Must a Personal Dative be Supplied in Romans 6:5?

The questions surrounding the precise interpretation of Romans 6:4 have the added import that they often spill over into one’s exegesis of Romans 6:5. The question, as it affects our treatment of the following verse, is this: is water baptism here spoken of as the means by which we are united with Christ and with the events of his life, irrespective of symbolism; or is it a symbolic death and resurrection, by which we re-enact the dying and rising of Christ, and so become joined to his redemptive acts of death to sin and rising to life in our inner person? In other words, does the symbolism of baptism intend, broadly, a union with Christ in all of his redemptive acts; or does it only have a pictorial force, and thus signify, more narrowly, a participation in his dying and rising again? Of particular relevance in answering this question is the exact force of the preposition “dia”, which most likely signifies instrumentality, that is, the means of union, without intending any symbolic recapitulation. We became united to Christ through baptism, not in baptism; which expresses only the fact of union, and leaves untouched the symbolic mode in which this union is expressed. More to the point, this phrase does not necessarily imply that baptism is a picture of Christ’s death, and that when we are baptized we are symbolically participating in his death. It simply says that, through the rite of baptism, we are joined to Christ, particularly with respect to the redemptive events of his work on earth (although the caveat that there is no implication of intrinsic efficacy in baptism must be stressed).

This question is really not the point of our discussion, except for the fact that some who would contend for the traditional Baptist understanding allow this interpretation to color their exegesis of the following verse. If we are joined to Christ in (not through) baptism, which is a picture of his death, and if the postpositive “gar” (“for”), which opens the next verse, intends to add an argument for the preceding statement (as indeed it must), then it is only natural to read verse five thus: “For if we have been united [lit. either “planted together” or “grown together”] with him in the likeness of his death [i.e. in baptism], certainly we also shall be [or “have been” – logical future] united with him in the likeness of his resurrection [also in baptism].” This reading demands two elements which are not at all certain in the text; first, and most importantly, it demands the addition of a personal dative (auto); and second, it requires that we take the future esometha (we shall) as indicating logical necessity, and not temporal futurity – a fairly unusual use of the future, in any account. Both of these assumptions are problematic.

The reading which supplies a personal dative does so (presumably) on the observation that, in the previous verse a verb of unification is completed with the personal dative: “we were buried together with him”; and therefore, because of the similarity of thought with the following passage, the adjective of unification “we have become joined together” should also be completed with a personal dative, “with him”. However, this idea forces a perceived logical parallel at the expense of an indisputable grammatical parallel. In the first case, the idea of unification is immediately followed by a written dative (with him); and in the second case, the idea of unification is also followed by a written dative (with the likeness [or essence]). Both of these unifying themes demand a dative of completion; and both of them are supplied with precisely one dative, presumably, to do nothing other than complete the thought. It is true that Paul is frequently elliptical in his expression, and leaves out such elements as the second personal dative, when the context clearly implies its presence (as a case in point, the obviously elliptical second half of verse five may be adduced). However, verse five is not such a situation, by reason of the written dative which does in fact follow the adjective. Not only is it not clear that the personal dative auto should follow; but furthermore, the clearly natural reading is that, when an adjective demanding a dative is immediately followed by a dative, that dative is the very one demanded by the adjective. But if this is indeed the case, and the dative homoiomati is completing the adjective, then it is no longer permissible to consider it a dative intending mode; and hence, the allusion to baptism is impossible. If it must be translated “We have become joined to the likeness/essence of his death,” then it simply cannot mean, “We have become joined [to him] in the likeness of his death (i.e. baptism). A simple rule of thumb is that grammatically necessary elements of speech are left out only when they are obviously implied in the context. And nothing could be further from obvious than that auto (to him) is implied, when “to the likeness” follows the adjective immediately. It is scarcely plausible to think that Paul would have overlooked the obviously misleading nature of following an implied dative of completion immediately with a dative of place/modality, especially since it would have taken so little to correct the ambiguity, namely, the inclusion of the implied auto.

The second problem with understanding “likeness” to refer to baptism arises in the second half of the verse. There we find a simple future, “we shall be.” Although the phrase is certainly elliptical, the elements which must be supplied are, for the most part, quite clear; for example, if we take the reading “For if we have become joined to the essence of his death,” then the following reading is clearly implied: “Certainly (alla, here not adversative) also we shall be [joined to the essence] of [his] resurrection.” If the other possible interpretation is adopted, namely, “For if we have become joined to him in the likeness of his death [i.e. at baptism],” then the implied reading of the second half would be thus: “Certainly also we shall be joined to him in the likeness of his resurrection [also at baptism].” Now, if we were joined to him in the past with respect to his death, because our baptism, which is like his death, was in the past; then it is no less true that we were joined to him with respect to his resurrection in the past, because that part of our baptism which signifies the resurrection was as far in the past as was the immersion itself. If baptism is intended by homoiomati, and if the two parts of baptism (immersion and emersion) signify death and resurrection respectively, then a true future is no longer possible. Hence, the need to take the future as a logical future, a use which is very little-attested, and which seems to be nothing more than grasping for a way out of the obvious sense and overwhelmingly common usage of the future, in order to justify a preconceived notion.

