An Exegetical Commentary on Romans 6:1-7

Cranfield, 297.
Wallace 467.
Schreiner, 303-304.
Wallace, 145.
Schreiner, 304; Jewett 395-6; BDAG.
Wallace, 482.
Murray, 213.
Moo, 196.
Schreiner, 304.
Jewett, 396.
Dunn, 308-310; Keener, 425.
Jewett, 396.
Dunn, 308.

Dunn (p.314) along with others (Schreiner 308) take the first stance, while Schreiner (308) and Murray (215-216) take the latter position.
Jewett, 398.
Schreiner, 308.
Moo, 197.
Moo, 384; Schreiner, 311.
BDAG.
Murray, 304-305.
C.f. Colossians 1:18-22.
Jewett, 399.
Dunn 315; c.f. Ex 18:20, Deut 13:4-5, 1 Kgs 9:4, 2 Kgs 22:2, Ps 86:11, Pr 28:18, Isa 33:15.
Murray 217.
Cranfield, 305.
Wallace, 89; Schreiner, 311.
Jewett, 400.
Dunn, 316.
Schreiner, 313.
Ibid., 312.
Dunn, 318; Murray,
Dunn, 317.
Murray, 218.
Dunn 318.
Dunn 318, Moo 207, Jewett 403, Schreiner 315.
Moo 207, Schreiner 315.
Jewett, 403.
Ibid., with the same qualifier.
Wallace, 87; Cranfield 309.
Cranfield, 309.
Wallace, 610; Murray, 221.
Cranfield 310.
Dunn 312.
Moo 198.
Jewett, 405.
Dunn, 321.
Jewett, 404.
James 1:15, Romans
1 Cor 15:26.
Schreiner, 317.
BDAG
TNTT, 67-68.
TNTT, 87-89.
TNTT, 62.
TNTT, 74-5.
TNTT, 254.
According to LSJ, possible glosses that come from the classical era fall into three classes: 1) To set right, 2) to deem right or to claim as a right, 3) To do justice to someone. Doing justice may include either punishment or vindication of another, whichever is just. Deeming right may mean actively choosing a course as good, ordaining law, or passive consent.
As explained by Schreiner, 309; Murray 215; Cranfield 303.
Dunn, 311-314; Jewett 399.
Cranfield, 303.
Moo, 203.
Schreiner, 310.
Cranfield, 303.
Murray, 214.
Moo, 203.
Jewett, 399.
Dunn, 314.
Moo, 205.
Ibid., 206.










Daniel Kunkel
"Exegetical- Romans 6:1-7"
Box 435
Greek 105
Dr. Jay Smith
10/2/14




Word Counts
Commentary: 3798
Whole Paper: 6937




























Interpretive Translation

What shall we say then? Shall we persist in sin, that grace might abound?

May it never be! We who died to sin, how can we still live in it?

Or don't you know that, whoever was baptized into Christ Jesus was baptized into his death?

We were therefore with-buried with him into death through baptism, so that just as Christ was raised out from the dead through the glory of the father, so also we might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united (organically!) to the likeness of his death, surely also we will be (united to the likeness) of his resurrection—

Knowing this, that our old man was with-crucified (with Christ), so that the body of sin might be destroyed, this so that we might no longer be slaves to sin. For he who died has been released from sin.

Exegetical Idea: God's atoning work in Christ does not make us libertines. We are saved by being joined to Christ's death and resurrection, which shifts spiritual orientation such that sin is now foreign.








Exegetical Outline:

1. Paul's explanation of grace's triumph over sin could be construed to excuse libertinism. (v. 1)

2. Such a conclusion is abhorrent, because those who have died to sin cannot live in it. (v. 2)

3. The Christian has died to sin with Christ, and now walks in a life where sin is foreign. (v. 3-11)

A. Baptism with Christ means joining Christ in his death and resurrection. (v. 3-5)

I. Those who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. (v. 3)

II. Baptism into Christ's death means that we were co-buried with Christ. (v. 4a)

III. We were co-buried with Christ that we might partake in his resurrection by partaking in his death, and thus walk in newness of life. (v. 4b)

IV. Those who have become identified with Christ in the likeness of his death will also identify in the likeness of his life. (v. 5)

