Paul --- A Rock and a Hard Place

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Whence do you think Paul got the idea that Jesus's death was for anybody?

No, I did not say that. Paul implied Jesus died for Christians.
However Jesus dying for Christians does not say it is for atonement of their sins.

I think this section of 1 Corinthians is in response to a Wisdom theology favored by some faction(s) in the Corinthian church; Paul's concepts are moderated to respond to this theology. (I am not prepared to defend this position at this time, as I am currently traveling. But it is one that has been noted and defended rather many times before in various ways.)

Well, I do not agree with that. There is no evidence Paul was dealing with "a Wisdom theology favored by some faction(s) in the Corinthian church".

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Whence do you think Paul got the idea that Jesus's death was for anybody?

No, I did not say that. Paul implied Jesus died for Christians.
However Jesus dying for Christians does not say it is for atonement of their sins.

I think you misunderstood my use of "anybody", which can be restricted to Christians or extended to all, depending upon your interpretation; I was leaving it open.

What do you think it meant to Paul at this time that Jesus died for people/Christians? In what sense was Jesus' death for them? If not for their sins, then why?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

What do you think it meant to Paul at this time that Jesus died for people/Christians? In what sense was Jesus' death for them? If not for their sins, then why?

I do not know. Obviously to benefit the "us". But how?
Paul had the opportunity to at least allude to the death for atonement of sins in 1 Cor 1-3 but did not. Instead he said Christ crucified is "explained" through the foolishness, and the power and the (hidden) wisdom of God.
In 1 Cor 2, Paul is also appealing to the Holy Spirit to provide explanations. In 1 Cor 3, he admitted that his message was very minimal (verses 6 & 10). In verse 10, he accepted that individuals added up on this initial message.
In 1 Cor 4:1, Paul & helpers are said by Paul to be stewards of the mysteries of God, without explaining earlier what are these mysteries.

Overall Paul said that "Christ crucified" does not make any sense according to human wisdom but do not offer any explanation on how that would make sense, but he will do just that in his next letters:
2Co5:19a "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them ..."
2Co5:21a "God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us ..."
Gal1:3b-4a "... our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age ..."
Ro3:23-25 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,"
Ro4:25a "[Christ] who was delivered up because of our offenses, ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

What do you think it meant to Paul at this time that Jesus died for people/Christians? In what sense was Jesus' death for them? If not for their sins, then why?

I do not know. Obviously to benefit the "us". But how?
Paul had the opportunity to at least allude to the death for atonement of sins in 1 Cor 1-3 but did not. Instead he said Christ crucified is "explained" through the foolishness, and the power and the (hidden) wisdom of God.

I think that, when Paul says that Christ is our justification (righteousness), he is hearkening back to the Suffering Servant justifying the many. And I think that, when Paul says that Christ is our redemption, he is saying that Christ redeemed us from sin and the power of death. What do you think justification and redemption mean, if not that?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I think that, when Paul says that Christ is our justification (righteousness), he is hearkening back to the Suffering Servant justifying the many. And I think that, when Paul says that Christ is our redemption, he is saying that Christ redeemed us from sin and the power of death. What do you think justification and redemption mean, if not that?

1 Cor 1:30 "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;"
I do not see any atonement of sins here. Yes "redemption" may allude to salvation, but no explication on how and why.
And "redemption" and "righteousness" is not necessarily tied up to Jesus' death here. Actually, Christ Jesus seems to refer to the heavenly one who would provide all that good stuff from heaven.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I think that, when Paul says that Christ is our justification (righteousness), he is hearkening back to the Suffering Servant justifying the many. And I think that, when Paul says that Christ is our redemption, he is saying that Christ redeemed us from sin and the power of death. What do you think justification and redemption mean, if not that?

1 Cor 1:30 "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;"
I do not see any atonement of sins here. Yes "redemption" may allude to salvation, but no explication on how and why.
And "redemption" and "righteousness" is not necessarily tied up to Jesus' death here. Actually, Christ Jesus seems to refer to the heavenly one who would provide all that good stuff from heaven.

