splaestro,

""if anyone is in Christ, new creation" (the NRSV renders it, "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation")."

You’re right: there’s no verb in this construction. The NRSV translation seems good to me — this is also the alternative construction NASB puts in a footnote. It’s interesting to read the phrase this way — "there is a new creation" — in light of what precedes it. Paul is saying that Christ’s death and resurrection didn’t just affect Christ Himself: these events changed the world. Therefore, those who are in Christ participate in this radically transformed world, which is the "new creation." The death and resurrection of Christ don’t just tranform me into a new creature; it’s an all-inclusive event.

"is Paul’s appeal to his intended audience to "be reconciled to God" (5:20) simply a call for a change in their perspective"?

I think it’s a call for a reciprocal response to God’s proactive move. God has already reconciled the world to Himself through Christ (2 Cor. 5:19) — whether or not this is achieved through substitutionary atonement isn’t really the focus of this particular passage. "Reconcile to Himself" means in effect that God is willing to let bygones be bygones, to disregard whatever it is that people have done against Him. Now what might it mean for me to to "be reconciled to God"? I think it means reconciling God to myself. In what ways do I feel that God has harmed me, opposed me, offended me? Can I let those go; in effect, can I forgive God? That seems to be what Paul’s ministry of reconciliation is here: God forgives you; it’s time for you to forgive God. I understand that it’s not polite conversation to complain about God publicly, but I think a lot of people (me included) resent the hand that’s been dealt them as well as the new cards they draw. (Of course I’m veering away from the "new creation" topic here, but that’s the case with any passage: it’s hard to stick with one theme when so many others intertwined with it call for attention.)

"It also seems necessary to have come through the cross."

This is another area of reciprocal response. You cite Galatians 6:15:

...in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I
to the world.

Here Paul frames the reciprocity, this bidirectional effect of the cross, in subjective terms: the world to me, and I to the world. In 2 Cor. 5 Paul places the emphasis on the objective work of Christ: He died for all, therefore all died. It’s not just that I am crucified to the world through Christ; everybody is. I wasn’t looking for a universal salvation theme in this passage, nor am I going to push it. However, this is what Paul says here: Christ died for all, through Christ God reconciled the world to Himself. Reading this passage in 2 Cor. 5 it’s conceivable that the subjective response of the individual to the cross doesn’t activate salvation for that individual, but that instead it’s a matter of the individual subjectively recognizing what already happened objectively to everyone. In other words, maybe everyone already came through the cross during the historical event of the crucifixion.

 Peter,

"A question which the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:14 raises is: who did Christ die for? Is the ‘all’: ‘everyone in the world - alive or dead?’"

Three times in a row Paul in 2 Cor. 5:14-15 says "all": …one died for all, therefore all died, and He died for all… It seems he’s emphasizing inclusiveness here. One would be hesitant to say that what Paul really meant was "all except" or "only those who." He also says that through Christ God reconciled the world — cosmos in Greek — to Himself. Again, Paul seems to broaden the scope as far as possible. So this particular passage supports your general contention that,"Paul’s vision was wide-ranging and universal in scope."

"In 2 Corinthians 5, however, participation in the new creation is conditional; it is "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation""

It’s not necessary to interpret the "if" here as distinguishing between those who are "in Christ" and those who are not. It could also be a link in a chain of logical argument: if A, then B. So, earlier in 2 Corinthians we read:

For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. (2 Cor. 3:11)

Paul has just gotten done arguing that the "if" clause is true — in this case he’s referring to the temporary glory of God that shone on Moses’ face when he came down from Sinai with the Law. In 2 Cor. 5 Paul has just gotten finished saying that all died in Christ, in order that those who live might live for Christ. Therefore, following the logic, if anyone lives in Christ (which Paul asserts is true), then he/there is a new creation. Again, I’m not prepared based on this passage to argue that, for Paul, all who die in Christ also live in Christ. But as we’ve agreed, this passage does emphasize all-inclusiveness.

"Your exegesis of this passage is an interesting demonstration to me
that scripture can be understood without (perhaps) the unique
interpreting role of the Holy Spirit"

Thanks, Peter. I presume this means that you agree with me, at least in part. Just think of me as Balaam’s ass.