Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Now I'm not too sure that my strict rules of logic and cogency can apply here, or else these verses betray a deep theological principle which is... I don't think correct. So here we go:
- If you sin, you are a slave to sin.
- So sin is your master
- So sin is the head of the family to which you do not belong
- A son, however, does belong to the family
- But the son is, of course, sins son... McSin, or Sin-san... or whatever
- And if Sin's Son sets you free, then you will definitely be free
You don't have to be particularly churched to read son = Jesus. It's a no-brainer. And... unless you are extremely convincing I don't think I will change my mind on this. It's Jesus right? So why is sin the head of the family? And why is Jesus sin's son?
There are a few possible explanations I guess. One is that John is intentionally playing with his words in some way. Another is that John isn't thinking about it this much. The most likely, I think, is that sin is the shackals, not the master/head of the house. This has a nice Galatians-y feel to it with the whole guardian business (ch 3? something like that). But then... if Jesus is the Son, then God is the father, and he is keeping us locked up by sin. Now this is also pretty Galatians-y actually, especially if you read sin as law. But the way that reads, most naturally, doesn't sit so well with me. Not to mention, I think that whole reading is a little... forced.
It's a weird passage. Perhaps there's a very simple explanation I'm missing. But in any case, Basic Comprehension is not always, immediately straight forward. Not always...
Posts
I doubt that John wasn't thinking about it closely - it is such a carefully crafted book!
ReplyDeleteIts not perfect, but maybe something like this works:
1) The Jews assume that because they are Abraham's heirs they have a secure inheritance in God's household.
2) Jesus points out that their actions show that they actually serve 'sin' rather than Abraham's God.
3) Sin isn't actually a thing in abstraction from our relationship to God - it is wrong committed by us which makes us indebted to him and the consequences he executes upon us. The slavery metaphor recalls the fact that debt makes people slaves in households until they can buy their freedom (if ever). 'Slave to sin' is actually shorthand for 'slavery to the consequence of sin (which is death) as executed by God, the master of the house'.
4) There is therefore a tension between their slave-ness and son-ness. As Israelites they are part of the family of promise. But as sinners they have a debt to the master of the house and their place will not be permanent: they will die.
5) Jesus alone is the true Son, and therefore able to release people from their bondage to sin (i.e. their debt to the master of the house).
I don't think it need imply that sin is part of the family. Sin is always a non-thing which is defined in terms of its difference to God and his will rather than being a legitimate thing with its own existence.
Matt Payne
I think that the problem in your logic lies in the jump from points 2 to 3. I think that the concepts of slavery and sonship are opposed no matter which family you belong to. The fact that sin is your master doesn't make sin the head of the family to which you belong. I guess that the implication could be that the head of the family to which you belong will not adopt you as a son if you are also a slave to sin. An adopted child can't be someone else's slave at the same time.
ReplyDeleteMaybe.