Enjoying God
In the Flesh, but not According to the Flesh (2 Cor. 10.3-4)
May 30, 2008It had to have stung more than a little bit when Paul received word that people were accusing him of reliance on mere human tactics and a this-worldly power, while largely abandoning the resources of the Holy Spirit. Let's not forget that Jesus was the object of an even more scurrilous charge. The religious leaders of his day insisted that the power in his life that accounted for healing of the sick and casting out of demons was not that of the Spirit but of Satan himself (see Mt. 12:22-32).
There's no indication that Paul's enemies in Corinth were repeating this slanderous charge, but they did spread the rumor that his plans and decisions and the implementation of his "ministry" were the fruit of a sinister, self-serving motive and shaped by principles lacking in spirituality.
Of course, Paul was happy to acknowledge that he walked or lived "in the flesh," but he steadfastly opposed any suggestion that he waged spiritual war or ministered among the Corinthians "according to the flesh." And as we'll soon see, there's a world of difference between the two. Contrary to their baseless accusations, Paul insisted that "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (2 Cor. 10:3-4).
Let me make a couple of observations about his use of language in this text and then we'll turn our attention to its application in our own day.
They key to understanding Paul's response is found in his use of the word "flesh" in v. 3 to mean two different things. When he declares that "we walk in the flesh" (Gk. sarx; although the NIV renders it "world"), he is referring to life on earth in general. This is simply his way of describing our basic human condition that applies equally to both Christian and non-Christian. If you are a human being, you "walk in the flesh".
But when he denies waging spiritual war "according to the flesh" (again, sarx) he has in mind not merely the physical body or our common lot as men and women but human methods and means and resources as over against those that derive from God and are compatible with the values of the spiritual realm. "Paul concedes, of course, that the world is his sphere of activity; but that does not mean the world dictates the agenda, still less that it provides the tools for the job" (Carson, 41). More about what that entails in a moment.
Note also that after affirming he "walks" or lives in the flesh he then changes verbs and denies that he "wages war" according to the flesh. If nothing else, this adds an edge to his response to the accusation that he was a weak and timid man. Make no mistake about it, says Paul. I am in the midst of an on-going battle, a fight, a war, and because of God's powerful presence in me I'm more than up to the task (on the Christian life as war, see Rom. 13:12; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:11-17; Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:18; 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:3-4; 4:7; Philemon 2).
What precisely would his enemies have had in mind in making the accusation that he pursued his ministry as an apostle "according to the flesh"? As strange as it may sound, from what we've already seen in 2 Corinthians and will later read in chapters eleven and twelve, they likely meant his lack of verbal eloquence, his alleged reliance on self-commendation, his bodily weakness, his choice not to accept money for his labors, as well as the absence from his resume of supernatural encounters and ecstatic revelatory experiences.
But let's turn for a moment to the present day. While acknowledging the obvious, namely, that all humans live "in the flesh", what might be the modern day equivalent to laboring "according to the flesh" in a way that is displeasing to the Lord?
As I look across the broad expanse of ministry styles and the values that govern them, ten "worldly" or "fleshly" things come to mind. I'll only briefly note them, and then turn to their opposites.
Much of so-called ministry today is driven by (1) pragmatism, the notion that if a method or strategy is effective in attaining what are thought to be legitimate goals, that in itself legitimizes the method even though it may be ethically questionable or even explicitly unbiblical.
Far too many in church life are motivated by (2) self promotion and make their decisions and formulate their theology based on what they believe will most greatly enhance their position. Others are driven by (3) good old fashioned (or should I say bad old fashioned) greed. The so-called prosperity gospel and the manipulative and deceitful tactics of many TV evangelists are illustrative of this.
Others fixate so completely on (4) quantity that any message or ministry that threatens numerical increase is cast aside, even though it may be profoundly biblical. For some, (5) comfort dictates how they proceed. They make their choices based on what most effectively preserves ease of life and reinforces their sense of control and the tranquility of their surroundings.
Far too many are personally ambitious and the specter of (6) power shapes what they do. Whatever enhances their grip on the church or elevates their influence in the congregation is most highly prized. Related to this is the allure of (7) fame and the often associated fear of having one's voice muted and being marginalized within the broader body of Christ.
