Romans 6:20

6:20 free from the obligation to do right (literally free from righteousness): Paul means either that unbelievers feel no obligation to obey God or that they are unable to do so. But the freedom that they boast of actually makes them slaves to sin.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 6:20. Τῆς ἁμαρτίας, of sin) This case contains the emphasis of the sentence; sin had taken possession of you.—τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, to [towards] righteousness) that is in respect of righteousness.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_6:20-22. With γάρ Paul does not introduce an illustration to Rom_6:19 (Fritzsche), but ratherseeing that Rom_6:20 through οὐν in Rom_6:21, as well as through the correlative antithesis in Rom_6:22, must necessarily form a connected whole in thought with what follows till the end of Rom_6:22the motive for complying with what is enjoined in Rom_6:19; and that in such a way, that he first of all prepares the way for it by Rom_6:20, and then in Rom_6:21 f., leading on by οὐν, actually expresses it, equally impressively and touchingly, as respects its deterrent (Rom_6:21) and inviting (Rom_6:22) aspects. The fact that he first sets down Rom_6:20 for itself, makes the recollection which he thus calls up more forcible, more tragic. Observe also the emphasis and the symmetrical separation of the several words in Rom_6:20.

ἐλεύθ. ἦτε τῇ δικαιοσ.] Ye were free in relation to righteousness, in point of fact independent of its demands, since ye were serving the opposite ruler (the ἁμαρτία). Οὐδὲ γὰρ διενέμετε τῆς δουλείας τὸν τρόπον τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ὅλως ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεδίδοτε τῇ πονηρίᾳ, Chrysostom. A sad truth based on experience! not a flight of irony (Koppe, Reiche, Philippi, and others), but full of deep moral pain.

Rom_6:21. οὖν] in consequence of this freedom.

