Third Section.—The principial freedom of Christians from the service of sin to death, and their actual departure there from and entrance into the service of righteousness unto life by the power of the death of Jesus. (Believers should live in the consciousness that they are dead to sin, just as even the slave is freed by death.)
Rom_6:12-23
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in13[omit it in] the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye [Nor render] your members as instruments [or weapons] of unrighteousness unto [to] sin: but yield [render] yourselves unto [to] God, as those that are alive [as being alive] from the dead, and your members as instruments [or weapons] of righteousness unto [to]God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the [omit the] law, but under grace.
15What then? shall [may] we sin, because we are not under the [omit the]law, but under grace? God forbid. [Let it not be!] 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether [either] of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?17But God be thanked [thanks to God], that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have [omit have] obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine [teaching] which18was delivered you [whereunto ye were delivered;]. Being then [And being]made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded [rendered] your members [as] servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield [render] your members [as] servants to righteousnessunto holiness [or sanctification].20For when ye were the [omit the] servantsof sin, ye were free from [as regards] righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? [What fruit had ye then therefore? Things whereof ye are now ashamed;] for the end of those thingsis death. 22But now being [having been] made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness [or sanctification], and the endeverlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ [in Christ Jesus] our Lord.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Rom_6:12. Let not sin therefore reign [
Ìὴ ïὖí âáóéëåõÝôù ἡ ἁìáñôßᾳ
]. The Apostle conducts the following discussion in a hortatory manner, but without actually “entering the sphere of exhortation,” as Tholuck thinks. [The negative part of the exhortation, Rom_6:12-13, corresponds to
íåêñïὺò ìÝí ôῇ ἁìáñôßᾳ
, Rom_6:11; the positive part,
ἀëëὰ ðáñáóôÞóáôå
, Rom_6:13, answers to
æῶíôáò äὲôῶ
̣
Èåῶ
̣. So Meyer, Philippi, Alford, Hodge, &c.—P. S.] In a didactic respect he teaches that believers, by their transition from a state under the law to a state under grace, are first properly qualified and pledged to the service of righteousness, but are not free for the service of sin. That is, the true emancipation from outward legalism leads to an inward and free legalism, but not to Antinomianism. The
ïὖí
indicates that Rom_6:11 shall be elaborated. But as the previous section has shown what is conformable to the state of grace in itself, the present section shows what is according to freedom from the hard service of sin, which was presupposed by bondage under the law. Let not sin now reign (imp.). The true sovereign command of grace is opposed to the false sovereign command of sin, which is still present as a broken power (Luther: Observe that holy people still have evil lusts in the flesh, which they do not follow). Tholuck: “Philippi and Meyer correctly remark, that the Apostle does not expressly make any concessions to the concupiscentia [
ἐðéèõìßáéò
]; yet his admonition does not extend any farther than that lust must not become a deed. Sin is represented as ruler in the body, which ruler is served by the
ìÝëç
as organs.” That is, however, as the one who has been the ruler; and the methods are at the same time given for destroying the lusts of the flesh, that they—by the life in the Spirit, which also changes the members into instruments of righteousness—should not only be continually ignored, but also annulled. [Alford, in opposition to Chrysostom, who lays stress on
âáóéëåõÝù
, says: “It is no matter of comparison between reigning and indwelling merely, but between reigning and being deposed.”—P. S.]
In your mortal body [
ἐí ôῷ èíçôῷ ὑìῶí óὡìáôé
]. The
óù
̅
ìá
as
èíçôüí
must be distinguished, on the one hand, from the
óῶìá ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
of Rom_6:6, and, on the other, from the
óῶìáíåêñüí
of Rom_8:10. The
óῶìá ôῆò ἁìáñô
. is the pseudo-plastic apparent body of the old man, and, as the sensual side of all sinfulness, is devoted with it to destruction. The body is a
óῶìá íåêñüí
so far as it no more asserts itself as a second principle of life with, or even superior to, the principle of the Spirit, but yields itself purely to the service of the Spirit. But a
óῶõá èíçôüí
is the body so far as it, as the sensual organism of the earthly existence, has living organs, which shall be purified from the former service of sin and transferred to the service of righteousness. The
óῶìá
as a false principle is destroyed; the
óῶìá
as a secondary principle is dead, absolutely helpless; and the
áῶìá
as the organ of the spiritual principle is transformed into instruments of righteousness. It is called mortal, because its earthly propensity is toward sin and death, and it must be compulsorily brought into the service of righteousness, and exercised as for a spiritual military service in antithesis to the body of the resurrection, which will be the pure power and excellence of righteousness. Meyer is therefore correct in rejecting the interpretation, that
èíçôüí
is the same as
íåêñüí
(dead to sin; Turretin, Ernesti, and others).
