“Given that Romans is a statement of Paul’s gospel, the resurrection of Jesus is under-played.” Discuss.
Bauckham, Richard J, ‘God Who Raises the Dead: The Resurrection of Jesus and Early Christian Faith in God’, in Paul D L Avis (ed), The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993, 140-45.
Beale, G K, ‘Resurrection in the Already-and-Not-Yet Phases of Justification’, in S Storms & J Taylor (eds), For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 190-212
Bird, M F, ‘Justified by Christ’s Resurrection: A Neglected Aspect of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification’, SBET 22 (2004), 72-91.
Bird, M F, ‘Raised for our Justification: A Fresh Look at Romans 4:25’, Colloquium 35/1 (2003), 31-46.
Bird, M F, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective: PBM, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007.
Bird, M F, and Sprinkle, P M (eds), The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009.
Burke, T J, Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor: NSBT 22, Nottingham/Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.
Burke, T J, The Message of Sonship: BSTBT, Nottingham: IVP, 2011.
Collins, N L, ‘The Jewish Source of Rom 5:17, 16, 10 and 9: The Verses of Paul in Relation to a Comment in the Mishnah at M. Makk 3.15’, RB 2005 - T 112-1, 27-45.
Cranfield, C E B, Romans 1-8: ICC, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001; 10th corrected Impression.
Dabney, D L, ‘Justified by the Spirit: Soteriological Reflections on the Resurrection’, IntJST Vol 3 No 1 March 2001, 46-68.
Dunn, J D G, Romans 1-8, 9-16: WBC 38A-B, Waco, TX: Word/Nelson, 1988, 2 Vols.
Campbell, C R, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Ferguson, Sinclair B, ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship’, in N de S Cameron and S B Ferguson (eds), Pulpit and People: Essays in Honour of William Still on his 75th Birthday, Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986, 81-88.
Griffith, Howard, ‘The First Title of the Spirit: Adoption in Calvin’s Soteriology’, EQ 73:2 (2001), 135-153.
Gaffin Jr, R B, By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006.
Gaffin, Jr, R B, ‘Redemption and Resurrection: An Exercise in Biblical-Systematic Theology’, Themelios 27 (2002): 16-31.
Gaffin, Jr, R B, Resurrection and Redemption, A Study in Paul’s Soteriology, Philiipsburg: P & R, 1987.
Gaffin, Jr, R B, ‘Justification and Eschatology’ in K Scott Oliphant (ed) Justified In Christ: God’s Plan For Us in Justification, Fearn: Mentor, 2007.
Gaffin, Jr, R B, ‘Union With Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections’, in A T B McGowan (ed), Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, Leicester: Apollos, 2006, 271-288.
Gathercole, S J, ‘Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25’, in D A Carson, P T O’Brien and M A Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, Tübingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck/Baker, 2004.
Gathercole, S J, Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002.
Garner, D, Adoption in Christ, PhD dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2002, 195-99.
Harris, M J, ‘Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament’, in C Brown (ed), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 3:1171-1215.
Head, P M (ed) Proclaiming the Resurrection: Papers from the First Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998.
Head, P M, ‘Jesus’ Resurrection in Pauline Thought: A Study in Romans’ in P M Head (ed), Proclaiming the Resurrection: Papers from the First Oak Hill Annual School of Theology, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998, 58-80.
Hendriksen, W, Romans: NTC, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1.
Hengel, M, & Bailey, D P, ‘The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period’, in B Janowski & P Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004, 75-146.
Hoehner, H W, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Hofius, O, ‘The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters’, in B Janowski & P Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004, 163-188.
Hooker, M D, ‘Did the Use of Isaiah 53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus’, in W H Bellinger Jr & W R Farmer (eds), Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 88-103.
Hooker, M D, ‘Raised for Our Acquittal’ (Rom 4:25), in R Bieringer, V Koperski & B Lataire, Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J Lambrecht, Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002, 323-341.
Hooker, M D, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, Cambridge: CUP, 1990.
Hooker, M D, Paul: A Short Introduction, Oxford: One World, 2003.
Horton, M S, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Hultgren, A J, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011.
Janowski, B, & Stuhlmacher, P, (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004.
Jewett, R, Romans: Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Kirk, J R D, ‘Reconsidering Dikaiōma in Romans 5:16, JBL 126 No 4 (2007), 787-92.
Kirk, J R D, ‘A resurrection that matters: if we are completely saved from our sins through the cross, what's the point of the empty tomb?’, Christianity Today 54 (No 4 Apr 2010): 36-39.
Kirk, J R D, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Kruse, C G, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Pillar, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Nottingham: Apollos, 2012.
Lambrecht, J, ‘Style and Content: A Note on Romans 8,10’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86/1 (2010) 171-6.
Lee, J H, Paul’s Gospel in Romans: A Discourse Analysis of Rom. 1:16-8:39 (Linguistic Biblical Studies, v. 3. Leiden: Boston: Brill, 2010.
Marshall, I H, ‘Raised for Our Justification: The Saving Significance of the Resurrection of Christ’, in W Dembski & T Schirrmacher (ed), Tough Minded Christianity: Honoring the Legacy of John Warwick Montgomery, Nashville: B&H, 2008, 244-271.
Marshall, I H, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity, Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2007.
Moo, D J, The Epistle to the Romans: NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996.
Murray, J, The Epistle to the Romans: NICNT, Grand Rapids: MI, 1959, 1965.
O’Neil, J C, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: PelNTC, Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1975.
Phillips, R D, ‘A Justification of Imputed Righteousness’, in G L W Johnson & G P Waters, By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, Wheaton: Crossway, 2006, 75-98.
Sapp, D A, ‘The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT versions of Isaiah 53’ in W H Bellinger Jr & W R Farmer, Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 170-192.
Schliesser, B, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Paul’s Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6: WUNT2:224, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007.
Schreiner, T R, Romans: BECNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.
Scott, J M, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation in to the Background of YIOΘEΣIA in the Pauline Corpus: WUNT2 52, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Smail, T, The Forgotten Father, Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1980; Repr Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2001.
Stanley, David Michael, Christ’s Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology: Analecta Biblica, Austria: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1961.
Stuhlmacher, P, ‘Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts, in B Janowski & P Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ET: D P Bailey: Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004, 147-162.
Tångberg, A, ‘The Justification of the Servant of the Lord: Light from Qumran on the Interpretation of Isaiah 53:11’, TTKk 1-2 (2001), 31-36.
Visscher, G H, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise: SBL 122, New York: Peter Lang, 2009.
Wagner, J R, ‘The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51-55 in Romans’, in W H Bellinger Jr & W R Farmer (eds), Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998, 193-222.
Warnock, A, Raised With Christ: How The Resurrection Changes Everything, Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Watson, F, ‘By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solution’ in M F Bird and P M Sprinkle (eds), The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009, 147-164.
Watson, F, Paul and The Hermeneutics of Faith, London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Wedderburn, A J M, Baptism and Resurrection: WUNT44, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987.
Wright, N T, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol 3, London: SPCK, 2003.
Yates, J W, The Spirit and Creation in Paul: WUNT2 251, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
The relationship between the resurrection of Christ and the lordship of Christ is the key to understanding the motif of resurrection, and in this way, resurrection does indeed permeate and suffuse Romans. Romans 1:4 flavours the whole of the letter. Wright states his opinion of resurrection in Romans vividly when he says, “squeeze this letter at any point, and resurrection spills out” (Wright 2003: 241). I think Wright is onto something with that observation. ‘Squeeze’ may refer to looking a little further into things, a little below the surface, and needing to do more than a superficial level analysis of word studies. Kirk’s assertion also has merit when he says, “resurrection casts a shadow over the letter that is often longer than the particular verses that mention it explicitly” (Kirk 2008: 11). While Wright has given us the ‘squeezing’ metaphor, and Kirk the long shadow, I wish to offer the rushing river, of which 1:4 is the headwater.
While I could present arguments for the historical resurrection of Christ being essential for the gospel (1 Cor 15), and that Paul does indeed express his gospel in the letter to the Romans (Rom 1:1-4, 3:21-26, 5:6-9, 8:1-4, 10:6-13), I think we should take these premises which the question logically requires as given and assume them proven. The real focus of the question then is to look at the resurrection in general, and the resurrection of Christ in particular, as it is testified to by the letter to the Romans.
In 1:4, in his initial prefatory exposition of his gospel, Paul introduces the motif of resurrection in connection with Christ’s Davidic sonship (2 Sam 7:12-14; Ps 2:7-9; Wright 2003: 242-3; Head 1998: 61-3). The Lord Jesus Christ, the human descendant of David (v. 3), was marked out as the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by his resurrection from the dead (v. 4: τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). Note the link between the resurrection of Christ and his lordship: ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. The sort of Lord we are looking at is the resurrected Lord. Compare Acts 2:36, 32, where through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36: ὅτι καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε). In this key introductory position, Romans 1:4 does indeed cast a shadow over the whole letter. Or, to use my rushing river analogy, the surging waters of Paul’s discourse picks up the motif of resurrection and its related idea, the lordship or reign of Christ, from the headwaters of 1:4, and deposits it along the length of the waterway, sometimes with the motif poking above the waterline, or at other times, resurrection lies below the surface, but a little bit of analysis can bring it to the surface it.
According to Gaffin, whom Griffith, Ferguson, Scott, and Garner follow, the resurrection of Christ in Romans 1:3-4 is his forensic adoption by God, which Christ takes as firstfruits for his entire body, who will likewise be resurrected (Gaffin 1987: 119; Griffith 2001: 146; Ferguson 1986: 87; Scott 1992: 223-244; Garner 2002: 195-99). However, with Burke, I cannot concur that there is a relation between the believer’s adoption and Christ’s adoption and that. Christ’s resurrection, to the contrary, is not presented by the New Testament as Christ’s adoption (Burke 2006: 104-7; 2011: 118). The word ‘adoption’ is only used of believers and never of Christ (Burke 2011: 118). Moreover, Christ’s sonship and ours are of a different order (Smail 1980/2001: 132-3). Sonship is not native to us. “[T]he language of incarnation belongs to him, and the language of adoption belongs to us’ (ibid, 133). “[Christ] does not need to be adopted from his natural state into a new relationship with God as father” (Hoehner 2002: 197). “[S]onship is Pauline-speak to describe Christ; adoption is Pauline-speak to describe Christians” (Burke 2006: 107).
The motif of resurrection life is again alluded to in 1:17 by the future of ζάω (Hab 2:4; Hooker 2002: 332). The eschatological life promised to the doers of the law (Lev 18:5; Rom 2:7, 13, 10:5) is now promised to ‘the one-who-is-righteous-by-faith’ (Hab 2:4; Rom 10:6-8; Watson 2009: 154). Watson rightly rejects the Christological interpretation of Habbakuk 2:4 || Romans 1:17 (Watson 2009: 153-60), and thus Romans 1:17 does not refer to Christ’s resurrection life. It does, however, refer to the eternal resurrection life of believers (cf. v. 16: σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, with the citation ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται).
Re 3:21-26, while there is no explicit reference to the resurrection of Jesus, it is always implied throughout Romans, once Paul has given it the preeminent position at 1:4. The ‘Lord’ about whom we are speaking is the risen and resurrected Lord, marked out as such by the resurrection from the dead he experienced. The question is, is it underplayed in Romans? It is certainly not mentioned here. Jesus’ resurrection is always in the back of Paul's mind. But Paul needs to be allowed to speak of the death of Christ in a focussed manner, and does not by that fact 'underplay' the resurrection. Paul doesn’t underplay the resurrection because he doesn’t talk about it in every place. Once he has laid it as the foundation at the very beginning, it must be used as an interpretive key to the rest of the letter. Moreover, the motif of redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις: 3:24) is a broad one, broad enough to refer to the justifying death of Christ (Rom 3:24) which brings forgiveness through his blood (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14), as well as the ἀπολύτρωσις of our bodies in resurrection (Rom 8:23; cf. Eph 1:14, 4:30).
In 4:17, with the twin description of God as τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα || ‘the one making alive the dead and calling the things not being as being’, Paul reintroduces the motif of resurrection (Head 1998: 66; Hooker 2002: 331; Marshall 2008: 256). God makes the dead alive (θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκρούς). The ‘deadness’ is later explained as relating to the age and infertility of Abraham and Sarah’s bodies, and their inability to conceive (v. 19): thus the resurrection language is stretched to refer to human reproductive infertility (the dead) and fertility (making alive). However God is also described as one who verbally calls (καλοῦντος) those things not being as being (τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα).
Frequently, the phrase ‘the things not being as being’ (τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα) is taken to refer to creation ex nihilo (e.g. Moo 1996: 232; Schreiner 1998: 236-7; Kruse 2012: 217), the making of something from nothing. However, if a strong link is sought between the motif of creation ex nihilo and justification, such that creation ex nihilo conditions what justification actually is (justification is a making anew, a renewal), the factitive view of justification has a strong textual ground and the Protestant strict forensic justification is undermined. However, there are conceptual difficulties and incoherences that arise from such an ex nihilo view, and a better explanation is available.
The first relates to the fact that the seed (τὸ σπέρμα σου: v. 18) already existed in Abraham and Sarah’s dead bodies. By definition, the seed cannot be ‘something from nothing’; rather, from their supposedly ‘dead’ bodies, living seed will be drawn (Schreiner 1998: 236). The paradigm is thus not literally and directly ‘something from nothing’ (ex nihilo) but more accurately ‘life from the dead’.
The second relates to the verb Paul uses, the adjectival participle describing God, καλοῦντος. The verb καλέω (I call) in the New Testament generally refers to two types of verbal actions: (1) a calling as a beckoning, summoning, bidding, or inviting that gathers people to the one who calls (in Paul, Rom 8:30, 9:12, 24; cf. 1 Cor 1:9, 7:15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 10:27; Gal 1:6, 15, 5:8, 13; Eph 4:1, 4; Col 3:15; 1 Thess 2:12, 4:7, 5:24; 2 Thess 2:14; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 1:9); or (2) a calling as a naming, the verbal act of attributing or using a name, label, identification, or description of an already existing person, place, or entity (in Paul, Rom 9:7, 25, 26; cf. 1 Cor 15:9). The former could conceivably be adapted to a reference to creation ex nihilo, although in every other case in Paul it is a reference to a person or thing already in existence. The latter usage is less fitted to expressing creation ex nihilo. It is, however, well-suited to the verbal declarative act of justification of the ungodly as attributing an identification or description, a divine ‘naming’ of the ‘ungodly’ as ‘righteous’.
In Genesis 1:1 LXX, the general verb ποιέω (I make, do) is used to describe God’s creation (᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν). In the LXX account of the creation week, the verbal act is expressed by καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός, and there result by the verb ἐγένετο in the construction, καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως (e.g. Gen 1:3; cf. 2:4, 7). However, the subsequent naming of the new environment or populating element is expressed by καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς (e.g. Gen 1:5). Thus, God called the light day and the darkness he called night || καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα (Gen 1:5 LXX); God called the firmament heaven || καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν (Gen 1:8 LXX; cf. v. 10) and the man calls the animals different names (Gen 2:19-20). “Whatever Adam called the same living soul, this was its name” || ὃ ἐὰν ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ Αδαμ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, τοῦτο ὄνομα αὐτοῦ” (Gen 2:19). Thus, the naming of Eve as ‘woman’ uses this verb: αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή || she shall be called ‘woman’ (Gen 2). Narrative explanation of God’s creation uses the phrase καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς […] (e.g. vv. 16, 21, 25, 27, 2:2, 4; cf. 2:3; 3:7), as well as God’s deliberative, “let us make man” (καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον: 1:26; cf. 2:18).
What this means is that if we are looking for intertextual verbal echoes within Romans 4:17 from Genesis 1-2, they do not lie in the motifs of ‘making’ or ‘becoming’, but in the motif of calling in the sense of ‘naming’ or ‘describing’. The verb καλέω is not used for calling into being, but calling something a name. Notice the object and object complements in the following constructions, the object of the verb being the thing named, the object complement being the ‘name’:
And God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness he called ‘night’ || καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα (Gen 1:5 LXX);
God called the firmament ‘heaven’ || καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν (Gen 1:8 LXX).
