# commentaries

text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will welcome you</em>- This is a quotation of <em><a href='B:290 52:11-12'>Isa 52:11-12</a></em>, initially concerning the need for the Jews to quit Babylon. Clearly Paul felt that the Corinthians were still within "Babylon" and needed to leave it, lest they be consumed in its judgments. This would be one of many examples of where Paul clearly saw the apostasy of the Corinthians; and yet he respects their status "in Christ" and assumes their final salvation, for he cannot personally consign them as individuals to condemnation at the last day. For we are not to judge in that sense.</p><p>God will confirm us in coming out from the world. He told His people to flee from Babylon, to come out of her and return to His land and Kingdom (<em><a href='B:290 48:20'>Isa 48:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:8'>Jer 50:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 2:7'>Zec 2:7</a></em>). Babylon offered them a secure life, wealth, a society which accepted them (<em><a href='B:190 8:17'>Est 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 10:3'>Est 10:3</a></em>), houses which they had built for themselves (<em><a href='B:300 29:5'>Jer 29:5</a></em>). And they were asked to leave all this, and travel the uncertain wilderness road to the ruins of Israel. They are cited in the NT as types of us in our exit from this world (<em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>). Those who decided to obey God’s command and leave Babylon were confirmed in this by God: He raised up their spirit to want to return and re-build Jerusalem, and He touched the heart of Cyrus to make decrees which greatly helped them to do this (<em><a href='B:150 1:2-5'>Ezr 1:2-5</a></em>). And so the same Lord God of Israel is waiting to confirm us in our every act of separation from the kingdoms of this world, great or small; and He waits not only to receive us, but to be a Father unto us, and to make us His sons and daughters (<em><a href='B:540 6:18'>2Co 6:18</a></em>).</p><p>We are to "be separate" in this life, as an act of choice in the myriad of daily decisions we face (<em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em>)- and yet at the judgment, the Lord will "sever" (s:w:) the wicked from the just (<em><a href='B:470 13:49'>Mat 13:49</a></em>), or "separate" the sheep from the goats (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). But we are to live out the judgment now in our separation from wickedness. And if we do this, wicked men shall "separate" from us- the judgment is worked out ahead of time (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 6:18'>2Co 6:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty</em>- Some in Corinth did not have "the knowledge of God" (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>), i:e. living relationship with Him. If they came out from the world, then God would accept them as His children. And yet Paul writes and feels towards Corinth as if they are indeed God's children; even though in another sense he appeals for them to enter exclusive covenant with Him and become His children. This is a powerful paradigm for us to follow, in our struggles as to how we should relate to children of God who by behaviour and beliefs are apparently not His children. We are to accept them&nbsp;<em>as&nbsp;</em>His children, ever honouring and respecting their commitment to Christ in baptism- but appeal for them to act appropriately and repent of their inappropriate positions.</p><p>Paul is alluding here to the LXX of <em><a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a></em>, where God promises David that He will be a father to David's Son, the Lord Jesus. As noted earlier, Paul applies language specifically relevant to the Lord Jesus to us; for this is what it means to be "in Christ".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore beloved, having these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God</em>- The promises which concluded chapter 6 related to God's people being His temple, where He would live through the Spirit. Paul is arguing that they have already been fulfilled in the Spirit-filled believer, and he is urging the Corinthians to behave appropriately to that status. So we could understand "Having these promises" as meaning 'Having had such promises fulfilled in us'. Yet for many in Corinth, it seems that they were still promises which they had not yet attained to, because of their resistance of the Spirit and the spiritual life.</p><p>The call to leave Babylon in <em><a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a></em> has been quoted about the Corinthians in chapter 6. They were to live appropriate to the calling received. The usage of <em><a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a></em> suggests that the people referred to were actually&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;spiritual Babylon; they had unequally yoked themselves together with unbelievers; they needed to separate (s:w. to divide, sever) themselves, and come out from among them. The idea of unequal yoking could be a marriage allusion. We must wash ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit even after baptism (<em><a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a></em>); by doing so, we as it were go through the death-and-resurrection process of baptism again; we live it all once again. See on <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a></em> exhorts us to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh, not being like those sinners who “defile the flesh” (<em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>). These passages would imply that the flesh is defiled not by who we are naturally, but by human behaviour and mindsets from which we can separate ourselves. Whilst we consider ourselves so awful that we consider our flesh to be defiled&nbsp;<em>naturally</em>, we will never value the human person, and will give way too easily to sin as if it’s just our natural fate. See on <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>. The cleansing had already been done to them at their baptisms, when they were given the cleansing or sanctifying of the Spirit, as noted in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 Corinthians 1. God thereby purified or cleansed their hearts by faith (<em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em>). But they had not made use of this, and needed to believe and experience it again. "Flesh and spirit" is a term Paul has used in appealing for sexual purity at Corinth (<em><a href='B:530 7:34'>1Co 7:34</a></em>). This verse is really an appeal to quit the idol worshipping and sexual misbehaviour which characterized the church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:2'>2Co 7:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Open your hearts to us</em>- The appeal to open their hearts (see on <em><a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a></em>) was in order for them to get in touch with their own consciences, and realize that indeed, Paul had not wronged anyone. As noted on <em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>, Paul appealed for them to look at their consciences, to look within their hearts- for their, potentially, the Spirit of God was dwelling and active, if they would allow it to be. The allegations that Paul had wronged or abused others were untrue, and Paul baldly states as much.</p><p><em>We wronged no one-&nbsp;</em>The same word used by the Lord of Himself in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:13'>Mat 20:13</a></em>: "I did you no wrong". Consciously or unconsciously, Paul's thinking was saturated with the Gospels. Paul twice uses the term in <em><a href='B:510 25:10-11'>Act 25:10-11</a></em> in insisting that he had done no wrong to the Jews; so again we sense that it was Judaists who were behind this false accusation.</p><p><em>We corrupted no one-&nbsp;</em>The word Paul uses about the Jewish false teachers corrupting the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). Perhaps the emphasis is therefore upon the word "we". Paul had not corrupted them- others had.</p><p><em>We took advantage of no one-&nbsp;</em>This sounds like the usual accusations against Christian leaders of seeking sexual or financial advantage. Paul uses it in a financial sense in <em><a href='B:540 12:17-18'>2Co 12:17-18</a></em> and in a sexual sense in <em><a href='B:590 4:6'>1Th 4:6</a></em>. The 'Satan', the adversary, the Jewish opposition, did indeed get an advantage over the Corinthians (s:w. <em><a href='B:540 2:11'>2Co 2:11</a></em>). Paul is stressing that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;had not done this; but others had.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:3'>2Co 7:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I say it not to condemn you-&nbsp;</em>Paul can tell some at Corinth that they have no knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>), that they need to re-enter covenant with Him and come out from Babylon (as he has just said at the end of chapter 6). But he still refuses to condemn them- and therefore as he cannot pre-judge the outcome of the judgment seat of Christ, he accepts them as his brethren, uncondemned by him. Even if he begs them to act in a way which is appropriate for those who are the Lord's.</p><p><em>For as I have said before, you are in our hearts, to die together and live together</em>- Dying and living together is the language of baptism. Just as we died and live together with Him and His body (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>), so we do with all the others who are in His body. Time and again, Paul feels that his salvation, his resurrection and glorification at the last day, is absolutely tied up with that of the Corinthians:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Great is my confidence in you-&nbsp;</em>The following verses, climaxing at the end of the chapter with his claim to have "perfect confidence in you all", are all hard to square with what we know about the Paul-Corinth relationship. They were sceptical and critical of him, and throughout the Corinthian correspondence he is directly and indirectly answering their slander of him. But now he appears to launch into a section of ecstatic joy and praise of them, claiming things for them which clearly were not true. And he concludes the letter by threatening judgment upon them, deeply saddened by their rejection of him. The logic of his argument in this section appears faulty, as if they are words uttered on the cusp of emotional experience, not connected with reality, and as if he were just madly 'in love' with them, willing to see them as something which they simply were not in reality. And which reality he continually states and laments, both immediately before and after this section.</p><p>There are various possible explanations. The positive language about them may be pure sarcasm, of the kind he uses in <em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>; but it would be so extensive and never signalled as such to make this unlikely. He may have so counted them as "in Christ", imputing them as righteous when they were not, that he allows himself to express his emotions about them in writing in this way. Or he may have been 'buttering them up' because he moves straight on to ask them to come up with some money for the Jerusalem Poor Fund. Or perhaps he was so obsessed with his projects of saving them and of the Jerusalem Poor Fund, that the slightest positive news about them was amplified by him into ridiculously positive positions and claims on their behalf. Inspiration in this case would have allowed the letter to be written as is, full of Paul's irrational emotions at this point, just as the bitter rantings of David against his enemies are likewise recorded under inspiration in the Psalms.</p><p>It would be rather like the boy who madly loves a girl who isn't that interested in him. He invites her for countless dates, and she refuses. But then she calls him and asks if she can just drop by his place to pick up her favourite umbrella, which she left there a month ago. The boy of course agrees with glee, and as he waits for her to come, he gets onto social media and tells his friends that the girl has agreed to marry him and is on her initiative coming to visit him. And then afterwards she calls him and says her brother will just drop by and pick up the umbrella, as he is working in that area today, and she's too busy::. This kind of irrational 'in love' behaviour can be seen in Hosea, where Hosea's wildly oscillating love and anger with Gomer reflect God's feelings for His faithless Israel.</p><p><em>Great is my boasting on your behalf. I am filled with comfort, in all our affliction I am overflowing with joy</em>- This outbreak of basting, comfort and joy was because of some positive report from Titus, who had just come to Paul after a visit to Corinth. This letter is therefore being written in real time; Titus as it were comes through the door with the news, whilst Paul is up to chapter <em><a href='B:540 7:3'>2Co 7:3</a></em> of his letter. And instead of going back and editing what he has written earlier in the light of the coming of Titus, he just leaves it as is and utters this burst of enthusiasm for the Corinthians- to return to reality in chapter 8.</p><p>It should be noted that an alternative is to view <em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em> as picking up from <em><a href='B:540 2:14'>2Co 2:14</a></em>, with the intervening material as some huge digression. But <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> flows right on in context from <em><a href='B:540 2:14'>2Co 2:14</a></em>. Such a break is unnatural; and all the same, the position Paul held about the Corinthians in chapter 2 remains contradictory with the outburst of confidence he has in them in chapter 7, and that outburst also contradicts the position and lack of confidence he has in them throughout the rest of the letter. So this ingenious idea doesn't really help things.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:5'>2Co 7:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For even when we went into Macedonia, our flesh had no relief, but we were afflicted on every side. Without were conflicts, within were fears</em>- "Our flesh" might mean that Paul's bodily health reflected his internal worries about the Corinthians and his ministry. "Even when::." would be a reference to the fact that the Lord had specifically called Paul to go and preach in Macedonia in a vision (<em><a href='B:510 16:9-10'>Act 16:9-10</a></em>). And yet despite that specific invitation, the way was not easy and Paul was wracked with pressures and difficulties. Paul paints a hard picture of his time in Macedonia, as the backdrop against which the good news from Titus was received by him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:6'>2Co 7:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nevertheless God that comforts the lowly comforted us by the coming of Titus</em>- This is an allusion to the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 49:13'>Isa 49:13</a></em>. It would seem that Paul was so saturated with the Scriptures that he alludes to phrases at times without any significant relevance to his purpose or context; he is just using language and phrases which are in his mind at the time, just as we all do. God's comfort came to Paul through a human mechanism- Titus. It's as if Paul is seeking to provide an exemplification of the principles he stated at the beginning of this letter- that our experiences are in order to "comfort" others. Seeing that the Corinthians remained an awful concern for Paul, as witnessed by the rest of the letter, we can suspect that Paul is wilfully seeking to paint things in these terms.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 7:7'>2Co 7:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And not by his coming only, but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you-</em>&nbsp;The Corinthians are commended for comforting Titus who in turn passed on that comfort to Paul. This again is an attempt to make the situation a fulfilment of the principles of <em><a href='B:540 1:3-6'>2Co 1:3-6</a></em>, where Paul states that God's comfort to believers is mediated through the comfort of others. On :6 I noted that there seems an element of forcing the situation with Titus to fit those requirements, when in reality there was not so much comfort at all from the Corinthians. For Paul has to go on to badger them to come up with the cash they have promised for his Jerusalem Poor Fund. It seems from <em><a href='B:540 12:16-18'>2Co 12:16-18</a></em> that the Corinthians accused Paul of using Titus to 'craftily::. take advantage' of them. Yet here Paul wishes to give the impression that the Corinthians comforted Titus, who relayed that comfort to Paul, and thus Paul was deeply grateful to the Corinthians for comforting him. It seems Paul here in chapter 7 is exaggerating things in his own mind; see on :4 for an explanation of why.</h4><p><em>While he told us of your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me. So that I rejoiced yet more</em>- Both before and after this section in chapter 7, Paul is dealing extensively with the cynicism and criticisms of the Corinthians against him. If indeed their love for Paul was so deep and credible, why does he have to state in <em><a href='B:540 8:8'>2Co 8:8</a></em>: "I am probing the sincerity of your love"? If their love for him was so passionate, why in chapter 11 does he have to defend himself against their cynicism towards him, to the point that he even gets sarcastic with them: "For if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you did not receive, or a different gospel, which you did not accept- it seems you think you do well to go along with him" (<em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>). "Forgive me this wrong" (<em><a href='B:540 12:13'>2Co 12:13</a></em>) is another example of a sarcasm which would be inappropriate in a mutually loving and respectful relationship. Clearly they were forsaking Paul in order to follow his enemies. This was hardly "your longing::. your zeal for me". Zeal for him was what Paul subconsciously hoped for::. and the news that they had been partially obedient to Paul on some point was perhaps wildly over-interpreted to mean they were zealous for him. The deep love for Paul which he likes to imagine as Titus gives him some news from Corinth is hardly for real, if he has to write to them: "I have become foolish. You compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you" (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>). He desperately gave them reason to respect him- when such reasons ought to have been forthcoming from them. But they were not. <em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em> certainly sounds like they were falling out of love with Paul, rather than the more in love with him: "If I love you more abundantly, am I loved the less by you?". They directly accused him of dishonesty: "You say I was crafty, and got the better of you by deceit" (<em><a href='B:540 12:16'>2Co 12:16</a></em>), and "you seek proof that Christ speaks in me" (<em><a href='B:540 13:3'>2Co 13:3</a></em>). Is this really reconcilable with Paul's claim to have heard of "your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me"? Especially powerful is <em><a href='B:540 12:19'>2Co 12:19</a></em>: "You think all this time that we are excusing ourselves to you". "All this time" means that throughout their relationship over the course of the correspondence, the Corinthians didn't trust Paul and thought he was making excuses for having abused them through the visit of Titus and in other ways. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this exalting language of chapter 7 is either bitter sarcasm, or Paul being overly positive about them.</p><p>We hardly get the impression that they were longing for him, zealous for him and mourning their disobedience to him. If that were indeed the case, surely Paul would have put a red line through what he had previously written in 2 Corinthians, and then not written as he did in the rest of the letter. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Paul&nbsp;<em>interpreted&nbsp;</em>the report of Titus in terms of his deepest psychological hopes for the Corinthians. "Mourning" is an intense term, only used of the women weeping for their baby children who had been murdered (<em><a href='B:470 2:18'>Mat 2:18</a></em>). Such deep lamentation is hard to square with the rest of the letter. "So that I rejoiced&nbsp;<em>yet&nbsp;</em>more" suggests Paul was already rejoicing over the Corinthians, and now he did so the more after the report from Titus. But he has earlier explained that he cancelled an intended visit to them because he knew they would give him sorrow rather than the rejoicing he hoped to have for them (<em><a href='B:540 2:3'>2Co 2:3</a></em>). He hoped to rejoice in them- and that psychological expectation was so deep in his subconscious that when Titus mentioned some potentially positive things about them, he found himself rejoicing, and imagining that even before that, he had been rejoicing. See my explanation and analogy offered on :4.</p><p>The words Paul uses for longing, mourning and zeal are found in essence in his description of their response to his command to separate from the immoral man (:11,12). Yet the terms can mean 'indignation' and can equally refer to their self-justification in explaining why they had not initially removed the immoral person. Paul likes to turn that around to mean they were zealous "for me". But the rest of the letter shows that to be wishful thinking. These terms are also used by Paul in describing his longing, mourning and zeal for his brethren. It's as if he is subconsciously hoping that his feelings towards the Corinthians are theirs for him. He has explicitly stated that he hopes that his attitude of mind toward them will be theirs toward him (see on <em><a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a></em>).</p><p>The language here in <em><a href='B:540 7:7-11'>2Co 7:7-11</a></em> is allusive to David's penitence, because Paul wished to interpret the news from Titus as meaning that the Corinthians had repented of their deep immorality: "Ye were made sorry::. ye sorrowed to repentance:::ye were made sorry after a&nbsp;<em>Godly</em>&nbsp;manner (cp. "every one that is&nbsp;<em>Godly.</em>:.", <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>)::. for<em>Godly</em>&nbsp;sorrow worketh repentance to salvation::. ye sorrowed after a&nbsp;<em>Godly</em>&nbsp;sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation (cp. David's in <em><a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a></em>)::. what zeal::. your mourning, your fervent mind" (AV). Allusion after allusion to David is being piled up here. The eight references to their "sorrow" in four verses is surely a signpost back to David's intense sorrow for his sin with Bathsheba: "My sin is ever before me (<em><a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a></em>)::. my sorrow is continually before me::. I will be sorry for my sin::. many sorrows shall be to the wicked" who, unlike David, refused to repent (<em><a href='B:230 38:17-18'>Psa 38:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 32:10'>Psa 32:10</a></em>). This association between sin and sorrow is a common one (<em><a href='B:220 9:28'>Job 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em>. The last two references show how Israel's sorrowing in Egypt was on account of their sinfulness). We must pause to ask whether our consciousness of sin leads us to a like sorrowing, whether our repentance features a similar depth of remorse. It would appear that Paul is likening Corinth to David. They too were guilty of sexual "uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness" (<em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>). As David's repentance was made in a "day of salvation", so in <em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em> Paul told Corinth that they were in a similar position to him; they too had the chance of repentance. Those who had heeded this call earlier had experienced the zeal and clear conscience which David did on his repentance (<em><a href='B:540 7:9-11'>2Co 7:9-11</a></em>). In this case, Paul would be likening himself to Nathan the prophet. This zeal which was seen in both David and Corinth is a sure sign of clear conscience and a joyful openness with God. Again, we ask how much of our zeal is motivated by this, or is it just a continuation of a level of service which we set ourselves in more spiritual days, which we now struggle to maintain for appearances sake?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:8'>2Co 7:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it, for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though only for a time-&nbsp;</em>We meet here the intriguing situation whereby Paul wrote an inspired letter with a command concerning the immoral man- and then regretted writing it. It seems that for a time Paul took false guilt over the matter. But he emerged from that, refusing to feel guilty for it. And there are other Biblical examples of refusing to take guilt when others feel that it should be taken. Recall how the Lord’s own parents blamed Him for ‘making them anxious’ by ‘irresponsibly’ remaining behind in the temple. The Lord refused to take any guilt, didn’t apologize, and even gently rebuked them (<em><a href='B:490 2:42-51'>Luk 2:42-51</a></em>). In similar vein, Paul would not take guilt for their being upset with him. Likewise Absalom comforted his raped sister not to ‘take it to heart’, not to feel guilty about it, as it seems she was feeling that way, taking false guilt upon her for her rape (<em><a href='B:100 13:20'>2Sa 13:20</a></em>).</p><p>On a more human level, it seems that the Corinthians had replied that they were 'most upset' by Paul's letter commanding them to remove the immoral man, and criticizing them for not having done so. Yet Paul turns that pouting, self-justifying 'We are most upset by how you wrote to us, you know' into a claim that they had sorrowed unto repentance. He is making a word play with "sorrow". But the rest of 2 Corinthians shows that they still needed to experience Godly sorrow leading to real repentance (<em><a href='B:540 12:20-21'>2Co 12:20-21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:9'>2Co 7:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 9:23-25'>Luk 9:23-25</a></em>.