2 Corinthians 5:17-21

[Josheb]

If I can throw this out there, those who are Reformed might want to see what Calvin, Owen and many other reformed and puritans believe on this.

Hmmm... Are we to follow Paul firsthand or Calvin secondhand?

Snippets from Calvin's commentary on the 2 Cor. 5 text in regards to the "ambassador":

When, therefore, a duly ordained minister proclaims in the gospel, that God has been made propitious to us, he is to be listened to just as an ambassador of God, and sustaining, as they speak, a public character, and furnished with rightful authority for assuring us of this.................... [then he rags on the RCC for a while]

I do not, indeed, deny, that the grace of Christ is applied to us in the sacraments, and that our reconciliation with God is then confirmed in our consciences; but, as the testimony of the Gospel is engraven upon the sacraments, they are not to be judged of separately by themselves, but must be taken in connection with the Gospel, of which they are appendages. In fine, the ministers of the Church are ambassadors, for testifying and proclaiming the benefit of reconciliation, only on this condition -- that they speak from the Gospel, as from an authentic register.

20. As if God did beseech you This is of no small importance for giving authority to the embassy: nay more, it is absolutely necessary, for who would rest upon the testimony of men, in reference to his eternal salvation? It is a matter of too much importance, to allow of our resting contented with the promise of men, without feeling assured that they are ordained by God, and that God speaks to us by them. This is the design of those commendations, with which Christ himself signalizes his Apostles............ For that one thing, that is of itself sufficient for completing our felicity, and without which we are most miserable, is conferred upon us, only through means of the Gospel. If, however, this duty is enjoined upon all the ministers of the Church, in such a way, that he who does not discharge this embassy is not to be regarded either as an Apostle, or as a Pastor, we may very readily judge from this, as to the nature of the Pope's entire hierarchy. They are desirous, indeed, to be looked upon as Apostles and Pastors; but as they are dumb idols, how will their boasting correspond with this passage of Paul's writings.

Be reconciled. It is to be observed, that Paul is here addressing himself to believers. He declares, that he brings to them every day this embassy. Christ therefore, did not suffer, merely that he might once expiate our sins, nor was the gospel appointed merely with a view to the pardon of those sins which we committed previously to baptism, but that, as we daily sin, so we might, also, by a daily remission, be received by God into his favor. For this is a continued embassy, which must be assiduously sounded forth in the Church, till the end of the world; and the gospel cannot be preached, unless remission of sins is promised.​

and in regard to reconciliation:

Who hath reconciled us Here there are two leading points -- the one relating to the reconciliation of men with God; and the other, to the way in which we may enjoy the benefit of this reconciliation. Now these things correspond admirably with what goes before, for as the Apostle had given the preference to a good conscience above every kind of distinction, (2 Corinthians 5:11,) he now shows that the whole of the gospel tends to this. He shows, however, at the same time, the dignity of the Apostolical office, that the Corinthians may be instructed as to what they ought to seek in him, whereas they could not distinguish between true and false ministers, for this reason, that nothing but show delighted them. Accordingly, by making mention of this, he stirs them up to make greater proficiency in the doctrine of the gospel. For an absurd admiration of profane persons, who serve their own ambition rather than Christ, originates in our not knowing, what the office of the preaching of the gospel includes, or imports.

I now return to those two leading points that are here touched upon. The first is -- that God hath reconciled us to himself by Christ This is immediately followed by the declaration -- Because God was in Christ and has in his person accomplished reconciliation........

God was in Christ. Some take this as meaning simply -- God reconciled the world to himself in Christ; but the meaning is fuller and more comprehensive -- first, that God was in Christ; and, secondly, that he reconciled the world to himself by his intercession. It is also of the Father that this is affirmed; for it were an improper expression, were you to understand it as meaning, that the divine nature of Christ was in him. The Father, therefore, was in the Son, in accordance with that statement --​

And Owen:

5:16-21 The renewed man acts upon new principles, by new rules, with new ends, and in new company. The believer is created anew; his heart is not merely set right, but a new heart is given him. He is the workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Though the same as a man, he is changed in his character and conduct. These words must and do mean more than an outward reformation. The man who formerly saw no beauty in the Saviour that he should desire him, now loves him above all things. The heart of the unregenerate is filled with enmity against God, and God is justly offended with him. Yet there may be reconciliation. Our offended God has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. By the inspiration of God, the Scriptures were written, which are the word of reconciliation; showing that peace has been made by the cross, and how we may be interested therein. Though God cannot lose by the quarrel, nor gain by the peace, yet he beseeches sinners to lay aside their enmity, and accept the salvation he offers. Christ knew no sin. He was made Sin; not a sinner, but Sin, a Sin-offering, a Sacrifice for sin. The end and design of all this was, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, might be justified freely by the grace of God through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Can any lose, labour, or suffer too much for Him, who gave his beloved Son to be the Sacrifice for their sins, that they might be made the righteousness of God in him?​

 

[John Bauer]

If I understand you correctly, you agree? Apostles and church leaders are ambassadors? Not all Christians?