But it may be asked, For what purpose is the adjective
èíçôὸí
?
1. Calvin: per contemptum vocat mortale [ut doceat totam hominis naturam ad mortem et exitium inclinare]. Köllner: It is dishonorable to make the spirit subject to this frail body.
2. Grotius: De vita altera cogitandum, nee formidandos labores hand sane diuturnos. [Chrysostom, Theodoret, Reiche, likewise suppose that the word reminds us of the other life, and of the shortness of the conflict.—P. S.]
3. Flatt: Reminder of the brevity of sensual pleasure. [Comp. Theophylact].
4. Meyer, obscurely: It is absurd to make sin reign in the mortal body, if the Christian is dead to sin and alive to God.
5. Philippi: To call to mind that the wages of sin is death. [Philippi takes
óῶìá
in opposition to
ðíåῦìá
.]
6. Tholuck, with Bullinger and Calixtus: Because sensual enticements are regarded as inseparable from the present sensuous organism, &c.
[7. Photius, Turretin, Ernesti:
èíçôüí
is figuratively = dead; i. e., corrupt (in which sense
íåêñüò
is often used).]
In all these definitions the relative dignity and estimate of the “mortal body,” which are definitely declared in Rom_6:13, are not regarded; the same members, which until then had been instruments of unrighteousness, henceforth being instruments of righteousness. The organism of earthly existence and action, which has become mortal by sin, is naturally an organism for the service of the spirit. By the dominion of sin in it, its morality became still more intense; but by the normal subjection of sin to the service of the Spirit, it shall be brought with it on the course toward everlasting life (Rom_6:22).
That ye should obey the lusts thereof [
åἰò ôü ὑðáêïýåéí ôáῖò ἐðéèõìßáéò áὐôïῦ
]. According to the sense, we must supply
ὑìᾶò
to
ὑðáêïýåéí
. To the end that ye obey its lusts. Even if the body were holy, its impulses would have to be subject to the dominion of the spirit; much more must they be subject to the spirit, since they are diseased, irritable, excitable, and inclined to self-assertion and demoniacal self-distraction.
Rom_6:13. Nor render your members [
Ìὴ ðåñéóôÜíåôå ôὰ ìÝëç ὑìῶí
]. Without doubt
ðáñéóôÜíåéí
has reference here to enlistment or delivery for military service. The Apostle is writing to Rome, the metropolis of military affairs, and therefore derives his figure from Roman customs (comp. Rom_13:12); just as he admonishes the Corinthians by expressions that call up the Isthmian games (1Co_9:24), and speaks to the spiritual city of Ephesus concerning the battle with spirits (Eph_6:11-12). Sin is already distinguished as the false ̀
âáóéëåýò
, who causes the false summons to be promulgated that the members shall be ordered into his warfare against righteousness.—Your members. If the body has ceased to be an independent principle, only its members come into consideration (in the good sense of the principle: Divide et impera). According to Erasmus, Philippi, and others, the intellectual forces and activities (perception, will, understanding) are included in the term. According to Meyer, only the physical members are meant (the tongue, hand, foot, eye, &c.), “for which, however, intellectual action is a necessary supposition. The physical members are plainly meant as organs and symbols of ethical conduct (different from the pseudo-plasmatic members; Col_3:5).
As weapons [or instruments] of unrighteousness [
ὅðëá ἀäéêßáò
]. Meyer says, of immorality. But, in war, people contend for the right or the wrong; therefore the expression
ἀäéêßá
must be strictly retained.—“̔́
Ïðëá
, according to the Vulgate, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, and Meyer: weapons. Calixtus and De Wette [Stuart, Reiche, Hodge, Ewald, Alford], on the other hand: instruments. The former construction can by no means be favored by appealing to the fact that the
âáóéëåýåéí
suggests warriors in service, for the trope is already obliterated (?) in that term; but it is favored by the consideration that the Apostle also elsewhere—when he uses
ὅðëá
in the ethical sense—employs it in the meaning of ‘weapons;’ Rom_13:12; 2Co_6:7; 2Co_10:4” (Tholuck). [Meyer insists that
ὅðëá
, while so frequently used in the sense of instruments by classical authors, is never thus used in the New Testament.—R.]
To sin [
ôῇ ἁìáñôßᾳ
]. Personified as the presumptively false ruler (see Rom_5:12 ff.).
But render yourselves [
ἀëëὰ ðáñáóôÞóáôå ἑáõôïýò
]. We must observe here a double antithesis: first, the aorist
ðáñáóôÞóáôå
in opposition to the previous present,
ðáñáóôÜíåôå
; second,
ἑáõôïýò
in connection with the following
÷áὶ ôὰìÝëç
, in opposition to the previous
ôὰ ìÝëç
. Both are quite in harmony with the antithesis. For believers have already fundamentally placed themselves as such in the service of righteousness, and in complete unity with the centre of their life, while the man in the opposite service of sin yields his members individually to a foreign power. At all events, the Christian, as the servant of sin, would be led into the contradiction of wishing to remain free himself while he placed his members at the service of sin. On the aorist
ðáñáóôÞóáôå
, comp. Winer, p. 293; and Tholuck, p. 311. (It denotes, “according to Fritzsche, what happens in the moment; according to Meyer, that which occurs forthwith; and according to Philippi, that which appears once;” Tholuck). Tholuck does not attach importance to the difference between the aorist imperative and the present imperative, since he concurs with those who disregard the temporal reference. We hold, with Herm. Schmidt (De imperativis; Wittenberg, 1833): “The imperative present commands to occupy one’s self with something; the imperative aorist, to accomplish something.” We add to this: That something already under consideration, or already undertaken, must be carried through. [The greater definiteness implied in the aorist must not be lost sight of, whatever view be adopted.—R.]
As being alive from the dead [
ὡò ἐê íåêñῶí æῶíôá
̣
ò
. The
ὡò
does not introduce a figure, but means rather (comp. Rom_6:11): regarding yourselves as those who are alive, almost = since you are. The phrase is a condensed description of the state of
ἑáíôïýò
. While the reference is undoubtedly ethical, yourselves must be taken in its widest meaning—body, soul, and spirit; and the implication is, that the whole man was once dead in sin (not to sin, as Rom_6:11), but now is alive; hence the pertinence of the exhortation. The reference to a field of battle is extremely doubtful, since it introduces a new figure so soon after Rom_6:2-11.—R.] Meyer: Those who, from dead persons, have become living. We assume the figure of a field of battle. The Christians lay there as dead or slain persons, and from dead persons they became alive; therefore they can and should go over to the banner of righteousness.
And your members [
êáὶ ôὰ ìÝëç ὑìῶí
. Hodge paraphrases and: and especially; but
êáß
seems to have an inferential force here.—R.] Because they have become themselves the warriors of God, they must also regard their members as God’s weapons, the weapons of righteousness for God.
Rom_6:14. For sin shall not have dominion over you [
ἁ ìáñôßᾳ ãὰñ ὑìῶí ïὐêõñéåý åé
]. The future, according to Melanchthon: dulcissima consolatio; erroneously regarded by Rosenmüller, Flatt, and others, as imperative. If we were to distinguish between the expression of confident supposition (Calov. and De Wette) and consoling promise (Chrysostom, Grotius, and Tholuck), we would prefer the former meaning, since the predominant train of thought throughout is didactic; yet the latter is also included.
For ye are not under law [
ïὐ ãÜñ ἐóôåὑðὸ íüìï í
]. Notwithstanding the preceding declaration in Rom_5:20, the expression continues to be an oxymoron, since the law is recognized as a barrier to sin. The sense is: freedom from the law gives you so little freedom to sin, that it is only by the exercise of grace upon you that your freedom from sin has begun. [Meyer: “Were they under the law, Paul could not have given this promise (i. e., in the preceding clause), for the law is the strength of sin (1Co_15:56), multiplies sin (Rom_5:20), in which aspect he intends to explain it further in chap. 7.” Law is here used in its widest signification. See Hodge.—R.]
Underthe dominion ofgrace [
ὑðὸêÜñéí
], which operates as an inward and new principle of life; while the law, as such, confronted the inward life only as an outward demand—threatening, arousing, and casting down; and in this form it presupposed the dominion of sin. Bondage under the law betokened bondage under sin, without being able to remove it; but it is removed by the dominion of grace, which has become an inward law of life. [The general idea undoubtedly is: “Ye are not under a legal dispensation, but a gracious one” (Stuart); yet the whole context forbids the exclusive reference to the method of justification. “Grace” is here used in its widest sense; “the Divine grace, shown in Christ, is the power under which ye stand” (Meyer), and which assures that ye shall not be under the dominion of sin.—”Gratia non solum peccata diluit, sed ut non peccemus facit” (Augustine).—R.]
