The confidence expressed in the preceding chapter is justified by showing that the apostle was assured of a habitation in heaven, even if his earthly tabernacle should be destroyed, vs. 1-10. His object in what he had said of himself was not self-commendation. He labored only for the good of the church, impelled by the love of Christ, whose ambassador he was, in exhorting men to be reconciled to God, vs. 11-21.

THE STATE OF BELIEVERS AFTER DEATH. VS. 1-10.

Paul did not faint in the midst of his sufferings, because he knew that even if his earthly house should be destroyed, he had a house in heaven — not like the present perishable tabernacle, but one not made with hands, and eternal, v. 1. He looked forward to the things unseen, because in his present tabernacle he groaned, desiring to enter his heavenly habitation. He longed to be unclothed that he might be clothed upon with his house which is from heaven, vs. 2-4. This confidence he owed to God, who had given him the Holy Spirit as a pledge of his salvation, v. 5. Having this indwelling of the Spirit he was always in good courage, knowing that as soon as he should be absent from the body, he would be present with the Lord, vs. 6-8. Therefore his great desire was to please him, before whose tribunal he and all other men were to appear to receive according to their works, vs. 9, 10. 1. For we know that if our earthly house of (this) tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens .

The connection between this passage and the preceding chapter is plain.

Our light afflictions, Paul had said, work out for us an eternal weight of glory, for we know that even if our earthly house perishes, we have an everlasting habitation in heaven. The general sense also of the whole of the following paragraph is clear. The apostle expresses the assurance that a blessed state of existence awaited him after death. There is, however, no little difficulty in determining the precise meaning of the figurative language here employed. Few passages in Paul’s writings have awakened a deeper or more general interest, because it treats of the state of the soul after death; a subject about which every man feels the liveliest concern, not only for himself, but in behalf of those dear to him. Where are those who sleep in Jesus before the resurrection? What is the condition of a redeemed soul when it leaves the body? These are questions about which no Christian can be indifferent. If Paul here answers those inquiries, the passage must have peculiar value to all the people of God. This, however, is the very point about which the greatest difficulty exists. There are three views taken of the passage; that is, three different answers are given to the question, What is that building into which the soul enters when the present body is dissolved? 1. The first answer is, that the house not made with hands is heaven itself. 2. That it is the resurrection body. If this be the correct view, then the passage throws no light on the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. It treats solely of what is to happen after Christ’s second coming. 3. The third opinion is, that the house into which the soul enters at death is, so to speak, an intermediate body; that is, a body prepared for it and adapted to its condition during the state intermediate between death and the resurrection.

This, however, is not a scriptural doctrine. Many philosophers indeed teach that the soul can neither perceive nor act unless in connection with a body; nay, that an individual man is nothing but a revelation of the general principle of humanity in connection with a given corporeal organism, as a tree is the manifestation of the principle of vegetable life through a specific material organization. As therefore vegetable life is, or exists, only in connection with vegetable forms, so the soul exists only in connection with a body. Thus Olshausen in his Commentary, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, says, Wie ohne Leib keine Seele, so ohne Leiblichkeit keine Seligkeit; Leiblichkeit und die dadurch bedingte Personlichkeit ist das Ende der Werke Gottes. “As without body there is no soul, so without a corporeal organization there can be no salvation; a corporeal organization, as the necessary condition of personality, is the end of God’s work.” Still more explicitly, when commenting on verses 19 and 20 of the same chapter, he says, Ein Fortleben als reiner Geist ohne korperliches Organ erkennt der Apostle gar nicht als Moglichkeit an; die Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele ist der ganzen Bibel, ebenso wie der Name, fremd — und zwar mit vollem Recht, indem ein persönliches Bewusstseyn im geschaffenen Wesen die Schranken des Leibes nothwendig voraussetzt. “The continued existence of the soul as a pure spirit without a body is to the apostle an impossibility. The Bible knows nothing of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; the very expression is strange to it. And no wonder, for self-consciousness in a created being necessarily supposes the limitation of a bodily organization.” Of course all angels must have bodies, and of course also if the soul exists between death and the resurrection it must have a body. Strange to say, however, Olshausen, despite his maxim, “no body no soul,” admits the existence of the soul during the interval between death and the resurrection, and yet denies that it has a body. His utterly unsatisfactory attempt to reconcile this contradiction in his theory is, first, that self-consciousness in departed spirits is very obscure — a mere dreamy state of existence; and secondly, that it must be assumed that a relation continues between the soul and the elements of its decaying body in the grave. This is a perfect collapse of the theory. If it involves either of these consequences, that the soul is unconscious after death, or that its life is in connection with its disorganized body, and conditioned by that connection, then it comes in direct conflict with the Scripture, and is exploded as a mere product of the imagination. If the Bible teaches or assumes that a body is necessary to the self-consciousness of the soul, or even to its power to perceive and to express, to act and to be acted upon, then it would be not only natural but necessary to understand the apostle to teach in this passage that the moment the soul leaves its present body it enters into another. Then it would follow either that the only resurrection of which the Scriptures speak takes place at the moment of death, or that there is a body specifically fitted for the intermediate state, differing both from the one which we now have, and from that which we are to have at the resurrection. The former of these suppositions contradicts the plain doctrine of the Bible that the resurrection is a future event, to take place at the second advent of Christ; and the latter contradicts this very passage, for Paul says that the house on which we enter at death is eternal. Besides, the Bible knows nothing of any body except the sw~ma yuciko>n , the natural body , which we have now, and the sw~ma pneumatiko>n , the spiritual body , which we are to receive at the resurrection. We are therefore reduced to the choice between the first and second of the three interpretations mentioned above. The building of which the apostle here speaks must be either a house in heaven, or the resurrection body. If the latter, then Paul teaches, not what is to happen immediately after death, but what is to take place at the second coming of Christ. In opposition to this view, and in favor of the opinion that the house here mentioned is heaven itself, it may be argued, 1. Heaven is often in Scripture compared to a house in which there are many mansions, John 14:2; or to a city in which there are many houses, Hebrews 11:10; 14; 13:14; Revelation 21:10; or more generally to a habitation, Luke 16:9. 2. The figure in this case is peculiarly appropriate. The body is compared to a house in which the soul now dwells, heaven is the house into which it enters when this earthly house is dissolved. Our Lord told his sorrowing disciples that they should soon be with him, that in his Father’s house, whither he went, there were many mansions, and that he would receive them unto himself. 3. The description here given of the house of which the apostle speaks agrees with the descriptions elsewhere given of heaven. It is a building of God; compare Hebrews 11:10, where heaven is said to be a city whose builder and maker is God. It is not made with hands, i.e. not of human workmanship or belonging to the present order of things. In the same sense the true tabernacle in heaven is said to be “not made with hands,” Hebrews 9:11. It is eternal, because the state on which the soul enters at death is unchanging. And finally, this house is said to be “in heaven,” or, we are said to have it “in heaven.” This last clause is not consistent with the assumption that the house spoken of is the resurrection body. That body is not now in heaven awaiting our arrival there, nor is it to be brought down to us from heaven. But the mansion which Christ has gone to prepare for his people is in heaven; and therefore the apostle in raising his eyes heavenward could appropriately say, ‘If this tabernacle be dissolved I have a house in heaven.’ 4. The principal argument in favor of this interpretation is that the house spoken of is one on which the soul enters immediately after death. This is plain because Paul says, that if our earthly house be dissolved we have , i.e. we have at once, a house in heaven. The whole context requires this explanation to be given to e]comen , we have . The apostle is speaking of the grounds of consolation in the immediate prospect of death. He says in effect that the dissolution of the body does not destroy the soul or deprive it of a home. His consolation was that if unclothed he would not be found naked. While at home in the body he was absent from the Lord, but as soon as he was absent from the body he would be present with the Lord. It is so obvious that the apostle is here speaking of what takes place at death, that those who maintain that the building referred to is the resurrection body, propose various methods of getting over the difficulty. Some, as Usteri, assume that Paul, when he wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, believed that the resurrection was not to take place until the second advent of Christ, but changed his view and here teaches that it takes place at death. That is, that the soul when it leaves the present body is furnished with that spiritual body which in the former epistle he taught was not to be received until Christ comes the second time. To those who proceed on the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture, this unatural explanation needs no refutation. In his epistle to the Philippians, written still later, he teaches the same doctrine that we find in First Corinthians. He must, therefore, have reverted to his former view. Paul was not thus driven about by every wind of doctrine. Even those who deny his inspiration must admit his consistency. Others say that as the apostle confidently expected to survive the second advent, he here speaks of what he anticipated in his own case. He believed he would not die, but be changed at once as described in 1 Corinthians 15:51,52. But even admitting that Paul at this time did expect to survive the coming of the Lord, that is not the expectation here expressed. On the, contrary, he is speaking of what would take place (eja>n ) even in case he should die. If, worn out by his sufferings, his earthly house should be dissolved before Christ came, still he knew he should have a house in heaven. Others again say that the interval between death and the resurrection is not taken into account, but that the apostle, after the manner of the prophets, speaks of events as chronologically coincident which in fact are separated by a long period of time. But this does not meet the difficulty. As the apostle is speaking of the ground of consolation in the prospect of death, he must be understood to refer, not to what might be expected at an indefinite period after that event, but to its immediately consequence. He did not glory in his afflictions because when his earthly house should be dissolved he would sink into a state of unconsciousness until the resurrection; but because he would have another and unspeakably better habitation. This is evident, because he speaks of his being absent from the body as the immediate antecedent of his being present with the Lord; which is only another form of saying he would be clothed upon with his house which is from heaven. 5. A fifth consideration in favor of the interpretation in question, is derived from the analogy of Scripture. The Bible in other places teaches that the souls of believers do at their death immediately pass into glory. Our Lord in refuting the Sadducees, who denied the existence of spirits, said “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” Matthew 22:32. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob therefore are living, and not in a dreamy state of semi-conscious existence.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we are told that when Lazarus died he was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom, i.e. to heaven. On the mount of transfiguration, Moses and Elias appeared talking with Christ. Our Lord said to the dying thief, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise,” and paradise, as we learn from 2 Corinthians 12:2 and 4, is the third heaven. In Philippians 1:22-24, Paul says that although he has a desire to depart and be with Christ, yet his abiding in the flesh was more needful for them. This clearly implies that as soon as he departed from the flesh he expected to be present with the Lord. This flows from the perfection of Christ’s work. As his blood cleanses from all sin, there is no process of expiation or purification to be endured or experienced by believers after death. And as we know, as our Lord says, that they still live, they must enter on the blessedness secured by his merits.

