GeorgePWood.com

Have you ever felt powerless to overcome your long-time sins? Join the club! According to Romans 7.14-25, the Apostle Paul felt the same way.

In verse 14, Paul contrasts God’s law and our sinfulness: “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” Sin is a ruthless master.

How ruthless? According to verses 15-20, sin drives a wedge between our desires and our deeds:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.� I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

How masterful is sin? For Paul, the fact that sin drives a wedge between desire and deed shows that it is in full control of us. Verses 17 and 20 repeat the same idea: “it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.” Our good intentions are helpless bystanders to the crimes sin commits through us.

Or rather, not bystanders but prisoners of war and slaves. In verses 21-23, Paul writes:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

And in verse 25, he adds: “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”

Sin is in control of us. It drives a wedge between our desires and our deeds. It makes us helpless bystanders of our own crimes. It holds us as prisoners of war and as slaves. No wonder Paul exclaims in verse 24, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” In other words, who will integrate my thoughts and actions? Who will arrest the criminal in me? Who will liberate me?

Verse 24 gives the answer: “Thanks be to God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Through faith in Christ, who died and rose again for us, we begin to experience the integrity and freedom our soul desires.

As we head into the July� 4th weekend to celebrate our nation’s freedom, we ought to keep this most basic freedom uppermost in our minds.

Have you ever felt powerless to overcome your long-time sins? Join the club! According to Romans 7.14-25, the Apostle Paul felt the same way.

Download TDW MP3.

Is the law of God sinful?

Paul asks this question in Romans 7.7-13. It’s a very strange question. After all, since God is not sinful, nothing he says is sinful. The law is one of the things God says, so obviously, it cannot be sinful. Why, then, does Paul ask the question in the first place? Because the logic of his argument in Romans requires him to do so.

Remember, the theme of Paul’s letter is justification by faith. In Romans 1.17, Paul puts it this way: “in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last.” It is by faith rather than works because we are inveterate sinners. As Paul puts it in Romans 3.20: “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” The law, in other words, has a negative function: it defines our sin and highlights our guilt.

So, when Jesus Christ saves us, he simultaneously releases us from the power of sin and the power of the law. Just as “we died to sin” (Romans 6.1), so we “also died to the law” (Romans 7.2). Because of Christ’s death, according to Romans 7.6, “we have been released from the law,” which Paul further describes as “the old way of the written code.”

I cite all these passages to make a simple point: For Paul, sin and the law have a symbiotic existence. If Christ does away with one, he necessarily does away with the other. But doing away with the law might lead some people to the false conclusion that the law, like sin (which is also done away with), is sinful. So, Paul writes in Romans 7.7-13:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”� But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

In other words, the law is good, but it highlights our badness. It is a diagnosis of spiritual cancer, but not the cancer itself, and certainly not the cure. For a cure for the sin that ails you, you must look beyond the diagnosis to the healing hands of the Great Physician. And when he heals you, the diagnosis no longer makes you afraid.

Is the law sinful? Paul asks and answers that question in Romans 7.7-13.

Download TDW MP3.

I just finished re-reading Explaining Hitler by Ron Rosenbaum. Originally published in 1998, the book is a meditation on “the search for the origins of [Hitler’s] evil,” as the subtitle puts it. As the book unfolds, Rosenbaum interviews in person or interacts with the writings of nearly every prominent Hitler explainer of the post-war period, from Hugh Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock to Christopher Browning and Daniel Goldhagen. As he does so, he critically interacts with the major explanations of Hitler’s evil: that it was the byproduct of genital malformation, sexual perversion, psychological projection, abstract historical forces, or Hitler’s own intention and agency. The last five chapters, in this regard, have revealing titles. Too many Hitler explainers, it seems,� are apt to blame God, the Jews themselves, Christians, or Germans for Hitler’s evil–rather than Hitler himself. Here are Rosenbaum’s concluding paragraphs:

[Milton] Himmelfarb almost seems to be saying that it is, in fact, the culmination of a truer sophistication to be able to hate Hitler, a sophistication that doesn’t fall prey to the pseudosophisticated snares of explanation as exculpation, of explanation as abstraction away from Hitler’s personal agency. Hatred as not that which one starts with, rather as something one ends up with: the product of a deeper understanding. A less inflammatory word than “hatred” might be “resistance.” It’s the world Emil Fackenheim used when he described the “double move” one must make in attempting to explain Hitler: to seek explanation but also to resist explanation.

