Thursday, February 26, 2004
As we think together about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, one of the key terms to understand is the word, "firstfruits" in 1 Cor 15:20. As used by Moses, it referred to offerings of grain, wine, and cattle (Ex 23:19; Lev 23:10; Num 15:20ff; 18:8, 11f.; Deut 18:4; 26:2, 10).
Richard Gaffin writes, "The point to these sacrifices is that they are not offered up for their own sake, as it were, but as the representative of the total harvest, the entire flock, and so forth. They are a token expression of recognition and thanksgiving that the whole has been given by God. Thus 'firstfruits' does not simply have a temporal force. It does bring into view the initial portion of the harvest, but only as it is part of the whole; it focuses on the first of the newborn lambs only as they belong to the entire flock. 'Firstfruits' expresses the notion of organic connection and unity, the inseparability of the initial quantity from the whole. It is particularly this aspect which gives these sacrifices their significance" (Resurrection and Redemption, p.34).
So how are we to understand Paul's use of the term in 1 Cor 15:20 as applied to the resurrection of Christ? Jesus' resurrection is the initial portion of the whole. It appears that Paul is using this term to stress the organic connection between Christ's resurrection and ours. In the context, Paul is saying that this organic connection means our resurrection is the necessary consequence of Christ's resurrection. But as Gaffin points out, "His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event. In fact, on the basis of this verse it can be said that Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event. At the same time, however, he maintains a temporal distinction between them. 'Then' (v.23) makes this apparent" (p.35).
If you've read through this, you might be asking yourself by now, "So what?" There is an important "so what" to think about as we read Paul's letters. In fact, it might involve "unlearning" to be able to really see it. What might we need to unlearn in our reading of Paul?
I think we often read Paul as a systematic theologian who wrote with that purpose. In other words, we come to Paul to get dogmatic statements on theological issues. Yet we need to remember that Paul was writing letters to real church situations. It was in response to those situations that he responds the way he does and chooses to emphasize what he does. So we need to read Paul in the context of each letter and in the context of the larger "story" (Act 1:creation; Act 2:Fall; Act 3:Israel; Act 4:Jesus; Act 5:the Church).
As part of our viewing Paul as a systematic theologian, I think we have seen him as the one who lays down the core teaching on redemption (salvation). For example, if you are asked a question about the nature of salvation, do you turn to the Old Testament? To the Gospels? Or to Paul? Most Christians go to Romans or some other Pauline teaching. My point it this: because we have read Paul as a systematic theologian and have viewed him as the teacher of the dynamics of redemption, we have associated redemption as the central teaching of Paul. Think again (here comes the unlearning...). It appears that when Paul speaks of the believer's justification, adoption, sanctification or glorification ( or any other benefits of salvation), the more basic, underlying consideration is resurrection with Christ- that is, our (existential) union with Christ as resurrected.
Bottom line: for Paul, the resurrection is the central theme. The order of emphasis is resurrection and redemption. Is this the way we read Paul? Is this the grid through which we look at our lives as Christians?
Richard Gaffin writes, "The point to these sacrifices is that they are not offered up for their own sake, as it were, but as the representative of the total harvest, the entire flock, and so forth. They are a token expression of recognition and thanksgiving that the whole has been given by God. Thus 'firstfruits' does not simply have a temporal force. It does bring into view the initial portion of the harvest, but only as it is part of the whole; it focuses on the first of the newborn lambs only as they belong to the entire flock. 'Firstfruits' expresses the notion of organic connection and unity, the inseparability of the initial quantity from the whole. It is particularly this aspect which gives these sacrifices their significance" (Resurrection and Redemption, p.34).
So how are we to understand Paul's use of the term in 1 Cor 15:20 as applied to the resurrection of Christ? Jesus' resurrection is the initial portion of the whole. It appears that Paul is using this term to stress the organic connection between Christ's resurrection and ours. In the context, Paul is saying that this organic connection means our resurrection is the necessary consequence of Christ's resurrection. But as Gaffin points out, "His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event. In fact, on the basis of this verse it can be said that Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event. At the same time, however, he maintains a temporal distinction between them. 'Then' (v.23) makes this apparent" (p.35).
If you've read through this, you might be asking yourself by now, "So what?" There is an important "so what" to think about as we read Paul's letters. In fact, it might involve "unlearning" to be able to really see it. What might we need to unlearn in our reading of Paul?
I think we often read Paul as a systematic theologian who wrote with that purpose. In other words, we come to Paul to get dogmatic statements on theological issues. Yet we need to remember that Paul was writing letters to real church situations. It was in response to those situations that he responds the way he does and chooses to emphasize what he does. So we need to read Paul in the context of each letter and in the context of the larger "story" (Act 1:creation; Act 2:Fall; Act 3:Israel; Act 4:Jesus; Act 5:the Church).
As part of our viewing Paul as a systematic theologian, I think we have seen him as the one who lays down the core teaching on redemption (salvation). For example, if you are asked a question about the nature of salvation, do you turn to the Old Testament? To the Gospels? Or to Paul? Most Christians go to Romans or some other Pauline teaching. My point it this: because we have read Paul as a systematic theologian and have viewed him as the teacher of the dynamics of redemption, we have associated redemption as the central teaching of Paul. Think again (here comes the unlearning...). It appears that when Paul speaks of the believer's justification, adoption, sanctification or glorification ( or any other benefits of salvation), the more basic, underlying consideration is resurrection with Christ- that is, our (existential) union with Christ as resurrected.
Bottom line: for Paul, the resurrection is the central theme. The order of emphasis is resurrection and redemption. Is this the way we read Paul? Is this the grid through which we look at our lives as Christians?
