# dia in Rom 7:4



## KMK (Mar 10, 2007)

Some translations us 'by' and some use 'through' to translate 'dia' with the genitive.

Is it gen of place or means? Doesn't the context require that it be understood as gen of means? And if so, wouldn't 'by' be better than through?

Please frame you responses as if speaking to a 5th grader. (Because I am no Greek scholar)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2007)

I think either English word is suitable to describe gen-of-means. "Through" is not describing place, but the idea "by means of."

As I think you already recognize, the verse is speaking of our union with Christ in his death (see 6:3-11). It's restating a truth Paul has already taken his hearers through: Christ died to the Law, that is, he died in his body according to the penalty the Law imposed upon lawbreakers (although he was the Innocent One); so since he has removed the obstacle of the Covenant of Works, he has also done so for everyone united to him. So you, _being united to Christ,_ were also "made to die" to the Law *through* or *by means of* the body of Christ that underwent sacrificial death.

And from this fact he establishes the conclusion ("therefore" at the beginning of the verse, coupled with "that" mid-verse), which ties the thought to the marriage analogy he is in the middle of. The same one whose death (by your union) breaks your connection to the Law that condemns you, is himself raised from the dead, and your union may now be pictured as a happy, living marriage. And which "fruit" of said union are the good deeds of sanctification (see 6:21f, NAS uses "benefit" but the word is "fruit").


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think either English word is suitable to describe gen-of-means. "Through" is not describing place, but the idea "by means of."
> 
> As I think you already recognize, the verse is speaking of our union with Christ in his death (see 6:3-11). It's restating a truth Paul has already taken his hearers through: Christ died to the Law, that is, he died in his body according to the penalty the Law imposed upon lawbreakers (although he was the Innocent One); so since he has removed the obstacle of the Covenant of Works, he has also done so for everyone united to him. So you, _being united to Christ,_ were also "made to die" to the Law *through* or *by means of* the body of Christ that underwent sacrificial death.
> 
> And from this fact he establishes the conclusion ("therefore" at the beginning of the verse, coupled with "that" mid-verse), which ties the thought to the marriage analogy he is in the middle of. The same one whose death (by your union) breaks your connection to the Law that condemns you, is himself raised from the dead, and your union may now be pictured as a happy, living marriage. And which "fruit" of said union are the good deeds of sanctification (see 6:21f, NAS uses "benefit" but the word is "fruit").



It sounds like you have preached this one before, brother! 

This is what I hear you saying. You agree that from the context we necessarily interpret it as a gen of means and not place, but you disagree that 'by' is better than 'through' because both words impart the idea of 'by means of'. Am I summarizing you correctly?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2007)

KMK said:


> It sounds like you have preached this one before, brother!
> 
> This is what I hear you saying. You agree that from the context we necessarily interpret it as a gen of means and not place, but you disagree that 'by' is better than 'through' because both words impart the idea of 'by means of'. Am I summarizing you correctly?



Fair assesment. And yes, I have preached it.

I'm now looking at Wallace' _Grammar,_ where he discusses "gen of place" (p.124f, although strictly speaking in describing usage he avoids instances where the preposition itself governs the case-usage). He uses one example, Phil. 2:8, "death of/ON a cross" which he points out could also be "means" or "production." Remember, interpretation is often a bit fluid. Case-usage helps define your options, and you can pare it down from there.


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2007)

Would it be incorrect theologically to interpret Rom 7:4 as gen of place meaning that the shed blood and broken body of Jesus on the cross is now 'interposed' between the believer and his old husband in the same way that death is 'interposed' between the living and the dead?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2007)

Paul isn't talking about the body of Christ as an "object". The theme of union with Christ is the governing principle of this whole section, starting in chapter 6. Christ _died,_ so you _were *made* to die, you were *put to death*_ if you are united to him (cf. 6:6). In fact, you live instead of dying because he did the dying for you. *You died by means of his death.*

He (or his 'death') doesn't just come between you and that Law that owned you. His death nullifies (katargeo--the word or its cognates is used over and over in this passage) the Law (the Covenant of Works). It's gone. It doesn't exist for you anymore, because YOU died. You DIED in his death. Compare 7:6 to 6:7ff.


----------



## KMK (Mar 10, 2007)

In addition, there is just as much chance of a believer returning to that original husband as there is for a dead person to rise again!


----------

