2 Corinthians 5:17-21

[Carbon]

@Bruiser - A couple of quick things

Notice what Paul said? We are ambassadors for Christ. Who is the "we"? Who is he referring to? I think it is obvious, "himself, the apostles."
Paul says, We implore "you," on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. The next question is who is or are the "you?" I cannot see how it would make any sense at all if the "you" were not believers. If they were pagans. Especially considering the context, the very next verse: 21: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
This is only for Christians, not pagans.

He made him who knew no sin, to be sin on whose behalf? "Our behalf". Obviously, it wasn't in behalf of pagans, or all of the visible church. But only the elect, the believers.

And seeing scripture is written to believers, seeing Paul is addressing believers, reconciliation in this context could only mean, repent and be reconciled, stop your sinful lifestyle (we know the Corinthian church was in serious sin), and get it back in order.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The focus here (as my pastor said) is the church; it has nothing to do with the world. This is not even a law text; this is a gospel text. Paul is saying to the church, we apostles are ambassadors, the go-between between God and the Christians, we gave you the gospel, continue to believe, continue to reconcile, come to Christ.


Anyway, Bruiser, here is my understanding, which is what just about everyone here disagrees with. And that is okay. I hope that even though everyone still may disagree, they can see where I am coming from. And I am not teaching a false gospel.

What are your thoughts?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I believe in the text it is speaking of those designated as apostles, who are the ambassadors of whom it is speaking.

Huh . It seems you said one thing, then contradicted yourself, saying the opposite? I know you didn't, but you lost me.

I'm saying it is calling the Apostles the Ambassadors, in this text. On that I agree with you.

makesends said:
What I don't agree is that it therefore means rest of the redeemed believers cannot be ambassadors,

Well, to be an ambassador, the message has to be translated just about identically as it came from the king himself. Which one of us Christians was commissioned for such, but an apostle?

I only see that use in this text. Are there other texts saying the same? I.e. I don't see this text establishing an Office of Ambassador. Only Paul's use of the term as a description of the job he and the other Apostles have undertaken

Are we to share the gospel? Of course. I'm thinking perhaps it is the reconciled part that is throwing things off. Pardon me for saying, a simple misunderstanding of reconcile in this passage is blurring the meaning of ambassador.

On the contrary, regardless of the meaning of "reconcile"—or, rather, who the group is that is enjoined to 'reconcile' themselves to God in verse 20, the continuing description of the Gospel in the context designates the "preaching" of the Gospel, which is every believer's job.

While I don't see that our duty necessarily crosses over to the "ambassador"-ship of which Paul speaks, I don't think he is speaking of an Office of Ambassadorship, but simply, when he says, "we", that he is talking of himself and the other Apostles. Not establishing an office. I'm not going to call the term a figure-of-speech exactly, but it seems to me that he is using it loosely—not quite saying he and the Apostles are priests or go-betweens, to represent God to the people and to carry the people's issues to God—nor quite saying that he and the Apostles have no authority to deal God's Word to the people. Of course they were burdened with that authority. The Canon wasn't complete! (But the Apostles were not an insertion between God and man. The individuals of the early church were responsible to their own consciences, as many passages demonstrate.)

This was not an early edition of the RCC. (Hmmm ...Maybe a Roman Catholic can explain why Mary is not referenced in the NT as Go-between for us commoners.)

 

[Carbon]

makesends said:
I believe in the text it is speaking of those designated as apostles, who are the ambassadors of whom it is speaking.

I'm saying it is calling the Apostles the Ambassadors, in this text. On that I agree with you.

makesends said:
What I don't agree is that it therefore means rest of the redeemed believers cannot be ambassadors,

I only see that use in this text. Are there other texts saying the same? I.e. I don't see this text establishing an Office of Ambassador. Only Paul's use of the term as a description of the job he and the other Apostles have undertaken

On the contrary, regardless of the meaning of "reconcile"—or, rather, who the group is that is enjoined to 'reconcile' themselves to God in verse 20, the continuing description of the Gospel in the context designates the "preaching" of the Gospel, which is every believer's job.

