Angus Harley

According to some, putting off the “old man” as referred to in Ephesians 4:22 happened once-for-all when the believer came to faith. Romans 6:6 and Colossians 3:9 are cited as evidence of this view. My argument in this article is that Paul is reasoning that the believer is to put off the old man and put on the new man. However, Paul being Paul, his theology is layered and not as straightforward as might first appear. For a clear implication of his view given in Ephesians 4 is that the old man was put off when the Christian came to faith, and the new man put on at the same time. A conundrum of sorts arises: Paul is working with a model that the old man is both dead and yet active, and the new man was put on once-for-all, yet must still be put on. The result is that, two modes are at play: there is a definitive mode and an ongoing one. At the heart of this theology is the tension in the Greek text concerning the two aorist infinitives of Ephesians 4:22, 24.

Tension of the aorist infinitives

Time and the aorist infinitive. How is one to interpret the aorist infinitives “put off/lay aside/put aside” (apotithemi) (v22) and “put on” (enduo) (v24)? It is not easy to determine. Do the verbs refer to the past, or to the present? Some have suggested that as both infinitives are aorists, Paul has in mind the past. However, NT Greek scholarship has long ago cast off the view that the aorist indicates a completed act in the past. The core idea of the aorist is that of seeing an action as a whole, or as Wallace says, like a snapshot of an event as a whole.[1] Wallace also informs us that outside of the indicative and participle, “time is not a feature of the aorist.”[2]

Indirect discourse. It boils down, then, to whether both aorist infinitives- which naturally do not give us a sense of time- are acting in context as imperatives/commands (“put off”, “put on”), or as indicatives (“you have put off the old man”). Both infinitives are set in what is called ‘indirect discourse’, meaning that Paul’s use of the infinitives is not giving a direct teaching there and then about putting off and putting on, for he is recalling something the Ephesians had previously been taught (vv20-22). This is taken by some to settle the matter: Paul is implying in these verses that the old man was put off in their past, and the new man put on in their past. However, Wallace gives a different perspective:

The other translation possibility is, “You have been taught in him that you should put off the old man.” The reason that either translation is possible is simply that the infinitive of indirect discourse represents either an imperative or an indicative in the direct discourse, while its tense remains the same as the direct discourse. Hence, this verse embeds either “Put off the old man” (aorist imperative), or “You have put off the old man.”[3]

Wallace is saying that it is impossible to know by the mere use of aorist infinitives in indirect discourse if the original teaching that Paul gave was a command to put off and put on, or that it said they have put off and put on when they came to faith.

The NET adds that aorist infinitives normally, in indirect discourse, refer back to an imperative or command, “Every other occurrence of an aorist infinitive in indirect discourse in the NT goes back to an imperative”. However, the NET immediately adds that, “in all of these examples the indirect discourse is introduced by a verb that implies a command”.[4] The question then becomes if the verb “having been taught” (v21) implied a command or not. In terms of the grammar, there is simply no way of knowing, although, as the NET says, the majority use of the aorist infinitive in indirect discourse might point us toward an imperatival import in the original discourse. Even so, the two aorist infinitives taken in themselves are not going to give us the answer as to whether Ephesians 4:22 is teaching that the old man was already off or had to be taken off.

Demands and commands

The solution is to see how the aorist infinitive phrases are acting in their full context, for mere grammar is not the solution. The context is very clear: Paul lays down current teaching that is a series of demands, and this strongly suggests that the original teaching on the aorist infinitives followed the same pattern of imperatives:

17 So I say this, and insist in the Lord, that you no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. 19 Because they are callous, they have given themselves over to indecency for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. 20 But you did not learn about Christ like this, 21 if indeed you heard about him and were taught in him, just as the truth is in Jesus. 22 You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, 23 to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth. 25 Therefore, having laid aside falsehood, each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on the cause of your anger. 27 Do not give the devil an opportunity. 28 The one who steals must steal no longer; instead he must labor, doing good with his own hands, so that he will have something to share with the one who has need. 29 You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it would give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 You must put away all bitterness, anger, wrath, quarreling, and slanderous talk—indeed all malice. 32 Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.

From this we see a removing of a certain way of life, and the pursuing of the opposite, are all commanded.

            In objection to this view, it is said that it was just as possible that in the past, Paul taught they had put off the old man and put on the new when coming to faith in Jesus, and that certain moral duties followed- thus the imperatives.

However, this does not take into account Paul’s full language. Why say this, for example, that the old man “is being corrupted”? Or why state that the Christian is “to be renewed in the spirit of [his] mind” (vv22, 23)? Why refer to ongoing states of both old and new men? Put another way, why would Paul write to Christians about the old man still being renewed in nastiness, when the old man had now nothing to do with them? And what was it about the new man- a perfect, sinless man (see ahead)- that required a constant state of renewal?

 When all this evidence is taken with the fact that the majority of aorist infinitives in indirect discourse refer back to the imperative, then we see why most translations opt for the reading that vv22 and 24 imply an imperatival force.

