Romans 6: You will be a slave to sin or righteousness

[mark kennedy]

I've actually spent a great deal of time on the book of Romans, but there is a section in the chapter that is of special interest. Anytime I look at a translation I haven't seen before, I look up this verse:

By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? (Romans 6:2)
​

That's from the NIV, notice the first words are 'By no means', every translation seems to translate it differently. It would be literally translated 'not' (μή mē), 'become' (γίνομαι ginomai). The most literal way to translate it is, may it never be, but the KJV and others has it 'God forbid'. I like that passage because it's hard to translate directly, so it's interesting to see how translators handle it.

That said, I've spent a great deal of time on the book of Romans and Romans 6 is of special interest. I'm a firm believer in justification by grace through faith, a doctrine Paul has been expounding for 3 chapters before starting this chapter. Here something changed, the emphasis is shifting from what God has done for us through Christ, to what we as believers and disciples must do with God's grace. He is ultimately answering the charge of those who oppose the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Shall we sin that grace my increase? (Rom. 6:1) He has addressed this question before in the book:

Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just! (Rom. 3:8)
​

Paul here is putting down his strongest argument for the grace of God and how it should motivate the disciple. You will either be a slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness. Grace should never make us complacent about sin, quite the opposite, it should be why and how we embrace the righteousness of God in Christ in our daily walk and ministry.

Now feel free to offer any insights you may have from the rest of the book but I'm really interested in hearing what you make of this chapter. I'm hoping for an exposition of the chapter, I think there is a lot to be gained from dealing with this passage in depth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

I've actually spent a great deal of time on the book of Romans, but there is a section in the chapter that is of special interest. Anytime I look at a translation I haven't seen before, I look up this verse:

By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? (Romans 6:2)
​

That's from the NIV, notice the first words are 'By no means', every translation seems to translate it differently. It would be literally translated 'not' (μή mē), 'become' (γίνομαι ginomai). The most literal way to translate it is, may it never be, but the KJV and others has it 'God forbid'. I like that passage because it's hard to translate directly, so it's interesting to see how translators handle it.

That said, I've spent a great deal of time on the book of Romans and Romans 6 is of special interest. I'm a firm believer in justification by grace through faith, a doctrine Paul has been expounding for 3 chapters before starting this chapter. Here something changed, the emphasis is shifting from what God has done for us through Christ, to what we as believers and disciples must do with God's grace. He is ultimately answering the charge of those who oppose the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Shall we sin that grace my increase? (Rom. 6:1) He has addressed this question before in the book:

Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just! (Rom. 3:8)
​

Paul here is putting down his strongest argument for the grace of God and how it should motivate the disciple. You will either be a slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness. Grace should never make us complacent about sin, quite the opposite, it should be why and how we embrace the righteousness of God in Christ in our daily walk and ministry.

Now feel free to offer any insights you may have from the rest of the book but I'm really interested in hearing what you make of this chapter. I'm hoping for an exposition of the chapter, I think there is a lot to be gained from dealing with this passage in depth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Sure. God sends His only Son to die for your imperfections.
Basically, God hands you a One Million dollar bill. Free and Clear.
Do you buy drugs with it and sell them to children...or what do you do?

 

[royal priest]

Martin Lloyd Jones was asked when he would do a series on Romans. He replied, " when I have understood chapter 6."
Here are two sermons that he preached on chapter 6:1-2.
https://mlj-sermons-mp3-tagged.s3.amazonaws.com/Romans/3089D.mp3
https://mlj-sermons-mp3-tagged.s3.amazonaws.com/Romans/3090D.mp3

 

[Jonaitis]

Martin Lloyd Jones was asked when he would do a series on Romans. He replied, " when I have understood chapter 6."
Here are two sermons that he preached on chapter 6:1-2.
https://mlj-sermons-mp3-tagged.s3.amazonaws.com/Romans/3089D.mp3
https://mlj-sermons-mp3-tagged.s3.amazonaws.com/Romans/3090D.mp3

That was a good and loong series.

 

[royal priest]

That was a good and loong series.

LOL. Yes it was.
Mark, he's got a commentary on Romans as well. One volume just on chapter 6 alone in case you're interested.

