Master of the House

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.  Romans 6:14  NASB

Not under law – How often we hear this verse as a proof text that the Torah has been set aside and no longer applies to Christian believers!  Many scholars make the claim.  “[Believers] must fight their battle in the certainty that their enemy has been overcome.  For they no longer live under the rule of the law, but under that of grace.”[1] “His death and resurrection has inaugurated the messianic age which superseded the age of law . . .”[2]  Even Leon Morris (whose work I so much admire) says, “Paul saw clearly that law and grace do not go together.”[3]  But how can this be when Paul calls the law “holy and good,” when Paul claims that he himself has always been obedient to Torah, and when Paul cites the Tanakh over and over as justification for his arguments?  Something doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps we can start by recognizing that Paul uses nomos (usually translated “law”) in many different ways.  It can mean “norm,” “standard,” “principle” and under specific conditions, “Torah,” “the Mosaic code” or “the Tanakh.”  The first distinction comes when Paul uses nomos with or without the definite article, ho.  With the definite article  (the law), Paul almost always has the Torah in mind.  Exactly what he means by Torah must also be investigated because in the first century the word torah could mean all of the Tanakh or the Pentateuch or the technical sense of the specific commands of the first five books of Scripture.  What is clear is that without the definite article the word nomos is more likely to mean “principle” or “norm,” in the general sense.  For example, there is no definite article in Romans 2:12, 14, 23, 25, 27; Romans 3:20, 21, 27, 28 31; Romans 4:12,14, 15; Romans 5:13, 20; Romans 6:14, 15.  Translations that add “the” to “law” in these verses are incorporating a technical distinction that Paul does not make.

Let’s apply this distinction to this verse.  Sin no longer has authority over the believer.  Why?  Because the believer has died to sin in the death of Yeshua.  In other words, since Yeshua has conquered death itself, the hallmark of sin’s power, sin no longer has dominion.  When the believer identifies with the death of Yeshua, he recognizes that his previous master no longer has authority over his life.  He now lives under the authority of Yeshua as his new master.  Paul exhorts believers to “consider themselves dead” to this old master.  Everything about the behavior of the believer changes because the old master no longer has control.  “You are no longer under the rule, the principle, the norm of the old master.  You are under grace.”

Does “grace” mean you have no rules for living?  No, of course not.  Grace comes with a different set of rules, the rules of the Kingdom.  The new master is your new King.  His Kingdom operates like any other kingdom.  There are expectations for those who claim to be citizens.  The norm of the new Kingdom is Torah, not freedom from all law.  The believer no longer is forced to live under the old principles, the old norm, the old rules.  He is now released from those so that he may live under the new norms of the new Kingdom.

Most of us treat Paul’s use of nomos as if it were consistently the same everywhere he employs it.  But this isn’t true.  Furthermore, nomos also has different nuances not found in the Hebrew word torah, and visa versa.  Much more care is required if we are going to unravel the presuppositions that Paul rightly expected of his first century Jewish/Gentile audience.  We aren’t that audience so we have to work much harder at understanding his meaning.  But once we do, oh how clearly he expresses what we have experienced to be the truth.  We are freed from that old master so that we may serve the new one.

Topical Index:  law, grace, master, Romans 6:14

 


[1] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 209.

[2] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT, p. 48.

[3] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, p. 259.

Subscribe
Notify of
23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
lori

Hallelujah! This makes so much more sense.

Ian Hodge

Skip,

Can we really say that the Torah was an “old master”, given Paul’s statements in 3:27? The Torah was never opposed to grace, that is why there can be “no boasting.” So is his statement in 6:14 just another affirmation of 3:27? Paul appears to think his readers have a wrong notion that Torah keeping is meritorious when it comes to justification. He dispels this myth in chapters 2-3.

And why is sin not to have dominion over us? Precisely because we are saved by grace through faith and the Torah of faith (2:13, 3:27) – not the Torah of works, the legalistic observance of Torah (in the words of Stern).

theresa

Wow, you are all so much smarter than me. I read this three times and I still don’t get it. I don’t think the scriptures are clear enough to make any determination and for me to feel I have enough to show my mainstreamers. It’s a start but not clear enough. What are those nuances and how do we know about them? The old master is the Torah and I am not dead to that but to the curses of the Torah. In some cases it will say that, but not all. Why do you think God would be so vague through his spokespeople and leave gapping holes that have so many believers and Jews so divided for centuries?