I do agree—sort of.

I agree that “ambassadors” is applicable to the apostles and their ministerial associates, not to believers generally. But I also think it was an apostolic function that disappeared along with that office. The ordinary minister of the Word today is the nearest continuing analogue, I said, but it is “nearest” precisely because that apostolic function ceased.

Ministers today do represent Christ, of course, but it’s not under the same kind of apostolic commission and authority as Paul in our text. Theirs is a subordinate, derivative proclamatory function; they preach the gospel of Christ and publicly call men to reconciliation but they are speaking the apostolic Word already given in Scripture.

Okay. But I disagree.

You disagree with what? And why? Where is your argument?

I agree, but considering the plain meanings of words, this is not what is happening.

What isn’t happening? And the plain meaning of what words? Again, where is your argument?

I used reprobate so there would be no mistake in the distinction between believers and unbelievers. That's all.

Indeed, but in so doing you prejudiced the question and caused your own confusion.

Does Scripture teach that unbelievers are to be reconciled to God? Yes, but not every unbeliever without distinction. The category “unbelievers” is much broader than “reprobate,” for it includes not only the reprobate but also the elect in their unregenerate state, unbelievers who by the grace of God do come to faith through the gospel call (and thus become believers).

I am not aware of Scripture teaching anywhere that the reprobate are to be reconciled to God. You’re right, that wouldn’t make sense. But that is precisely why your substitution of “reprobate” for “unbelievers” distorted the question, producing something that didn’t make sense. The outward call is indiscriminate because we don’t know which “unbelievers” are the “unregenerate elect” and which are the “reprobate,” but the inward call is discriminate because God calls and regenerates only his elect.

“The call to be reconciled doesn’t apply to those who are not saved.”

Why not? Are they not the very ones who need to be reconciled?

Already explained.

Where? At least provide a quote with a link.

Pagans cannot be reconciled to God.

That is either false or tautological, depending on what you mean by “pagans.” If you mean to say that unbelieving Gentile idolaters cannot be reconciled, then that is false. If you’re referring to those who persist in unbelief and die in that state, then it’s tautological. The apostolic mission to the Gentiles refutes the former, while the latter being tautological proves nothing.

In Scripture, the term “pagan” refers to a person outside the worship of the true God, especially in polytheistic or idolatrous religion. There were Gentile unbelievers who were pagan (e.g., Dionysius and Damaris), and Gentile unbelievers who were not pagans (e.g., Cornelius and Lydia), all of whom were called to be reconciled to God through the gospel of Christ.

They were never united in the first place.

Nobody is—until they are.

And how does [Simon Magus] apply to your case?

He illustrates the principle that mere inclusion in the visible covenant community does not guarantee salvific reconciliation to God. That matters because it thwarts the false premise that everyone addressed within the church is necessarily regenerate, and thus shows why it is neither absurd nor conceptually impossible for an imperative such as “be reconciled to God” to be addressed to the covenant community.

Were talking about two different things now.

Then perhaps you need to state more clearly what you are talking about. I have now made it very clear what I am talking about. If we are still talking past each other, the problem is no longer lack of clarity on my side. You will need to define your terms and identify the exact point at issue so that we can proceed on the same track. Responding with just “I disagree” or “that’s not what I mean” doesn’t clarify anything.

If unbelievers are not united to Christ, then they need to be reconciled.

I disagree. And you cannot prove that to be so.

Again, there is zero clarity provided here. You disagree. Fine—but why?

Just for the record, I most certainly can prove that unbelievers are not united to Christ and are thus in need of being reconciled. And it boggles my mind that you disagree with this stance. I am truly baffled.

It is therefore right and sensible that Paul should call them to be reconciled—because they are not, and they need to be.

No. Believers, yes.

Believers are already reconciled. Paul tells us in Romans 5:10-11 that believers have been “reconciled to God through the death of his Son” and will, much more, be “saved by his life.” Thus we rejoice “in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.” He also says in Colossians 1:21-22 that Christ Jesus “has reconciled [us] by his physical body through death” to present us holy, without blemish, and blameless before God.

