for
1 Corinthians 15:1-11
In this passage, we have one of the earliest crystalizations of (Pauline) Christianity in the first century - small, condensed summaries like this would become for the early church like creedal statements and rules of faith. Selections like this would be read or recited at baptism, and formulas like this start to become common in Christian literature within the first hundred years.
Also, we see developing here an atonement understanding of the cross - an idea that is largely absent from the gospels, and so must be developing independently from the communities that produced those texts. This theology of the cross holds that our sins must be accounted for - a debt to be paid - and since humans in our smallness are unable to pay the debt, and because God loves us regardless, God took it upon Godself (in Jesus) to pay the debt with a blood sacrifice on the cross. (This idea actually dates back to medieval Christianity, and as such is somewhat grafted on Paul's theology, but it fits so well that Christians today can hardly imagine Paul saying anything else.)
Paul certifies that "Christ died for our sins" (v 3), and "for" will come to mean "in the place of". The preposition "for" (Gk: huper) in the genitive case can indeed mean "for (the sake of)" in a causal sense. Another meaning, "instead," also leans toward atonement - Jesus suffered instead of us. Yet another meaning, "regarding," is a little more slippery.
When George Bush says he is waging war for me - does that mean I forced him, or that he is doing it because of something I've done or am? Or, rather, does it mean that he is doing partly as a result of how we live, a somewhat direct result of our lifestyle and values?
Might Jesus have been crucified regarding our sins - our lifestyle and values as a backdrop and context for his death? It certainly seems reasonable: we make decisions every day that condemn the gospel to death (and thankfully it continues to rise again, as Paul confesses). Many of us have chosen our allegiances - Nation, Profit, Comfort, Prestige, Money-as-Security, Exclusive-notions-of-Family, and so on. Especially we North Americans, we crucify Jesus a thousand times a day, in our homes and businesses and commutes, and all over the world - we export crucifixion with our greed, guns and terror-power. But the gospel keeps on rising, and meeting us here again.
In one sense, Jesus died for us so we wouldn't have to - and in effect, we don't have to do much of anything at all to be received into the Kingdom. Atonement theology, in other words, seems like cheap grace.
In another sense, Jesus died because of our lifestyle, our decisions, our misplaced loyalties, because we are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to see the Kingdom thrive - in our own lives and in our world. That is costly grace, because it doesn't come cheap.
So much depends on a preposition.
In this passage, we have one of the earliest crystalizations of (Pauline) Christianity in the first century - small, condensed summaries like this would become for the early church like creedal statements and rules of faith. Selections like this would be read or recited at baptism, and formulas like this start to become common in Christian literature within the first hundred years.
Also, we see developing here an atonement understanding of the cross - an idea that is largely absent from the gospels, and so must be developing independently from the communities that produced those texts. This theology of the cross holds that our sins must be accounted for - a debt to be paid - and since humans in our smallness are unable to pay the debt, and because God loves us regardless, God took it upon Godself (in Jesus) to pay the debt with a blood sacrifice on the cross. (This idea actually dates back to medieval Christianity, and as such is somewhat grafted on Paul's theology, but it fits so well that Christians today can hardly imagine Paul saying anything else.)
Paul certifies that "Christ died for our sins" (v 3), and "for" will come to mean "in the place of". The preposition "for" (Gk: huper) in the genitive case can indeed mean "for (the sake of)" in a causal sense. Another meaning, "instead," also leans toward atonement - Jesus suffered instead of us. Yet another meaning, "regarding," is a little more slippery.
When George Bush says he is waging war for me - does that mean I forced him, or that he is doing it because of something I've done or am? Or, rather, does it mean that he is doing partly as a result of how we live, a somewhat direct result of our lifestyle and values?
Might Jesus have been crucified regarding our sins - our lifestyle and values as a backdrop and context for his death? It certainly seems reasonable: we make decisions every day that condemn the gospel to death (and thankfully it continues to rise again, as Paul confesses). Many of us have chosen our allegiances - Nation, Profit, Comfort, Prestige, Money-as-Security, Exclusive-notions-of-Family, and so on. Especially we North Americans, we crucify Jesus a thousand times a day, in our homes and businesses and commutes, and all over the world - we export crucifixion with our greed, guns and terror-power. But the gospel keeps on rising, and meeting us here again.
In one sense, Jesus died for us so we wouldn't have to - and in effect, we don't have to do much of anything at all to be received into the Kingdom. Atonement theology, in other words, seems like cheap grace.
In another sense, Jesus died because of our lifestyle, our decisions, our misplaced loyalties, because we are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to see the Kingdom thrive - in our own lives and in our world. That is costly grace, because it doesn't come cheap.
So much depends on a preposition.
Labels: 1 Corinthians, Doctrine
posted by Christian at 8:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home