kerygma, etc." in the critical sense. Hence, he must be read perceptively.

Twenty-three years following Bultmann's article, the indicative and the imperative remained the simplified way of speaking of Paul's ethical structure. This is demonstrated and expressed in the work by the French theologian Maurice Goguel.40 However, though Goguel saw that the two moods were the basic structure of Paul's ethics, his formulation of their relationship was a regression to the period preceding Bultmann. He uses the language of Jacoby, i.e., "principle" and "reality" to distinguish the indicative and the imperative respectively. He even speaks, as did Wer-nle, of "two ethics side by side which are not in perfect harmony with each other."41 He understands them as an ethic of law and judgment ex-pressed by the indicative. They come together only by the imperative "interpenetrating" the indicative within "the inner man." As we observed

"Ibid., p. 83.

*The Primitive Church, tr. H. C. Snape (New York: The MacMillian Company, 1964; French edition, 1947), pp. 425ff.

"Ibid., p. 446.

THE BASIC STRUCTURE QF PAULINE ETHICS 67

above, the concept of interpenetrating belonged to Ernesti. Goguel's ex-egetical interpretation does not help the historical development of these two moods. It seems that Bultmann, Bornkamm, and others have not even been dealt with seriously by him. The only point at which Goguel seems to express any familiarity with Bultmann is his observation that the grammatical moods are the basic structure of Pauline ethics.42 This, however, is significant for our purpose here since we set out to demonstrate in this section that twentieth century New Testament inter-pretation came to recognize that these two grammatical terms are the basic structure of Pauline ethics.

This continues to the present day.43 As a matter of fact, in 1968, when Victor Paul Furnish wrote his work entitled Theology and Ethics in Paul, he realized that the crucial problem in interpreting the Pauline ethic was the relation of the indicative and the imperative.44 He also was interested in understanding the structure of Pauline ethics in terms of these two moods. In his formulation, however, he was critical of his predecessors in basically two areas. First, he does not see how the Pauline ethic can be equated with any clearly definable ethical theory or moral code, for ex-ample, "ethic of gratitude," "telos-ethic," "sacramental," "pneumatic," "charismatic," "eshcatological," or "christological ethic." According to Furnish, "Any study of the ethic of Paul must acknowledge that multiple theological motifs have left their mark upon that ethic. If one seeks to analyze the structure of Paul's ethic in terms of its absolutely fundamen-tal components, then the following formulation can perhaps be defend-ed: radically conceived, the Pauline ethic is compounded of the apostle's theological, eschatological, and christological convictions. These are the three inseparably related root-motifs of his preaching, and thus, also, of his ethic."45 Thus Furnish is opposed to any reduction of Paul's ethic to one theological aspect. In the second place, he does not understand the

"Ibid., p. 426.

"To list a few in chronological order: cf. Erich Dinkier, "Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, 49 (1952), pp. 170ff.; Ernst Kasemann, "Zum Thema der unchristlichen Apokalyptik," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, 59 (1962), pp. 282ff.; Tannehill, op. cit., pp. 77ff.; J. Blank, Schriftauslegung in Theorie und Praxis (Mu: Kosel, 1969), pp. 144-157; and Darrell J. Doughty, "The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXVI (1975), pp. 85ff.

"Furnish, op. cit., p. 9.

"Ibid., pp. 212-213.


imperative to be "based upon" or "proceeds out of" the indicative, even within its "internal unified" relationship (Bultmann, et. al.). Instead, the Pauline "concept of grace [indicative] is inclusive of the Pauline concept of obedience [imperative]," or, to put it in another way, "obedience is constitutive of the new life."46 Therefore, as far as the critical scholars are concerned, Furnish's language has only intensified the unity of the in-dicative and imperative.

PAUL'S BASIC FORMULATION AND CONTENT

It is our immediate concern to discuss an evangelical interpretation of the content of Paul's ethical construction of the indicative and the im-perative and their relationship to each other. We shall also attempt in this section to dissolve the dialectical interpretation which the liberal critics have given to these moods.

