Romans 8:12-17

Good evening. As we continue our walk through Romans 8, lets slow down just a bit and really dig in to this next section.

Last week I made this statement: “We, in being adopted as sons and daughters into God’s family, are now not of the flesh, but of the Spirit.”

And, for some of you that might have made all the sense in the world. It is a very “churchy” thing to say.

But some of you may have wondered where that sort of talk comes from. Especially the Christian fixation with adoption.

Well, we will see tonight, as we look at Romans 8:12-17, where some of that language comes from. Let’s read the text and dive in.

Romans 8:12–17 ESV

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Now, there is a lot to unpack in these six verses, so we’ll jump right in.

And one of the things we have to deal with is the fact that our current culture and the culture in Paul’s day as he was writing this have vast differences.

I mean, we can agree that the problems they were facing are very similar to the problems we are facing, but the fact remains that Paul never had to deal with the internet. Paul didn’t have to deal with his car breaking down, right?

A lot has changed in the almost 2000 years between.

And when we study scripture, we have to take that into account.

Now, don’t misunderstand what I am saying. Scripture does not change. What Paul wrote is exactly what the Holy Spirit prompted him to write, which is exactly what God wanted written down. We have almost 2000 years of textual evidence that points to the veracity of scripture and the inerrancy of scripture. When you look at the fragments of the oldest manuscripts, compared with the latest translations, you see that our current, more modern translations are fully reliable. The language has been updated to reflect modern ways of speaking (without using slang), because we don’t talk with “thee” and “thou” anymore, but the text is trusted. The content of scripture is pure. We can trust these words.

What I am saying is, the meaning of those words might not be readily apparent to us in our context unless we understand the context they were written into. The issues, culture, etc., that Paul was addressing at Rome are different from our context. We need to know that. We need to be able to parse that.

The study of interpreting scripture, in particular, the correct way of reading the meaning out of scripture, is called hermeneutics. And, while we’re talking vocabulary words, the “reading out of meaning” from a text is called “exegesis.” If we are interpreting scripture rightly, we should be reading out of it the meaning. We should not be reading into it our own presuppositions, our own identity, our own desires and goals.

I can take any verse, and if I choose to read into it my own wants, and quickly make it seem like God’s Word justifies my own behavior.

This is why Paul is so clear and quick to condemn wolves, false teachers who seek to twist scripture. Satan himself tried to twist scripture when tempting Jesus.

As followers of Christ, it is our duty to correctly read and interpret scripture.

In that light, I want to give you a couple steps to help you do that correctly.

This is from a book called “Grasping God’s Word” By J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays. It is called “The Interpretive Journey.”

1 - Grasping the text in their town: what did the text mean to the original audience? This is the heavy lifting of understanding context.

2 - Measuring the width of the river to cross: what are the differences between the biblical audience and us? Think of this as a river that is made from differences in culture, language, time, situation, etc. This makes the river that we have to bridge over.

3 - Crossing the principlizing bridge: what is the theological principle of the text we are studying? This is where you have to figure out what the text is teaching, what the purpose of the text is, etc. This is like your hypothesis.

4 - Consult the biblical map: how does this theological principle fit with the rest of scripture? This is where you take your findings and compare them with everything else. If you are studying an Old Testament passage, you have to filter this principle through the grid of the New Testament. This is what scientists and engineers would call testing your hypothesis.

5 - Applying the text in our town: how should individual Christians living today live out the theological principles? This is where we apply the theological principles we found.

Now, you may be thinking, “what are you talking about? Why the seminary 101 class?”

When we come to a text like this one, we need to understand the importance of some of these themes.

This section of verses deals with being an “heir.”

Many Bibles have subheadings for passages of scripture. The Bible I have here has the heading “Heirs with Christ.”

And I imagine that we all know what that means, like, from a dictionary. But there is more to it than just being the person who inherits stuff when someone dies.

Many TV shows and movies will use the setting of a lawyer reading a will to a family, and realize that everything is left to someone else, instead of the kids, or instead of who they thought would get it.

And this is maybe how we best understand that idea.

