Most, if not all translations render Romans 6:7 something like "he who has died is freed from sin" (e.g., the RSV). But the Greek is actually quite startling. Its meaning is at least potentially quite different:
"The one who has died has been justified (and stands justified) from sin"!
This has been a tantalizing verse to me for some years, for it is quite possible that some Jews believed that death had atoning significance. In 4 Maccabees, a righteous man named Eleazar is said to be perfected by death (7:15). Dare we even ponder the possibility that Paul thought that most individuals find rest in the afterlife because their sins are atoned for by death?
In this connection, it is noticeable that Paul only speaks of the resurrection of the dead in Christ. He never mentions the resurrection of any other dead--including OT saints and the heinously wicked. Paul nowhere uses the word Gehenna or even Hades. He does mention those under the earth in Philippians 2, arguably a reference to the dead. As far as I can tell, there is only one exception: 2 Timothy 4:1, which is either the last of Paul's writings or, if you go with most non-evangelical scholars, pseudonymous. It mentions the judgment of the living and the dead in a manner we do not find anywhere else in the Pauline corpus. Elsewhere Paul mentions only the judgment of the living and the resurrection of the dead in Christ.
So whether it is correct or not, I think it would be very difficult to disprove that Paul believed that only the dead who were baptized in Christ's name would rise from the dead and that everyone else found rest because death justified for their sins. Of course you cannot prove this position either, since we are basically dealing with a matter of silence on Paul's part.
Whatever the original meanings of these verses, the Christian understandings of these matters are clear enough. We believe in a general resurrection of all, and we do not believe that death justifies the ungodly.
But you can see how easy it would be to argue that something "heretical" was Paul's original meaning. On the other hand, these are the places where conservative scholars like Tom Wright and Ben Witherington work their magic, arguing for original meanings that cohere with orthodox faith. My faith stands fine regardless. The church has made it clear what we are to believe. And it is certainly possible to argue that an orthodox meaning was original, even if you can't prove it is really the original or prove that the other reading is wrong historically.
But I think at some point in the next thirty years evangelicalism will grow up and finally acknowledge that we need more than just the biblical text in its original meaning to have a sound Christian faith. If we do not allow for the consensus of the church, the Bible is susceptible to all sorts of heretical interpretations, and some of them might just have been the original meanings!
My thoughts tonight...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
... Amen.
Cool post, neat verse.
I am equally scared by, "I don't believe in the church beyond Acts chapter 2."
Pax tibi.
Ken,
Is it possible that Paul is not stating a universal truth but simply restating what he has just said?
In other words, could verse seven just be a recapitulation of verse six?
This would certainly fit the Hebrew penchant for parallelism.
Just a thought.
Rod
In other words, "the one who has died [with Christ] has been justified from sin." Sure. I'm just doing my usual--"the meaning of the text in itself is subject to multiple possible meanings between which we cannot choose with certainty given the evidence we have." My point is that we have always brought the church with us to texts like these when we have interpreted them "correctly" as Christians. We should embrace that fact!
Thanks Rod!
Ken,
Could the Christian "position" on a matter reflect the development of ideas both within and beyond the canon in a way that need not determine the meaning of a particular text earlier in that train of development? For instance, it seems that John (certainly down the track from Paul in terms of the development train) affirms resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous. Could it be that Paul simply had a different view and "Xny" (never a monolithic thing) hammer out its view later and so Paul is exempt. The same goes for certain earl church fathers who wouldn't pass muster by Nicaea or Chalcedon yet are let off the hook because the decisions were not yet made. But once the decisions are made based on developments, well then we may want to hold the line.
I guess I am intrigued by your suggestion of a "Christian meaning" of this text. I don't think Christians have to impute a "Christian meaning" to a particular text provided they are willing to affirm a "Christian position" on the issue related to the text if asked. Regarding the text at hand, they can simply say that it does not yet say what we have come to say.
Does that work?
Ken,
I realized after making my post that I missed the real point of your article.
Yes, we must always understand the Bible in the context of the Church.
This doesn't mean, of course, that there can be no "innovative" interpretations. But it does mean that any novel interpretation must be "ratified" by a significant part of the Church.
And even then, the innovation must be within a very narrow range defined by the historical Church.
Rod
P.S. Keith once told me that my writing reminds him of yours. I take that as a BIG compliment.
Rod, your response was perfectly appropriate. I am genuinely tantalized with this intepretation of Paul, although uncertain of course.
John, I think the view you present here is very attractive--and ultimately has more integrity. But will the church will swallow such a revolutionary pill?
Post a Comment