It must first be understood that Christ's death and resurrection are fun-damental to the indicative, i.e., those who are in Christ have died to sin (Rom. 6:2,5) and now live unto righteousness.47 If this point is not com-prehended, then we as Christians have lost the ethical dynamic which is so central to Paul's soteriology. With regard to the crucifixion, Paul teaches that Christ died to bear the sins of His peopleputting their sins to death upon the cross. Concerning the resurrection. Vos points out that Paul views "the resurrection of Christ as the beginning of the general resurrection of the saints."48 This means that the believer, by virtue of Christ's resurrection, lives already in his earthly existence as a resur-rected creature (Eph. 2:6), waiting for the day of resurrection when he will pass from mortality into immortality (I Cor. 15:53).49 In light of Romans 6:10, John Murray provides an excellent summarizing statement of what happens to the believer by virtue of Christ's death and resurrec-tion: "The believer died to sin because he died with Christ, and he lives in newness of life because he rose with Christ."50 The indicative in Romans

"Ibid., pp. 225-226.

"Ridderbos, Paul, p.254 4eVos, "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit, " p. 213.

"Probably the clearest exposition and development of Vos's formulation of Pauline soteriology, especialy the resurrection, is found in the Th. D. thesis of the evangelical New Testament exegete Richard Birch Gaff in, Jr., The Centrality of the Resurrection: A Study in Paul's Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), pp. 33-143.

50John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, 5th printing), pp. 205-206.


6 is directed to stimulate human responsibility and activity; "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body. . . and do not present your members any longer as weapons of unrighteousness in the service of sin" (6:12,13). We can say that the indicative of death to sin implies the imperative of death to sin (cf. also Col. 3:3ff.). For Paul, the connection between these two elements is deliberate. Romans 6 states very clearly that Paul understands exhortations to be directly related to the basic soteriological conception of Christ's death and resurrectionthey cannot be divided.51 For Paul, those who have died and risen with Christ (indicative) are pro-vided with the "great urgent reason" to put to death an earthly life style (imperative), i.e., the deeds of the flesh.52

This also applies to Paul's remarks on life in and by the Spirit and the new life as a creation of God. Ridderbos's exposition of these aspects is excellent:

On the one hand it can be said of that life in the manner of the in-dicative: "the law of the Spirit of life has made you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death" (Rom. 8:2,9); on the other hand in the manner of the imperative, which subsequently seems to make the first categorical redemptive pronouncement conditional: "so then, brethern, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if you live after the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live" (vs. 12,13). The im-perative thus is founded on the indicative ("therefore" vs. 12). But the succession of the imperative is also a condition ("if" vs. 13) for that which has first been categorically posited with the indicative. . . . So far as the pronouncements are concerned that have reference to the new life as a creation of God, here again we find the duality. At one time it is said of the new man that he has been created in Christ (Eph. 2:15; 4:24), and exists in him (Gal. 3:28); then again, that those who are in Christ "have" (active) put off the old man and "have" put on the new man (Eph. 4:21ff; Col. 3:9ff).53

"Tannehill, op. cit., p. 81. Ridderbos (Paul, p. 254) concludes: "The redemptive in-dicative of dying rising with Christ is not to be separated from the imperative of the strug-gle against sin."

"Ridderbos, Paul, p. 254.

"Ibid. A question may arise when we see the word "duality" appear in this quotation. Is Ridderbos using it to mean dialectic? We believe there is no indication within this context to suggest a dialectical interpretation of the word "duality" as Ridderbos uses the term. He is merely stating two distinct concepts and how they relate to each other.