B. Baptism into death means the crucifixion of our life in Adam. (v. 6-7)

I. Our old man was crucified with Christ. (v. 6a)

II. The old man was crucified so that the body of sin might be destroyed. (v. 6b)

III. The old man was crucified so that we might no longer be subject to sin. (v. 6c)

IV. He who has died has been justified from sin. (v. 7)


Commentary

Context- Paul has just argued that Christ's atoning work has created a situation where for the redeemed, sin is overshadowed by grace at every turn. He now proceeds to address the possible claim that this understanding of grace would make libertinism a viable lifestyle for the saved. In refuting this claim, Paul exposits the believer's change in trajectory from death and sin toward God and life as one enters this faith. The full argument spans from verse one to verse fourteen of this chapter, and comes in five parts: A) A discourse in which Paul refutes libertinism by claiming that Christians have died to sin; B) An explanation of baptism as an identification with Christ's death and resurrection; C) A parenthesis in which Paul clarifies what dies in the believer through baptism, and how this causes a definitive break with sin; D) A resumption of the discussion on Christ's resurrection, in which the believer may find a definitive break with death as well. Paul uses verse 11 to recapitulate his initial remark in verse 2, which the hearer may now grasp in its full context. Part E, the conclusion in verses 12-14, demonstrates how this new reckoning makes grace a call to holiness rather than a license for sin. This exegetical covers the first three complete sections, contained in vv. 1-7.
Section A: Opening Discourse

v.1
The possible libertine conclusion- The question at the beginning of the verse, τι οὐν ἐρουμεν, is used by Paul three other times in Romans (3:5, 7:7, 9:14) to introduce a false inference that he will proceed to repudiate. Ἐρουμεν is a future tense verb with imperative force, turned into a question with the use of τί. Έπιμενωμεν is a deliberative rhetorical subjunctive, meaning that rather than expecting a response, the question is a thinly veiled statement. The false inference, as mentioned, is an accusation of libertinism. If the argument given holds true, it may carry the weight of a reductio ad absurdum, undermining Paul's line of argument up to this point. One question that commentators wrestle over is Paul's intent in bringing up this false inference. Is Paul intending a polemic against a particular group that has raised this proposition- Legalists, Judaizers, Jews? Or is Paul just qualifying himself? As Schreiner points out, the answer is probably somewhere in between. Schreiner notes that this passage is not a digression but rather an integral part of Paul's larger exposition of the gospel; after honing his presentation through debate over time, Paul is using this "Frequently Asked Question" as a transition frame for the next step in a fuller understanding of what relating to God's righteousness looks like for a believer. Another key discussion begins here: the first verse contains the first occurrence of the noun ἁμαρτια, appearing here in the dative case. This dative may be considered a dative of respect or sphere. In this passage, as well as others, sin is considered both an agency and a realm, with a capacity to reign over human beings in the wake of the fall. Our concept of sin will expand as we follow Paul's usage of the term through the passage.

v. 2
Emphatic negation, and incredulity- The phrase μη γενοιτο is a common emphatic negative that actually occurs in the comparatively antiquated optative mood. With this phrase, Paul answers his own question, reinforcing the nature of ἐπιμενωμεν as a rhetorical subjunctive verb. Οἰτινες ἀπεθανομεν τῃ ἁμαρτιᾳ is Paul's first introduction in the book of Romans to the idea that the believer can die specifically "with reference" to sin. Sin has already been denoted as a realm and a reigning power in chapter 5, but here, the believer has personally undergone some sort of negation of that power. The consummate rhetorician, Paul with this statement unveils this direct and primary answer to the question of libertinism, although the statement is at first cryptic to his hearers. Paul will give an initial concise explanation of this "shotgun answer" in verses 3-5. The verb ἀπεθανομεν is in the aorist tense, viewing a full action from the outside as a distinct moment that has passed. Ζησομεν is a future indicative verb, but in combination with πως, the verb becomes part of a negation. Paul has answered a rhetorical question with another rhetorical question, using this one to imply that a redeemed believer's relation to sin makes libertinism "unlivable." It should be noted in passing that the referent of ἐν αὐτῃ is τῃ ἀμαρτιᾳ. The use of the preposition έν may reinforce Paul's understanding of sin as a realm, but Schreiner helpfully reminds us that "It is a mistake to separate sin as a power from specific acts of sin. Sin's reign over people leads them to commit specific acts of sin, and thus the two concepts are finally inseparable." One may persist in actions as well as live in realms.

Section B) Explanation and Trajectory
v. 3
Baptism into Christ is Baptism into His Death- Paul now begins to unpack this initial response by explaining that baptism is an initiation into Christ's death. Paul has previously discussed the propitiatory element of salvation whereby Christ takes the wrath of God for sinners upon himself; it is a very great development to understand that we actually enter into this death ourselves in some fashion. This verse raises important questions regarding Paul's understanding of his audience, as well as introducing a key correlation that undergirds the rest of the passage, and becomes the subject of most debate in the commentaries— baptism as an organic identification with Christ's death and new life. The signficance of the phrase ἥ ἀγνοιετε is contested among scholars; what kind of knowledge does Paul assume that his audience has? Many scholars have noted that the verb ἀγνοεω is used through the ancient period by rhetoricians to bring special attention to a point of common knowledge. Two questions here: what is the common knowledge that Paul is appealing to, and whence did it come? The second question will help us answer the first. Dunn argues against "history of religions" scholars who might argue that Paul is appealing to and appropriating common knowledge of pagan identification cults, given that the pagan rituals and understanding which bear the most resemblance to Paul's thought are only documented about 100 years after this letter was written. Paul is likely appealing to some basic articulations of faith that the church inherited from its initial evangelists. However, Jewett points out that the classical parallel usages of ἀγνοεω imply that the speaker believes his audience does not understand said common knowledge to a necessary extent. Thus, Dunn's comments that Paul may be deducing a further corollary ("baptized into his death") from commonly accepted language ("baptized into Christ," or the name of Christ) seem quite plausible. To answer the first question, at the very least Paul is assuming a rudimentary and "proto-orthodox" understanding of "baptism in Christ" as initiation to the faith among his audience, and the extensive prior correspondence evidenced by the final chapters of this same letter appear to have justified this assumption for Paul. Among the greatest debates in this passage is over the place of the literal, physical rite of water baptism in spiritual identification with Christ. How necessary is the physical baptism for this spiritual process? To put the question another way, what kind of salvific efficacy does ritual have for the believer? This issue is the subject of the Exegetical Validation below. To sum up here, physical baptism is one key component of a larger experience called "conversion-initiation" by James D.G. Dunn. The rite has no efficacy on its own, and one may enter heaven without it in cases like the "thief on the cross" scenario. But we must avoid the error of speculating on "minimum possible requirements to get in" and instead aspire toward what God has called normative. As the correlation between baptism and Christ's atoning work becomes more clear through this passage, the value of the physical ritual will become clearer as well.

v. 4
Co-Burial through baptism into death- Working from the deduced idea of "baptism into death" above, Paul proceeds through v. 4-5 to flesh out further implications, and begins to tease out the purpose of such a co-identification. Here in verse four, we see the logical progression—baptism into Christ means baptism into death, and death means a burial. It is grammatically possible for the phrase εἰς τον θανατον to be either an indirect object of the verb συνεταφημεν, or part of a prepositional train with δια του βαπτισματος that modifies συνεταφημεν adverbially. Thus, the two possible readings would be 1) "buried (into death) through baptism," or 2) "buried (through baptism into death)." Both readings are orthodox, and commentators are divided over which reading is appropriate; scholars basically assert their positions. I am not entirely sure, but I am partial to the first reading because its consonance with the point of bringing up burial in the first place. Many commentators note that burial was "the climactic moment in the ritual of dying," and a "confirmation of the death." Burial means Charon has taken us across the river Styx, that Cirdan has waved us to the Grey Havens. Our departure was complete. We were in Death.
Resurrection and Newness of Life- Christ's baptism, Christ's death. Christ's death, Christ's burial. Christ's burial, Christ's resurrection. This is what God has in store for the believer. One can almost hear Paul's Gospel of First Importance from 1 Corinthians 15 echoing behind—"that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures." Through baptism, the believer has been led through the same progression. If you've signed up for one part, you've signed up for them all. The clause begins with a preposition of purpose, ἱνα, governed by συνεταφημεν. Schreiner and Moo both see a causal element with the preposition ὡσπερ, "just as." BDAG would assert that this causal element is not lexical, but it is still logically justifiable; Christ has made a way for us to follow. It is important to note that the resurrection occurs δια της δοξης του πατρος, "through the glory of the father," for two reasons. Firstly, the Hebrews saw God's glory as so related to his zeal and power that δοξα was sometimes used as a greek gloss for Hebrew words denoting power in the LXX. This fact leads to point two: God the father was the agent of the resurrection as much as he was the arbiter of the crucifixion. Overly emphasizing penal subsitution at the expense of other ways to view the atonement can cause a mischaracterization of the first member of the Godhead. Paul is unique among Hellenistic writers in his use of περιπατησωμεν "we walk" as a paradigm for a discussion of ethics, but he is not unique among Hebrew writers. Murray points out the usefulness of "walk" in showing that the new life is not a thing of "otiose possession" by God but rather as "engaging" the agency of the believer. Cranfield also helpfully observes the lexical choice of καινοτητι (καινος) over and against an inflection of νεος; νεος involves newness with reference to time or origin, implying youth, while καινος implies newness of nature. Finally, there are various possible relationships between καινωτητι and its genitive modifier, ζωης; the possibilities are 1) attributive genitive ("life-y newness"), 2) attributed genitive ("new life," or "newness of life"), 3) apposition ("the newness that is life"), 4) objective ("newness that confers life"), and 5) subjective ("life that confers newness"). Wallace takes the second option, and Schreiner agrees with him, arguing that this reading is the least interpretive and most simple. I am inclined to agree.


