An Exegetical Commentary on Romans 6:1-7

Daniel Kunkel“Exegetical- Romans 6:1-7”

Box 435Greek 105

Dr. Jay Smith10/2/14

Word CountsCommentary: 3798Whole Paper: 6937

Interpretive Translation

What shall we say then? Shall we persist in sin, that grace might

abound?

May it never be! We who died to sin, how can we still live in it?

Or don’t you know that, whoever was baptized into Christ Jesus

was baptized into his death?

We were therefore with-buried with him into death through

baptism, so that just as Christ was raised out from the dead through

the glory of the father, so also we might walk in newness of life. For

if we have become united (organically!) to the likeness of his death,

surely also we will be (united to the likeness) of his resurrection—

Knowing this, that our old man was with-crucified (with Christ),

so that the body of sin might be destroyed, this so that we might no

longer be slaves to sin. For he who died has been released from sin.

Exegetical Idea: God’s atoning work in Christ does not make us

libertines. We are saved by being joined to Christ’s death and

resurrection, which shifts spiritual orientation such that sin is now

foreign.

Exegetical Outline:

1. Paul’s explanation of grace’s triumph over sin could be construed to excuse libertinism. (v. 1)

2. Such a conclusion is abhorrent, because those who have died to sin cannot live in it. (v. 2)

3. The Christian has died to sin with Christ, and now walks in a life where sin is foreign. (v. 3-11)

A. Baptism with Christ means joining Christ in his death and resurrection. (v. 3-5)

I. Those who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. (v. 3)

II. Baptism into Christ’s death means that we were co-buriedwith Christ. (v. 4a)

III. We were co-buried with Christ that we might partake in his resurrection by partaking in his death, and thus walk innewness of life. (v. 4b)

IV. Those who have become identified with Christ in the likeness of his death will also identify in the likeness of his life. (v. 5)

B. Baptism into death means the crucifixion of our life in Adam. (v. 6-7)

I. Our old man was crucified with Christ. (v. 6a)

II. The old man was crucified so that the body of sin might be destroyed. (v. 6b)

III. The old man was crucified so that we might no longer besubject to sin. (v. 6c)

IV. He who has died has been justified from sin. (v. 7)

Commentary

Context- Paul has just argued that Christ’s atoning work has created a

situation where for the redeemed, sin is overshadowed by grace at

every turn. He now proceeds to address the possible claim that this

understanding of grace would make libertinism a viable lifestyle for

the saved. In refuting this claim, Paul exposits the believer’s change

in trajectory from death and sin toward God and life as one enters

this faith. The full argument spans from verse one to verse fourteen

of this chapter, and comes in five parts: A) A discourse in which Paul

refutes libertinism by claiming that Christians have died to sin; B)

An explanation of baptism as an identification with Christ’s death and

resurrection; C) A parenthesis in which Paul clarifies what dies in

the believer through baptism, and how this causes a definitive break

with sin; D) A resumption of the discussion on Christ’s resurrection,

in which the believer may find a definitive break with death as well.

Paul uses verse 11 to recapitulate his initial remark in verse 2,

which the hearer may now grasp in its full context. Part E, the

conclusion in verses 12-14, demonstrates how this new reckoning makes

grace a call to holiness rather than a license for sin. This

exegetical covers the first three complete sections, contained in vv.

1-7.

Section A: Opening Discourse

v.1The possible libertine conclusion- The question at the beginning of

the verse, τι οὐν ἐρουμεν, is used by Paul three other times in Romans

(3:5, 7:7, 9:14) to introduce a false inference that he will proceed

to repudiate.1 Ἐρουμεν is a future tense verb with imperative force,

turned into a question with the use of τί. Έπιμενωμεν is a

1 Cranfield, 297.

deliberative rhetorical subjunctive,2 meaning that rather than

expecting a response, the question is a thinly veiled statement. The

false inference, as mentioned, is an accusation of libertinism. If the

argument given holds true, it may carry the weight of a reductio ad

absurdum, undermining Paul’s line of argument up to this point. One

question that commentators wrestle over is Paul’s intent in bringing

up this false inference. Is Paul intending a polemic against a

particular group that has raised this proposition- Legalists,

Judaizers, Jews? Or is Paul just qualifying himself? As Schreiner

points out, the answer is probably somewhere in between. Schreiner

notes that this passage is not a digression but rather an integral

part of Paul’s larger exposition of the gospel; after honing his

presentation through debate over time, Paul is using this “Frequently

Asked Question” as a transition frame3 for the next step in a fuller

understanding of what relating to God’s righteousness looks like for a

believer. Another key discussion begins here: the first verse contains

the first occurrence of the noun ἁμαρτια, appearing here in the dative

case. This dative may be considered a dative of respect or sphere.4 In

this passage, as well as others, sin is considered both an agency and

2 Wallace 467.3 Schreiner, 303-304.4 Wallace, 145.

a realm, with a capacity to reign over human beings in the wake of the

fall.5 Our concept of sin will expand as we follow Paul’s usage of the

term through the passage.

v. 2Emphatic negation, and incredulity- The phrase μη γενοιτο is a common

emphatic negative that actually occurs in the comparatively antiquated

optative mood.6 With this phrase, Paul answers his own question,

reinforcing the nature of ἐπιμενωμεν as a rhetorical subjunctive verb.

