But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Romans 7:6).

There are still many believers, many pastors included, and even a whole Christian subgroup, the Seventh Day Adventists, that still believe that we are bound to follow the Law of Moses. Now, most believers would not insist on the need for believers to keep the sacrificial, physical or dietary laws of the Law of Moses; however, they do insist on certain expedient laws, like keeping the Sabbath and tithing. Interestingly, neither of these laws was even mentioned by the Jerusalem Council for Gentile churches to follow:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things (Acts 15:28–29).

Why, then, would certain churches emphasize the Sabbath, whether the true practice of it, which was on Saturday, or the evangelical recasting of it for Sunday? And why would the church insist that of all the Mosaic Laws only tithing, again a Christian recasting of it as monetary gifts to the church, is still operative?

If I might venture a guess, it was not for biblical reasons but for expedience. What better way to keep people coming to church faithfully than to tell them that God requires it. What better way for the church to prosper than to tell its members that (1) God requires them to give at least ten percent of their income and that (2) they cannot outgive God because God will always give back to them more than they give to Him (that is, the "church").

Yet, the Scriptures clearly teach that we are dead to the Law -- all of it. If we have died to the Law, what business does anyone have of insisting that we still abide by it? The writer of Hebrews clearly declared that the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant:

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another... By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:7,13).

In view of certain Judaizers, who were trying to insist on the Colossian believers keeping the Law, Paul tells them,

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ (Colossians 2:16–17).

In another place, Paul, who was a Jew among Jews, even insisted that he was no longer under the Law of Moses:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law (1 Corinthians 9:20).

Friends, and I speak especially to pastors and teachers among you, it is not right for you to distort God's Word or use deception to insist that believers follow certain tenets of the Old Covenant. I know the reason you do it. You believe that people will not give anything to the church if you do not insist they tithe. You believe people will not come regularly to church if you do not insist that they keep the Sabbath. But when you do this, you are being just like the Pharisees. Remember what Jesus said about them:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’” (Matthew 15:3–9).

When the Pharisees insisted on their traditions over the Word of God, Jesus condemned it. If you ask an orthodox Jew the reason for their traditions, they will often say that they were created to help people obey the Law of Moses. While some may have added the traditions out of greed, they did not all have this motive.

In the same way, pastors and teachers do not all have a wrong motive in insisting on the tithe or the Sabbath laws, but they may feel that keeping such laws alive may help believers attend church faithfully and give consistently. Yet, Jesus taught that by doing this we are nullifying the weight of God's Word. Regardless of outcome, we ought to teach and obey His Word alone!

2 Corinthians is Paul's magnum opus regarding ministry. Listen to what he writes regarding their ministry of the New Covenant:

Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God (2 Corinthians 2:17). Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing (2 Corinthians 4:2–3).

Friends, when we distort God's Word for expedience, we are not honoring God. Even if we are doing it to "unveil" the gospel, it is not a reason to do it. Traditions are fine, but not when they distort or contradict Scripture. There is no command for Christians to tithe. To insist on this is to distort Scripture. There is no command for Christians to keep the Sabbath, including a Sunday Sabbath. To insist on this is to distort Scripture.

If we follow the Scriptures, perhaps we'll be like the Church of Smyrna or the Church of Philadelphia, both poor and fledgling churches described in the Book of Revelation (cf. Revelation 2–3). Yet, is it not interesting that these were the only churches among the seven that were simply commended and encouraged to stay steadfast in their course. All the others were criticized.

We ought not to be concerned so much with expedience but with obedience. Our interest should not be certain outcomes, which is the realm of God's providence, but faithfulness to obey regardless of the outcome.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Romans 7:6 describes release from the law in order to serve in the newness of the Spirit. The final purpose matters: release is not presented as the end of service but as the beginning of a new manner of service. Paul’s marriage analogy has already connected belonging to the risen Christ with bearing fruit for God (7:4). The original rightly resists using selected Mosaic requirements as though the death and resurrection of Jesus had made no difference to the believer’s covenant relation. Yet the same passage prevents freedom from becoming moral vacancy.

The Jerusalem Council provides important evidence about Gentile inclusion. Acts 15 refuses to place the full burden of Israel’s law upon Gentile believers as a condition of belonging. Its short list of requirements, however, is not a complete Christian moral code. The absence of a particular command from that list cannot alone settle every question about its continuing relevance. Otherwise many undisputed responsibilities would also disappear. The council’s decision must be read alongside the wider apostolic teaching about holiness, love, worship, and communal life.

Paul himself gives a balancing statement immediately after the verse cited in the original. Though not under the law, he is not outside God’s law but under Christ’s law (1 Corinthians 9:20–21). Christians explain the continuity and discontinuity in different ways. Some distinguish moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects; others emphasize the transformation of the whole covenantal arrangement in Christ. The debate should engage those actual arguments rather than attributing every Sabbath or tithing practice to a desire for attendance and revenue. A practice can be exegetically mistaken without its advocates acting dishonestly.

The warning against manipulation remains necessary. A leader should not turn a preferred institutional outcome into a divine command, nor promise prosperity as the inevitable return on a donation. The appeal to Jesus’ criticism of traditions is strongest when it tests our own practices as well as those of others. Matthew 15 concerns a tradition that evades an obligation to parents; the religious designation of resources becomes a means of neglecting people. Churches today should be especially alert when the needs of the institution are invoked to silence concern for vulnerable households.

Second Corinthians 2:17 and 4:2 place sincerity and openness at the center of ministry. A teacher can explain a conviction, acknowledge disagreement, and distinguish a voluntary discipline from a requirement binding every conscience. Members can then respond thoughtfully rather than through fear. The aim is not a community without habits or shared commitments, but one whose commitments remain accountable to Scripture. Romans 7 directs the discussion toward fruit for God: does the way we teach freedom and obligation produce truthful worship, generous care, and Spirit-shaped obedience? Freedom under Christ is neither an institutional fundraising device nor a refuge for selfishness. It is the privilege and responsibility of belonging to the One who died and rose so that his people might serve God in a new way.

Romans 5

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

So sin came through Adam. Death came through sin. Death came to all mankind because sin was in everyone. Yet sin was not counted before the law; the period between Adam and Moses.

Yet we are told even where the law is not there is a conviction, an evidence of guilt.

Romans 2

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

So Romans 5 says where there is no law, sin is not counted; Romans 2 says gentiles do not have the law. Yet all have sinned. Doesn't it seem like the space between Adam and Moses, and perhaps even gentiles and those who have not been shown the gospel, makes void the conversation and meaning of sin, if sin is not counted?

Even though sin is not counted death still was, so the counting of sin or its amount must not be a means to life or death. After all even one who sins only once is a convict and death is due. (Are they dead before they sinned or dead after they sin?)

Romans 5

20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

The law increased sin, perhaps not in a qualitative sense but a quantitative sense. The law came and sin spread further, it was counted. But because there is no account of sin that does not mean there is no nature of sin or effects of sin.

"...just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" - or perhaps to clear up my point this should finish with: ...spread to all men because all were sinners (implying sinners begot sinners)

Romans 5

21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life

In other words: Sin is to death as grace is to righteousness (or life).

Sin may not be counted but it still had the effect for death. So “Are they dead before they sinned or dead after they sin?” I think it would be correct to say they sinned because they were dead; the judgment announces what already is!

Carried forward to those ignorant of God's law, their nature still speaks to them and causes guilt when judged. The nature causes death when acted upon. And so by nature, they bring death - there is no escape.

Conversely, God's grace by its nature, justifies us, by doing what our nature cannot. It replaces ours and when judged reveals righteousness (proper standing). It causes life to flow out like a living spring overflowing. And by nature brings eternal life - there is no escape.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Romans 5:12–21 asks readers to distinguish the entrance of sin and death through Adam from the later arrival of the Mosaic law. The original recognizes the difficulty this creates if sin is imagined only as the violation of a written command. Paul insists that death reigned before Moses, even over those whose sin did not take the same form as Adam’s transgression. The human problem therefore cannot be explained simply by counting infractions against the Sinai legislation.