And so on.

That is what you’re up against with this passage in 2 Corinthians 5:20. Paul addresses the church in Corinth with that imperative, so either one of two things must be true:

(1) He is speaking apostolically in an ambassadorial capacity, describing the general burden of his embassy rather than asserting that every Corinthian addressee is personally unreconciled.

(2) His imperative lands, at least in its cutting edge, upon those within the visible church who are not in fact reconciled to God, despite their outward inclusion in the covenant community.
​

What doesn’t make sense is the idea that reconciled believers are being told to enter into a reconciliation they already possess.

To preempt where you may be headed: There is a difference between an exhortation grounded in a reality already possessed and an imperative commanding the acquisition of that reality. Yes, believers are exhorted to walk worthy of their calling, to continue abiding in Christ, to hold fast the gospel, and so on.

But such exhortations presuppose reconciliation; believers are summoned to live in a manner consonant with what God has already accomplished in Christ. The imperative “be reconciled to God,” taken in its natural soteriological sense, is not of that type, for reconciliation is not a mode of conduct. When Paul speaks of reconciliation doctrinally, he does not treat it as an ongoing moral task for the regenerate to enter more fully. Reconciliation is a redemptive benefit accomplished by God through the death of his Son and received by faith.

One must not confuse the entailments of reconciliation with reconciliation itself. Believers are exhorted to the former; unbelievers are summoned to the latter.

I think you are misunderstanding the word.

I encourage you to make that case exegetically. I am open to being corrected.

As long as someone has their mind made up about the meaning of a word, it's virtually impossible for them to see it differently.

That sort of remark is uncalled for and evasive. My mind has been made up about a lot of things which I have since abandoned. I was once persuaded of Arminianism, dispensationalism, and premillennialism. I hold none of those views today.

It is not virtually impossible. But it does take more than “you misunderstand” or “I disagree” without any argument, which explains nothing and proves nothing (and cannot move anyone). A compelling exegetical argument is needed.

Brother, I believe your understanding is in error.

You believe that, and yet you don’t explain.

Unless you agree with @brightfame52 …

I do not, for believers are reconciled by union with Christ through faith, which happens in time, not eternity past.

I mentioned this before, and dont care to explain it all again.

You don’t need to explain it all again. You need only say, “I already explained that here”—and provide a link.

Christ's core mission was to reconcile mankind and all things to God. This particular situation with Paul and the Corinthians does not apply here.

You have it reversed. We are discussing Paul’s imperative to the church in Corinth, and an appeal to Christ’s “core mission” is too broad to settle that narrower exegetical question. Yes, Christ came to reconcile all things to God in the cosmic and redemptive sense. But that does not answer the specific question at hand: In 2 Corinthians 5:20, to whom is the imperative “be reconciled to God” directed, and in what sense?

καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ is passive because reconciliation is God’s work, not ours; it is imperative because that reconciling work must be personally embraced;

[Embraced] in which way?

By faith.

If I can throw this out there, those who are Reformed might want to see what Calvin, Owen and many other reformed and puritans believe on this.

I am familiar with what Calvin believed on this.

 

[Carbon]

I do agree—sort of.

I agree that “ambassadors” is applicable to the apostles and their ministerial associates, not to believers generally. But I also think it was an apostolic function that disappeared along with that office. The ordinary minister of the Word today is the nearest continuing analogue, I said, but it is “nearest” precisely because that apostolic function ceased.

Ministers today do represent Christ, of course, but it’s not under the same kind of apostolic commission and authority as Paul in our text. Theirs is a subordinate, derivative proclamatory function; they preach the gospel of Christ and publicly call men to reconciliation but they are speaking the apostolic Word already given in Scripture

I can agree with that

 

[Carbon]

Well, you all had a bit of time to reason things out? I noticed at least one of you all getting a little worked up. I dont like to see that.

If anyone is a little concerned and realizes that anyone could be wrong (we are human after all), and is interested in going through this reconciliation thing, I'm interested. But we should take it slow and explain our meaning and our understanding.

Now, I won't mention any names, but maybe some of us could consider the way we conduct ourselves during debates, perhaps a little more Christ-like? I don't count myself out.

These are important discussions. ie, ambassadors and reconciliation.

I think some may not realize reconciliation has a broader meaning than what meets the eye. I also take no offence when certain tones are used because I know the feeling when my beliefs and position have been challenged.

For example, here is a simple meaning of reconciliation. 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7.

Now, could the wife be reconciled to a stranger? Of course not. She can only be reconciled to the man she knew, was united to, her husband.

And of course, it has a much broader meaning also

 

[Arial]

Well, you all had a bit of time to reason things out? I noticed at least one of you all getting a little worked up. I dont like to see that.

If anyone is a little concerned and realizes that anyone could be wrong (we are human after all), and is interested in going through this reconciliation thing, I'm interested. But we should take it slow and explain our meaning and our understanding.

Now, I won't mention any names, but maybe some of us could consider the way we conduct ourselves during debates, perhaps a little more Christ-like? I don't count myself out.

These are important discussions. ie, ambassadors and reconciliation.

I think some may not realize reconciliation has a broader meaning than what meets the eye. I also take no offence when certain tones are used because I know the feeling when my beliefs and position have been challenged.

For example, here is a simple meaning of reconciliation. 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7.

Now, could the wife be reconciled to a stranger? Of course not. She can only be reconciled to the man she knew, was united to, her husband.

And of course, it has a much broader meaning also

Isn't how Paul was using it in the 2 Cor 5 verses of the OP what we are concerned with in this thread?

 

[Carbon]

Isn't how Paul was using it in the 2 Cor 5 verses of the OP what we are concerned with in this thread?

I think so, but to have a clearer understanding of it should'nt it be compared to other meanings?

 

[Carbon]

Isn't how Paul was using it in the 2 Cor 5 verses of the OP what we are concerned with in this thread?

How Paul was using it in ver 5 is the same meaning he uses it in 1 Cor 7. A simple meaning of reconciliation. 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7.


Agree? Disagree?

 

[Carbon]

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. 2 The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling 3 the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5.

3 questions,
1. Considering the context, who are the ambassadors?
2. Who are ambassadors for Christ?
3. Who is the "you" in verse 20?

I'm thinking I may have asked the wrong question(s) in the op?

The question, "Who are ambassadors for Christ?" Was an alright question.

It is the question, "Who is the 'you' in verse 20?" that I think was a bad or wrong question.

Perhaps I should have asked, what is being asked and going on here?


I dont think an answer would be, they were being asked to believe? Would anyone have given that as an answer?

I think 1 Corinthians 7:11-12 would be in harmony.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon said:
2. Who are ambassadors for Christ?

The apostles.... but, by extension, all of those reconciled to God through Christ in Corinth, and then to all who are reconciled to God through the work of His resurrected Son and faith therein.

By extension, all those reconciled to Christ in Corinth? Really? Where do you see that teaching?

I see: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 19-20.
I just dont see where Paul hands that position down to the regular members in Corinth.



It seems like the office of Apostleship taking place, and they are the ambassadors.

 

[Josheb]

Well, you all had a bit of time to reason things out? I noticed at least one of you all getting a little worked up. I dont like to see that.......

How Paul was using it in ver 5 is the same meaning he uses it in 1 Cor 7. A simple meaning of reconciliation. 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7.


Agree? Disagree?

I'm thinking I may have asked the wrong question(s) in the op? The question, "Who are ambassadors for Christ?" Was an alright question. It is the question, "Who is the 'you' in verse 20?" that I think was a bad or wrong question. Perhaps I should have asked, what is being asked and going on here? I dont think an answer would be, they were being asked to believe? Would anyone have given that as an answer? I think 1 Corinthians 7:11-12 would be in harmony.

Did not two posters ask you to consider clarifying your own posts to make them understandable rather than accuse others of confusing things and having a lack of understanding?

In a conversation about ambassadorship and reconciliation among the already saved every dispute is an opportunity to demonstrate the principles Paul taught to the Corinthians as an apostle. Most threads where this kind of disagreement occurs..... become object lessons. The thread serves the occasion.

Isn't how Paul was using it in the 2 Cor 5 verses of the OP what we are concerned with in this thread?

That'd be my take. Whatever differences may exist among the views expressed, it looks like at least two others viewed the thread similarly. There's plenty to discuss without telling others what they do and do not understand, confuse and/or "blend," insinuating anyone has been catechized, asking questions already answered, putting words into others posts they did not themselves write, etc.

All of that serves the thread paradoxically.

It is only those who are saved and actively sinning that can be reconciled to God.

It is only they that can be reconciled to one another when disobedience occurs among the, too.

Confessing our sins and repenting is what is required for a backslidden saint to be reconciled to God.

Yep.

