No, I meant "sin," as this is what Paul personifies throughout the chapter via the metaphor of slavery....sin is portrayed as a slaveholder (v. 6, 17), as a master (v. 14), on par with God as a slaveholder (v. 22), such that sin pays out wages to its slaves (v. 23), just as God gives out life for free (v. 23). Thus via death (whether personal or vicariously through Jesus) is one emancipated or "set free" from sin (v. 7, 18, 20, 22). Death is not personified in the chapter, it is merely the peculium that sin pays out -- just as life (the opposite of death) is the gift that God freely provides to those who choose him as their master.
How do those who 'live forever' atone for their sins?????
by insearchoftruth 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
slimboyfat
I see. But how could it be that the Witnesses completely misunderstand what Paul meant? Understanding the Bible is supposed to be what they are all about. Plus they have access to commentaries and so on. Is there not some room for reading the text as they do? Don't some scholars at least see it that way too?
-
Leolaia
Well, my own assessment is that no, the text does not allow for the JW interpretation. You would essentially have to set aside the extended metaphor that Paul uses in the chapter, as well as Paul's own notion of judgment on account of a person's prior deeds, both those living and dead (Romans 2:5-6, 14:8-12, 1 Corinthians 5:1-10, etc.). In order to interpret "acquittal from sin" in Romans 6:7 as a remission of sins (i.e. deeds committed under sin), you would have to cease personifying "sin" as a slaveholder and objectify "sin" as simply the deeds that a person is acquitted from -- even though the metaphor is in full force in the immediately preceding verse: "we shall no longer go on being slaves to sin" (v. 6). The gar in v. 7 directly marks the thought in that verse as a logical consequence of the statement in v. 6, i.e. "acquittal from sin" refers to one's manumission from sin, such that a person acquitted from sin is "no longer going on being slaves to sin".
The whole point of the chapter is that some Christians wanted their cake and eat it too -- v. 1 refers to those who wanted to "continue in sin" while being under grace. Paul explains via the metaphor why this makes no sense. Death releases a person from slavery under sin and Christ vicariously allows a Christian to do so without dying himself or herself. A real dead person can no longer sin, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't have the authority to judge the person in the resurrection on account of his or her deeds. But a person who is given grace is not just released from sin. He or she also comes under a new slaveholder, God. And like the prior slaveholder, God pays out wages. That is the gift of life, eternal life. So by obeying the new master, Christians also have their prior deeds committed under sin forgiven when the day of judgment comes (cf. the "eternal life" in 2:6-7 given "to those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality"). So the wages from God are what results in a remission of sins, whereas the wages from sin only lead to death. But if a Christian continues in sin, it would be like a slave voluntarily disobeying his current master and continuing to serve his previous master. These sins the person must be accountable for. Now, according to JW doctrine, if that person then dies, those sins are forgiven and set aside (well, unless they were sins worthy of the "second death"). But that certainly is not the point Paul was making -- he was trying to explain that one cannot serve two masters and that there are consequences for sinning under grace.
The Society has many doctrines that conflict with the published commentaries, and so I don't think the GB are really that concerned with what a given commentary has to say. I think if I am not mistaken that the JWs inherited the interpretation from Adventist conditionalism, so there very well may be commentaries or interpretations in some quarters that support their given reading of the text. But I don't think that accords legitimacy to the interpretation if it goes against the metaphor that Paul uses in the chapter (as well as his statements elsewhere on judgment). I know that most commentaries that I have read are along the lines of what I've given (perhaps imperfectly) here, although surely they differ in the details. Cranfield's commentary (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1975) on Romans 6:7 says that "it is certain that Paul did not think that a man's death atoned for his sins in relation to God, or that a man was no longer accountable to God for his sins" (pp. 310-311). Sanday's commentary (Critical and Exegetical Commenary on Romans, 1923) says that with "hamartia, as throughout this passage, personified as a hard taskmaster", the primary sense in 6:7 is that "a dead man has his quittance from any claim that Sin can make against him... The idea is that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave: proof being put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the claims of claw are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable; Sin loses its suit" (p. 159). Ben Witherington and Darlene Hyatt in their commentary (Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004) say that 6:7 "explains one of the benefits of being a new person in Christ: one is freed from the slavery to sin one has previously experienced," and point out that "while it is possible to talk about being 'acquitted of sin' [i.e. being justified], being 'acquitted from sin,' makes less sense" (p. 160-161). Ernst Kasemann in his commentary (Commenary on Romans, 1994) say that "verse 7 supports the conclusion of v. 6 with a statement which argues in legal fashion... It resembles the rabbinic saying in Shabbat 151b Baraita, which is attributed to Rabbi Shimeon ben Gamaliel (c. 140): 'When a man is dead he is freed from fulfilling the law.' This explains the strange expression dikaisusthai apo, 'to be free from' (BAGD, 197b), for which there are parallels in Sir. 26:29; T. Sim. 6:1; Acts 13:38; Herm. Vis. 3:9:1 ... It is most unlikely that there is a reference here to the expiatory force of death (Kuhn, "Rm 6, 7," 305ff; Schrenk, TDNT, II, 218f.), whether or not such force is really ascribed to ordinary death in Judaism. Paul's concern is not with guilt but with the power of sin" (p. 170). Karl Barth in his commentary (A Shorter Commentary on Romans, 2007 ed.) says that 6:7 has this meaning: "We can no longer be servants to sin because the man who could do that -- and who could do nothing except be a servant to sin -- is simply no longer alive, is simply no longer there.... Sin no longer has any right, any claim on the man who has this death behind him... He has been released from its service, and even should he want to resume it -- this is a legal question which has been decided -- he would not be able to do so" (p. 42).
-
barry
Leolaia, Thanks for that explanation of Romans 6 verse 7. I was brought up Adventist but the JW view of those who have died are freed from sin was one I had never heard of. I just thought I would clear that because you mention the Adventists in youre post.
-
Leolaia
Yeah, I am not too sure how the verse is interpreted within Adventism (both modern and 19th-century), it was just a guess on account of its status as a major eschatological proof-text. It could very well have obtained this interpretation within Watchtower publications....I suppose it would make an interesting piece of research to figure out when and where it was interpreted similarly to how it is today by the Society.
ETA: In a quick search, I found a statement from the August 1884 issue of Zion's Watch Tower that seems to rule out the current understanding: " 'for he who died [and only he who did thus representatively in Jesus' death, that is, who accepts of the divine statement that Christ died for his sins, only such an one] has been justified from sin' (vs. 6, 7)" (pp. 3-4). So this interpretation here restricts Romans 6:7 to only those consecrated to Christ who die a symbolic death; Russell does not appear to apply it also to those who have literally died.
-
insearchoftruth
Leolaia,
Thanks for the information and answers, I always enjoy reading what you post, very detailed, logical and well documented....
Thanks again everyone!!!