16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh<\/em> ] i.e. we regard no man from a purely fleshly point of view (see note on ch. 2Co 1:17<\/span>), but look upon him as endowed with a new vital principle from above which has changed his heart. Cf. 2Co 5:17<\/em><\/span>; Rom 8:1-11 ; 1Co 2:10-16<\/span>. “Even in Christ a transition took place analogous to that which happened to man in regeneration. In the Resurrection the life according to the flesh passed over into a life according to the Spirit.” Olshausen. “He who knows no man after the flesh has entirely lost sight in the case of a Jew, for example, of his Jewish origin, in the case of a rich man of his riches, in that of a learned man of his learning, in that of a slave of his slavery, and so on.” Meyer. Cf. Mat 3:9<\/span>; Joh 8:39<\/span>; Rom 2:28-29<\/span>; Rom 10:12 ; 1Co 12:13<\/span>; Gal 3:28<\/span>; Col 3:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh<\/em> ] i.e. from a purely human point of view, as the Son of David simply (Rom 1:3<\/span>), not as the Incarnate Son of God, the Divine Word. See Bishop Wordsworth’s note here. St Paul, and many others of the first preachers of the faith (cf. Act 1:6<\/span>), had started with such carnal conceptions, but they had disappeared before the light of God’s truth.<\/p>\n Wherefore henceforth – <\/B>In view of the fact that the Lord Jesus died for all people, and rose again. The effect of that has been to change all our feelings, and to give us entirely new views of people, of ourselves, and of the Messiah, so that we have become new creatures. The word henceforth ( <\/SPAN><\/span> apo tou nun) means properly from the present time; but there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul refers to the time when he first obtained correct views of the Messiah, and that he means from that time. His mind seems to have been thrown back to the period when these new views burst upon his soul; and the sentiment is, that from the time when he obtained those new views, he had resolved to know no one after the flesh.<\/P> Know we no man – <\/B>The word know here (<\/SPAN><\/span> oidamen) is used in the sense of, we form our estimate of; we judge; we are influenced by. Our estimate of man is formed by other views than according to the flesh.<\/P> After the flesh – <\/B>A great many different interpretations have been proposed of this expression, which it is not needful here to repeat. The meaning is, probably, that in his estimate of people he was not influenced by the views which are taken by those who are unrenewed, and who are unacquainted with the truths of redemption. It may include a great many things, and perhaps the following:<\/P> (1) He was not influenced in his estimate of people by a regard to their birth, or country. He did not form an attachment to a Jew because he was a Jew, or to a Gentile because he was a Gentile. He had learned that Christ died for all, and he felt disposed to regard all alike.<\/P> (2) He was not influenced in his estimate of people by their rank, and wealth, and office. Before his conversion he had been, but now he learned to look on their moral character, and to regard that as making the only permanent, and really important distinction among people. He did not esteem one man highly because he was of elevated rank, or of great wealth, and another less because he was of a different rank in life.<\/P> (3) It may also include the idea, that he had left his own kindred and friends on account of superior attachment to Christ. He had parted from them to preach the gospel. He was not restrained by their opinions; he was not kept from going from land to land by love to them. It is probable that they remained Jews. It may be, that they were opposed to him, and to his efforts in the cause of the Redeemer. It may be that they would have dismissed him from a work so self-denying, and so arduous, and where he would be exposed to so much persecution and contempt. It may be that they would have set before him the advantages of his birth and education; would have reminded him of his early brilliant prospects; and would have used all the means possible to dissuade him from embarking in a cause like that in which he was engaged. The passage here means that Paul was influenced by none of these considerations.<\/P> In early life he had been. He had prided himself on rank, and on talent. He was proud of his own advantages as a Jew; and he estimated worth by rank, and by national distinction, Phi 3:4-6<\/span>. He had despised Christians on account of their being the followers of the man of Nazareth: and there can be no reason to doubt that he partook of the common feelings of his countrymen and held in contempt the whole Gentile world. But his views were changed – so much changed as to make it proper to say that he was a new creature, 2Co 5:17<\/span>. When converted, he did not confer with flesh and blood Gal 1:16<\/span>; and in the school of Christ, he had learned that if a man was his disciple, he must be willing to forsake father and mother. and sister and brother, and to hate his own life that he might honor him, Luk 14:26<\/span>. He had formed his principle of action now from a higher standard than any regard to rank, or wealth, or national distinction; and had risen above them all, and now estimated people not by these external and factitious advantages, but by a reference to their personal character and moral worth.