Skip to main content

2 Corinthians 5:11-21

You can read the text here.

Paul and his coworkers know and respect God. And given the coming judgment they seek to bring others to know and fear the Lord. But it's not only other people they are open to scrutiny from, God knows them well and approves of them and Paul hopes that the Corinthians share in that judgment.[1] Paul's not trying to convince the Corinthians that God is with them and working through them. He is letting them know how God works so that they can counter those who argue against the divine origins of Paul's mission based on his outward appearance. Yes, Paul did not display ecstatic religious behavior before them, but those experiences were private and not something that would benefit the Corinthians to see. They carry on and persevere in their perilous apostleship because Jesus' love compels them;[2] they need to spread the good news! Jesus died a death for all,[3] so that we would serve him as our Lord and Master, living to please him rather than our own interests. This is exactly the lifestyle Paul and his co-workers live.

Jesus changed the way Paul saw the world. They used to see everyone just like the Corinthians did, using worldly markers for success, but now they evaluate with a different set of criteria. Old creation, or new creation. Those who have been incorporated into Christ's body are a new creation. He is the last Adam of the new created order bringing new life to those who are in him. This is God's work through Christ, to reconcile the world to himself, to fix the shattered relationship. That work was accomplished through Christ and continued to be carried out by his chosen ambassadors, Paul and his co-workers, as they announced the message of reconciliation, the message of forgiveness, so that those who were part of the old creation could experience transformation into new creation that came through reconciliation with God. Jesus died to bear Paul's sin[4] and enable reconciliation with God so that he could be God's ambassador and embody and spread God's righteousness to the world.[5][6]


-----------------------------------------
[1] Thrall was especially useful in clarifying the second half of verse 11.

[2] So Matera.

[3] As both Matera and Thrall point out, this death is, at a minimum, representative. The text does not require a substitutionary reading.

[4] 'Bear' requires substitution, but bear could mean absorbing and taking away, no sense of punishment is required.

[5] Here I am fairly certain that righteous standing is not the point. The whole argument of several paragraphs has been about new life and transformation.

[6] Vs. 21 is notoriously difficult. I see strong argument that the 'our' refers to Paul and his companions, keeping the pronoun references consistent throughout the passage. At the same time, it seems odd to seemingly limit the effect of the God's action in Christ to Paul and his co-workers. However, as Wright has pointed out repeatedly, the entire flow of thought is about Paul and his coworkers, not writing a treatise on justification, and second referring to God's purposes for Paul and his colleagues does not inherently exclude the benefits of Christ's death to others (as has already been noted earlier in the paragraph). Paul is simply focusing on the impact of Jesus' death on him, bringing about his calling, which was important both for him and the Corinthians. So in the end, I read this passage differently than both Matera and Thrall. Now, that is not to say that there are not implications or valid extensions of this passage to other individuals, because surely the same mechanics are in place for others. Jesus bears our sin which reconciles and transforms us for a new work on his behalf.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat