Essay 5—Resurrection—(5) Victory

Outline: 031-E5.5-Resurrection-Victory
Passage: 1 Corinthians 15:51-58
Discussion Audio (50m)

The Resurrection is the assurance, confidence, and power
that drives the work of Christian mission.

Jesus didn’t stay dead and buried. If he had, Christianity probably would be just a footnote (if at all) in any number of Jewish sects that have come and gone.  But Jesus didn’t stay dead.

No, Jesus rose from the grave and was witnessed in bodily form by hundreds. That is the assurance that life, the power of the love of God, has defeated death. This is the confidence that death will be swallowed up in victory. And this is the power that drives the mission work of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the power that has sustained Christianity for nearly two-thousand years. It is this power that will continue to sustain it until our Lord Jesus Christ returns.

Because destruction of death is certain there is nothing in this world that can derail the gospel work. In confidence Paul can write this doxology, “As a result of all this, my loved brothers and sisters, you must stand firm, unshakable, excelling in the work of the Lord as always, because you know that your labor isn’t going to be for nothing in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 15:58 CEB) The physical lives of Christians may be interrupted temporarily by physical death, but no work of service given for our Lord Jesus Christ is ever in vain. We can stand firm and steadfast on that certainty.

Essay 5—Resurrection—(2) The End of All Things

Outline: 028-E5.2-Resurrection-End of All Things
Passage: 1 Corinthians 15:21-28
Discussion Audio (1h21m)

The Resurrection is the gospel.
Everything else is secondary.

Paul continues the discussion of the centrality of Christ’s bodily Resurrection, witnessed by hundreds of human eyes, to Christianity. It is the one event that distinguishes Christianity from all other belief systems and philosophies. Many martyrs have died. But only one has risen. Death does not define Christianity. Life does.

For Paul, the Time of the End begins with Christ’s resurrection. It assures him that Death has been defeated and it is in the process of being destroyed, along with all earthly rule, powers, and authorities. When Christ returns, the destruction of death will be complete, never to return. The resurrection of all who have died “in Christ” is its visible proof that death has given up its dead.

Readers need to be careful to note that Paul does not address the question of what happens to those who have died prior to Christ, or who have died without knowing Christ. His audience is the Corinthian believers who hold in common the knowledge about and resurrection of Christ. To use this passage to teach that only those who are Christians will be saved misses the point.

It must be noted at the outset that the general resurrection of the dead is not Paul's concern, neither here nor elsewhere in the argument.[1]

Another point to note is that Paul’s focus is not eschatological chronology, but the logical process of eschatology. In other words, the Christ’s resurrection as the firstfruit logically guarantees that all who have died in Christ must be resurrected. And the resurrection of believers is logical proof that death and all powers logically resulting from death have been destroyed.

The crucifixion of Christ shows the power of sin and death. If it ended there, sin and death could claim victory over God, life, and love. That’s why the resurrection, and not the cross, is the center of Christianity. That’s why the resurrection, and not the cross, is the focus of the gospel. The resurrection is the power of God at work to destroy sin and death.

Paul is thereby saying to his readers, “If Christ is not raised, then this vision of the end of all things is a lie. But Christ is raised, and we the apostles have seen him. If you deny him as the reigning Lord, you are the losers.”[2]

The Resurrection is about more than just Easter.

Christians and Christian Churches should perhaps consider focusing more on the Resurrection and less on the Cross. The Christian faith should focus more on life and less on death. Easter should be celebrated far more often than just on Easter Sunday.

This is one of the great passages in the NT… in terms of the true significance of Easter. It is therefore unfortunate that at times this powerful demonstration of the certainty of our own resurrection is overlooked in favor of an apologetic of trying to prove the resurrection to unbelievers. First of all, that is not what Paul is trying to do. What he has going for him is the common ground of their common faith in the resurrection of Christ. There is a place for apologetics, that is, the defense of Christianity to the unconverted; but Easter is not that place. Easter, which should be celebrated more frequently in the church, and not just at the Easter season, calls for our reaffirming the faith to the converted. The resurrection of Christ has determined our existence for all time and eternity. We do not merely live out our length of days and then have the hope of resurrection as an addendum; rather, as Paul makes plain in this passage, Christ's resurrection has set in motion a chain of inexorable events that absolutely determines our present and our future.[3]

---

[1] New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 15:21-22.

[2] Bailey, location 5289.

[3] NICNT, entry for 15:28.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(2) Paul’s Freedom and Responsibility

Outline: 016-E3.2-Paul and Freedom
Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:1-18
Discussion Audio (1h19m)

The Gospel is offensive because it is free, not transactional.

The Corinthian Christians looked upon Paul with askance, harboring doubts regarding his status as an apostle, because he refused to accept their support (patronage) and instead labored to support himself. In their cultural beliefs and traditions, teachers needed to free themselves from labor so they could have time to cultivate their minds. Teachers were expected to be clients of wealthy patrons. “You give us teaching; we support you.” That was the expected transactional relationship.

… There was no doubt friction between Paul and the Corinthians because he worked with his hands. For most Jewish believers this would not have been a problem… The rabbis supported themselves financially, often through some trade or skill. Indeed they were required to do so… On the other hand, for Christians with a Greek background things were different. Intellectuals were expected to be financially independent. Only with the leisure that comes from such independence was it possible to cultivate the mind. How could Greeks accept the intellectual and spiritual leadership of a tentmaker? ^[1]

But Paul refused patronage. Why?

First Corinthians 9:1-18 can be seen in two parts. In the first part Paul vigorously defends his status as an apostle and defends rights to which he is entitles as an apostle. Paul must first establish that he knows full well that he is entitled to the support of the Corinthian Christians. In the second part Paul vigorously defends his reasons for refusing patronage.

