Yesterday I started explaining that Paul has different ways the 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:
**********************************************************
2. 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)LM0¯IP4¯
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST log in as a member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
Mythology: stuff other people make up about their religions. Theology: stuff we make up about our own religion. But it’s fascinating to see how people regard their theology as “truth” even though there is absolutely nothing to back it up, not even common sense. Paul included.
To me theology consists of untestable theories, not constrained by logic or reason, and justified by divine revelation.
Yes,it may seem like that. But you should read some serious theologians before making that judgment. IN fact, logic and reason are supremely important. You might start with the writings of Stanley Hauerwas and Rowan Williams. They are both fantastically smart and learned.
I once started watching a video on YouTube that was a 1 hour and 45 minute debate between two Baptist theologians on one side of the stage and two Church of Christ theologians on the other side. The debate was about whether baptism is necessary for salvation. After listening to the host introduce the two sets of highly educated debaters, I stopped the video, because I figured that I already knew the answer. The obvious answer to the question at hand was: Nobody knows. If highly educated, God-fearing Christians who have studied the Bible for decades cannot agree on the answer to such a fundamental question (i.e., how does a person become a Christian?), then the Bible isn’t clear. And why isn’t the Bible clear? Because it was written by fallible humans. I still don’t understand why God couldn’t have written the Bible himself, sent it down to earth on golden plates, and made millions of perfect copies. If that had happened, I would believe every word of it, no matter how contradictory or nonsensical. But it turns out that all we have are the writings of human beings, like Paul.
Since you are discussing Paul’s theology, I’d like to ask a related question. I own, but haven’t read (yet), the book “Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle,” by Pamela Eisenbaum. If you are familiar with her thesis, what do you think of it?
Also, is the “participationist” model you are describing related to the “Christus Victor” views described by Gustaf Aulen?
Thanks!
I agree with much of the thesis of Pam Eisenbaum, but I think some scholars are too wary of using the term “Christian” for early believers in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Aulen. Wow. Haven’t read him since I was in graduate school!! So, well, I’m not sure!!
The atonement of course assumes that all mortals have been born in sin and that there is a dualistic battle of good and evil in this world. Nowhere does Paul even try to establish the reality of sin in all humans…it is simply assumed. But what if all have not been born in sin? I don’t think anyone has established that all mortal humans are of sin. If one is born innocent, as a “clean slate” in John Locks view, then the atonement models falls apart. If one is born with the potential of either good or evil or both the atonement does not apply.
For this reason I am drawn more and more to a non-dualistic view that love and compassion…good.. naturally resides in all mortals and can become manifest without the need for a substitutionary blood sacrifice in Jesus death and resurrection.
I think that there is evidence in what Jesus did and said during his life that points to the potential for goodness of all humans. For example, Jesus told the woman who bled that her faith healed her…that was before Jesus death and resurrection…before the atonement. There are many more examples.
I think that the doctrine of the atonement does not follow Jesus work and teachings and is a contrivance of the early church, and of Paul’s imagination.
Sounds like you’d get along well with Islam 🙂
Bart, does Paul ever explain how ‘Sin’ and ‘Power’ came into existence? Logically, if there was only One Creator, then nothing could happen, or come into existence, outside of the framework this Creator had created? Thus ‘Sin’ and ‘Death’ only came into existence because God had created a rule à la ‘if Adam disobeys then Creation will be corrupted and all living things will become mortal’ which then would change, through God’s will and power, the ‘fabric of Reality/the Cosmos’?
See today’s post. Sin originated by Adam sinning.
Bart….That is what I do not accept. Adam’s rebellion and “sin” is a myth. It IS obviously a myth…a ridiculous primitive tribal myth. If then it is a myth, no price needs to be paid and the atonement is a false doctrine.
In a contemporary psychological and sociological sense, humans are born with the potential for either good or evil, or a mix of the two. How children are raised largely determines the direction of their lives.
I know you must deal with the biblical text, but you could indicate that for many the text is not historical fact (that is: “…by Adam sinning.), but is myth (that is: the ancient people believed that Adam sinned), and there are those, such as myself, who view Jesus’ message in a very different way.
For me he did not pay a blood price that magically erase evil from the world…that just isn’t the way it is, and the blood sacrifice did not magically make the world good. Jesus died because he was executed by the Roman as a threat…that’s it.
Jesus, in his ministry told his disciples (and by extension) his followers (and to us) to “follow” him. Jesus gave us a pattern to follow (an example) and by following his pattern we can become a loving and compassionate humanity.
How is it that the atonement is needed when Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within us?
I think this is a reasonable alternative to Paul’s atonement, and that alternative is found in the gospels if we look deeply enough.
That is just the way I see it.
“Sin originated by Adam sinning.” > but ‘sin’, as a concept or even more so as power/force, could only have come into existence because God defined ‘reality’ that way? Or did Adam have creative powers and created ‘sin’, knowingly, ex nihilo?
Still seems like ‘Sin’ and ‘Death’ were the consequences of ‘the Fall’ because God wanted those to be the consequences.
I wish I knew *what* Paul thought about such things!
