Enjoying God
Grace Giving (2 Cor. 8.1-2)
Mar 31, 2008It almost seems that people in ministry today either rarely talk about money or rarely talk about anything else! The former are afraid of sounding greedy and manipulative while the latter consider wealth a spiritual birthright of all Christians. For the one, money is an enemy, for the other, an entitlement.
The apostle Paul would take issue with both groups. He is unashamed to issue what amounts to a passionate and persistent appeal to the Corinthians that they contribute generously to the impoverished church in Jerusalem. In doing so, he provides us with profound insight into the nature of God's grace, our giving, and the joy that is found in the convergence of the two in the life of the church.
As I said, his appeal was provoked by the crisis that had befallen the church in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:25-27). The reasons for this grave situation are numerous: in addition to overpopulation, there was social and economic ostracism, disinheritance following conversion, disruption of family ties, persecution, and the lingering effects of the famine of a.d. 46 (cf. Acts 11:27-30).
Paul's effort to raise money for their support was consistent with his stated resolve in Galatians 2:10. There he wrote that "they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." By pointing to the example of sacrificial giving set by the Macedonians (i.e., the Christians in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea), Paul hopes to stimulate the Corinthians to complete their efforts at contributing to their poverty-stricken brethren in Jerusalem (cf. 8:10-11).
As we turn our attention to these two crucial chapters in 2 Corinthians, I want to begin by taking note of the foundational role of divine grace in all that was achieved. This, in fact, is the focal point of Paul's entire message:
"We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part" (2 Cor. 8:1-2).
From a strictly human point of view, the odds were stacked against the Macedonians from the start. Common sense would tell us that such folk were hardly the sort who could be expected to alleviate anyone's suffering. Their own "severe test of affliction" and "extreme poverty" would appear to excuse them from participation in any fund-raising venture, except perhaps one that would serve to improve their own pitiful condition.
I'll have more to say on this in a subsequent meditation, but here I draw your attention to the operation of divine grace in their midst. This grace had been "given" or bestowed or poured out on the churches of Macedonia and that alone, ultimately speaking, accounts for their remarkable generosity toward their brethren in Jerusalem.
Yes, Paul appeals to what believers in Macedonia had done. But he is quick to acknowledge that what they did in serving their brethren is the fruit of what God had done in serving them! If the Macedonians "gave themselves first to the Lord" in this ministry (v. 5), it is because God had first "given" his grace (v. 1) to them. Whatever achievement on their part is praised, whatever example they may have set for others to follow, it is ultimately attributed to the antecedent activity of divine grace (this is the principle Paul articulated in Philippians 2:12-13).
This is a beautiful example of the harmony between the antecedent presence of divine grace and the moral accountability of human decisions. In v. 3 Paul says they gave "of their own free will," while in v. 1 their willingness is traced to the grace of God! The same principle is found in vv. 16-17 where Paul says God put an "earnest care" in the heart of Titus, who in turn, "of his own accord," went to the Corinthians.
This isn't the first time we've seen this sort of dynamic interplay between divine grace and human response. In 1 Chronicles 29:10-19 David describes the remarkable fund-raising campaign that eventually subsidized the building of Solomon's temple. In v. 12 David says of God that "both riches and honor come from you." God is not a usurper of things not rightfully his. From a purely human point of view, the money and wealth given for the building of the temple seem to come from the work and energy and savings and investments of the people. Perhaps some of them had profited from shrewd business transactions. Perhaps a few had turned an incredible profit on the sale of some land. But no matter, David says that all riches come from God! Whatever anyone worked for, earned, invested, sold and then gave, they first got it from God.
Again in v. 12, David asserts that it lies in God's hand "to make great and to give strength to all." Whatever energy or accomplishments may be traceable to the people that accounted for what and why they gave, all of it ultimately came from God. Power, influence, ingenuity, success, commitment, whatever it might be, are the result of the gracious and kind operation of a benevolent and giving God working in and through his people for their welfare and his own glory.
David then asks: "But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly?" This is David's way of saying that God is the one who enables us to do what we do not deserve help to do. Who are we, asks David, that we should receive the help of God that would mobilize us to produce this wealth and then stir our hearts to give it away? We are sinners. We deserve nothing but judgment.
