Romans 6:15-23

 

While the first four chapters of Romans dealt with the idea of God's righteousness in relation to justification, the next four deal with God's righteousness in relation to transformation; Paul's aim is to describe the difference which God makes in the individual life of a believer, of what God does on a practical level to change the Christian.

Romans 5 laid out the general framework of this subject and serves as the lynchpin, connecting this part of Romans to the first four chapters. Romans 6 deals with a pressing question, one which Paul had seemingly often encountered: is this transformation necessary? Does it really matter how we live? Does grace do away with the need for works? When we speak of transformation, is it a sort of extra credit course, something that it would be nice to strive for but isn't really necessary? Shall we then sin because we are not under the law but under grace? The short answer is no. The long answer is Romans 6. 

As I said in a previous article, Romans 6 divides neatly into two sections that look at two aspects of this question. In the first half, Paul mainly argues from the nature of what salvation is. Justification means identification with or participation in the death and resurrection of Christ because that is the ground of our justification. And therefore, by its very nature, justification involves a death of our past life. Our old self, the person we used to be, is crucified with Christ so that we can live a new life as a new man. The second half argues from the nature of sin—that sin, being what it is, is incompatible with the Christian life.

This section, like the first, begins with a question: “Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?” (v. 5) A couple commentators suggest that there is a contrast between the idea of sin here and in verse 1; that in the former case, it refers to a life of sin while here it refers to individual acts of sin. The Beacon Bible Commentary paraphrases it: “Are we to make provision for a single act of sin?”

We already know the answer to that, but it is important to understand Paul's reasoning for his answer. And to understand it, we have to consider the word doulos. The root idea of this word is bondage and it means one bound in service to another. It is the word translated in this passage as servant. But it would be better to translate it as slave.

Slavery was a common reality in the first century; it was something that everybody would be familiar with. Many of those to whom Paul was writing probably had slaves or were slaves, one of the two. It is something that is not as commonplace for us, so we have to make sure to grasp the concept. A slave serves his master. There are many other relationships in which one man serves another. But the defining characteristic of slavery—the thing that sets it apart from any other human relationship—is the fact that the slave was completely the property of his master. His master was not merely one of the authorities in his life but the only authority in his life. His master might be harsh and exacting, or he might be lenient and give him a deal of freedom, but that determination was in the hand of his master. Every minute of his life was under his master's discretion. 

That is why Jesus said no man can serve two masters. An employee can work two different jobs because he is in control of his time and can make the decision about how to use it. But a slave cannot have two masters. You cannot be under the absolute authority of two separate people, especially if those people are opposed to each other. 

And Paul's case here is built around that picture. He pictures us as slaves to one of two masters; we are either slaves to sin and therefore under the authority of sin, or we are slaves of righteousness and are under the authority of righteousness.

These two are irreconcilable. We cannot be both; if we are not one then we are the other. Paul puts it this way: if you are a slave to sin, then you are free from righteousness and if you are a slave to righteousness, then you are free from sin. We can picture a slave who was sold by his master and bought by a different master. At that point, his old master had no power or authority over him and he was now under the authority of his new master. 

If we are Christians, then we are no longer under the authority of sin; sin has no power to command us, has no call on our service. Now we are bound to God and are under his authority.

This all may seem a little jarring to us. Note verse 19: “I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh.” In other words, Paul is saying that he is using this illustration drawn from common life because it was easier to understand. But it is just an illustration and it shouldn't be taken too far--because while there is a comparison between slavery and our relationship to God, there are also several sharp contrasts as well.

At least, I think that is the most likely interpretation of verse 19. But it is true that a few commentators take it a different way. Paul uses the phrase “the infirmity of your flesh” as his reasoning for his analogy. Often in the Bible, the word flesh is used to refer to human nature, especially in regards to its weakness and incompleteness. But sometimes it is used specifically for the evil propensities of humanity. If you take that interpretation, then Paul is using this analogy specifically because of the moral weakness of his readers.

And initially, I wasn't even going to bring that up since I didn't see any connection between the idea—why Paul would use this analogy, in particular, to write to carnal people over more spiritual people. But after I started thinking about it, I think there is a connection and something which, whether or not it was in Paul's mind, does help give more force to his argument here.