In contrast to the reading which supplies the dative auto, and takes the dative homoiomati to refer to baptism, which has at least two significant difficulties, the reading which allows homoiomati to complete the adjective of unification is quite natural, and retains very little, if any, difficulty. It has been suggested that homoiomati more naturally signifies a replica or symbol of a thing, and not the thing itself – which would qualify it, of course, to refer to baptism, but not to the actual death of Christ. This usage is certainly possible; for instance, the usage of the same word in Romans 1:23 very clearly means “likeness,” instead of “essence,” or “identity”. However, both meanings find clear support in the New Testament. In Philippians 2:7, the same word must mean “essence,” unless one were to argue for some sort of docetic gnosticism. Either reading would be quite natural; but it is only the latter (essence) which can account for the future tense of the apodosis. In this reading, it is both logical and biblically theological to suppose that, we have been/are being united to Christ’s very death; and that, in the future, we will be united in the same way to his very resurrection. Philippians 3:10-11, for example, follows much the same train of thought.

Of particular interest in the exegesis of this verse is the unusual circumstance that, although commentaries are divided on the issue, with perhaps the majority of modern commentators opting for the same reading argued for in this article; yet the reading of the consensus of translations demands the alternate interpretation. Virtually every major translation either supplies the personal dative, hence demanding a different reading of homoiomati than its obvious position as a dative of completion would demand; or else, translates homoiomati as something other than a dative of completion, and hence demands that a dative be supplied, which could scarcely be anything other than the personal pronoun. An example of the former would be the ESV: “For if we have been united with him in a death like his…”; an example of the latter would be the KJV: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death….” It is no doubt legitimate to assume that, for the average believer, the reading required by the translations has had far more impact than the different interpretation given in many technical commentaries.

If the reading which this article argues for is correct, it does not require that baptism have no pictorial significance. It is even beyond the purpose of the article to demonstrate whether or not pictorial significance is indicated in verse four of Romans chapter five. However, it does demand that the interpreter come to verse five without any preconceptions that would taint his exegesis of that verse in particular. Whatever one’s view of baptism may be, the immediate context does not require that homoiomati in verse five be referring to baptism – it is possible to take it otherwise and still make sense of the train of thought, even granting a pictorial force to baptism in verse four. And in fact, reading into homoiomati a reference to baptism is clearly against the most natural understanding of the text. The natural interpretation argued for here is accommodating to either view of baptism, as per the witness of other texts, and so the matter of greatest import is not baptism per se. Rather, the important issue is the full force of our union with Christ’s very death. The natural reading underscores the great reality of our corporate inclusion in Christ, with particular respect to the great redemptive-historical events of his life and death. It is this reading alone which drives home the foundational truth elsewhere expressed by Paul, that, when Christ was crucified, we were “crucified with Christ”; and further, that Christ himself now lives in us (Galatians 2:20).

4 Responses to “Must a Personal Dative be Supplied in Romans 6:5?”

  1. pitchford says:
    October 13, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    By the way, this is the first of what I hope may become a series of similar exegetical notes, delving into the specific interpretation of various difficult verses in both the Old and New Testaments. I have been blessed with an opportunity to be deliberating over specific exegetical questions. Although time forbids me to post thoughts on all of them, I hope at least to write on some of the more interesting questions.

    Pitchford

  2. The Aspiring Theologian says:
    October 22, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    I have not been able to read all of the above, but I am studying Biblical Greek at a local Christian university and enjoying it and wrapping my feeble mind around it, so I would definately be interested in any exegetical posts that you make on your blog. As a disclaimer, though, this is only my first year in Greek – so I probably won’t understand everything you say, but I will be interested and intrigued nonetheless.

    I am using William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek textbook. What are your thoughts on that book?

    And also, what are the advantages/disadvantages of learning Classical as well as Koine Greek?

    God bless, A. Shepherd The Aspiring Theologian

  3. Pitchford says:
    October 22, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    A.S.,

    First, let me just encourage you to devote as much time as it takes to learn Greek well — it will be immensely beneficial to you for the rest of your life. I’m glad to hear you’re learning it.

    Mounce is an excellent first year grammar. I didn’t use it, but I’m familiar with it, and I think it’s probably one of the best to begin with. Eventually, you might want to supplement it with something like Wallace (get the full-length grammar, not the abridged version called New Testament Syntax or something along those lines).

    I can’t help you with classical Greek, I never learned it. I’ve studied just a little classical Greek in Robertson’s (I think it was Robertson’s) historical grammar — which was very helpful in understanding the evolution of the case system, etc. I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary for competent exegesis, but on the other hand, I’m sure the more you understand the origins of koine, the better off you’ll be.

    Keep pursuing, Nathan

  4. pitchford says:
    October 23, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Just to clarify that last comment (the part about Wallace was a little obscurely-worded):

    Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is his full-length grammar, The Basics of New Testament Syntax is the abridgment. I think you’ll eventually want the former.

Leave a Reply