Right. I’m preaching on Sunday – the second part in a two part series called “Where is Jesus now?”… The first talk will be online some time this week. In the mean time – my answer to this question this week is that he is in the church – his body. That we bear his image. And that people should be able to find him by looking at us (and that being Christ like is particularly tied up in being cross like). I’m getting there from 2 Corinthians 5.
So here’s a question I have. And I’d like your input. So put your thinking caps on.
Here’s the passage.
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creationhas come: The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I’m particularly interested in the first two verses.
These appear, at face value (and as promoted by universalists) to say that Jesus’ death covers every one.
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
It seems people universally accept that the one who died “for all” is Jesus, and is the same as the “he” who died for all in verse 15. I think 14 is talking about Adam, and 15 is talking about Jesus. The only good reason I can think of not to think this is that I can’t find anyone who agrees with me yet…
I’m struggling to figure out how 14 helps Paul’s argument if he isn’t really developing it, but repeating it, in verse 15. I think verse 15 is a contrast where a second person has died for all. And I think Paul is using the same comparison between Jesus and Adam that he uses in Romans (chapters 5-8), and 1 Corinthians 15. I think Paul would say that all die because Adam died. So, in fact, Adam also died for all…
Here’s a bit from Romans 5…
“12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…”
“17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!”
And a bit from 1 Corinthians 15…
“21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
I don’t understand why this is even a question? The comparison seems pretty obvious, but I can’t find anyone who makes it (I’ve googled a bit, and used my whizz bang Bible software).
Comments
Hmm, I have preached this passage. Not that it makes me an expert in any way. But I do think the parallelism in v14-15 is not necessarily the same as that in Romans. I take v14 to deal with the consequence of Christ’s death for all, whereas v15 deals with the purpose of Christ’s death. There is a universal consequence of Christ’s death in the death of all, but a limited scope for the purpose, ie ‘those living’ might live instead of the resurrected one.
Specifically on why it’s not Adam in v14, is that the Greek indicates no shift in subject between the ‘one who died’ in v14, and ‘he died’ in v15. If Paul was contrasting Adam/Christ here he would almost certainly have to indicate it.
Hmm. If you don’t bring other theology etc, the most natural grammatical reading is to keep the same subject for “one died for all”, “he died for all” and “him who died for them”. They share the same verb and object, and it makes the most sense to keep the same subject, especially since no other subject is explicitly mentioned as a referent for the pronoun. Verse 14 says what happened, that Christ died (and all died), verse 15 says why that happened. Verse 14 is the reality (and result), and verse 15 is the reason. So there is progression or development in the verses. Verse 14 has a result clause, verse 15 a purpose clause (if my grammar is correct…). So yeah, I guess that is not too different from what I just noticed Kutz also said…