II. CORINTHIANS 5, 16. 139

This is an inference, ((Sore, so (hat). 'Such is the nature of the change which I have exj)erienced through the appre- hension of the love of Christ, as just described, that I no longer see or judge of things according to the flesh.' The ice refers primarily to the apostle himself, as he is still engaged in self-vindication. He was acting from pure motives, he says, for a sense of the love of Christ constrained him not to live for himself but for Christ, and therefore he no longer judged of persons or things as he had been accustomed to do. Paul's ex- perience, however, was his experience as a Christian, and there- fore not peculiar to himself. It is true of all Christians that they do not know (i. e. estimate, judge, feel in reference to) a?iy man according to the flesh. This may mean, that the judgment is not regulated or determined by a regard to what is external. It is not a man's outv/ard circumstances, his birth, his station, his being rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, that determines our estimate of him. Or the meaning may be, that the judgment was not determined by carnal or selfish considerations. Paul was not led to approve or disapprove, love or hate any man from selfish or corrupt motives. This latter view would suit the context, for the apostle, had just said that he lived not for himself but for Christ, and therefore his judgments of men were not determined by a regard to himself. It is also consistent with the usage of the word ; for crap^ means corrupt nature^ as well as what is outward. The following part of the verse, however, is decisivety in favour of the former interpretation. Comp. 11, 18. John 8, 15. Phil. 8, 4. Paul evidently contrasts himself as he now was (avro rov vvv) with \^'hat he was before his conversion ; and also himself with his Judaizing opponents in Corinth. Yea^ though ice have hnoimi Christ after the flesh. The words d hi Kat, hut even ifl are concessive. Paul admits that he had once done what he here condemns. He had known or estimated Christ after the flesh. Of course this does not mean that he had known Christ while in the flesh, as Olshausen supposes, be- cause that would be saying nothing to the purpose, and be- cause there is no evidence of Paul's ever having seen our Lord before his resurrection. Olshausen's idea is, that as he formerly regarded men as men, but now only as Christians, i. e. had reference only to what was spiritual, so also he no longer thinks of Christ as he once knew him on earth, but as he is glorified in heaven. But this does not suit the connec- tion nor the facts of the case. The words Kara adpKa must