2 Corinthians 5:16

In these verses the apostle mentions two things that are necessary in order to our living to Christ, both of which are the consequences of Christ's dying for us; namely, regeneration and reconciliation.

I. Regeneration, which consists of two things; namely, 1. Weanedness from the world: "Henceforth we know no man after the flesh, Co2 5:16. We do not own nor affect any person or thing in this world for carnal ends and outward advantage: we are enabled, by divine grace, not to mind nor regard this world, nor the things of this world, but to live above it. The love of Christ is in our hearts, and the world is under our feet." Note, Good Christians must enjoy the comforts of this life, and their relations in this world, with a holy indifference. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet, says the apostle, we know him no more. It is questioned whether Paul had seen Christ in the flesh. However, the rest of the apostles had, and so might some among those he was now writing to. However, he would not have them value themselves upon that account; for even the bodily presence of Christ is not to be desired nor doted upon by his disciples. We must live upon his spiritual presence, and the comfort it affords. Note, Those who make images of Christ, and use them in their worship, do not take the way that God has appointed for strengthening their faith and quickening their affections; for it is the will of God that we should not know Christ any more after the flesh. 2. A thorough change of the heart: For if any man be in Christ, if any man be a Christian indeed, and will approve himself such, he is, or he must be, a new creature, Co2 5:17. Some read it, Let him be a new creature. This ought to be the care of all who profess the Christian faith, that they be new creatures; not only that they have a new name, and wear a new livery, but that they have a new heart and new nature. And so great is the change the grace of God makes in the soul, that, as it follows, old things are passed away - old thoughts, old principles, and old practices, are passed away; and all these things must become new. Note, Regenerating grace creates a new world in the soul; all things are new. The renewed man acts from new principles, by new rules, with new ends, and in new company.

II. Reconciliation, which is here spoken of under a double notion: -

1. As an unquestionable privilege, Co2 5:18, Co2 5:19. Reconciliation supposes a quarrel, or breach of friendship; and sin has made a breach, it has broken the friendship between God and man. The heart of the sinner is filled with enmity against God, and God is justly offended with the sinner. Yet, behold, there may be a reconciliation; the offended Majesty of heaven is willing to be reconciled. And observe, 1. He has appointed the Mediator of reconciliation. He has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, Co2 5:18. God is to be owned from first to last in the undertaking and performance of the Mediator. All things relating to our reconciliation by Jesus Christ are of God, who by the mediation of Jesus Christ has reconciled the world to himself, and put himself into a capacity of being actually reconciled to offenders, without any wrong or injury to his justice or holiness, and does not impute to men their trespasses, but recedes from the rigour of the first covenant, which was broken, and does not insist upon the advantage he might justly take against us for the breach of that covenant, but is willing to enter into a new treaty, and into a new covenant of grace, and, according to the tenour thereof, freely to forgive us all our sins, and justify freely by his grace all those who do believe. 2. He has appointed the ministry of reconciliation, Co2 5:18. By the inspiration of God the scriptures were written, which contain the word of reconciliation, showing us that peace was made by the blood of the cross, that reconciliation is wrought, and directing us how we may be interested therein. And he has appointed the office of the ministry, which is a ministry of reconciliation: ministers are to open and proclaim to sinners the terms of mercy and reconciliation, and persuade them to comply therewith. For,

2. Reconciliation is here spoken of as our indispensable duty, Co2 5:20. As God is willing to be reconciled to us, we ought to be reconciled to God. And it is the great end and design of the gospel, that word of reconciliation, to prevail upon sinners to lay aside their enmity against God. Faithful ministers are Christ's ambassadors, sent to treat with sinners on peace and reconciliation: they come in God's name, with his entreaties, and act in Christ's stead, doing the very thing he did when he was upon this earth, and what he wills to be done now that he is in heaven. Wonderful condescension! Though God can be no loser by the quarrel, nor gainer by the peace, yet by his ministers he beseeches sinners to lay aside their enmity, and accept of the terms he offers, that they would be reconciled to him, to all his attributes, to all his laws, and to all his providences, to believe in the Mediator, to accept the atonement, and comply with his gospel, in all the parts of it and in the whole design of it. And for our encouragement so to do the apostle subjoins what should be well known and duly considered by us (Co2 5:21), namely, (1.) The purity of the Mediator: He knew no sin. (2.) The sacrifice he offered: He was made sin; not a sinner, but sin, that is, a sin-offering, a sacrifice for sin. (3.) The end and design of all this: 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. Note, [1.] As Christ, who knew no sin of his own, was made sin for us, so we, who have no righteousness of our own, are made the righteousness of God in him. [2.] Our reconciliation to God is only through Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his merit: on him therefore we must rely, and make mention of his righteousness and his only.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Co 5:16. Wherefore henceforth — So that from this time that we knew the love of Christ; know we no man — Neither ourselves nor you, neither the rest of the apostles, (Gal 2:6,) nor any other person; after the flesh — According to his former state, country, descent, nobility, riches, power, wisdom. We fear not the great. We regard not the rich or wise. We account not the least less than ourselves. We consider all, only in order to save all. Who is he that thus knows no one after the flesh? In what land do these Christians live? Yea, if we have known Christ after the flesh — So as to love him merely with a human love; or, so as to regard our external relation to him, as being of the same nation with him, or our having conversed with him on earth, or so as to expect only temporal benefits from him; or have governed ourselves by any carnal expectations from the Messiah as a temporal prince who should exalt our nation to dignity, wealth, and power. Mr. Locke thinks this is said with a reference to “their Jewish false apostle, who gloried in his circumcision, and perhaps in his having seen Christ in the flesh, or being some way related to him.” Yet now, henceforth — Since our illumination and conversion; know we him no more — In that way, but wholly after a spiritual and divine manner, suitable to his state of glory, and our expectations of spiritual and eternal salvation from him.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 15

THE NEW WORLD.- 2Co_5:16-17 (R.V)

THE inferences which are here drawn depend upon what has just been said of Christs death for all, and the death of all in that death of His. In that death, as inclusive of ours, the old life died, and with it died all its distinctions. All that men were, apart from Christ, all that constituted the "appearance" (προσωπον, 2Co_5:12) of their life, all that marked them off from each other as such and such outwardly, ceased to have significance the moment Christs death was understood as Paul here understands it. He dates his inference with απο του νυν ("henceforth"). This does not mean from the time at which he writes, but from the time at which he saw that One had died for all, and so all died. Here, as in other places, he divides his life into "now" and "then," the Christian and the pre-Christian stage. {Rom_5:9 Eph_2:11-13} The transition from one to the other was revolutionary, and one of its most startling results is that which he here describes. "Then," the distinctions between men, the "appearances" in which they boasted, had been important in his eyes; "now," they have ceased to be. He never asks whether a man is Jew or Greek, rich or poor, bond or free, learned or unlearned; these are classifications "after the flesh," and have died in Christs death for all. To recognize them any longer, to admit the legitimacy of claims based upon them-such claims as his opponents in Corinth seem to have been putting forth-would be to make Christs death, in a sense, of no effect. It would be to deny that when He died for all, all died in Him; it would be to reanimate distinctions that should have been annihilated in His death.

To this rule of knowing no one after the flesh Paul can admit no exception. Not even Christ is accepted. "Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more." This is a difficult saying, and has been very variously interpreted. The English reader inevitably supposes that Paul had known Christ "after the flesh," but had outgrown that kind of knowledge; and that he is intimating these two facts. But it is quite possible to take the words as purely hypothetical: "Supposing us to have known even Christ after the flesh-a case which in point of fact was never ours - yet now we know Him so no more." Grammar does not favor this last rendering, though it does not preclude it; and however the matter may be settled, the bare supposition, as much as the fact, requires us to give a definite meaning to the words about knowing Christ after the flesh, and ceasing so to know Him.

Some have inferred from them that when Paul became a Christian, and for some time after, his conception of Christ had resembled that of the persons whom he is here controverting: his Christ had been to all intents and purposes a Jewish Messiah, and he had only been able by degrees to overcome, though he had at last overcome, the narrowness and nationalism of his early years as a disciple. To know Christ after the flesh would be to know Him in the character of a deliverer of the Jews: His Jewish descent, His circumcision, His observance of the Temple worship, His limitation of His ministry to the Holy Land, would be matters of great significance; and Jewish descent might naturally be supposed to establish a prerogative in relation to the Messiah for Jews as opposed to Gentiles. Probably there were Christians whose original conception of the Savior was of this kind, and it is a fair enough description to say that this amounts only to a knowing of Christ after the flesh; but Paul can hardly have been one of them. His Christian knowledge of Christ dates from his vision of the Risen Lord on the way to Damascus, and in that appearance there was no room for anything that could be called "flesh." It was an appearance of the Lord of Glory. It determined all Pauls thoughts thenceforth. Nothing is more remarkable in his Epistles than the strong sense that what he calls his Gospel is one, unchanged, and unchangeable. It is not Yes and No. Neither man nor angel may modify it by preaching another Jesus than he preaches. He is quite unconscious of any such transformation of his Christology as is indicated above; and in the absence of any trace elsewhere of a change so important, it is impossible to read it into the verse before us.

Another interpretation of the words would make "knowing Christ after the flesh" refer to a knowledge at first hand of the facts and outward conditions of Christs life in this world: a knowledge which Paul had in his early Christian days valued highly, but for which he no longer cared. There were numbers of men alive then who had known Christ in this sense. They had seen and heard Him in Galilee and Jerusalem; they had much to tell about Him which would no doubt be very interesting to believers; and more than likely some of them emphasized this distinction of theirs, and were disposed to be pretentious on the strength of it. Whether Paul had ever known Christ in this sense, it is impossible to say. But it is certain that to such knowledge he would have assigned no Christian importance whatever. And in doing so, he would have been following the example of Christ Himself. "Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets. And He shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are." But it is impossible to suppose that this is a matter on which Paul as a Christian had ever needed to change his mind.

It is an interpretation in part akin to this which makes St. Paul here decry all knowledge of the historical Christ in comparison with the understanding of His death and resurrection. To know Christ after the flesh is in this case to know Him as He is represented in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and Paul is supposed to say that, though narratives like these once had an interest and value for him, they really have it no longer: they are not essential to his Gospel, which is constituted by the death and resurrection alone. These great events and their consequences are all he is concerned with; to know Christ after the Evangelists is merely to know Him after the flesh; and flesh, even His flesh, ought to have no significance since His death.

