A, arguably “the,” fundamental building block of language (and, more broadly, “The Logos” of John Ch 1) is the sentence.
The sentence is that unit that expresses a “whole thought,” and usually in both English and Koine by means of an SVO framework: Subject Verb Object.
Then there are verses. Bibles printed or electronic are “versified” following an architecture that has become universally accepted.
A versified text, such as the Bible, divides the largest unit of text–the book itself, into chapters and each chapter into verses. Again there are exceptions: some books have divisions larger than a chapter–usually called “parts” or even “volumes”–and some have chapters divided by line numbers rather than verses. But with the Bible, purely for reasons of church history, has been versified and standardized by books (66 of them), within which are chapters (a total of 1189), within which are verses (more than 30 thousand of them). All translations, publishers, printers, denominations and traditions, big print and small, using the same chapter:verse location references for the Bible. This is a little amazing, as the various denominations / traditions do not have universal agreement even of the numeration of the 10 Commandments (Exodus Ch 20); everyone agrees that there are indeed 10 of them, as Scripture itself makes that claim, but Moses did not provide their enumeration, so which one is, for instance, Commandment 9, is not in universal agreement even by Bible-believers Yet we all agree on the chapters and verses as they were codified some 500 years ago, even though, neither of which were part of the Bible as the written Word of God.
What is important about “verses” is recognizing that they, like “chapters” are not part of the original Koine (or Hebrew) mss, so they are not “inspired” or of any independent doctrinal authority. It appears that Martin Luther and all students of Scripture before him never heard of “John 3:16” as versification did not occur until mid-16 Century. So Luther would have known John Ch 3, as chapters had been defined ca 1000 A.D. but verses arose shortly after Luther.
We can thank, and in some cases regret, the work in 1551 of the versifier, Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Stephanus), affiliated with the Geneva Reformation group (Calvin, Beze, Farel, Knox).
In this post we will consider one sentence divided into two verses at Romans 6:22-23. What we will find is that these two verses, created by Stephanus of Geneva in the 16th Century, are not two sentences of two whole, distinct thoughts. Rather they are, together, one sentence, and one big thought, that is obscured by (1) versification, and (2) the desire of translators to provide smooth reading in favor of direct, perhaps English-awkward expression.
Koine and English Words of Romans 6:22-23
Our text of interest is given below:
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 6:22-23, ESV.
The closest English text corresponding to the Geneva Bible of 1599 had these same verses as:
22 But now being freed from sin, and made servants unto God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:22-23, Geneva Bible (1599 Edition), which also corresponds to the 1560 Geneva New Testament, published as The Pilgrim’s Bible published by Avalon Press.net of Murfreesboro TN, with modernized spelling (so it has “you” for “ye” and similarly updates for “sinne,” “fruite,” etc.).
And here is Koine text of Stephan’s of these same verses
22 νυνι δε ελευθερωθεντες απο της αμαρτιας δουλωθεντες δε τω θεω εχετε τον καρπον υμων εις αγιασμον το δε τελος ζωην αιωνιον 23 τα γαρ οψωνια της αμαρτιας θανατος το δε χαρισμα του θεου ζωη αιωνιος εν χριστω ιησου τω κυριω ημων
Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: with morphology (Ro 6:22–23). (2002). Logos Bible Software.
What should be noted regarding the above Koine text is the absence of any punctuation, nor were the verse identifiers “22” and “23” present. There were no commas, semicolons, colons, capitalization, or even periods at the end of sentences in the original mss. In fact, there were no spaces between the individual words.
The opening mss of what we know as vs 23 appears as follows (though of course hand written): ταγαροψωνιατηςαμαρτιαςθανατος, requiring the reader to glean out even each individual word, which were it to be translated into English would have the form: theforwagesthesisdeath.
The background of the Stephen’s 1550 versified Bible is given from its published introduction in the 2002 Logos Bible Software Koine text above:
The Stephens 1550 text is that found in George Ricker Berry’s edition of “The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament.” This Stephens/Berry text has appeared frequently in reprint editions (in the United States mostly from Baker Book House and Zondervan Publishing House) and is the Textus Receptus edition most commonly available to students of New Testament Greek.
The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called “Textus Receptus” (Received Text) reflects a general agreement with other early printed Greek texts also (erroneously) called by that name. These include editions such as that of Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and (the only one actually termed “Textus Receptus”) Elzevir 1633. Berry correctly notes that “In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus” (Berry, p.ii).
All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized (or King James) Version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed little from its “Textus Receptus” predecessors. These early Greek “TR” editions generally reflect (but not completely) the “Byzantine Textform,” otherwise called the “Majority” or “Traditional” text, which predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts.
