圣经注释书

CHAPTER 6

Romans 6:1. ἐπιμένωμεν] approved by Mill, Griesb. and others; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Fritzsche. The Recept[1367] is ἐπιμενοῦμεν, contrary to decisive evidence (A B D E F G, min[1368]); also contrary to K P א, min[1369], which have ἐπιμένομεν. Brought into conformity with ἐροῦμεν.

Romans 6:11. After μέν Elz. has εἶναι against preponderating evidence. Supplementary addition, which is also variously placed. Notwithstanding Tisch. (8) has adopted it, but before νεκρούς, following B C א*.

τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν also, which Elz. has after Ἰησοῦ, is, according to decisive testimony, not genuine (an ascetic addition).

Romans 6:12. ὑπακ. ταῖς ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ] so also Lachm. and Tisch. following A B C* א, min[1370], and most vss[1371] and Fathers. D E F G Clar. Boern. Iren. Tert. Vict. tunun., have ὑπακούειν αὐτῇ. Preferred by Rinck, and adopted by Scholz and Fritzsche. The reading of Elz.: ὑπακ. αὐτῇ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ has least evidence. The most strongly attested ὑπακ. ταῖς ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ appears to have been the original. From it the ὑπακ. αὐτῇ arose through αὐτῇ being marginally annexed to ταῖς ἐπιθ. αὐτ. as a gloss, to render it apparent, that in the case of the lusts of the body the ἁμαρτία (original sin) was to be understood. This gloss was adopted partly instead of τ. ἐπιθ αὐτοῦ (so ὑπακ. αὐτῇ arose); and partly along with τ. ἐπιθ. αὐτοῦ, which latter course occasioned a connecting ἐν, and gave rise to the Recept[1372].

Romans 6:15. ἁμαρτήσομεν] A B C D E K L P א, min[1373] and Clem, have ἁμαρτήσωμεν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Fritzsche, and rightly on account of the decisive evidence in its favour.

Romans 6:21. τὸ γὰρ τέλος] Lachm. reads τὸ μὲν γὰρ τέλος in agreement with B D* E F G א* § 73, Syr. p[1374] Theodoret. Rightly: how easily might the μέν solitarium be lost under the hands of unskilled copyists! Comp Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 313.

[1367] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1368] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1369] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1370] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1371] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[1372] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1373] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1374] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

Chs. 6–8. Moral results from the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.[1376] Chapter 6 shows how it, so far from furthering immorality, on the contrary excludes the latter from the Christian state, and for the first time rightly establishes, promotes, and quickens true morality. Chap. 7 shows the same in relation to the law; and ch. 8 sets forth the blessed condition of those who as justified are morally free.

[1376] Thus Paul certainly passes over from the field of the gaining salvation to that of its moral preservation; but not, as Th. Schott thinks, with a view to show the non-necessity of the law for the latter and so to justify his acting as Apostle to the Gentiles. In ch. 6 the law in fact is mentioned not as unnecessary, but as the contrast to the state of grace (ver. 14 f.); and ch. 7 is occupied with something far loftier than its non-necessity. Of the justification of his apostolic working among the Gentiles, and of its bearing on the law, the Apostle says nothing.

Ch. Romans 6:1-14. Continuance in sin in order that grace may abound—that is a thing utterly opposed to the fellowship with Christ, into which we are brought by baptism; for we are thereby rendered dead unto sin, and translated into a new moral life. Correspond therefore (Romans 6:12-14) to this new relation (your ideal, Romans 6:14) by your conduct.

Romans 6:1. Οὖν] In consequence of what is contained in Romans 5:20-21.

With ἐπιμένωμεν κ.τ.λ[1377] Paul proposes to himself, as a possible inference from what he had just said “de pleonasmo gratiae” (Bengel), the problem, whose solution in the negative was now to be his further theme—a theme in itself of so decisive an importance, that it does not require the assumption of a Jewish-Christian church (Mangold) to make it intelligible. On the introduction in interrogative form by τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, comp Dissen, a[1379] Dem. de cor. p. 346 (ΤΊ ΟὖΝ ΦΗΜῚ ΔΕῖΝ;). As however the “what shall we say then?” inquires after a maxim in some sort of way to be inferred, the deliberative “shall we continue, etc?.” could at once follow directly, without any need for supplying before it a repeated ἐροῦμεν, or ΜῊ ἘΡΟῦΜΕΝ ὍΤΙ, and for taking ἘΠΙΜΈΝΩΜΕΝ in a hortatory sense (van Hengel, Hofmann).

