ROMANS ROAD
to RIGHTEOUSNESS |
Romans
1:18-3:20
|
Romans
3:21-5:21 |
Romans
6:1-8:39 |
Romans
9:1-11:36 |
Romans
12:1-16:27 |
|
SIN
|
SALVATION
|
SANCTIFICATION |
SOVEREIGNTY |
SERVICE |
NEED
FOR
SALVATION |
WAY
OF
SALVATION |
LIFE
OF
SALVATION |
SCOPE
OF
SALVATION |
SERVICE
OF
SALVATION |
God's Holiness
In
Condemning
Sin |
God's Grace
In
Justifying
Sinners |
God's Power
In
Sanctifying
Believers |
God's Sovereignty
In
Saving
Jew and Gentile |
Gods Glory
The
Object of
Service |
Deadliness
of Sin |
Design
of Grace |
Demonstration of
Salvation |
|
Power Given
|
Promises Fulfilled |
Paths Pursued |
Righteousness
Needed |
Righteousness
Credited |
Righteousness
Demonstrated |
Righteousness
Restored to Israel |
Righteousness
Applied |
God's Righteousness
IN LAW |
God's Righteousness
IMPUTED |
God's Righteousness
OBEYED |
God's Righteousness
IN ELECTION |
God's Righteousness
DISPLAYED |
|
Slaves to Sin |
Slaves to God |
Slaves Serving God |
|
Doctrine |
Duty |
|
Life by Faith |
Service by Faith |
|
Modified from Irving
L. Jensen's excellent work "Jensen's
Survey of the NT" |
Godet introduces this
section with this comment...
The new principle had just been laid
down. The apostle had found it in the object of justifying faith. But
could a principle so spiritual, apart from every external and positive
rule, take hold of the will with power enough to rule it thoroughly? To
this natural objection, formulated in Ro 6:15, St. Paul answers as
follows: by the acceptance of grace a new master has been substituted
for the former, sin (Ro 6:16-19); and the believer feels himself obliged
to serve this new master with the more fidelity because he rewards his
servants by communicating life to them, whereas the former master pays
his by giving them death (Ro 6:20-23). Thus it is proved that the new
principle is clothed with sufficient, though purely internal authority,
to control the believer's entire life.
WHAT THEN?: Ti oun:
The question with which Paul
introduces this verse is emphatic and expects a positive answer and thus
some version translate it with this emphasis:
"Surely you know that" (TEV)
A T Robertson writes the following
notes on the Greek text...
What then? (ti oun) Another
turn in the argument about the excess of grace.
Shall we sin? (hamartesmen). First aorist active deliberative subjunctive of hamartanō. “Shall we
commit sin” - occasional acts of sin as opposed to the life of
sin as raised...in
Romans 6:1) (where the practice of sin as a habit -present
tense - is here raised )
Because (hoti). The same
reason as in (Romans
6:1) and taken up from the very words in (Romans
6:14). Surely, the objector says, we may take a night off now
and then and sin a little bit “since we are under grace.” Another turn in the argument about the excess of
grace.
Wuest comments that...
"This second question proposes a
life of planned infrequent, spasmodic acts of sin, since grace makes it
impossible for a Christian to live a life of habitual sin. Paul answers
this question in
Romans
6:16-23 by showing that the Christian has changed
masters, and that serving the Lord Jesus, it is not his nature to sin."
(Wuest,
K. S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Studies in the
Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans)
SHALL WE SIN
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT UNDER LAW BUT UNDER GRACE: hamartesomen (1PAAS)
hoti ouk esmen (1PPAI) hupo nomon alla hupo charin:
(Ro 6:1,2; 1Cor 9:20,21; 2Cor 7:1; Gal 2:17,18; Eph 2:8-10; Titus
2:11-14; Jude 1:4)
Shall we sin
(264)
(hamartano) means to miss the mark (and so not share in the
prize). It means to act contrary to the will and law of God.
Under (5259)
(hupo) frequently meant not simply to be beneath but to be
totally under the power, authority, and control of something or
someone.
Law (3551)
(nomos) (click
for purpose of the Law illustrated) is etymologically something parceled
out, allotted, what one has in use and possession; hence, usage, custom.
It refers to formalized rule or set of rules prescribing what people
must do. Sin will overcome us if we try. All attempts to defeat the
flesh in our own power will fail.
Grace
(5485)
(charis)
is God's unmerited favor. It is that power which enables me to "turn
off" my flesh and to overcome sin.
Ray Stedman says that Paul's
sense here is...
"Should we sin even once now that we are not under law but under
grace?"
Kenneth Wuest paraphrases
it...
"What then? Shall we sin occasionally, because we are not under law
but under grace?"
Montgomery paraphrases
it...