It is a little difficult to take this quite seriously, though it has a serious side. St. Paul, no doubt, makes very few references to incidents in the life of our Lord, or even to words which He spoke. But he is not singular in this. The Epistles of Peter and John are historically as barren as his. They do not add a word to the Gospel story; there is no new incident, no new trait in the picture of Jesus, no new oracle. Indeed, the only genuine addition to the record is that one made by Paul himself-"the word of the Lord Jesus, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." The truth seems to be that it is not natural for an apostle, nor for any inspired man, to fall back on quotations, like a preacher graveled for lack of matter, or conscious of wanting authority. Paul and his colleagues in apostleship had Christ living in them, and recognized the spirit by which they spoke as the spirit of their Master. So far as this was the case, it was certainly a matter of indifference to them whether they were acquainted with this or that incident in His life, with this or that syllable that He spoke on such and such an occasion. One casual occurrence, one scene in Christs sufferings, one discourse which He delivered, would inevitably be known with more exact and literal precision to one person than to another; and there is no difficulty in believing that the casual advantage which any individual might thus possess was regarded by St. Paul as a thing of no Christian consequence. Similar differences exist still, and in principle are to be disregarded. But it is another thing to say that all knowledge of the historical Christ is irrelevant to Christianity, and yet another to father such an opinion on St. Paul. The attempt to do so is due in part, I believe, to a misinterpretation of κατα σαρκα. Paul has been read as if what he disclaimed and decried were knowledge of Christ εν σαρκι. But the two things are quite distinct. Christ lived in the flesh; but the life that He lived in the flesh He lived after the spirit, and when its spiritual import is regarded, it is safe to say that no one ever knew Christ as He was in the flesh- the Christ of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-better than Paul. No one had been initiated into Christs character, as that character is revealed in the story of the Evangelists, more fully than he. No one ever knew the mind, the temper, the new moral ideal of Christianity, better than Paul, and there is no ultimate source for this knowledge but the historical Christ. Paul could not in his work as an evangelist preach salvation through the death and resurrection of an unknown person; the story which was the common property of the Church, and with which her catechists everywhere indoctrinated the new disciples, must have been as familiar to him, in substance, as it is to us; and his evident knowledge and appreciation of the character embodied in it forbid us to think of this acquaintance with Christ as what he means by knowing Him after the flesh. He might have had the Gospel narratives by heart, and counted them inestimably precious, and yet have spoken exactly as he speaks here.

Nevertheless, this interpretation, though mistaken, has a certain truth in it. There is a historical knowledge of Christ which is a mere relevance to Christianity, and it has sometimes a stress laid upon it by its possessors which tempts one to speak of it in St. Pauls scornful tone. Many so-called "Lives" of Christ abound in it. They aim at a historical realism which, to speak the plain truth, has simply no religious value. Knowledge of localities, customs, costumes, and so forth, is interesting enough; but if it should be ever so full and ever so exact, it is not the knowledge of Jesus Christ in any sense which makes a Gospel. It is quite possible, nay it is more than possible, that such knowledge may come between the soul and the Lord. It was so when Jesus lived. There were people who knew so well what He was like that they were blind to what He was. In St. Pauls phrase we may say that they knew Him "after the flesh," and it kept them from knowing Him truly. They asked, "Is not this the carpenter?" as if that were a piece of undeniable insight; and they were not conscious that only men blind to what he really was could ever have asked a question so absurd. It was not the carpenter who spoke with authority in the synagogues, and cast out devils, and brought in the kingdom; it was the Son of Man, the Son of God; and whether Paul meant it so or not, we may use his language in this passage to express the conviction, that one may really know Christ, to whom the whole outward aspect of His life, represented by "the carpenter of Nazareth," is indifferent; nay, that one cannot know Him in any real sense until these external things are indifferent. Or to put the same thing in other words, we may say that the knowledge of Christ which constitutes the Christian is not the knowledge of what He was, but of what He is; and if we know what He is, then all that is merely outward in the history may pass away.

But if none of these interpretations answers exactly to the Apostles thought, where are we to seek the meaning of his words? All these, it will be observed, assume that Paul knew Christ "after the flesh," subsequent to his conversion; that he shared, as a Christian, views about Christ which he is now combating. As these interpretations, however, are untenable, we must assume that the time when he thus knew Christ was before his conversion. He could look back to days when his Messianic conceptions were "carnal"; when the Christ was to be identified, for him, by tokens in the domain of "appearance," or "flesh"; when He was to be a national, perhaps merely a political deliverer, and the Savior of the Jews in a sense which gave them an advantage over the Gentiles. But these days were gone forever. "Henceforth"-from the very instant that the truth flashed on him, one died for all, and so all died-they belonged to a past which could never be revived or recalled. One died for all: that means that Christ is Universal Redeemer. That same One rose again: that means He is Universal Lord. He has done the same infinite service for all, He makes the same infinite claim upon all; there are no prerogatives for any race, for any caste, for any individual men, in relation to Him. In presence of His cross, there is no difference: in His death, and in our death in Him, all carnal distinctions die; "henceforth we know no man after the flesh." Even kinship, to Jesus "after the flesh" does not base any prerogative in the kingdom of God; even to have eaten and drunk in His presence, and listened to His living voice, confers no distinction there; He has not done more for His brethren and His companions than He has done for us all. And not only the carnal distinctions of men have vanished away; the carnal Jewish conception of Christ has vanished with them.

The seventeenth verse {2Co_5:17} seems a new inference from the same ground as the fifteenth {2Co_5:15}. Indeed, it connects so naturally with 2Co_5:15 that one critic has suggested that 2Co_5:16 is spurious, and another that it was a later insertion by the Apostle. Perhaps we may assume that St. Paul, who had no fear of such critics before his eyes, was capable of setting his sentences down just as they occurred to him, and did not mind an occasional awkwardness. When he writes "Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature," he is indeed drawing an inference from 2Co_5:15, but he is at the same time generalizing and carrying on the thought of 2Co_5:16. The idea of the new creature occurs in other places in his writings, {e.g., Eph_2:10 Gal_6:15} but both here and in Gal_6:15, I prefer the rendering in the margin of the Revised Version-"If any man is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old things passed away (when he died in Christ); behold, they have become new." We may say, if we please, that it is the new creature which makes the new creation; the change in the soul which revolutionizes the world. Still, it is this universal change which the Apostle, apparently, wishes to describe; and in the sudden note of triumph with which he concludes-"Behold! all is become new"-we feel, as it were, one throb of that glad surprise with which he had looked out on the world after God had reconciled him to Himself by His Son. The past was dead to him, as dead as Christ on His cross; all its ideas, all its hopes; all its ambitions, were dead; in Christ, he was another man in another universe.

This is the first passage in 2 Corinthians in which this Pauline formula for a Christian-a man in Christ-is used. It denotes the most intimate possible union, a union in which the believers faith identifies him with Jesus in His death and resurrection, so that he can say, "I live no longer, but Christ liveth in me." It is the Apostles profoundest word, not on the Gospel, but on the appropriation of the Gospel; not on Christ, but on the Christian religion. It is mystical, as every true word must be which speaks of the relation of the soul to the Savior; but it is intelligible to every one who knows what it is to trust and to love, and through trust and love to lose self in another whose life is greater and better than his own. And when we have seen, even for a moment, what it is to live in self or in the world, and what to live in Christ, we can easily believe that this union is equivalent to a re-creating and transfiguring of all things.

It is impossible to point to all the applications of this truth: "all things" is too wide a text. Every reader knows the things which bulked most largely in his life before he knew Christ, and it is easy for him to tell the difference due to being in the Lord. In a sense the new creation is in process as long as we live; it is ideally that faith in Christ which means death in His death; ideally that with faith the old passes and the new is there; the actual putting away of the old, the actual production of the new, are the daily task of faith as it unites the soul to Christ. We are in Him the moment faith touches Him, but we have to grow up into Him in all things. Only as we do so does the world change all around us, till the promise is fulfilled of new heavens and a new earth.

But there is one application of these words, directly suggested by the context, which we ought not to overlook: I mean their application to men, and the old ways of estimating men. Those who are in Christ have died to the whole order of life in which men are judged "after the flesh." Perhaps the Christian Church has almost as much need as any other society to lay this to heart. We are still too ready to put stress upon distinctions which are quite in place in the world, but are without ground in Christ. Even in a Christian congregation there is a recognition of wealth, of learning, of social position, in some countries of race, which is not Christian. I do not say these distinctions are not real, but they are meaningless in relation to Christ, and ought not to be made. To make them narrows and impoverishes the soul. If we associate only with people of a certain station, and because of their station, all our thoughts and feelings are limited to a very small area of human life; but if distinctions of station, of intelligence, of manners, are lost in the common relation to Christ, then life is open to us in all its length and breadth; all things are ours, because we are His. To be guided by worldly distinctions is to know only a few people, and to know them by what is superficial in their nature; but to see that such distinctions died in Christs death, and to look at men in relation to Him who is Redeemer and Lord of all, is to know all our brethren, and to know them not on the surface, but to the heart. People lament everywhere the want of a truly social and brotherly feeling in the Church, and try all sorts of well-meant devices to stimulate it, but nothing short of this goes to the root of the matter. The social, in this universal sense, is dependent upon the religious. Those who have died in Christ to the world in which these separative distinctions reign will have no difficulty in recognizing each other as one in Him. Society is transfigured for each of us when this union is accomplished; the old things have passed, and all has become new.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

5:16-17 merely from a human point of view: Paul might be reflecting on his belief at one time as a Pharisee that the Messiah would come to set the Jews free from political oppression. • How differently we know him now! Christ rose from the dead, ushered in the new creation (5:17), and was established as the redeemer from sin and Lord of the universe (Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Co 5:16. Ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, henceforth) From the time that the love of Christ has engaged [has pre-occupied] our minds. Even this epistle differs in degree from the former.—οὐδένα, no man) neither ourselves, nor the other apostles, Gal 2:6; nor you, nor others. We do not fear the great, we do not consider the humble more humble than ourselves; we do and suffer all things, and our anxiety is in every way to bring all to life. In this enthusiasm [ἔκστασις, being beside ourselves], 2Co 5:13, nay in this death, 2Co 5:15, we know none of them that survive,[30] even in connection with our ministry,—ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, according to the flesh) according to the old state, arising from nobility, riches, resources, wisdom, [so as that from more natural considerations, we should either do or omit to do this or that.—V. g.]—εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν) ΟἾΔΑ and ἜΓΝΩΚΑ,[31] differ, 1Co 2:8; 1Co 2:11 – 1Co 8:1. Such knowledge was more tolerable, before the death of Christ: for that was the period of the days of the flesh.—κατὰ σάρκα, according to the flesh) construed with ἐγνώκαμεν, we have known.—Χριστὸν, Christ) He does not say here Jesus. The name Jesus is in some measure more spiritual than the name Christ; and they know Christ according to the flesh, who acknowledge Him as the Saviour, not of the world, 2Co 5:19, but only of Israel, ch. 2Co 11:18, note: and who congratulate themselves on this account, that they belong to that nation from which Christ was descended, and who seek in His glory political splendour, and in their seeing Him when He formerly appeared, and in their hearing of His instructions of whatever kind, before His sufferings, some superiority over others, and in the knowledge of Him, the enjoyment of the mere natural senses: and who do not strive to attain that enjoyment which is here described, and which is derived from His death and resurrection, 2Co 5:15; 2Co 5:17-18: comp. Joh 16:7; Rom 8:34; Php 3:10; Luk 8:21.