 

[mark kennedy]

Martin Lloyd Jones was asked when he would do a series on Romans. He replied, " when I have understood chapter 6."
Here are two sermons that he preached on chapter 6:1-2.
https://mlj-sermons-mp3-tagged.s3.amazonaws.com/Romans/3089D.mp3
https://mlj-sermons-mp3-tagged.s3.amazonaws.com/Romans/3090D.mp3

I'm listening to the lessons, I thought it was remarkable that he hit on so early. About ten minutes into the lesson he points out that Paul is moving from teaching about justification to sanctification. This is typical of Paul, first he will discuss doctrine (Ephesians 1-3), then he will discuss practical application (Ephesians 4-6). I had never noticed that in Romans but he does take his time transitioning from the doctrinal section to the practical discussions.

I'll get back to you when I've finished the lessons.

 

[Oldmantook]

Here something changed, the emphasis is shifting from what God has done for us through Christ, to what we as believers and disciples must do with God's grace. He is ultimately answering the charge of those who oppose the doctrine of justification by grace through faith.

The new covenant between God and man is a binding contract that has requirements of both parties to the covenant. God is always faithful in fulfilling his obligation to the covenant while we humans - not necessarily.
Paul is not contradicting himself in chapter 6. as he has established that we are indeed justified by faith. However the pertinent question is, what does that justification entail? Are we justified from all sin - past, present and future when we were saved and regenerated by the Spirit? One of the keys to answering this question is found in Rom 3:25 where Paul clarifies what the propitiation of the blood of the Lamb accomplished in regard to our transgressions.
"...whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." V.25 states the atoning blood of Jesus is the propitiation for our FORMER sins; i.e. sins that we committed in the past that are cleansed upon becoming born again and made alive in Christ Jesus. Note that the verse states that it is our former or past sins which are forgiven/cleansed as no mention is made of present or future sins yet to be committed. That is why Paul starts to make the case that Christians being justified then have a responsibility to remain slaves to righteousness and not slaves to sin and their former selves. We were justified by faith but through God's grace we are to continue in covenant relationship with God by remaining dead to sin and obedient to God for the wages of sin is [spiritual] death (v.23).

 

[mark kennedy]

The new covenant between God and man is a binding contract that has requirements of both parties to the covenant. God is always faithful in fulfilling his obligation to the covenant while we humans - not necessarily.
Paul is not contradicting himself in chapter 6. as he has established that we are indeed justified by faith. However the pertinent question is, what does that justification entail? Are we justified from all sin - past, present and future when we were saved and regenerated by the Spirit? One of the keys to answering this question is found in Rom 3:25 where Paul clarifies what the propitiation of the blood of the Lamb accomplished in regard to our transgressions.
"...whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." V.25 states the atoning blood of Jesus is the propitiation for our FORMER sins; i.e. sins that we committed in the past that are cleansed upon becoming born again and made alive in Christ Jesus. Note that the verse states that it is our former or past sins which are forgiven/cleansed as no mention is made of present or future sins yet to be committed. That is why Paul starts to make the case that Christians being justified then have a responsibility to remain slaves to righteousness and not slaves to sin and their former selves. We were justified by faith but through God's grace we are to continue in covenant relationship with God by remaining dead to sin and obedient to God for the wages of sin is [spiritual] death (v.23).

Paul makes repeated arguments for justification by grace through faith, 'Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness:

What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3, 22: Genesis 15:6)
​

The word translated 'credited' in Romans 4:6 and it's corresponding Hebrew counterpart, is sometimes translated imputed. I bring it up because Paul uses this word again to describe what our attitude toward sin should be:

The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin control your mortal body so that you obey its desires. (Romans 6:10-12)
​

Where it says, 'count yourselves', he is using the same word translated 'credited' in Romans 4:6. I'm listening to Martyn Loyd-Jones lesson on Romans 6 and it's interesting as he contrasts some of the commentary that is out their. Charles Hodge describes it as believers 'renouncing' sin for example. Brother Jones keeps emphasizing that we are dead to the reign of sin, the rule of sin, the dominion of sin. Now that doesn't mean we never sin, but sin can never be our master.

He says at the end of the second lesson, if I did nothing more then cause Christians to laugh at themselves when they sin I accomplished everything I set out to do. I can relate to that, it's remarkable how many times Paul is saying the same thing over and over in the chapter, dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. Of course he teaches this elsewhere, it's pretty typical of Paul's teaching style. Nowhere does he spend so much time on it as he does here, there must have been something especially important here for the Jewish Christians in Rome Paul was writing to.

