The theme of II Corinthians 5:6-17 involves both confidence in the Christian hope and in the commission from God of the ministry of reconciliation.
We find in 5:6-10 that Paul has confidence in the Christian hope. The hope enables him to endure repeated hardships, and this certainty of future resurrection propels him to continue his mission with boldness. Though he is facing opposition from some in the Corinthian community, the apostle does not shy away from revealing the persecution that has accompanied his preaching of the gospel and uses the severity of his affliction to exemplify the sincerity of his motives to bring the Corinthians life in Christ. Paul is raising the question of whether death is the powerful force in the universe. His answer is a resounding No. For Paul, Jesus has come along; his resurrection affirming that life is the most powerful force in the universe.
6 Therefore, we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. Some people within the Christian tradition have used this statement to denigrate the body. All the present hardships “in the body” are evidence of Paul’s mission to carry around the “death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies” (4:10). Paul knows that as long as he is still awaiting Jesus’ return he must continue his perilous task to rescue others from death in order to guide them to life in Christ (4:11-12). He lives in the “meantime” — the tension of longing for Christ’s return and the duty of sharing this good news with others. Paul has an interesting take on this thing we call life. For him, his life was a “gap life.” That is, it was life in parentheses, life in the anteroom room of the kingdom of heaven. It was life before life. He was quite clear about the mission of his gap life, or of his “living in the meantime.” In the meantime, while awaiting his death or the return of Jesus Christ, he definitely had work to do. And there were people who needed him to fulfill his mission. There may well be a sweet spot between the known and the unknown where originality happens; the key is to be able to linger there without panicking.[1] If he is in this earthly body, this jar of clay (4:7), then he will continue to bear witness to the gospel even when afflicted in every way (4:8). Why does Paul continue to preach at the risk of losing his own life? (1:8-11; 4:7-15; 11:23-33). The apostle himself answers this question in 4:15: “Yes, everything is for your sake, so that grace, as it extends to more and more people, may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.” The dilemma here is quite like Paul’s words in Philippians 1:23b-24: “my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.” He then admits that this confidence derives, not from empirical realities, but from faith: 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. If God chooses not to rescue Paul from peril after peril in this earthly life (1:10), Paul believes that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will also raise him and all the believers (4:14). Hope reaches beyond what is present to something that is not yet visible.[2] Faith is the form knowledge of God takes, and here, Paul contrasts it with sight. The statement summarizes what the time between is like in its weakness. Only in faith that does not have its possibility in any form of sight can our walk be strong, pursuing the way in this time. If faith does not awaken Christian life, and if faith does not become strong by the Holy Spirit, this weakness will be fatal. Even in the strength of its faith, it is weak in the fact that its faith is not sight. It must be content to move in faith and without any kind of sight from the first to the last coming of Jesus Christ. Its weakness has an ontological grounding in its time, the time between.[3] 8 Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. Taken out of context, such a statement disparages the body. Yet, the passage is full of hope. Even if something happens to this earthly tent, we have a building God has made which is eternal and in the heavens (5:1). The view that some form of resurrection occurs at death, so that body and soul do not experience separation, finds some support here.[4] 9 Therefore, whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. Paul has argued that he would rather be with Christ than in the body, due to the affliction and persecution (4:7-10 and in this passage). Yet, he has confidence and takes courage from the Christian hope, which also urges him to live in a way pleasing to God. Paul contrasts our present life in a perishable tent with the divinely prepared and eternal house with which the Lord shall clothe us. Our pilgrimage in time occurs in the context of our destiny of our being at home in the Lord. Paul does not attempt to conceal his longing and sighing for the latter. Yet, he finds only a relative and not an absolute place for this desire. The conclusion is that we labor in the context of acceptance by the Lord.[5] The residence of a disciple, whether earthly or heavenly, is irrelevant, since a greater objective is under consideration, namely, that of pleasing God. This goal is the believer’s primary task, 10 For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil. Ever before Paul is the knowledge that Christ will return and will judge. The point here is that the judgment of God will bring to light who are righteous and who are sinners.[6] Paul was convinced that those who relate to Jesus Christ by faith and baptism already have assurance of participation in the new life that has broken in with the resurrection of Christ. Yet, he still expected that we must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due for things done in this life, whether good or bad.[7] Jesus Christ will execute judgment, probably affirmed due to the equation of Jesus with the Son of Man.[8]
The question regarding whether death is the most powerful force in the universe reminds of a well-known poem by John Donne (1572-1631).
Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.
II Corinthians 5:11-17, part of a segment that extends to 6:13, has the theme of the ministry of reconciliation. Paul was in Corinth from Winter of 50 AD to Summer of 51 AD, so Acts 18:1-17. He wrote this part of II Corinthians in the Fall of 55 AD. Timothy is with Paul. Titus and two others bring the letter. Titus has just arrived with good news. Many scholars construe 2:14-7:4 as a rhetorical unit, with Paul defending his ministry, of which 5:11-6:10 is a key part as he explains his ministry of reconciliation.
In II Corinthians 5:11-17, part of a segment that extends to verse 19, Paul is giving a summary of the meaning of Christian ministry. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, (the role of Christ as judge) we try to persuade others (to live in a manner pleasing to God). However, God knows us well, and I hope that your consciences also know us well. Paul seizes another opportunity to stress the purity of his motives, since others have questioned them. He reminds them of his faithfulness so that they have cause to be proud. 12 We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you an opportunity to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast in outward appearance and not in the heart. Contrasting himself with his opponents, Paul thinks the perils he and his company have experienced demonstrate the sincerity of his message. 13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced (of the core message of the gospel) that one has died for all; therefore, all have died. The Protestant theology of the Enlightenment did not take into sufficient account the fundamental significance of the death of Christ for the Pauline thought of the reconciling of the world by God.[9] In Isaiah 53:12, the expiatory efficacy could be either for all the Jewish people or for all humanity, an ambiguity Paul removes here. The universal scope of the efficacy of the death of Jesus is an expansion of a primary relation to the Jewish people, and not vice versa.[10] For Paul, in the cross we see the love of Christ. The death of Christ represents the death of all human beings before God. Barth will stress that Jesus Christ was and is for us in his suffering and death. Of note, he says that the suffering is of a man, but in such a way that this human action and suffering must be represented and understood as the action and passion of God in all of its historical singularity, and in such a way that it changes the human situation, whether people are aware of it or not. The situation changes objectively, even if not yet subjectively. In the torture, crucifixion, and death of this one Jew we do not deal with just any suffering, but with the suffering of God. We are also dealing with sin. What takes place here is reconciliation with God, conversion to God, and harmony between God and world. In Christ, humanity becomes the friend of God, rather than an enemy of God. Christ becomes the human partner of God in a new covenant. In Christ, God has ended humanity as sinners by taking sin within God.[11] Barth is aware that he has raised the question of what this objective action in Christ long ago means for the individual today. In particular, he will discuss the contemporaneous quality of Jesus Christ with us in a way that overcomes the temporal barrier between Jesus and us. He stresses that we come here to the problem of decision. God has turned toward us and determined to be in fellowship with us, but the question remains as to what this means for us today.[12] P. K. Marheineke made this thought the basis of his new understanding of the concept of representation. As he saw it, Christ is not the representative of humanity insofar as he is it, representing in himself what is the same in all individuals. We should note that the basic thought of inclusive representation is one we find in Hegel,[13] when he said that God does not bring an alien sacrifice and another punished in order that there may be punishment, life negated, and otherness removed. Each dies for himself and must be and do what is demanded out of individual subjectivity and guilt. Each grasps the merits of Christ. Doing this, converting abandoning natural will and interests, being in infinite love is a matter for the individual. Ritschl hit on the distinction between inclusive representation and the exclusive representation of the satisfaction theory.[14] In any case, the thought Marheineke had was that inclusive representation makes Jesus the representative of all humanity. Pannenberg sees that in Paul, the death of Christ includes ours in such a way as to change its character. By the linking of our death to that of Christ in the act of baptism, our death takes on a new sense that it does not have of itself. It becomes death in hope.[15] 15 In addition, he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and whom God raised for them. Paul exhorts them to live sacrificially, even as he has served them in his ministry. The expiatory nature of the death of Jesus is present in that his death preserves people for eternal life in the judgment of God. All believers experience this freedom through anticipation and participation in the future of eternal life. This thought leads from the exclusive sense of dying in the place of another to the inclusive thought of the meaning of the death of Jesus “for us.”[16]
