Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

[Justin108]

Little Lucy was told by her mother to make her bed. Lucy didn't listen to her mother and decided to go play outside instead. Lucy committed a sin

Timmy wanted to have a cookie but his mother said no. Timmy sneaked into the kitchen and grabbed one out of the cookie jar. Timmy committed a sin

Billy's friend Jimmy brought his new Megaman action figure to school. Billy's family is poor and can't afford to buy Billy any toys. Billy covets Jimmy's new toy. Billy committed a sin


Do these three deeds deserve death?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 24 by Goose]

I interpret Romans to say that these sin deserve death. I'm not saying that God commanded us to start killing sinners if that's what you mean, though I believe that giving someone what they deserve is by its very nature a good thing. If a man deserves to be paid for a hard day's work then giving him his due is a definite good. Similarly, if a man has wronged another he deserves to be punished for his wrong doing and I would commend the man who delivers that punishment. This is, however, strictly on the condition that those who are rewarded or punished truly deserve to be rewarded or punished. This is, of course, where I disagree with Paul's claim that sin deserves death.

Regardless of who's doing the punishing, the notion of who deserves what has a definite implication on our perception of morality. As I said before, I commend those who bring justice whether it is to those who deserve reward or those who deserve punishment. This changes one's response to occurences. If, for example, a hard worker is rewarded for his efforts, I would be glad. If a mass murderer is killed, I would rejoice. If an innocent man is murdered, I would be saddened. Now if Paul is right about sin deserving death, it would mean that if a child dies who have commited the afore mentioned sins, it would be fitting for me to find joy in their deaths. Would you be pleased to hear about a child's death if they were guilty of these sins? If Paul is right then you should be. They deserve it

[Justin108]

Are you talking about physical death as a punishment? Or are you talking more along the lines of spiritual death as in the sense of separation from God?

The author of this thread seems to be arguing that, under the Christian paradigm, a child deserves to be punished by death on the grounds they sinned all because Paul wrote the words, "...the wages of sin are death..."

I am arguing that Paul says...exactly what he says.

I've noticed a tendency among theists to interpret the Bible selectively until it says exactly what they want it to say. I understand that the Bible is open to interpretation, but sometimes, as with Romans 6:23, what it says is pretty basic and needs no in depth analysis of what it supposedly actually means.

Or are you talking more along the lines of spiritual death as in the sense of separation from God?

If I said I like bacon, what would be the more likely interpretation? That I like George Orwell's comments on communism during the Russian Revolution and "bacon" is a metaphor for the downfall of the communist leaders of Russia? Or can it simply be interpred as "Justin likes bacon".

Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is usually the best. Occam's razor applied to Romans 6:23 would conclude that Paul refers to death in the literal sense.

Whenever a theist appeals to metaphorical understanding, I often wonder why the author didn't simply speak in literal terms? Would it have been so much harder for Paul to say "the wages of sin is spiritual seperation from God"? Why overcomplicate things?

If you're going to make the claim that Romans 6:23 is meant to be understood metaphorically as apposed to literally then you would have to support that claim. It seems to me the only reason you insist it is metaphorical is because you dislike the literal version.

[Goose]

Now if Paul is right about sin deserving death, it would mean that if a child dies who have commited the afore mentioned sins, it would be fitting for me to find joy in their deaths. Would you be pleased to hear about a child's death if they were guilty of these sins? If Paul is right then you should be. They deserve it

I disagree that Paul is saying sin deserves death. He is saying death is the result of sin. But I think that is beside the point at this stage.

Here's the crux it seems to me. You seem to be arguing that according to Paul sin deserves physical death. If so, what makes you think that?

The context of Romans 6:23 isn't speaking of physical death as a punishment. The death Paul is speaking of is the consequence of sin as opposed to the reward of eternal life. In short, Paul is dealing with the spiritual, not the physical.

"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:20-23

---

I understand that the Bible is open to interpretation, but sometimes, as with Romans 6:23, what it says is pretty basic and needs no in depth analysis of what it supposedly actually means.

That's how fundy's read the Bible. It gets them in all sorts of trouble. They rip a few words out of context and build entire doctrines around them. Atheist's sometimes do the same thing I've noticed. Your whole argument is built around half a sentence for crying out loud. Context matters.

If I said I like bacon, what would be the more likely interpretation? That I like George Orwell's comments on communism during the Russian Revolution and "bacon" is a metaphor for the downfall of the communist leaders of Russia? Or can it simply be interpred as "Justin likes bacon".

But that's just it. Paul didn't just say, "the wages of sin are death...." He said much more than that.

Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is usually the best. Occam's razor applied to Romans 6:23 would conclude that Paul refers to death in the literal sense.

Occam's razor annihilates your own argument. Do really think Paul meant children deserve to die because they didn't make their bed when told too? You really think that's the simplest answer? Wouldn't the simplest answer be that Paul thought sin will result in one not going to heaven? And that's what he meant by "death"?

If you're going to make the claim that Romans 6:23 is meant to be understood metaphorically as apposed to literally then you would have to support that claim. It seems to me the only reason you insist it is metaphorical is because you dislike the literal version.

A non-physical death interpretation is supported by the immediate context. Actually it's you that's needs to support the claim Paul meant a physical death.

[ttruscott]

...

ALL SINS ARE OF EQUAL AND ULTIMATE DISVALUE BEFORE GOD.
...

I notice you haven't answered my question on the topic of the equality of sin.

When does badgering become harassment?

[ttruscott]

...

As I have said, I contend that it is not the vileness of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that makes it unforgivable but the fact that such a blasphemy can only occur if the person also rejects any and all help from YHWH to redeem them from sin so that once they choose by their free will to so blaspheme, they are eternally evil and will face the consequences of eternal banishment.

This doesn't necessarily follow.
...

Necessarily would seem to imply that I've offered proof you disagree with. There is no proof in spiritual things until GOD wants to prove something; we live by faith, not proof. Of course it does not necessarily follow...every heavenly truth can be and is perverted by evil so there is always an alternative to every idea which means the world necessarily is meaningless in this context.

[Justin108]

I disagree that Paul is saying sin deserves death. He is saying death is the result of sin.

If we take Christianity to be true then God designed the universe, its causality and its consequences. It therefor follows that God determined that the result of sin is death. This suggests that either God believes sin deserves death, or that God does not believe that sin deserves death but designed it so anyway. The former scenario suggests an incompetent god while the latter scenario suggests an immoral god.

You seem to be arguing that according to Paul sin deserves physical death. If so, what makes you think that?

Because that is the most basic interpretation of "death".

Genesis 25:8 - Then Abraham breathed his last and died

Genesis 9:29 - Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died

Genesis 5:5 - Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died

John 19:33 - But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead

In all of these instances, "death" is understood as physical death, unless you suppose that each of these cases (including Jesus') meant "and then their spirits were separated from God".

So I'll ask you the same question. What makes you think that these verses do not refer to a separation from God?

Or simpler yet, why do you define death as "separation from God"?

The context of Romans 6:23 isn't speaking of physical death as a punishment.

The death Paul is speaking of is the consequence of sin as opposed to the reward of eternal life. In short, Paul is dealing with the spiritual, not the physical.

How do you know? What makes you sure you're interpretation of what Romans 6:23 means is the correct interpretation?

"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:20-23

There is no mention here of "spiritual death" or "separation from God". You can't just give me an interpretation without justifying how you came to said interpretation.

That's how fundy's read the Bible. It gets them in all sorts of trouble. They rip a few words out of context and build entire doctrines around them. Atheist's sometimes do the same thing I've noticed. Your whole argument is built around half a sentence for crying out loud. Context matters.

After reading the above quoted Romans 6:20 - 23 (in context) it still seems to refer to literal, physical death. I am taking nothing out of context.

But that's just it. Paul didn't just say, "the wages of sin are death...." He said much more than that.

