SLAVES TO SIN VS. SLAVES TO RIGHTEOUSNESS (ROMANS 6.15-23)

Paul’s theological reasoning did not appeal his enemies to repent. In contrast they tirelessly tested Paul. In Romans 6.15-23, they again asked, ‘Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?’ They tried to bargain by lowering the request from ‘can we continue to live in our old sinful nature?’ to ‘Can we occasionally do sin?’ The reason behind the request is changed from ‘the magnitude of God’s grace’ to ‘since we are not under the law but under grace’ (cf. 6.1, 15). ‘Continue to sin’ seems to be more serious and fatal than ‘to sin occasionally.’ As human being we sin on daily basis anyway. Would Paul approve this request? The enemies cleverly pinpointed Paul’s own thesis on freedom the law. Paul’s strongest argument upon freedom in Christ became now a boomerang to himself. For these hypocrites, freedom from the law was understood as an ignorance of the law-lifestyle. How did the apostle Paul respond to this debate?

Paul again used day to day imagery to respond to the challenge of his enemies. He first brought up the imagery of slavery (vv.16-20). First century slavery was different from our view of 16^th-19^th Century slavery. Slavery was common in Paul’s time; it was not a negative terminology. Yet, the common rules applied: (1) slaves belonged to and worked for a master; (2) they had to obey to their master because they were already purchased; (3) a master however was responsible for the life of his or her slaves.

The adversaries thought that God’s grace freed them from the bondage of law, and they understood this freedom as a complete freedom to do anything they wanted to do, including to sin. While Paul’s enemies always argued for ‘freedom from the law’ (quoting Paul’s own statement in 6.14), Paul’s rhetoric strategy was here to consistently argue for ‘freedom from sin.’ Paul would not allow for further public misinterpretation, by stressing that his main concern in Romans 5-6 was the powerful grace of God over against the deadly problem of sin - not the law.

What new in Paul’s argument is the fact that believers were freed from one type of slavery to be in different kind of slavery. Paul argued that believers were freed from slavery to sin to be slaves to the truth and righteousness of God. Are we now free? The answer is YES and NO. We are free from the power of sin, and thus we are not free to sin. Are we now still slaves? The answer is again YES and NO. We are no longer slaves to sin, BUT WE ARE NOW SLAVES to righteousness. Indeed we are no better than slaves to the righteousness of God. We are now not free but to obey God and his all eternal truth.

Paul was here trying to deepening his thought. Believers are in fact not only transformed from old sinful nature into a new life in Christ, believers are also transported from old slavery to sin into a new kind of slavery to righteousness. These transformation and transportation processes are facilitated and made possible by external powerful agent (6.17). Believers are encouraged to be thankful to God without whom sin will continue to exercise its power.

The second imagery used by Paul is an agricultural terms ‘reaping’ and ‘fruit.’ Fruit illustrates result or impact of several actions or processes. Slavery to righteousness leads towards holiness (a process of sanctification) and eventually results in eternal life. On the other hand, slavery to sin leads towards shameful life and finally results in death and judgment. Therefore here, Paul’s discussion was way beyond the reality of our present life. Paul envisioned future eternal consequences of our present slavery. For the believers, the now freedom from sin is another slavery to righteousness. The tension between sin and righteousness exists. The future freedom of eternal life however knows no threat of sin anymore. This future eternal reality is what in Paul a complete freedom in Christ.

Thus in this passage, Paul solemnly and convincingly concluded the long battle of debate concerning the nature of God’s grace and the problem of sin. Paul’s enemies kept trying to mix the two, but Paul clearly argued that God’s grace and sin are incompatible. Each nature has its own benefit, consequences and final destination. This solid theological establishment does not give room for believers to possess and practice any permissive view towards sin. Sin is not even a distant friend to believers. We are the children of the Kingdom of God, while sin belongs to a different territory.

Paul’s logic in Romans 5 and 6 can therefore be summarized as: One, the grace of God through Jesus Christ transforms us who were sinful, weak and enemies to God to be justified and reconciled with God. Present sufferings should not shake our faith, because the most precious of God’s has been given to save our eternal destiny. The Holy Spirit is given both to seal the promise of the eternal life, and to guide believers in their earthly journey of life (5.1-11).  

