Did Paul consider Jesus as example of human piety, humility and compassion?

[Giuseppe]

Often, in the modern (Gospel-affected) portraits of the crucifixion, Jesus on the cross is represented as a humble and obscure figure, really, a ''poor Christ''. I see that this is the portrait given by Hebrews, too.


Beyond for a moment the place of the crucifixion, I ask:

Did Paul imagine him so, too?

Or did Paul consider the crucifixion of Jesus as a very quick act, intended only to hide his identity in the eyes of his executioners?

In this latter case, there is not even the time to realize that Jesus suffered a lot on the cross, to feel pity and compassion about his pain during the death, etc. The crucifixion is only a ''hit and run''.


I think that what does the difference is the same difference between the feature of the expiatory sacrifice (where the pain of Jesus has to be emphasized by need) and the feature of the ransom (where the feature of the 'toccata e fuga'' has to be emphasized by need).

was Paul more sensitive to the death of Jesus as clear expiatory sacrifice or to the death of Jesus as hidden ransom?

[Giuseppe]

If the feature of the expiatory sacrifice was brandished with pride by the Pillars (enemies of Paul in Galatia), then the meaning of the words of Paul in Galatians 3:1

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified

...is clearly the following:

1) the emissaries of the Pillars in Galatia had staged a sacred drama to emphasize the supreme pain suffered by Jesus on the cross as an expiatory sacrifice.

2) the Galatians got excited in seeing the pain of Jesus on the cross, and therefore more inclined to accept the Pillars's anti-pauline Gospel.

3) therefore, Paul could well say that the Galatians were ''foolish!''.

As corollary, Paul saw the crucifixion as a painless event, therefore anticipating (against the Pillars) the docetic view of the death of Jesus (where the true Christ did not really suffer).

[Ben C. Smith]

As corollary, Paul saw the crucifixion as a painless event....

No way, unless you want to argue for interpolations:

Romans 8.17: 17 ...and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.

2 Corinthians 1.5: 5 For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.

Philippians 3.10: 10 ...that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death....

[Ben C. Smith]

Not to mention that crucifixion was known as a painful way to die; the pain was a huge part of the rationale behind it, along with the humiliation. To say that Christ was crucified without pain, one would (like the docetics) have to make the painless part explicit; otherwise the pain would be assumed.

[Giuseppe]

I am not saying that "Christ was crucified without pain". Only, that the emphasis by Paul was deliberately not on the his pain. The pain was a Trojan Horse to make enter the Pillars's claims.

Another possibility that doesn't exclude what I said above:

The Galatians could be deceived just because they saw Jesus as "clearly" crucified (with all the relative pain). Was the crucifixion for Paul a hidden event, one that couldn't be revealed under the light of the sun, not even by a sacred drama?