Now to finish the final chapter of the first Paul book. The earlier posts in this chapter were:
Leaving Ephesus
Reconcilation
Fragments of Other Letters?
Now...
Reflections
2 Corinthians is one of the unsung heroes of the New Testament. Yet this book is full of tremendously helpful and enriching wisdom. It is easy to rejoice when things are going well or when we at least feel empowered. So the Paul of Galatians is strong and forceful. The Paul of Philippians is still strong even though he is imprisoned. But he can do little to change his situation, so he rests in God. He is content. By God's power he chooses not to be anxious.
But second Corinthians is somewhere in between. The first seven chapters give us Paul at his most vulnerable. The usually confident and decisive apostle reveals the uncertainty he had felt after a tough leadership decision. Then in chapters 10-13 he reasserts his authority, but not with the same tone as Galatians or the lost harsh letter. He seems less confident that the force of his personality will win the day this time. He has followed God's will. He has fought the good fight. He cannot do more.
So Paul becomes reflective. Indeed, 2 Corinthians is probably the most reflective of all Paul's writings. It wears the scars of suffering and then of unresolved conflict. 4:7-11 is one of the best passages to read when you or the groups you are a part of are discouraged. It reassures us that the way things look on the outside, the things we are experiencing in our bodies and in the world are not the end of the story. They should neither reflect what we are on the inside or where we are headed eternally. Why? Because "this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal" (2 Cor. 4:17-18).
Paul reminds the Corinthians that we do not endure such suffering alone. In fact, we are joined with the sufferings of Christ as we suffer. We are "carrying in the body the death of Jesus" (4:10). We are joining in the fellowship of Christ's sufferings (cf. Phil. 3:10). And like Christ we expect "that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies." (2 Cor. 4:10). As Jesus trusted in God to raise him from the dead (cf. Heb. 5:8), so also Paul trusts to be raised from the dead (4:14).
2 Corinthians also gives us incredibly rich statements about Christ and the Holy Spirit. In keeping with New Testament thinking elsewhere, Paul implies that it is the Holy Spirit that is our guarantee of eternity, while also a foretaste of the glory that is already at work inside us, transforming us into the image of Christ (1:22; 5:5). If you do not have the Holy Spirit, you have no basis in Paul to say you are truly a Christian or destined for salvation on the Day when Christ returns.
Christ is God's agent of reconciliation in the world (5:19), the one who took on its sin as a sacrifice, with the result that we are all examples of God's righteousness and mercy toward His creation (5:21). Paul's closing words foreshadow full Christian belief in the Trinity and have been used for centuries to close Christian worship in the Anglican church: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (13:14). Each one of us in Christ is an instance of God's new creation (5:17) and a foreshadowing of what is yet to come.
Finally, 2 Corinthians gives us some rare insight into giving in the early church. We have no evidence that the early Christians followed any practice of tithing, of giving ten percent of their harvest to the temple. Spelling out what tithing was in ancient Israel highlights how different our practice of tithing is today from the Old Testament practice. Tithing was about giving of one's harvest, not of one's "income," as if the ancients had salaries or functioned primarily on the basis of money. Jews who were scattered in the cities of the ancient world did not tithe. What they did was pay a "half-shekel tax" to the Jerusalem temple each year.
There was thus no established pattern for tithing among Jews scattered throughout the cities of the ancient Mediterranean. The practice that we find in the New Testament was thus much more imprecise. Paul tells the Corinthians that they had a responsibility to support materially those who ministered to them spiritually (1 Cor. 9:4-12). Paul raised a collection to take to Jerusalem to show the solidarity of his churches with them. But none of these practices was quantified or regimented.
Paul seems to lay out somewhat of a general principle in 2 Corinthians 8:14-15: "your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, 'Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.'" In other words, all of their possessions not only belonged to God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:26), but they were under obligation to give their abundance to others in the Christian community who had need. Paul gives here his version of Acts 2:44-45: "all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need."
The model for such selfless giving is Jesus Christ himself, "you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2 Cor. 8:9). This is 2 Corinthians' version of the Philippian hymn, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave" (2:6-7). So Paul reminds the Corinthians of the attitude they were to have toward others. After all, "God loves a cheerful giver" (9:7).
Showing posts with label 2 Corinthians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2 Corinthians. Show all posts
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Fragments of Other Letters? (2 Corinthians III)
The previous posts of this chapter were:
Leaving Ephesus
Reconcilation
This post is...
___________
Fragments of Other Letters?
The material covered in 2 Corinthians is diverse, so much so that various scholars have suggested it is actually portions of up to five different letters that have been spliced together. For example 6:14-7:1 seems so out of place in the flow of the letter that some have suggested it might be an excerpt from Paul's lost first letter to the Corinthians on sexual immorality. These verses say not to "hook up" with unbelievers, and we know the lost letter had some material on not associating with sexually immoral people. [1] It is an interesting thought, but not one we could really conclude with any certainly one way or another.
Some scholars also suggest that 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 might come from two different letters as well. It is true that they deal with a completely different topic than 2 Corinthians 1-7, namely, the collection Paul was collecting to take to Jerusalem. But 1 Corinthians also covers numerous different topics as well. 1 Corinthians 8 flows very nicely on from the earlier chapters. Paul seems to be in Macedonia as he writes, north of Greece (8:1), which is where he wrote the earlier chapters from as well (e.g., 7:5). 1 Corinthians 9:2 also fits well with Paul writing from Macedonia.
The key to understanding 2 Corinthians 8-9 is to recognize that Paul is about to send Titus back to Corinth again (8:17), even though he has just arrived in Macedonia from there (7:6). Two other "brothers" were also going with Titus (8:18, 22), individuals the Corinthians apparently knew, but whom Paul strangely does not mention by name. One explanation is that one or more of these individuals stood in some way at the center of some controversy between Paul and the Corinthians.
The first is possibly one of a list of people mentioned in Acts 19:22 and 20:4, individuals who were with Paul in Macedonia: Timothy, Erastus, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, and--maybe--Luke, assuming he is part of the "we" that pops up occasionally in Acts. Since the trip is to keep the Corinthians from being embarrassed in relation to the collection (9:3-4), we can possibly eliminate those of these that seem to represent various regions. That would leave Erastus and Timothy as good candidates for these two brothers.
Probably the best alternative for the second (8:22)) is Timothy. Paul had apparently sent Timothy to the Corinthians before (1 Cor. 4:17), and it is at least possible that as Paul's representative he had been directly involved in some of the conflict. Indeed, perhaps the reason Paul sent Titus with the harsh letter was because Timothy had become, to some extent, "scorched earth" with them. Acts 20:4 also mentions Timothy as part of the company that accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. [2] It thus seems very likely that Timothy was the one who accompanied Titus to Corinth to try to secure their portion of the Jerusalem collection.
This collection seems to have been a sore spot with the Corinthians. They had apparently expressed their desire to contribute a year earlier (2 Cor. 8:10; 9:5), but the intervening conflict with Paul had apparently derailed that process. We would like to think that after the Corinthians submitted, especially given the tone of 1 Corinthians 1-7, everything was back on track between Paul and the Corinthians. Unfortunately, it was apparently not the case.
Once we get to 2 Corinthians 10, we immediately sense a significant change in tone from the earlier chapters. While 2 Corinthians 1-7 include some of the most uplifting material in the Bible, Paul suddenly goes on the defensive in chapter 10, so much so that some have even suggested 10-13 are an excerpt from the earlier, lost, harsh letter. But 12:18 speaks of Titus having already returned from a visit, which places this material after the harsh letter, after Titus' initial visit to Corinth on Paul's behalf.
Some thus suggest that Paul is now addressing a different segment of the congregation, a part that has not submitted to him, unlike his audience in the first seven chapters. The problem with this suggestion is that Paul gives us no clue at all that he has switched audiences. We have the same word "you" used continuously throughout. There is simply no basis in the text of 2 Corinthians to justify a switch in who Paul is addressing in the audience.
Indeed, these last four chapters do not operate on the same assumptions as the first 9 chapters. In the first part of 2 Corinthians, the insubordinate individual in the congregation has repented and submitted (e.g., 2:5-11). As we have seen, the first half breathes the relief Paul feels at his reconciliation with the community. But in 12:20-21, Paul expresses deep concerns that when he comes he will not find them as they ought to be. He is afraid he will find that many who had sinned earlier will not have repented. He fears that he will find the same problems he tried to address way back when he wrote 1 Corinthians.
Paul is not mentally unstable, so we seem to face two basic options. First, perhaps Paul received new information before he sent the first part of the letter with Titus and the other two brothers. If so, however, we can wonder why he did not go back and revise the first part of the letter. What is more likely, however, is that 2 Corinthians 10-13 is an excerpt from a subsequent letter. 12:18 mentions that Paul has not only sent Titus before, but also another brother.
It thus would make a good deal of sense if Paul sent 2 Corinthians 1-9 with Titus and perhaps Erastus and Timothy. But the solicitation of the collection apparently did not go well--and apparently they found that the Corinthians had not submitted nearly as much to Paul as he had thought. Paul writes a follow up letter, which included chapters 10-13. The tone is not like Galatians. The tone is more one of discouragement and sarcasm.
So Paul defends himself once more, giving us another great autobiographical passage to add to Galatians 1-2 and Philippians 3. The Corinthians are apparently putting down Paul in comparison to other "super-apostles" (11:5). Perhaps our first thought might be that they are comparing Paul to Apollos again, especially since they do mention Paul's lack of rhetorical skill (10:10; 11:6). But the general tenor sounds also like some of Paul's criticisms of Judaizers elsewhere.
Whoever they are, Paul calls them "false apostles" (11:13). Like Satan, they disguise themselves as angels of light. Paul sarcastically says he was too weak to push them around and slap them in the face (11:20), like these super-apostles. They are so wise that they take pride in fools (11:19).
Paul goes on to catalog the kinds of things he has endured for the sake of the gospel, things these dainty super-apostles have not had to face. He speaks of how many times he has been flogged and beaten by both Jews and non-Jews (11:23-25). He speaks of the kinds of revelations God has granted him (12:1-4). Although he speaks as if he is talking about a different person, he goes on to talk about God keeping him humble in 12:7 in a way that reveals he has been talking about himself. God allowed him to live with a physical problem, perhaps difficulty with eye sight (cf. Gal. 4:15), so that Christ's strength would be shown in Paul's weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).
Paul's last letter to the Corinthians thus ends on a somber note. He has had trouble with the Galatians. He has perhaps been imprisoned and banished from Ephesus. The Corinthians remain in rebellion to his authority, unmentioned among those who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Presumably they do not contribute to the collection. It is thus with great pathos that we read Paul's polite greeting from Gaius in Romans 16:23. And it is with great pathos that we read Paul's words in Romans 15:23: there is "no further place for me in these regions." So he looks toward Rome and Spain beyond.
[1] Of course Paul clarifies in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 that he primarily had immoral believers in mind, not unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 has often been used in popular teaching to argue against dating or marrying unbelievers, although the topic of sex and marriage is not clearly what is under discussion there.
[2] Although, interestingly, Acts never mentions the collection Paul raised for Jerusalem, a curiousity that has given rise to its own share of speculation.
Leaving Ephesus
Reconcilation
This post is...
___________
Fragments of Other Letters?
The material covered in 2 Corinthians is diverse, so much so that various scholars have suggested it is actually portions of up to five different letters that have been spliced together. For example 6:14-7:1 seems so out of place in the flow of the letter that some have suggested it might be an excerpt from Paul's lost first letter to the Corinthians on sexual immorality. These verses say not to "hook up" with unbelievers, and we know the lost letter had some material on not associating with sexually immoral people. [1] It is an interesting thought, but not one we could really conclude with any certainly one way or another.
Some scholars also suggest that 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 might come from two different letters as well. It is true that they deal with a completely different topic than 2 Corinthians 1-7, namely, the collection Paul was collecting to take to Jerusalem. But 1 Corinthians also covers numerous different topics as well. 1 Corinthians 8 flows very nicely on from the earlier chapters. Paul seems to be in Macedonia as he writes, north of Greece (8:1), which is where he wrote the earlier chapters from as well (e.g., 7:5). 1 Corinthians 9:2 also fits well with Paul writing from Macedonia.
The key to understanding 2 Corinthians 8-9 is to recognize that Paul is about to send Titus back to Corinth again (8:17), even though he has just arrived in Macedonia from there (7:6). Two other "brothers" were also going with Titus (8:18, 22), individuals the Corinthians apparently knew, but whom Paul strangely does not mention by name. One explanation is that one or more of these individuals stood in some way at the center of some controversy between Paul and the Corinthians.
The first is possibly one of a list of people mentioned in Acts 19:22 and 20:4, individuals who were with Paul in Macedonia: Timothy, Erastus, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, and--maybe--Luke, assuming he is part of the "we" that pops up occasionally in Acts. Since the trip is to keep the Corinthians from being embarrassed in relation to the collection (9:3-4), we can possibly eliminate those of these that seem to represent various regions. That would leave Erastus and Timothy as good candidates for these two brothers.
Probably the best alternative for the second (8:22)) is Timothy. Paul had apparently sent Timothy to the Corinthians before (1 Cor. 4:17), and it is at least possible that as Paul's representative he had been directly involved in some of the conflict. Indeed, perhaps the reason Paul sent Titus with the harsh letter was because Timothy had become, to some extent, "scorched earth" with them. Acts 20:4 also mentions Timothy as part of the company that accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. [2] It thus seems very likely that Timothy was the one who accompanied Titus to Corinth to try to secure their portion of the Jerusalem collection.
This collection seems to have been a sore spot with the Corinthians. They had apparently expressed their desire to contribute a year earlier (2 Cor. 8:10; 9:5), but the intervening conflict with Paul had apparently derailed that process. We would like to think that after the Corinthians submitted, especially given the tone of 1 Corinthians 1-7, everything was back on track between Paul and the Corinthians. Unfortunately, it was apparently not the case.
Once we get to 2 Corinthians 10, we immediately sense a significant change in tone from the earlier chapters. While 2 Corinthians 1-7 include some of the most uplifting material in the Bible, Paul suddenly goes on the defensive in chapter 10, so much so that some have even suggested 10-13 are an excerpt from the earlier, lost, harsh letter. But 12:18 speaks of Titus having already returned from a visit, which places this material after the harsh letter, after Titus' initial visit to Corinth on Paul's behalf.
Some thus suggest that Paul is now addressing a different segment of the congregation, a part that has not submitted to him, unlike his audience in the first seven chapters. The problem with this suggestion is that Paul gives us no clue at all that he has switched audiences. We have the same word "you" used continuously throughout. There is simply no basis in the text of 2 Corinthians to justify a switch in who Paul is addressing in the audience.
Indeed, these last four chapters do not operate on the same assumptions as the first 9 chapters. In the first part of 2 Corinthians, the insubordinate individual in the congregation has repented and submitted (e.g., 2:5-11). As we have seen, the first half breathes the relief Paul feels at his reconciliation with the community. But in 12:20-21, Paul expresses deep concerns that when he comes he will not find them as they ought to be. He is afraid he will find that many who had sinned earlier will not have repented. He fears that he will find the same problems he tried to address way back when he wrote 1 Corinthians.
Paul is not mentally unstable, so we seem to face two basic options. First, perhaps Paul received new information before he sent the first part of the letter with Titus and the other two brothers. If so, however, we can wonder why he did not go back and revise the first part of the letter. What is more likely, however, is that 2 Corinthians 10-13 is an excerpt from a subsequent letter. 12:18 mentions that Paul has not only sent Titus before, but also another brother.
It thus would make a good deal of sense if Paul sent 2 Corinthians 1-9 with Titus and perhaps Erastus and Timothy. But the solicitation of the collection apparently did not go well--and apparently they found that the Corinthians had not submitted nearly as much to Paul as he had thought. Paul writes a follow up letter, which included chapters 10-13. The tone is not like Galatians. The tone is more one of discouragement and sarcasm.
So Paul defends himself once more, giving us another great autobiographical passage to add to Galatians 1-2 and Philippians 3. The Corinthians are apparently putting down Paul in comparison to other "super-apostles" (11:5). Perhaps our first thought might be that they are comparing Paul to Apollos again, especially since they do mention Paul's lack of rhetorical skill (10:10; 11:6). But the general tenor sounds also like some of Paul's criticisms of Judaizers elsewhere.
Whoever they are, Paul calls them "false apostles" (11:13). Like Satan, they disguise themselves as angels of light. Paul sarcastically says he was too weak to push them around and slap them in the face (11:20), like these super-apostles. They are so wise that they take pride in fools (11:19).
Paul goes on to catalog the kinds of things he has endured for the sake of the gospel, things these dainty super-apostles have not had to face. He speaks of how many times he has been flogged and beaten by both Jews and non-Jews (11:23-25). He speaks of the kinds of revelations God has granted him (12:1-4). Although he speaks as if he is talking about a different person, he goes on to talk about God keeping him humble in 12:7 in a way that reveals he has been talking about himself. God allowed him to live with a physical problem, perhaps difficulty with eye sight (cf. Gal. 4:15), so that Christ's strength would be shown in Paul's weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).
Paul's last letter to the Corinthians thus ends on a somber note. He has had trouble with the Galatians. He has perhaps been imprisoned and banished from Ephesus. The Corinthians remain in rebellion to his authority, unmentioned among those who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Presumably they do not contribute to the collection. It is thus with great pathos that we read Paul's polite greeting from Gaius in Romans 16:23. And it is with great pathos that we read Paul's words in Romans 15:23: there is "no further place for me in these regions." So he looks toward Rome and Spain beyond.
[1] Of course Paul clarifies in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 that he primarily had immoral believers in mind, not unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 has often been used in popular teaching to argue against dating or marrying unbelievers, although the topic of sex and marriage is not clearly what is under discussion there.
[2] Although, interestingly, Acts never mentions the collection Paul raised for Jerusalem, a curiousity that has given rise to its own share of speculation.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Reconcilation (2 Corinthians II)
The previous post in relation to this chapter was "Leaving Ephesus."
Reconciliation
2 Corinthians 1-7 breathe the relief Paul felt on hearing that the Corinthians had submitted to his authority. The thanksgiving section (3:1-11) remarkably uses some variation of the word "comfort" ten times in this short space. It is no surprise that 2 Corinthians has some of the most encouraging words in Paul's letters.
Whether you accept an Ephesian imprisonment or not, Paul clearly left Ephesus with a strong sense of hardship and oppression there (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:8). We do not hear the resolute Paul of Galatians in 2 Corinthians, but a Paul who has almost been second guessing himself. His language has become very polarized between the circumstances of his "outer" body and what is true of his "inner" spirit: "We have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us" (4:7).
The verses that immediately follow this one are some of the most uplifting in the Bible in a time of crisis: "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh" (4:8-11). "So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day" (4:16).
2 Corinthians also has some of the most ironic language in the New Testament when Paul says, "thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him" (2:14) The Romans led a string of those they had conquered through the streets of Rome in triumphal procession. The imagery here is thus turned on its head. Paul is being led in triumphal procession, a picture of defeat, of being conquered. Yet his persecution in the world is a sign of God's ultimate victory and judgment of the world.
The contrast between Paul's "outside" and his "inside" corresponds with the contrast between his present and his future. And the key to that connection is the Holy Spirit. For Paul, the presence of the Holy Spirit inside a person is the key moment in moving from death to life. The Holy Spirit is God's seal of ownership, the key indication that a person in fact belongs to God (2 Cor. 1:22; cf. Rom. 8:9). And the Holy Spirit is also both a guarantee and a downpayment of a believer's coming inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). And because of the Holy Spirit, we are "being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit" (3:18).
The word that Paul uses of the Spirit in 1:22 and 5:5 is arrabon, a term perhaps best captured by the notion of earnest money. When people buy a house, they put down earnest money, which serves both as a guarantee that they will acquire the house and as a downpayment toward the purchase of that house. So also the Holy Spirit is both a guarantee of salvation and a "foretaste of glory divine." When we have the Spirit, we know we are headed for salvation, and the Spirit inside us gives us a sense of what the kingdom will like.
It is apparently Paul's recent crisis that has pushed him to drive such a strong contrast between our current embodiment and our spiritual identity inside. Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest that Paul's very thought has developed here since he wrote 1 Corinthians. Although most do not agree, some wonder if in 2 Corinthians Paul now sees us getting a heavenly body immediately at death, rather than in the future at the time of the resurrection. The same shift might then apply also to Philippians 1:23, where we seem to go directly to Christ at death. 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, by contrast, at least use imagery of sleeping until the future resurrection.
But in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul talks about an "eternal," "heavenly dwelling" ready and waiting for us if "our earthly tent" is destroyed (2 Cor. 5:1-2). It is generally agreed that Paul is talking here of our current physical bodies and our future resurrection body. For us to be found "naked" then, would seem to mean God has not found a person worthy of resurrection, and a person does not receive a resurrection body (5:3). Like Philippians, to be away from the body is to be "at home with the Lord" (5:8).
It is difficult to know whether in fact Paul's thought has developed here or not. Certainly most Christians on a popular level probably assume that we go to heaven immediately at death in some sort of spiritual form. But this has not been the historic position of Christianity nor is it Paul's position in 1 Corinthians or 1 Thessalonians. In these letters, our resurrection body must wait until Christ's future return. Historic Christianity has also affirmed at the same time that we are still conscious between our death and resurrection as well. These are thus the best positions for us to adopt, even if the biblical texts at times are ambiguous.
Another statement Paul makes here that is troubling for some is in 5:10: "all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil." Paul makes this comment to believers, not to unbelievers. In other words, he tells believers that they will have to give an account for their "works," something he also implies in Romans 2:6-10. 1 Corinthians 3:15 also holds out the prospect that some believers will be saved, "as through the fire." Even though it is not popular to think so, Paul does believe our works play a role in our final judgment and even justification (e.g., Rom. 2:13).
Paul's (supposed) reconciliation to the Corinthians reminds him of the very nature of his mission, commissioned by Christ himself. "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us" (5:19). This was the mission of God in Christ, to bring about the reconciliation of an alienated world back to Himself. Christ, then, sent Paul and the other apostles in turn: "So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (5:20). [1]
This magnificant passage then climaxes in 5:21: "For our sake he [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" With our Protestant eyes, this verse reads like a straightforward switch. Christ had no sin, but took on our sin. In return we who have sin take on Christ's righteousness.
But it is not at all clear that Paul had this meaning in mind. The phrase, "the righteousness of God" was a known concept within Judaism, found in the later chapters of Isaiah, certain Psalms, and even among the Dead Sea Scrolls. [2] In these places, God's righteousness refers to the part of his character that leads Him to reach out and save His people, even when they are sinful. And, indeed, it is exactly this subject that 2 Corinthians 5 has just been discussing--God's propensity to reach out to His people and the world with the offer of reconciliation and salvation!
So it is more likely in terms of Jewish background, that Paul is saying that Jesus became a sin offering, atoned for our sin, so that we might become a proof of God's righteousness (cf. Rom. 3:25-26). [3] As counterintuitive as this interpretation might seem, it seems the most likely reading when we read these words in their ancient Jewish historical context. It is thus hard to find a clear passage that says we assume Jesus' moral righteousness or goodness, despite the popularity of this idea. [4] There are passages where he functions as a sacrifice (e.g., Rom. 3:25; 8:3). Certainly we are pronounced "righteous" or "innocent" by God on the basis of Christ. But nowhere does Paul or any New Testament author clearly say that God ascribes to us Christ's moral righteousness. This view seems to be based on a very legalistic sense of God as a judge that seems to find little real basis in the biblical text.
This ministry of reconciliation, to which Christ called Paul, to which God called Christ, is a ministry of the "new covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6). The old covenant was that God made with Israel through Moses. It had a glory, but it was a fading glory (3:7). Paul allegorically re-interprets the veil on Moses' face to signify the fact that the glory was fading. Moses' veil kept Israel from seeing the glory of the old covenant fade (3:13).
But the glory of the new covenant in Christ does not need such a veil. The glory of the Spirit of the new covenant is unfading but in fact is ever increasing in glory (3:18). And it is for this glory that the people of the new covenant are destined, regardless of any current troubles or persecutions.
[1] The "you" in 5:20 is an interpretation rather than something in the original. Some think the sense is, "We ask on behalf of God [to people in general], 'Be reconciled to God.'"
[2] ***
[3] N. T. Wright is best known for this interpretation. Cf. Climax of the Covenant ***
[4] Wright's positions on these sorts of things may sometimes be a little too stark (i.e., he tends to resist the possibility of exceptions to generalizations of this sort). Nevertheless, his book Justification is where he deals most extensively with the question of "imputed righteousness" from Christ, that is, the idea that Christ's moral righteousness is ascribed to believers in order to satisfy the justice of God in acquitting us. We do not believe Paul was this legalistic in his sense of God's justice.
Reconciliation
2 Corinthians 1-7 breathe the relief Paul felt on hearing that the Corinthians had submitted to his authority. The thanksgiving section (3:1-11) remarkably uses some variation of the word "comfort" ten times in this short space. It is no surprise that 2 Corinthians has some of the most encouraging words in Paul's letters.
Whether you accept an Ephesian imprisonment or not, Paul clearly left Ephesus with a strong sense of hardship and oppression there (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:8). We do not hear the resolute Paul of Galatians in 2 Corinthians, but a Paul who has almost been second guessing himself. His language has become very polarized between the circumstances of his "outer" body and what is true of his "inner" spirit: "We have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us" (4:7).
The verses that immediately follow this one are some of the most uplifting in the Bible in a time of crisis: "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh" (4:8-11). "So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day" (4:16).
2 Corinthians also has some of the most ironic language in the New Testament when Paul says, "thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him" (2:14) The Romans led a string of those they had conquered through the streets of Rome in triumphal procession. The imagery here is thus turned on its head. Paul is being led in triumphal procession, a picture of defeat, of being conquered. Yet his persecution in the world is a sign of God's ultimate victory and judgment of the world.
The contrast between Paul's "outside" and his "inside" corresponds with the contrast between his present and his future. And the key to that connection is the Holy Spirit. For Paul, the presence of the Holy Spirit inside a person is the key moment in moving from death to life. The Holy Spirit is God's seal of ownership, the key indication that a person in fact belongs to God (2 Cor. 1:22; cf. Rom. 8:9). And the Holy Spirit is also both a guarantee and a downpayment of a believer's coming inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). And because of the Holy Spirit, we are "being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit" (3:18).
The word that Paul uses of the Spirit in 1:22 and 5:5 is arrabon, a term perhaps best captured by the notion of earnest money. When people buy a house, they put down earnest money, which serves both as a guarantee that they will acquire the house and as a downpayment toward the purchase of that house. So also the Holy Spirit is both a guarantee of salvation and a "foretaste of glory divine." When we have the Spirit, we know we are headed for salvation, and the Spirit inside us gives us a sense of what the kingdom will like.
It is apparently Paul's recent crisis that has pushed him to drive such a strong contrast between our current embodiment and our spiritual identity inside. Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest that Paul's very thought has developed here since he wrote 1 Corinthians. Although most do not agree, some wonder if in 2 Corinthians Paul now sees us getting a heavenly body immediately at death, rather than in the future at the time of the resurrection. The same shift might then apply also to Philippians 1:23, where we seem to go directly to Christ at death. 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, by contrast, at least use imagery of sleeping until the future resurrection.