Conundrum and error

Conundrum. If this is so, then Paul has left us with a conundrum. For the context clearly implies that the old man was also put to rest in the past and the new man put on in the past: “the new man who has been created in God’s image” (v24), “having laid aside falsehood” (v25). How can the old man be put off when he was already put off, and the new man put on when he was already put on?

Ignoring the conundrum. Some see this as a contradiction, and take the opportunity to reinforce the view that the old man has been entirely removed from the picture, and only the new man is left. John Murray’s view is that because the old man has been once-for-all taken out of the spiritual equation, then the commands to do this or that are not implying that the old man is still controlling the Christian in some regard, but that because the Christian has the new man, he must live as the new man and never return to the old man.[5]

Theological error. While it is no doubt true that because the new man has been put on that Christians will live as a new man, Murray’s position is reflective of an over-realized eschatology, and incurs the notable theological error of moral perfection in this life. Murray himself recognizes that the old man is identified by his behavior- lying, adultery, etc.- and the new man by his behavior- telling the truth, loving our brothers and sisters in the Lord, and so forth. If the Christian is clothed only with the new man, and the old man is out of the equation entirely (having been crucified once-for-all), then this inevitably implies that only the new man exists. And if he does so, then only godly behavior prevails. No sinful behavior whatever. For sinfulness is exclusively the property of the old man. Thus, Murray’s view entails moral perfection whilst here on earth. Consequently, moral commands and imperatives to flee the old way are, in that case, entirely pointless. The believer becomes, then, the equivalent of our Lord who, although sinless in nature and action, was assailed by sin, but it could never bring him down. We don’t read of the Father commanding Jesus to flee sin, or to watch out for the flesh. Why would he? In like manner, why would God command a Christian, who is entirely new man and not in any way old man, to act as a new man and flee sin? In this scenario, the new man is what the Christian is and must be; it is his default mode, so to speak, and he has no other way of functioning. He cannot possibly act as old man if he is merely new man. Consequently, this view of Murray’s entails that the removal of the old man leads to the major doctrinal error of sinless perfection. Whereas, the fact that Paul has to urge the Ephesians to “no longer live as the Gentiles” (v17) demonstrates the Ephesians were not always in ‘new man mode’. Indeed, every single command and imperative implies that the Ephesians were prone to being sucked into the lifestyle of the old man.

Renewal. Murray’s reading has to answer another question. Why would the new man require renewal if the new man is all that the Christian has? The new man is, by definition, a sinless man, a man who obeys God, and does not fail in doing so. The mew man is not a ‘potential’ to be realized, but a way of living, just as the old man is a way of living. Why is there need to renew this status and way of life? It is one thing to constantly access by faith this life, but surely quite another to ‘renew’ it. Renewal implies an ongoing need for the new that is necessary because it has ended. Contextually speaking, it is because the old man is forever, in this world, hounding the believer, that the believer has to put the old man off and put on the new man. Therein lies the renewal factor.

Sinners. Another issue that is missing from Murray’s whole discussion is, if the new man alone exists, from whence sin in the believer? One cannot appeal to the flesh, or to any source to do with the Christian himself, and certainly not the Christian’s heart, for the new man is on the Christian. He is a new creation. The flesh, the old man, and the old way of life is gone. It is one thing to say that the Christian, like Christ, wrestles with the external forces of wickedness, even the flesh itself, but if, as Murray says, the Christian is merely a new creation, then the flesh has no tie to the Christian himself. So, where does sin come from? Some have taken to the view that the Christian is a non-sinner who sins. Yet, Paul’s view of sin is that it is an inseparable part of a dark team that constantly fights Christ and his righteousness. Sin, unbelief, unrighteousness, Satan, death, darkness, the flesh, this world, the earth, its religion, etc., etc., do not switch off for a moment, and cannot be separated from one another. The NT does not know of a Christian who is not a “sinner” (1 Tim.1:15). David rejoices that, as a believer, his many “ “lawless deeds” ” were “covered” (Rom.4:7-8). Why was David the believer such a sinner? What is behind this sin performed by the believer? It is the flesh that houses sin (Rom.7:14-25). Was Jesus wrong for teaching that sin issues from the heart (Mark 7:21)? Do Jesus’ words apply only to the unbeliever, for the Christian has a new heart? Was he wrong to identify Satan with Peter (Matt.16:23; see Matt.4:10)? Was Peter a non-believer here? James therefore exhorts as follows:

19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner (hamartólos) from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.”

Definitive and continuous

So, we are left with the theological and contextual necessity that the old man was put off once-for-all and yet must be continuously put off; similarly, the new man was put on once-for-all but must be continuously put on. This exact theology is implied in Romans 6 and Colossians 3 (but that’s for another day). Galatians 5:16-26 reflects the same theology, except the phrase ‘old man’ is removed and ‘flesh’ put in its place. We died with Christ once-for-all, and died to the flesh once-for-all, yet, the flesh still persists. The flesh is, in this world, forever with the believer. The flesh wars against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. Although it is the believer’s flesh, the NT goes to the extreme, because of Jesus’ victory and presence in us, of speaking of it more objectively as “the flesh” or “flesh”. Even so, Paul does use the phrase “my flesh” in Romans 7:17, 25, and Colossians 1:24.

