Holiness in Romans: An Essential Ingredient for Effective Mission
Perhaps this is partly because holiness is often understood as a “withdrawing from the world”; while mission, narrowly defined here as evangelistic outreach to unbelievers, requires believers to actively engage with the world.[1] Because of this, holiness can seem irrelevant, and even unhelpful, to believers who are attempting to missionally engage with the modern world. The saying, “too heavenly minded to be of earthly good” comes to mind.[2] However, another overly quoted saying offers a different perspective, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”[3] Similarly, Jones describes a Hindu lecturer as saying, “if you Christians would live like Jesus Christ, India would be at your feet to-morrow [sic].”[4] The way a believer outworks their faith, their holiness, has an impact on the effectiveness of their witness. Thus, the thesis of this paper is that effective church mission must be built on a foundation of holiness. To argue this, I will engage with Paul’s letter to the Romans, an epistle that is increasingly being considered to have been written for a missional purpose.[5] First, a brief overview of Paul’s presentation of holiness in Romans will be considered, before four passages in Romans will be used to demonstrate that Paul believed holiness was not only relevant to mission but also integral to missional effectiveness.
Holiness in Romans
Holiness has two separate meanings throughout Scripture. On the one hand, holiness refers to something special, set apart from other things similar to it; while on the other hand, holiness is also used to refer to the characteristics of that which has been set apart or made holy.[6] In other words, throughout Scripture, the term “holiness” is used to refer to both the status of something and also the outworking of that status, and there are times when the holiness term communicates both meanings simultaneously. When God set apart the Israelites as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6),[7] he also required them to outwork that holiness by living according to laws that demonstrated the characteristics of holiness (Lev 19).
When considered in this way, the two definitions of holiness are not as separate as they first appear. Paul can describe Christians as those who are “called to be [God’s] holy people” (1 Cor 1:2) without them having the characteristics of holiness (1 Cor 3:1) since salvation comes not by works but by faith, but the expectation remains for believers to outwork that holiness in their lives. Thus, “A person cannot have genuine faith without having obedience [to the characteristics of holiness laid down by God], nor vice versa.”[8]
When explicitly discussing holiness in his letter to the Romans, Paul uses four words that are part of the hagios or “holy” word group. These words, hagios, hagiosyne, hagiasmos, and hagiazō, are spread evenly throughout the letter.[9] The root word, hagios, used to describe something having been “set apart by (or for) God,” is used twenty times.[10] Paul uses it five times in relation to the Holy Spirit[11] and three times to describe the Law/Scriptures (1:2; 7:12). The other twelve mentions involve God’s people, either generally or specifically,[12] describing either the people themselves or their actions.[13] In addition to this, hagiosyne is used once to describe the “Spirit of Holiness” (1:4); hagiazō describes the action of the Holy Spirit in setting apart the gentiles (15:16);[14] and hagiasmos communicates the “process of … becoming” set apart (6:19, 22).[15] Using these words, Paul clearly and frequently demonstrates that believers have been set apart as holy for God; however, except in the command for believers to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (16:16), Paul does not use these words to describe the outworking of the holy and set apart status that believers have.
Nevertheless, the theme of the outworking of holiness, or obedience to God, runs throughout Romans.[16] This is demonstrated especially in the phrase “obedience that comes from faith” that is used to bookend the letter (Rom 1:5, 16:26).[17] Much scholarship has gone towards understanding what Paul meant by this phrase.[18] This is understandable since it is a significant phrase for readers of Paul; especially considering that, in my experience, Paul’s theology of being “justified by grace” is at times simplified to make obedience irrelevant to faith. On the contrary, in Romans, the justification by which believers are holy cannot be disconnected from obedience to God through which the characteristics of that holiness are outworked.[19] This is explored throughout Romans, including when Paul uses the analogy of slavery to demonstrate that an individual is either obedient to sin or holiness and that what they are obedient to demonstrates where their loyalty lies (6:15–22).[20] Believers do not become God’s holy people based on their works, but neither can they continue to be slaves to sin once they become God’s holy people.[21] They have been “set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness,” (6:18) and consequently, they are to “offer every part of [themselves] to him as an instrument of righteousness” (6:13).[22]
There is much more that can be said about Romans’ treatment of holiness, and the requirement on believers to “offer [themselves] as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness” (15:19), however, that is not the purpose of this article. Having established that Paul calls the Roman believers to work out their holy status through obedience, I will now turn to a discussion of how Romans teaches that holiness is an essential aspect of Christian mission. It will be argued that holiness does not simply relate to the individual’s Christian maturity, but also the church’s Christian witness. Effective church mission must be built on a foundation of holiness.
