Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Jerry Sumney has suggested that "according to the flesh" is a way of 
knowing Jesus as applied to 2 Cor. 5:16 rather than what is known 
about him, or its importance. I think he is right. But I have been 
pondering the idea, and the implications. It seems in this passage 
that the issue is about a way of knowing, with emphasis on the aspect 
of the state of being of the one knowing, not the one being known. 
This is important for evaluation of the context of the rhetoric, such 
as constructions of the issues/rivals/Paul as well as theological 
conclusions that are based upon its interpretation.

It is the change of state of being because one is in Christ that 
changes the perspective, the way of knowing, cf. v. 17: "therefore, 
if anyone is in Christ." This issue is found in the argument 
preceding also. The contrast in v. 12 is between a human status 
oriented assessment of the relative value of the two parties being 
contrasted (i.e., Paul and those in the position of being his rivals 
on the matter at hand), and a divinely controlled counter-evaluation 
that is witnessed in the unseen world of the heart where the spirit 
has worked on the addressees, rather than in the symbols of social 
comparison to which these rivals have appealed, which are manifest to 
everyone, and not just to the hearts of those who have been similarly 
transformed.

I do not follow the linking of zealotry and rightwising by way of 
triumphalism in Jeffrey Gibson's post; zealots may just as well 
aspire to martyrdom, i.e., seemingly losing by the standards of the 
ostensible victors in the battle at hand, but with a view towards 
victory in the larger war. That comment on our assumptions about Paul 
aside, the self-perception of one's standing is related to the 
construction of reality from which one evaluates the appearance of 
things/people, including one's self. It is the rivalry of courts of 
reputation for determining what is really real which seems to be at 
dispute in this passage. Thus it does not seem to me to be about a 
changed view of what a Messiah should be so much as appeal to a 
changed view because of the experience that Jesus is Messiah 
("therefore, if anyone is in Christ").

I do not find the passage contrasts how Jesus was known by Paul or 
those he portrays as rivals has to do with "when" Jesus was know as 
clearly as does Frank Hughes. Frank's understanding of the phrase 
according to the flesh is determined by his understanding of who 
these rivals are and what they claim. It is not clear to me that 
these others appeal to a knowledge of Jesus during his 
pre-death/resurrection life. The issue about time (when) is 
relativized by the contrasting perception of value/authority (what) 
at the present time, and the basis of that perception (how) is the 
meaning attributed to being in-Christ (why), which gives one a 
different perspective (how: by being part of a new community that has 
been created among those in-Christ that takes precedence thereafter 
over other communal associations and thus authorities).

It seems to me that the relative evaluation of Jesus according to 
flesh or spirit has to do with the perception of his value by the two 
parties here, albeit only as portrayed by one of those parties, Paul. 
The context of the rhetorical issue seems to be concerning the 
authority to which they each appeal in their relationship with the 
Corinthians. Paul's statements could still be made in contrasting two 
parties to this day, without either party appealing to a knowledge of 
Jesus according to the flesh in the sense of having known him on 
earth prior to his death/resurrection. Most Jewish people could be 
described as knowing Jesus according to the flesh, for example, as a 
Jewish martyr of the Roman regime. But this is different than knowing 
him in the spirit, which is dependent upon the meaning attached to 
Jesus' death. In an appeal to historical fact alone both can claim 
authority, but they would be separated where it comes to appeal to 
spiritual experience (in the heart) as a result of how they have 
known Jesus, according to the fleshly or human evaluation of his 
standing, or according to the spiritual evaluation of his standing 
based upon a belief that he has been raised from the dead. Depending 
upon one's own stance the relative weight of the evaluation of the 
other will be determined; that seems to be the point Paul is making. 
Since the addressees are in-Christ as a result of Paul's work among 
them, the resulting shared communal identity modifies other 
perspectives of who they are or are not; and the rivals apparently 
cannot appeal to the same basis for their authority, but to another 
court of reputation.

It should also be kept in view that Paul's evaluation of their 
heart/intentions is polemically constructed, and may not represent 
what they believe their intentions are. They have apparently grounded 
their authority on social standing in a court of reputation that is 
estimated by them to be important to the addressees. The contrast is 
that Paul is able to appeal to the addressees themselves as his court 
of reputation, by way of their own experiences because of his former 
presence among them, and thus not by appealing to some group that 
they have not personally known, as do the rivals, according to Paul. 
Thus Paul can say he lives for the addressees, while these rivals 
live for themselves.

If this approach is correct, then the contrast of v. 16 does not tell 
us that Paul formerly knew Jesus differently than those he 
caricatures as rivals, i.e., in the sense of knowing him before his 
death. The difference is in the appeal to the perception of the 
meaning of Jesus that is different: how (the way that) he is 
regarded/known by the knower (according to a state of being in Christ 
or not).

Regards,
Mark Nanos