2 Corinthians 5:1-6:2a

2 Corinthians 5:1-6:2a

Memory Work 2 Cor 5:6-10

Introduction: Read the Text. Reread the text closely (look for repeated words, pay attention to the conjunctions, figures of speech, etc.).

Literary Context: The second thing we do is review the literary context. Please summarize 2 Cor 1:1-11 (Paul, beginning to reconcile, describes how God comforted him so that they may also be comforted). Now 1:12-23 (Paul defends his integrity and begins to explain the change of plans. He argues for the trustworthiness of his word based on the trustworthiness of God and the Gospel and the work that God is doing in him).

Now 2:1-11 (Paul explains why he changed his travel plans: to avoid causing too much pain. While the letter was necessary, and would cause pain, he did not want to cause excessive pain. He also encourages them to give the verdict of love for the individual who had caused much pain). Now 2:12-17 (Paul expresses his consternation at the absence of Titus’s report while Paul was in Troas. He then describes himself as one captured by the triumphant Christ, and within this asks “who is sufficient for these things?” pointing the ministry of the Gospel).

Now 3:1-18 (He points to the one who makes him sufficient to be an apostle and then describes the nature of the new covenant of which he is a minister, and it is the nature of this ministry that allows him to speak forthrightly about the glory of God made accessible only by means of Christ).

Now 4:1-18 (Paul continues to assert why he speaks boldly and the content of his preaching. He then underscores the power of God by highlighting his own frailty. As he continues to talk about why he can speak boldly he reiterates that his suffering is for the sake of others and demonstrates an intimacy with Christ rather than a separation from God).

5.1-3: As we look at chapter 5 we can see that first five verses provide a further description of what Paul said concerning his own “outer vs. inner man.” The outer man correlates to the earthly house, which is a tent that is being torn down. The imagery of “tearing down” καταλύω, as Garland notes, is a fitting image for the striking of a tent and serves to highlight the sojourning element of tent life (249). Tell me, how long do you intend to stay in a place in which you merely set up a tent? It is either a transitional dwelling until you have placed a more permanent house, or it’s the dwelling of a nomad who does not intend to stay there permanently. Either way, as Furnish points out, tent life: “depicts ‘the instability, and thus vulnerability of one’s mortal existence” (Quoted by Garland 249).

This earthly tent is contrasted with a not made by hands building, eternal and heavenly. Even apart from the second two descriptors we would readily see the difference. A tent is struck down, a building is built for the long haul; a building not made by human hands is permanent. We see this contrast again. The old covenant was transitory, the new is permanent; the present affliction is momentary, the glory is eternal; the earthly tent is being struck down, the not made by hands building is eternal. Note: Paul is not explaining how the process transpires after death, nor does he put an exact timeline on it. You will find many curious to find answers to these questions, but Paul does not seek to answer them here. He is concerned only with the reality of these things.

In verse 2 Paul begins to mix his metaphors. “We deeply desire to clothe ourselves with our heavenly dwelling.” That sounds quite painful, but you’ll find with Paul that he is perfectly willing to mix his metaphors, and this one will allow him to change the language into that of clothing oneself rather than living in a tent or building. The additional point that needs to be made here, however, is the “groaning” that takes place in “this tent.” This is an anticipatory sighing as it were. Paul uses the same term in Romans 8:23 “And not only creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

I think Baker’s assessment of the term is helpful here: “The groaning seems to be something in between positive and negative. It comes from confidence and an abiding faith in Christ and his promises for eternal reconciliation with God, yet finds the present human circumstances…and feeble human body agonizingly frustrating” (202). In my estimation, a sigh is very useful and perhaps the most intelligible communication in such a situation.

Verse 3 then introduces the notion of nakedness, which would have been abhorrent to Paul as a Jewish man (though the Greeks and the Romans were less concerned as they made a practice of public bathing in the nude. Keener 507). The notion of nakedness here is being without an earthly tent or a heavenly dwelling, thus by this phrase Paul expresses the deep Christian longing for the physical body to be redeemed, as indeed he expresses elsewhere. As Garland points out: “Redemption was not redemption from the body, but redemption of the body (Rom 8:23)” (260).