Romans 2:17-24: Holiness and Behavioural Integrity
As with all theological study, context is an important part of this discussion; in particular, the context of the Old Testament story that is assumed throughout Romans.[23] This is demonstrated not only by the number of direct quotes from the Old Testament found in Romans but also Paul’s use of Old Testament themes to construct his arguments.[24] The amount of Old Testament content in Romans has caused Howard to describe the letter as “a Christological commentary on the Old Testament.”[25] This may be overstating the case, however, it is clear that, for Paul, the gospel of Jesus is a continuation of the story of God and his people and believers take on the identity and role of Israel as the people of God.[26]
Understanding the importance of the Old Testament context behind Romans is significant for a discussion of holiness as mission because in the Old Testament, “God’s mission involves God’s people living in God’s way”; holiness.[27] Even before the formation of Israel as a nation, God chose Abraham so that he would “keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about … what he has promised” (Gen 18:19), including the promised blessing of “all peoples on earth” (12:3). Thus, in Genesis, God’s mission to bless all people was directly connected to the way that Abraham, and his descendants, obeyed God.[28] This is seen again in Exodus when the Israelites were called to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6), or, as Durham describes it: “committed to the extension … of the ministry of Yahweh’s presence” and “a display-people, a showcase to the world of how being in covenant with Yahweh changes a people.”[29] The Israelites were charged to be missional by being distinctively different from the nations around them as they outworked their status as a holy nation.
This connection between mission and holiness is a part of the context in which Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, and he refers directly to the link in Rom 2:17–24 when he rebukes the Jews for not living according to the law that they boasted in and so causing unbelievers to blaspheme God. Paul quotes Isa 52:5 (LXX) in declaring that, “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Rom 2:24). Just as Judah’s exile resulted in God being mocked by other nations, so now Paul portrays God as being dishonoured by his people’s actions. Hendrickson describes Paul’s characterisation of the Gentiles as thinking, “the people (Israel) behave wickedly; therefore their God must be wicked also, for people resemble their god.”[30] The people of God, first the Jews and then the Christians, were given the privilege of being a display-people that points others to God, but that also meant that any disobedience misrepresented God. Thus, Paul directly links believers’ disobedience with how God is perceived by those who do not know him. For Paul, it did not matter that a Jew might consider themselves to be a “guide … light … instructor … or teacher” of the good news (2:19–20); their disobedience led to God’s name being blasphemed.
Paul appears to link their boasting in the law with the dishonour that comes from breaking it (2:23). It is not just that they are failing to be a display-people, they are failing to be people of integrity. In 1999, Simons coined the phrase “behavioural integrity” which considers the degree to which a person is perceived to outwork the values and beliefs that they claim to hold.[31] Over the last two decades, research has shown that people “may dislike and mistrust someone who espouses and enacts values [they] consider despicable, but [they] will give them some credit for representing those values honestly.”[32] This research describes a universal principle, thus it is unsurprising that Rom 2:17–24 speaks of the same phenomenon. The Jews boasted of values that they held, at least some of which the Gentiles would have considered pointless, if not despicable, however, by them breaking these values, the Jews failed to show behavioural integrity and so showed themselves to be untrustworthy. No wonder their actions were causing God’s name to be blasphemed. Their lack of holiness was crippling their mission to be guides, lights, instructors, and teachers of the gospel.
Romans 12-15: Holiness Equals Distinctiveness
While there are no other parts of Paul’s letter to the Romans where holiness and mission are so explicitly linked, at a broad level, the two ideas are intertwined throughout the letter. In Rom 12:1–2, Paul instructs the believers to offer their bodies “as living sacrifices,” choosing to not “conform to the pattern of the world” and instead be “transformed by the renewing of [their minds].” This non-conformity echoes God’s instruction to the Israelites to be a display-people by living distinctively. In Leviticus, God demands that his people “[b]e holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (19:2), which Wright colloquially translates as saying, “You must be a different people, because YHWH is a different God” and thus, “for Israel to be holy … meant that they were to be a distinctive community among the nations.”[33] This distinctiveness of behaviour is what Paul calls the believers in Rome to live out so that they also might be a display-people as they outwork their holy status as people of God. After making the command in 12:1–2, Paul then goes on to spend four chapters (12–15) detailing some of the specifics of what this distinctive outworking of holiness looks like in everyday life.[34]
Some of the specifics of distinctive behaviour are seen in 12:19–20, where Paul instructs the believers not to take revenge, but instead respond to their enemies by meeting their needs: “[i]f your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Barrett understands Paul’s quote of Prov 25:21–22 to speak of the “‘burning coals’ … of remorse” whereby an enemy is so overcome by the believer’s kindness that he becomes a friend and, presumably, thus hears the gospel of Christ.[35] This reasoning finds support from the fact that Paul leaves off the final phrase of the original passage, “and the Lord will reward you with good things” (Prov 25:21–22 NETS). Paul’s intent was not for the believers to be obedient to God’s commands for reward's sake; but rather, considering the holy status they had already received (Rom 12:1), they were to outwork that holiness so that they might “do what is right in the eyes of everyone” (12:17). Paul is expressing a similar sentiment to his testimony in 2 Cor 6:3–10 where, despite great opposition, he committed to behaving in such a way that would not discredit his ministry. Hendrickson sees particular importance in Paul’s focus on a lack of revenge arguing that
the manifestation of a vindictive spirit destroys Christian distinctiveness, the absolute prerequisite for success in winning people for Christ [because it] causes outsiders to say, “Those Christians are no different than we are.[36]
A believer’s outworking of their holiness, and therefore their distinctiveness from those around them, has a direct connection to the effectiveness of their witness. Holiness is essential for believers to fulfil their mission to be display-people, distinctive from the world around them.
Romans 14: Lack of Holiness Causes Others to Stumble
In Rom 14, Paul continues to discuss the specifics of the distinctiveness that comes from the outworking of holiness in believers’ lives by turning his attention to two areas of contention within the Roman church: the cleanliness of food and the Sabbath. For some of the Roman Christians, holy living required abstinence from meat and strict adherence to the Sabbath, while for others, those things were irrelevant due to the freedom they had in Christ. Paul’s focus in his response does not explicitly missional.[37] Rather, he is much more concerned with the effect that a strong believer’s choices might have on other, weaker, believers.[38] This intra-church dimension is demonstrated by Paul’s use of the descriptor “brother,” such as when he declares, “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall” (14:21). However, while intra-church relations are Paul’s primary focus, there are some indications throughout the passage that he also has in mind the wider missional connotations of these issues. Certainly, Paul had considered the missional implications of Christian food ethics before. In 1 Cor 10, he commands the Corinthian believers not to “cause anyone to stumble” by what they eat or drink and defines “anyone” as “Jews, Greeks, [and] the church of God” (10:32). Furthermore, in the next verse in 1 Corinthians, Paul connects his instruction to his commitment to seek the salvation of the many (10:33). Considering this, it is clear in 1 Cor that Paul sees missional implications to a believers’ actions regarding food, but can the same message be found in Romans?
