23-Righteousness in relation to the life of actual holiness
Righteousness in relation to the life of actual holiness
“Life-giving acquittal” (v. 18), we have seen, is the prime fruit of our Redemption. The believer is δίκαιος; he is ‘right with God.’ He has attained through the grace of God and the work of Jesus Christ to an entirely new relation. At this point there must needs crop up the problem of antinomianism. That problem is faced forthwith. Let us hear the Apostle explain why ‘believers in Jesus Christ,’ who technically are not ‘sinners,’ may not be ‘sinners’ in fact.
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν (with which we start) is a mere formula of transition.
6:1-4. “And what shall we say (about this)? Are we to stay on in sin, that Grace may have more scope?”
“Out upon the horrid thought! People who have died to sin … how shall we any longer live in it? Can it be you do not know, that all of us who have been baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into His death? By baptism into His death we shared His burial. That, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory of the Father, so we too should make our walk in a life completely new.” The transition is abrupt but (as I suggested above) the question inevitable. If “righteous” meant ‘righteous in fact,’ it could hardly arise at all. It is just because it does not, that we have to put the question. Before we were ‘justified,’ we were in ‘sin’; now that we are ‘justified,’ are we to “stay on” (Php 1:24 will illustrate this meaning) in sin “that Grace may multiply”? Up till now we have never heard of ‘grace’ as ‘multiplying.’ That was what Sin did, not Grace, in chap. 5. Yet we can easily understand why πλεονάζειν is used here. Grace περισσεύει per se; it ὑπερπερισσεύει, contrasted with multiplied transgression. It is not that it becomes more rich-for it is supremely rich anyhow; it only gains more scope (or, at least, might be so regarded, on this very impious hypothesis).
Something has been said already on this topic in chap. 3:8. The first answer the Apostle makes is that the thing is inconceivable. In his phrase we have “died to sin”; just as in Galatians 2:19 he spoke of having “died to Law.” This is a figurative way of saying that, so far as sin is concerned; we are no longer existent. It has nothing to do with us, nor we with it. That being so, that we should ‘continue’ in sin is flatly impossible. This conception of ‘death to sin’ is worked out upon new lines. Our ‘death to sin’ is associated with our mystical union with Christ. The pathway to this union is the rite of Baptism. The εἰς Χριστόν (to be distinguished very carefully from the εἰς in εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) must be taken as implying the idea of incorporation. The expression ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς τὸν θάνατον is difficult, all will allow. The whole point of Baptism is to denote that we have a share in the death of Christ; that is to say, in the merit of it. But this is hardly what the Apostle is saying here. The conception of ‘burial,’ and of ‘resurrection to new life,’ is of course familiar enough, in connexion with the sacrament; and while in warmer climes the practice of immersion obtained, the symbolism was speaking. The difficulty of attaining to any clear conception of the meaning of our passage lies in the fact that Christ’s own death and Christ’s own resurrection were actual, historical: while the ‘death’ and ‘resurrection,’ wherein we partake by baptism, are ideal, mystical. If it had been “were baptised into death,” we should have felt no perplexity. For if Baptism implies new ‘life,’ it must imply ‘death’ as well. It is the αὐτοῦ which contains the whole of the difficulty. And we cannot comfort ourselves with the thought that it only means “were baptised into a share in what His death achieved”; for that would not be ‘on all fours’ with the purely mystical burial and mystical resurrection whereof we go on to speak.
We must leave it, then, uncomprehended; or only dimly grasped. As for v. 4, the εἰς τὸν θάνατον must be taken as depending on the διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος. The idea of the Christian’s death and the Christian’s resurrection, mystically shared with Christ in Holy Baptism, recurs in Colossians 2.
It is only in this passage that the resurrection of Christ is said to be the work of the ‘Glory of the Father.’ We should notice, as I hold, the tense of περιπατήσωμεν. In the section that follows next, we are conscious of the interweaving of two mystical deaths, for us, and also of two resurrections. It makes the thought hard to trace; but that cannot be helped. Let us do what we may with it.
Verse 5 is so very puzzling that before I attempt a rendering I should like to discuss it a little. To start with, σύμφυτος is only here in N.T.; and that makes it difficult to be certain as to its meaning. It ought to mean ‘born with,’ or else ‘akin to’ (to judge by classical usage); but there is large probability that the notion of ‘birth’ has receded, as ideas often do in compounds, and that the notion of ‘union’ or ‘oneness’ is really prominent. The Vulgate renders the term by ‘complantati.’ Si enim complantati facti sumus similitudini mortis ejus is the very curious version it presents. This ‘complantati’ has made its way into our English. “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death …” is what 1611 says. Tyndale however used ‘graft,’ instead of ‘plant.’ But all our renderings are almost as obscure as the venerable Latin. Contemplate the Vulgate’s dative ‘similitudini’! Whatever can it mean? and what can be its construction?
