What follows is the text of one of my Bible assignments this semester.
Critical Introduction of 2 Corinthians
In the Biblical record the early church has provided an extensive field of study and research. One community of believers, the church in Corinth has continued to captivate the hearts and minds of many Christians through the centuries. The community of believers that met in first century in Corinth reveals a glimpse into the heart of the Apostle Paul as well as the crises that lead to his correspondence with this struggling congregation. Not only do Paul’s Corinthians letters reveal the heart of the faithful Apostle, but also the struggles of the first century church speak to a struggling community of believers in the twenty-first century. The language and culture of Corinth may be different, but the central message of the Apostle to this church speaks just as loudly today as when these letters were first penned and subsequently read aloud. The rest of this paper will focus on the letter we refer to as 2 Corinthians and attempt to provide an introduction to this amazing letter.
The Social World of the church in Corinth.
Approaching the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, I must first pause to mention briefly the contributions of many scholars. Their study has illuminated the socio-cultural implications that weigh heavily in a right interpretation of this epistle. The study of the Corinthian letters reveals the history of a major metropolitan area that carried political, economic, academic and religious clout in the ancient world. Much has been written about this twice-great city. The beginning of our journey through the annals of the history of ancient Corinth, begins with the destruction of this influential city. Ancient Corinth was “destroyed in 146 B.C by Roman forces led by the consul L. Mummius� was no doubt a great city then by Ancient standards. Despite the destruction of the city, “by the time Paul came to the city in the early 50s it was well on the way to becoming not only the largest but also the most prosperous city in all of Greece.� Witherington also attests that the re-emergent city as a center of trade, and influence in the Roman world is attributed to Julius Caesar, “who shortly before his death in March of 44 B.C., ordered that Corinth be rebuilt as a Roman colony.� It is interesting to note the recolonization of Corinth was predominately conducted by “Romans – chiefly some of Caesar’s veterans along with urban plebeians and freedmen and freedwomen from Rome itself and some Romanized Greeks.�
The archeological findings of inscriptions in the city, are of note, especially to aid our interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians, in that, “all sorts of Corinthians, even slaves, are mentioned in inscriptions, often paid for and erected by and for themselves, that describe their contributions to building projects or status in clubs.� It appears that Paul’s letters are shaped as much by the culture of his recipients as his leading by the Holy Spirit. The influence of the Corinthians prevailing cultural socialization, and Paul’s subsequent attempt to reshape their thinking is important in our understanding, and interpretation of the Corinthian correspondence.
The location of this great port city is of importance for aiding our understanding of economic, social and religious life of Corinth. I am convinced the location of Corinth and other cities that Paul writes too, as well as set up churches in are of interpretative importance. The location of Corinth, and other great cities of the Roman Empire where Paul established churches indicates that Paul had a missionary strategy that would help to contribute to the spread of Christianity. “As the geographer Strabo wrote, ‘Corinth is called wealthy due to its commerce, since it is located on the Isthmus and is the master of two harbors, one which leads directly to Asia and the other to Italy…’�. With Corinth as a center of commerce, it was no doubt a center of cultural, religious, and economic exchange.
Roman Imperial religion mirrored that of early Greek mythology, and it appears that Roman religion had it’s own flavor as well. It was apparently common for the Roman Empire to be quite eclectic in it’s religious orientation. Because of the majority of Christian converts being Gentile, it becomes increasingly clear that in some places in his Corinthian correspondence, Paul was attempting to further his converts’ resocialization by deinculturating them from some of their former primary values, chiefly by invoking certain eschatological ideas and the ethical implications of those ideas.�
The historical, social, and cultural aspects of Corinth, and Paul’s correspondence with them sheds interpretive light on both of his letters. To have an accurate of the interacting between Paul and the churches he founds, the student of the Word needs to be able to frame these letters, and the entire New Testament canon in a real social, cultural atmosphere. The framing of the second letter to the Corinthians within the backdrop of history and the cultural clashing ideas that Paul is presenting in the message of the cross provides a new direction for an interpretive hermeneutic for understanding Scripture that radically alters misguided and misinformed approaches to Biblical study.
The social positions of the converts in Corinth.
1 Cor. 1:26-28 gives impetus to the argument that not many in Corinth were wise, or of noble birth, or influential. Witherington in his insightful commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians writes, “…some, though few, of the Corinthian Christians apparently were members of such high status groups.� In a culture whose pride was wrapped in one’s social status, and the desire to be recognized by that status, it is not surprising to find that Paul’s “deliberate self-humiliation, his assumption of a servant role, which was ‘an attitude in violent reaction to much that was central to the classical way of life…would have been seen by many as disturbing, disgusting, and even provocative.� The picture that students of Paul’s letters receive of the Apostle at times could paint the Apostle as a mild mannered preacher until the student of Paul’s letters encounters the tough language in the epistle to the Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Paul is a revolutionary or sorts, not content with the conventional socio-cultural influence of his day, and affront to the purity of the Gospel and it’s implications for kingdom living.