But in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul talks about an "eternal," "heavenly dwelling" ready and waiting for us if "our earthly tent" is destroyed (2 Cor. 5:1-2). It is generally agreed that Paul is talking here of our current physical bodies and our future resurrection body. For us to be found "naked" then, would seem to mean God has not found a person worthy of resurrection, and a person does not receive a resurrection body (5:3). Like Philippians, to be away from the body is to be "at home with the Lord" (5:8).
It is difficult to know whether in fact Paul's thought has developed here or not. Certainly most Christians on a popular level probably assume that we go to heaven immediately at death in some sort of spiritual form. But this has not been the historic position of Christianity nor is it Paul's position in 1 Corinthians or 1 Thessalonians. In these letters, our resurrection body must wait until Christ's future return. Historic Christianity has also affirmed at the same time that we are still conscious between our death and resurrection as well. These are thus the best positions for us to adopt, even if the biblical texts at times are ambiguous.
Another statement Paul makes here that is troubling for some is in 5:10: "all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil." Paul makes this comment to believers, not to unbelievers. In other words, he tells believers that they will have to give an account for their "works," something he also implies in Romans 2:6-10. 1 Corinthians 3:15 also holds out the prospect that some believers will be saved, "as through the fire." Even though it is not popular to think so, Paul does believe our works play a role in our final judgment and even justification (e.g., Rom. 2:13).
Paul's (supposed) reconciliation to the Corinthians reminds him of the very nature of his mission, commissioned by Christ himself. "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us" (5:19). This was the mission of God in Christ, to bring about the reconciliation of an alienated world back to Himself. Christ, then, sent Paul and the other apostles in turn: "So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (5:20). [1]
This magnificant passage then climaxes in 5:21: "For our sake he [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" With our Protestant eyes, this verse reads like a straightforward switch. Christ had no sin, but took on our sin. In return we who have sin take on Christ's righteousness.
But it is not at all clear that Paul had this meaning in mind. The phrase, "the righteousness of God" was a known concept within Judaism, found in the later chapters of Isaiah, certain Psalms, and even among the Dead Sea Scrolls. [2] In these places, God's righteousness refers to the part of his character that leads Him to reach out and save His people, even when they are sinful. And, indeed, it is exactly this subject that 2 Corinthians 5 has just been discussing--God's propensity to reach out to His people and the world with the offer of reconciliation and salvation!
So it is more likely in terms of Jewish background, that Paul is saying that Jesus became a sin offering, atoned for our sin, so that we might become a proof of God's righteousness (cf. Rom. 3:25-26). [3] As counterintuitive as this interpretation might seem, it seems the most likely reading when we read these words in their ancient Jewish historical context. It is thus hard to find a clear passage that says we assume Jesus' moral righteousness or goodness, despite the popularity of this idea. [4] There are passages where he functions as a sacrifice (e.g., Rom. 3:25; 8:3). Certainly we are pronounced "righteous" or "innocent" by God on the basis of Christ. But nowhere does Paul or any New Testament author clearly say that God ascribes to us Christ's moral righteousness. This view seems to be based on a very legalistic sense of God as a judge that seems to find little real basis in the biblical text.
This ministry of reconciliation, to which Christ called Paul, to which God called Christ, is a ministry of the "new covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6). The old covenant was that God made with Israel through Moses. It had a glory, but it was a fading glory (3:7). Paul allegorically re-interprets the veil on Moses' face to signify the fact that the glory was fading. Moses' veil kept Israel from seeing the glory of the old covenant fade (3:13).
But the glory of the new covenant in Christ does not need such a veil. The glory of the Spirit of the new covenant is unfading but in fact is ever increasing in glory (3:18). And it is for this glory that the people of the new covenant are destined, regardless of any current troubles or persecutions.
[1] The "you" in 5:20 is an interpretation rather than something in the original. Some think the sense is, "We ask on behalf of God [to people in general], 'Be reconciled to God.'"
[2] ***
[3] N. T. Wright is best known for this interpretation. Cf. Climax of the Covenant ***
[4] Wright's positions on these sorts of things may sometimes be a little too stark (i.e., he tends to resist the possibility of exceptions to generalizations of this sort). Nevertheless, his book Justification is where he deals most extensively with the question of "imputed righteousness" from Christ, that is, the idea that Christ's moral righteousness is ascribed to believers in order to satisfy the justice of God in acquitting us. We do not believe Paul was this legalistic in his sense of God's justice.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Leaving Ephesus (2 Corinthians 1)
To follow the bread crumbs back, here's one place to start.
________
Leaving Ephesus
We do not know for sure whether Paul wrote Galatians or Philippians from Ephesus. But we can feel confident that he wrote at least three letters to Corinth while he was there (he also made a visit to the city that Acts does not record, cf. 2 Cor. 2:1; 13:1). Perhaps surprisingly, we only have one of these three letters for certain, 1 Corinthians. Paul's first letter to Corinth urged the Corinthians to stay away from sexually immoral influences (1 Cor. 5:9), but this letter has not survived. [1] Paul's second letter is thus the one we now call "First" Corinthians.
Interestingly, the third letter Paul sent to Corinth was not 2 Corinthians. [2] It was a harsh letter--one Paul in hindsight was not so sure he should have sent (2 Cor. 7:8). Perhaps that is why it was not preserved. The story goes something like the following. We know from 1 Corinthians that there were some in the Corinthian church who questioned Paul's authority. Apparently, the conflict between Paul and these individuals led him to send an ultimatum, which he apparently sent in the hands of Titus (2 Cor. 2:9; 7:13).
Whether Paul wrote this letter before the imprisonment we are suggesting at Ephesus or while he was imprisoned, we cannot say. The stark attitude of Galatians fits the apparent tone of the harsh letter to Corinth more than the mellow attitude of his imprisonment in Philippians. 2 Corinthians 1-9 itself fits more with the tone of Philippians as well. Our hunch is thus that Paul wrote Galatians, then at some point thereafter this harsh letter to Corinth, sending it off with Titus.
Then there was the crisis with Demetrius the silversmith, who brought Paul up on charges. Paul was imprisoned. When news reached the Philippians, they sent one of their overseers, Epaphroditus, with material support. Paul wrote Philippians, giving his intention to come visit them. We wonder if Paul's punishment was to be banished from the city and if such a verdict might have played into the reason he does not return back through Ephesus his next time through the area (cf. Acts 20:16-17). [3]
Paul had perhaps earlier intended to go directly from Ephesus to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:16). He decides instead to go to Macedonia first, which some at Corinth apparently made an issue of, claiming that Paul was not a man of his word (2 Cor. 1:18-19). His desire to see the Philippians, especially after their support of him in prison, might also have played into his change of plans (Phil. 2:24).
The individual at Corinth apparently submitted, as did the entire community--at least on the surface (2 Cor. 2:5-11). The community disciplined the person in question, so much so that Paul even tells them to let up (2 Cor. 2:6-8). Some have suggested it might have been the man who was sleeping with his step-mother in 1 Corinthians 5. There Paul had told them to hand this person over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5) and not to eat with him (5:11).
We cannot know for certain that this was the man in question, but he apparently submitted to the community, and the community to Paul. From this incident comes one of the most memorable verses on repentance in the Bible: "Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret" (2 Cor. 7:10). So while Paul was not certain he had done the right thing at first, giving the church an ultimatum in relationship to his authority, his letter at least seems to work and, for the moment, he is glad he did it (7:8-9). As we will see, however, it is not clear that the community's submission was as solid as Paul thought.
[1] Unless, of course, 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is a displaced fragment from this letter, has some have suggested.
[2] Although, again, some have suggested that 2 Corinthians 10-13 might be an excerpt from Paul's third, but now lost letter.
[3] 1 Clement mentions that Paul was once banished (5.6). It would also contribute to the reason there was no more room for Paul to minister in the east (Rom. 15:23).
________
Leaving Ephesus
We do not know for sure whether Paul wrote Galatians or Philippians from Ephesus. But we can feel confident that he wrote at least three letters to Corinth while he was there (he also made a visit to the city that Acts does not record, cf. 2 Cor. 2:1; 13:1). Perhaps surprisingly, we only have one of these three letters for certain, 1 Corinthians. Paul's first letter to Corinth urged the Corinthians to stay away from sexually immoral influences (1 Cor. 5:9), but this letter has not survived. [1] Paul's second letter is thus the one we now call "First" Corinthians.
Interestingly, the third letter Paul sent to Corinth was not 2 Corinthians. [2] It was a harsh letter--one Paul in hindsight was not so sure he should have sent (2 Cor. 7:8). Perhaps that is why it was not preserved. The story goes something like the following. We know from 1 Corinthians that there were some in the Corinthian church who questioned Paul's authority. Apparently, the conflict between Paul and these individuals led him to send an ultimatum, which he apparently sent in the hands of Titus (2 Cor. 2:9; 7:13).
Whether Paul wrote this letter before the imprisonment we are suggesting at Ephesus or while he was imprisoned, we cannot say. The stark attitude of Galatians fits the apparent tone of the harsh letter to Corinth more than the mellow attitude of his imprisonment in Philippians. 2 Corinthians 1-9 itself fits more with the tone of Philippians as well. Our hunch is thus that Paul wrote Galatians, then at some point thereafter this harsh letter to Corinth, sending it off with Titus.