Accordingly the apostle says that the saints on earth and the saints in heaven form one communion. “We are come unto Mount Zion — and unto the spirits of just men made perfect,” Hebrews 12:23.

The considerations above presented appear decisive in favor of understanding the apostle to mean by the house not made with hands, a mansion in heaven into which believers enter as soon as, their earthly tabernacle is dissolved. It is, however, objected to this view of the passage, that as the earthly house is the present body, the heavenly house must also be a body. This, however, does not follow. The comparison is not of one body with another; but of one house with another. We dwell now in an earthly tabernacle; after death, we shall dwell in a heavenly house. This is all that the figure demands. In the second place, it is urged that in v. 2 it is said our house is “from heaven,” and if from heaven it is not heaven itself. But our resurrection body is not from heaven in the local sense. It is from heaven only in the general sense of being heavenly, and in this sense our house is of heaven. It is not of the earth, does not belong to the present state of existence, but to that on which we enter in heaven.

Besides, it is not heaven considered as a state, nor even as a place, (in the wide sense of the word heaven,) that is our house, but the mansion which the Lord has gone to prepare for his people in heaven. The simple idea is that the soul, when it leaves its earthly tabernacle, will not be lost in immensity, nor driven away houseless and homeless, but will find a house and home in heaven. This is the consoling doctrine here taught. The soul of the believer does not cease to exist at death. It does not sink into a state of unconsciousness. It does not go into purgatory; but, being made perfect in holiness, it does immediately pass into glory. As soon as it is absent from the body, it is present with the Lord. This is all that is revealed, and this is enough. What Paul learnt more than this when he was caught up into the third heaven, he was not permitted to make known.

As Paul is speaking of himself in this whole connection, when he says we know , he does not refer to acknowledge common to all men, nor to other Christians, but he expresses his personal conviction — I know. That if , eja>n if as it may ; (not although ). The apostle is speaking of his afflictions, which were wearing away his strength; and says, ‘Even if my sufferings should prove fatal, and my earthly house be dissolved, I have another habitation.’ Our earthly house of this tabernacle, i.e. our earthly house which is a tabernacle, oJ skh~nov , a frail, temporary abode, as opposed to a stable, permanent building. See 2 Peter 1:13,14. Is dissolved, i.e. its component parts separated either by violence or decay, so that it falls in pieces. We have , i.e. I have, as he is speaking of himself. The present tense, e]comen , is used because the one event immediately follows the other; there is no perceptible interval between the dissolution of the earthly tabernacle and entering on the heavenly house. As soon as the soul leaves the body it is in heaven. A building of God , oijkodomhbuilding from God, one provided by him, and of which he is the builder and maker. Hebrews 11:10, and therefore is said to be not made with hands , i.e. not like the buildings erected by man. Comp. Hebrews 9:11 and Colossians 2:11. The latter passage refers to the circumcision of the heart as the immediate work of God; it is therefore said to be ajceiropoih>tov . The soul therefore at death enters a house whose builder is God. This is said to exalt to the utmost our conceptions of its glory and excellence. Being made by God it is eternal . It is to last forever; and we are never to leave it. We dwell in our present bodies only for a little while, as in a tent; but heaven is an abode which, once entered, is retained forever.

The words in the heavens may be connected with house , in the sense of heavenly, i.e. a celestial house. This construction is assumed in our version where the words “eternal in the heavens” are made to qualify or describe the house spoken of. The natural connection of the words, however, is with (e]comen ) we have . ‘If our earthly house be dissolved, we have in heaven a house of God, not made with hands, and eternal.’ 2. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven .

This verse must, from the force of the connecting particle (ga>r ) for , be a confirmation of what precedes, but whether of what is said in v. 1, or at close of preceding chapter, is doubtful. The words kai< ga>r may mean either for also , or for even . If the former, this verse is cordinate with v. 1, and assigns an additional reason why the apostle looked at the things unseen and eternal. He thus looked for he knew he had in heaven a house not made with hands, and because he earnestly desired to enter that house.

If the latter explanation of the particles be preferred, the sense is, ‘I know I have a house in heaven, for even in this I groan, desiring to be clothed with my house which is from heaven.’ In this case the argument would be, ‘There is such a house, for I long for it.’ This, however, is hardly a scriptural argument. Paul’s confidence in a state of blessedness beyond the grave was not founded on the obscure aspirations of his nature, but on express revelation from God. Romans 8:22 is not parallel, for there the groaning of the creation is presented, not as a proof of future blessedness, but to show that the creature is subject to vanity, not willingly nor finally. In this , i.e. in this tabernacle, as the word skh~nov is used in v. 1, and also v. 4. We groan earnestly desiring , i.e. we groan because we desire. The groaning is the expression of this longing after his heavenly home; and not, as in v. 4, of suffering caused by afflictions. The ejpi> in ejpipoqou~ntev is either intensive, earnestly desiring, or it expresses the tendency of the desire. The word and its cognates are always used in the New Testament to express strong desire or longing. What the apostle thus longed for was, ejpendu>sasqai , to be clothed upon , i.e. to put on over, as an outer garment. With our house which is from heaven . As the body is familiarly compared sometimes to a house in which the soul dwells, and sometimes to a garment with which it is clothed, the two figures are here combined, and the apostle speaks of putting on a house as though it were a garment.

Both are a covering and a protection. Our house, oijkhth>rion , i.e. dwelling, more specific than the general term oijki>a , a building. Which is from heaven, ejx oujranou~ i.e. heavenly, as distinguished from a dwelling which is ejk gh~v , of the earth . 1 Corinthians 15:47. It is not “of this building,” tau>thv th~v kti>sewv , Hebrews 9:11. Those who understand this whole passage to treat of the change which is to take place in those believers who shall be alive when the Lord comes, and which is described in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, lay special stress on this verse. They urge that this house being from heaven cannot be heaven; and that the verb ejpendu>w , meaning to put on over , evidently refers to the putting on of the new body, as it were, over the old one; and therefore can be understood only of those who, being in the body when Christ comes, are thus clothed upon without being unclothed. It has already been remarked that there is no force in the former of these arguments, because the new body is not from heaven. It is ejx oujranou~ only in the sense of being heavenly, and in that sense the expression suits the idea of a building as well as that of a body. As to the second argument, it may be admitted, that if the context demanded, or even naturally admitted of our understanding “the house not made with hands” to be the resurrection body, there would be a peculiar propriety in the use of the word ejpendu>sasqai , (to be clothed upon ,) instead of the simple verb ejndu>sasqai to be clothed . But the use of this word is not sufficient to determine the interpretation of the whole passage. 1. Because nothing is more common than the use of compound verbs in the same sense as the corresponding simple ones. 2. Because in 1 Corinthians 15:53,54, Paul uses the simple verb (ejndu>sasqai ) four times to express the very thing which it is here urged he must refer to because he uses the compound ejpendu>sasqai .

That is, he uses the two words in the same sense. He makes no difference between “putting on” and being “clothed upon.” We are not required, therefore, by the use of the latter expression, to infer that the apostle speaks of the change which those who are in the body should experience at the coming of Christ.

This view, as remarked above, is out of keeping with the whole context.

Paul was daily exposed to death, his outward man was perishing. His consolation was that if his earthly tabernacle were dissolved, he had a better house in heaven. He earnestly longed for that house; to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. All he says is said on the hypothesis of his dying, and therefore he cannot say he earnestly desired to escape death. What he longed for was, not that he might be alive when Christ came, and thus escape the pains of dissolution, but that he might quit his mud hovel and enter in that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 3. It so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked .

Few verses in this epistle have been more variously explained than this. In the first place the reading is doubtful. The received text has ei]ge , which the great majority of the critical editions also adopt; Lachmann, on the authority of the manuscripts, B, D, E, F, G, reads ei]per , The latter (if so be, provided ) expresses doubt; the former (since ) expresses certainty. This distinction, however, is not strictly observed in Paul’s writings. See Corinthians 8:5; Galatians 3:4; Colossians 1:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:6. A more important diversity is that several ancient manuscripts and most of the Fathers read ejkdusa>menoi (un -clothed) instead of ejndusa>menoi (clothed ). The former renders the passage much plainer. ‘We earnestly desire to be clothed with our house from heaven, since (or, even if) being unclothed we shall not be found naked.’ That is, ‘Although despoiled of our earthly tabernacle we shall not be found houseless.’ Mill, Semler and Ruckert prefer this reading, but the weight of authority is in favor of the received text. There are three general modes of explaining this passage which have been adopted. 1. Calvin among the older commentators, and Usteri and Olshausen among the moderns, say that the words clothed and naked must be understood to refer to the moral or spiritual state of the soul; to its being clothed with righteousness or being destitute of that robe. Calvin says the apostle’s design is to limit the blessedness spoken of in the preceding verses to the righteous. The wicked are to be despoiled of their bodies and will appear naked before God; but believers, being clothed in the righteousness of Christ, will stand before him in the glorious vesture of immortality. There are two garments, therefore, he says, referred to; the one, the righteousness of Christ, received in this life; the other, immortal glory, received at death. The former is the cause and necessary condition of the latter. Calvin lays special stress on the kai> also , which is inserted for the sake of amplification, as though Paul had said, ‘A new garment shall be prepared for believers at death if also (or already) in this life they were clothed.’ This interpretation, however, is evidently out of keeping with the context.

It is very unnatural to make the same words have such different meanings in the same connection. In v. 2 we are said to be clothed with our house from heaven; in v. 3 we are so clothed as not to be found naked, and in v. 4 Paul speaks of being unclothed. If in vs. 2 and 4 the word refers to a body or house, in v. 3 it cannot refer to the robe of righteousness. Being unclothed is evidently the opposite of being clothed. As the former refers to laying aside the earthly tabernacle, the latter must refer to our being invested with the house from heaven.

Besides, any such distinction between the righteous and the wicked, or any caution that the unrighteous are not to be received into heaven, as this interpretation supposes, is foreign to the design of the passage.

