SOME MODERN1 INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PAULINE INDICATIVE AND IMPERATIVE

The beginning student of Paul is taught that there is a basic distinction in his thought, often termed theological-ethical or theoretical- practical. A minimum acquaintance with Paul's letters reveals that there is a great deal of theology in the so-called ethical sections and vice versa. A more accurate understanding of this distinction in Pauline thought is the interplay of the indicative and imperative moods.2 In the simplest terms it is the contrast between what his readers were and what they must be or do. It is the difference between a statement of fact and the voicing of a command or exhortation.

English3 NT scholarship has been remarkably silent about this crucial distinction in Pauline theology. 4 Any treatment that has been given is casual and indicates that the writer did not consider this distinction important to Paul's thought.5 In contrast, German NT studies reveal an extensive and intensive treatment of the interplay of the indicative and imperative in Paul.

l. Examples of the interplay of the indicative and imperative6

All of the imperative or exhortative statements in Paul do not relate to a contrast with the indicative. Paul voices imperative warnings relative to Satan and the temptation that the believer must face.7 His reference to the perfection of the believer-sometimes identified as "absolute" and "relative"-should not be identified with the contrast under study here.8 Paul makes indicative and imperative statements about "putting on Christ"; but, being in totally separate contexts (cf. Gal. 3: 27 and Rom. 13:14), they do not involve the interplay being examined here. In 1 Cor. 5: 7 Paul uses the metaphor of leaven in both indicative and imperative terms, but the context reveals that he is thinking in corporate ideas (the church) and not of the individual believer, about which this study is concerned. The investigation here will be limited to the contrast of or the interplay between the indicative and imperative in the life of the believer. In Romans the believers were (ind.) dead with Christ to sin (6: 2-8) but they were exhorted (imp.) to reckon themselves to be dead, to not allow 38 sin to reign over them or to present their members to sin;9 and to instead present themselves and their members to God and righteousness (Rom. 6:13, 19). They were (ind.) freed from sin's slavery (6:18, 22) and yet were exhorted (imp.) to present themselves to God as His slaves.10

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they were (ind.) sanctified in Christ and "holy ones" by calling (1:2), to whom Christ had become (ind.) righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1: 30) and who had been (ind.) washed, sanctified, and justified in the Lord Jesus (6:11). He asked them if they did not know11 that they as a church were (ind.) the temple of God12 and their individual bodies were (ind.) the temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19). Yet, because of the tragic condition in the Corinthian church, he urged (imp.) them to glorify God in their bodies (6: 20) and to pursue love (14:1) .

Paul reminded the Galatians that they had received (ind.) the Spirit (3:2) and had begun (ind.) to live (enarxamenoi) in Him (3:3; cf. 5:25). They had crucified (ind.) the flesh (5:24)! But he went on to exhort (imp.) them to walk and march (stoicheo) by the Spirit 5:16, 25). Later Paul rejoiced with the Colossians that they had died (ind.) and risen again with Christ (3:1-3), were no longer (ind.) living in the evil ways of the past (3:7), and had put off (ind.) the old man and put on the new man (3:9-10). Still he commanded (imp.) them to put to death their members on the earth13 and to not put back the old clothes on the new man but instead to put new clothes on him.14 Paul's message to the Ephesians was basically the same, using a different metaphor. They had put off (ind.) the old man and put on the new man,15 and now he exhorted (imp.) them to walk worthy (4:1), to walk not as the Gentiles walk (4:17), to walk in love (5: 2), to walk as children of light (5: 8), and to walk carefully -- literally as spiritual acrobats (5:15; cf. akribos).