Saying "not saying" and "saying much more" are two different things. If I said "I hate the Dutch but balloons are fun" I can be quoted as saying "I hate the Dutch". If I responded to this accusation with "I said much more than that!" it wouldn't change the fact that I said I hate the Dutch. Paul clearly said "the wages of sin is death". I can reference it. He said a lot more, true enough. But nothing within Romans makes him un-say "the wages of sin is death". I am not taking anything out of context. You can read the entire book of Romans and it would not change the fact that he said "the wages of sin is death". The rest of Romans says that the gift of God is eternal life, but, still, the wages of sin remains "death".

Occam's razor annihilates your own argument. Do really think Paul meant children deserve to die because they didn't make their bed when told too? You really think that's the simplest answer?

You proved my point. You base your interpretation of what you want Paul to mean.

Leviticus 20:9 - Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

What is your interpretation on this verse? Does it say what it says? Or do you think that it's far too despicable to be true? People died for cursing their parents. They died a very literal, physical death. In North Korea a man was executed for falling asleep during a meeting with Kim Jong-Un. People have a very twisted perception on morality in and outside of the Bible. So to answer your question - yes. I believe Paul's belief that simple sins deserve physical death is the simplest answer. Being a despicable answer is simply an indication of his character.

Basing your interpretation on "oh no, surely Paul wouldn't say that. He must have meant something else" is nothing more than confirmation bias.

A non-physical death interpretation is supported by the immediate context.

I read the immediate context and I disagree. Point me in the right direction. Highlight the part where it says "spiritual death" or "separation from God".

Actually it's you that's needs to support the claim Paul meant a physical death.

So... I need to justify why I believe something says exactly what it says?


death
dɛθ/Submit
noun
the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
"he had been depressed since the death of his father"
synonyms: demise, dying, end, passing, passing away, passing on, loss of life, expiry, expiration, departure from life, final exit, eternal rest; More
the state of being dead.
"even in death, she was beautiful"
the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.


Literal interpretations are the norm. When the news hit that Nelson Mandela had died, no one wondered whether the media was referring to a spiritual death. No one wondered if JFK was "separated from God". When a doctor says "sorry but your father died" you wouldn't as "now when you say he 'died'... do you mean to say that he was separated from God...?". The norm of the word "death" refers to the cessation of physical, biological function. This is the norm. So assuming that "death" means what it normally means is not in violation of Occam's razor.

[Justin108]

...

ALL SINS ARE OF EQUAL AND ULTIMATE DISVALUE BEFORE GOD.
...

I notice you haven't answered my question on the topic of the equality of sin.

When does badgering become harassment?

That wasn't the question I was referring to.

>>>Simple question; if a child was caught lying to his parents about doing her homework, would you be ok with her being sentenced to death by the court? <<<

Necessarily would seem to imply that I've offered proof you disagree with. There is no proof in spiritual things until GOD wants to prove something; we live by faith, not proof. Of course it does not necessarily follow...every heavenly truth can be and is perverted by evil so there is always an alternative to every idea which means the world necessarily is meaningless in this context.

Comments like these make debating religion frustrating. This excuse makes any comment admissible as long as you add "so sayith my faith". What's the point of debating metaphysics if faith can be used as a clause whenever you lack support?

But let me amend my statement...

As I have said, I contend that it is not the vileness of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that makes it unforgivable but the fact that such a blasphemy can only occur if the person also rejects any and all help from YHWH to redeem them from sin so that once they choose by their free will to so blaspheme, they are eternally evil and will face the consequences of eternal banishment.

This doesn't *follow. What if one initially rejects the Holy Spirit, blasphemes, but later repents? According to Mark 3:19, too bad. It can't be forgiven. It's funny how insulting God is so much worse than raping and murdering children.

[ttruscott]

...

What you need to support is your claim that we all decided to either follow or reject God prior to our existence on earth.