What is the history of “baptism”? Was the practice invented by John the Baptist, or was it part of a long Jewish tradition?
I admit I’m repelled even by Paul’s “judicial” model. I can’t help thinking of the Jewish belief that they were bound by a “covenant” made with God. Especially since they had no concept of reincarnation, I think it was outrageous for rabbis in, say, Jesus’s time, to indoctrinate the laity with the notion that *they* were bound by a “covenant” their ancestors had supposedly made with a deity thousands of years before. They, as individuals, hadn’t *promised* to obey the “laws” handed down by this tyrant deity!
And Paul’s Christian notion is even worse, since it doesn’t cite the Jewish Law. What “justice” is there in people being punished (let alone damned for all eternity) for not obeying dictatorial commands they’d never *promised* to obey?
Yes, one-time baptism was apparently performed by John the Baptist. But we don’t know if it prior to him. (Judaism had repeated and regular “washings”)
Why can’t God just forgive people if they need forgiving, like he did when Israel asked? Why did Paul have to create this elaborate and ridiculous theology to get something which God tells us we should freely give? I think he must have had brain damage in the road to Damascus.
I wonder how Paul thoughts evolved. I assume the Church Fathers thought God was working through Paul in the guise of the Holy Spirit. A rational person would try to understand the circumstances in which Paul found himself. Whom was Paul competing with for the hearts and minds of the early believers? Was his message censored by Peter and James? Are there some references?
Read Galatians 2. It does appear that there was competition on some (but not all issues) between Paul and the Christians who took their marching orders from James.
I think Bishop Spong makes an excellent point that if man evolved from lower animals, then there never was a state of perfection from which man could fall. Therefore no original sin, no need for for atonement. Perhaps this is why fundamentalists are so opposed to the teaching of evolution.
Having been raised in a very liberal Presbyterian Church, I was taught that the original sin we are born with is the tendency to be self-centered. Babies and young children think only of having their own needs met. As we become older we become more aware of the needs of others and develop an empathy toward those around us..
The model of “Death” and “Sin” as powers/entities has a proto-gnostic ring to it.
Some scholars have thought that Gnosticism emerged out of some kind of failed apocalypticism. That may not be right, but you’re right, there are interesting parallels.
Something I’ve just begun thinking about…
“As a good apocalypticist Paul ‘knew’ that the cosmic force of sin was present in this world. But he came to believe that Christ’s death had conquered the power of sin. He evidently came to believe this after he believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. For Paul, Jesus’ resurrection showed beyond any doubt that Jesus was no longer subject to the power of death, the most dreaded of all cosmic forces of evil.”
Apocalypticists believed the “worthy” dead would be restored to life when God’s Kingdom was established. Presumably, they were waiting in Sheol. So how could death *ever* have been seen as such a fearsome power?
For them (not all Jews) death annihilated your life and removed you from all that was good.
Not just baptism: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Good point. But that, of course, is only after one is already united with Christ in baptism. (Since only those so united could partake of the meal.)
Bart,
Thank you for your contributions day in and day out. I had a question about your view proposed in other posts/publications of Jesus being an exalted angel/heavenly being in Paul’s sight. How do you mesh the idea of a created being such as an angel being united to us through the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). In him, Paul writes, we are made the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). It is no longer Paul who lives, but Christ who lives in him (Gal. 2:20). In Jesus, Paul is a son of God through faith (Gal 3:26). As you noted in Rom. 6, what happens to Jesus is attributed to us in his death and resurrection, and therefore there is now no condemnation for those “in him” (8:1).
It seems like these passages are attributing such an amazingly high view to Jesus that not only are his life/actions the source of our salvation, but his very character/essence is imbued into Christians through faith. He is righteous, so in union they become righteous. He is a son and heir of God, so in union they become sons/co-heirs with Christ. And this union is the very source of energy for their life to live each day (Gal 2:20).
It seems to me that these striking statements would point to a description of God imparting his divine nature to people, including his righteousness, status, power, etc. how does that mesh with your view of Jesus as an angelic being?
For Paul it’s because Christ was exalted to a level with God, and so from then on was indeed able to do miraculously, mysteriously divine things. (He *started* as an angel but they was “more highly exalted” to God’s own level, equal with him: Phil 2:6-11)
I have always found Paul on baptism to be sharply at odds with Paul on circumcision. Both are rituals, and either it is possible in principle for salvation to somehow require participation in a ritual or it isn’t…
In Romans 5, is Paul essentially describing what becomes the doctrine of original sin? Or put another way, does the doctrine of original sin accurately reflect Paul’s thinking?
The later doctrine certainly used Paul’s comments in Romans 5 and developed them, but he did not advance these later views himself, no.
Is it fair to say that Paul believed all humans inherited a sinful nature from Adam? And that Jesus essentially provided a fix for this sinful nature that plagued all humans (or at least a fix for the *consequences* of our sinful nature)? Thanks!
I don’t think Paul had teh conception of a human “nature.” He certainly thought, though, in more simple terms, that all humans have to sin because they are descended from Adam who sinned and therefore the power of sin controls them, since Adam brought it into the world. It’s an apocalyptic view rather than an augustinians. one.