The principle of the indicative and the imperative in Pauline theology as it relates to the Spirit of God in the believer is also found in Geerhardus Vos. Vos begins by connecting the Spirit of God to the resurrection of Christ in order to demonstrate to the believer that God by raising Christ from the dead brings resurrection to the believer.54 The strength of Vos's argument appears in Romans 8:11: "If the Spirit of God who raised Jesus dwells in you (believer), then God will make the indwelling Spirit accomplish for you what he did for Jesus in the latter's resurrection."55 Therefore, the Spirit projects itself into the pre-sent state of the believer, being in union with him, bringing the believer in his present existence into resurrection-glory with Christ. This is the indicative concept, i.e., the Spirit is in union with the believer so that by His power the believer experiences in his own life the actual historical death and resurrection of Christ.

Vos continues with a discussion of the association of the Spirit and righteousness as it is connected with believers.56 At this point the prin-ciple of the indicative and the imperative is clearly attested. The association of the Spirit and righteousness is "on the one hand that of a seal attesting justification as an accomplished fact [indicative], on the other hand that of the normal fruit of righteousness

54Vos, "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," p. 225. Vos also discusses the present state of the believer in the context of his use of the term "semi-eschatological." A very good discussion of this appears in his article "Joy" in the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. James Hastings, I (1915), pp. 654-55.

One can find some further insight into Paul's understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit by inquiring into the work by Neill Q. Hamilton entitled The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd LTD., 1957). We mention this work because Hamilton here acknowledges his own gratitude for the work of Vos in this area (cf. pp. 1, 13). There is no doubt that Vos's work and Hamilton's compliment each other in many ways. However, one must not fail to realize that Hamilton wishes to make a vital contribution to the area of the Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the theology of Paul (p. 2). This vital contribution comes from the critical eschatological scheme of his teacher, Oscar Cullmann. Hamilton understands that the Christocentric work of the Holy Spirit bridges the dialectic of the believer's situation, i.e., the dialectic of the present and futurethe already fulfilled and not yet fulfilled (pp. 26-27). For Hamilton, ethics for the Christian believer must be seen within this context (p. 39). Vos never allowed for such a dialectical understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the eschatological scheme. Instead, he saw that the Holy Spirit eliminated such an interpretation. We shall see this as we continue.

"Vos, "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," p. 226. S6Ibid., pp. 236ff.


[imperative]."57 In Titus 3:5,6 Vos notes that "the gift of the Holy Spirit proves the connecting link between justification [indicative] and renewal [imperative], being the effect of the former and the source of the latter (cf. also I Cor. 6:11).58 In the concept of renewal, Paul associates "walking by the Spirit" with the believer (Gal. 5:16). In the eschatological age of salvation, i.e., the final age of salvation in which Paul and we ourselves live, the "Spirit of life" is the new principle and norm which sets us free from sin and determines the walk of the Chris-tian (Rom. 8:2). This is because the believer lives by the Spirit (the Spirit is in union with himindicative), and therefore he can be re-quired and exhorted to walk by the Spirit (imperativeGal. 5:25).59 In Pauline theology, according to Vos, the Spirit of God is the one who unifies in the believer the principles of the indicative and the im-perative. This is very important in understanding that the Pauline structure of ethics is non-dialectical.

We have seen that the indicative is grounded in the death and resurrec-tion of Jesus Christ which places the believer in union with Christ. Colos-sians 3:1-4 describes the resurrection life in Jesus Christ in terms of the in-dicative and the imperative. The believer's resurrection is referred to in the indicative (sungerthte-aorist passive indicative). It is something which is already enjoyed because of our union with Christ's actual historical resurrection through faith as a present experience by the believer (Col. 2:12). Interwoven with this is the imperative, i.e., "seek the things that are above" {zteite-present active imperative). The reference to the things that are above can only have reference to the

57Ibid., p. 237.

Ibid.