If σύμφυτος means ‘one with,’ as seems not improbable, it must be wholly out of the question to couple it directly with τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. One cannot be ‘one with a likeness of death,’ even if one paraphrases the ‘death likeness,’ so as to make it in itself convey some significance. It remains, apparently, that ὁμοιώματι should be either a dative of manner or a dative of respect. That is, we must render it either ‘by the likeness’ or ‘in the likeness.’
Suppose we put it thus:
6:5-7. “For if we have become ‘one with Him,’ by a death that is like His death, then so shall we also be, by a resurrection like His resurrection. For this we can apprehend, that our ‘old self’ shared His crucifixion, to the end that the sinful body might wholly be made away with; that so we might no longer be thralls of Sin. For a man that has once died has paid his penalty-Sin has no more claim on him.” This paraphrase conveys what I think to be St Paul’s meaning. I dare not even say ‘what I believe.’ For truly a man must be exceptionally self-confident to be sure about the matter. With regard to ὁμοίωμα, it might be worth while observing that in N.T. Greek it seemingly represents what we may call a substantial likeness. I mean it is no faint shadow, but a something which is really ‘like.’ What ‘death’ it is that is meant, one can only guess. Is the ὁμοίωμα a reference to the ‘symbolical’ death of Baptism-the act, that is, of immersion? Or is it to the mystery of our union with Christ on the cross (St Paul’s familiar conception, as in συνεσταυρώθη below)? Moreover, must we carry on the idea of ὁμοίωμα to the Resurrection too? Or is it, as it were, a sort of ‘zeugma’? and are we to suppose that the genitive ἀναστάσεως depends upon some idea of ‘partnership,’ conceivably latent in σύμφυτοι? For this last there is much to be said. It would give a good sense:
“For if we have been one with Him in a death that is like His death, so shall we also be ‘partners’ in His resurrection.”
Yet again (to return once more to the thought of the ὁμοίωμα) could such a term as ὁμοίωμα, by any chance, apply to the mystical association of the believer in Christ’s crucifixion? It hardly seems possible.
We cannot (do what we will) avoid some sense of perplexity; for, as I said just now, there are two ‘deaths,’ the death of the Font, and the mystical ‘con-crucifixion’ (if I may coin a word); and also two ‘resurrections,’ the rising to new life now, and the rising to new life hereafter; all four of them present together before the Apostle’s thought. And it is very hard indeed to disentangle them.
Verse 5, accordingly, I must leave unsettled: I do not know whether the words should be expanded thus:
εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ Χριστῷ, τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ· ἀλλὰ καὶ σύμφυτοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ … or whether it should be thus:
εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ Χριστῷ, τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ· ἀλλὰ καὶ (κοινωνοὶ αὐτῶ) ἐσόμεθα τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ … where the words in brackets are to be regarded as derived from σύμφυτοι. Only, one thing I cannot believe-I cannot believe that St Paul could talk of us as being “united to the likeness of His death.” For, frankly, it would not be sense. And Holy Scripture cannot gain by being presented to readers in an unintelligible form. The next verse we might render as follows;
6:6. “For this we can see, that our old self shared His crucifixion, that the sinful body might be done away; so that we should no longer be slaves of Sin. For he that has died the death has paid the penalty; Sin touches him no more.” In τοῦτο γινώσκοντες (which is equivalent to τοῦτο γὰρ γινώσκομεν) we have a Pauline participle of a kind that is not uncommon. The peculiar force of the present stem, which does not mean ‘know’ of course, must be carefully preserved. The ‘old man’ is the ‘unregenerate self’; that ‘self’ that is, or was, before the καινὴ κτίσις came. Συνεσταυρώθη calls to mind the great saying in ‘Galatians,’ Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι (Galatians 2:20). “The body of sin” is a striking phrase. We have another very much like it in the very next chapter (7:24). Php 3:21 and Colossians 2:11 afford other like locutions. Sin, after the words τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν (how well the old schoolmaster recalls the Thucydidean instance in the Grammars of that infinitive with τοῦ introducing a purpose!) must be spelt with a capital Verse 7 is of exceptional interest. Death cancels all obligations. S. quotes a Rabbinical saying, ‘When a man is dead, he is free from the Law and the Commandments.’ And this, no more, may be the meaning here. But I am half inclined to suspect that ἀποθανών is really passive, and that it ought to be rendered “he that has died the death.” Plainly, when the penalty of sin is paid, Sin can have no more claim. In that case, in ὁ ἀποθανών we should see a reference to ὁ συνεσταυρωμένος (to any convinced believer). Then would the ‘forensic’ sense, which must be detected in δεδικαίωται, be strikingly brought out. What a curious thing it is to think that in good Scots the familiar term for execution is ‘justification’! ‘He was justified yesterday’ meant ‘He was hanged yesterday.’ The ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, which closes the verse, must be taken in a ‘pregnant’ sense, “He is quit, and safe from Sin.”
