The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (115 page)

Paul then launched into an extended contrast of the earthly body and the resurrection body. The earthly body is characterized by corruption, shame, and weakness. More importantly, it is a natural body. The resurrection body is incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and spiritual.

Confusion about the doctrine of the resurrection impacted the Corinthians’ ethics as much as their eschatology. Their rationale for deeds of the body was expressed in the slogan, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will do away with both of them.”
⁵⁹
Since God was going to destroy the stomach in any case, it did not matter what
or how much one ate. What is more, the Corinthians likely extended their reasoning to the function of the sexual organs as well. Since God was going to destroy the body, he did not care in which sexual activities the believer engaged nor how or with whom. Hence, the Corinthians reasoned that, in order to be sinful, an act had to be “against his own body” (1 Cor 6:18).
⁶⁰
If the material body was not raised, God must not care about that body or what one did with it. Thus believers were free to engage in sexual acts with prostitutes without fear of sin. Paul dismantled this argument of the Corinthians by contending that “God raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power” (1 Cor 6:14). According to Paul, the resurrection demonstrated that the body has enduring significance to God, so that God cared about both the body and what one did with that body.
⁶¹

Paul's arguments demonstrate that a correct biblical doctrine of the resurrection is a watershed issue. The Corinthian view of the resurrection and its impact on other areas of church life provide an interesting case study that demonstrates the relevance of doctrine to the contemporary church. Theology does not exist in a vacuum; it is not an impractical study that has no significant impact on the daily life of believers. An intrinsic relationship exists between one's doctrines and deeds, between one's beliefs and behavior. A proper response to unchristian behavior in the church includes not only moral rebuke and ethical challenge, but instruction in correct doctrine as well.

The New versus the Old Covenant (2 Corinthians)
Second Corinthians 3 contains the most explicit discussion of the new covenant in Paul's letters. The term “covenant” appears nine times in Paul's letters,
⁶²
but explicit references to the “new covenant” and the “old covenant” appear only in the Corinthian letters. Some scholars have argued that the paucity of references to the new covenant in Paul's writings implies that covenant was not a dominant theme in Paul's theology. However, even when explicit references to the new covenant are absent in Paul's letters, new covenant theology is pervasive and provides the foundation for many of Paul's discussions of salvation, the law, new creation, and the role of the Spirit in the believer's life.

The reference to Jesus’ utterance regarding the new covenant during the Last Supper in 1 Cor 11:25 suggests that Paul's new covenant theology must be traced at least in part to his dependence on Jesus’ teachings. Although casual readers of Jesus’ eucharistic statements may assume that the reference to Jesus’ blood implies that the new covenant consists primarily or even exclusively of atonement for sin, a close examination of biblical teachings regarding the new covenant suggests otherwise.
⁶³
Jesus described the cup as a picture of the new covenant in his blood that is poured out for believers (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20).

SIDEBAR 12.2: THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND TO PAUL'S
TEACHING ON THE NEW COVENANT

As early as Genesis 15, blood sacrifice functioned to seal and guarantee a covenant. When God made his covenant with Abraham, he had Abraham slaughter a heifer, a goat, and a ram, and cut them in two. This sacrifice sealed the covenant.
¹
This background suggests that when Jesus spoke of the new covenant in his blood or the blood of the covenant, he meant that his death would be the sacrifice that established and sealed a new covenant between God and his people. The shedding of Jesus’ blood at the initiation of the new covenant paralleled the blood that was sprinkled on the people at the giving of the old covenant in Exod 24:8.
²

The new covenant was promised by God through OT prophets (Jer 31:31—34; Ezek 36:24—30). The old covenant was ineffective because it imposed demands on God's people but did not effect the transformation necessary for them to fulfill those demands. In this new covenant, God would transform the hearts and wills of his people so that they naturally and spontaneously fulfilled the law's righteous demands. Paul's reference “not on stone tablets but on tablets that are hearts of flesh” (2 Cor 3:3) alludes to the law of Moses (Exod 32:15-16; 34:1-28) and the new covenant (Jer 31:33), respectively.

