In response to my full article on a new reading of 2 Corinthians 5.10 (which you can read here in full), Dr. Garland wrote: “Tom rightly points [out] that one’s unexamined presuppositions about what the text says tends to predetermine the reading of the Greek grammar. If one assumes the interpretation is correct, one is less likely to probe as exhaustively as Tom has done [on] the grammatical complications” (his full reply to the short prelude that I wrote before publishing the full piece can be found here). But the faulty analysis of 2 Cor. 5:10 goes far beyond just formal (that is, grammar and syntax) concerns. These eschatological presuppositions not only caused exegetes to overlook the grammar (which in a way is understandable since the grammar is, as Dr. Garland wrote, “so problematic”), but these same assumptions also caused them to consciously drain the cryptic phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος of any real meaning by pigeonholing it, as Windisch did in his seminal commentary, Der zweite Korintherbrief,172, as a Dublette, that is, a duplicate of the subsequent phrase, πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν. Windisch, 172, even admitted that he was tempted to strike one of the two phrases, τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος or πρὸς ἃ, as a mere gloss or commentary: “man ist versucht, eine der Wendungen als Glosse zu streichen.” He finally concluded, however, that the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος was simply too difficult (schwierig) not to be the original, 172: “aber τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ist für eine Glosse zu originell und zu schwierig, und πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν wäre auch nicht gerade die nächstliegende Glosse für τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος.”
The problematic nature of the grammar should have pointed exegetes toward the conceptual flaws underlying the conventional treatment of the passage. Unfortunately, future commentators did little to probe the meaning of this “difficult” phrase, but instead continued largely to discount it as essentially a redundancy. This tendency has for the most part governed the analysis of the passage until this day. See e.g., Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 406, where the author assumed without comment that διὰ τοῦ σώματοςis to be read in conjunction with the second verb ἔπραξεν and not the first: “So that each may be duly recompensed for actions … performed through the body.” Compare Kruse, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament 2 Corinthians, 111, where the authors likewise assumed that the key phrase (τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος) simply confirmed the standard reading (“the things (done) through the body”), without explaining the grammatical or conceptual basis for associating the reference to the body with ἔπραξεν, rather than with the site or vehicle through which judgment is received (κομίσηται). Likewise, Martin, 2 Corinthians, 115, glossed over this difficult passage with no grammatical or conceptual comment other than an unstated reliance on standard assumptions: “The basis of this recompense for the Christian is τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, ‘what he has done in the body’.”
Thus, a phrase as loaded and potentially rich with meaning as anything Paul wrote was effectively cast aside and ignored. Ernst Synofzik, Die Gerichts-und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus, spotted this oversight in the passage’s treatment and sought to resurrect its meaning by focusing on Paul’s stress on the body. To Synofzik, 77, the body was the object of judgment, Gegenstand des Gerichts. Synofzik was on the right track. He just didn’t go far enough. Synofzik, 76, asserted that Paul’s focus here was not on some apocalyptic future, but on the believer’s present bodily life: “Paulus den Gedanken der Verantwortlichkeit vor dem eschatologischen Richter nicht zu einem apokalyptischen Gerichtsgemälde, sondern zur Begründung für gegenwärtigen Existenz verwendet.”
What Synofzik failed to see was the full implication of his insight, which is that Christ’s focus is on the believer’s body, not merely as the source of the believer’s conduct to be evaluated, but the instrument by which that evaluation is executed and communicated to the believer. In other words, Christ in his mercy allows us to escape apocalyptic judgment, which frankly does us very little good in navigating this life other than perhaps occasionally scaring us into obedience, by subjecting us to his merciful guidance and instruction (judgment) in the here and now on an ongoing basis. Therefore, for believers, whether they are believers for only a few moments (the repentant thief on the cross), or believers with a lifetime of service, upon the death of their bodies, their evaluation complete, their souls saved for eternity, any further evaluative judgment would be superfluous.
To test this hypothesis, let us look at the repentant thief. The man was being crucified for being a thief. While the other thief cursed and ridiculed Jesus (Luke 23:39), the repentant thief confessed his sins and asked Jesus for mercy, and he received it on the spot. (“‘We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.'” Luke 23:41-43, NIV)
This concise exchange between Jesus and the thief represents a microcosm of any believer’s life. We are wretches who, like the thief on the cross, are getting what we deserve for our sins, namely, a death sentence. Through God’s grace we recognize our sorry plight and confess our sins and call on Jesus to forgive us. As with the repentant thief, Jesus forgives our sins on the spot, and we are saved. What is left to be judged? Our salvation or condemnation? No, we are already saved. “So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:1. Does our earthly behavior need to be evaluated once again after the death of our bodies? Compare Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, 50: “Barring prior occurrence of the Parousia, the sōma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer.”
