Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite

Romans 6:7 invariably discusses a believer's freedom from sin in most English translations:

NET © (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.)
NIV © because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
NASB © for he who has died is freed from sin.
NLT © For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.
BBE © Because he who is dead is free from sin.
NRSV © For whoever has died is freed from sin.
NKJV © For he who has died has been freed from sin.

But the word used is dedikaiwtai <1344>, which is otherwise translated as "justify". Why did the translators choose to render the word "freed" rather than "justified"?

share|improve this question

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote

Because each one of these translators believes that "freed from" is the "dynamic equivalent" of "to be justified from", which is hardly natural in English. Are they right? That is a somewhat different question. Their choice does have the slight advantage of avoiding the interpretation Luther put on the verse, which really was his 'eisegesis'.

Also, Thayer's lexicon explicitly lists this verse as the sole existing example of the figurative meaning 'free' for 'δικαιόω'

BTW: 'justified' is not a perfect translation of this word, either. It covers much but not all of the semantic range, which really is wider in Greek.

share|improve this answer
Welcome to our Biblical Hermeneutics Q&A site! FYI: Thayer's lexicon can be accessed online it seems. I don't happen to think "has justified from sin" is terribly unnatural. Also, the NASB is not usually considered "dynamic equivalent" translations, but it used "freed" in the main text. The ESV, another word-for-word translation, used "freed" in the main text, but lists "justified" in the footnotes. – Jon Ericson♦ Jul 31 '12 at 4:10
up vote 0 down vote

In the context, spiritual death died. That is, the old Adam died, and therefore the believer is spiritually alive.

Since spiritual death and spiritual life are mutually exclusive (that is, you are either one or the other but not both), the transition from spiritual death to spiritual life is when you are "born again."

When you are born again you are "free" from spiritual death, which was the original sin of Adam. We are no longer condemned, but justified (dedikaiwtai).

Since spiritual death and spiritual life are mutually exclusive (and thus we have no part in spiritual death anymore), we are freed (dedikaiwtai) from sin.

I think this is what the translators understood.

share|improve this answer
I think that is what the translators were thinking. But why? Paul makes this theological point other places in Romans, so why force him to make it here? It seems the theological point Paul is making is obscured in the English because of this translation anomaly. – Jon Ericson♦ Dec 20 '12 at 23:39
If we translated the passage to say "...he who has died is vindicated by his sins" we would be following the same grammatical construct (genitive of cause) as is found in Matt 11:19, where the context dictates we translate the idea as such (i.e., "wisdom is vindicated by her children"). Would that make more sense in the context of this passage in Romans, that "one who has died is vindicated by his sins"? Of course not. In the Romans passage it is not the genitive of cause, but the genitive of separation, which is in view. – Joseph Dec 21 '12 at 3:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.