1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
The ESV study Bible says this about it:
Paul suffers from great anguish because his Jewish kinsmen are unsaved (see also 10:1). Indeed, if it were possible, Paul might almost choose to be accursed (to suffer God's punishment in hell) so that his fellow Jews would be saved (cf. Moses in Ex. 32:30–32). But he knows this would achieve nothing, for none but Christ could be any person's substitute to bear God's wrath.
So let me see if I have this right. Paul would sacrifice himself such that his fellow Jews would be saved but that would be futile because only Jesus can do that. Right? But being that he wrote that in Romans, which was written after Jesus' crucifixion, doesn't that mean... that... Jesus already did that? Or was what Jesus did not as good as what Paul would have done had he been the one sent to be the sacrifice?
You know what I mean?
Why, by human standards, does it seem through this passage and its ESV explanation that what Jesus did was incomplete? Why didn't Jesus sacrifice Himself so that all of us could be saved?
And if He did, why doesn't Paul believe it?
5 comments:
I tend to think the ESV Study Bible did itself a disservice with its phrasing here. After all, it's hard to imagine that they really needed to say, "for none but Christ could be any person's substitute to bear God's wrath". That looks like the sort of thing people say when they're overly worried that someone will accuse them of heresy.
Beyond that, though, it seems straightforward. Paul is saying that he'd really, really like his fellow Jews to accept Christ. As to why there's no hint of universalism in this passage I'd point out that Paul lived in an era when people who had directly killed Jesus were still alive. He knew full well that there were people who really wanted nothing to do with Jesus.
But there is universalism in it though, no? Isn't he saying if it was him, if he could be Jesus, he'd find a way to include everybody?
I think he's simply using strong words, perhaps hyperbole, to say that if there was a way for him to trade himself in for the rest of his Jewish brethren he would. I don't think he's suggesting that there is a way or that one could be found. (Some things are a not a matter of either trying or of power.)
But if he wonders if there is a way and suggests he would if he could, then why didn't Jesus do just that? Why would Jesus sacrifice himself selectively when if it was up to Paul, he'd do it inclusively?
I assume that this is because there isn't a way (or at least one that doesn't involve turning people into puppets).
This is probably where the ESV Study Bible and I part ways. It's more Reformed than I am (and therefore less likely to look askance at turning people into puppets) and seems to be more likely than I to regard Paul's language as technical rather than causal. For instance, if I say, "I'd give my left arm for a decent milkshake," you interpret this to mean, "I really wish I had a decent milkshake," and not as a statement about the value I place on my left arm.
Post a Comment