#44. Romans 6:12 - Holy Sh… (Conciliation Series, Part XXI)

Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

Let not sin, then, be reigning in your mortal body, for you to be obeying its lusts.

Throughout Romans 6, we have been dealing with the topic of “sanctification,” that is, being “made holy” to God. If you’ve been following along, God spent Rom. 1:18-3:20 discussing the conduct of mankind, then 3:21-4:25 discussing our justification, and began telling us about our conciliation in 5:1. It is in this “conciliation” section that we are coming to learn just how God perceives us. There is nothing, up until this point, that has been asked of us, nor has our moral character been considered as of yet. Most people have an issue with this, per the objection presented in Romans 6, but if you have the God-given patience to hear God out, you have found that the reason the objection at the beginning of the chapter doesn’t track is because God has sanctified you to Him through the death of His Son, by baptizing you into His death, placing you and Christ Jesus together.

This is called “being sanctified,” because that describes the act of being “made holy.” This is why, at the beginning of this letter, Paul pointed out that this letter was addressed to “saints” in Rome, and described a “saint” to be “beloved by God.”

Holiness itself is not a moral game at all. People make it out to be as such, but it’s not. If man makes “holiness” out to mean something along the lines of, “good moral character,” but Paul, per the inspired words of God, has clarified that our evangel is apart from law, that is, apart from morality, then clearly we’re missing something on the topic of sanctification. Indeed, we should take the time to study the word, to find whether or not the “moral” idea that comes with “holiness” is actually accurate or not, Scripturally speaking.

For contrasts’ sake, here is the modern definition of holy, as found in Merriam Webster’s dictionary:

1)    Exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness or righteousness

2)    Divine

3)    Devoted entirely to the work of the deity

4)    Having a divine quality; venerated as or as if sacred

All four of these definitions are incorrect. Two of them have an element of truth to them, but, because things are skewed with the other definitions, this comes off as, “man trying to achieve holiness,” when it is just the other way around – “holiness is given to man” (Rom. 1:5, 5:11.)

In contrast, let’s consider how God uses the term holy, as well as the term “saint” (I find both rather important, because believers are called “saints” eight times in Romans alone.) I will show you a few examples that will hopefully upend the inscribed “man-made” view of the above four definitions, especially the first one that implies that you, in being considered “holy,” are suddenly “perfect in goodness.”

I wish I could perform a word study on the word “holy,” but alas, there are 467 uses of the term “holy” in the Old Testament alone, so I will use a few select (but obvious) examples to make my point known. First, let’s take a look at the first use of “holy,” as presented in Exodus 3:5:

Then [God] said: Do not come near hither! Drop off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing, this is ground of holiness.

Huh. That’s weird. So… does the ground have a moral connotation to it? That’s kinda strange, to assume that the inanimate object has a moral compass. That disregards the first man-made definition of holy. The second and third are disregarded because the ground itself is not “divine,” worthy of worship, nor can it prove a sentient capability for devotion.

The only definition that makes any sense is the fourth, in this case: the ground itself has a divine quality, in the context of the verse (being that Moses is coming within reaching distance of the burning bush.) With that said, the ground itself is still not sentient, and this does not give the ground “grounds” for “worship,” as the second half of the fourth definition implies. So each of these definitions errs critically in some regard. Let’s try this again, in Exodus 29:37:

Seven days shall you make a propitiatory shelter on the altar, and you will hallow it. Thus the altar becomes a holy of holies. All that touches the altar shall be holy.

So here’s a shelter on an altar… is this shelter living? Does it have any decision-making abilities? No? Thaaaaaat’s what I thought.

Let’s look, one more time, at another book. Let’s see Lev. 6:18:

Every male among the sons of Aaron, he may eat of [My fire offerings.] It is an eonian statute throughout your generations from the fire offerings to Yahweh. All that may touch them is holy.

Fire offerings… and in the previous verse, sin offerings and guilt offerings are considered holy as well… so what’s the deal, here? Is the offering itself holy by moral action? No.

So… we’re reaching an understanding that inanimate objects were considered holy by God, and clearly, morality was not included in this idea. It follows that we should apprehend God’s definition of “holy,” because it clearly doesn’t follow “morality” if inanimate objects can be considered as such.

The Hebrew word for “holy” is kodesh. The root word of this term is kadash, which means, literally, “set apart.” The term “holy” is, then, to set something apart to Him. This does not:

A)  Mean that the holy object is of right moral standing.