τίνα.… ἐπαισχύνεσθε is with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Winer, Reiche (but see below), Fritzsche, Jatho, and Hofmann (but see below)in harmony with the punctuation of the text. rec[1488]to be regarded as one connected question, so that the reason to be given for replying in the negative sense to this question is then contained in τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος; namely, thus: what fruit, now, had ye then (when ye were still in the service of sin, etc., Rom_6:20) of things, on account of which ye are now ashamed? i.e. ye had then no fruit, no moral gain, etc., and the proof thereof is: for the final result of them (those things) is death. What leads at last to death, could bring you no moral gain. For the grammatical explanation ἐκείνων is to be supplied before ἐφʼ οἷς (which in fact is perfectly regular, Winer, p. 149 [E. T. 203]), and to this the ἐκείνων in the probative clause refers. Regarding ἐπαισχ. ἐπί τινι, to be ashamed over anything (not merely of the being put to shame by the fact of something not proving to be what we thought it, as Th. Schott weakens the sense) comp Xen. Hell. v. 4, 33: ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ φιλίᾳ αἰσχυνθῇς, Plat. Rep. p. 396 C: οὐκ αἰσχυνεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ μιμήσει, LXX., Isa_20:5, Rom_1:29; 1Ma_4:31; also Dem. 426, 10. Reiche makes the double mistake of very arbitrarily referring ἐφʼ οἷς to καρπόν, which is to be taken collectively; and of explaining καρπὸν ἔχειν as meaning to bring forth fruit (which would be κ. ποιεῖν, φέρειν), so that the sense would be: what deeds, on account of which ye are now ashamed, proceeded from your service of sin? Hofmann, resolving the expression into ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅ νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε, wishes to take ἐτί in the well-known sense of addition to, so that Paul asks: what fruit had ye then over and above those things of which ye are now ashamed? those things being the former disgraceful enjoyments, with which they now desired to have nothing further to do. But how could the reader think of such enjoyments without any hint being given by the text? And how arbitrary in this particular place is that interpretation of ἐπί, especially when the verb itself is compounded with ἐπί, and that in the sense: to be ashamed thereupon, and accordingly indicates how ἐφʼ οἷς is to be resolved and properly understood! See generally on ἐπί with the dative, as specifying the ground with verbs of emotion, Kühner, II. 1, p. 436, and with αἰσχύν. II. 2, p. 381, rem. 6. Many others (Syriac, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melancthon, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, Carpzov, Koppe, Tholuck undecidedly, Rückert, Köllner, de Wette, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Philippi, Reithmayr, Ewald, van Hengel, and Th. Schott) end the question with τότε, so that ἐφʼ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχ. becomes the answer, of which again τὸ γὰρ τέλ. ἐκ θάν. is the proof: what sort of fruit had ye then? Things (ye had as fruit) of which ye are now ashamed; for the end of them is death. Καρπόν is likewise regarded as a figurative description either of gain or reward (ignoble and pernicious joys and pleasures, Ewald), or of actions, which are the penal consequence of reprobate sentiments. But fatal to all this explanation, which breaks up the passage, is the antithesis in Rom_6:22, where the having of fruit, not its quality, is opposed to the preceding; if Paul had inquired in Rom_6:21 regarding the quality of the fruit, he must have used in Rom_6:22 some such expression as νυνὶ δὲ.… τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν. Besides, we cannot well see why he should not have written either τίνας καρπούς or ἐφʼ ᾧ and ἐκείνου; he would by annexing the plurals, though these were in themselves admissible on account of the collective nature of καρπός, have only expressed himself in a fashion obscure and misleading. Finally, it is to be observed that he never attributes καρπόν or καρπούς to immorality; he attributes to it ἔργα (Gal_5:19), but uses καρπός only of the good; he speaks of the καρπὸς του πνεύματος, Gal_5:22; of the καρπὸς τοῦ φῶτος, Eph_5:9; of the καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, Php_1:11; of the καρπ. ἔργου, Php_1:22; comp Rom_1:13; in fact he negatives the idea of καρπός in reference to evil, when he describes the ἔργα τοῦ σκότους as ἄκαρπα, Eph_5:11; comp Tit_3:14. With this type of conception our interpretation alone accords, by which in the question τίνα καρπὸν κ.τ.λ (comp 1Co_9:18) there is contained the negation of καρπὸς in the service of sin, the ἄκαρπον εἶναι. The most plausible objection to our explanation is this, that in accordance with it ἐφʼ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχ. becomes merely an incidental observation. But an incidental observation may be of great weight in its bearing on the matter in hand. It is so here, where it contains a trenchant argumentative point in favour of replying in a negative sense to the question. Calvin aptly says: non poterat gravius exprimere quod volebat, quam appellando eorum conscientiam et quasi in eorum persona pudorem confitendo. Compare also Chrysostom.

ἐκείνων] neuter: those things, on account of which ye are now ashamed, the pre-Christian sins and vices. Bengel well remarks: remote spectat praeterita.

θάνατος] death, i.e. the eternal death, whose antithesis is the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, Rom_6:23; not the physical (Fritzsche), comp on Rom_6:16.

The μέν before γάρ (see the crit. remarks) does not correspond to the following δέ; on the contrary, we must translate: for the end indeed (which however excludes every fruit) is death. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 414, Winer, p. 534 f. [E T. 719 f.].

Rom_6:22. νυνὶ δέ κ.τ.λ[1494]] But now (ye are no longer without fruit, as formerly; no, now) ye possess your fruit unto holiness, so that its possession has as its consequence holiness for you (εἰς consecutive). The ἉΓΙΑΣΜΌς is consequently not the fruit (the moral gain) itself, which they already have (that would also be at variance with οὕτω νῦν παραστ.… εἰς ἁγιασμόν in Rom_6:19), but the state, which the ἔχειν of their fruit shall in future bring about. The fruit itselfand καρπός is to be taken, quite as in Rom_6:21, as ethical productis consequently the new, Christian morality (comp the ΚΑΙΝΌΤΗς ΖΩῆς in Rom_6:4), the Christian virtuous nature which belongs to them (ὙΜῷΝ), and the possession of which leads by the way of progressive development to holiness.