"Ibid., p. 239. Ridderbos (Paul, pp. 270-271) makes a further observation: "It is in close connection with this that we are to understand the pronouncements that speak of the 'perfection' and 'blamelessness' of the life set at liberty by the Spirit. In so doing, as regards the concept 'perfect/ one must be very much on his guard against an exclusively moral in-terpretation and in general against the idea of a quantitative state of moral perfection flawless in all its parts. The perfection of believers refers above all to the totalitarian character of the fullness of redemption in Christ. Here again, however, there is a clear cor-respondence of the usage of indicative and imperative. One meets with the former in those passages in which participation in the fullness of Christ is the prominent idea of 'perfect' and 'perfection' (cf., e.g., I Cor. 2:6; Phil 3:15; Col. 1:28; 4:12). To this idea then is joined the thought of the maturity and adulthood of the Christian life as the full working through and unfolding of the salvation given in Christ, with respect to the provisional and temporal (I Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13) as well as to the definitive and eternal (I Cor. 13:10; phil 3:15)."


ascension and resurrection life, where Christ sits at the right hand of God (cf. also Eph. l:18ff.) Therefore, the resurrection life is a present active matter of something being attained in which the believer submits his thinking and willing (cf. also Rom. 12:1,2). In the Pauline epistles, the common notion of the resurrection life has in view both a possession and a goal, i.e., seek after, set your mind upon, what you already have. Grammatically this is supported by "since" (indicative) you have the resurrection life, "then" (imperative) seek the resurrection life. Paul's ethical structure of the indicative and the imperative can be summarized by this statement: "Become what you are in Christ." This statement is not to be understood in an idealistic way,60 but in the manner in which Paul understood believers to participate in the actual historical death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ by grace through faith. The imperative expresses a lifestyle which is grounded upon the indicative. Doing the works of righteousness (imperative) is a witness and testimony by the believer to the covenant community and to the world of the actual historical death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (indicative). The imperative describes to the believer the kingdom way of life which he has by virtue of his union with Christ,61 because in reality the believer is a citizen of heaven even in this present life (Phil. 3:20). Therefore, a proper balance between the indicative and the imperative must always be maintained! The two are inseparable and irreversible. They are inseparable because the indicative without the imperative makes Paul and the believer a mystic.62 Also, the imperative without the indicative makes Paul and the believer a moralist.63 It is irreversible

"Furnish (op. cit., p. 225) makes this observation even from his critical standpoint. Therefore it seems that the idealistic interpretation of Jacoby has finally evaporated in critical exegesis.

"For further reference to the discussion of ethics and union with Christ, see John Murray, Principles and Conduct, pp. 203ff, and his work Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973,5th reprinting), pp. 161-173. One should also consult Morton Scott Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1930), pp. 63ff.

62A mystical view is expressed by Heinrich Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr, 1911); (Philidelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1950), pp. 152ff; Alfred Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism: Christ in the Mystical Teaching of St. Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 1960), pp. 149ff.

"Some scholars have felt this view is found in Charles Harold Dodd, "The Ethics of the Pauline Epistles," The Evolution of Ethics, ed. . H. Sneath (New York: Yale University


because the indicative is foundational for the imperative. Paul never writes in the imperative without first writing in the indicative.

When this proper balance is maintained, the structure of Pauline ethics points the believer to the fact that he is living between the first and second coming of Christ, a fact which is central to Paul. The indicative and imperative are altogether determined by the "present redemptive-historical situation/'64 i.e., the eschatological situation of living in the "already" and the "not yet." The indicative brings into focus all that consists in the "already" which the believer has in the historical fulfillment of the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is a total redemption of the believer including both justification (Rom. 5:16) and the concept of definitive sanctification65 (Rom. 6:2-6; I Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Phil. 3:15). The imperative is the scope of all that is "not yet," walking in obedience to the demands and commands of the kingdom life by doing the deeds of righteousness until the Righteous One comes again to consummate His kingdom. There is a real struggle for the believer as he lives in a mortal body in this "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4). However, even as Paul states in Philippians 3:8-11, all suffering in the mortal body is grounded upon Christ's resurrection glory which we shall behold in the "age to come." Therefore, the imperative expresses the total redemption of the believer because it is first grounded in the indicative and, secondly, through the Spirit of God the believer is obedient by rebelling against sin in the process of sanctification which reflects its definitive starting point.66 This is kingdom living!