[30] i.e. Those not yet dead with and in Christ, but living in the flesh: note on οἱ ζῶντες, 2Co 5:15.—ED.

[31] οἶδα seems to be used as scio (of an abstract truth well known), or novi (of a person, with whom we are well acquainted). ἔγνωκα as agnosco, or cognosco, come to the knowledge of, I perceive, or recognize.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Co_5:16. Inference from 2Co_5:14-15 opposed to the hostile way of judging of his opponents (comp. 2Co_5:13). Hence it is with us quite otherwise than with our opponents, who judge regarding others κατὰ σάρκα: we know henceforth no one according to flesh-standard. Since all, namely, have (ethically) died, and every one is destined to live only to Christ, not to himself, our knowing of others must be wholly independent of what they are κατὰ σάρκα. Accordingly, the connection of thought between 2Co_5:16 and 2Co_5:14-15 demands that we take κατὰ σάρκα here not as subjective standard of the οἴδαμεν, so that we should have to explain it: according to merely human knowledge, without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit (comp. 2Co_1:17; 1Co_1:26): as one might know Him in a way natural to man (Hofmann, Osiander, and, earlier, Lyra, Calovius, and others; comp. also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 69), but as objective standard (comp. 2Co_11:18; Joh_8:15; Php_3:4), so that εἰδέναι τινὰ κατὰ σάρκα means: to know any one according to merely human appearance, to know him in such a way, that he is judged by what he is in virtue of his natural, material form of existence, and not by what he is κατὰ πνεῦμα, as a Christian, as καινὴ κτίσις (2Co_5:17). He who knows no one κατὰ σάρκα has entirely left out of account, e.g. in the Jew, his Jewish origin; in the rich man, his riches; in the scholar, his learning; in the slave, his bondage; and so forth (comp. Gal_3:28). Comp. Bengel: secundum carnem: secundum statum veterem ex nobilitate, divitiis, opibus, sapientia. It is inaccurate to say that this interpretation requires the article before σάρκα (Osiander). It might be used, but was not necessary, any more than at Php_3:3 ff., Rom_1:3; Rom_9:5, al., where σάρξ everywhere, without the article, denotes the objective relatio.

ἡμεῖς] i.e. we on our part, as opposed to the adversaries who judge κατὰ σάρκα. The taking the plural as general embracing others (Billroth, by way of suggestion, Schenkel, de Wette), has against it the evidently antithetic emphasis of the pronoun; it is only with the further inference in 2Co_5:17 that the discourse becomes genera.

ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] after the present time, i.e. after our present (Christian) relation, and with it also the κρίναντας κ.τ.λ., has begun. Paul has ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν only here. Beyond this Luke alone in the N. T. has i.

οἴδαμεν] not acstimamus (Grotius, Estius, and others, including Emmerling and Flatt), but novimus; no one is to us known κατὰ σάρκα; we know nothing of him according to such a standard. Comp. on εἰδέναι οὐδένα or οὐδέν in the sense of complete separation, 1Co_2:2. οἶδα is related to ἔγνωκα, cognovi, as its lasting sequel: scio, quis et qualis si.

εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κ. σ. Χριστὸν κ.τ.λ.] apologetic application of the assertion just made, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κ. σ. This remark is added without δέ (see the critical remarks), which is accounted for by the impetuous liveliness of the representation. If even (as I herewith grant to my opponents, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832) the case has occurred that we have known Christ according to flesh-standard, this knowing of Him now exists with us no longer. The emphasis of this concessive clause lies on the praeterite ἐγνώκαμεν, which opposes the past to the present relation (οἴδαμεν, and see the following γινώσκομεν). Therefore Χριστόν is not placed immediately after εἰ καί, for Paul wishes to express that in the past it has been otherwise than now; that formerly the γινώσκειν κ. σάρκα had certainly occurred in his case, and that in reference to Christ. This in opposition to the usual interpretation, according to which Χριστόν is invested with the chief emphasis. So e.g. Billroth: if we once regarded even Christ Himself in a fleshly manner, if we quite misjudged Him and His kingdom; Beyschlag similarly: even with Christ I make no exception, etc. Rückert, without any reason whatever, conjectures that Paul erroneously inserted Χριστόν, or perhaps did not write it at all. The right interpretation is found in Osiander, Ewald, Kling, also substantially in Hofmann, who, however, would attach εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κ.τ.λ. to ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν … σάρκα, and thus separate it only by a comma,a course by which, owing to the following contrast ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ., the sentence is without sufficient ground made more disjointed.

Paul had known Christ κατὰ σάρκα, so long as the merely human individuality of Christ, His lower, earthly appearance (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret), was the limit of his knowledge of Him. At the time when he himself was still a zealot against Christ, and His persecutor, he knew Him as a mere man, as a common Jew, not as Messiah, not as the Son of God; as one justly persecuted and crucified, not as the sinless Reconciler and the transfigured Lord of glory, etc. It was quite different, however, since God had revealed His Son in Paul (Gal_1:16), whereby he had learned to know Christ according to His true, higher, spiritual nature (κατὰ πνεῦμα, Rom_1:4).[233] Comp. also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul, und Petr. p. 429, who, however, refers the Χριστόν, which denotes the entire historical person of the God-man, only to the heavenly, purely pneumatic personality of the Lord, which had been pre-existent and in this sense was re-established by the resurrection. Klöpper, p. 66, has substantially the right view: the earthly, human appearance of Christ according to its national, legal, and particular limitation. The Judaistic conception of the Messianic idea was the subjective ground of the former erroneous knowledge of Christ, but it is not on that account to be explained with many (Luther, see his gloss, Bengel, Rückert, and others): according to Jewish ideas of the Messiah; for, according to what precedes, κ. σ. must be the objective standard of the ἐγνώκαμεν. In that case ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ cannot be appellative, the Messiah (especially Baur, I. p. 304, ed. 2, and Neander, I. p. 142 f.), but only nomen proprium, as the following εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ shows. Olshausen, who rightly, as to substance, refers Κ. Σ. to the life of Christ before His resurrection, deduces, however, from ΕἸ ΚΑῚ ἘΓΝΏΚ. that Paul even before his conversion had seen Christ in his visits to Jerusalem, which Beyschlag also, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 248, and 1865, p. 266, gathers from our passage and explains it accordingly, and Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 368, ed. 3, thinks credible. This is in itself possible (though nowhere testified), but does not follow from our passage; for ἐγνώκ., in fact, by no means presupposes the having seen, but refers to the knowledge of Christ obtained by colloquial intercourse, and determined by the Pharisaic fundamental point of view,a knowledge which Paul before his conversion had derived from his historical acquaintance with Christs earthly station, influence as a teacher, and fate, as known to all.[234] Besides, the interpretation of a personal acquaintance with Christ would be quite unsuitable to the following ἈΛΛᾺ ΝῦΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. It would be at variance with the context. See also Klöpper, p. 55 ff. According to de Wette, the sense is: not yet to have so known Christ as, with a renouncing of ones own fleshly selfishness, to live to Him alone, 2Co_5:15. But in this way there would result for κατὰ σάρκα the sense of the subjective standard (against which see above); further, the signification of κατὰ σ. would not be the same for the two parts of the verse, since in the second part it would affirm more (namely, according to fleshly selfishness, without living to Him alone); lastly, this having known Christ would not suit the time before the conversion of the apostle, to which it nevertheless applies, because at this time he was even persecutor of Christ. And this he was, just because he knew him κατὰ σάρκα (taken in our sense), which erroneous form of having known ceased only when God ἀπεκάλυψε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (Gal_1:16). While various expositors fail to give to it a clear and definite interpretation,[235] others have explained it in the linguistically erroneous sense of a merely hypothetical possibility. Thus Erasmus: Nec est, quod nos posteriores apostolos quisquam hoc nomine minoris faciat, quod Christum mortali corpore in terris versantem non novimus, quando etiam, si contigisset novisse, nunc eam notitiam, quae obstabat spiritui, deposuissemus, et spiritualem factum spiritualiter amaremus; so in the main also Grotius, Rosenmüller, Flatt. For a synopsis of the various old explanations, from Faustus the Manichaean (who proved from our passage that Christ had no fleshly body) downward, see Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 463 ff.

ἀλλά] in the apodosis, see on 2Co_4:16.

γινώσκομεν] sc. κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν.

[233] According to Estius, the meaning is taken to be: If we once held it as something great to be fellow-countrymen and kinsmen of Christ. But the words do not convey this. Similarly also Wetstein, who makes the apostle, in opposition to the (alleged) boasting of the false apostles that they were kinsmen and hearers of Christ, maintain, cognationem solam nihil prodesse; et Christum non humilem esse, as on earth, sed exaltatum super omnes. Comp. Hammond, and also Storr, Opusc. II. p. 252, according to whom Paul refers to such, qui praeter externa ornamenta et Judaicam originem et pristinam illam suam cum apostolis Christo familiaribus conjunctionem nihil haberent, quo magnifice gloriari possent. An allusion to the alleged spiritualism of the Christine party, who had reproached the apostle with a fleshly conception of Christ (Schenkel, Goldhorn), is arbitrarily assumed.

[234] Certainly to him also had the cross been a stumbling-block, since, according to the Jewish conception, the Messiah was not to die at all (Joh_12:34); but we must not, with Theodoret, limit κατὰ σάρκα to the παθητὸν σῶμα of Christ.

[235] Hofmann, e.g., describes the knowing of Christ κατὰ σάρκα as of such a nature, that it accommodated itself to the habit of the natural man, and therefore knew Christ only in so far as He was the object of such knowledge.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Co 5:16 . ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν κ . τ . λ .: so that, sc. , because of our conviction, that we should not live unto ourselves but unto Christ (2Co 5:15 ), we, sc. , Paul as contrasted with his opponents at Corinth, from henceforth, sc. , this conviction having mastered us, know no man after the flesh, i.e. , are quite indifferent as to his mere external qualifications as a preacher of the Gospel, his eloquence, Jewish birth, etc.: we are not like those who glory ἐν προσώπῳ and not ἐν καρδίᾳ (2Co 5:12 ); cf. Gal 2:6 . f1εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κ . τ . λ .: even though we have known (the distinction between οἴδαμεν and ἐγνώκαμεν is hardly to be pressed) Christ after the flesh, i.e. , though there was a time in my life when I, like my Judaising opponents now, laid great stress on the local and hereditary, and, so to speak, fleshly “notes” of the Messiah who was to come, yet now we know Him so no more, i.e. , I know better now, for I have learnt since my conversion that the national Messiah of the Jews is Himself the Incarnate Word, to whom every race of men is alike related, for He is the Christ of the Catholic Church of God. In personal religion the merely historical must yield precedence to the mystical element; it is of great interest and of real value to learn all that can be known about the Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but it is the present Life of Christ, “in whom” we may be found if we will, that is of religious import, as is further explained in 2Co 5:17 . This “is the same feeling which appears in the fact … that no authentic or even pretended likeness of Christ should have been handed down from the first century; that the very site of His dwelling place at Capernaum should have been entirely obliterated from human memory; that the very notion of seeking for relics of His life and death, though afterwards so abundant, first began in the age of Constantine. It is the same feeling which, in the Gospel narratives themselves, is expressed in the almost entire absence of precision as to time and place” (Stanley). Beyschlag and others (see Knowling, Witness of the Epistles , p. 2) conclude from the words εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σὰρκα Χριστόν that St. Paul had seen, and possibly heard, Jesus during His public ministry at Jerusalem ( cf. 1Co 9:1 ); on this interpretation the words would be introduced at this point to indicate that, however much stress the other Apostles and their adherents might lay on such outward knowledge, yet to St. Paul, though he could lay claim to it as well as they, this did not seem the essential matter. But ( a ) the words do not necessarily imply this; it is noteworthy that he says Χριστόν , not Ἰησοῦν , which we should expect on Beyschlag’s hypothesis. ( b ) The explanation given above is quite in accordance with the usage of κατὰ σάρκα with a verb (see reff.), and the order of the words here and in the preceding clause does not allow us to take κατὰ σάρκα with οὐδένα in the one case and with Χριστόν in the other. ( c ) As Schmiedel points out, if St. Paul really had had personal experience of the public ministry of Jesus, he would hardly have failed to mention it in the great apologetic passage, chap. 2Co 11:22-33 . Other writers, e.g. , Jowett, explain the latter clause of this verse by supposing that the Apostle is contrasting his more mature preaching with his preaching at an earlier stage of his Christian ministry when he had not yet emancipated himself from Jewish prejudices. But of his consciousness of such a “development” in his views, subsequently to his conversion, there is no trace in the Epistles. The contrast is really between Saul the Pharisee and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. εἰ καί (אBD, Arm.) rather than καὶ εἰ (FG, Latt.) or εἰ δὲ καί (א3C2D2D3LP).

16. Against all external evidence this verse has been suspected of being a subsequent insertion, made either by the Apostle or by a copyist, because (it is said) it breaks the argument. No doubt the passage would read quite smoothly if we omitted 2Co 5:16: but that does not prove that 2Co 5:16 is not original. Its connexion with what precedes and with what follows is very intelligible. Seeing that all men are intended to live, not to self, but to Christ and to others in Him, it follows that our knowledge of others must not be κατὰ σάρκα: it must not be based upon their bodily appearance or material circumstances, such as race, wealth, position, and the like. It is the inner man, the spirit, the new creation, which counts; and this is the same in Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, teacher and taught. Comp. 2Co 11:18; Php 3:4; Joh 8:15.

Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν. There is a strong emphasis on ἡμεῖς, and a secondary emphasis on ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, a phrase which, with this exception [and Joh 8:11], is peculiar in the N.T. to S. Luke (Luk 1:48, Luk 5:10, Luk 12:52, Luk 22:18; Luk 22:69; Act 18:6). Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh. He intimates that there are people, his Judaizing opponents, whose knowledge is limited to externals, and that there was a time when he himself did so. But when once a man has recognized that in Christ he and all died and rose again, he makes that mistake no longer.

οἱ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν. See critical note. Even though (2Co 4:3; 2Co 4:16) we have known Christ after the flesh. He admits as a fact that he once knew Christ only according to outward appearance, as a renegade Jew and revolutionary Rabbi, who had been rightly put to death.

ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν. Yet now we come to know (Him in that way) no more. S. Paul had got rid not only of his original hostility to Christ, but also of his early narrowness of view respecting Him. In connexion with Him “all mere local, and family, and national distinctions” were out of place. The change from οἴδαμεν to ἑγνώκαμεν is made, simply because οἴδαμεν is present, and a perfect is wanted: when the present is again wanted, the change is naturally from ἑγνώκαμεν to γινώσκω, instead of back to οἴδαμεν. But the difference between οἵδαμεν and γινώσκω is worth marking in translation.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He showeth what it is, not to live to ourselves, but to Christ, to wit, to know no man according to the flesh, that is to say, to be so conversant amongst men, as not to care for those worldly and carnal things, as they do which respect a man’s stock, his country, form, glory, riches, and such like, wherein men commonly dote, and weary themselves.

An amplification: This is, saith he, so true, that we do not now think carnally of Christ himself, who hath now left the world, and therefore must be considered of us spiritually.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Wherefore--because of our settled judgment (Co2 5:14),

henceforth--since our knowing Christ's constraining love in His death for us.

know we no man after the flesh--that is, according to his mere worldly and external relations (Co2 11:18; Joh 8:15; Phi 3:4), as distinguished from what he is according to the Spirit, as a "new creature" (Co2 5:17). For instance, the outward distinctions of Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, slave or free, learned or unlearned, are lost sight of in the higher life of those who are dead in Christ's death, and alive with Him in the new life of His resurrection (Gal 2:6; Gal 3:28).

yea, though--The oldest manuscripts read, "if even."

known Christ after the flesh--Paul when a Jew had looked for a temporal reigning, not a spiritual, Messiah. (He says "Christ," not Jesus: for he had not known personally Jesus in the days of His flesh, but he had looked for Christ or the Messiah). When once he was converted he no longer "conferred with flesh and blood" (Gal 1:16). He had this advantage over the Twelve, that as one born out of due time he had never known Christ save in His heavenly life. To the Twelve it was "expedient that Christ should go away" that the Comforter should come, and so they might know Christ in the higher spiritual aspect and in His new life-giving power, and not merely "after the flesh," in the carnal aspect of Him (Rom 6:9-11; Co1 15:45; Pe1 3:18; Pe1 4:1-2). Doubtless Judaizing Christians at Corinth prided themselves on the mere fleshly (Co2 11:18) advantage of their belonging to Israel, the nation of Christ, or on their having seen Him in the flesh, and thence claimed superiority over others as having a nearer connection with Him (Co2 5:12; Co2 10:7). Paul here shows the true aim should be to know Him spiritually as new creatures (Co2 5:15, Co2 5:17), and that outward relations towards Him profit nothing (Luk 18:19-21; Joh 16:7, Joh 16:22; Phi 3:3-10). This is at variance with both Romish Mariolatry and transubstantiation. Two distinct Greek verbs are used here for "know"; the first ("know we no man") means "to be personally acquainted with"; the latter ("known Christ . . . know . . . more") is to recognize, or estimate. Paul's estimate of Christ, or the expected Messiah, was carnal, but is so now no more.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 16. Know we no man after the flesh] As we know that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; and as we know that all are alienated from God, and are dead in trespasses and sins; therefore we esteem no man on account of his family relations, or the stock whence he proceeded, because we see all are shut up in unbelief, and all are children of wrath.

Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh] We cannot esteem a man who is a sinner, were he even allied to the blood royal of David, and were he of the same family with the man Christ himself; nor can we prize a man because he has seen Christ in the flesh; for many have seen him in the flesh to whom he will say; Depart from me, for I never knew you. So we: nothing weighs with us, nor in the sight of God, but redemption from this death, and living to him who died for them.

We know that the Jews valued themselves much in having Abraham for their father; and some of the Judaizing teachers at Corinth might value themselves in having seen Christ in the flesh, which certainly St. Paul did not; hence he takes occasion to say here that this kind of privilege availed nothing; for the old creature, however noble, or well descended in the sight of men, is under the curse; and the new creature only is such as God can approve.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Therefore we henceforth know no man. To know, here, is taken as meaning to reckon. “We do not judge according to external appearance, so as to reckon that man to be the most illustrious who seems so in appearance.” Under the term flesh, he includes all external endowments which mankind are accustomed to hold in estimation; and, in short, every thing which, apart from regeneration, is reckoned worthy of praise. At the same time, he speaks more particularly of outward disguise, or appearance, as it is termed. He alludes, also, without doubt, to the death of which he had made mention. “Since we ought, all of us, to be dead to the present life, nay more, to be nothing in ourselves, no one must be reckoned a servant of Christ on the ground of carnal excellence.”

Nay, though we have known Christ. The meaning is — “Though Christ lived for a time in this world, and was known by mankind in those things that have to do with the condition of the present life, he must now be known in another way — spiritually, so that we may have no worldly thoughts respecting him.” This passage is perverted by some fanatics, such as Servetus, for the purpose of proving, that Christ’s human nature is now absorbed by the Divinity. But how very far removed such a frenzy is from the Apostle’s intention, it is not difficult to perceive; for he speaks here, not of the substance of his body, but of external appearance, nor does he affirm that the flesh is no longer perceived by us in Christ, but says, that Christ is not judged of from that.