The social positions of converts in Corinth appear to be a mixture of Corinthian civilization. In other words, “a Pauline congregation generally reflected a fair cross-section of urban society.� Despite the small number of wealthy or elite members of the church in Corinth, these social elites do appear to have had quite an influence on the polity of the house churches that met. The prominent influence of these more wealthy citizens suggests that the church mirrored society in it’s structure, and this apparently angered Paul that he chides the church for the way they treated poorer Christians (1 Cor.11:17ff). That there were “few� prominent citizens who were also members of the Lord’s body, is not an issue. It’s the unequal use of their high position that alienates lower members of society that infuriates Paul.
Knowing this aids our understanding of 2 Corinthians in that it becomes apparent that because these prominent people who were usurping authority in the church, are the ones causing problems for Paul. Their pride in their positions lead them to further attack the Apostle because of his rather apparent disdain for the socio-cultural divisions in society. Paul’s letters include boasts, and defenses of his apostleship, no doubt as a result of some of the perpetrators denying his apostleship (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1; 10:1-13:14). Knowing some of the background “and social distinctions and customs is an essential part of understanding both letters.�
Another aspect of this socio-cultural impact is the meeting place of the Corinthian believers. While 1 Corinthians 14:23 and Rom. 16:23 do make mention of the whole church coming together, “the Corinthian Christians apparently continued to meet in private homes. The phrase ‘the ekklesia in the house of’ (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; cf. v. 15) apparently indicates a subgroup of the whole congregation in a given city. � Due to the smaller size “congregation�, fifty or less usually meeting in the home of a wealthy Christian, the head of the household would have been the likely candidate for leadership, and hence with a social elite looking for more social status amongst his peers, it is no surprise to surmise that this would further be a source of contention for Paul.
The place of 2 Corinthians, it’s literary genre, in the literary world of Paul’s day.
If Paul was trained in the wisdom of the Greeks as well as in Judaism, one of the prevailing educational opportunities Paul may have had was in rhetoric, the art of persuasion. Rhetoric, “early in the first century…became the primary discipline in Roman higher education.� If this is the case, then it is right to assume that Paul’s writings were heavily influenced by his religious training as well as his rhetorical/educational training as well. Assuming that most if not all of the letters of the New Testament were meant to be read aloud, then Paul’s educational training would be evidenced in his writing. Then it would be reasonable to agree with Witherington when he writes, “Paul wrote much of what he wrote with the intention that it have a certain effect on the listening ear. The tendency to treat these documents simply as texts overlooks an important dimension of their intended function.�
To aid our understanding of the Corinthian correspondence the right treatment of the letters in their intended function is important to the overall interpretation of the letters. Because Paul’s letters were intended to be read aloud, we need to give more attention to the oral character of Paul’s work. There is no doubt that Paul’s letters are important, but, “they must be seen as part of a total communication effort that included letters, oral instructions through messengers, and face-to-face communication, whether preaching, teaching, or some form of dialogue.� Also, important for our understanding of the Corinthian letters, is that Paul is dealing with a certain set of issues specific to each congregation.
The inclusion of using rhetorical form as an aid to understanding New Testament texts is a relatively new area of scholarly consideration, “nevertheless, the evidence is considerable that Paul chose to cast his letters in rhetorical forms, that is, that he shaped them in accordance with formal oral speech, using rhetorical elements recognizable as such by his addressees.â€? It is important to mention at this point, there were different types of rhetoric: “Deliberative rhetoric was the stuff of the assembly when it freely debated the proper course for the polis to take, forensic rhetoric was the form used in the law courts, and epideictic rhetoric was most often used in funeral oratory or public speeches when some person or thing was being lauded or lambasted.â€? It is certain than, that “rhetoric gave Paul a means to relate to and impress his Corinthian audience.â€? The Apostle’s aim in his letters is to effect change in the lives of his converts, and “his use of rhetoric shows that ‘precisely when the question is one of changing other people’s lives the very content of the gospel demands a ‘method’ of effecting such changes which is directly opposed to any use of force…â€? in other words “he wised to speak in such a manner that his audience would hear and heed his message.â€? I will close this section with the words of Paul from 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 from the NIV, to defend his use of rhetoric along with other aspects of his life and experience to reach lost souls with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.â€?
The number of visits Paul made to Corinth and the church established there
Paul made several visits to Corinth. It is clear from Acts 18:1ff, that Paul arrives in Corinth, and establishes the church there, leaves Corinth 18 months later for Ephesus. After this initial visit, and apparent success within Corinth, he is forced to make an emergency visit to Corinth, also known as the “painful visit� (2 Cor. 2:1). This visit didn’t go that well, he was humiliated before the church, and Paul retreats to Ephesus (2
Cor. 1:15 ff). Paul likely visits the city one more time, in 56 AD, where he was able to write Romans, and winter in Corinth. There would seem to be a scholarly consensus, on the number of visits of Paul. For instance, Barnett and Talbert both attribute three visits of Paul to Corinth.
Despite Paul’s difficulties in Corinth and with certain believers, it is quite apparent from his letters to the Corinthians that have survived that he was passionate about these people. And the severe letter stemming from the painful visit is understandable in light of Paul’s concern for the welfare of the church.
The number of letters Paul wrote to the church at Corinth with a description each letter, why was it written, where it was written, and when was it written.
