Question regarding Romans 6:3-5, our death and new life in Christ

[Jerusalem Blade]

DV, I should be preaching on Rom 6:3,4,5 this Sunday, to a congregation of mostly Nigerian men, who, although (some of them) loving the Lord and His gospel, are not used to the kind of depth exposition we in the West are accustomed to. I seek to understand my text sufficiently to make it very simple and clear for them (I believe it was Einstein who said, "If you can't say it simply you don't understand it well enough").

So, I want to understand this passage well enough:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.​

I realize that this pertains to our union with Christ, what He underwent we underwent with Him / in Him / as part of Him. Paul by the Spirit is talking of spiritual realities. I understand that the crucifixion and death to me pertains only to my inner man – my unregenerate self controlling my sinful life and attitudes – and not like Jesus who died in His entire human nature. At the moment of my regeneration (I recall the instant) my death was effected and in the same moment my new life in Christ commenced.

This spiritual transformation was accomplished in me by the Holy Spirit. I became a new creature in that instant. I was very ignorant, but nonetheless born anew, alive now to God in love and astonished thankfulness.

About my death – the death of the old man, and my burial with Christ – this was accomplished (according to Scripture) at my baptism (which I reckon to be the baptism by the Holy Spirit ~1 Cor 12:13) and later outwardly and publicly signified by the water baptism.

So is the death and burial of Christ applied to me at the moment of regeneration? As in Col 2:11,12,13:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God [NKJV: through faith in the working of God], who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses...​

And likewise – at that same instant – the new birth is bestowed upon me: now "alive unto God" (Rom 6:11) and able to "walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4), albeit as a spiritual infant. Ephesians 2:5 saying the same thing: "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ...".

My men aren't used to thinking of invisible spiritual realities such as these, and I would like to give them understanding.

I know that this – my death and regeneration in Jesus Christ – was ordained before the foundation of the world, when God chose me to be in Him, and predestined me to be adopted as His child by (or through) Jesus to Himself. My name was written in the Book of Life before the creation. Yet until the moment of my conversion I was a child of wrath and walked in the world in alignment with the foul prince of this world (Eph 2:2,3). In the fulness of time (as far as concerns me) He manifested His mercy to me by revealing His Son to my awareness, and won my heart by His irresistible majesty and love.

Is all the above theologically sound, accurate, and clear? Thanks for any help with this!

 

[Ed Walsh]

DV, I should be preaching on Rom 6:3,4,5 this Sunday, to a congregation of mostly Nigerian men, who, although (some of them) loving the Lord and His gospel, are not used to the kind of depth exposition we in the West are accustomed to. I seek to understand my text sufficiently to make it very simple and clear for them (I believe it was Einstein who said, "If you can't say it simply you don't understand it well enough").

So, I want to understand this passage well enough:

Pastor Steve,

Below are several points from C. Hodge, that I think are important. I also attached a PDF of Hodge's commentary from verses 1-11.

First – Keep foremost in mind the subject and purpose of this Section of Romans 6

From Hodge's Analysis:
The most common, the most plausible, and yet the most unfounded objection to the doctrine of justification by faith, is, that it allows men to live in sin that grace may abound. This objection arises from ignorance of the doctrine in question, and of the nature and means of sanctification. It is so preposterous in the eyes of an enlightened believer, that Paul deals with it rather by exclamations at its absurdity, than with logical arguments.
Hodge, C. (1882) p. 299).

Second - Of course, Hodge refers to the sacrament of water baptism. But I do not think he is pointing to something that takes place at the moment of baptism but using baptism in the sense of being fully identified with Christ through the Spiritual union with Him at the new birth. Lik Paul in I Corinthians 10:1-5

Hodge's Analysis:
The main idea of this section is, that such is the nature of the believer's union with Christ, that his living in sin is not merely an inconsistency, but a contradiction in terms, as much so as to speak of a live dead man, or a good bad one. Union with Christ, being the only source of holiness, cannot be the source of sin.
Hodge, pp. 299–300)

Third – Read Hodge's commentary on Verses 1 & 2 (at the bottom of the page), which I find indispensable for a thorough understanding of vs. 3-5.

Fourth – Verse 3 [This is important]
Verse 3 starts by speaking of literal water baptism but quickly begins to make his point that it is the essence of which water baptism is a figure rather than what takes place at the moment of the sacrament.

Excerpts from his Commentary Verse 3:
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
In this and the following verse, we have something more in the form of argument in answer to the objection in question. The apostle reminds his readers, that the very design of Christianity was to deliver men from sin; that every one who embraced it, embraced it for that object; and, therefore, it was a contradiction in terms to suppose that any should come to Christ to be delivered from sin, in order that they might live in it. And, besides this, it is clearly intimated that such is not only the design of the gospel, and the object for which it is embraced by all who cordially receive it, but also that the result or necessary effect of union with Christ is a participation in the benefits of his death.
Hodge, C. p. 302

[Next, Hodge makes clear that his view is what baptism pictures and not what happens at the moment of water baptism]