τὸ δὲ τέλος ζωὴν αἰών.] as the final result however (of this your fruit) eternal life in the kingdom of Messiah. This possession is now as yet an ideal one (Rom_8:24). Hofmann erroneously takes τὸ δὲ τέλος adverbially (1Pe_3:8; comp on 1Co_15:24), which is impossible after Rom_6:21, in accordance with which the word must here also be the emphatic substantive, the finale of the καρπός; hence also ΞΩῊΝ ΑἸΏΝΙΟΝ is dependent not on ΕἸς (Hofmann), but on ἜΧΕΤΕ.

The circumstance, moreover, that Paul in Rom_6:22 says ΔΟΥΛΩΘ. Τῷ ΘΕῷ, while in Rom_6:18 he has said ἘΔΟΥΛ. Τῇ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝῌ, is rightly illustrated by Grotius: qui bonitati rebusque honestis servit, et Deo servit, quia Deus hoc semper amavit et in evangelio apertissime praecepit. Comp Rom_12:2. And precisely therein lies the true freedom, 1Pe_2:16; Joh_8:36.

[1488] ec. Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1494] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 6:20 . In every state in which man lives, there is a bondage and a liberty. In the old state, it was bondage to sin, and liberty in relation to righteousness. For τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ see Winer, 263.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 20, 21. “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free in respect of righteousness. What fruit therefore had ye then? Things of which ye are now ashamed; for certainly their end is death.”

We must seek the counterpart of Rom 6:20, not in Rom 6:18, which belongs to a passage now concluded, but in Rom 6:22. In Rom 6:20, indeed, there begins the description of the consequences of the two services. The for bears on the exhortation contained in Rom 6:19 b It would be impossible to depict the degrading character of the former dependence in which his readers had lived, more keenly than the apostle does in the words: free in respect of righteousness. The conviction of what is righteous did not for a moment hamper them in their course of life. This was an annoyance which they did not feel! To use the expression of Scripture, they drank iniquity as one drinketh up water.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_6:20

For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. This verse introduces a confirmation of what precedes. The foregoing exhortation is enforced by the consideration developed in Rom_6:21, Rom_6:22, that the service of sin is death. The particle γάρ therefore, is used in its common sense, for, and not namely. Formerly, when the slaves of sin, ye were ἐλεύθεροι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, that is, either free in the estimation of righteousness, (An ille mihi liber, cui mulier imperat? Cicero;) or, what is more natural, as to righteousness; so far as righteousness is concerned, ye were free. Righteousness had no power over you; your service was rendered to another master. This is not to be understood ironically, as though the apostle designed to refer to their former state as one of freedom in their estimation. It is the simple statement of a fact of experience. While the servants of sin, they did not and could not serve righteousness. Here are two services, which is to be preferred? This is the question which the apostle presents for their consideration.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Righteousness had no rule over you.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

For when ye were the servants--"were servants"

of Sin, ye were free from--rather, "in respect of"

Righteousness--Difficulties have been made about this clause where none exist. The import of it seems clearly to be this:--"Since no servant can serve two masters, much less where their interests come into deadly collision, and each demands the whole man, so, while ye were in the service of Sin ye were in no proper sense the servants of Righteousness, and never did it one act of real service: whatever might be your conviction of the claims of Righteousness, your real services were all and always given to Sin: Thus had ye full proof of the nature and advantages of Sin's service." The searching question with which this is followed up, shows that this is the meaning.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 20. Ye were free from righteousness.] These two servitudes are incompatible; if we cannot serve God and Mammon, surely we cannot serve Christ and Satan. We must be either sinners or saints; God's servants or the devil's slaves. It cannot be as a good mistaken man has endeavoured to sing: -

"To good and evil equal bent,

I'm both a devil and a saint."

I know not whether it be possible to paint the utter prevalence of sin in stronger colours than the apostle does here, by saying they were FREE from righteousness. It seems tantamount to that expression in Genesis, Ge 6:5, where, speaking of the total degeneracy of the human race, the writer says, Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. They were all corrupt; they were altogether abominable: there was none that did good; no, not one.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. For when ye were, etc. He still repeats the difference, which he had before mentioned, between the yoke of righteousness and that of sin; for these two things, sin and righteousness, are so contrary, that he who devotes himself to the one, necessarily departs from the other. And he thus represents both, that by viewing them apart we may see more clearly what is to be expected from each; for to set things thus apart enables us to understand better their distinctive character. He then sets sin on one side, and righteousness on the other; and having stated this distinction, he afterwards shows what results from each of them.