In all this, we can see that the Pauline conception of the indicative and

Press, 1927), pp. 293ff. A moralistic interpretation is found in Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie (Tubingen: Verlag von J.C.. Mohr, 1911), pp. 163ff, and also in Windisch, op. cit. Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics, ed. William H. Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) I, pp. 82-3, speaks of the seriousness of isolating the indicative or the imperative.

"Ridderbos, Paul, p. 257. 65See the article by John Murray, "Definitive Sanctification," Calvin Theological Journal,

II (April, 1967), pp. 5-21. **John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1965) II, pp. 109-110, writes: 'The basis and spring of sanctification are union with Christ, more especially union with him in the virtue of his death and the power of his resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:2-6; 7:4-6). It is by this union with Christ that the breach with sin in its power and defilement was effected (cf. Rom. 6:14) and newness of life in the efficacy of Jesus' resurrection inaugurated (cf. Rom. 6:4; 10,11). Believers walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (cf. 8:4). And not only is there this virtue in the death and resurrection


the imperative is not dialecticaleither in the form of a contradition or an antiomy. Instead, there is a union, continuity, and intimacy in the actual redemptive-historical work of God which can be further expressed in the following way:

. . . Because God works and has worked, therefore man must and can work. For God works in him what is necessary for his (human) work-ing. The working of man, therefore, takes place "according to the working of Christ, which works in him in power" (Col. 1:29; Eph. 3:20); the good works they do have been prepared by God "that they should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10), and the good work that God has begun in them he will carry on (Phil. 1:6). What the man manifests in the new life, what he works or exhibits in the fruit of the Spirit and good works, he works out of and by the strength of God, out of the power of the Spirit and by virtue of his belonging to Christ.67

If we go one step further, Paul's eschatological conception of the Spirit of God associated with the believer is even more enlightening. In this regard, Vos's understanding of this is most challenging. First, Vos declares that in II Corinthians 5:5 the "present Spirit is an anticipation of the future Spirit."68 Secondly, there is an association in the ethical sphere of the Spirit with life so that the eschatological future is carried back into the present.69 Thus we are now living in the "age to come" by virtue of the living Spirit of God.70 Vos writes that "the conclusion, therefore, is

of Christ, but since union with Christ is permanent, there is also the virtue that constantly emanates from Christ and is the dynamic in the growth unto holiness. . . . This illustrates what is characteristic of Paul's teaching, that ethics must rest upon the foundation of redemptive accomplishment. More specifically stated it is that ethics springs from union with Christ and therefore from participation of the virtue belonging to him and exercised by him as the crucified, risen, and ascended Redeemer. Ethics consonant with the high call-ing of God in Christ is itself part of the application of redemption; it belongs to sanctifica-tion."

67Ridderbos, Paul, p. 255. 68Vos, "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," p. 241. 69Ibid. 70Herman Ridderbos, When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament

Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), p. 52, puts it in the following manner: "This being in the Spirit is not a mystical, but an eschatological, redemptive-historical category. It means: you are no longer in the power of the old aeon; you have passed into the new one, you are under a different authority. This is the indicative of redemption, the proclamation of the new state of life, and it can be followed by the im-perative: If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."


fully warranted that the Spirit as a living attestation of the state of righteousness in the believer has this significance, because he is in princi-ple the foundation of the blessedness of the world to come."71

If we keep in mind what Ridderbos has said, this writer believes that this Biblical interpretation by Vos leaves no room for a dialectic in Paul's conception. This is because it brings the actual historical future into the actual historical present and vice versa. There is a continuity in the theology of Paul for the new covenant community of the full eschatological age of redemption. The taste of life in immortality is realized in the experience of the present mortal life of the believer by vir-tue of Christ's actual death and resurrection. The believers' present mor-tal life actually testifies to the fact of a life that reflects immortality. It is his possession here and now because of what Christ has accomplished. Therefore, the union of the indicative and the imperative cannot be dialectical and distinctively existential as Bultmann understood, because the Holy Spirit brings to bear upon believers a new covenant con-sciousness which is eschatologically conceived in the actual redemptive-historical work of God the Father through His SonJesus Christ. Eschatologically speaking, the Holy Spirit brings the covenant communi-ty consciously into union with Christ (indicative); the same Spirit per-forms and secures in us conscious works of righteousness (imperative) so that we are holy and blameless before the throne of a holy and just

