Commentary on Romans 8:12-17

In Romans 8:12–17 Paul elaborates on what it means to live in the new realm of the Spirit. Previously, in Romans 7, Paul had conveyed the individual believer’s inner struggle of navigating life between two different realms, especially with respect to the law. On the one hand, there is the old realm of the flesh characterized by sin and death. On the other hand, there is the realm of the Spirit characterized by grace and life. Paul emphatically assures his audience that their allegiance lies with the latter, as conveyed in Romans 8:9–11.

However, allegiance to the new realm doesn’t imply immunity from the persistent influence of the old realm. Paul’s emphasis in Romans 8:12–17 is twofold: first, to reassure believers of their secure belonging to the new realm, and second, to encourage them to beware of the encroachment of the old realm.

From the indicative to the conditional

It is often said that Paul moves from the “indicative” to the “imperative” in the overarching structure of Romans. The indicative is a statement of how things are. As its name implies, the indicative indicates. The imperative is a command. It states what must be done—what is imperative. Romans 1–11 supposedly outlines Paul’s theological content, while Romans 12–15 encourages the reader to live differently.

While it is true, grammatically speaking, that chapters 12–15 of Romans contain more commands and exhortations than do chapters 1–11, there is no shortage of admonition peppered into the “indicative” chapters of Romans 1–11. In Romans 8:12–17, Paul encourages the reader to live as is fitting in the realm to which they belong, namely the realm of the Spirit that is characterized by grace and life.

However, this encouragement does not come in the form of direct commands (in other words, imperatives). Rather, it comes in the form of two contrasting conditional sentences in Romans 8:13: “If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

These are “simple conditional” statements. With a simple conditional, the action in the first clause is thinkable or realistic. These are not hypothetical situations. Paul acknowledges the real possibility that one might continue to live according to the flesh. He then presents the action that ought to be taken in the second “if” sentence of verse 13: killing the deeds of the body in order to live.

Surrounding the two conditionals are indicative statements reminding the audience to which realm they belong, using various imagery that involves allegiance and obligation. In Romans 8:12 Paul uses financially oriented language, claiming that those who are in Christ are not “debtors” to the flesh. In verses 14–17 he uses familial language, insisting that being led by the Spirit makes one a child of God, not a slave of fear.

Debtors

The term “debtors” can assume a financial dimension of obligation, as illustrated in the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:24. In the parable, a slave owes the king 10,000 talents. He is literally “a debtor of 10,000 talents” (opheiletēs myriōn talantōn). Yet, the term extends beyond financial implications to convey a moral or social indebtedness as well.

Paul uses the term two other times in Romans. In Romans 1:14, “debtor” takes on the social connotation, signifying Paul’s obligation to “Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the foolish.” In Romans 15:27, where Paul uses it to indicate that the churches of Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to contribute to Paul’s Jerusalem collection, it carries both the social and financial dimensions.

The connotation of the word in Romans 8:12 varies between English translations. Some emphasize the financial aspect, using the term “debtors” (New Revised Standard Version, King James Version, English Standard Version), while others soften the financial sense, using “obligate” or “under obligation” (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, New International Version, Common English Bible).

Considering the other kind of imagery Paul uses in the passage, the word leans more toward the social realm rather than the strictly financial. It pertains to the motivation behind one’s actions, highlighting internal compulsion rather than being driven solely by an external, financial imperative.

Children and slaves in the family

In Romans 8:14–17 Paul uses familial and household imagery to further indicate obligation and allegiance. He contrasts being a “son” (huios) and “child” (teknon) with being a “slave” (doulos). The phrase “sons of God” had resonance in both Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts. In the former, emperors and heroes were labeled as such. In the latter, the people of Israel are regularly referred to as “sons of God.” Paul uses the masculine gendered term “son” in verse 14, probably to maintain these resonances, but then switches to the gender-neutral “child” in verses 16–17 to indicate that being a child of God is not a gendered affair.

Being a son or child, in contrast to being a slave, afforded one a different, privileged status. Children, even adopted children, were afforded intimacy, status, and freedom in high-status Roman households. Their social relationships were ordered by free, not forced, obligation. This intimacy is indicated by the fact that believers are able to cry out “Abba! Father!” “Abba” is the Aramaic word for “father,” which, while indicating familial closeness, was not a childish way to refer to a male parent, contrary to popular belief. The word was used by both children and adults. “Daddy” is not necessarily the best English equivalent to “Abba.”¹

Both “Abba” (abba) and “Father” (patēr) would have been inappropriate terms for an enslaved person to use with respect to the head of the household. While one who was enslaved held an obligation to the house, it was a different kind than that of a child.

As James Dunn puts it with respect to children, “Filial concern can be assumed to provide the motivation and direction for living.” An enslaved person, in contrast, “must live within the terms of a code which restricts him firmly within servitude, and who as a slave is divided in status from members of the family by an unbridgeable gulf.”² Both roles, child and slave, carried obligation, but one form is granted and positive, while the other is forced and negative.

The simultaneity of advantage and obligation continues through verse 17. Being an allegiant child means being an heir to the household, but it involves obligation. The mechanism by which believers are adopted as children is the death and resurrection of Christ, who is the joint heir. Being a joint heir with Christ also means jointly participating in his suffering and glorification.

Notes

1. James Barr, “’Abbā Isn’t ‘Daddy,’” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 28–47.
2. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 1:459.