Sermon Tone Analysis

The purpose of the sermon is to cause people to ask themselves whether they are truly “ambassadors” of Christ or not and to give them some instruction as to what they might do to embrace that role and function productively in it.

\\ *The Ministry of Reconciliation*/ – 2 Corinthians 5/

11 Since, then, we know [KI1] what it is to fear the Lord, we try [KI2] to persuade men.

What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.

12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart[KI3] .  13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.

14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly [KI4] point of view.

Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new [KI5] creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:  19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.

We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

[1]

 

\\ *Ambassador — * In the Old Testament the Hebrew word /tsir/, meaning “one who goes on an errand,” is rendered thus (Josh.

9:4; Prov.

13:17; Isa.

18:2; Jer.

49:14; Obad.

1:1).

This is also the rendering of /melits, meaning “an interpreter,” in 2 Chr.

32:31; and of //malak, a “messenger,” in 2 Chr.

35:21; Isa.

30:4; 33:7; Ezek.

17:15.

This is the name used by the apostle as designating those who are appointed by God to declare his will (2 Cor.

5:20; Eph.

6:20).

/

   The Hebrews on various occasions and for various purposes had recourse to the services of ambassadors, e.g., to contract alliances (Josh.

9:4), to solicit favours (Num.

20:14), to remonstrate when wrong was done (Judg.

11:12), to condole with a young king on the death of his father (2 Sam.

10:2), and to congratulate a king on his accession to the throne (1 Kings 5:1).

To do injury to an ambassador was to insult the king who sent him (2 Sam.

10:5).

[2]

 

*Reconcilation — * a change from enmity to friendship.

It is mutual, i.e., it is a change wrought in both parties who have been at enmity.

(1.)

In Col. 1:21, 22, the word there used refers to a change wrought in the personal character of the sinner who ceases to be an enemy to God by wicked works, and yields up to him his full confidence and love.

In 2 Cor.

5:20 the apostle beseeches the Corinthians to be “reconciled to God”, i.e., to lay aside their enmity.

(2.)

Rom.

5:10 refers not to any change in our disposition toward God, but to God himself, as the party reconciled.

Romans 5:11 teaches the same truth.

From God we have received “the reconciliation” (R.V.), i.e., he has conferred on us the token of his friendship.

So also 2 Cor.

5:18, 19 speaks of a reconciliation originating with God, and consisting in the removal of his merited wrath.

In Eph.

2:16 it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the winning back of the sinner in love and loyalty to God, but to the restoration of God’s forfeited favour.

This is effected by his justice being satisfied, so that he can, in consistency with his own nature, be favourable toward sinners.

Justice demands the punishment of sinners.

The death of Christ satisfies justice, and so reconciles God to us.

This reconciliation makes God our friend, and enables him to pardon and save us.

(See ATONEMENT.)

[3]

 

*RECONCILIATION*.

There are four important NT passages which treat of the work of Christ under the figure of reconciliation, namely, Rom.

5:10f.; 2 Cor.

5:18ff.;

Eph.

2:11ff.;

Col. 1:19ff.

The important Gk.

words are the noun katallageµ and the verbs katallassoµ and apokatallassoµ.

Reconciliation properly applies not to good relations in general but to the doing away of an enmity, the bridging over of a quarrel.

It implies that the parties being reconciled were formerly hostile to one another.

The Bible tells us bluntly that sinners are ‘enemies’ of God (Rom.

5:10; Col. 1:21; Jas.

4:4).

We should not minimize the seriousness of these and similar passages.

An enemy is not someone who comes a little short of being a friend.

He is in the other camp.

He is altogether opposed.

The NT pictures God in vigorous opposition to everything that is evil.

Now the way to overcome enmity is to take away the cause of the quarrel.

We may apologize for the hasty word, we may pay the money that is due, we may make what reparation or restitution is appropriate.

But in every case the way to reconciliation lies through an effective grappling with the root cause of the enmity.

Christ died to put away our sin.

In this way he dealt with the enmity between man and God.

He put it out of the way.

He made the way wide open for men to come back to God.

It is this which is described by the term ‘reconciliation’.

It is interesting to notice that no NT passage speaks of Christ as reconciling God to man.

Always the stress is on man’s being reconciled.

This in the nature of the case is very important.

It is man’s sin which has caused the enmity.

It is man’s sin that has had to be dealt with.

Man may very well be called on in the words of 2 Cor.

5:20 to be ‘reconciled to God’.

Some students go on from this to suggest that Christ’s reconciling activities are concerned only with man.

But it is difficult to harmonize this with the general NT position.

That which set up the barrier was the demand of God’s holiness for uprightness in man.

Man, left to himself, is content to let bygones be bygones.

He is not particularly worried by his sin.

Certainly he feels no hostility to God on account of his sin.

The barrier arises because God demands holiness in man.

Therefore when the process of reconciliation has been effected it is impossible to say it is completely man-ward, and not God-ward in any sense.

There must be a change from God’s side if all that is involved in such expressions as ‘the wrath of God’ is no longer exercised towards man.

This does not mean a change in God’s love.

The Bible is very clear that God’s love to man never varies no matter what man may do.

Indeed, the whole atoning work of Christ stems from God’s great love.

It was ‘while we were yet sinners’ that ‘Christ died for us’ (Rom.

5:8).

This truth must be zealously guarded.

But at the same time we must not allow ourselves to slip into the position of maintaining that reconciliation is a purely subjective process.

Reconciliation in some sense was effected outside man before anything happened within man.

Paul can speak of Christ ‘through whom we have now received our reconciliation’ (Rom.