Paul's response to this is not first of all to defend his renunciation of his rights, but to establish that he has such rights. This must be done because they have questioned his authority altogether. From their point of view his activity would not have been the renunciation of assumed rights; rather, he must have worked with his hands because he lacked such rights. Since, therefore, he did not do as the others—accept patronage—he must not be a genuine apostle. ^[2]

One of the foundational problems Paul saw in the Corinthian church was that of freedom and rights. The Corinthians had a distorted view of Christian freedom. Not only did they appear to believe that this freedom meant they could do anything, they were flaunting it and imposing it on those who did not believe this way or were uncomfortable with this particular expression. In other words, some in the Corinthian church were (ironically) becoming enslaved to freedom. This is the point at which 1 Cor. 9:1-18 ties into the issue of food offered to idols that Paul had touched on in chapter 8.

Some of the Corinthian Christians had come to believe that accepting the gospel and its freedoms meant they were obligated to perform and behave in ways that would highlight their freedom and rights. They were still thinking in transactional terms.

By refusing patronage, Paul holds himself up as an example of genuine Christian freedom. He illustrates the transaction-free nature of the gospel through his actions.

Like the Corinthian Christians, we usually don’t have too much problem understanding and accepting that there is nothing we can do to merit God’s grace to us. But we often have a real problem in accepting that there is nothing God demands from us in return. (This is different from God desiring much from us.) There is nothing we can “do for God” for us to keep his grace.

This is why the gospel is so offensive. It is not so much the content of the gospel as it is its very nature. In the honor-shame culture in which this was written, to accept a gift without strings attached, without demand or expectation of reciprocation, was to suffer shame. The gospel is a stumbling block, it is shameful, because its recipients must acknowledge their shamefulness. There is no personal honor in accepting the gospel.

The parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) brings home this point. In this parable Jesus says that the tax collector is the one who was justified. The tax collector receives God’s grace. He, unlike the Pharisee, offers no good deeds as an offering. The tax collector offers no promises of sacrifice, offerings, or to even change his ways. He only acknowledges the reality of his condition. That is all grace requires.

The Corinthians wanted to bring transaction back into the gospel so that it could be used as a means of gaining personal honor.

Paul would have none of that. He would not place himself back into the slavery of the honor-shame system. And he warned the Corinthians of the path they were on. Genuine Christian freedom is found in rejecting the relational systems of this world and allowing only Christ to have a claim on one’s life.

In one sense his "pay" is in fact to receive "no pay"! But in the present argument this nonpayment "payment" also gives him his apostolic "freedom" from all, so that he might the more freely make himself a slave to everyone (v. 19). Thus in terms of his own ministry, his "pay" turns out to be his total freedom from all merely human impositions on his ministry. ^[3]

Freedom found in giving up one’s personal rights.

---

^[1] Bailey, location 2874.

^[2] NICNT, introductory text for 1 Cor. 9:3-14.

^[3] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 9:18.

Saints, or (Miserable) Sinners Saved by Grace?

If any group of Christians deserved to be called “sinners”, it ought to have been the Corinthian Christians. However, the Apostle Paul never—that’s right, never—uses the label “sinner” to identify any of them. How then does Paul identify and address them (emphasis mine)?

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: (1 Corinthians 1:2, ESV)

To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia: (2 Corinthians 1:1b, ESV)

This is in quite a contrast to many contemporary preaching and teaching that consistently tries to reinforce the idea that Christians are “sinners saved by grace” and similar phrases. In all cases, the implication is that the core identity of Christian is still “sinner” whose rottenness is just covered over by “Christ’s righteousness”. If that covering disappears or is taken off, what is revealed is what was there all along.

I believe anytime a preacher or teacher uses “sinner” to identify Christians, be it themselves or their audience, it is a false gospel message. It demeans the work of Christ. Not only that, it conveys the message that the power of the cross of Christ is/was not enough.

I used to accept this idea as true, that it was a statement of humility, that this kind of talk elevated the grace and power of God to save. Now I see it as a message, if not from the devil, then something very close to it. A message that cannot change the core identity of persons has no power at all. It is a false gospel.

Both Jesus and Paul are quite clear that “sinner” refers to those who have not yet experienced the redeeming and restoring power of God. Those who have, have had their core identities changed. They are no longer “sinner” but “saint”. This is the foundation of Paul’s appeals to the Corinthian believers: because they are no longer sinners, they really do have the power to behave in Christ-like ways. If Paul thought they were still sinners, he could not make that appeal—he would have written very different letters.  For both Jesus and Paul, a “sinner” is a slave to sin and has no power to do anything other than live out their condition. A “saint” is no longer a “sinner” and therefore has the power to choose to live the way of Christ.

None of this is to say that Christians, therefore, do not or cannot behave in ways that are sinful^[1]. Far from it. Christians are saints who continue their struggle with their former habits resulting from sin. Saints are even free to choose to revert to their former ways (which is what Paul sees many of the Corinthians having done, and thus writing them a reminder and a warning, but even that choice does not change their identity!).

Some readers here may object on the grounds of a few passages that appear to identify Christians as “sinners”. These are primarily found in non-Pauline epistles (Hebrews, James), and one sentence found in 1 Timothy 1:15. A more comprehensive discussion of this overall topic that includes some of these texts can be found here: “Sinners” Who Are Forgiven or “Saints” Who Sin?—Robert Saucy

---

^[1] I try to parse vocabulary here in a nuanced fashion. I define sin as being in a state of anti-God. Behaviors, actions, thoughts, etc. are not in themselves sin, but rather effects of the power of sin (c.f., Romans 1:18-2:11), i.e., sinfulness.