71 Vos, "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," pp. 237-238.

If one is interested in the writings of Vos he should consult the bibliography compiled by James T. Dennison, Jr. in The Westminster Theological Journal, XXXVIII (Spring, 1976), pp. 350-367. The statement that Vos makes above is also brought out by George Eldon Ladd, "Eschatology and the Unity of New Testament Theology," The Expository Times, 68 (1956-1957), p. 273. He writes: ".. .The conclusion emerges that according to this New Testament perspective, the future has created the present. From an ordinary point of view, we are inclined to say that the present determines and gives assurance of the future. Because of what Christ has done, we have assurance that the future is His also. This insight is not to be denied; it is profoundly true. But beside it may be placed another insight: the future has made possible the present. The kingdom of God is eschatological; it belongs to the age to come, and in that age will it achieve full consummation. But the future kingdom has entered into the present to modify and influence its character. Eternal life, justification, the life of the Spirit, all are future and eschatological. The Biblical perspective is one of un-broken hope. However, these future blessings have, in part yet in reality, entered into the present. The future has in a sense become present without losing its character as futurity. This modified eschatological structure provides an approach to the basic unity of New Testament theology."


God.72 For how can a believer be in union with Christ and live according to the commands of Satan? He cannot, because the Spirit governs his whole existence.

We could say that there would be a contradiction or antinomy in the evangelical formulation if the imperative was to be understood as works done apart from the Spirit of God, i.e., by our own autonomy, meritoriously securing salvation. However, such a concept is absent in the theology of Paul because by our abandonment of any good work in ourselves we rely solely upon the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ to work in us by the power of His Spirit. What removes the contradiction or antinomy within evangelical theology, which the liberal critics failed to grasp, is the eschatological and theocentric conception of the Holy Spirit, who unifies the indicative and the imperative by bringing the fullness of life upon the believer through the actual historical-redemptive work of God.73

72At this time it is important to mention that the relationship of the indicative and the im-perative is by no means distinctive of Paul's structure of covenant ethics. Paul did not make-up something new for the structure of Christian ethics. Instead, the indicative and the imperative is the basic structure of the whole of Biblical ethics, whether under the rubric of the old covenant or the new covenant. For its use in the teachings of Christ see Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, tr. H. de Jongste (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 241-255. In the Old Testament, i.e., under the old covenant, let it suffice for us to give one example of their relationship. In the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, the ten commandments are prefaced by the indicativeI am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," therefore, "you shall have no other gods before me," etc. (imperativesEx. 20:3ff; Deut. 5:7ff.). The preface (indicative) expresses the salvation of God's people in which He brought His people into union with Himself. Because of that union they are to act as God's people by walking in the obedience of His commandments (imperatives). One would also find a study of Deuteronomy chapter seven fruitful in understanding the indicative and im-perative in an old covenant context. Paul's structure of these two grammatical moods is nothing new to the covenant consciousness in the people of God. What is new for Paul and for us is the historical-redemptive period in which we live. In this period we reflect upon the full meaning of the person and work of Jesus Christ in the fullness of time and what that means for the new covenant community concerning ethics. It is for this reason that this arti-cle focuses upon Paul. However, I believe that a case can be built for the fact that the basic ethical structure of the whole Bible is the indicative and the imperative. Cf. Oscar Cullmann, Salvation in History (London: SCM Press LTD, 1967), p. 329, when he writes in the section on "Salvation History and Ethics" the following: "In the Bible, an ethical im-perative always follows from an (or thel) indicative." Cullmann recognizes that these two grammatical moods are found throughout the Bible.