</p><p><em>I now rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you were made sorry to repentance. For you were made sorry in a Godly way</em>- Paul writes here as if they were made sorrowful unto repentance by his letter, asking them to remove the immoral man from amongst them. And he therefore rejoices at their heart felt obedience to him. We would therefore assume that he could now go to Corinth with joy- for I noted on chapter 2 that Paul had delayed going to Corinth because he didn't want to have sorrow from them on his coming, but rather joy. But even by the end of this letter, Paul states clearly and repeatedly his unallayed fear that if he does visit them, "I shall not find you such as I would" (<em><a href='B:540 12:20-21'>2Co 12:20-21</a></em>). He urges them to repent in response to his letter, because otherwise if he visited them, the Lord might use him to seriously punish them (<em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>). So his claim to be totally confident of their repentance and obedience seems somewhat hollow- for if they indeed had done all he had asked, then he could come to them with joy and not sorrow. But that clearly was not the case. If indeed the Corinthians had sorrowed to repentance, then why passages like: "See my suggestions for his exaggerated 'rejoicing' over them on :4.</p><p><em>That you might suffer harm from us in nothing</em>- He appears to be quoting back to them their complaint that he had harmed them. He appears to be desperately trying to argue that all is good now, because their sorrow and hurt has led to their repentance and reconciliation with Paul. Although the rest of the letter shows this was not the case.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For Godly sorrow works repentance to salvation, it brings no regret; but the sorrow of the world works death</em>- Paul is trying to turn around their 'We were really upset you know by your letter, really sad you should write to us like that' as meaning they had sorrowed with Godly sorrow. But this was a desperate attempt to make things seem right.</p><p>“Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of” by God (<em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em> AV) could mean that if we repent / change our minds, then God will not repent of His plan for saving us. But more likely is Paul's fear that they will regret their repentance, repenting of a repentance, as it were. And he says that this cannot be the case as Godly sorrow and repentance leads to salvation, and going back on it would mean death. Clearly Paul fears the Corinthians are unstable.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:11'>2Co 7:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For observe this very thing: you sorrowed in a Godly manner, and what diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication In all things you proved yourselves to be pure in the matter-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:540 7:7'>2Co 7:7</a></em>. This diligence and zeal after repentance must be squared with <em><a href='B:540 12:20-21'>2Co 12:20-21</a></em>: "I fear, lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not as I would wish, and should myself be found by you such as you would not wish. Lest by any means there should be quarrelling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality and sensuality that they have practiced". It could be argued that Paul is thrilled at their obedience over "the matter", some specific point of obedience. But the overall tenor of chapter 7 is that he is thrilled with them and has complete confidence in them "in everything" (:16). The comparison with <em><a href='B:540 12:20-21'>2Co 12:20-21</a></em> and similar passages leaves me concluding that Paul here is carried away with a loving positivity about the Corinthians. In <em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em> he seems to doubt whether they are really "in the faith"; yet here he speaks so positively of their Godly zeal. Their "indignation" and 'vehemence' may well have been indignation that Paul had asked them to separate from the immoral brother. But Paul now likes to interpret that as part of their Godly zeal. "You proved yourselves to be pure" sounds like they may have given some reason excusing them for not having previously separated from the immoral brother (1 Corinthians 5); and Paul accepts that explanation as he understands it from Titus. Their 'clearing of themselves',<em>&nbsp;apologia</em>, self defence,sounds like self justification- doubtless giving excuses as to why they had not initially removed the immoral brother, and had now done so, in apparent obedience to Paul's demand they do so. Paul wishes to understand their indignant self-justification as Godly sorrow.</p><p>The Greek word&nbsp;<em>zelos</em>&nbsp;means both zeal in a good sense (<em><a href='B:540 7:11-12'>2Co 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>)- and also it’s translated jealousy, strife, envying (<em><a href='B:520 13:13'>Rom 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:20'>2Co 12:20</a></em>). Likewise,<em>&nbsp;thumos</em>&nbsp;is used both about righteous anger, and also fits of anger which are sinful. It’s clear enough from these linguistic facts, quite apart from our practical experience, that zeal turns into strife far too often and far too easily. The problem is, we so easily defend the strife, the jealousy, the anger… as righteous zeal, Godly anger. The line seems to us very fine, although it isn’t in God’s eyes. I observe too often brethren who appear so full of anger, but never reveal it openly… until it comes to some matter connected with their religious life. And then, wow, they let it all rip on some poor person, feeling they are justified.