Second Section.—The contradiction between sin and grace. The calling of Christians to newness of life, since they were translated by baptism into the death of Christ from the sphere of sin and death into the sphere of the new life.
Rom_6:1-11
1What shall we say then? Shall [May] we continue in sin, that grace may 2abound? God forbid[Let it not be!]. How shall we, that are dead [who died]3to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as [all we who] were baptized into Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are [were] buried with him by [through] baptism into death: that [in order that] like [omit like] as Christ was raised up from the dead by [through] the glory of the Father, even [omit even] so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in [become united with] the likeness of his death, we shall be also in [with] the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is [was] crucified with him, that [in order that] the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforthwe should not serve [be slaves to] sin. 7For he that is dead [hath died] is freed [acquitted] from sin. 8Now if we be dead [died] with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him [dominion over him no more]. 10For in that [or, the death that] he died, he died unto sin once 11[for all]: but in that [or, the life that] he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise [Thus] reckon ye also yourselves to be [omit to be] dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord [
ἐí ×ñéóôῶ Ἰçóïῦ
, in Christ Jesus, omit our Lord].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The section Rom_6:1-11. Survey. The death of Christians to sin, and their new life.
a. The effect and demand of grace: death and life, Rom_6:1-2.
b. According to baptism, Rom_6:3-4.
c. According to the connection with Christ in His death and resurrection, Rom_6:5-6.
d. According to the power and import of death, especially as a dying with Christ, Rom_6:7-8.
e. According to the power of the new life as an incorruptible life with Christ, Rom_6:9-11.
Rom_6:1. What then shall we say? The
ïὖí
introduces the true conclusion from the previous verses, Rom_5:20-21, by repelling the false conclusion which might be deduced from what is said there. [
ἐðéìÝíùìåí
, the deliberative subjunctive. See note on
ἔ÷ùìåí
, p. 160.—P. S.]
Rom_6:2. Let it not be [
ìὴãÝïéôï
]. See Rom_3:4; Rom_3:6 [and Textual Note6, p. 112.—P. S.]
How shall we who died to sin [
ïἱôéíåò ἀðåèÜíïìåí ôῆἁìáñôßá
.]
ïἵôéíåò
[decribing the quality], as such who. Living in sin is utterly contradictory to the character of Christians. And the contradiction is very intense, not simply because of the aversion and repulsion between natural death and life referred to by Rungius (see Tholuck). The Christian is specifically dead to sin; and the life in sin, as a definitely false life, is opposed to this definite death. We have here an expression, therefore, not merely of “freedom from all life-fellowship with sin” [so Meyer], but also of the positive contradiction and repulsion between sin and Christian life. The reality of this contradiction is decided, figuratively exhibited, and sacramentally sealed by baptism. Yet the Apostle does not simply borrow his expression of it from baptism; but, rather, the death and resurrection of Christ underlie the figurative meaning of baptism.
[
ἀðåèÜíïìåí
, we died (not, are dead, E. V.), is the historic aorist, as
ἥìáñôïí
, v. 12, and
ἀðåèÜíåôå óὺí ôῶ ×ñéóôῶ
, Col_2:20; comp. Gal_2:19,
íüìù
̣
ὰðὲèáíïí
; Rom_7:4. The act of dying refers to the time of baptism, Rom_6:3 (Bengel, Meyer, Philippi, Alford, Wordsworth), which, in the Apostolic Church, usually coincided with conversion and justification, and implied a giving up of the former life of sin, and the beginning of a new life of holiness. The remission of sin, which is divinely assured and sealed by baptism, is the death of sin. Sin forgiven is hated, sin unforgiven is cherished. This, too, shows the inseparable connection between justification and sanctification; and yet they are kept distinct: the justified is sanctified, not vice versâ; first we are freed from the guilt (reatus) of sin, then from the dominion of sin; and we are freed from the one in order to be freed from the other.
ôῇἁìáñôßá
, as far as regards sin; it is the dative of reference, as Gal_2:19; 1Pe_2:24; while in Col_2:20 Paul uses
ἀðü
with the genitive in the same sense. A similar phrase is
óôáõñïῦóè áé ôῶ
̣
÷üóìù
̣, Gal_6:14, to be crucified to the world, so as to destroy all vital connection with it, and to have no more to do with it, except to oppose and hate it.
ðῶò
expresses the possibility, which is denied by the question (Meyer), with a feeling of indignation (Grotius: indignum est si loti in lutum revolvimur).
æÞóïìåí
covers the whole future. To live in sin, to hold any connection with it, is henceforth and forever incompatible with justification.—P. S.]
Rom_6:3. Know ye not [Or are ye ignorant,
ἢἀãíïåῖôå
;]. This form of speech, like Rom_7:1, is undoubtedly a reminder of something already known to the readers (Tholuck), yet it imparts at the same time a more definite consciousness and a fuller view of what is known. “It is very questionable,” says Tholuck, “whether other apostles exhibit baptism with the same mystical profoundness as Paul did.” But 1Pe_3:17-22 is a modification of the same fundamental thought. So, too, 1Jn_5:4-6. [Paul evidently regarded baptism not merely as a sign, but also as an effective means of grace (comp. Gal_3:27; Col_2:12; Tit_3:5; Eph_5:26); else he would have reminded his readers of their conversion rather than their baptism. We must always remember, however, that in the first missionary age of the Church the baptism of adults implied, as a rule, genuine conversion—the baptism of Simon Magus being an exception.—P. S.]
That so many of us (all we who were). “
Ïóïé
, quotquot. [It denotes universality, as many of us as, all without exception, but it is not stronger than
ïἵôéíåò
, which indicates the quality, such of us as.—P. S.] The phrase
âáðôßæåéí åἰò
retains the most direct figurative reference of baptism. It means strictly, to immerse into Christ (Rückert)—that is, into the fellowship of Christ. [Comp. Rom_6:4 :
âÜðôéóìá åἰò èÜíáôïí
; Gal_3:27 :
åἰò ×ñéóôὸí ἐâáðôßóèçôå
; Mat_28:19 :
åἰò ôὸ ὄíïìá
. Alford: “ ‘ Into participation of,’ ‘into union with’ Christ, in His capacity of spiritual Mastership, Headship, and Pattern of conformity.”—P. S.] The explanation of Meyer [accepted by Hodge], that it never means any thing else than to baptize in reference to, with relation to, and that the more specific definitions must arise from the context, fails to do justice to this original meaning. [Comp. Lange and Schaff on Matthew, pp. 555 (Textual Note6), 557, 558, 560.—P. S.] But the baptizing into the full, living fellowship of Christ, is, as the Apostle remarks, a baptism into the fellowship of His death. And there is implied here, according to the idea of a covenant, the Divine adjudication of this saving fellowship on the one hand, and the human obligation for an ethical continuance of the fellowship on the other. The explanation of Grotius and others, the idea of imitation, is digressive, and weakens the sense. See Gal_3:27; Col_2:11; Tit_3:5.
Rom_6:4. Therefore we were buried with him [
óõíåôÜöçìåí ïὖíáὐôῷ äéὰôïῦ
.
âáðôßóìáôïò åἰò ôὸí èÜíáôïí
. To be buried is a stronger expression than to die, for the burial confirms death and raises it beyond doubt; it withdraws the dead from our sight, and annihilates him, as it were. The same figure in Col_2:12. The mystic
óýí
in
óõíôÜöïìáé
, as also in
óõíáðïèíÞóêù
,
óõóôáõñïῦìáé
, &c., signifies the life-union of the believer with Christ; comp. the remarks of Tholuck, p. 281 f.—P. S.]. Buried in death; an oxymoron, according to which burial precedes and death follows, as is illustrated in the immersion into the bath of baptism. The analogous feature in the life of Christ was His rejection by the world, and His violent death on the cross. The expression denotes not only a burial before death and for death, but it is likewise an expression of the decision and completion of death, and, finally, a reference to the transition from death to the resurrection. The finished
êáôÜäõóéò
, as the bringing about of the
ἀíÜäõóéò
; Col_2:12.
Into death [
åἰò ôὸí èÜíáóïí
]. The death of Christ is not merely a death of the individual Jesus, but the death which, in principle or power, comprehends all mankind, and which absolutely separates the old world and the new world. Therefore it must not here be particularized (Calov.: the declared death of sin; others give different interpretations). [
Åἰò ôὺí èÜíáôïí
must be closely connected with
âáðôßóìáôïò
, baptism into the death of Christ for the appropriation of its full benefit, viz., the remission of sins and reconciliation with God.—P. S.]
In order that, as Christ was raised up [
ἵíá ὥòðåñ ἠãÝèç ×ñéóôïò ἐê íåêñῶí äéὰ ôῆò äüîçò ôïῦ Ðáôñüò
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.]. The purpose of dying with Christ. The power that raised our Lord was the
äüîá
of the Father. Thus the resurrection of Christ is traced back to the highest Cause. God is the Father, as Origin and Author of the spiritual world comprehended in Christ. Before the Father’s name the creature-world ascends into the spiritual world, and the spiritual world is conjoined in the Son. The glory of the Father is the concentrated revelation of all the attributes of the Father in their unity, especially of His omnipotence (1Co_6:14; Eph_1:19), wisdom, and goodness; or of His omnipotent love in its faithfulness, and of His personality in its most glorious deed. Before the glory of the Father the whole living world goes to ruin, is doomed to death, in order that the dead Christ may be made alive as Prince of the resurrection. Applications of the
äüîá
to the divinity of Christ (Theodoret [
ἡ ïἰêåßá èåüôçò
], and others); in gloriam patris (Beza [inadmissible on account of
äéÜ
with the genitive]); in paterna gloria resurrexit (Castalio).
From the dead,
ἐê íåêñῶí
. The world of the dead is regarded as a connected sphere. Also antithesis to
åἰò èÜíáôïí
.
So we also should walk in newness of life [
ïὕôùò êáé ἡìåῖò ἐí êáéíüôçôé æùῆò ðåñéðáôÞóùìåí
]: In newness of life; that is, in a new kind and form of life, which is subsequently denoted as incorruptibility, and therefore also by implication as continual newness and perpetual renewal of existence. Consequently, more than
æùὴêáéíÞ
(Grotius). [Meyer, Alford: “Not ‘a new life;’—nor are such expressions ever to be diluted away thus.”—P. S.] Walk gives prominence to the practical proof of this newness in new, free conduct of life.
Rom_6:5. For if we have grown together [
åἰ ãὰñ óýìöõôïé ãåãüíáìåí
]. The expression
óýìöõôïò
, denoting originally inborn [innate]; born with [congenital, connate], means here the same as
óõìöõí
́
ò
, grown together by nature. [Grotius: coaluimus; Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer: zusammengewachsen, verwachsen mit, concretus; Stuart: become homogeneous; Alford: intimately and progressively united.—P. S.] The expression complantati (Vulgate, Luther [E. V.: planted together]) goes too far, and is not justified by the language; while the interpretation grafted into (Erasmus [Calvin, Estius, Conybeare and Howson], and others) does not express enough here [and would require
ἐìöýôåõôïò
, insititius.—P. S.] The figure denotes: believers as a unity of different branches in one root or one trunk. These characters, which are united in one spirit, as the grapes of a cluster, have sprung from one gospel or new principle of life. Thus believers have grown into an image or analogue of the death of Jesus (
ôῷ ὁìïéþìáôé
, dative of direction), but not with such an analogue (Meyer, Tholuck), with which we cannot connect any clear thought. [Philippi and Meyer explain: grown together, or, intimately connected with the likeness of His death; the
ὁìïßùìá
being spiritual death, so that the meaning is: If we are spritually dead to sin, as Christ was physically dead, &c. So in the other clause our spiritual resurrection is the
ὁìïßùìá
of the bodily resurrection of Christ.—P. S.] Neither can
ôῷ ὁìïéþìáôé
be the dative of instrument: We have grown together with Christ [
ôῷ ×ñéóôῷ
being understood as in Rom_6:6] through the resemblance of His death-baptism, the likeness of His death (Erasmus [Beza, Grotius], Fritzsche, Baur [Van Hengel], and most others). For [this would require
áὺôῶ
̣ after
óýìöõôïé
, and] believers are not grown together by the likeness of the death of Christ, but by His death itself in a religious sense, as cause (through the medium of the gospel), in order that, as an organism, they should now exhibit as a copy His death in the ethical sense.
We shall be also with his resurrection [
ἀëëὰ êáὶ ôῆò ἀíáóôἅóåùò ἐóüìåèá
]. The antithesis is strengthened by
ἀëëÜ
[which is used sometimes also by the classics for the rapid and emphatic introduction of the antithetical idea, in the apodosis after a hypothetical protasis; see Meyer in loc., and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 40.—P. S.]. We shall also be grown together with Him into the likeness of His resurrection (Beza, Grotius, Meyer, Philppi; Tholuck: “abbreviated comparative”). Not
óýìöõôïé ôῆò ἀíáóôÜóåùò
(Erasmus, Calvin, Olshausen, and others). The reference of the expression to the resurrection of the body (by Tertullian, and others) is not in harmony with the context (see Rom_6:4); yet is altogether authorized by Rom_6:9, if we regard the new life as continuing to the bodily resurrection (therefore an ethical and physical resurrection, which Meyer and Tholuck oppose). The future,
ἐóüìåèá
, is indeed not imperative (Reiche [Olshausen, Stuart: expressive of obligation]); nor does it denote willingness (Fritzsche), but the certainty of the result, the necessary consequence of dying together with Christ [Tholuck, Meyer, Hodge], if we understand thereby not merely a natural consequence, but an ethical one, which involves an ever-new willingness. This is likewise indicated by what immediately follows.
Rom_6:6. Knowing this. That objective relation of the resurrection is not only confirmed by the subjective consciousness (Meyer), but it is also conditioned by it.
That our old man [
ὁ ðáëáéὸò ἡìῶíἄíèñùðïò
]. Meyer: our old ego. This is liable to misunderstanding, and expresses too much. Meyer further explains: “Personification of the entire state of sinfulness before the
ðáëéããåíåóßá
(Joh_3:3; Tit_3:5; Eph_4:22; Col_3:9).” This expresses too little. The old man is the whole sinfulness of man, which, proceeding from Adam, and pervading the old world and making it old, has become, in the concrete human image, the pseudo-plasmatic phantom of human nature and the human form (see Rom_8:3). Tholuck’s explanation is almost unintelligible: “Indication of the ego of the earlier personality; as in
ἔóù ἄíèñùðïò
,
ὁ êñõðôὸò ἐí ôῆ êáñäßá ἄíèñùðïò
, 1Pe_3:4.
Was [not is, as in the E. V.] crucified with him [
óõíåóôáýñù èç
, comp. Gal_2:20 :
×ñéóôῷ óõíåóôáῦñùìáé
·
æῶ äὲ ïὐêÝôé ἐãþ
,
æῇ äὲ ἐí ἐìïἰ ×ñéóôüò
]. “Namely, at the time when we were baptized,” says Meyer [referring to Rom_6:3-4]. But this is rather a superficial view. Baptism has actually and individually realized a connection which had already been realized potentially and generally in the death on the cross; see 2Co_5:14-15; Gal_2:19; Col_3:1. Tholuck: “Calovius says very properly against Grotius:
óýí
non similitudinem notat, verum simultatem, ut ita dicam, et communionem. The accessory idea of pain, or of gradual death [advocated by Grotius, Stuart, Barnes], could hardly have been thought of in this connection by the Apostle.” Yet we are also reminded of the violence and effective energy of the death on the cross by the following: in order that the body of sin might be destroyed. The destructive power of the death on the cross involves not merely pain and sorrow, but also the ignominy of the cross of Christ. According to Meyer, Paul only made use of the expression because Christ had died on the cross.
In order that the body of sin might be destroyed [
ἵíá êáôáñãçèῇ ôὸ óῶìá ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
; comp.
ôὸ óῶìá ôῆò óáñêüò
, Col_2:11, and
ôὸ óῶìá ôïῦ èáíÜôïõ ôïýôïõ
, Rom_7:24]. It is self-evident, from Paul and the whole Bible, that there is not the slightest reference here to a [literal] destruction of the body [i.e., of this physical organism which is only dissolved in physical death, and which, instead of being annihilated, is to be sanctified; comp. 1Co_6:20; 1Th_5:23; Rom_13:14.—P. S.]. As “the old man” is the pseudo-plasmatic phantom of man, so is “the body of sin” the phantom of a body in man consisting of his whole sinfulness; and so, further on, is the body of death (Rom_7:24) the phantom of a corporeal power of death encompassing man. It is remarkable that most of the later expositors (with the exception of Philippi, p. 210 ff.) reject the constructions that are most nearly correct, to substitute for them others which are dualistic.
1. Figurative explanations. Sin under the figure of a body.
a. The totality of sin (Origen, Grotius). [Chrysostom:
ἡ ὁëüêëçñïò ἁìáñôßá
. Calvin: “Corpuspeccati non carnem et ossa, sed massam designat.” More accurately: Sin is personified as a living organism with many members (vices), which may be put to death. So Philippi: “Die Masse der Sünde als gegliederter Organismus.” Bloomfield: “
Ôὸ óῶìá ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
is the same with
ὁ ðáëáéὸò ἄíèñùðïò
, and means that sin is a body consisting of many particular members or vices, an imperium in imperio.”—P. S.]
b. The nature or substance of sin (Schöttgen).
c. The figure of sin with reference to the figure of the crucifixion (Calov., Wolf, and others).
d. “The tendency of alienation from God and conformity to the pleasures of the world” (J. Müller, and others; Tholuck, p. 290).
e. More strongly: The whole man in his departure from God; the natural man (Augustin, Luther, Calvin [Hodge: “The body of sin” is only another name for “the old man,” or rather for its concrete form]).
f. Reduced to a minimum: Bad habit (Pelagius).
2. Literal explanations:
a. The flesh as flesh of sin,
óὰñî ἁìáñôßáò
(Rosenmüller).
b. “The body belonging to the principle of sin, the body ruled by sin.” The old man had such a body, and this
óῶìá
, as far as it is a body of sin, should be completely destroyed by crucifixion with Christ” (Meyer). An utter confusion of the figurative and literal construction. [Winer, Gramm., p. Rom 177: the body which belongs to sin, in which sin has its existence and dominion, almost the same with
óῶìá ôῆò óáñ÷üò
, Col_1:22. Similarly Alford, after De Wette: the body, which belongs to or serves sin, in which sin rules or is manifested, =
ôὰ ìÝëç
, Rom_6:13, in which is
ὁ íüìïò ôῆò Üìáñôßáò
, Rom_7:23. Wordsworth: the body of sin is our body, so far as it is the seat and instrument of sin, and the slave of sin.—P. S.]
c. The body as
óῶìá ôῆò óáñ÷üò
, and the latter the seat of sin (Semler, Usteri, Rückert, Ritschl, Rothe, Hofmann; see Tholuck, p. 290).
3. The anti-dualistic expositors, who interpreted this
óῶìá
as the real body or the natural man, were compelled to render improperly the
êáôáñãçèῇ
, as: evacuaretur, might be made inoperative and powerless. [Tertullian, Augustin; also Stuart and Barnes: might be deprived of efficiency, power, life. Alford: rendered powerless, annulled, as far as regards energy and activity.—P. S.]
That henceforth we should not be slaves to sin. [Calvin: “finem abolitionis notat.”] Sin is regarded as the controlling power (see Rom_6:16); Joh_8:44. If this power is to be broken, the body of sin must be crucified. The reason for this is given in what follows. [
ôïῦ ìçêÝôé äïõëåýåéí ἡõᾶò ôῇ ἁìáñôßᾳ
is a more concrete expression of the aim than the preceding clause,
ἵíá ÷áôáñãçèῇ
,
÷
.
ô
.
ë
.. See Winer, p. 569.—P. S.]
