The Folly of Christ Crucified
The Text (ESV)
Another point that Paul makes against the Corinthian church's reliance on human wisdom is that the world sees the gospel (and specifically, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) as foolishness. In thinking about this, I came up with a few different explanations. Perhaps Paul is assuming some sort of logical argument along these lines: the wise men of the world do not believe the gospel and anything that wise men do not believe is foolishness so the gospel is foolishness. Maybe he is saying that the people of the world are blinded to the true wisdom of the message of the cross (2 Cor 4:4). The argument that I like the best is that the crucifixion of the Son of God really is foolishness to the world — especially to the people of that time. The cross was a symbol of shame, not reverence. Consider what Justin, an early Church father, had to say about this, “For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all.”
First, in the myths that the Greeks and Romans would be familiar with, the sons of gods do not suffer through shameful deaths. In those legends, the son of a god such as Hercules performs mighty feats and only dies in heroic fashion. They do not humble themselves and certainly do not submit to death on a cross.
Second, there is a paradox involving the cross. Crucifixion was a tool of the Roman Empire—of Caesar. It was a sign of his power and control. There was even a cult of Caesar that viewed him as a god on earth. Slaves and the politically weak were subject to this form of humiliating death. But Christ was able to defeat a much greater power than Caesar, that is sin, through the weakness of the cross. The very symbol of Caesar's power and Christ's weakness is really the power of God. What appears as foolishness to men is actually God's wisdom.
Comments
The old hymn goes:
By weakness and defeat He won the glorious crown,
Trod all His foes beneath His feet, by being
trodden down.
He Satan's power laid low, Made sin He sin
o'erthrew.
Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so, And death
by dying slew!
Posted by: David on Wednesday, June 8, 2005
That is a good summary of the paradox.
My wife does not like it if the words of a hymn are changed when the editor of a hymnal feels that a word is beyond a modern church-goer's vocabulary. Changing "chanting bird" to "singing bird" in Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee is a recent example she has mentioned. This version of the hymn has what I consider a good modification -- from "He won the meed and crown" to "He won the glorious crown."
Interestingly, it looks like a change was made due to theology also according to the quick search that I did. The phrase "He hell in hell laid low" is replaced by "He Satan's power laid low."
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, June 8, 2005
You expressed my opinion beautifully, dear!
Posted by: Shannon Costello on Wednesday, June 8, 2005
Another one comes to mind:
ORIGINAL
Look on me with Thy favor, Vouchsafe to me Thy grace.
CHANGED ("Modern")
Look on me with Thy favor, And grant to me Thy grace.
I agree with Shannon, I like the original (usually) when it comes to hymns.
Posted by: David on Thursday, June 9, 2005
Another one that was an ill-advised change is "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing." The second verse in a modern hymnal begins "Here I find my greatest treasure," but the original reads "Here I raise mine Ebenezer..."
Perhaps someone was afraid 'Ebenezer,' as in Dickens' classic, might scare people off; but "Ebenezer" simply means "Stone of Help," or "the Lord has helped us to this point" (1 Sam. 7:12). EBENEZER actually fits better with the rest of the verse: "...hither by thy help I've come." Ah, perhaps we slight some of the early hymn-writers! Many of them were quite gifted in putting "the faith" into profound words and thoughts...
Posted by: David on Thursday, June 9, 2005
So looking at the Ebenezer example, has the average biblical fluency decreased or are we trying to be more inclusive on who is able to understand the words in a hymn or is it some other factor or perhaps some combination of the above?
At first I thought it might be that newer translations/paraphrases might be dropping 'Ebenezer' from the text. Using Bible Gateway, I quickly checked around 10 different versions including The Message and the New International Reader's Version. The only one that dropped it from the text was the Contemporary English Version and it had it in the footnotes.
I suppose another possibility is that the modern (American?) church is spending less time reading and studying the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament than in the past.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, June 9, 2005
So! We are "New Testament" Christians, those completely disconnected from the God of the OT, even though our Savior (their Messiah) was promised again and again in the OT. A big mistake in my estimation, because what did the early Christians read for their "Scriptures?"
The OT! (Ahem, can we read Rom. 15:4?)
Posted by: David on Thursday, June 9, 2005
In my church experience, I have certainly noticed a lack of knowledge of the historical sections of the OT and the Prophets outside of Daniel and maybe Isaiah. I don't know whether this is universal or whether it might have affected the use of 'Ebenezer' in modern hymnals.
We have four hymnals in our house. Of those, two were published since 1990. One has 'Ebenezer' and the other has a completely new first two lines to the second verse:
Hitherto Thy love has blest me;
Thou has bro't me to this place;
And I know Thy hand will bring me
Safely home by Thy good grace.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, June 9, 2005
How about "Alas and Did My Saviour Bleed?"
ORIGINAL
Alas and did my Saviour bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?
REVISED
Alas and did my Saviour bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for sinners such as I?
I heard one brother say the second is more accurate because a man is never described as a "worm" in the Bible, but Ps. 22 very clearly has David saying, "I am a worm and no man" (v.6)--though I would admit this is Messianic, foretelling the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. Job 25:6 also speaks of man being a worm...perhaps a person's dignity is offended if he is called a worm (!). Both versions are true--I think the original shows more humility though...
Posted by: David on Thursday, June 9, 2005
I like "for such a worm as I?" for the reason you mentioned (and I don't think it matters whether that specific word is used in the Bible or not). I also think those words fit my preferred tune (Avon) better.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Friday, June 10, 2005
As an aside to the hymn discussion, you made the point of crucifixion being a tool of the Roman Empire, and that it was a sign of Caesar's power and control. In Ps. 22:16 David says the wicked "...pierced My hands and My feet." Amazing in relation to our Lord Jesus on the cross because crucifixion, invented c.300-400BC by the Persians (one of the cruelst forms of execution ever), was not even known when David penned this Psalm (c. 1000 BC).
Posted by: David on Friday, June 10, 2005
Here is one that could be updated:
But I know Whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.
What does it mean to commit something against a day? It is an archaic usage of 'against.' Many of the modern translations (NASB or ESV for example) handle 2 Timothy 1:12 by rendering this part as "until that day."
Posted by: CJ Costello on Sunday, June 12, 2005