 

[Oldmantook]

Paul makes repeated arguments for justification by grace through faith, 'Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness:

What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3, 22: Genesis 15:6)
​

The word translated 'credited' in Romans 4:6 and it's corresponding Hebrew counterpart, is sometimes translated imputed. I bring it up because Paul uses this word again to describe what our attitude toward sin should be:

The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin control your mortal body so that you obey its desires. (Romans 6:10-12)
​

Where it says, 'count yourselves', he is using the same word translated 'credited' in Romans 4:6. I'm listening to Martyn Loyd-Jones lesson on Romans 6 and it's interesting as he contrasts some of the commentary that is out their. Charles Hodge describes it as believers 'renouncing' sin for example. Brother Jones keeps emphasizing that we are dead to the reign of sin, the rule of sin, the dominion of sin. Now that doesn't mean we never sin, but sin can never be our master.

He says at the end of the second lesson, if I did nothing more then cause Christians to laugh at themselves when they sin I accomplished everything I set out to do. I can relate to that, it's remarkable how many times Paul is saying the same thing over and over in the chapter, dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. Of course he teaches this elsewhere, it's pretty typical of Paul's teaching style. Nowhere does he spend so much time on it as he does here, there must have been something especially important here for the Jewish Christians in Rome Paul was writing to.

As I cited in Rom 3:25 the verse clearly states that the propitiation of Jesus' blood only atones for our former/past sins - not present or future sins. Consequently a believer is never justified if he/she continues to engage in the practice of sin as it demonstrates that he/she has not repented of his/her ongoing disobedience. And that is why Rom 4:5 which you cited, which is a favorite proof-text of the Reformed crowd cannot be used to mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer because in its proper context it quotes David's own sin in the OT and what he had to do about it in order to be forgiven by God. Forgiveness was, and is not automatic:
“Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin." Ps 32:5-6.
As this psalm of David illustrates, he did not automatically receive God's forgiveness. He had to first repent of his sin and then he was forgiven which is why Rom 4:6 cannot mean that the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the believer as turning away from sin and repentance is first required.

You are correct though that "there must have been something especially important here for the Jewish Christians in Rome Paul was writing to." In chapt. 6 Paul warned the brethren that the wages of sin is death v.23. This verse is commonly used to evangelized the lost but in its proper context is addressed to believers. Paul reiterates this same warning to the brethren in Rom 8:13 "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."
Nothing more important than warning the brethren that if they live in habitual sin and cater to the flesh, they will spiritually die.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I cited in Rom 3:25 the verse clearly states that the propitiation of Jesus' blood only atones for our former/past sins - not present or future sins. Consequently a believer is never justified if he/she continues to engage in the practice of sin as it demonstrates that he/she has not repented of his/her ongoing disobedience. And that is why Rom 4:5 which you cited, which is a favorite proof-text of the Reformed crowd cannot be used to mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer because in its proper context it quotes David's own sin in the OT and what he had to do about it in order to be forgiven by God. Forgiveness was, and is not automatic:
“Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin." Ps 32:5-6.
As this psalm of David illustrates, he did not automatically receive God's forgiveness. He had to first repent of his sin and then he was forgiven which is why Rom 4:6 cannot mean that the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the believer as turning away from sin and repentance is first required.

You are correct though that "there must have been something especially important here for the Jewish Christians in Rome Paul was writing to." In chapt. 6 Paul warned the brethren that the wages of sin is death v.23. This verse is commonly used to evangelized the lost but in its proper context is addressed to believers. Paul reiterates this same warning to the brethren in Rom 8:13 "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."
Nothing more important than warning the brethren that if they live in habitual sin and cater to the flesh, they will spiritually die.

The word translated 'atonement' is only used 4 times in the New Testament (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē), only once is it translated 'atonement' and that is in Romans 5:11 not Romans 3:25. Romans 4:6 literally says 'righteousness was credited to Abraham', that word for 'credited' literally means imputed both in Romans 4:6 and Genesis 15:6. There is nothing here indicating that atonement only covers past sins and those your guilty of at the time of conversion.

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:12-13)
​

The sacrifice of Christ once and for all time, it's called the aorist tense if your interested.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The new covenant between God and man is a binding contract that has requirements of both parties to the covenant. God is always faithful in fulfilling his obligation to the covenant while we humans - not necessarily.

Paul is not contradicting himself in chapter 6. as he has established that we are indeed justified by faith. However the pertinent question is, what does that justification entail? Are we justified from all sin - past, present and future when we were saved and regenerated by the Spirit? One of the keys to answering this question is found in Rom 3:25 where Paul clarifies what the propitiation of the blood of the Lamb accomplished in regard to our transgressions.