5.4-5: Verse 4 restates the groaning done in the earthly tent, with a reminder of the burdens that he himself has endured (he uses the same term that he did in 1:8 concerning the “burden beyond our strength”). Then he gets into some complicated matters, and I will let you read the commentaries for yourself concerning all the notions of a disembodied state, or Paul’s human wish to avoid death, or the like. What we’ll focus on is this: What is abhorrent to Paul is the notion of being without a dwelling. He desires to be in the permanent heavenly body. This seems to be a pointed statement against those (as seen in 1 Cor) who had some misconception concerning the resurrection of the dead and even a willingness to mock it with other Greco-Romans. The notion of a bodiless resurrection is absurd to Paul.

What he awaits instead is the “swallowing up of the mortal by life.” Paul would be in sharp disagreement with Seneca who “complained of ‘this clogging burden of a body to which nature has fettered me’” and who awaited the release of death (261). Paul expresses the desire, not to be released from the body, but to be further clothed with the heavenly one. Again, he is willing to mix his metaphors. Here the mortal life subject to death is depicted as being καταπίνω “devoured” by life, which is quite the image.

Paul’s confident expectation is rooted in two things (according to verse 5): 1). God is the one who has prepared us for this very thing. 2). God has already provided a down payment. The first is dependent upon the trustworthiness of God, which has already been established in 2 Cor 1:18-22. The second reiterates what Paul stated in 1:22 “(God) has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” Perhaps you remember that the term there is ἀρραβών. It’s the same here. The Spirit is the first-installment. What is the expectation when one receives the first installment? The payment will eventually be given in full.

5.6-8: Verse 6 begins with a “therefore” and what is the question we ask when we find a “therefore” in the text? What is the “therefore” there for? He is drawing a conclusion based on what he has just said concerning the heavenly body and the one who is preparing it for us, as well as the deposit of the Holy Spirit. From this, Paul can espouse a confidence in the face of death. The term translated “good courage” here is θαρρέω that is only used six times in the NT and five of those occurrences are in 2 Corinthians. This is probably not all that surprising since it fits well with the theme of boldness and courage that Paul has been developing since 2:14-17. Paul’s confidence, however, is never a self-confidence, but a God-confidence. He trusts in God who makes him suitable for the task, he speaks boldly because of the nature of the new covenant, he is not a coward but speaks forthrightly, and now he is of good courage “always.”

Though he readily admits that he desires for a better situation. Currently, at home in the earthly tent, he is “away from the Lord.” What does he mean by that? This does not mean that he is cut off, but rather that the experience of this life is walking by faith and not by sight. God, so long as we remain in an earthly vessel that is not swallowed up by life, is unseen (reminiscent of what Paul said in 4:18). He follows this up by repeating that “we are of good courage,” but again the preferable thing would be not to be away from the Lord, but to be away from the tent and in the presence of the Lord where we see him no longer by faith but by sight. This is in line with what 1 John 3:2 states: “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” This is the preferable thing, but while he longs for this he remains of good courage.

5.9-10: What small word does verse 9 begin with? So. This functions much the same as a “therefore.” So, let me ask you: “What is the ‘therefore’ there for?” He’s drawing a conclusion based on what he has just said. Since we are of good courage but would prefer to be at home with the Lord, we make it our goal to please him. Something that we should note about Pauline literature and theology: Conduct always flows from Doctrine. What we believe determines how we behave, and this is evident in vv. 9-10.

Paul “makes it his ambition to please God.” The term translated “ambition” here is φιλοτιμέομαι. If we broke it down you would see the compound word has at its root “love” and “honor.” However, an etymological breakdown of a word isn’t a sure-fire way of knowing what that word means (think of a “butterfly”). Here it points us in the right direction, but “love of honor” generally gave rise to competition (a fact that Baker notes); however, as the term is used in the NT it doesn’t really carry this connotation. It is simply positive. It is to “make it one’s ambition; aspire to a goal.” Paul’s ambition is to εὐάρεστος “be pleasing” to God in the earthly vessel and the heavenly.

