The opening word “for” (gar) connects this passage to the “momentary, light affliction” of 4:16-18. In this chapter, Paul elaborates on the truth of eternal life. The “earthly tent” corresponds with “the things which are seen” (4:18), and the “building from God” corresponds to “the things which are not seen” (4:18). This further makes sense of Paul’s statement, “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).
(5:1) “For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
“If the earthly tent which is our house is torn down.” Paul thought that he could live until the return of Christ, but not that he necessarily would live during that time.
“Earthly tent.” Paul was a tentmaker in Corinth, so he compares his body to one of those worn and aging tents (Acts 18:3). Paul had said his mortal “body” (4:10-11) was “wasting away” (4:16). Now he compares his body to a worn-out earthly tent that would soon be destroyed.
“We have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” This “building” and “house” refer to our resurrected bodies.[] Paul had already mentioned our resurrected state earlier (2 Cor. 4:14), and later, he refers to our mortal bodies being “clothed” and “swallowed up,” presumably by new bodies (v.4). Later, he refers to being “absent from the body and… at home with the Lord” (v.8).
In his book Heaven (2004), Randy Alcorn understands this “house” to be “intermediate bodies” before we get our full resurrection bodies.[] While we think that Alcorn’s book is commendably the best book on heaven in print, we disagree with his reasoning here. After all, Paul also writes that this body is “eternal in the heavens.” Our bodies in the present heaven cannot be “intermediate” and also “eternal.” When Paul writes about our resurrected bodies being “in the heavens,” this seems consistent with his other statements about our resurrected bodies being “heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:40, 48). He writes, “We will also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:49). We get these resurrected bodies “from heaven” (v.2).
(5:2) “For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven.”
“For indeed in this house we groan.” Paul most likely had a vision impairment (Gal. 4:15; 6:11), and he had been through incredible torture that must have left him with residual pain (2 Cor. 11:23-33). Just imagine how much your body would ache after being beaten, whipped, and stoned. Even with modern medicine, aching pain would follow you for life. In Paul’s day, he must’ve been in constant pain. It’s no wonder why he would “groan” in his mortal body (cf. Rom. 8:23). To be clear, this “groan” is not a griping dread, but rather a longing and anticipation for the future.[]
“Longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven.” As we have argued, the “dwelling from heaven” is our future, resurrected body. Paul is “groaning” and “longing” for this resurrected body—not a disembodied state. The imagery of being “clothed over”[] describes putting a heavy coat over our current clothing. To use a modern illustration, it would be like Iron Man putting on his (nearly) indestructible and powerful suit.
(5:3) “Inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.”
To be “naked” would be to not have a physical, resurrected body. In his previous letter, Paul states that the “perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53).
What sort of body will we have during the interim? To be honest, we don’t have a clue! Following Paul’s argument, however, we will likely exist in a disembodied (non-physical) state.[] After all, we do not receive our resurrected bodies until the return of Jesus (contra Garland[]). However, this temporary existence is still better than living in a fallen world. Later, Paul writes that he would “prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8), and that the Present Heaven is a great “gain” and “better by far” (Phil. 1:21, 23 NIV). However, Paul still recognizes that this temporary state is still not our ultimate destiny. Perhaps, Paul’s Gnostic opponents were harping on the fact that we will live in a disembodied state (as their neo-Platonic dualism taught), and they were using this against his teaching on the physical resurrection. Paul is affirming a temporary disembodied state, but he wants his opponents to know that this is not God’s ultimate ideal.
(5:4) “For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.”
“For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened.” Paul used the term “burdened” (bareo) earlier in 2 Corinthians 1:8 (“we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life”). The noun form was used for the “weight of glory” that he would receive (2 Cor. 4:17). In other words, the weight of our burdens will become the weight of our glory. All groaning and burden will give way to satisfaction and laughter (Luke 6:21).
“Because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed.” This is analogous to being found “naked” (v.3). Again, Paul wants to be free from the pain and suffering in his physical body, but he doesn’t want his readers to think the physical body is evil. Kruse writes, “It may be that in emphasizing the future embodied state he is countering any Gnostic ideas of salvation (the release of the soul from the prison of the body) which may have been of some influence in Corinth.”[] Belleville concurs, “Like his opponents, Paul is burdened with a longing, but not a longing to be rid of the body and all that ails it (as these intruders would have it). His desire is rather to have his present existence with all its mortal ills swallowed up by life.”[]
“So that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.” This echoes Paul’s thoughts in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “[Jesus Christ] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself” (Phil. 3:21).
Paul gives two reasons: (1) God created us for this, and (2) God has promised this because of his Holy Spirit.
(5:5) “Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.”