Rom_6:15. What then? May we sin [
Ôß ïὖí
;
ἁìáñôÞóùìåí
. See Textual Note6Vr—R.]. According to Rückert, Meyer, and others, a new section should commence here; which Tholuck is right in opposing. The unity of the following with the foregoing is the fundamental thought: freedom from sin. Also the reference to the members continues throughout what follows (Rom_6:19). There is, however, a modification. Down to Rom_6:14 the antithesis was rather an ethical demand; but now a religious confirmation predominates. There, the new life was contrasted with the old as a voluntary entrance into the military service of righteousness over against the wicked, mercenary service of sin; here, the Apostle (speaking according to human analogy) presents the obligation of a new service in contrast with the old service. In the present verse Paul therefore brings out prominently the fearful consequence of the impure Antinomian view of the state of grace, in order to condemn it forthwith. To this earnest rejection of a horrible consequence, arising so frequently in ancient and modern times, the conjunctive
ἁìáñôÞóùìåí
corresponds better than the future. [Dr. Hodge well remarks: “Such has been the objection to the doctrines of grace in all ages. And the fact that this objection was made to Paul’s teachings, proves that his doctrine is the same with that against which the same objection is still urged.” This consideration should also prevent any limitation of “grace” to justification.—On
ìὴ ãÝíïéôï
, see Rom_3:4, Textual Note6, p. 112; comp. Comm. Gal., p. 49, foot-note.—R.]
Rom_6:16. To whom ye yield yourselves. With the know ye not, the Apostle points to the analogy of a principle of civil law; but he gives the application in the same sentence with it. To whom you once voluntarily gave and pledged yourselves for obedience [with a view to obedience; Alford] as servants (slaves), his servants ye are, and him ye obey; be it as servants of sin unto death, &c. Thus the two services preclude each other, since the masters deny each other (Mat_6:24). According to De Wette, Philippi, and Tholuck, the emphasis rests on
ἔóôå
; according to Meyer, on
äïῦëïé
. But the actual being and availing, with its consequence, is plainly the principal idea here; the being servants is at the same time connected with it. The
ῷὑðáê
. is explained by Reiche: to whom you have to obey. But this weakens the sense.
[Either, or. The disjunctive
ἤôïé
occurs only here in the New Testament. It lays special emphasis on the first alternative (Meyer). “Either this alone, or that; there is no third;” Hartung, ii. p. 356 f.—R.] The
ἤôïé
,
ἤ
, a strong either, or. Sin is personified here too. But the
ὑðáêïÞ
is personified in opposition to it as the
ðáñáêïç
(1Pe_1:14); and this is a beautiful expression for the Christian’s freedom in his obedience. Plainly, the Apostle here makes the freedom of choice precede the servum arbitrium; according to Rom_6:17, the former was bound a long time ago.
Of sin unto death [
ἁìáñôßáò åἰò èÜíáôï í
.] According to Fritzsche and Reiche, physical death is meant; but according to Meyer and Tholuck (the early view of which latter was that it is spiritual death), after Chrysostom, eternal death is spoken of. Meyer’s ground against the acceptance of physical death is that it is not the consequence of individual sin, and cannot be averted from the
äïῦëïò ὑðáêïῆò
—an argument which Tholuck accepts. But how could this occur, if there were not in earthly life a hundred-fold gradations of physical death? The death of the suicide, for example, is not to be explained simply by the fall of Adam. And thus spiritual death has its degrees also. Therefore the Apostle speaks of death in general (so also Philippi); as, according to 1 Corinthians 15, his thorn is sin, which has eternal death in prospect. Even the forms of the misery of sin which precede death are not to be excluded.
Of obedience unto righteousness [
ὐðáêïῆò åἰò äéêáéïóýíçí
.] Meyer, just as incorrectly, presents the
äé÷áéïóýíç
as the final result for the servants of obedience, in contrast with exclusively eternal death. The righteousness of faith is certainly assumed here; but the “uprightness which is adjudged to believers in the judgment” is gradually developed to its completion from obedience as the form of the new life. (On the construction of this verse with Rom_6:17-18 [Rückert and Reiche], by which Rom_6:16 is the propositio major, Rom_6:17 the minor, and Rom_6:18 the conclusion. Comp. Tholuck.)
Rom_6:17But thanks to God, &c. [
êÜñéò äὲôῷ Èåῷ
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.]. It may be asked, whether the first proposition is a mere introduction to the second as the principal proposition, so that the thanksgiving refers merely to obedience (Grotius, Estius, and others); or whether the thanksgiving refers to both propositions (Meyer, Tholuck). Tholuck says, in favor of the latter view: “Since
ἦôå
precedes, and
ìÝí
is wanting,
ἦôå
must be read with all the more emphasis; as 1Co_6:11 :
êáὶ ôáῦôá ôßíåò ἦôå
; Eph_5:8 :
ἦôå ãÜñ ðïôå óêüôïò
; and the immediate object of thanksgiving is that this time of the bondage to sin is past.” Evidently, the deliverance from the service of death is in itself already a satisfactory ground for praise and thanksgiving; yea, we naturally thank God for this with the greatest emotion (God be praised: delivered!), although this negative side of salvation cannot be regarded as separate from the positive.
But ye obeyed from the heart [
ὑðçêïýóáôå äÝ ἐêêáñäßáò
]. They were only conditionally voluntary in their bondage to sin; but they have become obedient from the very bottom of their heart.
That form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered [
åἰò ὓí ðáñåäüèçôå ôýðïí äéäáêῆò
]. The simplest solution of the attraction
åἰò ὃí ðáñåä
. is
ôῷ ôýðù
̣
ôç
̅
ò äéäá÷
.,
åἰò ὃí ðáñåäüèçôå
. Explanations:
1. Christian doctrine in general (the most common). Meyer says properly to the contrary: By this the expression
ôýðïò
would not be explained. Beza, indeed, explains it: A seal under which we are placed to receive its impression.
2. The doctrinal form of the gospel according to Paul, in opposition to anti-Paulinism (De Wette, Meyer, and others).
3. Œcumenius, Calvin, and others, have taken the word in the sense of the ideal which the doctrine holds up. For a still more untenable explanation by Von Hengel, see Meyer.
Tholuck first repudiates the presumption of anti-Paulinism. Yet it does, indeed, come into consideration, so far as it judaistically obscured the Pauline doctrine of free grace. Tholuck is then inclined to accept the explanation of Beza, and says “that it is by no means a common expression ‘to be delivered to a doctrine,’ even if, with Chrysostom and Olshausen, we consider at the same time the guidance of God as the active factor.” But the Apostle says, in Gal_1:6, what he holds concerning this type of doctrine in opposition to its obscurations.
God himself has committed them to this school of faith.
Ðáñåäüèçôå
is not middle (Fritzsche), but passive. [Winer, p. 245, seems to justify the change to the active form which the E. V. adopts, but there is a good reason for the choice of the passive, viz., the activity of God in committing them to this type of teaching. This thought appropriately follows “Thanks to God.” So Meyer, comp. Philippi.—R.] It follows, from what has been said, that the Church was already won over by the Apostle’s friends to the Pauline form of the gospel. But here the matter treated of is the essential element; the true energy of freedom from the law is the true energy of life in obedience unto righteousness.
Rom_6:18And being made free from sin [
ἐëåõèåñùèÝíôå òä Ýἀðὸ ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
. Aorist participle, referring to the definite act of deliverance. The clause stands in close connection with Rom_6:17, not as a conclusion (since
ïὖí
would occur in that case), but rather as an expansion.—R.]. The
äÝ
leads us to emphasize the expression: ye are enslaved, or made servants, &c. From the nature of the case, they knew the negative past—free from sin—earlier and better than this full consequence: ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom_6:19. I speak after the manner of men. The
ἀíèñþðéíïí
is analogous to the
êáô
’
ἄíèñù ðïí
in Rom_3:5. By slavery, which was in full bloom in Rome, the Apostle clearly explains to them the absolute force of the new principle of life.
Because of the infirmity of your flesh [
äéὰ ôὴí ἀóèÝíåéáí ôῆòóÜñêïò ὑìῶí
]. The flesh, or the sensuous and susceptible fulness of the body, is not only negatively weak, but also positively diseased and disturbed, both of which facts are expressed by the
ἀóèÝíåéá
. It may be asked, however, whether the Apostle means here the weakness of intelligence arising from this infirmity, by which he was compelled to represent to them the highest liberty under the figure of servitude (Bengel, Meyer, and De Wette, with reference to 1Co_3:1); or whether he meant their practical infirmity. The first view—that is, the reference to intelligence—appears also in the intimation that the Apostle announces a popular explanation (Vatable, Ernesti, and Rosenmüller). The latter view is favored by Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, &c.: “I require nothing which your fleshly weakness could not do,” or the like. The thought here could not be unintelligible to the Roman Christians; therefore the practical reference by all means preponderates; but not in the sense already given: “I require of you nothing too difficult; I require only the degree of obedience which you formerly rendered to sin.” The Apostle’s thought can rather be explained by what follows: “Yield your members servants,” &c. That is, even if, in your spiritual life, you feel that you are as freemen, you must nevertheless restrain your members strictly in discipline and obedience on account of the infirmity of your flesh. With all freedom, the question in reference to the bodily members is an appropriate ascetic discipline, such as the Apostle exercised in reference to his own body (1Co_9:27; comp. Gal_5:24); and therefore the figurative form of his expression does not merely correspond to the antithesis as denoting an unlimited obedience, but is established in a more special sense as the requirement of a strict discipline. This view obviates Meyer’s reminder:
ëÝãù
cannot mean require. The Apostle does not express a requirement, but a principle; by which analogy the Christian, in his freedom, has to make his bodily life absolutely subject. Lachmann [apparently Olshausen] and Fritzsche unjustifiably make a parenthesis of this clause,
ἀíèñþðéíïí
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
..
