Romans 6:4 - That's Right, Paul was Going Somewhere With That (Conciliation Series, Part XV)

Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life.

Oh, yeah, forgot about that part. Yeah, I spent some time on baptism, but Paul was using baptism to reach a greater point. Having thoroughly and succinctly said “no” to anyone who says, “Let’s sin more so grace will arrive,” Paul clarified that we died to sin, and then contrasted it with “well, it’s because we were baptized into His death. If you want to be ignorant of this, by all means go ahead, but just know that, if you believe Romans 5, you’re going to have some trouble rebuking a logical question such as this.”

Okay, I may have paraphrased a bit.

Nonetheless, we have the conclusion of such a statement here, and it will serve as a gateway for the rest of the chapter. “We were entombed together” is one big Greek word, and it’s indicative. For us grammar nerds out there, this indicative tense is expressing a fact. We are, then, very factually stated by the Creator of the universe to have been entombed together with our Lord.

Yes, notice that word “entombed together,” because in Greek, this is “TOGETHER-DIE.” It is not merely “death,” here, but the whole nine yards; the manner of His death is the manner of our death, and the manner of His burial, in a tomb, laid to rest, is the manner of our burial.

The three most critical aspects of our evangel are as follows:

1)    Christ died

2)    Christ was entombed

3)    Christ was resurrected

As these are the poignant facts that firmly root us in the truth, we must consider each of them carefully. We’ve carefully considered His death, and we will indeed be considering His resurrection in a moment, but here, for the time being, we will now consider entombment. This is the “middle” ground, so to speak. We were baptized into His death, and thus we died to sin, yes? It follows that, if we are baptized into His death, we are also entombed in similar fashion.

The entombment itself marks the end of the Adamic race.

Anyway, I- oh, oh, you wanted an explanation for that? Yeah, I guess I could do that. So, I mentioned very briefly as we went through the Divine Calendar that the “old humanity” consists of everyone in these fleshy bodies right now. When Paul says that Christ died to sin, He points out that all sin died with Him. This “entombment” period, you could say, is what the earth is living in now, with these physical, fleshy bodies reaching their end. Why? Because sin works in our bodies (Rom. 5:12.) Thus, all died as a result of His death (2 Cor. 5:14.) Not all are currently baptized into His death, but this is a process that is worked over time (1 Cor. 15:20-28.)

The entombment period is the end of the race as we perceive it now, then. Now, people have used ‘water baptism’ to try and turn the ‘baptism’ itself into a three-part structure. They say, “We are ‘baptized’ into His death, ‘baptized’ into His entombment, and ‘baptized’ into His resurrection.” To that I say: what verse are you looking at? The verse here doesn’t correlate baptism with entombment or resurrection, but considers them fruit of that “baptism into death.” The only time that baptism is referenced in Paul’s letters are directly correlated to death, which is factually defined here. Entombment is consequential, not “baptism: part 2.”

Now, similar to Romans 5:19, we have another exact parallel set up. This is indicated by “even as,” and “thus also.” If the “even as” is true, then the “thus also” is also true. But here’s the thing. I said at the start of chapter six that we’re being pulled into an inner circle, or even closer behind the scenes, now. This is very evident by the “thus also,” here, because it’s a statement that the world simply cannot believe, in subscribing to the Trinity. Because they believe that Christ is God (though we’ve been given no confirmation of such a statement so far and, in fact, have received affirmations to the opposite,) they simply do not believe the “even as” portion of the verse. As they do not believe this, it follows that they are not able to fulfill the “thus also” portion of the verse. Let’s look at the “even as” over here:

Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father…

Huh! So we ask the question, “How was Christ roused?” to a Trinitarian, and they almost always respond with, “well, He said He would raise the temple, being Himself, in three days! John 2:19! Ahyuck!” Here’s the thing, guys. That verse doesn’t say, “I will raise Myself from the dead.” It says, “Raze this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Or, “You destroy My body, and in three days I will stand in it again.” And He indeed lifted His body off the stone slab and walked again. He was predicting His resurrection, yes, but not that He would be the One with the power to resurrect.

How can we tell? Because of the “even as” that Paul states, here. Christians hate this verse. They hate it with all their heart. Some have gone as far as to proclaim Paul a false apostle because it doesn’t make sense with their personal ideology. Yet it remains clear: Christ is the One that was indeed dead. What is death? The absence of life (Ecc. 9:5, Rev. 20:5.) The dead cannot think or operate. They are, literally, not alive. It’s a harsh reality, but it is the truth.

This is the state that Christ was in. He was dead. Not alive. The Image of God, the Expression of God, was subject to death. God lost His voice, so to speak. He lost the One that He cared most for. To deny that Christ was dead, indeed, as dead as our ancestors are now, is to deny one of the core fundamentals of Paul’s evangel (1 Cor. 15:3-4.) If you believe Christ is God, you are either saying that God died, or that Christ did not die, and survived in some hell, or purgatory or something. Neither are true, and removes you from Paul’s evangel. Without properly understanding death as, literally, what it is, you cannot properly apprehend any of what Paul is saying, here. If you believe Christ was still conscious as He started hunting vampires in hell, or went off to sip pina coladas in heaven, you’re missing the extremity of cessation of life that He experienced – the opposite of His composition (John 1:3-4.)