Two,  we are sinners because of the of multiplying effect of Adam’s sin. We are saved because of the multiplying effect of the precious blood of Christ. The law has nothing to do with sins but to unclothe them. Even a 'little’ sin brings about deadly consequences to the whole world, but God’s grace through Christ powerfully brings about salvation to those who believe in him (Romans 5.12-21). 

Three, although God’s grace is always available, it does not mean that we can continue to live in our old sinful nature - neither are we allowed to occasionally sin. Through Christ, our old nature is transformed into new, and we should live according to this new  life in Christ. The old nature subdues us to offer parts of our body to be instruments of wickedness; the new nature commands us to offer parts of our body to be instruments of righteousness. The new life has completely different business and direction from the old one (Rom 6.1-14). 

Four, the grace of God through Christ has transported us from old slavery to sin into new slavery to righteousness. The grace of God through Christ frees us from old slavery to sin to the awaiting future complete eternal freedom in Christ. We are now no more than slaves to righteousness. Our present life is a process of sanctification, and our surely future destination is eternal life (Romans 6.15-23).

  

THE IMAGERY OF BAPTISM AND ATONEMENT IN ROMANS 6.1-14

Paul’s conviction on the superiority of grace invited his enemies to push him further. In Romans 6.1, they asked, ‘Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?’ This kind of question is an obvious mark of hypocrisy. In our day to day linguistic expression, we may ask similar stupid question such as, ‘Can we eat unhealthy and poisonous food because medicine and sophisticated medical technology are available?’ Or, 'Can we drive our vehicle without obeying the traffic rules because our life and car are both insured?'  

These enemies did not understand the nature of God’s grace. The word grace in the New Testament points to God as its single source; grace is given freely by God, and the beneficiaries are actually not deserved to receive it. Though the tsunami problems of sin find their solution in the grace of God, it is wrong to assume that Paul authorized the Romans church to continue live in their old sinful nature. Grace is possessed and activated by God only. Grace is not automatically controlled and activated by sin, as what the enemies of Paul thought (v.1).

Paul offered two different imagery to bluntly attack his adversaries. The first imagery was the picture of baptism (vv.3-4). Baptism is a public proclamation with a single purpose to announce one’s attachment, loyalty and commitment to a particular party or individual. 

In Christian tradition, baptism is a sign of commitment and loyalty to Christ.  Paul clearly stated that baptism in Christ Jesus is not to be separated from the scandal of the cross. Baptism is paralleled with the death of Jesus. Baptism into Christ means baptism into his death. Hence, death is not the end of the story. Christ is risen. This bodily transformation from the earthly Jesus into death, and to post resurrection body of Christ is the foundation of a similar transformation in the process of baptism. As the nature of Christ’s body was transformed through his death and resurrection, the nature of our lives is also transformed through baptism. I am not saying here of the ritual ceremony of baptism, rather the blended combination of God's grace and our commitment illustrated in the ritual. 

Believers in Christ are expected to live a new life according to their new nature. Through baptism, we announce that Christ is now our new master, and subsequently, we submit, commit and are loyal to Christ. To continue to live in our old sinful nature equals to denial of (1) our new nature in Christ; (2) our made to public-commitment to Christ; (3) the lordship of Christ over our life. Thus, a commitment to be Christ’s followers proclaimed in the ritual of baptism is a combination of God’s initial grace and our sincere commitment to him as a response towards that amazing grace.

Paul’s second imagery explores the picture of atonement (vv.5-10). Atonement is an English word consists of three parts AT-ONE-MENT; the word explains the process of how the holy righteous God can be at one with broken and sinful human being. In other words, atonement is a detailed explanation of the reconciliation process. To narrow down our discussion, the word atonement asks, ‘How could the death of Jesus bring reconciliation between God and human being?’ In the Old Testament, the word atonement is inseparable from the idea of blood. Old Testament atonement points to ‘mercy seat’ or literally the ‘location of grace’ – a place where priests sprinkle the sacrificial blood of reconciliation. The mercy seat is the top part of the Ark of the Covenant; it is made of pure gold and is located in the Sanctum Sanctorium of the temple.  

Five main theories at least have been established in order to elaborate the possibility: (1) the blood of Jesus brings  about positive energy to enable and empower people to come, repent and believe in him; (2) the blood of Jesus is a form of payment God paid to a different party, namely the owner of our old life (i.e. Satan or the power of sin?). We are now purchased by God and consequently now belong to God; (3) the blood of Jesus is a victorious sign of truth over against the power of sin. When the power of sin is defeated on the cross, the way for reconciliation is open and possible; (4) the blood of Jesus satisfies the wrath of God. Jesus took our place on the cross to free us from eternal punishment; (5) the blood of Jesus is a form of payment made to God. Sin is here understood as debt to God. Each theory contains partial truth and is subject for further discussion. Some of the theories are in fact complementary.

The results of the atonement are (1) believers are now united (reconciled) with Christ; and (2) believers are transformed into a new nature and belong to a new master. Before unpacking his concluding argument, Paul lucidly and firmly stated the fact that the death of Christ is not reversible (vv.9-10). The statement serves as a smooth transition to Paul’s moral exhortation. As Christ died and now is risen, believers now live no longer an old, but a new life in Christ. The irreversibility of the cross should accordingly have irreversible transformation in the lives of the believers. 

Since believers are now God’s through baptism and the process of atonement, therefore, Paul now was authorized to command: (1) Do not let sin rule your body; and (2) Do not offer your body as instrument of wickedness, but offer your body as instrument of righteousness. We have no business with sin any longer, because we now live in the new sphere of the gracious grace of God (6.14).

ADAM AND CHRIST IN ROMANS 5.12-21

Romans chapters five and six are a coherent unit in which Paul exposed the serious and mountainous problem of sin and the generous wonderful grace of God. It begins with PAUL'S LOGIC OF SUFFERING AND RECONCILIATION IN ROMANS 5.1-11 (Read my post on February 5, 2011). It is then followed by three  basic and fundamental conversations between Paul and his ‘enemies.' I group these enemies as legalistic and moralist (they were straightforwardly hypocrites).

The very first conversation recorded in Romans 5.12-21 exposes the reality of sin owned automatically by all human beings. While the enemies argued that sin is sin because of the existence of a legal law, Paul argued that sin is sin because it is sin. Since Adam sinned against God, all of his descendants sinned, including those who lived before the law was given. The law simply approved the sinful nature of all human being. Saint Augustine rightly developed the doctrine of original sin from this passage.

One man sinned, all men and women sinned. One man sinned; more than six billion men and women now sinned (please notice my consistent use of past tense). All readers of this post sinned! We all sinned. We do not potentially sin; we are not potentially sinful. We were sinners and did sin. Adam might not think that the consequence of his ‘little’ bite of the forbidden fruit will damage the whole history of human race. That ‘little’ sin indeed did.

This fallen world is however not hopeless. Though sin leads to condemnation and death, God’s gracious grace brings life. Paul intentionally contrasted Adam and Christ. Both figures caused multiple effects, but to different direction. Adam was only an individual, but his individual sin has been continuing to multiply until this hour. Jesus was also only an individual, but his  individual obedience  and faithfulness to die on the cross solves the multiplying monstrous problem of sin.

I invite you to consider some practical applications of this narrative. First, no matter how small a sin is, sin is always serious and its consequence is always deadly. Almost everybody does self-conversation to self-convincing that the sin he or she about to do is small and not too serious. That self convincing-conversation however directs to a fatal deadly destination. Adam might do the same, but he miscalculated the consequences. Should Adam realize the devastating impact of his disobedience he would not have taken the fruit.  

Second, though the problem of sin is huge and tsunanimous, God’s grace through Jesus Christ is enough to provide the (only) solution. The grace of God is free and available. While sin brings condemnation and death, the grace of God through Christ justifies, reconciles and saves those who believe in him. Though sin is intrinsically and internally implanted in our being, God who is eternal, righteous and loving powerfully restores his image and likeness in us.

Third, sin is sin although no law exists; sin is sin although no one sees; sin is sin although no complain is heard. All have sinned, said Paul, because Adam sinned. In Paul’s hypothesis, Torah was simply to approve the sinful nature and sinful behavior of human being. Torah had nothing to do with sin but to unclothe our inner shame and weaknesses.

Fourth, in verse 17, Paul clearly contrasted a life reigned by death over against a life reigned by righteousness. Our new life is a life ruled by righteousness. We are now free from the bondage of sin. We however are commanded to live a righteous life not because the law requires us to do so, but because our new sphere of life belongs now to God who is righteous. This is a theme that Paul would carry out in chapter six - and hopefully I will be able to discuss in the next two posts.

ECCLESIA

• People expect to see the tower of Eiffel in Paris, Sears and John Hancock towers in Chicago, Liberty statue in New York, CN Tower in Toronto, the Golden Gate in San Francisco, canyons in Arizona, der Brandenburger Tor in Berlin, and the Big Ben in London. Postcards sold in souvenir shops tell tourists what to expect when they visit those cities. Postcards also keep memories of the visited cities alive. 
•  
• What do we expect from church? What do ‘postcards’ tell us about church? What does church promise us to deliver? Inspired by John Kennedy’s inaugural speech in 1961 (‘Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country’) some good believers may comment: ‘We are called to contribute for rather than to benefit from church.’ While there is truth behind the statement, the question of ‘Does church deliver what she should deliver?’ is still legitimate. 
•  
• What are the ideal roles of church in this world? Does church bind up the wounds of this world – or does she add pain to this already broken world? Since nobody is perfect and subsequently no church is perfect, we thus should not speak on the level of ideal. In reality, do most people still look for and attract to church?  Are most people still respectful towards church? I am afraid there are indeed more people who maintain sceptical attitudes towards church. 
•  
• As what postcards do, what memories do we have in regard of church? Do we store happy and positive, or negative and painful memories concerning church? Memories are important, but they belong to the past. What most postcards do not deliver is to tell about the future. What do we envision about church? Our attitudes towards church are actually established more on the process of envisioning her future ideal roles rather than simply appreciating (or condemning) memories of the past. 
•  
• This reflection asks so many questions. The questions are however necessary since all believers are responsible to provide the answers to those questions: both verbally, and more importantly through living testimonies. Paul called us members of (the body of) Christ (1 Cor 6.15; cf. Rom 12.5) and the body of Christ (1 Cor 12.27; cf. Eph 4.1-16). We are the body of Christ, the church, and Christ is the head (Eph 4.15). When we do not deliver what we should deliver, why we are and what we do as members of that precious body are in question.   

REJOICE IN THE LORD ALWAYS!

• Today twice I listened to a refreshing sermon delivered by a good friend of mine, Rev. Gagan Gunawidjaja, in which he dug Luke 10.17-20 out, and pointed to three rationale why believers should always be rejoicing. If I misunderstood him not, the first reason is related to the phrase 'in the name of Jesus' (v.17) which he understands as 'for the sake of the glory of Jesus' (concurring with John Piper). Joy is not poured in but flowing out. Rejoicing places God as the focus rather than self.  The second ground for always be rejoicing is Immanuel. God is always with us, especially in protecting us from things/powers that may harm us (vv.19). We may forget to pray for God's protection, but never God leave us alone. Finally and the third foundation to rejoice in the lord is the security of our salvation. The grace of God is so huge and powerful in saving the wretch like us. Our names are now written in heaven, and no authorities are authorized to erase those names (v.20). This amazing grace gives no space for us not to be rejoicing.  To be honest with you, I am so blessed and excited for the sermon.

• As I was reflecting on the sermon, I realized that the Bible is aware of the discrepancies between the ideal and the vulnerability of life. Based on the rationale above, the rejoicing attitude should indeed be automatically overflowing in and through our lives. However, the Bible COMMANDS us to 'Be Joyful always!' (1 Thessalonians 5.16) and to 'Rejoice in the lord always!' (Philippians 4.4). Those kinds of biblical command suggest that rejoicing attitude may not be effortless. On one hand, the attitude should naturally, genuinely and honestly spring out of our rejoicing heart. On the other hand we are called to discipline our hearts and like Paul, to command  them to rejoice in the lord always.