5:11–15 In this section, Paul draws a conclusion (note the “therefore,” Since, then [oun], in v. 11) to the previous discussion. He rejects the opponents’ physical criterion for assessing the legitimacy of his apostolic office and seeks instead to establish valid, internal criteria.

5:11 The conclusion begins in verse 11, the expression fear the Lord tying in with what Paul has said about the judgment seat of Christ in verse 10. Since he is well aware that all people must give an account of their actions in the final judgment, Paul carries out his apostolic ministry in reverence before the “Lord,” which means here either God or Christ, since both are seated together on the merkabah and perform activities interchangeably (see on v. 10). His previous encounters with the divine merkabah (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14; 12:1–4) have probably contributed to this fear and reverence of the Lord. Already in the biblical account of Isaiah’s commission, the prophet displayed great fear at the sight of the the Lord seated on a high and exalted throne and attended by seraphs (Isa. 6:1–5). In subsequent Jewish tradition, the standard reaction of the merkabah mystic when confronted with the throne-chariot is awe and terror of the divine (cf. Ezek. 1:28; 1 En. 71:11; 4 Ezra 10:29–30, 34; Apoc. Ab. 16:1–4; Hekhalot Rabbati [Schäfer, 92]).

Since Paul knows the fear of the Lord, he tries to persuade men. While it is unclear exactly what Paul tries to persuade men of, the verb seems to be used in Acts as a technical term for the apostolic proclamation (cf. Acts 18:4 [“Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks”]; 19:8; 28:23). Indeed, it is Paul’s responsibility to “win” both Jews and Gentiles with the message of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19–22). In that case, Paul would be saying that his knowledge of the fear of the Lord causes him to preach the gospel and to try to persuade people. The thought is, again, similar to that in 1 Corinthians 9: The Apostle Paul, who has “seen” the Lord Jesus as the very basis of his apostleship (v. 1; cf. 15:8–9), has a divine “obligation” upon him to preach the gospel, “and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel” (v. 16). Obviously, the fear of the Lord is upon the apostle as he proclaims the message in accordance with his “commission” (v. 17), and the subsequent reference to an ultimate “reward” for his preaching (vv. 17–18) fits well with the reference in our passage to the judgment seat of Christ, before which each one will receive what is due (2 Cor. 5:10). All this goes to say that Paul is driven by pure and honorable motives.

Paul substantiates his assertion that the fear of the Lord and the coming judgment motivate him to preach the gospel, by appealing to two witnesses—God and the Corinthians themselves. On the one hand, Paul appeals to God as his witness: What we are is plain to God (lit., “We are made known to God”). In 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul claims to be fully known by God (cf. Gal. 4:9). His motives and actions are completely laid bare to the one who will be his judge at the final tribunal. As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 4:4–5, “It is the Lord who judges me. […] He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” This is not the first time in the letter that Paul has appealed to God as his witness (cf. 2 Cor. 1:18, 23).

Paul’s second witness is the Corinthians themselves. As thoroughly as God already knows the apostle, Paul hopes that it is also plain to your conscience (lit., “it is also made known to your conscience”). Just as Paul has already appealed to his own clear conscience in order to testify that he has conducted himself in his relations to the Corinthians with the holiness and sincerity that are from God (1:12), so also here Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ conscience in order to testify to his integrity (cf. 4:2). Thus, if Paul claims that he is motivated to preach the gospel by the fear of the Lord and the coming judgment, he appeals to their conscience to verify that fact. The Corinthians themselves provide some of the strongest, tangible evidence for the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship (cf. 3:1–6). Paul realizes, however, that the Corinthians will not understand him fully until the day of the Lord (1:14).

5:12 Having asserted the motivation for fulfilling his apostolic commission and offering supporting testimony as to its veracity, Paul clarifies a possible misunderstanding over his self-commendation. At first, this may seem like a semantic game. The word again refers back to Paul’s statement in 4:2, that “by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Prior to that, Paul had denied that he was commending himself again (3:1). Paul seems to have a delicate tightrope to walk between defense and self-commendation. As the apostle bitterly contests in 12:11, “I ought to have been commended by you.…” The reason for this is simple: The Corinthians themselves are supposed to be Paul’s letter of recommendation for all to read (2 Cor. 3:2). Therefore, if he needed first to commend himself to the Corinthians before they could commend him, Paul would be placed in an awkward, if not compromising, situation. Instead, Paul appeals to what they already know in their consciences about him as the basis for commending him.

In this way, Paul wants to give them an opportunity to take pride (lit., “boast”) in him. In 1:14, Paul has already stated his hope that in the day of the Lord Jesus the Corinthians can boast of Paul just as he will boast of them. Paul seeks to avoid every appearance of boasting in himself and in his own accomplishments (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16; 2 Cor. 12:5), although he would gladly accept external authentication in the form of boasts from the Corinthians (but cf. 1 Cor. 3:21). When his apostolic authority is questioned, however, Paul does, paradoxically, engage in self-boasting, although he acknowledges it to be foolish (cf. 2 Cor. 10:8; 11:16–17, 21; 12:1, 11).

The purpose (so that, hina) for which Paul wants to give the Corinthians an opportunity for boasting about him is given in verse 12b. The expression used here (echein pros tina) has puzzled scholars because it is usually assumed that an object for the verb “have” must be inferred from context. The NIV evidently understands the object to be answer and thus shortens the whole expression (“so that you may have an answer to those who …”) to so that you can answer those who.… Instead of answer, other suggestions for the missing object include “occasion,” “boast,” “some means of reply,” or simply “something,” each of which assumes that Paul wants to supply the Corinthians with arguments against the attacks of those who would oppose his apostolic office. More likely, however, Paul is using an abbreviated Greek idiom that means “to be hostile or ill-disposed toward someone.” This is made clear by the adverbs that are normally included in the construction (e.g., allotriōs, apechthōs, dysmenōs, echthrōs, kakoēthōs, kakōs, chalepōs). Thus, when Ptolemy, filled with wrath (3 Macc. 5:1), had ordered the execution of the Jews, “he returned to his feasting, gathering together those of his friends and of the army who were most hostile to the Jews” (v. 3). The idiom occurs frequently in the writings of Josephus (cf. Ant. 1.166; 7.186; 8.117; 13.35, 85, 195, 288; 14.8, 164, 404; 15.81; 16.267; 17.290; 20.162; Life 375, 384, 392; War 7.56). By using this expression, Paul seems to be urging the Corinthians to side with him against his opponents: “in order that you may be hostile toward those who boast in the face and not in the heart.”