B)  Mean that the holy object is divine in nature

C)  Mean that the holy object is willingly devoted to Him

D)  Mean that the holy object is now of divine quality

To presume any of the four statements above without a proper context is a logical fallacy. If I say, “my girlfriend is holy to me,” it would mean that my girlfriend, is, relatively, set apart for me. Similarly, if she said, “my boyfriend is holy to me,” it would mean that I am, relatively, set apart for her. Obviously, my statement that something is “set apart” to me does not hold the same quality of power that God holds, especially in any sense that I could hold the power to “set apart” something in the same manner that God does. But the simple definition of “holy” is, literally, to “set apart to Him.” Here’s George Rogers on the matter:

“When God says, ‘Ye shall be holy, because I am holy,’ He must mean that holiness in the saints corresponds to something similar in Himself. If He meant to say, ‘You shall have completeness of moral and spiritual purity, perfection, and integrity because I have it,’ then the word ‘saint’ could not truly describe believers in this eon.”

Holiness, simply, describes another attribute of the saint, that is, the declaration by which he is called ‘saint,’ and not an umbrella term for “righteousness,” “perfection,” or “purification.” A holy place can be polluted – see the Corinthian ecclesia (1 Cor. 1:2, 5:1.) Nonetheless, they were still holy, otherwise the letter itself wouldn’t have been written. If morality played a role in sanctification, or somehow played a role in being justified, then the evangel could not truthfully an honestly make the claim “apart from law.”

There are many more examples of “holy” to understand here, but I’m not going to dwell on them for a long time. I have one more verse here, in 1 Cor. 1:2:

Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus, through the will of God, and Sosthenes, a brother, to the ecclesia of God which is in Corinth, hallowed in Christ Jesus, called saints…

Saints are fully defined as “hallowed,” and “beloved by God.” It seems as though people focus on the fact that Jesus Christ is, by definition, “holy,” and, because Jesus Christ is of moral perfection, that “holy” automatically correlates with His perfect nature. This is a major disservice to God’s divine use of the word, which includes Jesus Christ, and is the ultimate example of holy, indeed, but is not limited to Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. There is more to the story than this, and we will be using this understanding of “holiness” as we continue the study. That said, if you’d like to see more, I recommend both George Rogers’ study of “holiness,” on p. 429 of Unsearchable Riches, volume 23, as it’s the most comprehensive study I’ve seen on the word so far.                                             

*   *   *

With holiness considered, it is evident that holiness is not a process that we become over the course of our lives, but we were called saints. God calls you a saint before you even reach Romans 3:21. If you apprehend justification, then you are a saint, because God is making Himself known to you, whether you fully understand the significance yet or not.

Let’s take another look at Romans 6:12:

Let not Sin, then, be reigning in your mortal body, for you to be obeying its lusts.

This is impossible if you are not already made holy. Moreover, it is not possible if you have no sin in you whatsoever. Do you see? God, in making you “holy,” does not expect you to be sinning, but does not expect you to never sin. There’s a middle ground, here, uniquely applicable to you and whatever situation you’re in. Don’t, like, sin, but don’t freak out if you do sin, because you know you’re spiritually oriented and holy in His sight, now. You’re not going to be Jesus Christ in this life, so don’t bother. Again, remember that the root of this evangel is based on grace, not on divine moral quality.

The word “sin” still has that definite article in front of it, so it’s clearly established that there is one master, being Sin, and another Master, being Christ. If you are imbibed into Christ’s spirit, then there’s no reason for Sin to be reigning. See, in this figure, Paul is not talking about “no more sinning, or else…” because we aren’t under the law. To quote this verse out of context would be foolhardy of us; every word Paul has given us from Romans 5:12 to now states the opposite of “no more sinning, or else…” Romans 5 undeniably considers all of mankind’s sin, and considers the overwhelming greatness of Christ. Moreover, Romans 6 is now considering all of the believer’s sin, and considering the overwhelming greatness of Christ. If everyone’s sin was considered in the previous chapter, then the believer’s sin can certainly be dealt with, with the previous verses considered.

Remember that “mortal” means “dying,” and is considered in relation to humanity constantly. Sin entered through Adam, who was focused and concerned with the flesh. The body has been subject to Sin for nearly 6,000 years, now. It was crucified at the cross, yes, but it’s dying to this very day. There’s no “flesh” after the eons. It’s dirt. A transient vessel. But because Christ now owns the flesh, as opposed to Sin, Sin’s body is being slowly nullified. Sin actually exists in us. It will remain while we are on earth. Yet, it does not need to be reigning, because you serve a new Master!

Here’s my shitty analogy: you’re at Olive Garden, serving your tables. One of the tables you serve turns out to be the Pizza Hut manager. The Pizza Hut manager gets upset because you’ve done something he would never allow his staff to do. Now, whether you intended to do this ambiguous thing or not, with malice or kindness, does not change your response: “I work for Olive Garden, not for Pizza Hut.”

Do you see? I can’t break it down any clearer than that, I don’t think. You could add, the Pizza Hut manager requests to speak with the Olive Garden manager? Yet, in that case, the Olive Garden manager will say, “Well, I’m sorry you’re dissatisfied with our service; I’ll handle him how I need to handle him, but you must understand that he’s one of our best servers!”