Οἰτινες ἀπεθανομεν τῃ ἁμαρτιᾳ is Paul’s first introduction in the book

of Romans to the idea that the believer can die specifically “with

reference” to sin. Sin has already been denoted as a realm and a

reigning power in chapter 5, but here, the believer has personally

undergone some sort of negation of that power. The consummate

rhetorician, Paul with this statement unveils this direct and primary

answer7 to the question of libertinism, although the statement is at

first cryptic to his hearers. Paul will give an initial concise

explanation of this “shotgun answer” in verses 3-5.8 The verb

ἀπεθανομεν is in the aorist tense, viewing a full action from the

outside as a distinct moment that has passed. Ζησομεν is a future

5 Schreiner, 304; Jewett 395-6; BDAG.6 Wallace, 482.7 Murray, 213.8 Moo, 196.

indicative verb, but in combination with πως, the verb becomes part of

a negation. Paul has answered a rhetorical question with another

rhetorical question, using this one to imply that a redeemed

believer’s relation to sin makes libertinism “unlivable.” It should be

noted in passing that the referent of ἐν αὐτῃ is τῃ ἀμαρτιᾳ. The use

of the preposition έν may reinforce Paul’s understanding of sin as a

realm, but Schreiner helpfully reminds us that “It is a mistake to

separate sin as a power from specific acts of sin. Sin’s reign over

people leads them to commit specific acts of sin, and thus the two

concepts are finally inseparable.”9 One may persist in actions as well

as live in realms.

Section B) Explanation and Trajectory

v. 3Baptism into Christ is Baptism into His Death- Paul now begins to

unpack this initial response by explaining that baptism is an

initiation into Christ’s death. Paul has previously discussed the

propitiatory element of salvation whereby Christ takes the wrath of

God for sinners upon himself; it is a very great development to

understand that we actually enter into this death ourselves in some

fashion. This verse raises important questions regarding Paul’s

9 Schreiner, 304.

understanding of his audience, as well as introducing a key

correlation that undergirds the rest of the passage, and becomes the

subject of most debate in the commentaries— baptism as an organic

identification with Christ’s death and new life. The signficance of

the phrase ἥ ἀγνοιετε is contested among scholars; what kind of

knowledge does Paul assume that his audience has? Many scholars have

noted that the verb ἀγνοεω is used through the ancient period by

rhetoricians to bring special attention to a point of common

knowledge.10 Two questions here: what is the common knowledge that

Paul is appealing to, and whence did it come? The second question will

help us answer the first. Dunn argues against “history of religions”

scholars who might argue that Paul is appealing to and appropriating

common knowledge of pagan identification cults, given that the pagan

rituals and understanding which bear the most resemblance to Paul’s

thought are only documented about 100 years after this letter was

written.11 Paul is likely appealing to some basic articulations of

faith that the church inherited from its initial evangelists. However,

Jewett points out that the classical parallel usages of ἀγνοεω imply

that the speaker believes his audience does not understand said common

10 Jewett, 396. 11 Dunn, 308-310; Keener, 425.

knowledge to a necessary extent.12 Thus, Dunn’s comments that Paul may

be deducing a further corollary (“baptized into his death”) from

commonly accepted language (“baptized into Christ,” or the name of

Christ) seem quite plausible.13 To answer the first question, at the

very least Paul is assuming a rudimentary and “proto-orthodox”

understanding of “baptism in Christ” as initiation to the faith among

his audience, and the extensive prior correspondence evidenced by the

final chapters of this same letter appear to have justified this

assumption for Paul. Among the greatest debates in this passage is

over the place of the literal, physical rite of water baptism in

spiritual identification with Christ. How necessary is the physical

baptism for this spiritual process? To put the question another way,

what kind of salvific efficacy does ritual have for the believer? This

issue is the subject of the Exegetical Validation below. To sum up

here, physical baptism is one key component of a larger experience

called “conversion-initiation” by James D.G. Dunn.14 The rite has no

efficacy on its own, and one may enter heaven without it in cases like

the “thief on the cross” scenario. But we must avoid the error of

speculating on “minimum possible requirements to get in” and instead

12 Jewett, 396.13 Dunn, 308. 14

aspire toward what God has called normative. As the correlation

between baptism and Christ’s atoning work becomes more clear through

this passage, the value of the physical ritual will become clearer as

well.

v. 4Co-Burial through baptism into death- Working from the deduced idea of

“baptism into death” above, Paul proceeds through v. 4-5 to flesh out

further implications, and begins to tease out the purpose of such a

co-identification. Here in verse four, we see the logical progression—

baptism into Christ means baptism into death, and death means a

burial. It is grammatically possible for the phrase εἰς τον θανατον to

be either an indirect object of the verb συνεταφημεν, or part of a

prepositional train with δια του βαπτισματος that modifies συνεταφημεν

adverbially. Thus, the two possible readings would be 1) “buried (into

death) through baptism,” or 2) “buried (through baptism into death).”