ἐπιμένειν τῇ ἁμαρτ., to continue in sin, not to cease from it. Comp Romans 11:22 f.; Colossians 1:23; 1 Timothy 4:16; Acts 13:43; Xen. Hell. iii. 4, 6; Oec. 14, 7 : ἐπιμένειν τῷ μὴ ἀδικεῖν.

[1377] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1379] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 6:2. Μὴ γένοιτο] Let it not be (see on Romans 3:4), namely, that we continue in sin.

οἵτινες] as those who, contains the reason (of the πῶς ἔτι κ.τ.λ[1381]). See on Romans 1:25. The relative clause is put first with rhetorical emphasis, in order at once to make the absurdity of the maxim plainly apparent. Comp Kühner, II. 2, p. 1104; Bernhardy, p. 299.

ἀπεθάν. τ. ἁμαρτ.] The dying to sin, which took place by baptism (see Romans 6:3), is the abandonment of all life-communion with it experienced in himself by the convert (Colossians 2:20; Galatians 2:19; Galatians 6:14; 1 Peter 2:24). comp Theodoret: ἠρνήθης, φησὶ, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ νεκρὸς αὐτῇ γέγονας. This moral change, which has taken place in him, has put an end to the determining influence of sin over him; in relation to it he has ceased to be still in life. Similar is the Platonic conception in Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 13 : “mori etiam dicitur, cum anima adhuc in corpore constituta corporeas illecebras philosophia docente contemnit et cupiditatum dulces insidias reliquasque omnes exuit passiones.” Michaelis, Cramer, Storr, Flatt, Nitzsch (de discr. revelat. etc. II. p. 233) take the sense to be: we who on account of sin have died (with Christ), i.e. who have to regard ourselves as if, on account of sin (or Nitzsch: “ad eripiendam peccati vim mortiferam”), we had ourselves endured what Christ suffered. But in this view the main point “with Christ” is arbitrarily imported; and see Romans 6:11.

πῶς] denotes the possibility which is negatived by the question. The having died to sin, and the living in it (as the life-element, comp Galatians 2:20), are mutually exclusive.

ζήσομεν] purely future. How is it possible that we shall be living in it (in its fellowship) still (ἔτι), namely, at any future time whatever after the occurrence of that ἀπεθάνομεν? The very weakly attested reading preferred by Hofmann, ζήσωμεν, is only a case of mechanical conformity with ἐπιμένωμεν in Romans 6:1.

[1381] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 6:3. Ἢ] or, if this (Romans 6:2) should still appear doubtful. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 61; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 132. Comp Romans 7:1.

ἀγνοεῖτε] presupposes an acquaintance with the moral nature of baptism; it must in fact have been an experimental acquaintance. With this knowledge, how absurd would be that ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ! Comp 1 Corinthians 6:2.

ὅσοι] all we who, not stronger than οἵτινες, but put differently; not characterising, but designating the whole collectively.

ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χ. ʼΙ. εἰς τὸν θάν. κ.τ.λ[1387]] we, who were baptized in reference to Christ Jesus[1388] (we who through baptism became those specifically belonging to Him), were baptized in reference to His death; i.e. we were brought through our baptism into the fellowship of His death; so that we have a real share ethically in His death, through the cessation of all our life for sin. Theodore of Mopsuestia: τὸ βάπτισμα κοινωνοὺς ποιεῖ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ambrosiaster: “cum baptizamur, commorimur Christo;” Bengel: “perinde est, ac si eo momento Christus pro tali homine, et talis homo pro Christo pateretur, moreretur, sepeliretur.” This interpretation, namely of the spiritual fellowship produced through baptism (prepared for by the repentance and πίστις that preceded baptism, accomplished by the baptism itself, Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:11 f.; Titus 3:5), is required by the context in Romans 6:2 (ἈΠΕΘΆΝΟΜΕΝ), Romans 6:4 (ΣΥΝΕΤΆΦΗΜΕΝ), and Romans 6:5 f. It is therefore not the idea of imitation (Reiche, Köllner, following Grotius and others), but that of the dying along with (συσταυροῦσθαι, Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20; comp 2 Corinthians 5:14) unto which, i.e. in order to the accomplishment of which in us, we were baptized. The efficient cause of this fellowship of death is the divine grace, which forgives sin and grants the Holy Spirit to him who becomes baptized; the means of this grace is baptism itself; the appropriating cause is faith, and the causa meritoria the death of Christ.[1390] Observe here also, however, that the spheres of justification and sanctification are not intermixed. The justified person becomes sanctified, not the converse. In baptism man receives forgiveness of sins through faith (comp Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16); justified by which he also becomes partaker of the virtue of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament unto new life (Titus 3:5). “Liberationem a reatu peccati vel justificationem consequitur liberatio a dominio peccati, ut justificati non vivant peccato, sed peccato mortui Domino,” Calovius. Compare ἀπελούσασθε, ἡγιάσθητε 1 Corinthians 6:11, and the remarks thereon. The latter is the fellowship in dying and living with Christ, which is accomplished in baptism by the operation of the Spirit; see on Galatians 3:27; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 19:2 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 345 f. But it is of course obvious that the idea of the baptism of children was wholly foreign to this view of the Apostle based on experience.

[1387] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1388] Βαπτίζειν εἰς never means anything else than to baptize in reference to, in respect to; and the more special definitions of its import are furnished simply by the context. Comp. on Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 10:2; Galatians 3:27.—On εἰς Χ. Ἰησοῦν comp. Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. Undoubtedly the name “Jesus” was named in baptizing. But the conception of becoming immersed into Christ (in Rückert and others, and again in Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 343) is to be set aside, and is not to be supported by the figurative expression in Galatians 3:27. The mystic character of our passage is not produced by so vague a sensuous conception,—which moreover has all the passages against it in which βαπτίζειν is coupled with ὄνομα (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; 1 Corinthians 1:13)—but is based simply on the ethical consciousness of that intimate appertaining to Christ, into which baptism translates its recipients.

[1390] Namely as the atoning death (v. 6, 19, 21), the appropriation of which shall be attended with the saving effect of a new life belonging to Him, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. If this death thus becomes “the end, once for all existent, of the relation of the world to God as determined by sin” (Hofmann), that is the divinely willed ethical result, which faith obtains from the ἱλαστήριον, inasmuch as the believer realises his being dead to the power of sin with Christ, who in His expiatory death underwent the killing power of sin and therewith died to that power (vv. 9, 10). Comp. ver. 10 f.

Romans 6:4. An inference from Romans 6:3, by which the impossibility indicated in Romans 6:2 is now made completely evident.

Buried with Him therefore (not merely dead with Him, but, as the dead Christ was buried in order to rise again, buried with Him also) were we, in that we were baptized into His death. The recipient of baptism, who by his baptism enters into the fellowship of death with Christ, is necessarily also in the act of baptism ethically buried with Him (1 Corinthians 15:4), because after baptism he is spiritually risen with Him. In reality this burial with Him is not a moral fact distinct from the having died with Him, as actual burial is distinct from actual dying; but it sets forth the fulness and completeness of the relation, of which the recipient, in accordance with the form of baptism, so far as the latter takes place through κατάδυσις and ἀνάδυσις (see Suicer, Thes.), becomes conscious successively. The recipient—thus has Paul figuratively represented the process—is conscious, (a) in the baptism generally: now am I entering into fellowship with the death of Christ, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ βαπτίζομαι; (b) in the immersion in particular: now am I becoming buried with Christ; (c) and then, in the emergence: now I rise to the new life with Christ. Comp on Colossians 2:12.

