The Law of Sin and Death

Romans 8

In order to properly understand any text of the Bible, the student of the Bible must always entertain proper interpretation methods (Hermeneutics). (1) Who is the author writing to; (2) Keep the context [both immediate AND remote]; (3) Determine if the text applies generically to all generations or only to the immediate generation of the author; (4) Draw only such conclusions that are supported by the evidence.

Reference to the word “Law” is found a minimum of five times in Romans chapter eight. The question that we must ask ourselves, as well as properly determine, is this: “Does each use of the word “Law” apply to one and the same thing, or different things?” The context of the immediate chapter as well as the two previous chapters will assist us in answering this question in the proper way.

Romans 8:2 – “Law of the Spirit of Life”

Paul opened this chapter with the word “therefore” which refers to what he had just discussed in the previous chapter. The “Law” (Mosaic Law) was meant to produce within the Jew and proselyte the realization that sin brought about spiritual death. But deliverance was now available through Christ Jesus (no condemnation).

In verse 2, Paul explains why there is now no condemnation for those who are “in” Christ – “for the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus made me free from the “Law of sin and death.” The word “for” introduces for us the reason why there is no condemnation for those in Christ. Because the Law of the Spirit of Life which is a reference to the gospel of Christ has made us free from the Law of sin and death.

It is the gospel that has become God’s power to save or deliver us (Romans 1:16-17). Since there is no condemnation “in” Christ, and Scripture makes it clear that we enter Christ by obedience to the gospel (Hebrews 5:9; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:8) – then it must be reasonable to assume that the “Law of the Spirit of Life” and the gospel are one and the same thing.

“Law of sin and death.”

What is meant by the phrase “Law of sin and death?” Again, we must consider the context of the immediate chapter, as well as the context of previous chapters. We have concluded that the Law of the Spirit of Life refers to the gospel of Christ, and it is the gospel that has freed us from the “Law of sin and death.” Looking back to chapters six and seven we find Paul discussing the problems that we as human beings face – the weakness of the flesh (Romans 6:12-17; 7:5, 7-8). Paul said, “Sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Romans 5:13) – meaning, that if no law existed to tell us what conduct was wrong, then God in His perfection would not charge sin (transgression) to our account. The purpose of the Law of Moses was to put down in writing what type of conduct was unacceptable in God’s sight, so there would be no excuses.

Writing to the Jews and Gentiles of Rome (Christians), Paul informs them why the Law of Moses was given, and why it is now obsolete. The Law of Moses could not save anyone, but the gospel of Christ can and does. The Law of Moses revealed sin and its awfulness (Romans 7:7-8, 13). It also gave rise to another “law” – the “Law in my members” (Romans 7:23, 25). The flesh warring against the spirit. Our spirit knowing what it should do, and our flesh winning the war. This “Law of sin” is the same “Law of sin and death.” Paul calls it the “Law of sin AND death” because we allow the flesh to win through the law of sin, it leads to spiritual death (Romans 7:5, 9; 6:16 et al). So, we find in this verse that the gospel (law of the Spirit of Life) is God’s power to save us from the fleshly mind (law of sin and death).

Romans 8:3 & 4 – “the law”

Paul now returns to speaking about the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was weak through the flesh because it was only meant to reveal sin, not to save from sin. The Law itself was not weak, because it was given by God, and therefore perfect, the weakness came through the flesh of men. IF a Jew was able to keep the entire law perfectly, he would have stood un-condemned by God, however the weakness of the flesh prevented anyone from keeping it perfectly – except of course Jesus Christ. Therefore, what the “Law” could not do, God did through the sending of His only begotten Son – remission of sins, deliverance, salvation.

Romans 8:7 – “the law of God”

In this verse, Paul says, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The Apostle addresses the type of person who is worldly minded. A person who cares nothing about the will of God. This brings to mind what the Psalmist said, “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts” (Psalm 10:4). This is the same idea Paul sets forth in Romans 8:7. A person whose attitude or thinking is fleshly or worldly in nature, is not righteous. This is true of anyone in any dispensation (Patriarchal, Mosaic, or Christian). But of course, Paul has in mind the Christian age.

The “law of God” refers to the “will” of God. It is God’s will that all men become perfect, holy, and righteous (Matthew 5:48). Therefore, Paul is telling us that the carnal mind as long as it only thinks of self “cannot” or “will not” choose to submit itself to God’s will [law] (Romans 12:1-2). The word “cannot” does not mean impossibility, it only means as long as the person is of the mind to reject God’s will.

Revelation 22:18-19

John said, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from things which are written in this book.”

It has been alleged that what John says here, and what Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, concerning the “adding to, or taking away from” has to do with the actual “words” of the Bible. That it is a sin to change actual words. Is this what God meant to tell us? In order to show the irrational thinking of this line of thinking, let us consider the following: The Bible was originally written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). Not knowing these languages, we read the Word of God from a “Translation” of these languages into English. Since there are many English words that do not correspond to the Hebrew or Greek, the translators had to use the closest English word or set of words possible to address what the Holy Spirit taught in the original.

If it is the case that we cannot add to or take away from God’s Word in the sense that we cannot use alternate words (synonyms), or expound upon a text without violating the Holy Spirit’s warning, then would it not also be the case that it would be wrong for us to translate the original text into English? The answer of course is yes, it would be wrong, because we would have to add certain words or sets of words to make it say what the original language said. Therefore, seeing the illogical position such a position advocates, we must conclude that neither John nor Moses meant the actual words of God, but rather the doctrine of God. Both were using a figure of speech known as synecdoche, where a part is representative of the whole. Therefore, adding to the “word” means adding to all that God has recorded, His entire will, law, or doctrine.

Amenable vs. Accountable

New Webster’s Dictionary finds the word “Amenable” meaning, “responsible, answerable to the law.” Though the actual word “amenable” is not found in the Bible, its principle is certainly taught. The principle of being held accountable, answerable, responsible, or amenable to God is taught from Genesis to Revelation. It matters not what word is used since they all mean the same thing and do nothing to change the truth of God’s Word.

Whether you choose to the word “accountable” or “amenable,” they both teach the same principle taught in the Bible that ALL men and women are under the Law of God (gospel) and will answer to God in the end. If this is not true, then it must be proved.

Legalism vs. Liberalism

The Pharisees were considered “legalists” because they bound (added to) areas God did not bind. They bound their traditions upon the Jewish people, over and above the keeping of the Law of Moses. It is a sin to bind where God has not bound, just as much as it is a sin to exempt where God has not set free. On the opposite end of the spectrum is “liberalism,” where men and women have made the choice to exempt what God has bound which is where the Law of sin and death comes in. Liberalism chooses to ignore clear Bible teaching about Bible authority, and refuses to seek God’s will by adding instruments of music in worship, praise teams, women deacons, children’s church, multiple assemblies under one eldership, et al.

What Baptism can and cannot do

As Solomon once proclaimed, “There is no new thing under the sun,” we are finding this statement ever so true when it comes to trying to justify the sins of others. For decades there has been a belief that has become doctrine, that baptism somehow miraculously transforms a sinful act into a holy act. It is admitted by the promoters of this doctrine that baptism is for – or in order to receive – the remission of sins. I think that these same individuals would also agree that “sin” is the “transgression” of the law (1 John 3:4), and therefore, baptism is in order that we may receive forgiveness for our transgression of God’s law.

Transgression of what exactly? Well, God told us what type of conduct He will not tolerate when He said, “know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor homosexual prostitutes, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-31; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Rev. 21:8). Each of these actions are actions that when committed, transgress God’s will, and must be repented of in order to receive forgiveness. Yes, what many people forget, is that there are several steps before one can receive remission of sins, or forgiveness. Baptism is the last step, not the one and only magic bullet.

Baptism alone, no more adds one to the body of Christ, than does faith alone. Yet, many people want to make a person free from sin and a child of God, simply because they have been immersed in water! If ones’ faith is wrong (built upon the wrong thing), then their baptism is null and void. If one has not truly repented (godly sorrow, reformed life, restitution), then their baptism is null and void. If one will not or does not confess Christ, their baptism is null and void. Just because the Mormon Church baptizes for the remission of sins, does not make them children of God. Why? because their faith is built upon a man, Joseph Smith, and his book, the Book of Mormon. Just because the First Christian Church baptizes for the remission of sins, does not mean that they are brethren, that they have been added to the body of Christ. Why? Because their faith is not built upon the Word of God alone, but upon the First Christian Church manual that adds to the Word of God.

When a man or woman (Acts 5:14; 8:12; comes to God by faith in what God’s Word alone says, repents of their sins, confesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and is then immersed in water (baptized) unto – that is in order to receive – the remission (forgiveness) of sins, God will then add that man or woman to the body of the saved (the church). Baptism (immersion in water) is the agent that God designed for the contacting of Christ’s cleansing blood (Romans 6:3-6; Matthew 26:28). However, the blood cannot and will not cleanse ANYONE who has not met the first 4 requirements! (1) Hearing the Word [Rom. 10:17]; (2) Believing the Word [Hebr. 11:6]; (3) Repenting, reforming, restitution [Lk. 13:3; 2 Cor. 7:10; Rom. 12:2; Lk. 19:8]; (4) Confession of Christ being Lord/Master [Rom. 10:9-10]. Any one of these four that is violated, will nullify ones’ baptism, and forgiveness of sins will not be forthcoming by God.

To suggest that Baptism somehow in a miraculous way changes a sinful act into a righteous act is absurd at best. ALL men and women (Christian & non-Christian) in the world in the first century through every generation since and on into the future, have been given a law that they must follow – the gospel. If it is the case (and we believe that it is not the case) that the non-Christian is not under law, then it must be true that the non-Christian cannot sin, and therefore is in a saved condition. If not, why not?

It is absurd to suggest that a non-Christian can, with the approval of God, live an adulterous life, then decide to become a child of God, while continuing in their adultery. The Law of sin and death has not been severed by baptism alone, repentance is necessary which includes restitution. By this line of reasoning, the same would be true of homosexual relationships, polygamous relationships, thievery, slander, extortion, shacking up, and a multitude of other ungodly actions. If not, why not?

God never purposed baptism as a means to sanctify (make holy) actions, or to make null the Law of sin and death. The purpose of baptism is to contact the cleansing blood of Christ that washes us from having taken part in unholy or ungodly acts (acts of the flesh), after we have realized that such acts were against God’s will, and we turned away from them. All it takes is a little common sense and rational consideration to properly conclude that one has not truly repented or made Christ the Master of their lives while continuing to reap the benefits of one’s life when living in sin. Think about it.