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So although I wrote to you, I wrote not for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong; but that your earnest care for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God</em>- This argument seems desperate. The reasons given for demanding the removal of the immoral man were given in 1 Corinthians 5 as being because a little yeast affects the whole lump of dough. But now, Paul says that the whole thing was just a test to make them realize before God, in their consciences, how much they cared for / respected Paul. Paul has earlier appealed to their consciences as being proof of his sincerity, and now he says that the whole command to discipline the immoral brother was in order for them to have revealed to themselves how much they cared for Paul. If the whole request to remove the brother were really just an experiment to prove this, then it reveals a marked lack of care for the person involved; for Paul urges them to receive the brother back lest he be psychologically shattered by the exclusion experienced (<em><a href='B:540 2:7'>2Co 2:7</a></em>). All the contradictions within the argument can only really be explained by reading Paul here as utterly desperate to be reconciled with the Corinthians, taking blame on himself as much as he could, and trying to slip past the problem by saying it had all only been an experiment. Their "care" is the same word as in the preceding :11, translated "diligence" (AV "carefulness"). Paul is saying that the fact they did eventually remove the immoral man shows their diligence&nbsp;<em>towards him</em>. But that was just how he wished to see it. For the rest of the letter shows their deep disrespect of Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore we have been comforted, and in our comfort we rejoiced still more at the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all</em>- Was this really what had happened, with Titus feeling joyful and refreshed by them? <em><a href='B:540 8:23'>2Co 8:23</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 12:18'>2Co 12:18</a></em> imply that they accused Titus of being Paul's puppet and part of a crafty scheme to get money out of them. According to the uninspired footnote at the end of the letter, 2 Corinthians was written by Paul and Titus. The "us" references in the letter would therefore refer to Paul and Titus; and it is clear that Corinth were cynical and critical towards the "us", which would include Titus.</p><p>Yet all the same, Paul's joy for the joy of Titus is instructive. Paul sincerely felt the joy of others as being his personal joy (<em><a href='B:520 12:15'>Rom 12:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 15:31'>1Co 15:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:3'>2Co 2:3</a></em>). Because we are in one body, we rejoice with those who rejoice. “We are partakers of&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;joy”, Paul could write. The comfort which Titus felt was that which Paul felt (<em><a href='B:540 7:6-7'>2Co 7:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a></em>); Corinth’s joy was Paul’s (<em><a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a></em>). This should ensure a true richness of experience for the believer in Christ, sharing in the joys and sorrows, the tragedies and triumphs, of the one body on the Lord. “He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire” (<em><a href='B:240 18:1'>Pro 18:1</a></em> RV). This says it all. Any separation from our brethren, whether it be from personal dislike of them or for fear of losing friends amongst others who order us to separate from them… is all ultimately selfish.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:14'>2Co 7:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For whatever boasts I made to him about you, I was not put to shame. But just as everything we said to you was true, so also our boasting before Titus has proved true</em>- If Paul wrote so toughly to the Corinthians in both the recorded epistles, it is unlikely he kept Titus in the dark about their problems. So it seems Paul is surely putting the most positive possible interpretation on his guidance to Titus before Titus went to visit Corinth. Yet he insists that he 'boasted' to Titus of their obedience, and he feels he had been justified. We will go on to read that he had boasted of the Corinthians' intention to support the Jerusalem Poor Fund- even though it seems they never came through on their promises. So Paul boasted of them because he so loved them that he dearly wished them to be spiritual and obedient. He counted them as far more than they really were.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 7:15'>2Co 7:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And his affection for you is even greater, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling you received him</em>- Again, as noted on :13, we have to recall that <em><a href='B:540 8:23'>2Co 8:23</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 12:18'>2Co 12:18</a></em> imply that they accused Titus of being Paul's puppet and part of a crafty scheme to get money out of them. If indeed they received Titus with "fear and trembling" then this was of little lasting consequence. And their "obedience" was hardly very significant, because in <em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em> Paul speaks of their "obedience" (s:w:) as not having been yet achieved. Again we are left with the impression that Paul is interpreting their behaviour in the most positive possible way, to the point of being unrealistic.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 7:16'>2Co 7:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I rejoice that in everything I can have perfect confidence in you</em>- Paul had every reason not to have confidence in them. The confidence he exudes here may be a radical example of imputing righteousness to those in Christ. Or it may also be an example of him being caught up on the cusp of obsessive-compulsive emotion, wildly over-positive about them. The word for "confidence" is used almost exclusively in 2 Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 5:6'>2Co 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:8'>2Co 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:1-2'>2Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Paul's confidence in the Lord spilled over into his confidence about his brethren. Whatever, we have here a great example of love and positive attitude toward those who are hopelessly weak.