Serving sin and God

Hello Jim. How are you? I was recently reading your interaction with "John" in an article entitled "Is Romans 7 our continuing reality in Christ?", and had a question about something Paul said in 7:24-25. What do you think he meant by "on the one hand" and "on the other"? How could he serve with his flesh the law of sin while serving the law of God. I wonder what it meant to him "to serve" in this context. Obviously, it was a great relief for him to realize this - "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our LORD!" Do catch what I'm trying to ask here? If he did and we do still serve the law of sin with our flesh, how is this a relief to produce a heart of thanks? How can one do both? Tim

Hello Tim! :)

There's a recent sci-fi movie called "I, Robot" (based on the book by Isaac Asimov) that has an interesting scene near the beginning. A detective receives a call to the Robotics Institute to investigate an apparent suicide of the head of the company. Standing before him, just in front of the body, shows a projected image of the deceased man that emanates from a small object. The dead man had created it to assist the detective in solving the mystery. As he asks questions about the who, what, when and where, the eerie hologram kept repeating the same line, "I have been programmed to answer only certain questions. Please ask another question." Finally in frustration, the investigator asks, "Why would you kill yourself?" At that the image smiled and said, "Now, you're asking the right questions," and then vanished.

I know, a rather long introduction just to tell you that you're asking the right questions, eh? :) Actually, I woke up this morning with that scene on my mind and thought I'd add it in place of the simple statement I had written about these being excellent questions. haha! That's what you get when I sleep on it. :) Asking the right questions goes way beyond running through a logical progression of thought in search of the right answer, it surpasses the desire for more information. It is being brought to the place where settling for a reasonable sounding answer just doesn't cut it.

In this case, you find yourself not satisfied with breaking Paul's statements up into separate thoughts in order to find some easy "Biblical" answers, you simply can't accept any answer that doesn't take what should be the most obvious questions into account: WHY or HOW could his conclusion give him the incredible relief he expresses in his "Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

I most certainly catch what you're getting at. What you are asking goes to the heart of knowing our true freedom. The two opposing statements used to taunt me with their suggestion of a conclusion that was supposed to bring such relief. I just didn't get it until I saw the absolute certainty he had taken so much care to delineate throughout the whole letter.

So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:25

The question must be asked: Was his conclusion put forth as an explanation of a duality we must live in view of? That is, was he given a spiritual revelation that in having received Christ he must then exist between serving the law of sin and serving the law of God? Was he rejoicing in this strange, new schizophrenic path for the rest of his life? And just as you have asked: Where is the possible rejoicing in that? And where is the overwhelming victory Paul detailed in the rest of his letter? Was he thanking God that in one way he was totally free from sin, even though in another way he was in bondage to it?

Oh God, I remember the oddness I felt every time I found myself reading or teaching from the Romans 7 passage and thinking that very thing. The fact that I had learned how to explain it away did nothing for the underlying nagging sense that I was BS-ing my way through it ... and hoping no one would demand I sufficiently explain the thing I was so obviously skirting and that I REALLY had no answer for.

So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

You asked about the meaning of "serving" in the context. Actually, I think it's pretty straight forward. It was simply understood in context of slavery, as already described in Romans.

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. Romans 6:16-18

Once he presents himself as a slave to someone he must obey that master. Everything, no matter how intricate or seemingly insignificant, from then on is connected to that obedience ... and to that master. We were once slaves of sin, and everything we did or thought was all wrapped up within that relationship. It all led to death, produced death, emanated from death.

I used to explain away the change in masters under the premise of "free will". We could just choose ourselves out of obedience to the one and give ourselves over to the other. However, it only seems to say that if we already believed it to be true, otherwise, we'd have to recognize the invasion of something miraculous. For how does one who is a slave to sin choose that which is against his very definition. After all, Paul did include one of his "But thanks be to God" right in the middle of it. :) For somehow, even though we were slaves to our former master we became obedient from the heart to another. As servants to this new master everything leads to righteousness. And this is what we have already become.

So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

On the one hand ... on the other. Paul declares two different "realities". Each reality is dependent upon its own premise, as consistently described in painful detail all throughout the letter. The typical problems we run into are fueled by how we pick everything apart in order to "interpret" these details. Of course, attempting to merge random explanations that have little to do with the overall meaning can only result in a schizophrenic harmony. :)

Consider first that neither one of these should be confused with "the Law" (aka, the Law of Moses or even the principle of law) as both opposing realities are stated as being "the law of". These laws are certainties or facts. Just as the phrase "the law of gravity" expresses the defining truth, a fixed premise or reality of the gravitational pull, so does "the law of sin" and "the law of God". Each forms the basis of its own existence, each is its own meaning and being. Each "law" is the premise upon which everything in each is understood, upon which everything found in each has its being.

Now, what is the "one hand" upon which Paul served the law of God , and what is the "other" upon which he served the law of sin? Isn't the one the present reality, while the other is a once-was? Doesn't Paul consistently declare this all throughout this letter, as well as throughout his other letters? "Once you were, but now you are? Doesn't he clearly express this over and over again?

What is the truth of the "flesh", this once-was reality? Paul declares this certainty: whatever the flesh is it can do nothing else but serve the law of sin. That is how it works, for it is a law, a fixed premise. The law of sin operates within the realm that gives it substance, meaning, existence. The realm is the domain of darkness from which we were delivered. With the flesh we can do nothing other than serve sin, in the same way as a slave must obey its master. Serving sin is what is natural to the flesh.

"However," (and this is not a small point, nor is it off the point)

you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you Romans 8:9

The "flesh" defines what we were without the life of the Spirit. The flesh is the physical being operating as its own source of power. The flesh is a being that can be defined by the physical elements it is made of. And as such, it operates by the elementary principles of world. The Law of Moses is built upon those same principles. The one works according to the other, for they have the same commonality of being.

Jim, you wrote: "In this case, you find yourself not satisfied with breaking Paul's statements up into separate thoughts in order to find some easy "Biblical" answers, you simply can't accept any answer that doesn't take what should be the most obvious questions into account: WHY or HOW could his conclusion give him the incredible relief he expresses in his 'Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!'" Yes, that's what I was trying to ask, but in the past I have just thought, "Well Paul was just a different kind of "bird" than I am. He could see victory and joy where I can not." Tim

No, you were not TRYING to ask that, you DID ask that ... and I think you asked it very well. :) I was just relating to you concerning what I heard you say in my own words. Don't discount your wording just because someone else says it differently. It may only seem better because something coming from someone else's words is deemed as better than anything you can come up with. I think hearing others helps to substantiate what you've been thinking because of the sense of agreement. :) Actually, I think Paul was so much like you and I. I have often been surprised to realize that certain verses and passages he wrote have described my own experiences. I just had to get past the religious sound of the "Biblical" jargon to hear it. He dealt with many things that are just like what we've gone through in the system. I mean, just consider how much "water under the bridge" may have been included in Paul's reevaluation of everything he had once counted as being of value. How many times have we despaired while going through that same reevaluation process because we thought we were so far away from his viewpoint? Don't we realize that he had to go through exactly what we have been going through in order to have been able to say what he did about the things he had once so highly valued? Once you realize the similarity you will begin to see more and more how his words were expressions of experiences just like ours. What we are slowly learning to despise through much grief and anguish, he also learned. How else could he be so gentle with some, and yet so harsh with others? Maybe because he had seen through the BS of his own experiences and was not afraid to confront those who were pushing the same kind of deception ... while those who were truly struggling he could rattle their cages with such a gentle hand. What we have truly experienced we are not likely to forget because it has become embedded through the process. Such grace is a real expression of a life that has been put to the test. Do not despair just because you're being tested, for this kind of "testing" is as the refiners fire that separates the foreign matter from the real stuff. :)

Presenting oneself as a slave for obedience to sin; does this not imply a conscious decision to obey sin? But were we not born into that state, and thus unwillingly became slaves to sin? And as such, is it not true that we did not even realize that we were slaves of sin? It all seemed so natural, as if there was not other way to live. Like you well stated, "everything we did or thought was all wrapped up within that relationship. It all led to death, produced death, emanated from death." But we didn't know it until we became alive in Christ. Tim

You are absolutely correct in saying "it all seemed so natural, as if there was no other way to live". We did become slaves of sin because of another. However, our continued decisions to follow through with it were willing ... for as you said, there seemed no other way to live, it was natural. It was natural to seem to fight against sin, but all we were doing was fighting against a particular expression of the works of the flesh, and doing so by reinforcing our preferred expressions of that same fleshly working. It's all the same fleshly game. In the flesh we made many conscious decisions we assumed were godly. We were able to do so because we had learned to categorize and organize the works of the flesh according to degrees. It helped to stroke our own self-righteousness when we could perceive we were truly better than most.

But is it not possible to listen to and obey the old master sometimes? It seems like he still "speaks" to us. I think this may be more along the lines of what I have heard taught in our organization. Tim

This is the smoke and mirrors, the grand delusion, we have learned to live by. I am not saying that we don't still experience this listening and obeying ... for it is this grand delusion that will bring about the very experiences that force us to realize that another principle - a foreign principle - is working within the members of our body. The foreign principle is sin itself. And the delusion-master would have us own this foreigner as being the boss we're still under. It rejoices at the prospect of recapturing us. However, God is working all things to our good. Often we have objected to this truth under the premise that it would make us puppets or robots in the hand of God ... and yet, I think we have that turned totally around, for the only possible way one who is truly living to consider himself a puppet is to be convinced by sin that we have the free will to choose between sin and righteousness. For when the smoke clears and the mirrors are shattered we will rejoice in the reality that who we really are - new creations in Christ - was not subject to sin. I'm not trying to convince you that sin cannot do its workings within our fleshly bodies, but that our giving into it is founded upon a delusion that sin truly has a claim upon our bodies. Consider how Paul wrote in Romans 8 that "If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive [or "life"] because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

What do you understand the "law of sin" to be? Tim

It is the working of the fleshly mind, of the evil one, of that which strives against God.