I’m currently re-reading the Lord of the Rings. I’m almost done with the second book, “The Two Towers.” It is a great work of literature by J. R. R. Tolkein.

I’m not sure how familiar you guys are with it, but here’s a brief summary of the story:

In ancient times, in a place called “Middle Earth,” there was this Dark Lord named Sauron. He hid his evil and made several rings for Elves, Men, and Dwarves. But they were controlled (unknowingly) by one ruling ring that Sauron had. In a great battle, the King of Gondor, the major kingdom of men, was killed by Sauron. His son, Isildur, took up his father’s broken sword and cut the ring from Sauron’s hand. Despite being encouraged by the elves to destroy it, Isildur kept it as his own. By fate, he was killed and the ring was lost for many years. It was ultimately found and brought to the Shire, where a Hobbit, Frodo, came into possession of it. After Sauron began to grow in strength again, Frodo and a company of companions sets off to destroy the Ring.

One of his companions is a man called Aragorn, and he is the heir of Isildur. Another is Boromir, son of the Steward of Gondor.

Gondor has not had a king for ages, thinking the line of kings had been broken. But Aragorn has the sword that was broken, and ultimately the sword is remade, and Aragorn takes his place as the rightful heir of Isildur and king of Gondor in the fight agains Sauron.

That idea of the rightful heir is a major theme in the book. Aragorn’s right to the throne is questioned and tested. At one point, Boromir says, “Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king.” There is a jealousy in that statement.

Because in Tolkein’s writing of the story, he is conveying this sense of more than just “the heir gets stuff.” Being the heir comes with power, yes, but also responsibility. The heir to the throne must lead well. The heir has to be willing to carry the name for greatness. To wage war, if needed. To die, if needed, in the greater service to the one to whom they have pledged allegiance. In Lord of the Rings, Aragorn, as heir to the throne, pledges his allegiance to Gondor and to saving the world.

Paul talks here of us as heirs of God. God demands our allegiance.

Now, let’s get back to the text to see what all this means and how we can rightly interpret it and understand it.

To start, we must remember that Paul is continuing his arguments made earlier. So, we have to understand verse 12 in light of what came before it. Paul has just argued in the first 11 verses that we should be in the Spirit, not in the flesh, and that the Spirit, which has raised Christ from the dead dwells in us as well.

Romans 8:12 ESV

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

Paul makes the argument that we are in debt, but not to the flesh.

Because the Spirit brings life and peace, our indebtedness is to the Spirit, not to the sinful nature.

Paul has spent all this time talking about God’s character and attributes, His blessings on us. Now he moves to our obligations and responsibilities as we live out our faith.

In this, Paul also reminds us that this obligation is not something we have to work at and act out on our own, “to live according to the flesh.” As R. C. Sproul puts it:

The Gospel of God: Romans (1) Delivered from the Power of Sin

It is our faith that must be exercised; we must work out our faith in fear and trembling, but all this is in, by, and through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

This isn’t something we have to work out and do in our own power. If we do that, we are missing the point. See how he shows that in verse 13:

Romans 8:13 ESV

13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

When we try to work this stuff out, this life submitted to Christ; when we try to do it on our own by our own work, we just end up dead. We have to put to death those fleshly desires, the desire to be in control of our own lives, and yield to the Spirit. That is the way to eternal life.

But notice, it isn’t passive. We actively have to be putting to death the deeds of the flesh.

Verse 14 states this more plainly:

Romans 8:14 ESV

14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Now we come to it. If we are lead by the Spirit, we are sons. But that must mean the inverse is true: If we are not lead by the Spirit, we are not sons of God.

This is one of the things that our culture would press against. If culture references God at all, it is this idea of “universal fatherhood of God,” coupled with this idea of “universal brotherhood of man.”

This is not a biblical teaching. Even when Paul does use a term similarly (Acts 17:29), he is quoting a secular poet in Athens while talking to Athenians, in order to drive them toward the true God instead of the false gods they were serving. It is not meant to be a text that says God is father of all (in more than being their creator).

