Today we finish 1 Corinthians. The most interesting material we encountered on sin came in chapters 5-6, where we saw that to sin was to wrong or do wrong. Parties wronged included 1) the body of Christ (sexual sins), 2) a brother, and 3) Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 15, we encounter for the first time Paul's more abstract perspective on sin in the singular (as opposed to sins in the plural).
We begin with 15:3, where Paul is recounting some fundamental Christian traditions: "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." This is the word hamartia now, the more typical word for sin, as opposed to hamartema that was used in chapter 6.
A couple questions immediately spring to mind: 1) what does it mean to die "for sins" and 2) what Scriptures does Paul have in mind.
What does the expression "for our sins" mean? It could mean that he died for our sins instead of us dying for our sins. This is a general sense of penal substitution although it would overread the text to suggest this is some exact substitution of penalty.
The expression could simply mean he died "because of" our sins, as a consequence of them. This meaning seems too weak for what Paul is saying.
The expression could presuppose a sense of Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice. His death in some way Paul does not unpack made reconciliation with God possible just as sacrifices did.
Perhaps we could gain clarity on exactly what Paul had in mind if we knew what Scriptures he had in mind. Certainly Isaiah 53 has to feature high on the list of possibilities. This passage would imply a weak form of penal substitution as well as possibly a sacrificial element:
He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him and by his wounds we are healed...
It was the LORD's will to crush him... and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring.
Later on in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul indicates that if there were no resurrection, the Corinthians would still be "in your sins" (15:17). This is an interesting comment because it is talking about the resurrection rather than the death of Christ. Apparently, Paul does not believe the death of Jesus could be effective in its action for sins unless the resurrection had followed.
With such sparse information, it is difficult to figure out how Paul's logic works here. One unusual possibility is that he believes death to have normal atoning value for sins sans resurrection. Notice Romans 5:14; 6:6, 7. But when Christ dies for sins, resurrection becomes a possibility for those who die with Christ and are buried with him in baptism.
But we see in 1 Corinthians 15:17 the normal association between death and sins. Christ's resurrection defeats death and substitutes for the penalty of sin and makes possible the resurrection of others rather than the normal atonement by death without resurrection.
Sin is mentioned twice in 15:56. For the first time in Paul's writings we have sin used in the singular. We will see later that Paul tends to discuss sin as a power when he uses the word in the singular.
"Sin is the sting of death, and the power of sin is the law."
My sense here is that sin is the stinger that brings about death. The power by which it does that is the law. Paul will go to lengths in Romans 7 to indicate that the law itself is not bad. It just facilitates death by way of sin. This short comment anticipates Paul's theology in Romans.
The word sin does not appear in chapter 16. The closest Paul comes is when he curses anyone who does not love the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do"...was Jesus cry from the cross...the Pharisees had won, as they had used their "legal rights" illegally to "convict" or charge Jesus!!! Joseph would be a more excellent example of sins producing "salvation"....as his brother were jealous and sold him into slavery, but it was the salvation of his brothers at a later date...BUT just as I mentioned in yesterday's comment, love means that you must hold people accountable when they are continuing in "doing wrong" to a brother...lying to themselves and their father was "continuing in sin". Joseph tested his brothers to see if they were repentant for what they did...He didn't just trust them foolheartedly ("turning the other cheek")....But, he was also desirous of "fellowshipping with them" (he cried), but they needed to take responsibility for their actions, choices, and "see" their hearts.
Oh, and it seems this WOULD BE SCAPEGOATING another, as long as the "sin of the community against another" continues. The scapegoat is sent outside the camp in the imagery of the Old Testament, as the sins were placed on the head of the scapegoat signifying the "transmission" to the goat...In systems theory, families that are dysfunctional function this way (scapegoating), as everyone in the system has a "role" to play and maintains their identity by "playing their role". Intervention HAS to transpire before there can be a "healthy" system, meaning that each man is responsible for thier own life, choices, responsibilities, etc..."Salvation" happens when each person understands that playing a "role" in a system is NOT holy or what God desires. He desires free response to circumstances, not forced by another playing a "role" or controlled by the "role" itself! Systems by nature are dysfunctional. That is why it takes a healthy functional personality to break free from the system!!!
It seems to me that there is a tension in biblical thought between "sacrificial" type thought that plays into substitution imagery of more than one kind (transference of impurity, transference of penalty) and thought that emphasizes God's freedom to forgive without payment of any kind. The resolution of the two themes is one of the sticky issues of Christian theology...
Payment is NEVER the focus IF one has a right heart!!!(even though the Scriptures commend restitution). Because, the issue is the relationship and IF it can be rectified, or if there is going to be a continuance of denial, blame-shifting, etc. If there is no equality in responsibility, then the relationship needs to be held at "arm's length" for it is unhealthy and will produce unhealthy temptations to sin itself...Sometimes knowing the boundaries around another's "comfort zone" is enough to continue a relationship, though limited.
The more I learn ("Gentiles, Jews and Christians" and etc.), the harder it becomes to "embrace" the evangelical understanding of Christiainity, in fact, I think it is "heretical". In the midst of Wim's "new job", it becomes more and more clear that the "truths that are self-evident" (maybe not to some people) are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...God is not about "religion", but a "free society" (not meaning there are no boundaries, i.e. crimes/laws)...so the American experiment is the highest form of government for it is for those who are self-governed...and do not depend on "other" authorities for their significance, calling, purpose or convictions....Sin is the breaking of the law, as the law maintains society's boundaries, and yet, there are more important "issues" at hand when it comes to the specifics of situations...Legalism is a fear that crime prevails, if not punished...but there is a "theory" in sociology (I forget the term), where it is beleived that men will flourish in freedom with boundaries...I find that that is proven out in a market system versus communism, where there is a determination over production...men are unmotivated if they have no interest in the "system"...that is why stock-holders are more interested in the stock than the average "Joe" on the street...Therefore, there is NO difference between the Church as a corporation (organization) and world systems, as corporations...Hans Conzulman points out that the Church had to be mission oriented but there is a debate whether the Jew was to be or not...The Jewish system is an ethical system, whereas, your talk of the NT is based o Chrinstianity as a mission religion...The only mission concieved is the sectarian view of the ancient understanding of sacrifice and its literal interpretation...the ethical system is used within our government!!! And I believe is highest "form" of "revelation"!!!
Post a Comment