Albert Barnes Commentary Romans 6

Romans Chapter 6

Introduction

The argument commenced in this chapter is continued through the next two. The general design is the same—to show that the scheme of justification which God had adopted does not lead people to sin but, on the contrary, to holiness. This is introduced by answering an objection (Romans 6:1). The apostle pursues this subject with various arguments and illustrations, all tending to show that the design and effect of the scheme of justification was to produce the hatred of sin, and the love and practice of holiness. In this chapter, the argument is mainly drawn from the following sources:

1. From the baptism of Christians, by which they have professed to be dead to sin and to be bound to live to God (Romans 6:2–13).
2. From the fact that they were now the servants of God, and under obligation, by the laws of servitude, to obey him (Romans 6:15–20).
3. From their former experience of the evil of sin, from its tendency to produce misery and death, and from the fact that by the gospel they had been made ashamed of those things, and had now given themselves to the pure service of God.

By these various considerations, he repels the charge that the tendency of the doctrine was to produce licentiousness, affirming instead that it was a system of purity and peace.

The argument is continued in the next two chapters, further showing the purifying tendency of the gospel.

What shall we say then? This is a way of presenting an objection. The objection refers to what the apostle had said in Romans 5:20. What shall we say to such a statement as that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound?

Shall we continue in sin? If sin has been the occasion for grace and favor, should we not continue in it and commit as much sin as possible, so that grace might abound?

The apostle proceeds to answer this objection, showing that this conclusion does not follow and proving that the doctrine of justification does not lead to it.

God forbid. By no means. Greek, It may not be. (See Barnes on Romans 3:4).

The expression is a strong denial of what is implied in the objection in Romans 6:1.

How shall we, etc. This contains a reason for the implied statement of the apostle, that we should not continue in sin. The reason is drawn from the fact that we are, in fact, dead to sin. It is impossible for those who are dead to act as if they were alive. It is just as absurd to suppose that a Christian should desire to live in sin as that a dead man should perform the actions of life.

That are dead to sin. This means all Christians.

To be dead to something is a strong expression meaning that it has no influence over us. A man who is dead is uninfluenced and unaffected by the affairs of this life. He is insensible to sounds, tastes, and pleasures; to the hum of business, the voice of friendship, and all the scenes of commerce, gaiety, and ambition.

Therefore, when it is said that a Christian is dead to sin, the meaning is that sin has lost its influence over him; he is not subject to it. In this respect, he is like a man in the grave in relation to the busy scenes and cares of this life.

The expression is frequent in the New Testament. For example, Galatians 2:19: For I am dead to the law.Colossians 3:3: For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. And 1 Peter 2:24: Who...bore our sins...that we, being dead to sin, etc. The apostle does not attempt here to prove that Christians are dead in this way, nor to state how they become so.

He assumes the fact without argument. All Christians are thus, in fact, dead to sin. They do not live for sin, nor does sin have dominion over them. The expression used here by the apostle is common in all languages. We commonly speak of a man being dead to sensual pleasures, to ambition, etc., to indicate that these things have lost their influence over him.

Live any longer in it. How can we, who have become aware of the evil of sin and have renounced it by solemn profession, continue to practice it? It is therefore abhorrent to the very nature of the Christian profession.

It is remarkable that the apostle did not attempt to argue the question on metaphysical principles. He did not try to show by abstruse argument that this consequence did not follow; instead, he appeals at once to Christian feeling and shows that the supposition is abhorrent to that feeling.

To convince most people, such an appeal is far better than labored metaphysical argumentation. All Christians can understand that, but few would comprehend an abstruse speculation. The best way to silence objections is sometimes to show that they violate the feelings of all Christians, and therefore the objection must be wrong.

Know ye not. This is a further appeal to the Christian profession and the principles involved in it, in answer to the objection. The simple argument in this verse and the two following is that by our very profession made in baptism, we have renounced sin and have pledged ourselves to live to God.

So many of us, etc. This refers to all who were baptized; that is, all professing Christians. As this renunciation of sin had thus been made by all who professed religion, the objection could not have reference to Christianity in any manner.

Were baptized. The act of baptism denotes dedication to the service of Him in whose name we are baptized. One of its designs is to dedicate or consecrate us to the service of Christ.

Thus (1 Corinthians 10:2), the Israelites are said to have been baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; that is, they became consecrated, dedicated, or bound to him as their leader and lawgiver.

In the passage before us, the Apostle's argument is evidently drawn from the supposition that we have been solemnly consecrated by baptism to the service of Christ, and that to sin is therefore a violation of the very nature of our Christian profession.

Into. (eiv). This is the word used in Matthew 28:19: Teach all nations, baptizing them into (eiv) the name of the Father, etc. It means being baptized unto His service; receiving Him as the Savior and Guide, and devoting all to Him and His cause.

Were baptized into His death. We were baptized with special reference to His death. Our baptism had a strong resemblance to His death. By His death, He became insensible to the things of the world; by baptism, we in like manner become dead to sin.