Rom_6:7. For he that hath died is acquitted from sin. [̔
Ï ãὰñ ἀðïèáíὼí äåäéêáßùôáé ἀðὸ ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
; comp. 1Pe_4:1 :
ὅôé ὁ ðáèὼí ἐí óáñ÷ὶ
,
ðÝðáõôáé ἁìáñôßáò
. The interpretations of this passage depend upon the meaning of
ἀðïèáíþí
, whether it is to be taken in a physical, or in a moral (legal), or in a spiritual (mystic) sense—P. S.] The chief and only question here is not ethical dying, or dying with Christ (Erasmus, Calvin, Cocceius, Bengel, Olshausen [De Wette, Philippi], and others. And the reason for this is, first, because justification must not be regarded as the consequence, but the cause of the ethical dying with Christ. Second, because not merely the being justified or freed from sin should be proved, in and of itself, but the being justified or freed from sin by death. An earlier, already present, universal, moral, and theocratical law of life is thus used to illustrate the new, religious, and ethical law of life in Christianity, in the same way that Rom_7:1-6 has reference to such a law. The universal principle which the Apostle makes his groundwork here in the figurative expression, is the word in Rom_6:23 : The wages of sin is death. The Grecian and Roman form of this antithesis was: by execution the offender is justified and separated from his crime (Alethæus, Wolf, and others). The theocratic form was the same decree of death for sin, according to Gen_2:17; Gen_9:6; Lev_23:1 ff. The sinner who was made a curse-offering, Cherem, was morally destroyed in a symbolical sense, but, at the same time, his guilt also, as well as his life of sin, was destroyed in a symbolical sense. According to Gen_2:17, the same thing held good of natural death, not so far as it, as a momentary power, put an end to the sinner’s present life (Chrysostom, and others), but rather because it made a penal suffering extending into eternity (Sheol) the punishment of sin. All these modifications are grouped in the primitive law: death is the wages of sin; and this is the law which the Apostle makes the image of the Christian law of life. The Christian dies to sin by being crucified with Christ. Now, the being justified does not mean here justification by faith in itself (although dying with Christ is connected therewith), but justification as a release from sin by the death of the sinner himself. Because Meyer ignores the complete Old Testament idea of death, he attacks the statute of Jewish theology: death, as the punishment of sin, atones for the guilt of sin. He explains the Apostle’s declaration thus: “He is made a
äßöñáéïò
by death, not as if he were now free from the guilt of his sins committed in life, but so far as he sins no more.” The explanation of ethical death with Christ (Rothe, Philippi, and others already mentioned) here makes what is to be proved the proof itself (as Meyer properly remarks). Meyer refers the passage to physical death as exit from the present life—a view in which regard is not paid to penal suffering. Better than this is the view: As activity ceases in the dead, and sin with it, so should it also be with you who have died with Christ (Theodoret, Melanchthon, Grotius). But there is the same inadequateness of the comparison. Tholuck’s exposition is utterly untenable (with reference to Calvin, Bengel, Spener, and others), that sin should here be regarded as a creditor who has just claims on man, &c.; for, while a debtor is released by death from his creditor, there is by no means a
äéêáéïῦóèáé
of the debtor from his debt.
Rom_6:8. Now if we died with Christ, &c. [
Åὶ äÝ ἀðåèÜíïìåí óýí ×ñéóôῷ
].
äÝ
announces the transition to the new thought, that believers, having died with Christ, would also live with Him. But this is not a mere conclusion from the being dead to the new life; the accent rests on the qualification with Christ, because Christ lives. As we are dead with Christ in His death, in its profoundest meaning and effect—which death comprises the separation from the entire old world, and its sin and vanity—so do we believe that we shall also live with him [
ὅðéóôåýïìåí ὅôéêáß óõíæÞóïìå íáὺôῷ
] in the supremely highest and most intense life—which life is eternal, and is an eternal life. Meyer emphasizes simply the inference from the ethical death with Christ to ethical participation in the new and enduring life of Christ. He is much in error in excluding here [with Philippi] the idea of the Christian’s future share in the blessedness of the glorified Saviour (see chap. 8), as Origen, Chrysostom, Grotius, Reiche, and others are in confining
óõæÞóïìåí
to the future life. Rosenmüller, Tholuck, and others, have properly comprised both these elements; yet the chief emphasis rests upon the assurance of the new ethical life as implying the full freedom from all sin in the fellowship of Christ. Tholuck, with Erasmus, Calvin, and others, emphasizes once for all [
ἐöÜðáî
, Rom_6:10] as an eternal destination to new life. This destination is commensurate with the certainty of being dead with Christ. Yet, granting full force to the conclusion, it is still an object of faith (
ðéóôåýïìåí
), which rests mainly on Christ as the risen One. (Different interpretations of
ðéóôåýïìåí
: Confidence in Divine assistance, Fritzsche; in the Divine promise, Baumgarten-Crusius; in God as the Finisher of the commenced work of grace, Philippi [comp. 1Th_5:24; 2Th_3:3; 2Ti_2:11]).
Rom_6:9. Knowing, &c. From faith in the risen One there arises the certain knowledge that henceforth He can never die; because He could die but once, inasmuch as, with the guilt of sin, He had assumed also the judgment of death. [Alford: Death could not hold Him, and had no power over Him further than by His own sufferance; but power over Him it had, inasmuch as He died. Meyer: The
êõñéåýåéí
of death over Christ was decreed by God (Rom_6:8-10), and brought about by Christ’s voluntary obedience (Joh_10:18; Mat_20:28). The conviction that Christ lives for ever furnishes the ground and support to our own life-union with Him.]
