"The wages OF sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life."
I think we hear this as "the wages FOR sin" - in other words, death is the wages paid out *by God* as the price of our sinning. But the text doesn't say that. It says that the wage SIN pays out is death. In contrast to the wage that sin pays, there is the gift that God gives: eternal life!
Thoughts?
16 comments:
you should go east
Yes, so I am given to understand. But what does that have to do with the validity or invalidity of the thought expressed? Is it right or not?
Deb would like to know: What does the text say in Greek?
It uses the genitive:
The wages OF sin is death.
What is the force of the genitive? I think that one modern version (AAT) captures it well:
"The wages paid by sin is death, but the gift given freely by God in Christ Jesus is everlasting life."
The genitive case is notorious in many languages for bearing a wide variety of semantic duties. I'm not a Greek scholar, but my impression is that since Greek has a relatively simple case system, and lacks some of the more specialized cases (ablative, locative, instrumental, etc.), the genitive case takes on some of the duties borne by the specialized cases in other languages.
This means, of course, that there is a bit more ambiguity in a genitive construction (particularly when, as in this case, it has no preposition to disambiguate it). The primary sense of the genitive is, of course, belonging. It marks the owner or holder of something: Chris's house, Chris's car, Chris's book.
But in English at least, when we speak of "my wages" (which is genitive), that refers to the person to whom the wages are due or have been paid, not to the one who owes and pays the wages. So to say "sin's wages is death" would mean "the wages paid to sin for its labor".
Clearly that makes no sense in the context of Ro 6.23. The question is, then, how is the payer of wages referred to in the Greek of the time? and how is the work for which wages are due referred to in the Greek of the time?
The parallel structure might also yield the clue that the AAT's take is right on:
The wages of sin
The gift of God
I think this clarifies the meaning of the ambiguous genitive because the meaning of "the gift of God" is farily clear here: The gift *given by God*. That would point to the wage *paid by sin*, no?
What I think this reading of the passage supports is Romanides contention that we must not view God as the CAUSE of death. God didn't get pissed off that we had disobeyed him and so toss us from the Garden. He told us that the consequence of eating the forbidden fruit was that we would die, NOT that HE would kill us to punish us (as my Vicar perceptively pointed out this p.m.). Thus, in a very real sense Adam and Eve literally CHOSE death in the garden. And Christ comes as the enemy of sin and the enemy of Death (doesn't Paul call it "the last enemy"?) and determined to free humanity from them.
One last thought: this also fits precisely with what Paul had just got done saying!
"For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."
When you served sin...; When you served God...;
the wage sin pays you is death; the gift God gives you is eternal life in Jesus Christ!
Although I still think looking at other examples of the form "X's wages" in koine Greek (to see whether they mean "paid by X" or "paid to X") would be instructive, I have to admit that your argument from the parallel structure of Paul's overall statement is decisive.
by your initial comment then do you mean to say you are thinking of going east
Anonymous said...
you should go east
10:51 AM
William Weedon said...
Yes, so I am given to understand. But what does that have to do with the validity or invalidity of the thought expressed? Is it right or not?
To say that the, * wage SIN pays out is death* is to say that death is a consequence of sin. Whereas to say that, * death is the wages paid out by God as the price of our sinning* ie *the wages for sin*, is to approach the matter judicially. I think that's what Anonymous was probably getting at.
Btw, brilliant post!
Cheryl
Dear Anonymous,
If you wish to discuss the matter with me without being anonymous, I'd be happy to. But personal questions answered to anonymous folks, well, I'm just not doing that. Email me a direct email and identify yourself and I'd be happy to talk to you personally.
We would do well to acknowledge that just because it's Paul doesn't mean it's juridicial language.
And "payment" is very much not juridicial.
BTW, I'm not yet convinced of your argument. Need to study and pray a bit more, but to say I'm not convinced doesn't mean I don't agree. As of this moment, I agree, just not emphatically.
Vicars who do not emphatically agree with their supervisors on ALL points.... can STILL pass their vicarage. Remember, there's always Holle! ; )
Chrysostom, by the way, is NO help, any more than Luther (he SKIPS the verse in his Romans commentary, and in the postils seems slightly inclined toward it). But here's the Golden-Mouthed Preacher:
Ver. 23. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."
After speaking of the wages of sin, in the case of the blessings, he has not kept to the same order (taxin, rank or relation): for he does not say, the wages of good deeds, "but the gift of God;" to show, that it was not of themselves that they were freed, nor was it a due they received, neither yet a return, nor a recompense of labors, but by grace all these things came about. And so there was a superiority for this cause also, in that He did not free them only, or change their condition for a better, but that He did it without any labor or trouble upon their part: and that He not only freed them, but also gave them much more than before, and that through His Son. And the whole of this he has interposed as having discussed the subject of grace, and being on the point of overthrowing the Law next. That these things then might not both make them rather listless, he inserted the part about strictness of life, using every opportunity of rousing the hearer to the practice of virtue. For when he calls death the wages of sin, he alarms them again, and secures them against dangers to come. For the words he uses to remind them of their former estate, he also employs so as to make them thankful, and more secure against any inroads of temptations. Here then he brings the hortatory part to a stop, and proceeds with the doctrines again, speaking on this wise.
Dear Barry,
Thanks for the comments. I wish I knew WHAT the Lord was up to in my life. May he give me and my family guidance and direction.
Pax!
Post a Comment