Edgework

In most evangelical circles, the writings of Paul comprise the core of the Gospel. It is thought that in his theological reflections Paul brought us the true theological and practical meaning and implications of how the death of Christ saves us from damnation.

In his book, The Nonviolent Atonement, J. Denny Weaver draws heavily on Paul Brondos’ book, Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption, to make the argument that Paul did not create a “different – more atonement friendly” gospel than that found elsewhere in the New Testament (56-61). In fact, he claims that Paul is basically preoccupied with passing on the story of Jesus and its implications as generally understood in the early church. This is clearly in focus in I Corinthians 15: 3-11: “For what I received I passed on to you as of the first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures and that he appeared to Peter, and then the twelve… this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.”

Brondos makes the case that Paul’s frequent use of the term, “Jesus gave himself for our sins” as he does in Galatians 1:4, refers not only to Jesus’ death but to everything Jesus lived and died for while carrying out his mission for us. In his commentary on Romans, John E. Toews declares that Paul is making the same point in Romans 3:22 by declaring that it is through the “faithfulness” of Christ that we are justified (99-113). He brought us salvation by fulfilling his divine mission even though it cost him his life.

In Rediscovering the Scandal of the Cross, Green and Baker argue that in his writings, Paul is working on two fronts. On the one hand he is interpreting Jesus through the lens of the Jewish Scriptures while on the other, proclaiming this message in a Gentile context. His primary audience, the Gentiles, would be approaching the message about Jesus from the basis of a pagan pre-understanding that God was an arbitrary being – angry and capricious – who needed appeasing of some kind in order to be good to them. That is what Paul was up against and it was his challenge to convince them that the God represented by Jesus Christ was not like the gods of the nations, but rather a “…compassionate and gracious God, slow to danger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7). It is a sad irony that many conservative Christians go to great lengths developing atonement theories that portray the Christian God to be like the pagan gods Paul was up against.

We have room here only to touch on a few specific passages where Paul promotes God in a more positive light. For example, in Romans 1:18-32, Paul develops his view of the wrath of God, not in the vein of his pagan audience, but speaking instead about God’s wrath as “giving people over” to the sins they have chosen to engage in. So it is not as though God is striking out to punish evil people for their sins. Rather their sins become their own punishment. As Green and Baker say, “To put it pointedly, here Paul has nothing to do with the emotion-laden God who strikes out in frustration or vengeance against we who are implicated in sin. Sinful activity is the result of God’s letting us go our own way – and this “letting us go our own way” constitutes God’s wrath…Our sinful acts do not invite God’s wrath but prove God’s wrath is already active” (55).

In a second core Pauline passage, 2 Corinthians 5:14 – 6:2, Paul puts reconciliation at the center of his thinking. But, contrary to much atonement theory rhetoric, God is not doing something so that he can be reconciled to those dastardly sinners who are disobeying him. It is humans who need to be reconciled to the God who is not estranged; the God who is always in loving pursuit of all who are alienated from him. “Paul has no need to show how God can be appeased; how God might be empowered to love again…God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (59).

Another significant Pauline text is found in Galatians 3:10-14. It is important to note the context here. Paul is making a case for the inclusion of Gentile Christ-followers in the new faith community over against those who were using the Law as a wedge to keep Gentile believers out. My goodness, they are not even circumcised! Paul basically argues that by playing their game with the Law, they were essentially putting Christ out of the church as well, because according to the Law anyone “hung on a tree” is considered cursed. And then Paul makes his point: Christ was willing to be considered cursed according to the Law so that the Gospel would now be available to Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul is not making a case for a particular atonement theory; rather he is simply telling the Jesus story in a way that in the end both Jews and Gentiles can participate in it.

As these, and many more passages, illustrate, when we simply let Paul speak for himself without pulling proof texts from here or there to support a specific atonement theory, his view is remarkably similar to the Jesus story we have already encountered in other New Testament writings. An appropriate clincher to this understanding is what is said of Paul in the last verse of Acts: “Boldly and without hindrance he preached the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” That sounds to me like Paul had a firm grasp on the message Jesus proclaimed at the outset of his ministry, “The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15).