2 Corinthians 5:14-15

[joelkaki]

5:14
For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
5:15
and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Does "Therefore all died" refer to our being united to Christ in his death spoken of in Romans 6? It would seem so from the text. Christ died, and we died with him. (Romans 6 really sheds light on it.)

6:3
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
6:4
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
6:5
For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection,
6:6
knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
6:7
for he who has died is freed from sin.
6:8
Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,


By correlating the two, it seems very apparent that "therefore all died" in 2 Cor 5 refers to our death with him by virtue of being united to him.

Any thoughts? Do all agree that that is the proper interpretation? Or would someone propose another?

Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

03-11-2003 @ 10:42 AM
joelkaki:

5:14
For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
5:15
and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Does "Therefore all died" refer to our being united to Christ in his death spoken of in Romans 6? It would seem so from the text. Christ died, and we died with him. (Romans 6 really sheds light on it.)


Notice that two uses of ζαω (zaw or live) in verse 15. The first is a participle ζωντες that limits this to those who live, that is who have been reconciled to God thorugh our Lord Jesus Christ. Next note second use ζωσιν "that all might live" is a subjunctive showing a contingency so that the Gospel so using Romans 3 we see that Christ's death is set forth as a propitiation so that all might see, but that does not guarentee their regeneration unto life, but for some it will become a standard for judgment.

I think part of the problem is that we narrow the puprose of Christ's death too much and ignore what Paul says in the same passage: verse 26 "It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." When we speak of Christ dieing for the sins of the world I think we need to redefine this for clarities sake. Verse 26 shows that without the crucifixion, death and resurrection then God would not have been just when he mercifully past over sin in the past. That is how I understand the passages that speak of Chrsit dying for the sins of the world, so that His death and resurrection enabled God to maintain his righteousness and his mercy and thus he died because of the sins of the world and in substitution for those who are redeemed.




By correlating the two, it seems very apparent that "therefore all died" in 2 Cor 5 refers to our death with him by virtue of being united to him.

Any thoughts? Do all agree that that is the proper interpretation? Or would someone propose another?

Joel

As you see I a gree and would draw in Romans 3 as well.

GP

[joelkaki]

So "all died" would refer to our death with him by virtue of our being united to him?

Would you explain a little further on that idea of Christ dying for the sins of the world?
This part...
[I think part of the problem is that we narrow the puprose of Christ's death too much and ignore what Paul says in the same passage: verse 26 "It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." When we speak of Christ dieing for the sins of the world I think we need to redefine this for clarities sake. Verse 26 shows that without the crucifixion, death and resurrection then God would not have been just when he mercifully past over sin in the past. That is how I understand the passages that speak of Chrsit dying for the sins of the world, so that His death and resurrection enabled God to maintain his righteousness and his mercy and thus he died because of the sins of the world and in substitution for those who are redeemed.]

Thanks,
Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

Much of my thinking here comes from John Piper and Cranfield.

Okay as I see it partof the problem is that we view Christ's finished work almost exclusively from a anthropomorphic point of view. Think of the way the Gosple is often presented: "If you were the only one then the Father would have still sent his son..." I think that this has a nugget of truth to it but is a gross over simplification. For one thing it places man at the center as opposed to God. It makes much of man, as if God needs us to be happy, thus denying aseity.

God was obligated to send Christ in order that He might die on the Cross to uphold his righteousness. Otherwise the charge that his passing over sin prior to the cross would have been completely justified, because he did not punish them for their sins. To use a Piper illustration think of taking a shower after mowing hte lawn on the hottest and muggiest day of the summer. The primary purpose was to clean up from the sweat and grime. At the same time you are cooled off and refreshed by the water. So in the same way the Cross upheld God's righteousness, while at the same time allowing him to be the justifier of htose who put their faith in him. Thus both are a result of Christ's finished work on the Cross, and to put the justification of man first is to put man at the center and not God.

GP

[joelkaki]

I'm still not quite sure what you are getting at. What do you mean, "He had to die to uphold God's righteousness"?


Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

Our sin violated his righteousness and demanded his judgment, read immediate, swift execution of the judgment. His righteousness demanded that Adam and Eve should have died upon eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he showed mercy, so his righteousness had to be satisfied. The only way for him to satisfy his righteousness in light of his mercy was the crucifixion of Christ.

GP

[joelkaki]

Our sin violated his righteousness and demanded his judgment, read immediate, swift execution of the judgment. His righteousness demanded that Adam and Eve should have died upon eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he showed mercy, so his righteousness had to be satisfied. The only way for him to satisfy his righteousness in light of his mercy was the crucifixion of Christ.

GP

I'm not sure I quite get what you are saying. It would seem that you are saying that he died for every single person's sins, and yet how do you reconcile that with your own professed belief in limited atonement? I must just be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

He died for all sins, in so far as it maintains God's righteousness for not immediately pouring out his wrath on them, thus allowing for his mercy and righteousness to not be in contradiciton. This does not mean atonement, this means that GOd is just. At the same time he justifeis the elect.

GP

[joelkaki]

That is an interesting way of looking at it, one I have never heard before that requires some thought.


Joel

[joelkaki]

Much of my thinking here comes from John Piper and Cranfield.



Do you perhaps have any web references or links to material by John Piper about this?

Thanks,
Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

It is mostly from The Pleasures of God and God's Passion for His Glory which thus tips my hat to Jonathan Edwards and his Treatise Concerning the End for Which God Created The World, which can be found here (http://www.jonathanedwards.com/theology.htm) at the bottom of the page.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Joel writes:

> Does "Therefore all died" refer to our being united to Christ in his death spoken of in Romans 6? It would seem so from the text. Christ died, and we died with him. (Romans 6 really sheds light on it.)

1Co 1:13 - "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

This indicates that you are baptized in the name of the One crucified for you...

Ro 6:3 - "Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?"

Clearly we are baptized into Christ's death, and this death is for all who are baptized into Him... We die to the world, and are reborn into Christ... That is what baptism does for the believer who is baptized in Christ's Church...

1Co 12:13 - "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." Whjat could be clearer? The Body of Christ is One... And we enter it by baptism...

> "...it seems very apparent that "therefore all died" in 2 Cor 5 refers to our death with him by virtue of being united to him. "

And this uniting to Him is our baptism into His one Body... The Church. To enter this body, one must die to the world... Hence we are baptized into Christ's death, and look to our resurrection in Him...

geo

[joelkaki]

When you are saying all that, are you referring to water Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?


Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

From reading George's posts elsewhere I believe that it would be safe to say he means water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit.

GP