“Pledge” (arrhabōn) had two basic meanings: “It was (1) a pledge or guarantee, differing in kind from the final payment but rendering it obligatory or (2) a partial payment (first installment, down payment, deposit) that required further payments but gave the payee a legal claim to the goods in question… Significantly, in Modern Greek arrhabōna means ‘engagement ring.’”[]
(5:6-8) “Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight— 8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”
These three verses hang together as a unit. Paul gained courage because death would only bring him “home with the Lord” (cf. Phil. 1:21-24). He viewed this through the eyes of faith, growing his confidence and courage (cf. 2 Cor. 4:1, 16). As believers, we are either in the body or in the presence of God. There is no middle ground or “soul sleep.”
Paul writes, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” Is Paul advocating blind faith? No. Paul is not advocating being simple-minded or ignorant. Nothing in the context supports this reading. Rather, the context shows that Paul is arguing for a deep trust in the “unseen” promises of God over the “seen” visible circumstances (2 Cor. 4:18; Rom. 8:24-25). In context, the “sight” refers to our physical bodies and the “faith” refers to our resurrection bodies (“while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord”). It also refers to viewing people “in Christ,” rather than by outward appearances (2 Cor. 5:16). Paul is promoting living in light of ultimate rather than immediate realities. This parenthesis teaches us that we access these great truths through faith.
(5:9) “Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.”
Paul was an ambitious man. But unlike most ambitious people, Paul’s “ambition” was to please God. Paul uses the connecting word “for” in verse 10. Therefore, the “pleasing” Paul has in mind refers to the bema seat judgment (“the judgment seat of Christ”).
(5:10) “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”
Paul himself had stood before the governor Gallio who sat on a bema seat in Corinth (Acts 18:12, 16-17). Now, he uses this as an illustration for what will happen for all believers. Garland writes, “It is this divine judgment seat (bēma), not Pilate’s (Matt 27:19; John 19:13), not Gallio’s (Acts 18:12, 16-17), not the court of public of opinion, that ultimately counts. No one, including Christians, can escape it. We cannot melt into the crowd. We will be held accountable for our individual actions and commitments. The chances that anyone might fool the God who knows even our subconscious thoughts are nil.”[] Of course, this will not be a judgment of condemnation, but rather evaluation.[]
Read verse 1. Why does Paul compare our earthly life to a tent? What does this metaphor tell us about Paul’s view of our lives here on Earth?
Read verses 1-10. What do we learn about our resurrected bodies from this section?
How would you respond to someone who said, “You shouldn’t obsess over eternal things too much, you’ll get out of touch with reality and disconnected from people”?
How would you respond to someone who said, “Doesn’t the ‘bema-seat’ contradict the concept of grace?”
Paul just finished describing his great hope of eternal life in the resurrection. Next, it would only make sense to discuss sharing about this with others that don’t have this hope. This is precisely what Paul does. But how can we share about Christ in a winsome way? Paul tells us in this passage:
(5:11) “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.”
“Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord.” Paul is not afraid of God in the sense of being worried about punishment. Instead, the “fear of the Lord” refers to the “reverential awe Paul had for Christ.”[] The expression doesn’t refer to an “unhealthy dread of God’s judgment because he knows the love of Christ.”[] Paul had already written that we have “courage” (tharreō), which means “to have certainty in a matter, be confident, be courageous” (BDAG). He was confident that he would be with God in eternity. Therefore, whatever the “fear” of the Lord is, it cannot be understood as threatening eternal security. Paul’s “reverential awe” relates back to the judgment of the bema seat (v.10).
“We persuade men.” The term “persuade” (peithō) means “to convince… persuade… appeal to” (BDAG). This refers to evangelism (Acts 17:4; 18:4; 19:8, 26; 26:28; 28:23),[] which is persuasive, but never coercive. The old adage states, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
“But we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.” Paul was living with the constant reminder that God was watching—in view of the bema seat. As Barnett writes, “Every day in the life of the apostolic minister is judgment day.”[]
(5:12) “We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.”
Paul’s critics were “commending” themselves in various ways: their letters of commendation (3:1), their knowledge of Jesus in his earthly ministry (5:17), their Jewish heritage (11:22), and their supposed supernatural visions (12:1-7). Thus, they focused on their “appearance” before people. Yet, God says, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7).
Paul, however, was content to take his integrity from his ministry of evangelism[] and what was in his “heart” before God. Paul hoped that they would trust him (“be proud of us”) so that they could have a rebuttal to the false teachers in Corinth. The false apostles emphasized human recognition and outward credentials, rather than what God cares about: the “heart.”
(5:13) “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.”
“Beside ourselves” (existēmi) literally means to “stand” (histēmi) while being “from” (ek) that position. It can be translated as “astonishment” (Acts 8:9), but it can be understood as “losing one’s mind” or “being out of one’s senses” (BDAG, p.350). For instance, Jesus’ unbelieving family said of him, “He has lost His senses” (Mk. 3:21). This is the usage being used here—especially because it is contrasted with having a “sound mind” (sōphroneō). Other translations correctly render this as “out of our mind” (NIV, NET) or “crazy” (NLT).
Paul was willing to be thought of as a fool or insane (“out of our minds”). After all, who would show such disregard for himself—unless he was “insane”? (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9-13) Would a sane person willingly face a riotous mob intent on destroying him? (Acts 19:30, 21:35-40) Who would be crazy enough to walk back into a city of people who had just recently stoned him? (Acts 14:19-20) This left Paul’s readers with a dilemma: Either Paul was insane, or he was utterly devoted to God. Of course, the Corinthians were also well acquainted with the sane and rational side of Paul (Acts 18:11). So, the answer to this dilemma is obvious: Paul was not insane, but utterly devoted to God. Indeed, even though Paul received the charge of being insane (Acts 26:22-24) he strictly denied this (Acts 26:25). Indeed, Paul was in good company in receiving this accusation (Mk. 3:21; Jn. 10:20).
(5:14) “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.”
Paul’s motivation for serving God was found in knowing that Jesus was his ultimate Judge (v.11) and his Savior (“the love of Christ controls us”). Christ’s sacrificial love is what motivated his sacrificial lifestyle (cf. Phil. 2:5-11, 1 Jn. 3:16).
Did Paul not have free will? The term “controls” (synechō) is only used elsewhere in Philippians 1:23. It means “to hold together as a unit, hold together, sustain… to close by holding together, stop, shut… to press in and around so as to leave little room for movement, press hard, crowd” (BDAG, p.970). Kruse describes this term in this way: “It is the pressure applied not so much to control as to cause action. It is motivational rather than directional force.”[] Furthermore, Paul was controlled, because he was convinced. The term “having concluded this” (krinantas) shows us that he himself was persuaded by the reality of God’s love for himself and for others. Paul was motivated by the “fear of the Lord” (v.11) and the “love of the Lord” (v.14). Fear was Paul’s attitude toward God, and love was God’s attitude toward him.
Does this passage teach universalism? No. “All died” does not mean that all receive forgiveness. Whatever Paul means, he is not speaking literally, because the very next verse mentions these same people continuing to live (“they who live…”). Clearly, not all people choose to live for Christ (specifically non-Christians!). Instead, “they who live” refers to those who choose to accept Christ’s offer of forgiveness. Harris rightly understands this as salvation being universal in its offer, but particular in its acceptance.[] We deserve death, and Jesus paid for that death. Therefore, we “all died.”[] Verses 18-21 make it clear that the people need to surrender to the love of God in order to be reconciled to him. Thus, Garland writes, “Only believers profit from Christ’s death.”[]
(5:15) “He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.”
The goal of the atonement was to motivate people to live for God—not for self. Paul models this in his own life, when he writes that the “love of Christ controls us” (v.14).
(5:16) “Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.”
Paul had been terribly wrong about the supernatural identity of Jesus. This was because Paul only recognized Jesus “according to the flesh.” That is, Paul viewed Jesus by his worldly credentials:
Jesus was poor. Jesus said, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (Mt. 8:20).
Jesus came from a broken home. The religious leaders told Jesus, “We were not born of fornication” (Jn. 8:41).
Jesus came from a poor neighborhood. Nathanael asked Philip, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:46)
Jesus didn’t go to the right schools (or really, any rabbinical schools!). The Jewish people said, “How has this man become learned, having never been educated?” (Jn. 7:15)
Jesus didn’t fulfill the expectations for the Messiah. John records, “Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone” (Jn. 6:15).
Jesus didn’t have political connections. He died all alone after being utterly deserted at his trial.
Jesus wasn’t physically attractive. Regarding Jesus, Isaiah wrote, “He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him” (Isa. 53:2).
Consequently, Paul thought that Jesus was a messianic pretender (Acts 22:3-4; 26:9-11). Because Paul had been so wrong about who Jesus was, this led him to change how he viewed all people (“from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh”). In other words, Paul didn’t want to make such a massive mistake ever again, judging people according to their “outward appearances.” As Jesus said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). Kruse writes, “In his pre-conversion days [Paul] judged Christ using human criteria and came to the wrong conclusion, but after God had been pleased to reveal his Son to him, he had to say we regard him thus no longer, i.e. no longer from a mistaken human point of view.”[]
Critical commentators[] argue that this passage states that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus (i.e. “according to the flesh” = “the historical Jesus”). Now, these commentators argue, Jesus has become the “cosmic Christ,” and we can “know Him in this way [i.e. historically] no longer.” But this is terribly misguided.