And God called the dry land ‘earth’ and the gatherings of the waters he called ‘seas’ || καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσεν θαλάσσας. (Gen 1:10 LXX)
19And God also formed out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the heaven, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them (τί καλέσει αὐτά), and whatever Adam called any living creature, this was its name (καὶ πᾶν, ὃ ἐὰν ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ Αδαμ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, τοῦτο ὄνομα αὐτοῦ). 20And Adam called names (καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Αδαμ ὀνόματα) to all the cattle and to all the birds of the heaven, and to all the wild beasts of the field, but for Adam there was found no helper like himself. (Gen 2:19-20 LXX)
She shall be called 'woman', because she was taken from the man || αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήμφθη αὕτη. (Gen 2:23 LXX)
The usual inter-testamental passage thought to refer to creation ex nihilo is, “I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed (οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός)”, or marginal rendering, “God made them out of things that did not exist” (RSV). Thus also mankind comes into being (καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος οὕτω γίνεται: 2 Maccabees 7:28). However, notice again the use of ποιέω and γίνομαι, which brings the passage in closer reference to Genesis 1:1 LXX, and the making of created things.
In Hebrew 11:3 is the closest statement we have to ex nihilo creation in the New Testament. By faith we accept that the universe was formed by the word of God (ῥήματι θεοῦ), so that the things not seen have come from the things not visible: εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι. It is not strictly a statement of ex nihilo creation, but that God brings the visible from the invisible. Note that, like 2 Maccabees, it is not a verb that refers to a specifically verbal act, though the word γίνομαι can refer to verbal acts. Rather, it refers to the act of creation.
Thus, the teaching about creation found in Genesis 1-2, 2 Maccabees 7:28, and Hebrews 11:3, does not illuminate Paul’s use of the verb καλέω (I call) in Romans 4:17 at least at the level of verbal echo. If anything, Genesis 1-2 LXX provides a precedent that καλέω (I call) is used to name something, in the form of ‘X’ is called ‘Y’.
Third is the adverb Paul uses which makes it clear that it is not a calling into being, but a calling as (ὡς) being (τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα: Moo 1996: 281-2; Murray 1959: 1:1467; contra Visscher 2009: 206-7). This is significant, because it points to the fact that Paul is not talking about ‘making’ something into something else, but ‘calling’ in the sense of ‘naming’ something ‘as’ something else. This makes explicit that the construction in Romans 4:17 is analogous to the constructions seen in Genesis 1-2 which use the verb καλέω, as the adverb ὡς that Paul adds to the construction serves to further distinguish the object and object complement in the double accusative construction.
A fourth indicator that τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα (Rom 4:17) does not allude to creation ex nihilo in an immediate way is Paul’s parallel construction in 1 Corinthians 1:28 (of the recent commentators, this illuminating parallel is only pursued and utilized by Hultgren 2011: 189).
καὶ τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός, τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ || and God chose the ignoble/of no name of the world and the despised, the things not being, so that the things being might be nullified (1 Cor 1:28)
The Corinthian Christians are described as 'the things not being', τὰ μὴ ὄντα (v. 28), so that their calling by God (κλῆσις) might nullify 'the things being', τὰ ὄντα. The first description in verse 28 is the direct opposite of οὐ […] εὐγενεῖς (v. 26), wellborn, of good family, and is τὰ ἀγενῆ, the ignoble, those of no family—they do not have a good or noble family name or reputation. The second description in verse 28 is καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα, the things that are despised, or rejected. The third description is of the τὰ μὴ ὄντα, 'the things not being', the ‘nothings’. In 1 Corinthians 1:28, God called (κλῆσις: v. 26, a call in the sense of summoning; cf. καλοῦντος in Romans 4:17, calling in the sense of naming) the so-called ‘nothings’, the despised, those of no family, name, or breeding, so that the things that are being might be nullified (ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ: v. 28), and so that ‘no flesh might boast before him’ (29ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ: 1 Cor 1:29; cf. Rom 3:27, 4:2). Again, this is not obviously creation ex nihilo, and while creation ex nihilo might be in the background, it is a long way in the background, and it would only be there to illuminate the divine calling of the despised, powerless, and lowborn, all of whom really do exist, but have no boast before God. By faith in the gospel, the Corinthians have not themselves, but Christ, as their δικαιοσύνη (1 Cor 1:30). In other words, the choice of God of those not normally chosen by those of the world reflects God’s reversal. They now have Christ as their righteousness because they are in Jesus, and this makes the worldly judgement of their insignificance irrelevant. The reality of God’s election means that worldly labels and appreciations of them do not reflect God’s opinion.
The fifth factor is the actual biological relation of Abraham to his worldwide family. In Romans 4:13-25, Paul presents God as summoning and naming nations (i.e. gentiles, non-Jews, those who are not physically Abraham's descendants) as spiritual descendants from Abraham. Abraham was presented as someone who believed that God would bring literal descendants from his and Sarah's body in the circumstance where infertility as deadness might have suggested that fulfilling the divine promise is impossible (Schreiner 1998: 237). However, Paul’s whole point is that many of those who are Abraham’s spiritual progeny are not his biological progeny, and others of his biological progeny are not of his spiritual progeny. That is, while some of Abraham’s spiritual family are also his physical descendants according to the flesh, the whole point of Romans 4:9-25 is that not all of them are. In other words, it is not a literal making of biological descendants of Abraham derived from his own body and sharing his DNA, but some of them are ‘called’, ‘attributed’ or even ‘reckoned’ to be his seed, even though they are not Abraham’s physical and genetic progeny, but for very good reason—they share the faith that Abraham had while he was in his uncircumcision. But since they share his faith, this much more important factor is the reason that his multi-ethnic worldwide family need not be identical to his biological descenants. But again, we are in the realm not of ontology, but of nominalism, of naming and considering and reckoning those who are not as though they are, not of regarding who they are biologically and ethnically, but what God calls or names them. So the naming of believing gentiles as 'Abraham's seed', even though they are not literally his descendants, involves God's reckoning such a status to them.
The sixth factor is that undeniably, Paul collocates and thus contextually connects the calling of those not being as being with God’s verbal act of justifying the ungodly (Rom 4:3-6, 11). The two are both verbal acts, and they are both counter-factual—that is, the verbal act or declaration in both Romans 4:5 and 17 is in conflict with something about the person for whom the divine declaration or calling is made. These two ‘callings’ therefore, that the ungodly are ‘righteous’, and that those who are not actually ‘are’, mutually interpret and condition one another.
To sum up, the verbal calling or naming the things not being as being, provides another ground for saying that justification is a counter factual synthetic justification grounded on the extrinsic righteousness of Christ. (1) the promise made to Abraham in the Genesis context was not creation ex nihilo in its strict sense, nor even turning stones into sons of Abraham, because the Genesis promise related to seed from his own body; (2) the ‘calling’ (καλοῦντος) Paul describes is most likely a naming on the basis of the Genesis 1-2 usage; (3) and is specifically said to be a calling as (ὡς) being, not a calling into being, with the construction τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα showing the features of double accusative or object complement; (4) as it does in 1 Corinthians 1:28, the Pauline parallel, which is not creation ex nihilo, (5) so that in the end, Paul in Romans 4 is not saying that biological non-descendants are miraculously made Abrahams descendants from nothing, but for good reasons they are regarded, named, and called Abraham’s spiritual descendants because they share Abraham’s faith, (6) in the same way that God ‘calls’ (‘justification’ involves a judicial verbal declaratory act of acquittal) the ungodly ‘righteous’ for good reasons.
In 4:19, Abraham faces the reality of the present and persisting deadness of his own body (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb, who was to be the mother of his progeny (καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας). The seed (τὸ σπέρμα σου) already exists in Abraham and Sarah’s dead bodies, and from their supposedly ‘dead’ bodies, living seed will be drawn (Schreiner 1998: 236). The paradigm is not so much ‘something from nothing’ (ex nihilo) but ‘life from the dead’.
In 4:24, while Abraham’s faith in God and his promise was in spite of and in the face of his bodily ‘deadness’, and was directed towards God’s promise of seed (οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου: Rom 4:18; Gen 15:5), the Christian believer’s object of faith is the one who accomplished the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν: Romans 4:24; cf. 10:6-9; Moo 1996: 287-8; Hooker 2002: 331). Wright correctly concludes, “The conception and birth of Isaac is therefore an anticipation of Jesus’ resurrection” (Wright 2003: 247). Notice again the link between the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the historical fact of his bodily resurrection from the dead. God has declared this Jesus both Lord and Christ by his resurrection from the dead (cf. Rom 1:4: Acts 2:36, 32).