Paul is not speaking of the general destiny of men after death, but of his own personal experience and conviction. ‘I know,’ he says, ‘that if I die I have a house in heaven, and being clothed with that house I shall not be found naked.’ There is no room here for a warning to the righteous. They are not at all brought into view. 2. The second general view of this passage is founded on the assumption that v. 2 speaks of the change to be effected in those who shall be alive when Christ comes. According to Grotius the meaning is, ‘We shall be clothed upon (i.e. invested with a new body over the present one), if so be that day shall find us clothed (i.e. in the body) and not naked (i.e. bodiless spirits).’ That is, we shall experience the change mentioned in v. 2, provided we are alive when Christ comes. To this, however, it is objected, first, that as the event of Paul’s being alive at that time was entirely uncertain, and is here so presented, the appropriate particle would be ei]per (if so be ) and not ei]ge (if , as is sure to be the case); and second, that this interpretation is inconsistent with the force of the aorist participle ejndusa>menoi . The sense given to the passage would require the perfect ejndedume>noi , being then clothed . According to Meyer the meaning is, ‘If, as is certain to be the case, we in fact (kai> ) shall be found clothed, and not naked.’ That is, ‘If clothed upon with our house from heaven (i.e. the new body) we shall not be found bodiless when Christ comes.’ This interpretation suits the words, but not the connection. As before remarked, the whole passage proceeds on the hypothesis of death. ‘If I die,’ says the apostle, ‘so and so will happen.’ This being the case, he cannot be understood to state what would happen if he did not die, but survived the coming of the Lord. Besides, the whole basis of this interpretation is unsound. Paul did not expect to survive the second advent, as is plain from 2 Thessalonians 2:1-6. See the comment on Corinthians 15:51. 3. The third interpretation assumes that the apostle refers not to the spiritual body but to a mansion in heaven. In the preceding verse he said that he earnestly desired to be clothed upon with his house from heaven, “since,” he adds, “being clothed, we shall not be found (i.e. shall not be) naked.” As the house from heaven is spoken of as a garment, being houseless is expressed by the word naked .

This interpretation gives the same translation of the words, as the preceding, but a different exposition of their meaning; and it has the advantage of agreeing logically with the context and with the elevated tone of the whole passage. ‘If I die,’ says Paul, ‘I know I have a home in heaven, and I earnestly desire to enter on that heavenly house, since when driven from this earthly tabernacle I shall not be houseless and homeless.’

According to this view the object of his desire was the glory and blessedness of heaven; according to the other, it was that he might live until Christ came, and thus, escape the pain of dying. This was an object comparatively insignificant, and utterly out of keeping with the heroic spirit which pervades the whole context. 4. For we that are in (this) tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life .

This verse gives the reason of the desire expressed in v. 2. ‘We desire our house which is from heaven, for in this we groan, etc.’ The words oiJ o]ntev mean we who are , not ‘whilst we are,’ which would require the simple o]ntev without the article. In this tabernacle , ejn tw|~ skh>nei , literally, in the tabernacle, i.e. the tabernacle mentioned in v. 1, and implied in v. 2. Do groan being burdened , i.e. because burdened. The burden meant may be the affliction by which Paul was overwhelmed; or the body itself; or the longing after a better world. As this passage is intimately connected with the preceding chapter, in which the apostle had spoken so freely of his sufferings, and as his experience in view of death was determined by those sufferings, it is perfectly natural to understand him to refer to the burden of sorrow. It was because he suffered so much that he groaned to be delivered, i.e. to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Not that we would be unclothed. The words are ejfÆ w|= which in Romans 5:12 mean propterea quod , ‘because that;’ but here they more naturally mean quare , ‘wherefore.’ They introduce the reason of what follows, not of what precedes. ‘On which account,’ i.e. because we are thus burdened we desire, etc. If ejfÆ w|= be taken in the sense of because that the sense is just the opposite. Then this clause states the nature of the burden under which the apostle groaned. ‘We groan because that we do not wish to be unclothed.’ It was then the dread of death, or the desire to be glorified without the necessity of dying, that was the object of the apostle’s intense desire. This is altogether unworthy of the man and inconsistent with the context. Paul says, ‘We groan being burdened, wherefore , i.e. because thus burdened, we do not wish to die; death is not that for which we long, but that which comes after death. It is not mere exemption from the burden of life, from its duties, its labors or its sufferings, which is the object of desire, but to be in heaven.’ The passage is in its spirit and meaning altogether parallel with v. 8. “Willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.” To be unclothed means to lay aside our earthly tabernacle. To be clothed upon means to enter the house not made with hands. As the earthly house is compared to a garment, so is the heavenly house. That mortality (to< qnhtothat which is mortal ) may be swallowed up of life , i.e. absorbed by it so that the one ceases to appear and the other becomes dominant. Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:53,54. This is the elevated object of the apostle’s longing desire. It was not death, not annihilation, nor mere exemption from suffering; but to be raised to that higher state of existence in which all that was mortal, earthly and corrupt about him should be absorbed in the life of God, that divine and eternal life arising from the beatific vision of God, and consisting in perfect knowledge, holiness and blessedness. 5. Now, he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing (is) God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit .

It was something very heroic and grand for a poor, persecuted man to stand thus erect in the presence of his enemies and in the immediate prospect of death, and avow such superiority to all suffering, and such confidence of a glorious immortality. The apostle, therefore, adds that neither the elevated feelings which he expressed, nor his preparation for the exalted state of existence which he so confidently expected, was due to himself. He who hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God . The words eijv aujto< tou~to , to this very thing , naturally refers to what immediately precedes, the being clothed upon so that mortality should be swallowed up of life. For this elevated destiny God had prepared him; not created him, but (oJ katergasa>menov ) made him fit by giving the requisite qualifications. He was, as a believer, looking forward with joyful expectation to his home in heaven, the workmanship of God. Who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit . God had not only prepared him for future glory, but had given him the assurance of a blessed immortality, of which the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was the earnest, i.e. a foretaste and pledge. 1:22; Ephesians 1:13,14; Romans 5:5; 8:16. According to the view given above of the context, the object of the apostle’s desire was not the resurrection, nor the change which the living believer is to experience at Christ’s coming, but the state of glory immediately subsequent to death. It is therefore of that the Holy Spirit is here declared to be the earnest. Elsewhere, as in Romans 8:11, the indwelling of the Spirit is represented as the pledge of the future life of the body, because he is the source of that life which the believer derives from Christ, and which pertains to the body as well as to the soul. Comp. 1 Corinthians 6:19.

All therefore in whom the Spirit dwells, i.e. manifests his permanent presence by producing within them the Christian graces, have the pledge of immediate admission into heaven when they die, and of a glorious resurrection when the Lord comes. 6. Therefore (we are) always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.

The grammatical construction in this and the following verse, 8, is interrupted and irregular, which our translators have helped out by inserting the words we are , thus turning the participle qarrou~ntev into a verb. The unfinished sentence in v. 6 is resumed and completed in v. 8.

Omitting the words of resumption in v. 8, the whole sentence stands thus: “Being confident and knowing that whilst at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord, we are desirous (eujdokou~men ) rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.” This verse is introduced as a consequence of what precedes. ‘Having the earnest of the Spirit, therefore we are confident.’ This confidence is not a mere temporary feeling due to some transient excitement; but a permanent state of mind. Being always , pa>ntote on all occasions and under all circumstances, even in the midst of dangers and discouragements which, were it not for divine support, would produce despair. The ground of the boldness and confidence expressed by the word qarrou~ntev is not any thing in the believer; it is not his natural courage, not the strength of his convictions; but it is a state of mind produced by the indwelling of the Spirit, and the natural consequence of his presence. Being confident and knowing ; both these particles are grammatically constructed with the verb we are willing , eujdokou~men , in v. 8, and together express the ground of the apostle’s desire to be absent from the body. Knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord . The words ejndhme>w , to be at home (literally, among one’s people), and ejkdhme>w are opposed to each other. The figure is slightly changed from that used in the preceding verses. There it was a house, here a city, at least dh~mov , people, naturally suggests that idea.

Comp. Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 11:13; 13:14. 7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight.) This is a passing, parenthetical remark, intended as a confirmation of the preceding declaration. ‘We are absent from the Lord, for we now, in this life, walk by faith.’ The passage is parallel to Romans 8:24, “We are saved by hope (or in hope, i.e. in prospect).” Salvation is not a present, but a future good. So here, presence with the Lord is now a matter of faith, not of fruition. The condition of our present state of being is that of believing. The faith which is the evidence of things not seen and the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for, is the element in which we live, so long as we are not present with those things. Being the objects of faith they are of course absent. The preposition, dia> may have its ordinary force, “We walk by means of faith;” it is by faith we regulate our walk through life. Or it may be used here as in Romans 8:25. Hebrews 12:1, and elsewhere, to mark the attending circumstances, “we wait with patience,” “let us run with patience,” “we walk with faith.” And not by sight . The word ei+dov does not mean the sense of sight, but the thing seen, form, appearance, that which is the object of sight. In Luke 3:22, the Spirit is said to have descended swmatikw|~ ei]dei , in a bodily shape ; in 9:29 it is said of our Lord that the ei=dov tou~ prosw>pou aujtou~ , the fashion of his face was changed ; and in John 5:37 our Lord tells the Jews, speaking of the Father, “Ye have never heard his voice or seen his (ei=dov ) shape.” If this, the proper signification of the word, be retained, then ei=dov is the object of faith, the form and fashion of the things believed. Loco rei verbo acquiescimus , as Calvin expresses it. We are conversant with the report of heavenly things, not with the things themselves. We are absent, not present with them. In this case xvx means with . ‘We are not surrounded with the forms of things in heaven.’ It is no objection to this interpretation that the preposition dia> has a different force given to it in the first clause of the verse. ‘We walk by faith, and not with , or in presence of the objects of our faith.’ This change in the force of the same preposition in the same sentence is not unusual. See Hebrews 9:11,12; 10:20. The majority of commentators, however, depart from the proper signification of the word ei+dov and take it in the sense of o]yiv , because this agrees best with the antithesis to pi>stiv (faith ) and with the force of the preposition. “We walk by faith, not by sight;” we believe, but do not see things which govern our life. This, no doubt, is the idea which the apostle intended, although not precisely the form in which he has expressed it. 8. We are confident, (I say,) and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord .

The sentence begun and left incomplete in v. 6 is here resumed and carried out. Qarrou~men de> , we are of good courage . The particle de> may either serve to indicate the resumption of what he had begun to say in v. 6, or be taken adversatively in reference to v. 7. ‘We walk by faith, not by sight, nevertheless we are not discouraged.’ We are not only not desponding, but are so confident as to prefer to be absent from the body. Death is not an object of dread, but of desire. That the phrase “to be absent from the body” means to die is evident, not only from the import of the expression and from the parallel passage in Philippians 1:23, but also from the whole context, which treats of the apostle’s experience in view of death.

He was surrounded by dangers; he could scarcely bear up under the load of his sufferings; he was every day exposed to a violent death, which he had escaped hitherto only, as it were, by miracle; still he was not cast down.