The user should note that the Stephens 1550 TR edition does not agree with modern critical editions such as that published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle editions. These editions follow a predominantly “Alexandrian” Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however, that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions is identical.
One should also recognize that no printed Receptus Greek edition agrees 100% with the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition (Majority/Traditional Text), nor with the Greek text presumed to underlie the Authorized Version. However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts.
The significant translatable differences between the modern critical texts, the Authorized (King James) Version, and the Byzantine (Majority) Textform are most clearly presented in the NU-text and M-text footnotes appended to editions of the “New King James Version,” published by Thomas Nelson Co.
The reader should note that Luke 17:36 does NOT appear in either the original Stephens 1550 TR edition or the Berry Interlinear. This corresponds to the marginal note in the original 1611 KJV which stated explicitly and correctly, “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” The text of this verse (found in the Elzevir 1624 Textus Receptus and given as a footnote in Berry’s Interlinear edition) DOES appear in the Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus. No other verse or verse number found in the Authorized Version is lacking in the Stephens 1550 TR edition here presented.
Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: with morphology. (2002). Logos Bible Software.
I’ve included almost all of the Logos introductory text as it relates to an issue sometimes hotly debated between proponents of the truest Koine mss family, and the proper methodology for choosing among the variants as they may exist within a family, the latter process being known as the “apparatus” of the translation. So, broadly speaking, there are two families, as described above, within which there are variants, especially for the “Critical Text” used in most modern translations. All such issues of TR vs CT, and the variants as they be are not of concern in this post, or kaiStudies in general. And we should remind ourselves that “the main things are the plain things” (a phrase used by Alister Begg).
Verbs and Verbals in the Romans 6:22-23 Passage
Recurring to the SVO framework of a “sentence,” at least in some framework that expresses a complete thought, let us consider what verbs and verbals (participles) are present in these two verses.
Doing a deep dive into any given text such as our passage here, it is valuable to discern the taxonomy of the individual words, particularly all the verbs in all their forms (more on verb forms below). In English, but especially in Koine, this requires working with the base form of the words known as “lemmas.” A lemma is the form of a word used to obtain the dictionary definition, as the base form “run” would be used for its inflected forms of runs, ran, running.
In the Koine of TR1550 for the two verses of Rom 6:22-23 there are 25 lemmas. Of these 25 lemmas there is but one verb (V) in the SVO framework: it is “to have” or “to hold” which occurs in vs 22. In Koine, as in English, there are words derived from verbs but used to support other parts of the sentence. One important category of a verbal word is a participle. In English a participle is often, but not always, a word ending in -ing such as “running.” Participles express activity / motion attendant to other words, such as “the running river” where “running” is an adjective describing the noun “river.”
For our text here we have the one verb and two verbal participles. Specifically, we find:
- One verb: ἔχω échō; (Strong’s G2192), meaning “to have,” “hold,””have possession of,” occurring as εχετε (Present, Active, Indicative, 2nd Person Plural), as the 14 Koine word of verse 22.
- Two participles:
- δουλόω doulóō (Strong’s G1402), meaning “to serve” (what a slave would do), occurring as δουλωθέντες (Aorist Passive Participle Plural Nominative Masculine), and
- ἐλευθερόω eleutheróō; (Strong’s G659), meaning “to be made free” as in the idea of having been redeemed (from a condition of slavery, be it as a bond-slave), here appearing in the form ἐλευθερόω (of the same case form as the other participle in this passage (e.g. δουλόω doulóō).
Where are the Verbs and Verbals in the Translations of Romans 6:22-23?
When we look at various English translations we find they have had verbs inserted, specifically in Rom 6:23, that are not in the Koine mss. The ESV translation given above, inserts two verbs of being, “is,” in 6:22.
The two participles, present in vs. 22, have a personage reference to the implied “you,” namely the plural masculine recipients of the Romans Epistle. More importantly, these participles have a time reference by their Aorist tense making it precedent to the main verb, the single verb also in vs. 22, which is in the Present tense. Accordingly, the most straightforward understanding is that these two verbals (participles) describe the recipient of the Epistle in a condition antecedent to the Present tense of ἔχω échō having possession of “sanctification” (meaning being set apart) to its end “eternal life.” That time-relationship is significant in itself.
But also significant is the absence of any further verbs or verbals in the separately versified 6:23 commonly set apart as a distinct whole thought and thus a sentence, and so supplied with multiple verbs of being (“is”). This is certainly a legitimate interpretation, but it is not a literal translation, and has been so given to us because (I believe) 6:23 was distinctly versified by Stephanus and the reader is expecting it to be a standalone sentence.