[With Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, Hodge, Alford, and many others, I am disposed to give a decided preference to the first view, viz., that this clause refers to what precedes. Commentators differ as to the force of the terms, but the following positions seem most tenable. Infirmity means intellectual weakness, growing out of their carnal condition (
óÜñêïò
, gen. auctoris.) The ethical reference is in
óÜñî
, not in
ἀóèÝíåéá
. On
óÜñî
, see chap. 7.—R.]
For as ye have rendered your members [
ὥóðåñ ãáñ ðáñåóôÞóáôå ôὰìÝëçὑìῶí
. is explicative (Tholuck, Meyer).
Äïῦëá
, used as an adjective, only here in New Testament (Hodge).—R.] To servitude. The apparently free pleasure was, in fact, a hard bondage under sin.—To uncleanness [
ôῇ ἀêáèáñóßᾳ
.] We hold that
ὰêáèáñóßá
has especial reference to the heathen portion (according to chap. 1.), and to iniquity,
ὰíïìßá
, on the contrary, to the Jewish portion (according to chap. 2). Meyer makes this distinction:
ἀêáè
. is sin as ethically defiling man; and
ἀíïì
. is sin as violation of the Divine law. Spener, De Wette, and others, distinguish thus: Uncleanness as defilement of themselves and of sin toward others. Tholuck considers
ἀêáè
. as species, and
ἀíïìßá
as the generalizing genus of sin. But the genus is declared in what follows. The
ἀ÷áè
., or fleshly sin in the narrower sense, and the
ἀíïìßá
, or violations of the law in the narrower sense, converge in the
ἀíïìßá
in the wider sense in guilt and condemnation before the law—which constitute the antithesis to
ἁãéáóìüò
. Therefore the explanation of unto iniquity,
åἰò ôὴí ἀíïì
., as from one sin to others, is incorrect (Œcumenius, Erasmus, Luther, and Grotius). The duality of the service of sin is worthy of note: a service in part to uncleanness and in part to insubordination. This could not be the case (according to the axiom that no man can serve two masters) if both were not connected.
Even so now render your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification [
ïὕôùò íῦí ðáñáóôÞóáôå ôὰ ìÝëç ὑìῶí äïῦëá ôῇ äéêáéïóõíῃå ἰò ἁãéáóìüí
]. Righteousness, as the new principle of life, should bear unconditional sway over the members; holiness should be the end and result. Meyer translates
ἁãéáóìüò
, holiness. To present holiness. Even Tholuck does not understand the word to mean an effort to be holy. He refers to Rom_6:22; but there
ἁãéáóìüò
is still distinct from the
ôÝëïò
as movement toward the
ôÝëïò
. He then quotes Heb_12:1-4. But this passage does not decide positively for the expression holiness. For completed holiness is not the preliminary condition for beholding the Lord, but its fruit. But, according to this very passage,
ἁãéáóìüò
cannot mean a striving; otherwise we would have to translate: strive after the striving of holiness. The expressions quoted by Tholuck from Basil and Œcumenius do not both prove the same thing. Œcumenius understands by the word, absolute purity; Basil, thorough consecration to the holy God. And this is the sense, ̔
Áãéáóìüò
means, first of all, the act of consecration (“According to Bleek, on Heb_12:14, it does not occur among the classics; but Dion. Halic., Rom_1:21, as in the Sept., has it of acts of consecration;” Tholuck), then the condition of being consecrated, or of holiness—an idea which does not perfectly coincide with the idea of completed holiness, and in which there is at once expressed the constant ethical movement, rather than a substantial and quiescent condition.
[On the lexical grounds Lange advances, sanctification is the preferable meaning—one which accords with the context. The issue (not, the end; the use of the phrase in Rom_6:22 is against this) is sanctification, which indeed results in perfect holiness, but comes into view here rather as a progressive state than as an ultimate one. Undoubtedly righteousness describes the principle, and
ἁãé
. the actual condition (Philippi), but in the sense given by Lange above. Meyer says the word always means holiness—never sanctification—in the New Testament. Compare, on the contrary, Bengel, Rom_1:4.—R.]
