I finished the Romans 6 section of the devotional I'm writing on Romans 1-8, to go with Paul: Soldier of Peace, which is scheduled to come out in July. I was reflecting on the well known verse, Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."
Although Paul here primarily has in mind the time prior to being baptizing into Christ, dying with Christ, dying to law, it struck me that the context might easily push us to see this comment also in relation to the believer. When the Romans used to be slaves to sin, they used to surrender the parts of their bodies as instruments of Sin. "The end of those things is death" (6:21).
These are the things Paul is telling them believers cannot continue to do after dying with Christ. "Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" (6:15). The climax of the chapter is then the last verse. The wages of sin is death. The end of these actions is death. Don't do them.
On balance, the trajectory of the chapter pushes us to conclude that the wages of sin could become death for a believer as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hi Ken,
Since I recently mentioned John Oswalt book "Called to Be Holy" to you, you might be interested that Oswalt reaches the same exegetical conclusion on Romans 6:23.
Pax Christi,
Chris Bounds
So - we all know we are going to die (putting aside the we shall not all sleep for a moment), so what is 1 John getting at when he sayd no child of God can sin (twice even - 1 John 3:9, 5:18)
I know these are two different writers - but what does the tension between them say concerning the realities we find ourselves in?
Ken,
Though we are all going to die, as a fact of life, some of us "die" because of our "out group" status, whether in our families or greater communities. And when humans find themselves 'outside', they soon form their own rationalizations, which is what the early Church did in forming their understanding of Jesus....
I don't think that 'forming individuals' by ostericizing them, is particularly going to succeed! but, groups do form their identities by these boundary lines, as do individuals in their values.
The problem, as I see it is, whenever parents raise their children with a type of thinking and being in the world that separates them from others, as a sign of superiority, then that parent is culpable for training a child to be arrogant in their spirituality and it prejuidices them, as well as making them suspicious of "the world", and inhibiting their ability to "enjoy life" and "find their own purpose" (outside of the religious community)...and it might even inhibit their ability to experience sex with their marital partner in a pleasurable way...not far from Islam, is it?
One does not have to be a "believer" in any religion to train children to be good citizens, or kind, and compassionate individuals.
In fact. I have found more compassion in average communities, than religious ones. I simply can't respond to "dictates" or "moral superiority". It "smells to me of that kind of spiritulaity or "knowledge" that repels me. And such 'knowledge' or superiority inevitably leads to conflict, because there is no way to address the conflict on a plane that can be understood and accepted.
But, then, religion biases people to not understand or hear another way of thinking or viewing something, if religion has taught them that information might lead them astray, or be damaging to their "faith"/ These live their faith, because they really believe in 'God" and are fearful of not being what "God" wants"....that means, that ignorance is the best policy, as it protects from "worldly knowledge", as it ensures the spiritually elite leadership the right of authority over the individual and their conscience....
Such a view might be according to scripture, but it can be deadly in real life!! (and I mean that metaphorically, in the Christian and Jewish communities, and in reality in Islamic ones)...
Bob,
If you are referring to "the just shall live by faith", (or whatever is not of faith is sin...) then, is the only way to resolve the conflict between the libertine and consevative...(the Jew and the Gentile, if you will)...
But, I would suggest that even the Reformation understanding does not resolve the real poitical realities, because it side-steps the solutions....in real world politics.
OR if you are talking about "loving one's neighbor", as a "legal" requriement to fulfill the law, then you have just become the conservative Pharisee...in demanding another to abide by "your rule" according to the scirptures....will you "enforce love of neighbor", then? No, love is a free choice of commitment...
To my first comment...any relgion can shun...as do the Jehovah Witnesses...those that were in, as seen as reprobate if they leave...
Angie: I think your first comment is onto something. Yes - governance is a serious issue. Religion produces power and power uses force to get its own way. Exactly the opposite of what the one who gave his life for the life of the world exhibited.
I left the problem as a question. Neither legal nor explanatory. It's a prod, moment by moment.
I was thinking in the line of Ken's previous post on the Fixed Points and Relative Meaning....
The Constitution grants rights to individuals, under the Bill of Rights. But, such rights were not granted to the slave in the South. So, the principle of protection and liberty is a fixed or universal point, whereas, the relative meaning is the PROCEDURE that protects power from underming principle and replace it with thier own "Change and Hope"...
We are a country that prides itself on being ruled by law and not by men...
Post a Comment