You wrote: "Now, what is the one hand upon which Paul served the law of God , and what is the other upon which he served the law of sin? Isn't the one the present reality, while the other is a once-was? Doesn't Paul consistently declare this all throughout this letter, as well as throughout his other letters? Once you were, but now you are? Doesn't he clearly express this over and over again?" Why do you think he did not make it more clear here and consistent with other parts by using a past tense, such as, on the one hand I am serving...like I used to serve the law of sin when I was in the flesh. It seems it would have been more clear here. But it seems as though the "I... am serving" can apply to either. Tim

The one belongs to the delusion. It is part and parcel with the deception. He was describing his own experiences with regard to his own perception during his bouts with trying to live under law. His conclusion had to do with fact that he realized that he couldn't fight this, because it was his struggle with it that was convincing him that the delusion was his reality. What happened with him through these experiences was that the spirit of God shocked the hell out of him by revealing to him in the midst of it that something else was in play that brought his sinful experiences to pass. Instead of him being encouraged to fight the process he came to understand that his struggle with sin was related to the law's total cooperation in the realm of the elementary principles of the world.

There is an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the crew of the Enterprise is caught up in fighting against an unknown and powerful force that was threatening to destroy the ship. They were attacked by some kind of cosmic wave that slammed against the Enterprise as they passed through a particular expanse in space, and they couldn't get out. With them was a boy who had been the only survivor on a ship that had been destroyed through the same force (this boy had believed himself to have caused the destruction of the spaceship that had killed his family because he had fallen against one of the control panels). Each time the wave hit them the captain asked for more power to the shields, and each time the attacking force slammed them harder and harder, until finally the captain told the engineer to divert all the power from the warp core to the shields. Upon hearing the command, the boy tells Data (the android) that that's exactly what had been said just before the ship was destroyed. "They kept saying, 'More power, more power!' And then they said to divert the power from the warp core." With this new insight Data rebuts the captains order and demands that they immediately drop their force-shields ... to remove their protection against their impending destruction. Insane, yes? But the captain listened to this wisdom and gave the command to lower the shields ... and the force against them instantly vanished. It turns out that their protective shields had been causing the attack, and that their reactions to follow protocol and give more power to the thing that was stimulating the attack almost destroyed them ... had it not been for the voice of the child who had already been through it.

What did Jesus tell the Pharisees (in front of his disciples) in Matthew 12?

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David. But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. Matthew 12:22-29

When we look to the works the law, which is built upon the elementary principles of this world, in order to fight against those same fleshly works that are stimulated by the law we are only deceiving ourselves into believing that the power of darkness can be beaten by fleshly means. Our struggles increase in response to our actions against them, for those actions are founded upon the very thing that creates the delusion.

Yes, we experience this, and yes, we hurt ourselves as well as others in the process. When we insist on following up according to the same principles that keep the cycle going (though we would never say it that way) we only increase the deception. While the apologies of that mind might come from a heart that feels bad about the hurt caused those kind of apologies end up promoting a stronger law-stance against sin, both in the one making the apology as well as the one receiving the apology. After all, how many apologies have you heard where the one making the apology only ends up making excuses without actually getting around to the supposed apology ,,, and then on the other hand, the one receiving the apology using the occasion to build up his or her own case of self-righteousness or sense of superiority? This is what we have going on throughout the world in the name of "forgiveness". Some are so hurt that they cannot even imagine forgiving ... and perhaps, these understand the fleshly impossibility of forgiveness far better than those who demand that they MUST forgive "lest they not be forgiven". For many who are quick to "forgive" may well be only following the program, and until they themselves are hurt beyond all possibility of letting the offense go they will not recognize the miraculous nature of not holding one's sins against them.

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the aftermath when we have caused hurt, rather that we live according to reality and not according to a self-serving system with its expected protocols that would have us buy our way out by following the correct procedure. We may well discover that many hurts are merely imagined offenses used by some in an attempt to control us or to keep us convinced of our "sinful" state. Some are hurt because they live under the delusion that everyone is out to get them, and it just happens to be your day. :) Responding to such might take different forms ... maybe even ignoring it. To those we have hurt we can only approach them honestly if we can see ourselves honestly ... before God in Christ. Otherwise, all we'll end up doing is perpetuating the lie by falling in line with what is expected. When we stop worrying about the expectations of protocol we're freed to respond according to life ... and it may surprise us to see the different ways life responds to life.

Love, Jim :)