Sproul is helpful here:

The Gospel of God: Romans (2) The Spirit of Adoption

But when the Bible talks about the fatherhood of God, it never does so in the sense of God’s creation. To address God as Father involves a relationship of intimacy. To be a member in good standing in the family of God is a privilege never to be passively assumed or taken for granted. In fact it is the greatest privilege of all, to be able to come to God and address him as Father. And we are not able to do that by nature, because by nature we are children of wrath

So, we can safely say that when the Bible talks about God being our Father, it is not some general, generic relationship, but a relationship of intimacy as between father and son/daughter.

Likewise, the Bible does not talk about some universal brotherhood of man. Rather,

The Gospel of God: Romans (2) The Spirit of Adoption

The brotherhood in biblical categories has to do with those who share the intimacy of fellowship with God, and with Christ who is the Son of God.

We are charged by scripture to love all mankind as our neighbors. However:

The Gospel of God: Romans (2) The Spirit of Adoption

But the Bible doesn’t describe that in terms of brotherhood. Paul, in verse 12 for example, uses the term ‘brothers’ to refer to a special group, those who are in the brotherhood and sisterhood of faith because they have a unique relationship to Christ and are those in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells. Who are the children of God? They are those who are led by the Spirit of God.

As believers, we have privileges that outsiders do not have. We have relationship with the Father.

I can go into my dad’s house any time I want. But if you try to walk in unannounced, and he doesn’t know you, if you don’t have that relationship with him, you are not getting in.

Children have a privileged relationship status.

We must understand here, then, that to be children of God is to be followers of Him, believers in Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, divinity, power, purpose, and plan. We must be followers of Christ.

Paul continues on into a discussion of what this relationship looks like practically.

Romans 8:15 ESV

15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

The idea of being a slave goes back to chapter 6 when Paul exhorts the Romans to become slaves of righteousness, and put off their slavery to sin.

We, as human beings, are easily enslaved to sin. We fall to the temptation of sin incredibly easily. Paul talks about being set free from our sin, and in turn being slaves of righteousness to God.

Here, Paul takes a bit more in-depth look at this concept. He tells the Romans that you didn’t receive a spirit that makes you a slave to fear. The Spirit of God is life and freedom, not fear.

Instead, we have received the Spirit of adoption. And this is what I hinted at in my intro.

What does that mean, why is it significant?

Because we have to understand what it means to be an heir in the 1st century to get the gist of what Paul is saying and how to apply it.

Adoption today is (or can be) a contentious process in which a person, or a couple, or a family, choose to add someone to their family legally, so that person can have the same rights as anyone else in that family.

Adoption is a legal matter at heart. It settles, officially, the issue of “are you family or not.” In adoption, the adopted person is given the same legal status in a family as the one born naturally into the family.

And this is still, in the basics, the same as it was in Paul’s day. With a few exceptions.

In biblical times (1st century and before), adoption meant more than just a legal sealing of a family pact.

We all probably are aware of adoptive parents in our day and time who have adopted children simply to cash in on the government assistance programs for those kids, and have been abusive and self-serving in the process. That is a perversion of adoption.

In the ancient world, to be adopted was a big deal. Let me explain:

The way the family worked in the ancient world was this: A couple has children. Because of the time and culture, the children grew up learning what their father did, and took over from him when they were of age.

The first-born was the one who would get the honor and glory of the family. If, for instance, a man had two sons, when the time was right to pass down the inheritance, it would be counted and figured, and split three ways. The first born son would get 2/3, while the second son would get 1/3. If there were 4 sons, the first would get 2/5, and everyone else would get 1/5.

Being the firstborn meant you were the heir. You got more reward, but that also meant you got more responsibility.

Adoption in the ancient world was taken very seriously. If you went through the legal process of adopting a child, you had to understand the ramifications.

Now, to understand this, we first must understand the idea of adoption in both a Jewish and Roman context.

In Ancient Israel, adoption wasn’t really a thing. If a child was orphaned, the family would take on the responsibility of the child.

There was no process for adoption in the ancient Jewish culture. If a man died, his brother automatically became the head of his household, so there was no need for a legal adoption process. The word adoption, during the time and context in which Paul spoke, referred to the Roman concept of adoption.