Scripture proclaims throughout, that Christ does now as certainly lead a glorious life in our flesh, as he once suffered in it. Nay more, take away this foundation, and our whole faith falls to the ground; for whence comes the hope of immortality, except from this, that we have already a pattern of it in the person of Christ? For as righteousness is restored to us on this ground, that Christ, by fulfilling the law in our nature, has abolished Adam’s disobedience, so also life has been restored to us by this means, that he has opened up for our nature the kingdom of God, from which it had been banished, and has given it a place in the heavenly dwelling. Hence, if we do not now recognize Christ’s flesh, we lose the whole of that confidence and consolation that we ought to have in him. But we acknowledge Christ as man, and as our brother in his flesh — not in a fleshly manner; because we rest solely in the consideration of his spiritual gifts. Hence he is spiritual to us, not as if he laid aside the body, and became a spirit, but because he regenerates and governs his own people by the influence of his Spirit.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh.—The logical dependence of this sentence on the foregoing lies in the suppressed premise, that in living not to ourselves, but to Christ, we gain new standards of judgment, new ways of looking at things. To know a man “after the flesh” is to know him by the outward accidents and circumstances of his life: his wealth, rank, culture, knowledge. St. Paul had ceased to judge of men by those standards. With him the one question was whether the man was, by his own act and choice, claiming the place which the death of Christ had secured for him, and living in Him as a new creature. That is the point of view from which he now “knows,” or looks on, every man.

Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh.—What, we ask, gave occasion to this strange parenthesis? What did it mean? To what stage of the Apostle’s life does it refer? (1) The answer to the first question is probably to be found in once more reading between the lines. There was, we know, a party at Corinth claiming a special relation to Christ (1Co_1:12). They probably did so as having been personal disciples. If they were like those who elsewhere claimed to speak in the name of James (Act_15:24; Gal_2:12), they were likely to urge his claims as the brother of the Lord. To St. Paul such a way of judging would be to know Christ after the flesh—to judge of Him, as of others, by the lower standard of the world. (2) The next question is more difficult. The hypothetical form of the proposition practically implies an admission of its truth. It is hardly conceivable that he refers to the time before his conversion, and means that he too had once seen and known Jesus of Nazareth, judging of Him “after the flesh,” by an earthly standard, and therefore had thought that He ought to do many things against him; or that, after the revelation of Christ in him, at the time of his conversion, he had, for a time, known Him after a manner which he now saw to be at least imperfect. The true solution of the problem is probably to be found in the fact that he had once thought, even before he appeared as the persecutor of the Church, of the Christ that was to come as others thought, that his Messianic expectations had been those of an earthly kingdom restored to Israel. Jesus of Nazareth did not fulfil those expectations, and therefore he had opposed His claim to be the Messiah. Now, he says, he had come to take a different view of the work and office of the Christ. (3) It follows, if this interpretation is correct, that he speaks of the period that preceded his conversion. not of an imperfect state of knowledge after it, out of which he had risen by progressive stages of illumination and clearer vision of the truth. Now and from henceforth, he seems to say, we think of Christ not as the King of Israel, but as the Saviour of mankind.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh] i.e. we regard no man from a purely fleshly point of view (see note on ch. 2Co_1:17), but look upon him as endowed with a new vital principle from above which has changed his heart. Cf. 2Co_5:17; Rom_8:1-11; 1Co_2:10-16. “Even in Christ a transition took place analogous to that which happened to man in regeneration. In the Resurrection the life according to the flesh passed over into a life according to the Spirit.” Olshausen. “He who knows no man after the flesh has entirely lost sight in the case of a Jew, for example, of his Jewish origin, in the case of a rich man of his riches, in that of a learned man of his learning, in that of a slave of his slavery, and so on.” Meyer. Cf. Mat_3:9; Joh_8:39; Rom_2:28-29; Rom_10:12; 1Co_12:13; Gal_3:28; Col_3:11.

yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh] i.e. from a purely human point of view, as the Son of David simply (Rom_1:3), not as the Incarnate Son of God, the Divine Word. See Bishop Wordsworth’s note here. St Paul, and many others of the first preachers of the faith (cf. Act_1:6), had started with such carnal conceptions, but they had disappeared before the light of God’s truth.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therefore if any man be in Christ,.... There's a secret being in Christ from everlasting; so all that are loved by him, espoused unto him, chosen and preserved in him, to whom he was a covenant head, surety, and representative, are in him, united to him, and one with him; not in such sense as the Father is in him, and the human nature is in him, but as husband and wife, and head and members are one: and there is an open being in Christ at conversion, when a man believes in Christ, and gives up himself to him; faith does not put a man into Christ, but makes him appear to be in him: and such an one "is a new creature"; or, as some read it, "let him be a new creature": who understand being in Christ to be by profession, and the sense this, whoever is in the kingdom or church of Christ, who professes himself to be a Christian, ought to be a new creature: the Arabic version reads it, "he that is in the faith of Christ is a new creature". All such who are secretly in Christ from everlasting, though as yet some of them may not be new creatures, yet they shall be sooner or later; and those who are openly in him, or are converted persons, are actually so; they are a new "creation", as the words may be rendered: , "a new creation", is a phrase often used by the Jewish (h) doctors, and is applied by the apostle to converted persons; and designs not an outward reformation of life and manners, but an inward principle of grace, which is a creature, a creation work, and so not man's, but God's; and in which man is purely passive, as he was in his first creation; and this is a new creature, or a new man, in opposition to, and distinction from the old man, the corruption of nature; and because it is something anew implanted in the soul, which never was there before; it is not a working upon, and an improvement of the old principles of nature, but an implantation of new principles of grace and holiness; here is a new heart, and a new spirit, and in them new light and life, new affections and desires, new delights and joys; here are new eyes to see with, new ears to hear with, new feet to walk, and new hands to work and act with:

old things are passed away: the old course of living, the old way of serving God, whether among Jews or Gentiles; the old legal righteousness, old companions and acquaintance are dropped; and all external things, as riches, honours, learning, knowledge, former sentiments of religion, are relinquished:

behold, all things are become new; there is a new course of life, both of faith and holiness; a new way of serving God through Christ by the Spirit, and from principles of grace; a new, another, and better righteousness is received and embraced; new companions are sought after, and delighted in; new riches, honours, glory, a new Jerusalem, yea, new heavens, and a new earth, are expected by new creatures: or the sense of the whole may be this, if any man is entered into the kingdom of God, into the Gospel dispensation, into a Gospel church state, which seems to be the sense of the phrase "in Christ", in Gal 3:28 he is become a new creature, or is got into a new creation, as it were into a new world, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile; for with respect to the former state of either, "old things are passed away"; if a Jew, the whole Mosaic economy is abolished; the former covenant is waxen old, and vanished away; the old ordinances of circumcision and the passover are no more; the daily sacrifice is ceased, and all the other sacrifices are at an end, Christ, the great sacrifice, being offered up; the priesthood of Aaron is antiquated, there is a change of it, and of the whole law; the observance of holy, days, new moons and sabbaths, is over; the whole ceremonial law is at end; all the shadows of it are fled and gone, the things they were shadows of being come by Christ, the sum and substance of them; and there is no more a serving God in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit: and if a Gentile, all the former idols he worshipped he turns from, and his language is, "what have I to do any more with idols? or what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" all former sacrifices, superstitious rites and ceremonies, with which he worshipped them, are relinquished by him; with all other Heathenish customs, rules, and methods of conduct he had been used to: "behold, all things are become new"; to the one, and to the other; the Gospel dispensation is a new state of things; a new form of church state is erected, not national, as among the Jews, but congregational, consisting of persons gathered out of the world, and anew embodied together; new ordinances are appointed, which were never in use before, as baptism and the Lord's supper; a new and living way is opened by the blood of Christ into the holiest of all, not by the means of slain beasts, as among the Jews, nor by petty deities as with the Gentiles; a new commandment of love is enjoined all the followers of the Lamb; and another name is given them, a new name, which the mouth of the Lord their God has named, not of Jews nor Gentiles, but of Christians; and new songs are put into their mouths, even praise to God: in short, the Gospel church state seems to be, as it were, a new creation, and perhaps is meant by the new heavens and new earth, Isa 65:15 as well as those who are the proper members of it, are new creatures in the sense before given.

(h) T. Hieros. Roshhashana, fol. 59. 3. Vajikra Rabba, fol. 170. 4. Bemidbar Rabba, fol, 202. 3. Cosri, fol. 62. 2. & R. Levi ben Gersom in Exod, fol. 108. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 121. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Ver. 16. No man after the flesh] i.e. We esteem no man simply the better or worse for his wealth, poverty, honour, ignominy, or anything outward. See Jas 1:9-11. Thomas Watts, martyr, spake thus at his death to his wife and children: Wife, and my good children, I must now depart from you, therefore henceforth know I you no more; but as the Lord hath given you to me, so I give you again to him, whom I charge you see that ye obey. (Acts and Mon.)

Though we have known Christ] As possibly Paul might have known Christ in the flesh; for Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, Luk 24:19. Austin wished that he might have seen three things: Rome flourishing, Paul preaching, Christ conversing with men upon earth. Bede comes after, and correcting this last wish, saith, Yea, but let me see the King in his beauty, Christ in his heavenly kingdom. Paul was so spiritualized that he took knowledge of nothing here below; he passed through the world as a man in a deep muse, or that so looks for a lost jewel, that he overlooks all besides it.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore henceforth - In view of the fact that the Lord Jesus died for all people, and rose again. The effect of that has been to change all our feelings, and to give us entirely new views of people, of ourselves, and of the Messiah, so that we have become new creatures. The word “henceforth” (ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν apo tou nun) means properly from the present time; but there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul refers to the time when he first obtained correct views of the Messiah, and that he means from that time. His mind seems to have been thrown back to the period when these new views burst upon his soul; and the sentiment is, that from the time when he obtained those new views, he had resolved to know no one after the flesh.

Know we no man - The word “know” here (οἴδαμεν oidamen) is used in the sense of, we form our estimate of; we judge; we are influenced by. Our estimate of man is formed by other views than according to the flesh.

After the flesh - A great many different interpretations have been proposed of this expression, which it is not needful here to repeat. The meaning is, probably, that in his estimate of people he was not influenced by the views which are taken by those who are unrenewed, and who are unacquainted with the truths of redemption. It may include a great many things, and perhaps the following:

(1) He was not influenced in his estimate of people by a regard to their birth, or country. He did not form an attachment to a Jew because he was a Jew, or to a Gentile because he was a Gentile. He had learned that Christ died for all, and he felt disposed to regard all alike.