Then there was the crisis with Demetrius the silversmith, who brought Paul up on charges. Paul was imprisoned. When news reached the Philippians, they sent one of their overseers, Epaphroditus, with material support. Paul wrote Philippians, giving his intention to come visit them. We wonder if Paul's punishment was to be banished from the city and if such a verdict might have played into the reason he does not return back through Ephesus his next time through the area (cf. Acts 20:16-17). [3]
Paul had perhaps earlier intended to go directly from Ephesus to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:16). He decides instead to go to Macedonia first, which some at Corinth apparently made an issue of, claiming that Paul was not a man of his word (2 Cor. 1:18-19). His desire to see the Philippians, especially after their support of him in prison, might also have played into his change of plans (Phil. 2:24).
The individual at Corinth apparently submitted, as did the entire community--at least on the surface (2 Cor. 2:5-11). The community disciplined the person in question, so much so that Paul even tells them to let up (2 Cor. 2:6-8). Some have suggested it might have been the man who was sleeping with his step-mother in 1 Corinthians 5. There Paul had told them to hand this person over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5) and not to eat with him (5:11).
We cannot know for certain that this was the man in question, but he apparently submitted to the community, and the community to Paul. From this incident comes one of the most memorable verses on repentance in the Bible: "Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret" (2 Cor. 7:10). So while Paul was not certain he had done the right thing at first, giving the church an ultimatum in relationship to his authority, his letter at least seems to work and, for the moment, he is glad he did it (7:8-9). As we will see, however, it is not clear that the community's submission was as solid as Paul thought.
[1] Unless, of course, 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is a displaced fragment from this letter, has some have suggested.
[2] Although, again, some have suggested that 2 Corinthians 10-13 might be an excerpt from Paul's third, but now lost letter.
[3] 1 Clement mentions that Paul was once banished (5.6). It would also contribute to the reason there was no more room for Paul to minister in the east (Rom. 15:23).
Friday, March 20, 2009
Tom Wright: Justification 6
This is my review of the sixth chapter of N. T. Wright's, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, Wright's response to John Piper's book, The Future of Justification.
Sorry it's taken so long. I have to work at least occasionally... :-)
Chapters reviewed thus far:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
And now, Chapter 6: "Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians." Only one more chapter (a biggie, Romans) and we're done.
Philippians
Wright sees 3:2-11 picking up and building on the Christological poem of 2:6-11. I personally don't see this in anything but largely coincidental connections. If some people tend to see the discontinuities between things, Wright's besetting sin is probably that he sees more connections than are there. While I don't side with them, it is no surprise that some scholars think 3:2ff might have come from a separate letter to the Philippians as they seem to come out of nowhere.
I'm not sure how to summarize this section other than interesting snippets. On 3:6, "as far as righteousness according to Law, [I was] blameless." Wright agrees with Dunn that this statement includes participation in the usual means of atonement. I still agree a little more with Stendahl than them here--Paul really felt like he did a pretty good job at Law-keeping before believing on Christ.
He looks a little at 4QMMT. He thinks the question "works of law" is answering is "How can you tell in the present who will be vindicated in the future?" He nods to Sanders that this was about staying in rather than getting in. "Works of law" were thus the works "which would function as a sign in the present that he was a part of the people who would be vindicated in the future" (125).
I feel a little uneasy about this definition on the lips of Wright, because on his lips words like "people" take on loaded meanings. For me, the phrase "works of Law" for Paul did, primarily, have to do with the more "Jewish" parts and they were about being acceptable to God within the context of those already in Israel. I admit, however, that Paul can go more abstract into more generic acts of goodness.
Wright rightly sees that moral holiness is important to Paul in Philippians 3, something I have repeatedly emphasized as a reason why those in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition should generally be friendly to the so called new perspective on Paul.
Corinthians
Wright looks at two passages here, 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. The first is a very general statement, "From him are you in Messiah Jesus, who became wisdom for us from God, yes, righteousness and sanctification and redemption." Wright rightly concludes that "Paul is not here trying to make a precise theological statement" (133).
As a side note, he says of sanctification that it is "in one sense their status as God's people, but is also, and more particularly, their actual life of holiness through the power of God working in them by the spirit." This would be true of the various ways Paul uses the word, although I suspect in this particular verse Paul is thinking more of their connection to God's holiness rather than their moral life.
Then he gets to the biggie: 2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made him who knew no sin to be sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God." This is one of those signature interpretations for Wright. The traditional interpretation of this verse is an interchange. Jesus had no sin and we did. Jesus had righteousness and we did not. God makes the one without sin--Jesus--to be sin and in exchange we who were with sin become the righteousness of God.
This interpretation seems so straightforward, so balanced, that when I first heard of Wright's interpretration, I scoffed at it. What is his interpretation? His interpretation is that becoming the righteousness of God is "that, in the Messiah, we might embody God's faithfulness, God's covenant faithfulness, God's action in reconciling the world to himself" (140). Gufaw, says I.
But I considered the argument and it grew on me. It grew on me for precisely the reasons Wright presents.
1) The idea of God's righteousness was not something Paul came up with. It had a history and it had a history in relation to God's relationship to His people. It referred to God's propensity not only to judge sin but also to His propensity to save His people. There is thus a bias in the language that makes a meaning consonant with this idea the most likely meaning, the default.
Just on linguistic grounds alone, then, we would expect the statement, "we become the righteousness of God" to mean that we establish concretely God's propensity to save His people and, indeed, the world.
2) Paul has indeed been talking about this subject for chapters. And he continues to talk about it. I'm reformulating Wright's arguments into my own arguments here to some extent.
Wright spends chapters talking about the ministry of reconciliation entrusted to Paul as a minister. The verses just preceding have that great verse about the ministry of reconciliation (that Wright does not think is directed at the Corinthians).
He has a few other arguments, but those two are the primary ones. He does mention the possible intertextuality with Isaiah 49:8.
Ephesians
This section seems somewhat of an aside to me, since Ephesians does not even use the word justification. It has the famous verse, "By grace you have been saved through faith," but it does not use Paul's characteristic language of justification by faith of Christ instead of works of law. One strength of the "new" perspective is that it has noticed this distinction for the most part. The "old" perspective, I have noticed, uses passages in Ephesians and 1 Timothy to read statements in the key letters, thus skewing them rather than letting them say what they say in their own right.
I think Wright's main point in this section is to show that soteriology and ecclesiology sit side by side in Ephesians.
On Monday, perhaps, the final review of this book, and then we're off to his Surprised by Hope with hopes to finish by Easter.
Sorry it's taken so long. I have to work at least occasionally... :-)
Chapters reviewed thus far:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
And now, Chapter 6: "Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians." Only one more chapter (a biggie, Romans) and we're done.
Philippians
Wright sees 3:2-11 picking up and building on the Christological poem of 2:6-11. I personally don't see this in anything but largely coincidental connections. If some people tend to see the discontinuities between things, Wright's besetting sin is probably that he sees more connections than are there. While I don't side with them, it is no surprise that some scholars think 3:2ff might have come from a separate letter to the Philippians as they seem to come out of nowhere.
I'm not sure how to summarize this section other than interesting snippets. On 3:6, "as far as righteousness according to Law, [I was] blameless." Wright agrees with Dunn that this statement includes participation in the usual means of atonement. I still agree a little more with Stendahl than them here--Paul really felt like he did a pretty good job at Law-keeping before believing on Christ.
He looks a little at 4QMMT. He thinks the question "works of law" is answering is "How can you tell in the present who will be vindicated in the future?" He nods to Sanders that this was about staying in rather than getting in. "Works of law" were thus the works "which would function as a sign in the present that he was a part of the people who would be vindicated in the future" (125).
I feel a little uneasy about this definition on the lips of Wright, because on his lips words like "people" take on loaded meanings. For me, the phrase "works of Law" for Paul did, primarily, have to do with the more "Jewish" parts and they were about being acceptable to God within the context of those already in Israel. I admit, however, that Paul can go more abstract into more generic acts of goodness.
Wright rightly sees that moral holiness is important to Paul in Philippians 3, something I have repeatedly emphasized as a reason why those in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition should generally be friendly to the so called new perspective on Paul.
Corinthians
Wright looks at two passages here, 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. The first is a very general statement, "From him are you in Messiah Jesus, who became wisdom for us from God, yes, righteousness and sanctification and redemption." Wright rightly concludes that "Paul is not here trying to make a precise theological statement" (133).
As a side note, he says of sanctification that it is "in one sense their status as God's people, but is also, and more particularly, their actual life of holiness through the power of God working in them by the spirit." This would be true of the various ways Paul uses the word, although I suspect in this particular verse Paul is thinking more of their connection to God's holiness rather than their moral life.
Then he gets to the biggie: 2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made him who knew no sin to be sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God." This is one of those signature interpretations for Wright. The traditional interpretation of this verse is an interchange. Jesus had no sin and we did. Jesus had righteousness and we did not. God makes the one without sin--Jesus--to be sin and in exchange we who were with sin become the righteousness of God.
This interpretation seems so straightforward, so balanced, that when I first heard of Wright's interpretration, I scoffed at it. What is his interpretation? His interpretation is that becoming the righteousness of God is "that, in the Messiah, we might embody God's faithfulness, God's covenant faithfulness, God's action in reconciling the world to himself" (140). Gufaw, says I.