He does this with the recognition that he (and everyone) must stand before the βῆμα “judgement seat of Christ” (SHOW THE βῆμα in Corinth). As you can see, a βῆμα is a raised platform where governors would pronounce judgements and decrees. As Keener points out: “the Corinthians know that Paul appeared before (the one in Corith) (Acts 18:12)” (507). Paul is here referring to the final judgement, and notice that for everyone conduct matters. We will receive what is due for the things done in the earthly vessel, whether good or bad. I like what Schweizer says here: “(the body), far from being a burdensome envelope for the divine soul, is the very place where man is tested and in terms of which he will be questioned in the judgement.” Garland notes: “What humans do in the body has moral significance and eternal consequences. Everyone who is mindful of their mortality must therefore be mindful of their morality” (266).

5.11: VV. 11-15 provide an additional section dedicated to the defense of Paul’s ministry, but it begins with a somewhat hopeful note. What word does this section start with? Yes. Paul draws a conclusion based on what he has just said concerning his ambition to please God recognizing that he will stand before the judgement seat: “knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others.” The Fear of the Lord is a persistent theme throughout Scripture (both OT and NT). It is stated to be the “beginning of Wisdom,” and is also recognized as a motivator towards proper conduct. Here, the proper conduct of Paul is the fulfilling of his commission in sincerity and with pure motives. Now he knows that his faithfulness in these things is evident to God. The phrase could be translated “and to God we have been made evident.” However, he wants it to have “been made evident” to the Corinthians as well (this parallels what he stated in 1:14).

5.12: Moving to verse 12 we have more conversation concerning his “not commending” himself to them again. The point of saying all this is not to reintroduce and re-entrust himself to them, but so that they would be able to boast about their apostle. Now recognize that this follows on the heals of him calling himself an “earthen vessel,” so quite clearly the boasting in the apostle is the boasting in the work God is doing through the apostle. And this is important to note, because Corinth (being a place full of braggarts) was liable to boast in things seen, which Paul’s opposition seemed to be full-heartedly engaged in as he points out in the second half of verse 12. They are concerned about the things of man, Paul is concerned about the things of God, and he wants the majority in Corinth to hold that same view and be able to re-articulate it in the defense of their apostle in the face of the opponents.

5.13: Verse 13 is intriguing and comes with some tricky exegetical issues. First, the first clause may be referring to either charges against Paul that he was mad (insane), or Paul stating that if he had ecstatic religious experiences, it was between him and God. The first was a charge that was brought against him later in life by Festus in Acts 26:22-24, and we could see his opponents in Corinth hoping to discredit him in that way. The second is in line with the ecstatic nature of the opponents (and perhaps the Corinthians) who loved such religious experiences and sought to point to their own apostolic position through such things. Kruse sums up both lines well: “(1)‘Even if [as some say] we are mad, that is but the result of our faithfulness to God in preaching a pure gospel, but if we are in our right mind [as we are], then that is for your sake [who benefit from the sober truth we speak].’…(2) ‘If we do experience ecstasy, then that is something between us and God [not something to be displayed before others as proof of the spiritual character of our ministry], but if we are in our right mind [and use reasonable, intelligible speech], that is for your benefit’” (165). Notice that both deflect from Paul. What he does is not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the Corinthians.

5.14-15: This self-less ethic is explained in vv. 14-15. Paul states that the “love of Christ controls us.” The term συνέχω here carries the sense of “impel to action; force to an action” (logos). Christ’s love forces Paul to act, and he goes on to describe just how Christ demonstrated this love. The love that forces Paul to act is “Christ dying for all.” The ὑπέρ here should probably be understood as “on behalf of,” otherwise it would be quite difficult to explain how “all died” if they did not do it “in Christ.”

Verse 15 then provides a purpose statement for this death on behalf of all. “And he died on behalf of all, so that those who live may no longer live to themselves, but for him who died on behalf of them and was raised again.” The purpose of the sacrificial death was that those who died in Christ would not become selfish braggarts, but would live for Christ. Harris writes: “dying with Christ should lead to living for Christ” (479). Here is a clear distinction between Paul and his opponents: while the others commend themselves, Paul boasts in the Lord. While the others live for self, Paul lives for Christ being compelled by Christ’s love.

5.16: Verse 16 begins with another “so,” so we might ask: “So what?” Again he is drawing a conclusion based on what he has just said: “Recognizing that Christ died for all and was risen again…we regard no one from a worldly point of view.” What does it mean to regard someone from a “worldly point of view”?