What St Paul says in this verse, and indeed in somewhat more than this verse only, is very aptly illustrated by 1 St Peter 4:1. “Forasmuch then as Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm ye yourselves also with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας” (some MSS. read ἁμαρτίαις, which-I should fancy-must be wrong).
There is just the same appeal to the death that is shared with Christ; to the mystical participation in the great event of Calvary.
6:8-11. “But if we died with Christ, we believe we shall also share His life; being sure that Christ, raised from the dead, is subject to death no more. Death is no more His lord.”
“Because the death He died, He died for Sin once for all; whereas the life He lives, He lives for God.”
“So do you also reckon yourselves as dead to sin, but alive for God in Christ Jesus.”
These verses open with a characteristic variation. It might very well have been συναπεθάνομεν … συνζήσομεν. Observe how in this sentence the mystical joint-death of the Cross is coupled with the ‘real’ joint-life we anticipate through union with the Ever-living. S. says, and truly enough, that ‘different senses of life and death lie near together with St Paul’; mentioning ‘physical’ and ‘ethical.’ But it is even more than that. There is ‘mystical’ death and moral ‘death,’ and the ‘death’ which corresponds to ‘life eternal.’ And the ideas are interwoven, as if the three different ‘deaths’ (and also different ‘lives’) were all upon one plane. Εἰδότες means rather more than “knowing.” I believe “being sure” is about right for it. Intuitive knowledge is the root idea of the word. “Being raised” is incorrect, but virtually inevitable. “Dieth no more” will not do for οὐκέτι ἀποθνήσκει. It means “is no more one who dies.” Compare the use, in Hebrews 7:8, “for here tithes are taken by men liable to die” (ἄνδρες ἀποθνήσκοντες). “Death is no longer His master.” The idea of bondage underlies. While the Lord Christ was on earth, as ‘Son of Man,’ ‘Sin’ was, in a sense, His master. Not that He sinned Himself; but that in Him was fulfilled the mysterious prophecy of Isaiah 53.
It was because ‘Sin’ was His master that the Lord Jesus had to die. For Sin and Death share one throne. The curious ὁγὰρ ἀπέθανεν (in which it would appear that the ὅ is a sort of ‘cognate,’ or ‘internal,’ accusative) can be illustrated from ‘Galatians,’ ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί (Galatians 2:20).
There “the life I now live in the flesh” is a perfectly sound rendering. R.V. reproduces it here, a manifest improvement on the old and familiar version. The ἐφάπαξ (as in Heb.) carries the idea of ‘never again.’ And now what about the dative (τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ)? How is that to be understood? Christ might have ‘died to sin,’ in the same sense that we should ‘die to it’-that is, have done with it for ever. But it seems more reasonable (though it cannot be considered certain, with an author like St Paul) to take τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ as being the same sort of dative as the τῷ Θεῷ just after. I have rendered “He lives for God.” The plain person might be puzzled to explain what that might mean. I think it does mean this: that He lives eternally, as it were, for the Divine pleasure. He died accordingly to gratify Sin; He lives because God so wills it. For the moment we lose sight of the thought of His own Godhead; of Himself as being ‘the Life.’ But then, we have to bear in mind that regularly in N.T. the resurrection is described both by a passive verb ἐγείρεσθαι (where the Power of the Father lies behind), and a neuter verb ἀναστῆναι. So we need not be surprised at the Life of the Everliving being here attributed to a ‘something not Himself.’ St Luke 20:38 may illustrate the dative. There, in Christ’s ever memorable dictum, we are told, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν.” That dative does not mean, at least I think not, “All live by Him.” For that would be a transgression of grammatical decorum. The Deity may not be spoken of in the special form of speech which belongs to instruments-just instruments. It must mean “live, because He will have them live.” So in the passage before us the idea presented is this. Said Sin (to the Sinless One) “You shall die; I will have you die; it is my right you should.” Thereon the Innocent Sufferer bowed His head, and died-only ἐφάπαξ. Then came the voice of God; “You shall live, live eternally; so is My will.” And He lives for evermore. That is how I take the passage. Right it may be, or may not be. But, at least, it is coherent. In v. 11, inevitably, the meaning of our dative shifts. Do what you will you cannot keep one ‘dative sense’ all through. As in words there often is a double entendre; so is there in cases also. It may be reproduced here, by the retaining of ‘for’ throughout. We are to reckon ourselves as “dead for sin,” in the sense “dead, so far as sin goes” (that is, non-existent for it, or him). And as for the words “for God”; while it is conceivable that we ‘live,’ as Christ ‘lives,’ because it is God’s will; I think it is more likely we live in a different sense. We live to do His will: we live for His service. And this ‘life’ (the whole-hearted Apostle will never let us forget), this life is ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. There the ἐν is not instrumental. It is the ἐν of the ‘Vine and the Branches,’ the ἐν which signifies the vital union.
