What does it mean to live "under grace" rather than "under law"? That question has been asked in many ways over the centuries. The latter, "under law," refers to the self-achievement of righteousness. It is man relying on himself to produce enough righteousness for his standing with God. "Under grace" is just the opposite. It is reliance on the righteousness of Christ for one's standing with God. So to be "under grace" is to be in Christ rather than in Adam; it is the old man crucified with Christ and the new man living unto God.
Now, one would think that these two terms would be easy to grasp and apply in daily life. Yet that does not seem to be the case. Once man is confronted with the gospel of grace that strips him of all self-dependence for righteousness, it dramatically changes his thinking. He has been so accustomed to living in bondage to sin that the liberty that comes in redemption through Christ shatters all notions of daily life. He has new capacities, abilities, strength, power, and ambitions in which he grows and matures. Yet not without struggles along the way. He still lives in a body affected by sin. He still faces the tyranny of sin trying to reclaim mastery over his life. Ironically, the more he grows in grace the more he realizes his weakness and helplessness in the daily battle with sin. More and more, he learns to rely upon Christ and His gospel. Each stage of his pilgrimage he finds the truth of grace reigning through righteousness more liberating.
You may outwardly nod in agreement with these things but inwardly, you may be saying, "I know more about the struggle than the victory! I know more about my weakness than Christ's strength for me."
That may be where most of us find ourselves. Certainly, that must have been the case with the Roman Christians whom Paul addressed. They had not "arrived" to a status of maturity where they no longer struggled. As a matter of fact, we strain to find a church in the New Testament that had arrived, because none had reached the level where they no longer struggled with sin or wrestled with temptation. We are in the company of the saints through the ages who rejoice in the mercies of God through Christ and who learn step by step to continue relying upon the Christ of the Gospel.
What kind of language does Paul resort to in order to explain how the believer is to face the daily battle with sin? He lets us know in verse 19 that he is using uncomfortable language "because of the weakness of your flesh," yet he is unapologetic about it. Though the comparisons he chose would have bristled some of the Romans, he did not hesitate to use slavery as a metaphor for life. In Paul's anthropology, every man is a slave. He is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. One slavery leads to death; the other to sanctification, "and the outcome, eternal life" (v. 22). Jesus Christ delivers us from slavery to sin to become slaves of righteousness. What does it mean to be a slave of righteousness? Consider with me, as we investigate this text, how the gospel of grace liberates us from the destructive slavery of sin into the freedom of slavery to righteousness in Christ.
You probably noticed as I read the text that it sounds strangely familiar. Verse 15 is almost a repeat of the first verse of this chapter, "What shall we say then? [that is, to the gift of righteousness through the grace of God in Christ] Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Paul goes on to answer his question with a question, "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" In other words, living in sin after experiencing grace in Christ is totally out of the question. That sort of life is antithetical to grace. He ended his argument with the declaration, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace" (v. 14).
So the question must be asked again, but this time with a little different twist. "What then? [that is, now that we are not under law but under grace, does it not beg the question!] Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" The first question puts the weight on advancing in grace by sinning since "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (5:20). Paul reacted, "May it never be!" The second question proposes that since it appears that the law is no longer in the picture, what is our hesitation at sinning abundantly? Again, Paul reacts, "May it never be!" Obviously, we have pushed his button with these questions! So why did his imaginary objector ask the questions. For that matter, why are the same questions still being asked in similar fashion today?
I think that the question, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" can be analyzed from two angles. First, are the demands of the law now unimportant to the believer since we are under grace? Second, does "under grace" constitute a license to sin without fear of the law's reprisal? The first question is aghast at the suggestion of being wholly "under grace." The second question finds a cunning delight at no longer being "under law." Both have misunderstood the gospel of grace. Let's investigate further.
The first angle is that of the moralist: are the demands of the law now unimportant to the believer since we are under grace? Have we no concern for the ethical and moral teachings of Scripture? Do those teachings no longer carry weight for us and importance to God in light of the gospel of grace?
Good questions. Before we try to answer them let us ply a bit into the thinking of the moralist. He is not a johnny-come-lately to the religious world. We find him in 1st century Judaism concerned that Israel might fall back into the patterns of idolatry and sin that led to their exile. The moralist argued with Jesus that he had kept all of the commandments from his youth up, yet could not understand why he did not have eternal life (Matt. 19:16-23). He argued with Peter and Paul that the work of Christ was not enough for one's standing with God. A man still needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic traditions for justification. He argued with Luther and Calvin that Christ crucified was not enough; man needed additional merit found in sacraments and indulgences to get to God. He still argues with you. Yes, he believes in Jesus, he says, but do his good works not count for something toward the goal of eternal life?
His moralism may take on experiential hues. I remember talking with a lady about the need to rely upon Christ alone for her salvation. But she kept coming back to what she described as an out-of-body experience in which she said that she saw a tunnel and a light. Her hope before God rested in that experience. Other times it is self-justifying tones. A man that I talked with told me that he just thought as long as he followed the Golden Rule then he would fare well before God--that God could not expect more of him than that. Still other moralists bank on their complicated structure of back-patting morality. They follow what they think constitutes righteousness by a long list of do's and don'ts. They have their mental check-list. Each check adds to their righteousness, and in their eyes, to their standing with God.
Do those experiential, self-justifying, and back-patting moral practices account for nothing? That's right: nothing! "For you are not under law but under grace." Grace strips you of any personal merit so that you cling only to the righteousness of Christ on your behalf. Then do these ethical and moral practices add nothing to our standing with God? That's right: nothing! What more do you need if you have Him who is all-together righteous? Can you add to what Christ has already finished? If it is a finished work then why would God require more of you than what Christ has done?
In that case, then do we have no concern for the ethical and moral teachings of Scripture? On the contrary, we have more concern for them now that we are "under grace." But our concern is not to coax God into saving us or to add to the all-sufficient merit of Christ in His death and resurrection. Rather our concern is to live as those who have experienced the grace of God in Christ! We now desire to live to the glory of God. We now desire to have His light shining through our good deeds so that men may glorify our heavenly Father (Matt. 5:16). These ethical and moral concerns take on a completely different dimension for the believer since we have been "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we would walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). Christ's redemptive work not only redeems "us from every lawless deed" but also purifies "for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14).
The moralist attempts to persuade God by his good deeds that he is worthy of eternal life, even that he has earned it by his high degree of ethical and moral proficiency. Yet unless he has satisfied every demand of the law in perfect obedience, the moralist stands condemned before God. His only hope is the grace of God.
Like the moralist, the antinomian has been around for centuries, too. Paul and John battled against his loosey-goosey view of morality and ethics. The antinomian is anti-law. He may champion grace, or at least his interpretation of grace, while at the same time living a life that displays no evidence of saving grace. "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" The antinomian says, "Yes, indeed! Grace covers everything so we need not worry about the law anymore." It was this kind of thinking that crept into the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira who were rebuked by the Lord of the Church (Rev. 2:12-29). Immorality was given a spiritual affirmation in those churches by their antinomian leaders. Jesus Christ warned that He was about to make war against those who taught and practiced such error.
To be "under grace" is to be in union with Christ; to be in union with Him is to be joined with Him in His death and resurrection that conquered sin. So how can the believer continue the practice of what Christ came to conquer? He is "dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus," therefore he is not to let sin reign in his mortal body to obey its lusts (6:11-12). Grace demands that he no longer go on presenting the members of his body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness (6:13). Rather than "under grace" being a license to sin it is instead the call to holiness.