Paul's description of the new covenant as “not of the letter, but of the Spirit” alludes to the OT promise of the Spirit (Ezek 36:26). The indwelling Spirit compelled believers from within to fulfill the law's righteous demands. Paul's allusions to the new covenant promises of the OT suggest that his description of his apostolic ministry as “the ministry of righteousness” refers primarily—not to imputed righteousness in which the believer is justified before God through Jesus’ atoning death—but to the actual righteousness of the believer that is produced by the Spirit's transforming work.

__________________________

¹
In fact, in Hebrew the words “make a covenant” literally mean “cut a covenant” because the making of a covenant required the slaughter or “cutting” of a sacrificial animal.

²
See the insightful remarks in F. Thielman,
Paul and the Law
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 105-6.

Paul's description of the impact of the new covenant on the believer climaxes with this statement: “We all, with unveiled faces, are reflecting the glory of the Lord and are being transformed in the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). Thus the result of the new covenant is not merely acquittal before God in eschatological judgment; it is also a radical transformation that restores the image of God to believers and that imparts to them an increasing measure of God's own glory by granting them God's righteous character (see Rom 8:1-4).

Paul contrasted the old and new covenants to highlight the supremacy of the new covenant. The old covenant resulted in death and condemnation because sinners were incapable of fulfilling its demands and were thus destined to be declared guilty by God and punished; the new covenant resulted in life and righteousness. This life produced by the
Spirit is probably resurrection life. The statement, “The Spirit produces life,” is likely an allusion to Ezek 37:13. Finally, Paul pointed out that although the old covenant was being abolished, the new covenant remained forever. Although the old covenant was temporary, the new covenant was eternal. Thus the glory of the new covenant so outshone the glory of the old covenant as to eclipse that glory completely.

Paul illustrated the fact that the old covenant resulted in death and condemnation by reminding his readers that after Moses received the old covenant, he had to veil his face to prevent the Israelites from being destroyed by the mere reflection of the divine glory (Exod 34:29—35), even though that glory, like the covenant it represented, was already in the process of being abolished.
⁶⁴
If the Israelites feared the mere reflection of the divine glory, how much more should they fear the divine glory itself. Paul added that even though the glory of Moses’ face was so intense that sinners could not look on it, that glory nonetheless was a fading glory.

The old covenant was nullified by God because it resulted in condemnation and death rather than righteousness and life. Not only did it fail to make God's people the partakers of divine glory, it left them unable even to gaze on the divine glory. Moses veiled his face because he did not want the sons of Israel to gaze on his face when God at last abolished the old covenant, an event that would be signaled by the faint and final glimmer of the reflection of the divine glory from Moses’ face fading away at last.
⁶⁵

The veil that hid the abolishment of the old covenant was still over the eyes of many of Paul's contemporary Jews when they read the books of Moses. But Christ removed the veil. When a sinner turned to the Lord and came under the power of the new covenant, the veil masking the demise of the old covenant was destroyed. Then the believer was privileged to look on and reflect the glory of the Lord. Unlike Moses the believer did not reflect a glory that was ever diminishing. He reflected an ever-increasing degree of glory as he was transformed into the image of God.

The Relationship of the Christian Ordinances to Salvation
Differing views regarding the meaning and purpose of Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper constitute one of the major disagreements between various Christian groups. Many theologians in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches insist that baptism and the Supper belong to a group of rituals called “sacraments” that, in some way, impart salvation.
⁶⁶

Many evangelicals, on the other hand, insist that baptism is a symbol of the believer's union with Christ and his participation by faith in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3—4). Baptism pictures, but does not produce, the washing away of sins; and forgiveness of sins depends only on genuine personal faith in the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Christ.
⁶⁷

The teaching of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 10:1—12 constitutes one of the clearest biblical warrants for the view that baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbolic rituals commanded by Christ rather than sacraments that actually grant salvation. Both 1 Cor 9:24—27 and 10:12 suggest that the Corinthians had a false view of eternal security that, they presumed, granted them the liberty to persist in a sinful lifestyle without fear of divine retribution. Since there was nothing they could do to forfeit their salvation, they believed that they had nothing to lose by living a life of heinous sin.

