Corpus-Paul

[Paul Toseland <paul AT toseland.f9.co.uk>]

My first post on this thread seems to have disappeared into
cyberspace, so here's a revision. I wrote it before receiving
the posts from Jerry and Mark, but I can heartily endorse
both. I think the view I present here is entirely consonant
with their views, and puts flesh on the bones. But I hope it
will draw some fire!

Frank Hughes wrote


>I agree with both Jerry Sumney and Jeffrey Gibson that some serious
>discussion of 2 Cor 5:16 would be a great idea.  Jeffrey was kind
>enough to say how he thinks 2 Cor 5:16 ought to be interpreted;
>perhaps many of the rest of us should follow suit!

Well, here's how I see it.

hWSTE hHMEIS APO TOU NUN OUDENA OIDAMEN KATA SARKA;
EI KAI EGNWKAMEN KATA SARKA CRISTON,
ALLA NUN OUKETI GINWSKOMEN.

1. In v16a hHMEIS is marked by its position as emphatic. I think this
marks a contrast between ‘us’ and Paul's opponents, ‘those who boast
in the outward appearance’ (5:12). Several times already in this section

of the letter (2:14-7:4) Paul has attacked his opponents indirectly by
speaking positively about himself, inviting mirror reading (2:17; 3:3;
4:2; cf. 4:3-4; 6:14-7:1). Jerry may want to come back at me on this!

2. Paul uses KATA SARKA in an adjectival sense in Rom 4:1; 9:3;
1 Cor 1:26; 10:18; Col 3:22; Eph 6:5. In each case the phrase
clarifies the sense of noun or noun phrase: “Abraham our forefather
according to the flesh” (as opposed to our spiritual father); “my
kinsfolk according to the flesh”, as opposed to his spiritual kinsfolk;
etc.
This cannot be the sense of KATA SARKA in v16a, and I cannot see
what the clause could mean if KATA SARKA were adjectival. But if the
phrase is adverbial in v16a, it would be rather odd if it were adverbial

in v16b. It looks like v16b a special case of v16a; "from now on we
know no one KATA SARKA"; in particular, "we no longer no Christ KATA
SARKA". In both cases KATA SARKA follows the verb.

3. If KATA SARKA CRISTON were a reference to a Jewish (as
opposed to Christian) conception of the Messiah, as Jeffrey suggests,
then I think there would have to be an article (TON KATA SARKA
CRISTON).

So I agree with Jerry and Frank that KATA SARKA in 2 Cor 5:16 is
adverbial, and refers to a way of knowing Christ. Whenever it is
adverbial, KATA SARKA in Paul carries a negative connotation;
referring to the a sinful way of living independent of the Spirit, in
contrast, by implication to KATA PNEUMA (Rom 8:4, 5, 12, 13;
2 Cor 1:17; 10:3; Gal 4:23, 29; 11:18). Paul did at one time
know Christ KATA SARKA - he persecuted the church - but since his
conversion he knows Christ, by implication, KATA PNEUMA. He
makes this point because he is still engaged in a defense of his
apostolate, and in particular his handling of the recent crisis. His
opponents have alleged that he is either mad, or a cunning deceiver.

Like 8:1-9:15 and 10:1-13:10, 2 Cor 1:3-7:16 is essentially hortatory.
Following the introduction, Paul constructs a large chiastic argument,
1;12-7:16. The center of this structure is 2:14-7:4 (2:14 and 7:4cd
transitional passages connecting the center of the structure to its
narrative framework. The whole argument climaxes with 6:14-7:1,
an appeal to the Corinthians to end their relationship with the false
apostles, who are leading them into idolatry. Paul grounds his appeal
on an exposition of the role of his sufferings in his ministry to the
Corinthians, and especially in his handling of the recent crisis. He
shows that his own ministry is patterned after that of the Isaianic
Servant of Yahweh, and in this role he makes his appeal. Intertwined
in his argument is a subtle polemic thread, in which he portrays his
opponents as unbelievers, apostate false prophets who are subject
to the curses of the old (Mosaic) covenant. This polemic works
through intertextual echoes of a number of OT passages, the
Testament of Reuben, and the Letter of Tears. For details, please
see my web site (which hope to update today or tomorrow).

>From 4:7 (in fact, since 2:14), Paul has been expounding the role
of his own sufferings in the resolution of the recent most serious
pastoral crisis. This is in response to a charge of ELAFRIA (1:17)
(irresponsibility) made by some of the Corinthians, and of deception
by his opponents, the falls apostles. He sums up the vital role of
his sufferings in 4:10-12,

"Always we are carrying about in our bodies the dying of Jesus, in
order that  in our that in our bodies the life of Jesus may also be
made manifest.  For we who are alive are constantly being handed
over to death because of Jesus, in order that the life of Jesus may
be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but
life is at work in you."