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:1'>2Co 8:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Moreover brothers, we make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia</em>- Paul now turns his attention to his pet project- the Jerusalem Poor Fund. The Corinthians had agreed to contribute, but apart from a handful of pro-Paul loyalists listed in 1 Corinthians 16, donations had not been forthcoming. Paul is now trying to persuade them to donate as they had promised. There seems no evidence that his project every really worked out- he has to ask for prayers that whatever he gathered would even be accepted by the Jerusalem elders (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>)- which makes us wonder how severe the plight really was in Jerusalem, for hungry people will accept food from whoever. When he finally arrived in Jerusalem, it appears see my commentary on Acts that he was arrested at the investigation of the Jerusalem Christians. The entourage which accompanied the cash and goods taken to Jerusalem doesn't include anyone from Corinth (<em><a href='B:510 20:4'>Act 20:4</a></em>); and there is no record that the Corinthians ever heeded Paul's appeals here and actually donated. Further, there is no historical evidence for a long drawn out famine in Jerusalem lasting several years. Paul later in this chapter says that his Fund had begun over a year previously, and by the time the goods or cash were collected and taken to Jerusalem, we must allow at least another year. We wonder whether there was indeed the urgent need in Jerusalem which Paul imagines there was. He wished to assist "the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>)- not Palestine generally, nor all the believers at Jerusalem, but an impoverished group amongst the Jerusalem church. It would seem to me that Paul is fixated with Jerusalem (as I noted several times in commentary on Acts and Paul's determination to make a witness there), and wishes to force some fulfilment of the Kingdom prophecies which envisage Gentile wealth being brought up to the Jerusalem temple. It is noteworthy that Paul gives four reasons for the Jerusalem Poor Fund, and only one of them is the actual relief of poverty; the others are of a more abstract and spiritual nature (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>).</p><p>Paul begins his delicate exercise by pointing out the generosity of the Macedonian churches, where he was located at the time of writing 2 Corinthians. Paul often uses&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, "gift" or "grace", with reference to the gift of the Holy Spirit in the heart which all believers receive at baptism. The Corinthians had been given the same gift, but hadn't actualized it, and were therefore still not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). By "the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia", Paul effectively means 'I want to tell you how much they have given'. But he speaks instead of the grace / gift given to them. The intentional confusion is to make the point that the gift / grace give to the Macedonians had elicited in them a grace&nbsp; / giving to the Lord's cause. Paul's repeated subtext throughout the Corinthian correspondence is that the key to their greater spiritual response is their awareness of the Spirit within them. The same words for 'grace given' are used of how the Spirit is given to all believers (<em><a href='B:500 1:17'>Joh 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em> "unto every one of us is given grace", and often); and specifically of how grace had likewise been given to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For in a severe test of affliction-&nbsp;</em>The severe famine in Palestine was matched by a severe test of some sort in Macedonia; perhaps there was a famine there too.</p><p><em>Their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part</em>- They were indeed cheerful givers, for their joy was the motivation for their giving. Their joy for what the Lord had done for them, for the “abundance” s:w. of His grace and giving to them (<em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>), led to their giving to the poor. The request for the Corinthians to be cheerful givers was therefore directly based on the Macedonian example (<em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>). Likewise the "generosity" of the Macedonians was to be emulated by the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:3'>2Co 8:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For according to their power, I testify, yes and beyond their power, they gave of their own accord</em>- The idea of<em>&nbsp;kata&nbsp;</em>their&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;occurs in the parable of the talents, which are given to believers on conversion (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em> AV "according to his several ability"). That this refers to the gift of the Spirit in the hearts of believers after baptism is confirmed by&nbsp;<em>kata dunamis</em>&nbsp;being used in exactly this context in Ephesians. The Spirit is given according to God's power (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:19'>Eph 1:19</a></em>). We are strengthened according to God's power in the Spirit within the "inner man" (a point made three times, each time using&nbsp;<em>kata dunamis</em>- <em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>, repeated in <em><a href='B:580 1:11'>Col 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:29'>Col 1:29</a></em>). The Macedonians had been given the&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, the gift of the Spirit; and according to that gift, they in turn were giving. The Spirit therefore influenced them and confirmed them in their generosity; it worked within the "inner man". For that is where decisions relating to generosity are taken. But&nbsp;<em>beyond</em>&nbsp;the psychological power inspired by the Spirit, the Macedonians donated even more. And that is quite something. This makes the best sense of what is otherwise an awkward verse: "For&nbsp;<em>kata&nbsp;</em>their power&nbsp;<em>dunamis,</em>&nbsp;I bear record, and&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;their power&nbsp;<em>dunamis,&nbsp;</em>they were willing of themselves" (AV). This last phrase which is the literal translation of the Greek finally makes sense- once we realize that they gave according to the power and will of the Spirit within them, but they of themselves, beyond the influence of the Spirit, donated even more. Paul's persistent concern is that the Corinthians had been given the Spirit, but were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). He seems to blame their lack of donations as related to the same essential problem.</p><p>We can give on some kind of proportionate level to what we have. Or we can give&nbsp;<em>more than we can afford</em>; the kind of giving the Philippians are commended for (and no, Paul didn't scold them for being irresponsible): "In their deep poverty::. to their power::. yea, and&nbsp;<em>beyond their power</em>" (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>). The basic message of so many of the parables is that our generosity to the Lord’s cause should be offered without a calculated weighing up process first of all, and with a recognition that such giving may be contrary to all human wisdom. Thus the rich man sells&nbsp;<em>all he has</em>&nbsp;and buys a pearl- he’s left with nothing, just this useless ornament. He doesn’t sell what he has spare, his over-and-above:::&nbsp;<em>all he had</em>&nbsp;went on that pearl, for the sheer joy and surpassing, all-demanding excellence thereof. His wife, colleagues, employees- would have counted him crazy. He acted against all the conventions of human wisdom. Likewise the shepherd leaves 99% of his flock unguarded and goes chasing madly after the one weak, straying one. This was crazy, humanly; one per cent loss wasn’t unreasonable. But he risked all, for love of the one. And in this He set us a pattern for forsaking all we have.