While I don't see that our duty necessarily crosses over to the "ambassador"-ship of which Paul speaks, I don't think he is speaking of an Office of Ambassadorship, but simply, when he says, "we", that he is talking of himself and the other Apostles. Not establishing an office. I'm not going to call the term a figure-of-speech exactly, but it seems to me that he is using it loosely—not quite saying he and the Apostles are priests or go-betweens, to represent God to the people and to carry the people's issues to God—nor quite saying that he and the Apostles have no authority to deal God's Word to the people. Of course they were burdened with that authority. The Canon wasn't complete! (But the Apostles were not an insertion between God and man. The individuals of the early church were responsible to their own consciences, as many passages demonstrate.)

This was not an early edition of the RCC. (Hmmm ...Maybe a Roman Catholic can explain why Mary is not referenced in the NT as Go-between for us commoners.)

I see we agree on some things here. And where we may not agree, I have to admit I truly admire not only your knowledge, but your wisdom in many biblical matters. You are very thought-provoking. Keeps me on my toes, I thank the Lord for your fellowship.

 

[Bruiser]

@Bruiser - A couple of quick things

Notice what Paul said? We are ambassadors for Christ. Who is the "we"? Who is he referring to? I think it is obvious, "himself, the apostles."
Paul says, We implore "you," on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. The next question is who is or are the "you?" I cannot see how it would make any sense at all if the "you" were not believers. If they were pagans. Especially considering the context, the very next verse: 21: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
This is only for Christians, not pagans.

He made him who knew no sin, to be sin on whose behalf? "Our behalf". Obviously, it wasn't in behalf of pagans, or all of the visible church. But only the elect, the believers.

And seeing scripture is written to believers, seeing Paul is addressing believers, reconciliation in this context could only mean, repent and be reconciled, stop your sinful lifestyle (we know the Corinthian church was in serious sin), and get it back in order.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The focus here (as my pastor said) is the church; it has nothing to do with the world. This is not even a law text; this is a gospel text. Paul is saying to the church, we apostles are ambassadors, the go-between between God and the Christians, we gave you the gospel, continue to believe, continue to reconcile, come to Christ.


Anyway, Bruiser, here is my understanding, which is what just about everyone here disagrees with. And that is okay. I hope that even though everyone still may disagree, they can see where I am coming from. And I am not teaching a false gospel.

What are your thoughts?

I like your stance. It can stand as the meaning of Saint Paul; and is teachable as Doctrine...

I also think our being Ambassadors is teachable as Doctrine. Saint Paul could have as easily said "We are God's Apostles", instead of saying Ambassadors. All can be Ambassadors but not all can be Apostles. I think this is why he used an alternative for Apostles; to expand the Missions of Reconciliation to Us all...

The Mission to Reconcile Men to God, that is. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

 

[Carbon]

I like your stance. It can stand as the meaning of Saint Paul; and is teachable as Doctrine...

I also think our being Ambassadors is teachable as Doctrine. Saint Paul could have as easily said "We are God's Apostles", instead of saying Ambassadors. All can be Ambassadors but not all can be Apostles. I think this is why he used an alternative for Apostles; to expand the Missions of Reconciliation to Us all...

As usual, brother, your replies are thoughtful and thought-provoking as well; you have some really good points.

I tend to push myself and overstudy things often. Can't help myself. What keeps me with my present understanding, however, is context, but not only the immediate context, but scripture as a whole (and I am far from figuring most of it out). I dont have time to explain my ambassador understanding tonight, which probably does not really matter so much, but I know you understand where I am coming from, even though we may not agree.

 

[makesends]

Bruiser said:
What would you say about Saint Paul's missed opportunity to use the word Apostles instead of the word Ambassadors? Ambassadors is something we all can be; not so much Apostles...

I also think our being Ambassadors is teachable as Doctrine. Saint Paul could have as easily said "We are God's Apostles", instead of saying Ambassadors. All can be Ambassadors but not all can be Apostles. I think this is why he used an alternative for Apostles; to expand the Missions of Reconciliation to Us all...

The Mission to Reconcile Men to God, that is. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

I'm guessing this answer to @Carbon is what you were talking about in that question to me about Paul's "missed opportunity".

I'm not seeing it as significant—at least, not as Paul doing so as doctrinally applicable to the rest of us. (Not saying that it isn't; I'm just saying that aspect doesn't seem to me taught here.)

 

[Carbon]

I like your stance. It can stand as the meaning of Saint Paul; and is teachable as Doctrine...

Thanks, its interesting you would say this . . .

I also think our being Ambassadors is teachable as Doctrine.

. . . especially because, you then say this



So which one is it?