Rom_6:10. For in that he died, or, the death which he died. The expression,
ὅἀðÝèáíåí
, may mean: as far as His death is concerned (Winer); or, as far as the death which He died is concerned (De Wette); or that which He died, so that
ὅ
is viewed as the subject [or rather as the accusative of the object; comp. Gal_2:20 :
ὁ äÝ íῦí æῶ
.—P. S.]. We prefer the last exposition, but do not refer the
ὅ
, with Benecke (after Hilarius, and others) to the mortal part of Christ [that which died in Christ], but to Christ’s great and unexampled experience of death. All his dying was abhorrence of sin, induced by sin, directed against sin.—Unto sin he died [
ôῇ ἀìáñôßᾳ
ἀðÝèáíåí
]. Explanations: ad expianda peccata (Grotius, Olshausen); or, ad expianda et tollenda p. (Tholuck [Reiche, Fritzsche], Philippi); [or, to destroy the power of sin (Chrysostom, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, Ewald]). Indefinite reference to death (Rückert, De Wette [Alford], and others). Meyer: His death paid the debt to sin, and now it can have no more power over Him. Hofmann: With His death, all passive relation to sin has ceased. Certainly the parallel in Rom_6:11 [
íåêñïὺò ôῇ ἁìáñôßᾳ
] seems to require a similar rendering. Yet we must not merely bring out prominently the repulsiveness of sin to the life of Jesus, but rather the repulsiveness of His life to sin—which repulsiveness was consummated in His death. Both together constitute the absolute separation.
Once [
ἐöÜðáî
]. Once for all. [The one sacrifice on the cross, as the sacrifice of the infinite Son of God, has infinite value both as to extent and time, and hence excludes repetition; comp. Heb_7:27; Heb_9:12; Heb_9:26; Heb_9:28; Heb_10:10; 1Pe_3:18.—P. S.]
But in that he liveth, or, the life that he liveth [
ὅ äÝ æῇ
,
æῇ ôῶ
̣
È åῶ
̣]. All His life, His whole glorious life, is for God. As His death consisted wholly in the ethical reaction against sin, so His life consists wholly in consecration to God, His honor, and His kingdom. [Christ’s life on earth was also a life for God, but in conflict with sin and death, over which He triumphed in the resurrection.—P. S.] Theophylact’s view is wrong: by the power of God.
Rom_6:11. Thus reckon ye also yourselves (account yourselves) dead indeed unto sin [
Ïὕôùò êáὶ ὑìåῖòëïãßæåóèå Ýáõôïὺò íåêñïὺò ìὲí ôῇ Üìáñôß ᾳ
]. A
ëïãßæåóèáé
of Christ does not stand as a parallel to
ëïãßæåóèå
(which is imperative, and not indicative, as Bengel would have it). It should rather be derived from the meaning of the death of Christ, according to Rom_6:10.
But alive unto God in Christ Jesus [
ἐí ÷ñ
.’
Éçó
.]. That is, in fellowship, or living union with Him (not merely through Him). It refers not simply to living to God (Rückert, De Wette [Alford]), but also to being dead to sin [Reiche, Meyer]. The
ëïãßæåóèå
requires of Christians that they should understand what they are as Christians, as members of Christ, according to the duties of common fellowship (Tholuck, Philippi); but not that they should attain to this condition by moral effort (Baur). That is, Christian life proceeds upon the believing presupposition of our completion in Christ; but this completion is not, reversely, brought to pass by a moral effort. Of course, the telic completion then meets the principial completion as the goal of effort.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. See the Preliminary Remarks on chaps. 6–8, and the inscription to the present section, chap Rom_6:1-11.
2. On Rom_6:1. The false conclusion which anomianism has ever derived from the fact that sin, in its complete development, occasions a still more glorious revelation of grace, rests on the erroneous supposition that the ethical and organic relation on both sides is a purely natural relation, which justifies to an altogether passive conduct in religious and moral things. This anomianism appears in Indian heathendom, as well as in modern humanitarianism, chiefly in a pantheistic form. But in Christian religiousness it appears only sporadically in this form; yet mostly, on the other hand, in dualistic forms. This is as much as to say, that if the flesh be indulged in its sphere, the spirit will likewise maintain the ascendency in its sphere; or, grace will overcome sin, and the like. But in every form this anomianism is to the Apostle an object of religious and moral abhorrence, which he expresses by
ìὴ ãÝíïéôï
. He opposes this false conclusion by the truth of the relation according to which the whole of Christianity is rooted in a thoroughly religious and moral act—the death of Jesus.
3. Baptism, in its full meaning, is a dying with Christ, which is potentially grounded in the dynamic meaning of His dying for all (2Co_5:14), and is actually realized in the dynamical genesis of faith. It follows from this that it is not only a partial purification of the living sinner, but his fundamental purification by a spiritual death and burial; that, further, it not merely represents sensibly and seals the single parts and acts of the Christian life, but its whole justification, in all its parts; and therefore that it is available, operative, and obligatory once for all. It follows, finally, that baptism is not simply an ecclesiastical act performed on the individual, when the individual is passive, but an ethical covenant-transaction between Christ and the one who is baptized; wherefore even the baptism of children presupposes in the family, the parents, or the sponsors, a spirit of faith which represents and encompasses the child.
