The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Romans 6:23 eternal life vs death

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Responding to one who believes the passage supports conditional immortality (or the endless annihilation viewpoint):

Regarding Romans 6:23 i don’t see this as an especially difficult scripture for the all will be saved eventually opinion.

It seems to me there are at least two ways universalists can harmonize Romans 6:23 with universalism, thus:

  1. Romans 6:23 does not deny that all will eventually recieve the gift of eternal life. Thus it is in harmony with passages believed to support UR, e.g. Rom. 5:18-19 of the previous chapter of Romans. Or Lamentations 3:31, no one is cast off by the Lord forever. (NIV). Or 1 Tim.2:4-6 & 4:10, etc.

  2. In more literal translations Romans 6:23 is speaking of eonian life (CLV, YLT, Roth, WEY, etc) not eternal life, which Jesus said believers would obtain in the eon (age) to come (Mk.10:30). While Paul & the author of Revelation both speak of more than one eon to come (e.g. Eph.2:7). Thus eonian life can be understood as ending at the end of the next eon, to be followed by at least one more eon or age. BTW, the early church father, Origen, spoke of what is “after eonian life” (eternal life, KJV).

Thus Romans 6:23 harmonizes with passages that speak of the chosen [church] as “firstfruits” of His creatures (James 1), each in His own order/class raised to immortality, first Christ, then the church & finally the end class [those who die in sin] (1 Cor.15:22-28), God the Saviour of all, but “especially” those who believe now [in this life] (1 Tim.4:10), a ransom for all…to be testified in its own eras (1Tim.2:4-6), proclamations to the dead (1Pet.3:18-20; 4:6), etc.

References & for further reading on these subjects, particularly point 2 above:

journalofanalytictheology.com/ja … 30418a/271

theheraldofgodsgrace.org/Byn … nTimes.htm
tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/kolasis/
martinzender.com/Zenderature … l_life.htm
evangelicaluniversalist.com/foru … =16&t=2918
kingdomandglory.com/eon2/eon3.htm
theheraldofgodsgrace.org/Jae … anLife.htm
thathappyexpectation.blogspot.ca … -five.html
tentmaker.org/articles/compa … _aion.html
theologicalscribbles.blogspot.ca … s-and.html

Rom 6:23 Revisited
#2

Hi Origen,

Here is the verse as in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Rom 6:23 For the ration of Sin is death, yet the gracious gift of God is life eonian, in Christ Jesus, our Lord."

Notice “Sin” is capitalized? It is shown as an evil monarch. Also, “ration” is plural. Sin, as a monarch, rations out death to mankind. But God, the Righteous Monarch gives life eonian.

The Concordant Commentary says this concerning Romans 6:23:

23 “Sin, like slave holders, does not pay wages, but only supplies rations. This consists, at present, in an attitude toward God which is the equivalent of death, for all Sin’s slaves avoid God’s presence. Hence their deeds will result in destruction. Neither do we, as slaves, look for wages. God not only gives, but gives graciously, or gratuitously, the very reward which is only for those whose endurance in good acts merits it—eonian life, or life for the eons (2:7).”

Of course I don’t know why Knoch, in the above statement said eonian life is given gratuitously (without a cause) and turns around and says it is given to those who merit it. Maybe he was talking about two things? I believe he taught that any good acts we do are graciously given us by God so we still cannot boast.

So “death” is not a literal death but a figurative death in which people are dead to God. Just as Jesus said “Let the dead be entombing the dead” he was stating, “Let those who are dead to God be entombing the literal dead.” So could it be that “life” is being alive to God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord?

I don’t know why anyone would use Romans 6:23 against God saving all mankind especially when it was Paul who told us God wills that all mankind be saved because Christ gave Himself a ransom for all (see 1Tim.2:4-6).

#3

I’ve pointed out to annis before that the noun involved is a technical term for paying out a minimum living wage intended to keep slaves alive, this wage being death, and so simply appealing to the verse for annihilation testimony doesn’t work: it’s talking about some kind of living death in ongoing slavery, not annihilation.

Then they suddenly can’t understand what I’m saying, can’t make heads or tails of it, like I’m writing or speaking in Farsi instead of English, or why paying out an ongoing slavery to sin in living death wouldn’t obviously be permanent annihilation out of existence. :unamused: :wink:

One or two in my direct experience have flipped around to saying that we shouldn’t prooftext one verse as decisive evidence for a position. Like, um, you were just doing when citing that verse as strong or decisive evidence for anni?? I mean, I agree, sure, but… well… :laughing:

#4

:laughing:

#5

Yes, exactly. One sometimes despairs of the ability to convey information through language. It’s like they have this little solipsistic conversation with themselves running round and round in their heads, and all facts and reasoning are mere background noise.

#6

Right on! Behold the power of the presupposition: Any new ‘facts’ are put in suspension until they can be made to fit the presupposition. It’s a wild game and if we’re not careful, we end up doing the same thing.

#7

I had to look up Farsi as my initial thought was to a race on Star Trek, but those are the Ferengi ;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi

Re your novel interpretation of Romans 6:23, i wonder if it has been elaborated upon in the forums here somewhere.

I’d be interested in seeing the discussions referred to with “annis”.

Is your view supported by any lexicons, Greek scholars, church fathers, theologians, internal Scriptural evidence (Sola Scriptura)?

#8

It’s certainly an example of Kuhn’s paradigm theory (new data must be ignored or made to fit the reigning paradigm until the cost of doing so just becomes too much to bear, which differs for different people.)

And like you say, Dave, we’re just as vulnerable to the same problem, and have to watch out for it, too. That’s part of being self-critical.

#9

Strong’s lists is as a sort of compound word based on “meat” and “buy”, and translates it as “rations”, thinking in terms of what commanders give out to soldiers to keep them strong enough to do their work, culturally speaking dried fish or other tough meat (and waybread and dried fruit) for marching on the road. Same principle. It should be noted that this isn’t food anyone would normally eat unless they’re in a tough, slavish working environment where cheap long-lasting food would be supplied.

Vine’s agrees with soldier pay, and notes that it’s the same exact word used by JohnBaptist (translated by Luke into Greek or not, since he’s talking to a clearly mixed group) in GosLuke 3:14 when instructing soldiers to do their work without complaining about their wages (i.e. complaining that they’re being paid, at least in part, with cheap and tough but healthy food). Paul also uses the same term in 1 Cor 9:7 for soldier pay, in context of complaining that evangelists have a right to eat and drink and to be kept up with a living wage, paralleling it with milk gathered from a tended flock or grain eaten by an ox during threshing; and 2 Cor 11:8 to refer to tithes Paul collected from other churches as a living wage in order to stay among the Corinthians without being a burden to them.

Bullinger’s critical lexicon and concordance agrees, and adds John 4:36 (field workers receiving buy-meat for harvesting, the wages of evangelists being ultimately better than that of course) and 2 Peter 2:15 to the list (referring to the wages of unrighteousness).

Knoch agrees in his concordance for what it’s worth, although since he’s a universalist that might be considered suspect?

Rogers and Rogers’ Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the NT agrees, and cites Lightfoot although without detail (and I don’t have his text to check on).

Thayer’s Lexicon agrees and traces it back through some prior Greek authors. It emphasizes that this is food provided instead of paying money that could be used to buy other things, although for soldiers they’d be paid partially what they were owed directly in food (the idea being they’d spend some part of their money on food anyway). It’s still the part of even a professional soldier’s wage that’s paid in food to keep them alive and able to work for their leaders.

Unfortunately, none of the commentary Bibles I have, comments on the verse (not even the NIV Archaeological, which I had hopes for, having never looked up this verse there before. They don’t talk about what wage means in Luke 3 either.)

My patristic commentary Bible set is at the house; I’ll try to remember to look up the verse there and see what the editors found (or thought to select – as you might expect, Origen and other universalistic fathers, while cited frequently, aren’t cited on that topic much! :wink: )

I had about 80% expected to find it in MacDonald, but it isn’t in the Unspokens or their related volumes. So I didn’t get it from there. :wink: I probably got it originally from Knoch, but for a long time I didn’t even know he was a universalist (and after all the translation and interpretation doesn’t have to go along that line – it just doesn’t fit annihilation at all.)

#10

Some relevant commentaries courtesy of Biblehub.com

Meyer’s points out that the use of the term connects back to verse 13 where sin is analogized (culturally speaking, although this wouldn’t be evident in English translations) as a leader whom someone would surrender their capabilities to as weapons in return for an allowance.

Benson says the term “properly signifies the food and pay which generals give to their soldiers for their service. By using this term, the apostle shows what sort of pay the usurper, sin, gives to those who serve under his banners.” Benson interestingly acknowledges that death is nowhere called “eternal” in scripture, but uses this verse as evidence for eternal death; the unstated implication is that the term signifies a continuing living death, contrasted to the “eternal life” in the second clause. (Although Benson doesn’t spell that out directly.)

The Expositor’s Greek NT commentary notes the soldier pay analogy, and reports that Tertullian tried to keep the analogy going by relating the free gift (the {charisma}) to the largess given by the Emperor to soldiers on occasion of a holiday. (I agree with the Expo that this is unlikely, but then I doubt Paul actually had in mind soldier pay per se: I think he had slave wages in mind.)

Barnes mentions the soldier pay, but doesn’t connect the analogy to the ongoing living death (although he certainly draws that from the verse by comparison with the eonian life).

The Cambridge commentary must have heard of the slavery connotation somewhere, for it denies this in favor of the military analogy with the same reference back to 6:13 and serving as weapons of sin.

Vincent’s Word Studies quotes Morison, “Sin pays its serfs by punishing them. Its wages is death, and the death for which its counters are available is the destruction of the weal of the soul”, although Vincent prefers the military analogy instead (again with reference back to 6:13).

Matthew Poole acknowledges the “victual” origin of the term, although he seems to disassociate it quickly from that which keeps servants alive.

Gill partially ignores the original metaphor but applies it in the sense of a king paying what his subjects have earned for their service after their service is done.

It’s curious and a little bizarre that all these commentators, strong believers in ECT to a fault, dance all around the connotation but never quite seem to land on it! – but they are all interested in the concept of deservedness (as though injustice would ever pay what is justly owed) vs grace (fair enough in that case, pardon my pun :wink: ), and not in the operative connection. Perhaps they subconsciously avoid it because, if applied, it doesn’t really support the finality of the ongoing living death they think is derivable from the verse anyway on other grounds? – since if one repents and chooses God instead of sin as our leader, we receive the freely given grace instead of a pittance living wage rotting in service to sin. Indeed the grace of God doesn’t wait for us to choose to accept it, but works while we are yet enemies of God and helpless in our sins, to bring us to accept it! – a theme not exactly foreign to Paul’s nearby context. :wink: