612
a Ch. xi 24 Er Gol. any Tim. iv. 16.
πλεονάσῃ; 2. μὴ γένοιτο.
VI. 1. ΤΙ οὖν ἐροῦμεν; " ἐπιμενοῦμεν 1 τῇ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα ἡ χάρις οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι {ήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ; 3. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι door ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν
A © ~ , b Col. ii 12. "Inoody,” εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν; 4. " συνετάφηµεν οὖν
νο A ~ / 3 \ , a? νά 3 αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον: ἵνα, ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη
Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν
1 For επιµενουµεν read επιµενωµεν with ABCDF.
2 Ἴησουν om. B and some cursives ; W. and H. bracket.
is frequent; see Weiss, Textkritik, S. 88.
Gospel in which a Divine righteousness is freely held out in Jesus Christ to the sinner’s faith, fills the next three chap- ters. In chap. vi. it is shown that the Christian, in baptism, dies to sin; in chap. vii., that by death he is freed from the law, which in point of fact, owing to the corruption of his nature, perpetually stimulates sin; in chap. viii., that the Spirit imparted to believers breaks the power of the flesh, and enables them to live to God.
Ver. 1. Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; What in- ference then shall we draw, i.e., from the relations of sin and grace expounded in v. 20f.? Are we to continue in sin (cf. xi, 22 f.) that grace may abound? Light- foot suggests “‘ the sin” and “‘ the grace” just referred to. The question was one sure to be asked by some one; Paul recognises it as a natural question in view of his doctrine, and asks it himself. But he answers it with an indignant negative.
Ver. 2. μὴ γένοιτο, cf. iii. 4. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ: the relative is qualitative : ‘‘ we, being as we are persons who died to sin’’. For the dative, see vers. 10, 11, and Winer, p. 263. To have died to sin is to be utterly and for ever out of any relation to it. πῶς ἔτι [ήσομεν; how after that shall we live in it ? tmpossible.
Ver. 3. But this death to sin, on which the whole argument turns, raises a question. It is introduced here quite abruptly ; there has been no mention of it hitherto. When, it may be asked, did this all-important death take place? The answer is: It is involved in baptism. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι κ.τ.λ.; the only alternative to accepting this argument is to confess ignorance of the meaning of the rite in which they had been received into the Church. ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν: we all, who were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into His death. The ὅσοι is not partitive but distributive: there is
4
t }
But this kind of omission
no argument in the passage at all, unless all Christians were baptised. The ex- pression βαπτισθῆναι els Χριστὸν does not necessarily mean to be baptised into Christ ; it may only mean to be baptised Christward, z.e., with Christ in view as the object of faith. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 2, and the expression βαπτισθῆναι εἰς τὸ ὄνομα του Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ. In the same way Βαπτισθῆναι εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ might certainly mean to be baptised with Christ’s death in view as the object of faith. This is the interpretation of Lipsius. But it falls short of the argu- mentative requirements of the passage, which demand the idea of an actual union to, or incorporation in, Christ. This is more than Lipsius means, but it does not exclude what he means. The baptism in which we are united to Christ and to His death is one in which we con- fess our faith, looking to Him and His death. To say that faith justifies but baptism regenerates, breaking the Chris- tian life into two unrelated pieces, as Weiss does—one spiritual and the other magical—is to throw away the Apostle’s case. His whole point is that no such division can be made. Unless there is a necessary connection between justifica- tion by faith and the new life, Paul fails to prove that faith establishes the law. The real argument which unites chaps. iii., iv. and v. to chaps, vi., vii. and viii., and repels the charge of antinomianism, is this: justifying faith, looking to Christ and His death, really unites us to Him who died and rose again, as the symbolism of baptism shows to every Christian.