(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
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.
******************************
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.
It should be clear to you from reading through Romans on your own that Paul himself does not
If you join the blog you will get five posts like this every week, with archives going back to 2012. It’s all yours for a small membership fee, and the entire fee goes to help those in need. So why not? Click here for membership options
The idea that these two models exist in Paul’s writings… Is this generally accepted by most scholars? I’ve never heard this before, but then again I don’t study Paul that much.
Not everyone would put it this way, but the basic understandings I’ve outlined of sin and salvation in Paul are widely nkown.
Would you say that Paul’s interpretation of “sin” and how it came into the world required him to have believed hat Adam was a historical human being?
thanks
Yes, I’m sure he thought everyone mentioned in Scripture was a historical being.
So… contradictory or complementary? Or, is this one of those deals like the trinity, where we just declare “1 = 3” and call it a day?
Well, it’s not exactly a mathmtical equation in this case…. Paul certainly sees the views as interlocking and I think that’s plausible (even though I don’t agree with the views, obviously)
Well, it’s not exactly a mathmtical equation in this case…. Paul certainly sees the views as interlocking and I think that’s plausible (even though I don’t agree with the views, obviously)
A related but kinda not related question that you may have blogged on in the past. In I Cor. 15:29 Paul seems to say that some people in the church in Corinth were being baptized for the dead. Am I reading that correctly, or is there some other interpretation that I don’t know? And if I am reading it correctly, then it also seems that Paul is at the very least not objecting to the practice. How does this fit with Paul’s models of salvation?
Yes, he says that, and, well, there are tons of theories about what it might mean. His audience knew (since he’s referring to their practices) but unfortunately we don’t. (Was it being baptized for dead relatives who died before Christ came? Was it baptism of Believers for unbelievers who were dead in their sins? Was it … what was it?)
I don’t remember my Augustine but is Paul’s theory of sin and how it came into the world a precursor of the more developed theory of original sin? In Paul, there may be a need for individual transgressions for sin to attach but it appears that humans can’t help themselves due to Adam’s disobedience (whether directly or through allowing the cosmic force to enter the world). In other words, is it possible for any human (other than Christ) to be without sin, according to Paul?
Augustine himself certainly saw it that way. My sense is that Paul would have been rather astonished by the Augustinian view. But no, Paul would have insisted that since all humans descend from Adam, all are under the power of sin.
The Old Testament worldview is that God is in charge of everything, and gave the law to his chosen people. Whenever his people break the law, principally by worshiping other gods, they are punished. In the New Testament worldview sin is more than simple disobedience of God’s law. Satan is in charge of the world and he, as the evil cosmic force, is responsible for sin and death. This can’t last, so God will soon vanquish Satan and institute a new kingdom where there is no sin or death.
The judicial model accords with the Old Testament worldview. It would make perfect sense to more traditional Jews, who were part of the target audience for the book of Romans; however, for apocryphal Jews holding the newer worldview that Satan is in charge of the world, the judicial model is not enough. You have to vanquish Satan, sin and death as well. There is some degree of tension here. Using the participatory model AND the judicial model is one way of attempting to resolve that tension.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I’ve been thinking about a question to derive a thesis out of for my essay, related to some of those that you suggested. What do you think of:
Did orthodox Christianity come from the New Testament or is the New Testament a product of orthodox Christianity?
Points of the essay (which I’ll just reshuffle the info into) would be:
Christian literature was produced in order to deal with immediate issues at hand, not with the intention of being considered scripture, thus the writings which later came to be considered scripture were birthed due to theological debate
Not all Christian literature produced came to be included in the canon
Christianity during the first 3 centuries was not monolithic
Within the proto orthodox movement, there was debate to define the contours of the canon.
The first list of what is now the orthodox NT canon was only drawn up in 367CE
Or something like that….
Thank you!!!
I’d say it’s a great question! But I’d also say it is not a thesis. A thesis would be asserting one of the options over the other and the essay then would try to demonstrate it. OR, the essay could try to demonstrate that BOTH are ironically true at the same time.
Bart, some people (likely many) have a trusting belief in the efficacy of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but they have not been baptized. Would Paul view this as enough to receive all the present and future benefits that God intended for them? If yes, what is the value of baptism?
I’ve often wondered. For Paul the two things go hand in hand. But surely even he know of people who came to faith and then died efore getting baptized. Surely?
I am thinking that there was an incompatibility between the two models. The judicial model suggests that you are making a choice to sin and therefore you can be held responsible for that choice. But the participationist model suggests that you are under the control of a cosmic force so can you really be held responsible for your sin? Does Paul deal with this incompatibility?
I don’t think Paul saw it quite that way. You’re not actually choosing to sin. You can’t help but sin, because you’re under the power of sin. And so the two views go hand in hand (for him).
Perhaps Revelation should be removed from the Christian Bible and left on the same shelf as other apocalyptic, end of the world stories? On the other hand there seems a need in many cultures for literature about how the world and the universe come to a end. The details change but the end result is the same.
Perhaps Revelation is an archetypal projection. A collective conscious recognition that just as the universe began with a Big Bang it will end with a cosmos compactor turning the universe into a big compressed ball.
Dr Ehrman,
If you take out Paul’s writings and the book of John, what is left of Christianity. Seems to me that Paul’s conceptualizing and the book of John’s claims of Jesus as the supreme being are foundational to christianity as it is understood.
They are certainly instrumental in how Christians understand their faith today.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do I understand correctly that Jesus NEVER wanted to abdicate Jewish law; however, Paul says we can obtain salvation without the law! It seems confusing to me! Are Christians more comparatively/inadvertently more influenced by Paul’s message of salvation than Jesus? Some of the teachings Paul conveys are not commensurate with that of Jesus himself. (sigh)
Jesus’ teachings were exclusively to Jews, and he never does suggest they can violate the law. Paul, though, is addressing gentiles, and his point is that they are not to become Jews. Salvation depends only on what Christ has provided, not on keeping the Law.
Incredibly lucid presentation of Paul’s atonement theology, and -if I may say- a very insightful and careful reading of Paul’s writings. Dr. Ehrman, I really appreciate how you’re able to get into the mind of Paul without critiquing, in order to (as you’ve written elsewhere) describe and not prescribe.