Depending on what commentary you read, and what you believe about the integrity of the letter we refer to as 2 Corinthians will determine how many letters Paul wrote to Corinth. From my reading of the insight of others, there are least four letters that pertain to the Corinthian correspondence (Barnett’s position). Two of these four are lost letters, but both are referenced in the letters that have survived. Some scholars have said that there is an additional letter, bringing the letter total to five (Martin’s position). There are several scholarly opinions pertaining to the integrity of 2 Corinthians.
The idea is that 2 Corinthians is not one complete letter but a collection of Pauline letters put together quite possibly by an early editor. The opinions are as followed:
1. “three letter hypothesis …(McNeil…Barnett…Bruce…Furnish)
2. four letter hypothesis (Manson)
3. five letter hypothesis (Weiss)
4. Six letter hypothesis
5. nine letter hypothesis (Schmithals)�
6. There are still some who argue for the unity and integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians, namely Philip E. Hughes and Paul Barnett.
Talbert’s view in his commentary is that “2 Corinthians is composed of two separate letters : 2 Cor 10-13 and 2 Cor 1-9…it is further assumed by this commentary that 2 Cor 10-13 is the painful letter of 2 Cor 2:3-4,9; 7:8, 12.�
Chronology of Paul’s dealings with Corinth:
-“first letter of Paul to Corinth (mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:9-11), no longer extant
-Letter from Corinth to Paul ( 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1: 16:1,12), and oral report to Paul by Chloe’s people (1 Cor 1:11-12)
-Second letter of Paul to Corinth ( 1 Corinthians), written from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) and delivered by Timothy ( 1 Cor 16:10; 4:17)
- 1 Corinthians written to address a misunderstanding the
Corinthians had of Paul’s earlier appeal to abstain from immoral
people, and to address the issues reported by Chloe’s delegation
-Third letter of Paul to Corinth ( 2 Cor 2:3, 4, 9; 7:8, 12). This letter was in lieu of the promised visit (2 Cor 1:15, 16, 23). Its contents may be inferred from 2 Cor 1-7, which was written after the severe letter had done its work.
-Fourth letter of Paul to Corinth ( 2 Co 1-9) written from Macedonia and delivered by Titus ( 2 Cor 8:1-6, 17).�
The writings of Paul give us a glimpse of those he may have ulitized to help bring his letters to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 16:10 records that Paul sent Timothy to Corinth, also in the same chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul tells how he encouraged Apollos to come to Corinth to be an encouragement to them in verse 12. 2 Cor. 1:19, Paul mentions that Silas and timothy both were with him in his preaching ministry to Corinth. From 2 Cor. 7:5-6 it is clear that Titus was a minister and messenger to the church in Corinth possibly the deliever of Paul’s severe letter. In Chapter eight of 2 Cor. Titus seems to have played a prominent role in the collection.
The unity of 2 Corinthians considering the major texts that raise questions about its unity? What questions do these texts raise and how can these questions be answered?
The unity of 2 Corinthians has been challenged by many scholars. Ralph Martin provides a great summary of the history of the arguments: “…the integrity of 2 Cor has been challenged historically of four fronts: (1) chaps. 8 and 9; (2) 2:14-7:4; (3)6:14-7:1 and (4) chaps. 10-13…There is ‘evidence that no manuscript or patristic authority ever divides that epistle.’�
Martin offers this suggestion to account for the questions raised by other researchers, “…the letter as we have it is a unity comprised substantially in the order of our chapters describing events which flow in a connected, sequential patters. Thus the breaks are accounted for on the supposition that Paul’s habits of digression or else the interruptions in his dictation occasioned by natural divisions such as a night’s sleep that intervened between his chaps. 9-10…Finally, the remaining possibility – which this commentary adopts – is that the chapters are in order (with the exception of section 6:4-7:1, which is in sequence but had a previous setting) but that chaps. 10-13 represent a later work of Paul called forth by fresh outbreaks of trouble at Corinth.�
Barnett in his commentary on 2 Corinthians argues for the “intrinsic unity� of the letter. He does point out, “2 Corinthians is very different from the letters between it was written, 1 Corinthians and Romans.� He also goes on the say, “…each of those letters in, in its own way, systematic and orderly, 2 Corinthians is on the face of it, uneven and digressive.� Barnett is clear that he believes 2 Corinthians to be a unity, he points to the growing study of rhetorical form and its influence of the letters of Paul. There are “several reasons for viewing these sections as belonging to one letter, first, rhetorical criticism has pointed top a similarity for format between a number of Paul’s letters, including 2 Corinthians and certain literature of the period.� Barnett mentions that “scholars have drawn attention to a letter from Demosthenes (384 -322 B.C.) in exile to Athens, that is a really a speech in his defense written in epistolary form and whose structural outline broadly resembles 2 Corinthians. It should be noted that 2 Corinthians, like other NT literature and indeed all literature from the period was written to be read aloud to the audience to whom it was sent.� Continuing to borrow from epistolary forms of the day, “if we accept 2 Corinthians as an apologetic ‘letter’, the powerfully rhetorical chapters 10 through 13 need not be considered as a separate letters but as peroration, gathering up previously mentioned elements and making a final emotional appeal to the hearers.� According to Barnett’s argument, Paul wrote this final letter to the Corinthians with an intentional and emotional appeal, that connects the entire letter as one continuous piece… “having explained and defended past behavior (1:1-2:13) and having expounded the new covenant ministry (2:14-7:4), he encourages the Corinthians about their response retrospectively to the ‘severe letter’ (7:5-16) and prospectively to the collection (chaps 8-9). In the last section (10:1-13:14), in view of his pending visit, he responds to the charge he is powerful only by letter (10:2-10), arguing, however, that his power is realized and recognized in weakness (12:7-10), indicating thereby, that as a ‘minister of Christ,’ he is ‘better’ that the ‘superlative’ apostles (11:23). Seen in this light, 2 Corinthians, as it now stands (and thus originally written) is all of a piece.� (Barnett 19).
