What does it mean that righteousness leads to sanctification?

Explanation:

Paul makes two contrasting statements in Romans 6:19 that help us understand what he means by righteousness leading to sanctification.³ First, he explains that being a slave to impurity leads to lawlessness. Next, he says that being a slave of righteousness leads to sanctification. That being a slave to impurity leads to lawlessness suggests that being a slave of impurity leads to a life that is increasingly characterized by sin.⁴ In other words, being a slave to impurity leads to a process of lawlessness. Of course, if being a slave of impurity leads to the process of lawlessness, given that being a slave of righteousness is parallel to being a slave of impurity, then being a slave of righteousness leads to the process of becoming holy.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it assumes lawlessness has to do with process. That is, the argument notices that there is a parallel between being a slave to impurity and being a slave to righteousness, the first leading to lawlessness and the second leading to righteousness. Still, this view assumes that lawlessness is a process, when it may be a state. That is, being a slave to impurity may lead to a state of lawlessness. Of course, if being a slave to impurity leads to a state of lawlessness, then being a slave of righteousness leads to a state of sanctification.

Response to counterargument:

When we consider carefully what Paul says about lawlessness in Romans 6:19, we can see that he likely has in mind something like a process that leads to increasing lawlessness. For he writes that impurity and lawlessness lead to lawlessness. Given that he says lawlessness leads to lawlessness, and he seems to have in mind that lawlessness leads to increasing lawlessness. Likewise, being a slave to righteousness leads to increasing sanctification.

Explanation:

Paul writes that being a slave to righteousness leading to sanctification. When Paul uses the term sanctification, he normally has in mind a process of becoming holy. For example, he writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:3–4 that the will of God is their sanctification, that each may know how to control their body in holiness.⁵ Likewise, in 1 Timothy 2:15 Paul says that woman are saved through childbearing if they continue in faith and holiness. In both instances, Paul uses the term holiness in terms of a process of becoming holy. Thus, when Paul writes that being a slave of righteousness leads to sanctification, he has in mind leading to a process of holiness.

Counterargument:

This argument relies on Paul’s other uses of the term for holiness to determine his meaning in Romans 6:19. The problem is that Paul uses the term not only to refer to the process of sanctification but also to denote a state of holiness. For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:30 Paul says that Jesus became the wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification. Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul refers to being saved through holiness, which likely refers to a state of holiness. Of course, if Paul regularly uses holiness to refer to both a process and state of holiness, then we cannot cite his uses in other passages to determine what he means in Romans 6:19, because he could mean either a process or state of sanctification.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that holiness can refer to both a process and a state of sanctification, the immediate context promotes the notion that Paul has in mind a process of sanctification. For Paul relates sanctification to being a slave to righteousness. In other words, being a slave of righteousness results in sanctification. Of course, we know that we are never perfectly holy in this life, but Paul expects the Romans to become a slave to righteousness in the present, which he says leads to sanctification. Since Paul expects the Romans to live righteously in this life, which leads to sanctification, along with the fact that we are never fully sanctified in this life, Paul likely has in mind that being a slave to righteousness leads to a process of greater sanctification.

The weakness of this view is that it does not make sense to say that being a slave to righteousness leads to a process of sanctification. For being a slave of righteousness is the process. In fact, it may be more precise to say that being a slave of righteousness leads to growing sanctification, rather than a process of sanctification.

