#50. Romans 6:19-23 - Right, But Should We Be Sinning, Paul?? (Conciliation Series, Part XXVII)

 Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

As a man I am saying this, because of the infirmity in your flesh.

Thanks, Paul.

As if to clarify that man is a slave, and never a free-willing agent, Paul clarifies that he is speaking as a man. This reveals that God is condescending to our level, graciously speaking to us in our language, when He needs not. Like Elon Musk telling his plans for the future of Tesla to the likes of you or me.

That said, it’s not a fun analogy. It’s fun to be called a son of God (Rom. 8:14-16) – but not to get called a “slave.” But it’s a necessary analogy, that we keep in mind that, in contrast to Sin’s bondage, it is a freeing, gift-giving allotment that educates us on the highest mind that runs the universe. The infirmity, or sickness, of our flesh, which is rooted in death, requires this analogy, because the flesh, on its own, is unable to figure out the spiritual nature of the world. People try, and they reach the wrong conclusions (it’s why we have religions like Hinduism. Man is very easily confused.)

Thus, ironically, enslavement to the flesh (Sin for death) will hate the idea of “enslavement to Righteousness.” It’s a “test,” so to speak. If you’re a believer, a true believer, you will love the fact that God chose you, and He enslaved you, and not the other way around. That He is the Source of your salvation, and the Source of your conduct, and that your faith is Christ’s, not yours, is a relief to the true believer. In contrast, the unbeliever, whose father is the Adversary, will respond the same way the Jews did, when they hear that you are calling yourself enslaved to God. Of course, many Christians (or people in general) today aren’t going to go into some hardcore, “Oh how could you say that” spiel; more often than not, they’ll respond with a “Hey, whatever floats your boat,” or “If that’s how you see things, man.”

For even as you present your members as slaves to Uncleanness and to Lawlessness for lawlessness, thus now present your members as slaves to Righteousness for holiness.

The same way you used to act for Sin, willingly, now present yourselves for Righteousness. The “Uncleanness” and “Lawlessness” could be something akin to “irreverence” and “injustice.” Yup! What goes around, comes around. Man is enslaved to Uncleanness and Lawlessness – they do not choose it. In the words of our Lord,

Father, forgive them, for they are not aware what they are doing.

Uncleanness is the disrespect, which in turn causes the sinner to “disrespect” or “defile” himself. Lawlessness is the “unjustness,” or the “disregard” for the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:18-20.)     We, remaining as slaves, are desiring our master, whichever it may be. The way we relish righteousness now, as believers, is how it was when we were enslaved to Sin – relishing lawlessness.

The root of Righteousness, as we’ve discussed, is grace. The grace is not out of you – thus also, the Righteousness (which is personified here – there is a definite article in front of ‘righteousness’ in this passage, which personifies the term, here,) is not out of you. If you cannot produce grace, and grace is not accounted to your action or service, so also righteousness is not accounted to your action or service. Righteousness is not accounted to us, but is claimed to be lord over us, here.

We are enslaved to Righteousness, and the purpose is for holiness. If you are not enslaved to Righteousness, then you are not being made holy. This should clarify, absolutely, that there is a critical difference between ‘righteousness’ and ‘holiness.’ These are two separate words with separate definitions, and should be treated as such!

I actually disagree with George Rogers on this bit he says in his study:

“One becomes righteous by con formity to standard of right; he becomes holy by dedication to God. If one is really holy, he will be enslaved to Righteousness; if one is enslaved to Righteousness, he will be perfected in holiness.”

Admittedly, there’s some room for interpretation with his words, here, but I’m taking issue with the end of the first sentence, and the beginning of the second. One becomes holy by dedication to God? I thought that one becomes holy because God calls him out, calling him a beloved saint? Rogers, in his study, has spent a good part of Romans six contrasting the difference between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ holiness. Sometimes there’s merit, and other times it seems questionable.

‘Objectively,’ you are made holy to God. ‘Subjectively,’ a believer may not have fully come to grips with that yet, and as such may not have taken off the old humanity, and put on the new. Coming to trust and believe God is a process, and thus it makes sense that Rogers would point out this difference between ‘subjective’ belief and ‘objective’ reality.

However, sometimes Rogers isn’t careful with his wording, and it comes off as though he is claiming that one must do something in order to achieve holiness, as per his sentence above. “Holiness is achieved by dedication to God” seems to be his point, and I don’t like that point. I think it’s annoying, and very… Seventh Day Adventist.

The beginning of his second sentence, in my opinion, is almost more egregious than the first half, because he seems to directly reverse the process presented by Paul here. Paul does not say, “you must become holy in order to be enslaved to Righteousness.” Did you become holy in order to understand our evangel?? Where is this coming from?

It’s so annoying. Please don’t assume or connect in places where connections should not be made. Paul didn’t ask us to reverse the sentence. What he said makes sense. He didn’t say, “you must <yadayadayada>, then you’re enslaved to Righteousness.” He says, “Righteousness claims you, and you are conformed to holiness by being enslaved to it.” You didn’t make a decision here. Again, to clarify: we are dealing with the purpose of our conduct, not the actual conduct itself. You have not been asked to do anything, save understand why your conduct matters.

Now, where me and Rogers would agree is on his last statement concerning this verse, being that “Righteousness and holiness go hand in hand.” Of course they do! It’s just that holiness is an effect of Righteousness. You can’t be called a “saint” if a righteousness of God is not first manifest in you (Rom. 3:21-22,) which is what causes you to be “sanctified.” They are closely correlated, and yeah, it’s not like “in 2018 you are righteous, but it’s not until 2024 that you’re truly holy!” It’s more like, “in 2018 you are righteous, and as you learn that, you are made holy!”

For when you were slaves of Sin, you were free as to Righteousness.

This is not “the opposite” of Romans 6:18, but the inverse. 6:18 pointed out when we were freed from Sin, we were enslaved to Righteousness. Yet here, Paul points out that when we were slaves of Sin, we were free as to Righteousness.

Paul says we were free, as the “imperfect” tense of the Greek word en here implies that we were continually free as to Righteousness. There’s a big contrast between the word “free” here and the term “freed” from 6:18. “Freed” shows that we were slaves of Sin, but were freed from it. “Free” here clarifies that Paul is speaking of past servitude, because we were not previously under Righteousness. Moreover, Paul has given us no indication so far that we could somehow be loosed from enslavement to Righteousness for holiness.

What fruit, then, had you then?

The first ‘then’ is the word oun, and the second ‘then’ is the word tote. The first ‘then’ is usually translated as ‘therefore,’ and as such it’s a logical ‘then,’ whereas the second ‘then’ is in relation to that past servitude.

Of which you are now ashamed, for, indeed, the consummation of those things is death.

Note: consummation means “result,” or “completion of.” Paul uses this term a lot in his writings, so keep an eye out for it.

Contrast these two slaveries. You will know, in your conscience, that one enslavement meant death, while this one undoubtedly gives life. You haven’t seen a visual proof, but surely you certainly recognize your different priorities now! Death to life is a pretty monumental shift, logically and emotionally.

Notice that here, Paul shifts the shame, and turns the object of Sin’s power against it (as Christ similarly did by dying to death.) The shame that we once had for the evangel (in that we would deny it during our enslavement to Sin,) is now turned around on Sin. The shame still exists. Why? Because we’re human. We’re like shame machines. More often than not, we’d rather feel guilty about something, because it usually allows us to play victim.

When one points this out, there’s either more denial, or a revitalized sense of guilt. The “more denial” indicates that one is still adhering to the old humanity flesh, and is still trying to excuse it. The revitalized shame toward previous actions, however, is actually a good thing, presented by Paul here, because this is the process by which enslavement (and, consequently, good conduct) can be better appreciated.

Simply, God is smarter than us. He knows that this evangel shines a light on us, and knows it will cause us shame, as we are in the flesh. But He is also loving, which indicates that He is willfully making this shame an experience to educate us on the nature of our shame – that the consummation of our old actions was death, evidenced by the current enslavement of our friends and family to Sin. It is passing, and is giving way to a proper understanding of Righteousness, which indeed makes us holy.

Notice, finally, that this contrast begins to fully answer the initial objection we’ve been studying – “Shall we be sinning, seeing that we are not under law, but under grace?” Shame was not Paul’s first point, the way many Catholics wield it with their confessionals. It was a later point that the saints, in recognizing grace, have more shame for their old enslavement. He was not saying that you should artificially provoke a consideration of your old actions just to feel ashamed! How senseless is that!? The shame here is not feigned – it is genuine, of God, as it produces a reverence for God.

Yet now, being freed from Sin, yet enslaved to God, you have your fruit for holiness. Now the consummation is life eonian.

“Freed” again! There it is! It’s there! Caught, in 4K. When we were enslaved to Sin, there wasn’t much in the name of “fruit,” save “death.” It was… pretty pathetic. There wasn’t much to look forward to. You couldn’t expect much from this lord. In contrast, we, being enslaved to God, can now expect much greater things, and in peace!

The summary is nice here. You are enslaved to God. He is, ultimately, the Righteousness in discussion here. The enslavement is His choice, and the fruit is His process, and the consummation is His gift – His end-goal for us. Unlike slavery in all other forms, whether it be toward Sin, a person, a job, or otherwise, slavery toward God puts the other forms of enslavement in perspective, and causes you to rest in them. Enslavement to God is something you don’t want to escape, and it’s something you want to remain under. Enslavement to Him is a proper enslavement, done right, than one has no need to escape.

For the ration of Sin is death, yet the gracious gift of God is life eonian, in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The word “for” presents us with the consummation of the argument, law vs. grace. However, Paul does not employ the “even as/thus also” argument, showing that the two sides of this sentence are not at all equal in scope. As if to clarify this, the word “ration” is used here. The Greek elements of this word are “PROVISION-PURCHASE.” Sin? It couldn’t care less about you. It doesn’t want anything of you, it doesn’t desire you as a person, any more than the top 1% does (and, now that I think of it, that’s a great comparison.) Sin starves you, gives you just enough to keep you alive, and abuses you in any way it is allowed until then. Everyone you meet, talk to, love, hate – all on this earth have been starved and abused by Sin, yourself included. The effects are readily apparent in any news article (and the bias behind every news article.) Sin is strategic in its desire to waste you for resources, and discard you. You don’t merely receive “wages,” as the KJV interprets. It’s much worse than this. It’s not limited to ‘wages,’ as this disregards the ‘enslavement’ analogy. You are in a tiny, square cell with Sin, and there’s no way out on your own. Death is its consummation, because one does not experience a true love under this kind of enslavement.

With God? However? Well shoot, you own the prison, and the earth surrounding it. Shoot, and the sky. Shoot, and you’re living! Notice the contrast between “ration” and “gracious gift!” Neither are your reward for your service (because you’re enslaved; it’s not a job, Rom. 4:2.) He says “gracious gift,” not “gracious gift if you do something.” Indeed, the term “gracious gift” is that term charisma, or “GRACE-EFFECT,” which we’ve talked about before, back in Romans 5. This charisma is the effect of grace, not the effect of your service. The effect of God’s grace is life for the eons.

Finally, this concludes not one, but two arguments. The end of Romans 5 said,

Even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The argument we’ve just studied tracks logically with this phrase here. Grace is the source, Righteousness the channel, life eonian the “GRACE-EFFECT,” and through Jesus Christ. The difference, then, that I’d like to note, is the phrase “through Jesus Christ,” and “in Jesus Christ.” Through Jesus Christ was discussing the method by which all men shall be saved (Rom. 5:18-19.) In Jesus Christ, here, like Rom. 6:1, is focusing on believers specifically, who, per Rom. 6:1-3, are clarified as having been baptized into His death. We are not only delivered through Him, but we are in Him as well. The relationship here is so intimate, that it will be revealed later that, because of this, He is in us as well (Rom. 8:9.)

All of this concludes with the term “Lord.” Does this figure of enslavement add new meaning to the term? “Lord” is indeed what we should call Him, for He is the Image of our Master. He is our Brother, our Head, our life, and our Lord. We are continually learning from Him on how to love, through His reign over our hearts.

- GerudoKing