How does Christ die to sin?

Explanation:

It is not right away clear what Paul means when he writes that Christ died to sin. For Christ never sinned, so how can he die to it? Still, we get a literary clue for what Paul means because he uses the same phrase in Romans 6:2. That is, in Romans 6:2 Paul asks how we, who died to sin, can still live in it. Now Paul uses the same phrase in Romans 6:10 when he writes that the death Christ died, he died to sin. Given that Paul uses the same phrase in both verses, he likely has a similar meaning in mind.³ So what does Paul mean in Romans 6:2 when he writes that we died to sin? He likely means that sin used to reign over us, but we died to the reign of sin, so we have been set free from sin’s dominion. Likewise, Paul is saying that sin reigned over Christ, but Christ died to the dominion of sin. Of course, by dying to the dominion of sin, Christ destroyed the power of sin once for all (Romans 6:10).

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Christ was never under the power of sin. For we know that Christ was sinless, which means that sin never reigned over him in the same way that it reigns over the rest of humanity.⁴ Of course, if sin never reigned over Christ the way it reigned over the rest of humanity, then when Paul writes that Christ died to sin, he cannot mean what he meant in Romans 6:2, which is that we died to sin’s dominion. For sin never had dominion over Christ.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument misunderstands what it means that sin had dominion over Christ. For Paul does not mean that sin is a ruling power in the sense that everyone under sin’s power sins, but that everyone under sin’s power dies. First, we know from Romans 5:1–21 that Paul characterizes sin as a ruling power. In particular, Paul writes that sin came into the world through one man and death through sin (Romans 5:12). Then in Romans 5:15 he explains that death reigned from Adam to Moses because of sin. So death is associated with the ruling power of sin.⁵

Now, by entering humanity, Christ entered the domain of the old epoch, which is dominated by the power of sin unto death.⁶ This means that Christ entered the epoch in which sin ruled unto death, so that he was subject to death. So while Christ never sinned, he was subject to the reign of sin in that he was subject to death, which is how sin reigns.

Explanation:

Paul has explained that redemption is through Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24). Through Jesus Christ we are saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) and freed from the dominion of sin that previously reigned over us (Romans 5:17). Interestingly, the way that Christ redeems us from God’s wrath and the dominion of sin can help us understand what it means that Christ died to sin. For the way that Christ saved us is by sharing in our full humanity. That is, Christ shares in our full humanity in the sense that he even submits to the power of sin in death. Since humans are under the reign of death, Christ submits to the reign of death, so that although he does not sin, sin reigns over him through his death on the cross.⁷ Of course, the death he died, he died to sin so that sin would be crushed.

Counterargument:

While there is a sense in which Christ shared our full humanity, there is another sense in which he did not.⁸ For we know that the reason death reigns over humans is because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). On the other hand, we know that Christ did not sin but was the unstained high priest who was qualified to intervene for humanity because of his holiness (Hebrews 7:26). Further, we know that death is the consequence of sin, so if Christ never sinned, it is not possible for sin to reign over him in death. So, it is not clear that dying to sin means that death had dominion over Christ as a consequence of sin, because Christ never sinned.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that death had dominion over Christ as a consequence of his sin, but that it had dominion over him as a consequence of humanity’s sin, and Christ’s willingness to become one with humanity. That is, Christ was willing to share the full human condition, which included subordination to death, in order to conquer death for humanity. Of course, one does not need to commit actual sins to share in the full human condition, for God did not create humans to sin. Still, through Adam physical death became an aspect of the condition of humanity, so Christ experienced death in order to break sin’s dominion of death once for all (Romans 1:10–16:27).

One weakness of this view is the assumption that death is an aspect of the human condition. For according to this view, sin is not an aspect of the human condition, which is why Jesus never sins but still fully relates to humanity. Yet, this view holds that death is an aspect of the human condition so that even though Jesus did not sin, he is still subject to death. The assumption that Jesus is subject to death, simply by being human, should be defended for this view to hold.

Explanation:

Paul writes that Christ died to sin. In order to understand what Paul means, it is important to notice that Christ was never enticed to sin, nor did sin have mastery over him. On the other hand, we know the rest of humanity did sin and deserve punishment for sinning. Still, Christ takes the penalty for the sins that we commit unto himself so that he carries the penalty for sin on our behalf. Given that Christ takes on the penalty for sin on our behalf, likely when Paul says that Christ died to sin, he has in mind that Christ died to the penalty of sin.⁹ So when Paul writes that Christ died to sin he means that he took on the punishment that our sins deserve.

Counterargument:

While it is true that Christ’s relationship to sin is different from the rest of humanity’s in the sense that Christ never sinned, it is not the case that Christ was never tempted, nor that the consequence of sin, which is death, had no dominion over him. For we know from the Gospels that Jesus was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1–11). Likewise, the author of Hebrews says that Christ was tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Further, we know that death, which is the consequence of sin, had dominion over Christ, not only because Christ died but because Paul says as much in Romans 6:9. There Paul specifically writes that since Christ was raised from the dead, death no longer has dominion over him. So Christ was tempted to sin, and the consequence of sin, which is death, had dominion over him until he was raised from the dead. So we ought to keep these aspects in mind when we interpret what it means that Christ died to sin.

Response to counterargument:

While it is curious that death had dominion over Christ even though Christ never sinned, we might take it that death had dominion over him only in the sense that he chose to take on the penalty for sin. That is, insofar as Christ was willing to take on the penalty for sin, he was under the dominion of sin and died to sin. But this is not to admit that death had mastery over Jesus for reasons other than voluntary.

Explanation:

At first it is not clear what it means that Christ died to sin, for Christ himself was sinless. Still, we can combine insights from the work of Christ with a statement Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 5:21 to detect his meaning. First, while Christ never sinned, we know that his work entails carrying the penalty for sin. Christ carries the penalty of sin through his death on the cross so that anyone who believes in him is saved (Romans 3:21–26). Second, in 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes that God made him who knew no sin to be sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God. In other words, while Christ himself never sinned, God made him to be sin in the sense that he carried the punishment for our sin so that anyone who believes in Christ is saved. Thus, Christ died to sin in the sense that he took on the penalty of sin.¹⁰

Counterargument:

This argument does not adequately explain the connection between Christ’s work, the fact that God made him to be sin, and the notion of dying to sin. That is, Paul writes in Romans 6:10, The death he died he died to sin. According to this argument, what it means that Christ died to sin is he carried the penalty for sin. Of course, it is true that Christ carried the penalty of sin, but this is not at all clear from the clause he died to sin. In other words, this view contends we ought to take the clause he died to sin to mean he carried the penalty for sin, without explaining how the grammar might function to indicate this. For the plain grammatical meaning of he died to sin is that Christ died to the power of sin in that, in his death, he separates from the disadvantage of being under sin.¹¹ 

Response to counterargument:

This argument does not need to explain the grammatical connection between dying to sin and the fact that this means Christ took on the penalty for sin. Rather, the argument here is simply that while Christ does die to the dominion and power of sin, he does so by taking on the penalty for sin. That is, sin and death never had any mastery over Christ, but by voluntarily placing himself under the authority of sin, he dies to sin for the sake of humanity.

The weakness of this view is that it adds a layer of complexity that is not in the plain reading of the text. According to the plain reading, Christ dies to sin. If Paul wanted to say that Christ died to sin by taking on the penalty of sin, we would expect him to say this.