Both readings are orthodox, and commentators are divided over which

reading is appropriate; scholars basically assert their positions.15 I

am not entirely sure, but I am partial to the first reading because

its consonance with the point of bringing up burial in the first

15 Dunn (p.314) along with others (Schreiner 308) take the first stance, while Schreiner (308) and Murray (215-216) take the latter position.

place. Many commentators note that burial was “the climactic moment in

the ritual of dying,”16 and a “confirmation of the death.”17 Burial

means Charon has taken us across the river Styx, that Cirdan has waved

us to the Grey Havens. Our departure was complete. We were in Death.

Resurrection and Newness of Life- Christ’s baptism, Christ’s death.

Christ’s death, Christ’s burial. Christ’s burial, Christ’s resurrection.

This is what God has in store for the believer. One can almost hear

Paul’s Gospel of First Importance from 1 Corinthians 15 echoing behind

—“that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he

was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the

scriptures.” Through baptism, the believer has been led through the

same progression.18 If you’ve signed up for one part, you’ve signed up

for them all. The clause begins with a preposition of purpose, ἱνα,

governed by συνεταφημεν. Schreiner and Moo both see a causal element

with the preposition ὡσπερ, “just as.”19 BDAG would assert that this

causal element is not lexical,20 but it is still logically

justifiable; Christ has made a way for us to follow. It is important

to note that the resurrection occurs δια της δοξης του πατρος,

16 Jewett, 398.17 Schreiner, 308.18 Moo, 197.19 Moo, 384; Schreiner, 311.20 BDAG.

“through the glory of the father,” for two reasons. Firstly, the

Hebrews saw God’s glory as so related to his zeal and power that δοξα

was sometimes used as a greek gloss for Hebrew words denoting power in

the LXX.21 This fact leads to point two: God the father was the agent

of the resurrection as much as he was the arbiter of the crucifixion.

Overly emphasizing penal subsitution at the expense of other ways to

view the atonement can cause a mischaracterization of the first member

of the Godhead.22 Paul is unique among Hellenistic writers in his use

of περιπατησωμεν “we walk” as a paradigm for a discussion of ethics,23

but he is not unique among Hebrew writers.24 Murray points out the

usefulness of “walk” in showing that the new life is not a thing of

“otiose possession” by God but rather as “engaging” the agency of the

believer.25 Cranfield also helpfully observes the lexical choice of

καινοτητι (καινος) over and against an inflection of νεος; νεος

involves newness with reference to time or origin, implying youth,

while καινος implies newness of nature.26 Finally, there are various

possible relationships between καινωτητι and its genitive modifier,

21 Murray, 304-305.22 C.f. Colossians 1:18-22.23 Jewett, 399.24 Dunn 315; c.f. Ex 18:20, Deut 13:4-5, 1 Kgs 9:4, 2 Kgs 22:2, Ps 86:11, Pr 28:18, Isa 33:15.25 Murray 217.26 Cranfield, 305.

ζωης; the possibilities are 1) attributive genitive (“life-y

newness”), 2) attributed genitive (“new life,” or “newness of life”),

3) apposition (“the newness that is life”), 4) objective (“newness

that confers life”), and 5) subjective (“life that confers newness”).

Wallace takes the second option, and Schreiner agrees with him,

arguing that this reading is the least interpretive and most simple.27

I am inclined to agree.

v. 5Organic identification, Death, and resurrection- I have been using the

word “identification” as I explain the relationship of baptism to

Christ’s atoning work. That verbiage is vindicated here, with the

adjective συμφυτοι. Commentators bicker over the lexical impact of

this adjective. Jewett points out that this term is a hapax logomena

in the new testament.28 Many commentators now agree with Dunn that

this adjective is derived not from the horticultural term συμφυτευω “I

plant together, but rather the merely biological term συμφυω, “I make

grow together/unite.”29 The idea of growth is progressive, but the

verb related to this term, γεγοναμεν, is in the perfect tense,

designating completed action. Schreiner takes this to mean that the

27 Wallace, 89; Schreiner, 311.28 Jewett, 400.29 Dunn, 316.

background biological metaphor is a dead one, and that Paul speaks of

bare conceptual union.30 I disagree. The process of union may be

complete, but it may still be organic, and that is profound. With the

use of this perfect tense verb, a very powerful tense schema develops

that prevails through the entire pericope. The discussion of co-

crucifixion with Christ is always in the aorist past tense. It is a

simple, final, completed action. The discussion of resurrection with

Christ is always in the future tense. It will happen. In the middle,

identification is a reality that we fully live in. It occurs in the

perfect tense. Pauls comments on newness of life happen in the

subjunctive mood, with no temporal force, and we are given present

imperatives. In wrestling with the question of how a future

resurrection could spur us to holiness now, Schreiner deftly points out

that the death and resurrection of Christ as eschatological events transcend time.31 These

