Loading...I’ve been discussing how Paul understands the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection for salvation, and have done so by laying out as concisely as I could his two principal “models” of how salvation worked, the judicial and the participationist model. In this post I’ll make some brief concluding comments about the two models, in particular in relation to one another, again from my textbook on the New Testament.
*************************************************************
3. Comparison and Contrast of the Two Models
Let me emphasize that the two models of salvation we have been looking at are ways of understanding something. They are not the thing itself. Paul’s gospel is not “justification by faith” or “union with Christ.” These are ways of reflecting on or thinking about his gospel. His gospel is God’s act of salvation in Christ; the models are ways of conceptualizing how it worked.
The way it worked differed according to which model Paul had in mind. In both of them, the problem is “sin.” But in one, sin is an act of disobedience that a person commits whereas in the other it is a cosmic force that works to enslave people. In both models, the solution is provided by Christ’s death and resurrection. But in one, Christ’s death pays the penalty for human disobedience and in the other it breaks the cosmic power of sin. In both models a person has to appropriate the benefits of Christ’s death, but in one it is through faith, that is, through a trusting acceptance of the payment, whereas in the other it is through baptism, that is, through a ritual participation in the victory.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
Very well put, Dr. E, even I could understand.
Is it an oversimplification to call the two models of “justification by faith” (Protestant) and “union with Christ” (Catholic) the root source of the two dominant Christian movements in the world today?
Interesting idea! It probably is an oversimplification, but it’s an interesting thought.
Prof Ehrman
When Paul is being discussed I’m always reminded of 2 Peter 3:16! I’m certainly glad to have a scholar such as yourself around to lay it out for us. Thanks!
I just finished your new book and I found it very stimulating. A lot to chew on!
You make reference to the Transfiguration episode in Mark several times in your book. Has your change in attitude towards the Synoptic view of Jesus affected your interpretation of this story? Do you think Mark intended us to view both Moses and Elijah as humans previously exalted by God to divine status? What do make of this story?
I don’t know about Moses and Elijah, but I think he definitely thought Jesus was divine, and at the Transfiguration he was “pulling back the curtain.”
Do you think that Jesus with Moses and Elijah represents the disciples’ understanding of Jesus as the true prophet which Mark turned into a transfiguration scene with the voice of God to show that Jesus is more than a prophet? He is God’s Son as God himself tells Peter and the others. In Mark the disciples are consistently shown as misunderstanding who Jesus was and this centerpiece to his gospel is Mark giving the right interpretation to correct those who believe Jesus was the good teacher or true prophet. This would be similar to the baptism where Mark narrates the baptism but adds the voice of God to make sure no one mistakes Jesus for a repentant sinner.
I think the point of the scene is that Moses and Elijah represent the “Law” and the “prophets,” which in a very literal way, look forward to Jesus.
Bart, would you say then that Paul’s views on salvation are coherent? Or rather a bit muddled?
They’re internally coherent I think.
Internally coherent? What does that mean?
I means that it is logically consistent with itself.
Perhaps not so brief? I am interested in those other models. (Sorry to appear selfish.)
I know you do not accept any of the subjective genitive understandings of pistis xristou, but this optic helps a great deal in seeing how these two models are much more unified. We are saved through participation in the faith(fulness) of Christ, the present faith that originated with Christ is the same faith that we share, which was previously prefigured in Abraham’s faith. The subjective genitive need not be criticized as a false attempt to bring the historical Jesus into Paul, ‘though it does do this to a certain extent. More importantly, it is the best way to understand Paul as thoroughly Jewish thinker, rather than a Lutheran.
I don’t think partication with Christ — even with the subjective genitive — means sharing his faithfulness. It means being crucified with him mystically, at baptism.
Does Paul teach that someone can lose their salvation? And reading back through Romans it seems like your assessment is correct that salvation literally comes from believing in Jesus. But modern evangelicals will say “even demons believe in Jesus.” How can that be reconciled with these verses? It seems they are reading something into the verses.
I guess in essence it seems as if the Christian faith has made Paul and Jesus’s message more complicated than scripture would suggest. From reading things into it. Is this a correct assumption? For example – using the passage in Hebrews 6… I think… to suggest it’s possible to sin to much. Also, who is thought to have authored Hebrews? Sorry for all the questions!
It’s anonymous; it was accepted in the canon by church fathers who thought Paul wrote it, but he almost certainly did not. And yes, Heb. 6 does indicate that it is possible to lose salvation.
Yes, he seems to. In Galatians he warns his readers they are in danger of losing theirs.