Now, let's be honest: there are areas of practice where Christians have been legalistic over areas about which the Scripture does not forbid or instruct. I remember a phase of my early Christian life being more characterized by the things that I did not do than who I was in Christ. The litmus test of Christianity had nothing to do with the character of Christ but the list of regulations on behavior. Christians must certainly stand against that kind of legalism that has drawn attention away from the sufficiency of the cross of Christ. Yet the tendency is to over-correct, to let the pendulum swing too far in trying to rid ourselves of the taint of legalism. So what has happened among many Christians is to push away at any talk or practice of holiness. That is antinomianism--and it is just as damaging as the legalism that it reacts to. Has this been the case in your own life? Are you more concerned with not being perceived as "legalistic" than your are to be known as "holy" in all things? Holiness is not legalism. The latter does not need grace because it is a show of the flesh and self-righteousness; while holiness depends on grace to live out the moral and ethical demands of the gospel.
In order to make sense of what it means to be "under grace," Paul continues the logic that has characterized this Epistle. He uses slavery as a metaphor to demonstrate the false assumption of those who think they can play with sin and not get burned. "Do you not know," he asks as he has already done in verse 3. He chides them, on one hand for not using their heads and thinking through. Many heartaches will be avoided in life if we will just think on the knowledge we have in the Scriptures before acting or speaking. But not only does he chide but he also recalls for them the obvious reality of what should be glaringly apparent to believers. Now, what is it that we should know and that should be obvious to us? "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?"
Slavery is a touchy issue in our day due to the past history of our nation and the years of practicing slavery. Thank God that this practice was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Yet as touchy as it is even today, it was a far more sensitive issue in Paul's day. In the church at Rome there were likely slaves and slave-owners gathered to worship. With as much as half of the Empire in various degrees of slavery, to use this analogy might cause some to bristle. Yet, as Paul uses this metaphorically, he clearly makes his point. Many in his day entered into slavery voluntarily in order to avoid starvation or economic hardship. Some masters in the Roman Empire were kind to their slaves, though that did not mean that they did not expect complete obedience. Entering into slavery, whether voluntarily or by captivity or by purchase in the slave market still meant that the slave had no rights of his own; he belonged to his master and had the responsibility to do only what his master commanded. What did this metaphor imply for the Roman believers, and in the present day, for us?
You will notice the way that Paul spells out the options. One is either a slave of sin or a slave of obedience. There is no middle position for those uninterested in either sin or obedience (as though such a position could possibly exist). Two choices exist--only two. One results in death; the other results in righteousness. One is devoted to sin as master; the other devoted to obedience to Christ as master. Two choices, two spheres, two lives, two ways--whatever terminology you prefer, there are only two conditions of every person in existence: a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness.
Some of you did not realize this. You have thought better of yourself than to be a slave of sin. You have pushed away at the convicting power of the gospel. You will not have Christ and the gospel, not now, you've told yourself. Maybe later; certainly later, you've confided in your innermost being. You've convinced yourself. One day I shall be a Christian but not now. I'm not ready to trust in the righteousness of Christ on my behalf. I'm not ready to own Him as my Lord and King. I'm not ready to follow Him as a disciple. Not now; surely later.
But do you realize that you are not in a neutral zone? Have you thought that your rejection of the gospel, or postponement as you might phrase it, does not leave you in the lobby of justification waiting for a more convenient time to get in? Do you realize that you are right now a slave of sin? You do not have to do anything to be a slave of sin. It is your birth into this world that introduces you into slavery to sin.
Yet you may object to that. You can give me a list of sinful things that you just will not do even though others do. You have your standards; your morals; your ethics. In spite of it, you are at least mildly religious. You occasionally pray and read the Bible. You participate in church. You do not run around with the wild people in your neighborhood. You are respectable, polite, and even kind to others.
