Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Paul's "dying for us" language

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Corpus Paulinum <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Paul's "dying for us" language
  • Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:46:01 -0600


Recently I came across an article by M. de Jonge (in a Festschrift for A.F.J.
Klijn) entitled "Jesus' Death for Others" which explores the background of
"for
our sins" and "dying for" language used by Paul to describe and interpret the
significance of Jesus' death (e.g. in 1 Cor 15:3 XRISTOS APEQANEN hUPER TWN
AMARTIWN hHMWN; Gal 1:4, TOU DONTOS hEAUTON hUPER TWN hAMARTIWN hHMWN; Rom
5:8,
XRISTOS hUPER hHMWN APEQANEN). This has set off in my mind a series of
questions
on the intention behind and the theology of these Pauline proclamations about
Jesus' death.


What strikes me in the de Jonge article is not only (a) that the Pauline "for
our sins" and "dying for" language is used before Paul and of the deaths of
Jewish martyrs as part of a larger claim that their deaths were atoning, but
more importantly (b) that the formulae are used at particular moments of
national crisis to justify the way of life that led to these martyrs' deaths,
holding it up as a paradigm of the type of faithfulness to God that brings
salvation to Israel and (c) that this way is always the way of Zeal as
expounded
in the Phineas tradition (i.e. Holy War).


This raises the question of whether we should actually look upon Paul's use of
"for our sins" language in reference to Jesus not so much as a claim that a
death was necessary to bring about atonement, and even less as an expression
of
an Anselmian theory of atonement. Rather the question is whether we should see
it as part of a specific argument -- hammered out in the midst of impending
national crises, and carried out between Paul and advocates of Zeal --
regarding
the nature of true faithfulness to the God of Israel and what that entailed.
>From this perspective it seems that the language in which Paul speaks about
Jesus death was competitive and specifically intended to counter the
particular
claims put forward by advocates of "the politics of holiness" about the type
of
life (the way of Zeal) that from *their* perspective has redeemed Israel and
will, in the face of the threat of Roman imperialism, now do so.


If this is so, then perhaps we should consider it the case that in using such
formulae Paul was NOT (primarily, anyway) talking about how gracious God is
towards "sinners", or how loving Jesus was, so much as he [Paul] is
specifically
engaged in a dialogue with, and an attempted refutation of, the claims of the
resistance movement regarding where redeeming faithfulness was exemplified,
and
that he was doing this by taking up the movement's language and challenging
not
so much its ideas that Israel needed redemption as its claims concerning how
that redemption is to be brought about.


Is it possible, then, that the claim "Christ died for us" = "it is JESUS'
style
of faithfulness which atones and forestalls God's judgment upon the nation",
not
Pheneas'/Judas Maccabeus', and that what Paul is trying to do in making the
claim is to emphasize that of *all* the deaths (and the style of life leading
to
it) that have a claim to be atoning (i.e. lead Israel out of wrath) it is
*Jesus'* not Phineas' that really does so? Phineas' will only bring on God's
wrath. Any thoughts on this?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page