Take the 2-minute tour ×

Paul in his letter to the Romans writes in 6:12-13:


Clearly the two "do not" phrases are commands - "Do not let sin reign" and "Do not offer". Less clear to me, though, is the phrase, "For sin shall no longer be your master". Is that phrase simply a re-statement of the previous two commands? Or is it possibly a grounding for the two commands? The NET translates it "For sin will have no mastery over you", which suggests it is not an imperative; but is that a fair translation?

Is the phrase an imperative or is it an indicative?

share|improve this question
Excellent question. I sometimes find it helpful to consider that something can be both indicative and imperative, in different senses, or, in other words, can be both law and Gospel. For now, perhaps, we are being told to not let sin have mastery over us, but in a fuller Gospel sense, we will one day live where sin will not have mastery over us. –  Ray Nov 17 '11 at 1:01
Grammatically, it's an indicative (and the subject is "sin"). I don't think that's what you're asking, though... –  lonesomeday Nov 18 '11 at 16:45
@lonesomeday - I guess my problem in understanding this is that "shall" can be understood either as "should" or "will". So I can see this as saying either "Sin should not be your master, because..." or "Sin will not be your master, because..." Sorry if I confused things by introducing grammatical terms. –  Soldarnal Nov 18 '11 at 17:25
Yeah, I realise that. There's nothing in the Greek to mean "should", and if this were classical Greek that would be the end of the matter. Biblical Greek is a bit laxer on grammar, though, so it could carry a sense of "should". –  lonesomeday Nov 18 '11 at 21:30
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The confusion here seems to be arising from the Greek third-person imperative. In English we do not have this construct; we are used to thinking of imperative in only second person. (Actually, my father tells me that there are more linguistically precise ways to describe what is happening here in Greek than imperative—but that becomes a matter of finesse.) As others have corrected noted in response to this question, the subject of verse 12 is sin and the verb is (third singular) imperative.

  1. This is indeed a construct used by New Testament writers to command.
  2. In this case this is shown by the fact that in Greek verse 13 is part of the same sentence and begins with the word μηδέ, nor. Looking at the Greek, here's a first shot for how I would translate it: 12Sin must not reign in your mortal body for submission to its passions; 13and do not yield your parts to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but yield yourselves, as those who were dead but are now living, and your parts to God as weapons of righteousness.
  3. Notice the theme: reigning/submission/yielding. The twofold command of verse 13 is an exposition of the command in verse 12: you do not allow sin to reign in you by yielding yourself to God instead of sin.
  4. Verse 14 then resumes in the indicative: For sin will not be your master, since you are not under the law but under grace. Since it begins with for (though technically that is the second word of 14 in Greek since γάρ is postpositive) it is giving the grounds of verses 12 and 13: which fits the entire structure of what Paul has been arguing in chapter 6: it is impossible to remain in sin because of an ontological disconnection with it and connection to Christ. Sin must not be yielded to because it is simply not master anymore. Thus, even if you did not read 12 as a command, the overall meaning of the passage contains both indicative and imperative negation of sin as master.
share|improve this answer
add comment

The 'to reign' in this case is βασιλεύω (literally 'to be king over'), and according to the ESV Reverse Interlinear, is in the imperative case. This doesn't necessarily mean it is a command (the whole indicative / imperative thing) but it would not be a misreading to do so.

Complicating matters is that ἁμαρτία (sin) is in the nominative case, so it could also be the subject.

share|improve this answer
add comment

In Romans 6:14, the verb is not an imperative but a future indicative. I don't recall whether future indicatives sometimes function as imperatives, but because there are many ways to issue an imperative (certainly in vv. 12-13 Paul used them), it is less likely that 6:14 is a command.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