But perhaps the most instructive thing David says comes in v. 14. "For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you." I actually prefer the translation of the NASB, "from Thy hand we have given Thee." He doesn't say "To Thy hand," as if it originated with us and ended with God. Rather, it is "from Thy hand." In other words, whatever they gave they first received. He says much the same thing in v. 16. declaring that "all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand and is all your own." All giving is but a reflex of God's giving.
As if that weren't enough, in v. 18 he declares that it is God who gives us the willingness to give! It isn't simply that God makes it possible for us to work hard or that he bestows riches on whomever he pleases, but that he initiates and sustains in the hearts of his people the very desire to give. Yes, says David, the people did the giving (v. 9). They gave willingly, of their own accord, and with joy. It was genuine giving, freely chosen, joyfully engaged. They made decisions. Real decisions. Sacrificial decisions. Decisions that make a difference. Decisions without which the temple would not have been built. But mysteriously, in ways that you and I will never fully understand, beneath and behind these choices was the gracious, enabling work of God.
This is the same principle we see at work in the Macedonians and the overwhelming generosity they displayed in contributing to the saints in Jerusalem.
I can't conclude without directing our attention to the use of the word charis, "grace", throughout this section of 2 Corinthians. It is used in 8:1,4,6,7,9,16,19; 9:8,14,15, with a wide range of meaning, from divine enablement to human privilege to a monetary gift to a word of gratitude to divine favor. This should remind us that grace is more than an attitude or disposition in the divine nature. It is surely that, but if thought of only as an abstract and static principle, it is deprived of its deeper implications.
The grace of God, for example, is the power of God's Spirit converting the soul. It is the activity or movement of God whereby he saves and justifies the individual through faith (see esp. Rom. 3:24; 5:15,17). Therefore, grace is not something in which we merely believe; it is something we experience as well.
Grace, however, is not only the divine act by which God initiates our spiritual life, but also the very power by which we are sustained in, nourished, and proceed through that life. The energizing and sanctifying work of the indwelling Spirit is the grace of God (as we will later see, for example, in 2 Corinthians 12:9 in regard to Paul's struggle with his thorn in the flesh).
Grace, then, is a dynamic and experiential reality that empowers the human heart to look beyond its limitations and accomplish things that defy rational explanation. Grace is the power that enables impoverished and suffering saints to give when, by all accounts, they should be the ones to get. Such was the operation of grace in the giving of these Macedonian believers. And such ought to be its operation in us as well.
Sam
Are Christians Obligated to Tithe?
Mar 31, 2008As we begin our study in 2 Corinthians 8-9 and dig deeply into Paul's perspective on the subject of money and stewardship, it may prove helpful to briefly address a most controversial question.
The issue is not whether Christians are responsible to be generous with their wealth in giving back a portion of it to support the work of the ministry. 2 Corinthians 8-9, as well as other texts, make it quite clear that we are. The question, rather, is whether New Covenant Christians are biblically and morally obligated to give according to Old Covenant laws. The question is not whether Christians are free to tithe of their income. Certainly, they are. The question is whether Christians are obligated to give precisely 10% of their income. Does the Bible legislate to believers under the New Covenant a specific percentage of their income that they are to give?
In ancient times tithing was not restricted to religious people, such as the nation Israel. Giving a portion of one's income either to a pagan deity or to the governing authority was a widespread custom. One need only read Genesis 47:24 where the Egyptians were required to pay 20% of their harvest to Pharaoh. Other extra-biblical documents indicate that tithing was commonly practiced throughout the ancient world among such people as the Syrians, Lydians, and Babylonians (see the discussion of this in the article on the "Tithe" in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, V:756).
Was tithing a mandatory or even common practice among God's people prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law? There are two examples of pre-Mosaic tithing.
We read in Genesis 14:18-20 that Abraham gave "a tenth of everything" to Melchizedek. Personally, I am reluctant to appeal to the example of Abraham to justify contemporary tithing, and for the following reasons.
First, we don't know whether Abraham tithed because of some divine mandate that was binding on all God's people at that time, or because he was following a common ancient near-eastern custom. There is nothing in the OT which indicates that Abraham ever received divine or revelatory instructions concerning tithing. There is no command associated with this incident or any other evidence indicating that what Abraham did on this one occasion is binding and normative for all believers in every age.
Furthermore, observe that Abraham tithed out of the spoils or booty of war (see the preceding context in Gen. 14:13-16; cf. also Heb. 7:4). Nothing is said about his tithing from his yearly income. We should also note that he didn't tithe to God but to a man, Melchizedek. And as far as I can tell, there's no evidence that Abraham ever tithed to anyone again. He may have, but we have no record of such activity and thus no way of knowing if this was a singular event or one example of a common practice.
Finally, the only other reference to this incident is in Hebrews 7. There the author is determined to prove the superiority of the New Covenant priesthood of Jesus Christ to the Old Covenant priesthood. He does this by proving the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham. Remember, it was Abraham who paid a tithe to Melchizedek, not the other way around. It was Melchizedek who blessed Abraham, not the other way around. And as Hebrews 7:7 states, "the inferior [or "lesser"] is blessed by the superior [or "greater"]."
Our author then says that, in a certain sense, Levi also paid a tithe to Melchizedek because he was in the loins of his great-grandfather Abraham when the incident recorded in Genesis 14 occurred. The point he is making, notes F. F. Bruce, is this: "Abraham was a great man . . . but in the account of his interview with Melchizedek, it is Melchizedek who appears as the greater of the two. And if Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, his priesthood must be greater than a priesthood which traces its descent from Abraham" (139-40). Therefore, Jesus, who is our high priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20), is greater than any and all priests of the order of Aaron and Levi. It is exegetically tenuous, then, to appeal to this text in defense of contemporary tithing.
The other example of pre-Mosaic tithing is found in Genesis 28:22 where it is said that Jacob promised to give a tenth of all he had to God. Is this a solid biblical reason why we should do the same?
First, note well that this is a vow made upon the condition that God would bless Jacob. This isn't the case of someone saying, "Tithe to God and God will bless you," but rather "God, you first bless me and then I will tithe to you."
Second, do we have good reason to believe that Jacob's act is to be taken as normative for all believers in every age? I might be willing to grant that we should follow Jacob's example if the rest of Scripture were silent on the subject of financial stewardship. In other words, if all we had on the subject of giving was the story of Jacob, perhaps then it would be wisdom to pattern our giving after his. But the New Testament is anything but silent on this subject, as our study of 2 Corinthians 8-9 will reveal.
A brief word is in order about how tithing was practiced under the Mosaic or Old Covenant. Some believe the Israelites paid nearly 22% of their income to the Lord every year! Let me summarize this argument.
According to Leviticus 27:30-33, 10% of all grain, cattle, fruit, etc. was to be set aside as a tithe to the Lord. This tithe, in turn, was to be given to the Levites for the work they did while serving at the tent of meeting. The Levites constituted the tribe of Israel from which the priests were taken. We read in Numbers 18:20-32 that they received this tithe because they were not given an inheritance in the land.
Thus, it would appear that the first 10% of the Israelites' income was to be given to the Levites, who in turned tithed from that 10% (1%), giving it to the high priest (Numbers 18:26-29). Clearly, the Levites, or those who ministered in the tabernacle and Temple, were supposed to live off the tithes of the other eleven tribes.
In 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, Paul reminds the church that in the OT economy the Levites who worked in the Temple lived off the tithes brought there: "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? He then says in 9:14, "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."
Paul's argument is that those who spend their lives ministering the Word of God should be supported by other Christians. To make his point, he draws attention to the way it was done in the OT. At minimum, Paul is saying that other believers are to financially support those in so-called "full-time ministry." Whether or not he is saying that they should do it by giving precisely 10% is less certain.
On the basis of Deuteronomy 14:22-27, some argue that a second tithe (or 10% of the remaining 90%, hence 9%) was to be taken once a year to Jerusalem, there to be consumed by a man and his family in a sacred feast or meal. If a person lived too far away to transport his tithe to Jerusalem, he was permitted to exchange his goods for silver. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he was to convert his cash back into cattle, sheep, wine, etc. (Deut. 14:24-26). If this is the correct interpretation, we now have Israelites paying 19% of their income in tithes. But there is more to come.
According to Deuteronomy 14:28-29, an additional (?) tithe of 10% was to be paid every third year. This tithe was to be given to the Levites, the aliens, the fatherless, and the widows. In other words, every third year the Israelite was to take an additional 10% from the remaining 81%. If my math is correct, this means that every year the Israelite was required to pay approximately 21.7% of his income in tithes to the Lord!
Others have objected to this interpretation, arguing that these passages in the OT all refer to the same tithe. It is only one tithe, 10%, to be used in different ways. In other words, 10% of one's yearly produce/income (Lev. 27) was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there (Deut. 14:22-27). Whatever was left over was to be given to the Levites (Num. 18:20-32). Every third year, however, the entire 10% was to be given to the Levites, the aliens, and to the orphans and widows. On this interpretation, the Israelite was required to pay only 10% a year.
Regardless of which view one takes, the important point to note is that the Israelite was required to pay his tithe. It was tantamount to a national income tax. That is why Malachi 3:6-12 speaks of those who did not pay their tithes as "robbing" God. In Israel, under the Mosaic Covenant, there was no such thing as separation of church and state. One's tithe was a religious tax designed to sustain the theocratic state of God's chosen people.
The New Testament twice (Matthew 23:23 [Lk. 11:42]; Luke 18:12) refers to people tithing who were still living under and therefore morally obligated to obey the dictates of the Old, Mosaic Covenant. But these people were required to pay their tithes for the same reason they were required to bring a lamb for sacrifice and required to observe the civil code of Leviticus and required not to touch a dead body and required to obey all the legislation instituted by God in the covenant with Israel. On what grounds, then, do we say that the OT law concerning tithing is still binding on the conscience of New Covenant believers but its laws concerning other matters is not?
Is it permissible for a New Covenant Christian to tithe, i.e., to give 10% of his/her income to the work of the church? Not only is it permissible, I would strongly recommend and urge you to do so. In choosing to give 10% of our income to the Lord, we are honoring a God-given, Old Testament principle. In the absence of a prescribed percentage for giving in the New Testament, why not adopt the Old Testament pattern?
However, this does not mean you are sinning if you don't. To give only 8% or to give 15% is equally permissible. Not to give at all, or to give disproportionately to your income (which is the case with most Christians today), or to give grudgingly, is indeed sin. Let us be joyful and generous in our giving. After all, everything we own belongs to God anyway!
Sam
Do You Earnestly Desire Spiritual Gifts? Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:1
Mar 19, 2008I've been giving some thought to Paul's exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:1. There he writes, "Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy" (ESV). I've written on this somewhat extensively in my book Convergence (pp. 209-15), but would like to add a few comments below.
It would appear from this passage that it is not enough to be open to spiritual gifts and their operation in the local church. One must be zealous for them and earnestly desire their presence, especially the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1, 12, 26).
However, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. As I've thought about it, there appear to be several ways that one might respond to this exhortation. But first, two observations are in order.
(1) It's important we remember that this is an exhortation, an imperative, a command, and not merely a statement of fact. In 1 Corinthians 12:31 Paul says, "earnestly desire the greater gifts." The verb translated "earnestly [or eagerly] desire" (zeloute) is grammatically ambiguous (it can be either indicative or imperative). A few insist it is merely a statement characterizing the behavior of the Corinthians, hence "you are eager for the greater gifts." In other words, they take it to be a statement of fact concerning a state of affairs, not an exhortation to future action.
But the Corinthians were not, in fact, seeking the greater gifts. That was precisely their problem. They were placing far more emphasis on the gift of tongues, making it a mark of spirituality. In fact, the whole of chapter 14 is Paul's attempt to encourage them to desire prophecy in their corporate gatherings rather than uninterpreted tongues, prophecy being the greater gift insofar as it, because intelligible, edifies others.
Also, the same verb form appears in 1 Corinthians 14:1 and 14:39 and is there unambiguously imperative (i.e., a command). It is difficult to believe that the same verb, in the same form, in the same context, would be used by Paul in two entirely different ways without some hint or contextual clue to that effect.
Consider also 14:12 where Paul writes, "So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts [referring to their collective enthusiasm for tongues], seek [imperative] to abound for the edification of the church [in particular, the gift of prophecy, as the context demands].
(2) Some have pointed out, correctly, that the exhortation to "earnestly desire" spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1) is in the plural. But they conclude from this, incorrectly, that Paul's command is therefore directed not to individual believers but to the corporate church. They argue that this is grounds for rejecting the idea that individual Christians should seek any spiritual gift.
But of course the verb is plural, as are virtually all Paul's commands in letters other than those addressed to individuals (such as Philemon, Titus, and Timothy). Paul is writing to everyone in the church at Corinth, each of whom is responsible for individually responding to an exhortation that has validity for the entire church. In other words, what is the corporate church if not a collection of individuals on each of whom the obligation falls? The plural of this exhortation simply indicates that all believers in Corinth are to heed the apostolic admonition. It is a duty common to everyone. That includes us as well.
I can well imagine someone in Corinth (or today) responding to this attempt to evade Paul's obvious intent by saying: "How can we as a church pursue spiritual gifts if none of us as individuals is allowed to?"
Now, those observations aside, there are six possible ways of responding to this exhortation.
First, I suppose someone might claim to be an agnostic on the subject of spiritual gifts and thus exempt themselves from having to respond. They just haven't been able to make up their mind concerning the debate between continuationism and cessationism. In other words, they say, "I don't know if prophecy and tongues and word of knowledge, for example, are still being given by God to the church, and until I do know I can't be expected to obey an exhortation that might not be binding on my conscience."
I understand this position, but if it is yours I would argue that you have a moral and spiritual obligation to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. On the one hand, if cessationism turns out to be true, you haven't lost anything by ignoring the imperative. However, if continuationism is true, your failure to explore the issue and lingering uncertainty are depriving you of the benefits that you and your church could enjoy from the exercise of these gifts. And you, personally, are at minimum guilty of a sin of omission.
If this first option is where you find yourself today, by all means study and search out the Scriptures, come to a conclusion, and act accordingly. After all, if continuationism is true, and at the judgment seat of Christ the Lord inquires about your failure to obey his Word, I doubt if you'll relish saying, "I'm sorry God, but I just couldn't make up my mind!"
Second, there are those, like myself, who believe the New Testament explicitly affirms the on-going, contemporary validity of all spiritual gifts. For such, the command of 1 Corinthians 14:1 is morally binding and must be obeyed.
Third, there are those who believe the NT is explicit in its affirmation of the cessation of certain spiritual gifts in the first century. For them, the exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:1 is therefore irrelevant. The most we can learn from it is what God desired for the early church, but it has no application to the body of Christ beyond the death of the last apostle. It is no more binding on Christians today than are the dietary regulations in the Law of Moses (although for different reasons).
Fourth, there are those who are cessationists, even though they do not believe the NT is explicit on the subject. In other words, they would say that whereas the NT doesn't teach the cessation of certain spiritual gifts, they nevertheless believe it. Therefore, the command of 1 Corinthians 14:1 was binding on first-century believers but no longer is for us.
This is a somewhat dangerous stance to maintain, for it entails believing something without explicit biblical warrant, on the basis of which one justifies ignoring an exhortation that is explicit.
Fifth, I suppose someone might respond to 1 Corinthians 14:1 by saying, "I think some gifts, such as prophecy and tongues, have ceased. Therefore, I am not under obligation to earnestly desire or pray for them. But other spiritual gifts, such as teaching and mercy and giving are still operative today and I will happily pray that God might bestow such gifts on me or on the church at large."
On this view, we have a selective obligation to obey Paul's command. We can ignore his emphasis on prophecy ("especially that you may prophesy") but must heed his exhortation when it comes to all other, so-called non-miraculous, gifts of the Spirit.
Sixth, there are those who don't believe the NT teaches cessationism, who also believe that it is possible that all spiritual gifts are still valid for the church today, but who do not obey Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 14:1. I would also include here those who believe it is definite that all spiritual gifts are still valid for the contemporary church, but they, too, fail to obey the Pauline imperative. This is the least viable of all positions.
If one believes either that it is possible or that it is definite that all gifts are still valid and important today, one must explore ways to obey Paul's command. If the gifts are valid, God does not leave us the option of either seeking them or not seeking them.
One cannot respond to this text by saying, "Well, yes, there is no evidence that God has withdrawn the gifts and in fact there is evidence that they are still being bestowed by the Spirit, but that's just not what we, as a church, are into. It's not our style. It's not our vision or contained in our mission statement, and to be perfectly honest, we are frightened by the possibility of such manifestations of the Spirit's power and would prefer to fulfill the ministry given us by God without incorporating the pursuit of spiritual gifts and the mess that it would inevitably bring."
This latter position, quite simply, is sin. To acknowledge the validity of spiritual gifts, and to acknowledge that God commands us to earnestly desire their manifestation, only then to refuse to do so, is sin.
Of course, whichever position one adopts we are all, in every age, responsible to "pursue love" (v. 1a), for without it, all gifts, whether teaching or tongues, whether prophecy or pastoring, are but a "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor. 13:1).
How, then, will you respond to the apostolic imperative?
Comfort for the Downcast (2 Cor. 7.5-7)
Mar 14, 2008Every so often we need to be reminded of the historical nature of the Bible. Contrary to how many have conceived it, this glorious book did not fall gently like manna from heaven. Its many narratives, prophecies, and letters were forged in the grit of real life struggles and the multitude of human relational dynamics not unlike what we encounter today.
Nowhere is this better seen than in 2 Corinthians. In fact, the lengthy paragraph before us (2 Cor. 7:5-16) is unintelligible apart from an understanding of the movements of Paul and Titus and the personal interactions between them and the Corinthian church. So let me briefly set the context for this incredibly instructive and encouraging passage.
As best we can tell, Paul made an urgent and confrontational visit to Corinth in the spring of 55 a.d., which he described as "painful" in 2 Corinthians 2:1. He immediately returned to Ephesus and changed the plans he had earlier made to visit Corinth twice more: once on his way to Macedonia and then on his return trip (cf. 2 Cor. 1:15-16). Fearful that his enemies would destroy the work of the gospel in Corinth, he wrote what some have called the "severe" or "tearful" letter (2 Cor. 2:4, 9), entrusting its delivery to Titus.
In late 55 a.d. he left Ephesus and went to Troas, hoping to meet Titus there with news of how the Corinthians had responded to this forceful appeal. Much to his chagrin, Titus was nowhere to be found (cf. 2 Cor. 2:13). Evidently he and Titus had planned to meet in Macedonia (probably Philippi) should the meeting in Troas not occur. Hence, Paul made his way to Macedonia, anxiously awaiting the arrival of Titus from Corinth. While there he suffered greatly, both in terms of external opposition and internal anxiety and distress, unsure of how his spiritual children would respond to what he had written. Finally, Titus arrived from Corinth with the good news for which Paul had prayed. The apostle's response is described in the passage before us (2 Cor. 7:5ff.).
Evidently, the Corinthians initially felt sorrow on hearing Paul's letter (vv. 8-9), but soon repented of their sinful behavior and expressed their love and longing for him (vv. 7, 9, 11-12). Titus is greatly comforted and refreshed by their response and upon his reunion with Paul in Macedonia reports to the apostle this glorious turn of events. His regret over sending the severe letter is short-lived when he learns of the godly and sincere fruit it bore in their experience (v. 8). Now he is relieved and filled with joy both at how Titus was encouraged and refreshed by them as well as their genuine and godly repentance (vv. 6-7, 9-12, 13).
Our concern in this meditation is with his opening comments in vv. 5-7. It's a remarkably honest and vulnerable confession by Paul of his state of mind and body:
"For even when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were afflicted at every turn - fighting without and fear within. But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not only by his coming but also by the comfort with which he was comforted by you, as he told us of your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced still more" (2 Cor. 7:5-7).
Several things are worthy of note.
First, in 2 Corinthians 2:13 it was his "spirit" that couldn't find rest when Titus failed to appear. Now it is his "body" (v. 5). Whereas "body" (Gk., sarx) may be inclusive of his spiritual and psychological state of being, the emphasis is on the frailty and vulnerability of his physical frame. Paul was not above or insulated against experiencing great physical agitation and weakness. This was caused by a multitude of afflictions (v. 5), what he calls "fighting without and fear within" (however, both "fighting" and "fear" are plural in the Greek text, pointing to multiple occasions when he confronted each).
The "fightings" were not physical battles, as if to suggest that Paul was a regular participant in some ancient version of pugilistic combat! He has in mind ecclesiastical controversies and theological disputes that he apparently faced on a regular basis (cf. the use of this word in 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:9; James 4:1).
What is of special interest is his reference to "fears within", which no doubt included his anxiety about how Titus would be received (not to mention the physical safety of his beloved emissary), his concern about how the Corinthians would respond to his letter (would they reject him or repent of their sin?), and his lingering worries concerning the influence of the false teachers in Corinth.
Take heart: Paul was just like you and me! Murray Harris is right in pointing out that Paul "openly admits to being in emotional turmoil and having persistent fears. So far from being imperturbable or being a model of inner tranquility, he was deeply affected by his circumstances, especially his pastoral circumstances (cf. 11:28-29), although he was certainly not emotionally fragile" (527).
He obviously cared deeply both for Titus and the believers in Corinth. Their spiritual and physical welfare weighed heavily on his heart, and he is unashamed to confess the burden and anxiety and overall toll it took on him, body and soul.
Second, thank God for the "But God's" of the Bible! "But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus" (v. 6; cf. Isa. 49:13). Yes, Paul was "downcast", dejected, perhaps even in some sense depressed because of the "fears" (v. 5) that wracked his heart as he waited, dare I say, impatiently in Macedonia.
Don't overlook an incredibly instructive dual emphasis in this verse. On the one hand, Paul is encouraged by the arrival of Titus. His anxiety diminishes upon seeing his trusted friend and brother in Christ. Don't ever let anyone tell you Paul wasn't a people person, as if all that mattered were theological concepts over which he pondered in a remote ivory tower. The welfare of his beloved brother, Titus, mattered profoundly to him! As Paul says in v.7, it wasn't simply the arrival of Titus that cheered him but the fact that Titus was himself cheered by the reception he received from the Corinthians!
But second, take special note that, typical of Paul, he sees God's providential hand in it all. God was the ultimate source of this comfort. He rejoiced to see Titus and to know he was safe and to hear the good news of what had transpired in Corinth. But all this was from God! He is, after all, "the Father of mercies and God of all comfort" (2 Cor. 1:3), and his ways of dispensing it to us are many and varied. It's truly breathtaking to see yet again the intimate oversight of God in the most mundane of human affairs and how he orchestrates seemingly routine events (such as the return journey of Titus) for our spiritual growth and edification.
The third important observation concerns Paul's joy on hearing how the Corinthians responded to his severe letter (v. 7). When Titus brought his report to Paul he focused on three things. He "told us of your longing," writes Paul. But their "longing" or "ardent desire" for what? Perhaps for Paul himself. Perhaps their desire to be reconciled to the apostle. In any case, Paul is ecstatic upon hearing of their change of heart.
Titus also reported on their "mourning" or "grieving", whether over their inexcusable treatment of Paul or their failure to heed his earlier letters and appeals to repent. Their "zeal" may be a reference to their fresh enthusiasm to comply with Paul's directives, but given the prepositional phrase "for me", it is more likely a reference to their eagerness to unite fully, in heart and mind and spirit, with their beloved spiritual father.
The result? "I rejoiced still more," exclaimed Paul (v. 7b)! There was great joy upon seeing Titus, but even greater joy, now more than ever, upon hearing how he had been received and how passionate these believers had become for Paul and holiness of life. Paul's fellow apostle, John, put it best in saying, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth" (3 John 4). Paul couldn't have agreed more.
What a rich treasure has been entrusted to us: the sacred Scriptures, the inspired word of God, as I said earlier, forged in the context of real life struggles and the multitude of human relational dynamics. Here, in the messy and often frustrating arena of human failure and weakness and repentance and reconciliation, we find encouragement and instruction and hope. And this too, from God.
Sam
Learning to Lead like Paul (2 Cor. 7.2-4)
Mar 14, 2008Books, seminars, and conferences on principles of leadership are in abundant supply today. Equally popular are those which focus more specifically on pastoral ministry. Sadly, many of these are governed by assumptions and values more suitable to the Wall Street board room or to the office of a typical CEO than to the local church.
When I'm asked to recommend resources on the training up of pastors or for wisdom in shaping the future leaders of this or the next generation, I instinctively say, 2 Corinthians! Many respond with a nod and a condescending, "Yeah, yeah," before asking for something more substantive, more up-to-date, more in touch with contemporary culture and prevailing trends in the market place.
I'm pretty stubborn. "Yes, I understand what you are asking for," is my response. "And my recommendation is still 2 Corinthians." This is the point at which they realize I'm not trying to be cute or disrespectful towards the vast array of more recent approaches to leadership and pastoral development. They get the point, I hope, that I seriously believe what we read in 2 Corinthians about Paul and the people from that ancient city is the most insightful, practical, wise, and edifying advice for how to lead and be led available in this or any age of the church.
The passage before us is a case in point. It's brief, but densely packed with pastoral wisdom. Read it carefully:
"Make room in your hearts for us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. I do not say this to condemn you, for I said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together. I am acting with great boldness toward you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with comfort. In all our affliction, I am overflowing with joy" (2 Cor. 7:2-4).
Perhaps the best way to approach this issue is simply to identify several principles that governed Paul's relationship with these believers.
The first thing that stands out is Paul's determination to do everything within his power to facilitate reconciliation with the Corinthians. "Make room in your hearts for us," he pleads with them. This is a resumption of his earlier appeal in 6:13, "In return (I speak as to [my] children), widen your hearts also."
Paul refused to settle for the status quo. It wasn't enough that he had deep affection for them (2 Cor. 6:11-12). He labored to persuade them that there was no good reason to close their hearts to him. Mutual love and mutual commitment was the goal. How tragic is it when leaders and their people become entrenched in long term grudges, which are, more times than not, based on misunderstanding and miscommunication that could easily be resolved if humility were prized. How tragic, and unnecessary, when Christians feed off of relational wounds and simply assume that reconciliation is either too difficult, not worth the effort, or completely beyond the realm of possibility. Paul won't have it, and neither should we.
To prove that the rift was groundless, and that he was deserving of a place in their hearts, he insists that he has "wronged" no one, "corrupted" no one, nor "taken advantage" of anyone. Pastors and Elders, take note of the moral and spiritual integrity that is foundational to all levels and expressions of leadership.
Paul insists he had "wronged" no one, a possible response to the charge that he had been unduly harsh in dealing with the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5 or the offender mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11.
In saying he had "corrupted" no one, he may have in mind either financial indiscretions or matters of morality or doctrine. There is obviously, here, an invitation to anyone in Corinth to investigate Paul's behavior. "You'll find no grounds," says the apostle, "to justify your mistrust of me or the closing of your heart to my position as your leader."
The words "take advantage" might also mean exploit or defraud (cf. its use in 12:17-18). It's possible that some suspected he manipulated for his own benefit the collection taken up for the Jerusalem church (2 Cor. 8:20-21). Nothing could be further from the truth, says Paul.
I also find it instructive how careful Paul is about his use of words. He knows how prone people are to twist things to their own advantage, so he quickly qualifies his words in v. 2 with his affirmation of love in v. 3. Nothing in what he has just said should be interpreted as condemnation or criticism or rejection of them. In fact, Paul was not only willing to live with them, but to die with them as well (v. 3b)!
What a marvelous affirmation of the depth and sincerity of his commitment to them. "Paul is declaring that his destiny, now and always, will be interwoven with that of the Corinthians. Neither the arrival of death nor the vicissitudes of life could divorce them from his affection" (Harris, 519).
There are, moreover, two important consequences to this devotion. Would that all leaders might imitate Paul's example.
In the first place, he was determined to be utterly and altogether open in his speech with them. This is the force of the words translated, "I am acting with great boldness toward you" (v. 4a). His words are not a cloak for some self-serving agenda or a means to protect a wounded ego. He speaks his mind candidly, fearlessly, and without regard to what consequences might befall him personally. He will not hide his intentions or his feelings or his beliefs about what is right and wrong in the church. Whether his words encourage or rebuke, they are the accurate expression of what's in his heart.
Second, he boasts to others about them. "I have great pride in you" (v. 4b), he virtually shouts aloud. Perhaps some had thought he was speaking positively to them, when in their presence, but negatively about them to others. Can you imagine what might transpire in our churches if we were honest with and about one another, both in private and public? I dare say half the disputes that split churches and most that destroy personal relationships would never occur.
He is not simply comforted upon hearing good news of these Christians (2 Cor. 7:7), he is "filled with comfort" (v. 4c). Paul's language is consciously effusive and over the top. He wants no lingering suspicions about his true feelings for them.
Finally, "in all our affliction, I am overflowing with joy" (v. 4d). Whether his afflictions are the cause of his joy or, more likely, that in the midst of them he yet finds reason to rejoice, he wants them to know that whatever he endured to bring them the gospel, whatever he suffered to see Christ formed in them, whatever pain and deprivation he incurred so that Christ might look good in his life, and thus become the treasure in theirs, he did it joyfully.
In a day when self-appointed and self-serving "Pastors" and so-called "Leaders" fleece their flocks and burden them with the responsibility of providing for a lavish and opulent lifestyle, Paul joyfully embraced whatever hardship might come his way if only it yielded a rich spiritual harvest in the lives of those entrusted to his care.
This is the calling and character of those entrusted with the oversight of God's people. You probably won't read about it in any of the New York Times bestsellers or hear of it in the more fashionable leadership seminars. But thanks be to God for his timeless and true revelation of what makes for godly pastors and the people they serve.
Sam