Not to resist all or any inquiry, not to resist thought, but to resist the misleading exculpatory corollaries of explanation. To resist the way explanation can become evasion or consolation, a way of making Hitler’s choice to do what he did less unbearable, less hateful to contemplate, by shifting responsibility from him to faceless abstractions, inexorable forces, or irresistible compulsions that gave him no choice or made his choice irrelevant. To resist making the kind of explanatory excuses for Hitler that permit him to escape, that grant him the posthumous victory of a last laugh.

Alexander Chase said, “To understand is to forgive.” Perhaps this is sometimes true. (Chase added “even oneself” to his apercus.) But not in the case of Hitler. Not in the face of such evil.

In Romans 6.2, Paul writes, �..We died to sin.�.� In Romans 7.4, he goes on to say, �..you also died to the law.�.� I think we all understand what it means to die to sin, for the second half of Romans 6.2 asks, �..how can we live in it any longer?�.� But what does it mean to die to the law? Does it mean we no longer have to obey the commandments? Was Paul an antinomian after all?

To answer these questions, let�..s take a closer look at Romans 7.1-6. Paul begins with a statement of legal principle in verse 1: �..Do you not know, brothers�..for I am speaking to men who know the law�..that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?�.�

In verses 2-3, he offers an illustration of that legal principle at work: �..For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.�.�

Finally, in verses 4-6, he draws out the application of that principle to Christian faith and practice: �..So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.�.�

Now, it is clear from verses 4-6 that being dead to the law does not mean being free to sin. Paul is not an antinomian in terms of moral behavior. Rather, as Christians, we died to the law �..that [we] might belong to [Christ]�.� and �..that we might bear fruit to God.�.� The result of dying to the law is that �..we serve in the new way of the Spirit.�.� As I said, the opposite of being dead to the law is not being free to sin. Rather, it is being alive to God so that we take on the moral character and activity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So, then, what exactly does it mean to be dead to the law? Notice three key words: �..controlled,�.� �..bound,�.� and �..released.�.� Before Christ, we were controlled by our �..sinful nature,�.� literally, �..flesh.�.� We were natural born sinners, so to speak. The law indicted us and �..bound�.� us over for judgment before God. But Christ�..s death for our sins and in our place �..released�.� us from the judgment we deserved. To be dead to the law in this way is the only way to be truly and eternally alive.

What does it mean to die to the law (Romans 7.1-6)? Does it mean that we no longer have to obey the commandments? Was Paul an antinomian after all?

Download TDW MP3.

This weekend, Finland will host the 11th annual World Championship of Wife Carrying. For a description of this championship and a meditation on its possible meaning, check out William R. Mattox Jr.’s essay in today’s Opinion Journal. Here’s his conclusion:

Over the past half-century, our official gender debate has often forced people to choose between gender equality and gender-specific roles. You could be against misogyny. Or against androgyny. But you couldn’t be against both. At least not in the official debate.

But in our private lives–especially in those leisure pursuits that often (unconsciously) reveal our deepest hopes and aspirations–I get the impression that most couples somewhat paradoxically want both gender equality and gender-specific roles.

Perhaps this is why a high-powered lawyer friend of mine insists that her husband do the often-grimy “blue” jobs around the house (like grilling burgers on the Fourth of July) while she opts for the traditional “pink” household chores. Or why a recent University of Virginia study of more than 5,000 couples found that the happiest wives are those whose husbands earn at least two-thirds of the household income.

“Women today expect more help around the home and more emotional engagement from their husbands,” observes W. Bradford Wilcox, one of the study’s authors. “But they still want their husbands to be providers who give them financial security and freedom.”

In fact, curiously, this preference for husbands to carry the primary responsibility for providing household income could be found even among the most feminist-minded wives, according to the University of Virginia study.

Now, I realize that it is foolish to treat a wife-carrying competition with a great deal of seriousness. And I recognize that over-analyzing frivolous diversion can potentially threaten the carefree spirit that makes leisure play so enjoyable in the first place.

Nevertheless, I think the couples who annually gather in officially androgynous Finland for the World Championship of Wife-Carrying may be unintentionally making an important statement.

They may be expressing–in an admittedly peculiar manner–that they want to live in a world where husbands and wives are equals, but their roles aren’t completely interchangeable.