This is the graciousness of our Lord. Whereas Sin will point at your flaws and go, “Yeah, but, you didn’t do this, did you?” Christ will go, “Look, you didn’t do this, and I’m so thankful that you didn’t. You have no idea how much I love that you didn’t, because if you had, I wouldn’t have been able to make Myself known to you.”

The Sin is our mortal wound. It’s our flesh. We are attached to it, and this flesh slowly but surely dies. This is why, when Christ died, God considered all dead (2 Cor. 5:14.) It is also, through your justification by faith, why God considers you to be living (2 Cor. 5:15-16.) You are perceived as a new creation entirely (2 Cor. 5:17.) The same way that Christ is dying no longer, is the same way that you are dying no longer. You are pledged with immortality (1 Cor. 15:53, Eph. 1:14.) This is your Lord. He makes you alive, and is using you for His delight (Eph. 1:3-12.)

As such, Sin need not be reigning; not merely, in my opinion, because Sin is Christ’s opposite, but because it is simply senseless. Do you notice how God has been playing on logic this entire time? Every. Single. Statement. That He gives has been so graciously leveled to our sensibilities. He hasn’t talked over us, or even made it out like He’s talking down to us. He has, unequivocally, been graciously speaking to us. His demeanor has almost been bursting with excitement to share these things. In flesh, they are words on a page. In spirit, however, they are a glorious proclamation that screams praise in the heavens. And all of creation will inevitably be shouting it.

What does it mean to “obey the lusts” of the mortal body? Is it, pray, something like “eating an extra donut after dinner?” Or “having sex one too many times that week?” Maybe “drinking shots,” or “smoking fifteen cigarettes in a row?”

PLEASE. May it not be coming to that!

The brain needs four things to sustain itself, physically speaking. It needs food, water, sex, and sleep. Yes, all four of these things are critical to the health of the human body. All four will impact you emotionally, and terrorize you spiritually, if left unchecked. Psychologically, these are the “natural desires” of the flesh. These four concepts are absolutely not hated on by God in Scripture. You will not find one single verse in Scripture that states that food, water, sex, or sleep, are a bad thing. In the Pentateuch, you will find certain limitations on these four notions, but you will never see God outright condemn any of them. These four concepts are the lusts of the flesh, or a facsimile of what God is talking about. He is not saying, stop doing these four things, because then your body dies, and that makes the charge stupid. But He references these four things as notions that should be controlled. Eat… when you’re hungry. Drink… when you’re thirsty. Have sex… when you’re horny. Sleep… when you’re tired. Sound simple enough?

There’s no need to adhere to a heavy self-discipline, with the above in mind. “Dinner’s at 6 every day” is a pretty silly charge, for example. “I drink my water at 2, 4, and 8 P.M.” Come on, that just sounds silly. Here’s one that’s sure to piss off a few of you: “Only have sex when married.” How about, “You’re required to get 8 hours of sleep every night.” The truth is that you are a unique individual, and your needs may be different than another’s needs. Paul will cover this more when he discusses our effectual conduct (Rom. 14:4-7.)

Until then, so long as these four needs are generally under control, Sin is not reigning in your mortal body, for these four ideas are not your drive. They are, in fact, effectual, because the only thing that ultimately brings you life is the holy spirit of God. He is the One that presents your life. The four desires of the flesh I’ve summed up are provisions that God gives. He presents you the food, and He also does not present you the food. As we’ve been discussing throughout this letter, it’s all Him. So, praise Him, not the food, or the water, or the sex, or the sleep, that you receive. You need not obey the lusts of the flesh. Enact them, because they are necessary, and to shy away from them means you are not being educated properly (Ecc. 1:13.)

Simply put, don’t starve the flesh, because Sin gains power in that. And, don’t overindulge the flesh, because Sin gains power in that. There’s a middle ground. Here’s George Rogers:

“Protest should be made against an asceticism which renounces what is natural and good, and against taboos of men which are substituted for divine precepts, for that is fraudulent piety which forbids what God grants and denies what is natural. But so long as our body is mortal it will be the seat of evil desires that must be controlled. It is by means of her army of corrupt desires that queen Sin has so long maintained her rule over all the sons of Adam.

To give obedience to these is to yield allegiance to Sin, but to be master of them, to exercise the self-control which is the fruit of the spirit, is to revolt against her tyranny and escape from slavery. Only as the lusts of the mortal body are resisted can one learn that there is no power in man to master them. Even Paul needed to belabor his body and lead it into slavery (1 Cor. 9:26-27).

Advocates of unrestricted ‘self-expression’ are pleading for the reign of sin in the mortal body. When man obeys his lusts, he is the slave of Sin.”

And, as A.E. Knoch puts it in his commentary, “A realization of our death to Sin and life in Christ will give us power to cope with Sin, always remembering that Sin cannot bring us into disfavor because of the superexceeding grace.”

- GerudoKing