Corpus-Paul

["Joy Lutheran" <joyluthn AT mtaonline.net>]

________________________________________________

"For any thing that is not God's Son will not make me free.
      This is what we must preach again and again,
       in the hope that one day it will find acceptance
       through the grace of God"    -- Martin Luther
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Pickett" <rpickett AT lsps.edu>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:51 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: 2 Corinthians 5:16


> I have been away and am getting into this conversation rather late.
However,
> there is a classic article by J. L. Martyn entitled "Epistemology at the
> Turn of the Ages" which makes a rather persuasive argument for
understanding
> "kata sarka" and "kata pneuma" as two different ways of knowing in 2 Cor.
> 5:16. The article is reprinted in his collection of essays THEOLOGICAL
> ISSUES IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL.
>
> Martyn's view, as I remeber it, is similar to the one articulated by Mark
> below. In terms of the rhetorical context of this passage, I would note
that
> it seems to correspond to Paul's differentiation in 5:12 between those
rival
> apostles who boast "en proswpon" (kata sarka) and Paul, who boasts "en
> kardia". This contrast seems to pervade the entire section.
>
> Ray Pickett
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark D. Nanos <nanos AT gvi.net>
> To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:22 AM
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: 2 Corinthians 5:16
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: rpickett AT lsps.edu
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: joyluthn AT mtaonline.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>