When we turn to the standards or ideas that give shape to how we pursue life in the body of Christ, many are guided by (8) human ingenuity or the fanciful, even if unbiblical, ideas that pop into their heads (what D. A. Carson refers to as "glib how-to formulas for instant spiritual maturity and material prosperity" [52]). Then there is the influence of (9) secular values or the findings of the latest public opinion poll, or perhaps worse still the underlying philosophy of (10) naturalism that largely rules out the supernatural realm of God's activity among us.
As pessimistic or cynical as that may sound, we have to be realistic about how far ranging and widespread such factors are. They constitute a modern day equivalent to waging war "according to the flesh", the avoidance of which demands our constant vigilance.
On the flip side, if only briefly, we must be governed not by pragmatism but by biblical principle; not by self promotion but by a Christ-centered passion; not by greed but contentment with what we have; not by a concern for quantity but a commitment to quality and spiritual excellence; not by what enhances our comfort but by a willingness to suffer for Christ's sake; not by a hunger for power but a recognition that in our weakness the glory of God is most seen; not by a hankering after fame but a willingness to labor in anonymity if only Christ is known; not based on the best ideas that men can conjure up but in conformity with the wisdom that comes from above; not by the preferences of a world that denigrates revelatory truth but in accordance with the moral values of God's Word; and not as if physical reality is all there is but in recognition of the power of the unseen spiritual realm.
And why should we find comfort in the merely human and material weapons this world affords when, as Paul says in v. 4, our weapons are "not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds"?
This phrase translated "divine power" has been variously interpreted, all of which are both possible and carry significant meaning. Among the options are that our weapons are "made powerful by God," or perhaps are "divinely" or "supernaturally powerful", or are "powerful in God's perspective," or even are "powerful for God" or "in God's cause" or with a view to achieving God's purpose.
In any case, on any view, our weapons work! They are divinely effective. They get the job done because God works in and through them to accomplish his purposes. D. A. Carson has summed it up best in the following comment:
"The contrast Paul is drawing must not be overlooked. He is not comparing, say, tanks, rifles, and missiles with prayer, fasting, and preaching. The fleshly or worldly side of the contrast depends on the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 10:3-4a - worldly weapons in this context are the kinds of tools of the trade relished by the intruders: human ingenuity, rhetoric, showmanship, a certain splashiness and forwardness in spiritual pretensions, charm, powerful personal charisma. Such weapons they will not find in Paul's arsenal, so they think him inferior; but Paul responds by openly disavowing such weapons. He would not want to defend himself on that score, for his weapons are of an entirely different sort. They are spiritual weapons, and they are divinely powerful" (46).
What these weapons are and what they actually achieve remains to be seen as we proceed through this paragraph. But of greatest importance now is for us to recognize the futility and vanity of trusting in anything other than the spiritual resources and moral values and theological truths that God has made available and entrusted to us. Let us not be swept up in the shallow and man-centered ways and means of so much so-called "church" life today.
We can't escape living in the flesh any more than Paul could. But nothing compels us to wage war according to the flesh other than our own delusional, self-serving, and prideful ambitions.
Sam
Taking every Thought Captive for Christ (2 Cor. 10.4-6)
May 30, 2008We live in an age of angry atheism; not simply a casual and indifferent disregard for the existence of God but a militant opposition to all things religious. Most are by now aware (and sick of hearing about) such folk as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.
What should be our response, if any? Do we simply ignore them, confident that in time they will fade away as have other skeptics in centuries past? Fade away they will, but I believe we should be more proactive in our efforts to expose the ill-founded and prejudicial nature of their arguments. That's why I'm grateful for the work of such notable Christian apologists as Tim Keller (The Reason for God), Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion), Ravi Zacharias (The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists), and Al Mohler, Jr. (Atheism Remix). What they and their books have achieved is akin to what Paul had in mind when he wrote the following:
"For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete" (2 Corinthians 10:4-6).
What can our weapons do? They destroy "strongholds" or "fortresses" (NASB), vivid imagery indeed. Paul's use of this word recalls the ancient practice of building a massively fortified tower inside the walls of a city where its citizens might retreat to make their final defense. But to what does Paul's language actually refer? What are the literal "strongholds" that our divinely empowered weapons destroy? Verse 5 gives the answer.
First, they are "arguments" or "speculations" (NASB), by which Paul means the thoughts, plans, and intentions designed to justify one's calloused disbelief in God (cf. 2 Cor. 2:11; 4:4; Rom. 1:21; l Cor. 3:20). He is saying that our weapons "destroy the way people think, demolish their sinful thought patterns, the mental structures by which they live their lives in rebellion against God" (Carson, 47).