73Bultmann cannot endorse this point since he states that a mythological conception of the Spirit was presupposed by Paul's understanding of the Spirit. In "Man Between the


We have suggested above that the imperative includes within its framework that which the evangelical attributes to human responsibility. Human responsibility can only be fulfilled in a biblical way if one sub-mits himself to the power and strength of the Holy Spirit and not to the works of the flesh. Conflict and strife arise when the covenant communi-ty and the believer submit themselves to the latter by not walking in the Spirit. This is evident, for example, in the divisions within the Corin-thian Church (I Cor. 1:12). By stating that one is of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas, or of Christthey had divided the crucified Christ (1:13). These divisions do not come from the Spirit of God but from the spirit of man. It is interesting that Paul reminds them how the Spirit of God manifests Himself to them (2:10-16). It is also interesting to note how Paul admonishes them by employing the indicative and the imperative structure. He opens the letter with the content of the indicative (1:1-9), then he admonishes them in imperative language (l:10ff).74Therefore, he approaches them as true Christians in spite of everything he finds wrong with them (cf. 1:18; 1:30). But they must be reminded that they are to walk according to the Spirit. If they submit to the Spirit, it will bring about an end to the divisions and strife in their situation. Our human

Time According to the New Testament," Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, tr. Schubert M. Ogden (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960), pp. 257-258, he writes: "In mythological thinking, the Spirit is represented as a mysterious, so to say, magic-working power. Its miraculous effects, the so-called charismata, are in the popular view special deeds of power and abnormal psychic phenomena. Paul does not at all deny this view; but for the charismata of the first rank are the gifts of brotherly service in the edification of the community; and the Spirit especially signifies for him the power and the norm of the moral life. This does not mean that the Spirit is thereby denied its character as something miraculous. Rather, for Paul, a morally pure life is itself a miraclea miracle that is given to the baptized as those who are crucified and dead with Christ and thereby freed from their pasts. And just as the Spirit is the power, so also is he the norm of the new life."

74F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), p. 32, makes an excellent observation: "These opening verses (4-9) form the basis for subsequent admonitions. Christians can only be admonished successfully after God has made them true Christians. But he who was made a Christian must walk according to his vocation." Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 544, writes: "As such, Christ has become its (Church in Corinth) sanctifica-tion (I Cor. 1:30; 6:11) as well as its redemption. Paul's challenge to his churches was that they should realize in life and conduct what was already theirs in Christ. Because they were the saints of God, they were to live holy lives." One can also find a helpful discussion in Richard N. Longenecker, Paul: Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964), pp. 170-180.


responsibility to God is only fulfilled if we submit our daily walk to His Spirit (Rom. 12:1,2,; Gal. 5:25). It is nothing that we do in and of ourselves to merit salvation, but it is grounded solely upon the imputa-tion of the obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ.75 The imperative must always be viewed in this light.

It is important that the evangelical community focus upon a balanced, unified, and intimate formulation of the indicative and the imperative. If we are going to have a distinctive biblical approach to ethics concerning the complex ethical problems of our period in redemptive-history, then it is imperative that we adopt and proceed with the methodology of Paul. An unbalanced methodology which applies itself abstractly to the ethical situation can only lead to pietistic mysticism or to legalistic moralism in the evangelical community. There is no doubt that the issue is basically hermeneutical. The question is whether we are going to probe the ethical structure of Paul's thought and realize, as Vos did, that a redemptive-historical hermeneutical methodology exposes Paul's structure without abstracting the basic character of the Scriptures. If we allow for such an approach, then our theological task is guarded against any critical for-mulation and any evangelical view which does not discover Paul's unified view. It is absolutely necessary for us to discover, understand, and expand upon Paul's dynamic for ethicsthe indicative and the im-perative grounded completely in Jesus Christ and made effectual in the new covenant community by the work of the Holy Spirit!

Westminster Confession of Faith, XI. 1.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

basics of pauline ethics

Documents

structure of biblical

ethics of paul

ethical problems

discipline of ethics

evangelical interpretation

evangelical community

new testament interpreters

recent interpretation