Because this whole question: “Shall we sin because we are under grace?” implies this attitude—the attitude that doesn't want to live a righteous life and will only do so if absolutely necessary; that wants to be able to keep at least some of sin and not completely obey God; a desire to do the bare minimum where God is concerned but still make it to heaven. Obviously, there is an appeal in temptation and there are trials in following God; obviously, even the highest Christian will have moments when it is difficult to do God's will, as Christ struggled with it in the garden. But having said that, the general truth remains that to have an attitude that WANTS to avoid obeying God, that wants to avoid righteousness and transformation is a sign of spiritual deficiency; it betrays a problem either of the heart or the head. There is a sense in which this whole section is written only because of the infirmity of your flesh.

To someone with this attitude, being forced to obey God seems like slavery. And I think Paul's thought might have been something like this: “You say that having to obey God makes you a slave. That is a poor way of looking at it, but say that it is slavery. Yet you were just as much a slave before you became a Christian. Would you really rather be a slave to sin rather than a slave to God?”

To take a different analogy. A boy whose parents force him to do various chores for the family might feel as if he is being treated like a slave. That is an immature attitude (assuming that his parents truly are good and loving parents)—to look only at the restrictions and limitations and not at anything else. But it would also be true that, even considering his chores as slavery, it is still a better kind of slavery than the kind of thing he would be driven to do to survive if he had no parents or guardians. The truth is that in life we are always under certain restrictions and limitations and freedom most often means choosing the type of bondage we prefer.

Because that brings us to the point which is truly important here; I said before that this is just an analogy—that this picture of slavery as relating to our relationship to sin or righteousness is ONLY a picture and there are some key differences. And this is the most important one.

A slave had no control over who his master was, generally speaking. If his master sold him, he might be bought by anybody and he had no say in the matter. But this question of who we will serve... we DO have a choice here. This is verse 16: “Whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are.”  

We can picture this like a branching path. Before us are two roads—two masters and two kinds of service. And the deciding factor, the thing that determines which master we have; the hinge or switch, if you will, which determines our  path is the word yield. It is the choice we make, regarding who we will follow, who we will worship, what goal we chose, what we will identify with—you can describe this choice in many different words, but the essential point is that it is a choice, a choice between two alternatives, and that choice is what determines our master.

But this is not merely a matter of choosing between two masters or two courses of action. As humans, we are constantly making such choices but there is more involved in this choice.

A slave cannot obey two masters, but even what those two masters ask might change. An American citizen is bound to obey the laws of America, but what those laws are may radically change over time—things once illegal are now legal, and things once legal are now outlawed. A man who, at one time, was a law-abiding citizen would be a criminal if he lived a few years later or earlier. But God's laws are absolute and unchanging (though the clarity of our understanding of them and their particular application of them may change).

In other words, this choice is not something arbitrary. It is intrinsic to the very nature of reality that we must choose either to yield ourselves to God or not—and thereby to yield ourselves to sin. There is no alternative.

This is the choice, and with this choice come comes consequences. With sin, the consequence is shame—that is verse 21: “What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?” The consequence of righteousness is holiness; verse 22: “ye have your fruit unto holiness.” Righteousness leads to rightness, wholeness. The word holy in scripture often has the connotation of what which is dedicated to God; it has the picture of something cleaned and polished and perfected so that it could be offered before the presence of the Most High. But sin leads to shame, to impurity, to brokenness. The sinner may not always experience shame as a psychological event—as drunk people are often said to be unaware of the silliness of their actions—but that doesn't change the reality of their situation.

And beyond this, there is the final end of these two paths, which are death and life. The choice to follow sin or to follow righteousness inevitably leads to one of these final conclusions. This choice and its consequences are necessary. This isn't an arbitrary decision by God, still less by the church. This isn't something that was introduced by Moses and was not abolished by Paul. So long as there is a God, all this would be true. Therefore, the fact that we are not under the law but under grace does nothing to alter this picture.

However, the obvious objection to all of this would be: “In that case, aren't you saying that salvation is by works rather than faith?” If obeying righteousness brings us to holiness and eternal life, then isn't that denying the doctrine of salvation by faith that Paul established earlier?

But clearly, Paul didn't see it that way. Look at verse 23 where Paul pictures these two possible alternatives—life and death. He describes death as “the wages of sin” while eternal life is a “gift.” What this means is that these two paths are asymmetrical; they aren't the same. This isn't like choosing between two different employers who pay different wages. There is a more fundamental difference here. And we can deduce that difference by looking at John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The end of this route is everlasting life. So the beginning must be “believeth”--that is to say, faith. The choice to yield ourselves to righteousness is faith; it is accepting God as God and choosing to commit our ways unto Him; it is trusting that His ways truly are best. 

Suppose a generous employer wanted to do something nice for one of his employees and so one payday, rather than his normal paycheck, he prepared a large bonus. But the employee was paranoid and didn't trust the check because it was something different than normal and insisted instead on his normal wages. In that case, he received his wages rather than the free gift, because he reacted to the offer in doubt instead of in faith.

