I started explaining that Paul has different ways that he conceptualizes the act of salvation – how the death and resurrection of Christ restores a person to a right relationship with God. The judicial model that I laid out can be found in several of Paul’s letters, especially Romans and Galatians. But he has other ways of understanding how salvation works, other models involving Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other BIG one can be called the Participationist model. Here is what I say about it in my textbook on the New Testament:
******************************
The Participationist Model. Most of us today have no trouble understanding how a judicial process can be seen as analogous to the act of salvation. The participationist model, however, is much harder to get our minds around. This is partly because it involves a way of thinking that is no longer prevalent in our culture. Under this second model the human problem is still called “sin,” “sin” is still thought to lead to “death,” and Christ’s death and resurrection still work to resolve the problem. But — and this is a point that has to be emphasized — in this second model, sin, death, and Jesus’ death and resurrection all mean something different from what they mean under the judicial model.
Consider the following things that Paul indicates about “sin” in the book of Romans:
— “Sin” is in the world (5:13)
— “Sin” rules people (5:21; 6:12)
— People can serve “sin” (6:6)
— People can be enslaved to “sin” (6:17)
— People can die to “sin” (6:11)
— People can be freed from “sin” (6:18)
It should be reasonably clear that sin in these verses is not simply something that a person does, a disobedient action against God, a transgression of his laws. Sin is instead a kind of
This is a key for understanding Paul’s thought — but not at all obvious or much talked about outside of scholarship. If you want to see how it works, join the blog! Click here for membership options
All four gospel writers have the feeding of the five thousand and jesus’ anointing with perfume. But only Mark and John say they bread would cost 200 denarii and perfume 300 denarii.
Isnt it easier to believe that these two amount 200 and 300 denarii became tradition only after Matthew/Luke wrote rather than being there originally with mark, ignored by matthew/luke, and brought back again with John?
Good question. I could see it going either way. The problem is that you cannot establish Synoptic relationships on the basis of isolated instances but by large amounts of data collectively.
“Sin is instead a kind of cosmic power…Death is a cosmic force that is intent on enslaving people…”
” …I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat…”
1. Was Paul one of the few (only) mystics of his time?
2. Were there mystic Jews or mystic Christians in the first century?
3. Was being mystic more of a Gentile thing than Jewish?
4. Would being mystic have been one of the many things that other Jews had as an issue with Paul?
We don’t know how many mystics were at the time, but they were not a unique phenomenon, in either Judaism or in pagan circles; we have a good deal of information about various mystical practices. Even in Scripture we have Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jesus, and the author of Revelation.
The Sadducees refused to go beyond the written Torah and unlike the Pharisees, denied both the immortality of the soul and the bodily resurrection after death. So the members of the Sadducees sect (Jewish high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants) who led and participated the temple cult would have thought that Paul’s gospel was utter nonsense, right? But Sadducees were also asking God ’s forgives from theirs sins by sacrificing and burning animal in the temple, right? Hence, Jews must have had also another technological framework from Paul’s why forgiveness of sins was important already in this life. Has any writings survived that could explain why forgiveness of the sins was also important for the Sadducees without the belief in the bodily resurrection and final judgement after death? Hebrews 10:11-12 seems to refer to the Jewish temple worship by claiming tat Christians don’t need to sacrifice in the temple anymore because they had sacrificed Jesus’s body. Could this mean that some early Christians were also interested in forgiveness of sins not only to avoid destruction in the last judgement but to receive the same blessing that Sadducees were promising for their followers, what ever it was?
Most people in the world at the time didn’t believe in an afterlive yet were highly religious. Only when Christianity came along didd the afterlife become an important *reason* to be religious. People worshiped God (whether worshipers of Zeus or Yahweh) because it was right to do and because it could help them survive adn even thrive in this life.
By far the best explanation of this concept I’ve ever heard, I can see how this message was so effective, especially in the context of Paul’s time
When I was in the Restoration churches (Church of Christ, Christian Church), this was pretty much the view we taught, except I think there was more a tendency to say that when you come up out of baptism you are at that point raised up with Jesus to your new life. Which is pretty much as it says in Colossians 2:12-14 (“having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you WERE also raised with Him…”). Do you think this is more what the Deutero-Pauline letters teach, rather than Paul himself?
Yup, it’s a key difference from Romans 6, which insists that the baptized WILL be raised with Christ, in clear differentiaton from having ALREADY died with CHrist. THat’s one strong reason Colossians and Ephesians appear so unPauline.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
This might be an obvious question but I feel like it could be different things to different people:
What is the actual “good news” of the gospel?
Thank you!
Actually it’s a very good question! THe good news is that even though God will be entering into judgment with those who have lived lives of sin, he has now provided a way to be saved from the coming onslaught. BAptized believers in Jesus will be saved and rewarded. THat’s the good news. (It necessarily, then, presupposed the bad news.)
Thanks for explaining how sin was understood thousands of years ago. It seems to me that simply being human made one a sinner since no one could possibly live up to the perfect standards required to be without sin. To get right with Jesus seemed to be the only choice, which isn’t much of a choice and more of an ultimatum.
My question might be one of semantics and theology, more than history, but these concepts weave through Prof Ehrman’s discussion of Paul. I am a little confused among the concepts of “salvation,” “justification,” and “grace” in Paul’s theology or maybe the more developed theology of later times. I think they all relate to a human and their right standing with God. Is “salvation” an action of a human moving from a wrong standing with God to a right standing – describing the right standing from the human perspective? While, “grace” is the thing that God gives to a human who has experienced salvation – being “right standing” from God’s perspective? And then “justification” is that act of becoming saved/receiving grace – either through works, faith, birth, baptism alone or other means? And is “sin” the consequence of failing in this endeavor to become saved/receive grace? And since humans somehow start with sin, they must work through justification or stand to suffer sin and its ultimate wage, “death?”
Great question. As it turns out, the terms mean different things to different people. For Paul himself, “salvation” is technically what will happen to the followers of JEsus in the coming crisis when God intervenes to destroy the sinners of this world in an act of cataclysmic judgment (not at the point of death but when he wipes out all evil from earth); “justification” means being put into a right standing with God, so that those who *are* justified *will* be saved. “Grace” is the fact that it all happens because of God’s gift to others, not through any merit but as a free offer that he himself initiated.
I have seen you argue that the stories on the visitors of the tomb are very much in contradiction, yet for example the gospel of luke explicitly states that he is not mentioning all the names by saying: “mary magdalene, joanna, mary the mother of james and the others”. Why would you say the gospels are in contradiction when they can just not be mentioning everyone (as stated in Luke)? Eyewitness testimonies after all rarely agree on all facts of the matter since some people find certain observations more important than others. What would your objection to this line of reasoning be: the gospels don’t disagree as they are eyewitness testimony and just mention other things they find important. The gospel of Luke confirms it by adding: ” and the others” it is therefore very much possible that while some of them contain incomplete lists of tomb visitors, they are not in contradiction
I don’t cite the number and names of the women at the tomb as a “contradiction.” It’s just different in an odd way from one Gospel to the next. (Odd in the sense that if I say 500 people were at an even and you say there were 800, we could both be right — since you are including my 500 in your 800 — but it’s not how I would normally say it if I knew there were 800 and not 500)
Would you argue that in light of the rest of the story it is highly improbable that it isn’t in fact a contradiction? In the sense that the authors didn’t leave parts out but just thought the ones they mentioned were all people that were there? If so, how can that be said in light of the “and the others” verse in Luke?
My sense is that they were just mentioning the names of the people they heard were there. Otherwise it just doesn’t make much sense. Luke understood there were lots of women there. The others don’t appear to think so, and certainly don’t say so.
“If the problem is enslavement to alien powers, then the solution must be liberation. Christ’s death and resurrection provide freedom from the powers of sin….” Did Paul believe that a Christian freed from the powers of sin can sin no more? Or are the only freed from the powers (the domination) of sin in their life even though they could possibly sin? And if a Christian does sin, do they need to experience Christ’s salvation all over again?
He believed they did not *have* to sin any more; the problem is (as he states it), they can enter back into slavery by how they live, and that would be, well, very bad.
Did Paul believe that those who had entered back into slavery could be renewed into good standing * with God were condemned forever, even if they wanted a second chance?
*what’s the right word: justification, fellowship, or something else?
He never says. Over th eyears, different Christians have had different answers to that. These and othr words are sometimes used interchangeably.
This model suggests the futility of living. We are born into sin and held captive by demonic powers that lead to our destruction and alienation from g~d. If we become christians by following Pauls instructions, we are still held captive but will be liberated some time after we die. If we dont become believers we are screwed. I dont think it is a stretch to say among everyone who ever lived from Pauls time to today, comparitavely few are/were believers. So does Pauls all knowing and omnipotent g~d just keep churning out souls by the billions so that a small percentage of them will be saved.? I realize this is off track from the context of 1st century Palistine, but it is still preached today.
My sense is that Paul does not think that God is the one making the babies. On the other hand, he thinks liberation from the forces of evil (all except death itself) has already happened, for those who are baptized into CHrist.
Do you see the adoption metaphor a being a part of this participation understanding? We were aliens, slaves, and enemies. Now that we have a powerful patron who’s given us an ‘in’, we’re free citizens.
Also I’m struggling to think of anywhere where this is expressed as clearly as in Ephesians. Is adoption a kind of theological addition or evolution to Paul that his followers developed after his death?
I”d say adoption is a different metaphor. For Paul, baptism is not the moment at which God adopts someone as a child. It is instead a moment of mystical unification with Christ. IT’s not just that now the baptized have a strong patron; they have actually participated in the victory of CHrist because they have been unified with him in his death. Paul does elsewhere talk about adoption, but that’s not the idea being advanced in Romans 6.
Very interesting thanks!
Alright so Paul has this idea that you’re freed from sin but not death yet. How very evangelical of him. I feel like I prefer the catholics with their emphasis on repenting for real.
What about the adulterers, misers, fornicators and thieves in his congregation?
Did their faith not work or something?
For Paul they have decided to sin even though they were not compelled to, unlike those who had not been united with Christ. And so they were in danger of once more being enslaved to the power of sin because of their willful misactions; and if they are, it’s doomsday for them…
I have to believe Paul definitely believed his innovations. You’ve got to really genuinely believe your stuff to preach it like that without bending over and laughing.
“So basically you were enslaved to sin and didn’t have a choice and God blamed you anyways, now try to be free so like if you sin again after being freed it’ll be like real super bad because you know, you’ve got a choice now, which makes it worse than when you didn’t have a choice and God still blamed you but like now He’d blame you more like super blame you this time okay?”
🤣 LOL
See Dan Barker ‘You Don’t Have to Go Down In My Basement’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=854J4ffKDww&ab_channel=CaseAgainstFaith1
So Paul does seems to believe that a level of works is necessary for continued salvation? Works in the sense of remaining a good person not the sacramental sense. I’ve always assumed as much but it does run a little co ready to the “faith and faith alone” talking points
He wouldn’t put it that way. He thought that baptized Christians were free from sin and so had no reason or need to disobey God any more — and so they’d be crazy to do so. Obeing wouldn’t give them salvation, but if they had salvation they would obey.
I watched a YouTube video. It was a debate with a man named Laurence Brown. The audio was a little bit crappy in a few places but it was quite entertaining. We have an expression where I live that goes something like “you might as well be talking to a fence post”. The subjects were very serious but I couldn’t help but laugh at your frustration. Personally, I thought Brown was out of touch with reality.
Several years ago I was reading some of Albert Schweitzer’ lesser known material on Paul. He bridges what later became known as the pistis christou debate by taking up Adolf Deissmann’s idea of a mystical genitive. Faith in Christ, or rather faithfulness to Christ unites us to Christ. It is not merely believing in Jesus or in justification through his sacrificial death, but it is a mystical participation in the Christ event, as seen also in baptism and in the Lord’s supper. It seems to me his interpretation shows how the participation model not only permeates but also supersedes the judicial model. It unifies a lot of Paul’s thought rather than breaking it into disparate models. I’m no scholar, but it doesn’t seem to me that his idea caught on very much, but these Deissmann and Schweizter guys were pretty smart, if you ask me. Thoughts on his mystical genitive? Are there many Pauline scholars that have pursued this line of thought?
Jewett (276-7):
The distinctive early Christian use of πίστις followed by a reference to Jesus Christ is evident here, a use that implies “an indissoluble relationship to Jesus as the crucified and exalted Lord of the Church.”[69] … Since faith has a social function related to conversion and participation in a new community, it entails more than an individual’s intellectual,[72] emotional,[73] or existential stance.[74] The recent resurgence of interest in the subjective genitive “faith of Jesus Christ”[75] is in part an effort to overcome the shortcomings of an intellectualized and dogmatized conception of faith, but it also tends to lose sight of the social dimension of very early Christian usage[76] in which πίστις / πιστεύω functioned as broadly defined jargon for participation in the community of the converted. Given that “not all genitives can easily be forced into the scheme established by grammarians”[77] and that “there is no reason why a gen. in the author’s mind may not have been both subjective and objective,”[78]
76 This broad and relatively undefined usage is the strength of the theory advanced by Deissmann, Paul, 140–43, followed by Asmussen and Leenhardt, that the genitive construction is both subjective and objective genitive in a mystical sense. …
I wonder what other instances in (say, non-Christian) Greek there are of genitives that are meant as both subjective and objective. (Seriously, I”d love to know)
Yes, the “in Christ” emphasis was seen by others as the true key, rather than justification. And if were the controlling imagage it would d suggest that the two go hand in hand, but the puzzle is why Paul doesn’t integrate them himself, for example by usig participationist langage when speaking of faith. In Romans 6, where he does talk about being “baptized” into Christ, he doesn’t refer to pistis; in fact, in the participationist discussoin of All of Romans 6-8 (the key text) the word pistis never occurs. So too in teh passage s when he talks about sin as a “power” it is not overcome by faith.
I would say that the current (well 20 year old or so) pistis-debate is about something different, whether it is faith *in* Christ or the faithfulness *of* Christ (i.e. of Jesus’ himselr) that is meant in pistis christou (is it an objective or subjectige genitive). My sense is that hte latter view, popular still, is theologically driven by an attempt to affirm the complete sovereignty of God in salvation, and it doesn’t really make sense of some of the key passages. Just my view of it though!
Bart: “I wonder what other instances in (say, non-Christian) Greek there are of genitives that are meant as both subjective and objective. (Seriously, I”d love to know)”
Me too. I was taught by Jan Lambrecht to always make a decision one way or the other, not to try and fudge the difference. I have to admit that ‘mystic genitive’ sounds completely ridiculous. It surprised me that this idea was the brainchild of no less of a Greek scholar than Adolf Deissmann:
“It has not yet been generally recognised that St. Paul’s use of the genitive, ‘of Jesus Christ,’ is altogether very peculiar. There are a number of passages in St. Paul in which the ordinary grammatical scheme of ‘subjective genitive’ and ‘objective genitive’ proves insufficient. Later Greek (and Latin) possesses in addition to these a genitival use, sometimes rather remarkable, which to some extent is the result of the survival of a very ancient type. So too in St. Paul it would be possible to establish a peculiar type of genitive, which we might call the ‘mystic genitive,’ because it expresses the mystic fellowship.'”