What role does the Old Testament law play in the life of the believer?�

The church has argued about its answer to this question since the first century. Basically, three positions have emerged: legalism, antinomianism, and the orthodox consensus. Let�..s briefly consider each one in turn.�

Legalism is the notion that our salvation is wrapped up with our obedience to the Old Testament law. We read about early Christian legalists in Acts 15.1: �..Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: �..Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.�..�.� Also in Acts 15.5: �..Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, �..The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.�..�.��

The context of theses verses is important. The earliest Christians all were Jews. They believed that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament law and prophecy, as Christ himself had taught (Matthew 5.17-20). Consequently, when Peter and Paul began to make converts among Gentiles, some of these well-meaning Jewish believers argued that the converts should get circumcised, keep kosher, and otherwise obey the commandments of the Old Testament. Their conclusions precipitated the first church council in Jerusalem, which decided, in essence, that Gentiles did not in fact have to become Jews in order to become Christians (Acts 15.22-29).�

Now, from this decision, some of these Gentile believers drew the wrong conclusion. Since they were not obligated to keep the Old Testament law, they were not obligated to keep any moral law. This conclusion is known as antinomianism�..literally, against-the-law-ism. You can find echoes of this position throughout the New Testament. For example, in Romans 6.1-2a, Paul asks and answers a rhetorical question: �..Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!�.� Also in Romans 6.15: �..Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!�.� Grace does not legitimize a moral free-for-all. Instead, it promotes holiness.�

And that brings us to what I�..m calling the orthodox consensus. In orthodox Christianity, the Old Testament law is fundamentally good because it is the self-revelation of God. As Paul writes in Romans 7.12: �..the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.�.� In revealing God�..s character, the law shows us how we ought to live. However, in and of itself, the law does not have the power to make us live that way. It cannot make us righteous; it can only point out our unrighteousness. In Romans 7.13, Paul writes that the law was given �..in order that sin might be recognized as sin�.� and �..so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.�.� When we realize how utterly sinful we are, we throw ourselves upon God�..s mercy through Jesus Christ. As Paul asks in Romans 7.24-25a: �..Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God�..through Jesus Christ our Lord!�.��

In summary, the law is good but the law cannot save. Only Jesus can do that. As we begin our study of Romans 7, which deals with the role of the law in the life of the believer, it is helpful to keep these things in mind.

What role does the Old Testament law play in the life of the believer? Listen to my introduction to Romans 7.1-25 for an answer.

Download TDW MP3.

This Wednesday, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA cast two contradictory votes.

On the one hand, it voted 405-92 to maintain the church constitution’s� “fidelity and chastity” rule for ordained ministers. In other words, Presbyterian pastors must be faithful in marriage and chaste in singleness. Like other mainline denominations, the PCUSA has also debated whether to sanction same-sex marriages, but so far, it has refused to do. Maintaining the fidelity and chastity rule strengthens this refusal.

On the other hand, the General Assembly also voted 298-221 to allow ordaining bodies within the denomination considerable leeway over how–or whether–to enforce this constitutional rule.

Mark D. Roberts is a Presbyterian pastor, and he has started a blogging series about this controversy on his website. Check it out!

Today’s Washington Post includes a� article by Shankar Vedantam about the increasing social isolation of the average American.

A quarter of Americans say they have no one with whom they can discuss personal troubles, more than double the number who were similarly isolated in 1985. Overall, the number of people Americans have in their closest circle of confidants has dropped from around three to about two.

One� of the� sociologists� interviewed for the article attributed this isolation to commuting and television.

Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard and the author of “Bowling Alone,” a book about increasing social isolation in the United States, said the new study supports what he has been saying for years to skeptical audiences in the academy.

“For most of the 20th century, Americans were becoming more connected with family and friends, and there was more giving of blood and money, and all of those trend lines turn sharply in the middle ’60s and have gone in the other direction ever since,” he said.

Americans go on 60 percent fewer picnics today and families eat dinner together 40 percent less often compared with 1965, he said. They are less likely to meet at clubs or go bowling in groups. Putnam has estimated that every 10-minute increase in commutes makes it 10 percent less likely that people will establish and maintain close social ties.

Television is a big part of the problem, he contends. Whereas 5 percent of U.S. households in 1950 owned television sets, 95 percent did a decade later.