II Corinthians 5: 16-17 speak of the new creation. 16 From now on, (referring to the death of Jesus) therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view (according to the flesh). His point is that Christians need to look at the world differently due to the cross. The transformation of the world that occurred in the cross brings a new perspective to the world and to the Christian. The present is different from the past due to the cross. Paul reminds them that we know Christ no longer in that way, that is, from the perspective of that of the Pharisee. What Paul says here is true of all four gospels as well, in that they know Jesus only in reference to his office as the Christ.[17] He will stress that the process of arriving at the gospels as we now have them was that of reflecting on the living presence of Christ in the community and in the world. Therefore, the point is not simply to preserve the past. In that sense, the rules and interests of the historian do not matter.[18] Paul is saying that according to the flesh here means he knew Jesus as the founder of a sect that despised all that was holy and was guilty of serious apostasy from God. To know Christ in this way is not to know Christ at all.[19] Paul may contrast his present knowledge of Christ as Lord with his pre-conversion experience of Jesus as an enemy. He may also suggest that those who did know Jesus personally cannot claim foremost importance. His point would be that his rejection of Jesus and the earliest Christian community was looking at both from a human point of view. Following Rudolf Bultmann, we can interpret this sentence as a condition contrary-to-fact. Bultmann understands this verse thus: Even if we had known Christ according to the flesh, we no longer know him in this way. The verse would then function as the extreme case in Paul’s mini-argument.[20] Only in the transition through the death of his individual existence as man is Jesus the Son. His human individuality has the definitiveness, not as its particularity endures, but only as he offers it up for the sake of God and in the service of the coming of the reign of God. For that reason, Paul could write here that he no longer knew or judged any one according to the flesh, that is, in accord to what they are in themselves. By accepting the death of his existence, Jesus made room for that of others. Others in their individual particularity can share in the filial relation to God and the inheritance of the reign of God only through the death of Jesus and through acceptance of their own death for the sake of God and the reign of God.[21] 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, (suggesting intimacy between believers and Christ) there is a new creation. This surely means that one is “already” a new creation.[22] As they no longer look at Christ from the standpoint of fleshly human existence, they must not look at themselves or each other from simply a fleshly and human point of view. Therefore, everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! Converts would have found life in Christ to be a constant source of daily blessings, as the body of believers provided help and support to the community. The old things no longer attract them, and new things have taken place through Christ. Being a new creation finds fulfillment in vocation, in the investment of the believer in the new clothing or armor of God. Such a person is at peace with God and neighbor and a new view of self.[23]
[1] —Edwin “Ed” Catmull, co-founder of Pixar.
[2] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 174.
[3] Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1 [25.2] 53, IV.1 [62.3] 728.
[4] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 578.
[5] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [47.5] 640.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 209.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 568.
[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 613.
[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 407.
[10] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 425.
[11] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [59.2] 244-56.
[12] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [59.3] 293-5.
[13] Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, III, p. 95.
[14] Ritschl, Christian Doctrine, 546-7.
[15] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 429-30.
[16] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 420.
[17] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [56.1] 57.
[18] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [59.3] 320.
[19] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 [69.3] 200.
[20] (Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985], 155-56)
[21] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 433-4.
[22] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [59.3] 321.
[23] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 [71.3] 530, 661.
No comments:
Post a Comment