<\/P> Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh – <\/B>Though in common with the Jewish nation we expected a Messiah who would be a temporal prince, and who would be distinguished for the distinctions which are valued among people, yet we have changed our estimate of him, and judge of him in this way no longer. There can be no doubt that Paul, in common with his countrymen, had expected a Messiah who would be a magnificent temporal prince and conqueror, one who they supposed would be a worthy successor of David and Solomon. The coming of such a prince, Paul had confidently expected. He expected no other Messiah. He had fixed his hopes on that. This is what is meant by the expression to know Christ after the flesh. It does not mean that he had seen him in the flesh, but that he had formed, so to speak, carnal views of him, and such as people of this world regard as grand and magnificent in a monarch and conqueror. He had had no correct views of his spiritual character, and of the pure and holy purposes for which he would come into the world.<\/P> Yet now henceforth know we him no more – <\/B>We know him no more in this manner. Our conceptions and views of him are changed. We no more regard him according to the flesh; we no longer esteem the Messiah who was to come as a temporal prince and warrior; but we look on him as a spiritual Saviour, a Redeemer from sin. The idea is, that his views of him had been entirely changed. It does not mean, as our translation would seem to imply, that Paul would have no further acquaintance with Christ, but it means that from the moment of his conversion he had laid aside all his views of his being a temporal sovereign, and all his feelings that he was to be honored only because he supposed that he would have an elevated rank among the monarchs of the earth. Locke and Macknight, it seems to me, have strangely mistaken this passage. The former renders it, For if I myself have gloried in this, that Christ was himself circumcised as I am, and was of my blood and nation, I do so now no more any longer, The same substantially is the view of Macknight. Clarke as strangely mistakes it, when he says that it means that Paul could not prize now a man who was a sinner because he was allied to the royal family of David, nor prize a man because he had seen Christ in the flesh.<\/P> The correct view, as it seems to me, is given above. And the doctrine which is taught here is, that at conversion, the views are essentially changed, and that the converted man has a view of the Saviour entirely different from what he had before. He may not, like Paul, have regarded him as a temporal prince; he may not have looked to him as a mighty monarch, but his views in regard to his person, character, work, and loveliness will be entirely changed. He will see a beauty in his character which he never saw before. Before, he regarded him as a root out of dry ground; as the despised man of Nazareth; as having nothing in his character to be desired, or to render him lovely Isa 53:1-12<\/span>; but at conversion the views are changed. He is seen to be the chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely; as pure, and holy, and benevolent; as mighty, and great, and glorious; as infinitely benevolent; as lovely in his precepts, lovely in his life, lovely in his death, lovely in his resurrection, and as most glorious as he is seated on the right hand of God. He is seen to be a Saviour exactly adapted to the condition and needs of the soul; and the soul yields itself to him to be redeemed by him alone.<\/P> There is no change of view so marked and decided as that of the sinner in regard to the Lord Jesus Christ at his conversion; and it is a clear proof that we have never been born again if our views in reference to him have never undergone any change. What think ye of Christ? is a question the answer to which will determine any mans character, and demonstrate whether he is or is not a child of God. Tyndale has more correctly expressed the sense of this than our translation. Though we have known Christ after the flesh, now henceforth know we him so no more.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 16. Know we no man after the flesh<\/B><\/I>] As we know that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; and as we know that all are alienated from God, and are dead in trespasses and sins; therefore we esteem no man on account of his family<\/I> relations<\/I>, or the stock<\/I> whence he proceeded, because we see all are shut up in unbelief, and all are children of wrath.<\/P> <\/P> Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh<\/B><\/I>] We cannot esteem a man who is a sinner<\/I>, were he even allied to the blood royal of David, and were he of the same family<\/I> with the man Christ<\/I> himself; nor can we prize a man because he has seen Christ in the flesh; for many have seen him in the flesh to whom he will say; Depart from me, for I never knew you<\/I>. So we: nothing weighs with us, nor in the sight of God, but redemption from this death, and living to him<\/I> who died for them.<\/P> <\/P> We know that the Jews valued themselves much in having Abraham for their father; and some of the Judaizing teachers at Corinth might value themselves in having seen Christ in the flesh<\/I>, which certainly St. Paul did not; hence he takes occasion to say here that this kind of privilege availed nothing; for the old creature<\/I>, however noble<\/I>, or well descended<\/I> in the sight of men, is under the curse<\/I>; and the new creature<\/I> only is such as God can approve.<\/P><\/p>\n Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:<\/B> words of sense in Scripture ordinarily signify more than the act of that sense which they express; particularly this term know<\/B> ordinarily signifieth to approve and acknowledge; and so it signifies here. We know, <\/I>that is, we regard, we acknowledge no man in the discharge of our office; we regard no man with respect to any external fleshly consideration. Under which notion he comprehends all things not spiritual, whether carnal relations, riches, &c. <\/P> Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh; <\/B>not from any sight of him, for we read not that Paul at any time saw Christ, but, Act 9:1-43<\/span>, when he saw him, not according to the flesh, but as exalted at the right hand of God: but by the hearing of the ear Paul had known Christ, as one that had lived in the flesh, and who had conversed with men