Romans 6:9 Disproves the Deity of Christ?

 

Romans 6 in p46 (c. 3rd century)

Some Islamic apologists (such as Ijaz Ahmad, in particular) insist that the following verse from the Bible disproves the deity of Christ: 

"We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. " (Romans 6:9 ESV) 

Muslims insist that nothing can have "dominion"/"rule over" God, and thus Jesus could not have been God. In this article, we will examine this claim and show how it not only does not refute the deity of Christ, but actually proves it instead. 

For starters, it is quite strange and startling that Islamic apologists would go to this verse in the first place. There are a few reasons for this:

- The verse affirms that Jesus died ("death no longer has dominion"), something which Islam generally denies. (There is some debate as to whether Surah 4:157 denies only the crucifixion of Jesus or if it rules out Him dying in any way altogether). 

- The verse affirms that Jesus was raised from the dead ("being raised from the dead").

Of course, many Muslims might reply back that they do not consider the New Testament to be reliable at all, and thus what this verse says does not matter. This very argument can be turned against them: why would they cite this verse in the first place if it "unreliable" in order to disprove the deity of Christ?

It must be recognized that Jesus willingly submitted to death in order that He might save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21; cf. Luke 1:31). This is recognized by some commentators on this verse in Romans:

"Christ no longer dies because the dominion (κυριεύει) that death exercised over him has been broken. Christ willingly submitted himself to death and its rule, so that he might free those who were under its authority." (Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI 1998], pg. 320)

"9.Death no more rules over him, etc. He seems to imply that death once ruled over Christ; and indeed when he gave himself up to death for us, he in a manner surrendered and subjected himself to its power; it was however in such a way that it was impossible that he should be kept bound by its pangs, so as to succumb to or to be swallowed up by them. He, therefore, by submitting to its dominion, as it were, for a moment, destroyed it for ever. Yet, to speak more simply, the dominion of death is to be referred to the state of death voluntarily undergone, which the resurrection terminated. The meaning is, that Christ, who now vivifies the faithful by his Spirit, or breathes his own life into them by his secret power from heaven, was freed from the dominion of death when he arose, that by virtue of the same dominion he might render free all his people." (Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, source) 

"Verse 9. - Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. When it is implied here that death had once dominion over him, it is not, of course, meant that he was in his own Divide nature subject to death, or that . 'it was possible that he should be holden of it." All that is implied is that he had made himself subject to it by taking on him our nature, and voluntarily submitted to it, once for all, as representing us (cf. John 10:17; Acts 2:24). " (The Pulpit Commentary, source, a commentary which Ijaz himself has cited on his website before) 

(I am somewhat unsure if there was some sort of typo in the Pulpit Commentary cited above, i.e. whether it should have said "divine nature" rather than "divide nature". I am going with the former reading since the latter does not really make any sense)

This somewhat leads to the issue of where Jesus might have been in between His death and resurrection. It must be firmly recognized that Jesus did not cease to exist as God between His death and resurrection. We know this from what Jesus says in the Gospel of John:

"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' " (John 2:19)

If the Lord Jesus did not exist between His death and resurrection, then why did He say "I will raise it up"? This issue has been noted in commentators on John. Here is one example from the Protestant Reformer John Calvin:

"I will raise it up again. Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity." (Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, source) 

To wrap things up, we should note here what is said in the book of Hebrews:

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

As Christians, we accept fully every single one of the passages in the Bible where it speaks of Jesus' death, since as the above verse said, He has victory over death through death.