Also, by the way, my spelling for the Greek words is a bit off because my computer doesn't have the characters that they use, so just keep that in mind.
About Romans 6:14:
For sin ... - The propensity or inclination to sin.
Shall not have dominion - Shall not reign, Romans 5:12; Romans 6:6. This implies that sin ought not to have this dominion; and it also expresses the conviction of the apostle that it would not have this rule over Christians.
For we are not under law - We who are Christians are not subject to that law where sin is excited, and where it rages unsubdued. But it may be asked here, What is meant by this declaration? Does it mean that Christians are absolved from all the obligations of the law? Ianswer,
(1) The apostle does not affirm that Christians are not bound to obey the moral law. The whole scope of his reasoning shows that he maintains that they are. The whole structure of Christianity supposes the same thing; compare Matthew 5:17-19.
(2) the apostle means to say that Christians are not under the law as legalists, or as attempting to be justified by it. They seek a different plan of justification altogether: and they do not attempt to be justified by their own obedience. The Jews did; they do not.
(3) it is implied here that the effect of an attempt to be justified by the Law was not to subdue sins, but to excite them and to lead to indulgence in them.
Justification by works would destroy no sin, would check no evil propensity, but would leave a man to all the ravages and riotings of unsubdued passion. If, therefore, the apostle had maintained that people were justified by works, he could not have consistently exhorted them to abandon their sins. He would have had no powerful motives by which to urge it; for the scheme would not lead to it. But he here says that the Christian was seeking justification on a plan which contemplated and which accomplished the destruction of sin; and he therefore infers that sin should not have dominion over them.
But under grace - Under a scheme of mercy, the design and tendency of which is to subdue sin, and destroy it. In what way the system of grace removes and destroys sin, the apostle states in the following verses.
Covenant of Grace = Jesus
Covenant of Works = Old Testament
God's grace is His unmerited and undeserved favor that we receive after we repent of accidental sin. If there was no law then we would in fact not need God's grace (because sin equates to breaking the law).
So what does Paul mean when he says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14.
Does Paul say that since we are under grace we can continue in sin which is breaking the law of God? Sadly, this is another one of many verses used to try and avoid loving obedience to God. Hence the very next verse is usually not quoted as it gives such a clear answer as to if we can continue in sin since we are not under the law but under grace.
Here is what Paul said in the following verse that really should require no further clarification. Romans 6:15 “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
And in the very next verse, (Romans 6:16) Paul says we either break the law which is to “sin unto death” or we obey the law which is “obedience unto righteousness.”
We also find at the start of this chapter that Paul made it even clearer that we do not continue in “sin unto death” because we are under grace. These two verses are rarely quoted as they are much harder to separate and prove a lie, and so very clear that grace is not a license to continue in sin, which is breaking God's law. (1 John 3:4)
Romans 6:1-2 “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
LASTLY: Verse 1 shows that Paul was directing his words to “those who know the Law” – that is, he directed that part of his letter to Rome to the Jewish saints there. They were familiar with “the Law” – the Old Covenant and its rules – but now, they had been released from that covenant. (The non-Jewish saints did not know the Law, and they had never been under the Old Covenant and its rules. The Old Covenant had been only for Israelites; the other nations had never had a covenant with the Lord.)
The reason why many people have problems with Romans 7:6, is that there are misleading dogmas which claim that the New Covenant is not new but merely “a spiritual application of the rules of the Old Covenant”. In that connection, it is important to understand that when the apostle Paul wrote “the Spirit”, (Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6), he referred to the Holy Spirit, which had been “written” in the saints’ inner being. And, when he wrote “the letter”, same verses, he referred to the Old Covenant and its written rules. (The meaning of 2 Corinthians 3:6 is clarified under the next heading.)
So, in his usual flowery language which is not always easy to understand, the apostle reminded those Jewish saints that they had been “made to die to the Law” (verse 4) and that they had been “released from the Law” (verse 6) – in other words, they had been made free from the Old Covenant and its demands.
I typed out a reaaaallllly long reply and it didn't post. I'll do it later, but I gotta do some homework!!!!!!
Did you copy it? After I forgot to filter one time, I always copy mine juuuuust in case ;)
j: alright it's confession time. sorry i was not thinking before i spoke:) you're right about the words but i do disagree with your overall translation of the verse:)
I copied and pasted it. I'm soooo frustrated right now, you don't even know. I'll type it all out right on the thingie without copy pasting it. I don't know when that will be though. PB, what is YOUR translation?