From all this it will be seen how very much baptism is obscured and desecrated by regarding it either as a mere ceremony which certifies the Christian life of the person baptized, or, on the other hand, as a onesided and magical act which is supposed to create the Christian life.
[In opposition to the low and almost rationalistic views now prevailing in a large part of Protestantism on the meaning and import of Christian baptism, it may be well to refer to the teaching of the symbols of the Reformation down to the Westminster standards, and of the older divines, which is far deeper. Take, for instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. 28): “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his in grafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” (Comp. the Larger Catechism, Qu. 165, and Shorter Catechism, Qu. 94). Calvin says: “In treating the sacraments, two things are to be considered: the sign, and the thing signified. Thus, in baptism, the sign is water; but the thing signified is the cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and the mortification of the flesh. Both of these things are comprised in the institution of Christ; and whereas often the sign appears to be ineffectual and fruitless, that comes through men’s abuse, which does not annul the nature of the sacrament. Let us learn, therefore, not to tear apart the thing signified from the sign; though, at the same time, we must be on our guard against the opposite fault, such as prevails among Papists. For, failing to make the needful distinction between the thing and the sign, they stop short at the outward element, and there confidently rest their hope of salvation. The sight of the water, accordingly, withdraws their minds from Christ’s blood and the grace of the Spirit. Not reflecting that, of all the blessings there exhibited, Christ alone is the Author, they transfer to water the glory of His death, and bind the hidden energy of the Spirit to the visible sign. What, then, must be done? Let us not separate what the Lord has joined together. We ought, in baptism, to recognize a spiritual laver; we ought in it to embrace a witness to the remission of sins and a pledge of our renewal; and yet so to leave both to Christ and the Holy Spirit the honor that is theirs, as that no part of the salvation be transferred to the sign.”—Dr. John Lillie, in his excellent posthumous Lectures on the Epistles of Peter (New York, 1869, p. 252), in commenting on 1Pe_3:21, remarks: “But what, you will ask, is baptism, then, a saving ordinance? Certainly; that is just what Christ’s Apostle here affirms. Nor is this the only place, by any means, in which the New Testament speaks of baptism in a way that would now offend many good people, were it not that the perplexing phraseology is unquestionably scriptural. Recollect, for instance, Peter’s own practical application of his pentecostal sermon: ‘Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.’ And so Ananias in Damascus to the humbled persecutor: ‘Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.’ Paul, too, expressly calls baptism ‘the laver of the water’ by which Christ purifies His Church; and again, ‘the laver of regeneration’ by which God saves us. Frequently, also, he represents it as that by which we are united to Christ, and made partakers of His death and resurrection. Nay, Christ Himself, in sending forth His gospel among all nations, named baptism as one condition of salvation. We need not, then, hesitate to call it a saving ordinance. But how does it save? Just as any other ordinance saves—not through any inherent virtue of its outward signs and processes, but solely as it is a channel for the communication of Divine grace, and used in accordance with the Divine intention. On the one hand, while grace is ordinarily dispensed through ordinances, it is not confined to them, God being ever higher than His own appointments, and acting, when it so pleases Him, independently of them altogether. And, on the other hand, there must be on the part of man, besides the observance of formal precept, a yielding of his whole nature to the quickening and transforming influence. Take for an example that greatest ordinance, the Word of God. It ‘is able,’ says James (Rom_1:21), ‘to save your souls.’ But how? Not simply as it is preached, or heard, or read. That it may be ‘the power of God unto salvation,’ it must first be accompanied with the ‘demonstration of the Spirit,’ and then ‘received with meekness,’ and so become the ingrafted word. It is not the foolishness of preaching that saves; but ‘it pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.’ Now, just so with baptism: equally with the gospel itself, it is a Divine institution, whereby God ordinarily dispenses His grace. But its whole efficacy is due to that grace of God, and to our fitting reception and use of the rite—not to its mere external administration, by whatsoever priestly or apostolic hand.”—P. S.]
4. According to the Apostle, the burial as well as the death of Christ is represented in the meaning and effect of baptism. But as the burial of Christ not only seals His death, but also brings to pass the mysterious form of His transition to new life, so is it also with the world’s renunciation of the secret inward life of the Christian, which develops from a germ in mysterious growth, and is hid with Christ in God. (For fuller information on being baptized into the death of Christ, see Tholuck, p. 280, and Philippi, p. 205.)
5. Christianity is not only a new life, but a newness of life—a life which never grows old, but has ever a more perfect and imperishable renewal. But as the resurrection of Christ rests on a deed of the glory of the Father, so is it with the new birth of the Christian. See the Exeg. Notes.
6. Although believers are so intimately connected or grown together in a living organism as to appear to be living on the same vine or the same branch, they are nevertheless not grown together in the form of natural necessity. While unchurchly and unhistorical sectarianism ignores the organic internal character and historical structure of the Christian communion, hierarchism, on the other hand, disregards its ethical and free inward character. The life of Christ is repeated and reflected, after His death and resurrection, in His image—the Church; but not in the sense that it is quantitatively a supplement or substitute for Him, but that it completely unites itself qualitatively with Him as its living head. Because the Christian suffers death in Christ, rises, and is justified, Christ, as the crucified and risen One, lives in him. (See. Rom_8:29; Eph_1:4; Col_1:22-24; Col_2:11; Col_3:1, &c.)