But for the overall argument, here is the point that matters. The path of obedience to God, the path which leads to eternal life, is the path of the free gift. God has extended to us the opportunity to serve Him freely, to be members of His kingdom, His family, to enter into His house--not out of our own deserving, but by grace. Therefore, coming back to verse 15, the very fact that we are under grace implies that we need to follow and live according to God's word. Grace does not excuse us from following God but rather allows us to follow God. The very fact that we can yield ourselves to God and therefore have access to holiness and ultimately eternal life is because of grace.

There is a sharp divide here. There is no choice except to come to God in faith or reject God in doubt. Of course, there are stages and degrees in faith and in our knowledge of God, but fundamentally, we can only be following God or turning away from Him; we can only be on one path or the other. That is why the idea of a Christian yielding himself to sin is so wrong; it is trying to start and end on one path while walking in the middle on a different path; and that's not the way that paths work, at least not paths that go in opposite directions. Of course, there are struggles and difficulties on either path, but what matters is which path you are on.

And that choice has a consequence. Romans 6:23 is a verse that is very often used in evangelism. Often we think that this message: “The wages of sin is death” is something that needs to be told to sinners. And it definitely does work in an evangelistic context. But in context, Paul is addressing Christians. And while he is partly just describing the nature of our choice, I think there is something else. 

This choice regarding who or what we will yield ourselves to obey, regarding whether we will live by faith in God or by doubt in God, is not a choice made once and for all—at least, not in one sense. Though becoming a Christian is a lifetime commitment, we still have a choice to make every day; with every new situation, new opportunity, and new temptation, we are making the choice between faith and doubt, between righteousness and sin, between life and death. 

One of the things that sets us, as Wesleyans, apart from modern American evangelicalism is the belief that it is possible for a person truly to become a Christian and then turn away from God and lose salvation; the belief that once you are on this path, you can leave it. The Allegheny Discipline states that belief in these words: “After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin.” Paul is not directly addressing this issue here, but it is clear where the logic of his argument points. If we, as Christians, chose to yield ourselves as slaves to sin, we are no longer yielded to God and to righteousness. If the just shall live by faith, then what will happen to them without faith? As I said before, there are struggles and difficulties on the path, as Paul will show in more detail in chapter 7; we shouldn't picture God standing over the Christian with a magnifying glass, looking for the smallest deviation from the correct path so that He can cast them out. But the truth remains that we do have a choice and we continue to have a choice and choices have consequences. 

And that brings us to the other part of this warning. Because the wages of sin is death. The term wages refers to that which is earned, that which, so to speak, 'ought' to follow, what is expected. We might put it that the effect of sin is death. The natural, obvious result of sin is death; it is destruction; it is chaos and corruption. That is what sin will inevitably lead to unless something else interferes—as striking a match will lead to fire unless something like water is added to put it out.

And while it is true that, as we embrace God's grace in faith, God interferes to protect us from the consequences of sin, by moving us to a new path, this is only to a certain extent and is only possible because Jesus took upon Himself the wages of our sin.  That's why I've struggled before to define forgiveness—we say that forgiveness means the removal of the punishment of sin, but that is only partly true. Moses sinned against God when he smote the rock to bring forth water. He was clearly forgiven; Moses is one of the few people we can definitely say made it to Heaven because we see him in glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. And yet he still suffered punishment for his sin. We read earlier in Romans the words of David speaking of the joy of being forgiven. And yet David was also punished for his sin.

Therefore, it is true, even for the Christian, even for one who finds justification through faith, that the wages of sin is death, even if God saves us from the full extent of those wages. 

Suppose a Christian gives way to a temptation to anger and in it attacks and kills another man. That Christian may find forgiveness from God; he may yield himself in faith and find at the end eternal life. Still, for the man he attacked, anyway, it holds true quite literally that the wages of sin is death. There will be consequences for everyone involved. I do not say that God's grace may not be operative in the midst of those consequences and bring something good out of all the evil. But God's grace does not simply remove or negate the consequences.

That, then, is the sober warning of Romans 6. As Christians, we have already made a decision to leave the path of sin and follow after righteousness. And if we deviate from that path and chose instead to follow after sin, we should be aware of what the consequences of following sin are—to ourselves and to everyone around us.

George MacDonald wrote:  "No, there is no escape. There is no heaven with a little of hell in it--no plan to retain this or that of the devil in our hearts or our pockets. Out Satan must go, every hair and feather."