Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Robert Kraft wrote:

>Although I see glimmers of it in the discussion,
>I'm missing any clear
>appreciation of the eschatological centrality of
>Jesus' death/resurrection for Paul.

I take this as a given; it really needs no
argumentation. What I've been trying to zero in on is
the **vicarious** nature of Christ's death for Paul
within that eschatological framework.  

>Jesus' literal death brings an end to the period
>of inevitable dominance by
>sin/flesh (the passing "present age") and guarantees,
>through the resurrection, the ability of
participating
>in the eschatological transfer before it literally is
>completed at the individual level. 

Certainly. Most (including Seeley) would agree with
your summary statement. 

>I wouldn't call that a model of vicarious,
>substitutionary, or noble death. It is
>more an end of the old and an entry way to
>the new (transitional, in some sense,
>although not gradual), and one takes advantage
>of the situation by intentionally
>participating. Neither Socrates, nor the
>"martyrs" of 2/4 Macc are quite there!

In its broadest sense, "vicarious" means "for the
benefit of others" (not necessarily substitutionary,
which is one kind of vicariousness). The individual's
death reaches beyond the individual and offers direct
benefit to others. What you describe above -- Christ's
death ending the old aeon of Adam and allowing entry
into the new epoch via participation -- is certainly
vicarious. If the Greco-Roman philosophers and
Maccabean martyrs are "not there", then how do you
address all of the parallels I outlined at the start
of this thread? 
 
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/