In 4:25 we find the final application of the justification of Abraham by faith in Gen 15:6 to the present salvation of Paul’s readers, syntactically consists of a relative clause (ὃς) which takes the antecedent Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν (v. 24). It consists of two clauses in parallel showing some rhetorical balance.
(a) ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν
(b) καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.
There are three issues of importance to determine in v. 25. The first is Old Testamental intertextual echo with Isaiah 53:10-12 that has frequently been propounded. The second is the best way we should understand διὰ with the accusative in both clauses. The third is the meaning of δικαίωσις.
First, it seems quite clear to many that underlying the phrase in Romans 4:25a ‘παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν’ is Isaiah 53:10-12 LXX. The following is my literal translation of Isaiah 53:10-12 LXX.
10And [the] Lord wills to cleanse (καθαρίζω) him with wounds when you (pl) present a sin offering, your life will see long-living offspring. Also, [the] Lord wills to take away 11from the labour of his life, to show him light (φῶς) and to form him with understanding, to justify [the] just one who is serving many well (δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς), and he will bear their sins. 12For this reason (διὰ τοῦτο), he will inherit many and divide [the] plunder with the strong, because (ἀνθ’ ὧν) his life was handed over to death (παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ), and he was reckoned among the lawless (ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη), and he offered himself up for the sins of many (αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν), and because of their sins he was handed over (διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη). (Isaiah 53:10-12 LXX)
Note the correspondence of passive παρεδόθη twice in Isaiah 53:12 LXX, and preposition διά with the accusative, showing a clear similarity with Romans 4:25a. Even the cautious Morna Hooker argues that Romans 4:25 is “the one clear echo of Isaiah 53” (1998: 101). More confidently, Hofius says, Romans 4:25 “is a summary of the fourth Servant Song distilled to essentials” (Hofius 2004: 180). Sapp argues that “Romans 4:25a already alludes the Greek text of Isaiah 53:12” (Sapp 1998: 187). Hengel and Bailey rightly observe of Isaiah 53:11 LXX as follows:
Here lies the root of the New Testament idea of the resurrection as the justification or vindication of the crucified one (1 Tim 3:16; John 16:10; cf also Rom 4:25) […] The ‘justification’ of 53:11 is the justification of the one who, although considered ungodly in the eyes of sinners, was in fact the only truly righteous one. It is therefore the precondition of the justification of the real sinners, which the servant of the Lord effects through his vicarious death. (Hengel & Bailey 2004: 128)
The Righteous One is declared righteous by seeing the light. So in the LXX, the Righteous One is the object of the verb, so that the Lord, the subject of the verb, does something to the Servant, the Righteous One, which is to vindicate or justify him. The servant is already righteous, δίκαιον, but the Lord shows him or proves him to be righteous, δικαιῶσαι (Sapp 1998: 174-5). Thus, if the intertextual echo is to Isaiah 53:10-12 LXX, this supports Gaffin’s contention that the justification of Christ by his own bodily resurrection on the third day is the unexpressed middle term of verse 25: “The unexpressed assumption is that Jesus’ resurrection is his justification” (Gaffin 1978: 123).
Second, the issue to be decided is the meaning of διά with the accusative in both clauses of Romans 4:25, and the denotation and referent of διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. Preposition διά is clearly retrospective or causal in verse 25a, διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν: the reason that the servant was delivered over to death was ‘because of our sins’. Some argue that διά with the accusative should have the same meaning in both clauses (e.g. Murray 1959: 1:154), but others that they need not (Wright 2003: 247-8; Bird 2007: 51; Moo 1996: 289; Cranfield 2001: 1:251; Hultgren: 2011: 191; Marshall 2008: 255). The issue is whether διά with accusative in the clause in verse 25b, καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, is retrospective and causal, that is, ‘because of our justification’ (e.g. Schreiner 1998: 244; Morris 1988: 215; Jewett 2007: 343), or prospective and final, ‘for our justification’ (e.g. Bird 2007: 51; Wright 2003: 247-8; Moo 1996: 289; Cranfield 2001: 1:251; Murray 1959: 1:154; Hultgren 2011: 192; Kruse 2012: 222; Head 1998: 68; Hooker 2003: 94-5; 1998: 101 fn 12; Hofius 2004: 180; Marshall 2008: 255; Warnock 2010: 121). However, making a decision is assisted by observing a parallel structure in verses 23-24:
23Οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι’ αὐτὸν μόνον ὅτι ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ 24ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν
In verse 23, δι’ αὐτὸν means ‘for’ the benefit of Abraham, and is retrospective. Therefore, verse 23 teaches that Genesis 15:6 was not (οὐκ) only written ‘for’ (διά) Abraham in the past. In verse 24, δι’ ἡμᾶς is prospective. Genesis 15:6 was written also ‘for us’ about to be (μέλλει) reckoned (righteous). This pattern within verses 23-24 suggests that (1) διά, with the accusative need not have the same meaning in each clause of 4:25 (Hendriksen 1981: 161; Bird 2007: 51), and (2) a pattern is established by verses 23-24 in that that the first instance of διά is retrospective, and second causal, and that this also carries over into verse 25. Thus, I take Romans 4:25 to refer to Christ’s resurrection as not showing that the death of Jesus Christ has achieved justification (‘he was raised because our justification was achieved by his death’) but that the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself has a justifying effect on those who believe in the one who raised Jesus from the dead.
The third observation is that the Graeco-Roman sources and LXX support the meaning of δικαίωσις as ‘justification’ or ‘vindication’ (e.g. LSJM, 429; BDAG, 250; TDNT, 2:220). The verbal noun denotes the action in a lawcourt of putting things to right by pronouncing the verdict (Hooker 2002: 331). The emphasis is on the process of justification rather than or in addition to its result. Genitive ἡμῶν is probably an objective genitive. That δικαίωσις is also used in Romans 5:18 suggests that Paul has on view the salvific δικαίωσις ζwῆς of the believer’s resurrection, at least as justification’s consummation, in 4:25 (Hofius 2004: 182; Hooker 2002: 332-3). Hence, Christ was raised for our justification, in the sense that the resurrection of Christ procures our justification, consummated in our resurrection. By virtue of Christ’s resurrection, God’s sentence of vindication (which is implicit in Christ’s resurrection with regard to his person and claims: cf. Rom 1:4; cf. 2 Tim 3:16) is attributed to the believer (Bird 2007: 51; Head 1998: 69). The present divine justifying verdict for the benefit of the believer received by faith is an anticipation of the future final verdict of vindication of the believer brought into the present: in a similar way, Christ’s own resurrection in the past is an anticipation of the resurrection of all believers having occurred in history and thus now brought into the present.
To summarise our findings from Romans 1-4, Paul introduces the motif of resurrection of Christ in Romans 1:4, 4:17 and 24-25, and uses more general resurrection motifs in 1:17 and 4:19. In Romans 4:17-25, God is naming believers in Christ from the gentiles as descendants of Abraham, where from our perspective, their ethnic nationality was not Jewish and they remain uncircumcised, and from Abraham’s perspective, the deadness suggests that fulfilling the divine promise is impossible. But faith apprehends that God indeed has power to do what he promised to Abraham (Rom 4:21). Romans 4:25b brings Christ’s resurrection in history into the closest possible relation with the believer’s justification. However, except perhaps obliquely in 1:4, Romans has not yet explicated that Christ’s resurrection is Christ’s justification. So far, Christ was raised for our justification (4:25b), not for his. Hooker takes us part of the way in determining what Christ’s resurrection declares about Christ:
The link between justification and resurrection is a natural one. To pronounce a man righteous is to reverse the condemnation which sentenced him to death. (Hooker 1990: 40)
As Hooker observes, “the meaning of [Romans] 4:25 is spelled out in chapters 5, 6 and 8” (Hooker 1998: 102). This raises the question, does Paul explicitly link our justification with Christ’s justification through resurrection in Romans? I argue that Paul indeed does this, in his use of δικαίωμα in Romans 5:18. This requires an analysis of the motif of resurrection in Romans 5
The motif of resurrection introduced in Romans 4:17, 24-25 re-emerges in 5:9-10, 16-19, 20 as a key part of Paul’s argument to give Christians confidence that because of what God has done in the past and is doing in the present, he will certainly complete and finish their final salvation. The resurrection motif is highlighted in the ‘lighter’ part of Paul’s qal wayyōmer argument in Romans 5:8-11, 15, 17, 21. Determining the referent of ἑνός in verses 12, 15-19 is an important step in the argument, and my finding is that ἑνός in Romans 5:18 should be considered masculine and personal.