are realities we may claim because the kingdom has been at hand since

the ministry of John the Baptist; we are citizens of the new age. We

will explore this notion further in the next verse. First, a few other

concerns here. One little word is often given no weight in translation

but seems to make a big difference: we have become identified with the

likeness (ὁμοιοματι) of his death (and resurrection), not simply the

30 Schreiner, 313.31 Ibid., 312.

acts themselves. As a bit of prolegomena, Murray and Dunn among others

are correct in supplying ὁμοιοματι and συμφυτοι into the της

ἀναστησιως construction of the apodosis—“we will surely also be united

in the likeness of the resurrection.”32 Furthermore, the antecedent

for αὐτου is taken to be Christ, meaning that Christ’s death is the

one under discussion, and the same αὐτου is taken to Does this term

imply that the nature of Christ’s death has any room for

participating, or do we only participate in a likeness or facsimile,

with separation from the ultimate reality? Dunn points out that its

usage in the rest of the NT tends to denote “the form of transcendent

reality perceptible to man.”33 In other words, the magnitude and

reality of Christ’s death and atoning work are so great that we could

never fully conceive them, and thus the ὁμοιοματι are the realities as

they are experienceable by finite creatures. Murray nicely negotiates

the tension by setting ὁμοιοματι in contrast with συμφυτοι; the

organic union must be balanced against the aspects of Christ’s death

and resurrection which are unique to Christ himself,34 such as his

personal temporal and physical death. My earthly heart has not stopped

beating, I have received no toe tags. And yet, I have been reborn. In

32 Dunn, 318; Murray, 33 Dunn, 317.34 Murray, 218.

a rare usage, the word ἀλλα which begins the apodosis of this first

class conditional statement has the effect of “certainty” here.35

Finally, the genitives θανατου and ἀναστσεως are both genitives of

source or producer; the likenesses in which Christians have been

united are derivatives of these realities.

Section C: A Definitive Break With Sin (v. 6-7)

v. 6Old Man Crucified- In the form of a participial parenthesis, Paul

pauses in his explanation of the trajectory of the believer to explain

exactly what died in our co-death with Christ through verses 6 and 7.

He begins his excursus with a present temporal adverbial participle,

γινωσκοντες, denoting knowledge we should have as we walk

(περιπατησωμεν) in newness of life. This knowledge is of a similar

class to the knowledge discussed in verse 2; his audience may have

some rudimentary understanding of the concepts at hand, but Paul is

now giving them the information they need. Paul tells us that what

died was ὁ παλαιος ἡμων ἀνθρωπος, “our old man.” In fact, our old man

was crucified. But what, exactly, is “our old man?” Many scholars define

the “old man” as the life lived by human beings under Adam, grounding

this conversation in the contrast of the old Adam and new Adam that

35 Dunn 318.

just occurred in chapter 5.36 This contrast resumes the epochal shift

that was discussed in the previous verse; here the destruction

(καταργηθῃ) of the old man must be understood as an eschatological

reality that the believer reckons by in the present. Moo and Schreiner

in particular are careful to assert that both lives, life under Adam

and life in Christ, are considered holistically, meaning that the

whole person (including the physical) transfers from life in Adam to

life in Christ.37 In addition to this personal, holistic element,

Jewett puts forth the idea that the “old man” has a corporate

element.38 He pushes too hard in arguing that the “old man” should be

interpreted primarily in this sense, but a healthy dialectic between

individual and corporate identity should be in view. This same

dialectic also applies to το σωμα τησ ἁμαρτιας, “the body of sin.”39

This genitive construction is generally considered to be attributive

in nature, equivalent to “the sinful body.”40 Cranfield argues that

this term is holistic in scope as well, and I agree.41 What, then, is

the difference between the body of sin and the old man? Honestly, not

too much. As we read through Romans 5, we see that both death and sin

36 Dunn 318, Moo 207, Jewett 403, Schreiner 315.37 Moo 207, Schreiner 315.38 Jewett, 403.39 Ibid., with the same qualifier.40 Wallace, 87; Cranfield 309.41 Cranfield, 309.

reigned over Adam. The old man may primarily emphasize the reign of

death, while the body of sin would naturally emphasize sin. But as we

have mentioned in verse 1, the body of sin also includes the

particular sins for which individuals are personally culpable. As the

following verses proceed, a breach occurs with both dominions. The

breach with sin begins here in the next clause of verse 6. The old man

was crucified and the body of sin destroyed so that “we would no

longer be subject to sin.” An infinitive which receives a genitive

article, as δουλειν does, is a common structure for denoting purpose,

and such is the case here.42 The verb δουλειν is the same term used

elsewhere in Paul and the NT to describe the servitude which we should

display toward God; that discussion is actually taken up beginning in

verse 15 as Paul moves to a discussion of properly understanding the

new dominion under which we have been brought. But for a created child

of Adam and a bearer of the Imago Dei, it is clear that God is the

only one who deserves that deference, and man only prospers when God is

the recipient. Through the crucifixion of the old man and the

destruction of the body of sin, God has facilitated our lawful release

and return to his keep.

v. 7

42 Wallace, 610; Murray, 221.

The Dead Freed From Sin- This verse undergirds and clarifies the idea

that death provides release from sin. But whence does it come?