for above thirty years; <\/P> yet<\/B> (saith he) we know him no more, <\/B>we shall neither see nor hear him any more in the flesh; we now only know him as he hath a glorious body, with which he sitteth at the right hand of God. <\/P> <\/p>\n 16. Wherefore<\/B>because of oursettled judgment<\/I> (2Co 5:14<\/span>),<\/P> henceforth<\/B>since ourknowing Christ’s constraining love in His death for us. <\/P> know we no man after theflesh<\/B>that is, according to his mere worldly and externalrelations (2Co 11:18<\/span>; Joh 8:15<\/span>;Phi 3:4<\/span>), as distinguished fromwhat he is according to the Spirit,<\/I> as a “new creature”(2Co 5:17<\/span>). For instance, theoutward distinctions of Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, slave or free,learned or unlearned, are lost sight of in the higher life of thosewho are dead in Christ’s death, and alive with Him in the new life ofHis resurrection (Gal 2:6<\/span>;Gal 3:28<\/span>). <\/P> yea, though<\/B>The oldestmanuscripts read, “if even.” <\/P> known Christ after theflesh<\/B>Paul when a Jew had looked for a temporal reigning, not aspiritual, Messiah. (He says “Christ,” not Jesus:<\/I>for he had not known personally Jesus in the days of His flesh, buthe had looked for Christ or the Messiah). When once he was convertedhe no longer “conferred with flesh and blood” (Ga1:16<\/span>). He had this advantage over the Twelve, that as one bornout of due time he had never known Christ save in His heavenly life.To the Twelve it was “expedient that Christ should go away”that the Comforter should come, and so they might know Christ in thehigher spiritual aspect and in His new life-giving power, and notmerely “after the flesh,” in the carnal aspect of Him(Rom 6:9-11<\/span>; 1Co 15:45<\/span>;1Pe 3:18<\/span>; 1Pe 4:1<\/span>;1Pe 4:2<\/span>). Doubtless JudaizingChristians at Corinth prided themselves on the mere fleshly (2Co11:18<\/span>) advantage of their belonging to Israel, the nation ofChrist, or on their having seen Him in the flesh, and thence claimedsuperiority over others as having a nearer connection with Him(2Co 5:12<\/span>; 2Co 10:7<\/span>).Paul here shows the true aim should be to know Him spiritually as newcreatures (2Co 5:15<\/span>; 2Co 5:17<\/span>),and that outward relations towards Him profit nothing (Luk 18:19-21<\/span>;Joh 16:7<\/span>; Joh 16:22<\/span>;Phi 3:3-10<\/span>). This is atvariance with both Romish Mariolatry and transubstantiation. Twodistinct Greek<\/I> verbs are used here for “know”; thefirst (“know<\/I> we no man”) means “to bepersonally acquainted with”; the latter (“known Christ . .. know . . . more”) is to recognize,<\/I> or estimate. Paul’sestimate<\/I> of Christ, or the expected Messiah, was carnal, butis so now no more.<\/P><\/p>\n Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh<\/strong>….. Since the death and resurrection of Christ, which has broken down the middle wall of partition, and has took away all distinction of men, we know, we esteem, we value no man on account of his carnal descent, and fleshy privileges, as being of the Jewish nation, a descendant of Abraham, and circumcised as he was; or on account of their outward state and condition, as being rich and honourable among men, or on account of their natural parts and acquirements, their learning, wisdom, and eloquence; nor do we own any man to be a Christian, that lives after the flesh, to himself, and not to Christ; nor do we make account of the saints themselves as in this mortal state, but as they will be in the resurrection, in consequence of Christ’s having died for them, and rose again.<\/p>\n Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh<\/strong>: some of them had seen him in the flesh; others valued him on account of his being of the Jewish nation, and of his relation to them according to the flesh; and all of them had formerly entertained carnal apprehensions of him, and his kingdom, as though it would be a temporal one:<\/p>\n yet now henceforth know we him more<\/strong>; no more in this mortal state, being risen from the dead; nor do we value ourselves upon having seen him in the flesh; for though such a sight and knowledge of him was desirable, yet a spiritual knowledge is much more preferable; and many there were who knew him in the flesh, who neither enjoy his spiritual presence here, nor will they be favoured with his glorious presence hereafter. Moreover, we do not judge of him as we did before we had a spiritual knowledge of him, and as our countrymen did, by his outward circumstances, by his parentage and education, his poverty and afflictions, his company and conversation, that he could not be the Messiah, the Son of God, and therefore was worthy of death; we have quite other thoughts and apprehensions of him now, believing him to be the Christ of God, a spiritual Saviour and Redeemer, whose kingdom is not of this world; we have relinquished all our national prejudices, and former notions, concerning the Messiah, his kingdom, and people. Some copies add, “after the flesh”; and the Arabic version, “yet now know we him no more in that”.<\/p>\n Ministry of the Apostles.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> A. D.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 57.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him<\/I> no more. 17 Therefore if any man be<\/I> in Christ, he is<\/I> a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are<\/I> of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you<\/I> by us: we pray you<\/I> in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be<\/I> sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.<\/P> In these verses the apostle mentions two things that are necessary in order to our living to Christ, both of which are the consequences of Christ’s dying for us; namely, regeneration and reconciliation.<\/P> I. Regeneration, which consists of two things; namely, 1. Weanedness from the world: “Henceforth we know no man after the flesh,<\/I> v.