εἰς τὸν θάνατον] is necessarily, after Romans 6:3, to be joined with διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσμ., in which case, since one can say βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς τι, the connecting article was not required (comp on Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 3:13); consequently: through baptism unto death. It is not however specially the death of Christ that is again meant, as if αὐτοῦ were again annexed; but the description is generalised, agreeably to the context, in a way that could not be misunderstood. Whosoever, namely, as Paul has just set forth in Romans 6:3, has been baptized unto the death of Christ, has in fact thereby received baptism unto death; i.e. such a baptism that, taken away by it from his previous vital activity, he has become one belonging to death, one who has fallen under its sway. This however is just that relation of moral death, which, in the concrete, is the fellowship of the death of Christ. The connection with συνετάφ., in which εἰς τ. θάνατον is sometimes referred to the death of Christ (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and sometimes to the death of sin (Calovius, Wolf, Winzer, Progr. 1831), is erroneous, for this reason, that whosoever is buried does not come into death, but is in it already; and hence “the becoming buried into death” would yield quite an incongruous conception. This also applies against the expedient tried by Hofmann of making θάνατος here the death-state of Christ, unto which we were given up. Even in this view that incongruity continues:[1394] but after Romans 6:3 θάνατος can only be again death simply, not state of death (as if Paul could not have conveyed that sense by εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, or ΕἸς ΤΟῪς ΝΕΚΡΟΎς, or in some other suitable way). Observe, moreover, how Paul here also, since he has the bodily resurrection of Christ in view,[1395] mentions specially the correlative of the burial that preceded it. Comp on 1 Corinthians 15:4.

ἽΝΑ] purpose of the συνετάφημεν.… θάνατον, and this statement of purpose has the chief importance, corresponding to the Πῶς ἜΤΙ ΖΉΣΟΜΕΝ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ in Romans 6:2.

ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΔΌΞ. Τ. ΠΑΤΡΌς] through the majesty of the Father was the resurrection of Christ brought about. The δόξα, כָּבוֹד, the glorious collective perfection of God, certainly effected the raising of Jesus chiefly as omnipotence (1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Ephesians 1:19 f.); but the comprehensive significance of the word—selected with conscious solemnity, and in highest accordance with the glorious victory of the Son—is not to be curtailed on that account (in opposition to Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors). According to the invariable representation of the N. T. God is the raiser of Jesus (Romans 4:24, Romans 8:11; Acts 2:24; Acts 2:31 ff. et al[1397]; see on John 1:19); but yet the δόξα of God does not in this case any more than elsewhere in the N. T. denote God Himself (Langer, Judenth. in Paläst. p. 210 ff.). Erroneously however Theodoret, Theophylact, and several Fathers explain: διὰ τ. δόξ. τ. πατρ., τουτέστι διὰ τῆς οἰεκίας θεότητος. Linguistic usage admits as in itself allowable the view of Castalio and Carpzov: “in paterna gloria resurrexit,” so that διά would be used of the state; to which also van Hengel inclines. But, had Paul desired to express a relation corresponding to the ἐν καιν. ζ. in the apodosis, he must have inserted ἐν also; since the conception of the raising of Jesus through the Father was one of so solemn importance, and all the more appropriate here, since believers also owe their moral resurrection-life to the Father of Christ (Ephesians 2:10 al[1398]); it is in fact the life of regeneration. Besides, the paterna gloria was attained by Christ only through His ascension. See on Luke 24:26.

ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς] in a new (moral) constitution of life;[1399] a stronger way of bringing out the idea of ΚΑΙΝΌΤΗς, than ἘΝ ΖΩῇ ΚΑΙΝῇ would be, for which it does not stand (in opposition to Grotius, Koppe, Reiche, and others). See Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 309]. Comp Romans 7:6. According to van Hengel ΖΩῆς is the genitive of apposition: “in novo rerum statu, qui vita est.” But this qui vita est is self-evident; and therefore the emphasis must remain upon καινότητι. This newness is the ethical analogue of the new estate in which Christ was alive from the dead, conceived in contrast to the ΠΑΛΑΙΌΤΗς which prevailed prior to baptism. Comp Romans 6:8.