Scholars have seen precedence for this concept within rabbinic

literature,43 apocryphal literature,44 and within wider Hellenistic

sources.45 These writers are inclined to argue that Paul is directly

referencing this salient concept as a saying which his readers will

find familiar. Death may justify us from sin by paying a death

penalty; a dead man can no longer actively sin among us.46 Such

concepts may float in the back of Paul’s mind as he writes, but as

Dunn notes, the key is in how Paul appropriates the idea.47 Ὁ ἀποθανων

is an aorist attributive participle construction, establishing a

generic person as the subject of the passive perfect finite verb

δεδικαιωται. As the governing verb of a salient precept, this verb has

a gnomic element to its tense value.48This verb is glossed here as

“has been freed,” but its lexical root is where we get the words

“righteousness” and “justification,” which have been Paul’s themes for

the entire epistle thus far. The main impact of this background is

that we are to understand the one who has died as rightfully or lawfully

43 Cranfield 310.44 Dunn 312.45 Moo 198.46 Jewett, 405.47 Dunn, 321.48 Jewett, 404.

freed from sin, but the longer story is told in the word study below.

An important question must now be raised: If the one who dies is

justified from sin, but not all who die are justified before God, then

what kind of death justifies? The answer lies not merely in our

understanding of death, but also in a historically accurate

understanding of justification. As such, my conclusion depends on the

results of the word study on “justification” below. I argue that apart

from grace, one may justly pay the price for sin by entering death,

and live out the curse put on Adam in the garden. God’s justice would be

satisfied. Sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death, and death

came to the world through sin.49 For the unrighteous, who does not

demonstrate or have the righteousness to satisfy God’s justice, death

is truly the release from the realm of sinful Adam into θανατος. This

is why Christ’s resurrection is so important. His righteous life

atoned, and the Father’s glory interrupted the hold of these realms

and principalities; the last enemy to be defeated is death itself.50

For the Christian, justification becomes a process by which we really

are declared righteous, and justice is not simply done to us. But if

the Christian has died (aorist tense) and been justified (perfect

tense) from sin, then can believers still sin, or not? At this point,

49 James 1:15, Romans 50 1 Cor 15:26.

we must remember Schreiner’s comments on the eschatological aspects of

these events. Furthermore, Schreiner points out that “what has been

shattered is not the presence of sin but the mastery of sin over

believers;” the emphasis is on the end of the reign, and our servitude

to sin as master.51

ApplicationThis exegetical has taught me about theology; the variety of the

usage of δικαιοω has shown me much about both the origin and

application of systematic precepts in situational contexts. Both the

concepts and the words in the text themselves are more “agile” than I

imagined. An eschatological understanding of justification has also

been profound in terms of understanding what it means to leave the

dominion of sin. I’m glad to know that identification is in the

perfect tense. It helps one feel at home. I am impressed by the power

and love of the father for his children, and by both the hope and the

conviction of his glory. I am glad to have sat under Paul and learned

more about how we understand dominion, and learned what it means to

belong to Christ. This exegetical work has already helped me to speak

well to fellow Christians who have been confused about the meaning of

51 Schreiner, 317.

this particular epistle, and so I am glad that this labor has been

bearing fruit.

Appendix

Textual Criticism: Ἐπιμενωμεν in Verse 1

The governing verb of Paul’s false inference, the occasion and

frame for this dialogue, actually has three variant readings among the

textual witnesses. Besides ἐπιμενωμεν, a present subjunctive (“shall

we persist”), the possible variants are 1) ἐπιμενουμεν, a future

indicative with perhaps some imperative force (“will we persist”), 2)

ἐπιμενομεν, a present indicative with a similar imperative force (“do

we persist”), and 3) ἐπιμεινωμεν, which appears to be derived from the

aorist subjunctive, ἐπεμεινa.52 This aorist subjunctive would have a

very similar gloss to the present subjunctive, but the emphasis would

be on a simple act of persistence rather than a state of persistence.

External Evidence: The accepted reading, ἐπιμενωμεν, is supported by two

very important Alexandrian manuscripts, Codices Alexandrinus and

Vaticanus, which both come from before the fifth century.53 In the

western tradition, the accepted reading is also supported by the

influential Codex Bezae, although where the Old Latin weighs in, it

52 BDAG53 TNTT, 67-68.

agrees with the future indicative (variant 1). Besides this portion of

the later Old Latin readings, however, the first is only supported by

other late minuscules. For that matter, the aorist subjunctive

(variant 3) is only supported by the blunder-filled eighth-century

Codex Regius and one significant late minuscule from the same period

(MS 33 is significant but MS 630 is not54). The other genuine

contender is the present indicative, variant 2. This variant receives

the weighty support of the fourth-century Alexandrian Codex

Sinaiticus,55 as well as a small handful of other late uncials and

minuscules. But the scales tip in the direction of the accepted

reading with the addition of the other secondary uncials and

minuscules that support it, some of which (Codices Boreelianus and

Wolfii),56 are also within the Byzantine text type. Both the accepted

reading and the second variant are attested early, but the accepted

reading is the only one with support across all text types and the

only reading to achieve genealogical solidarity (within the

Alexandrian type through Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus). Thus,

external evidence would argue strongly for the accepted reading of the

present subjunctive ἐπιμενωμεν, this with a confidence of A+.