I’m sure commuting and television contribute to the problem of social isolation. But it seems to me that that a more fundamental problem is the parlous state of the American family. I’m sure the sociological data confirm the following three statements: (1) Fewer Americans marry now than in 1965. (2) Married couples have fewer children now than in 1965. And (3) more marriages end in divorce now than in 1965. In my opinion, nuclear and extended families provide are our first and most stable social networks. If they are declining in scope, decereasing in size, and ending in divorce, then so are our social networks.

I’m all for finding a job closer to home and turning off the TV. But if you really want to solve the problem� of social isolation, it seems to me that you’ve got to address the problems of the American family first.

From the beginning of creation, God has given humankind a choice between mutually exclusive styles of life. Paul reminds us of that choice in Romans 6.19-23. Here’s what he writes:

I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

On the one hand, Paul presents the lifestyle of sin. Notice the terms he uses to describe that lifestyle. First, impurity. Have you ever seen a fresh-water stream choked with trash and debris, or fouled by oil and grease? That’s a great mental picture of the sinful soul: a beautiful thing polluted. Then, ever-increasing wickedness. Have you ever eaten just one peanut? Of course not! No one can eat just one peanut. One leads to another, then to a handful, then to a whole bag. Sin is like that. One sin never satisfies. It must be followed by others. Third, shame. If impurity describes the effects of sin on you that others can see, shame describes sin’s effects on you that only you can see. Sin makes it hard for you to look at yourself in the mirror. Finally, death. Sin is not a lifestyle; it’s a deathstyle. It’s a way of sucking the vitality out of your relationship with God and with others-sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. Either way, you’re just a corpse in the end.

On the other hand, Paul presents the lifestyle of righteousness. The image of righteousness is the polar opposite of impurity. If impurity is a polluted stream, righteousness is that same stream cleaned up and restored to its natural beauty. Righteousness is the world-and you-made right by God. Similarly, holiness is the polar opposite of ever-increasing wickedness. It is becoming increasingly like God in your character, thoughts, feelings, words, and actions. Although Paul doesn’t mention it here, righteousness gives us a reason to boast, which is the polar opposite of being ashamed. But our boast is not in ourselves, but in the Lord, who gives us his righteousness in exchange for our sins. And finally, eternal life is the polar opposite of death. Righteousness is the medicine that heals the terminally sin-sick and restores them to spiritual health and lifelong joy in God’s presence.

So, then, here’s the choice God has presented us since the creation of the world: sin or righteousness, death or life. Stated so starkly, the choice is-and always has been-obvious. Choose life!

From the beginning of creation, God has given humankind a choice between mutually exclusive styles of life. Paul reminds us of that choice in Romans 6.19-23.

Download TDW MP3.

Back in the 1990s, I read Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance. I wasn’t impressed then, and I sincerely doubt that I’ll be impressed with his newly released An Inconvenient Truth, that is, if I ever get around to reading it. In today’s National Review Online, Iain Murray offers 25 reasons for my skepticism.

In 1979, Bob Dylan released his Slow Training Coming album, which included the song, �..Gotta Serve Somebody.�.� Do you remember the lyrics?

Here�..s the first verse and chorus:

You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

Slow Train Coming was the product of Bob Dylan�..s conversion to Christianity. And like most Dylan songs, �..Gotta Serve Somebody�.� was both simple and insightful. The simplicity of the song is self-evident. It is highly repetitive. But its insight is thoroughly biblical. Whether it�..s the devil or the Lord, we all have to serve somebody.
Paul makes this point in Romans 6.15-18:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey�..whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Notice the language of slavery that pervades this passage. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word ebed denoted both a voluntary servant and an involuntary slave. When the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek, they used the word pais for a voluntary servant and doulos for an involuntary slave. Paul, who was steeped in the language of the Greek Old Testament, used the word doulos throughout this passage. Whether it�..s to sin or to righteousness, we are slaves nonetheless.

There are two major differences between slavery to sin and slavery to righteousness. The first is the ultimate outcome. Slavery to sin �..leads to death.�.� Slavery to �..obedience,�.� on the other hand, �..leads to righteousness.�.� Death and righteousness are two ways of describing ultimate outcomes: condemnation or acquittal on the Day of Judgment�..hell or heaven.

The other major difference centers on how we act here and now. Sin is disobedience of God�..s commandment. Righteousness, on the other hand, is wholehearted obedience of �..the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.�.� That obedience begins with faith in the saving power of Christ�..s gracious death and resurrection for you. And it always results in a life of good works.