Cranfield believes Paul is considering unbelievers when he instructs the Romans not to “let what [they] know is good be spoken of as evil” (14:16).[39] He argues for “good” to be understood as describing the gospel that Paul and the Romans proclaim,[40] as opposed to Christian freedom or salvation as many other commentators interpret it as.[41] Cranfield does not offer enough evidence in his commentary for his argument to be persuasive; however, he is not alone in his interpretation. Hodge,[42] Hendriksen,[43] and Hahn all argue for the “good” to be understood as the gospel, with Hahn pointing out that “should disputes over food and drink descend into serious quarrelling among Christians, the gospel itself will come into disrepute in the wider society.”[44] Thus, Paul reminds the believers that the kingdom of God should not be known for what people eat or drink, but rather “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” and that “anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval” (14:18). Barrett sees a connection between this verse and 1 Cor 10:32 where, as has already been stated, Paul warns believers not to let their food choices cause anyone, including unbelievers, to stumble. Thus, Barrett argues that the human approval the believers will receive comes from the society around them who will have no reason to reproach the Christian life.[45] Both Cranfield and Hahn agree with this interpretation,[46] with Hahn concluding that the result of a Church made up of people who live with “righteousness, peace and joy” would give “positive witness to the world.”[47]
The most significant piece of evidence that Paul’s response to the Romans’ disagreement around food and Sabbath has missional dimensions is found in Rom 15:2. While the chapter break seems to signal a natural transition from one thought to the next, Paul’s continued use of terms “strong” and “weak” (15:1) indicates that these verses are a continuation of the previous argument. It has already been mentioned that Paul’s language of “brother” throughout chapter fourteen signalled that he was discussing intra-church relationships; however, in 15:2 Paul reminds readers that believers also should “please [their] neighbours for their good.” A believer’s neighbour, according to Jesus’ teaching (Luke 10:29–37) and referenced in Rom 13:9–10, is too wide a term to refer only to fellow believers. If Paul had intended to keep the discussion focused only on intra-church relations, he would have had no reason to change the descriptor from brother to neighbour. Thus, Paul teaches that believers should have a “view to the spiritual advantage of” everyone, including those outside of the church.[48]
While Paul’s primary focus in 14:1–15:13 is how a believer’s choices effect their fellow believers, it can be convincingly argued that he also had in mind the ways that the outworking of a believer’s holiness would impact their Christian witness. Just as believers should not cause their brother or sister to stumble by what they eat or drink, so also, they must not be a stumbling block for those coming to Christ. Thus, Paul demonstrates again the importance the outworking of holiness has on the effectiveness of Christian mission.
Romans 1:20: New Creation Displays God’s Invisible Qualities
Thus far I have argued for the connection between holiness and mission using passages from which the interpretation is supported by several commentators. However, a similar interpretation for Rom 1:20 does not yet have scholarly support. Certainly, as with Rom 14, it must be acknowledged that holiness and mission is not Paul’s main focus when he discusses that “God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (1:20). Paul is demonstrating that all people are without excuse when they choose not to glorify God, because God has been revealed to them through creation. However, it is worth considering whether humanity, and more specifically the witness of believers who are the “new creation,” (2 Cor 5:17) ought to be included as part of “what has been made.” If decaying creation can be a witness, how much more can believers who have already received the “first fruits” (Rom 8:23) of their new creation demonstrate God qualities to the world? They do so not only through words, but by displaying God’s “eternal power and divine nature.” Perhaps a similar sentiment could be considered here to Jesus’ words in Luke 19:40, “if they keep quiet [and do not praise God], the stones will cry out.” If believers do not display God’s qualities to the world, then creation will display it for them. How much better would it be if God’s new creation would “offer every part of [themselves] to him as an instrument of righteousness” (Rom 6:13) and so witness to the holiness of God through all that they do? If believers outworked their holiness, God’s qualities would be clearly displayed to the world.
Conclusion
Holiness, the obedient outworking of the status believers receive by faith, is undeniably a theme within Paul’s letter to the Romans. Furthermore, as has been argued, Romans demonstrates that holiness is an essential aspect of Christian mission. It is through holiness that the people of God bring honour to God’s name, live distinctively as display-people, refrain from being a stumbling block to those coming to faith, and display God’s invisible qualities to an unbelieving world. As a behavioural integrity researcher explains: “Just about anything a leader says will be interpreted through a lens that asks whether the leader truly means it.”[49] In the same way, the gospel of God is interpreted by the world through a lens based on the holiness of the believer espousing it. It does not matter what missional model a believer adopts, if they are not outworking their holiness then God will be dishonoured in the eyes of those they are attempting to reach with the gospel. A believer could be a street-evangelist, a friendship-evangelist, or a faith-healing evangelist, but without holiness, God’s name is blasphemed. Effective church mission must be built on a foundation of holiness. God’s mission is too important for the church, and individual believers, not to follow Paul’s instructions to “offer [themselves] as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness.” (6:19)
Michal Baken is a Salvation Army officer who is currently stationed as the Assistant Officer (pastor) Napier Corps. As well as assisting with leading the church, much of her time is spent leading a team of people to engage with the local community through their foodbank, transitional housing, and other forms of social service outreach. This balance between pastoral and outreach leadership parallels her twin passions for seeing believers grow in holiness and unbelievers come to love our holy God.