There are scriptures that are clear when they say ‘doctrines of men’ but that is not used the rest of the time and that is where the confusion lies. Within the same chapters you can hear contradictions (or waht to us seems like one) and I watch my fellow bible college students faces in knots trying to understand. I go to the Greek and it is not clear enough. Key words that would be necessary are not there. I can tell them all day what I think. Even the use of ho is not 100 percent of the time you said. I agree with Ian regarding legalistic observances and understanding that you are not justified by your works but that you should still seek to do them. But, it still does not say legalistic observances and I wish it did!!! lol It would make life easier. I say this because I watch my 4th year contemporaries ask over and over these questions and we go all of the scriptures and to the original and at the end of the night everyone is just as confused.

theresa

Thanks, I need to read more about what the Old Master is and how you see this. I know the confusion is with those who read Paul! That would be us. I am currently in a discussion with my teacher about all of this and she looks a bit stressed. I am trying to reach my friends and I have to be able to teach it clearly.

Gabe

Thanks Skip and Theresa, I need to be more familiar with this, too.

Mel Sorensen

I would also recommend “Restoration” by D. Thomas Lancaster which is available at ffoz.org. They have several other resources that address some of the same issues but Restoration is one of my favorites.

theresa

Thank you gentlemen! I will jump into those sites right now. I had Restoration, but lent it out and it never came home! I guess I need to get a new one.

Benny de Brugal

Thank you all for this in put ’cause I was ready to say NOW I AM MORE CONFUSE THAN EVER !!! but decided to go first to the sites Dr. Moen provided.
Thanks.

Shosho

Also Paul said that grace establishes the law

Michael

Rom 7:4
Therefore, my brothers,
you also were made dead to the law through the body of Messiah,
that you would be joined to another,
to him who was raised from the dead,
that we might bring forth fruit to God.

Hi Skip,

As you know Paul has never been my “cup of tea”

But in Romans 7:4, Paul is clearly referring to the Hebrew Laws

Or so it seems to me

Ricky Hazelton

Paul is referring to the Law of Sin and Death verse 4.

Michael

“Paul is referring to the Law of Sin and Death verse 4.”

Hi Ricky,

I understand, Paul is referring to commandment 7 in his metaphor

Thou shalt not commit Adultery

In my Bible, Paul does not say you are dead to the sin

Rather he says you are dead to the Law

And I might add that, as I understand it, the Hebrew notion of sin is breaking “laws”

So we need the Laws

In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne

Wears the scarlet letter A on her chest as a kind of penance

And as a sign that although she is a Hero (very strong and very good)

Hester is not dead to the Law

You can be born again as a Christian

But being born again does not mean you can be dead to the Law (IMO)

We must always contend with the yetzer hara (evil impulse) as far as I know

Rodney

Skip, what is the name of the book? Sounds like one I might like to read. 🙂

Brian

Skip,

I believe Rodney is talking about the book by Michael Winger.

Rodney

Yes, Brian is right. The book by Winger that you mentioned in your reply to Ricky’s comment. In case you’re reading this via email rather than on the web, here’s the quote:

“I have a book on my desk by Michael Winger. It is about the SEVEN different senses associated with Paul’s use of nomos.”

Sorry – I should have included that in my question. 🙂

Robin jeep

“The believer no longer is forced to live under the old principles, the old norm, the old rules. He is now released from those so that he may live under the new norms of the new Kingdom.”

I’ve heard different theories as to what the old principles, norms and rules are. Skip, what exactly do you think they are?

Rodney

Skip,

A technical question if I may. When used in the genitive case, nomou as in Romans 10:4;

τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι

…is the definite article implied in the genitive? That is, would nomou be correctly rendered “of the law” or simply “of law”? Every English translation I’ve checked, with one notable exception, says “For Christ is the end of the Law…”

Young’s LIteral Translation renders it thus:

[Rom 10:4 YLT] 4 For Christ is an end of law for righteousness to every one who is believing,

Since there appears to be no definite article for telos either, I suspect this is much closer to the correct reading. Would you agree?

BTW, I’m well aware of the various meanings of “telos” here apart from “cessation”…

🙂