In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

93 2 Susan Eastman 6 Double Participation and the Responsible Self in Romans 5–8 “I am because we are, and because we are, I am.” This African proverb has become widely known in the west, and embraced as an antidote to American individualism. It expresses the simple truth that we need a community to be human. But it also raises important questions about the relationship between the “I” and the “we,” between a self shaped in different communal identities, and a community constructed of such selves. In the following essay, I hope to explore this relationship in the context of Romans 5–8 and see what light Paul sheds on the formation of persons. I use the term “double participation” to describe human existence in the realm of sin and death on the one hand, and life in Christ under the dominion of grace on the other. In turn, “the responsible self” indicates my thesis: I shall argue that in Romans Paul depicts not only communal identity but also distinct selves in a constitutive interaction with both sin and God in Christ. Such selves undergo a diminishment of personal agency under the tyranny of sin and death, and a reconstitution of agency in the dominion of grace, thereby becoming responsible actors in the service of God. The movement from Romans 7:7-25 to 8:1-2 is the turning point in this story of the self, under the banner of “no condemnation” (8:1). In Romans 7:15-17, Paul writes, “I do not know what I am doing. For what I want—this I do not do, but what I hate—this is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I doing it, but sin which dwells within me (ἀλλὰ ἡ οἰκοῦσα 94 Susan Eastman ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία).” In verses 19-20, he repeats the same claim of selfnegating double agency: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want, this is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I doing it, but sin that dwells within me (οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζο- μαι αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία).” These claims are a haunting reversal of the double agency in Gal 2:20, where Paul proclaims, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me (ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός).” In the Galatians passage, Paul speaks directly about himself and his own experience. In the Romans passage, he places a speech in the mouth of an anonymous I (ἐγώ) whose relationship to Paul himself is debated. Taken together, however, these statements evoke a picture of persons formed in relationship to entities that are external to and distinct from human beings, yet operate intrinsically within and through them. There is an “I, yet not I, but Christ,” and an “I, yet not I, but sin,” acting in these confusing statements. Furthermore, in both statements this “double agency” is a new development; it has not always been so: “It is no longer I (οὐκέτι ἐγώ) who does evil,” and conversely, “It is no longer I (οὐκέτι ἐγώ) who lives, but Christ lives in me.” These observations in turn raise the question of whether the I in either case is a responsible actor, and if so, in what way. There are further questions , such as whether these two modalities or realms of existence are sequential or simultaneous; that is, whether selves (if indeed Paul has a notion of individual selves rather than only corporate identity) can simultaneously be in relationship to both sin and Christ, or not. The Self in Paul’s Theological Anthropology Is there a self in Paul’s functional anthropology? Is there an account of either personal responsibility for sin, or of the flourishing of individuals within the body of Christ? In the first half of the last century, the usual answer to that question would have been an unqualified “Yes,” perhaps accompanied by puzzlement that it should even be asked. Paul was seen as the champion of the individual, even sometimes the discoverer of the individual. Almost fifty years ago, Ernst Käsemann wrote, Bultmann rightly draws attention to the importance which Paul assigns to the individual. The other New Testament writers view a person more or less as the representative of a group. . . . For Paul, too, this aspect has its relevance, and he always has it in mind. But at the same time, with...

Share