[1] Morna Dorothy Hooker and Frances Young Petit Burnett, Holiness and Mission: Learning from the Early Church About Mission in the City (London, UK: SCM, 2010), 4.
[2] This proverb is believed to have first been written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Snr.
[3] This saying is often misattributed to Gandhi, but it is believed to be a paraphrase of the words of Bara Dara, “Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians – you are not like him.” E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1925).
[4] Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road, 114.
[5] Mark Keown, Romans and the Mission of God (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2021), 43.
[6] Peter Oakes, “Made Holy by the Holy Spirit: Holiness and Ecclesiology in Romans” in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, ed. Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 167.
[7] New International Version
[8] William Hendriksen, Romans (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 1:45.
[9] K. E. Brower and Andy Johnson, eds., Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 169.
[10] Mark A. House and Alexander Souter, eds., Compact Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 10.
[11] Rom 5:5, 9:1; 14:17; 15:13; 15:16.
[12] Rom 11:16 describes “dough,” “roots,” and “branches.” Both Moo and Edward and Gasque’s Commentaries describe these metaphors as referring to Israel. Douglas J. Moo, Romans, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 366-367; James R. Edwards and W. Ward Gasque, Romans, IBC 6 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 267-268.
[13] Rom 1:7; 8:27; 11:16; 12:1, 13; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2, 15, 16.s
[14] House and Souter, Compact Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 10.
[15] House and Souter, Compact Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 10.
[16] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 17.
[17] Dunn references this phrase when he describes obedience as “a crucial and central theme, [that is] structurally important in understanding the thrust of the letter.” Dunn, Romans 1–8, 17.
[18] See Andreas B. Du Toit, “Faith and Obedience in Paul,” Neot 25.1 (1991): 65–74; Daniel B. Gallagher, “The Pauline Phrase ‘Obedience of Faith’ in Aquinas and Luther,” Logia 19.3 (2010): 29–33; Don B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans,” WTJ 52.2 (1990): 201–24.
[19] Don B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans,” 208.
[20] Dunn, Romans 1–8, 341.
[21] Hendriksen, Romans, 1:195. “For a Christian, continuing to live in sin is not only impermissible, it is impossible.”
[22] Keown, Romans and the Mission of God, 132.
[23] Keown, Romans and the Mission of God, 54.
[24] James M. Howard, “Re-Examining Romans 1–8 with the Pentateuch,” BSac 177.705 (2020): 71.
[25] Howard, “Re-Examining Romans 1–8 with the Pentateuch,” 71.
[26] Michael W. Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 25.
[27] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 470.
[28] Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, 70.
[29] John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 263.
[30] Hendriksen, Romans, 1:106.
[31] Tony L. Simons, “Behavioral Integrity as a Critical Ingredient for Transformational Leadership,” Journal of Organizational Change Management 12.2 (1999): 90.
[32] Edward C. Tomlinson, Tony Simons, and Hannes Leroy, “Research on Behavioral Integrity: A Promising Construct for Positive Organizational Scholarship,” in The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, ed. Kim S. Cameron and Gretchen M. Spreitzer (New York, NY: Oxford University, 2011), 325.
[33] Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, 110.
[34] Scott Hahn, Romans, CCSS (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 212.
[35] C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 242.
[36] William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Chapters 9–16 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953), 2:419.
[37] As is stated in the introduction, mission is narrowly defined in this article as evangelistic outreach to unbelievers.
[38] Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 242.
[39] Charles E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Commentary on Romans IX–XVI and Essays, ICC2 (Edinburgh, Scotland: Clark, 1998), 717.
[40] Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Commentary on Romans IX–XVI and Essays, 717.
[41] See Hendriksen for a table outlining the different interpretations of this word. Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2:463.
[42] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 6th Reprint. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 424.
[43] Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2:464.
[44] Hahn, Romans, 252.
[45] Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, 244.
[46] Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 720; Hahn, Romans, 253.
[47] Hahn, Romans, 252.
[48] Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2:470.
[49] Tomlinson, Simons, and Leroy, “Research on Behavioral Integrity,” 335.