σι.
10. ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανε, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ὃ δὲ Ch, Lh τῷ Θεᾷ.
II. οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ A νεκροὺς μὲν evar! τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, Lavras δὲ τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ
- , = ~ 2 τῷ Κυριφ ημών.
9 > / ε ς ’ > ~ ~ 12. My οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ
1 γεκρους µεν ειναι N®KLP; ειναι νεκρους µεν NBC; om. ADF 17. 2 rw κνριω ημων; om. ABDF, and edd.; ins. NCKLP
again; in that life death had dominion over Him, because He made Himself one with us in all the consequences of sin; but now the dominion of death has expired. The principle of ver. 7 can be applied to Christ also: He has died, and the powers which in the old relations had claims upon Him—death, e.g.—have such claims no more.
Ver. το. This is expanded in ver. 1Ο. Ὁὃ yap ἀπέθανε, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ: the 6 is ‘cognate’ accus. Winer, Ῥ. 209. “‘ The death that He died, He died to sin once for all.” The dative τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ must be grammatically the same here as in vers. 2, 11, but the inter- pretation required seems different. While He lived, Christ had undoubtedly rela- tions to sin, though sin was foreign to His will and conscience (2 Cor. v. 21); but after He died these relations ceased ; sin could never make Him its victim again as at the Cross. Similarly while we lived (t.e., before we died with Christ), we also had relations to sin ; and these relations likewise, different as they were from His, must cease with that death. The difference in the reference of the dative is no doubt an objection to this interpretation, and accordingly the attempt has been made to give the same meaning to dying to sin in Christ’s caseasin ours, andindeedto make our dying to sin the effect and reproduc- tion of His. ‘‘The language of the Apostle seems to imply that there was something in the mind of Christ in dying for us that was the moral equivalent [italics ours] to that death to sin which takes place in us when we believe in Him, something in its very nature fitted to produce the change in ας. Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 100 f. He died, in short, rather than sin— laid down His life rather than violate the will of God; in this sense, which is an ethical one, and points to an experience which can be reproduced in others under His influence, He died to sin. ‘His death on the Cross was the final triumph of His holiness over αἱ] those desires of the flesh that furnish to
man unregenerate the motive power of His life.” But though this gives an ethical meaning to the words in both cases, it does not give exactly the same ethical meaning; a certain disparity remains. It is more in the line of all Paul’s thoughts to say with Holtzmann (N. T. Theol., ii., 118), that Christ by dying paid to sin that tribute to which in virtue of a Divine sentence (kpipa, ν.
16) it could lay claim, and that those therefore who share His death are like Himself absolved from all claims of sin for the future. For ἐφάπαξ, see Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. ΙΟ. The very idea of death is that of a summary, decisive, never-to-be-repeated end. 6 δὲ ff κ.τ.λ. ‘* The lite that He lives He lives to God”.
Ver. 11. In this verse the application is made of all that precedes. The death with Christ, the life with Christ, are real, yet to be realised. The truth of being a Christian is contained in them, yet the calling of the Christian is to live up to them. We may forget what we should be; we may also (and this is how Paul puts it) forget what we are. We are dead to sin in Christ’s death; we are alive to God 1n Christ’s resurrection ; let us regard ourselves as such zn Christ Yesus. The essence of our faith is a union to Him in which His experience becomes ours. This is the theological , reply to antinomianism.