Paul describes his opponents as those who take pride in what is seen (lit., “in the face” [NRSV: “outward appearance”]) rather than in what is in the heart. This is the first reference to Paul’s opponents in Corinth since 2:17 and 3:1. The allusion is to 1 Samuel 16:7, where the Lord says to Samuel: “Look neither at his face nor at the outward appearance of his stature, for I have rejected him with contempt. For God sees not as a man looks: Man looks at the face, but God looks at the heart” (cf. Ps.-Philo 59:2; b. Sanh. 106b; Gal. 2:6). As we have discussed, Paul is open to the charge of being a fraud, because his glorious claims (cf. 4:6) cannot be verified by any physical change in his body like the one that Moses experienced in his face (cf. 3:7–18; p. 102). Indeed, the process of heavenly ascent itself could have been expected to transform Paul’s face (cf. Ascen. Isa. 7:25: “the glory of my face was being transformed as I went up from heaven to heaven”). Paul’s opponents evidently allege that Paul is a fraud because he does not need to wear a veil in public (cf. 3:13), his bodily presence face-to-face is so weak (10:1, 10), and he has a thorn in the flesh (12:7). In response to these allegations, Paul characterizes the opponents’ position as “boasting in the face,” and his allusion to 1 Samuel 16:7 makes it clear that the opponents’ criterion for assessing the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship is not God’s. As Paul has already stated to the Corinthians, he will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10), which will expose the inner motives of his heart (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4–5). Meanwhile, any appeal to bodily evidence of Paul’s veracity is strictly illegitimate. By failing to realize the flow of thought in context—from the discussion of Moses’ face in 3:7–4:6, through the discussion of the transformation of Paul’s mortal body in 4:7–5:10, through to the present passage—many commentators misunderstand the reference to “face” in 5:12 as figurative, i.e., the opponents’ boasting in their own outward achievements (cf. 11:22–23).

The opponents’ criterion for boasting (i.e., the face) is juxtaposed to Paul’s own, that is, the heart. In 2 Corinthians, the apostle repeatedly emphasizes the condition of his heart in relation to the Corinthians (cf. 2:4; 3:2; 6:11; 7:3). Paul puts great stock in this aspect, for the heart is the place of the working of the Holy Spirit of the new covenant, of which he has been appointed a mediator (cf. 3:6). Hence, the rejection of the external criterion of assessing apostolic legitimacy in favor of the internal is not a way of retreating to the inaccessible, but rather essential to everything Paul stands for. Paul rejects the opponents’ claims based on their “deeds” (cf. 11:15) and supports his own legitimacy based on his own behavior (4:2; 5:9–10; 6:4–10; 10:12–18; 11:23–33; 12:5, 9–10). It is interesting to note that according to later Hekhalot literature, the merkabah mystic is able to perceive every word and deed of humans, even in the innermost sanctum (Schäfer, 83, 86).

5:13 Paul goes on to give the reason the Corinthians have an occasion for boasting about him. The use of the term translated here to be out of one’s mind (existanai) is equivocal: It can refer either to the ecstatic experience of the enraptured mystic (cf. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.24; On Drunkenness 146–147) or to insanity (cf. Mark 3:21). Hence, picking up a theme related to his previous discussion of being at home in the body or with the Lord, Paul touches here on another accusation with regard to his encounter with the merkabah: In what sense was it an “out-of-mind” experience? Paul’s opponents apparently allege that he is crazy, whereas Paul claims to have had a genuine revelatory experience. The crucial question is how the apostle can authenticate his ekstasis as revelatory experience in the face of opponents who think he is a fraud.

The opponents’ perspective on Paul’s mental infirmity is rooted in Jewish tradition. The charge reflected here may be directly related to Paul’s claim to have encountered the merkabah (the so-called Fool’s Speech in 11:1–12:13 comes back to this charge and to his merkabah experience). Interestingly enough, in 1 Corinthians 14, one of the key passages that informs us that Paul is an ecstatic mystic who speaks in the “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 14:18; cf. 13:1), Paul expresses the concern that speakers of these heavenly languages would appear to outsiders to be out of their minds (14:23). According to Hekhalot Rabbati, however, hearing the voices of the angels who sing before the throne of glory causes one immediately to go mad (Schäfer, 104).

In reconstructing the opponents’ attitude toward Paul’s mental state, we may also compare the use of the Hebrew mešuggaʿ (“mad, crazy”) in the critique of OT prophets by their enemies (cf. 2 Kgs. 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7), a term which has been understood by some as an indication of ecstasy in OT prophecy (see the reference to “babbling” in 2 Kgs. 9:11; see also Jer. 29:26; Josephus, Ant. 10.114). Although he never calls himself a prophet, Paul has many similarities to an OT prophet (cf. K. O. Sandnes). According to Philo, prophetic “ecstasy” (ekstasis) is not the same as that associated with “madness” (mania); rather, it is a relaxation of the senses and a retreat of the reason that causes the senses to “depart” (existanai) from those who perceive (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.24; cf. 1 En. 71:11: At the sight of the “Ancient of Time” [cf. Dan. 7:13], Enoch fell on his face, his whole body became relaxed, and his spirit was transformed).

On the one hand, Paul is arguing here that if his opponents are right that he is out of his senses, then it is for the sake of God (theō is a dative of advantage here). Paul equivocates on the term existanai in order to imply that his alleged madness is actually the ecstatic revelatory experience of a man of God. Furthermore, as the apostle has already stated, he is motivated by the fear of the Lord (v. 11). On the other hand, Paul states that if he is in his right mind (as he himself would maintain), then it is for you (hymin is another dative of advantage). Paul has repeatedly insisted that his apostolic ministry redounds to the benefit of the Corinthians (cf. 1:6–7; 4:12).

5:14–15 The reason that Paul’s complete existence is a life for the sake of God and others is given in terms of a sorites in verses 14–15, which puts a capstone on everything Paul has been saying in this section on his apostolic existence in a mortal body. Paul has been urging the Corinthians to abandon the opponents’ physical criteria for assessing the legitimacy of his apostleship and to focus instead on the process of renewal that is taking place within him and within his heart. In keeping with this argument, Paul reveals here once again what kind of convictions and compulsions motivate him at the core of his being: not only “the fear of the Lord” (v. 11), but also Christ’s love. While, at first glance, we may wonder whether Paul means the love which he has for Christ or the love which Christ has shown to him, the next line makes it clear that Paul intends the latter. The love of Christ is expressed in the fact that Christ died for all (cf. Gal. 2:19–20: “who loved me and gave himself for me”). Paul is motivated by devotion to the crucified Christ who died “on behalf of all [people].” At this point at the latest, we see that some of the arguments that Paul uses in defense of his apostleship actually apply more generally to others as well.

But what does it mean that Christ died for all and therefore all died? At first, the inference that Paul makes here does not appear compelling, for it is not immediately obvious how the death of a single individual effects the death of others, let alone why that might be a desirable event and a motivation for Paul’s apostolic ministry. According to Paul, all people are sinners who are estranged from God, sold into slavery under the power of sin, and condemned to death (Rom. 1–3; 7:14). In order to rectify this situation, the OT law of atonement prescribes that the sinner must identify himself/herself with a sacrificial victim (Lev. 1:4), so that when the victim is sacrificed, the sinner in effect dies with it. Sprinkling the blood of the victim on the altar (Lev. 1:5) signifies giving the life to God, for according to Leviticus 17:11, “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” This is not so much a matter of placating an angry God as it is providing restoration both of the life of the condemned sinner and of his/her relationship with God. In other words, Jesus became sin, or rather a sin-offering for humanity, so that people could be justified before God through his blood (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:25; 5:9) and reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:18).

The purpose (that, hina) of Christ’s universal atonement is that those who live might have a new life dedicated to Christ and to obedience to him. In other words, Christ died “for all” in order that they might live for him. Those who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead, they might walk in newness of life (cf. Rom. 6:2–11). As Paul explains it, believers are not free to live as they wish, but are under the authority of a new master and are controlled by the power of the indwelling Spirit. This is Paul’s motivation for apostolic ministry, and the criterion by which he would like to be evaluated.

5:11–6:2 In 5:16–6:2 Paul proceeds to the third step in the defense of the legitimacy of his apostleship, which climaxes in a direct appeal to the Corinthians not to receive God’s grace in vain (6:1). In essence, Paul urges the Corinthians to quit seeing him as a suffering and dying apostolic imposter and to acknowledge him instead as the divinely appointed representative of Jesus Christ on earth and the minister of reconciliation that he really is. Otherwise, they risk forfeiting the eschatological salvation of the Lord. For the Corinthians to defect from Paul and to reject his apostolic ministry is to abandon Christ and the Spirit, and thus the very love of God.

5:16 The new section begins in verse 16 with a conclusion (So, h?ste) that draws together what Paul has been saying in the previous section and makes a transition to a new subject. In the previous section (4:7–5:15) Paul has been arguing that the opponents’ physical criterion for assessing the legitimacy of his apostleship is distorted. The apostle’s suffering and dying body and his lack of a glorified face like that of Moses cannot be used to show that Paul is a fraud. Therefore, Paul now applies his own principle to himself in a kind of reverse psychology: we regard no one from a worldly point of view. A more literal translation shows what Paul is really trying to say: “we know no one according to the flesh.” Implied in this is that Paul’s opponents do “know” him “according to the flesh.” In context, the opposite of knowing according to flesh would be to know “according to the heart,” as Paul has been urging the Corinthians (cf. v. 12). Ultimately, of course, only the Lord really knows the hearts of people and rewards each person according to his or her works (cf. vv. 10, 11; Rom. 8:27; 1 Kgs. 8:39; Prov. 24:12).

In contrast to Paul’s present practice of refusing to know anyone according to the flesh, he admits that in the past he did so with regard to Christ: Though we once regarded [lit., “knew”] Christ in this way [lit., “according to the flesh”], we do so no longer. The argument here is as subtle as it is powerful. At one time, Paul erroneously used the same physical criterion to evaluate Christ as the apostle’s opponents presently use on him! Paul is saying that he once knew Christ according to the flesh as a crucified messianic pretender. The word “Christ” (christos) here denotes Messiah (cf. M. Hengel); this is particularly clear from the reference to “him who knew no sin” in verse 21. By all appearances, Jesus of Nazareth was merely one of several such messianic pretenders who had come on the scene in recent years and who had received their just deserts at the hands of the Romans (cf. C. A. Evans). From a Jewish perspective based on Deuteronomy 21:22–23, Paul the Pharisee saw the crucified messianic pretender as accursed by God, for according to Deuteronomy 21:23, which Paul later cites in Galatians 3:13, “anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse” (cf. M. Hengel). As Paul’s life ebbs from his mortal body in a process of daily dying, the opponents recognize Paul in a similar fleshly way as an apostolic pretender (cf. 2 Cor. 6:8, which makes it clear that Paul was considered a planos, i.e., a false prophet and religious seducer of the people, just as Jesus had been [cf. A. Strobel]). The previous section (2 Cor. 4:7–5:15) has been at pains to show that, despite appearances to the contrary in Paul’s body, the evidence points in another direction precisely because of the resurrection of Christ.

What made the difference for Paul? Why does he no longer know Christ according to the flesh? The emphasis of the text at this point is on the manner of knowing rather than on the object per se. Paul’s radical change of mind about Jesus came about as the result of his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus. At that time, the one whom Paul thought was crucified and “accursed” in the body confronted him in the splendor of divine glory (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Cor. 9:1). Exalted to the right hand of God to share God’s throne on the merkabah, Christ revealed himself to Paul as the Son of God, as Messiah of Israel, and as redeemer of all who believe. What had previously been a stumbling block—a crucified Messiah! (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23)—became the center of Paul’s new existence (15:3–11). The new “knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord” had radical consequences for Paul’s entire life, requiring him to abandon old values and to reorient himself on new ones (Phil. 3:7–11; cf. Gal. 1:13–16). Now Paul wants “to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil. 3:10–11; cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). That fairly well summarizes what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:15 about his mortal body.

Through subsequent reflection on the Scriptures, Paul recognizes the error of his ways as a Pharisee: He saw Christ according to the flesh in the same way as the “we” of Isaiah 53:3–4 viewed the Suffering Servant of the Lord: “He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces, he was despised, and we held him of no account.” Now, however, as a result of encountering the resurrected Lord, Paul recognizes Christ as the Suffering Servant who bears the iniquities of the many (2 Cor. 5:15; cf. Isa. 53:4–5, 11–12). Similarly, the suffering apostle of Jesus Christ—the one who shares in the sufferings of Christ (1:5; 4:10)—is despised and rejected by opponents (cf. E. Baasland). Paul changed his mind and his method of assessment; his opponents, however, are still operating on the old method of observing the mortal body (so also M. Thrall). Their position is contrary to Scripture (see the aforementioned allusion to 1 Sam. 16:7 in 2 Cor. 5:12).

5:17 Paul draws a general conclusion (Therefore, h?ste) from the fact that, since his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus, he no longer knows Christ according to the flesh as a crucified messianic pretender. The contrast in verse 16 between Paul’s old and new ways of perceiving Christ prompts a further contrast between old and new that makes Paul’s experience prototypical of all believers. Being in Christ (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:14; 5:18; Gal. 1:22; 2:17; 3:26; 5:6; 1 Cor. 1:4; 15:22; 2 Cor. 3:14) or “in the Lord” (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12; Gal. 5:10; 1 Cor. 7:22, 39; 11:11; 15:58; 2 Cor. 2:12) results from having been baptized into Christ by faith (Gal. 3:27), so that one now forms part of the church, which is the “body of Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Rom. 12:4–8; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:16–19; 3:15; Eph. 1:23; 4:4–16; 5:23). Believers are personally united with Christ, who is a corporate figure like Adam and indeed his typological counterpart (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 45).

Being in Christ (“the last Adam”) causes one to be a new creation. In the “postexilic” time of distress, Nehemiah’s prayer (Neh. 9:6–37) takes creation as the ground for hope (v. 6). If the God who elected Abraham and led Israel out of Egypt is really the creator God, then he can and will lead Israel out of the present situation of degradation and distress (cf. R. Rendtorff). In Isaiah, the expectation of Israel’s restoration as a second exodus redemption included the idea that God would make “new heavens” and a “new earth” (Isa. 65:17–19; 66:22–23; cf. 1 En. 45:4–5; 72:1), and that there would be a return to the ideal conditions in Eden (Isa. 51:3; cf. Jub. 4:26 [no sin]). Within this new creation, “all flesh” would come to Zion in order to worship God (Isa. 66:22–23). Obviously, we are dealing here with much more than individual transformation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18 [“the world”]). Paul calls believers a “new creation” (cf. also Gal. 6:15) because they, with the rest of creation (cf. Rom. 8:19–22), undergo a physical and spiritual transformation (see on 4:7–5:15), which is an act of creation on a personal level (see the allusion to Gen. 1:3–4 in 2 Cor. 4:6).

Paul’s radical distinction between the old (ta archaia) and the new (kaina) is also drawn from Isaiah. This in the context of Israel’s future redemption from exile, which recalls the exodus from Egypt, Isaiah 43:18–19 reads: “Do not remember the former things, and do not consider the old things (ta archaia). Look (idou), I am doing new things (kaina) which will now spring up, and you will know them. And I will make a road in the desert and rivers in the dry land.” This OT text plays a major role in the NT (cf. O. Betz). Paul identifies these “new things” with the redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the world. In the process, he recalls the “old (palaia) covenant” and the “new (kain?) covenant” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3:6, 14, which is also understood in the traditional context of the second exodus redemption. The condemnation of the law that sent Israel into exile under the “old covenant” (and expelled Adam from Eden) is being reversed.

5:18–21 In this section Paul goes on to elaborate on the new creation and the new things in terms of the divine reconciliation and his own official, apostolic function in relation to this reconciliation.

5:18 The new world order in Christ is from God in the sense that God took the initiative in providing it in accordance with his divine plan. Apocalyptic literature of the OT and early Judaism consistently emphasizes that in the last days God himself will intervene in world affairs to establish his kingdom. Ultimately, joint effort plays no part in this process; God is at work from start to finish.

God is described by means of two, parallel participial clauses that emphasize his reconciliatory deed, on the one hand, and the consequent reconciliatory word, on the other. About the deed, the first clause makes clear that participation in the new creation presupposes that God reconciled Paul to himself through the substitutionary death of Christ. Here again the apostle portrays his experience as prototypical of that of all believers (cf. 5:1, 16–17), although it is not impossible that the first person plural actually includes all believers at this point. As we have seen, Paul’s use of the first person plural can shift quite suddenly in any given context (cf. 1:3–11). But in verse 20, which draws an inference from the previous context, the first plural clearly refers to the apostle. Furthermore, the second participial clause almost certainly refers to Paul’s own ministry of reconciliation.

The verb reconciled is used in the sense of making peace between enemies (cf. Rom. 5:10–11; 1 Cor. 7:11). In Hellenistic-Jewish texts, it is hoped and prayed that God will turn away his wrath and reconcile himself either with individual people or with Israel as a whole (cf. 2 Macc. 1:4; 7:33; 8:29; Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.166; Josephus, Ant. 3.315). Ephesians 1:14–18 gives us an encompassing picture of the reconciliation that Christ, in his body, has accomplished between former enemies—between Jews and Gentiles, on the one hand, and between God and humanity, on the other—creating “one new man” and making “peace.” Likewise, according to Isaiah 53:5, the Suffering Servant of the Lord was expected to be “wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that brought us peace, and by his bruises we are healed” (O. Hofius). The “peace” of Isaiah 53:5 is the same as the “reconciliation” of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 5:18–21. The atoning, substitutionary death of Christ for sinners effects “peace with God” and “reconciliation” (Rom. 5:1–10). Hence, Paul begins his letters with the formulaic greeting that refers to this peace: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:2).

The second participial clause, about the reconciliatory word, shows the apostle’s involvement in proclaiming God’s reconciliatory deed: Paul has already used the word ministry (diakonia) and “minister” (diakonos) in the previous context to refer to his own ministry of the new covenant in contradistinction to Moses’ “ministry” of the old covenant (cf. 3:6, 7, 8, 9; 4:1). Here, too, he implies a typological comparison to Moses. Both Philo (On the Life of Moses 2.166; Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.49) and Josephus (Ant. 3.315) portray Moses as “reconciler” (katallakt?s, diallakt?s), in the sense that he intervened before God on behalf of the people after the golden calf incident (Exod. 32:11–13; cf. Exod. Rab. 43:2; Deut. Rab. 3:15). Paul sees himself as being commissioned with a similar ministry of reconciliation and mediation, although, as we shall see, Paul’s ministry is greater since it encompasses the whole world and comes solely from divine initiative. Paul’s role is primarily one of preaching the gospel and of persuading people (cf. 2 Cor. 5:11). On the way to Damascus, God himself revealed his Son to Paul and gave Paul the commission to preach the gospel of the Son of God among the nations (Gal. 1:16). When Paul states that God gave him the ministry of reconciliation, this is another way of saying that he has an apostolic office directly from God.

5:19 This verse elaborates on God’s reconciliatory deed and Paul’s commission to a ministry of reconciliation proclaiming the reconciliatory word in verse 18. Whereas verse 18 speaks very specifically about Paul as the object of God’s reconciliatory deed, verse 19 expands the scope to include the world. The idea that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ puts the matter on a grand scale.

It possible that in 2 Corinthians 5:19 Paul is using imperial imagery of the Pax Romana (cf. K. Wengst) in order to communicate his point about God’s reconciling the world (sinful humanity or the nations) to himself in Christ. As we have seen in 2:14, Paul uses another imperial image—the triumphant emperor—in order to suggest that he has encountered the throne-chariot of God, who is always leading him in triumphal procession “in Christ” in every place. Furthermore, Paul may have the same motive for using Roman imperial imagery in the present context, for by using the reconciliation of the world under the Pax Romana as a metaphorical vehicle, Paul can bring up the image of Christ enthroned next to God on the merkabah in accordance with Psalm 110:1, the most important christological text in the NT (cf. M. Hengel). Interestingly enough, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John (6.57 295) already interprets 2 Corinthians 5:19 in light of Psalm 110:1, because the Psalm text expresses reconciliation in terms of the subjugation of enemies: “The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” The image is one of world domination (cf. Ps. 2:8; 72:8; Sib. Or. 3:741–762, 785–795), which is quite consistent with Paul’s previous reference to the “judgment seat of Christ” before which all people must appear (2 Cor. 5:10). We may note that, in Jewish tradition, the enthronement of Messiah is associated with the aforementioned “new creation” (cf. 1 En. 45:3–5; 2 Bar. 73:1–74:4). If our interpretation is correct, then verse 19 goes beyond verse 18 by stating that the reconciliation of sinners to God effected by Christ’s atoning death also entails a reconciliation of the world to the lordship of God and Christ, who sit enthroned together on the merkabah.

Two parallel clauses follow, linked by And (kai) to the main clause. The first relates to the world and the second to Paul’s commission. The first participial clause states that, in reconciling the world to himself, God is not counting men’s sins against them. By this, Paul is merely reaffirming that under the new regime those who were formerly enemies through sinfulness (cf. Rom. 5:8, 10) are now brought into fellowship and allegiance. Their former sins are not counted against them; they are absolved. The expression is traditional, as Psalm 32 (31):2; Joseph and Asenath 11:10; and Testament of Zebulun 9:7 show.

The second participial clause, about the “word” (message, ton logon), links Paul’s apostolic commission with God’s reconciliation of the world. Unfortunately, the NIV translation obscures the parallelism between the two circumstantial participles by making the second one an independent clause. The point, however, is that God’s reconciling the world manifested itself both in not counting humanity’s sins against them and in entrusting the message (lit., “word”) of reconciliation to Paul. In other words, Paul’s apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18 [“the word of the cross”]) is integral to God’s reconciliation of the world. As such, Paul is an official “coworker” with God (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Cor. 3:9), an apostle to the nations (cf. Rom. 11:13). With this bold, self-confident assertion, Paul completely dismisses the opposition to his apostleship and appeals once again to the divine commission upon which his ministry is solidly based. The reason Paul’s ministry is integral to God’s reconciliatory program is that preaching is necessary for the people to hear the message of the gospel in order to believe (cf. Rom. 10:14–17, citing Isa. 52:7 and Isa. 53:1).

5:20 Having presented himself as a minister of reconciliation with a message of reconciliation (vv. 18–19), Paul draws a conclusion (therefore, oun) from the preceding discussion about his stately apostolic commission and appeals directly to the Corinthians in light of it. This is crucial for Paul’s defense of his apostolic office in 2:14–7:4, for he states in no uncertain terms that Christ and God speak though him. First, Paul is one of Christ’s ambassadors. The term is frequently used of imperial legates, who represent the Roman emperor in foreign lands and govern there on his behalf with legionary troops (cf. H. Mason). As we have seen, Paul is thinking of his apostolic role in a world empire established by God and Christ analogous to the Pax Romana (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). The expression Christ’s in this context does not mean “for the cause of Christ,” but rather “on whose behalf.” Thus, in the word of the apostolic ambassador, Christ himself speaks. In this sense, the apostle represents Christ and is endowed with all the authority of the one he represents. Not appointed by human authorities (Gal. 1:1, 12), but by the risen Christ himself, Paul regards himself as the personal representative of Christ on earth (cf. 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17). This explains, in part, why the apostle shares in the sufferings and death of Christ (cf. 4:10–11) and also otherwise takes on the functions of Christ (e.g., his suffering and dying benefits others [1:6; 4:12]). Furthermore, although Paul’s opponents in Corinth fancy themselves to be “apostles of Christ” (11:13) and “servants of Christ” (11:23), Paul in effect disputes their claim by asserting that he is the personal representative of Christ on earth.