Bart: “I would say that the current (well 20 year old or so) pistis-debate is about something different, whether it is faith *in* Christ or the faithfulness *of* Christ (i.e. of Jesus’ himselr) that is meant in pistis christou (is it an objective or subjectige genitive).”
I hope my quotation from Adolf Deissmann above has demonstrated that he too was speaking about exactly this. Yes?
Bart: “Yes, the “in Christ” emphasis was seen by others as the true key, rather than justification. And if were the controlling imagage it would d suggest that the two go hand in hand, but the puzzle is why Paul doesn’t integrate them himself, for example by usig participationist langage when speaking of faith.”
The position of Deissmann and Schweitzer, correctly understood, is that Paul is using participationist language when speaking of faith. Do you see that now? Or am I just another Internet idiot? It’s OK, I won’t be offended.
I never really thought about Deissman that way, but it’s how I’ve always understood Schweitzer. My point was probably not made very well, but my sense is that the argument for the subjective genitive is really a way to sneak the historical Jesus into the soteriology of Paul.
Bart: “My point was probably not made very well, but my sense is that the argument for the subjective genitive is really a way to sneak the historical Jesus into the soteriology of Paul.”
I agree with you about the sneaky use of the subjective genitive, but that’s not at all what Deissmann was doing. As I quoted him above, he explicitly says the genitive here is neither objective nor subjective. What he does is show how the justification language of faith is also participative. That’s important. Most genitives are fundamentally adjectival. Upon reflection they can be considered more precisely, but the speaker need not always be making such precise distinctions as she speaks. Paul’s language has been over analyzed by pompous theologians for 2,000 years. He was obviously brilliant, but he could not foresee how later theologians would ruin his ideas with their pettiness. [/soapbox]
Right! That was what I thought was my point: that the current debate isn’t the same as what Deissmann was talking about (I probably misread you to say that he started or was participating in the same debate)
Interpreters can be amazing sometimes….
Hi Dr Ehrman!
What is your take on Calvinism… how logical is it and where did it actually come from?
Thank you!
Calvinism, like all theological systems, is very complex, so it would depend on what aspect you’re thining of. The simplest description emphasies five points that spell tulip.
– Total depravity of all humans (everyone’s a hopeless sinner)
– Unconditional election (there are no human requirements to be chosen by God)
– Limited atonement (CHrist’s death brings salvation to the saved)
– Irresistable Grace (the saved cannot resist or refuse God’s saving actd for them)
– Perseverence of the saints (once a person is saved they are always saved)
At the heart of it all is the idea that salvation is predestined for some and not for others, which for many outsiders is a real sticking point.
If you’re interested, I found a sort of Samueline comma which I also call the Origin of Upholstery.
The Philistines, in one of their fights with the Hebrews, manage to get ahold of the Arc of the Covenant. They’re thrilled, but it turns out that possession of the Arc is not beneficial to enemies of the Lord’s chosen people. Eventually, having discovered the ill effects of possession, they decide to make a tour of Philistia to see what will happen. (Not the most prudent decision, to be sure.) They find that wherever they go, everybody (well, all the males) gets smote with hemmorhoids (King James and Douay-Rheims: emerods; translated elsewhere as tumors, cysts, boils). According to the old Catholic standard English translation, Douay-Rheims:
And while they were carrying it about, the hand of the Lord came upon every city with an exceeding great slaughter: and he smote the men of every city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts. And the Gethites consulted together, and made themselves seats of skins.
The strange thing is that the sentence about seats of skins appears in very few translations, all descended from Jerome’s Vulgate.
Do you see any similar ideas in 1st century pagan cultures where participating in some ritual brings about salvation (whatever that means to the ritual participant) the way that baptism does for Christians?
There were apparently rituals in various mystery religions that involved establishing a kind of unifying connection with the god, but we are not very well informed about them.
I have started to belief that Christianity originally was a countermovement to Hellenism.