But I considered the argument and it grew on me. It grew on me for precisely the reasons Wright presents.
1) The idea of God's righteousness was not something Paul came up with. It had a history and it had a history in relation to God's relationship to His people. It referred to God's propensity not only to judge sin but also to His propensity to save His people. There is thus a bias in the language that makes a meaning consonant with this idea the most likely meaning, the default.
Just on linguistic grounds alone, then, we would expect the statement, "we become the righteousness of God" to mean that we establish concretely God's propensity to save His people and, indeed, the world.
2) Paul has indeed been talking about this subject for chapters. And he continues to talk about it. I'm reformulating Wright's arguments into my own arguments here to some extent.
Wright spends chapters talking about the ministry of reconciliation entrusted to Paul as a minister. The verses just preceding have that great verse about the ministry of reconciliation (that Wright does not think is directed at the Corinthians).
He has a few other arguments, but those two are the primary ones. He does mention the possible intertextuality with Isaiah 49:8.
Ephesians
This section seems somewhat of an aside to me, since Ephesians does not even use the word justification. It has the famous verse, "By grace you have been saved through faith," but it does not use Paul's characteristic language of justification by faith of Christ instead of works of law. One strength of the "new" perspective is that it has noticed this distinction for the most part. The "old" perspective, I have noticed, uses passages in Ephesians and 1 Timothy to read statements in the key letters, thus skewing them rather than letting them say what they say in their own right.
I think Wright's main point in this section is to show that soteriology and ecclesiology sit side by side in Ephesians.
On Monday, perhaps, the final review of this book, and then we're off to his Surprised by Hope with hopes to finish by Easter.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Margaret Thrall's Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10
I have found Margaret Thrall's interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 quite exemplary, from her commentary in the ICC (International Critical Commentary) series. The interpretation of the first few verses is a wonderful case study in the uncertainty of the original meaning and how naive it is to suggest that we can get our theology from the Bible alone. At the same time, I think Thrall, who used to teach in Bangor at the University of Wales, gives us a great example of trying to weigh the evidence objectively and dispassionately.
Her interpretation of these ten verses is 44 pages long, most of it on just the first verse, and I only want to catalog her treatment of a couple key words and phrases.
A. "If our earthly house of dwelling should be destroyed...
Here she catalogs three different interpretations for what this phrase connotes:
1. Paul refers to the material body as the dwelling-place of the soul.
2. This phrase refers to a human's total earthly existence.
3. There is an allusion here to temple symbolism.
She primarily goes with #1, with a possibility of some of #3: "Certainly Paul is not setting out to propound a strictly dualistic anthropology, but he has used dualistic language in 4.16, and whilst he does not desire freedom from corporeal existence as such, in v. 4 he seems to be saying that he finds his present bodily life burdensome" (361).
B. ... we have a domicile from God... an eternal house not made with hands in the heavens
After she concludes that Paul refers to death when he speaks of the destruction of our "earthly house of dwelling," she now turns to what this "house from God" might be. She catalogs nine different interpretations:
1. the individual resurrection body
2. a heavenly habitation (like a "mansion" in the misinterpretation of John)
3. an interim heavenly body between death and the resurrection
4. the inner person
5. the body of Christ in an ecclesiological sense
6. the heavenly temple
7. the resurrection body of Christ
8. the coming, future age
9. the heavenly dimension of our current existence
Thrall concludes the first option: "In itself it poses the fewest problems. This decision must, however, be seen as provisional, since we need also to consider how it would fit the remainder of the present verse and the section as a whole, and, in addition, to discuss the relationship between this understanding of 2 Cor. 5:1b and Paul's eschatological outlook in 1 Corinthians 15" (367-68).
C. "we have a domicile from God...
Next she discusses the present tense here, namely, the fact that "the natural way of understanding the time to which it refers is to suppose that it coincides with the time reference of καταλυθῇ: reception of the heavenly dwelling is immediately consequent upon the dissolution of the earthly house" (368). The problem with this interpretation is that in 1 Corinthians 15:23, "it is not at death that the resurrection body is bestowed but at the Parousia" (368).
She catalogs four suggested ways of resolving the problem:
1. Believers "have" the spiritual body already in the sense that it is already in the mind of God or in a closet in heaven (my wording).
2. This is proleptic language--something so certain in the future that we can say we already have it in the present.
3. The resurrection body will be received immediately after death.
4. There is no temporal connotation it is a statement of general truth.
Thrall concludes that 3 is the most natural reading, although she admits of the possibility of #4: "We may provisionally conclude that in 5.1 Paul may express his confidence that, should a believer die before the Parousia, he will at that moment come into possession of a permanent (αἰώνιον), spiritual (ἀχειροποίητον), and heavenly (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) form of existence. In view of the explicit contrast with the οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, this must be seen as somatic existence, and hence as the σῶμα πνευματικόν" (370).
D. ... we will not be found naked.
Thrall mentions two basic possibilities for what Paul means here when he speaks of not wanting to be found naked but to be clothed.
1. "Naked" may refer to the soul stripped of its earthly body.
2. The image of nakedness may be used in a moral sense, as a metaphor of shame.
Because Thrall has found more likely in 5:1 the idea of being clothed with the resurrection body immediately at death, she goes with #2.
E. We are bold, wishing more to be away from our bodily home and at home with the Lord (5:8; by the way, these transations by the capital letters are mine rather than hers; the ICC comments on the Greek text, not on the English).
In the intervening verses, Thrall has argued that expressions like "taking off clothes" most likely refer to death (she goes through 5 options). So when she gets to this verse, she says, "Now, it would seem, he expresses a positive preference for departure from bodily existence and transition to the home with the Lord" (389).
Here is her conclusion: "We conclude, then, that it is, after all, death to which ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος refers. It is then natural to suppose that the ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον follows immediately upon it. It is true that in 1 Th 4.17 it is at the Parousia that the believer goes to be with Christ, and that in 1 Cor 13.12 the vision 'face to face' ... belongs to the post-Parousia experience. But the present passage must first be interpreted in its own terms" (391).
She continues, "Also, it is not clear why Paul should express a preference for death followed by a period of 'sleep' for the spirit, which is the prospect envisaged in 1 Th 4.13 and 1 Cor 15.18. In Phil 1.23, moreover, departure from this life appears to be followed immediately by existence with Christ."
I am calling this the Thrall/Bruce interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. It seems to imply that Paul underwent some transition in his thinking on this subject in the time between 1 and 2 Corinthians. In this scenario, Paul in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians saw the time between death and resurrection as a time of "sleep" waiting new embodiment at the time of Christ's return. But then in 2 Corinthians and then later in Philippians, Paul sees believers getting a resurrection body immediately at death (on 392 Thrall suggests maybe the transformation process now begins immediately at death and is radically accelerated by being in the Lord's presence).
Yesterday I looked at Romans 6-8 and didn't find anything that clearly contradicted this scenario, since in any case the resurrection body still awaits the parousia for those who are still alive. Only the dead would already have theirs, in this scenario.
In my opinion, however, some of Philippians is very hard to read on this scenario, on which I hope to post tomorrow.
P.S. Again, for those who do not have Logos software, can you see the Greek font above? Thanks Bob for following up. You don't have logos, right?
Her interpretation of these ten verses is 44 pages long, most of it on just the first verse, and I only want to catalog her treatment of a couple key words and phrases.
A. "If our earthly house of dwelling should be destroyed...
Here she catalogs three different interpretations for what this phrase connotes:
1. Paul refers to the material body as the dwelling-place of the soul.
2. This phrase refers to a human's total earthly existence.
3. There is an allusion here to temple symbolism.
She primarily goes with #1, with a possibility of some of #3: "Certainly Paul is not setting out to propound a strictly dualistic anthropology, but he has used dualistic language in 4.16, and whilst he does not desire freedom from corporeal existence as such, in v. 4 he seems to be saying that he finds his present bodily life burdensome" (361).
B. ... we have a domicile from God... an eternal house not made with hands in the heavens
After she concludes that Paul refers to death when he speaks of the destruction of our "earthly house of dwelling," she now turns to what this "house from God" might be. She catalogs nine different interpretations:
1. the individual resurrection body
2. a heavenly habitation (like a "mansion" in the misinterpretation of John)
3. an interim heavenly body between death and the resurrection
4. the inner person
5. the body of Christ in an ecclesiological sense
6. the heavenly temple
7. the resurrection body of Christ
8. the coming, future age
9. the heavenly dimension of our current existence
Thrall concludes the first option: "In itself it poses the fewest problems. This decision must, however, be seen as provisional, since we need also to consider how it would fit the remainder of the present verse and the section as a whole, and, in addition, to discuss the relationship between this understanding of 2 Cor. 5:1b and Paul's eschatological outlook in 1 Corinthians 15" (367-68).
C. "we have a domicile from God...
Next she discusses the present tense here, namely, the fact that "the natural way of understanding the time to which it refers is to suppose that it coincides with the time reference of καταλυθῇ: reception of the heavenly dwelling is immediately consequent upon the dissolution of the earthly house" (368). The problem with this interpretation is that in 1 Corinthians 15:23, "it is not at death that the resurrection body is bestowed but at the Parousia" (368).