Hey PB, I appreciate the honest confession. However, as Jaded said, what would your translation of the verse be?
i think it means that we are not under sin...iow without the law we would sin.
it's one of those complicated answers that are hard to explain...when i can explain it better i'll come back and type it:)
It means both, PB. The actual law and sin.
I know that this isn't your full response, but in response to this, my question is: Don't we sin even with the law? I don't believe that the law ever changes our ability to sin. I also don't think that we were ever under sin.
I think that the verse is talking about the consequences of the law that no longer affect us. If we followed the Old Testament laws, I would be in big trouble because I've stolen things before which, according to the Old Testament law, would have me typically bound in slavery. However, I am no longer attatched to the punishment of the law and live by the grace of Jesus Christ which is what I believe the verse is trying to say.
We were under sin, we were slaves to sin and Jesus "set us free". I can look up a bible verse for that if you want;)
J: they still had forgivness. and it was not the animal that saved them it was G-d alone who could save them. and the law did not save them. again, they still had forgivness. and it is just G-d telling us his rules just like your Dad telling you rules.
I will finish my other reply when it comes to me:)
Okay, I agree with SteelersJdog's translation of Romans 6:14, but not it's meaning.
Let me explain why:
Romans 6:15-18 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
John 14:23-24 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
1 John 5:3 "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
James 2:8-14, 24 "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
We see in these passages, and many others, that with faith should come obedience. And to have obedience you need something to obey, this is the Old Testament laws (God's commandments). James even goes as far as listing some of the Ten Commandments and saying we must follow all of them.
So in Romans 6:14 when it says we are not under the law, but under grace, it is saying we are saved by grace which is a gift of God.
But grace is not separate from the law. Both are equally important. We can't go to heaven with just one or the other.
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)
God bless. ♥
@Jaded: I agree that we were under sin, I really used the wrong words. I was more refering to PB saying that without the law we would sin. I really don't think that the law affects our sinful nature. Thus what I meant was I don't think that it was the law that kept us under sin. I completely agree that we were "slaves to sin" as you said. It's clearly evident in scripture.
@PB: I agree, in the time of the Old Testament, God did not stop forgiving sins and it was not the animal that saved them, but at the same time, the law was their way of being able to connect with God. You had to follow a purification process by following rules and regulations just to offer sacrifices. If a Priest wanted to communicate with God, he had to be selected as the holiest among the people and then he had to go through his own purification process. After all of that, if he was not pure enough, he would die when he stepped foot in the "Holy of Holy's".
Pretty much, what I mean to say is that because of Jesus, the law is no longer used as a way for us to connect with God. Just like us obeying our parents is not how we interact with them. We can have a bond with God because of Jesus and the sacrifice that He made.
Those are some of the verses I was gonna post!! -.- grrrr......
half.note: you saved my life:) no need for me to have to let it come to me:) your post explained everything.(just drew another blank)ahhhhhhhh!!!
@Jaded: I agree completely, I really used the wrong words. I do believe that we were "slaves to sin" but now are set free because of Jesus. I got that. However, I was reacting to the fact that he basically used the word sin in place of "The Law", being as he said, "i think it means that we are not under sin," and the passage says that we are not under "The Law". Sin and the law should not be interchangable in the sentence. That's more what I was getting at.
@PB: I agree that they still had forgiveness and that God alone saved them, but the Law was their way of connecting and communicating with God. The law was a symbolic ladder that followers of God had to climb to connect with him. The law did not save them, but they could not have an intricate relationship with Him unless they followed the law.
Now, we don't have to follow the law to have a deep relationship with God. We can connect with Him through His son who fulfilled the law.
@half.note: I agree with practically your whole response. But I don't think that we are grasping the definition of the Law exactly. The Law is not just a set of rules that we need to Obey. The Law was a way of life for the people in the Old Testament. When Jesus came and died, He fulfilled that lifestyle. No longer do we need to live in the mindset of following a set of rules.
In response to what you said, I completely agree that faith and obedience go hand and hand. You can't have one without the other. But it's more of a cause and effect thing. If you have faith, then your actions will follow. We don't strive to live life perfectly, we live our lives chasing after God. If you live your life this way, then you will end up being obedient.
*sighs again* How can we BOTH agree with half.note?
because for some reason when two complete oppisite opinions are at one another it sounds like they're agreeing with eachother.don't ask me why, it's weird.
I really need to type out that reply.
Anyways, I think we agree that the law should still be kept. But, if you'll look at the title of this thread, the disagreement comes from being bound to the law.
Which Romans 6:14 clearly refutes.
Again, I'll type up that reply.......