Furthermore, we are baptized with particular reference to the design of His death—the great leading feature and purpose of His work. That purpose was to expiate sin, to free people from its power, and to make them pure.

We have professed our devotion to the same cause and have solemnly consecrated ourselves to the same design: to put an end to the dominion of iniquity.

Therefore we are buried, etc. It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot, indeed, be proved, so as to be liable to no objection; but I presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers. But while this is admitted, it is also certain that his main scope and intention was not to describe the mode of baptism; nor to affirm that that mode was to be universal. The design was very different. It was to show that by the solemn profession made at our baptism, we had become dead to sin, as Christ was dead to the living world around him when he was buried; and that as he was raised up to life, so we should also rise to a new life. A similar expression occurs in Colossians 2:12, Buried with him in baptism, etc.

Into death, (eiv). Unto death; that is, with a solemn purpose to be dead to sin and to the world. Grotius and Doddridge, however, understand this as referring to the death of Christ—in order to represent the death of Christ, or to bring us into a kind of fellowship with his death.

That like as. In a similar manner. Christ rose from death in the sepulchre; and so we are bound by our vows at baptism to rise to a holy life.

By the glory of the Father. Perhaps this means, amidst the glory, the majesty and wonders, evinced by the Father when he raised him up (Matthew 28:2–3). Or possibly the word glory is here used to denote simply his power, as the resurrection was a signal and glorious display of his omnipotence.

Even so. As he rose to new life, so should we. As he rose from death, so we, being made dead to sin and the world by that religion whose profession is expressed by baptism, should rise to a new life, a life of holiness. Should walk. Should live, or conduct. The word walk is often used to express the course of a man's life, or the tenor of his conduct.

In newness of life. This is a Hebraism to denote new life. We should rise with Christ to a new life; and having been made dead to sin, as he was dead in the grave, so should we rise to a holy life, as he rose from the grave.

The argument in this verse is, therefore, drawn from the nature of the Christian profession. By our very baptism, by our very profession, we have become dead to sin, as Christ became dead; and being devoted to him by that baptism, we are bound to rise as he did to a new life.

While it is admitted that the allusion here was probably to the custom of immersion in baptism, yet the passage cannot be adduced as an argument that that is the only mode, or that it is binding on all Christians in all places and ages, for the following reasons:

1. The scope or design of the apostle is not to discuss the mode of baptism, or to state any doctrine on the subject. It is an incidental allusion in the course of an argument, without stating or implying that this was the universal mode even then, still less that it was the only possible mode. His main design was to state the obligation of Christians to be holy, from the nature of their profession at baptism—an obligation just as impressive, and as forcible, from the application of water in any other mode as by immersion.

   This obligation arises from the fact of baptism, not from the mode. It is just as true that those who are baptized by affusion, or by sprinkling, are baptized into his death, become professedly dead to sin and the world, and under obligations to live to God, as those who are immersed. It results from the nature of the ordinance, not from the mode.

2. If this was the mode commonly, it does not follow that it was the only mode, nor that it was to be universally observed. There is no command that this should be the only mode. And the simple fact that it was usually practiced in a warm climate, where ablutions were common, does not prove that it is to be observed amidst polar snows and ice, and in infancy, and age, and feebleness, and sickness.

3. If this is to be pressed literally as a matter of obligation, why should not also the following expression, If we have been planted together, etc., be pressed literally, and it be demanded that Christians should somehow be "planted" as well as "buried?" Such an interpretation only shows the absurdity of insisting on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures in cases of simple allusion, or where the main scope is illustration by figurative language.

For if we have been planted together. The word here used (sumfutoi) does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It properly means being sown or planted at the same time, or that which sprouts or springs up together. Furthermore, it is applied to plants and trees that are planted at the same time and that sprout and grow together.

Thus, the name would be given to a field of grain that was sown at the same time, where the grain sprang up and grew simultaneously. Hence, it means intimately connected, or joined together.

And here it denotes that Christians and the Saviour have been intimately united in regard to death: as He died and was laid in the grave, so they, by profession, have died to sin. It is therefore natural to expect that, like grain sown at the same time, they should grow up in a similar manner and resemble each other.

We shall be also. We shall also be fellow-plants; that is, we shall resemble Him in regard to the resurrection. As He rose from the grave, so shall we rise from sin. As He lived a new life, being raised up, so shall we live a new life.

The appropriateness of this figure is drawn from the doctrine often referred to in the New Testament, of a union between Christ and His people (see this explained further in the notes on John 15:1-10).

The sentiment inferred here is but an illustration of what was said by the Saviour: Because I live, you shall live also (John 14:19). Perhaps no more beautiful illustration can be found than that employed here by the apostle—of seed sown together in the earth, sprouting together, growing together, and ripening together for the harvest.

Thus, the Saviour and His people are united together in His death, start up to life together in His resurrection, and are preparing together for the same harvest of glory in the heavens.

In the likeness of his resurrection. This does not mean that we shall resemble Him when we are raised up at the last day—which may be true, however—but that our rising from sin will resemble His resurrection from the grave. As He rose from the tomb and lived, so shall we rise from sin and live a new life.