"...whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." V.25 states the atoning blood of Jesus is the propitiation for our FORMER sins; i.e. sins that we committed in the past that are cleansed upon becoming born again and made alive in Christ Jesus. Note that the verse states that it is our former or past sins which are forgiven/cleansed as no mention is made of present or future sins yet to be committed. That is why Paul starts to make the case that Christians being justified then have a responsibility to remain slaves to righteousness and not slaves to sin and their former selves. We were justified by faith but through God's grace we are to continue in covenant relationship with God by remaining dead to sin and obedient to God for the wages of sin is [spiritual] death (v.23).

(Among others) I appreciate the following expositions of v.25:

"For the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; he means, either the sins committed before justification, while God bore so patiently with the sinner, and did not presently take the forfeiture; or else the sins committed under the Old Testament, before the proposed propitiation was exposed to the world, when God so indulged our fathers, as to pardon them upon the account of what was to come: see Heb 9:15-18." Matthew Poole

"25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation—or "propitiatory sacrifice."
through faith in his blood—Some of the best interpreters, observing that "faith upon" is the usual phrase in Greek, not "faith in" Christ, would place a "comma" after "faith," and understand the words as if written thus: "to be a propitiation, in His blood, through faith." But "faith in Christ" is used in Ga 3:26 and Eph 1:15; and "faith in His blood" is the natural and appropriate meaning here.
to declare his righteousness for the remission—rather, "pretermission" or "passing by."
of sins—"the sins."
that are past—not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

through the forbearance of God—God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no "manifestation of His righteousness" in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can "set forth" Christ as a "propitiation for sin through faith in His blood," the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is "manifested," declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking "the sins that are past" to mean the past sins of believers—committed before faith—and rendering, by the word "remission," what means only a "passing by"; thus making it appear that "remission of sins" is "through the forbearance of God," which it certainly is not)." Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

"for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation, was

to declare his righteousness Ps 22:31; meaning either the righteousness of Christ, which was before hid, but now manifested; or rather the righteousness of God the Father, his faithfulness in his promises relating to Christ, his grace and goodness in the mission of his Son, the holiness and purity of his nature, and his vindictive justice, in avenging sin in his own Son, as the surety of his people: the execution of this was threatened from the beginning; the types and sacrifices of the old law prefigured it; the prophecies of the Old Testament express it; and the sufferings and death of Christ openly declare it, since God spared not his own Son, but sheathed the sword of justice in him." John Gill
​

In agreement with the above writers, I understand "former sins" in v.25 to mean the sins of Old Testament saints.

 

[mark kennedy]

(Among others) I appreciate the following expositions of v.25:

"For the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; he means, either the sins committed before justification, while God bore so patiently with the sinner, and did not presently take the forfeiture; or else the sins committed under the Old Testament, before the proposed propitiation was exposed to the world, when God so indulged our fathers, as to pardon them upon the account of what was to come: see Heb 9:15-18." Matthew Poole

"25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation—or "propitiatory sacrifice."
through faith in his blood—Some of the best interpreters, observing that "faith upon" is the usual phrase in Greek, not "faith in" Christ, would place a "comma" after "faith," and understand the words as if written thus: "to be a propitiation, in His blood, through faith." But "faith in Christ" is used in Ga 3:26 and Eph 1:15; and "faith in His blood" is the natural and appropriate meaning here.
to declare his righteousness for the remission—rather, "pretermission" or "passing by."
of sins—"the sins."
that are past—not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

through the forbearance of God—God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no "manifestation of His righteousness" in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can "set forth" Christ as a "propitiation for sin through faith in His blood," the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is "manifested," declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking "the sins that are past" to mean the past sins of believers—committed before faith—and rendering, by the word "remission," what means only a "passing by"; thus making it appear that "remission of sins" is "through the forbearance of God," which it certainly is not)." Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

"for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation, was

to declare his righteousness Ps 22:31; meaning either the righteousness of Christ, which was before hid, but now manifested; or rather the righteousness of God the Father, his faithfulness in his promises relating to Christ, his grace and goodness in the mission of his Son, the holiness and purity of his nature, and his vindictive justice, in avenging sin in his own Son, as the surety of his people: the execution of this was threatened from the beginning; the types and sacrifices of the old law prefigured it; the prophecies of the Old Testament express it; and the sufferings and death of Christ openly declare it, since God spared not his own Son, but sheathed the sword of justice in him." John Gill
​

In agreement with the above writers, I understand "former sins" in v.25 to mean the sins of Old Testament saints.