He sustained his courage, and even desired to die. There can be no doubt that this verse is parallel with v. 4, where the apostle says he desired to be clothed upon, i.e. with his house which is from heaven. The object of desire is the same in both. It is also plain that in this verse it is absence from the body and presence with the Lord, not the being changed from corruptible to incorruptible without dying, that he earnestly longed for; and therefore this verse shows that the subject treated of in the context is the change which the believer experiences at death, and not that which those who are alive shall experience at Christ’s second coming. The words ejkdhme>w and ejndhme>w , here used as in v. 6, are best rendered ‘from home’ and ‘at home.’ ‘We would be from home as to the body, and at home with the Lord.’ The Lord is of course Christ, the supreme Lord, who in virtue of the fullness of the Godhead is the rightful sovereign and possessor of the universe, and in virtue of his dying for the redemption of his people, in a peculiar sense the sovereign and possessor of believers.

The Christian’s heaven is to be with Christ, for we shall be like him when we see him as he is. Into his presence the believer passes as soon as he is absent from the body and into his likeness the soul is at death immediately transformed; and when at the resurrection, the body is made like unto his glorious body, the work of redemption is consummated. Awaiting this consummation, it is an inestimable blessing to be assured that believers, as soon as they are absent from the body, are present with The Lord. 9. Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

Wherefore , dio< kai> , wherefore also, i.e. because we desire to be with the Lord. Longing after communion with him produces the desire and secures the effort to be found acceptable to him. Those who have this hope purify themselves as he is pure. 1 John 3:3. It is impossible that those who regard the presence of Christ, or being with him, as heaven, should not desire and labor to be pleasing to him, by living in obedience to his commandments. We labor . The word filotimei~sqai means more than to labor. It signifies literally, to love honor, to be ambitious; and then to make any thing a point of honor, or to set one’s honor in doing or attaining something. So Paul says, he made it a point of honor not to build on another man’s foundation. Romans 15:20. And here he intends to say that as ambitious men desire and strive after fame, so Christians long and labor to be acceptable to Christ. Love to him, the desire to please him, and to be pleasing to him, animates their hearts and governs their lives, and makes them do and suffer what heroes do for glory. Whether present or absent . These words may be variously explained. 1. The sense may be, ‘Whether present in the body , or absent from the body ,’ i.e. whether living or dying. Comp. Romans 14:8, “Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 5:10, “Whether we wake or sleep, we live together with him.” The connection is then either with filotimou>meqa , ‘we strive whether in the body or out of the body; i.e. the desire in question is active as well in the living as the dead;’ or, as is better, with euja>restoi ei+nai ‘we strive to be acceptable whether in the body or absent from it.’ 2. The sense may be, ‘Whether present with the Lord , or absent from the Lord.’ This is only expressing the same idea in a different form.

Whether living or dead, as in Romans 14:8. 3. Meyer takes the words literally, ‘Whether at home or abroad.’ But this is utterly inconsistent with the context. The objection to the first interpretation, that the desire to be acceptable to the Lord when actually saved, must cease, inasmuch as the object is attained, is of no force.

The thing desired, to< zhtou>menon , as Chrysostom says, is that we may be pleasing to Christ whether here or there, whether in this world or the next. 10. For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things (done) in (his) body; according to that he hath done, whether (it be) good or bad .

In what precedes Paul had been speaking of himself. It was his own sufferings, hopes, and efforts which the occasion called upon him to exhibit. In all this, however, he spoke as a Christian, and therefore in the name of other Christians. In this verse he expressly comprehends others, and all others. ‘I strive to be acceptable to the Lord for we must all (I as well as all believers, and even all men) must, etc.’ As Christ is to decide upon our eternal destiny, it is of infinite moment that we should be acceptable, or well-pleasing, in his sight. We must all appear , fanerwqh~nai, This means either nothing more than a judicial appearance, as when any one is said to appear in court before a judge; or, as Bengel explains it, manifestos fieri cum occultis nostris , ‘we must all stand revealed in our true character before the judgment-seat of Christ.’ 1 Corinthians 4:5; Colossians 3:4. As there can be no disguise, no deception before an omniscient judge, Paul was assiduous in his efforts to be prepared to stand the scrutiny of an all-seeing eye. The judgment-seat of Christ ; bh~ma , literally, step , then a raised platform, or seat; most frequently used of the elevated seat on which the Roman magistrates sat to administer justice, an object of reverence and fear to all the people. As Christ is to be the judge, as all men are to appear before him, as the secrets of the heart are to be the grounds of judgment, it is obvious that the sacred writers believed Christ to be a divine person, for nothing less than omniscience could qualify any one for the office here ascribed to our Lord. That every one may receive , komi>zw , which in the active form means; to take up , in the middle, as here, to take for one’s self , properly to take or receive what is one’s due, or what on some ground one is entitled to. Matthew 25:27; Colossians 3:25; 2 Peter 2:13. The punishment which men are to receive will be what they have earned, and therefore what is in justice due to them. The reward of the righteous, although a matter of grace and not of justice, yet being, agreeably to the tenor of the covenant of grace, according to their works, it is of the nature of a reward.

The pay of a faithful soldier is a matter of debt, titles and estates are matters of favor. There is no inconsistency, therefore, in the Scriptures denying all merit to believers, and yet teaching that they shall be rewarded according to their works. We are said to receive the things done in the body , because the matter is conceived of, or is here represented as an investment.

Our acts are treasures laid up for the future, whether treasures of wrath, or treasures in heaven; and these (komizo>meqa ) we receive back. The word ta< dia< tou~ sw>matov may mean things (done) through or by the body .

Then bodily acts are taken for acts of all kinds. Compare Romans 8:13.

Or the dia> may be taken as in v. 7, (according to one interpretation of that verse,) as indicating the attending circumstance — with the body , i.e. while clothed with the body. This is the sense expressed in our version, which renders the clause “things (done) in the body,” although dia> of course does not mean in .

According to that he hath done, proadministered. Both with regard to the wicked and the righteous, there is to be a great distinction in the recompense, which different members of each class are to receive. Some will be beaten with few stripes and some with many. It will be more tolerable in that day for Tyre and Sidon than for those who reject the gospel; and on the other hand, those believers who suffer most, will love most and be most blessed. Whether good or evil , i.e. whether he did good or evil. Each shall receive according to his deeds whether good or bad. It is from such passages as this that some American theologians have inferred that the only benefit which the believer receives from Christ is the forgiveness of sin, and that being pardoned he is dealt with according to the principles of justice. Others, especially in Germany, have drawn from the same source the conclusion that the doctrine of Paul is that the merit of Christ cleanses only from the sins committed before conversion. If a Jew or (Gentile became a Christian his sins were blotted out, and then he was rewarded or punished, saved or lost, according to his works. The merit of Christ availed nothing for the pardon of sin after conversion. And this again is very much the ancient doctrine that there is no forgiveness for post-baptismal sins. The benefits of Christ’s work, according to many of the ancients, are conveyed to the soul in baptism, but if once forfeited by sin can never be reapplied. This gloomy doctrine, which belonged to the transition period which preceded the full development of the theology of the Papal church, has been revived by the inchoate Romanists of the present day. But according to the Scriptures and the doctrine of all Protestant churches, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin, whether committed before or after baptism or conversion. It is a fountain to which we may daily come for cleansing. He is a priest who ever lives to make intercession for us, and who ever presents before God the merit of his sacrifice as a perpetual offering, typified by the morning and evening sacrifice under the law. According to the anti-scriptural views mentioned above, when a man first comes to Christ his sins are forgiven, and he then commences anew under the covenant of works, and stands in the same relation to God that Adam did before the fall. The condition of salvation is to him as it was to our first parent, “Do this and live.” Christ henceforth profits him nothing. But according to the apostle we are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14. On the ground of the one offering of Christ, by which those who believe are forever sanctified, (i.e. atoned for,) God does not impute to the penitent believer his sins unto condemnation. He is not judged by the law or treated according to its principles, for then no man could be saved. But he is treated as one for all whose sins, past, present, and future, an infinite satisfaction has been made, and who has a perpetual claim to that satisfaction so long as he is united to Christ by faith and the indwelling of his Spirit. Hence the Scriptures are filled with exhortations not merely to the unconverted, to Jews and Pagans, but to baptized Christians, to repent of sin and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that is, to exercise trust in the merit of his sacrifice and the prevalence of his intercession for the pardon of their daily and manifold transgressions and short comings. The sacrifice of Christ avails for the sins committed from the foundation of the world to the final consummation. It affords a permanent and all-sufficient reason why God can be just and yet justify the ungodly.

PAUL’S DEFENSE OF HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF SELF-COMMENDATION. VS. 11-21.

He declares that he acted under a solemn sense of his responsibility to God, v. 11. This was not said with the view of commending himself; but rather to afford them the means of vindicating his character, v. 12. Whether his way of speaking of himself was extravagant or moderate, sane or insane, his motive in doing as he did was a sincere regard to the glory of God and the good of his church, v. 13. For the love of Christ constrained him to live, not for himself, but for him who died for him and rose again, vs. 14, 15. Acting under the control of this elevated principle, he was raised above the influence of external things. He did not judge of men by their external condition. He was a new creature in virtue of his union with Christ, vs. 16, 17. This great change which he had experienced was not self-wrought; it was of God, who is the author of the whole scheme of redemption. He is reconciled unto the world through Jesus Christ, and he has commissioned his ministers to proclaim this great truth to all men, vs. 18, 19. Therefore, the apostle, as an ambassador of God, exhorted men to accept of this offer of reconciliation, for which the most abundant provision had been made, in that God had made Christ to be sin for us, in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, vs. 20, 21. 11. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

This verse is an inference from what precedes, as is indicated by the particle (ou+n ) therefore . Paul had asserted his earnest desire to be acceptable to the Lord, and, therefore, knowing the terror of the Lord , etc.

In this version of the clause, tobon tou~ kuri>ou , the genitive is taken as the genitive of the subject. It is the terror which belongs to the Lord. ‘Knowing how terrible the Lord is.’ But this is contrary to the constant use of the phrase. The fear of the Lord is that fear or reverence which the Lord excites, or of which he is the object. Hence it so often stands in Scripture for true religion. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” So in Acts 9:31, “Walking in the fear of the Lord.” Romans 3:18, “The fear of God is not before their eyes;” and in <470701> 7:1 of this epistle, “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” See also Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.” In all these cases (fo>bov ) fear means pious reverence. There is no reason for departing from that sense in this place. Knowing i.e. feeling or experiencing, the pious reverence for Christ, the earnest desire to meet his approbation, asserted in the context, the apostle acted under the influence of that sentiment, and not from selfish or unworthy motives, in all his conduct as a man and as a minister. As the expression “fear of the Lord” is so uniformly used to express that reverence and submission which are due only to God, it is clear from this and analogous passages that Christ was to the apostles the object of the religious affections; and that they felt themselves to be responsible to him for their moral character and conduct.

