During the live show, I noticed that Richardson did not address Rom 6:7. Shamoun then revealed how ignorant he truly is and why he is seen as a joke by many:
Shamoun reveals his ignorance. I am
correct, and he is, at best, spreading a half-truth about the meaning of the
verse. Don’t take my word for it; here are some scholarly resources:
The other,
more likely explanation seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as
“free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and
[sin], not in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the
Torah”), but in its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89;
Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the one who has died has lost the very means
of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that one is definitively without sin; one has
been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone body. In either case, a change of status
has ensued; the old condition has been brought to an end in baptism-death, and
a new one has begun (Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
[AB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437, emphasis in bold added)
Commenting on the relationship between justification, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of Jesus, Brandon Crowe wrote:
[H]ow does the resurrection related to the forgiveness of sins and the law of Moses in 13:38-39? Does Luke’s account of Paul’s speech shed light on the doctrine of justification, perhaps even in a way that is consistent with Paul’s letters? In verses 38-39 Luke speaks of being justified by faith in Jesus (en toutō pas ho pisetuōn dikaioutai), in contrast to what it was not possible to be justified (dikaiōthēnai) from (apo) by the law of Moses. Despite the preference of many modern English translations, the language of dikaioō in verses 38-39 is best translated in terms of being justified, rather than being freed. From what is a person justified? It must be from sin. Paul uses similar language in Romans 6:7: “For the one who has died has been justified [dedikaiōtai] from [apo] sin.” The Lukan Paul in Acts 13 correlates justification by faith (v. 39) with the forgiveness of sins (v. 38). Significantly, this good news derives from Paul’s exposition of the resurrection, which is apparent from oun and dia touto in Acts 13:38. These refer back to Jesus, who was raised and did not see decay (vv. 36-37).
But how close is the Pisidian Antioch speech in Acts to the Pauline doctrine of justification? Has Luke misunderstood, or only half understood Paul? Although Paul does speak of justification in contrast to the law of Moses (e.g., Gal. 2:16; 3:11; 5:4), it is objected that Paul speaks less clearly about the correlation of forgiveness of sins to justification. However, if the “we” passages in Luke are taken at face value to indicate that Luke accompanied Paul on some of his travels (which remains the best view), then it beggars belief to think that Luke has misunderstood this key theological emphasis of an apostle he knew personally. A better view is that Acts 13:38-39 provides another angle on the (“Pauline”) doctrine of justification and one that supports the “older” perspective on Paul—namely, that one’s right standing before God does not depend on one’s adherence to the law of Moses and that justification entails the forgiveness of sins.
Particularly pertinent for the present discussion is the relationship in Acts 13 between justification and Jesus’s resurrection. The casual link between Jesus’s resurrection and believers’ justification in Paul’s Pisidian Antioch sermon recalls similar connections in Paul’s letters. For example, in Romans 4:24-25 believers are justified because of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus Romans speaks of justification on the basis of Christ’s resurrection, in addition to justification on the basis of Christ’s death (cf. 3:24-25). This variety of emphasis in Paul further encourages readers of Acts not to misconstrue Luke’s understanding of the atoning work of Christ—justification is not based upon either the death of Christ or his resurrection; it is based on Christ’s entire work.
It is also noteworthy that Paul relates the resurrection of Christ to Adam in both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In both cases, the obedience of the last Adam leads to life for those with faith in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-49). These passages relate the obedience of Christ to his resurrection, which Luke also does. Not only does Luke clearly view Christ as a new Adam (cf. Luke 3:38), but Jesus is consistently identified as the Holy and Righteous One (using the dik- word group; see Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14-15) who did not see decay. Jesus’s resurrection in Acts is predicated in large measure upon his perfect obedience (see the use of Ps. 16 in Acts 2:24-36; 13:34-37; cf. 13:22), which is similar to Paul’s Adam Christology (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Luke and Paul agree that justification comes through the resurrection of the perfectly righteous one. (Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 63-64, emphasis in bold added)
Paul himself ties justification to baptism. This is evident, for example, in 1 Corinthians:
You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)
In this verse, Paul makes a direct connection between being “washed” [apolouō] and being “justified” [dikaioō]” (1 Cor 6:11). Some commentators dispute a baptismal reading, insisting that the language is simply intended as a metaphor rather than an allusion to ritual immersion. This is unlikely. First, not only does the New Testament indicate that baptism was widely practiced in the early church, we know that the ritual had an important place in the communal life at Corinth. Its significance was apparently so well established that it became the basis of quarrels that Paul felt forced to address at the very outset of this epistle (cf. 1 Cor 1;11-17). Second, the language of 1 Corinthians 6:11 uses terminology employed in other Pauline texts where baptism is in view. Believers are said to be “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” language which envokes the baptism controversy Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 1, which specifically swirls around the “name” into which believers have been “baptized” (1 Cor 1:13-14). In addition, the washing described in 1 Corinthians 6:11 is also associated with the “Spirit,” who is identified with baptism later in the same epistle: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). As other interpreters recognize, 1 Corinthians 6 even goes on to use the language of “members” (1 Cor 6:15), anticipating the discussion of Christians as “members” of Christ’s body later in the letter (cf. 1 Cor 12:14-27). Given these connections to baptismal passages, to insist that the language of washing involves a mere metaphor seems like special pleading. Finally, physical baptism is linked to spiritual washing in other texts (cf. Acts 22:16; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22). First Corinthians 6 is thus best read as an early Pauline expression of this theology.
Paul also talks about baptism in other places where justification is in view . . .we noted Paul’s teaching that “whoever has died is justified [dedikaiōtai] from sin” (Rom 6:7 NRSV, slightly adapted . . . this “justifying death” appears related to baptism:
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like this, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is justifiedfrom sin. (Rom 6:1-7 NRSV, slightly adapted)
This is an extremely significant passage, for it shows that baptism not only causes one to be “in Christ” but that Paul also views the sacrament in terms of co-crucifixion and justification. For Paul, baptism justifies because it is a real participation in the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (Ibid., 202-3, emphasis in bold added)
Also, Shamoun has no clue what the root fallacy is. If I made an argument on Rom 6:7 based on, not δικαιοω, but the mere use of the δικ- word group mere, he would have a case. It would be like an English speaker claiming that, as "dynamite" and "dynamic" share the same root, a "dynamic person" is one who literally explodes. However, in the case of Rom 6:7, it is not based on a root--δεδικαίωται which is the third person indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω.
The "Too Long; Didn't Read" version is: I was right, Shamoun was wrong, about Rom 6:7.