In 5:9-10, the motif of resurrection emerges with Paul’s ‘how much more’ argument.
9πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ σωθησόμεθα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. 10εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ·
If we have been justified in the present δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ (v. 9) while we were sinners (the harder thing), ‘how much more’ (πολλῷ […] μᾶλλον) will be saved from God’s future ὀργή ‘through him’ (the easier thing). Campbell regards δι’ αὐτοῦ (v. 9) as referring back to God’s love in Christ’s death (v. 8: Campbell 2012: 260). But this goes against the grain of the a fortiori argument, and thus should be rejected in favour of a reference to verse 9, which has introduced a new basis (δι’ αὐτοῦ) which grounds the believer’s greater confidence. Thus, the referent of δι’ αὐτοῦ (v. 9) does not lie in verse 8 but in verse 10. Verse 10 clarifies that being saved ‘through him’ is salvation ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ. Preposition ἐν is instrumental (e.g. Moo 1996: 312). The phrase ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ refers to Christ’s resurrection life (Rom 8:34; e.g. Moo 1996: 311; Cranfield: 2001: 1:266; Kruse 2012: 238; Schreiner 1998: 264), not his pre-crucifixion life (Phillips 2006: 93), nor the transformed lives of Christians prior to the parousia (Jewett 2007: 367). The way that Christ’s resurrection life saves us is not stipulated. It could be that Christ’s resurrection shows that the death was received by God and effective for our justification. But I think that there is more to the resurrection life of Christ for our salvation than that.
In 5:11, Paul renominalizes—that is, he mentions again the name of Jesus after referring to him with pronouns—with the phrase διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ’ is referred to in the previous verse as ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ. In other words, it is the risen Lord Jesus, who has shown himself Lord over sin and death by his resurrection (Rom 1:4), and thus will save his people (σωθησόμεθα ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ: Rom 5:10b). The risen Lord Jesus Christ is the focus, not the Son God presented as the propitiation (Rom 3:24-26, 4:25a, 5:6-9a). Thus, the gift, τὸ χάρισμα, in Romans 5:15 probably does not refer in the first instance to Christ’s death in distinction to his resurrection life (contra Kirk 2008: 102; followed by Kruse 2012: 248), but to the gift of righteousness (5:17b: Cranfield 2001: 1:284; Dunn 1988: 1:280; Jewett 2007: 381), that Christ distributes as a result of being the risen Lord.
Romans 5 introduces a string of ‘how much more’ arguments (πολλῷ μᾶλλον: Rom 5:9, 10, 15, 17), described as the Latin a fortiori, (‘even stronger’, Collins 2005: 28ff; Murray 1959: 1:197ff), or a minori ad maius (‘from the minor to the major’), or the Rabbinic qal wayyōmer (‘light and heavy’), argument (Moo 1996: 309). In Romans, it appears only in chapter 5. Paul’s argument proceeds from heavy to light (Cranfield 2001: 1:289; Moo 1996: 310).
9πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ σωθησόμεθα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς. 10εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ·
The two most frequent motifs in the ‘heavy-harder’ premises throughout Romans 5 are, firstly, death (v. 8: ἀπέθανεν; v. 9: ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ; v. 10: διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ; v. 15: οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον; v17: ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν: v. 21: ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ) and, secondly, sin or trespass (v. 8: ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν; v. 10: ἐχθροὶ ὄντες; v. 15: παραπτώματι; v. 17: παραπτώματι; v. 21: ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία).
The most frequent motifs in the ‘light-easier’ inferences are, firstly, Jesus Christ, who is renominalised with increasing morphological bulk as the argument progresses (v. 9: δι’ αὐτοῦ; v. 10: ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ; v. 15: τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: v. 17: διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; until the climactic v. 21: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν), and, secondly, the related motif of his resurrection life (v. 9: δι’ αὐτοῦ; v. 10: ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ; v. 17: ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν; v. 21: εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον). The motif of the resurrection informs and conditions the motif of Jesus Christ, particularly the title κυρίος. Jesus Christ is now the resurrected Lord (Rom 1:4). He reigns as victor over death, and shares that reign with his people, who now also inhabit the realm of ‘life’. And so Christ’s people reign in the realm of life (ἐν ζωῇ: v. 17) with Christ, the risen Lord who has resurrection life (Rom 5:17, 21, cf. Rom 4:25; 5:9-10; Jewett 2007: 384).
A third set of motifs is that of ‘grace’, ‘gift’, and ‘righteousness’, brought together in verses 15, 17, 21 (v. 15: ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι; v. 17: καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης; v. 21: ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης). δικαιοσύνης is both the content of the gift (v. 17), and the means through which ‘grace’ (favourable standing with God: Rom 5:2), reigns in the realm of Lord Christ (v. 21). Thus, Kirk’s assertion that “Paul does not explicitly appeal to the resurrection of Jesus in 5:15-21” (Kirk 2008: 103) requires serious nuancing. The resurrection motif is found in Paul’s explicit references to ‘life’ and ‘reigning Lord’. Yates correctly appreciates that “[w]hile the term “resurrection” does not occur it is implicit.” (Yates 2008: 132)
Two observations follow. First, Paul is increasingly backgrounding the motifs of death and sin, while he increasingly foregrounds righteousness, and the resurrection life that the living Lord Jesus Christ brings, until his climax in verse 21. Second, after verse 11, Paul is increasingly distancing ‘Jesus Christ’, however nominalized, from ‘sin and death’. After verse 11, Christ is only brought into association with the motifs of (resurrection) life, ruling, and righteousness, not death. In one instance, ‘many transgressions’ is brought into relation to Christ. The one exception is verse 16b, where τὸ χάρισμα came from many παραπτωμάτων. But the motif of death is in the background in relation to Christ, and the resurrection and life is in the foreground. Hooker’s conclusion is correct:
The logic that links these ideas is underlined by the use in each verse of the phrase πολλῷ μᾶλλον since, as in 5,15 and 5,17, life is more powerful than death. (Hooker 2002: 332)
Regarding 5:18, a minority of exegetes have held that ἑνὸς δικαιώματος should be rendered ‘one vindicating act’, ‘one act of justification’ or, what is my preferred translation, ‘the justification of the one’, who is Christ. The verbal noun δικαίωμα in Romans 5:18 thus refers to the justification or vindication Christ received in his resurrection, and in which believers share. O’Neil rightly comments that:
[T]he Greek […] more probably should be translated, ‘one trespass […] one vindication’. The vindication referred to is the resurrection; […] the word has already occurred in v 16, as here, in close proximity to condemnation, and there it means vindication (RSV: justification). We must therefore keep the same meaning here too. (O’Neil 1975: 105-106)
Morna Hooker likewise takes δικαίωμα in verse 18 to refer to God’s act of acquittal, justification or vindication regarding Christ himself in raising Christ from the dead (Hooker 1990: 29). Christ himself is justified and acknowledged to be righteous in his resurrection. Hooker argues that the unusual term δικαίωμα is appropriate because it means “the amendment of a wrong, the act of vindication” (1990, 31). Since the condemnation of the many results from the condemnation of Adam, the logic of the argument suggests that the acquittal of the many depends on the acquittal of Christ. This acquittal, which leads to life for the many, would have taken place at the resurrection, an act of vindication which established his righteousness. It is the obedience of the Christ (v. 19) that leads to the one act of acquittal of him by God the Father. Christ’s obedience is the basis of his judicial acquittal, and thus vindication in resurrection. Believers share in Christ’s acquittal before the Law, and in God’s declaration of Christ’s righteousness (4:25), and so believers share in his righteousness, just as we once shared in Adam’s transgression and condemnation.
Contextually, Christ’s resurrection has been brought into connection with justification in 4:25, and Christ’s resurrection life is said to be salvific (Rom 5:9-10). By 5:16, Paul has created a more proximate context and stronger note of victory than another recapitulation of the cross of Christ. By 5:16, Paul has progressed from the foundation of Christ’s propitiation, redemption and blood, standing immovable in human history (Rom 3:24-26; 4:25a; 5:8-10a; cf. 6:10a), and has built upon it the present and future motifs of the resurrection life of the Lord Jesus Christ, who reigns over death (Rom 1:4, 4:25; 5:10b; 6:9-10). Since writing Romans 1:32, 3:21-6, as important as they are, Paul has written 4:25b! And since Paul’s reiteration of Christ’s justifying blood (Rom 5:6-9a), Paul has inserted the ‘much mores’ of Christ’s resurrection life (Rom 5:9-10), so that we now have ground for rejoicing in a living Lord (Rom 5:11). The unusual phrase ‘in life’ is reintroduced in 5:17. Theologically, it is fitting that Christ be the object of justification. Christ suffered an injustice that required correction. His death brought negative imputations upon his character and his claims. The resurrection corrected that injustice by justifying Christ (1 Tim 3:16; Rom 1:4). Far from being awkward, the objective genitive explains how the resurrection of Christ brings our justification (4:25b). The resurrection of the Christ brings our justification because it is Christ’s justification. Because the believer is in union with Christ, the believer is likewise justified.
The justifying aspect of being raised with Christ […] [rests] on the resurrection-approved righteousness of Christ which is his […] the justification of the ungodly is not arbitrary but according to truth: it is synthetic with respect to the believer only because it is analytic with respect to Christ (as resurrected). (Gaffin 1978/87: 132)
In 5:21, Paul sets up the competing realm and lordship with which Christ did battle. Sin reigned as personified king in the realm or domain of death; in the same way, grace now reigns as king through righteousness with the result of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The realm of Christ, where he is Lord, is where grace reigns through the means of his gift of righteousness reckoned or imputed, leading to eternal life. It is on this basis that Paul in 6:1 rejects the idea that we might continue to live in sin (πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ;). The idea is rejected because a new resurrection life has been made available, and a new Lord has been established, Christ.
In 6:4, we read ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν || ‘so that just as Christ was raised from death through the glory of the father, thus also we might walk in newness of life’. There is both a reference to Christ's resurrection in history, and also an ethical reality for the Christian that Christ’s resurrection in history brings. Just as Christ was raised from the dead in past history (ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν), thus also we might walk in newness of life (ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν: Rom 6:4). The resurrection of the Christ brings the possibility of a new manner of life (cf. the Jewish halakha), represented by the metaphor of walking. That is, the new era brought in by Christ’s resurrection in history brings the new possibility of newness of life now, which is a resurrection-shaped lifestyle. The resurrection motif thus shapes the ethical call upon the Christian.
In 6:5, there is a conditional sentence. The protasis enunciates the principle that those who undergo baptism in faith in Christ have become united with (σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν) the likeness of Christ’s death (τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ). Here I take the dative τῷ ὁμοιώματι as the object of σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν (e.g. Moo 1996: 368; Murray 1959: 1:218 fn 5; Jewett 2007: 400; Schreiner 1998: 314-5; contra Cranfield 2001: 1:307). The union spoken of here is with the ‘likeness of Christ’s death’. The word ‘likeness’ refers to a similarity and a difference. The union would appear to occur in the rite of water baptism (in its own manner, i.e. sacramentally, as a symbol, as a visual aid or picture), which is a likeness of Christ’s death. While being immersed under water is nothing like crucifixion, and also the administration of it does not literally kill the candidate (unless the administrator holds the candidate under!), Jesus did describe his crucifixion as a baptism to undergo. The dramatic visualization of immersion is the similitude of Christ’s death and burial, and in which the believer undergoes when submitting to water baptism. The logic is that since the sacramental (symbolic) union has occurred (Rom 6:5a), then the apodosis stipulates we will certainly also be partakers of the real and literal resurrection of the dead (ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα: Rom 6:5b). Conjunctions ἀλλὰ καὶ introduce the apodosis emphatically (e.g. Jewett 2007: 401; Schreiner 1998: 312). Future ἐσόμεθα should be taken as a real and eschatological future. Thus, the sacramental union promises the future literal and eschatological resurrection to the candidates. That is, the phrase τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ in verse 6a concerning Christ’s death should not be implied into verse 6b which relates to Jesus’ resurrection. Union with only the likeness of Christ’s death means partaking in the actuality and reality of Christ’s resurrection. This means that Romans 6 to this stage does not explicitly teach a ‘realized’ indicative of the spiritual resurrection of believers, such as Paul teaches in Colossians 3:1-4 and Ephesians 2:5-7 (though see on 6:11-13 below). Rather, Paul points to the future eschatological resurrection promised to those who die symbolically with Christ in baptism, and on this basis the present imperative of ‘newness of life’ is based.
In 6:6, Paul restates an indicative with two purpose/result clauses: “Our old man was co-crucified, so that the body of sin might be nullified, so that we no longer be enslaved to sin” || ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. ‘Our old man’ (ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος) is the man belonging to the era of Adam (Dunn 1988: 1:318), the man who lives under the tyranny of sin and death (Moo 1996: 373). This old man was crucified with Christ (implied). This happened (a) in the mind of God when Christ died, as part of Christ becoming ‘sin for us’ (2 Cor 5:21); (b) instrumentally when the Christian had faith (c) sacramentally or symbolically in the rite of baptism. Consequently believers are no longer in the realm of Adam, sin, and death but in the realm of Christ, grace, righteousness, and life (indicative). The language is representational, positional, and forensic, picking up the contrast between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:15-19 (Moo 1996: 373-4; Schreiner 1998: 315).
Romans 6:6 provides the mechanism for movement from those who die ‘in Adam’ to becoming those who live ‘in Christ’. The resolution of 5:19, which puts in parallel our existing judicial establishment as sinners through the one man, Adam, and our future judicial establishment as righteous through one man, Christ, is found in the fact that ‘our old man’, the ‘us in Adam’, was crucified with Christ, the last Adam. In other words, the rule of sin was decisively brought to an end for those united to Christ’s death (Schreiner 1998: 316; Moo 1996: 375; Dunn 1988: 1:319). ‘The body of sin’ (τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας) refers to the whole old man that belongs to the age ruled by sin and death (Jewett 2007: 402-3). The purpose, expressed by the genitive articular infinitive, is that we no longer are enslaved to personified sin. Those in Christ have been liberated from sin as a slave master. Verse 6 expresses indicative, not imperative (contra Dunn 1988: 1:320). Believers are now removed from the mastery of sin and now are under the Lordship of Christ (Jewett 2007: 404).
In 6:8-9, Jesus’ past resurrection guarantees our future resurrection, and also enables our present newness of life.
So in 6:8 we read: εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ, πιστεύομεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ || now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. The death with Christ has been sacramentally expounded—we have been united with his death in baptism. This sacramental union points to both the instrumental union (by subjective faith) and theological union in the mind of God at the cross, where Christ as propitiation and substitute bore the sin of his people according to the terms of an asham, or guilt offering (Isa 53:10-12; Rom 3:25-26; 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21). But Jesus rose again, and so Paul can meaningfully talk about our future life with Christ (καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ). The future nature of this resurrection life with Christ is indicated by (1) the verb πιστεύομεν, which reminds us that the reality is not yet possessed, but must be apprehended by faith; and (2) the real and eschatological future intimated by συζήσομεν. Thus verse 6, because it speaks of the believers faith in their own future resurrection life with Christ, implies present faith in Jesus’ past historical resurrection (cf. 1:4, 10:6-9), and so our own eschatological real and future resurrection life with Jesus (καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ). What is implied in verse 8 is made explicit in verse 9.
In 6:9, the faith in the resurrected Jesus is based on knowledge about the fact in history of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead: εἰδότες ὅτι Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει, θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει || “knowing that Christ was raised from the dead no longer to die, death no longer reigns over him” (Rom 6:9b). “Death no longer reigns over Christ” because Christ was raised from the dead no longer to die. The three expressions are epexegetical and mutually interpreting: first, Christ’s resurrection in the past (Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν) means second, he can no longer die (οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει), that is, he now lives for ever and cannot ever die again. The third expression recasts the consequence of this historical event in lordship and realm terms: θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει || “death [as a salvation-historical actor, a ruler over the realm of sin and death] no longer [it once briefly did] reigns as king [note cognate verb of κυρίος] over Jesus [referred to by pronoun αὐτοῦ, who is Lord over death by his resurrection].” We see again the importance of the lordship of Christ and its relationship to his resurrection. One of the vital realms of lordship for Christ is in the realm of death. By his resurrection in history, death no longer reigns over him, though it once briefly did, when Jesus submitted to death.