<\/span> 16<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. We do not own nor affect any person or thing in this world for carnal ends and outward advantage: we are enabled, by divine grace, not to mind nor regard this world, nor the things of this world, but to live above it. The love of Christ is in our hearts, and the world is under our feet.” Note, Good Christians must enjoy the comforts of this life, and their relations in this world, with a holy indifference. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet,<\/I> says the apostle, we know him no more.<\/I> It is questioned whether Paul had seen Christ in the flesh. However, the rest of the apostles had, and so might some among those he was now writing to. However, he would not have them value themselves upon that account; for even the bodily presence of Christ is not to be desired nor doted upon by his disciples. We must live upon his spiritual presence, and the comfort it affords. Note, Those who make images of Christ, and use them in their worship, do not take the way that God has appointed for strengthening their faith and quickening their affections; for it is the will of God that we should not know Christ any more after the flesh. 2. A thorough change of the heart: For if any man be in Christ,<\/I> if any man be a Christian indeed, and will approve himself such, he is,<\/I> or he must be, a new creature,<\/I> v.<\/span> 17<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Some read it, Let him be a new creature.<\/I> This ought to be the care of all who profess the Christian faith, that they be new creatures; not only that they have a new name, and wear a new livery, but that they have a new heart and new nature. And so great is the change the grace of God makes in the soul, that, as it follows, old things are passed away<\/I>–old thoughts, old principles, and old practices, are passed away; and all these things must become new.<\/I> Note, Regenerating grace creates a new world in the soul; all things are new. The renewed man acts from new principles, by new rules, with new ends, and in new company.<\/P> II. Reconciliation, which is here spoken of under a double notion:–<\/P> 1. As an unquestionable privilege, 2Co 5:18<\/span>; 2Co 5:19<\/span>. Reconciliation supposes a quarrel, or breach of friendship; and sin has made a breach, it has broken the friendship between God and man. The heart of the sinner is filled with enmity against God, and God is justly offended with the sinner. Yet, behold, there may be a reconciliation; the offended Majesty of heaven is willing to be reconciled. And observe, 1. He has appointed the Mediator of reconciliation. He has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. God is to be owned from first to last in the undertaking and performance of the Mediator. All things relating to our reconciliation by Jesus Christ are of God, who by the mediation of Jesus Christ has reconciled the world to himself, and put himself into a capacity of being actually reconciled to offenders, without any wrong or injury to his justice or holiness, and does not impute to men their trespasses, but recedes from the rigour of the first covenant, which was broken, and does not insist upon the advantage he might justly take against us for the breach of that covenant, but is willing to enter into a new treaty, and into a new covenant of grace, and, according to the tenour thereof, freely to forgive us all our sins, and justify freely by his grace all those who do believe. 2. He has appointed the ministry of reconciliation,<\/I> v.<\/span> 18<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. By the inspiration of God the scriptures were written, which contain the word of reconciliation, showing us that peace was made by the blood of the cross, that reconciliation is wrought, and directing us how we may be interested therein. And he has appointed the office of the ministry, which is a ministry of reconciliation:<\/I> ministers are to open and proclaim to sinners the terms of mercy and reconciliation, and persuade them to comply therewith. For,<\/P> 2. Reconciliation is here spoken of as our indispensable duty, v.<\/I><\/span> 20<\/span>. As God is willing to be reconciled to us, we ought to be reconciled to God. And it is the great end and design of the gospel, that word of reconciliation, to prevail upon sinners to lay aside their enmity against God. Faithful ministers are Christ’s ambassadors, sent to treat with sinners on peace and reconciliation: they come in God’s name, with his entreaties, and act in Christ’s stead, doing the very thing he did when he was upon this earth, and what he wills to be done now that he is in heaven. Wonderful condescension! Though God can be no loser by the quarrel, nor gainer by the peace, yet by his ministers he beseeches sinners to lay aside their enmity, and accept of the terms he offers, that they would be reconciled to him, to all his attributes, to all his laws, and to all his providences, to believe in the Mediator, to accept the atonement, and comply with his gospel, in all the parts of it and in the whole design of it. And for our encouragement so to do the apostle subjoins what should be well known and duly considered by us (v.<\/I><\/span> 21<\/span>), namely, (1.) The purity of the Mediator: He knew no sin.<\/I> (2.) The sacrifice he offered: He was made sin;<\/I> not a sinner, but sin,<\/I> that is, a sin-offering, a sacrifice for sin. (3.) The end and design of all this: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,<\/I> might be justified freely by the grace of God through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Note, [1.] As Christ, who knew no sin of his own, was made sin for us, so we, who have no righteousness of our own, are made the righteousness of God in him. [2.] Our reconciliation to God is only through Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his merit: on him therefore we must rely, and make mention of his righteousness and his only.<\/P><\/p>\n Henceforth <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). From the time that we gained this view of Christ’s death for us.<\/P> After the flesh <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). According to the flesh, the fleshy way of looking at men. He, of course, knows men “in the flesh ( <\/SPAN><\/span>), but Paul is not speaking of that. Worldly standards and distinctions of race, class, cut no figure now with Paul (Ga 3:28<\/span>) as he looks at men from the standpoint of the Cross of Christ.<\/P> Even though we have known Christ after the flesh <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Concessive clause ( <\/SPAN><\/span>, if even or also) with perfect active indicative. Paul admits that he had once looked at Christ <\/SPAN><\/span>, but now no longer does it. Obviously he uses <\/SPAN><\/span> in precisely the same sense that he did in verse 15<\/span> about men. He had before his conversion known Christ <\/SPAN><\/span>, according to the standards of the men of his time, the Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders. He had led the persecution against Jesus till Jesus challenged and stopped him (Ac 9:4<\/span>). That event turned Paul clean round and he no longer knows Christ in the old way <\/SPAN><\/span>. Paul may or may not have seen Jesus in the flesh before his death, but he says absolutely nothing on that point here. <\/P> <\/p>\n After the flesh [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. “He who knows no man after the flesh, has, for example, in the case of the Jew, entirely lost sight of his Jewish origin; in that of the rich man, of his riches; in that of the learned of his learning; in that of the slave, of his servitude” (Alford). Compare Gal 3:28<\/span>. <\/P> Yea though [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Not with a climactic force, as A. V., and not with the emphasis on Christ, but on have known. The proper sense will be brought out in reading by emphasizing have. We know no man henceforth after the flesh : even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now, etc. Paul refers to his knowledge of Christ before his conversion, a hearsay knowledge, confined to reports of His personal appearance, His deeds, His relations to the Jews, His alleged crime and punishment. When the glorified Christ first spoke to him out of heaven, he asked, “Who art thou?” Compare to reveal His Son in me, Gal 1:16<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Wherefore henceforth.”<\/strong> (hoste hemeis apo tou nun) “So (that) we from now on, henceforth, hereafter forever;” because of our conviction that we should not live unto ourselves, but unto Christ, 2Co 5:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Know we no man after the flesh.”<\/strong> (oudena oidamen kata sarka) “we (should) know no man after the order of flesh,” in a sinful, selfish manner; we do not respect one man more than another, if he be rich or poor, a Jew or a Gentile, in contrast with Paul’s opponents at Corinth, 1Ti 5:21<\/span>; Mat 12:50<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,”<\/strong> (ei kai egnokamen kata sarka Christon) “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh;” of the tribe of Judah, family of David, and of the city of Bethlehem, of Mary and Joseph, in fulfillment of prophecy; yet He is the Son of man, (heir) of humanity, of all races, not for one race only, Luk 10:10<\/span>; Joh 3:17<\/span>; Gal 4:4-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Yet now henceforth know we him no more,”<\/strong> (alla nun ouketi ginoskomen) “Yet now (and hereafter) no more we know him,” as existing in a deathly, earthly body, like he one time had, or merely as a Jew, but the Messiah of all who trust Him as Savior and obey Him as Lord, Rom 1:15-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 16. Therefore we henceforth know no man. To know, here, is taken as meaning to reckon. “We do not judge according to external appearance, so as to reckon that man to be the most illustrious who seems so in appearance.” Under the term flesh, he includes all external endowments which mankind are accustomed to hold in estimation; and, in short, every thing which, apart from regeneration, is reckoned worthy of praise. At the same time, he speaks more particularly of outward disguise, or appearance, as it is termed. He alludes, also, without doubt, to the death of which he had made mention. “Since we ought, all of us, to be dead to the present life, nay more, to be nothing in ourselves, no one must be reckoned a servant of Christ on the ground of carnal excellence.” <\/p>\n Nay, though we have known Christ. The meaning is — “Though Christ lived for a time in this world, and was known by mankind in those things that have to do with the condition of the present life, he must now be known in another way — spiritually, so that we may have no worldly thoughts respecting him.” This passage is perverted by some fanatics, such as Servetus, (546) for the purpose of proving, that Christ’s human nature is now absorbed by the Divinity. But how very far removed such a frenzy is from the Apostle’s intention, it is not difficult to perceive; for he speaks here, not of the substance of his body, but of external appearance, nor does he affirm that the flesh is no longer perceived by us in Christ, but says, that Christ is not judged of from that. (547) <\/p>\n Scripture proclaims throughout, that Christ does now as certainly lead a glorious life in our flesh, as he once suffered in it. (548) Nay more, take away this foundation, and our whole faith falls to the ground; for whence comes the hope of immortality, except from this, that we have already a pattern (549) of it in the person of Christ? For as righteousness is restored to us on this ground, that Christ, by fulfilling the law in our nature, has abolished Adam’s disobedience, so also life has