....as far as what Paul is saying, to born-again believers in Corinth, "be reconciled to God!" This only a believer can do. In other words, give up that sinful life you are living, things like @Josheb mentions in post #3 about the Corinthian Christians.

Yep.

The point is not “reconcile yourselves,” but rather “be reconciled”—that is, come into the state of peace with God that he has himself accomplished and now proclaims in Christ.

Amen! What would a pair of Christian actively walking in the state of reconciliation God provided look like while discussing Paul's comments in 2 Cor. 5?

I'm sorry @Josheb, but I believe it is you who is not following or actually understanding. And as you say, keep it about the thread, not the poster. So, I hope you understand why, if I dont reply any longer to you. Enjoy

I don't think it looks like that.

I'm thinking I may have asked the wrong question(s) in the op?

That's getting there.

 

[Carbon]

Did not two posters ask you to consider clarifying your own posts to make them understandable rather than accuse others of confusing things and having a lack of understanding?

I think there was a bit of both going on.

That's getting there.

 

[Arial]

How Paul was using it in ver 5 is the same meaning he uses it in 1 Cor 7. A simple meaning of reconciliation. 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 1 Cor 7.


Agree? Disagree?

Agree but in 2 Cor 5 Paul is not talking about people being reconciled to people. I remember long ago reading that book The Purpose Driven Life (what an atrocity) and that author thought the 2 Cor 5 was speaking about the Christians purpose of reconciling people with people.

What is Paul saying here:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

What reconciliation is he referring to? And would he change that reference in the next sentence? 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

 

[Arial]

I think so, but to have a clearer understanding of it should'nt it be compared to other meanings?

Paul pretty much explains it in the preceding verses. He is speaking of the reconciliation between God and the sinner that Jesus made possible on the cross.

 

[Carbon]

Agree but in 2 Cor 5 Paul is not talking about people being reconciled to people. I remember long ago reading that book The Purpose Driven Life (what an atrocity) and that author thought the 2 Cor 5 was speaking about the Christians purpose of reconciling people with people.

What is Paul saying here:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

What reconciliation is he referring to? And would he change that reference in the next sentence? 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

I'm not saying Paul was teaching people to be reconciled to people in this passage.

And why would Rick Warren, the heretic, come up in this?

 

[Carbon]

Paul pretty much explains it in the preceding verses. He is speaking of the reconciliation between God and the sinner that Jesus made possible on the cross.

Well actually people can be reconciled to God because Jesus made that possible by the cross.

 

[John Bauer]

Well, you all had a bit of time to reason things out?

I thought we were. I am still waiting for a response, though—by which I mean a substantive exegetical argument—to find out how and why we are talking past one another generally, but also specifically how my argument is mistaken or wrong.

If anyone is a little concerned and realizes that anyone could be wrong (we are human after all), and is interested in going through this reconciliation thing, I'm interested. But we should take it slow and explain our meaning and our understanding.

That is precisely what I requested of you, to explain your meaning and understanding. I am patiently waiting.

I think some may not realize reconciliation has a broader meaning than what meets the eye.

That may be so, but it is not the case for me. As I have shown many times in these forums, I am keenly aware of this thing called “semantic range” and I argue that point often—even recently in a discussion about hell and the Greek word aiōnios.

Since you seem to respect the fact that words have a semantic range, moving forward should be easier.

Let’s take a look.

For example, here is a simple meaning of reconciliation:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this command—not I, but the Lord—a wife should not divorce a husband (but if she does, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Now, could the wife be reconciled to a stranger? Of course not. She can only be reconciled to the man she knew, was united to, her husband.

And of course, it has a much broader meaning also.

You have effectively demonstrated that the semantic range of this verb (καταλλάσσω) is broader than the meaning I argued for in my post. Taken by itself, that is trivial. Obviously it can be used in different relational contexts.

However—and here is the rub—that doesn’t settle the meaning of the imperative in our passage (2 Cor. 5:20). Semantic range is not contextual meaning, brother. Can “reconcile” be used more broadly? Of course it can. But that doesn’t tell us how Paul is using it in this particular passage, overall argument, and redemptive setting, nor to whom the imperative is directed there, and in what sense.

But your marriage analogy may actually work against you. If “be reconciled” implies restoration of an estranged relation, then addressed to the visible church it would fall upon those within that sphere who are alienated from God, not upon regenerate believers who are already reconciled to God. That just gets us back to the point about the church being a mixed community.

That being said, if you want to argue that “be reconciled” is addressed to believers, then you need to engage my argument on that point (above).