Notice that through Christ’s love (which controls him) his understanding of others changed even as after his conversion his evaluation of Christ changed. Previously, he knew Christ to be a failed messianic pretender and thought it unthinkable that the Messiah could be killed like a criminal. After the Damascus experience he came to a recognition of the truth.

5.17: What matters most now is if one is “in Christ” or not. He explains what it means to be “in Christ” and the terminology is perfectly on par with what we have found elsewhere in 2 Cor thus far. Remember the Genesis language of 4:6. I prefer the ESV translation of this verse because I think it best captures the underlining structure of the Gk. NIV lacks the “Behold” ἰδού that is an interjection, like saying: “Look here!” And it draws the attention to the “new” which is said to “be here.” The verb is in the perfect tense, it is a past action with continuing effects, meaning that though the Christian is anticipating the heavenly building, he/she is already a new creation because he/she is “in Christ.”

Think about the idea of the “new creation” as well. It is strikingly different, and thus the life of the Christian is to be so different from his/her former life that he/she could be said to be “new.” A glimpse of that was shown in verse 16 with the new evaluation of others.

5.18-19: Moving to the final verses of chapter 5, we see the repeated term “reconcile.” At the heart of reconciliation (as the term was used in Gk) is an “exchange.” The EDNT notes: “it was used with the synonymous διαλλαγ- fig. for the “exchange” of hostility, anger, or war for friendship, love, or peace; it thus designates reconciliation in the human or political realm” (261). In the NT God is the one who reconciles us or the world to himself, we do not reconcile God to us; and if we are depicted as reconciling, it is ourselves to God (TDNTA).

Now, the former verses have already stated the means by which this reconciliation (exchange of hostility for peace) has been effectuated, the death and resurrection of Christ. This highlights the grace of God. What both verses 18 and 19 also demonstrate; however, is that this act of reconciliation must be responded to. God “gave the ministry of reconciliation.” Kruse notes: “The preaching of reconciliation has to be carried out and people must hear the call to be reconciled to God. Unless they respond to that call, they cannot actually experience reconciliation” (170).

5.20: Now those who have been given the ministry of reconciliation immediately set about that ministry in vv. 20-6:2. Paul refers to himself as an “ambassador” (πρεσβεύω) that has the basic sense of “be a representative, envoy.” The EDNT notes that historically it referred to “a group of persons who are to deliver a certain message or are commissioned with executing a certain task” (147). Typically a country would be in mind, but here Paul obviously has God in mind, and it puts an exclamation mark on the words of Paul. He is not preaching his own message or ideas, but the very commission with which he was sent by God. It is God’s word being preached through him, not Paul’s word. God is making his appeal “through us” and the “pleading” that they do is “on behalf of Christ.” Two things ought to stand out: 1). Paul clearly recognizes his ministry as God-given, God-empowered, and God-spoken. 2). This means that the rejection of Paul’s message is a rejection of God’s word.

The call for reconciliation is given to the believers in Corinth, not unbelievers, which tells us that these Christian are in danger of having believed in vain (a subject that will be more wholly dealt with in ch. 6). The need for this call is no doubt related to their treatment of the apostle.

5.21: Verse 21 reiterates the means of reconciliation (and thus emphasizes the need to not have received God’s grace in vain). Christ “knew no sin” and was made “sin” by God. The notion of “knowing” here deals with experiential knowledge rather than head knowledge and is yet another place in which the sinless life of Christ is stated plainly. Christ was sinless, yet the means of reconciliation was to “make him sin.” This does not mean that Christ was made a sinful made, but rather that he was the “sin-offering” and the consequence of this sin-offering was the wiping away of our sins. Kruse notes: “It has also been pointed out that in Leviticus 4:24 and 5:12 (LXX) the same word, ‘sin’ (hamartia), is used to mean ‘sin-offering’. It appears to be used in the same way in Romans 8:3, and it probably carries this meaning here in verse 21 as well” (173).

This is followed up with a purpose statement: “so that we may be the righteousness of God in him.” Again, notice that the “new creation” life is accessible only by being located “in Christ.” This righteousness is perhaps two-fold. It is the declaration of a right state before God, but there is no doubt a moral element involved as well. Witherington III notes: “Paul is probably talking about condition, not just position, when he speaks of becoming God’s righteousness, just as he was in speaking of the new creature. This prepares for what he will say in ch. 6 about the need for holiness” (397).