Well, we obviously differ on that. I think that justification and redemption from sins were in place right from the beginning in Paul's thought, and that he did not refer to them very clearly in 1 Thessalonians because epistles are, by their very nature, occasional, and his intended topics gave him little occasion in that epistle. Even so, however, there is 1 Thessalonians 1.10, which has Jesus delivering us from the wrath to come. Do you think that this wrath is anything but the wrath of God exuded throughout the Hebrew scriptures against sinful humans, the equivalent of the vengeance of God in 4.6 against things such as sexual immorality? It seems clear even in this epistle that Jesus is saving somebody from the wrath that God reserves for sinners, and that this salvation derives from his death. In other words, Jesus died in order to save people from the results of their sin.

You wanted an allusion to those concepts in 1 Corinthians 1-3, and 1.20 is exactly that: an allusion. Paul does not need to always give the "how and why" of salvation, because he is writing to people to whom he has already preached: allusions are enough.

You admit that you do not know why, according to Paul, Jesus died (or had to die) for people/Christians in early Pauline thought. But I think that the options are pretty limited here (can you even think of any possibilities besides salvation from sin and its results?), and it seems unlikely that anybody would preach the efficacy of Jesus' death without first knowing what it was that his death accomplished. I can easily allow for him to hold this idea in general terms at first and let it get more specific over time; but your notion does not offer even a general answer to the question: why (for Paul) did Jesus (have to) die?

[TedM]

I know you two are discussing Paul's use of Isaiah 53 which is appropriate for this thread as part of the issue, but I'll again toss in the idea that the gospels seem to be very aware of it with how Jesus is portrayed and the events surrounding the crucifixion and burial

His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death

If the Passion Narrative existed around or soon after the time of Paul it seems to be fairly unlikely that Paul was unaware of the link in the Narrative to Isaiah 53. Given the fact that Paul relied SO heavily on the later Isaiah passages for his Gospel of salvation for all, it seems he must have known of it. Also referring to Jesus as the Paschal lamb, the one who died for sins, and not being recognized for who he was seems a strong link.

[Ben C. Smith]

I know you two are discussing Paul's use of Isaiah 53 which is appropriate for this thread as part of the issue, but I'll again toss in the idea that the gospels seem to be very aware of it with how Jesus is portrayed and the events surrounding the crucifixion and burial

His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death

If the Passion Narrative existed around or soon after the time of Paul it seems to be fairly unlikely that Paul was unaware of the link in the Narrative to Isaiah 53. Given the fact that Paul relied SO heavily on the later Isaiah passages for his Gospel of salvation for all, it seems he must have known of it. Also referring to Jesus as the Paschal lamb, the one who died for sins, and not being recognized for who he was seems a strong link.

How certain are you that a reasonably complete, connected passion narrative was in place before Paul wrote?

[TedM]

How certain are you that a reasonably complete, connected passion narrative was in place before Paul wrote?

Not very at all. It could have first begun with GMark, perhaps inspired in part from themes in Paul's overall gospel message. Or Paul could have been well aware of it, or the basic elements of it, and based his gospel on it. I don't think it is a coincidence that the basic themes are in common and if the narrative in Mark utilized elements from Isaiah 53 then I doubt that Paul was unaware of how well that chapter applied to his version of the gospel, despite him not mentioning details of the Passion Narrative.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

why (for Paul) did Jesus (have to) die?

I don't know. Paul, most likely, did not elaborate on that in his mind.
One explanation would be "[Jesus Christ] died for us so that whether we wake or sleep we might live with him." (1 Th 5:10). But then, 'how' and 'why' is not obvious. But the same thing can be said about "Jesus Christ died for us so that we might be atoned from our sins". There is no clear connection between a sacrifice and atonement of sins for others.
As a matter of fact, the author of Hebrews (Apollos of Alexandria according to my study) took more than half of his epistle in order to explain it. But Paul never did even if later he adopted without ambiguity "Jesus died for our sins".
That's one of several reasons why I think Paul took that notion from 'Hebrews' and adopted it.
I consider 1 Thessalonians and 1a Corinthians (1:10-4:21) and 1b Corinthians (9:1-27) as written before Hebrews (according to my study, our canonical epistle 1 Corinthians is a combination of three different epistles http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html).
I find rather telling that Paul never used the words "sin(s)", "sinful" and "sinner(s)" in these three epistles (accepting 1 Th 2:16 is part of an interpolation). But he will do that a lot, later. And never in these early three epistles, his explanation of the meaning of the Cross and "Christ crucified" alluded to atonement of sins. Actually, he said that meaning was hidden.

Cordially, Bernard