In ancient Rome, adoption had a powerful meaning. When a child was born biologically, the parents had the option of disowning the child for a variety of reasons. The relationship, therefore, was not necessarily desired by the parent, nor permanent.

Not so, however, if a child was adopted. In Rome, adopting a child meant:

That child was freely chosen by the parents, desired by the parents. That child would be a permanent part of the family; parents couldn’t disown a child they adopted.

An adopted child received a new identity. Any prior commitments, responsibilities and debts were erased. New rights and responsibilities were taken on. Also, in ancient Rome, the concept of inheritance was part of life, not something that began at death. Being adopted made someone an heir to their father, joint-sharers in all his possessions and fully united to him.

When we understand that, in choosing us as adoptive sons and daughters, God will never, ever disown us, that is huge! Like, I am sure there are times I have disappointed my dad. But think about it this way: no matter what you do, God will never be so disgusted with you that He disowns you.

When we enter into that relationship with Him, we are family. Forever.

Just as an adopted child in Rome had no rights before the process, we had no rights to the Spirit. But when we believed, the Spirit entered us, a gift from God that dwells in us forever!

Because God adopts me as His son, I can draw near to Him. I have that freedom to call out to Him: “Abba, Father!”

That term “abba” is an Aramaic word that passed into Hebrew. It was usually used by children addressing their fathers. It conveys this sense of both warm intimacy (think: daddy) but also filial respect (respect you would expect from a son or daughter toward a parent, familial deference).

The New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition Abba

In the NT the word occurs 3 times, transliterated into Greek; in each instance it is a vocative, addressed to God, and the Greek equivalent is appended (Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). It appears that the double phrase was common in the Greek-speaking church, where its use may well have been liturgical. (The Lord’s Prayer in its Aramaic form probably began with ’abba.)

It appears that it was Jesus who first applied the term to God, and who gave authority to his disciples to do so. Paul sees in its use a symbol of the Christian’s adoption as a son of God and his possession of the Spirit.

This idea of calling out to God in an intimate familial way is much different than we tend to think about talking to God.

How many of you, if asked to pray in public especially, tense up and start using vocabulary that you do not normally use?

“Thou great and mighty Lord Almighty, thou wondrous God, We beseech thee this day...”

We have this detached, formal view of God. Paul is saying, if you are a believer, you have relationship with Him. You can call out to Him as a child calls out to his natural father!

Romans 8:16–17 ESV

16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Paul doesn’t want you to just take his word for it, though. Look at these last two verses as we close:

The Spirit Himself testifies to this fact that we are God’s children. How?

The Gospel of God: Romans (2) The Spirit of Adoption

The work of the Spirit is not only to make us children of God, and then to take up a dwelling place within our hearts, but also to give us an inner assurance of our standing with God. It is vitally important for the Christian to have assurance of salvation for we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

We have confidence in our sonship because of the indwelling of the Spirit, which drives us to personal holiness and godly living because that is how our Father wants us to live.

And Paul then bears out the implications of being adopted into God’s family. If we are children, that makes us heirs of God.

This goes back to what I mentioned before: the idea of inheritance in the ancient world had much less to do with passing on wealth at death.

An heir was one who carried the rights and responsibilities of the family. Who represented the family. Who worked tirelessly for the reputation of the family.

We are heirs of God not in a sense that God will die, and we will come to power in His place; rather, we enjoy the benefits of being in His family, and the responsibility for stewarding His interests, His name, His glory.

I’ll leave you with this:

The Gospel of God: Romans (2) The Spirit of Adoption

To be an heir is to be rightfully in line to inherit what is in store for you. Because of our adoption into the family of God we are no longer strangers, nor are we of our original father, the devil. Instead, we possess an inalienable right to receive all that God has promised to give to each of his children, beginning with our elder Brother, Christ. What we know of this inheritance is largely symbolic, and much in Revelation speaks to the riches that will be bestowed upon us. Chief among them will not be things, but greater intimacy with Christ than we presently enjoy.

Ultimately, our inheritance is made complete when we are taken home to be fully with God and Christ in heaven. There we will have full, unsullied relationship with our Father, and that is a joy that cannot be contained!

Let’s pray.