v. 5
Organic identification, Death, and resurrection- I have been using the word "identification" as I explain the relationship of baptism to Christ's atoning work. That verbiage is vindicated here, with the adjective συμφυτοι. Commentators bicker over the lexical impact of this adjective. Jewett points out that this term is a hapax logomena in the new testament. Many commentators now agree with Dunn that this adjective is derived not from the horticultural term συμφυτευω "I plant together, but rather the merely biological term συμφυω, "I make grow together/unite." The idea of growth is progressive, but the verb related to this term, γεγοναμεν, is in the perfect tense, designating completed action. Schreiner takes this to mean that the background biological metaphor is a dead one, and that Paul speaks of bare conceptual union. I disagree. The process of union may be complete, but it may still be organic, and that is profound. With the use of this perfect tense verb, a very powerful tense schema develops that prevails through the entire pericope. The discussion of co-crucifixion with Christ is always in the aorist past tense. It is a simple, final, completed action. The discussion of resurrection with Christ is always in the future tense. It will happen. In the middle, identification is a reality that we fully live in. It occurs in the perfect tense. Pauls comments on newness of life happen in the subjunctive mood, with no temporal force, and we are given present imperatives. In wrestling with the question of how a future resurrection could spur us to holiness now, Schreiner deftly points out that the death and resurrection of Christ as eschatological events transcend time. These are realities we may claim because the kingdom has been at hand since the ministry of John the Baptist; we are citizens of the new age. We will explore this notion further in the next verse. First, a few other concerns here. One little word is often given no weight in translation but seems to make a big difference: we have become identified with the likeness (ὁμοιοματι) of his death (and resurrection), not simply the acts themselves. As a bit of prolegomena, Murray and Dunn among others are correct in supplying ὁμοιοματι and συμφυτοι into the της ἀναστησιως construction of the apodosis—"we will surely also be united in the likeness of the resurrection." Furthermore, the antecedent for αὐτου is taken to be Christ, meaning that Christ's death is the one under discussion, and the same αὐτου is taken to Does this term imply that the nature of Christ's death has any room for participating, or do we only participate in a likeness or facsimile, with separation from the ultimate reality? Dunn points out that its usage in the rest of the NT tends to denote "the form of transcendent reality perceptible to man." In other words, the magnitude and reality of Christ's death and atoning work are so great that we could never fully conceive them, and thus the ὁμοιοματι are the realities as they are experienceable by finite creatures. Murray nicely negotiates the tension by setting ὁμοιοματι in contrast with συμφυτοι; the organic union must be balanced against the aspects of Christ's death and resurrection which are unique to Christ himself, such as his personal temporal and physical death. My earthly heart has not stopped beating, I have received no toe tags. And yet, I have been reborn. In a rare usage, the word ἀλλα which begins the apodosis of this first class conditional statement has the effect of "certainty" here. Finally, the genitives θανατου and ἀναστσεως are both genitives of source or producer; the likenesses in which Christians have been united are derivatives of these realities.


Section C: A Definitive Break With Sin (v. 6-7)

v. 6
Old Man Crucified- In the form of a participial parenthesis, Paul pauses in his explanation of the trajectory of the believer to explain exactly what died in our co-death with Christ through verses 6 and 7. He begins his excursus with a present temporal adverbial participle, γινωσκοντες, denoting knowledge we should have as we walk (περιπατησωμεν) in newness of life. This knowledge is of a similar class to the knowledge discussed in verse 2; his audience may have some rudimentary understanding of the concepts at hand, but Paul is now giving them the information they need. Paul tells us that what died was ὁ παλαιος ἡμων ἀνθρωπος, "our old man." In fact, our old man was crucified. But what, exactly, is "our old man?" Many scholars define the "old man" as the life lived by human beings under Adam, grounding this conversation in the contrast of the old Adam and new Adam that just occurred in chapter 5. This contrast resumes the epochal shift that was discussed in the previous verse; here the destruction (καταργηθῃ) of the old man must be understood as an eschatological reality that the believer reckons by in the present. Moo and Schreiner in particular are careful to assert that both lives, life under Adam and life in Christ, are considered holistically, meaning that the whole person (including the physical) transfers from life in Adam to life in Christ. In addition to this personal, holistic element, Jewett puts forth the idea that the "old man" has a corporate element. He pushes too hard in arguing that the "old man" should be interpreted primarily in this sense, but a healthy dialectic between individual and corporate identity should be in view. This same dialectic also applies to το σωμα τησ ἁμαρτιας, "the body of sin." This genitive construction is generally considered to be attributive in nature, equivalent to "the sinful body." Cranfield argues that this term is holistic in scope as well, and I agree. What, then, is the difference between the body of sin and the old man? Honestly, not too much. As we read through Romans 5, we see that both death and sin reigned over Adam. The old man may primarily emphasize the reign of death, while the body of sin would naturally emphasize sin. But as we have mentioned in verse 1, the body of sin also includes the particular sins for which individuals are personally culpable. As the following verses proceed, a breach occurs with both dominions. The breach with sin begins here in the next clause of verse 6. The old man was crucified and the body of sin destroyed so that "we would no longer be subject to sin." An infinitive which receives a genitive article, as δουλειν does, is a common structure for denoting purpose, and such is the case here. The verb δουλειν is the same term used elsewhere in Paul and the NT to describe the servitude which we should display toward God; that discussion is actually taken up beginning in verse 15 as Paul moves to a discussion of properly understanding the new dominion under which we have been brought. But for a created child of Adam and a bearer of the Imago Dei, it is clear that God is the only one who deserves that deference, and man only prospers when God is the recipient. Through the crucifixion of the old man and the destruction of the body of sin, God has facilitated our lawful release and return to his keep.

