What does the future tense of the verb “to have dominion over” indicate?

Explanation:

Paul writes in Romans 6:14 that sin will no longer have dominion over you. Paul uses the future tense of the verb to have dominion over, which we ought to take as a promise. We can detect that Paul has promise for the present in mind because of his choice of the verb κυριεύω (to have dominion over). For κυριεύω is the verbal form of κύριος (lord), and it was obvious that Jesus is the real κύριος over the Roman Christians. Thus, by using the verb κυριεύω to promise that sin will not have dominion, the Romans would have understood Paul to imply that sin will not have dominion because Christ is their real κύριος. Of course, Christ is their true Lord not only in the future but also in the present. So sin will not have dominion over them in the present.³

Counterargument:

According to this argument, Paul purposely uses the verb κυριεύω (to have dominion over) in order to subtly remind the Romans that Christ is their real κύριος (lord) in the present. Thus, the future tense is used to denote a promise applicable to present reality. The problem is that there is a more plausible reason why Paul uses the verb κυριεύω, and it is not to subtly remind the Romans that Jesus is their real κύριος. That is, Paul likely uses the verb κυριεύω because he uses the same verb in Romans 6:9 when he writes that death has no dominion over Christ. That Paul uses the same verb in Romans 6:9 is important and should inform our understanding of why he uses it again in Romans 6:14, because κυριεύω is a relatively rare verb in the New Testament, appearing only seven times, including four times in Romans. Of course, if Paul uses the verb in Romans 6:14 simply because he used it earlier to explain that death no longer has dominion over Jesus, then Paul does not use it in Romans 6:14 to subtly remind the Romans that Jesus is their Lord in the present. So this argument cannot establish that Paul uses the future tense to indicate a promise for the present.

Response to counterargument:

That Paul uses the same verb to say that death no longer has dominion over Christ is relevant, but it does not overturn the subtle implication that sin will no longer have dominion because Christ is the Romans' present Lord. And in fact, Paul’s other uses of the term κυριεύω (to have dominion over) support the fact that Christ is the present Lord of the Romans, which is why sin will not have dominion over them in the now. For Paul uses the same verb again in Romans 14:9 where he explains that Christ died and rose that he might be Lord of both the living and the dead. Further, he uses the verb in his letter to Timothy where he writes that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. Likewise Paul uses the same verb in Romans 6:14 to imply that sin will not have dominion over the Romans in the present, because Jesus Christ is their Lord in the present.

Explanation:

Although Paul uses the future tense of the verb κυριεύω (to have dominion over) to state that sin will no longer have dominion over the Roman Christians, we should take the future tense to apply to the present. That is because Paul has made clear throughout this section that the future has broken into the present. For example, in Romans 6:5 Paul says that if we have been united to Christ’s death, we will be united to his resurrection. And in Romans 6:8 he explains that if we died with Christ, we know that we will also live with him. In both cases, Paul has in mind Christ’s future return, which impacts the Romans in the present. Likewise, in Romans 6:14 Paul says that sin will have no dominion, suggesting that the future return of Christ has invaded the Romans in the present, so that presently, sin has no dominion over them.⁴

Counterargument:

The problem here is that the passages this argument ushers in its favour actually work against it. For in Romans 6:5 Paul does not have the future return of Christ impacting the present in mind, but simply the future return of Christ. There Paul explains that since we have been united to Christ’s death, we know that in the future we will be united to his resurrection. Similarly, when Paul says that if we died with Christ we will live with him, he has in mind the belief that we will live with Christ into eternity.⁵ Likewise, when Paul says that sin will have no dominion over the Romans, he likely means that when Christ returns, sin will no longer have dominion over them (Romans 6:14).

The weakness of this view is that we know believers continue to sin in this life, which implies that sin’s dominion is not broken in the present. Of course, we have to admit that sinning occasionally and sin having dominion are two very different orientations, so the fact that believers continue to sin does not necessarily imply that sin has dominion. Rather, it may simply imply that while sin no longer has dominion, it still has some influence until Christ’s final return.