The definitive aspect. What, then, accounts for this definitive-continuous model? It is Christ’s death for us and his life in us and for us. In Paul’s thought the flesh, death, sin, the world, Satan, the old man, and so on, are inseparable from one another. Jesus’ death and resurrection was the moment that once-for-all he defeated all these evil powers. The final manifestation of that complete victory is yet to come when Jesus returns (see 1 Cor.15:54-56). The life we have is Christ in us, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal.2:20). Old Paul is dead, having been crucified with Christ. It is a brand-new Paul that lives, a new creation, because the life he has is Christ in him. It is Christ for us and in us that is the definitive aspect: he conquered all, demonstrating the complete victory of his life. It is him and his victory in us the constitutes, therefore, the definitive mode.

The continuous aspect. However, just as Christ has to return to complete his victory over the axis of evil, so the Christian still fights with the flesh- yes, even his own flesh, his own old man. So Paul writes in Colossians 3:5, “So put to death whatever in your nature belongs to the earth” (NET).[6] Note, here that the “nature”, that is “members” (melos) (see Rom.6:13, 19, etc.), are, literally, “upon the earth” (epi tēs gēs). The Christian’s life is with Christ, in God, in heaven (Col.3:1-3), but Christians’ members on earth are, plainly, controlled by sin. That is, the old man belongs to this world, and will do so to the end, but the new man to the heavenly world and will do so to the end and beyond. Thus, as Paul says, the Christian reigns with Christ in heaven, and is actually seated with him (Eph.2:6); yet these same Christians as to the flesh were rooted in the ground, so to speak, here on earth, there in Ephesus!

More to my point, it is because of this struggle of old man/flesh/this earth with the new man/Spirit/heaven that there is a continuous aspect requiring both the putting off of the old man and putting on of the new man. And since our life in the new man is Christ in us, Paul puts the tension this way:

Definitive: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal.3:27).

Continuous: “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts” (Rom.13:14).

            Correcting an imbalance. Murray’s reading was a case of an over-realized eschatology arising from passing over the continuous existence of the flesh and the old man for the Christian. These two forces can no more disappear than the world itself, or the Christian’s own body, for they are all one-and-together in the same team, along with sin. Thus, when the Christian sins, it is an expression of this world, of the flesh, and of the old man. One cannot separate sin from the flesh, or the world, or the old man. There is no perfection in the life on earth. However, the Christian’s true identity is that of Christ himself: he is our life! It is heavenly life. This is the perfection element. There is zero sin, zero failure, in this new life, for it is Christ and his life. The new man does not sin; it is only the old man that sins, for that is his very nature! There is, therefore, no such thing as the anomalous belief of a non-sinner sinning. Sinning cannot be extricated from this world and the old man. Sinning ‘is’ this world in action, the old man, the flesh. It ‘is’ the sinner! The world knows only this life. The Christian as a resurrected man in Christ has a completely new life. And so, to the end of this world, the old in the Christian will fight with the new. This is Paul’s great point of exasperation in Romans 7, but he declares the victory for the new/inner man through Jesus Christ our Lord.

            1 John stresses the same tension of old and new, imperfection and perfection, but only for the Christian. We read in 1 John 1:10 that Christians sin. Patently, some Christians were indulging in an over-realized eschatology. Where would such an idea come from? From this type of statement: “Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God” (HCSB) (1 John 3:9). The life of the Christian is a new life, a sinless life, for it is God in us, his life in us. He cannot sin. Any living that is sinful is of the “world” (John’s preferred term), but perfection belongs to those born of God. Christ in us cannot sin; the new man is by necessity of Christ’s life faultless, peerless, and pure.

            Our Lord’s command in Matthew’s Gospel puts the same teaching this way, “ “you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” ” (Matt.5:48). This teaching, because it is a command, assumes that the old man still dogs the Christian. Secondly, it also assumes that the new man still has to be put on by the Christian. Any time the Christian obeys the Father, this is God’s perfect and sinless righteousness in him, because of Christ and the Spirit, obeying God. Paul’s states, “for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil.2:13).

            It is because certain Christians have not properly accounted for this world and sin in the Christian that they have created a huge imbalance that stresses merely the perfected side of the Christian that is due to Christ’s person and life in us. The reason why the NT so often concentrates on the element of perfection is because of the victory the believer has in Christ. Yet, surrounding this teaching is clear comments that the world, the flesh, and the old man still dog the Christian and draw him in; he puts them on. Therefore, beloved in the Lord, put off the old man and put on the new man, Christ in us, for us, and above us!

[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 217, 232, 239.

[2] Ibid., 239.

[3] Ibid., 262.

[4] NET Bible, https://netbible.org/bible/Ephesians+4.

[5] John Murray, Principles of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 211-219.

[6] The NASB translation is poor here, “Therefore, treat the parts of your earthly body as dead to sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.” The imperative nekrosate means “put to death”, not “treat”.