Reconciliation according to the New Way of Knowing
Whether Paul held this precise view of reconciliation prior to his conversion is difficult to know. The consistency of the view among the Jewish sources suggests, at a minimum, that it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that he would have held something like this prior to his conversion. As Paul takes up the theological language of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5, though, he offers an alternative account that turns the main features around. Like his contemporaries, he identifies disobedience as the issue that causes the disruption in the relationship between God and humanity. Yet, unlike his contemporaries, he claims that the solution originates from God.
Divine Initiative in Reconciliation
Since Paul’s new way of evaluating everything is according to Christ, the starting point for this investigation should be how he presents the divine solution. First, then, one should note that, at the outset, Paul stresses that God has taken the initiative. The opening statement of this section, “All this is from God who reconciles us” (v.18), places firmly before the reader a picture of an active and initiating God. Aside from the imperative in v.20, the active agent throughout the whole section is God. The structure of the section indicates that the imperative has its basis in the prior act of God. In v.18 and v.19, Paul recounts twice that God has established reconciliation, and it is on this basis that the appeal of v.20 is made.
Furthermore, Marshall has shown that Paul’s use of the active voice καταλλάξαντος to describe God removing the reason for his anger against humanity is unusual, if not unique.[23] In other texts, the verb is used in four ways: (1) in the active for a third party persuading two people to give up their anger against one another; (2) in the active for a person persuading another to give up his or her anger; (3) in the passive or middle in the same manner as (2); and (4) in the passive for a person giving up his anger toward another. Paul’s use of the active voice does not fit any of these usages. His unusual grammar suggests that he is making a distinctive theological point—namely, that reconciliation is initiated by God. God does not wait for humanity to turn to him. Rather, he initiates the process of reconciliation by setting aside his enmity. Furnish captures the sense nicely: “Here the reconciliation is not of God but from and to God.”[24]
The Method of God’s Reconciliation
The divine decision to set aside hostility takes place in the work of Christ. This is noted from the outset with “through Christ” in v.18 and the phrase θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ in v.19.[25] Neither statement, however, gives much specification to how God has acted in Christ. This lack of detail is filled out in vv.14–15 and v.21.
Although Paul does not name Jesus Christ in vv.14–15, it is beyond doubt that he is describing him as the one who dies for all humanity and the one to whom the living are to orientate their lives.[26] At a minimum, the statement presumes that the “one” represents the rest of humanity. The preposition ὑπέρ may also indicate substitution: Christ stood in the place of humanity.[27] The preposition alone is insufficient to carry the weight of any understanding of the atonement, and it is in v.21 particularly that Paul fills out the meaning of vv.14-15.
Verse 21 is soteriologically rich and stands apart in the context as a declarative announcement of how God has worked reconciliation.[28] Its richness is masked in its terseness, and the meaning of almost every word is widely disputed. The primary concern now is to see how Paul’s new way of knowing according to Christ is expressed in his account of how God has worked in Jesus by making him “sin.”
Although he committed no sin, Christ is “made ἁμαρτία” (ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν). Two issues arise from this statement: what does ἁμαρτία mean, and when was Jesus “made” sin? Many argue that ἁμαρτία refers to the “sin offering” (חטאת; Leviticus 4).[29] However, this does not seem to be the best interpretation since ἁμαρτία is not normally used for the sin offering and there are no cultic references in the immediate context.[30] More likely, Paul’s statement indicates that Jesus came into a profound relationship with sin itself. It may indicate “that Paul is thinking in a general way of Christ’s identification with sinful humanity.”[31] This general level, however, does not account for the contrast that Paul creates between Christ and “we.” A better option is presented by Bultmann: “this clause intends to express the paradoxical fact that God made the (ethically) sinless Christ to be a sinner (in the forensic sense)—viz. by letting him die on the cross as one accursed (cf. Gal. 3:13).”[32] In this position, Christ identifies with sinful humanity because “he came to stand in that relation with God which normally is the result of sin, estranged from God and the object of his wrath.”[33]
The next issue to decide is when Christ came to be recognized as a sinner. Most scholars understand this as a reference to Jesus’ crucifixion because of the earlier statement about Jesus’ death (vv.14–15).[34] However, Hooker rightly cautions, “we should again be wary of driving a wedge between incarnation and crucifixion.”[35] Although, for Paul, the cross is the high point of God’s salvific work in Jesus, this event cannot be isolated from the totality of Jesus’ human existence. The phrase τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν probably refers to Jesus as a human and means that he committed no actual sins during his life.[36] It is by becoming human that the Son of God participates in the human realm, identifying with other humans in their sin and being identified by his Father as a sinner.[37] In his death, he suffers the judgment due all sinners because his whole life has been one marked by the reality that he was “made sin.”[38]
Paul’s portrayal of God becoming human is the trigger that led him to a new understanding of the world, humanity, and God (v.16). Out of his new way of knowing arises Paul’s claim that Jesus “became sin.” Just as his paradoxical claim that his sufferings are proof of his ministry success arose from his new way of knowing, so here, Paul extends the idea of God becoming human to the paradox that he became a sinner.[39] In developing this understanding of God’s action, Paul has not entirely abandoned the tradition that reconciliation required a human action. He presents Jesus here as a human—indeed, a human caught up in the very depths of the human plight. He even presents Jesus as something of a martyr, not unlike the brothers of 2 Maccabees. Yet, the crucial and vital difference for Paul is that the act of Jesus is not that of a mere human. Rather, God is at work in Jesus. The act of reconciliation, then, is both a divine and human act: a divinely initiated action in which God becomes human.