been restored to us by this means, that he has opened up for our nature the kingdom of God, from which it had been banished, and has given it a place in the heavenly dwelling. Hence, if we do not now recognize Christ’s flesh, (550) we lose the whole of that confidence and consolation that we ought to have in him. But we acknowledge Christ as man, and as our brother in his flesh — not in a fleshly manner; because we rest solely in the consideration of his spiritual gifts. Hence he is spiritual to us, not as if he laid aside the body, and became a spirit, but because he regenerates and governs his own people by the influence of his Spirit. <\/p>\n (546) The views held by Servetus respecting the Supreme Being, and a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, “were obscure and chimerical beyond all measure, and amounted, in general, to the following propositions: — That the Deity, before the creation of the world, had produced within himself two personal representations, or manners of existence, which were to be the medium of intercourse between him and mortals, and by whom, consequently, he was to reveal his will, and to display his mercy and beneficence to the children of men; […] and that these two representations were to cease after the destruction of this terrestrial globe, and to be absorbed into the substance of the Deity, from whence they had been formed.” — Moshem’s Ecclesiastical History, volume 4, pp. 475, 476. — Ed. <\/p>\n (547) “He (Paul) remembered the words of his Divine Master — ’Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother;’ and he was taught by them, that though Christianity does not burst asunder the ties of kindred, it requires of all its followers that they be guided by higher considerations in advancing its interests. This may throw light on the bold expression which we find him elsewhere using, when he is speaking of the obligations which believers are under, ‘not to live to themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.’ ‘Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.’“ — M’Crie’s Sermons, p. 21. — Ed. <\/p>\n (548) “ Comme il a souffert mort vne fois en icelle;” — “As he has once suffered death in it.” <\/p>\n (549) “ Comme vne image et gage certain en la personne de Christ;” — “As it were an image and sure pledge in the person of Christ.” <\/p>\n (550) Calvin’s meaning plainly is — “If we do not recognize the fact, that Christ is still a partaker of our nature.“ — Ed. <\/p>\n Butlers Commentary<\/strong><\/p>\n SECTION 3<\/strong><\/p>\n Fallibility of the Human Spirit <\/strong>(2Co. 5:16-21<\/span>)<\/p>\n 16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.<\/p>\n 2Co. 5:16-17<\/span><\/strong> Egocentric: <\/strong>The main problem with the human perspective is its egocentricity. It is selfish! It centers and focuses and devotes itself to self. In the Bible this is called the things of the flesh (see Mat. 6:25-34<\/span>; Rom. 8:5-11<\/span>; Rom. 13:14<\/span>; 1Co. 1:29<\/span>; 1Co. 5:5<\/span>; Gal. 5:16-17<\/span>; Gal. 6:13<\/span>; Eph. 2:3<\/span>; Php. 3:3-11<\/span>; Col. 2:23<\/span>; Col. 3:5<\/span> ff; 1Pe. 4:1-5<\/span>). Paul wrote to the Romans, . . . the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to Gods law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:7<\/span>). Now Paul did not mean there that simply living in a fleshly body makes a person inexorably hostile to God. Jesus lived in a fleshly body. Paul is talking about a worldly-mindedness, an attitude that makes the flesh and the world its priority. The human point of view in the Greek text is, oidamen kata sarka, literally, know according to flesh. Jesus called the fleshly viewpoint idolatryserving Mammonin Mat. 6:24-34<\/span>.<\/p>\n There are essentially only two viewpoints for manhuman or divine. Man either sees everything from the limited, fallible, perspective of human wisdom, or from the infallible, revealed perspective of God in the Bible. The perspective of the unbeliever is limited to this world, by the limitations of this existence. He sees nothing beyond this existence. Everything is relative to this earthly experience. That is why human perspective alone leads to degradation, depravity and despair. Every human experience is evaluated and acted upon from an animal fleshly-materialistic perspective (see Rom. 1:18-32<\/span>). But as for the believer, Paul says, from the very moment he accepts by faith the atoning death of Christ, he gives up his right to think or evaluate or act by himself or for himself. He no longer views anything from the limitations of flesh or matter. He sets his mind on the things of the Spirit (Rom. 8:5<\/span> ff). He surrenders his thinking and evaluating and acting to the mind and behavior of Christ revealed in the Bible. The Bible takes over his mind and his life. Every aspect of lifehome, job, education, entertainment, finances, hobbies, sexuality, emotionseverything, is brought into conformity to the precepts and principles of the Holy Spirit revealed in the Scriptures. The Christian surrenders all right to say, Its my life, and Ill think the way I please and live the way I want.<\/p>\n Non-Christians view Christ from a human point of view. They think of him as being no more than merely another human being, having no authority to exercise over anyone else. Non-believers reject the idea that Christ was God in the flesh. They refuse to accept his death as an atonement for their sin. They may grant that he was a wonderful, wise, compassionate religious teacher, but they will not accede Christ any right to do their thinking for them. They reserve the right to disagree with any viewpoint Christ might dictate in his teachings or those of his apostles. But, Paul says, once a person becomes a Christian he views Christ no longer from a human point of view. The Christian never claims the right to disagree with any New Testament viewpoint.