To close out this introduction to 2 Corinthian, a chronology of the life of Paul might prove beneficial to framing Paul’s work in Corinth. According to the Delphi Inscription, Paul was in Corinth 49/50 A.D. to the mid-summer of 51 A.D., some sources have the Apostle in Corinth until 52 A.D . The Inscription found at Delphi, “it appears that Gallio probably became governor in July AD 51 and did not serve more than one year.� Using this material as a starting point for the life of Paul, what follows is a general outline of the Apostle’s life:
ca. 33 AD Church founded (Acts 2)
ca.34/35 AD Martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7)
ca.34/35 AD Conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-9)
ca. 35 AD Paul in Damascus (Acts 9:9-23)
35-38 or 34-37 AD Arabia trip (Gal. 1:17; Acts 9:23)
ca. 37/38 AD 2 week visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18)
ca. 38-43 AD Ministry in Syria and Cilcia (Acts 9:30; Gal. 1:21)
ca. 43 AD Arrival in Syrian Antioch
ca. 43-44 AD Famine visit (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; Gal 2:1-10). Famine occurs during the reign of Claudius, (Acts 11:28)
ca. 46-48 AD 1st missionary journey (Acts 13:2-14:28)
ca. 49/50 Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:1-29; Gal. 2:1-10)
ca. 49/50-52 AD Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:1-1-18)
ca. 52 AD Paul leaves Corinth and sets sail for Syria and then to Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19)
ca. 53-55 AD Paul in Ephesus (Acts 20:31)
ca. 55 AD Paul decided to go to Jerusalem passing through Macedonia & Achaia then to Rome (Acts 19:21). Paul leaves for Macedonia after Ephesian uproar ended (Acts 20:1), in Greece for three months (Acts 20:3), finally to Troas (Acts 20:6)
ca. 56-57AD From Troas to Assos to Mitylene, Kios, to Samos, Miletus, Cos, Rhodes, Patura, Phonecias, Cyprus, Syria, and Tyre, Ptolemais, Caesarea on into Jersualem (Acts 20:13-15)
ca. 57 AD Arrested in Jerusalem (Acts 21:33)
ca. 57-59 AD Transferred to Caesarea and imprisoned for two years there (Acts 23:23-26:32; Acts 24:27)
ca. 59 AD Voyage to Rome; shipwreck ( Acts 27:1-28:11)
ca. 60 AD arrival in Rome (Acts 28:11)
ca. 60-62 AD Paul in Rome waiting his trial, living in his own rented house (Acts 28:30-31)
ca. 62 AD Acts ends abruptly. Because of this abrupt ending, it is believed that Paul was released from prison, and headed on his fourth missionary journey, which may have brought him to Spain, and other surrounding areas, Macedonia, Asia Minor, etc.
Some of Paul’s later letters such as 2 Timothy and Titus indicate Paul’s fourth missionary journey, and subsequent second Roman imprisonment, trial, and execution ( 2 Tim. 4:6-8).
Works Cited:
1. Paul Barnett, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: 2 Corinthians. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: Michigan: 1997.
2. Ralph Martin, Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Corinthians. Nelson Publishers: Nashville 1986.
3. Charles Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Smyth and Helwys Publishing, Macon: Georgia 2002.
4. Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: Michigan: 1995.
5. Study Bible. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan 1995.
————————————————-
If you are interested here is my latest research paper. The footnotes and Bibliography are at the end, for some reason, when I copy and pasted from word, I couldn’t insert my footnotes in the right spot. Oh well.
Exegetical Paper
2 Corinthians 5:11-21
The purpose of this paper is to examine the section of 2 Corinthians the fifth chapter particularly focusing on verses eleven through twenty-one. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence has been studied widely, and I am indebted to the scholarly contributions of those whose work is referred to in my studies. Not only has there been a wealth of scholarly material available, but as one encounters Paul’s letters to the Corinthians for the first time, or for the one hundredth, the reader is left with a sense of the Apostle’s heart for the church in Corinth. Whatever one’s position on the unity of 2 Corinthians, this much as at least true, that Paul labored and loved the Christians with his whole heart in Corinth, and his experience there will shape the scope of his later letters. Much of Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians is a defense of his ministry, apostleship, and motives among the Church in Corinth. Sometime after Paul’s early work there in the city, and subsequent departure, false teachers or “super-apostles� infiltrated the church, and lead an assault on the founder of the Corinthian Church.