54 TNTT, 87-89.55 TNTT, 62.56 TNTT, 74-5.

Internal evidence: Whichever reading is the correct one, the variants

could very likely have been caused by faulty hearing in

scriptoriums;57 the spelling differences all come from variations in

similar diphthongs or vowel sets (ε against ει, ο against ω against

ου). As the force of the text is not significantly changed by these

variants, and they occur in a generally clear false inference that

Paul is about to refute, it would not seem that scribes would have

much incentive to alter this text intentionally for any reason. With

regard to Paul’s own style, a very similar construction occurs later

the same chapter, in verse 15. At that point, Paul offers another

false inference of exhortative action, and there he uses the aorist

subjunctive. Paul is not bound to handle these similar inferences in

the exact same way, and the very little semantic difference between

the options may provide room for Paul to vary his style. It is perhaps

even unlikely that Paul would completely reproduce the inflection for

a similar false inference, as the external evidence appears to agree

with; he might add a little variation to emphasize the issues’

individuality. Because of the very little semantic difference between

these options and the extreme similarity of the spellings, internal

57 TNTT, 254.

evidence appears to be largely inconclusive in narrowing down the

options.

Conclusion: The comparative semantic equivalence and similar verbal

reading indicates that the most strongly attested reading, namely the

accepted one, is original, with the others being generated by scribal

errors. This comes with a confidence of A.

Structural Layout

v. 1 Ti÷ ou™n e˙rouvmen;

e˙pime÷nwmen thØv aJmarti÷aˆ,

iºna hJ ca¿riß pleona¿shØ;

v. 2 mh\ ge÷noito.

oiºtineß aÓpeqa¿nomen thØv aJmarti÷aˆ, pw◊ß e¶ti zh/somen e˙n aujthØv;

v. 3 h£ aÓgnoei√te o¢ti,

o¢soi e˙bapti÷sqhmen ei˙ß Cristo\n ∆Ihsouvn, ei˙ß to\n qa¿naton aujtouv e˙bapti÷sqhmen;

v. 4 suneta¿fhmen ou™n aujtwˆ◊ dia» touv bapti÷smatoß ei˙ß to\n qa¿naton,

iºna w‚sper hjge÷rqh Cristo\ß e˙k nekrw◊n dia» thvß do/xhß

touv patro/ß,

ou¢twß kai« hJmei√ß e˙n kaino/thti zwhvß peripath/swmen.

v. 5 ei˙ ga»r su/mfutoi gego/namen twˆ◊ oJmoiw¿mati touv qana¿tou aujtouv, aÓlla» kai« thvß aÓnasta¿sewß e˙so/meqa:

v. 6 touvto ginw¿skonteß

o¢ti oJ palaio\ß hJmw◊n a‡nqrwpoß sunestaurw¿qh,

iºna katarghqhØv to\ sw◊ma thvß aJmarti÷aß, touv mhke÷ti douleu/ein hJma◊ß thØv aJmarti÷aˆ:

v. 7 oJ ga»r aÓpoqanw»n dedikai÷wtai aÓpo\ thvß aJmarti÷aß.

Synchronic Word StudyThe word δικαιοω, featured in v. 7 of this chapter, is a rather

significant term for the New Testament; it’s lexically related to

δικαιοσυνη (which we gloss as “righteousness,” and is Paul’s theme for

the letter—1:17), and is the verb behind the Christian understanding

of “justification”—3:24. But here, as in a few other times in the NT,

the verb is glossed as “freed,’’ and the use is much wider outside the

NT. Here in 6:7, is it justifiable to impose the systematic framework

of justification as we understand it over this occurrence of the verb

from which the doctrine is derived?

Inside Koine, Outside NT

The usage of the term is rather thin outside the New Testament

during the Koine period, but the two extant examples we have showcase

the residual breadth of the term from its heyday in classical greek.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae, 1st Cent. B.C.

καὶ τὸ δικαιωθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων τοῦτο νόμος, “and that which has been ordained into those laws.”

Demetrius the Younger, P. Ryl 119 (A papyrus from the same collection as P52), 1st Century A.D.

ἐδικαίωσεν ἀποδοῦναι ἡμᾶς τὸ κεφάλαιον, “he judged/decided to repay the capital sum.”

These two occurrences demonstrate that during the Koine period,

the term was still in use, though less popular, and its lexical range

was still recognized as much broader than as a judicial, legal or

forensic term. Although the lexical range was probably wider than what

these witnesses attest, the idea of “judging, proclaiming, ordaining,

or doing rightly” is basically central.58

Inside NT, Outside PaulThe new testament exhibits further classical uses of the term

δικαιοω, demonstrating further ways in which man may relate to

righteousness.

Matthew 11:19Και ἐδικαιωθη ἡ σοφια ἀπο των ἐργων αὐτης, “but justice is

vindicated by her deeds.”(also Luke 7:35, 1 Tim 3:16)

James 2:21

58 According to LSJ, possible glosses that come from the classical erafall into three classes: 1) To set right, 2) to deem right or to claimas a right, 3) To do justice to someone. Doing justice may include either punishment or vindication of another, whichever is just. Deemingright may mean actively choosing a course as good, ordaining law, or passive consent.

Ἀβρααμ ὁ πατηρ ἡμων οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων ἐδικαιωθη ἀνενεγκας Ἰσαακ τον υἱον αὐτου ἐπι θυσιαστηριον, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?”

(also James 2:24 and 25, Mat 12:37)

Luke 7:29Και πας ὁ λαος ἀκουσας και οἱ τελωναι ἐδικαιωσαν τον θεον βαπτισθεντες το βαπτισμα Ἰωαννου, “and all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism.”

(also Luke 10:29)

Acts 13:38ὁτι δια τουτου ὑμιν ἀφεσις ἁμαριων καταγγελλεται, και ἀπο παντων ὡν οὐκ ἠδυνηθητε ἐν νομῳ Μωυσεως δικαιωθηναι, “that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed.”

(also v. 39)

Luke 18:14Λεγω ὑμιν, κατεβη οὐτος δεδικαιωμενος εἰσ τον οἰκον αὐτου παρ εκεινον, “I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other.”

The idea of declaring or being declared righteous here spans a

very particular scope. The instances in Matthew 11, Luke 18, and James

2:21 are places where good deeds are declared good. The occurrence in

matthew is the passive inverse of Luke 7, where the world witnesses

good as “good.” In Luke 18, a man’s deeds are declared good in God’s

sight, which has a different kind of significance. In James 2:21, a

person is declared good or righteous with reference to good actions;

this is the closest use to the commonly held “judicial” sense of this

term. Rather noticeably, only Paul appears to use the term δικαιοω in

directly denoting a sinner to be declared good in spite of their sin.

Of course, the other usages are not antithetical, and Paul uses some

of them too. Luke, who uses the word with the most versatility,

introduces an anomaly reading that he and Paul share: use of δικαιοω

with an appropriate gloss of “freeing” or release (Acts 13:38-39).

While this usage is not attested elsewhere within the Koine period, it

falls within the classical usage if we understand that an unlawful

prisoner is freed justly. Without the work of Christ, we all would be

lawfully imprisoned for and by our sins.

Inside Paul, Outside RomansIn his own writing, Paul echoes many of the uses of δικαιοω found

throughout the rest of the new testament, but he is the writer most

clear about God’s grace “justifying the unjustifiable.”

1 Cor 4:4oujde«n ga»r e˙mautwˆ◊ su/noida, aÓll∆ oujk e˙n tou/twˆ dedikai÷wmai, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.”

1 Tim 3:16 (Controversial, yes.)o§ß e˙fanerw¿qh e˙n sarki÷, e˙dikaiw¿qh e˙n pneu/mati, “he was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit.”

Titus 3:7iºna dikaiwqe÷nteß thØv e˙kei÷nou ca¿riti klhrono/moi genhqw◊men kat∆ e˙lpi÷da zwhvß ai˙wni÷ou, “so that, having been justified by

his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternallife.”

(See also Gal 2:16 and 1 Cor 6:11)Gal 5:4kathrgh/qhte aÓpo\ Cristouv, oiºtineß e˙n no/mwˆ dikaiouvsqe, thvß ca¿ritoß e˙xepe÷sate. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

We have seen all of these glosses in the rest of the new

testament, with the exception of the readings that bear resemblance to

Titus 3:7. These are the readings in which the sinner is made

righteous by God through a regenerative process. These readings, of

course, will inflect our readings of other texts throughout the New

Testament (but not dominate them). But most importantly for our

purposes, we see the gloss “acquit” appear within Paul’s other

writings in addition to Romans and the rest of the NT. It would appear

that the corpus of Paul’s work points to versatility with regard to

this verb.

Inside RomansWithin Romans, the usage of the term narrows noticeably, as Paul

is intentionally using this verb (as well as its noun form) as a

theme.

Romans 2:13ouj ga»r oi˚ aÓkroatai« no/mou di÷kaioi para» [twˆ◊] qewˆ◊, aÓll∆oi˚ poihtai« no/mou dikaiwqh/sontai, “For it is not the hearers

of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of thelaw who will be justified.”

Romans 4:5

twˆ◊ de« mh\ e˙rgazome÷nwˆ pisteu/onti de« e˙pi« to\n dikaiouvntato\n aÓsebhv logi÷zetai hJ pi÷stiß aujtouv ei˙ß dikaiosu/nhn: “But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

All of the occurrences of δικαιοω generally fall under one of

these two umbrellas, with the exception of our verse in 6:7. Much of

the goal of the letter may be understood by the comparison of these

two uses. In the one case, those who do good are cleared in God’s

court of justice. In the second usage, God is able to justify the

unjustifiable, making himself both just and the justifier.