Rom_6:20. For when ye were servants of sin [
ὅôå ãὰñ äïῦëïé ἧôå ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
]. According to Fritzsche, the
ãÜñ
indicates the elucidation of Rom_6:19; but according to Meyer and Tholuck, it announces the establishing of it. It is, however, rather a continued elucidation of the preceding than an establishment of what follows. The Apostle answers the question: wherefore should the service of righteousness be a bond-service? Answer: because ye, who were formerly the servants of sin, became free in relation to righteousness. They were not the freemen of righteousness, as though it had made them free, but in relation to it; therefore the dative. The argument lies in the necessity of the complete reversion of the earlier relation. Since sin and righteousness preclude each other, they were free in relation to righteousness, because they were the bondmen of sin. Therefore, since they have now become free from sin, they must be the bondmen of righteousness. The fearful expression, free as regards righteousness [
ἐëåýèåñïé ἦôå
ͅ
ôῇ äéêáéïóýíç
, dative of reference], does not mean that righteousness had no claims upon you (Tholuck), but that it had no part in you. According to Koppe and Reiche, this is ironical; a position opposed by Meyer, and now also by Tholuck. There is certainly nothing ironical in the sentence, but there is in the word
ἐëåýèåñïé
. For we can no more accept it in a strict sense, than that they should be the slaves of righteousness. As this latter bondage is not only freedom, but also spontaneity, so was that freedom the deepest slavery. [That was a sorrowful freedom! Why find irony, then?—R.]
Rom_6:21. What fruit had ye then therefore? Things whereof ye are now ashamed [
ôßíá ïὖí êáñðὸí åἴ÷åôå ôüôå
;
ἐö
’
ïἷò íῦí ἐðáéó÷ýíåóèå
. See Textual Note10.—R.]. Here are two divergent constructions:
1. The question closes with
ôüôå
. Then follows the answer. (Thus the Pesh., Theodore of Mopsvestia, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, and many others, down to De Wette, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Philippi.) [So Alford, Webster and Wilkinson.]
2. The question continues to
ἐðáéó÷ýíåóèå
. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? Answer: None; for the final result of them (these things) is death (thus Chrysostom, Œcumenius, Beza, Calov., Grotius, &c.; Bengel, Meyer). [So Stuart, Hodge, Wordsworth.]
3. Reiche, in conjunction with the latter construction, explains thus: What deeds, of which ye are now ashamed, proceeded from your service of sin (namely, your bringing forth fruit)? This third construction is utterly untenable;
÷áñðüò
would then recur as plural in
ἐö
̓
ïἷò
, and
÷áñð
.
ἔ÷åéí
would mean: to bring forth fruit.
There are the following reasons against Meyer’s explanation: 1. First of all, he must insert an
ἐ÷åßíùí
before
ἐö
’
ïἷò
, and introduce a negation into the question, in order to explain the form of the answer,
ôὸ ãÜñ
, &c. 2. The question is, What fruit had ye then? not, What will ye have finally? 3. After the antithesis, it should be made emphatic that they had formerly no fruit, but rather pernicious and horrible deceptions, but that now they bring forth their fruit. 4. By Meyer’s construction,
ἐö
’
ïἷò íῦí ἐðáéó÷ýíåóèå
would be converted into an enervating remark. Meyer says, against explanation No. Rom_1:1. According to Rom_6:22, the question, in antithesis to Rom_6:21, is the having the fruit, and not the quality of it. This is wrong: the
÷áñðüò
is qualified,
åἰò ἁãéá
·
óìüí
. 2. Paul must have written
ôßáó ÷áñðïýò
or
ἐö
̓
ὧ
̣; as if the metaphorical idea of fruit, or gain, could not be represented in a variety of things. 3. Paul never ascribes
÷áñðïýò
to immorality; he attributes
ἔñãá
to it (Gal_5:19); he predicates
÷áñðüò
of only what is good (Gal_5:22; Eph_5:9; Php_1:11); indeed, he even designates the
ἔñãá ôïῦ ó÷üôïõò
as
ἄ÷áñðá
. But the Apostle says the same thing here, when he asks, What fruit had ye then? He even denies that they had real fruit—the true gain of life. On the other hand, they reaped, instead of true fruit, base deceptions, things of which they are now ashamed, and in which their future death is announced. Comp. Gal_6:8. Tholuck thinks that between the two constructions there is no demonstrative decision.
For the end of those things is death [
ôὸ ìὲí ãὰñ ôÝëïò ἐ÷åßíùí èÜíáôïò
]. Death must be understood here in its complete and comprehensive meaning; not eternal death exclusively (Meyer).
Meyer, with Lachmann, accepts
ìÝí
, and translates: for the end is indeed death; but without observing that this contradicts his own construction of the passage. It is only on the first construction that
ìÝí
has any meaning. [See Textual Note11. Having already accepted
ìÝí
on diplomatic and critical grounds, before carefully considering the exegetical results, I am now disposed to insist upon retaining it, and using it as decisive in regard to the construction of the verse.—R.]
