Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Corinthians 5:16

"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." — 2 Corinthians 5:16 (ASV)

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

Yes, though we have known Christ after the flesh.—What, we ask, prompted 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 by once more reading between the lines.

   There was, we know, a party at Corinth claiming a special relationship to Christ (1 Corinthians 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 (Acts 15:24; Galatians 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 Him, as 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 Him “after the flesh”—by an earthly standard—and therefore had thought that he ought to do many things against Him. Nor is it likely that, after the revelation of Christ in him at the time of his conversion, he had, for a time, known Him in a manner that he now saw to be at least imperfect.

   The true solution to the problem is probably found in the fact that he had once thought of the Christ who was to come as others thought, even before he appeared as the persecutor of the Church. His Messianic expectations had been those of an earthly kingdom restored to Israel. Jesus of Nazareth did not fulfill 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. He is not referring to an imperfect state of knowledge after it, from which he had risen by progressive stages of illumination and a clearer vision of the truth.

   Now and from now on, he seems to say, we think of Christ not as the King of Israel, but as the Saviour of mankind.