The evidence of the divinity of the Lord is thus seen to pervade the New Testament, and is not confined to a few isolated passages. Influenced, says the apostle, by the fear of the Lord, I persuade men . What this means is somewhat doubtful. The word pei>qein expresses the endeavor to convince, as in Acts 18:4, “He persuaded the Jews,” i.e. endeavored to convince them of the truth, and in Acts 28:23, “Persuading them concerning Jesus.” The apostle therefore may here mean that he endeavored to convince men of the truth of the gospel, i.e. to convert them, or bring them to the obedience of faith. Or, he may mean that he endeavored to convince them of his integrity, or that he was really governed by the fear of Christ, and was therefore sincere and honest, which in Corinth had been so unjustly called in question. This latter explanation is generally preferred, both because it suits the context, and because the following clause seems to require this idea. ‘We seek to convince men of our integrity, but God we need not convince, to him our inmost soul is manifest.’ The word (pei>qein ), however, also signifies to conciliate , to seek to please, as in Galatians 1:10, “Do we persuade (i.e. seek to please) men, or God.” Matthew 28:14; Acts 12:20; 1 John 3:19. Many prefer that sense here. Luther, in his idiomatic style, renders the clause, fahren wir schön mit den Leuten. The apostle is supposed to refer to the fact that he accommodated himself to all classes, and became all things to all men, that he might save some. 1 Corinthians 9:22.

Though he thus acted still he was manifest unto God; i.e. God knew the purity of his motives. This, however, is an idea foreign to the connection.

His accommodating himself to others was not the specific objection made against him by his enemies in Corinth, but, as appears from the previous chapters, his “lightness” or instability of purpose, and his consequent untrustworthiness as a man and as a teacher. Others again, take pei>qein in a bad sense. ‘We deceive men, (as our enemies say,) but are manifest to God.’ But this is utterly incongruous. How could Paul say in such a solemn connection, ‘I deceive men,’ and leave the saving clause, as my enemies say , to be supplied by the reader. The most natural interpretation is that given above. ‘Under the influence of the fear of the Lord, we endeavor to convince men, i.e. as he had said in 4:2, to commend himself to every man’s conscience, and whether successful in this or not he was at least known to God.’ Made manifest unto God , i.e. to God I am (fanero>v ) apparent , my true character is known. And I trust also are made manifest in your conscience . Although misunderstood and defamed by others, he trusted that the Corinthian Christians as a body had an inward conviction of his integrity. The evidence of his sincerity was his moral excellence, and therefore it addressed itself to their consciences. There may be many reports against a good man which we cannot contradict; many charges which we cannot refute; and yet the self-evidencing light of goodness will produce the conviction of his integrity in the consciences even of wicked men, and much more in the hearts of the good. 12. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to (answer) them which glory in appearance, and not in heart .

His object in thus speaking of himself was not self-praise, nor to secure the confidence of the Corinthians, which he already possessed; but to give them materials for a vindication of his character against the aspersions of his enemies. The connection, as indicated by for , is with the preceding verse, of which this is a confirmation. ‘I am assured of your confidence, for the object of my self-commendation is not to recommend myself to you, but, etc.’ In chapter <470301> 3:1, Paul had had occasion to repel the charge of self-laudation, and hence he says, he was not about to commend himself again , as some said he had before done. But give you , literally, giving (dido>ntev ), and therefore a verb must be supplied, ‘Giving you occasion we say these things . ‘An occasion of glorying in our behalf , ajformhmatov; kau>chma being taken in the sense of kau>chsiv . On our behalf , uJpeover us, or about us, but for our benefit.

That is, for our vindication. Some commentators suppose that there is something ironical in this whole passage. As though the apostle designed to taunt the Corinthians with their readiness to listen to the false representations of his opponents, and with the plea that they needed not the disposition, but the ability to defend him. This view, however, is inconsistent with the connection and with the whole drift of the epistle. In the immediately preceding verse he had expressed his assurance of their confidence in his integrity, and throughout the epistle his overflowing love for the faithful in Corinth is mingled with his severe denunciations of the false teachers and their followers. That ye may have . There is no object expressed to the verb (e]chte ), ye may have . We may supply (ti> ) something , and insert the words to answer , as is done by our translators; or we may borrow from the context the word kau>chma ; “That ye may have some ground of boasting . “Against those who glory in appearance and not in heart . This is evidently descriptive of the false teachers. The words ejn prosw>pw| , in face , may, from the antithesis to ejn kardi>a| , in heart , be taken, as in our version, for what is external as opposed to what is inward. Then the expression refers to the fact that those teachers gloried in their Hebrew descent, in their circumcision, their external religious privileges, their churchmanship, etc. It was in these things they placed their confidence, and of them they made their boast. Or the words may be taken literally, and according to their uniform use in other passages. Then the expression describes the sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy of the false teachers. They gloried, says Meyer, in the holiness, the zeal, and devotion which expressed themselves in the face. They wished to appear unto men to fast, to wear the look of sanctity, while their hearts, as our Lord describes the same class of men, were full of all uncleanness. The former explanation is commonly adopted, and is probably the true one, because regard for externals is elsewhere in this epistle represented as the prominent characteristic of Paul’s opponents in Corinth. Their great boast was that they belonged to the true church or theocracy, and that Paul and his followers were dissenters and schismatics. 13. For whether we be beside ourselves, (it is) to God: or whether we be sober, (it is) for your cause.

This verse again is a confirmation of the preceding. ‘You have good reason to glory on my behalf, for , etc.’ Whether we be beside ourselves . The word ejxi>sthmi , to be out of one’s mind , and other words of like signification, are used either in their strict sense to express insanity or madness, or in a wider sense, to express undue excitement or extravagance. When Festus, Acts 26:24, said to the apostle, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad,” he did not mean that he was really insane.

And when our Lord’s zeal provoked his friends to say of him, “He is beside himself,” Mark 3:21, they certainly did not intend to charge him with insanity. There is therefore no necessity for taking the word here in its strict sense, and assuming that Paul’s enemies had accused him of being out of his mind. It is the more natural to take the word in a wider sense here, because the opposite term, swfrone>w , (to be sober , or sane ,) and its cognates, are much more frequently used to express moderation and discretion than sanity in the strict sense of that word. The apostle means to say that whether he was extravagant or moderate, whether he exceeded the bounds of discretion, as his enemies asserted, or whether he was sober and discreet, it was not for himself; he had in view only the glory of God and the good of his church, and therefore the Corinthians might safely boast of him, i.e. vindicate him from the aspersions of the false teachers.

Whether the extravagance or insanity here referred to, consisted in his self-commendation, or in his zeal and devotion, is matter of dispute. The former is the more probable, both because in the immediate context he had been speaking of that subject, and because in chapters 11 and 12 he speaks so much at large of his commending himself, although forced upon him, as a kind of folly or insanity. In those chapters the ajfrosu>nh , (the want of mind ,) of which he accuses himself, was self-praise; and the swfrosu>nh (soberness or sanity ) which he desired to exhibit was moderation in speaking of himself and of his labors. Paul, therefore, in this passage, is most naturally understood to mean, that whether he praised himself or whether he did not, whether the manner in which he had spoken of himself be considered as ajfrosu>nh or swfrosu>nh , as insanity or sobriety, he spoke not for himself, but for God and his people. 14. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead . ‘In whatever I do,’ says the apostle, ‘I act for God and his church, for the love of Christ constraineth me.’ The connection is thus pain. The love of Christ here means Christ’s love for us, not the love of which he is the object. This is obvious, because the apostle goes on to illustrate the greatness of Christ’s love to us, and not of our love to him. Comp. Galatians 2:20, where the same idea is expressed by the words “who loved me.” See Romans 8:35; Ephesians 3:19. Constraineth us, i.e. controls and governs us. The word sune>cw means also to restrain , a sense which many adopt here. ‘The love of limited sense, and is not required by the usage of the word, which is often used to express the idea of being pressed as by a crowd, or figuratively, by calamity or sorrow. There is no better version for it in this passage than that adopted by our translators. ‘The love of Christ constraineth us.’ It coerces, or presses, and therefore impels. It is the governing influence which controls the life. This is a trait of Paul’s experience as a Christian, and is therefore common to all Christians. It is not benevolence which makes a man a Christian, for then all philanthropists would be Christians. Nor is it mere piety, in the sense of reverence for God, which makes a man a Christian, for then all devout Mussulmans and Jews would be Christians. Morality does not make us religious, but religion makes us moral. In like manner benevolence and piety (in the wide sense) do not make men Christians, but Christianity makes them benevolent and devout. A Christian is one who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, as God manifested in the flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption; and who is so affected by a sense of the love of this incarnate God as to be constrained to make the will of Christ the rule of his obedience, and the glory of Christ the great end for which he lives. The man who does this perfectly, is a perfect Christian. The man who does it imperfectly, yet with the sincere desire to be entirely devoted to Christ, is a sincere Christian. On the other hand, the man who lives supremely for himself, or his family, for science, for the world, for mankind, whatever else he may be, is not a Christian.

Whosoever loveth father or mother, son or daughter, more than me, saith our Lord is not worthy of me, Matthew 10:37. He that hateth not his own life, cannot be my disciple, Luke 14:26. The great question is, What constitutes a Christian? It is being so constrained by a sense of the love of our divine Lord to us, that we consecrate our lives to him. Hence, faith in his divinity, faith in his love, faith in his having died for us, is the principle or source of the Christian life. And this is the only form in which true religion can now exist. That is, the only true religion now possible is, the worship, love, and service of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is impossible for a man to turn his back on Christ and worship the God of nature or the God of the Jews. Should a man reveal himself to us first as an acquaintance, then as a friend, and then as a father, filial reverence and devotion would be the only form in which sincere and true regard for him could exist. To deny him as father, would be to reject him as a friend and acquaintance. Since, therefore, the same God who revealed himself first in nature, and then as the Jehovah of the Hebrews, has revealed himself in the flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption, to deny him in this the clearest revelation of his being and perfection, is to deny him altogether. “Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father,” 1 John 2:23. It is the practical or experimental form of this great truth, which is presented in this passage. Because we thus judge . This clause assigns the reason why the love of Christ exerted the constraining power referred to. It was because the apostle judged that the death of Christ for his people not only placed them under the strongest obligation to devote themselves to his service, but it secured this devotion. They died in him. Romans 6:4,5. As the participle (kri>nantav ) is in the aorist, it would be more strictly rendered, because we judged . That is, ‘I live for Christ, because when I became a Christian I regarded his dying for me as involving the obligation and necessity of my living for him.’ This was the aspect under which he embraced Christianity; the judgment which he formed of it from the beginning. That if one died for all . The contrast presented, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews, between the priest and sacrifices of the old economy on the one hand, and the high priest and sacrifice of the gospel on the other, is that those were many, these are one. The ancient priests could not continue by reason of death. Our high priest, being a divine person, and therefore possessed of an endless life, ever lives to save. The sacrifices of the law were daily repeated, because it was impossible that they should take away sin; Christ by the offering up of himself hath forever perfected them that are sanctified. His blood cleanses from all sin.