(2) He was not influenced in his estimate of people by their rank, and wealth, and office. Before his conversion he had been, but now he learned to look on their moral character, and to regard that as making the only permanent, and really important distinction among people. He did not esteem one man highly because he was of elevated rank, or of great wealth, and another less because he was of a different rank in life.

(3) It may also include the idea, that he had left his own kindred and friends on account of superior attachment to Christ. He had parted from them to preach the gospel. He was not restrained by their opinions; he was not kept from going from land to land by love to them. It is probable that they remained Jews. It may be, that they were opposed to him, and to his efforts in the cause of the Redeemer. It may be that they would have dismissed him from a work so self-denying, and so arduous, and where he would be exposed to so much persecution and contempt. It may be that they would have set before him the advantages of his birth and education; would have reminded him of his early brilliant prospects; and would have used all the means possible to dissuade him from embarking in a cause like that in which he was engaged. The passage here means that Paul was influenced by none of these considerations.

In early life he had been. He had prided himself on rank, and on talent. He was proud of his own advantages as a Jew; and he estimated worth by rank, and by national distinction, Phi 3:4-6. He had despised Christians on account of their being the followers of the man of Nazareth: and there can be no reason to doubt that he partook of the common feelings of his countrymen and held in contempt the whole Gentile world. But his views were changed - so much changed as to make it proper to say that he was a new creature, 2Co 5:17. When converted, he did not confer with flesh and blood Gal 1:16; and in the school of Christ, he had learned that if a man was his disciple, he must be willing to forsake father and mother. and sister and brother, and to hate his own life that he might honor him, Luk 14:26. He had formed his principle of action now from a higher standard than any regard to rank, or wealth, or national distinction; and had risen above them all, and now estimated people not by these external and factitious advantages, but by a reference to their personal character and moral worth.

Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh - Though in common with the Jewish nation we expected a Messiah who would be a temporal prince, and who would be distinguished for the distinctions which are valued among people, yet we have changed our estimate of him, and judge of him in this way no longer. There can be no doubt that Paul, in common with his countrymen, had expected a Messiah who would be a magnificent temporal prince and conqueror, one who they supposed would be a worthy successor of David and Solomon. The coming of such a prince, Paul had confidently expected. He expected no other Messiah. He had fixed his hopes on that. This is what is meant by the expression ‘to know Christ after the flesh.’ It does not mean that he had seen him in the flesh, but that he had formed, so to speak, carnal views of him, and such as people of this world regard as grand and magnificent in a monarch and conqueror. He had had no correct views of his spiritual character, and of the pure and holy purposes for which he would come into the world.

Yet now henceforth know we him no more - We know him no more in this manner. Our conceptions and views of him are changed. We no more regard him according to the flesh; we no longer esteem the Messiah who was to come as a temporal prince and warrior; but we look on him as a spiritual Saviour, a Redeemer from sin. The idea is, that his views of him had been entirely changed. It does not mean, as our translation would seem to imply, that Paul would have no further acquaintance with Christ, but it means that from the moment of his conversion he had laid aside all his views of his being a temporal sovereign, and all his feelings that he was to be honored only because he supposed that he would have an elevated rank among the monarchs of the earth. Locke and Macknight, it seems to me, have strangely mistaken this passage. The former renders it, “For if I myself have gloried in this, that Christ was himself circumcised as I am, and was of my blood and nation, I do so now no more any longer,” The same substantially is the view of Macknight. Clarke as strangely mistakes it, when he says that it means that Paul could not prize now a man who was a sinner because he was allied to the royal family of David, nor prize a man because he had seen Christ in the flesh.

The correct view, as it seems to me, is given above. And the doctrine which is taught here is, that at conversion, the views are essentially changed, and that the converted man has a view of the Saviour entirely different from what he had before. He may not, like Paul, have regarded him as a temporal prince; he may not have looked to him as a mighty monarch, but his views in regard to his person, character, work, and loveliness will be entirely changed. He will see a beauty in his character which he never saw before. Before, he regarded him as a root out of dry ground; as the despised man of Nazareth; as having nothing in his character to be desired, or to render him lovely Isa 53:1-12; but at conversion the views are changed. He is seen to be the chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely; as pure, and holy, and benevolent; as mighty, and great, and glorious; as infinitely benevolent; as lovely in his precepts, lovely in his life, lovely in his death, lovely in his resurrection, and as most glorious as he is seated on the right hand of God. He is seen to be a Saviour exactly adapted to the condition and needs of the soul; and the soul yields itself to him to be redeemed by him alone.

There is no change of view so marked and decided as that of the sinner in regard to the Lord Jesus Christ at his conversion; and it is a clear proof that we have never been born again if our views in reference to him have never undergone any change. “What think ye of Christ?” is a question the answer to which will determine any man’s character, and demonstrate whether he is or is not a child of God. Tyndale has more correctly expressed the sense of this than our translation.” Though we have known Christ after the flesh, now henceforth know we him so no more.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Wherefore, henceforth we know no man according to the flesh; i.e. having our thoughts and hearts fixed upon Christ, as he is risen, and has prepared for us an immortal life, we know not, i.e. we do not esteem any thing in this mortal life, nor any man according to any human considerations of this life; we regard not whether they are Jews, and the sons of Abraham, or Gentiles; nay, if we have known and esteemed Christ, as descending from Abraham and David, now we know him so no longer, nor considering him as born a mortal man, but as he is risen immortal, and will bless us with an immortal and eternal glory. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: words of sense in Scripture ordinarily signify more than the act of that sense which they express; particularly this term know ordinarily signifieth to approve and acknowledge; and so it signifies here. We know, that is, we regard, we acknowledge no man in the discharge of our office; we regard no man with respect to any external fleshly consideration. Under which notion he comprehends all things not spiritual, whether carnal relations, riches, &c.

Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh; not from any sight of him, for we read not that Paul at any time saw Christ, but, Act 9:1-43, when he saw him, not according to the flesh, but as exalted at the right hand of God: but by the hearing of the ear Paul had known Christ, as one that had lived in the flesh, and who had conversed with men for above thirty years;

yet (saith he) we know him no more, we shall neither see nor hear him any more in the flesh; we now only know him as he hath a glorious body, with which he sitteth at the right hand of God.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Henceforth—After the full, constraining effect of Christ’s death upon us.

After the flesh—In contrast with after the spirit. Rom_8:1. After the unregenerate nature. Under the power of the Spirit resultant from Christ’s death, the renovated man (see next verse) sees things in a new aspect. In his renewal all things else appear renewed. As consecrated to Christ he is a devoted being; in the full assurance of faith things eternal are the sole realities, and things of time become transient and subordinate; and in the full assurance of hope he sees that the priceless benefits, the eternal results of Christ’s death and resurrection, are his. He, therefore, henceforth knows no thing and no man after the flesh. And St. Paul means to say, that his own living in the full realization of this renewed state is the cause why he is held by fleshly men as beside himself, 2Co_5:13.

Christ after the flesh—Supremely does the eye of the renewed man behold Christ in a new light. Rationalism may pronounce him only “a great religious genius;”

Judeo-Christianism may hold him a mere prophet-reformer; but the man who has truly felt the power of his death beholds Christ as the divine though human, the dying yet ever-living, source of our transcendent life. The phrase known Christ after the flesh, does not in itself necessarily signify to have seen Christ while he lived on earth. There is no valid reason for supposing that Paul ever so saw the living Jesus. And yet it is difficult to avoid supposing that he here does allude to some boast of his opposers, that they had seen and heard the personal Jesus.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Know no man after the flesh. It is a consequence of my death with Christ that I have done with carnal, superficial, earthly, external judgments according to the appearance, and not according to the heart. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh. The word for "know" is different from the one just used (oida, scio; egnwka, cognovi), and may be rendered, "though we have taken note of." The whole phrase, which has been interpreted in multitudes of different ways, and has led to many different hypotheses, must be understood in accordance with the context. St. Paul is saying that he has now renounced all mere earthly and human judgments; and he here implies that the day has been (whether which is a very unlikely view before his conversion, when he looked on Christ as a "deceiver," or just after his conversion, when possibly he may only have known him partially as the Jewish Messiah) when he knew Christ only in this fleshly way; but henceforth he will know him so no more. Probably this "knowing Christ after the flesh" is a rebuke to those members of the Christ party at Corinth who may have boasted that they were superior to all others because they had personally seen or known Christ a spirit which Christ himself not only discouraged (Joh_16:7) but even rebuked. (Mat_12:50) To St. Paul Christ is now regarded as far above all local, national, personal, and Jewish limitations, and as the principle of spiritual life in the heart of every Christian. In the view which he took of his Lord St. Paul henceforth has banished all Jewish particularism for gospel catholicity. He regards Christ, not in the light of earthly relationships and conditions, but as the risen, glorified, eternal, universal Saviour.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

So that we from this time - That we knew the love of Christ. Know no one - Neither ourselves, nor you, neither the rest of the apostles, Gal. ii, 6, nor any other person. After the flesh - According to his former state, country, descent, nobility, riches, power, wisdom. We fear not the great. We regard not the rich or wise. We account not the least less than ourselves. We consider all, only in order to save all. Who is he that thus knows no one after the flesh? ln what land do these Christians live? Yea, if we have known even Christ after the flesh - So as to love him barely with a natural love, so as to glory in having conversed with him on earth, so as to expect only temporal benefits from him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The ministry of reconciliation:

v. 16. Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.

v. 17. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

v. 18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the, ministry of reconciliation;

v. 19. to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the Word of Reconciliation.

v. 20. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, Be ye reconciled to God.

v. 21. For He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

So completely has Paul entered into the spirit of Christ’s vicarious work that he wants to apply its practical demands to all circumstances of life: So that we from now on know nobody according to the flesh. Because in his conversion he received the conviction that the believers should live to no one but Christ, and because in his ministry the love of Christ is the one compelling motive, therefore he allows no fleshly considerations to influence his judgment and his treatment of others. It makes no difference to him whether his neighbor or any man is of noble birth, of influential position, socially prominent, rich, with an impressive manner of dealing with people—all these things have no influence upon him. He has absolutely no selfish motives; he does not seek his own. "To know any one according to the flesh is to know him no farther than the flesh is able. But now the flesh is not able to do more than seek its own with regard to everybody; it hates, it is jealous, it does the enemy an ill turn wherever it can; but it seeks desire, good will, enjoyment, friendship in everybody for its own benefit. " These carnal considerations Paul has left behind him. And more: Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no more. There was a time when Paul had looked also upon the promised Messiah in this carnal manner, when he had thought of Him only as an earthly prince and deliverer from the rule of the Romans. But he had now obtained a better knowledge of Christ, of both His person and office. The crucified Jesus was no longer an offense to him as in the days before his conversion, but he recognized in Him the basis of his salvation.