The Reconfigured Human Plight
In his act in Christ, God establishes a means by which the hostility between himself and humanity can be resolved, and this raises the question of what caused the rupture in the relationship. From Paul’s presentation of Christ as “the sinless one made sin” arises his view of the plight. The expression “for us” in v.21, which reconnects with vv.14–15, indicates that this divine act is for the benefit of humanity. These expressions are imprecise and raise the question of how Christ’s life and death are “for us.” It is in v.19 that more precision is given. Here, Paul claims that the rupture between God and humans was caused by “transgressions.”[40] This comment disrupts the repetition between v.18 and v.19 and functions to clarify both why reconcili-ation is needed (human disobedience) and how God will resolve it (“not counting their trespasses [παραπτώματα] against them”).[41] Importantly, this view of the plight matches Paul’s vision of Christ as “made sin.”
The description of Christ as “not knowing sin [ἁμαρτίαν]” and “being made sin [ἁμαρτίαν]” suggests that Paul is here using the terms ἁμαρτία and παράπτωμα as equivalents. While the term παράπτωμα is not widely used by Paul (or the rest of the NT), it is a particularly Pauline term and the idea to which it points is widespread.[42] It has the basic denotation of “a violation of moral standards,”[43] and belongs with other words t
hat indicate disobedience. In the immediate context, disobedience may primarily convey the notion of living for one’s self (5:15). More widely, Paul spends much of his letters to the Corinthians exposing the variety of ways in which their lives fail to match God’s expectations.
Whereas Paul’s Jewish contemporaries thought that their sinfulness presented no real problem for their ability to act, Paul’s account of reconciliation makes the exact opposite point. For Paul, transgressions are not merely a human problem of disobedience that can be resolved by a renewed attempt at obedience. Instead, the disobedience of humanity has radically disrupted and distorted the divine-human relationship, and it is impossible for the human alone to restore it. This vision of the problem is one consequence of Paul’s new way of knowing according to Christ. God’s decisive action in Christ reveals to Paul a deeper understanding of the human plight than can be grasped before and outside of knowing in light of Christ. As Käsemann comments, “The cross also shows us that from the aspect of the question of salvation, true man is always the sinner who is fundamentally unable to help himself, who cannot by his own action bridge the endless distance to God, and who is hence a member of the lost, chaotic, futile world, which at best waits for the resurrection of the dead.”[44]
Paul’s account of God’s action in Christ coheres well with Martyn’s description of God’s action as one of invasion. That is, the claim Paul makes is that God has entered into the human realm in a profound and drastic manner to free humans. Although the account is not that of freedom from the Powers, it is nonetheless a liberation: humans are freed from their destructive selves. This perception of liberation, though, includes an element of a forensic understanding of the atonement. For in God’s act of making Christ sin, he removes the problem of human transgression that led to his enmity with humanity by “not reckoning their transgressions to them” (5:19). This action, as Käsemann remarked, “makes the saving event evident in the forgiveness of the accumulated guilt of sin.”[45] It is precisely in this act of “non-imputation,” which is attained by virtue of Christ becoming sin, that God removes the enmity that existed between himself and humanity.[46]
The Recreated Human
Before concluding this study, one final element should be addressed. An important feature of Martyn’s interpretation of Paul is his contention that humans are recreated as competent agents. For Martyn, this recreation happens when God meets humanity in the word of the cross. In this encounter, God abolishes the old age account of the human, who was incompetent and enslaved, and recreates the human agent as “the corporate, newly competent and newly addressable agent” who is being shaped into the image of the Son.[47] This important element of Martyn’s account is also evident in these verses.
Emphasized throughout 2 Cor. 5.11–21 is that the divine act was “for us.” This divine act has the purpose and result (ἵνα) that “we might become the righteousness of God in him” (v.21). According to Käsemann, the phrase “the righteousness of God” denotes God’s salvific activity.[48] While Käsemann built his view on Paul’s statements in Romans, Hooker and Campbell have argued that a similar understanding can also be found in this verse.[49] Differently, Wright reads this phrase as a statement of God’s covenantal faithfulness, which is being displayed through Paul’s ministry. That is, Paul as a minister of the gospel embodies God’s covenant faithfulness.[50] At the risk of sidestepping the extensive debate about the phrase “the righteousness of God,” several observations can be made about the statement here.[51]
First, one must give due attention to the verb “become.”[52] The verb parallels “made” in the previous clause and indicates a change from one category to another. This suggests that the phrase “righteousness of God” denotes a characteristic of God. In the same manner that Christ is perceived as having the identity of a sinner when he is made sin, believers take on a new identity when they are transformed into God’s righteous character. Both verbs may recall the “new creation” language of v.17. Certainly, the process being described in v.17 and v.21 is the same: a change from one position (old person and transgressor) to a new position (new creation and “righteousness of God”). The two ideas may be brought together in this manner: the believer is identified not by one’s old status as a transgressor, but rather, by the new creation as “the righteousness of God.”