None of that matters other than making your company easier to bear. You are still a slave of sin. You may be a sophisticated slave. Your sins may not be as demonstrative as others. You may not have fallen into the horrible pits of immoral and debauched behavior that you see in others. Do you realize that sin does not care? Satan does not care how big of a sinner that you are as long as you do not belong to Jesus Christ. He will have you in the end in spite of your morality and good deeds and religious practice. It matters not to him how good you think yourself to be or how often you promise yourself that you will one day trust Christ. He knows better. He knows you for what you are: a slave of sin. You presume that you can extract yourself from slavery but only when One of sufficient power who has broken sin's mastery shows you mercy can you be delivered from slavery to sin. That one is not yourself. You cannot elude sin's bondage anymore than you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps or anymore than you can raise the dead. Would you remain sin's slave?
Why do you act the way that you do? "You are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness." So who is the one whom you obey?
The words that Paul uses leap from the pages to instruct us. "Slaves" takes us back to another era when humans were often treated inhumanely, where they had no rights other than those permitted by their masters. Slaves were free only to do what the slave master demanded. They belonged to another who controlled their lives. They lived for the pleasure and purpose of their master.
Does this term not help us to think through about both slavery to sin and slavery to righteousness? Does it also not help us to understand what it means to be free? In verse 20, Paul points out that "when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." Does that mean that the person without Christ is free? He is free in regard to righteousness so that righteousness has no claim on him or affection in his life. But he is not free when it comes to sin. He is enslaved to sin. If a dog is placed in a fenced yard, he is free within the confines of the fence. The fence dictates the limits of freedom. Even so does slavery to sin. So the person who says, "I want to be free from Christianity, the gospel, and all this talk of righteousness," can be free from it; but he will not be free in regard to sin. He is not a free person; he is enslaved to sin. Who do you want for your master? Sin or Christ with His righteousness?
"Obedience" is another telling word. It literally means "to give heed to, to hearken to, to give ear to." Obedience implies that one voice commands and you heed it. One authority controls and you submit. If sin is your authority rather than Christ then you will hear and hearken to sin, and consequently, you will reap the benefits of sin. What is that benefit? Verse 21 tells us plainly, "Death!" Not just physical death, but also spiritual death in all its destructiveness. Death destroys you morally, ethically, relationally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. If sin is your master then you will reap the benefit (or fruit) of death as you obey sin.
The contrast could not be clearer! Christ's slaves obey Him "resulting in righteousness." He uses this word with a double-edge. On one hand, we cannot lose sight of the legal sense of the term that has been so prevalent in Romans. Your slavery to Christ results in a right standing with God. You are in union with Him who satisfied eternal justice on your behalf so your union with Him results in full acquittal of your sins and God's declaration of righteousness. Christ accomplished all that was necessary for you to be declared righteous by God. On the other hand, the word conveys the actual practice of righteousness in our daily lives. Or to use the Puritan expression, the imputed righteousness becomes the imparted righteousness. You are not only concerned with your legal standing with God but you want to live as one that belongs to Him. You desire to be like Him who is altogether righteous. You "put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth" (Eph. 4:24). The loss of righteousness in the Fall is restored through faith in Christ, both for our standing with God and our practice in daily life.
Do you notice how Paul contrasts "death" with "righteousness"? You would think that the latter part of verse 16 would read, "or of obedience resulting in life," which would fitly contrast death. But keep in mind the point he seeks to make. Does being under grace instead of under law promote more sinning on our part? No, indeed! It promotes "righteousness." That's why he describes Christians as those who "having been freed from sin...became slaves of righteousness."
What kind of slave are you? Are you a slave of sin? Or are you a slave of righteousness? There's no in-between, no land of compromise. Only in Christ do you become a slave of righteousness. And if a slave of righteousness, then press on in obedience to Him who called you by His grace to live as those "alive to God in Christ Jesus."
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by South Woods Baptist Church.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy:
Copyright South Woods Baptist Church. Website: www.southwoodsbc.org. Used by permission as granted on web site. Questions, comments, and suggestions about our site can be sent here.
Copyright 2011, South Woods Baptist Church, All Rights Reserved