7. The Apostle’s doctrine of the old man, the body of sin, the body of death, the law in the members, &c., shows a divinatory anticipation of the idea of the pseudo-plasmas, which has first appeared in the modern science of medicine. The old man is not the real man, nor the natural man, but sin, which has pervaded man as the plasmatic phantom of his nature, and, as an ethical cancer, threatens to consume him. (On the various theological interpretations of the old man, see Tholuck, p. 287. For a more complete interpretation of Paul’s pseudo-plasmatic ideas, see Exeg. Notes on Rom_7:24.)
8. Those who designate the real body of man as the source of sin, abolish the real idea of sin. Even the expression, that the body is not the source, but the seat of sin, is not correct in reference to the tendency of the wicked, and is only conditionally correct in reference to the life of the pious, in whom sin, as sinfulness, as a tempting propensity in the bodily part of the being, has its seat, and will continue to have its seat, until the old form of the body is laid off.
9. On being free from the debt of sin by death, see the Exeg. Notes. Death removes guilt—a definition which may be further formularized thus: the kind of death corresponds as justification to the kind of guilt; the depth of death corresponds to the depth of guilt. Therefore the death of Christ is the potential justification of humanity, because it plunged the absolutely guiltless and holy life into the absolute depth of the death of mankind.
10. On the expression body of sin, in Rom_6:6, compare the elaborate discussion by Tholuck, p. 288 ff. Likewise the same author, on Rom_6:9, or the relation of Christ to death; p. 306.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
On the relation of sin and grace: 1. It is true that the more powerful sin is, the more powerful is grace also; but it cannot be inferred from this, 2. That we should continue in sin. But, 3. We should wish, rather, not to live in sin, to which we died (Rom_6:1-2).—To what would continuance in sin lead? 1. Not to grace, for he who sins wilfully, trifles with grace; but, 2. To the terrible looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the rebellious (Rom_6:1-2). Heb_10:26.—Of Christian baptism. 1. What is it? a. a baptism into Christ; b. a baptism into the death of Christ. 2. Of what service is baptism to us? a. We die and are buried by it in repentance; b. we are raised by it in faith (Rom_6:3-4).—By baptism we enter into a double communion with Christ: 1. Of His death; 2. Of His resurrection.—Christians are, 1. Companions in the death of Christ; but also, 2. In His resurrection (Rom_6:5).—The crucifixion of our old man: 1. The manner and form of the old man; 2. his crucifixion.—The glorious immortality of Christ: 1. Its foundation; 2. Its importance to us (Rom_6:8-10).—We should reckon ourselves dead in relation to sin, but alive in relation to God; that Isaiah , 1. We should, by faith, be ever taking our stand-point more perfectly in Christ; and, 2. First of all in His death, but also in His life (Rom_6:11).
Starke: The suffering and death of a Christian are not to destruction, but a planting to life.
Hedinger: Under the grace of God we are not permitted to sin.—Müller: Life and death cling together; the more the old dies and goes to ruin, the more gloriously does the new man arise.—Either you will slay sin, or sin will slay you.—Where faith is there is Christ, and where Christ is there is life.
Gerlach: The baptism of Christians is a baptism into Christ’s death; that is, into the complete appropriation of its roots and fruits.
Besser: Paul places the gift of baptism first, and connects with it the duty of the one baptized.
Heubner: Recollections of our former covenant of baptism: 1. What has God done for us in baptism? 2. What have we to do in consequence of baptism?—Thomasius: The power of baptism in its permeation of the whole Christian life.—Florey: We are baptized into the death of Christ. Namely: 1. Upon the confession that He died for us; 2. On the pledge that we should die with Him; 3. In the hope that we shall live by Him.—Harless: The impediments to Christian life: 1. The pleasure of life, which is terrified at evangelical preaching on death; 2. The dulness and unbelief of spiritual death, which is terrified at evangelical preaching on life; while yet, reversely, 3. The pleasure, power, and pious conduct of the Christian rests upon the death which he has died for newness of life.
[Sherlock: As the death of Christ was not barely a natural death, a separation of soul and body, but a sacrifice for sin, to destroy the dominion of it, so our dying to sin is the truest conformity to the death of Christ; and as we must consider His resurrection as His living to God and advancement into His spiritual kingdom, so our walking in newness of life is our conformity to His resurrection, and makes us true subjects of His spiritual kingdom.—Henry: As natural death brings a writ of ease to the weary, so must we be dead to all the sins of our former rebellious life. We must be as indifferent to the pleasures and delights of sin, as a man that is dying is to his former diversions. As natural death cuts off all communication with life, so must sanctification in the soul cut off all communication with sin.—Macknight: We should daily recollect our baptism, and be stirred up by it to every religious act and thought possible, for it is this that sets before us the death and resurrection of Christ.—Clarke: The sacrificial death of Christ is the soil in which believers are planted, and from which they derive their life, their fruitfulness, and their final glory.—Hodge: It is those who look to Christ not only for pardon, but for holiness, that are successful in subduing sin; the legalist remains its slave. To be in Christ is the source of the Christian’s life; to be like Christ is the sum of his excellence; to be with Christ is the fulness of his joy.—J. F. H