This Verse (6:7)

oJ ga»r aÓpoqanw»n dedikai÷wtai aÓpo\ thvß aJmarti÷aß. “For he who has died has been freed from sin.”

This usage and gloss is an outlier within the book of Romans. It

is the only occurrence which does not fall neatly into either of the

two categories above. However, the meaning of freeing, acquittal or

release is not foreign to Paul’s usage, the larger New Testament,

Koine greek, or the greater history of the word. Paul’s education

would have acquainted him with the wide scope of this lexeme and its

privileged prominence in classic literature. Nonetheless, Paul’s

primary goals in Romans and very intentional usage throughout the rest

of the text mean that it would be unwise to interpret this occurrence

in isolation. I submit that the term may be a bit of a double

entendre, meaning one thing for believers, and another for

unbelievers. For the unbeliever, justice is done by them as they are

handed from life under sin to life under the consequences of sin—

namely, θανατος. For the believer, death in Christ means justification

in us, such that the Lord’s righteousness and power is given to us

such that we are free from the dominion of both sin and death.

Validation

Part 1) Surfacing the Problem: Over the course of church history, many

different views have been put forth regarding the importance of

rituals in church life and their relationship to Christ’s atoning

work. Sacraments have been understood as grace-giving in themselves,

as a genuine sacrifice before God with salvific efficacy, and

indispensable for entering heaven. They have also been understood as

metaphorical remembrances, a way of using the physical to provide a

tangible experience of purely spiritual realities. The noun Βαπτισμος

and verb Βαπτιζω feature prominently in this discussion of Paul’s

regarding our identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. Is

Paul discussing the sacrament of baptism as a metaphor or analogy for

this transition, or is Paul talking about physical baptism as the

means for this transition?

Part 2: Outlining Options: The possibilities land on a spectrum

between what commentators call “sacramentalism” or “sacerdotalism,” in

which the ritual itself is the means of identification with Christ,

and communicates the power to overcome sin,59 to understanding of

baptism as a completely metaphorical re-enactment which serves as an

initiation rite.60 Full-blown “sacramentalism” as defined above has

been unpopular among protestant commentators since Luther, but some

liberal scholars have exposited this position as Paul’s naive

supernaturalist understanding.61 The scholars who have the most

respect for the efficacy of baptism point to three factors: 1) The use

of the term βαπτιζω elsewhere throughout the new testament is

generally referring to the physical rite, and not a metaphor; 2)

Christians are not buried “like” Christ, they are buried “with” him;

and 3) this burial occurs through baptism, meaning that it must be

understood on some level as a means of identification rather than a

59 As explained by Schreiner, 309; Murray 215; Cranfield 303.60 Dunn, 311-314; Jewett 399.61 Cranfield, 303.

symbol.62 Those evangelicals who shy away from the sacramental view

argue that the sacramental view emphasizes baptism over and against

“the historic and definitive death and resurrection,” which is the

primary work that saves a person; in other words, the position is not

properly Christ-centered.63 In an effort to de-emphasize the human

element and focus on Christ, these folks tend to describe baptism as

an outward ratification or pledge of an inward decision or

experience,64 or to emphasize baptism as the sign and seal of

membership in the body.65 They tend to work from concerns of Christ-

centered theology rather than from the grammar of the text given here,

but they also note that the emphasis of the text is the believer’s

participation in Christ’s death and resurrection; baptism is only

mentioned in these two verses, and that only in passing.66

Incrementally more liberal scholars talk about baptism as a bare

initiation rite or re-enactment,67 or baptism as a “psychologically

climactic experience of commitment to and self-identification with the

last Adam,”68 rather than fashioning paul as a naïve supernaturalist.

62 Moo, 203.63 Schreiner, 310.64 Cranfield, 303.65 Murray, 214.66 Moo, 203.67 Jewett, 399.68 Dunn, 314.

These scholars tend to quote the opinions of other scholars rather

than making lexical or grammatical arguments.

Part 3: Drawing conclusions: It would seem that genuine appeals to the

grammar and material of the biblical text here yield an understanding

of baptism that involves comparatively more efficacy or significance

than the average evangelical would expect. At the same time, it is

true that Paul’s primary concern in this passage is not Baptism, but

rather co-identification with Christ. Moo begins to resolve this

tension by advocating an understanding that baptism focuses on

something God does for us, rather than on something that water or a

pastor does for us.69 Moo understands baptism to be an integral part

of a normative conversion-initiation experience that includes faith,

regeneration and resulting repentance.70 It is clear from the account

of the thief on the cross that one may enter paradise without

receiving the rite of baptism; in this sense, baptism has no efficacy

apart from the eschatological change in trajectory that has occurred

in the heart of the believer. But the new believer receives a seal on

his faith through baptism. The seal comes from God, not from man. Just

as the faith did.

69 Moo, 205.70 Ibid., 206.