First of all, I offer supports, not proof. The verses I will quote are all easily interpreted to mean something else or even the opposite. But they are logically integrated with Christian definitions of reality, just not orthodoxy. I do not care if you do not accept these verses as meaning anything...you ask, I answer.

1. GOD is holy, that is totally antagonistic to anything that does not conform to HIS righteous values. HE cannot nor ever will go against HIMself and create evil. Support: 1 Peter 1:16...because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." and Psalm 5:4 “For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with You�

2. People are born in sin, that is, with a sinful nature: Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Even Adam and Eve are declared to be naked by using the same word as is used to describe the evil of the serpent - naked and subtle is the same word! Also they were naked and not ashamed, a characteristic of unrepentant people is that they are blind to their evil and need their eyes to be opened to their shame so they can repent: Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, BLIND and NAKED.

We know nudity is not a sin yet when their eyes were opened they saw their sin, their nakedness, not their eating, a nakedness they had before they ate.

So IF GOD cannot create us evil and yet we are sinful when conceived, it is obvious that our conception cannot be our creation and the hints about the sinfulness of Adam and Eve before they ate also supports only their body was new in the garden, not them. So where did they come from?

3. The scripture says that we are sown into the earth and sown does not mean to create but to take an already created seed from a place of storage and to spread it where it can grow: Matt 13:36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.�

37 He answered, “The one who SOWED the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who SOWS them is the devil. This is obviously about how people, all sinful but some from GOD and some from the devil, get to earth, that is, become human. Sown can't refer to our creation here because the devil gets to do it and he cannot create people.

Now this does not suggest we came from Sheol as our place of creation (though it does suggest we came from somewhere else) and there is no direct reference to coming from sheol elsewhere either but there are many references to our going back to, that is, returning to sheol after death.

In ordinary usage return means: “to go or come back; revert; bring, give, send, hit, put, or pay back; a going or coming back, a happening again.�

Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol ...
Kiel - Delitzsch(#16) - Yea, back to Hades must the wicked return IF the wicked came from sheol, it is only a small step to accept that the sinful elect came from there also. Indeed, the pre-eminent holy man of antiquity, Job, declared: Job 1:21 - And Job said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither. Do you suggest he is actually claiming to go back to the womb or is he rather claiming he is going back to where he was before he was born?

And then there is 1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. which is written to every new convert suggesting that they were once in GOD's flock but got lost. Did GOD lose them? Did Christ fall asleep or something? Or Were they wilfully going into sin, that is, lost, until they repented and returned? So, when did this "being in HIS flock" occur if their being lost started with their conception? Impossible right, so they must have been lost before conception so they could return upon conversion after conception. This is also supported by a similar interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son...

4. The necessity of free will. The heavenly state is likened to the marriage between GOD and HIS holy creation. NO marriage that is forced on the bride is a true marriage. IF it is forced with no opportunity to reject it, it is rape and if it is forced by an induced condition of being unable to reject, it it is a fraud and therefore a rape.

Only by a free will acceptance of the marriage proposal can the marriage be considered true and not a rape against someone's consent.

Not only is our free will necessary for our marriage to Christ to be real, it is also necessary to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and to make us guilty for our choice to sin rather than HIM, though these arguments are not directly supported by scripture, they are accepted by me as a necessity for GOD to conform to HIS attributes revealed in scripture.

Jesus said we do not have a free will here on earth since we are enslaved to evil on earth: John 8:34 Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. IF we do not have a free will after our conception on earth because we are conceived as sinners, then when did we become sinners by our free will if not in sheol pre-earth?

Once this is established that we lived with GOD and became sinners before we came to earth, the details may be logically deduced, but that is another long chapter.

I do not write this to convince you but to answer your question. I do not care to read another lengthy dissertation of what the verses really mean and if you write one I will not read it having moved on from all that long ago...even if it was from a Christian and not an atheist demanding I follow orthodoxy only because it suits his incriminating analysis of Christian doctrine better than my PCEC.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

If you're going to make the claim that Romans 6:23 is meant to be understood metaphorically as apposed to literally then you would have to support that claim. It seems to me the only reason you insist it is metaphorical is because you dislike the literal version.

