Paul begins with a question: “What,
then, shall we say? Should we remain in sin so that grace might abound?” (v 1).
The question is because “we have died to sin,” and the idea of still living in sinfulness
is therefore unintelligible (v. 2). This death to sin has been
actualized through the event of baptism (v. 3). But baptism does not merely
unite the person into Christ’s death, but also into Christ’s resurrection (v.
4ab). This death-and-resurrection-through-baptism, says Paul, is the
basis for the new type of living: “so also we might walk in newness of life”
(v. 4c). In this way, baptism legitimates Paul’s answer (μη γενοιτο) to the question of whether or
not it was permissible to continue living in sin.
Notice something important. This
same issues—leaving behind sin, being united to Christ through the sacrament—is
similar to what we have already seen in 1 Cor. 10. We recall that Christian
baptism was linked there to the Exodus story, where Israel passed through
the sea, an event understood by Paul as a “baptism” (vv. 1-2). It was
through their “baptism” that Israel herself was freed from the slavery of
Egypt. After the end of her slavery, Israel was encouraged never to look back,
though of course she often did (e.g., Exod 16:1-3; Num 11:4-5; 14:3-4). Because
of the narrative continuity assumed by Paul—by means of his christological prejudgments—the
Corinthians should themselves never look back.
We see the same in Rom 6: Union
with Christ through baptism is the foundation for the Christian’s leaving
behind a life of sin, indeed, of slavery. Notice how the sinful life is
described, namely, as the life that is enslaved, δουλευω (v. 6) Sin has the ability to reign
(βασιλευω) and exercise lordship (κυριευω) over the people (vv. 12 and 14,
respectively). Because of sin, death too has the ability to “exercise lordship,”
κυριευω (v. 9). And yet through the death
and resurrection of Christ, death’s lordship—its reign of terror—has been
conquered (vv. 9-11). Anyone united with Christ through baptism has been united
in his death and resurrection and should therefore not turn back to sin’s
captivity (vv. 9-16).
Moreover, Christians united with
Christ through baptism have been liberated, that is, “set free” (ελευθεροω), from slavery to sin so that
they are now “enslaved to righteousness” (εδουλωθητε τη δικαιοσυνη) (v. 18). The basic idea is that Christians
should not go back to their past life of sin but should move into a life of “holiness”
(αγιασμος; v. 19). The culmination (τελος) of the life of holiness, of
righteousness—brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ through baptism—is
entrance into the life of a better age: ζωη αιωνιος (vv. 22-23). Here Paul rehashes
what he has already said in v. 4. There, baptism into Christ was said to bring
the new life (εν καινοτητι ζωης περιπατησωμεν). This post-baptismal new life
speaks of new creation and met very well be an allusion to Israel’s post-Red-Sea-crossing
(and subsequent post-wilderness-journey) entrance into the promised land. But
is this a stretch?
I do not think it is. In fact,
this would make sense of Paul’s working narrative thus far. Following Wright’s
lead, let us consider once more Paul’s use of the Abraham story in Rom 4. He
observes how one of Paul’s favorite Abraham texts is located in Gen 15, a
chapter that, interestingly, forecasts Israel’s enslavement in Egypt and
also tells of their deliverance and entrance into, and possession of, the promised
land (Gen 15:13-14, 18). There we read:
And it was said to Abram, “Know
for certain that your offspring will be a sojourner in a land not their own,
and they will enslave (δουλωσουσιν),
mistreat, and humiliate them for four hundred years. But the nation that they
serve as slaves (ω εαν δουλευσωσιν) I will
judge. And after these things, they will come out here with many items.”
. . . On that day, the Lord arranged a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring
I will give this land.” (Gen 15:13-14 18a LXX; emphasis added)
Wright thinks Paul has this text
in mind when he (re)tells the Abraham story in Rom 4, where Christ is said to
fulfill the covenant promises made to the patriarch. (Wright, “New Exodus,” 164)
Wright also observes (per the text above) that the covenant promise to Abraham
entails (among other things) the Exodus. (Wright, “New Exodus,” 164, 166) So,
his logic goes as follows: (1) The covenant with Abraham entails the
fulfillment of the Exodus (Gen 15:13-14, 18); (2) The covenant with Abraham is
fulfilled in Jesus (Rom 4); therefore, (3) Jesus brings the Exodus to complete
fulfillment.
This plot is remarkably similar to
what we observe in Rom 6-8: The “structure [of] the path of the people of God
from slavery to Egypt to inheritance in the land of promise” is the same structure—with
all the relevant key words, terms, and concepts being employed—that Paul
outlines in his “exposition of the Christian’s status, hope and vocation.”
(Wright, “New Exodus,” 164) That exposition is most visible in a place like Rom
6:19-23, where the path takes on the following scheme: Those once enslaved
to a slave-master have been set free by Christ and therefore should
enter into a new type of life. This, says Paul, is the Christian’s
blueprint—or better, map—for leaving the old life behind. Terms like “slavery,”
then, are not plucked out of thin air, nor are they employed as part of a “slave
market illustration taken from the Hellenistic world,” as Wright says. (Wright,
Romans, 534) To the contrary, the metaphors and the text itself:
cries out to be interpreted in
terms of the exodus. And when we find that the key even through which slavery
is abandoned and freedom is gained consists of passing through the water,
reenacting the death of Jesus, which was already interpreted in terms of
Passover imagery, the case can be closed. Exodus is not a distant echo here. It
is a main theme. (Wright, Romans, 534)
Indeed, such talk of slaves and their
being set free ought to harken the reader back to the Exodus story. (Wright, “New
Exodus,” 162) It is difficult to imagine how Paul—steeped as he was within the
Jewish stories and texts—could use such highly-charged terminology and not
have intended to refer to the Exodus. In fact, it seems to me that its unlikelihood
is such that those who wish to argue against the Exodus motif bears most of the
burden of proof. (Matthew L. Halsted, Paul and the Meaning of Scripture: A
Philosophical-Hermeneutic Approach to Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans
[Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2022], 146-49)