The distinction between law and sin needs to remain precise. Romans 5 does not say that the generations before Moses were morally innocent or that God ignored every evil action until Israel received commandments. The Genesis narratives themselves portray judgment before Sinai. Paul is distinguishing the role of the law in identifying and intensifying trespass from the deeper dominion of sin and death already present in humanity. Romans 2’s account of conscience is compatible with that distinction: Gentiles lack the Mosaic law while still having moral awareness and responsibility.

The original’s proposed paraphrase of all sinned as all were sinners expresses a theological inference about shared human condition. It should not replace the wording of Romans 5:12 as though the two phrases were grammatically identical. Christians have debated how Paul relates Adam’s act, humanity’s solidarity with him, and individual sins. The passage clearly establishes a connection that exceeds isolated personal actions, but its precise formulation deserves careful argument rather than an unmarked alteration of the verse.

The question about being dead before or after sinning also draws on different uses of death. Romans 5 includes the reign of death through Adam, while other passages use spiritual death to describe alienation from God. These concepts are related, but they should not be merged without explanation into a single chronology of an individual’s first sinful act. A statement about the human condition is not automatically a report of the exact moment at which every person becomes culpable in the same manner.

Paul’s central comparison is ultimately directed toward Christ. The repeated language of the one and the many sets Adam’s disobedience beside Christ’s obedience, but the gift is not merely an equal counterweight. Paul repeatedly stresses the abundance of grace. Condemnation is answered by justification, and death’s reign is answered by life through Jesus Christ. The argument is meant to enlarge confidence in the Savior’s achievement, not leave readers absorbed only in the mechanics of inherited guilt.

The original describes grace as replacing our nature and producing righteousness. That captures an important concern about transformation, but justification should not be reduced to a declaration that simply observes an already improved moral nature. Paul speaks of a gift of righteousness received through Christ. New life follows from union with him, and Romans 6 will insist on its ethical significance. Acceptance and transformation belong together without becoming identical.

The practical fruit is hope that does not minimize the problem. We cannot escape sin’s dominion by possessing more information or by comparing our record favorably with another person’s. Yet neither sin nor death is the ultimate ruler for those who receive Christ’s gift. Grace establishes a new relation to God and a new horizon for obedience. That is why Paul can move from the darkest account of humanity’s plight toward confident assurance and a call to walk in newness of life.

At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (a paraphrase of Romans 5:6, 8).

God did not wait until we got our act together to apply the death of Christ to our account. This should be our answer to those who think they have to be good enough to be saved. They will never be good enough; they will always come short (Romans 3:23). But even while we continue to struggle with our sins, Christ paid for those very sins on the cross. His sacrifice was not made simply to reform us, as though our lives needed some tweaking — it was to transform us and give us a new identity in Christ.

Then: just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (a reference to Romans 5:19).

This is what theologians mean by original sin. Whether one sees Adam as our federal head or our seminal head, it is clear that through Adam sin entered the human race, such that every person born into this world is born a sinner. So David wrote that he was sinful from birth (a reference to Psalm 51:5).

I have skipped through Paul's argument in Romans 5:12–18, and I encourage you to work through those verses.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The timing language the comment opens with is worth pressing, because Paul repeats it three ways in three verses: while we were still powerless, while we were still sinners, while we were enemies. He is making sure the reader cannot locate any qualifying improvement on the human side.

On the federal-versus-seminal distinction: the comment is right that both explanations arrive at the same conclusion, and it is worth adding that the traditions differ further than those two options. Eastern Orthodox theology has generally held that what is inherited from Adam is mortality and a corrupted condition rather than inherited guilt, while Western traditions have more often included guilt. Wesleyan theology affirms inherited corruption alongside prevenient grace. All of them affirm the comment's actual point — that no one arrives neutral and no one can perform their way out.

Paul's own emphasis in the passage is the parallel rather than the doctrine of inheritance as such. He spends the section establishing that one man's act had consequences for many precisely so that the second half of the comparison will hold: if the first is granted, the second follows.