She catalogs four suggested ways of resolving the problem:
1. Believers "have" the spiritual body already in the sense that it is already in the mind of God or in a closet in heaven (my wording).
2. This is proleptic language--something so certain in the future that we can say we already have it in the present.
3. The resurrection body will be received immediately after death.
4. There is no temporal connotation it is a statement of general truth.
Thrall concludes that 3 is the most natural reading, although she admits of the possibility of #4: "We may provisionally conclude that in 5.1 Paul may express his confidence that, should a believer die before the Parousia, he will at that moment come into possession of a permanent (αἰώνιον), spiritual (ἀχειροποίητον), and heavenly (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) form of existence. In view of the explicit contrast with the οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, this must be seen as somatic existence, and hence as the σῶμα πνευματικόν" (370).
D. ... we will not be found naked.
Thrall mentions two basic possibilities for what Paul means here when he speaks of not wanting to be found naked but to be clothed.
1. "Naked" may refer to the soul stripped of its earthly body.
2. The image of nakedness may be used in a moral sense, as a metaphor of shame.
Because Thrall has found more likely in 5:1 the idea of being clothed with the resurrection body immediately at death, she goes with #2.
E. We are bold, wishing more to be away from our bodily home and at home with the Lord (5:8; by the way, these transations by the capital letters are mine rather than hers; the ICC comments on the Greek text, not on the English).
In the intervening verses, Thrall has argued that expressions like "taking off clothes" most likely refer to death (she goes through 5 options). So when she gets to this verse, she says, "Now, it would seem, he expresses a positive preference for departure from bodily existence and transition to the home with the Lord" (389).
Here is her conclusion: "We conclude, then, that it is, after all, death to which ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος refers. It is then natural to suppose that the ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον follows immediately upon it. It is true that in 1 Th 4.17 it is at the Parousia that the believer goes to be with Christ, and that in 1 Cor 13.12 the vision 'face to face' ... belongs to the post-Parousia experience. But the present passage must first be interpreted in its own terms" (391).
She continues, "Also, it is not clear why Paul should express a preference for death followed by a period of 'sleep' for the spirit, which is the prospect envisaged in 1 Th 4.13 and 1 Cor 15.18. In Phil 1.23, moreover, departure from this life appears to be followed immediately by existence with Christ."
I am calling this the Thrall/Bruce interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. It seems to imply that Paul underwent some transition in his thinking on this subject in the time between 1 and 2 Corinthians. In this scenario, Paul in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians saw the time between death and resurrection as a time of "sleep" waiting new embodiment at the time of Christ's return. But then in 2 Corinthians and then later in Philippians, Paul sees believers getting a resurrection body immediately at death (on 392 Thrall suggests maybe the transformation process now begins immediately at death and is radically accelerated by being in the Lord's presence).
Yesterday I looked at Romans 6-8 and didn't find anything that clearly contradicted this scenario, since in any case the resurrection body still awaits the parousia for those who are still alive. Only the dead would already have theirs, in this scenario.
In my opinion, however, some of Philippians is very hard to read on this scenario, on which I hope to post tomorrow.
P.S. Again, for those who do not have Logos software, can you see the Greek font above? Thanks Bob for following up. You don't have logos, right?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Sin and 2 Corinthians 12-13
So we finish 2 Corinthians with chapters 12-13.
In 12:7 Paul speaks of a thorn in the flesh that God gave him so that he would not become too proud at the fact that he had incredible spiritual experiences. There is a perverse interpretation that sometimes surfaces about this being flesh in a spiritual sense--some sin Paul struggled with. But this does not fit with Paul's theology elsewhere and in fact Paul likens it to a weakness or hardship. Given the comments Paul makes about his eyes in Galatians, I go with a physical problem here.
In 12:13 Paul is being ironic. He asks the Corinthians to forgive the injustice (adikia) he did them for relying on support from other churches rather than from them.
12:20-21 give us a number of things that Paul clearly considers to be sin. In fact perhaps he even coins a word (proamartano), "to sin previously." He refers to wrongs done previously: uncleanness, sexual immorality, and licentiousness. In the previous verse he has mentioned strife, jealousy, wraths, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and fracture.
13:5 mentions the possibility that they are unproven (adokimos). Paul prays that they will not do bad (kakos) but good (kalos).
Here endeth 2 Corinthians
In 12:7 Paul speaks of a thorn in the flesh that God gave him so that he would not become too proud at the fact that he had incredible spiritual experiences. There is a perverse interpretation that sometimes surfaces about this being flesh in a spiritual sense--some sin Paul struggled with. But this does not fit with Paul's theology elsewhere and in fact Paul likens it to a weakness or hardship. Given the comments Paul makes about his eyes in Galatians, I go with a physical problem here.
In 12:13 Paul is being ironic. He asks the Corinthians to forgive the injustice (adikia) he did them for relying on support from other churches rather than from them.
12:20-21 give us a number of things that Paul clearly considers to be sin. In fact perhaps he even coins a word (proamartano), "to sin previously." He refers to wrongs done previously: uncleanness, sexual immorality, and licentiousness. In the previous verse he has mentioned strife, jealousy, wraths, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and fracture.
13:5 mentions the possibility that they are unproven (adokimos). Paul prays that they will not do bad (kakos) but good (kalos).
Here endeth 2 Corinthians
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Sin in 2 Corinthians 10-11
The tone of 2 Corinthians changes significantly at chapter 10. Since this new tone comes out of the blue and seems to conflict with what Paul has said in the first 9 chapters, perhaps most scholars conclude that these are from a different letter Paul sent.
10:6 is a bizarre verse to me, but perhaps I do not understand it. "Holding in preparation to punish every disobedience whenever your obedience should be fulfilled." Is Paul saying that when those who are "in" are under obedience, those who are "out" will be punished? Very puzzling.
11:3 mentions the deception of Eve by the serpent. Unlike her, Paul does not want their thoughts to be led astray from sincerity and purity toward Christ.
The word sin (hamartia) appears in 11:7: "Or have I done sin, humbling myself in order that you might be exalted." It seems to have the meaning, "Did I do wrong, when I did this..."
Paul talks about how Satan disguises himself as an angel of light in 11:14, making it no surprise that his servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Here righteousness seems to have its more conventional sense of goodness, rightness. "whose end will be according to their deeds" (11:15).
In 11:29, Paul mentions individuals being scandalized (skandalizo), a relevant word in relation to sin.
10:6 is a bizarre verse to me, but perhaps I do not understand it. "Holding in preparation to punish every disobedience whenever your obedience should be fulfilled." Is Paul saying that when those who are "in" are under obedience, those who are "out" will be punished? Very puzzling.
11:3 mentions the deception of Eve by the serpent. Unlike her, Paul does not want their thoughts to be led astray from sincerity and purity toward Christ.
The word sin (hamartia) appears in 11:7: "Or have I done sin, humbling myself in order that you might be exalted." It seems to have the meaning, "Did I do wrong, when I did this..."
Paul talks about how Satan disguises himself as an angel of light in 11:14, making it no surprise that his servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Here righteousness seems to have its more conventional sense of goodness, rightness. "whose end will be according to their deeds" (11:15).
In 11:29, Paul mentions individuals being scandalized (skandalizo), a relevant word in relation to sin.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Sin in 1 Corinthians 7-9
Nothing particularly striking in these chapters, but some variety of words and some hints of their meanings.
In 7:2 Paul says that he and his coworkers have "wronged no one." The word here is adikeo, the noun form of which is "unrighteousness." We would expect the root to have some sense like "to do unjustly," but it seems to differ little at this point from hamartano when it means to wrong someone or "sin against" someone.
2 Corinthians 7 is one of those few places where Paul talks about repentance. I agree with Stendahl that repentance did not feature large in Paul's subconscious. But it is there. In 7:9-10 Paul talks about how he initially regreted sending them a harsh letter of rebuke. But since they "changed their attitude" or repented as a result, he decided he did not regret sending it: "For grief in relation to God brings about repentance leading to a salvation without regret" (7:10).
Although the exact situation is sketchy, Paul uses the same word as in 7:2 in relation to what someone at Corinth had done. Someone had wronged someone (adikeo) and someone had been wronged (adikeo) (7:12). But by disciplining the individual, the community showed itself to be pure (hagnos) in the matter (7:11).
Chapters 8-9 of course deal with the offering that Paul is collecting to take to Jerusalem. Some argue that these chapters might be one or even two letters from Paul sent on separate occasions from 1-7. In the absence of compelling evidence, I've stuck with them being part of the same letter as 1-7.
In 8:20 Paul uses a word for blame or find fault (momeo).
In 9:8 gives Paul's wish that the Corinthians might abound in "every good work." Paul equates this with God sowing righteousness in the world, and he implies that the good works of the Corinthians are their righteousness (9:10).
In 9:13 Paul says that they will glorify God by their obedience to the confession towards the gospel of the Christ.
In 7:2 Paul says that he and his coworkers have "wronged no one." The word here is adikeo, the noun form of which is "unrighteousness." We would expect the root to have some sense like "to do unjustly," but it seems to differ little at this point from hamartano when it means to wrong someone or "sin against" someone.