v. 7
The Dead Freed From Sin- This verse undergirds and clarifies the idea that death provides release from sin. But whence does it come? Scholars have seen precedence for this concept within rabbinic literature, apocryphal literature, and within wider Hellenistic sources. These writers are inclined to argue that Paul is directly referencing this salient concept as a saying which his readers will find familiar. Death may justify us from sin by paying a death penalty; a dead man can no longer actively sin among us. Such concepts may float in the back of Paul's mind as he writes, but as Dunn notes, the key is in how Paul appropriates the idea. Ὁ ἀποθανων is an aorist attributive participle construction, establishing a generic person as the subject of the passive perfect finite verb δεδικαιωται. As the governing verb of a salient precept, this verb has a gnomic element to its tense value.This verb is glossed here as "has been freed," but its lexical root is where we get the words "righteousness" and "justification," which have been Paul's themes for the entire epistle thus far. The main impact of this background is that we are to understand the one who has died as rightfully or lawfully freed from sin, but the longer story is told in the word study below. An important question must now be raised: If the one who dies is justified from sin, but not all who die are justified before God, then what kind of death justifies? The answer lies not merely in our understanding of death, but also in a historically accurate understanding of justification. As such, my conclusion depends on the results of the word study on "justification" below. I argue that apart from grace, one may justly pay the price for sin by entering death, and live out the curse put on Adam in the garden. God's justice would be satisfied. Sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death, and death came to the world through sin. For the unrighteous, who does not demonstrate or have the righteousness to satisfy God's justice, death is truly the release from the realm of sinful Adam into θανατος. This is why Christ's resurrection is so important. His righteous life atoned, and the Father's glory interrupted the hold of these realms and principalities; the last enemy to be defeated is death itself. For the Christian, justification becomes a process by which we really are declared righteous, and justice is not simply done to us. But if the Christian has died (aorist tense) and been justified (perfect tense) from sin, then can believers still sin, or not? At this point, we must remember Schreiner's comments on the eschatological aspects of these events. Furthermore, Schreiner points out that "what has been shattered is not the presence of sin but the mastery of sin over believers;" the emphasis is on the end of the reign, and our servitude to sin as master.

Application
This exegetical has taught me about theology; the variety of the usage of δικαιοω has shown me much about both the origin and application of systematic precepts in situational contexts. Both the concepts and the words in the text themselves are more "agile" than I imagined. An eschatological understanding of justification has also been profound in terms of understanding what it means to leave the dominion of sin. I'm glad to know that identification is in the perfect tense. It helps one feel at home. I am impressed by the power and love of the father for his children, and by both the hope and the conviction of his glory. I am glad to have sat under Paul and learned more about how we understand dominion, and learned what it means to belong to Christ. This exegetical work has already helped me to speak well to fellow Christians who have been confused about the meaning of this particular epistle, and so I am glad that this labor has been bearing fruit.