What then? Shall we commit an act
of sin because we are not under law, but under grace? Certainly not.
Here are some other ideas conjured
up by Paul's question
“Shall we
sin just a little?”
"If forgiveness is as easy
and as inevitable as all that, if God's one desire is to forgive men and
if his grace is wide enough to cover every spot and stain, why worry
about occasional sins?
"Why not do as we like from time to time? It will be all the same in the end."
The answer to "shall we sin?" is
"Absolutely not". And he will explain why such a false teaching cannot be
accepted.
The question in this verse arises
as a reaction to Paul’s statement that now...
“You
are not under law, but under grace.” (Romans
6:14)
This question is similar to the
one at the beginning of Romans 6:
What shall we say then? Are we to
continue in sin that grace might increase? (Romans
6:1)
Note that there is a difference in the way these two questions
are phrased.
In the first, the Greek
verb "continue" is
present tense and thus refers to a life of habitual sin.
In the second, the verb tense
(shall we sin) is aorist tense and thus indicates that
here Paul is referring to occasional, single acts of sin. The thought
is,
“Since your doctrine of superabundant grace teaches the impossibility
of a life of habitual sin on the part of the Christian, will the fact
that a Christian is not under the uncompromising rule of law but under
the lenient scepter of grace, allow for at least an act of sin once in
awhile?”
The idea that grace is "lenient"
compared to the uncompromising rule of law, is an erroneous one.
The Holy Spirit indwelling the child of God, is infinitely more
cognizant of sin in the life of the saint than any system of law ever
could be. He is grieved at the slightest sin.
In the first
question, the desperately wicked heart offers an excuse for sinning
in that a life of habitual sin gives God an opportunity to display His
grace and thus glorify Himself, which is of course a perversion of the
teaching of grace.
In the
second question, this same person seeks a loophole somewhere in
God’s plan of salvation whereby he might sin once in awhile, and thinks
that he has found one in the fact that the Christian is now under grace
and is beyond the reach
of the law of God which could condemn him. Therefore, he argues that he
can sin with impunity, and grace will always forgive. Can you see Paul's
argument?
One can see at once from what Paul tells us in
Ro 6:1-14, that the person
who asks such a question as well as the one in
Ro 6:1, is an unregenerate sinner. The child of God has no desire to go on in habitual sin nor yet
to sin once in awhile. To be sure, a genuine believer is at times guilty of willful sin.
That is, he may yield to temptation, knowing that it is sin. But to
provide for a planned life of infrequent acts of sin, is altogether
foreign to the nature of the saint. Paul answers this question as he did
the first one, by the words “God forbid,” “far be the thought.” Then he
uses an illustration to show that it is a mechanical impossibility for a
Christian to desire to sin even once in awhile.
John MacArthur sums up
Paul's argument...
With his brief introductory
question, What then? the apostle again anticipates the false
conclusions his antagonists would derive from his declaration that
believers “are not under law, but under grace” (verse 14b).
To them, the idea of no longer being under law but under grace was
tantamount to being free of all moral restraint. “If the law no longer
needs to be obeyed, and if God’s grace covers all sins,” they would
argue, “then believers are perfectly free to do as they please.”
Jewish legalists, on the other hand, believed obedience to God’s law was
the only way of salvation. To them, Paul exalted righteousness out of
one side of his mouth, while in reality giving license to sin out of the
other side. They accused Paul of condoning lawlessness in the name of
God’s grace. The doctrine of grace has always been subject to that false
charge, which the apostle first answers in the first half of chapter
6. But because the misunderstanding was so common and the issue so
critical, he gives the answer again from a slightly different
perspective. The doctrine of salvation by God’s grace, working only
through man’s faith and apart from any works, is the furthest thing from
a license to sin." (MacArthur,
J: Romans 1-8. Chicago: Moody Press)
(Bolding added)
Ray Stedman writes:
I know that many experience this. We discover the
joy of deliverance. Then we also discover that the old life still has
power to tempt us and draw us back into its control. We realize that,
even though it is true that Jesus Christ lives within us to be all that
he is (which is all that we need), nevertheless the temptation is to
strike a balance and work out a compromise. We find ourselves wanting to
draw on Christ for the power to meet the times of stress that come --
the big problems -- but we rather like to put on the old comfortable
slippers of the flesh the rest of the time, and enjoy that. (Click full
sermon
Choose Your Master) Albert Barnes
sums up Paul's question with the following thought...
The apostle proceeds to notice an
objection which might be suggested. “If Christians are not under the
law, which forbids all sin, but are under grace, which pardons sin, will
it not follow that they will feel themselves released from obligation to
be holy? Will they not commit sin freely, since the system of grace is
one which contemplates pardon, and which will lead them to believe that
they may be forgiven to any extent?” This Consequence has been drawn by
many professing Christians; and it was well therefore, for the apostle
to guard against it. (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible - 1798-1870)
Adam Clarke
writes...