2 Corinthians 7 is one of those few places where Paul talks about repentance. I agree with Stendahl that repentance did not feature large in Paul's subconscious. But it is there. In 7:9-10 Paul talks about how he initially regreted sending them a harsh letter of rebuke. But since they "changed their attitude" or repented as a result, he decided he did not regret sending it: "For grief in relation to God brings about repentance leading to a salvation without regret" (7:10).
Although the exact situation is sketchy, Paul uses the same word as in 7:2 in relation to what someone at Corinth had done. Someone had wronged someone (adikeo) and someone had been wronged (adikeo) (7:12). But by disciplining the individual, the community showed itself to be pure (hagnos) in the matter (7:11).
Chapters 8-9 of course deal with the offering that Paul is collecting to take to Jerusalem. Some argue that these chapters might be one or even two letters from Paul sent on separate occasions from 1-7. In the absence of compelling evidence, I've stuck with them being part of the same letter as 1-7.
In 8:20 Paul uses a word for blame or find fault (momeo).
In 9:8 gives Paul's wish that the Corinthians might abound in "every good work." Paul equates this with God sowing righteousness in the world, and he implies that the good works of the Corinthians are their righteousness (9:10).
In 9:13 Paul says that they will glorify God by their obedience to the confession towards the gospel of the Christ.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Sin in 2 Corinthians 5-6
This chapter is quite significant for the topics we've been exploring.
5:10 is especially important: "It is necessary for all of us to appear before the judgment seat of the Christ so that each may be paid back with respect to the things done through the body, whether good or bad."
This verse seems to indicate a judgment by works at the final judgment both for believers and non-believers. Interesting to me, it does not exactly say that all the dead will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, although one could take the contrast with the body to indicate that the dead are being judged. In any case, the verse plays into 1 Corinthians 3 and the idea that even the righteous might experience some purgation at the time of judgment for their works.
5:14 says that one died for all. Here Paul focuses on Christ's death rather than resurrection as that which was key. Believers accordingly live differently, namely, for Christ (5:15).
5:19 mentions transgressions (paraptoma)--we haven't seen these words for a while. Paul says that in Christ God was "not reckoning their [the world's] transgressions to them." This is presented at this point almost as a governmental decision. God decides that Christ's death will suffice.
5:21 is of course a classic text: "The one who had not known sin, for us God made sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him." N. T. Wright has argued, counterintuitively to us, that the righteousness of God here is not a reference to us becoming righteous but to God's righteousness being shown by way of Christ's death for sins.
Although I have doubts, I fall off the log with Wright. Two reasons:
1. I accept what I think is the consensus that "the righteousness of God" was a phrase with a history in Judaism (see especially middle Isaiah, but also the Dead Sea Scrolls). It particularly refered to God's propensity to save His people, but also His propensity to justice. Thus,
2. I think this verse is basically saying the same thing as Romans 3:24-25: "being declared innocent freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God offered as an atoning sacrifice, in faithfulness, by means of Christ's blood, to demonstrate His righteousness even though he passed over the sins that had previously been committed. God did this because of his forebearance to demonstrate His righteousness at this present time, so that he might be just [righteous] and the one who justifies [declares righteous] the person who has the faith that Jesus had."
So 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a metonymy. Christ became sin or rather an offering for sin, so that our salvation would demonstrate God's righteousness (cf. Rom. 1:16-17).
2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is an odd passage. In comes out of nowhere and disappears just as suddenly. You can read straight from 6:13 to 7:2 and not miss anything. Although there is no textual evidence for it, I strongly suspect it did not originally go here, even if I have no problem believing that it comes from Paul--somewhere.
It has much relevant to our study. Unbelievers are associated with wickedness, while believers with righteousness (6:14). Unbelievers are associated with Belial. Paul divides the world into two and only two camps: in and out.
7:1 is a strong statement of the need for purity: "Let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, completing holiness in the fear of God." The previous verses have spoken rather vaguely of coming out from them and being separate and of not touching any unclean thing. The most concrete referent is to temples of idols (6:16).
P.S. 5:5
5:10 is especially important: "It is necessary for all of us to appear before the judgment seat of the Christ so that each may be paid back with respect to the things done through the body, whether good or bad."
This verse seems to indicate a judgment by works at the final judgment both for believers and non-believers. Interesting to me, it does not exactly say that all the dead will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, although one could take the contrast with the body to indicate that the dead are being judged. In any case, the verse plays into 1 Corinthians 3 and the idea that even the righteous might experience some purgation at the time of judgment for their works.
5:14 says that one died for all. Here Paul focuses on Christ's death rather than resurrection as that which was key. Believers accordingly live differently, namely, for Christ (5:15).
5:19 mentions transgressions (paraptoma)--we haven't seen these words for a while. Paul says that in Christ God was "not reckoning their [the world's] transgressions to them." This is presented at this point almost as a governmental decision. God decides that Christ's death will suffice.
5:21 is of course a classic text: "The one who had not known sin, for us God made sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him." N. T. Wright has argued, counterintuitively to us, that the righteousness of God here is not a reference to us becoming righteous but to God's righteousness being shown by way of Christ's death for sins.
Although I have doubts, I fall off the log with Wright. Two reasons:
1. I accept what I think is the consensus that "the righteousness of God" was a phrase with a history in Judaism (see especially middle Isaiah, but also the Dead Sea Scrolls). It particularly refered to God's propensity to save His people, but also His propensity to justice. Thus,
2. I think this verse is basically saying the same thing as Romans 3:24-25: "being declared innocent freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God offered as an atoning sacrifice, in faithfulness, by means of Christ's blood, to demonstrate His righteousness even though he passed over the sins that had previously been committed. God did this because of his forebearance to demonstrate His righteousness at this present time, so that he might be just [righteous] and the one who justifies [declares righteous] the person who has the faith that Jesus had."
So 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a metonymy. Christ became sin or rather an offering for sin, so that our salvation would demonstrate God's righteousness (cf. Rom. 1:16-17).
2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is an odd passage. In comes out of nowhere and disappears just as suddenly. You can read straight from 6:13 to 7:2 and not miss anything. Although there is no textual evidence for it, I strongly suspect it did not originally go here, even if I have no problem believing that it comes from Paul--somewhere.
It has much relevant to our study. Unbelievers are associated with wickedness, while believers with righteousness (6:14). Unbelievers are associated with Belial. Paul divides the world into two and only two camps: in and out.
7:1 is a strong statement of the need for purity: "Let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, completing holiness in the fear of God." The previous verses have spoken rather vaguely of coming out from them and being separate and of not touching any unclean thing. The most concrete referent is to temples of idols (6:16).
P.S. 5:5
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sin in 2 Corinthians 3-4
2 Corinthians 3 does not discuss sin directly. Paul does comment that the competence he has is "through the Christ toward the God" (3:4). He also speaks of the new covenant as a matter of the Spirit, which gives a glory that does not fade, unlike the glory of the law.
Paul refers to the "ministry of condemnation" in association with the law, surely an allusion to the theology he will develop in Romans 5-8. The new covenant of the Spirit is by contrast a "ministry of righteousness."
In 2 Corinthians 4:3 indicates that those to whom the gospel is veiled are perishing. The god of this world has blinded them (4:4).
Chapter 5 will give us more juicy tidbits!
Paul refers to the "ministry of condemnation" in association with the law, surely an allusion to the theology he will develop in Romans 5-8. The new covenant of the Spirit is by contrast a "ministry of righteousness."
In 2 Corinthians 4:3 indicates that those to whom the gospel is veiled are perishing. The god of this world has blinded them (4:4).
Chapter 5 will give us more juicy tidbits!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Sin in 2 Corinthians 1-2
I would place 2 Corinthians not long after Philippians, not long after Paul was released from imprisonment in Ephesus, written from Macedonia.
In the first chapter we have talk of boasting on the Day of the Lord. Paul boasts that he and his coworkers have behaved with holiness and godly sincerity, by the grace of God (1:12). He believes that the Corinthians will be proud of them at the Day (1:14).
1:22 mentions the Holy Spirit as the seal of God's ownership on a believer. We know from elsewhere that the Holy Spirit empowers a believer in relation to the flesh.
2:5-11 give us a snippet of Paul's saga with the Corinthians over a particular wrongdoer. Paul encourages reconciliation and reaffirmation of love toward the person. The majority have also punished this person in some way. The saga bears on how sin is disciplined in the church. This is also one of the few places in Paul's writings where he talks about forgiveness, which is not a major category in his written correspondence.
2:15-16 divide the world into those who are going to be saved and those who are going to perish, with life and death associated with each respectively.
In the first chapter we have talk of boasting on the Day of the Lord. Paul boasts that he and his coworkers have behaved with holiness and godly sincerity, by the grace of God (1:12). He believes that the Corinthians will be proud of them at the Day (1:14).
1:22 mentions the Holy Spirit as the seal of God's ownership on a believer. We know from elsewhere that the Holy Spirit empowers a believer in relation to the flesh.
2:5-11 give us a snippet of Paul's saga with the Corinthians over a particular wrongdoer. Paul encourages reconciliation and reaffirmation of love toward the person. The majority have also punished this person in some way. The saga bears on how sin is disciplined in the church. This is also one of the few places in Paul's writings where he talks about forgiveness, which is not a major category in his written correspondence.
2:15-16 divide the world into those who are going to be saved and those who are going to perish, with life and death associated with each respectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