The apostle here presents him as the one priest and the one sacrifice. Died for all . The words are uJpentwn . The preposition uJpe>r , may have the general sense, for the benefit of, in behalf of , or the stricter sense, in the place of , as in v. 20 of this chapter. Philemon 13; Ephesians 6:20. In many places the choice between these senses depends on the context. In all those passages in which one person is said to die for another, as Romans 5:6,7,8; 14:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Hebrews 2:9.

Comp. Luke 22:19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14. etc., etc., or in which the reference is to a sacrifice, the idea of substitution is clearly expressed. The argument does not rest on the force of the preposition, but on the nature of the case. The only way in which the death of the victim benefited the offerer, was by substitution. When, therefore, Christ is said to die as a sacrifice for us, the meaning is, he died in our stead. His death is taken in the place of ours so as to save us from death. That the preposition uJpe>r in this and similar passages, does mean instead of , is admitted by the great body of even Rationalistic commentators. See De Wette, Ruckert, etc. Christ, it is said, died for all , i.e. for all the subjects of redemption. This limitation is not an arbitrary one, but arises of necessity out of the nature of the case, and is admitted almost universally. He did not die for all creatures; nor for all rational creatures; nor for all apostate rational creatures. The all is of necessity limited by what the Scriptures teach of the design of his death. If his death was merely didactic, intended to reveal and confirm some truth, then he may be said to have died for all benefited by that revelation, and therefore for angels as well as men. If designed to make it consistent with the interests of God’s moral government for him to pardon the sins of men, then he may be said to have died equally for all men. But if his death was intended to save his people, then it had a reference to them which it had not to others. The true design of the death of Christ is to be learned from express assertions of Scripture, and from its effects. It is so obvious that the death of Christ was designed to save those for whom it was offered, that many of the recent as well as ancient commentators justify their explaining uJpentwn as meaning all men, by attributing to Paul the belief that all men are to be saved. This is an admission that the all for whom he died, are the all who are saved by his death. One of its effects is stated in the following clause; Then were all dead , or, Then all died . The word is ajpe>qanon . It is the same verb, and in the same tense. ‘If one died, (ajpe>qanen ) then all died, (ajpe>qanon ), The word must have the same sense in both clauses. It cannot mean were dead, because that is inconsistent with the force of the aorist. All , (literally, the all , of oiJ pa>ntev ,) i.e. the all for whom the one died. His death involved, or secured their death. This was its design and effect, and, therefore, this clause limits the extent of the word all in the preceding clause. Christ died for the all who died when he died. The meaning of this expression has, however, been variously explained. 1. It is made to mean, ‘Then all died to themselves and sin.’ His dying literally, secured their dying figuratively. 2. Others say the true meaning is, ‘Then all ought to die.’ But this is not included in the words. The aorist does not express obligation. 3. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza and others, give the same explanation which is implied in our version, ‘If one died for all, then were all subject to death.’ That is, the vicarious death of Christ proves that those for whom he died were in a state of condemnation. But this suits neither the meaning of the word nor the context. It was not to Paul’s purpose to prove that men were in a state of death. It was not what they were , but what the death of Christ caused them to become, that he evidently intended to express. 4. The simple meaning of the passage is, that the death of one was the death of all. If one died for all, the all died. The Scriptures teach that the relation between Christ and his people is analogous to that between Adam and his posterity. Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22. The apostasy of Adam was the apostasy of all united to him; the work of Christ was the work of all united to him. In the one, all died; in the other, all are made alive.

As the sin of Adam was legally and effectively the sin of his race; so the death of Christ was legally and effectively the death of his people. This doctrine underlies the whole scheme of redemption. It is, so to speak, the generic idea of the Epistle to the Romans. The apostle shows that man, ruined by the sin of Adam, is restored by the work of Christ. His people are so united to him that his death is their death, and his life is their life. “If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him,” Romans 6:8.

Hence believers are said to be crucified with Christ, to rise with him, to reign with him. Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:5,6. The simple meaning of the words, “If one died for all, then all died,” therefore is, that Christ’s death was the death of his people. This as we have seen is according to the analogy of Scripture; and is also entirely pertinent to the design of this passage. The apostle denied that he lived for himself. He asserts that he lived for God and his people. For, he adds, I died in Christ. This is precisely the argument which he uses in Romans 6. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far from it, he says, How shall they who have died on account of sin live any longer therein? If united to Christ in his death, we must be united to him in his life. Another consideration in favor of this interpretation is that it comprehends the others. They are objectionable, not because they are erroneous, but because they are defective. Death on account of sin, is death to sin. Dying with Christ, involves death to self and sin; and of course includes the obligation so to die. The death of Christ reconciles us to God; and reconciliation to God secures a life of devotion to his service. This is the doctrine set forth in the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 7. 15. And (that) he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again .

This is a continuation of the preceding sentence, and is designed to express more fully the judgment or conviction (kri>nantav ) which the apostle had formed of his relation to Christ. He judged that the death of Christ was the death of his people, and that the design with which he died for them was that they might live for him. This idea is expressed in various forms in the word of God. Sometimes our Lord is said to have died, the just for the unjust, to bring us near to God, 1 Peter 3:18; or, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness, 1 Peter 2:26; or, to purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, Titus 2:14. In Romans 14:9, the mode of statement is exactly parallel to the passage before us. “To this end Christ both died and rose that he might be the Lord both of the dead and living.” To say that Christ died that he might be the Lord of his people, is to say that he died that they might be his servants, i.e. belong to him and be devoted to him. The proximate design and effect of the death of Christ is the expiation of sin and reconciliation with God, and the design and effect of reconciliation with God are devotion to his service. Hence the death of Christ is sometimes presented in reference to its proximate, sometimes in reference to its ultimate design; i.e. sometimes he is said to have died to make a propitiation for sin, and sometimes, to bring us near to God. Here it is the latter. He died that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves . “Those who live,” oiJ zw~ntev , not, those who survive his death ; nor, those who are spiritually living ; nor, the happy or blessed , but, those who, although they died in Christ, are still living. Their death in him is not inconsistent with their being alive, for they died in one sense and they live in another. Those for whom Christ died, and on whom his death takes effect, thenceforth, i.e. from the time they apprehend their relation to him, and feel the power of his vicarious death, do not live unto themselves , i.e. self is not the object for which they live.

This is the negative description of the Christian. He is a man who does not live unto himself. This is what he is not. The positive description is given in the next clause. He lives for him who died for him and rose again . This presents both the object and the ground of the Christian’s devotion. He lives for him who died for him, and because he died for him. He is not a Christian who is simply unselfish, i.e. who lives for some object out of himself. He only is a Christian who lives for Christ. Many persons think they can be Christians on easier terms than these. They think it is enough to trust in Christ while they do not live for him. But the Bible teaches us that if we are partakers of Christ’s death, we are also partakers of his life; if we have any such appreciation of his love in dying for us as to lead us to confide in the merit of his death, we shall be constrained to consecrate our lives to his service. And this is the only evidence of the genuineness of our faith. And rose again . We do not serve a dead Savior. The resurrection of Christ is as essential to redemption as his death. He died for our sins and rose again for our justification. And it is to this risen Savior, seated at the right hand of God, to whom all power in heaven and earth has been committed, and who ever lives to make intercession for us, who is the object of the supreme love of the believer, to whose service and glory the Christian consecrates his life. 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) no more .

This is an inference, (w[ste , so that ). ‘Such is the nature of the change which I have experienced through the apprehension of the love of Christ, as just described, that I no longer see or judge of things according to the flesh.’ The we refers primarily to the apostle himself, as he is still engaged in self-vindication. He was acting from pure motives, he says, for a sense of the love of Christ constrained him not to live for himself but for Christ, and therefore he no longer judged of persons or things as he had been accustomed to do. Paul’s experience, however, was his experience as a Christian, and therefore not peculiar to himself. It is true of all Christians that they do not know (i.e. estimate, judge, feel in reference to) any man according to the flesh . This may mean, that the judgment is not regulated or determined by a regard to what is external. It is not a man’s outward circumstances, his birth, his station, his being rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, that determines our estimate of him. Or the meaning may be, that the judgment was not determined by carnal or selfish considerations. Paul was not led to approve or disapprove, love or hate any man from selfish or corrupt motives. This latter view would suit the context, for the apostle had just said that he lived not for himself but for Christ, and therefore his judgments of men were not determined by a regard to himself. It is also consistent with the usage of the word; for sa>rx means corrupt nature , as well as what is outward. The following part of the verse, however, is decisively in favor of the former interpretation. Comp. 11:18; John 8:15; Philippians 3:4. Paul evidently contrasts himself as he now was (ajpo< tou~ nu~n ) with what he was before his conversion; and also himself with his Judaizing opponents in Corinth. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh. The words eij de< kai> , but even if , are concessive.

Paul admits that he had once done what he here condemns. He had known or estimated Christ after the flesh . Of course this does not mean that he had known Christ while in the flesh, as Olshausen supposes, because that would be saying nothing to the purpose, and because there is no evidence of Paul’s ever having seen our Lord before his resurrection. Olhausen’s idea is, that as he formerly regarded men as men, but now only as Christians, i.e. had reference only to what was spiritual, so also he no longer thinks of Christ as he once knew him on earth, but as he is glorified in heaven. But this does not suit the connection nor the facts of the case.

The words kata< sa>rka must have the same sense in both parts of the verse; and in the former they do not designate the life before conversion, and therefore when spoken in reference to Christ are not to be understood of his earthly as opposed to his heavenly life. Paul had known Christ after the flesh in the sense of estimating him entirely according to the outward appearance of things. Christ does not here mean the Messiah, but is the historical designation of our Lord as an individual. Paul had despised and hated him because he judged him only according to his outward appearance as a poor suffering man, yet claiming to be the Christ the Son of the living God. His Jewish notions of what the Messiah was to be led him to regard with indignation the claims of Jesus to be the Christ. Yet now henceforth now we (him) no more . The order of the words in the original shows that the words kata< sa>rka are to be connected with the verb and not with its object; eij de< kai< ejgnw>kamen kata< sa>rka Cristo>n . That is, we no longer judge after the flesh concerning Christ; we no longer estimate him according to appearance, but know him to be the Son of God, who loved us and gave himself for us. Galatians 2:20. 17. Therefore, if any man (be) in Christ, (he is) a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all thing; are become new.