Second, our weapons are effective in bring down "every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, (or, "every pretension that sets itself up against the kingdom of God," NIV). People will often appear humble in their appeal to intellectual doubt as a way of keeping God at arm's length. Others "display a supercilious and condescending cynicism" or claim "an intellectual independence that loves to debate theology without ever bending the knee in adoring worship" (Carson, 48). But we have been graciously equipped by God with the necessary weaponry to overcome every arrogant claim, every haughty or prideful thought, every pompous act that forms a barrier to the knowledge of God. We are fully empowered to address every argument used to rationalize sin and to justify unbelief and to delay repentance.
Furthermore, our warfare is not merely aimed at dismantling and tearing down the sinful reasoning and rationalizations which are strongholds by which the mind fortifies itself against the gospel. It is actually effective in doing so! The gospel will always remain foolishness to some and a stumbling block to others, but to those "who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18), "to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks" (1 Cor. 1:24), the gospel of a crucified Christ is "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 24b).
The ultimate aim, of course, is to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (v. 5b). The picture is of "a military expedition into enemy territory, an expedition so effective that every plan of the enemy is thwarted, every scheme foiled, every counter-offensive beaten" (Carson, 50). Whatever ideas of the unbeliever hindered faith, whatever notions or plans were barriers to repentance, they are defeated, captured, and graciously transformed, to be brought under the authority of Christ and ultimately to acknowledge a new loyalty, a new allegiance.
Barnett suggests that, given the context, the "weaponry" Paul has in mind might refer to "his disciplinary ministry to them at the time of the second [painful] visit and through the ‘Severe Letter'" (464). On this view, the "destruction of fortresses" and the "pulling down" of speculations refer to his victory over the person who wronged him (cf. 2:6; 7:12) and those in the congregation who have undermined his apostolic authority. This interpretation, however, is generally regarded as too narrow and restricted to fully account for Paul's language.
So what then are our weapons of warfare? What is it that Paul utilizes to bring about this triumphant result? Surely he would point to the same armaments he cited in Ephesians 6:13-18, such as truth and righteousness and unyielding proclamation of the gospel and faith and the glory of salvation and the Word of God and persistent prayer. These may not seem formidable, especially when one considers the political power and financial resources available to those who stand in opposition. But they are enough. And they are effective.
There are two additional issues that need to be addressed.
First, some have misinterpreted and misapplied this text as if it spoke of cosmic level spiritual warfare (i.e., territorial demons). "Strongholds" and every "lofty thing" (NASB) have been taken as referring to demonic spirits who have been assigned by Satan to specific territorial or geographic regions. We then, according to this view, are called to identify, engage, and, as it were, pull them down (ostensibly through prayer, fasting, proclamation, etc.). But the enemies in view are ideas and arguments and philosophies and excuses that are antithetical to the kingdom and glory of God. This isn't to pass judgment on whether there are territorial spirits, but simply to point out that this isn't what Paul had in mind when he penned this passage.
Yet, again, it is worth asking: Who is behind these thoughts? Who inspires and energizes such anti-Christian arguments and philosophies? What gives them the force that they appear to exert on the human soul? We mustn't forget that it is "the prince of the power of the air" who is even now "at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2; cf. 4:17-19). We've already seen in 2 Corinthians 4:4 how "the god of this world [i.e., Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ". How are they blinded if not by being deceived with philosophical and religious lies? Paul even said that Christ had called him "to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18). In describing the condition of the latter days he spoke of "deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (l Tim. 4:1).
So, whereas there is no basis for finding any reference to so-called "territorial" spirits here in 2 Corinthians 10, there is certainly good reason to think that Paul's warfare and divinely empowered weaponry applied to his (and our) conflict with principalities and powers, ruler and authorities, the cosmic powers and spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places (Eph. 6:12) who so often confuse and harden and blind and enslave those who are resistant to the gospel.
Second, contextually Paul is talking about "strongholds" in the lives and minds of those in the Corinthian church who were resistant to his apostolic authority. But do ordinary Christians today have them too? Yes. Such intellectual, philosophical, and moral enemies to the knowledge of God don't automatically and altogether disappear when we get saved.
I once heard someone define a stronghold as "a mindset impregnated with hopelessness that causes us to accept as unchangeable something we know is contrary to God's will." What he had in view are negative patterns of thought that cripple our ability to obey God and thus breed feelings of guilt and despair. They are often burned into our minds either through repetition over time (such as occurs in an abusive, incestuous relationship) or through a one-time traumatic experience, or even more commonly through the influence of false teaching and a skewed theology. In relation to this latter point, Clint Arnold believes that "the critical thrust of the passage is directed against christological heresy. . . . Therefore, in its original context, demolishing strongholds refers to changing wrong ideas about Christ in the minds of believers who have been influenced by demonically inspired teaching" (Three Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare, 54-55).
Whatever the case, no matter the opposition, the good news is that we have access to powerful and efficacious resources, adequate to prevail over all resistance and to defeat every enemy (cf. Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 4:20-24). We must dedicate ourselves to thinking and meditating on whatever is true and honorable and just and pure and lovely and commendable and excellent and worthy of praise (Phil. 4:8) and entrust ourselves to the power of the Spirit who can overcome the influence of every negative and destructive thought.
Sam
"Super" Spirituality and a Call for Discernment (2 Cor. 10.7)
May 30, 2008The Christian world is all abuzz about leadership these days. Take a look at any list of best-selling books and you'll find at least three or four of the top ten that are concerned with some aspect of leadership, whether in identifying the essence of the good and successful sort or in warning of the bad. It's the latter that I'd like to briefly address in this meditation.
I'm sickened, as I'm sure you are, by the almost daily barrage of news concerning either the self-serving, authoritarian practices of some professed Christian leader or the moral scandal that has befallen yet another. Where do these people come from? How do they manage to attain such lofty heights of praise and power? Why do people grant them such unqualified allegiance? What accounts for their ability to amass so much wealth and fame and authority over the lives of their followers?
Don't be misled. I'm not talking about the obvious and notorious cult figures such as David Koresh or Jim Jones or the leaders of certain polygamous groups who have been much in the news of late. I have in mind local church pastors and leaders of para-church ministries as well as those who have risen to fame and fortune on the waves of "revival" movements and other sensational and supernatural spiritual happenings.
Countless theological and sociological studies have examined such folk in an effort to understand the source of their power and the secret to their allure. I've read a few of them myself and they've often been spot on target. Amidst the variety of explanations for their success, one is common to all, which brings us to our text in 2 Corinthians 10.
However, before noting Paul's comments, let me differentiate between the sort of authoritative and self-aggrandizing "shearer of the sheep" that the apostle confronted in the church at Corinth and the truly gifted and godly pastor of today's mega-church. My words that follow are not intended to indict those who, through faithful and diligent service, have built large churches and gathered zealous disciples. Not all forms of success are bad! Quite a few prominent leaders whose ministries have drawn thousands of devoted followers are to be honored and emulated. They are not the focus of my concern or the target of my criticism.
I have in mind the aggressive, self-righteous, supremely self-confident person whose alleged authority borders on legalistic control. This is the person whose flamboyant style, charismatic personality, and sheer energy of will seduce his followers into suspending their critical faculties and throwing discernment to the wind. This sort of "leader" does not humbly serve and sacrifice for the flock but expects them (without necessarily saying so) to supply him with financial blessings and a wide array of other perks and privileges. This individual is typically unaccountable and not held to the same standard that he requires of his ardent devotees.
So what explains this remarkable mystique? Why do so many fall prey to such claims? To what does this sort of "leader" appeal as the reason why he should be treated with such extraordinary respect and devotion? Look at Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 10:7 for at least one answer to our question:
"Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ's, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ's, so also are we" (v. 7).
The NASB renders the opening words of v. 7 as a statement of fact: "You are looking at things as they are outwardly." More likely this is a command: "Look at what is before your eyes."
What they are to look at and from which they are to draw appropriate conclusions would include such things as the fact that they are themselves the fruit of Paul's labors, bearing witness to the authenticity of his calling as an apostle (see 1 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:1-3); that Paul "belongs" to Christ (as do his co-workers and all believers) no less than the intruders; that his authority came from Christ and was always exercised for the building up of the Corinthians; and that his actions and words were not incompatible, as some alleged, but were always aimed at the same goals, being prompted by the same motives.
The "anyone" of v. 7 likely "points to a particular individual, the ringleader of the Judaizing intruders who expressed the viewpoint of them all" (Harris, 688). But what precisely is it that this representative figure is claiming, on the basis of which he and like-minded others are challenging Paul's authority?
This man is claiming, literally, to be "of Christ". The genitive is certainly possessive, thus suggesting that he promoted himself as one who belonged to the Lord in some unique and special way. Several suggestions have been made concerning the precise nature of this statement.