Explanation:

Paul writes that sin will no longer have dominion over the Roman Christians. Clearly, Paul has the temporal future in mind. We can deduce this because Paul has already referred to the temporal future in Romans 6:5 and Romans 6:8 (see also interpretation 1, argument b, counterargument).⁶ In particular, Paul has reminded the Romans that if they have been united with Christ in his death, they will, in the temporal future, be united with him in resurrection. Likewise, in Romans 6:8 Paul writes that if we died with Christ, we believe we will also live with him, where living with him applies to the temporal future. Given that Paul uses the temporal future to indicate the future hope of resurrection life in Romans 6:5 and Romans 6:8, then when he uses the future tense again in Romans 6:14, he likely has a temporal future in mind.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that this argument overlooks subtle hints from the immediate context that make Paul’s use of the future tense in Romans 6:14 different from that of Romans 6:5 and Romans 6:8. For in both Romans 6:5 and Romans 6:8 Paul clearly indicates how a present reality relates to some future hope. In the case of Romans 6:5, the present reality is being united with Christ’s death, which is related to the future hope of resurrection. Likewise, in Romans 6:8 the present reality of dying with Christ is related to the future hope of living with him. Unfortunately for this argument, Romans 6:14 does not follow this pattern. Instead, in Romans 6:14 we notice Paul relating the promise to a command. That is, Paul has commanded the Romans not to let sin reign in their mortal bodies, and he motivates this command by explaining that sin will have no dominion over them. In other words, they can obey the command because sin in the present will have no dominion over them. Thus, given that Paul uses the future tense in Romans 6:14, not to indicate future hope in relation to present realities, but to motivate obeying commands, we can see that Paul’s use of the future tense in Romans 6:5 and Romans 6:8 is not relevant to the future tense in Romans 6:14.

Response to counterargument:

While the reason Paul uses the future tense differs in Romans 6:14 from his reasons in Romans 6:5 and Romans 6:8, the point is that Paul has a temporal future state in mind in this section. That is, Paul is thinking about the activity and attitudes of the believers in their present state as it relates to their future state. Likewise, in Romans 6:14 Paul motivates the Romans by reminding them that in the future, sin will no longer have dominion over them.

Explanation:

In Romans 6:12 Paul commands the Romans not to let sin reign over their mortal bodies, or to obey its passions. Then in Romans 6:14 he gives them the motivation to uphold this command, for eventually sin will not have dominion over them.⁷ That Paul gives a command explains why Paul uses the future tense of the verb to have dominion over in Romans 6:14. For Paul likely reminds the Romans of the future hope they have when sin will no longer have dominion over them to continue their resistance to sin, and not let it reign over them. In other words, Paul is saying, Do not let sin reign over you, for one day in the future it will have no dominion over you.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that there is a coherence issue with this interpretation. In particular, we notice in Romans 6:12 that Paul commands the Romans not to let sin reign over them, but according to this argument, the Romans will only be released from the dominion of sin at a future temporal moment. Of course, the notion of sin reigning and sin having dominion seem to be equivalent. So how does it make sense for Paul to command the Romans not to let sin have dominion so that in the future sin will not have dominion? Given that sin reigning and sin having dominion are equivalent, it is better to take it that Romans 6:14 is closely related to Romans 6:12. That is, in Romans 6:12 Paul commands the Romans not to let sin reign (have dominion), and then in Romans 6:14 he reminds them that sin will not have dominion over them in the present.

The weakness of this view is that Paul’s point in this section is that because the Romans are under grace and not sin, they ought to resist sin (Romans 6:14–15). Of course, if being freed from the dominion of sin is a future state, then the Romans are still under the dominion of sin, which means they will not be able to resist sin. But resisting sin is precisely what Paul calls for here (Romans 6:15).