Appendix

Textual Criticism: Ἐπιμενωμεν in Verse 1
The governing verb of Paul's false inference, the occasion and frame for this dialogue, actually has three variant readings among the textual witnesses. Besides ἐπιμενωμεν, a present subjunctive ("shall we persist"), the possible variants are 1) ἐπιμενουμεν, a future indicative with perhaps some imperative force ("will we persist"), 2) ἐπιμενομεν, a present indicative with a similar imperative force ("do we persist"), and 3) ἐπιμεινωμεν, which appears to be derived from the aorist subjunctive, ἐπεμεινa. This aorist subjunctive would have a very similar gloss to the present subjunctive, but the emphasis would be on a simple act of persistence rather than a state of persistence.
External Evidence: The accepted reading, ἐπιμενωμεν, is supported by two very important Alexandrian manuscripts, Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, which both come from before the fifth century. In the western tradition, the accepted reading is also supported by the influential Codex Bezae, although where the Old Latin weighs in, it agrees with the future indicative (variant 1). Besides this portion of the later Old Latin readings, however, the first is only supported by other late minuscules. For that matter, the aorist subjunctive (variant 3) is only supported by the blunder-filled eighth-century Codex Regius and one significant late minuscule from the same period (MS 33 is significant but MS 630 is not). The other genuine contender is the present indicative, variant 2. This variant receives the weighty support of the fourth-century Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus, as well as a small handful of other late uncials and minuscules. But the scales tip in the direction of the accepted reading with the addition of the other secondary uncials and minuscules that support it, some of which (Codices Boreelianus and Wolfii), are also within the Byzantine text type. Both the accepted reading and the second variant are attested early, but the accepted reading is the only one with support across all text types and the only reading to achieve genealogical solidarity (within the Alexandrian type through Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus). Thus, external evidence would argue strongly for the accepted reading of the present subjunctive ἐπιμενωμεν, this with a confidence of A+.
Internal evidence: Whichever reading is the correct one, the variants could very likely have been caused by faulty hearing in scriptoriums; the spelling differences all come from variations in similar diphthongs or vowel sets (ε against ει, ο against ω against ου). As the force of the text is not significantly changed by these variants, and they occur in a generally clear false inference that Paul is about to refute, it would not seem that scribes would have much incentive to alter this text intentionally for any reason. With regard to Paul's own style, a very similar construction occurs later the same chapter, in verse 15. At that point, Paul offers another false inference of exhortative action, and there he uses the aorist subjunctive. Paul is not bound to handle these similar inferences in the exact same way, and the very little semantic difference between the options may provide room for Paul to vary his style. It is perhaps even unlikely that Paul would completely reproduce the inflection for a similar false inference, as the external evidence appears to agree with; he might add a little variation to emphasize the issues' individuality. Because of the very little semantic difference between these options and the extreme similarity of the spellings, internal evidence appears to be largely inconclusive in narrowing down the options.
Conclusion: The comparative semantic equivalence and similar verbal reading indicates that the most strongly attested reading, namely the accepted one, is original, with the others being generated by scribal errors. This comes with a confidence of A.

Structural Layout

v. 1 Ti÷ ou n e˙rouvmen;

e˙pime÷nwmen thØv aJmarti÷aˆ,

iºna hJ ca¿riß pleona¿shØ;

v. 2 mh\ ge÷noito.

oiºtineß aÓpeqa¿nomen thØv aJmarti÷aˆ, pw ß e¶ti zh/somen e˙n aujthØv;

v. 3 h£ aÓgnoei te o¢ti,

o¢soi e˙bapti÷sqhmen ei˙ß Cristo\n Ihsouvn, ei˙ß to\n qa¿naton aujtouv e˙bapti÷sqhmen;

v. 4 suneta¿fhmen ou n aujtwˆ dia» touv bapti÷smatoß ei˙ß to\n qa¿naton,

iºna
w sper hjge÷rqh Cristo\ß e˙k nekrw n dia» thvß do/xhß touv patro/ß,

ou¢twß kai« hJmei ß e˙n kaino/thti zwhvß peripath/swmen.

v. 5 ei˙ ga»r su/mfutoi gego/namen twˆ oJmoiw¿mati touv qana¿tou aujtouv, aÓlla» kai« thvß aÓnasta¿sewß e˙so/meqa:

v. 6 touvto ginw¿skonteß

o¢ti oJ palaio\ß hJmw n a nqrwpoß sunestaurw¿qh,

iºna katarghqhØv to\ sw ma thvß aJmarti÷aß, touv mhke÷ti douleu/ein hJma ß thØv aJmarti÷aˆ:

v. 7 oJ ga»r aÓpoqanw»n dedikai÷wtai aÓpo\ thvß aJmarti÷aß.

Synchronic Word Study
The word δικαιοω, featured in v. 7 of this chapter, is a rather significant term for the New Testament; it's lexically related to δικαιοσυνη (which we gloss as "righteousness," and is Paul's theme for the letter—1:17), and is the verb behind the Christian understanding of "justification"—3:24. But here, as in a few other times in the NT, the verb is glossed as "freed,'' and the use is much wider outside the NT. Here in 6:7, is it justifiable to impose the systematic framework of justification as we understand it over this occurrence of the verb from which the doctrine is derived?
Inside Koine, Outside NT

The usage of the term is rather thin outside the New Testament during the Koine period, but the two extant examples we have showcase the residual breadth of the term from its heyday in classical greek.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae, 1st Cent. B.C.
καὶ τὸ δικαιωθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων τοῦτο νόμος, "and that which has been ordained into those laws."