A further inference from what precedes. What was true in Paul’s case, must be true in all analogous cases. If the revelation of Christ, the apprehension of his glory and love, had wrought such a change in him, the same illumination must produce a like change in others. He therefore says, If any man be in Christ he is a new creature . The proposition is general; it applies to every man. To be in Christ is the common scriptural phrase to express the saving connection or union between him and his people. They are in him by covenant, as all men were in Adam; they are in him as members of his body, through the indwelling of his Spirit; and they are in him by faith, which lays hold of and appropriates him as the life and portion of the soul. Romans 8:1,9; Galatians 5:6, etc. This union is transforming. It imparts a new life. It effects a new creation. This expression indicates not only the greatness and radical nature of the change effected, but also its divine origin. It is a divine work, i.e. one due to the mighty power of God. It is therefore called a creation, the commencement of a new state of being. Ephesians 1:19. In Galatians 6:15; Romans 8:9, and elsewhere, the same effects are ascribed to union with Christ. If we are united to him so as to be interested in the merits of his death, we must also be partakers of his life. This is the foundation on which the apostle builds his whole doctrine of sanctification as developed in the sixth and seventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans. The word kaino>v new, unimpaired, uncontaminated , is an epithet of excellence, a new song, a new name, new heavens, new earth, the new Jerusalem, the new man, a new creature, are scriptural expressions which will occur to every reader. In the margin of the English Bible this clause is rendered, Let him be a new creature . This is in accordance with Calvin’s view of the passage. “If any man would be in Christ, i.e. if he would be of consequence in Christ’s kingdom, let him become a new creature.” He supposes that the apostle refers to the ambition of the false teachers, whom he tells that if they wish to attain the influence to which they aspire, they must like him be entirely changed from selfishness to devotion to Christ. There is nothing in the words to require this, and every thing in the context is opposed to it. The apostle is detailing his own experience, unfolding the principles on which he acted, and showing the effect which the apprehension of the love of Christ had on him and must have on others. If any man is in Christ he is thereby made a new creature. In the Old Testament, Isaiah 43:18,19; 65:17, the effects to be produced by the coming of the Messiah are described as a making all things new. The final consummation of the Redeemer’s kingdom in heaven is described, Revelation 21:5, in the same terms. “He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.” The inward spiritual change in every believer is set forth in the same words, because it is the type and necessary condition of this great cosmical change. What would avail any conceivable change in things external, if the heart remained a cage of unclean birds? The apostle therefore says that if any man is in Christ he experiences a change analogous to that predicted by the prophets, and like to that which we still anticipate when earth shall become heaven. “Old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new.” Old opinions, views, plans, desires, principles and affections are passed away; new views of truth, principles and affections are passed away, new views of truth, new principles, new apprehensions of the destiny of man, and new feelings and purposes fill and govern the soul. 18. And all things (are) of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

All things are of God ; this is not spoken of the universe as proceeding from God as its author; nor does it refer to the providential agency of God, by which all events are controlled. The meaning of ta< de< pa>nta here is, but all is of God , i.e. the entire change of which he had been speaking. The new creation experienced by those who are in Christ is ejk tou~ Qeou~ , is out of God , proceeds from him as its efficient cause. It is his work. God effects this great moral and spiritual revolution by reconciling us unto himself . The word us is not to be limited to the apostle, first, because the reconciliation spoken of is not peculiar to him; and secondly, because the change or new creation effected by this reconciliation belongs to all who are in Christ. Us , therefore, must include all who are in Christ. The objection to this interpretation that to us in the next clause of the verse must refer to the apostle, is not a serious one, because the passage is perfectly perspicuous even supposing hJma~v , us , to refer to all believers, and hJmi~n , to us , to the apostle himself. To reconcile is to remove enmity between parties at variance with each other. In this case God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconciliation. It is what he experiences or embraces, not what he does. The enmity between God and man, the barrier which separated them, is removed by the act of God. This is plain, 1. Because it is said to be effected by Jesus Christ , that is, by his death. The death of Christ, however, is always represented as reconciling us to God as a sacrifice; the design and nature of a sacrifice are to propitiate and not the reform. 2. In the parallel passage, Romans 5:9,10, being “reconciled by the death of the Son,” is interchanged as equivalent with “being justified by his blood,” which proves that the reconciliation intended consists in the satisfaction of the divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ. 3. In this case our reconciliation to God is made the source and cause of our new creation, i.e. of our regeneration and holiness. God’s reconciliation to us must precede our reconciliation to him. This, as remarked above, is the great doctrine of the Bible. So long as we are under the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, we are aliens and enemies, cut off from his favor and fellowship, which are the life of the soul. Therefore until God’s wrath and curse are removed, there is no possibility of holiness and love. It is vain to attempt to secure the favor of God by being holy; we must enjoy his favor before we can be holy. See Romans 7:56.

As the apostle here ascribes our holiness to our being reconciled to God, he must of necessity refer to the reconciliation of God to us; i.e. to his being propitious, ready to receive us into his favor and to manifest to us his love. And hath given to us , i.e. to the apostle and to other preachers of the gospel, for the thing given was not something peculiar to the apostles but common to all preachers, viz., the ministry of reconciliation , i.e. the office and duty of announcing this reconciliation. It is therefore the peculiar duty or special design of the ministry to proclaim to men that God, justly offended by their sins, can be just and yet justify those who come to him by Jesus Christ. This is the eujagge>lion , or glad tidings, which our blessed Lord has commissioned his disciples to announce to every creature under heaven. 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.

This verse is an explanation and confirmation of what precedes. According to our version, and to the common interpretation, it is an explanation of the last clause of v. 18, i.e. of the “reconciliation” there spoken of. ‘He hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation — because God was reconciling the world unto himself, etc.’ To this it is objected by Meyer and others, that the position of the word qeo>v (God ) requires the emphasis to be thrown on that word; and secondly, that the two following clauses must, in that case, explain the mode of that reconciliation. Paul would then say, ‘God was reconciling the world unto himself, having committed to us the word of reconciliation.’ But our reconciliation to God is not the ministry of reconciliation. The former does not consist in the latter; nor is the first the consequence of the second. This verse therefore is referred to the first clause of v. 18. ‘All things are of God, etc., because God was reconciling, etc.’ The words wJv o[ti , rendered to wit , mean here seeing that , or because . They are equivalent to the simple o[ti . The expression is explained either as a pleonasm, or as the mixture of two constructions, wJv qeou~ o]ntov and o[ti qeo>v ejsti .

The principal difference among interpreters in the explanation of this verse relates to the question whether (h+n ) was is to be referred to (ejn Cristw|~ ) in Christ , or to (katalla>sswn ) reconciling. Our version favors the former mode of construction, which is adopted both by Luther and Calvin.

The sense then is, ‘God was in Christ, when he reconciled the world unto himself;’ or, as Luther renders it, “God was in Christ, and reconciled the world with himself, and imputed not to them their sins, etc.” This breaks up the verse into distinct propositions, turning all the participles into verbs. Calvin says that by God we are not to understand the divine nature, or “the fullness of the Godhead,” but God the Father; and refers to John 10:38, “The father is in me,” as a parallel expression. He thinks the design of the apostle is to assure believers that in having Christ, they have the Father also; that Christ is the true Immanuel, whose advent is the approximation of God to man. But all this is foreign to the context. What follows is no proof that “God was in Christ,” but it is a proof of his being engaged, so to speak, in the great work of reconciling the world unto himself. Most interpreters, therefore, adopt the other construction, ‘God was reconciling the world unto himself in Christ.’ As in v. 18 it is said that God reconciled us to himself dia< Cristou~ (through Christ), here it is said to be ejn Cristw|~ (in Christ ). The imperfect h+n katalla>sswn , was reconciling , expresses either contemporary or continuous action. The sense may be, ‘God was, when Christ died, reconciling the world unto himself;’ that was what he was doing and designed to do when he gave his Son up for us all. So Meyer and others. Or, the reference is to what follows; ‘He reconciled the world, not imputing unto men their sins, etc.’

That is, ‘While not imputing, etc.’ But this is impossible, because the next clause, ‘and given to us the word of reconciliation,’ cannot express what was contemporaneous with the reconciling. Others say that the imperfect is used for the aorist. The first explanation is to be preferred. God was reconciling the world unto himself , means God was making atonement for the sins of the world. He set Christ forth as a propitiation. Theodoret explains h+n katalla>sswn by katallagasato . By the world (ko>smov , without the article) is meant man , mankind . The reference or statement is perfectly indefinite; it merely indicates the class of beings towards whom God has manifesting himself as propitious. In the same sense our Lord is called the Savior of the world, or, the Savior of men, Jesus Salvator Hominum. To reconcile unto himself , does not mean to convert, or to render friendly to himself. This is plain first, because this reconciliation is said to be effected by the death of Christ as a sacrifice; and secondly, because what follows is not a proof of God’s converting the world, but it is a proof of his being propitious. The proof that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ (i.e. in his death) is that he does not impute to men their trespasses, and that he has established the ministry of reconciliation. The forgiveness of sin and the institution of the ministry are clear evidence that God is propitious. Not to impute sin, is to forgive it. Romans 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:16. In Colossians 2:13, the same idea is expressed by saying, “hath forgiven you all trespasses.” The participle mh< logizo>menov , not imputing , is in the present because continuous action is intended; whereas in the next clause, qe>menov , having committed, is a past participle, because the institution of the ministry was done once for all. To them , i.e. to men, as included in the ko>smov , world .