2. Explanations and Evaluations of the Pauline indicative and imperative Many attempt to explain Paul's contrast of the indicative and imperative, but unfortunately it is often not on the basis of an in-depth examination of Paul's letters.16 The conclusion of several is that the interaction is a paradox. Some who see the paradox can find no explanation for it and are content to leave it totally unresolved. A familiar statement of this idea is the classic: "simul peccator et iustus" (simultaneously justified and sinner).17 But A. Kirchgassner18 and E. Wahlstrom19 reject the application of Luther's famous dictum to the paradox under consideration. A Korean scholar, Sun Bum Yun, uses the following concepts to describe the irreconcilability of the paradox: "at the same time a sinner and a non-sinner" ("Sunder und zugleich Nicht-Sunder"),20 "he (the believer) is a holy sinner" ("Er ist ein heiliger Sunder"), and "already but not yet" ("schon und noch nicht'').21

The same conclusion, that the paradox can never be resolved, is found in such descriptions as "the eternal entering time"22 and "a paradoxical polarity" that contrasts complete deliverance with an incomplete transformation.23 E. Wahlstrom says that the paradox exists because the believer is always a sinner. He (the believer) inevitably fails to depend on Christ and instead stands alone-hence the repeated imperatives.24 J. Stewart views the continuing paradox as the juxtaposition of fact and duty and as the "present reality" and the "becoming ideal" in the Christian life.25 Others consider the unresolved paradox as due to man's existence in the flesh:

There is little question that Paul's contrast of the indicative and imperative does appear paradoxical.27 Yet, as A. Nygren wisely observes,28 there is no clash between the indicative and imperative in Paul's mind. In fact, the imperative is given because of the truth of the indicative. Any paradox is in our understanding and not in Paul's thought. To understand the interplay of the indicative and imperative as a necessary tension, because believers are "caught" in the overlap of two ages, is to superimpose on Paul an eschatological theology to which he is a stranger. It stretches the credulity to suggest that "the fundamental theological structure of the whole of Paul's thinking: (is) the tension between the two ages."29 Paul knew well the reality of both realized and anticipated eschatology, but certainly not in terms of a theological system of tension!

Even more unpauline is the suggestion that Paul's indicative and imperative contrast is a reflection on the frustration of the new man living in the body. Such an understanding totally misunderstands Paul's anthropology as well as his soteriology. It makes Paul the proponent of gnostic concepts that would call from him a resounding "me genoito" (horrors); The Spirit enables the believer to put to death the practices (praxeis) of the body (Rom. 8:13);

Others do not view Paul's indicative and imperative contrast as totally irreconcilable. Instead the paradox is described in several contrasting concepts. C. Craig views it as "gift and endeavor or task."30 Several term it "principle and practice" or a minor variant from that.31 A. Hunter, describing the paradox as "potential and achievement," suggests that as there are flecks of egg and shell on the newborn chick, so there are remains of sin in the newborn Christian.32 Many term the contrast as "ideal and actual" or something similar.33

There are various degrees of expectation or reconciliation with regard to the paradox. L. Thornton explains the paradox as a "double polarity," in which the transformation has already taken place (from one point of view), but is only in "germ" from the other viewpoint. There is fruition in the future. He supports this by a unique interpretation of Rom. 6:5, in which he distinguishes between the crucial act of grafting (einmaligkeit -- once-for-all-ness) and the process of growth. He suggests that those who have died must begin the infinite task of dying.34 L. Marsall pictures the paradox as between being "religiously holy" and actual morality, in which the aim is the progressive release from sin and the progressive moral renewal and transformation. He actually describes this as to become morally what one is religiously.35 A. Schweitzer also sees the prospect of the believer progressively making into reality the death he died with Christ.36

A. Kirchgassner understands the imperative as the subjective api propriation (Verloirklichung) of the objective fact of redemption (Erlosungsgeschehen).37 A. Nygren states that the indicative denotes the believer's freedom from sin that makes possible the imperative "fight" against sin; but because he is living in two aeons, the believer will always be under admonition.38

The imperative is also seen as the confirmation of the indicative. R. Astings describes the paradox as an "inner contradiction" (Wider - spruch), but the new life of the Christian is confirmed (vollsient), as he "wins and works" it over and over.39 J. Weiss gives a graphic description of the "enthusiastic anticipation" of the new life in the believer, that does not correspond to reality. However, the central fact is that, to the believer, the victory is already won by God and is only to be fought through again in the lives of individuals. He describes this as eschatological and thus basically mythological and gnostic.40

R. Bultmann contends that the paradox is not a true antithesis, but is the "normal" experience of mystical piety and must be understood in terms of prophetic ecstasy. He argues that this is only the occasional hellenistic variant in Paul, and must be understood on the basis of Paul's "charis theology." The indicative does not represent an ethical transformation in man, and the imperative is in no sense "works." He understands the imperative in terms of a "demand for obedience expressed as a gift.''41

C. Smith suggests a novel interpretation of the paradox. He thinks that the believer begins his new life as sinless in the exhilaration of freedom. Under temptation he retreats into sin, and the imperative is Paul's exhortation that he repeat the process. He candidly admits that this is a "theory" that is deduced and is not explicitly in Paul's letters.42

Another explanation is that of C. Dodd, who maintains that the believer is righteous qualitatively but not quantitatively. Inwardly, before God, his intentions are right; but outwardly, before men, he is the same. Thus Paul can speak both of a finished work and a remaining tremendous moral endeavor. He even suggests that Paul's converts had only died "ceremonially" and thus had not found the climactic experience that was Paul's.43

The fundamental weakness of these interpretations is that they are not based on an exegesis of Paul's letters! Instead they are the result of philosophical and theological speculation on some of Paul's ideas. Such concepts as "principle vs. practice," "potential vs. realized," and "ideal vs. actual" are clearly extra-Pauline and do not accurately represent the manner in which Paul considered the problem. The result of such an approach is that totally unpauline concepts are adopted. Where in Paul does one find such ideas as "growing out of sin," "beginning the infinite task of dying," or even "fighting sin"? The idea of the imperative confirming the indicative, although it is closer, nevertheless falls short of Paul's concept (cf. Rom. 6:11).

The basic problem with Bultmann's solution is that he forces Paul's paradox into the mold of his own "charis theology" and "existential philosophy." H. Windisch effectively challenged Bultmann's conclusions, arguing that Paul seldom traces the imperative out of charis, and does not define faith as an ethical power. Galatians 5: 6, says Windisch, is the only clear place where faith is a power working in obedience (and there is no paradox here). Windisch further rejects Bultmann's contention that in Romans 6 redemption from sin is not perceptible and insists that even a sinner can have a form of obedience. His main conclusion is that Bultmann only traces the imperative to Paul's "grace teaching" (gnadenlehre) and totally ignores his "redemption teaching" (erlosungslehre) and "baptism teaching" (tauflehre) and only touched upon the "Spirit-filled life" (pneuma-besitz). It is Windisch's contention that freedom from sin is found near the "justification teaching" (rechtfertigunslehre) and is sacramental.44

Of course, fanciful "solutions," such as Smith and Dodd suggest, are based on conjecture, as the former candidly admits. They add little to understanding the thought of Paul, although they attempt to "modernize" it to fit the situation of man today.

The explanations of Paul's indicative and imperative that have been examined fail to seriously consider the interaction and intrinsic interrelation between the two. For this reason it is necessary to give special attention to a proposed solution of the paradox that has come out of German NT scholarship. It is found in the German phrase "Werde das was du bist" ("become what you are"). Several NT scholars accepted this interpretation,45 while others modified it. R. Buitmann considered it valid in some senses, but not in the sense of idealism-that the ideal man is to be realized more and more.46 A. Kirchgassner's opinion is that it is correct with regard to sanctification but not in the sense of freedom from sin.47 C. Smith thinks it is acceptable if it is not interpreted to mean growth.48 R. Flew rejects the interpretation as an unsatisfactory explanation or description.49 Others have "coined" a new phrase, which is quite obviously a related idea -- "Sei was du bist" ("be what you are"). 50