Βαπτίζειν εἰς always means to baptize in reference to. When it is said that the Hebrews were baptized unto Moses, 1 Cor. 10:2; or when the apostle asks the Corinthians. ‘Were ye baptized unto the name of Paul?’ 1 Cor. 1:13; or when we are said to be baptized unto Christ, the meaning is, they were baptized in reference to Moses, Paul, or Christ; i.e. to be brought into union with them, as their disciples, or worshippers, as the case may be. In like manner, in the expression baptized into his death, the preposition expresses the design and the result. The meaning therefore is, ‘we were baptized in order that we should die with him,’ i.e. that we should be united to him in his death, and be partakers of its benefits. Thus, “baptism unto repentance,” Matt. 3:11, is baptism in order to repentance; “baptism unto the remission of sins,” Mark 1:4, that remission of sins may be obtained; “baptized unto one body,” 1 Cor. 12:13, i.e. that we might become one body, &c. Paul does not design to teach that the sacrament of baptism, from any inherent virtue in the rite, or from any supernatural power in him who administers it, or from any uniformly attending Divine influence, always secures the regeneration of the soul. This is contrary both to Scripture and experience. No fact is more obvious than that thousands of the baptized are unregenerate. It cannot be, therefore, that the apostle intends to say, that all who are baptized are thereby savingly united to Christ. It is not of the efficacy of baptism as an external rite, that he assumes his readers are well informed: it is of the import and design of that sacrament, and the nature of the union with Christ, of which baptism is the sign and the seal.
Hodge, pp. 302–303

These were some of my thoughts. I attached a PDF of the entire section from verses 1 through 11.
~~~~~~~

Commentary Verse 1 & 2:
Verse 1. What shall we say then? What inference is to be drawn from the doctrine of the gratuitous acceptance of sinners, or justification without works, by faith in the righteousness of Christ?

Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? i.e. be more conspicuously displayed. The form in which the objection to the apostle's doctrine is here presented, is evidently borrowed from the close of the preceding chapter. Paul had there spoken of the grace of the gospel being the more conspicuous and abundant, in proportion to the evils which it removes. It is no fair inference from the fact that God has brought so much good out of the fall and sinfulness of men, that they may continue in sin. Neither can it be inferred from the fact that he accepts of sinners on the ground of the merit of Christ, instead of their own, (which is one way in which grace abounds,) that they may sin without restraint.

Verse 2. God forbid, μὴ γένοιτο, let it not be. Paul's usual mode of expressing denial and abhorrence. Such an inference is not to be thought of. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? The relative οἵτινες is as usual causative, and it stands first, for the sake of emphasis; ἀπεθάνομεν does not mean are dead, nor have died, but died. It refers to a specific act in our past history: 'Since we died to sin, how can we still live in it?' The act which in its nature was a dying to sin, was our accepting of Christ as our Saviour. That act involves in it not only a separation from sin, but a deadness to it. No man can apply to Christ to be delivered from sin, in order that he may live in it. Deliverance from sin, as offered by Christ, and as accepted by the believer, is not mere deliverance from its penalty, but from its power. We turn from sin to God when we receive Christ as a Saviour. It is, therefore, as the apostle argues, a contradiction in terms, to say that gratuitous justification is a license to sin, as much as to say that death is life, or that dying to a thing is living in it. Instead of giving τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ the usual force of the dative, to, or as it respects, sin, Storr, Flatt, and many other commentators, say it should be understood as in 5:15, 11:20, on account of. 'How shall we, who in Christ, died on account of sin, i.e. who suffered vicariously its penalty, inasmuch as we were crucified in him, live any longer therein?'
In favour of this interpretation, it is urged, 1. That this phrase must express the same idea with the subsequent clauses, buried with him, ver. 4; associated in his death, ver. 5; dead with Christ, ver. 8. 2. That it must have this meaning in ver. 10, where it is said of Christ, he died unto sin, i.e. on account of sin. 3. The other interpretation, 'How shall we, who have renounced sin, live any longer therein?' it is said, is not suited to the apostle's object; because it does not give any adequate answer to the objection presented in ver. 1. In order to answer that objection, it was necessary to show not merely that the believer had renounced sin, but that the doctrine of gratuitous justification effectually secures this renunciation. According to the second interpretation, this answer is plain and conclusive: 'How shall we, who have died on account of sin, live any longer therein? If we are regarded and treated by God, in virtue of our union with Christ, and if we regard our selves, as having suffered and died with him on account of sin, we cannot but look upon it as hateful, and deserving of punishment.'

The objections to this interpretation, however, are serious 1. It is not consistent with the common and familiar import of the expression, to be dead to anything, which occurs frequently in the New Testament; as Gal. 2:19, "dead to the law;" 1 Pet. 2:24, “dead to sins;” Rom. 7:4; Col. 2:20; Gal. 6:14, &c. In all cases the meaning is, to be free from. Sin has lost its power over the believer, as sensible objects are not able to affect the dead. 2. The opposite phrase, to live therein, requires this interpretation. 3. The object of the apostle does not require that a formal, argumentative answer should be supposed to commence in this verse. He simply denies the justice of the inference from his doctrine, stated in ver. 1, and asks how it is possible it should be correct. How can a Christian, which is but another name for a holy man, live any longer in sin?

Hodge, C. (1882). A commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New Edition, pp. 300–302). Louis Kregel.

 

[Ed Walsh]

should be preaching on Rom 6:3,4,5 this Sunday, to a congregation of mostly Nigerian men, who, although (some of them) loving the Lord and His gospel, are not used to the kind of depth exposition we in the West are accustomed to. I seek to understand my text sufficiently to make it very simple and clear for them (I believe it was Einstein who said, "If you can't say it simply you don't understand it well enough").

So, I want to understand this passage well enough:

Come on guys (and gals) give Steve some support here.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Ed!

I wrote my exposition in the OP in the 1st person, as – when preaching and teaching – I will also use the 1st and 2nd person so as to make the abstractions being spoken of as concrete as I can. It is not that I like talking about myself, but that if my flock doesn't understand what I am saying in a way they can personally relate to I will lose them.

This Romans 6 material is very important for them to understand.

It is the content of what I said in the OP that I want to make sure is sound and accurate.