Can we drink the cup which Jesus drank?
It has been suggested that we cannot drink the same cup that Jesus drank because that cup was a propitiation, and removed sin, and men cannot remove sin, only God can, in turn inferring that we cannot share in the result of the drinking of the cup.
I think that the view is wrong on two counts:
1. The premise that the cross was picked up to remove sin, when it was really picked up to provide bread to children, nutrition to encourage repentance, nudges to persuade men to stop serving mammon because of craving earthly treasure that rusts, and start serving God for heavenly treasure that never perishes, be born again.
2. The premise that the cross we are commanded to pick up leads only to sharing in Christ's sufferings, but does not contribute to what the sufferings result in, because when Joshua picked up his cross, risked his life, God resurrected him and he did not die, like the rest of Israel was sure he would indeed die. The result of the resurrection was that Rahab was saved from a life of serving mammon, to serve God. IOW, Joshua bore fruit, when he accepted the chief cornerstone, the teaching that laying down your life is God's way of how souls are won, how the world is blessed. Which Paul understood as well.
http://www.jesuspeoples.org/uploads/2/5/9/5/25952673/wright_becoming_righteousness.pdf
Quote
Third, this reading of 5:21 has tied it in quite tightly, I think, to the whole argument of chaps. 3-5. This suggests to me that, although of course the first half of chap. 6 grows organically out of just this conclusion, it is misleading to treat 5:19 as though it were the conclusion of the long preceding argument and 5:20 as though it were the start of the new one. When it is read in the way I have suggested, 5:20-21 forms the natural climax to the entire argument of the preceding three chapters, with 6:1 being the point where Paul turns to address a specific appeal to the Corinthians. They have, after all, already been reconciled to God (5:20); 15 now they need to be urged not to receive this grace in vain (6:1). Moreover, they now have a significant new motive to heed this appeal: the one who speaks is not simply an odd, shabby, battle-scarred jailbird, but one who, however surprisingly, is a revelation in person of the covenant faithfulness of God.
It has been suggested that we cannot drink the same cup that Jesus drank because that cup was a propitiation, and removed sin, and men cannot remove sin, only God can, in turn inferring that we cannot share in the result of the drinking of the cup.
I think that the view is wrong on two counts:
1. The premise that the cross was picked up to remove sin, when it was really picked up to provide bread to children, nutrition to encourage repentance, nudges to persuade men to stop serving mammon because of craving earthly treasure that rusts, and start serving God for heavenly treasure that never perishes, be born again.
2. The premise that the cross we are commanded to pick up leads only to sharing in Christ's sufferings, but does not contribute to what the sufferings result in, because when Joshua picked up his cross, risked his life, God resurrected him and he did not die, like the rest of Israel was sure he would indeed die. The result of the resurrection was that Rahab was saved from a life of serving mammon, to serve God. IOW, Joshua bore fruit, when he accepted the chief cornerstone, the teaching that laying down your life is God's way of how souls are won, how the world is blessed. Which Paul understood as well.
http://www.jesuspeoples.org/uploads/2/5/9/5/25952673/wright_becoming_righteousness.pdf
Quote
Third, this reading of 5:21 has tied it in quite tightly, I think, to the whole argument of chaps. 3-5. This suggests to me that, although of course the first half of chap. 6 grows organically out of just this conclusion, it is misleading to treat 5:19 as though it were the conclusion of the long preceding argument and 5:20 as though it were the start of the new one. When it is read in the way I have suggested, 5:20-21 forms the natural climax to the entire argument of the preceding three chapters, with 6:1 being the point where Paul turns to address a specific appeal to the Corinthians. They have, after all, already been reconciled to God (5:20); 15 now they need to be urged not to receive this grace in vain (6:1). Moreover, they now have a significant new motive to heed this appeal: the one who speaks is not simply an odd, shabby, battle-scarred jailbird, but one who, however surprisingly, is a revelation in person of the covenant faithfulness of God.
