Dr. Bock,

I'll have to think more about the reference to the cross as a synecdoche--I agree that it is in one sense, but is it significant that Paul chose to call it the "word of the cross" instead of the "word of resurrection?" Could he have just as easily used the latter?

I also agree that we do not get the full story with just Christ's death for our sin. But isn't even Christ's death itself more than the starting point? more than a mere transaction? Isn't it a relational act itself as both the Father and the Son's supreme act of love towards us (John 15:13; Rom 5:8)? This is where your analogy with the Jewish cult seems to me to wrongly de-emphasize the cross as a mere transaction, because there is an escalation between the levitical sacrifices and Christ's death--the sacrifices were not praised, but the lamb is magnified as worthy because he was slain. And this is where your image of the meal also seems to de-emphasize the cross. Perhaps it would be better to speak of death for sin as part of the meal itself, although not the full meal of the gospel? (And certainly not merely as an appetizer, just to ward off other potential directions ! :)

Thanks again for your time,
Kevin