How do Protestants interpret 2 Corinthians 5:18?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have researched the words we are discussing in their original language and you are mistranslating the original text. Please do yourself a favor and look them up in a concordance. I have provided the Strong’s numbers with their definitions. Please show me where I have mistranslated the original words. You don’t have to be a scholar to have commonsense or read.

Yes the church has leadership ordained by Jesus found in Eph 4:11-12. There are apostles present also in scripture but there are no priests as you have defined them in scripture. Please show me the word priest “heireus” present in scripture in association with church leadership.

Communion was instituted starting with the first Passover and was /is a universal Jewish practice. There was never a requirement for a priest to officiate. Why?

’

That doesn’t respond to my point of how some discount any validity to the translations/interpretations from the Church that kept the scriptures safeguarded generation after generation.

I can, and do, read. I also consider myself to have common sense. However, translation results appear to be biased, depending on who one depends on. Have you formally studied linguistics and cultures, or are you like me who depends on self study?

I’ve seen the Protestant argument concerning the term for priest in scriptures before. The word is derived from the Greek term ‘presbuteros’. I know the interlinear Greek to English uses elder as a definition. But looking at two Aramaic to English translations, I see one uses elders and the other uses presbyters. The Douay Rheims uses priests and the King James Version uses elders. The Vulgate uses presbyteros. Now, 2000 years after being penned, which translation do we accept, without any possiblity of bias?

This brings us back to my original question, how can we question the Church that safeguarded scriptures generation after generation? It makes me wonder why one can question the Church but totally depend on the scriptures received from the Church?

**πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

pres·by·ter (przb-tr, prs-)
n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.

a. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.
b. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.
3. An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.

---

[Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; see per1 in Indo-European roots.] **

We can see similar differences in translations of 1Corinthians 12:28. Which is appropriate, doctor or teacher? We see the Greek term ‘didaskalos’ used and in the definition we see, ‘doctor’, ‘master’ and ‘teacher’? Is using one more appropriate than the other?

διδάσκαλος
didaskalos
did-as’-kal-os
From G1321; an instructor (generally or specifically): - doctor, master, teacher.

Or, do should we only accept ‘leaders’, ‘chief’, ‘count’, ‘governor’, or ‘judge’ as an appropriate term for a Church official residing over us?

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

ἡγέομαι
hēgeomai
hayg-eh’-om-ahee
Middle voice of a (presumed) strengthened form of G71; to lead, that is, command (with official authority); figuratively to deem, that is, consider: - account, (be) chief, count, esteem, governor, judge, have the rule over, suppose, think.

The New Testament has different authors, who utilized different terms. We know the twelve chosen and appointed by Christ as ‘Apostles’, yet John never uses the term. He referred to them as ‘disciples’. Matthew used ‘Apostles’ once, Mark once and Luke used it seven times in his Gospel account. Does the term lose any validity today?

Let’s look at ‘Bishop’. None of the Gospel writers used it in their Gospel accounts. Did that office just lose validity?

The Church has grown immensely, popular languages have changed, and scriptures have been translated and re-translated

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m having a really [hard time trying to decipher this paragraph. I think that you are trying to say what you have said before, that Paul is talking about an exclusive club of apostles that God has given this ministry of reconciliation to. Well that theory just doesn’t hold up under careful scutiny.

Do you see an exclusive club below, or is Paul contradicting himself?

**Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. **

Is this an example of infallible Catholic exegesis? If it is it’s pretty sad. Christ was not built on anything. The apostles are not the cornerstone. Jesus is. Peter filled with the Holy Spirit got up before the very people that had crucified his Lord and said “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.”

Go back and read what I wrote. I said Jesus was the cornerstone and the Apostles were the foundation.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Evidently, you’re having a harder time of understanding me, or maybe I am using a poor choice of wording to communicate to you, but I fail to see the necessity to be belittling with your response. Is that your example of Christian charitability? That’s just sad. See, it can go both ways and I’d prefer not to go there when I was only trying to explain my view of scriptures.

I’m not quite sure what your point is here. You take part of a v. designed to identify our Savior 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. and insert some irrelavant comment into it. I don’t get it.

I was trying to identify who is who in the structure presented by Paul in the passage, using part from one verse and showing how I viewed it in another verse. Please note the difficulty we’re having communicating and we both speak the same language, but your interpretation is correct over mine. How do you know when you’ve arrived at a correct, or incorrect, interpretation?

Where do you get this? It certainly isn’t in 2Cor.5.

I know only part of it was, but I was applying scriptures within scriptures. Single verses, or even passages do not give the full story. You have to read a chapter a verse is in and the book the chapter is in. Then it’s best to read the Testament that book is in. It’s a long process and I don’t believe one can understand all God’s mysteries if they spent a complete lifetime on earth doing nothing but reading and studying scriptures.

I’m not infallible. I make mistakes. But I gotta say If you look over this post I think that my discernment makes a whole lot more sense than your “infallible” interpretation.

I see where you had trouble understanding what I was saying. It might have been my way of wording the written word, or it could have been your interpretation of what I wrote. Either way, I would hope you think yours makes more sense since you claim it as your truth of scriptures. Next, I think mine made more sense. That got us nowhere.

I believe in the authoritative Church, guided by His Holy Spirit in all truths. From my observation, and experience when I was a Protestant, not all Protestants agree, yet they believe their beliefs are true. How does it work that everyone has the correct interpretation, yet they don’t agree? It certainly doesn’t appear to be scriptural.
[/quote]

 

[jericho777]

’

That doesn’t respond to my point of how some discount any validity to the translations/interpretations from the Church that kept the scriptures safeguarded generation after generation.

I can, and do, read. I also consider myself to have common sense. However, translation results appear to be biased, depending on who one depends on. Have you formally studied linguistics and cultures, or are you like me who depends on self study?

I’ve seen the Protestant argument concerning the term for priest in scriptures before. The word is derived from the Greek term ‘presbuteros’. I know the interlinear Greek to English uses elder as a definition. But looking at two Aramaic to English translations, I see one uses elders and the other uses presbyters. The Douay Rheims uses priests and the King James Version uses elders. The Vulgate uses presbyteros. Now, 2000 years after being penned, which translation do we accept, without any possiblity of bias?

This brings us back to my original question, how can we question the Church that safeguarded scriptures generation after generation? It makes me wonder why one can question the Church but totally depend on the scriptures received from the Church?

We can see similar differences in translations of 1Corinthians 12:28. Which is appropriate, doctor or teacher? We see the Greek term ‘didaskalos’ used and in the definition we see, ‘doctor’, ‘master’ and ‘teacher’? Is using one more appropriate than the other?

Or, do should we only accept ‘leaders’, ‘chief’, ‘count’, ‘governor’, or ‘judge’ as an appropriate term for a Church official residing over us?

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

ἡγέομαι
hēgeomai
hayg-eh’-om-ahee
Middle voice of a (presumed) strengthened form of G71; to lead, that is, command (with official authority); figuratively to deem, that is, consider: - account, (be) chief, count, esteem, governor, judge, have the rule over, suppose, think.

The New Testament has different authors, who utilized different terms. We know the twelve chosen and appointed by Christ as ‘Apostles’, yet John never uses the term. He referred to them as ‘disciples’. Matthew used ‘Apostles’ once, Mark once and Luke used it seven times in his Gospel account. Does the term lose any validity today?

Let’s look at ‘Bishop’. None of the Gospel writers used it in their Gospel accounts. Did that office just lose validity?

The Church has grown immensely, popular languages have changed, and scriptures have been translated and re-translated

You are giving me a dictionary meaning as opposed to a Greek biblical concordance meaning. That doesn’t take into account the actually intended word usage in scripture. I could just as easily argue by your defination the true church is Presbyterian by definition #2. I don’t think that’s what you had in mind though.

We are not discussing any other word meaning for now. The fact remains there is no word that clearly and unequivocally means priest “heireus” associated with presbuteros “elder”. In scripture elder does not support being translated as priest. Doing so is an inaccurate translation.

This is not about any church; it is about being fair and intellectually honest with the original meaning of the words contained in scripture.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Do you see an exclusive club below, or is Paul contradicting himself?

:
Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

This has nothing to do with 2Cor 5

Go back and read what I wrote. I said Jesus was the cornerstone and the Apostles were the foundation.