In 6:10, the Lordship theme is continued with the verb κυριεύει, used in verse 9. Jesus’ death once (ἐφάπαξ: v. 10a) was a brief though important phase of his work of salvation completed in so far as Christ is concerned, and Christ’s death was a death to sin (ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ: v. 10a). Christ’s death was a death to the demands of sin as the ruler of the realm of death. It was to justify those who had sinned (Rom 6:7). The demands of sin for Christ’s death in reality relate to God’s decree that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), and the structure of the biblical propitiatory and penal substitutionary atonement thought, under which a substitutes death and blood is required to remit sin and aver God’s wrath. Underlying the personification of sin as a ruler demanding Christ’s death is the justice of God and the requirement of penal retribution for sin (Rom 3:25; cf. 2:6-13). Christ’s current resurrection life is referred to in verse 10b: ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ. This refers to Jesus Christ’s current heavenly session. Now Jesus lives a life not in any sense under the lordship of death and sin, from which he is now far removed, reigning far above them. In a sense, Jesus’ death involved him submitting to death and sin’s lordship for a time. His death was for sin, because of our sin, as a sin offering, because of the demands of divine justice as a result of our sin (Rom 8:3, cf. 3:25), but Jesus’ current and endless resurrection life means that his death once was a singularity, and his resurrection life now is completely lived in the realm of God, in complete dedication to God, no longer inhibited by death, threatened by death. In the realm of God, Jesus Christ is Lord and Son of God, that is, King (cf. 1:3-4), as shown by his resurrection.
The motif of the resurrection of Christ and the life he gives us is thus applied to the believers present walk in this age in 6:11-13.
In 6:11, this lifestyle involves accounting or reckoning or imputing oneself dead to sin (6:11) but living to God in the sphere or location of Christ Jesus:
11οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς [εἶναι] νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ || “Thus also, you must reckon yourselves [to be] dead to [the claim of] sin but living to God in Christ Jesus.”
The believer is in verse 11 called to reckon themselves, that is, to think of themselves different as a result of the reign of Christ over death. This mental recalibration and reconsidering of our true status in terms of the realm in which we live is the first step of the Christian imperative. However, while the reckoning is an imperative, the indicative or realized aspect of salvation is ‘dead to sin’ (νεκροὺς […] τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ) but ‘living to God’ (ζῶντας […] τῷ θεῷ ‘in Christ Jesus’ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). Here, then, is the realized aspect of the resurrection of believers in Romans 6. We are to think of ourselves as ‘dead to sin but living to God’ because that is the way that God thinks of us in Christ—and thus it is our true status and mode of existence, the true Christian ontology.
However the imperative of considering the indicative of our deadness to sin and livingness to Christ leads to (nb. Inferential conjunction οὖν) the second step in verse 12, again using a verb from the sphere of kingship (βασιλεύω).
The imperative is expressed in 6:12 as follows:
12Μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματιεἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ || 12Therefore, do not let sin reign [as king] in the [sphere of] your mortal body with the result that [you] obey its lusts
Personified sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) is the evil actor against which the Christian must operate and resist. The reign of sin is the allowing of sin to take the place of Christ, who is the new resurrected Lord. The mortal body (θνητῷ […] σώματι) is the sphere (note ἐν) of the potential operation of sin as ruler (note verb βασιλευέτω). Conceivably, we allow sin to reign as actor by obeying its lusts: εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ. The result clause (note εἰς τὸ + infinitive) suggests that allowing sin to remain in the sphere of the mortal body, a sphere that should be wholly devoted to the risen Lord Jesus Christ, is that the lusts of sin are obeyed by the Christian. Conversely, the dethroning of sin—and replacing the rule of sin with Jesus as Lord—means that the lusts of sin will not be obeyed.
In 6:13 we read a command, an imperative:
13μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας καὶ τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ θεῷ. || 13neither offer your members [as] weapons of unrighteousness to the [master] sin, but offer yourselves to God as living from the dead and your members [as] weapons of righteousness to God.
The presentation of the members of the body to sin is as to an alternative god. Consistently with the reckoning of verse 11, Christians must present themselves to God (cf. Rom 12:1-2) as living from the dead. Again, this reckoning or reconsider of the self (note ὡσεὶ) is the actual new state: that is, despite what we experience concerning the potential of offering our members as weapons of unrighteousness to the master sin, believers in Christ are now in the state of ‘living from dead’ (ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας). The new indicative of Christian experience is living to God—the new life of resurrection brought into the present age—and this has been brought from the context of having been dead. Again, this is the indicative of realized resurrection life for the believer.
In 6:14 the end of the reign of sin is indicated:
14 ἁμαρτία γὰρ ὑμῶν οὐ κυριεύσει· οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ χάριν. || 14 For sin will not rule over you [as Lord]. For you are not under law but under grace.
In verse 14a, is the future κυριεύσει a logical future or an eschatological and final future? I think it is a logical future, given the explanation (note explanatory γάρ) contains the present tense form in verse 14b (ἐστε). In the present, the Christian is not under law (οὐ […]ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον) in the sense of a condemning power but under grace in the sense of standing in a gracious status before God (cf. Rom 5:1-2, 8:1-4).
In 7:4, believers died to the law through the body of Christ (ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ), that they might belong to another (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ), to the one who was raised from the dead (τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι), so that believers might bear fruit to God (ἵνα καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ θεῷ). In verse 4a, a death has occurred that ended that difficult marriage, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus’ death exhausts the curse of the law for us and frees us from the law’s judicial demands on us. The Lordship of Christ is emphasized in verse 4b, now with us belonging to another, the named Christ, for he is the one who has been raised from the dead. Lordship, belonging to Christ, and his historical resurrection come together again in Paul’s thinking, and as in Romans 6:1-14, they provide the indicative for the ethical imperative.
In 7:24-25, the resurrection of Christ, and his Lordship as resurrected Lord, underlies the cry of Paul as the wretched man (I take the classic view of Romans 7:14-25). That is, the risen Lord Jesus Christ has defeated death in his own resurrection, and he promises to resurrect Paul's body of death and renew it. The rescue of the ἐγὼ from his body of death is future (ῥύσεται), but the forensic verdict of ‘no condemnation’ is now, in the present (Rom 8:1), which is where the conflict also is. So while Paul still experiences the contradiction in his flesh of the slavery to the law of sin, he serves the law of God with the (renewed) mind, and on his resurrection from the dead, the tension and conflict of his current existence, will then be resolved forever.
In 8:9-10, the indwelling Spirit of God (πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν: v. 9a) is identified as the Spirit of Christ (πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει: v. 9b), and in verse 10 is further identified as ‘Christ in you’ (Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν).
In verse 10, the consequence of the indwelling Christ through the Spirit is that ‘the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness’ (τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην). Because of the realized gift of (imputed) δικαιοσύνη (not the believer’s moral uprightness) through the indwelling Christ, the Spirit is the source of future eternal life, though our bodies are dying because of sin (Lambrecht 2010: 174). The logic of the simple conditional sentence in verse 10 suggests that Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν in the protasis is the condition precedent, and therefore the basis, for the benefit mentioned in the apodosis, that is, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. The μὲν […] δὲ construction introduces a concession (τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν) in spite of the indwelling Christ, and a consequence (τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην) of the indwelling Christ. Even though Christ dwells in us, the consequences of our sin (expressed as διὰ with the accusative, ἁμαρτίαν) still remain. ‘The body is dead because of sin’. We are physically dying, and the indwelling Christ does not change this. This is still the wages of sin for the Christian (Rom 6:23; 7:23-25), and the indwelling Christ does not forestall that Adamic reality. However, because Christ dwells in us, the [Holy Spirit] is life. The phrase τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ expresses the promise of resurrection life (cf. v11), not through the law which promised life, because we did not and could not keep it (Rom 7:10; 10:5; 3:10-20, 23), but through the Spirit and ‘because of righteousness’. Note, διὰ with the genitive, meaning ‘because, on account of’. Righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) is the basis of the resurrection life that we are promised, and our future resurrection to life is our future justification in se. This righteousness is not our own, as if coming from our obedience to the Law, nor our works of the law, nor human willing or running (eg Rom 9:16; 11:6), but is most likely the righteousness given as a gift (Rom 5:17) through the justifying resurrection of the Christ (5:18), which resurrection comes about because of Christ’s whole course of obedience (5:19). Our resurrection, an aspect of our future justification, comes because of and on the basis of our present ‘righteousness’, which comes to us through imputation and gift (Rom 4:3, 5, 6, 11, 22-25, 5:17).
In 8:11, the resurrection of Christ in history is then brought into immediate relationship with the salvation that has been described and brought by the indwelling Christ:
but if the Spirit of the one raising Jesus from the dead dwells in you (εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν), the one raising Christ from the dead will give life also to your mortal bodies, through the indwelling Spirit living in you (ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν).
The Father is described as the one both raising Christ from the dead in history, and indwelling believers. This past reality of the resurrection of Christ wrought by the Father, and the present reality of this same Father’s indwelling, is the guarantee of the future resurrection and making alive of the dead bodies of Christians. The future ζῳοποιήσει is a real future. It is a reference to the eschatological general resurrection. The καὶ conjoins the resurrection of the Christ in the past and indwelling of the resurrecting Father in the present, and the future resurrection of believers’ mortal bodies. If the Father has resurrected Christ in the past, and is indwelling you in the present, he will rescue you from the body of death (cf. 7:24-25) in the future.
The ethical implications of this are given in 8:12. Inferential conjunctions Ἄρα οὖν relate the indicatives of verses 9-11 with the paranesis. Future life effects present life. The coming resurrection of the dead as life affects the walk as a manner of life. The obligation of believers (ὀφειλέται) is not to the flesh, to live (infinitive ζῆν) according to the flesh. Live here is equivalent to ‘walk’ (cf. v. 4), but trades on the future resurrection life motif. The future resurrection life promised, guaranteed, and confirmed by the past acts of God and indwelling Spirit, conditions and governs the present life. It is a resurrection hope, but the resurrection life is organically related to the new ethical life, as firstfruits to full harvest. The present raised lifestyle is thus conceived and expounded in the closest possible connection with the eschatological salvific resurrection, which was exercised in the past for Christ and in the future for us.
Inferential γὰρ marks 8:13 as a reason or ground for the argument in verse 12. The manner of life is further stipulated in the protasis verse 13a (εἰ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε). The consequence is stipulated in the apodosis (μέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν). This refers to the imminent physical death, but also the principle of death for all in the realm of Adamic humanity outside of Christ, which because of its parallel with ‘eternal life’ (6:23), is also an eternal death, experiencing the future eschatological wrath of God (2:6-13).·A principle of putting to death therefore must be operative for the believer: in verse 13c, the believer must put to death the (sinful) practices of the body by the Spirit. Postpositive conjunction δὲ is adversative, contrasting the condition of verse 13a-b. In the protasis of verse 13c (εἰ δὲ πνεύματι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε, the present tense forms require present action by the believer. and then the believer will live. Note that in the apodosis of verse 13d, future ζήσεσθε is an eschatological future.
In 8:34-35, Christ’s resurrection in history is again brought into relationship with our assurance and salvation. Jesus Christ has already been stipulated as the judge (Rom 2:16; cf. Acts 17:30). If anyone, then would condemn us (τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν; : v. 34a), it would be Christ that is not going to happen, because Christ is the one who died (ὁ ἀποθανών: v. 34b) for us (cf. Rom 3:24-26, 4:25, 5:6-9, 8:1-4), and more than that was raised (μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθείς: v. 34c), with his consequent session and his intercessory ministry on our behalf (ὃς καί ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν: v. 34d-e). Verse 35 is a question expecting a no answer: ‘who will separate us from the love of Christ?’ (τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ;). The future might be logical (as many of the potential threats mentioned subsequently are parts of this current age) or eschatological, or both.
Romans 10:6-13 again brings the resurrection of Christ into direct and necessary relationship with our salvation.
In verses 6-8, Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are alluded to, using a rhetorical framework provided by Deuteronomy 30:14. The effect of verses 6-8 is to indicate that salvation has been achieved. This righteousness of faith does not require ascent to heaven to bring Christ down or descent into the deep to bring Christ up from the dead (τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν: Rom 10:7). All this has already been achieved. The word is near because it is in the believers mouth and heart. Christ is the one who has come down from heaven. Christ has risen from the dead: in these two events, the incarnation and the resurrection, God has drawn near to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and achieved the salvation that is required. So Paul spells out the response that faith righteousness requires.
In 10:9, belief in Christ resurrection is a saving response to God, and it is drawn into a relationship of equivalence with confessing that ‘Jesus is Lord’. If you confess in your mouth, ‘Lord Jesus’ (κύριον Ἰησοῦν), and believe in your in your heart that God raised him from the dead (ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν), you will be saved (σωθήσῃ). The future might be logical, but it is more likely future, given the eschatological consequences of confession and faith.
In 10:10, the resurrection of Christ, that which must be believed to be saved in verse 9, is implicitly linked with ‘righteousness’: καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Notice, it is not the death of Christ that is believed for righteousness, but the resurrection. The resurrection has already been said to have been ‘for our justification’ (Rom 4:25). In 5:18, I argue the resurrection is ‘the justification of the one’, being Christ. In 8:10, ‘righteousness’ is linked to life, probably resurrection life. Here again is another reference to resurrection and righteousness.
In 10:11, future οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται is an eschatological shame foreshadowed in 2:6-13. The quote from Joel in 10:13 is a confirmatory text, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου) will be saved (σωθήσεται)” (Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13). The Lord here is again Jesus Christ, and the salvation is again future.
In 11:15, we have a reference not to the resurrection of Christ, but to resurrection as regeneration. Many expositors, particularly post-millenialists, consider this speaks of a great conversion amongst the Jews before Christ’s return. But I suspect that the background is missional and personal salvation. Paul considers that Israel’s acceptance of the gospel is life from the dead. Again it is ‘how much more’ logic. If God brings blessing and riches through the Jewish sin of rejecting Christ (that is, Gentile salvation), how much greater will the riches be if they accept Christ and submit to the gospel? Paul in fact calls it “life from the dead”. Earlier in Romans chapter 6, Paul has used this language to talk about how we have died to sin but now are alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11, 13). We are people spiritually brought back from the dead and now living (Rom 6:13). We were dead, but are now alive again (Luke 15:32; cf. Eph 2:1-5). And this is what the return of Israel to her Christ will amount to. God has brought a good thing through Israel’s sinful rejection of their Christ—the gospel going to the gentiles. Paul asks, “how much more blessing would accrue if Israel also accepted her Christ?” “Much more”, is his answer. And so the gentiles should ardently seek the fullness of Israel’s conversion. They should want Jews to become Christians.
In 13:11, believers are called to rise from their sleep to live in the day—motifs influenced by the resurrection. In 13:11, Paul uses the idea of the time to rise from sleep (Καὶ τοῦτο εἰδότες τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι ὥρα ἤδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερθῆναι), the passive verb being a common one to refer to resurrection.
In 14:9-12, Again Christ’s resurrection life is brought into relationship with our risen lifestyle (vv. 7-8). Paul says that whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s|| ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶμεν ἐάν τε ἀποθνῄσκωμεν, τοῦ κυρίου ἐσμέν. In verse 9, we have a statement of the resurrection of Jessu in history: ‘for this reason, Christ died and came alive, so that also of the dead and the living he might reign as Lord || εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ. Again, resurrection and Lordship for Christ are brought together. And the fact that Christ is Lord removes any claim or practices that Christian should Lord it over each other: verse 10, ‘but you, why do you judge your brother? || Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; God is the one before whose throne we will appear (v. 10).
In 15:12, we read, καὶ πάλιν Ἠσαΐας λέγει· ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν || And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come to be, even the one who rises up to rule the gentiles; upon him the gentiles will hope.” The Greek ὁ ἀνιστάμενος represents the LXX of Isaiah 11:10, interpreted the word of Isaiah, נם, a banner: He who arises, or raises himself, to rule over the gentiles, who will hope in him.