He follows this immediately with a reference to Psalm 116 (Paul
quotes Ps 115:1 LXX, but he will have had in mind the underlying
Hebrew psalm). Like the Psalmist, Paul has recently experienced
divine deliverance from what seemed certain death (2 Cor 1:8-11;
cf. Ps 116:1-9). The Psalmist concludes from this experience that
he is indeed God's servant (v 16), and Paul seems to have drawn
this same conclusion, for he says that God has entrusted to him
the ministry of reconciliation (5:18). He is now confident that God
will continue to deliver him, and that he will arrive safely in the
congregation of church in Corinth:

"... for we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us
also with Jesus, and will cause us to stand with you [in his presence].
For all this is for you, so that grace, having increased, may cause
thanksgiving to abound by the agency of the majority, to the glory of
God." (4:14-15)

So, up to this point, Paul has been justifying his statement back in
1:6,
"If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are
comforted (that is, delivered), it is for your comfort (deliverance)".
He has to endure extreme suffering as part of his ministry to the
Corinthians because his sufferings make manifest 'the dying of
Jesus', and this is necessary for the Corinthians' 'comfort and
salvation'. As I read it, Paul's recent sufferings had an intercessory
role, rising to God as a presentation of the sacrifice of Christ
(CRISTOU EUWDIA ESMEN TWi THEOU, 2:15), and as a result
of this intercession the Corinthians were turned from a state of
rebellion to one of godly sorrow, which was necessary for their
salvation (LUPH METANOIAN EIS SWTHRIAN, 7:10).

Now he begins an extended response to an accusation (anticipated
or actual), that to deliberately chose to endure such sufferings
would be quite irrational, and that his appeal to his sufferings is
simply
clever rhetoric, calculated to win over his audience. He begins by
showing that in fact his endurance of sufferings is perfectly rational,
since his eternal reward will far outweigh them (4:16-18). Then he
admits that he uses all his powers to persuade people
(ANQRWPOUS PEIQOMEN, 5:11), but he insists that he does so in
the knowledge that God is watching over him, and that he will have to
answer for his conduct at the final judgment. He says that he has
described the purpose of his sufferings in order that his readers
should be able to answer his opponents, who ridicule him by
pointing to his pathetic appearance (5:12; cf. 10:10). Then in 5:13,
I think, he returns to Psalm 116, echoing the language of the LXX
version of v 12, "Then I said in my EKSTASIS ..." The Hebrew
underlying EKSTASIS is zpx, "to be in a state of alarm"; hence,
"in my fear". So, I believe, Paul is saying, "If I was beside myself
[with anxiety], it was for God" - cf. 2 Cor 1:8-9. His extreme anxiety
was endured in the service of God. He continues, "If I am rational,
it is for you'.


In 5:14-15 he argues that he has no alternative; since Christ has died
he, together with all who are in Christ, has died with Christ, and he
must now live not for himself, but for the one died and rose again.
Now to 5:16. Because  he has died with Christ and now serves him
(hWSTE introduces a consequence of 5:14-15), he now knows no
one KATA SARKA. He is qualified for this ministry precisely because
he knows Christ KATA PNEUMA. This point is reinforced in 5:17. For
those who are in Christ, there is a new Creation. Paul has the
Spirit because he belongs to the new creation; he is a member of
the new covenant. It is because he is in Christ, because he knows him
KATA PNEUMA, that he is prepared to live in a way that is so
radically different from life KATA SARKA. It is for this reason that he
is prepared to suffer. So 5:16 is part of an argument begun in 4:16, a
defense of his rationality, and a part of his exposition of the role of
his
own sufferings in the resolution of the recent crisis.

Given the emphatic hHMEIS in v16a, I think Paul is also taking the
opportunity of reinforcing a point he has made subtly at various
points already, namely that his opponents are unbelievers who
belong to (are under the curse of) the old covenant (see especially
3:3). They evaluate Paul's own ministry KATA SARKA (5:12), and
they know Christ KATA SARKA; they are not among “the many” who
have died with Christ (5:14-15). This would explain Paul's otherwise
puzzling reference to his past.

Regards

Paul Toseland
http://www.toseland.f9.co.uk/paul/ccindex.htm




  Re: [corpus-paul] 2 Corinthians 5:16