Ya sorry! but you still said that Christ was built on the apostles. Not true.

Evidently, you’re having a harder time of understanding me, or maybe I am using a poor choice of wording to communicate to you, but I fail to see the necessity to be belittling with your response. Is that your example of Christian charitability? That’s just sad. See, it can go both ways and I’d prefer not to go there when I was only trying to explain my view of scriptures.

You’re right, I apologise. Sometimes I get too intense for my own good.

I was trying to identify who is who in the structure presented by Paul in the passage, using part from one verse and showing how I viewed it in another verse. Please note the difficulty we’re having communicating and we both speak the same language, but your interpretation is correct over mine. How do you know when you’ve arrived at a correct, or incorrect, interpretation?

I still don’t see it. I find this technique more confusing than it is worth.

I know only part of it was, but I was applying scriptures within scriptures. Single verses, or even passages do not give the full story. You have to read a chapter a verse is in and the book the chapter is in. Then it’s best to read the Testament that book is in. It’s a long process and I don’t believe one can understand all God’s mysteries if they spent a complete lifetime on earth doing nothing but reading and studying scriptures.

I think everything we need to know about the v. in question 2Cor.5:18 is contained in 2Cor5

I see where you had trouble understanding what I was saying. It might have been my way of wording the written word, or it could have been your interpretation of what I wrote. Either way, I would hope you think yours makes more sense since you claim it as your truth of scriptures. Next, I think mine made more sense. That got us nowhere.

I believe in the authoritative Church, guided by His Holy Spirit in all truths. From my observation, and experience when I was a Protestant, not all Protestants agree, yet they believe their beliefs are true. How does it work that everyone has the correct interpretation, yet they don’t agree? It certainly doesn’t appear to be scriptural.

I don’t see where these questions have anything to do with this thread. Perhaps start another thread.

I would ask you to comment on my evaluation of 2Cor.5 Here it is again

I think that you are trying to say what you have said before, that Paul is talking about an exclusive club of apostles that God has given this ministry of reconciliation to. Well that theory just doesn’t hold up under careful scutiny. We can do this by looking at the personal pronouns which are contained in vertually every v. in this chapter. Paul begins by talking about “our earthly house” and “we have a building of God, an house not made with hands” This I’m sure you will agree is talking about our bodies, **all **of our bodies. He is not talking exclusively about apostles bodies but all of our bodies. He goes on to explain how God has created us to be “swallowed up of life” v.4. Again everyone not an exclusive club. V. 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight) Since Paul is addressing the believers in Corinth, again all the believers. V. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. This quite obviously is not only talking about believers, but all people. Again no exclusivity. Vs. 11,12 & 13 are talking about Paul and whoever is with him.

2Cor.5
11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
13For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

We know this because in v.11 Paul differentiates between we and your. From v.14 on Paul is again talking about all believers. V. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. clearly is talking about ANY MAN, and if he be in Christ he is a new creation. then there is v. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; Who is this ministry of reconciliation given to? Well it certainly is not given exclusively to Paul and the apostles, but it is given to all who have become new in Christ.

 

[teachccd]

Truly God is eternal and transcends time and space. But by your reasoning Christ is still on the cross also with everything being eternally present. How can you separate the cross from the sacrifice since they both happened together and therefore inseparable? Why would the language be in the past tense limiting it is a onetime event that is eternally efficacious as scripture says? As I said previously God could have used language to show the eternally present sacrifice but did not. There is a big difference as you can see.

He did: Malachi 1:11 KJV------

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

What is that pure offering that shall be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting? Surely it cannot be anything less than what Chirst offered…

 

[teachccd]

Truly God is eternal and transcends time and space. But by your reasoning Christ is still on the cross also with everything being eternally present. How can you separate the cross from the sacrifice since they both happened together and therefore inseparable? Why would the language be in the past tense limiting it is a onetime event that is eternally efficacious as scripture says? As I said previously God could have used language to show the eternally present sacrifice but did not. There is a big difference as you can see.