Thanks for the commentary AW, I understand that Paul is speaking directly to the sins committed during the Old Testament as the time of God's forbearance. That is one aspect of propitiation, expiation and atonement for sin as exegetical writers like to say. Paul really dwells on this in the book of Romans, it's far and away his most extensive treatment of the subject matter. Love the John Gill quote, got me wondering what Albert Barnes had to say about the passage:

Whom God hath set forth - Margin, “Fore-ordained” ( προέθετο proetheto). The word properly means, “to place in public view;” to exhibit in a conspicuous situation, as goods are exhibited or exposed for sale, or as premiums or rewards of victory were exhibited to public view in the games of the Greeks. It sometimes has the meaning of decreeing, purposing, or constituting, as in the margin (compare Romans 1:13; Ephesians 1:9); and many have supposed that this is its meaning here. But the connection seems to require the usual signification of the word; and it means that God has publicly exhibited Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of people. This public exhibition was made by his being offered on the cross, in the face of angels and of people. It was not concealed; it was done openly. He was put to open shame; and so put to death as to attract toward the scene the eyes of angels, and of the inhabitants of all worlds. (Albert Barnes, commentary on Romans 3:25)
​

I went ahead and linked to the Albert Barnes commentary in case you might want to read the quote in context. He discusses things like propitiation and atonement at length, contrasting the Levitical sacrifices with the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. At any rate, some interesting commentary, thanks for that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Oldmantook]

The word translated 'atonement' is only used 4 times in the New Testament (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē), only once is it translated 'atonement' and that is in Romans 5:11 not Romans 3:25. Romans 4:6 literally says 'righteousness was credited to Abraham', that word for 'credited' literally means imputed both in Romans 4:6 and Genesis 15:6. There is nothing here indicating that atonement only covers past sins and those your guilty of at the time of conversion.

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:12-13)
​

The sacrifice of Christ once and for all time, it's called the aorist tense if your interested.

You have neglected to address Rom 3:25 which states that the propitiation of Jesus' blood only applies to our past sins. No mention whatsoever is made to present and future sins. You also neglected to counter my observation that Rom 4:6 cannot mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us because the verse itself is a reference to Psalm 32 where David has to confess his sin in order to be forgiven and be restored unto right standing with God. Thus unless you can explain these verses away, your view remains problematic in my opinion.
Furthermore, your citation of the Hebrews passage does not lend support to your view. Jesus' sacrifice is indeed a one-time event and through it the verse states we are being made holy from hagiazomenous which is a present tense participle. It states we are being made holy - not have been made holy. If Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as you believe then this verse should read "we who have been made holy." It does not state that does it? We are righteous because as believers we live our lives seeking to forsake sin but when we do sin, we repent as David described in Psalm 32. That is why the Apostle John warned us: "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous" (1 Jn 3:7). John did not write we are righteous because Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have neglected to address Rom 3:25 which states that the propitiation of Jesus' blood only applies to our past sins. No mention whatsoever is made to present and future sins. You also neglected to counter my observation that Rom 4:6 cannot mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us because the verse itself is a reference to Psalm 32 where David has to confess his sin in order to be forgiven and be restored unto right standing with God. Thus unless you can explain these verses away, your view remains problematic in my opinion.

I honestly don't know what your getting at here, the propitiation is the mercy seat, Christ with his death and resurrection has become our mercy seat forever. The propitiation of Jesus blood is for sin period, where you are getting past sins only is a mystery to me since that is alien to the text. Four times Paul speaks of God's righteousness being imputed in Romans 4, it's specifically translated 'imputed' in Romans 4:6 and yet your going to insist that it cannot mean righteousness is imputed, even though that what it specifically says.

Furthermore, your citation of the Hebrews passage does not lend support to your view. Jesus' sacrifice is indeed a one-time event and through it the verse states we are being made holy from hagiazomenous which is a present tense participle. It states we are being made holy - not have been made holy. If Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as you believe then this verse should read "we who have been made holy." It does not state that does it? We are righteous because as believers we live our lives seeking to forsake sin but when we do sin, we repent as David described in Psalm 32. That is why the Apostle John warned us: "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous" (1 Jn 3:7). John did not write we are righteous because Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us.

You don't see to discern between justification and sanctification, the New Testament writers do.

