Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The connection between Roman 6:14 and 15.

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT sogang.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: The connection between Roman 6:14 and 15.
  • Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 04:05:10 -0500


Dear Andrew,
Thanks for the interaction.

> Dear Moon, I've often wondered about this and the need to take 6.14,15 as
> saying something different from 6.1
>
> I now see the connection something like this -
>
> v14a - Paul's basic thesis is that the power of Sin is no longer lord over
> those in Christ (hence they are free to offer themselves to God, v13)
>
> v14b - This is the real oddity - one of the reasons Sin no longer lords it
> is because they are not under Law (but under grace).
> Given that in Jewish thinking to sin would be understood in terms of
> contravention of the Law and those not under the Law were 'Gentile sinners'
> (cf Gal 2.15) this is a gratuitous and paradoxical claim to say the least
> and would not normally be seen as an explanation for v14a
>

> SO
>
> v15a - One obvious but false conclusion from v14b is that as those in Christ
> are not under the law they are simply the same as Gentile sinners and so
> what they will do as they live 'not under the law' is to be described as
> sinning (just out of interest, does Paul use this verb much especially for
> Christian conduct - a quick search suggests not as common as would think
> given its prevelance in later Christian discourse - and what does he mean by
> it ?).
>

The problem with this view is that as subjunctive used in question,
hAMARTHSWMEN (subjunctive) cannot be a simple of description of sinning,
but some kind of volitional or deliberative action.



> v15b - Paul emphatically rejects this most natural line of thought from his
> rather outrageous claim in v14b.
>
> For the remainder of ch 6 & into chs 7 & 8 Paul will therefore show that far
> from this being the case, those who are under grace are not auto-nomous
> sinners but rather enslaved to obedience and married to a new groom and that
> those walking according to the Spirit actually fulfil the law's righteous
> requirement while paradoxically those under the law find that as such they
> are still also captive to/under Sin and so unable to keep the law.
>
> Would be fascinated to know if this makes any sense to anyone else !
>
> All the best,
> Andrew.
> ***********************
> Andrew Goddard,
> Wycliffe Hall,
> 54 Banbury Rd,
> Oxford,
> OX2 6PW
> andrew.goddard AT wycliffe.ox.ac.uk
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT sogang.ac.kr>
> To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 7:54 AM
> Subject: [corpus-paul] The connection between Roman 6:14 and 15.
>
>
> >
> > In Romans 6:14-15, we have:
> > 14 For sin shall not rule over you. For you are not under the law
> > but under grace.
> > 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under
> > grace? God forbid.
> >
> > In the case of 6:1, some might have inferred it from
> > 5:21 "just as sin reigned unto death, so did grace through righteousness
> > unto unto life eternal".
> >
> > But in the current case, it is not clear. In several commentaries I
> > consulted it is argued that some might have inferred v.15 from 14b
> > "For you are not under the law but under grace".
> >
> > This argument could have worked if 14b "you are not under the law
> > but under grace" appeared apart from 14a "sin shall not rule over you".
> > But in the current case, Paul explicitly said that sin shall not rule
> > over you BASED ON THE FACT that you are not under the law but under
> > grace. If we regard "we shall not sin" not so different from "sin shall
> > not rule over us", the fact that we are not under the law under grace
> > should imply strongly that we shall not sin. Hence it is not clear how
> > in this context some might have inferred verse 15 from verse 14.
> >
> > To make it work, we might suppose that perhaps "sin shall not rule over
> > you" might trigger an inference "So, it is OK for us to think freely
> > about sin. It is OK for us to sin. We have no reason to fear sin." But
> > still I cannot imagine how some could have attempted such an inference at
> > all.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Moon
> > Moon R. Jung
> > Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as:
> andrew.goddard AT wycliffe.ox.ac.uk
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.317 / Virus Database: 176 - Release Date: 1/21/02




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page