<\/p>\n Thus, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature (or creation). Paul is not dealing with the possibility of the new creature here as much as he is dealing with the fact. He is saying, It is a matter of fact that those who are in Christ are new creatures with a totally new perspective! This is the way it must be for a Christian! The old, human perspective, has passed away; behold, the new, divine perspective, has come and is continuing to come (Greek gegonen, perfect tense verb, has come with a continuing action). The new creation with the new, divine perspective, is a continual, growing, ever-expanding experience. It is the experience of being changed into the likeness of Christ from one degree of glory to another (2Co. 3:18<\/span>) by beholding the glory of the Lord.<\/p>\n This transformation of the mind of man so that he might have the divine perspective was the purpose of the Law of God revealed through Moses. It was the very core of the writings of the O.T. prophets. All the great theophanies (throne visions) in Isa. 6:1-13<\/span>; Eze. 1:1-28<\/span>; Dan. 7:1-28<\/span> and Zechariahs visions were specifically given to insist that their Jewish listeners see all their circumstances from the perspective of the throne of God (the divine view of history). And the highly symbolic book of Revelation in the N.T. urges from the very first (the vision of the victorious, reigning Christ ch. 1, coupled with the vision of the Throne of God and the Lamb ch. 45) that the churches of Asia Minor must view their great tribulation from the divine perspective. History, even the terrifying, destructive, depraved aspects of history, is all under the sovereign control of God and the Lamb. It is imperative that the saints of God have this perspective. Without it they cannot possibly remain faithful!<\/p>\n 2Co. 5:18-21<\/span><\/strong> Estranged: <\/strong>The reason the human perspective is egocentric is that the human being is estranged from God. Man, the rebel-sinner, has chosen to exclude God from his life. He is at enmity (war) against God (see Jas. 4:1-4<\/span>). The desires of the flesh are against the Spiritthese are opposed to each other (Gal. 5:16-17<\/span>). The mind of the flesh is hostile toward God (Rom. 8:7<\/span>). Man, not reconciled to God, is against God! There is no neutral-zone. There are not three categories: for God, against God, and neutral. We are either for Christ or against himgathering with him or scattering (Mat. 12:30<\/span>).<\/p>\n So, Paul says, the only possible way any human being can acquire the divine perspective is through the redemptive work of God in Christ which reconciles man and God to one another. Reconciliation is purely and simply by the grace of God. God took the initiative; God accomplished the redemption by giving his perfect Son as the ransom. It is all from God.!<\/p>\n To attempt to discuss the concept of reconciliation in these notes would require such a lengthy digression contact with the exegetical flow of the text would be lost. The reader is therefore referred to the Special Studies at the end of this chapter for thorough treatment of the subjects of Propitiation, Justification, Redemption, Reconciliation, Faith, and Obedience. Treatment of all these subjects is necessary to understanding the concept of Reconciliation. Suffice it to say here that when man declared war on God, the Divine Father, in keeping with his very nature, had to declare war on man. God could not love man for his good without acting hostile toward that which would destroy man! So God withdraws himself from man. This is taught consistently throughout the Bible (Hos. 5:15<\/span>; Isa. 64:7-9<\/span>; Psa. 51:11<\/span>; Rom. 5:10-11<\/span>). The very word propitiation assumes there is Someone who has to be appeased. The wrath of God is revealed in the very forces of nature (Rom. 1:18<\/span> ff). The absoluteness of Gods justice must be satisfied. Until all this is accomplished, there could be no reconciliation between God and man. Gods absolute justice must be satisfied and his wrath appeased, and man must be wooed back to humble surrender and faith toward God.<\/p>\n This is precisely what God did through Jesus Christ. God sent his Son to earth incarnated as a man (Joh. 1:1-18<\/span>; Heb. 2:5-18<\/span>; Heb. 10:1-25<\/span>; Php. 2:1-11<\/span>). Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life. He pleased God in everything he thought, said and did. He kept the commandments of God, the Law of God completely. And then, the Son willingly laid down his life (Joh. 10:14-18<\/span>) as a ransom for sinful mankind. He became the curse of God in our place (Gal. 3:10-14<\/span>; 1Pe. 2:21-25<\/span>). God punished Christ for all the sins of all the ages and thus Gods wrath was appeased and man was justified all in the same redemptive work (see Rom. 3:21-26<\/span>). The Absolute God was reconciled to man through the absolute atonement of Christ, and man is wooed back to God through the divine demonstration of love at the cross and the empty tomb. God does not count mens trespasses against them if they accept Gods work of redemption and reconcile themselves to him by faith and obedience to his Son.<\/p>\n Quickly Paul shifts from the subject of personal salvation and reconciliation to the ministry of reconciliation. Every Christian is obligated by the grace of Gods reconciliation given to him, to proclaim the good news of Gods offer of reconciliation to the whole world. Paul used the Greek word themenos, an aorist participle of tithemi, and it is translated, committed. The Greek word means, assigned. God has assigned to all Christians the work of ministering the rationale (Gr. logon, word, logic) of reconciliation. No Christian is exempt from this assignment! It is written in the Great Commission (Mat. 28:18-20<\/span>). Paul considered himself a debtor and thus obligated (by his own redemption) to preach the gospel to as much of the world as he could humanly reach (Rom. 1:14-17<\/span>).