Oh and one cannot separate the sacrifice from the Cross. It is one and the same that is perpetuated through time (the Mass) and is eternally present to the Father…There was never a “moment” that the Father was not “aware” of His Son’s sacrifice. It is all part of the “eternal now”. God cannot move from a past event towards a future event since He is immutable. With God everything is… teachccd

 

[PJM]

=Richard Kastner;7599127]I think you need to expand a little 2Cor.5
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

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

19To 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.

20Now 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.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The first thing we have to establish here is that Paul is talking to all Corinthian believers and he is saying that God has reconciled the world to Himself through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, but not only this. He has also given us a ministry. A ministry of reconciliation. In other words God has made us ambassadors to the world. To tell the world about the reconciliation that Jesus has bought for us on the cross. Pretty neat huh?

My dear friend Richard…

We certainly agree on the idea of expahsion of the verse; but I suspect Paul, John and God had a somewhat different view that the one you expresed so well.

TRY reading it this way: [Because no one passage can contradict another]…

2nd. Cor. 5: 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; ** **Matt.9 6 **“But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." **John.20 Verses 20 to 23 **" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”

Taking your advice and expanding to include the ENTIRE TEACHING does make a far different and more powerful statement.

Then we add futher evidence of the teaching; being a “Bible Church,” the Catholic Church is accustomed to using the Entire Bible as direct in 2nd. Tim. 3:16-17.

This practice is a Perfection and carry-over from OT practice: **Lev.4: 26, 34 **“And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. [and] [35]And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, upon the offerings by fire to the LORD; **and the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

**** First Peter 2: 1-2 **“So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation" Matt.19: 17 “And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

**Rom.2: 13 **“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

***For the sake of clairification: The CC beliefs as do you; THAT ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SINS" and this is precisely what happens in our Sacrament of Confession. The Priest has an necessary and essential role; BUT it is God forgiving the sins!

If you’d like to know more, PM me and I’ll share the details with you.***

God Bless,
A friend in Christ,
Pat

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This has nothing to do with 2Cor 5

Not directly, but it appears as if you’re denying Church leaders and making everyone equal with 2Corinthians 5. I apologize if that’s not the case.

We do know that Paul affirms an established hierarchy, set by God, in his first letter/epistle to the Corinthians.

I am using these examples to show that not everyone is considered as ‘equal’ according to Paul’s writings.

Ya sorry! but you still said that Christ was built on the apostles. Not true.

I was trying to convey, Christ’s truth was built on the foundation of the Apostles, by Christ Himself, through His Church. The Church is the body of Christ, which He is the head. While we are all Christians, we are not without leaders, or equals, in the Church. They were chosen and appointed.

I don’t see where these questions have anything to do with this thread. Perhaps start another thread.

Maybe I’m wrong but, I feel a thread asking how one interprets a scripture is the place to ask how one knows if their interpretation is correct when we have different interpretations.

2Cor.5
11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
13For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

We know this because in v.11 Paul differentiates between we and your.

Agreed.

From v.14 on Paul is again talking about all believers. V. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. clearly is talking about ANY MAN, and if he be in Christ he is a new creation. then there is v. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; Who is this ministry of reconciliation given to? Well it certainly is not given exclusively to Paul and the apostles, but it is given to all who have become new in Christ.

I agree 17 is about all.

I disagree with 18 being about all. Paul is saying, in my opinion, that all things are of God, WHO reconciled US to himself by Jesus Christ, AND hath given to US the ministry of reconciliation. Again, in my opinion, this was Paul explaining the authority by which he spoke those things he did to reconcile them to Christ. This interpretation is confirmed in verses 19 and especially 20.

**2Co 5:19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins. And he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us, for Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.**

 

[jericho777]

He did: Malachi 1:11 KJV------

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

What is that pure offering that shall be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting? Surely it cannot be anything less than what Chirst offered…

Mal 1:6-14 is talking about offering blemished animals to the LORD. Verse 11 is still talking about a perfect animal sacrifice. In the context of these verses there is no allusion that anything but a perfect animal sacrifice will be offered from gentiles. How can Jesus’ perfect sacrifice not be highlighted as far greater than any animal sacrifice?