 

[Danthemailman]

There are two kinds of slaves/servants in this world. 1. Slaves/servants of sin unto death 2. slaves/servants of obedience unto righteousness. When we place our faith exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation/believe the gospel by trusting in His finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation, we then become "servants of obedience unto righteousness." Being slaves of sin is put in the past tense. Paul goes on in Romans 6:18 - "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

Notice in Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith (not works) is accounted for righteousness.

Notice in Romans 10:10 - For with the heart one believes unto righteousness..

 

[Oldmantook]

(Among others) I appreciate the following expositions of v.25:

"For the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; he means, either the sins committed before justification, while God bore so patiently with the sinner, and did not presently take the forfeiture; or else the sins committed under the Old Testament, before the proposed propitiation was exposed to the world, when God so indulged our fathers, as to pardon them upon the account of what was to come: see Heb 9:15-18." Matthew Poole

"25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation—or "propitiatory sacrifice."
through faith in his blood—Some of the best interpreters, observing that "faith upon" is the usual phrase in Greek, not "faith in" Christ, would place a "comma" after "faith," and understand the words as if written thus: "to be a propitiation, in His blood, through faith." But "faith in Christ" is used in Ga 3:26 and Eph 1:15; and "faith in His blood" is the natural and appropriate meaning here.

(Among others) I appreciate the following expositions of v.25:

"For the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; he means, either the sins committed before justification, while God bore so patiently with the sinner, and did not presently take the forfeiture; or else the sins committed under the Old Testament, before the proposed propitiation was exposed to the world, when God so indulged our fathers, as to pardon them upon the account of what was to come: see Heb 9:15-18." Matthew Poole

"25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation—or "propitiatory sacrifice."
through faith in his blood—Some of the best interpreters, observing that "faith upon" is the usual phrase in Greek, not "faith in" Christ, would place a "comma" after "faith," and understand the words as if written thus: "to be a propitiation, in His blood, through faith." But "faith in Christ" is used in Ga 3:26 and Eph 1:15; and "faith in His blood" is the natural and appropriate meaning here.
to declare his righteousness for the remission—rather, "pretermission" or "passing by."
of sins—"the sins."
that are past—not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

through the forbearance of God—God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no "manifestation of His righteousness" in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can "set forth" Christ as a "propitiation for sin through faith in His blood," the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is "manifested," declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking "the sins that are past" to mean the past sins of believers—committed before faith—and rendering, by the word "remission," what means only a "passing by"; thus making it appear that "remission of sins" is "through the forbearance of God," which it certainly is not)." Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

"for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation, was

to declare his righteousness Ps 22:31; meaning either the righteousness of Christ, which was before hid, but now manifested; or rather the righteousness of God the Father, his faithfulness in his promises relating to Christ, his grace and goodness in the mission of his Son, the holiness and purity of his nature, and his vindictive justice, in avenging sin in his own Son, as the surety of his people: the execution of this was threatened from the beginning; the types and sacrifices of the old law prefigured it; the prophecies of the Old Testament express it; and the sufferings and death of Christ openly declare it, since God spared not his own Son, but sheathed the sword of justice in him." John Gill
​

In agreement with the above writers, I understand "former sins" in v.25 to mean the sins of Old Testament saints.

to declare his righteousness for the remission—rather, "pretermission" or "passing by."
of sins—"the sins."
that are past—not the sins committed by the believer before he embraces Christ, but the sins committed under the old economy, before Christ came to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

through the forbearance of God—God not remitting but only forbearing to punish them, or passing them by, until an adequate atonement for them should be made. In thus not imputing them, God was righteous, but He was not seen to be so; there was no "manifestation of His righteousness" in doing so under the ancient economy. But now that God can "set forth" Christ as a "propitiation for sin through faith in His blood," the righteousness of His procedure in passing by the sins of believers before, and in now remitting them, is "manifested," declared, brought fully out to the view of the whole world. (Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking "the sins that are past" to mean the past sins of believers—committed before faith—and rendering, by the word "remission," what means only a "passing by"; thus making it appear that "remission of sins" is "through the forbearance of God," which it certainly is not)." Jamieson, Fausett, Brown

"for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation, was

to declare his righteousness Ps 22:31; meaning either the righteousness of Christ, which was before hid, but now manifested; or rather the righteousness of God the Father, his faithfulness in his promises relating to Christ, his grace and goodness in the mission of his Son, the holiness and purity of his nature, and his vindictive justice, in avenging sin in his own Son, as the surety of his people: the execution of this was threatened from the beginning; the types and sacrifices of the old law prefigured it; the prophecies of the Old Testament express it; and the sufferings and death of Christ openly declare it, since God spared not his own Son, but sheathed the sword of justice in him." John Gill
​

In agreement with the above writers, I understand "former sins" in v.25 to mean the sins of Old Testament saints.

Thanks for contributing your reply. Former sins as applying to the OT saints could be a viable interpretation but since we are to allow scripture to interpret scripture let's refer to 2 Pet 1:9 which provides more clarity regarding our former sins:
"But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Now feel free to offer any insights you may have from the rest of the book but I'm really interested in hearing what you make of this chapter. I'm hoping for an exposition of the chapter, I think there is a lot to be gained from dealing with this passage in depth.

It is true, of course, but only part of the over all truth.

If someone does not do TORAH, then they are not justified.

This does not change anyone who is justified by true faith as written in Scripture.

But denying Romans 2 to justify what Scripture does not justify would be sin, right?

There is a wholeness, a completeness, a perfect harmony with all Scripture,

while those who err often err by ignoring or rejecting Jesus' Perfect Word in some Scripture to justify
their wicked lives as if they could do so, instead of repenting of their sin.

Kind of like saying "Judge, I did NOT KILL ANYONE" when brought to court for running a red light or for stealing. The not transgressing one law in no way frees someone nor anyone from the penalty for transgressing another law.

 

[Oldmantook]

I honestly don't know what your getting at here, the propitiation is the mercy seat, Christ with his death and resurrection has become our mercy seat forever. The propitiation of Jesus blood is for sin period, where you are getting past sins only is a mystery to me since that is alien to the text. Four times Paul speaks of God's righteousness being imputed in Romans 4, it's specifically translated 'imputed' in Romans 4:6 and yet your going to insist that it cannot mean righteousness is imputed, even though that what it specifically says.

Imputation by definition means that Christ's righteousness was imputed to the believer upon being saved. The believer now possesses the righteousness of Christ therefore all sins; past, present and future are covered by the blood and God has forgiven of all sin and no longer sees our sins since we have the righteousness of Christ. If this were true, then why does Rom 4:6 cite David's experience of sinning against God in reference to Rom 4:7-8?
7“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” (NKJV)
Imputation is used in v.8 so what does imputation refer to? When we examine Psalm 32 we notice that David experienced the weight of his sin upon his life but it was not until he confessed his sin that he experienced forgiveness of God for the inequity of sin. So does Rom 4:6 mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and thus all our sins are automatically covered by the blood? No; David's example demonstrates that his sin wasn't automatically forgiven as he had to first acknowledge and confess his sin before God. This contradicts the Reformed view of imputation which states that genuine believers have the righteousness of God. That is false as David's example demonstrates that righteousness comes by way of confession and turning away from sin. And that is why 1 Jn 3:7 states that those who practice righteousness are righteous. We are not righteous because it is imputed to us; we are righteous because like David, we acknowledge our sins, continue to flee from them but confess them when we do sin.

You don't see to discern between justification and sanctification, the New Testament writers do.

Of course the NT writer do as that goes without saying. Rather, tt is our interpretations of what they wrote that differ.
FYI one is justified when one is saved however without sanctification no one will see God.
New American Standard Bible
Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. Heb 12:14
We were justified upon being born again, however that is no guaranteed that the believer will persist in the faith and become increasingly sanctified. If that is the case that the believer does not live a sanctified life, then this verse states that he/she will not see God; i.e. no salvation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Imputation by definition means that Christ's righteousness was imputed to the believer upon being saved. The believer now possesses the righteousness of Christ therefore all sins; past, present and future are covered by the blood and God has forgiven of all sin and no longer sees our sins since we have the righteousness of Christ. If this were true, then why does Rom 4:6 cite David's experience of sinning against God in reference to Rom 4:7-8?
7“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” (NKJV)
Imputation is used in v.8 so what does imputation refer to? When we examine Psalm 32 we notice that David experienced the weight of his sin upon his life but it was not until he confessed his sin that he experienced forgiveness of God for the inequity of sin. So does Rom 4:6 mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and thus all our sins are automatically covered by the blood? No; David's example demonstrates that his sin wasn't automatically forgiven as he had to first acknowledge and confess his sin before God. This contradicts the Reformed view of imputation which states that genuine believers have the righteousness of God. That is false as David's example demonstrates that righteousness comes by way of confession and turning away from sin. And that is why 1 Jn 3:7 states that those who practice righteousness are righteous. We are not righteous because it is imputed to us; we are righteous because like David, we acknowledge our sins, continue to flee from them but confess them when we do sin.


Of course the NT writer do as that goes without saying. Rather, tt is our interpretations of what they wrote that differ.
FYI one is justified when one is saved however without sanctification no one will see God.
New American Standard Bible
Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. Heb 12:14
We were justified upon being born again, however that is no guaranteed that the believer will persist in the faith and become increasingly sanctified. If that is the case that the believer does not live a sanctified life, then this verse states that he/she will not see God; i.e. no salvation.

With regards to the definition of 'imputation', it is a book keepers term, as is atonement/reconciliation:

Atonement/Reconciliation (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē) - 1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values (Aristotle, others). (Thayer’s Lexicon)

Account (-ed) (Verbs and Noun) (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai): primarily signifies "to reckon," whether by calculation or imputation, e.g., Gal 3:6 (RV, "reckoned"); then, to deliberate, and so to suppose, "account," Rom 8:36; 14:14 (AV, "esteemeth"); Jhn 11:50; 1Cr 4:1; Hbr 11:19; (AV, "consider"); Act 19:27 ("made of no account;" AV, "despised"); 1Pe 5:12 (AV, "suppose"). It is used of love in 1Cr 13:5, as not taking "account" of evil, RV (AV, "thinketh"). In 2Cr 3:5 the Apostle uses it in repudiation of the idea that he and fellow-servants of God are so self-sufficient as to "account anything" (RV) as from themselves (AV, "think"), i.e., as to attribute anything to themselves. Cp. 2Cr 12:6. In 2Ti 4:16 it is used of laying to a person's "account" (RV) as a charge against him (AV, "charge"). (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
​

The corresponding Hebrew quoted by Paul, who is quoting Genesis 15:6, has the same basic meaning of imputed:

Counted (H2803 חָשַׁב chashab)- (H2803 חָשַׁב chashab) To impute something to some one; followed by [special character] of pers. and acc. of the thing; e.g. sin, Psalm 32:2; Sam. 19:20; a good deed, [which is not any work at all, but simply his believing God], Gen. 15:6) (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon)
​

That said, I have a thread I started a week or so ago on imputation if your interested in pursuing that:

The 'Imputation' of the Righteousness of God, in Christ. A Book Keepers term.

There are two different topics running together here, justification and sanctification. While they are both essential elements of salvation, keeping the issues and the semantics separate is helpful in sorting all of this out. If you notice the semantics is growing on us but in Romans 6 the word translated 'imputed' is used:

In the same way, count yourselves (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai) dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:11)
​

It's the same word used in Romans 4:3 where Paul is quoting Genesis 15:6. If you notice, the semantics are growing on us, we might want to start keeping the two issues separate. That said, those are the normative definitions for the Hebrew and Greek words used for 'imputation' and the related issue of atonement/reconciliation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

There are two kinds of slaves/servants in this world. 1. Slaves/servants of sin unto death 2. slaves/servants of obedience unto righteousness. When we place our faith exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation/believe the gospel by trusting in His finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation, we then become "servants of obedience unto righteousness." Being slaves of sin is put in the past tense. Paul goes on in Romans 6:18 - "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

Notice in Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith (not works) is accounted for righteousness.

Notice in Romans 10:10 - For with the heart one believes unto righteousness..

Paul typically makes a transition from doctrine to practical application, In Ephesians he does it at the end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4. In Romans Paul doesn't make that transition quite so easy since he has extensive doctrinal issues to deal with. Romans 6 is clearly a more practical guide to sanctification, specifically our attitude has to be we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. Paul goes over it again and again, all of us who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death;

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:3-4)
​

Paul keeps repeating this, coming back each time with a more elaborate discussion. Paul explains why he is using this analogy and the core point of this doctrinal discussion:

I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. (Romans 6:19)
​

The pattern is 'ever increasing wickedness', or 'righteousness leading to holiness'. He would discuss how the Law was powerless to provide us this righteousness then in chapter 8 he describes how we are sanctified by walking after the Spirit. It's impossible to discuss Christian sanctification without the role of the Holy Spirit. Paul is describing how justification by grace through faith works in general, but very practical terms. From chapter 6 through chapter 8 we have sanctification as formal doctrine, elaborated at length. Getting this concept of being a slave to righteousness or slave to sin is fundamental since both are progressive in nature.

Grace and peace,
Mark