Thus, the believer and the non-believer suffer the same ultimate bodily consequence of sin, the death of the body or the Soma. Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death.” Believers, however, are nevertheless saved for eternity through Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf on the cross, that is, believers are saved by faith, and this the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8-9. Thus, there is no need for further judgment since their earthly conduct has already been fully examined by Christ Himself. Non-believers, on the other hand, consciously reject Christ’s saving work. They argue that they should be justified on their own merits and thus have no need of a savior. Compare Galatians 2:16: “by the works of the law no one will be justified.” But even here God mercifully affords those who have rejected Christ an opportunity to make their case. At the apocalyptic judgment venue of the Great White Throne, Rev. 20:11-15, what do we read? “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” Rev. 20:12. The “dead” here refers to those who have not yet been saved. Otherwise, the repentant thief would be among those standing before the throne, and Christ’s grant to him of immediate eternal life would be rendered a nullity.
Perhaps then, there is still a chance of salvation for some even before the Great White Throne. See, e.g., Matt. 10:42: “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.” There is no indication that the persons providing the cup of cold water are themselves believers, and what is their reward for this small act of charity to a Christ-follower, a reward that Christ tells us they cannot lose? Could it be salvation?
Regardless of what takes place before the Great White Throne, what is evident is that under the revised reading of 2 Cor. 5:10 there is no paradox or tension between the concepts of justification by faith and judgment according to works. For a detailed discussion of this thorny question under traditional views of eschatology, see Ortlund, Dane C., JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, JUDGED ACCORDING TO WORKS: ANOTHER LOOK AT A PAULINE PARADOX, JETS 52/2 (June 2009) 323–39, 323: “Nigel Watson articulates in blunt terms the perennial friction between the twin Pauline themes of justification by faith and judgment according to works: ‘either justification is emptied of its meaning or judgment by works is rendered harmless.’ The challenge is how to fully and impartially affirm both Pauline teachings.” This may have been a challenge under the traditional reading of 2 Cor. 5:10, but no more. Both believers and non-believers face divine judgment for their earthly behavior without favoritism. Believers upon the death of their bodies as the lingering effect of sin (Gundry, 50), just as with the repentant thief, enter immediately into eternal life, while non-believers by rejecting the gift of salvation face the Great White Throne. Thus, both groups effectively choose their ultimate judgment venue. Christ-followers appear before Christ’s Judgment Seat in this life, not to determine whether they are saved, but rather to prepare them for eternity, while non-believers undergo an evaluation before the Great White Throne to determine their ultimate destiny.
Christ has guided and instructed believers in this life just as he did with his disciples. We have been duly prepared for eternity. “[T]he LORD disciplines those he loves.” Proverbs 3:12. There is nothing left to do upon the believer’s death, except perhaps to see if one’s work on behalf of the gospel endures or not. 1 Corinthians 3:11-16. This involves the limited testing of one’s service of the Gospel, to the extent there is any, and not a comprehensive evaluation of the believer’s earthly conduct in thought, word, and deed. In other words, what we commonly understand by the notion of divine judgment has already been accomplished for Christ-followers. Compare 2 Cor. 5:10. Here, this incorrect conventional rendering of the passage nevertheless serves the purpose of illustrating the comprehensive nature of divine judgment, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”
One more note. The late Margaret Thrall is to be commended for attempting, unlike nearly all her peers, to wrestle with the grammar of this complex passage. Here, however, she made the same essential mistake as they did. She allowed her eschatological assumptions to control her view of the passage. Her creative defense of the conventional reading ultimately falls short, not so much because of her technical grammatical analysis per se, but because her exegesis, sophisticated as it was, failed properly to take into account the rich meaning of the cryptic phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος.
Moreover, Thrall’s faulty reading of the passage reinforced a flawed concept of judgment in which “the metonymy by which we are said to receive back what we have done is not a mere idiom, but ‘lies deeper in the identity of the deed and its requital.'” Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 157. Such a mechanical version of judgment in which there is an automatic requital for one’s deeds conflicts with Harris’s generally accepted view. See The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 407, where he wrote that the presence of the article τὰdoes not denote”simply metonymy for ‘the consequences of,’ as though the κομίσασθαι were merely the outcome of some immanental process by which the reaping of consequences followed inexorably on the sowing of actions, for in this case the reference to an appearance and examination before the βήμα would be rendered superfluous.” Compare Plummer, 157, who described the recompense that believers are to receive, quoting from F. W. Robertson’s Lectures on the Epistles to the Corinthians, in this way: “St. Paul does not say merely that he shall receive according to what he had done in the body, but that he shall receive the things done―the very selfsame things he did, they are to be his punishments.”
Thus, the traditional rendering of this passage not only fails to probe the rich meaning of the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος, but enshrines a view of judgment in which Christ’s role is reduced to a mere ministerial act. And all of this is the unfortunate result of applying various, unexamined eschatological presuppositions.
The upshot of all this is that a proper reading of 2 Cor. 5:10, by definition, requires a complete reevaluation of all the conventional assumptions regarding eschatology.
Leave a Reply
Your email is safe with us.