Some contend that they were claiming to be Christians and insisting Paul was not. But this is highly unlikely. As radically opposed to him as they were, there's no indication in the letter that they questioned his salvation.
Some say these opponents claimed to belong to the "Christ party" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12 (where some said, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ"). But would Paul have responded to such a claim by saying he is of the Christ party no less than they? Given his strong denunciations of the schismatic spirit in Corinth, he would hardly now have endorsed it!
Others suggest they were appealing to an earthly relationship with Jesus. They knew him during the time of his sojourn but Paul didn't, thus putting them at an advantage to him. But in v. 7b Paul claims to have no less a relation to Jesus, and we know he had no personal contact with the Lord until after the ascension, most likely on the road to Damascus.
Might it be a claim to have received a special commission from Jesus? But that is an assertion made only by the "super apostles" (cf. 11:5) whom Paul does not address until the next chapter. Here he is dealing with "insiders" who are critical of him because of his feeble previous visit and his frightening ("Severe") follow-up letter (cf. 10:9-11).
The most likely interpretation is that they were asserting some special, ongoing relationship with Christ, making their point with an obviously feigned humility. One can almost see a slight tilt of the head together with just the right inflection of voice: "I am Christ's man. I belong to Jesus in a way you don't. He has a higher interest in me than in you. He has a deeper affection for me than for you. I have access to his mind and heart in a way that transcends whatever claims you might make. Therefore, I and a few others have been given an authority and power and place above you and your co-workers."
In many such cases the person who stands center stage doesn't explicitly assert that he or she is the recipient of special divine favor or revelatory insights worthy of only a chosen few. They would never commit the tactical error of publicly promoting themselves as uniquely "anointed". They simply do nothing to disabuse their followers of such false perceptions. Their calculated silence is mistaken for humility and their power base grows.
Is this not precisely the grounds on which so many today build their reputations and undergird their authority? False and self-serving leadership that ultimately works to enhance the person's fame and fortune is almost always the result of allowing people to think one has a unique and privileged relationship with God, one that is unavailable to ordinary believers. It is frequently, if not most times, grounded in the claim to supernatural experiences, whether angelic visitations or third heaven translations or having heard the voice of God with a clarity and force beyond what any average Christian might experience.
Let me say it as forcefully as I can: Beware of all such claims to a superior or "super" spirituality! Beware of any suggestion that one has special knowledge or insights unavailable to others! Beware of those whose only credentials are the visions they have allegedly seen or the angels with whom they have allegedly conversed (cf. Col. 2:18)! [I say this as one who believes in the gift of prophecy, visions, and angelic encounters.]
On the other hand, genuine, godly leadership that warrants your allegiance is built on character, not charisma. It is grounded in virtue, not visions. Its appeal is the centrality of Christ, not displays of power or heightened states of ecstasy. And at the heart of such authentic authority is the faithful proclamation of a cross-centered, Christ-exalting gospel, which is to say, a preaching of "Jesus Christ as Lord" and "ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4:5).
All of us, at some point or other, will have to "look at what is before our eyes" (v. 7a) and pass judgment on the legitimacy of claims to spiritual authority. What criteria shall we employ? Upon reading the following words of Charles Spurgeon, I think I now know:
"I have not the slightest desire to suppose that I have advanced in the spiritual life many stages beyond my brethren. As long as I trust simply to the blood and righteousness of Christ, and think nothing of myself, I believe that I shall continue to be pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ, that this joy will be in me, and that my joy will be full" (cited by Carson, 65).
Sam
In all Giving, God gets the Glory (2 Cor. 9.12-15)
May 29, 2008Why is it that we are so quick and easily inclined to take credit for what God has done? Of course, I know the answer. Sins such as pride, arrogance, selfish ambition, combined with an ignorance of the antecedence of divine grace, all converge to make it feel natural. If we are to avoid falling into this horrific trap, we must remind ourselves often that God is always antecedent; his gracious work in us always precedes and makes possible whatever work we in turn do for others.
This is certainly the case when it comes to the stewardship of our finances, as we have already seen on several occasions here in 2 Corinthians 8-9. The fact that God is always prior, that his grace awakens, supplies, and sustains our giving in no way diminishes the virtue of our actions. I doubt if anyone this side of heaven will ever adequately account for this. Explaining how the antecedence of divine sovereignty is perfectly consistent with subsequent human responsibility is certainly beyond my abilities. Perhaps all that we need to know at present is that it's biblical.
