Underworld
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under [a]the Law but under grace? [b]Far from it! Romans 6:15 NASB
Not under the Law – When we took a long look at Romans 6:14 (March 12 and 13), we discovered that the English translation reveals serious theological bias. There’s that capital “L,” the treatment of nómos as if it uniformly means “Torah,” the addition of a definite article (the law), and the translation of alla as a simple conjunctive (but) rather than a mark of emphasis in a rhetorical question. We concluded that Paul’s statement was not about exemption from the law but rather a rhetorical question about the unthinkable circumstances without the Law. Our Jewish understanding of Paul’s perspective clarifies a lot of confusion about the next few verses. But without this Jewish point of view, Paul seems almost schizophrenic in this passage. Christian commentators agree. It looks like Paul is taking the law away with one hand and bringing it back with the other. Consider this comment:
Paul asks a strange question in light of what he just wrote in the previous verses. He has said that sin has no dominion or authority over us because we are not under the law but under God’s grace through faith in Christ.
Now he asks if we should sin, or choose to continue in sin, for that reason? In other words, does the fact that we are no longer compelled to sin mean that we are somehow free to indulge in sin without fighting our desires to do so? This seems to have been a criticism levelled at Paul more than once (Romans 3:8; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:19-24), and one that misguided people often levy at Christianity today. Paul provides his common response to ridiculous questions: “By no means!” This is from a Greek phrase, me génoito, which is the equivalent of ‘ of course not,” or “heaven forbid!”
Paul will go on to show that our freedom from the authority of sin should cause us to resist and reject our sinful desires, not to take lightly God’s grace and forgiveness by indulging them.[1]
As Kertelge writes, “The new rule of grace claims man completely and tolerates no compromise with sin.”[2]
There’s a kind of strange logic to this explanation. Because the author understands Romans 6:14 in the typical Christian “law vs. grace” way, and not as a rhetorical Jewish question, he’s left with the odd conclusion that sinning or not sinning is irrelevant. God’s grace covers it all. You’ll notice that he writes “we are no longer compelled to sin” (my emphasis) as if being “under the Law” forced me to sin. If that’s true, then being “under grace” removes that compelling force. We might want to question this on other grounds (e.g., are we flawed in such a way that we can’t help but sin, which is a common Reformed view), but this position actually undermines any sense of morality. It suggests that if I am not compelled to sin (as is the case under grace), then I just won’t sin because I no longer have to. But human history, even the history of believers, clearly suggests something else. We do sin, even “under grace.” The author notes that our freedom from the authority of sin “should cause us to resist.” Wait a minute! If we’re no longer under compulsion, then “should” is the wrong verb. “Should” is a moral imperative, i.e., it’s possible not to sin but we still have to make a decision not to do so. That is very strange, don’t you think? If there isn’t anything compelling me to sin anymore, and if the only reason I sinned before was because I was compelled to do so by my inner corrupt nature, then grace must do more than offer me a choice. It should remove the compulsion. After grace, I just don’t sin. Why would I? All the forces that caused me to sin are gone.
This idea is the reason Christianity embraces a rational ethics rather than a divinely revealed ethics. If the only thing that made me sin was some flaw in my person, and grace removes that flaw, then I have no rational motive to sin. If I do sin, it has to be because I am not being rational because truly rational behavior aligns itself with the divine nature of the cosmos and automatically does what is right. After grace, the problem with sin is improper thinking, not ethical perversity. Evil is just bad education. As you will undoubtedly notice, this view of evil is ubiquitous in Western society.
Of course, everyone who has ever sinned knows this just isn’t true. After grace, we still sin. Why? Because we choose to. It might be insanity, yes, but it’s still reality. Being “under grace” doesn’t change behavior. It might give us an option we didn’t have before, but it doesn’t remove choice. In fact, under grace sin is worse than ever because before I had the excuse that I couldn’t help it. Now I don’t. Is that what Paul is saying: basically, “Good luck! Have a nice day”?
No, of course not! Paul isn’t saying anything about the stupidity of sinning after the compulsion has been removed. That’s not his point because that wasn’t his claim in the first place. If I treat Romans 6:15 as a Jewish rhetorical question, then what Paul is saying is that I am under Torah obedience through God’s gracious action and that continuing to sin by discarding the freedom of Torah is sheer insanity. God has revealed to us what we must do. God had offered us a way to do what we must do. To ignore this is crazy. We can’t continue to act in the old ways and claim we have God’s grace because God’s grace is Torah obedience. If I sin, it’s because I make a choice to act contrary to God’s will. I choose. Grace doesn’t force me to choose the good any more than Torah forced me to choose the bad. The convoluted logic of the Christian claim evaporates. Compulsion has nothing to do with it. It’s choice that matters. What did Moses say? Oh, yes, “Choose this day whom you will serve!”
Topical Index: grace, law, sin, Romans 6:15
[1] https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/6/Romans-6-15.html
[2] K. Kertelge cited in Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans, 1988), p. 259