He is resurrected through the glory of the Father. The majesty, the power, of God, is what raises Christ; not Christ Himself. How would any other explanation make such rational sense? “No, God raised God when God died!” What the hell? If this were the case, Paul’s statement would be more akin to, “Christ was roused from among the dead when He, in the Father, toward the Father but also the Father Himself, decided that He would be resurrected, which in effect would resurrect the Father, but it’s the Father Who made the decision, which means that Christ is the effect, but God is the effect, and neither were truly subject to death because they were alive, but that’s okay because no one is really subject to death because all are alive after death anyway, so nothing really matters, but actually everything matters because of where you go after death, but that is dependent on your decision anyway to care about Jesus, so what am I even talkin’ about?”

Thankfully, the truth is far less vindictive, far more sensible, far more just, and far more loving. Christ was roused after three days by the Father. If the two were the same deity, we would not have two different Greek words in this phrase (one being “Christ,” the other being “Father.”) Christ is roused through His glory, not through His own personal decision to have ‘had enough of death at that moment.’ This is, of course, not the only time that Christ’s resurrection is said to be thus – compare it with 1 Cor. 6:14 and 2 Cor. 13:4, too.

From here, in fully recognizing the Son’s death, and that it is the majesty of the Father, the power of God, that resurrected Him, as He promised, the “thus also” of the passage can again be made fully known to us. This is why baptism into His death matters, and it fully and unequivocally answers the objection from Rom. 6:1. “If all shall be saved, should we proclaim that we should sin more, that grace may be coming?” May it not be coming to that! You are dead to sin, because you have been baptized into Christ’s death, that we should be walking in newness of life. Just because you are resurrected alone does not automatically mean you’re walking a spiritual walk (see: the city of Corinth, who, though they were in Christ, deemed it wise to go screw temple prostitutes, deny Paul, and claim that there is no resurrection of the dead.)

In order to partake of the resurrection, we must recognize that we are entombed together with Him through baptism into death. What a true privilege that it is to be given this ability! To walk in newness of life with Him! Sure, all died, but the saints are the ones baptized into the death, and it’s the saints that, as such, are partaking of the resurrection as a result. This = newness of life.

The “should be” part of the verse is not a ‘requirement,’ nor is it an ‘obligation’ that can cost you your salvation (Rom. 8:38-39.) This is God’s intention with us in Christ (Rom. 9:19.) Our walk is indeed planned (Eph. 1:4-5,) and whether we like it or not, this is being fulfilled. As if to prove this, the Greek word used here (in its root form, peripateo,) is in the “aorist” Greek tense. This simply means that it is a timeless action, one that does not directly state past, present, or future. It’s clear, in my opinion, that our allotment will not subject us to time (1 Cor. 3:21-23,) so we, now, are allotted to walk in newness of life, whether we have fully come around on this yet or not.

I can’t even cover it all! We are said to be “walking” in newness of life. We are not yet asked to do anything, in Romans – that’s going to be saved for chapter 12. Chapters 12-14 are going to highlight this walk in greater detail. It is introduced here as the effect of our intimate relationship in Christ, thus toward God. The most satisfying part of this teaching is listening to people say, “well, all may be saved, but we should still be moral, right? Do the right thing??” And the response is, simply, that our walk in newness of life, firmly established by God (Prov. 16:9,) does satisfy the ethical part of the debate. It’s impossible for us believers to hear this and go, “Oh, so let me just go do whatever I want!” All is allowed us, yes, but not all expedient! (1 Cor. 6:12.) You can’t lose your allotment with poor action, but maturity is not ignorant to Paul’s point, and in dwelling on the spiritual nature of the universe, our moral compass is righted, in many (most) ways above our comprehension.

The power that rose Christ from among the dead is the same power that is going to rouse you from among the dead. You, who are allotted to walk in newness of life. You are given so much more. We are not obligated, but we are allotted to walk this way. This is a setup for the later unfoldings in Romans 8. The quality of new need not be understated; this follows the complete contrast between Adam (who is the head of the “old” humanity, bringing death,) and Christ (Who is the Head of the “new” humanity, bringing life and allowing those baptized into His life to rule and reign for the eons of the eons.)

Our walk in newness of life is not self-centered, because we did not create it, nor did we cause it. Such a privilege can only be attributed to God, who is the One to blame for hallowing us (1 Cor. 6:11, 1 Thess. 5:23.) We need not worry about our own efforts to appraise, or believe we are achieving something in performing the “baptism” of a previous administration. Our life is intensely taken up and focused on God, now, being placed in Christ Jesus. Our walk is taken care of – we need only enjoy it.

- GerudoKing