It is in this climate of controversy and name-calling that Paul pens these familiar words in the fifth chapter of 2 Corinthians taken from the RSV, “11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. 12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride themselves on a man’s position and not on his heart. 13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. 15 And he died
for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.�
For our understanding of verses eleven through twenty-one, they must be seen in the context of the letter as a whole and the particular section that Paul places them. Verses eleven through thirteen, as Barnett points out “…serves to reintroduce the major theme of the new covenant ministry (2:14-7:4) that Paul broke off in 4:14 and 16 to speak about the circumstances of believers in general. From now until the end of the excursus on his apostolic office, however, Paul will focus on his ministry as an apostle.�
The beauty of this passage, as I see it, is Paul’s emphasis in the last half of the passage with work of Christ at Calvary, namely the reconciliation that God made possible through the death of Jesus Christ. It is my assumption in this paper, and from my studies, Paul’s explanation of the gospel as explained in 2 Corinthians the fifth chapter stems from his experience on the Damascus Road. What God through Christ has done for Paul, is what God through Christ has done for all men. This is the heart of Paul’s gospel.
“11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.� It is important to note the verses eleven through twenty-one follow verses one through ten. Beginning here in verse eleven, “…the Apostle here appeals once again to the consciences of the Corinthian Christians: they really know deep down, what God knows about him, namely that his ministry is whole hearted and free from duplicity.� Also commenting on verse eleven, James Thompson writes about Paul’s use of the phrase fear of the Lord, “this is certainly not terror, as the KJV translates. It is to be understood in the same way as fear of Lord is used throughout the Bible; it is reverential awe and respect. He persuades men of the urgency and truth of the message which has been entrusted to him.�
“12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride themselves on a man’s position and not on his heart.â€? Hughes, borrowing from Calvin, writes, “‘We are taught here,’ says Calvin, ‘that Christ’s servants ought to be concerned for their own reputation only in so far as it is for the advantage of the church.’â€? Paul mentions “commending ourselvesâ€? here in this verse, and earlier in chapter three and verse one, Paul mentions that “some peopleâ€? needed letters of recommendation to justify their commission to preach the gospel. Paul’s defense of his ministry is that it is God who had commissioned him, or in other words, Paul’s change of life and his entire ministry as the Apostle to the Gentiles is a God-orchestrated event. Because God ordained Paul’s ministry no such letters of recommendation were needed. After all of Paul’s toils on behalf of the Corinthians he could write with purity and sincerity of heart that the Corinthians were his letter “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living Godâ€? (2 Cor. 3:3).
“13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.� Thompson points out that “Paul contrasts being in his right mind with being besides ourselves. The word translated beside ourselves is existemi. It was the word which Jesus’ opponents used against him (Mark 3:21). The charge meant they considered Jesus mentally deranged.� This same word could also mean “ecstasy, as in the use of spiritual gifts…Paul’s opponents have boasted of their ecstatic experiences…and…have criticized Paul’s use of spiritual gifts, causing Paul to defend himself…� Hughes defends Thompson on this point noting “that the verb, rather than referring to some past event of experience, coveys an allegation concerning Paul’s state of mind.�
Hughes also shares the scholarly consensus that “this is how it is understood by the majority of scholars, and it would indicate that the Apostle, as had been the case
with his master before him, was said by his enemies to be out of his senses. On a later occasion the Roman procurator, Festus would make a similar charge (‘Paul, you are mad; much learning turns you to madness’)…�
This illustrates that some people misrepresent genuine Christ-like commitment and service. In what we call first Corinthians, Paul writes, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God� (1 Cor. 1:18, NIV). The theme of power in weakness plays a larger role throughout what we call Second Corinthians. Paul’s weakness, and difficulties in his ministry was seen as illegitimacy and absurdity for Paul to claim to be an Apostle. I believe that some of Paul’s difficulties are a direct result of a certain group of people in Corinth who misunderstood Paul’s words, I site 1 Cor. 15:7-11 as an example of a section of Paul’s Corinthians correspondence that could have easily been seen as proof of Paul’s absurd claim that he was an apostle. In this passage from 1 Cor. 15, Paul is defending the gospel he preach to the Corinthians as being the same message that the other apostles preach, and that by God’s grace, the appearance of Christ to Paul is proof of his divine mandate to be an apostle, and he says that he was “abnormally born�, a reference to his Damascus Road encounter of the Risen Christ who re-directed Paul’s life.
“14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.� For Paul, now that he is a committed follower of Jesus Christ, love is his guiding principle. Hughes, Thompson and Coffman all are in agreement about the universality of Christ’s death. All would agree that what is being taught by Paul is not a universal salvation, but that the scope of redemption is to encompass all men. In other words, the free gift of salvation is available to all those who by faith accept the atoning death of Christ at the cross. “Tasker
says that ‘Christ’s death was the death of all, in the sense that He died the death they should have died; the penalty of their sins was borne by Him; He died in their place.�
Thompson commenting on the phrase “therefore all died,� reinforces the fact that Christ was the representative of every Christian. Through discipleship (Gal. 2:20) and baptism (Rom. 6:4ff), the Christian participates in Christ’s death.� Continuing with this theme, Hughes brilliantly asserts that “he who died with Christ must reckon himself to be dead to sin, but, in Christ Jesus the risen Lord, alive unto God (Rom. 6:6,11) so also here: He died for all so that we should no longer live to ourselves (the old self-life having been crucified with Him on the cross), but unto Him who for our sakes died and rose again. This theme so fundamental to all the Apostles thinking and acting is summed up in Galatians 2:20, RSV, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.� It is also pointed out by Hughes that “in the New Testament the death of Christ is always, and necessarily associated with His resurrection�…and “the implications of Christian baptism are closely bound up with the teaching we have been considering. Paul will resume his talk of the newness of life available to those who die to themselves, and are in Christ in verse seventeen, but first let us consider verse sixteen.