So, as we bring our study of these two chapters to a close, I want once again for you to observe how definitive Paul is in making certain that all glory and honor and credit go to God for our giving.
Yes, this "ministry" of "service" undoubtedly supplied the needs of the saints in Jerusalem. They were greatly and gloriously sustained and helped by the generous offering of the saints in Macedonia, Corinth, and elsewhere (v. 12). What an incredible blessing this is to behold and to see how it builds and nourishes mutual love and fellowship among the saints ("they long for you and pray for you," v. 14).
Yes, the Corinthians will be seen to have submitted to this task, an obedience that is the fruit of their embrace of the gospel.
Yes, the Corinthians will be known as a people overflowing in goodness. The "generosity" of their "contribution" will be acknowledged by all (v. 13).
But make no mistake about it. God was beneath and behind it all! Look again at what Paul says:
"For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!" (2 Cor. 9:12-15).
Note first that "the thanksgiving is given to the ultimate benefactor, God, not to the intermediaries, the Corinthians" (Harris, 646; v. 12b). Paul made this crystal clear in v. 11 when he acknowledged that human generosity produces "thanksgiving to God." Why would God be thanked if the ultimate and sufficient cause of this ministry was in the hearts of the Corinthians? Credit to whom credit is due! God is thanked because he is the one who stirred and sustained their commitment to give. This, in fact, is our ultimate aim in giving: the glory of God!
Furthermore, why will they "glorify God" for the willing submission and obedient confession and generous contribution of the Corinthians (v. 13)? Again, the only credible explanation is that God is the gracious source of their virtuous acts. God had imparted the desire to give and had provided the resources to fulfill it. The giver always gets the glory.
Note also that it was "because of the surpassing grace of God" (v. 14) "upon" and in the Corinthians that this offering first took shape and was finally consummated. It is only appropriate, therefore, that "thanks" be given "to God for his inexpressible gift" (v. 15).
Finally, consider again Paul's use of the word for "grace" (charis) throughout these two chapters. We first saw how God gives "grace" to his people (see 8:1 and 9:14), enabling their hearts to overcome covetousness and greed and experience the joy of generosity. Then, secondly, the word "grace" is used to describe the very gift itself, the money that the Corinthians happily sent to Jerusalem (see 8:7). Finally, this leads to the giving of "thanks" (the Greek word is eu-charis-tia) to God for this remarkable scenario. Paul wants to make sure that God is seen as both first and last: his grace generates the giving, the goal of which is the glory of God!
What is God's "inexpressible gift" for which Paul and all others offer thanks? Is it "the surpassing grace of God" operative in the Corinthians, mentioned in v. 14 (cf. 8:1)? Or is it God's gracious gift of Jesus (2 Cor. 8:9) who, though rich, impoverished himself to make us rich? The answer is both! As Tasker said, Jesus Christ is "the divine gift which inspires all gifts."
That said, the gift that transcends human speech is preeminently Jesus himself. Throughout his letters Paul employs every manner of speech, a vast array of adjectives, and the most vivid imagery imaginable to describe the splendor and sufficiency of God's gift to us in Christ Jesus. But there are limits to the mind of man. There are times when our dictionaries prove deficient. When explanation fails, exclamation takes over. When words fall short, wonder ensues. Jesus is, as Paul says, "inexpressible" (the word he uses is found only here in all the NT). He is ineffable, and leaves the adoring soul stunned, speechless, and gasping for breath.
And now, before closing our study of these two chapters in 2 Corinthians, a brief summary of the twelve principles of Christian stewardship is in order.
(1) Giving is always and ever the fruit of an antecedent work of divine grace. We are energized to give and find the resources for doing so because God has graciously stirred and sustained our concern for others and then supplied us with seed for sowing (2 Cor. 8:1; cf. 1 Chron. 29:12-19). God is always and ever the reservoir. We are the pipes.
(2) Giving is to be in proportion to wealth. Precisely what percentage that might be is never stated by Paul and was obviously of no concern to him (2 Cor. 8:3,11,12; 9:8-11; cf. 1 Cor. 16:2).
(3) Giving is to be regarded as a privilege; indeed, it is an act of worship and praise (2 Cor. 8:4; cf. Phil. 4:15-18).
(4) Giving is to be voluntary, not forced, pressured, or "under the gun" (2 Cor. 8:3,11-12; 9:5,7).
(5) Giving is to be preceded by the dedication and consecration of oneself to the Lord's work in whatever capacity possible (2 Cor. 8:5).
(6) Giving is to be characterized by a spirit of reciprocity (2 Cor. 8:13-15). When we consider the plight of those in need, let us never forget that the day may come when we ourselves may be dependent on them.
(7) The administration of Christian giving should take into consideration the wise principles that governed Paul's approach to the collection: test and approve those who are entrusted with financial matters in the church; never entrust such matters to one person alone; such people should have a good reputation in the church and in the surrounding community (2 Cor. 8:16-24)
(8) Giving is not to be impetuous but rather characterized by forethought and prayer (2 Cor. 9:7).
(9) Giving must never be poisoned by regret over what we perceive has been lost or by covetousness for what we might otherwise have purchased for ourselves (2 Cor. 9:5,7).
(10) Giving should always be cheerful and joyous (2 Cor. 9:7).
(11) Giving should not be undertaken with a view to personal enrichment. Rather, one should give with the expectation that God will supply the giver with abundance for additional giving (2 Cor. 9:8-11).
(12) All giving should find its source, power, and pattern in the grace of God in Christ (2 Cor. 8:1,9; 9:14-15). In view of the indescribable, inexpressible, and ultimately unfathomable gift of the Father in and through the Son, generosity on our part should never be constrained but rather flow freely from a heart set free from sin and selfishness.
Sam
Gentle Authority (2 Cor. 10.1-2)
May 29, 2008It takes great strength and maturity not to respond in kind when one is slandered and maliciously maligned. If ever there were a knee-jerk reaction that feels justified, it comes in our response to those who without ground or reason spread lies about us and question our integrity behind the scenes. It seems well within our rights to give vent to the anger in our souls and to "let ‘em have it"!
No one knew this better than the apostle Paul, the victim of repeated misinformation and rumor. It appears yet again in 2 Corinthians 10:1-2. But as you read it, take careful note of his response:
"I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ - I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away! - I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh" (2 Cor. 10:1-2).
There's no great mystery about what was happening behind the scenes in this ancient city and church. Enemies of Paul, those envious of his influence and authority, had spread the rumor that he was two-faced, that he lacked the integrity to be himself at all times, that he adapted to his circumstances in a way that was inconsistent with his true character, that he related to people from motives that were self-serving and cared only about the preservation of his own reputation and well being.
Paul articulates this accusation in a somewhat sarcastic way, describing himself as one who is "humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away." In other words, he had heard what was being said of him in Corinth. "The rumor is fast and spreading," said Paul, "that when I'm in your presence I lack the courage to be forthright and strong about my opinions. They say I'm a weakling, that I so fear your rejection and so selfishly covet your approval that I'm careful not to say or do anything that would upset you or put my image at risk. ‘Look at Paul,' they say. ‘Such a timid man; so meek and subservient and deferential to the desires of others.' Ah, but when I'm away and out of your reach, then I let loose and exert my apostolic authority, boldly insisting on your complete obedience. When I'm far removed from your presence and feel safe, I suddenly put on a different face and assume an authoritarian posture to get my way in your midst."
What could possibly have led to such charges? Is there something in the way Paul had conducted himself that contributed to this misunderstanding? It's possible that two factors may have played a part.
You may recall the firm and unyielding position Paul took regarding the man guilty of incest (see 1 Cor. 5). Paul had insisted on the corporate discipline of this unrepentant sinner. He evidently mentioned it again in the so-called non-canonical "severe" letter he wrote to them (2 Cor. 2:3-4). It's entirely possible that some used this as an excuse to accuse him of being bold "at a distance", when he was, so to speak, out of the reach of any personal consequences for his authority.
As for the charge of being weak when present among them, this may have come as a result of his "painful visit" (2 Cor. 2:1) when he chose not to immediately discipline some who were guilty of immorality. In any case, the rumors were vicious and hurtful: "Paul, we simply don't trust you. You appear selfishly pragmatic. Your behavior leads us to believe you'll do whatever is convenient and serves your interests, regardless of how it may affect us."
One author sums it up as follows:
"It is clear that Paul has been accused of being a cowardly bully who is very good at writing domineering letters. They said that in person he was a craven weakling, an ineffectual wimp. But he had megalomaniac pretensions: a timid puppy who barked like a 'bold' rottweiler from behind the fence! 'His letters are weighty and forceful,' they said, 'but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing' (10:10)" (165).