Giving due attention to the verb “become” calls into question Käsemann’s and others’ interpretation. It makes little sense to claim that believers “become” the saving activity of God, a statement that is fundamentally about divine activity. By contrast, while Wright’s interpretation can better account for the verb “become,” his interpretation fails to maintain the parallelism in the verse.[53] The parallelism suggests something related to the natures of Christ and of believers, an idea that is lost in Wright’s interpretation of “righteousness of God” as Paul’s missionary work.
Second, the prepositional clause “in him” is crucial. It indicates that this statement is an expression of participation or union. Far from opposing forensic and participatory categories, this statement unites them together. By being united to Christ, believers become the righteousness of God. Drawing upon the description of Christ’s story in 2 Corinthians, Aernie contends that “to become the righteousness of God is an explicit statement about the reality that Christians are defined by their participation in Christ’s story or narrative, that they are defined by their participation in this new creation.”[54] And this participation in the new creation is identified as a change from a transgressor to being righteous.
This change in status and condition brings with it a change in agency. After summarizing God’s act of reconciliation in 5:18–19, Paul highlights that he and his co-workers are God’s ambassadors who appeal to all καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ (v.20). Regardless of how one understands the voice (passive or middle) of the imperative, the key point is that those who hear the divine call are viewed as active participants.[55] This action, though, is not that of an autonomous human. Rather, the call must be viewed in light of God’s action in Christ to bring forgiveness for transgressions. It was the human outside of Christ who was bound up in transgression. Now, united to Christ, the reconciled human hears the gospel message that God has reconciled the world to himself and responds.[56] By giving himself in Christ, God draws humanity into union with himself (through the Son) and this union forms the basis on which believers act. Their action is thus predicated upon union with Christ and the new identity of being God’s righteousness. The believer’s task, then, is not to placate God nor to perform some action by which reconciliation can be attained (in a manner similar to the martyred sons of 2 Maccabees 7).[57] The appeal is probably not even for the human to set aside his or her own opposition toward God. Rather, the call here is for the human to recognize that God has accomplished reconciliation and recreated the human into a new being who is capable now to follow God.[58]
In the immediate context, this conception of human action takes two primary forms. There is, first, the task of making known God’s act of reconciliation. In vv.18–19, the act of God to establish reconciliation is matched by Paul’s apostolic task to deliver that message: the reconciled becomes the ambassador for the divine reconciler (v.20). Second, the newly created human agents are called to live “no longer for themselves but for the one who died for them and was raised” (v.15). Rather than selfish lives that produce transgressions, those united to Christ devote themselves to him. Paul’s vision of the newly created moral agent arises from his new way of knowing. Because God took such drastic measures in sending his Son, this shows to Paul that humanity was bankrupt. Now, after the incarnation, Paul sees that God has made it possible for humans to hear again the call to live moral lives—lives that are shaped and determined by the incarnation.
Conclusion
As outlined at the beginning of this chapter, one version of the apocalyptic Paul has maintained that the human plight, according to Paul, is fundamentally about enslavement
to the Powers and not guilt and disobedience. Second Corinthians 5:18–21 is a thorn for this interpretation because it clearly identifies the plight as transgressions. In this chapter, though, I have attempted to show how this passage is actually infused with the premises of this interpretive tradition. God’s action in Christ has led Paul to a new way of knowing and evaluating everything around him. He contends that God has worked through Christ by identifying him as a sinner. This understanding of the Christ-event leads Paul to the idea that the human problem was transgressions. Over against other claims that humans are transgressors, though, Paul maintains that the plight cannot be resolved by virtue of a renewed attempt at obedience. He knows this because God has acted so decisively in Christ. Because God took the initiative, this reveals to Paul that the human was incapable of restoring the relationship. As well, Paul’s new understanding of the plight and the solution is accompanied by a new understanding of human agency. As transgressors, humans were rendered incompetent, but now, as the righteousness of God, they are fully enabled to respond to the divine word. The solution has given insight to the problem.
If this reading has any merit, then it follows that the dichotomy between a plight of enslavement to the Powers and one of human disobedience and guilt must be rejected. There is, to be sure, much to be said for the contention that in Galatians and Romans, Paul describes the human plight as (primarily) enslavement to hostile Powers.[59] Nevertheless, a full apocalyptic interpretation of Paul must account not only for his description of humans as enslaved, but also his insight into the human will as deeply sinful.
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination Page 39