The result of this knowledge for himself and all believers is: So that, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. That is the result of the proper view of Christ: Any man, all men, no matter how many, that have accepted Christ by faith and have therefore been planted into Him, are new creatures, new creations Conversion is a new creation, a regeneration; in conversion heart and mind are changed completely; converted people are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, Eph 2:10. The knowledge of Christ by faith, no matter how imperfect it may still be, works this miracle: The old things have passed away; behold, they are become new. The old carnal-mindedness of the old Adam has passed away, even though it is still necessary to remove him by daily contrition and repentance. And thus every Christian is a miracle in his own eyes: the creation of the new man is finished, and he is gaining every day in strength and power, Eph 4:23-24. All this is brought about by the Word of Grace and by the ministry of the Gospel.

But the final source of the blessings is the Lord Himself: But all things from God, who has reconciled us to Himself, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation. God is the Creator of all the wonderful things which are given to man in his conversion. By a twofold act he brings about the spiritual creation in the heart of man. In the first place, He reconciled all mankind to Himself through Christ. It was God Himself that planned the salvation, the atonement of mankind through the sacrifice of Christ. All men were, by their own fault, His enemies and wanted nothing of Him. But since His righteousness and holiness would therefore have been obliged to condemn them to everlasting punishment, He found this way by which the enmity might be removed and the friendly relations intended by Him in the beginning be established. This reconciliation was brought about by Christ for all men, by His vicarious work; it is a historical fact. And now the second act of God’s mercy comes into consideration, namely, that he has given to the apostle and his fellow-workers, to the ministers of the Gospel at all times, the ministry of the reconciliation, He has entrusted to them the office of proclaiming the fact of the reconciliation of all men, the fact that God is actually reconciled to all men through Christ. The business of the Gospel-ministry, then, is only one, namely, to make known the existing reconciliation and thus to urge men to believe in Christ.

The apostle explains this statement, thus giving the content of all Gospel-preaching: That God was reconciling a world to Himself in Christ. He was removing the enmity which had separated man from his Maker. And the actual, practical manner in which the reconciliation is being brought about is: Not imputing to them their sins. Men are guilty of transgressions before the face of God continually, their trespasses should be recorded on the debit side of the account-book of God. But God does not impute their trespasses to men that accept the reconciliation: He enters them, not under their own names, but under that of Christ, and the atonement being perfect, the debt is wiped away. Into the hands of the apostles and of all the ministers of the Gospel, therefore, God has placed the Word of Reconciliation; He has entrusted to them the message of reconciliation, the Word by which He wants to recall all men to the right relation to Him.

Paul, therefore, filled with the glory of these divine facts, sends forth his ringing invitation: In behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as though God were entreating through us. Christ’s representatives they are, bringing the Word, the offer of reconciliation to men, the earnest entreaty of God to accept His mercy and grace in Christ Jesus: We pray you in behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God! What a strange situation: The holy, righteous God, who has been insulted times without number by the countless sins of the men of all times, begs for reconciliation; the almighty, jealous God, who is able to punish every sin with the condemnation of hell, offers instead the fullness of His love and everlasting life and bliss! That surely is a mystery of the Gospel beyond all understanding; that is a message which should impress the most hardened sinner with the unutterable glory of the love of God. And lest anyone have doubts as to the fact of reconciliation, as to the possibility of a full and complete atonement under such conditions, the apostle explains the miracle in one sentence: Him who knew not sin for us He made sin, in order that we might become righteousness of God in Him. In this way was the miracle of the atonement brought about. God Himself sent His own Son, who was perfectly sinless and holy, to whose nature all contradiction and opposition to the will of God was utterly strange, who was pure and holy also in the sight of God, and laid upon Him the iniquity of the whole world, Isa 53:6, He made Him to be sin on our behalf. The transgressions were laid upon Him, the guilt was imputed to Him; He was the representative of the whole world’s sin, the greatest malefactor that ever lived on earth, all by virtue of His vicarious work. And so perfect was the expiation, so complete the propitiation, that we have become, in turn, the righteousness of God in Him. For the sake of Christ we are now looked upon as being as holy and perfect as the very Son of God Himself, with not a single fault or flaw to condemn us, with not a single transgression charged to our account. That is, in brief, the wonderful summary of the message of reconciliation, that is the Gospel which the ministers of the Lord are to proclaim in the fullness of its beauty and glory, that is the invitation they should extend to all men without the slightest restriction. And we, in turn, should accept the glorious news in the spirit in which it was offered, and be sure, on our part, henceforth not to live unto ourselves, but unto Him that died for us and rose again.

Summary

Paul expresses the longing of his homesick heart for the future glory, states as the prime motive of his work the love of Christ which he has experienced, and issues his earnest invitation to accept the message of reconciliation.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These words probably were spoken by the apostle to rebuke the carnal boastings of some Jews, who gloried in their having seen Christ in the flesh before he died; the apostle directs them to a more spirtual knowledge of him, now since his resurrection, as more suitable to his gloried state: q.d. "What though you have eaten and drunk in Christ’s presence when on earth, all that corporeal familiarity is ceased; it is his spiritual gracious presence which now you are to depend upon, and value yourselves by." For henceforth know we no man after the flesh: we value no man for his outward advantages, for his wisdom, riches, or learning. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, seeing and conversing with him when here on earth, yet must we know him so, and enjoy him as such, no more. Our carnal affections and relations to him must ever cease, now he is exalted into a spiritual and glorious condition.

Learn hence, 1. That a bare knowing of Christ after the flesh ought to cease among Christians. There is a knowledge of Christ after the flesh, since his ascension into heaven, namely, by a naked profession of his name without a conformity to his laws, and by acts of sensitive affection. Some by reading the history of our Saviour’s passion, others by seeing in the sacramental elements a tragical representation of his crucifixion, do find their human passions stir and move; but if it rests here, without drawing forth our love to his person , and quickening our obedience to his commands; all this is but knowing Christ after the flesh to not spiritual or saving purposes.

Learn, 2. That a bare knowledge of Christ after the flesh will do us no good, be of no comfort or advantage to us, as to our eternal salvation. It is not a fond affection to his person and memory, but obedience to his laws, that Christ values.

It is observable, that an outward ceremonious respect to our Saviour’s person was very little regarded by him when he was here upon earth; a serious attention to his doctrine was infinitely preferred by him before all that. Our love to Christ is better shown by religious services, than by passionate affections.

We find, Joh 20:17 when Mary fell at Christ’s feet, after he was risen, and embraced him, when she held him by the foot and worshipped him, when in an humble and affectionate devotion she lies prostrate before him, Christ forbids it, Touch me not. He rejects all these eternal testimonies of her love, which proceeded only from human affection; but he directs her to a more acceptable service, namely, to run and carry tidings of his resurrection to his disconsolate disciples, Go to my disciples, and say, &c.

From whence I infer, That it is much more acceptable to Christ to be about his service, and doing good to our place and station, than performing any offices of human love and respect unto his person. Seeing, then, that this ceremonious respect pleased Christ, neither when on earth, nor now he is in heaven, henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we him no more.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh. As all have died to live new lives for Christ, they are not Jews and Gentiles; Romans, Greeks or Scythians, but all are Christians, not to be known as belonging to the old fleshly races longer. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh. The Christ risen and sitting on the throne as our Lord is not in the flesh, and the Christ to whom the church adores is that risen Christ.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Because of Christ's love and death, we are not to judge by human standards. We are appointed to teach others how to be united with and have peace with God through Christ's death and receive God's righteousness through Christ.

For this reason

This refers to what Paul has just said about living for Christ instead of living for self.

he is a new creation

Paul speaks of the person who believes in Christ as if God had created a new person. AT: "he is a new person" (See: Metaphor)

The old things have passed away

Here "the old things" refers to the things that characterized a person before they trusted in Christ.

See

The word "See" here alerts us to pay attention to the surprising information that follows.

translationWords

judge

in Christ

create

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

16.] So that (accordingly,—consistently with our judgment expressed ver. 15) we (in opposition to our adversaries, the false teachers: not general, of all Christians, as De W.,—but as yet spoken, as the emphatic position of ἡμεῖς shews, of the Apostle himself (and his colleagues?)) from this time (since this great event, the Death of Christ) know no man according to (as he is in) the flesh (Meyer well remarks: “Since all are (ethically) dead, and each man is bound to live only to Christ, not to himself, our knowledge of others must be altogether independent of that which they are κατὰ σάρκα,—must not be regulated κατὰ σάρκα. And the connexion of ver. 16 with ver. 15 shews that we must not take κατὰ σάρκα as the subjective rule of οἴδαμεν,—so that the explanation would be, ‘according to mere human knowledge,’ ‘apart from the enlightening of the Holy Spirit,’ cf. ch. 1:17; 1Co 1:26,—but as the objective rule, cf. ch. 11:18; Joh 8:15; Php 3:4,—so that εἰδέναι τινὰ κατὰ σάρκα = ‘to know any one according to his mere human individuality,’—‘to know him as men have judged him by what he is in the flesh,’ not by what he is κατὰ πνεῦμα, as a Christian, as καινὴ κτίσις, ver. 17. He who knows no man κατὰ σάρκα has, e.g. in the case of the Jew, entirely lost sight of his Jewish origin,—in that of the rich man, of his riches,—in that of the learned, of his learning,—in that of the slave, of his servitude, &c., cf. Gal 3:28”): if even we have (εἰ καί concedes what follows; πόλιν μεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ βλέπεις, φρονεῖς δʼ ὅμως, οἵᾳ νόσῳ ξύνεστι, Soph. Œd. Tyr. 302,—but also, as distinguished from καὶ εἰ, introduces no climax, and distributes the force of the over καί the whole concessive clause, whereas in καὶ εἰ it is confined to the conditional particle εἰ,—see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 139) known Christ according to the flesh, now however we know Him (thus) no longer. The fact alluded to in the concessive clause, is, not any personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus while He was on earth, but that view of Him which Paul took before his conversion, when he knew Him only according to His outward apparent standing in this world, only as Jesus of Nazareth. χριστόν is not = τὸν χριστόν, ‘the Christ,’ but merely as a proper name designating Him whom he now knew as Christ.