[1394] This cannot be got rid of by any artificial turns (like that of Hofmann: “His burial removed Him from the sphere of sin expiated through His death.… whereby His existence in the world of sin came to a complete close”). Certainly the θάνατος of the Lord, even regarded as a state, occurred at that great moment when He cries His τετέλεσται and departs; and in nowise has He been translated into the θάνατος through His burial.

[1395] i.e. His resurrection as respects the buried body; so that the latter no longer remained in the grave, but came forth thence living and immortal. That the body of Christ “vanished” and “made room” for a new pneumatic body (Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul u. Petr. p. 133), is an unsuitable conception, seeing that the pneumatic body must necessarily have been assumed even in death, and independently of the burial of the old body. Thus the resurrection of Jesus would be nothing else than the change of body that took place in death.

[1397] t al. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1398] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1399] τὴν καινὴν πολιτείαν τὴν κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον, ἐκ τῆς τῶν τρόπων γινομένην. Ὃπου γὰρ ὁ πόρνος γένηται σώφρων καὶ ὁ πλεονέκτης ἐλεήμων καὶ ὁ τραχύς ἥμερος, καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἀνάστασις γέγονεν, Chrysostom.

Romans 6:5. Confirmatory elucidation (γάρ) of the previous ἵνα ὥσπερ κ.τ.λ[1402]

σύμφυτος, which in classic authors usually means innate, naturally belonging to (see the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex. III. p. 313, Eur. Andr. 955; comp 2Ma 3:22), is here grown together (Theophr, de caus. plant. v. 5, 2; LXX. Zechariah 11:2; Amos 9:14). This figurative expression represents the most intimate union of being, like our coalescent with anything (qui or quod coaluit cum aliqua re). Plat. Phaedr. p. 246 A; Aesch. Ag. and Klausen in loc[1404] p. 111. In the classics συμφυής is the more usual form for this idea, especially with γίνεσθαι (Plato, Soph. p. 247 D, Tim. p. 45 D, p. 88 A; Plut. Lycurg. 25). Hence: For, if we have become (through baptism, Romans 6:3-4) such as are grown together with that which is the likeness of His death, (comp on Romans 1:23), i.e. persons, to whose nature it inseparably belongs to present in themselves that which resembles His death, so also shall we be grown together with the likeness of His resurrection. On ὁμοίωμα comp Romans 1:23, Romans 5:14, Romans 8:3. The rendering of σύμφυτοι by complantati (Vulgate, Luther), in. connection with which Chrysostom, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, and others explain the figure of the plant by the fruits of the ethical burial, is linguistically incorrect, as if the word came not from συμφύω, but from συμφυτεύω (comp φυτευτός, Plat. Rep. p. 510 A, ἀφύτευτος, Xen. Oec. 20, 22). The interpretation engrafted (Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius à Lapide, Klee) is likewise without linguistic evidence, and does not suit the abstract τῷ ὁμοιώματι.

τῷ ὁμοιώμ. τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ] i.e. the condition corresponding in similarity of form to His death, which has specifically and indissolubly become ours. This ethical conformity with His death, however, the growing together with which took place through our baptism, is just that moral death to sin, Romans 6:3-4, in which the spiritual communion in death with Christ consists. τ. ὁμ. τ. θ. α. is to be joined with σύμφυτοι (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Koppe, Tholuck, Rückert, Reiche. Olshausen, de Wette, Philippi, and others; now including Hofmann). Others however take it as the dative of the instrument, and supply τῷ Χριστῷ to σύμφυτοι: “for, if we have entered into close union with Christ through the ὁμοίωμα of His death,” etc. So Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Fritzsche, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Baur, van Hengel, and Reithmayr; also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 344. Nevertheless it is arbitrary to separate τω ὁμ. from σύμφ. γεγ., seeing that it stands beside it and in a structural respect presents itself most naturally with it, and also as belonging to it yields a very appropriate sense; and on the other hand to attach to σύμφ a word which Paul has not put in, and which he must have put in, if he would not lead his readers astray. Still more mistaken is the view of Bisping, that σύμφ. belongs to τοῦ θανάτ. αὐτοῦ, and that τῷ ὁμοιώμ. comes in between them instrumentally. Hofmann has rightly abandoned this tortuous interpretation, which he formerly followed. Comp on the right connection Cyril, Catech. iii. 12; and even Martyr. Ignat. 5 : ἐμαυτὸν.… σύμφυτον θέσθαι τῷ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ὁμοιώματι.

ἀλλὰ καί] but also. ἀλλά, for the speedy and more emphatic introduction of the contrasted element, as frequently also in the classics, at the head of the apodosis; see on 1 Corinthians 4:15; Colossians 2:5.

τῆς ἀναστάσεως] cannot, in keeping with the protasis, depend directly upon the σύμφυτοι to be again understood (Erasmus, Calvin and others; including Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette and Krehl), but only upon the τῷ ὁμοιώματι to be supplied (Beza, Grotius, Estius, and many others; including Winzer, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, and Hofmann), so that when completed it would run: ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ σύμφυτοι ἐσόμεθα. The former view is indeed likewise unobjectionable grammatically, for σύμφυτοι may also stand with the genitive (Plat. Phil. p. 51 D, Def. p. 413 C, Bernhardy, p. 171); but the latter is suggested by the context, and presents itself easily enough and without harshness. Further, it is self-evident, after Romans 6:4, that in τ. ἀναστ. we are not to think of the resurrection of our body (Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, Cornelius à Lapide, and others; comp also Ewald), or of this as included (Koppe and Klee).

ἐσόμεθα] receives its only correct interpretation from its relation to, and bearing on, the clause expressive of the purpose, ἵνα.… ἐν καιν. ζ. περιπ in Romans 6:4, according to which it must express the necessarily certain. Matthiae, p. 1122; Kühner, II. 1, p. 148, ed. 2. Compare πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν Romans 6:2. The sense of willing (“ut reviviscamus curabimus,” Fritzsche) is not suggested by the connection; nor is that of a summons (Olshausen, Rückert, and older expositors); but it is rather the expression of what shall certainly be the case, as the consequence of the σύμφυτοι γεγόν. τῷ ὁμοιώμ. τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ assumed as real in the protasis; it cannot be otherwise; with the having become σύμφυτοι this ἐσέσθαι is given; with that fact having begun and taken place is posited this further development, which necessarily attaches itself thereto.

[1402] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1404] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 6:6. Τοῦτο γινώσκοντες] Definition to τῆς ἀναστάσ. ἐσόμεθα, which objective relation is confirmed by the corresponding experimental conscious knowledge (comp εἰδότες in Romans 6:9): since we know this; not a mere continuation of the construction instead of κ. τοῦτο γινώσκομεν (Philippi), as the participle is never so used, not even in ch. Romans 2:4; nor yet to be conceived as in the train of the ἐσόμεθα (Hofmann), as if Paul had expressed himself by some such word as ὥστε, or with the telic infinitive (γνῶναι). Respecting τοῦτο see on ch. Romans 2:3.

ὁ παλ. ἡμ. ἄνθρ.] i.e. our old ego—our personality in its entire sinful condition before regeneration (John 3:3; Titus 3:5). Comp Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9. From the standpoint of the καινότης πνεύματος, constituting the Christian self-consciousness, the Christian sees his pre-Christian ethical personality as his old self no longer to be found in life, as the person which he had formerly been Comp on 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10.

συνεσταυρώθη] namely, when we were baptized and thereby transplanted into the fellowship of death. See on Romans 6:3-4. This special expression of the being killed with Him is selected simply because Christ was slain on the cross; not as Grotius and others, including Olshausen, hold: “quia sicut per crucem non sine gravi dolore ad exitum pervenitur, ita illa natura (the old man) sine dolore non extinguitur.” Compare Umbreit. The simple ἵνα καταργ. is not at all in keeping with this far-fetched reference, which is not supported by Galatians 2:19 f.; but just as little with the reference to the disgrace of crucifixion (Hofmann).

ἵνα καταργ.] Design of the ὁ παλ. ἡμ. ἄνθρ. συνεστ.: in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, i.e. the body belonging to the power of sin, ruled by sin.[1413] Comp Romans 7:24. The old man had such a body; and this σῶμα was to be destroyed, put out of existence by the crucifixion with Christ; consequently not the body in itself, but in so far as it is the sin-body, becoming determined by sin in its expressions of life to sinful πράξεσι (Romans 8:13). The propriety of this interpretation appears from Romans 6:7; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 6:23. Comp on Colossians 2:11. If we explain it merely of “the body as seat or organ of sin,” the idea would not in itself be un-Pauline, as Reiche thinks; for the σῶμα would in fact appear not as the soliciting agent of sin (not as the ΣΆΡΞ), but as its vehicle, in itself morally indifferent, but serving sin as the organic instrument of its vital activity (see Stirm in the Tübing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1834, 3, p. 10 ff.); but καταργηθῇ is decisive against this view. For this could neither mean destroyed, annihilated, because in fact even the body of the regenerate is a σῶμα τ. ἁμαρτίας in the sense assumed (Romans 6:12); nor even evacuaretur (Tertullian, Augustine), rendered inactive, inoperative, partly because then the idea of σάρξ would be assigned to ΣῶΜΑ, and partly because it is only the conception of the destruction of the body which corresponds to the conception of crucifixion. Others take the corpus peccati figuratively; either so, that sin is conceived under the figure of a body with significant reference to its being crucified (so Fathers in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1215, Piscator, Pareus, Castalio, Hammond, Homberg, Calovius, Koppe, Flatt, and Olshausen; also Reiche, conceiving sin as a monster); or, similarly to this mode of apprehending it, in such a way as to find the sense: “the mass of sin,” τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν διαφορῶν μερῶν πονηρίας συγκειμένην.… κακίαν, Chrysostom. So Ambrosiaster, Pseudo-Hieronymus, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius à Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Reithmayr and others; so also Calvin, who however takes the corpus peccati as a designation of the natural man itself, which is a massa, ex peccato conflata. Philippi also ultimately comes to the massa peccati, which is conceived as an organism having members, as σῶμα; so likewise Jatho and Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 460, ed. 5; also Baur (” as it were the substance of sin”). But all these interpretations are at variance partly with the Pauline usus loquendi in general, and partly with Romans 6:12 in particular, where ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμ. σώματι by its reference to our passage confirms “our view of the ΣῶΜΑ. The right view is held substantially by Theodoret, Theophylact 2, Bengel and others, including Tholuck, Köllner, de Wette, Rückert, Fritzsche, Maier, Nielsen, Hofmann and Weiss; whereas Baumgarten-Crusius, and also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 113, convert σῶμα into the idea of state of life.

τοῦ μηκέτι δουλ. Κ.Τ.Λ[1416]] “finem abolitionis notat,” Calvin. The sin, which is committed, is conceived as a ruler to whom service is rendered. See John 8:34.

[1413] It is self-evident that Paul might have said also τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, as in Colossians 2:11. But his whole theme (ver. 1) suggested his saying τῆς ἁμαρτίας. He might even have-written merely ἡ σάρξ, but τὸ σῶμα was given in the immediate context (συνεσταυρ.)

[1416] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 6:7. Establishment of the τοῦ μηκέτι δουλ. ἡμ. τῇ. ἁμ. by the general proposition: whosoever is dead, is acquitted from sin.

ὁ ἀποθαν.] is explained by many of ethical death. So Erasmus, Calovius, Homberg, Bengel and others, including Koppe, Flatt, Glöckler, Olshausen, Tholuck (who regards sin as creditor), de Wette (“whosoever has died to sin, he—alone—is acquitted from sin”), Rothe, Krehl, Philippi (whosoever is ethically dead, over him has sin lost its right to impeach and to control, just as Bengel explains it), also van Hengel, Jatho, and Märcker. But neither the nature of the general proposition, which forms in fact the major premiss in the argument, and of which only the application is to be made (in the minor proposition) to ethical dying; nor the tautological relation, which would result between subject and predicate, can permit this explanation. The conception of ethical dying recurs only in the sequel, and hence σὺν Χριστῳ is added to ἀπεθάνομεν in Romans 6:8, so that Paul in this development of his views draws a sharp distinction between the being dead in the spiritual (Romans 6:6; Romans 6:8) and in the ordinary sense. We must therefore explain Romans 6:7 as a general proposition regarding death in the ordinary sense, and consequently regarding physical death (so rightly Hofmann), but not specially of the death by execution, through which sin is expiated (Alethaeus, Wolf and others; with this view they compare δεδικ., the juristic expression: he is justified; see Michaelis’ note); for any such peculiar reference of the still wholly unrestricted ἀποθανών is forbidden by the very generality of the proposition, although for δεδικαίωται passages might be cited like Plat. Legg. II. p. 934 B; Aristot. Eth. v. 9.

δεδικ. ἀπὸ τ. ἁμ.] “The dead person is made just from sin,” i.e. he is in point of fact justified and acquitted from sin, he is placed by death in the position of a δίκαιος, who is such thenceforth; not as if he were now absolved from and rid of the guilt of his sins committed in life, but in so far as the dead person sins no more, no longer δουλεύει τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, from whose power, as from a legal claim urged against him during his life in the body, he has been actually released by death as through a decree of acquittal. Comp Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 98 f.; Th. Schott, p. 260, and Hofmann; also Baur, neut. Theol. p. 161 f.; Delitzsch, Illustrations to his Hebrew version, p. 84. Just for this reason has Paul added ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (comp Acts 13:38; Sir 26:29; Test. XII. patr. p. 541), which would have been quite superfluous, had he taken δεδικαίωται, justus constitutus est, in the dogmatic sense of his doctrine of justification. The proposition itself, moreover, is an axiom of the popular traditional mode of view, which Paul uses for his purpose as admitted. This axiom has also its relative truth, and that partly in so far as the dead person has put off the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός with which he committed his sins (Colossians 2:11), partly in so far as with death the dominion of law over the man ceases (Romans 7:1), and partly in so far as in death all the relations are dissolved which supplied in life the objects of sinning.[1419] For the discussion of the question as to the absolute truth of the proposition, in its connection with Biblical anthropology and eschatology, there was no occasion at all here,[1420] where it is only used as an auxiliary clause, and ex concesso. Comp 1 Peter 4:1. Usteri mistakenly explains it: by death man has suffered the punishment, and thus expiated his guilt. For that Paul does not here express the Jewish dogma: “death as the punishment for sin expiates the guilt of sin” (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 283 f.) is proved partly by the irrelevancy of such a sense to the context (γάρ); and partly by its inconsistency with the doctrines of the Apostle as to justification by faith and as to the judgment, according to which death cannot set free from the guilt-obligation of sin. Ewald makes a new idea be brought in at Romans 6:7 : “Even in common life, in the case of one who is dead, the sins of his previous life cannot be further prosecuted and punished, he passes for justified and acquitted of sin.…; if in addition sin as a power has been broken by Christ (Romans 6:9 f.), then we may assuredly believe,” etc., Romans 6:8. But γάρ in Romans 6:7 indicates its connection with what goes before, so that it is only with the δέ in Romans 6:8 that a new thought is introduced. Besides, we should expect, in the case of the assumed course of thought, an οὖν instead of the δέ in Romans 6:8. Finally, it is not clear how that rule of common law was to serve as a joint ground for the faith of becoming alive with Christ.

[1419] The Greek expositors—who already give substantially our explanation—have confined themselves to this point. Chrysostom: ἀπήλλακται τὸ λοιπὸν τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν νεκρὸς κείμενος. Theodoret: τίς γὰρ ἐθεάσατο πώποτε νεκρὸν ἢ γάμον ἀλλότριον διορύττοντα, ἢ μιαιφονίᾳ τὰς χεῖρας φοινίττοντα κ.τ.λ. Melancthon compares the proverb: νεκρὸς οὐ δάκνει, Beza the saying of Anacreon: ὁ νεκρὸς οὐκ ἐπιθυμεῖ, Grotius that of Aeschylus: οὐδὲν ἄγλος ἄπτεται νεκρῶν. Comp. Soph. O. C. 955.

[1420] Compare Melancthon: “Ceterum hoc sciamus, diabolos et omnes damnatos in omni aeternitate horribilia peccata facere, quia sine fine irascuntur Deo,” etc.