Although these interpretations reveal an appreciation of the interaction between the indicative and imperative, they fail to recognize the fundamental objective of Paul's imperative. He does not exhort the believer to become (or be) what he already is, but rather something more than he is. Before turning to what this writer is convinced is a clearer and more significant understanding of the relationship between Paul's indicative and imperative, a brief examination will be made of H. Ridderbos' treatment of the subject in the recent translation of his book on Paul.51 He views the imperative as "the new life in its moral manifestation" (p. 253), or the "calling of the new life" (255), and even the actualizing of the new life (256). In addition, "the imperative not only has the function of bringing the new life denoted by the indicative to manifestation, but is also a constant touchstone to the latter" (255). Actually the indicative is conditioned on the execution of the imperative in the sense that in the "new obedience" the new life must become evident. So much so that without the imperative the indicative cannot exist (256). Thus it is seen that the two are close and indissoluble, representing "two sides" of the same matter which can't exist separately (256). This must not be understood to mean that the imperative is simply another form of the indicative. The indicative is a possibility which must be realized anew by the imperative (256). The imperative is grounded on the indicative to be accepted in faith once for all and time and again anew -- thus the apparent paradox (257). So both indicative and imperative represent "already but not yet."

Certainly Ridderbos clearly recognizes the vital interrelation between Paul's indicative and imperative. This writer's basic criticism is that the interrelation is couched in such intricate philosophical concepts, relative to the nature of life and existence, that Paui's~impiistic message is "lost in the shuffle." Most importantly, Ridderbos quite obviously does not consider Paul's contrast of the indicative and imperative significant to his basic thought-at least to his soteriology. In a volume of well over 500 pages, with more than 150 pages dealing specifically with soteriology, he spends less than 6 pages on the indicative and imperative.

It has been repeatedly observed in the foregoing study that there was a failure to appreciate how central and basic to Paul's thought is the contrast of the indicative and imperative. It is not peripheral, but is the very warp and woof of Pauline thought-specifically in his soteriology. Even a casual reading of Paul's letters reveals an easily recognizable "formula." He wrote about the fact of the past-rejoicing with the believers about God's grace that had brought deliverance from sin's slavery under which they had once lived. Further, with a pastor's heart, he expressed a concern about the condition of the present. He was disturbed about whether they were using the new resources that were theirs. But Paul's letters don't end there! Repeatedly he voices a challenge for the future.

The fact of the past and the condition of the present are stated in clear indicatives-this was; that is! But the challenge of the future is voiced in ringing imperatives and exhortations-this must be! Paul's corrective is stated with imperative force. If, as this writer is strongly convinced, the Scriptures are God's Message to man, then this is clearly the most profitable way to study Paul. We can't hope to get God's Message through Paul unless we distinguish between the indicative and imperative-between what is and what must be. How else can we receive the contextual message?

When this distinction is made, the message of Paul's letters unfolds. The imperative is based on the indicative. In fact, as they are closely examined, it is discovered that the imperative is voiced because of the fact of the indicative. Further, it is seen that the indicative speaks of what God has done (in the believer) and the imperative depicts what the believer must do (by the power of the Spirit) because of the indicative.

Nowhere is this more pointedly seen than in Galatians 5:25, which is often examined by German NT scholars in their treatment of the Pauline indicative and imperative. "If we live [lit., have life] by the Spirit, let us also march [stoicheo] by the Spirit" (lit.). The indicative acknowledges the believer's new existence, which is new life by the Spirit. The imperative is a challenge to new living, a new obedience by the same Spirit. The indicative of "being" is the basis for the imperative of "doing."52

This is the contrast of the Pauline indicative and imperative! Those to whom Paul was writing were free men-freed from sin's slavery. Now Paul's concern was-how were they using that freedom? They were new men-how were they living that new life? They were spiritual men, who had received the Spirit-how were they allowing the Spirit to live through them? Paul's imperatives meet the challenge of this concern-"use what you have and are!" In other words, they were to use the resources that were theirs because they were new, free, spiritual men. Live by the Spirit! So-rather than "become what you are," Paul's challenge was to "use what you have!"