Observe, the stress is not on χριστόν, q. d. ‘If we have known even Christ after the flesh,’ &c., as usually understood;—the position of χρ. forbids this, which would require εἰ καὶ χριστὸν ἐγν. κ. σάρ.,—but on ἐγνώκαμεν, as belonging to the past, contrasted with our present knowledge. Observe likewise, that the position of κατὰ σάρκα, as above also, forbids its being taken as the subjective qualification of ἐγνώκαμεν, as = εἰ καὶ κατὰ σάρκα ἐγν. χρ., or εἰ κ. ἐγν. χρ. κ. σάρκ., and fixes it as belonging to χριστόν,—‘Christ according to the flesh.’ St. Paul now, since his conversion, knew Him no longer as thus shewn, but as ὁρισθέντα υἱὸν θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. At that time, εὐδόκησεν ὁ ἀφορίσας με … ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, Gal 1:15, Gal 1:16. See by all means Stanley’s remarks, on the absence of all local and personal recollections of our Lord’s life, in the apostolic ago.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16-19. Having stated the motive of his work as a preacher, the Apostle now goes on to show the basis of it in the new conditions produced by being in Christ and in the reconciliation brought about for us by Him.

16. The verse is one of those parenthetical remarks which are so characteristic of St Paul, and so natural in one who dictated his letters; cf. v. 7; 1Co 15:56; Rom. 5:25. There is no need to conjecture that he inserted it afterwards; still less that a copyist inserted it. A copyist would have inserted something much more simple, and no copy exists without it. Verse 15 would easily suggest it, * and v. 17 is parallel to it. The parenthesis is quite in place. Christ died for all in order that all should cease to live for themselves, and should live for Him and for others in Him. That implies that our estimate of others must be based, not on the πρόσωπον, but on the καρδία, not on the external circumstances which the world values, but on the character and the inner life.

The details of this difficult verse are very variously explained, and it would be tedious, and not very profitable, to quote all the variations. What follows is offered as a tenable interpretation, and a few that seem to be less tenable are added.

ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν. The pronoun is emphatic, and so also, in a lower degree, is the adverbial phrase. ‘Wherefore whatever others may do, we ministers of Christ, from the time when we arrived at this decision (κρίναντες). ‘The others are the many who care chiefly for earthly considerations, in their estimate of men; and it is implied that ‘we’ once did so, but have been effectually cured. The meaning of ἀπὸ τ. νῦν is uncertain, but it cannot mean ‘from the present moment, the time of writing,’ and there is nothing in the context that is obvious, except the conclusion drawn from the death of Christ. Recognition of the true meaning of the death of Christ has put an end to κατὰ σάρκα: now all is κατὰ πνεῦμα.

οἴδαμεν. The verb is used in the same sense as in 1Th 5:12, ‘we appreciate, we value.’ ‘Agnoscere’ hic significat Habere rationem aut respectum is Calvin’s remark. In 1Co 16:18, ἐπιγινώσκετε is used in much the same sense; see note there and comp. καλῶς ἔχει Θεὸν καὶ ἐπίσκοπον εἰδὲ́αι (Ign. Smyr. 9). ‘We value no one because of his external attributes.’ The differences between king and clown, rich and poor, master and slave, genius and dunce, do not come into the estimate; what counts is the person’s character as a Christian.

κατὰ σάρκα. Secundum statum veterem, ex nobilitate, divitiis, opibus, sapientia (Beng.). ‘In the world’s way,’ ‘by human standards,’ ‘as men know one another’ are not accurate renderings. They make κατὰ σάρκα subjective, qualifying the view of the person who estimates; whereas κατὰ σάρκα is objective, qualifying the aspect of the person who is estimated, ‘according to external distinctions,’ ‘by what he is in the flesh.’

εἱ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα χριστόν. ‘Even though we have appreciated Christ after the flesh.’ The change from εἰδέναι to γινώσκειν is of little moment here: it is the change of tense that matters. A perfect is wanted, and, as εἰδέναι has no perfect, a change of verb becomes necessary. As usual, εἰ καί concedes the point which is stated hypothetically. St Paul seems to be referring to some charge which had been made against him, that he had known Christ according to the flesh, and he admits that at one time this was true. Then what does St Paul mean when he admits that he once knew Christ κατὰ σάρκα?. The phrase κατὰ σάρκα occurs often, in very different contexts, and no explanation of it will suit them all. In each case the context must decide (1:17, 10:2, 3; 1Co 1:26, 1Co 1:10:18; Gal 4:23; Rom 4:1, Rom 4:8:4, Rom 4:5, Rom 4:12, Rom 4:9:3, Rom 4:5; etc.). Our answer to the question will depend upon the period in St Paul’s career at which this erroneous appreciation of Christ is placed.

Almost certainly he is alluding to some time previous to his conversion. On that hypothesis various explanations have been suggested. (1) At that time he knew Christ as an heretical and turbulent teacher, who was justly condemned by the Sanhedrin and crucified by the Romans. Consequently, he persecuted His adherents and caused them to be imprisoned and slain. This explanation seems to be the best. * (2) At that time he had the very carnal idea that the Messiah must be an earthly potentate who would conquer the Romans and set Israel free. But the passage implies, and the next verse shows, that it is the actual Christ, and not the Jewish idea of the Messiah, that the Apostle admits that he knew, and knew superficially and wrongly. (3) At that time he had seen Christ at Jerusalem or elsewhere. But would St Paul lay any weight on the fact (if it was a fact) that he had once known Christ by sight? And what meaning, in that case, could ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκω have? Moreover, if he had seen Christ before the Crucifixion, would he not have mentioned it 11:22, 23? (4) He is admitting this merely for the sake of argument. ‘Supposing that I have seen Christ in the flesh, as some of my opponents claim to have done, I put no value upon that accidental circumstance. On that hypothesis, I am in no better position as a teacher than if I had never seen Him.’ But we do not know that any of the Apostle’s opponents did claim to have seen Christ during His ministry, or that on this account they professed to be superior to St Paul. Nevertheless, this explanation of the passage is worth considering.

There are some, however, who think it more probable that St Paul is referring to a time subsequent to his conversion. (5) He is confessing that at an immature stage of his ministry he still retained some of the low ideas about Christ which he had inherited from Judaism. Jowett (Introduction to Thessalonians, pp. 8-12) strongly advocates this view. He says that St Paul “acknowledged a time when he had more nearly approximated to their (his opponents’) Judaizing tenets, or in other words, had known Christ after the flesh. Whatever softening the skill of interpreters may introduce into these latter words, they must have a meaning; that meaning is that there was something which the Apostle had left behind him, which he had once thought, and no longer thought, to be a part of the faith of Christ” (p. 9). This view has also been held by Baur, Holsten, and others. The objection to it is that no trace of it is to be found in any of the Epistles. St Paul admits more than once that he had been a persecuting Jew (1Co 15:19; 1Ti 1:13), and seems to allude to it elsewhere. But he nowhere confesses that he had once preached a Judaizing Gospel: in Gal 2:15-19 he declares that he had done the opposite. For Beyschlag’s criticism of this interpretation, and for other interpretations, see Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, Php 2:3. Kirsopp Lake, who places the time in which St Paul knew Christ after the flesh in the period before his conversion, remarks that the Apostle “had once been an anti-Christian Jew; but when had he ever been a Judaizing Christian?” (Earlier Epistles of St Paul, p. 224). * It is possible to take this last view also on the same lines as (4) in reference to (3). We may say, (6) St Paul is admitting this merely for the sake of argument. ‘Let us grant, if you like, that at one time I preached much the same unspiritual Gospel that my Judaizing opponents do. I certainly do nothing of the kind now, and therefore it is idle to reproach me with it. Am I right, or are they right, now? That is the only question.’ But it is difficult to believe that his opponents had asserted that at one time he had agreed with them about the Gospel. And, unless they had done so, why should he, even hypothetically, concede that he might have agreed with them? Their view of him was that he had gone mad from the first.

We must be content to leave the exact meaning of the words in uncertainty; but this much is fairly clear. The Apostle is alluding to some charge which had been made against him, and he admits that at one time it was true; but he declares that there is no truth in it now. This excludes the (on other grounds) improbable view that (7) seeing Christ on the road to Damascus was knowing Him after the flesh.

See the fine comment of Aug. (De Doc. Chris. i. 38), to the effect that this passage teaches us not to cling to the details of Christ’s earthly life, although they were done for our salvation, but pass over them quickly, in order to reach Christ Himself, who has freed our nature from earthly things and placed it at the right hand of God.

ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν. He might have said οἴδαμεν, and it is perhaps excess of accuracy to make in this place any difference between οἴδαμεν, ‘we know,’ and γινώσκομεν, ‘we come to know.’ St Paul wants the present once more, and he naturally takes the present of ἐγνώκαμεν. The important thing in translation is to distinguish the perfect from the present on each side of it. This the Vulg. does with novimus, cognovimus, novimus. The νῦν means from the moment of his conversion.

εἰ καί (א * B D* 17, Arm.) rather than καὶ εἰ (F G, Latt. Syr-Pesh.), or εἰ δὲ καί (א 3 C 2 D 2 and 3 L P), or εἰ δέ (K, Copt.) D E G add κατὰ σάρκα after γινώσκομεν.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

After the flesh [κατα σαρκα] . "He who knows no man after the flesh, has, for example, in the case of the Jew, entirely lost sight of his Jewish origin; in that of the rich man, of his riches; in that of the learned of his learning; in that of the slave, of his servitude" (Alford). Compare Gal 3:28.

Yea though [ει και] . Not with a climactic force, as A. V., and not with the emphasis on Christ, but on have known. The proper sense will be brought out in reading by emphasizing have. We know no man henceforth after the flesh : even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now, etc. Paul refers to his knowledge of Christ before his conversion, a hearsay knowledge, confined to reports of His personal appearance, His deeds, His relations to the Jews, His alleged crime and punishment. When the glorified Christ first spoke to him out of heaven, he asked, "Who art thou?" Compare to reveal His Son in me, Gal 1:16.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.