“16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.� Coffman sums up rather well what Paul believed about Christ before his conversion. Coffman writes, “prior to his conversion, his knowledge of Christ has been after the flesh, formed in accordance with external and mistaken standards; but his conversion has meant the transformation of his knowledge of Christ.� Hughes commenting on the same verse writes, “typically worldly distinctions, such as those of race, social status, wealth, and title, should no longer govern the Christian’s estimate of his fellow-man (cf. Gal. 3:28).� I thought it noteworthy that Hughes would reference what Paul wrote in Galatians the third chapter and verse twenty-eight, (RSV) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.� What Paul writes in Galatians speaks of the mystery that through the death of Christ on the cross, that He (Christ) was reconciling Jews and Gentiles, and re-creating them to be in one family, the church, with Christ as the head (cf. Eph. 2:13-18; 3:4-6).
I think what is at issue here is the attitude or even false assumptions that Paul, and many others had of Jesus before they died to self, and were re-born. At this point, I want to turn our attention to what Barnett contributes to this discussion. “Introducing the sentence by ‘even if’ Paul is suggesting that he knew, or knew of, the historical Jesus, the Jesus ‘according to the flesh.’ Historically speaking is quite probable. Jesus was prominent in Jerusalem during his years of public ministry, especially in his last year from the Feast of Tabernacles to the Feat of Dedication (October to December) and at that time of the Feast of Passover (April), when the observant young rabbi, Saul of Tarsus, converted within a year of two of the first Easter, would (probably) have been in Jerusalem…but the phrase… ‘according to the flesh,’ is superficial and misguided…Paul is alluding to his former view of Jesus as a blasphemer, whose following he sought to destroy…�
I think to note that there is a scholarly dispute that exists on this point: of whether Paul knew Jesus ‘according to the flesh’ before his conversion. It would safe to conclude from a close reading of Hughes that he would share this view held by the author of this paper, that there is no conclusive proof that Paul knew Jesus prior to the Damascus Road experience, “but whether or not Paul had some such personal contact with Jesus in the past, the significance of what he says here is…prior to his conversion his knowledge of Christ had been after the flesh, formed in accordance with external and mistake standards, but his conversion had meant the transformation of his knowledge of Christ.�
“17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.� Coffman weighing in on the fundamental importance of this verse has this to say about the phrase “‘in Christ…’ ‘A phenomenal blindness is the only thing that could account for the total absence from the writings of so many scholars of any reference whatever to this little prepositional phrase which is nothing if not the very eye of Christianity. Paul used this expression, or its equivalent, 169 times!� A little further down in the same paragraph, Coffman points out that a life in Christ is a life that contrasts the old. A life “in Christ, a new spiritual life is given to the convert; in Christ all of his previous sins are cancelled; in Christ he is endowed with the Holy Spirit; …in Christ old values are rejected, old standards are repudiated, and old lusts are crucified; in Christ are ‘all spiritual blessings’ (Eph. 1:3); out of Christ, there is nothing but death, remorse, hopelessness and condemnation; in Christ there is life eternal.� Coffman also notes that out of “fifty-seven commentaries,� he asks why one cannot find a “single reference to the all important question of ‘How does one find the status of being ‘in Christ’? The answer to this question [in Coffman’s view, as well most mainline church of Christ doctrinal statements] is the concern of every man…Here is the answer:
…(Rom. 6:3)…
…(Gal. 3:27)…
…(1 Cor. 12:13)…�
I am not familiar with whether or not Coffman had read the work of Hughes or not, but I would like to provide a little of Hughes’ position on this powerful little phrase. Hughes notes, “the expression ‘in Christ’ sums up as briefly and as profoundly as possible the inexhaustible significance of man’s redemption.� I think Coffman would be surprised to find that Hughes view and his own aren’t on two sides of theological fence, for again Hughes says, “when Paul declares that for the Christian old things have passed away, the tense of the verb (aorist) points back to a definite moment or event, namely the experience of the new birth.�
I want to follow up on what both Coffman and Hughes write, by turning our attention to Romans 6:3-4, NIV, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.� Jesus words to Nicodemus offer a convincing proof of the necessity of the new birth but also the fundamental importance of baptism, “…I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit� (John 3:5, NIV). It is my hope that when encountering 2 Cor. 5:17, and the phrase “in Christ� is noted, that one does not see a legalistic approach to salvation, but a promise of a new life for any that would be “in Christ.�
“18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;� Hughes quick to borrow from the contribution of a saint who has contributed much to the realm of theological insight, quotes Chrysostom in a rather lengthy passage:
“Nothing is of ourselves…for remission of sins, and adoption, and unspeakable glory are given to us by him…But, behold, a new soul (for it was cleansed), and also a new body, and a new worship, and new promises and covenant and life and table and
dress, and all things are absolutely new…instead of a material temple we have seen a spiritual temple; instead of tables of stone, fleshly tables; instead of circumcision, baptism; instead of the manna, the Lord’s body; instead of water from a rock, blood from his side; instead of Moses’ and Aaron’s rod, the cross; instead of a thousand priests, one High Priest; instead of a lamb with out understanding, a spiritual lamb…But all these things are of God by Christ and His free gift.�
This verse is clear where salvation originates. Salvation begins and ends with the Almighty, Creator, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Mighty God. There is no doubt that God the Father is behind the master plan of salvation and the redemption of man, but prominence must be given to the “…second person of the Godhead…who entered earth life as a man, bore the sins if the whole world and offered himself upon Calvary as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.� Thompson, also adds to this conversation that it is not “man who merits his redemption,� but it is “…God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself�(2 Cor. 5:18). Borrowing from Thompson’s analysis of this passage again, “the result of Christ’s activity at the cross is reconciliation. The metaphor is that of making peace after war or being readmitted to the presence and favor of our rightful sovereign after we have rebelled against him.� This rebellion occurred because man’s sin, and we became separated from God, and He from us, “we were according to Romans 5:10, ‘enemies of God’…through Christ, Jew and Gentile can be reconciled in one body (Eph 2:12-17). Man was in no position to bring about reconciliation, so God reconciled us to himself. Only through Christ, therefore is there ‘peace with God’ (Romans 5:1).� Cousar provides a good overall exposition of the size and scope of reconciliation. He writes, “The supremacy of God is crucial to Paul, for reconciliation functions not as a reciprocal activity in the sense that two friends who have become estranged agree to sit down and talk out their differences. Reconciliation is not to be equated with ‘making up.’ It is rather a way to describe God’s saving a lost and disoriented world, which is in no position to negotiate a truce. It is a divine work which transforms and renews the divine-human relationship. At its heart lies the word of forgiveness, which melts the antagonism of a people that often does not realize its own antagonism.�
Commenting about the ministry of reconciliation given to the subject of Paul’s words here, Coffman notes that “this is a reference to the apostles of Christ, to whom was committed the meaning of reconciliation, meaning the glad news of the redemption available to every man ‘in Christ.’ In a far lesser sense, every Christian is a custodian of the good news; but in the original and plenary sense, this applies only to the apostles of Christ.� Hughes shares this view but goes a little further with idea that all Christians are to be “declarers of reconciliation� but like Coffman, “not agents of it.� “While Paul is consistent in affirming that God is the acting subject, he mentions two groups as the receiving objects of reconciliation: ‘us’ (5:18) and ‘the world’ (5:19).�
“19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.� For our consideration of the opening of this verse, it is important to our study to mention that Hughes mentions the historic debate of “how the opening clause of this verse should be understood…that God at the historic moment of the cross, was reconciling the world to himself in Christ who suffered there for us.� Following Hughes opening argument here, the opening clause “may be taken to mean either (i) that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself…’ or (ii) that ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself.’� It is this author’s view that this second meaning that Hughes offers misses the Divine signature or Divine self-disclosure that occurs in the person of Jesus Christ and is revealed throughout the canon of the New Testament. Coffman’s summary of verse nineteen relates well, what the author of this paper has briefly mentioned. Coffman writes, “It is the presence of God in Christ which gives to the sacrifice of the cross; its finite value; the doctrine of redemption depends on that hypostatic union, a doctrine with which these verses are impregnated.�
Paul makes mention of the erasing of sin that takes place of the cross when he wrote, “…not counting men sins against them.� Thompson points out, “Paul’s word for counting is logizomai, is an accountants word. It implies making down misdeeds as a debit charge. God did not count trespasses; he freely forgave.�
Cousar’s assessment is clear, “the task is to declare to the world that God, unlike everyone else, keeps no account of its sins. For the world, too, ‘now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation’ (6:2).� Hughes brings to the readers attention that “…the term ‘logos’ carries with it, like a kind of overtone, the implication of truth and genuineness, and is accordingly peculiarly appropriate as a synonym for the gospel, which is ‘the word of truth.’�
“20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.� Thompson notes “an ambassador is commissioned by a sovereign to speak on his behalf. This word indicates responsibility and authority.� Hughes takes his definition of the word of an ambassador one step further by mentioning that “…there is real sense in which the ambassadors may
be said to be the voice of the sovereign he represents…when Christ’s ambassador entreats it is equivalent to the voice of God entreating through him.� In a fascinating and “thorough study on the linguistic background of the katallassein -terminology, C. Breytenbach points out that in the Hellenistic literature the terminology for ‘reconciliation’ in interpersonal is used most prominently for peace-treaty processes in the politico-military context, but not for the relationship between God and human beings or in a religious context.� Kim adds to the understanding of Paul’s novel use of the word “reconciliation�, by “noting the parallelism between the Hellenistic conception of the ‘ambassadors’ (presbeis) who are sent to ‘petition’ (deomai) or ‘appeal’ to warring parties for reconciliation, and the same set of vocabulary in 2 Cor. 5:20, Breytenbach explains this Hellenistic usage of the katallassein -terminology in the diplomatic context to be the background of Paul’s concept of ‘reconciliation.’�
That Paul invented new meanings of the words that he had at his disposal indicates that Paul was a well educated man, ever looking to relate the content of the gospel to those whom he encountered. The importance of Paul’s usage of the word ambassador to describe the work of an apostle speaks to importance of the message the ambassador carried. As Hughes noted above, an ambassador represented the voice of the sovereign, this is to be understood that Paul was the voice of Christ to those he was sent to minister to. The last part of this verse, “to be reconciled to God� speaks volumes of the struggles Paul has had in Corinth. Paul has modeled what reconciliation looks like, and now urges the Church, and especially those who are stirring up trouble “to be reconciled to God.�
“21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.� This verse is weighted very heavily in what is written in the Old Testament, namely Isaiah 53. Coffman takes not of this and writes, “the great substitutionary passages of Isaiah 53 are behind such a declaration as this. Christ bore the sins of all men; his stripes were the healing of all men; his chastisement was the peace of all men; his suffering was the salvation of all men, ‘God laid upon him the iniquity of us all.’� With the beauty that lies within this passage and all that entails, Hughes reminds us that “it is important to notice that he does not say that God made Him a sinner…But God made him sin: that is to say that God the Father made His innocent son the object of His wrath…� All the writers of the New Testament defend the sinlessness of Jesus, but as a the lamb of God it is understood that Jesus was the sacrifice for sin for all time. For Paul, this statement must reflect his deep gratitude of his salvation, and his re-creation in Christ Jesus. As a one-time enemy of Christ, to be given a second chance at life, and a renewed sense of appreciation for the magnitude of God’s grace is essential for us to understand the weight of this passage. Because Paul may have formulated his “reconciliation� theology based on his encounter and experience wit the Risen Christ on the Damascus Road – we too may interpret the canon of the New Testament, the gospel, the kergyma of the apostles in combination with our personal encounter/experience of the crucified Risen Christ. While Paul’s experience has shaped his Christology and soteriology it was filtered through the Scriptures as should our understanding of and experiences of Christ.
Bibliography
1. Barnett, Paul. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: 2 Corinthians Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997.
2. Coffman, James Burton. Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976.
3. Cousar, Charles B. “2 Corinthians 5:17-21.� Interpretation 35, April 1981. Database on-line. Available from FirstSearch , ATLAReligion, Item ATLA0000185026. Http://66.77.30.29/pls/eli/pshow?1cookie=1623583&pid=597277&1mode=ME1firstp=18…Accessed 22 October, 2004.
4. Hughes, Philip E. Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973.
5. Kim, Seyoon. “2 Cor 5:11-21and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of ‘Reconciliation’� Novum testamentum 39 O 1997 Database on-line. Available from FirstSearch , ATLAReligion, Item ATLA0000150771.Http://66.77.30.29/pls/eli/pshow?1cookie=1623583&pid=803379&1mode=ME&1firstp=36…Accessed 22 October, 2004.
6. Thompson, James. The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970.
Foot notes:
Paul Barnett, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), 277.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 187.
James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970), 77.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 188.
James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970), 78.
Ibid., 78-79.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 191.
Ibid., 191.
Ibid., 194.
James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970), 79.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 196.
Ibid., 196
James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976), 372.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 197.
“even if� in the NIV, and “even though� in the RSV. Barnett’s reference is to the NIV.
Paul Barnett, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), 295.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 199.
James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976), 372.
Ibid., 373.
Ibid., 373.
Ibid., 373.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 202.
Ibid., 203.
Ibid., 204.
James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976), 374.
James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970), 82.
Ibid., 82.
Ibid., 82.
Charles B. Cousar, “2 Corinthians 5:17-21.� Interpretation 35, April 1981. Database on-line. Available from FirstSearch , ATLAReligion, Item ATLA0000185026.
Http://66.77.30.29/pls/eli/pshow?1cookie=1623583&pid=597277&1mode=ME1firstp=18…
Accessed 22 October. 2004.
James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976), 374.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 207.
Charles B. Cousar, “2 Corinthians 5:17-21.� Interpretation 35, April 1981. Database on-line. Available from FirstSearch , ATLAReligion, Item ATLA0000185026. Http://66.77.30.29/pls/eli/pshow?1cookie=1623583&pid=597277&1mode=ME1firstp=18…
Accessed 22 October. 2004.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 208.
Ibid., 207
James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976), 374.
James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970), 82.
Charles B. Cousar, “2 Corinthians 5:17-21.� Interpretation 35, April 1981. Database on-line. Available from FirstSearch , ATLAReligion, Item ATLA0000185026. Http://66.77.30.29/pls/eli/pshow?1cookie=1623583&pid=597277&1mode=ME1firstp=18…
Accessed 22 October, 2004.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 208.
James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet, 1970), 83.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 210.
Seyoon, Kim, “2 Cor 5:11-21and the Origin of Paul’s Concept of ‘Reconciliation’� Novum testamentum 39 O 1997 Database on-line. Available from FirstSearch , ATLAReligion, Item ATLA0000150771.Http://66.77.30.29/pls/eli/pshow?1cookie=1623583&pid=803379&1mode=ME&1firstp=36…Accessed 22 October, 2004.
Ibid.
James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1976), 376-377.
Philip E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans, 1973), 213.
imperfect, sometimes stumbling follower/lover of Jesus, husband, father, youth minister, buckeyes fan, grad. student looking to partner with what God is doing in this world.
Recent Comments