It would therefore seem that a proper understanding of the Pauline indicative and imperative offers a tremendous biblical resource for a solid proclamation of the Wesleyan message of salvation. This resource has been largely unexplored and unused in the Wesleyan tradition up to now. It has often been observed that John Wesley's definition of Christian perfection in love to God and neighbor effectively voids the charge that his doctrine was a mere peripheral truth or theological provincialism. By defining it in terms of the Great Commandment, Wesley showed that holiness was rooted in the very center of Christ's teachings.

Likewise we, in the Wesleyan tradition today, can also demonstrate by vigorous biblical exegesis that the holiness message is firmly anchored in Paul-not merely in some peripheral ideas (if there are such), but in that which lies at the very center of his thought and is the warp and woof of his entire understanding of the gospel of Christ. Such an exegetical thrust might very well help to remove the stigma that Wesleyan theology all too often bears in evangelical circles-"it is not a biblical theology!"

1. The term "modern" is to be understood in the broader sense of the "modern period" of NT studies and is not limited to only very recent writings. The bulk of the research for this paper was done in the sixties. However, such recent works in NT theology as G. E. Ladd's A Theology of the NT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1974) and H. Ridderbos' Paul, tr. by J. DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975) have been examined, as well as the first volume of Dogmatics of the Christian Faith, by H. Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1974).
2. This is more extensive than the use of the Greek imperative mood. It is also expressed by other grammatical forms that depict exhortation or challenge such as the hortatory subjunctive (cf. Gal. 5:25) and parakaleo with the infinitive (cf. Rom. 12:1).
3. This is a language and not a country reference.
4. This writer was introduced to the question of the relationship between the indicative and imperative by C. Scott, Christianity According to St. Paul (Cambridge: University Press, 1927). He distinguished between salvation as a fact of the past and as a progressive experience. Cf. the book outline.
5. An example of this is G. E. Ladd's recent book, Theology of NT, in which his study of Paul covers almost 200 pages, but the indicative and imperative is treated in 1 l/2 pages (524-25) .
6. It will be necessary to limit the identification of the indicative and imperative contrast to some representative examples because the primary objective of this paper is the examination of the various interpretations of the contrast.
7. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:8-11. R. Bultmann relates this to the interplay of the indicative and imperative, cf. Theology of the NT, tr. K. Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954), 1:332.
8. Cf. R. N. Flew's attempt to make such an identification, contrasting Phil. 3:15 (ind.) with 1 Cor. 13:12 (imp.), The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology (London: Oxford University Press, 1934), p. 52; cf. also A. Hunter, Interpreting Paul's Gospel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 94ff. Cf. the treatment of Phil. 3:15 by the writer, Newness of Life (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1975), p. 217.
9. An intriguing question we cannot treat here is whether the Roman believers were in imminent danger of sinning or were continuing the practice of sinning. The negative present imperatives (oasileueto and paristauete in vv. 12-13) can be either a "present of past action still in progress" or "linear action being commenced," cf. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the Greek NT (Cambridge: The University Press, 1953), pp. 20ff.
10. Rom. 6:13, 19. Cf. the exegesis by this writer, NOL, Part IV.
11. Cf. the significance of the repeated question "Don't you know'!" Cf. R. Howard, NOL, pp. 144-46.
12. 3:16-17. Cf. the plural "you" (este, humeis).
13. Col. 3:5. The unfortunate "translation" in the NASB-"Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality . . ."-is an obvious theological interpretation.
14. Cf. 3:8ff. and 3:12ff. and the vivid metaphor of taking off and putting on clothing, apothesthe, endusasthe.
15. Cf. the argument that the ambiguous aorist infinitives in Ephesians 4:22, 24 should be interpreted indicatively in keeping with the ambiguous aorist participles in Col. 3:9-10. Cf. R. Howard, NOL, p. 108, fn. 17.
16. A study of the sources used in this paper clearly reveals the accuracy of this statement.
17. A. Koberle defends this concept in his book A Quest for Holiness tr. J. C. Mattes (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1936), p. 153. In J. Hering's commentary on 1 Cor. 6:11, he argues that this statement of Luther is proper for Romans 4 but not for Romans 6, La Premiere Epitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Paris: Delachaus et Niestle S.A.).
18. Erlosung und Sunde im Neuen Testament (Verlag Herder Freiburg, 1950), p. 152.
19. The New Life in Christ (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1950), p. 121.
20. A. Kirchgassner rejects this concept as well as Luther's, Erlosung, loc. cit.
21. Romer 7.25 und der Pueumatikos (Seol: Tung-A-Verlag, 1958), p. 67.
22. Cf. S. Cave, The Gospel of St. Paul (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928), p. 159.
23. Cf. C. Craig, "'Paradox of Holiness'; the NT Doctrine of Sanctification," Inter., 6 (1952), pp. 142-61.
24. New Life, p. 121.
25. A Man in Christ (New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, n.d.), P. 199.
26. C. Scott, Christianity, p. 174. H. Robinson has a similar view when he finds hope of the imperative only in the resurrection of the soma (body), The Christian Doctrine of Man (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), pp. 129 ff.
27. This varies in Paul's letters. The Contrasts in Romans and Colossians have a more paradoxical character than those in 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
28. Commentary on Romans, tr. C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949), p. 242.
29. G. Ladd, Theology of NT, 524.
30. "Paradox," p. 153; cf. L. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1946), p. 260; H. Rall, According to Paul (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1944), p. 84. Cf. the German "Gabe und Aufgabe."
31. Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of NT, 101-2; S. Neil, Christian Holiness (London: Lutterworth Press, 1960), p. 99; A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, tr. W. Montgomery (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1935), 296ff.
32. Paul's Gospel, p. 28.
33. Cf. L. Marshall, NT Ethics, pp. 219-20; H. Robinson, Doctrine of Man, p. 129; C. Scott, Christianity, p. 174; J. Stewart, Man in Christ, p. 199, S. Cave (ideal and becoming), The Gospel of St. Paul (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928), p. 159; V. Taylor (ideal and real), Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1948), p. 162; G. Turner (ideally buried and dead), The More Excellent Way (Winona Lake, Ind.: Light & Life Press, 1952), p. 76; J. Weiss (idealism and realism), The History of Primitive Christianity, 2 vols., tr. by four friends, ed. F. C. Grant (New York: Wilson Erickson, 1937), p. 518.
34. Cf. The Common Life in the Body of Christ (London: Dacre Press, 1950), pp. 60ff.
35. NT Ethics, pp. 219 ff.
36. Mysticism of Paul . pp. 296 ff.
37. Erlosung, p. 152.
38. Romans, p. 242.
39. Cf. Dei Heiligkeit im Urchristentum (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930), p. 217.
40. History of Christianity, p. 518. For similar views of the imperative confirming the indicative, cf. H. Rall, Paul, pp. 81ff.; V. Taylor, Forgiveness p. 162.
41. "Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus," ZNTW, 1924. This basic position by Bultmann has not been substantially altered, cf. Theology of NT, 1 :332 ff.
42. The Bible Doctrine of Grace (London: The Epworth Press, 1956), pp. 130 ff.
43. The Meaning of Paul for Today (London: Collins Clear-Type Press, 1959), pp. 121 ff.
44. Cf. "Das Problem des paulinischen Imperative," ZNTW, 1924, p] 266 f.
45. Cf. R. Astings, Dei Heiligkeit, p. 217; C. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Collins Clear-Type Press, 1959), p. 113- L. Marshall, NT Ethics, p. 262- S. Neil, Christian Holiness, p. 99- J. Stewart, Ma in Christ, p. 190.
46. Theology of the NT, 1:322.
47. Erlosung, p. 153.
48. The Bible Doctrine of Sin (London: Epworth Press, 1953), p. 13,
49. Idea of Perfection, p. 59.
50. Cf. A. Kirchgassner, Erlosung, p. 153; E. Wahlstrom, New Life p. 101. Cf. also "be what you may become," J. Weiss, History of Christianity p. 518; "realize what you are," S. Neil, Christian Holiness, p. 68.
51. Paul.
52. Cf. the references to "being and doing" in Paul; R. Howard, NOL subject index.