I wish I could stop there, but the Greek will not let me. You see, 4.1 contains very important words in Greek: dia touto. This is translated as “therefore” and immediately connects us to 3.7-18. 3.7-18 is connected by “but if”, which, you guessed it, connects us to 3.1-6. I do this all the way back to 2.14, where the entire matter of the “new covenant” (kaine diatheke – 3.6) becomes the subject. Now, beyond this, 1.3-11 reads much like 4.7-12 and 2.14-16. I wrote all of this to point out this one very important thing: when interpreting II Co 5.1-ff, you cannot start there, but must go back to where Paul starts.

Paul’s subject matter starts in 2.14 and ends in 6.13. One could make a very good case that it starts in 1.12 and ends in 6.3-13, since 1.12-13 sounds like and even uses the same words in 6.3-13, and note that for the third time Paul speaks of his troubles (1.8-10; 4.7-12; 6.8-10). This is a critical analysis of the context of the letter as a letter. Note the abrupt change of subject matter in 6.14: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.” This continues on until 7.2, where Paul speaks about making “room in your hearts for us [apostles and fellow-workers with Paul].” Does that not sound like 6.13? This had lead some scholars to state that 6.14-7.1 is an interpolation. That is, Paul did not write this section. Someone else edited it in. Well, we needn’t go there, right? The point is, 2.12-6.13 forms one overall section with a beginning, middle, and end before Paul break into another matter. Thus, it would be entirely wrong to state that 5.1-10 can stand on its own without reference to the entire section of 2.12-6.13. This analysis is nothing I made up. It is the consensus of commentators who can tap dance around me in five languages.

Now, linguistics is one thing, and context still another, but interpretation pays attention to both, or should. That is why our little passage here has been one of the more confounding verses of Scripture in the whole Bible. Like I Co 15, this section has caused even the most brilliant of scholars to shake their heads. What in the world is Paul saying here in 5.1-10? Some places sounds like references to the then standing temple in Jerusalem, yet others seem to talk about his own individual eschatology. That is, what happens to an individual person when he physically dies? It seems so confused. This difficulty has even crept into the Preterist camp, erupting in differences between “immortal body now” folks and “immortal body at death” folks. See…it ain’t so easy, is it?

Now, to complicate matters, Paul wrote in 1.13, “For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand, and I hope that you will understand completely…” (NAB). This gives us the basis for stating that what Paul wrote to these Corinthians was not a textbook on rocket science. This was not something that should have been difficult for them to understand. Yes, Paul wrote “many hard things to understand” (II Pe 3.16), but here is not one of them, at least not for the Corinthians.

We have a hard time because we are not them. Keep in mind, Paul labored in Corinth for a year and eight months, and his “fellow-laborers.” We have to piece together the puzzle like some linguistic detective finding verbal clues and phrases that we can “match” in another place that may shed light on the subject matter. One professor, Dr. Frank Longino III, taught us in college that “reading I and II Corinthians is like listening to one end of a phone conversation and trying to figure out what the other party is saying.” That has been etched in my mind.

So, my first point of analysis has been to show that in dealing with 5.1-10, we must also consider 2.12-6.13. That is the immediate context. Then, we must consider other places where Paul uses words and phrases that are also found here in order to shed some further light. For Paul, like in any other field of thought, a certain vocabulary, or presuppositional pool is formed between hearer and speaker. Watch two computer geeks talk. It’s like listening to another language. The same thing is going on here. Paul does not have to define every phrase and word because his hearers would have known them already. There was room enough, however, for misunderstanding, as letter writing is wont to be. Letter writing is subject to misunderstanding on a much greater level than “face to face” conversation. Even the Bible tells us this (II John 1.12).