But there was even more to their charge. They suspected Paul "of walking according to the flesh" (v. 2). This had to be just as distressing, if not more so, than the accusation that he was two-faced. Here they are questioning his relationship to the Holy Spirit, insinuating that he lived his life and made his decisions and chose his words without regard to the leading of the Spirit. Far from being a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led man, they were saying he was devoid of the Spirit's presence, relied little on the Spirit's power, and simply followed the promptings of his flesh! Ouch!
Paul was undoubtedly deeply wounded by this display of distrust on the part of the Corinthians. Anger probably also factored into his response. It would have been so very easy and natural to assume a self-defensive posture and explode in righteous rage. But note well two distinctive features in his reply.
First, despite the fact that he has been charged with being "bold" and "insistent" only in his letters (cf. v. 10), Paul refuses to take the bait and blast them with apostolic commands. Rather he appeals, using language that is deeply personal and emotional, even tender ("I, Paul, myself entreat you").
Second, instead of appealing to the majestic and irresistible authority of the risen and exalted Lord, he grounds his appeal in "the meekness and gentleness of Christ" (v. 1). He points to those two characteristics of Jesus that portray him as slow to take offense, willing to bear reproach, and self-sacrificing. These, Paul says, are my model for ministry. These, Paul says, are the spirit in which I make my appeal.
The two words summarize Jesus as gentle, gracious, not given to retaliation or malice in his relations with others, free from contentiousness or aggression. Paul probably has in mind the entire demeanor of our Lord's earthly life and especially his posture of non-retaliation during his beatings and eventual crucifixion (cf. 1 Peter 2:23).
Zechariah had long ago prophesied of the Messiah that he would be, above all things, "humble" (Zech. 9:9), something that Jesus declared of himself in Matthew 11:29. Humility and meekness and lowliness of heart were characteristics of the heart that Jesus highly valued and blessed (cf. Mt. 5:5).
Paul says, in effect, "Don't expect me to respond to your sins against me any differently than Jesus responded to those who sinned against him. If he could humble himself and choose the path of gentleness, so must I."
But let no one misunderstand the apostle or again take his words as an indication that he will abdicate the position Christ has bestowed upon him. Paul fully intends to be as "bold" as he must in order to put things right when he finally arrives. The words "with such confidence as I count on showing" could more accurately be rendered "with which I dare to be courageous." The point is this: "Far from flaunting his authority by rushing into disciplinary action, Paul envisions the prospect as a dare that cannot be avoided, not a challenge to be encountered with relish" (Carson, 36).
As Murray Harris has noted, in v. 2a "Paul is pleading with the Corinthians to avoid forcing him to act boldly . . . in a display of his confidence as an apostle having the Lord's authority (10:8). In effect he is saying, ‘Don't mistake the timidity that some people credit me with . . . for weakness and the inability or unwillingness to act with authority and dispatch'" (673).
As noted above, some had also accused Paul of walking "according to the flesh" (v. 2). The word "flesh" is generally used by Paul in one of three ways: (1) as a neutral reference to the physical body; (2) as a pejorative reference to the fallen, sinful nature; or (3) as a reference to the standards of excellence as the world judges excellence. Here he has in mind this third notion. Their calumny against Paul was that he is unimpressive, ineffective, a third-rate orator who is not sufficiently worthy to warrant remuneration, and inexperienced in visions and revelations which are the hallmark of spirituality (as they define it). He simply "does not attain to the high standards of spirituality and leadership that they claim for themselves! He lives and serves at the lowly level of this world, of flesh; they minister as dynamic, spiritual leaders whose spiritual experiences attest their superiority, and whose rhetoric demonstrates their God-given graces" (Carson, 37-8).
There is much for us to learn from this. Perhaps the greatest practical lesson is the importance of a proper balance between humility and tenderness in dealing with those who sin against us and a determination to hold our ground in accordance with whatever authority the Lord has granted. Paul was neither a bully nor would he be bullied. He took Jesus as his role model. Aggression was out of the question, but that didn't entail an abandonment of the rightful authority granted him by the risen Christ.
Oh, how easily we gravitate to one of two extremes, giving more weight than is due to one or the other of these crucial characteristics. Either we equate humility and gentleness with a cowardly withdrawal and a reluctance to draw a line in the sand, or we insensitively crack the whip of authority without regard for the welfare of the souls entrusted to our care. May Paul's godly and Christ-like example be an encouragement to us all!
Sam