Shall we abuse our high and holy
calling because we are not under that law which makes no provision for
pardon, but are under that Gospel which has opened the fountain to wash
away all sin and defilement? Shall we sin because grace abounds? Shall
we do evil that good may come of it? This be far from us!
John Gill comments that...
"...here the apostle meets with an
objection of the adversary, saying, that if men are not under the law,
and are free from all obligation to it, then they may live as they list;
nor can they be chargeable with sin, or that be objected to them; since
where there is no law, there is no transgression, and sin is not imputed
where there is no law; and if they are under grace, or in the love and
favour of God, from which there is no separation, then they cannot be
damned, do what they will: but this objection proceeds upon a mistaken
sense of the phrase, "under the law"; for believers, though they
are not under the law as the ministry of Moses, yet they are
under it, as it is in the hands of Christ; and though not under
its curse, yet under obligation to obedience to it, from
principles of love and grace; and a transgression of it is sin in
them, as in others; and which is taken notice of by God, and visited
with stripes in a Fatherly way (see
Hebrews 12:5-11), though His lovingkindness is not removed and to argue from the unchangeableness of God's
grace, or the doctrines of it, as encouraging licentiousness, is greatly
to abuse the grace of God, and manifestly betrays such persons to be
ignorant of it and its influence; since nothing more powerfully engages
to a love of holiness, and hatred of sin; wherefore the apostle, answers
to this objection in his usual way, God forbid; signifying his
abhorrence of everything of this kind." (John Gill's Exposition of
the Entire Bible -1690-1771) (Bolding added)
MAY IT NEVER BE: me genoito (3SAMO):
Paul gives the same clear denial
he gave in Romans
6:2. (Click
exposition) As in that verse, Paul's refutation is
“No, a thousand times no!”
The suggestion that God’s grace grants a license to sin is absurd.
Why? Because God bestows His grace in order to free men from bondage to
the power of Sin. It would be illogical for the very force that frees us
from the power of Sin to at the same time re-energize the power of Sin!
Grace clearly does not condone or justify continuing in sin because
grace transforms the life that is saved. There is a practical
application - If a person's life that gives no evidence of moral and
spiritual transformation, they are exhibiting no no obvious evidence of
salvation and need to carefully examine the gospel they have believed.
><> ><> ><>
ILLUSTRATIONS OF BIBLE TRUTH
by Harry A. Ironside - LAW AND GRACE - "We are
not under the law, but under grace" (Ro 6:15).
Some years ago, I had a little school for young indian men and women,
who came to my home in Oakland, California, from the various tribes in
northern Arizona. One of these was a Navajo young man of unusually keen
intelligence. One Sunday evening, he went with me to our young people's
meeting. They were talking about the Epistle to the Galatians, and the
special subject was law and grace. There were not very clear about it,
and finally one turned to the Indian and said, "I wonder whether our
Indian friend has anything to say about this."
He rose to his feet and said, "Well, my friends, I have been listening
very carefully, because I am here to learn all I can in order to take
it back to my people. I do not understand all that you are talking
about, and I do not think you do yourselves. But concerning this law
and grace business, let me see if I can make it clear. I think is like
this. When Mr. Ironside brought me from my home we took the longest
railroad journey I ever took. We got out at Barstow, and there I saw
the most beautiful railroad station and hotel I have ever seen. I
walked all around and saw at one end a sign, 'Do not spit here.' I
looked at that sign and then looked down at the ground and saw many had
spitted there, and before I think what I am doing I have spitted myself.
Isn't that strange when the sign say, 'Do not spit here'?
"I come to Oakland and go to the home of the lady who invited me to
dinner today and I am in the nicest home I have ever been in. Such
beautiful furniture and carpets, I hate to step on them. I sank into a
comfortable chair, and the lady said, 'Now, John, you sit there while I
go out and see whether the maid has dinner ready.' I look around at the
beautiful pictures, at the grand piano, and I walk all around those
rooms. I am looking for a sign; the sign I am looking for it, 'Do not
spit here,' but I look around those two beautiful drawing rooms, and
cannot find a sign like this. I think, 'What a pity when this is such a
beautiful home to have people spitting all over it -- too bad they don't
put up a sign!' So I look all over that carpet, but cannot find that
anybody have spitted there. What a queer thing! Where the sign says,
'Do not spit,' a lot of people spitted. Where there was no sign at all,
in that beautiful home, nobody spitted. Now I understand! That sign is
law, but inside the home it is grace. They love their beautiful home,
and they want to keep it clean. They do not need a sign to tell them
so. I think that explains the law and grace business."
As he sat down, a murmur of approval went round the room and the leader
|