We pass on naturally:
6:12-14. “Let not then Sin be king in your mortal body so that you should obey his desires; neither hand over, I crave you, your members to sin, as tools of unrighteousness. But present yourselves to God, as men risen to new life; and your limbs (hand over) to God as tools of righteousness. For Sin must not be your lord. You are not under law, but under Grace.” The moral here enforced applies to the life of the world that is. It is for the θνητὸν σῶμα. There, if anywhere, Sin might easily ‘be king’: ‘reign’ is not decisive enough. ‘Lusts,’ to our modern ear, goes something too far. The ἐπιθυμίαι of Sin are like the ἐπιθυμίαι of anyone else (even the Lord Jesus Christ says ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα). But they are such desires as are proper to one’s nature. Sin’s desires’ are, from his nature, desires that are wholly evil. The verb παριστάνειν is used with some range of meaning. ‘Set beside,’ ‘show,’ ‘lead up to’ (in 1 Corinthians 8:8 even ‘commend’) are some of its significations. The παρὰ suggests a ‘presence’; the ἱστάναι means ‘set.’ I have Englished it differently in the two members of the sentence. The truth is, the change of the tense makes it all but inevitable. Here, as in Romans 12:1, we have the peremptory tense linked with the Name of God. It is just conceivable that a semi-ritual flavour attaches to the word in that connexion. The word might mean ‘admovere.’ However, I cannot find any trace of such a sense in LXX. The μὴ παριστάνετε invites the believer not to do what is so natural. The tense in κυριεύσει has an imperatival force. Yet grammarians, we must admit, only allow that with the second person. To us, the last words of the section sound somewhat oddly. But they are not any stranger than the well-known saying that strikes so curiously on our ears, in the familiar Funeral Lesson. “The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the Law.” In a way, barely intelligible to us (who have no acquaintance with Law, in the sense in which St Paul knew it), the notions of Law and Sin were coupled in the Apostle’s mind. Where Law is, Sin must be. In the benignant realm of Grace there is no Law: it simply does not exist. That is the teaching of ‘Galatians’; κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος (Galatians 5:23), “In face of things like this Law does not exist.” But let us make no mistake about it. The deliverance from ‘Law’ does not mean ‘lawlessness’ in the sense of iniquity (ἀνομία).
6:15-23. “What then? Are we to sin, because we are not under Law but under Grace? No, no, no! Do you not know, that when you yield yourselves as ‘slaves’ to anyone, to obey his orders, you are his slaves whom you obey-whether it be the slaves of Sin, to end in death, or the slaves of (God’s) obedience, to end in his acceptance?”
“Now God be thanked, that slaves you were once of Sin, and had obeyed, with all your heart, that kind of teaching to which you were given over; but having been freed from Sin you became slaves to Righteousness. I use a human analogy, because you are weak and carnal. As, I say, you yielded your members slaves to uncleanness and iniquity to become ever more and more wicked; so now yield up your limbs as slaves to Righteousness to grow in holiness. For when you were Sin’s slaves, you were free in regard of Righteousness.”
“For what profit had you then from those things, over which you now blush to think of them? Why, they all end in death. But now, being freed from sin, and become the slaves of God, you have your profit in growing holier, and it will end in life eternal. Sin’s slaves get nothing but death: whereas God’s gracious gift is life eternal-in Jesus Christ our Lord.” In all this we can find nothing of any especial difficulty. In 16, we must observe how δικαιοσύνη is the antithesis of θάνατος. It follows, that the former carries its technical significance. ‘Death,’ in the spiritual sense, connotes exclusion from God. Those who have δικαιοσύνη are they who are not so excluded. They are ‘right with God.’ In v. 17 is presented (what I had for the moment forgotten) a highly puzzling phrase.