For one, Paul continued to cite the historical Jesus’ words as relevant (1 Cor. 7:12; 11:23-25).
Second, the expression “according to the flesh” (kata sarka) always follows the noun, and should be understood as an adverb (i.e. the way we know him).[] Kruse writes, “Paul is talking about a way of knowing (‘according to the flesh’), not about a particular phase of Christ’s existence (Christ after the flesh = the historical Jesus)."[] In other words, this phrase (“according to the flesh”) refers to knowing Christ—not the being of Christ.
Third, and finally, Paul writes that he knows “no one” according to the flesh. Consistency requires that Paul “to mean that he never met anyone in the flesh, which makes nonsense.”[]
(5:17) “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”
Paul discovered that he cannot look at his fellow believers in their old state. Just as we should look at ourselves in our new identity (“a new creation”), we should also look at others in their identity too.
(5:18) “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.”
Paul is the only NT author to use the term “reconciliation” (katallagē). When the term is in the active voice, God is always the subject; when it’s in the passive voice, humans are the subject.[] In other words, God is always the initiator of reconciling us to him—not vice versa.
Now, God uses former enemies to reach His enemies in love. Kruse writes, “The reconciling process is in another sense still incomplete. The preaching of reconciliation has to be carried out and people must hear the call to be reconciled to God. Unless they respond to that call they cannot actually experience the reconciliation.”[]
(5:19) “Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”
“God was in Christ.” This doesn’t mean that the first-person of the Trinity (i.e. God the Father) was inside the second-person of the Trinity (i.e. God the Son). The NIV has this right when it translates “in Christ” as having “instrumental force.”[] Hence, it translates, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (NIV). The way God was bringing about reconciliation was “in Christ,” not that he himself was inside of Christ’s body.
“Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” Jesus judicially paid the penalty for human sin. If he didn’t do this, then reconciliation would be impossible.
“He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” While the price has been paid objectively, we still need to receive this subjectively. God has entrusted this incredible mission to the church.
(5:20) “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
This is the key to evangelism: We need to have God’s heart for lost people. Rather than viewing them according to the flesh (v.16), we need to view them as people for whom Christ died. We should pray for God’s eyes to see people the way God sees them, and God’s heart to love them the way God loves them.
In its immediate context, Paul is urging the Corinthians to be reconciled to God and to reject the false teaching in their church.[] In other words, because God has reconciled the world, and continues to do so, the Corinthians should return to God. This need not imply that they are unbelievers. Rather, Paul is urging them to line up their condition with their position. This immediate context obviously has application for the unbeliever as well, who needs to be reconciled in the first place.
(5:21) “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
“He made Him… to be sin.” Jesus became our vicarious sacrificing, taking on himself our sins. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’” (Gal. 3:13). Garland writes, “The one who lived a sinless life died a sinner’s death.”[]
“To be sin on our behalf” (hyper). Jesus’ death was substitutionary. Garland writes, “There is widespread evidence for the use of the preposition hyper in a substitutionary sense to mean ‘instead of another’ or ‘in the place of another.’”[] Moreover, Paul isn’t teaching that Jesus was our representative in this passage. Jesus was sinless, and humanity is sinful. Paul uses a contrast—not a comparison. Jesus isn’t our representative, but our replacement.
The Reformers called this “The Great Exchange.” We gave Jesus our sin, and He gave us his righteousness. We aren’t just forgiven and brought to “zero.” We are forgiven and given the rights of sonship. It would be like a war hero giving a defector his Purple Heart Medal. People would salute you for the altruistic act that the soldier did—even though you didn’t deserve it.
Read verses 11-21. From this section, what motivators does Paul describe to share his faith?
Some people feel intimidated by the fact that God has “committed to us the word of reconciliation” (v.19). What are other reactions to this truth that we might feel?
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 258.
Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2004), 58.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 258.
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 261.
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 262-263.
Surely Garland affirms this basic theological fact. However, he repeatedly states that Christians receive their resurrected bodies immediately after death, and the “believer will never be found in a bodiless state.” He denies that this is referring to an “interim period or an interim state,” but this seems quite odd because Paul is surely referencing the time between our death and the general resurrection of the dead. What words would one use to describe this period? See David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 260.
Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 114.
Linda L. Belleville, 2 Corinthians, vol. 8, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 1996), 136.
Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 348.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 265-266.
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 276.
Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 350.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 270.
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 280.
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 281.
This, after all, is the context of this statement: “We persuade men” (v.11). Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 282.
Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 120.
Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 352.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 279.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 279.
Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 123.
Rudolph Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (New York: Word, 1956) 197.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 283.
Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 123.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 283.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 289.
Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 125.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 293.
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 311.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 301.
David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 301.
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