Let us then remember that the Apostle still reasons on the principle of contraries, and in this manner, “While ye were the servants of sin, ye were freed from righteousness; but now a change having taken place, it behoves you to serve righteousness; for you have been liberated from the yoke of sin. He calls those free from righteousness who are held by no bridle to obey righteousness. This is the liberty of the flesh, which so frees us from obedience to God, that it makes us slaves to the devil. Wretched then and accursed is this liberty, which with unbridled or rather mad frenzy, leads us exultingly to our destruction.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

20. For when, &c.] This verse enforces the exhortation just given, by reminding the Christian that once he was emphatically not the “bond-servant of righteousness.”

free from righteousness] Lit. free unto righteousness; i.e. with respect to it, both as to its mercy and as to its consequent claim. There is here a deep and solemn irony, (if we may venture the word), which has some parallel in 1Pe_4:3; q. d., “You had nothing to do with the righteousness of God; you were not justified before Him: therefore His righteousness had, as it were, nothing to do with you; it laid no bond of grateful love upon you.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For when ye were the servants of sin,.... This is an argument used, or a reason given, why regenerate persons should be diligent in the service of righteousness; because when they were employed in the drudgery of sin, they

were free from righteousness; they had no righteousness, nor were they desirous of any; yea, averse to it, threw off the yoke of the law of righteousness, and lived in a very unrighteous manner: hence may be observed what is the free will of man in an unregenerate state; not free to, but "from" righteousness; free enough to evil, but from all that is good; and also what obligation lies upon believers, who are delivered from the bondage of corruption, and the servitude of sin, to a life and service of righteousness; inasmuch as they were before free from it, and unconcerned about it, but are now made by the grace of God free to it, they ought therefore cheerfully to pursue it, and neglect no opportunity of performing it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Ver. 20. Free from righteousness] That is, utterly void of grace, and did therefore sin lustily and horribly, earnestly opposing with crest and breast whatsoever stood in the way of their sins and lusts.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye were free from righteousness - That is, in your former state, you were not at all under the influence of righteousness. You were entirely devoted to sin; a strong expression of total depravity. It settles the question; and proves that they had no native goodness. The argument which is implied here rather than expressed is, that now they ought to be equally free from sin, since they had become released from their former bondage, and had become the servants of another master.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

You were free from justice; that is, says St. John Chrysostom, you lived as no ways subject to justice, nor obedient to the law and precepts of God: an unhappy freedom, a miserable liberty, worse than the greatest slavery, the end of which is death, eternal death: of which sins with great reason you are now ashamed, when you are become the servants of God, and obedient to him, for which you will receive the fruit and reward of everlasting life in heaven. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

q.d. When you served sin, you knew that God and righteousness had no whit of your service; why then should sin have any of your service now, when ye have delivered up yourselves to righteousness, or godliness, to be the observant followers thereof? Why should not ye now abstain as strictly from all sin, as then ye did from all good?