What, Then, is Roman 6:23?
If Rom 6:23 should not be a sentence, then what kind of a language building block is it? It is the explanatory amplification of the significance of the two Aorist participles, namely that precisely because we are by nature in the state of death spiritually, and it is because death is exactly what we have been able ‘to produce’ (and only that) what we fundamentally need is not ‘a deal’–an exchange of some sort with God whereby we ‘give’ something and He ‘gives’ something. Rom 6:23 makes clear that the only ‘way out’ of the our incapacity to offer God anything beyond our state of spiritual death is the Sovereign Providence of a free gift of God, which is “in” Christ Jesus. (More on “in Christ Jesus” below, a jewel phrase that makes this point even more deeply).
How to Translate the Single Sentence of Romans 6:22-23?
Here’s my proposition of translating this single sentence in two verses, springing off the framework of the ESV translation given at the top of this post:
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you now possess [has given you] sanctification and its end, eternal life: 23 For your sin-wages of death, [was overcome by] the free gift of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 6:22-23 (personal translation)
This personal translation still has a verbal in vs. 23 (“was overcome”), which English seems to need for a certain degree of smooth reading, but the use of a colon at the end of vs 22, instead of a period, and the brackets for the added verbal in vs. 23 helps make clear, in English, that vs. 23 amplifies the main and greatly significant point of vs. 22.
Even better, as scored on an exactness scale, would be the following:
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you now possess [has given you toward] sanctification and its end, eternal life: 23
My more succinct translation of Rom 6:22-23, and yes
- For the wages of your sin → death,
- but the free gift of God → eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
The bullets and arrows shown are a non-traditional punctuation, but all punctuation is arbitrary albeit conventional. In other domains, such as mathematics, science, engineering there exists an extensive ‘punctuation’ useful even essential. I think, the bullets and arrows above capture best the whole idea.
What’s of importance here?
What is the answer to the “And, so…?” question?
It is grasping that the core of the sentence, the SVO, of vs 22 is true only because of the the two bulleted statements that follow in vs 24 and which exist to support and emphasize the great significance of the whole thought laid out in vs 24.
Is there, then, something ‘wrong’ with memorizing vs 24 as commonly translated? No. With the added verbs of being inserted by various translations it can be made into a sentence, and a whole thought, which thought is not false.
- The “wages of sin” is indeed “death,” as every cemetery and epigraph gives evidence, and you and I will ourselves in bodily form do so in due time.
- And “The free gift” of God is “eternal life” and such life is “in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
So, we could even divide vs 24 further into two separate sentences, with each component being both coherent and true.
But dividing things loses things. And, so, I would recommend memorizing vs 23-24 as a whole, with emphasis on the powerful, amazing truth embodied in vs 23, and the given explanation of the ‘how’ of the reality of vs 23 given as two absolutely opposite realities expressed in vs 24.
“In Christ Jesus:” The Dative Case of Romans 6:23
The closing phrase of vs 23, which closes Chapter 6 of Romans is: “in Christ Jesus our the Lord” (where in the Koine “Lord” is articulated, emphasizing particularity of a Particular Being).
Our attention here in this closing commentary is of the Dative Case form of this phrase. As discussed elsewhere, the Dative case plays many important roles in Koine. For the most-part, such roles can be divided into three types: DAT1 indicating an indirect object, DAT2 a spatial / time reference, and DAT3 an agency / instrumentality reference (all such DAT1/2/3 designations are my own format).
DAT1 can be thought of the simple significance dative, namely that it is identifying a secondary actor such as “John threw the ball to Jim” (where “ball” is the direct object of the verb “threw” and “Jim” is the indirect object, which would be in Koine, in the form of a Dative, and by my nomenclature a DAT1).
DAT2 and DAT3 are deeper meaning datives, again as described elsewhere on this site (presently or yet to come). A prevalent theme in the Pauline Epistles is the Dative case, which are primarily DAT3, of the form “in Christ” as given here in Rom 6:23. Such understanding of the Koine dative usage is saying, and the context demands that it say, the great exchange of Grace summarized in Rom 6:23 is achieved, and only could be achieved, thought the agency / instrumentality of Jesus Christ who was not just an annointed-by-God human but rather the very Lord, translated from the Koine word “kurios”–which is the very word the LXX uses to translate the Hebrew YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, “Yahweh,” the God of Creation of the OT. It was God Himself who made this great exchange: we brought to God that one thing we had, our sin, and He brought to us that one thing essential, forgiveness and eternal life.