Can you provide me with a reason that anyone would choose a metaphorical interpretation because they DO like the literal interp???

This sentence is a tautology...

[Goose]

If we take Christianity to be true then God designed the universe, its causality and its consequences. It therefor follows that God determined that the result of sin is death. This suggests that either God believes sin deserves death, or that God does not believe that sin deserves death but designed it so anyway. The former scenario suggests an incompetent god while the latter scenario suggests an immoral god.

I don’t see how it follows that a universe where sin deserves death reveals either an incompetent God or an immoral one for that matter. Surely you aren’t suggesting it is immoral to punish wrong doing. So I’ll assume you believe the punishment is immoral because you feel it is too severe perhaps? If that is the case, I’ll be curious to see if you can mount anything more concrete than a personal argument from outrage here.

Because that is the most basic interpretation of "death".

But “death� doesn’t always literally mean the end of one’s physical life. Ever heard the modern expressions “death by chocolate� or “I’m dead tired� or “we got killed by the competition�?

Paul writes of death in Romans in a metaphorical sense as well as a literal one. Here are some metaphorical uses by Paul.

Romans 7:24 – “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?�

How can a body be death?

Romans 8:13 - “but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live�

How can deeds literally be put to death?

Romans 8:6-8 – �For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.�

How can the mind set on the flesh be death? Does the flesh have a literal mind? How can that mind be death?

Paul’s uses of thanatos (death) elsewhere.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55 - “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?�

How can death be swallowed up? How can death have a sting? Is death a bumble bee?

2 Corinthians 3:7-8 – �But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?�

How can death literally be a ministry engraved on a stone?

The Greek word Paul uses in Romans 6:23 for death (thanatos) is used elsewhere in the NT in metaphorical sense as well as literal one. Here are some metaphorical uses.

Matthew 4:16 - “AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED.�

How can death have a shadow?

1 John 4:16 - “He who does not love abides in death.�

How can one dwell in literal death?

Revelations 6:8 - “I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him.�

How can death literally ride a horse?

Now let’s look at Paul’s words in Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death...�

How can death literally be the wage of sin? Is sin an employer who pays wages? Who works for death as payment anyway? You see, on the one hand you want a literal reading of “death� to mean the physical end of one’s life but then, perhaps unwittingly, are arguing for a metaphorical interpretation of the passage because a fully literal one would be incoherent. You don’t get it both ways here. It’s either a metaphorical passage or it’s a literal one. Paul’s immediate use of “death� in the context of wages for sin indicates there is metaphor involved here.

Now, let’s look at other places Paul speaks of sin where he uses the same Greek word for death (thanatos).

Romans 7:7-13 –“What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.� But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.�

Is Paul saying he literally died because of sin? Is Paul implying he was literally resurrected like Jesus so he could write this letter to the Romans?

For Paul sin leads to death, but that death isn’t a physical death as a punishment. The punishment is that one does not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. If one does not go to heaven because of wrong doing then one goes to hell and is eternally separated from God.

�Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.� – Galatians 5:19-21

After reading the above quoted Romans 6:20 - 23 (in context) it still seems to refer to literal, physical death. I am taking nothing out of context.

It sounds like this is the first time you’ve read it in its full context. In that case, of course you still see a literal physical death. Talk about confirmation bias.

Leviticus 20:9 - Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

I’m willing to grant that Leviticus 20:9 refers to a physical death -- the context demands it. But appealing to Leviticus here doesn’t help you.

Firstly, 20:9 is specifically in reference to cursing one’s parents. It’s not in reference to making the bed when told. So it doesn’t support the examples in your OP.

Secondly, Leviticus undermines the broader context of your entire argument since there are violations of the Levitical law that do NOT result in death (e.g. having sex with a concubine 19:20). Thereby falsifying your interpretation that all sin deserves death. Like I said, Occam’s razor annihilates your argument.