When God is said to forgive men it of course does not mean that all men, penitent and impenitent, believing and unbelieving, are forgiven; but here, as before, the class of beings is indicated towards whom forgiveness is exercised. God is propitious to men, as is manifest by his forgiving their trespasses. And hath committed unto us , kai< qe>menov ejn hJmi~n , i.e. having deposited in us . This may mean, ‘having put within us,’ i.e. in our souls. Or the idea may he, ‘having placed upon us.’ If the former, then the following words, togon th~v katallagh~v , must mean ‘the doctrine of reconciliation.’ That is, God hath instructed us apostles in the doctrine of reconciliation. If the latter, then the clause just quoted means, ‘the word of reconciliation,’ i.e. the preaching of reconciliation, as in 1 Corinthians 1:18, oJ lo>gov tou~ staurou~ means ‘the preaching of the cross.’ This latter view is to be preferred. The evidence that the death of Christ has been accepted as an expiation for sin, of infinite value and efficiency, is the fact that God hath commissioned his ministers to announce to all men that God is reconciled and ready to forgive, so that whosoever will may turn unto him and live. 20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech (you) by us: we pray (you) in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This is an inference from what precedes. Now then (oun , therefore ). ‘Seeing that God in Christ is reconciled, and that he has commissioned us to make known this great truth it follows that we, as preachers of the gospel, are ambassadors of Christ.’ An ambassador is at once a messenger and a representative. He does not speak in his own name. He does not act on his own authority. What he communicates is not his own opinions or demands but simply what he has been told or commissioned to say. His message derives no part of its importance or trustworthiness from him. At the same time he is more than a mere messenger. He represents his sovereign. He speaks with authority, as accredited to act in the name of his master. Any neglect, contempt or injury done to him in his official character, is not a personal offense, but an offense to the sovereign or state by whom he is commissioned. All this is true of ministers. They are messengers. They communicate what they have received, not their own speculations or doctrines. What they announce derives its importance not from them, but from him who sends them. Nevertheless, as they speak in Christ’s name and by his authority, as he hath ordained the ministry and calls men by his Spirit into the sacred office, the rejection of their message is the rejection of Christ, and any injury done unto them as ministers is done unto him. For Christ , uJpedied; as in Ephesians 6:20, the apostle, speaking of the gospel, says, uJpew , for which I act as an ambassador . The latter sense is good, and is in accordance with the common force of the preposition. The former, however, is better suited to the context. To act as an ambassador for any one, is to act in his name or as his representative.

And in the following explanatory clause it is said, ‘God beseeches you by us,’ where the idea of substitution is clearly expressed. The clause, as though God did beseech you by us, is commonly connected with what precedes. ‘We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us .’ That is, ‘We are the ambassadors of Christ, because it is God that speaks through us; or, we speak in his name. Beza and others connect the words with the following clause. ‘We are the ambassadors of Christ,’ here is the pause, and then follows as one clause, ‘As though God did beseech you by us we pray, etc.’ This is the more natural, because the latter words express the prayer, so to speak, which God through the ministry addresses to sinners. It will be noticed that to be an ambassador for Christ, and that God speaks through us, mean the same thing. Redemption is as much the work of the Father as of the Son. God reconciles the world unto himself in Christ. God gives us the word of reconciliation. We are acting for God, or in his name, when we appear as the ambassadors of Christ. We pray you in Christ’s stead . Here again uJpein Christ’s stead , or, for Christ’s sake . The former is to be preferred as better suited to the uniformity of the passage. Be ye reconciled unto God ; this does not mean, ‘Reconcile yourselves unto God.’ The word, katalla>ghte , is passive. Be reconciled , that is, embrace the offer of reconciliation. The reconciliation is effected by the death of Christ. God is now propitious. He can now be just, and yet justify the ungodly. All we have to do is not to refuse the offered love of God. Calvin remarks that this exhortation is not directed exclusively to the unconverted. The believer needs daily, and is allowed whenever he needs, to avail himself of the offer of peace with God through Jesus Christ. It is not the doctrine of the Scriptures that the merits of Christ avail only for the forgiveness of sins, committed before conversion, while for post-baptismal sins, as they were called, there is no satisfaction but in the penances of the offender.

Christ ever lives to make intercession for us, and for every short-coming and renewed offense there is offered to the penitent believer, renewed application of that blood which cleanses from all sin. 21. For he hath made him (to be) sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This verse is designed to enforce the preceding. ‘Be reconciled to God, for an abundant and trustworthy provision has been made for your reconciliation and acceptance.’ It is indeed doubtful whether ga>r , for, belongs to the text, as it is omitted in many of the oldest manuscripts. Its omission only renders the transition more abrupt, the relation of the passage remains the same. The apostle states in this verse what God has done for the justification of men. The passage, therefore, is of special interest, as presenting in a concise from the testimony of the Spirit on that all important subject. He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us . The Greek here is, tonta aJmarti>an uJpean ejpoih>sen . Our Lord is presented as one whom God contemplated as free from sin and yet he made him sin. Others understand the mh< gno>nta as referring to Christ himself, as one having no consciousness of sin. Others again, to the necessary judgment of believers, he whom we know was free from sin. One or the other of these modes of interpretation is supposed to be necessary, as the apostles uses mh> and not ouj ; the one being, as the grammarians say, the subjective, the other the objective particle of negation; the one denying a thing as it appears to the mind, the other denying it simply as a fact. In either case the thing here asserted is that Christ was without sin. This was one of the indispensable conditions of his being made sin for us. Had he not been free from sin, he could not have taken the place of sinners. Under the old dispensation the sacrifices were required to be without blemish, in order to teach the necessity of freedom from all sin in him who was to bear the sins of the world. See Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5. He was made sin , may mean either, he was made a sin-offering, or, the abstract being used for the concrete, he was made a sinner. Many of the older commentators prefer the former explanation; Calvin, and almost all the moderns adopt the latter. The meaning in either case is the same; for the only sense in which Christ was made sin, is that he bore the guilt of sin; and in this sense every sin offering was made sin. Hence in the Hebrew Scriptures the same word is used both for sin and a sin-offering. This is the principal ground on which the explanation of aJmarti>a here in the sense of a sacrifice for sin is defended. The reasons, however, against this explanation are decisive. 1. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word for sin, when it means a sin-offering, is always rendered by aJmarti>a . in the genitive. It is always “of sin,” or “for sin,” (peri< aJmarti>av ), Leviticus 5:9,14,19; Numbers 8:8, and never simply “sin,” as here. 2. The use of the word in the ordinary sense in this same clause, ‘He made him to be sin who knew no sin.’ It must have the same meaning in both cases. 3. The antithesis between “sin” and “righteousness.” He was made sin, we are made “righteousness.” The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which he was made sin, is that he was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with his being in himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly.

In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. Justitia hic non pro qualitate aut habitu, says Calvin, sed pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis fertur Christi justitia.

Quod e converso peccatum? reatus quo in Dei judicio obstringimur....

Personam enim nostram quodammodo suscepit, ut reus nostro nomine fieret, et tanquam peccator judicaretur, non propriis, sed alienis delictis, quum purus foret ipse et immunis ab omni culpa, poenamque subiret nobis, non sibi debitam. Ita scilicit nunc justi sumus in ipso: non quia operibus propriis satisfaciamus judicio Dei, sed quoniam censimur Christi justitia, quam fide induimus, ut nostra fiiat. In Galatians 3:13, the apostle says that “Christ was made a curse for us,” which is equivalent to saying that he was made sin for us. In both cases the idea is that he bore the punishment of our sins. God laid on him the iniquities of us all. His sufferings and death were penal, because inflicted and endured in satisfaction of justice. And in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person they were a perfect satisfaction; that is, a full equivalent for all the law’s demands. In Romans 8:3, it is said, “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Here again we have precisely the same doctrine. What in one passage is expressed by saying that Christ was made sin, in the other is expressed by saying, he was sent “for sin,” i.e. as a sin-offering (peri<-aJmarti>av ).

The apostle says Christ: was made sin for us , uJpein our stead , because the idea of substitution is involved in the very nature of the transaction. The victim was the substitute for the offender. It was put in his place. So Christ was our substitute, or, was put in our place. This is the more apparent from the following clause, which teaches the design of this substitution. He was made sin, that we might be made righteous. He was condemned, that we might be justified. The very idea of substitution is that what is done by one in the place of another, avails as though that other had done it himself. The victim was the substitute of the offerer, because its death took the place of his death. If both died there was no substitution. So if Christ’s being made sin does not secure our being made righteousness, he was not our substitute. Righteousness does not here mean inward rectitude, or moral excellence. It is true that the word often has this sense; and it is true that the work of Christ does secure the holiness of his people, and was designed to produce that effect, as is often asserted in Scripture. But this was neither its only, nor its proximate design. Its immediate end was to reconcile us to God; to propitiate him, by the satisfaction of justice, so that he can be just and yet justify the ungodly. As the apostle is here speaking of the sacrificial effect of Christ’s death, that is, of the proximate effect of his being made sin for us, the word righteousness must be understood in its forensic sense. It expresses our relation to the law, not our inward moral state. It is that which justifies, or satisfies the demands of the law. Those who have this dekaiosu>nh are di>kaioi just in the sight of the law, in the sense that the law or justice is satisfied as concerns them. It is called the righteousness of God , either because it is from him as its author; or, because it renders us righteous in his sight. Those who possess this righteousness are di>kaioi para< tw~| qew~| , i.e. righteous before God. The former is the more common representation in Paul’s writings. Romans 1:17; 3:22; 10:3; Philippians 3:9, where “the righteousness of God,” is explained by “the righteousness which is of God.” In this view of the meaning of the phrase, the sense of the clause “we become the righteousness of God,” is that we become divinely righteous. We are righteous with the righteousness of God, not with our own which is but as a filthy rag, but with that which he has provided and which consists in the infinitely meritorious; righteousness of his own dear Son. All this is true; but the context here favors the other mode of representation. Christ was treated as a sinner, i.e. condemned, that we might be justified, i.e. regarded as just before God.

The apostle uses the present tense, ginw>meqa , we become righteous, because this justification is continuous. We are introduced into a justified state. In him , that is, in Christ. It is by virtue of our union with Christ, and only as we are in him by faith, that we are righteous before God.

There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated than in this. Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sins; we are clothed in his righteousness. Imputation conveys neither pollution nor holiness. Christ’s bearing our sins did not make him morally a sinner, any more than the victim was morally defiled which bore the sins of the people; nor does Christ’s righteousness become subjectively ours, it is not the moral quality of our souls. This is what is not meant. What is meant is equally plain. Our sins were the judicial ground of the sufferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice; and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance with God, so that our pardon is an act of justice. It is a justification; or, a declaration that justice is satisfied.

We are set free by no mere act of sovereignty, but by the judicial decision of the infinitely just. As we, considered in ourselves, are just as undeserving and hell-deserving as ever, this justification is to us an act of infinite grace. The special consideration, therefore, by which the apostle enforces the exhortation, ‘Be ye reconciled to God,’ is that God can be just in the justification of sinners. There is nothing in the perfection of his character, nothing in the immutability of his law, nothing in the interests of his moral government, that stands in the way of our pardon. A full, complete, infinitely meritorious satisfaction has been made for our sins, and therefore we may come to God with the assurance of being accepted.