As an ambassador for Christ, Paul speaks as though God were making his appeal through us. Here again, we see the unity of Christ and God in undertaking activities together, including speaking: Paul is the ambassador of Christ, yet it is God who speaks through the apostle. The God who in Christ reconciled the world to himself uses the apostle as a mouthpiece to announce the good news and to summon people to accept the message. In the situation with the opponents, of course, Paul can appeal to no higher authority than God Almighty as the source of his apostolic ministry and message.

Having established his apostolic credentials as the spokesman of Christ and God, Paul gives a sample of his gospel preaching: We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. The NIV supplies the object you in the first line. But it is very unlikely that the exhortation is directed toward the Corinthians, since they are already believers and hence have already accepted the message of reconciliation that the apostle originally delivered to them. Elsewhere Paul does, of course, entertain the idea that the Corinthians may not be “in the faith” (cf. 6:1; 13:5), and he does exhort them to reconciliation (cf. 13:11). More probably, the implied object of Paul’s imploring here is the world (kosmos, cf. v. 19), and the Be reconciled to God is a direct citation of the message that, as an ambassador “for Christ” (hyper Christou), Paul preaches to the world “on behalf of Christ” (hyper Christou). In that case, Paul’s gospel message is an exhortation (cf. 5:11) to desist from rebellion against God and to appropriate by faith the reconciliation that God has accomplished in Christ. The application of the present section to the Corinthians does not come until 6:1 (so also M. Thrall).

5:21 Since there is no transition between verses 20 and 21, it is difficult to know exactly how verse 21 relates to the foregoing. Apparently, verse 21 continues the direct citation of Paul’s message of reconciliation from verse 20, providing, in effect, substantiation for the exhortation to be reconciled with God. As in verse 19, the acting subject is God; however, unlike verse 19, Christ is the object of the action. This is the only passage in which Paul refers directly to the sinlessness of Christ (who had [lit., “knew”] no sin), although other passages seem to presuppose it (cf. Rom. 5:19; 8:3; Phil. 2:8). Paul’s description of Christ in our text conforms to a traditional expectation about the Messiah, as well as to the statement about the Suffering Servant of the Lord (cf. Isa. 53:9: “For he did no lawlessness [anomia]”).

Can the same be said for what follows? God made Messiah sin for us. Interestingly enough, a text from Qumran (CD 14.18–19) expects that the Messiah of Aaron and Israel will appear and “atone for their iniquity.” The expression “Messiah of Aaron and Israel” may be elliptical for “Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of Israel” (so A. S. van der Woude). Even so, this text does not necessarily include the substitutionary aspect which 2 Corinthians 5:21 has. The sinless Christ was made sin “for us” (hyper h?m?n) in the sense that he took on the sinners’ curse in his atoning death on the cross. According to Galatians 3:13, Christ redeemed believers from the curse of the law by becoming a curse “for us” (hyper h?m?n), for it is written in Deuteronomy 21:23, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” As we have seen above, Paul the Pharisee probably applied this OT text against the crucified Christ while he knew Christ “according to the flesh” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16). After his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus, however, he saw Christ in a different light, but continued to apply Deuteronomy 21:23 to the death of Christ, this time in a positive way as a reference to the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners. Paul realized that Christ was not the accursed sinner before God, but rather the deliverer who had come to die for the remission of sins of others. As he states in 2 Corinthians 5:14, “one died for all” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; 5:6, 8; 6:10; 1 Thess. 5:10). Paul understood the death of Christ in light of the sinless Suffering Servant of the Lord: “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6); “he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors” (cf. Isa. 53:12). It is also possible that becoming “sin” (hamartia) refers to becoming a “sin offering,” for in the LXX hamartia is sometimes used of the sin offering (cf. Lev. 4:21, 24; 5:12; 6:18). The Suffering Servant is said to be made an “offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10).

The purpose for which God made sinless Christ a substitute for sinners is that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As Paul stated in a previous letter to the Corinthians, “It is because of him [sc. God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). It is clear that the righteousness of God comes from him and is conferred on believers who are in Christ. Godless sinners, who previously possessed no righteousness of their own, receive righteousness in sinless Christ who, by a process of substitution, became a sin offering for them. In other words, believers identify with Christ in such a way that they die with Christ to the penalty for their sin (i.e., the curse of the law) and also share with Christ in his resurrection life and vindicated status.

6:1–2 Here Paul concludes 5:16–6:2 and urgently applies what he has been saying directly to the Corinthians. As in 6:14–7:1, the causal circumstantial participle in 6:1 introduces the conclusion in a way that draws together what has been said. Thus, in 6:1, as God’s fellow workers (lit., “Since we are fellow workers”) recalls 5:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9: “For we are God’s fellow workers”). Furthermore, the verb to urge is the same as the verb “to make an appeal” in 5:20, although the subject is different in each case (God and Paul, respectively). In his mediatory role as minister of reconciliation, Paul now urges the Corinthians not to receive God’s grace in vain. The apostle assumes thereby that the Corinthians have indeed received the message of reconciliation that he originally delivered to them, and therefore that they have received the grace of God. But there is a thinly veiled threat here: If the Corinthians continue on their course of denying the legitimacy of Paul’s apostolic office, then they will have undermined their own salvation, for it is through Paul that they received the message of reconciliation and thus the grace of God itself (cf. 13:5). As we have seen, Paul’s ministry of reconciliation is inseparable from God’s reconciliation of the world. The tacit argument here is much the same as the one that we have already seen several times in the letter. Ultimately, the Corinthians cannot deny Paul’s original message to them and his mediatory role without at the same time rejecting the gospel and denying their own Christian existence (cf. 1:19; 3:1–6).

6:2 The reason (For, gar) that Paul urges the Corinthians not to receive the grace of God in vain is underscored in verse 2 by a verbatim citation of Isaiah 49:9 LXX, which stresses the eschatological timing of this grace. The introductory formula to the citation (legei gar) can be translated either “For he [sc. God] says” (so NIV) or “For it [sc. the Scripture] says” (so D.-A. Koch; cf. Rom. 9:17; 10:11; 1 Tim. 5:18). In the original context of Isaiah, however, Paul’s citation is introduced by “Thus says the Lord,” and so Paul most likely understands God as the unexpressed subject of 2 Corinthians 6:2a. The Lord himself, whom Paul represents and whose grace he has just mentioned, makes a pronouncement in the OT that has application in the present. Evidently, Paul understands the authoritative interpretation of Scripture as one way in which God makes his appeal though the apostle (cf. 5:20).

In its original context, Paul’s citation is part of the second Servant Song (49:1ff.), in which the Servant of the Lord is called to proclaim the restoration of Israel and the salvation of the world: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). This is the passage that is so determinative to Paul’s understanding of his own apostolic commission to the nations (cf. Gal. 1:15–16). As a text on the restoration of Israel, Isaiah 49:1ff. coheres with Paul’s emphasis in 2 Corinthians 5:16ff. on the new creation (Isa. 65:17–19; 66:22–23), which has been inaugurated through Christ, the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Isa. 53).

Paul goes on to draw the significance of the citation of Isaiah 49:8 for the Corinthians: “I tell you [lit., “Look!”], now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.” The word “Look!” links 6:2 with the “Look!” in verse 17 (not rendered in the NIV): The present time is the time of both the “new creation” and the “new things” that God promised in Isaiah. For Paul, the day of salvation and reconciliation that Isaiah prophesied has dawned. The fulness of time has come (Gal. 4:4). Therefore, the Corinthians must not forfeit the opportunity to take advantage of God’s mercy. The twofold “Look, now” in 6:2 reveals a sense of urgency in Paul’s authoritative, ambassadorial exhortation to the Corinthians.

Additional Notes

5:11 In the OT, the fear of the Lord is a central concept, and only a very brief sketch can be given here (see further H. F. Fuhs, “yārē’,” TDOT, vol. 6, pp. 290–315). The presence of God is considered a terrifying sight (Exod. 6:3; 20:18) because its holiness is potentially deadly (Gen. 16:13; 32:30; Exod. 19:21; 24:10–11; 33:18–23; Judg. 6:22–23; 13:22; 1 Sam. 6:19; 1 Kgs. 19:13; Isa. 6:5). An individual may experience the terrifying aspect of God’s presence in a dream or vision as well as in a theophany (cf. Gen. 28:17; Job 4:12–16; Dan. 10:8–9, 15–17). Israel fears the Lord because he delivered the people from Egypt (Exod. 14:31). In general, the mighty acts of God in history and in nature instill fear and reverence in people (cf. Isa. 25:3; Hab. 3:2; Zech. 9:5; 1 Kgs. 18:39; Job 37:1, 24; Pss. 33:8; 65:6–9; Jer. 5:22, 24; 10:7), and the Lord’s universal judgment brings fear upon the whole earth (cf. Ps. 76; Isa. 41:5). In Deuteronomic tradition, fear most often means “worship” in the sense of fidelity to the covenant of God (cf., e.g., Deut. 5:29; 6:2; 10:12, 20; 2 Kgs. 17:7–41). In the Psalms, “Yahweh-fearers” always refers to the community or nation that worships Yahweh (cf., e.g, Pss. 15:4; 22:24, 26; 31:20; 60:6; 66:16; 85:10), or to the devout who are faithful to Yahweh (cf. Pss. 25:14; 33:18; 34:8, 10; 103:11, 13, 17; 111:5; 119:74, 79; 145:19; 147:11). The “fear of the Lord” can even be used in a metonymy for torah (Ps. 19:10). In Wisdom literature, the “fear of the Lord” is a key concept, which teaches wisdom (Prov. 15:33), including proper conduct toward God, the king, and those in authority (cf. Prov. 24:21). According to Prov. 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (cf. also Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:29; 2:5; 9:10; 15:33). Since God’s ordinances are immutable and God is beyond human knowledge, “to fear God” means that mortals have no choice but absolute submission and strict obedience, relying on whatever God may decree (Eccl. 3:14).

For Paul, too, fear or reverence of God or Christ is foundational for the believer’s relationship to God (see Stanley E. Porter, “Fear, Reverence,” in DPL, pp. 291–93). The completion of the Corinthians’ sanctification, which includes cleansing themselves from every defilement of body and spirit, is to be grounded “in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). In Col. 3:22 Paul exhorts slaves to obey their earthly masters (kyrioi, pl.) in everything even as they fear the Lord (kyrios, sg.). Slaves should put themselves into the task, whatever it may be, as done for the Lord and not for their masters, since they know that from the Lord they will receive the inheritance as their reward (Col. 3:23–24). Paul exhorts the Philippians to follow Christ’s example of obedience (Phil. 2:6–11) and to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling” directed toward God (Phil. 2:12).

M. Thrall (Second Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 403) suggests that there is a certain circularity in Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians’ conscience in judging his apostolic integrity, since the apostle must have in mind the standards that have emerged by implication in his own description of apostolic ministry in the preceding chapters. This overlooks, however, that the Corinthians themselves know Paul and have experienced the effects of his ministry in their midst, particularly through his mediation of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1–6). It is on this basis that the Corinthians are Paul’s “letter” of recommendation.

5:12 It is not impossible that the opponents boast in their own glorified faces (cf. 11:13). Here, however, their critique of Paul’s lack of a gloried face like that of Moses is more to the point (cf. Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 405).

5:13 A similar contrast of terms is found in Acts 26:24–25: Festus believed that Paul’s great learning had driven him mad, whereas Paul claims to be speaking “words of truth and mental soundness” (v. 25). The word “mental soundness” (sōphrosyne) here is a derivative of the verb used in 2 Cor. 5:13 (sōphronein, to be in one’s right mind).

On ecstasy and 1 Cor. 14, see Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 2/36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), pp. 168–70. Cf. Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets?

5:15 Of course, Paul’s view of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice goes well beyond the OT law of atonement as given in Leviticus. According to Paul, the single sacrifice of Jesus provides universal atonement in a way that repeated cultic rites could not. As the Son of Man, Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Likewise, Paul understands Jesus as the Suffering Servant of the Lord, who bears the iniquities of the many (cf. esp. Isa. 53:4–5, 11–12; 1 Cor. 15:1–5; Rom. 4:25).

5:16 The relation of v. 16 to the previous context is crucial for Paul’s whole apology. If, however, most interpreters fail to recognize the point of 4:7–5:15, they also fail to see the function of 5:16, i.e., to draw a conclusion to Paul’s previous argument.

Cf. Martin Hengel, “ ‘Christos’ in Paul,” in Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 65–77, 179–88 (esp. p. 71); idem, “Christological Titles in Early Christianity,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 425–48 (esp. pp. 444–46).

Cf. Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Claimants of the First and Second Centuries,” in Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 239–52.

Cf. Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), pp. 64, 83–84.

Cf. August Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegen Jesus (WUNT 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980).

Cf. Ernst Baasland, “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians,” ST 38 (1984), pp. 135–50.

5:17 Other interpreters understand the two h?ste-sentences in vv. 16 and 17 as parallel to one another, both drawing out the consequences of vv. 14–15.

On the new creation and the restoration of Israel in Paul, see my article, “Restoration of Israel,” DPL, pp. 796–805. Paul’s concept of “comfort” in the thanksgiving of the letter (1:3–11) is drawn, in part, from the “Book of Comfort” (Isa. 40–55), which announces the restoration of Israel.

Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, “Some Reflections on Creation as a Topic of Old Testament Theology,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene Ulrich, et al.; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 204–12.

On Isa. 43:18–19, see Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (AnBib 43; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970).

According to Ma’ase Merkabah (Schäfer, 680), the merkabah mystic experiences the transformation within his heart as if he had come into a “new world.”

Unfortunately, the NIV fails to translate the demonstrative particle “Look!” (idou) in the last line of our verse (“[Look,] the new has come!”). Although the particle seems superfluous, it actually provides important evidence of the verbal parallel to Isa. 43:18–19.

Rabbinic literature draws the comparison between the expulsion of Adam from the garden and the exile of Israel from the land (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15.1.1).

5:18–21 This section, whether in whole or in part, is sometimes thought to contain pre-Pauline tradition. On these various hypotheses see Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 445–49.

5:18 Cilliers Breytenbach’s comprehensive study examines the whole vocabulary of reconciliation in Greco-Roman, Hellenistic-Jewish, and NT sources (Versöhnung. Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie [WMANT 60; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989], pp. 45ff.); see also now Stanley E. Porter, Καταλλ?σω in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings (Estudios de Filologia Neotestamentaria 5; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1994); idem, “Peace, Reconciliation,” DPL, pp. 695–99.

In Qumran, the messianic “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High” was expected to effect worldwide peace: “He will judge the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth and all provinces will worship him” (4Q246 2.5–6). Cf. John J. Collins, “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” in From John to Jesus: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. M. C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 65–82.

5:19 Cf. Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

Cf. Martin Hengel, “ ‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!’ Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110, 1,” in Le Trône de Dieu (ed. Marc Philonenko; WUNT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), pp. 108–94 (here esp. p. 142).

If the second participial clause in v. 19 (“… and placed in us the word of reconciliation”) alludes to Ps. 104:27 ?LXX (“[God] placed in them [sc. Moses and Aaron] the words of his signs”), then Paul is making another comparison between himself and Moses in context (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18).

5:20 Cf. Hugh J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology 13; Toronto: Hakkert, 1974).

Ambassadors were typically “worthy and excellent men” (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.260; 14.251). An ambassador was not to be treated in a lawless manner, whether by persecuting him or killing him, for that would violate the “law of envoys” and would thereby constitute an act of war (cf. Josephus, Ant. 7.120; Philo, On the Life of Moses 1.258). Instead, an ambassador is to be shown “hospitality” (xenia), which includes lavish entertainment and gifts (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.165, 171; 14.198).

5:21 Cf. A. S. van der Woude, Die messianische Vorstellung der Gemeinde von Qumran (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3; Assen: van Gorcum, 1957), pp. 32–33, 60–61, 74.

According to N. T. Wright, v. 21 means to say that, as ambassador for Christ through whom God makes his appeal, Paul himself becomes a revelation in person of the covenant faithfulness of God (“On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Corinthians 5:21,” in Hay, ed., Pauline Theology, pp. 200–208).

6:1 On receive grace in vain, see Judith M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (WUNT 2/37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), pp. 277–80.

Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, p. 345: “Whether those in Corinth accept or reject Paul’s final defense of his ministry in this letter [sc. 2 Corinthians] will determine whether or not they too have been brought into this new covenant relationship with God, and thus, whether they too will be able to stand before the judgment of God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10–12). Given the unity between Paul’s person and his proclamation of the Gospel, to reject the former is to be excluded from the latter.” Paul calls for the Corinthians to test the genuine nature of their faith by their stance toward him, whether or not they accept his legitimacy as an apostle and his admonitions (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).

6:2 Cf. Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), pp. 25 n. 5, 261–63. On the comparison of Paul’s citation technique here with the Qumran biblical commentaries (pesharim), see Hays, Echoes of Scripture, pp. 171–72.

Cf. Jan Lambrecht, “The Favorable Time: A Study of 2 Cor. 6, 2a in Its Context,” in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. Für Joachim Gnilka (ed. Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelege; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), pp. 377–91.