Demetrius the Younger, P. Ryl 119 (A papyrus from the same collection as P52), 1st Century A.D.
ἐδικαίωσεν ἀποδοῦναι ἡμᾶς τὸ κεφάλαιον, "he judged/decided to repay the capital sum."

These two occurrences demonstrate that during the Koine period, the term was still in use, though less popular, and its lexical range was still recognized as much broader than as a judicial, legal or forensic term. Although the lexical range was probably wider than what these witnesses attest, the idea of "judging, proclaiming, ordaining, or doing rightly" is basically central.

Inside NT, Outside Paul
The new testament exhibits further classical uses of the term δικαιοω, demonstrating further ways in which man may relate to righteousness.

Matthew 11:19
Και ἐδικαιωθη ἡ σοφια ἀπο των ἐργων αὐτης, "but justice is vindicated by her deeds."
(also Luke 7:35, 1 Tim 3:16)

James 2:21
Ἀβρααμ ὁ πατηρ ἡμων οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων ἐδικαιωθη ἀνενεγκας Ἰσαακ τον υἱον αὐτου ἐπι θυσιαστηριον, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?"
(also James 2:24 and 25, Mat 12:37)

Luke 7:29
Και πας ὁ λαος ἀκουσας και οἱ τελωναι ἐδικαιωσαν τον θεον βαπτισθεντες το βαπτισμα Ἰωαννου, "and all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John's baptism."
(also Luke 10:29)

Acts 13:38
ὁτι δια τουτου ὑμιν ἀφεσις ἁμαριων καταγγελλεται, και ἀπο παντων ὡν οὐκ ἠδυνηθητε ἐν νομῳ Μωυσεως δικαιωθηναι, "that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed."
(also v. 39)

Luke 18:14
Λεγω ὑμιν, κατεβη οὐτος δεδικαιωμενος εἰσ τον οἰκον αὐτου παρ εκεινον, "I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other."

The idea of declaring or being declared righteous here spans a very particular scope. The instances in Matthew 11, Luke 18, and James 2:21 are places where good deeds are declared good. The occurrence in matthew is the passive inverse of Luke 7, where the world witnesses good as "good." In Luke 18, a man's deeds are declared good in God's sight, which has a different kind of significance. In James 2:21, a person is declared good or righteous with reference to good actions; this is the closest use to the commonly held "judicial" sense of this term. Rather noticeably, only Paul appears to use the term δικαιοω in directly denoting a sinner to be declared good in spite of their sin. Of course, the other usages are not antithetical, and Paul uses some of them too. Luke, who uses the word with the most versatility, introduces an anomaly reading that he and Paul share: use of δικαιοω with an appropriate gloss of "freeing" or release (Acts 13:38-39). While this usage is not attested elsewhere within the Koine period, it falls within the classical usage if we understand that an unlawful prisoner is freed justly. Without the work of Christ, we all would be lawfully imprisoned for and by our sins.

Inside Paul, Outside Romans
In his own writing, Paul echoes many of the uses of δικαιοω found throughout the rest of the new testament, but he is the writer most clear about God's grace "justifying the unjustifiable."
1 Cor 4:4
oujde«n ga»r e˙mautwˆ su/noida, aÓll oujk e˙n tou/twˆ dedikai÷wmai, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted."

1 Tim 3:16 (Controversial, yes.)
o§ß e˙fanerw¿qh e˙n sarki÷, e˙dikaiw¿qh e˙n pneu/mati, "he was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit."

Titus 3:7
iºna dikaiwqe÷nteß thØv e˙kei÷nou ca¿riti klhrono/moi genhqw men kat e˙lpi÷da zwhvß ai˙wni÷ou, "so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
(See also Gal 2:16 and 1 Cor 6:11)
Gal 5:4
kathrgh/qhte aÓpo\ Cristouv, oiºtineß e˙n no/mwˆ dikaiouvsqe, thvß ca¿ritoß e˙xepe÷sate. You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

We have seen all of these glosses in the rest of the new testament, with the exception of the readings that bear resemblance to Titus 3:7. These are the readings in which the sinner is made righteous by God through a regenerative process. These readings, of course, will inflect our readings of other texts throughout the New Testament (but not dominate them). But most importantly for our purposes, we see the gloss "acquit" appear within Paul's other writings in addition to Romans and the rest of the NT. It would appear that the corpus of Paul's work points to versatility with regard to this verb.
Inside Romans
Within Romans, the usage of the term narrows noticeably, as Paul is intentionally using this verb (as well as its noun form) as a theme.

Romans 2:13
ouj ga»r oi˚ aÓkroatai« no/mou di÷kaioi para» [twˆ ] qewˆ , aÓll oi˚ poihtai« no/mou dikaiwqh/sontai, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified."