 

[jericho777]

Oh and one cannot separate the sacrifice from the Cross. It is one and the same that is perpetuated through time (the Mass) and is eternally present to the Father…There was never a “moment” that the Father was not “aware” of His Son’s sacrifice. It is all part of the “eternal now”. God cannot move from a past event towards a future event since He is immutable. With God everything is… teachccd

Your point was “He (God) is the “Eternal Now” and exists outside of time. So everything is present to the Father eternally.” Then you said” So, while Christ is not still hanging on the Cross, His sacrifice is still present to the Father.” So how can the sacrifice be present and not the alter on which the sacrifice (Jesus) was offered upon? You all still have Jesus upon the cross in every church I’ve been in and I was a catholic for 28 years so I have seen this firsthand.

 

[rbarcia]

I think you need to expand a little 2Cor.5
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

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

19To 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.

20Now 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.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The first thing we have to establish here is that Paul is talking to all Corinthian believers and he is saying that God has reconciled the world to Himself through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, but not only this. He has also given us a ministry. A ministry of reconciliation. In other words God has made us ambassadors to the world. To tell the world about the reconciliation that Jesus has bought for us on the cross. Pretty neat huh?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I disagree with 18 being about all. Paul is saying, in my opinion, that all things are of God, WHO reconciled US to himself by Jesus Christ, AND hath given to US the ministry of reconciliation. Again, in my opinion, this was Paul explaining the authority by which he spoke those things he did to reconcile them to Christ. This interpretation is confirmed in verses 19 and especially 20.
Quote:
2Co 5:19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins. And he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us, for Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.

2Cor5
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

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

So you are saying that Paul is talking to all in v.17 and I’m assumning you believe that he is talking about all being reconciled to Christ in the first part of v. 18, but then in the second part of v. 18 when Paul says “and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;”
you are saying that he somehow switches from talking about all to talking just about himself and some other unnamed individuals. Kind of a stretch don’t you think.
Then you say that vs. 19& 20 confirm your interpretation

19To 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.

And again in the first part of v. 19 Paul is clearly talking of the world being reconciled to God, but you are saying that all the world except Paul and these unnamed individuals are excluded from this commitment of the word of reconciliation. Again somewhat of a stretch.

20Now 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.

In v. 20 Paul is not excluding all the Corinthians but includes himself as being an ambassador for Christ and then he includes them by saying “as though God did beseech you by us” So he is including all the Corinthian listeners as ambassadors along with a plea " we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God." So vs. 19&20 far from confirming your interpretation seem to be saying the opposite.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

In the last verse in the chapter Paul is clearly talking inclusively when he says “we” and “us”. Without some indication of seperation such as in v. 11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made **manifest in your consciences. ** I believe to assumne this seperation is unwarranted. Especially since there is no indication of this seperation.

 

[teachccd]

Your point was “He (God) is the “Eternal Now” and exists outside of time. So everything is present to the Father eternally.” Then you said” So, while Christ is not still hanging on the Cross, His sacrifice is still present to the Father.” So how can the sacrifice be present and not the alter on which the sacrifice (Jesus) was offered upon? You all still have Jesus upon the cross in every church I’ve been in and I was a catholic for 28 years so I have seen this firsthand.

Yes, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 1:23 we preach Christ crucified. We still have Jesus in the manger and I see that in many protestant churches every Christmas. Yes, every moment of Jesus’ earthly life is eternally present to the Father. I personally do not have Jesus still hanging on the Cross because it’s not about me. It’s about the eternal sacrifice and yes that does include the altar of the Cross (my mistake) as this cannot be separated from the sacrifice. So, Jesus is still in the manger with Joseph and Mary as protestants exhibit and His presence on the Cross is eternally present to the Father as is His resurrection… teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Mal 1:6-14 is talking about offering blemished animals to the LORD. Verse 11 is still talking about a perfect animal sacrifice. In the context of these verses there is no allusion that anything but a perfect animal sacrifice will be offered from gentiles. How can Jesus’ perfect sacrifice not be highlighted as far greater than any animal sacrifice?

Yes, in the direct context we see only animal sacrifice and it may be difficult to see any typological reference to Jesus’ sacrifice. Some Catholic scholars find that the rising of the sun to its setting refers to the timeline including the Messianic era in which case the only pure sacrifice would be Jesus’ giving of Himself…