<\/p>\n All Christians are ambassadors (Gr. presbeuomen, presbyters, elders, legates, ambassadors) allowing God to make his appeal (Gr. parakalountos, paraclete, to call alongside) through them. The ministry of reconciliation is calling sinners to come to the side of God! Paul said the ambassador of reconciliation was to beseech (Gr. deometha, beg, plead, pray) people to come to the side of God for the sake of Christ. And the motivation in the message of that ministry is the vicarious atonement of Christ. Could it be that ambassadors of reconciliation are to have the same qualifications as elders (1Ti. 3:1-7<\/span>)?<\/p>\n How did God make Christ to become sin for our sake? Most certainly God did not force Christ to sin! Christ was personally without sin. But since Christ was free from sin he was under no obligation to suffer the consequences of sin. That left Christ free to choose to become, vicariously, sin for all who were obligated by their own sin to suffer its consequences. He was not only free to choose to do so, he had the right and authority, by his perfect life, to do so if he chose. No human being may dare to gainsay Christs right to assume sin vicariously if he chooses unless that human being himself is perfectly sinless!<\/p>\n Through the centuries there have been unbelievers, posting in righteous indignation, rejecting the revelation of God that Christ suffered vicariously for mans sins.<\/p>\n Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War hero of Fort Ticonderoga, a Deist and Unitarian, wrote in his book, Reason the Only Oracle of Man, The doctrine of the Trinity is destitute of foundation, and tends manifestly to superstition and idolatry. There could be no justice or goodness in one beings suffering for another, nor is it at all compatible with reason to suppose that God was the contriver of such a propitiation.<\/p>\n Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, former head of the World Council of Churches, wrote in his book, A Testament of the Faith, pg. 144:<\/p>\n We hear much of the substitutionary theory of the atonement. This theory to me is immoral. If Jesus paid it all, or if He is the substitute for me, or if He is the sacrifice for all sin of the world, then why discuss forgiveness? The books are closed. Another has paid the debt, borne the penalty. I owe nothing. I am absolved. I cannot see forgiveness as predicated upon the act of some one else. It is my sin. I must atone.<\/p>\n Canon Vernon F. Storrs is quoted in a book by T.H. Hughes, entitled, The Atonement: Modern theories of the Doctrine, pg. 61:<\/p>\n We are in no way bound to accept Pauls interpretation of Christs death. I dismiss from my mind all ideas of substitution, or of the innocent paying the penalty of the guilty because these ideas offend my moral consciousness.<\/p>\n However, Jesus himself said that he came to die as a ransom for mans sins (see Mat. 20:28<\/span>; Mat. 26:28<\/span>). The New Testament is filled with statements about the vicarious, substitutionary death of Christ (1Ti. 2:5-6<\/span>; Tit. 2:14<\/span>; Heb. 9:28<\/span>; 1Pe. 1:18-19<\/span>; 1Pe. 2:24<\/span>; Rev. 1:5<\/span>; Gal. 3:13<\/span>). The substitutionary death of the Messiah was predicted graphically and unmistakably in Isa. 53:1-12<\/span> and in Zec. 12:10<\/span> to Zec. 13:1<\/span>. To reject the revelation of God is to fly in the face of a document that has been historically authenticated and validated by the resurrection of Christ from the dead. To reject the vicarious death of Christ as atonement for sin is infidelity and rebellion. It is the spirit of the antichrist. It cannot be made respectable by couching it in moral revulsion. To disavow what God has plainly stated should offend moral consciousness!<\/p>\n We suspect the rationale behind disavowing the vicarious death of Christ is the rebellion against surrendering ones mind and life to the divine perspective. That is exactly why Paul emphasized the substitutionary death of Christ here; because it is absolutely crucial to the divine perspective. It is the one critical pre-requisite to the new creation. The world-perspective arrogantly insists on atoning for its own sins. Those who glory in the flesh intend to earn their standing before God with self-righteousness. Throwing oneself upon the mercy and grace of God will not do for the autonomous man. He must rule himself. And God must be satisfied with that! There is no repentance in that frame of mind. That is apostasy. Reconciliation to God with that attitude is impossible (see Heb. 6:1-8<\/span>). No mans moral consciousness has a right to be offended at any divine fiat or directive. God told Abraham to slay Isaac as a sacrificeAbraham had no right to do anything but obey. God told Hosea to marry a woman of harlotryHosea had no right to resist on the grounds of moral consciousness. We must believe and obey God whether it seems right to us or to other men or not!<\/p>\n So Paul closes this text by contradicting all presumptions of earned righteousness. God made (Gr. epoiesen, aorist tense, at a point in time past), or imputed, all sin punished vicariously in Christ who willingly accepted it at the crucifixion in the days of Pontius Pilate. Then the apostle adds God did that in order that we might become (Gr. genometha, aorist subjunctive) the righteousness of God in him (Christ). When any person believes the gospel and obeys the truth (1Pe. 1:22<\/span>) he is purified and becomes righteous. The aorist tense means our righteousness happens at a particular point in time, and the subjunctive mood means it is something done upon us, to us, or for usnot by us. God imputed our sins to Jesus, and imputed Jesus righteousness to us! The cross was a transaction, initiated by God, worked out by God, declared by God and accepted by God. So man has no righteousness or goodness by which he may boast before God (see Rom. 3:27<\/span>; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n