That�..s why the answer to the question, �..Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?�.� is always, �..By no means!�.� Grace does not liberate us from doing God�..s will. It liberates us from sin precisely so that we can do God�..s will. Paradoxically, however, such freedom is possessed only by the slaves of God.

Dylan was right. You gotta serve somebody. Who are you serving today?

Bob Dylan was right. You gotta serve somebody. According to Rpomans 6.15-18, you’re either a slave of sin or righteousness. So, who are you serving today?

Download TDW MP3.

From Best of the Web Today comes this post, with which I agree:� �

Horrific news out of Iraq, where two U.S. soldiers, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, were either killed or captured and later killed in an enemy attack Friday. Their bodies were found Monday, CNN reports, “mutilated and booby-trapped”:

The bodies also had been desecrated and a visual identification was impossible–part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.� .� .� .� Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.

To most of us, this is a reminder of the depravity of our enemies. But blogress Jeralyn Merritt sees it as a reminder of America’s sins:�

Violence begets violence. Inhumanity and cruelty bring more of the same. The whole world is watching and we don’t have the right to claim the moral high ground so long as those responsible for the abuses at Guantanamo and detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan go unpunished, the policies stand uncorrected and the Pentagon continues to prevent the media from learning the facts first-hand.

The always excitable Andrew Sullivan similarly laments “the cycle of depravity and defeat.”� This rhetoric about “cycles” appears to reflect a theory of moral equivalence, but in fact it is something else. After all, if the two sides were morally equivalent, one could apply this reasoning in reverse–excusing, for example, the alleged massacre at Haditha on the ground that it was “provoked” by a bombing that killed a U.S. serviceman–and hey, violence begets violence.� �

But America’s critics never make this argument, and its defenders seldom do. That is because it is understood that America knows better. If it is true that U.S. Marines murdered civilians in cold blood at Haditha, the other side’s brutality does not excuse it. Only the enemy’s evil acts are thought to be explained away by ours.� � � �

Implicit in the “cycle” theory, then, is the premise that the enemy is innocent–not in the sense of having done nothing wrong, but in the sense of not knowing any better. The enemy lacks the knowledge of good and evil–or, to put it in theological terms, he is free of original sin.� �

America ought to hold itself to a high moral standard, of course, but blaming the other side’s depraved acts on our own (real and imagined) moral imperfections is a dangerous form of vanity.

One of the most important imperatives in Christian ethics is this: Become who you are!

At first glance, this imperative might seem like a piece of goofy New Age blatherskite, but it isn’t. It is firmly rooted in the logic of the gospel. Consider, in this regard, what Paul writes in Romans 6.11-14:

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

The words, “in the same way,” let us know that this paragraph is logically connected to the paragraphs that precede it. In those paragraphs, we read several statements about ourselves, all of them written in the indicative mood. For example:

• “We died to sin” (verse 2)
• “our old self was crucified with [Christ]” (verse 6)
• “we will also live with Christ” (verse 8)

A little grammar might be helpful at this point. In English, a verb can express an indicative or an imperative mood. (There’s also subjunctive and optative moods, but we don’t need to discuss them right now.) The indicative mood expresses facts about what was, what is, or what will be. The imperative mood, by contrast, expresses a command: Do this! Do that!

Now, as I mentioned, the verbs in verses 1-10 are written in the indicative mood. They tell us who we are in Christ. We are dead to sin but alive with Christ.

By contrast, the verbs in verses 11-14 are written in the imperative mood. They tell us what to do:

• “count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus”
• “do not let sin reign in your mortal body”
• “Do not offer the parts of your body to sin”
• “offer yourselves to God”
• “offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness”

The indicatives of verses 1-10 logically precede the imperatives of verses 11-14. We died to sin; therefore, we should count ourselves dead to sin. Our old self was crucified with Christ; therefore, we should not let sin reign in us or offer parts of our bodies to sin. We live with Christ; therefore, we should offer ourselves to God and the parts of our bodies to him. In other words, because of what Christ did in you, do this in response! The indicative and the imperative express the logic of the gospel. First, God saves us by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Then and only then do we begin to produce Christ-like good works.

Who are you? A man or woman in Christ. Now act like it! Become who you are!

One of the most important imperatives in Christian ethics is this: Become who you are! This imperative finds expression in Romans 6.11-14.

Download TDW MP3.