Plato’s Republic described the noble lie where God established the class society by creating the highest class (rules) by mixing the earth and gold, the middle class (priest) by mixing the earth and silver and the lowest class (farmers and other craftsmen) by mixing the earth and brass.
In this context, it is understandable that a new sect preaching that God created men to His own image by mixing the earth and the divine spirit must have been attractive, especially for farmers, craftsmen, women and slaves as it would improve their self-esteem, etc.
Plato’s Republic also contained the theological concepts of heaven and hell.
Christian ideas “The kingdom of God is within you” and “Your sins are forgiven” should have made the heaven and hell irrelevant.
Christians must have irritated the ruling classes if people were ruled using the Platonic ideas. That would also explain persecution of Christians as a dangerous sect.
It seems that Paul tried and succeeded to corrupt these early ideas by supporting the divine right of kings and by opposing Christians saying that they had already resurrected in a spiritual sense and that resurrection was a metaphor.
Would you agree?
My view is that Paul strongly believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus, that his body was brought back to life. But it was not simly a resuscitation of a corpse: his body was transformed and glorified into an *immortal* body. That would be the fate of believers as well at the future resurrection. This is the emphatic teaching of 1 Corinthians 15. I give a fuller exposition in my chapter on Paul in my book Heaven and Hell.
Dr Ehrman,
The word used for Sin in NT is Hamartema (and its derivatives).
1. Etymologically speaking, what actually does this word means and what are its root words?
2. The classical definitions in English of “to err” or to be “Off mark” seems a bit different from the cognitive processes of comprehension of word Sin?
3. What’s the original Hebrew word used in OT for Hamartema?
I’m sorry to say that I’m out of town for four days and don’t have any books with me! The Greek word is HAMARTIA ἁματια; it did get used to refer to missing a mark — someone throws a spear and misses. It came to take on the religious connotation of erring with respect to the gods or God. There are debates about how to understand it in both Old and New Testaments; on the former, if you’re really interested, you might consider the book on sin by my colleague Joseph Lam (he is dealing with Hebrew, of course; the Greek word did not come from the Hebrew — it’s simply a different, unrelated language). For the NT my friend Jeff Siker — occasional guest blogger — has a couple of important books. I hope this helps.
The Baptists I’ve encountered believed that baptism really does nothing. It’s just a sort of public statement or demonstration that one has “accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior”. I’ve heard that formula from a Baptist preacher and I have no reason to believe he was out of the mainstream. That seems ironic in view of what Paul taught. Aren’t there some parts of Romans that could be construed as a kind of universalism, that ultimately all will be saved? You have an elect group who will judge all of creation, and then a large number of people who will be punished, but ultimately God will be “everything to everyone”, or words to that effect. A case could be made that modern Christianity is neither Pauline nor Jamesian, but a kind of weird hodgepodge– something that Jesus wouldn’t recognize, but neither would Paul!
Is the participationist model of Paul as discussed here part of the long, continuous Greek intellectual tradition concerning participation that began long before him and continued well after him? Or, is Paul just out on his own here? After all, ideas about participation (μέθεξις), which started with the early Pythagorean ideas on mimesis, were core to Plato, Aristotle, Philo, and later neoPlatonist scholars; Thomas Aquinas thought a lot about the idea of participation as well.
In his “Paul and Participation in Christ: The Patristric Witness”, Mark Goodwin seems to think the picture is pretty complex. The later Greek Fathers did seem to make more sense of Paul’s enigmatic comments on participation more useful by making reference to the thoughts of the Greeks above. And maybe this is another case where combining Greek ideas and Paul’s ideas helped to make Christianity more intellectually coherent and successful in general. But, maybe, as elsewhere, this is also another case of where Paul – despite what the Greek fathers implied – is truly out on his own.
I thought I would see if there might be a “house view” on all this.
I don’t think that Paul is standing in the Greek philosophical tradition in his views of participation, no. It wasn’t mimesis but a mystical union — with greater ties, then, to mystycism than to traditiona. philosophy.