Rom_6:22. But now having been made free from sin [
íìíὶ äὲ ἐëåõèåñùèÝíôåò ἀðὸ ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò
]. The evil relation has been completely reversed by faith.—And become servants to God [
äïõëùèÝíôåò äὲ ôῷ èåῷ
Notice the definiteness of the aorist participles.—R.]. God himself here takes the place of
äé÷áéïóýíç
, for their relation is now one of personal love.—Ye have your fruit unto sanctification [
ἔ÷åôå ôὸí êáñðüí ὑìῶí åἰò ἁãéáóìüí
. The present indicates fruit already. The sense: have your reward, seems unjustifiable here.
Åἰò
is consecutive here (Meyer), as I hold it to be in Rom_6:19 also. ̔
Áãéáóìὸí
, sanctification, as above, a progressive state, the immediate issue of the fruit of their personal relation to God, the final issue follows.—R.] They have fruit already in this new relation. Meyer: the
÷áéíüôçò æùῆò
, Rom_6:4.—Or the peace, Rom_5:1. But as, in the Old Testament, the firstlings served for the
ἁãéáóìüò
so, in the New Testament, this is done by the whole fruit of the life of faith. Tholuck translates here also: holiness [without excluding the idea of sanctification, however.—R.]
And the end everlasting life [
ôὸ äὲ ôÝëïò æùὴí áἰþíéïí
]. That is, ye have everlasting life. Meyer says, this possession is still an ideal one. It is rather an essential one; Joh_3:36; Mat_5:8; Heb_12:14; 1Jn_3:2. [We must take “life” here in its most extended sense, as “death” in Rom_6:21. Meyer’s difficulty arises from his limiting the meaning of these two words throughout. We have already eternal life in germ; in its fulness it is the
ôÝëïò
of all our fruit and fruitfulness. Not, however, by natural, inherent laws of development. The next verse sets forth anew the two ends, and the inherent difference.—R.]
Rom_6:23. For the wages of sin is death [
ôὰ ãὰñ ὀøþíéá ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò èÜíáôïò
]. Tholuck: “̓͂
Ïøþíéïí
, and in the plural
ὀøþíéá
, wages of the servant and the soldier; therefore possibly, though not necessarily, a continuation of the figure of military service; comp.
ὅðëá
, Rom_6:13. Under this supposition, Grotius, Bengel, and Wetstein made
÷Üñéóìá
to mean the donationum militare. Yet the technical word for such a gift is
ἡἐðßäïóéò
(Fritzsche).” The figurative character of the antithesis lies in the fact that sin pays its soldiers and slaves miserable wages (Erasmus:
ὀøþíéá
, vile verbum), namely, death; but God (as King) pays His children and servants, not a reward, but the honor-gift of His favor, which is eternal life. Tholuck defines the antithesis thus: as far as sin is concerned, her due is according to justice; but, on the other hand, what is received by the believing acceptance of God’s saving blessings can be regarded only as a gift—namely, the imparting of salvation, the eternal completion of life. This antithesis is correct so far as it is not pushed beyond the proper measure, so that justice does not appear as mere arbitrary authority. In the present passage, however, this antithesis recedes; for the question is not concerning the righteous punishment of sin, but the way in which sin itself, regarded as false dominion, pays the reward. The gift of God also, at all events, presupposes the merit of believers, but yet remains a gift, because the whole idea of gain falls to the ground where merit is not considered, and where even the preliminary conditions of good conduct are bestowed as a gift. For the idea of wages, see 1Co_9:7. “The plural (more usual than the singular) may be explained from the manifold elements of original natural reward, and from the numerous coins of later money-wages;” Meyer.
In Christ Jesus our Lord [
ἐí ×ñéóôῷ Éçóïῦ ôῷ êõñßù
̣
ἡìῶí
. Stuart follows the inexact sense of the E. V.: “through the redemption or atonement of Christ.” True; but not what Paul says here. In Christ Jesus is an expression which has a full, rich meaning of its own. In this case, we may ask whether the phrase limits God, or gift of God, or is used more generally. Meyer says: in Christ it rests, is causally founded, that the gift of God is eternal life. Webster and Wilkinson: in Him, by virtue of His relation to Deity, God is the giver; in Him, we, as united with Him, having an interest in Him, are recipients.—R.]. He is not only the source, but also the central treasure of our eternal life.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. It is certainly not accidental that the word to rule,
âáóéëåýåéí
, occurs so frequently in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom_5:14; Rom_5:17; Rom_5:21; Rom_6:12); likewise the word weapons,
ὅðëá
, here, and in Rom_13:12. See the Exeg. Notes, where reference is made to the Apostle’s similar allusions to local relations in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as well as in the Epistle to the Ephesians. His epistles in general abound in these evidences of truth to life. In the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, we see very plainly the Galatian fickleness; in the Epistles to the Corinthians, we see the city of Corinth portrayed; and in the Epistle to the Colossians, the Phrygian popular spirit, &