It is “you obeyed, from the heart, the τύπος διδαχῆς to which you were given over.” Much as I should like to render it, as if it were ὑπηκούσατε ἃν τύπον διδαχῆς παρεδόθητε, i.e. “you became obedient to the type of teaching which was delivered you”-on the οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι principle; it does not seem to be possible. It is the ‘εἰς’ that bars the way. With the ἦτε we should like a μέν (which we perforce must do without). Yet even so we are left with a choice of the particular point at which the apodosis shall begin. No doubt the obvious thing is to make it begin at ὑπηκούσατε δέ. In that case the ἐκ καρδίας would exhibit that same confidence in the sincerity of converts, which St Paul for the more part shows. My difficulty is, that I can very well imagine a man being ‘handed over’ to ‘sin,’ or to false ideas; but I cannot imagine him being ‘handed over’ to a Gospel. The Gospel is given to him; not he to it. Against that you have to put the fact, that τύπον διδαχῆς would naturally be referred to some definite kind of teaching-though we need not disturb our minds with that curious Teutonic fancy, that St Paul is in saying so ‘giving away’ the early faith by admitting there were, so to speak, different ‘brands’ of Christian doctrine, Petrine, Pauline and what not.
It is Scylla and Charybdis. Translate it either way, and you find that you are open to destructive criticism.
If only you could ὑπακούειν εἰς τινά! Or, if only you could regard the εἰς as introducing the thing which you obey; not that to which your obedience, taking shape, would lead you on! There presents itself, to be sure, a method by which we may cut the Gordian knot. We might eliminate the εἰς, and declare that inconvenient preposition due to a copyist’s misunderstanding of the ὅν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, a phrase which in itself is perfectly simple.
Then ‘ἐκ καρδίας’ we could render:
“You were the slaves of Sin, but with heart and soul you believed the teaching that was delivered you.”
Thus all would be plain and straightforward; and indeed I am not sure that, in the end, it would not be wiser and better, either to strike out the εἰς, or to treat it as non-existent, simply as a solecism-which, to be sure, is far from impossible. The Vulgate bravely reads; “Gratias autem Deo, quod fuistis servi peccati, obedistis autem ex corde in eam formam doctrinae, in quam traditi estis.” It does not even trouble to say, “ei formae doctrinae, in quam.…” But that is the Vulgate’s way. Ὑπακούειν, in N.T., is always followed by the dative; so we dare not here assume that εἰς with the accusative could represent the dative. In ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, on the strength of Galatians 3:15 (where a similar apology is attached to the employment of the ‘will’ analogy), we must see an excuse for the figure of ‘slaves.’ Yet it seems a little odd that the excuse should come in now; in view of the fact that we have had a good deal of figure before. Yet a distinction, no doubt, might be found. In μέλη and ἀκαθαρσία we must detect a definite reference to characteristic heathen vices.
I have translated εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν “to become ever more and more wicked,” because it is balanced by the words εἰς ἁγιασμόν; and ἁγιασμός certainly is a word that describes a process. It is not ἁγιωσύνη Δικαιοσύνη, when contrasted with ἁμαρτία, very naturally means ‘righteousness,’ in our ordinary sense; when set in contrast with death, the sense it bears is technical. The καρπός of sinfulness, though it is not expressly stated, is moral deterioration, leading inevitably to death. The καρπός of righteousness is just the opposite, amelioration of character, till ‘holiness’ is attained. “Wages” is, if it be not pedantic to say it, incorrect for ὀψωνία. The Vulgate says ‘stipendia’; our versions ‘wages,’ or ‘reward’ (Tyndale). What slaves have from their master is ‘rations.’ They may be well fed or ill fed. It makes a good deal of difference to a slave, what kind of a master he has. It was not at all a happy thing to be Cato’s slave, or Lucullus’. ‘Sin’ in this figure does not earn death. It inevitably brings death. The touching and time-honoured antithesis in our English is not to be found in the Greek-unless indeed we make χάρισμα (a word employed deliberately of God’s good ‘giving’) extend a backward influence upon what has gone before it. With the mention of ‘soldiers,’ of course, ὀψωνία could mean ‘wages’; not in the case of ‘slaves.’
Mark, how the “In Christ Jesus” comes again! It is a refrain never long time absent. There is held to be a significance in the order of the names. “Christ Jesus” represents the ‘Glorified Christ.’ Notwithstanding our Revisers would have been wiser to abstain from any alteration. The rhythm is totally ruined by so doing. And rhythm is of worth in holy writ.