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. Free from righteousness—They felt themselves released from the divine requirements, being under the opposite master, Sin.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 20-23. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness (more literally, to righteousness; i.e. ye were not in any bondage to righteousness). What fruit had ye then (i.e. when you were formerly slaves of sin) in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?, for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification; and the end life eternal. For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of god is life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord. The logical connection with the previous context of the above series of verses, beginning with ver. 20, as well as the sequence of thought running through them (intimated by the particles ga , and de), is not at once obvious. It seems to be as follows: the gar in ver. 20 introduces a reason for the exhortation of ver. 19, parasthsate , etc. But ver. 20 is not in itself the reason, being only an introduction to the statement of it in the verses that follow. The drift of the whole passage seems to be this: Yield ye your members to the sole service of righteousness; for (ver. 20) ye were once in the sole service of sin, owning no allegiance to righteousness at all; and (ver. 21) what fruit had ye from that service? None at all; for ye know that the only end of the things ye did then, and of which ye are now ashamed, is death. But (ver. 22) your new service has its fruit: it leads to your sanctification now, and in the end eternal life. Authorities, however, both ancient and modern, are divided as to the punctuation, and consequent construction, of ver. 21. In the Vulgate and the Authorized Version (as in the interpretation given above) the stop of interrogation is placed after "ashamed;" the answer, none, being understood, and "for the end," etc., being the reason why there is no fruit The other way is to take the question as ending at "had ye then," and "those things whereof," etc., as the answer to it, and for the end, etc., as the reason why they are ashamed. Thus: "What fruit had ye then (when you were free from righteousness)? The works (or pleasures) of which you are now ashamed were the only fruit; you are ashamed of them now; for their end is death." The latter interpretation is defended by Alford on the ground that it is more consistent "with the New Testament meaning of karpov , which is "actions," the " fruit of the man" considered as the tree, not "wages" or "reward," the "fruit of his actions. This is true. But, on the other hand, it may be argued that such use of the word karpov by St. Paul is always in a good sense; he usually regards sin as having no fruits at all; to the fruit of the Spirit is opposed, not any fruit of a different character, but the works (erga) of the flesh; (Gal_5:19, Gal_5:22) and in Eph_5:11 (again in opposition to the fruit of the Spirit) he speaks of the unfruitful works (ergoiv toiv akarpoiv) of darkness. Thus the idea of ver. 21, understood as in the Authorized Version, seems closely to correspond with that of the passage last cited. "The things of which ye are now ashamed," in ver. 21, are "the works of darkness" of Eph_5:11; and in both places they are declared to have no fruit. Sin is a barren tree, and only ends in death. Cf. what was said above with respect to eiv than and eiv agiasmon in ver. 19. It is true, however, that the expression in the next chapter, karpoforhsai tw yanatw , (Rom_7:5) in opposition to karpoforhswmen tw Yew , in some degree weakens the force of the above argument. We observe, lastly, on ver. 23, that to the "wages" of sin ( oqwnia , used usually to denote a soldier"s pay) is opposed "free gift" (carisma for sin earns death as its due reward; but eternal life is not earned by us, but granted us by the grace of God. As to the phrase, doulwyentev tw Yew , in ver. 22, it can be used without the need of any such apology as seems to be implied in ver. 19 (according to the meaning of the verse that has been preferred) for speaking of our becoming slaves to righteousness. For we do belong to God as his douloi , and to Christ, having been "bought with a price"; (cf. 1Co_7:23) and St. Paul at the beginning of his Epistles often calls himself doulov Cristou . (cf. also Luk_17:10) But it does not follow that our service should be the service of slaves; it may be a free, willing, enthusiastic obedience notwithstanding; we obey, not because we are under bondage to obey, but because love inspires us. (cf. Gal_4:6, etc., "Because ye are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no longer a servant, but a son

Covet the best gift!

Contrast heightens effect, as artists by a dark background throw the foreground into brighter relief. So the apostle places two careers in close proximity. He will not allow that it makes little difference which path men tread, in which condition they are found, or what qualifications they seek.

I A MOMENTOUS BLESSING. "Eternal life." All life is wonderful Easy is it to destroy the ephemeral life of a moth, but to restore it is beyond human skill. The disciples were assured of eternal life, yet they died; consequently the life they received was not to be measured in ordinary scales, nor to be probed by a material dissecting knife. Eternal life is a different kind of life from mere transitory existence; it passes unharmed through the crucible of animal death, for spiritual powers are untouched by earthly decay and corruption. Eternal life means the quickening of the moral nature, its resuscitation from the sleep of trespasses and sins. And as ordinary life in its fulness involves freedom from pain and sickness, and a vigorous activity, so spiritual life, when fully realized, implies peace of mind and the power to do right. They are feeble Christians who do not know the joyous energy of children "with quicksilver in their veins," delighting to exercise their limbs and thus to develop their growing faculties.

II THIS BLESSING RECEIVED AS A GIFT. By a sinful course of action we merit death, as a soldier by his service earns his rations and his pay. We disobey the Law, and bring the sentence upon ourselves. But we have no power available to procure for ourselves acquittal and favour. Much as the youth joys to see his first-earned sovereign glittering in his palm, he could take no delight in the stripes which his disobedience brings upon him. Human weakness has been provided for in God"s plan of salvation. He who breathed natural life into man comes again graciously to inspire his creatures with spiritual life. God knows the needs of his creatures, and the gift is pre-eminently suitable. The Romans loved the games of the amphitheatre; but when famine threatened the city, the curses were loud and deep against Nero because the Alexandrian ships expected with corn arrived instead with sand for the arena. And men like a beautiful present; let us not, therefore, hang back from accepting the royal bounty so adapted to our wants. Treat the gilt with care, prize and use the treasure.

III THE BEARER OF THE GIFT. It comes "through Jesus Christ our Lord." He is the Channel through which new life streams into us, the envelope containing the promise of life. Life in the abstract we cannot comprehend; it is ever connected with some person or organism. "In him was life; .... Your life is hid with Christ in God." Life has been scientifically declared to consist in the harmonizing of our external and internal conditions. The chief condition on our part is sinfulness, on God"s part righteousness; and it is Christ who reconciles us unto God, putting away sin by the cross, and investing us with the righteousness of the Holy One. In his words, example, and offices we find all help and blessedness. As the navigator passing through the Straits of Magellan into the Pacific connected its tranquility with the southern cross gleaming in the sky above, so can we rejoice in the peace which Christ brings. It is not a creed we are invited to accept, but a living Person, with whom we may hold converse, and be instructed in perplexity and cheered when despondent. We have this earthly life as the period and opportunity of "laying hold on eternal life. S.R.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness - In all reason, therefore, ye ought now to be free from unrighteousness; to be as uniform and zealous in serving God as ye were in serving the devil.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

That is, you were free de facto, not de jure; when you were sin’s servants, you were void of righteousness, that had no part of your service then; therefore sin should not have on joy of your service now; as righteousness had no part of your service in your carnal state, so there is no reason why sin should have any service from you in your gracious state.

Learn, That such sinners as are now become servants to God, ought to be as free from sin, as before they were free from righteousness: It will evidently appear so, if we consider the great and good Master which we serve, the nature of our present work, the certainty and transcendency of our future reward, the obligations we lie under as creatures, as new creatures, by the law of creation, by the favour of redemption, by the promise and hopes of glorification; all this should engage us to the love and practice of universal holiness.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20. “For when you may be the slaves of sin, you may be free of righteousness.” The sinner has no righteous character whatever. The sanctified have no sinful character. The one the slave of sin, and the other that of holiness, while the justified are somewhat intermediate, though no longer serving sin, but still having it on hand in a subjugated state and serving in the kingdom of God after the similitude of hirelings, liable to go out at any time.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of righteousness . [Whole-hearted service to God is now no more than you, by your past conduct, recognized as reasonable. For when ye were servants of sin ye made no effort whatever to serve righteousness, or to have two masters. If ye rendered no double-minded, divided service to sin in the days of your unregeneracy, surely you ought now to render a whole-souled, single-minded service to righteousness in these your regenerate days.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

20. Were free from righteousness. While servants of sin they did not serve righteousness at all.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

20. γὰρ. Make this effort, for your former freedom or slavery brought you such gain as now shames you.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20-23.] As a further urging of the above exhortations, the Apostle contrasts the end of their former life with that of their present.

20.] γάρ introduces a motive for the foregoing: but the verse [properly] belongs to the following: for ver. 22 is the contrast to it. Meyer and Fritz. think it to be an explanation of ver. 19, but are certainly mistaken. For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in relation to (dat. of regard or reference, Winer, edn. 6, § 31.1) righteousness.

There is doubtless a latent irony in the use of ἐλεύθεροι here; but it must not be brought out too strongly: it does not appear, till the end of that freedom is declared.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Free from righteousness [ελευθεροι τη δικαιοσυνη] . An ambiguous translation. Better, Rev., free in regard of righteousness. Disengaged (Morison), practically independent of its demands, having offered their service to the opposing power. They could not serve two masters.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.