 

[Carbon]

From looking into these subjects, I have found many interesting teachings. I'd like to share a few things, whether anyone agrees or not, does not really matter, but I think/hope you will enjoy it. And yes, I do believe it agrees and even confirms what I have been trying to say. And please don't tell me, we dont follow Calvin or Brown: I know that, and neither do I. I believe it is not only awesome writing but beautiful as well. I hope you all at the least enjoy.

I would like to share some writing from Rev. John Brown of Haddington, A Scottish Reformed Theologian) John Brown (1784-1858) Author Biography – Banner of Truth USA

If you get time, read this man's BIO. It's pretty amazing. Oh, what a brother in Christ he is!


Reflections upon Chap. V. of 2 Corinthians. - Fraility, sinfulness, and sorrows attend the best of men on earth. But happy they who have a blessed assurance of eternal fellowship with Christ in heaven! No wonder they long for it, and groan to be delivered from their present pressures and plagues. And happy they who are fitted for it, and have the Holy Ghost dwelling in their hearts as an earnest of it, and who are, by faith, daily walking forward to it, and diligently finishing the work which God hath allotted them in this life! How tremendous will be the last judgement, in which all men that are, have been, or shall be, must appear together before Christ, and have their eternal state publicly and irreversibly fixed, according to their qualities and works! - In a most conscientious and active manner ought ministers and others to behave in the view of it. And slumbering sinners must be awakened by these terrors of the Lord. But it is most delightful to be constrained by the faith and sense of Jesus' love, to live and labor always for his glory and the salvation of men. And never ought he or his blessings to be viewed in a carnal manner. No profession or practice, without new principles of grace in our hearts, can prove us united to him; and nothing less can answer the design of the gospel, or of God's substitution of His Son as our Surety in our stead. Now think, my soul, what God hath done, and doth, and speaks, and is to me: and let me not persist a moment longer in opposition to, in rebellion against, such amazing kindness and condescension.

 

[Carbon]

Now, I would like to share (some of) Rev John Brown of Haddington's notes on 2 Corinthians 5:20-21.

5:20 Wherefore, as his highly dignified messengers, sent to deal with you in his stead, we do, in the name and authority of Christ, and his Father, beseech and entreat you, by everything endearing or awful in heaven, earth, or hell, and in time or eternity, to consider and accept God's graciously [prepared, dearly purchased, and freely offered peace, favor, and friendship, and to surrender up yourselves to him, to be espoused to Christ, saved by him, and entirely and heartily devoted to him and his service.

5:21 For in justice to himself, his law, and government, and in rich mercy and grace to Jews and Gentiles, God the Father hath imputed our sins to His own perfectly holy and only begotten Son, as our Surety, and hath fully punished them on him, that in consequence of our spiritual union to his person, his complete righteousness of obedience and suffering, which forever resides in him, but was contrived, fulfilled, and accepted by God for us, might be imputed to us, to render us perfectly free from guilt, and righteous unto eternal life before him.

 

[Carbon]

Now, I would like to share (some of) Rev John Brown of Haddington's notes on 2 Corinthians 5:20-21.

5:20 Wherefore, as his highly dignified messengers, sent to deal with you in his stead, we do, in the name and authority of Christ, and his Father, beseech and entreat you, by everything endearing or awful in heaven, earth, or hell, and in time or eternity, to consider and accept God's graciously [prepared, dearly purchased, and freely offered peace, favor, and friendship, and to surrender up yourselves to him, to be espoused to Christ, saved by him, and entirely and heartily devoted to him and his service.

5:21 For in justice to himself, his law, and government, and in rich mercy and grace to Jews and Gentiles, God the Father hath imputed our sins to His own perfectly holy and only begotten Son, as our Surety, and hath fully punished them on him, that in consequence of our spiritual union to his person, his complete righteousness of obedience and suffering, which forever resides in him, but was contrived, fulfilled, and accepted by God for us, might be imputed to us, to render us perfectly free from guilt, and righteous unto eternal life before him.

I believe Rev. John Brown and my pastor agree, as I said in a previous post:

The focus here (as my pastor said) is the church; it has nothing to do with the world. This is not even a law text; this is a gospel text. Paul is saying to the church, we apostles are ambassadors, the go-between between God and the Christians, we gave you the gospel, continue to believe, continue to reconcile, come to Christ.


I must say, I see this as so clear.