The importance of the cross cannot be overemphasised for Paul.
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 24).
I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world (Gal. 6:14).
The life of Jesus was vital for Paul for his life was in contrast to ours (Adam’s); his being one of obedience, of humility and that obedience being even to death, death being death on the cross (Rom. 5:19; Phil 2: 7,8). A call to imitate Paul was a call to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ. ‘Justification by faith’ was not justification by faith alone – we should not simply subsume James under Paul to erase the supposed divide between them. James said we are not justified by faith alone! And I am sure Paul would have agreed. Neither Paul nor James are suggesting ‘salvation by works’ any more than their roots (‘Judaism’) did. Judaism talked of the ‘works of the law’ – behaviour as outlined in the law in response to God’s grace and acceptance; if Israel was ‘saved’ it was by grace; Paul might well have been happy with the term ‘works of faith’ (‘the only thing that counts is faith working through love’ – Gal. 5:6); certainly works (but not to earn salvation) by the Spirit, his helpful term being ‘fruit’. The contrast for Paul between the former way of life and the new way was that of ‘law v. Spirit’. Led by the law as a guardian (his former expression of faith) gave way to being led by the Spirit (Gal. 4:1-6; Rom. 8:14).
The brutal death on the cross. The cross was a political statement to mark those who rebelled against Rome’s rule; the death of Jesus on the Roman cross was fuelled by religious jealousy. He was charged with being a blasphemer and the sentence was carried out by the Imperial powers of the day – that in itself would be tragic and make Jesus a martyr and a hero, but Paul was convinced that something much more was going on. Jesus was a martyr but more; martyrs inspire but Jesus saves. Probably no ‘theory’ of the atonement will suffice though (no surprise) the populist theory of ‘penal substitution’ in order to display God’s righteousness and satisfy his wrath simply does not resonate for there is no divide in the Trinity. The angry God (Father) and loving Jesus is not Pauline, for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is the ‘powers’ feature highly in Paul. Demonic as in spiritual beings? Earthly powers / systems? Demonic as in ‘beings’ that come into ‘existence’ as a result of corporate power entities? Take your pick! He disarmed all powers:
He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.
Any theory that does not take in this aspect I think falls short of being Pauline. The transfer from one realm to another necessitates the defeat of powers hostile to humanity; the captivity has to be broken.
Paul’s gospel is not just the cross, but the cross and the resurrection. The crucified one is the resurrected one, and he insists if Jesus had not been raised then we are still in our sins. The resurrection is the affirmation that a former age has been ended, or perhaps it might be better put that a new age / era has begun as the two ages now run in parallel.
Freedom, deliverance, and a very real experience is what takes place. Paul’s gospel goes beyond a ‘faith’ response to a reception of the Spirit and that is appealed to in experiential terms.
The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard? (Gal. 3:2-5).
‘Did you experience so much’ could be understood as ‘suffer’ as being something external and unpleasant but given that he goes on with present tense verbs as to the ‘supply of the Spirit’ and working miracles among he makes an experiential appeal. Faith resulted in the receiving of a tangible animating presence, the reception of a life-source that resulted in God-activity.
The cross does much more than show us a way (‘moral influence’ theory of Abelard and in part René Girard’s presentation of the scapegoating narrative that he uses). The cross stands at the end of a doomed pathway; the resurrection stands with the stone rolled away and an invitation to a new path. The possibilities are endless and this is why I like to talk about transformation,
[A]nd through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20).
I am agnostic (and I think that is the best faith position!) on what transformation will look like because once touched by the Spirit it is the imagination that is ignited to ‘see a new creation’. Paul might have thought there would be an imminent return (in his lifetime) of the Lord (‘we who are alive at his coming’) but he continually worked for the future. That has to be our framework. Agnosticism regarding the future is the framework, but focusing in the present so as to invite the future to manifest.
Once we move away from the narrow framework of ‘saved from hell’ (ticket to heaven) to a Pauline vision for the world (his world and now ours) we do not negate personal salvation but understand it to be a salvation from captivity to the realm of sin and death to participating in the liberation movement of reconciliation. To quote another movement that understands that salvation is to be measured by the extent to which we are liberated and become liberators. (‘[Jesus] who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age’.)
Paul is silent as to what happens between the two events of crucifixion and resurrection. I am also somewhat curious on that time. Do we choose the rather ‘mythical'(??) descent into hades (harrowing of hell: 1 Peter 4) or do we go for the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews…and what would that indicate)? Or is there truth in both without either needing to be pressed literally?
The cross ends a domination that had erased all true hope (not erased the possibility of ‘individual’ salvation); the resurrection opened entry to the realm of Spirit inspired imagination. Truly, the era of ‘I have a dream’.