The Corinthians flaunted their licentiousness with the libertarian motto that Paul quoted, then corrected and qualified: “Everything is permissible for me” (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). They had relations with prostitutes, engaged in incest, participated in idol worship, and turned the Lord's Supper into a pagan orgy, apparently justifying their behavior by claiming, “Once saved, always saved!” or “We can live any way we want!” The fact that Paul interjected a discussion of baptism and the Lord's Supper into his challenge of the Corinthians’ distorted view of eternal security suggests that the Corinthian presumption of salvation was grounded in sacramentalism.
⁶⁸

This suspicion seems to be confirmed by the “baptism for the dead” mentioned in 1 Cor 15:29.
⁶⁹
While the reference is obscure and scholars still debate the motivations for this apparently vicarious baptism for the deceased, the most plausible explanation is that the Corinthians viewed baptism as a saving sacrament.
⁷⁰
Consequently, when believers died before they had an opportunity to be baptized, the church deemed it necessary that another receive baptism on behalf of the deceased believer.
⁷¹
By appealing to OT history,
Paul showed that a lifestyle of heinous sinfulness was inconsistent with genuine Christianity and that participation in mere outward rituals will not protect a person from the judgment of God.
⁷²

In 1 Cor 10:1—5 Paul compared the events of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt to the ordinances of the Christian faith. He argued that the Israelites were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. When the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, they were completely surrounded by water. Water was above them in the form of the cloud. The parted waters of the Red Sea surrounded them both to the right and to the left. These devotees to Moses were, in a sense, “immersed” as God began their deliverance, just as disciples of Christ are immersed immediately subsequent to their conversion.

Paul referred to the Israelites’ partaking of the manna in Exodus 16 as eating “spiritual food.” Similarly, he referred to their enjoyment of the miraculous provision of water in Exodus 17 as “spiritual drink.” By calling the manna and water “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink,” Paul was purposefully comparing them to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. The fact that Paul designated Christ himself as the source of the miraculous water may imply that drinking this water was a form of “communion” with Christ so that the water and manna even more closely paralleled the Supper shared by Christians.

While careful reflection may suggest some other parallels between these OT events and the NT ordinances, Paul did not appeal to the OT images to teach what the ordinances do mean but rather to demonstrate what they do not mean. Paul was simply demonstrating that God's OT people participated in an “immersion” that was roughly analogous to Christian baptism and a spiritual meal that loosely paralleled the Lord's Supper in order to present a biblical response to sacramentalism.
⁷³

Despite the fact that “all” were baptized and “all” partook of the “same” spiritual meal, God was not pleased with most of them, and their bodies were scattered over the desert. Of the thousands who were baptized into Moses and ate the spiritual meal, only two, Joshua and Caleb, actually entered the promised land. Participation in “baptism” and the “spiritual meal” did not guarantee the salvation of all the Israelites. By analogy, neither did the Corinthians’ observance of the NT ordinances guarantee their salvation. This, it appears, was contrary to what the Corinthians believed.
⁷⁴

Paul forcefully decried the magical view of the ordinances at Corinth. He insisted that baptism and Communion do not guarantee salvation. Appealing to familiar OT narratives, he demonstrated that all the Hebrews were baptized and took Communion, but God destroyed more than he saved. After establishing the basic premise that baptism and a spiritual meal did not guarantee salvation, Paul warned that the Corinthians had much more in common with the Hebrews than baptism and Communion. They were reenacting the same sins that brought about the destruction of the Israelites in the wilderness.
⁷⁵