Explanation:

Paul explains that presenting one’s members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. At first it is not clear if Paul means that being a slave of righteousness leads to a process or state of sanctification, but by considering another passage from the New Testament, we can deduce that he likely means a state of sanctification. In particular, the author to the Hebrews calls for his audience to be strong, walk on a straight path, and strive for peace and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. What the author of Hebrews implies here is that unless one is in a state of holiness, one will not see the Lord. Likely, Paul has a similar view in mind in Romans 6:19. That is, being a slave of righteousness will lead to a state of holiness.⁸

Counterargument:

There is an argument to be made that the author of Hebrews has in mind not a state of holiness but a process of growing in holiness. For the immediate context of Hebrews 12:1–29 has to do with correct moral behaviour. The author reminds his readers that discipline yields the fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11), and he is exhorting them to behave correctly by making their paths straight (Hebrews 12:13), living in peace, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). Given that both living in peace and holiness is required for seeing the Lord, he seems to suggest that actively living in peace and holiness is required for seeing the Lord. Of course, actively living in peace and holiness suggests a process of living in holiness, which, when applied to Romans 6:19, suggests that being a slave of righteousness leads to a process of growing in holiness.

Response to counterargument:

One item we should not overlook is that the author of Hebrews uses the article when he says that holiness is required to see the Lord. That is, he does not write that holiness is required, but the holiness. Referring to the holiness suggests that the writer has a particular instance of holiness in mind, without which no one will see the Lord. Of course, the particular holiness likely implies that a particular state of holiness is required to see the Lord. And this understanding aligns nicely with Romans 6:19, for in Romans 6:19 Paul is saying that being a slave of righteousness leads to the state of holiness required to see the Lord.

Explanation:

In order to understand what it means that being a slave to righteousness leading to sanctification/holiness, we need to remember that in the Old Testament, the temple was considered God’s holy dwelling. In particular, the most holy place of the temple was in a state of holiness, and because it was in a state of holiness that God dwelled there. What we learn in the New Testament is that through the work of Christ, the believers are now the temple of God.⁹ Paul teaches this in 1 Corinthians 3:17 where he explains both that the Corinthians are God’s temple and that God’s temple is holy. In other words, as God’s people the Corinthians were in a state of holiness, which made them adequate to be God’s temple. Likely, Paul has the same notion in mind in Romans 6:19. Being a slave to righteousness leads to a state of holiness, and like the Old Testament temple, being in a state of holiness means that God can dwell in them.

Counterargument:

We know from the Old Testament not only that the Holy of Holies was in a state of holiness for God to dwell there, but that the Levites were involved in a process of sanctification that brought the temple to a state of holiness. In other words, in the Old Testament, sanctification was both a process and a state. For example, in 2 Chronicles 29:5 King Hezekiah orders the Levites to consecrate both themselves and the temple, and the verb to consecrate is rendered in the Septuagint with the verb ἁγνίζω, which is closely related to the noun ἁγιασμός (holiness/sanctification). Of course, Paul may have the same notion of a process of sanctification in mind in Romans 6:19 when he writes of being a slave to righteousness leading to sanctification. That is, he may have in mind that being a slave of righteousness leads to a process of sanctification, just as the Levites engaged in a process of sanctifying the temple.

Response to counterargument:

The problem here is that there is an internal incoherence to the view implied by this counterargument. First, this counterargument agrees that when the Old Testament authors write about the temple and sanctification, they either refer to a process of sanctifying the temple, or the temple in a state of sanctification. So Paul refers to either being a slave of righteousness leading to a process of sanctification or a state of sanctification. Now, if Paul has in mind the Old Testament notion of a process of sanctification, this raises an internal incoherence that suggests he has in mind the only other option, which is a state of sanctification. For there is an internal incoherence to the notion of being a slave of righteousness, which is itself a process, leading to a process of sanctification. For it is redundant for the process of living righteously to lead to the process of sanctification. Rather, it makes more sense for the process of living righteously to result in a state of sanctification. Thus, given that leading to sanctification refers to either a process or state, and a process is redundant, Paul likely has in mind that being a slave of righteousness leads to a state of sanctification.

The weakness of this view is that it cannot decide between two different notions of being in a state of sanctification. For according to this view, Paul has in mind the same state of holiness that the author of Hebrews refers to, but this is an end-time state of holiness. On the other hand, this view says that God dwells in believers now because they are holy. So this view cannot decide between a future and present state of holiness, which, given the unique perfection of the life to come, must be different states.