Romans 4:5

twˆ de« mh\ e˙rgazome÷nwˆ pisteu/onti de« e˙pi« to\n dikaiouvnta to\n aÓsebhv logi÷zetai hJ pi÷stiß aujtouv ei˙ß dikaiosu/nhn: "But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness."

All of the occurrences of δικαιοω generally fall under one of these two umbrellas, with the exception of our verse in 6:7. Much of the goal of the letter may be understood by the comparison of these two uses. In the one case, those who do good are cleared in God's court of justice. In the second usage, God is able to justify the unjustifiable, making himself both just and the justifier.

This Verse (6:7)

oJ ga»r aÓpoqanw»n dedikai÷wtai aÓpo\ thvß aJmarti÷aß. "For he who has died has been freed from sin."

This usage and gloss is an outlier within the book of Romans. It is the only occurrence which does not fall neatly into either of the two categories above. However, the meaning of freeing, acquittal or release is not foreign to Paul's usage, the larger New Testament, Koine greek, or the greater history of the word. Paul's education would have acquainted him with the wide scope of this lexeme and its privileged prominence in classic literature. Nonetheless, Paul's primary goals in Romans and very intentional usage throughout the rest of the text mean that it would be unwise to interpret this occurrence in isolation. I submit that the term may be a bit of a double entendre, meaning one thing for believers, and another for unbelievers. For the unbeliever, justice is done by them as they are handed from life under sin to life under the consequences of sin—namely, θανατος. For the believer, death in Christ means justification in us, such that the Lord's righteousness and power is given to us such that we are free from the dominion of both sin and death.

Validation

Part 1) Surfacing the Problem: Over the course of church history, many different views have been put forth regarding the importance of rituals in church life and their relationship to Christ's atoning work. Sacraments have been understood as grace-giving in themselves, as a genuine sacrifice before God with salvific efficacy, and indispensable for entering heaven. They have also been understood as metaphorical remembrances, a way of using the physical to provide a tangible experience of purely spiritual realities. The noun Βαπτισμος and verb Βαπτιζω feature prominently in this discussion of Paul's regarding our identification with Christ's death and resurrection. Is Paul discussing the sacrament of baptism as a metaphor or analogy for this transition, or is Paul talking about physical baptism as the means for this transition?

Part 2: Outlining Options: The possibilities land on a spectrum between what commentators call "sacramentalism" or "sacerdotalism," in which the ritual itself is the means of identification with Christ, and communicates the power to overcome sin, to understanding of baptism as a completely metaphorical re-enactment which serves as an initiation rite. Full-blown "sacramentalism" as defined above has been unpopular among protestant commentators since Luther, but some liberal scholars have exposited this position as Paul's naive supernaturalist understanding. The scholars who have the most respect for the efficacy of baptism point to three factors: 1) The use of the term βαπτιζω elsewhere throughout the new testament is generally referring to the physical rite, and not a metaphor; 2) Christians are not buried "like" Christ, they are buried "with" him; and 3) this burial occurs through baptism, meaning that it must be understood on some level as a means of identification rather than a symbol. Those evangelicals who shy away from the sacramental view argue that the sacramental view emphasizes baptism over and against "the historic and definitive death and resurrection," which is the primary work that saves a person; in other words, the position is not properly Christ-centered. In an effort to de-emphasize the human element and focus on Christ, these folks tend to describe baptism as an outward ratification or pledge of an inward decision or experience, or to emphasize baptism as the sign and seal of membership in the body. They tend to work from concerns of Christ-centered theology rather than from the grammar of the text given here, but they also note that the emphasis of the text is the believer's participation in Christ's death and resurrection; baptism is only mentioned in these two verses, and that only in passing. Incrementally more liberal scholars talk about baptism as a bare initiation rite or re-enactment, or baptism as a "psychologically climactic experience of commitment to and self-identification with the last Adam," rather than fashioning paul as a naïve supernaturalist. These scholars tend to quote the opinions of other scholars rather than making lexical or grammatical arguments.

Part 3: Drawing conclusions: It would seem that genuine appeals to the grammar and material of the biblical text here yield an understanding of baptism that involves comparatively more efficacy or significance than the average evangelical would expect. At the same time, it is true that Paul's primary concern in this passage is not Baptism, but rather co-identification with Christ. Moo begins to resolve this tension by advocating an understanding that baptism focuses on something God does for us, rather than on something that water or a pastor does for us. Moo understands baptism to be an integral part of a normative conversion-initiation experience that includes faith, regeneration and resulting repentance. It is clear from the account of the thief on the cross that one may enter paradise without receiving the rite of baptism; in this sense, baptism has no efficacy apart from the eschatological change in trajectory that has occurred in the heart of the believer. But the new believer receives a seal on his faith through baptism. The seal comes from God, not from man. Just as the faith did.