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:4'>2Co 8:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Begging us earnestly to accept this grace as a token of their fellowship in this service to the saints</em>- The begging was perhaps necessary because Paul realized they had given more than they could sensibly afford to give. It was "a token of their fellowship in this service" in the sense that Paul understood donating to the Fund as an evidence that they fellowshipped their poorer brethren in Jerusalem. The language of "fellowship" is used (as in <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>) because Paul's intention was to bind together in fellowship the Jerusalem Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians in pagan Corinth. It was a grand idea and concept, but the Jerusalem Christians returned to the temple system of Judaism, not heeding the calls in Revelation to come out from that latter day Babylon spiritually lest they be consumed in her AD70 judgments.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:5'>2Co 8:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And their giving was beyond our hope; for through the will of God, first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us-&nbsp;</em>"First" can mean 'most importantly'. He saw their response to the Lord as their response to him- because he appreciated the degree to which he as their converter was a full manifestation of the Lord whom he preached. But all the same, on a human level, Paul's position on support for the Jerusalem Poor Fund seems far too personal. He sees support of it as support for him. He perceives it as a test of their personal loyalty to him. And here he says so explicitly. Their generosity was beyond even what the Spirit had enabled them to give (see on :3). But to Paul, even more importantly, the Macedonians had given themselves "to the Lord and to us". Paul sees himself as manifesting the Lord Jesus to them; and thereby their attitude to him was their attitude to the Lord. We too can easily seek personal loyalty from others, rather than the overall service of the Lord Jesus by them.</p><p>Paul parallels&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;to the poor believers with&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;our own selves to the Lord. Every act of generosity to the Lord's people is a giving to Him personally. Paul had obviously grasped the huge implications of the Lord's teaching that whenever His people are cold, thirsty, in need::. then He is in such need, and every ministration to them is a ministration to Him. <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> teaches that our response to the Lord's sacrifice should be giving to others&nbsp;<em>until we are poor</em>, reflecting the Lord's making of Himself 'poor' to the extent of being left naked and dead, hanging upon a stake of wood. We must review all our generosity in this light. Is it a giving of our abundance, or is it a giving until we make ourselves poor:::? The practical implications of this are&nbsp;<em>huge</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:6'>2Co 8:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So much so that we urged Titus-</em>&nbsp;Paul asked Titus to visit the Corinthians. He himself "of his own accord" decided to visit them. But God put the idea in the heart of Titus (<em><a href='B:540 8:6'>2Co 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:16-17'>2Co 8:16-17</a></em>). The freewill desire of Titus was confirmed by the hand of God operating on the heart of Titus. It could be argued that it was God who put the idea there in the first place, foreknowing that of Titus's "own accord" he would wish to do this work.</p><p><em>That as he had started, so he should complete among you also this act of grace-&nbsp;</em>"This act of grace" is literally as AV "the same grace". Paul wants the Corinthians to respond to the Spirit gift / grace given to them just as the Macedonians had. So the mission of Titus was to make the Corinthians respond to grace in the same way as the Macedonians had- by donating to his pet project, the Jerusalem Poor Fund. But response to God's grace is not uniform::. Titus had "started" the work by arranging their contributions, and now he was asked to complete it by getting the promised cash and donations out of them. Again, "grace" is put for their response to God's grace- in giving / being gracious. And this is true for all time, not just in the particular situation here in view. God's grace cannot be passively received. We are to respond to it by likewise giving and being gracious.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So as you abound in everything, in faith and speech and knowledge and in all earnestness and in your love to us, see that you excel in this grace also-&nbsp;</em>These are references to the Spirit gifts which the Corinthians had potentially received, and which they claimed to practice (<em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:8-10'>1Co 12:8-10</a></em>). Yet Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 has revealed that in reality they were only pretending to have the Spirit gifts of speech and knowledge. They were acting as the pagans acted at the Delfi oracle, speaking in unintelligible utterances and calling this the Spirit gift of the Spirit. They didn't really practice the actual gifts of the Spirit, for they were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). They&nbsp;<em>claimed to</em>&nbsp;"abound" in the Spirit gifts, but as noted throughout 1 Corinthians 12, they did not in reality. Likewise their abounding "love to us" was imputed by Paul- for the rest of 2 Corinthians shows that they were far from being in love with him. But Paul takes a positive view of them, and reasons that if indeed they feel filled with the Spirit and with love, then they will also perform this&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, this grace or Spirit gift- by actually giving in material terms. Again, Paul is arguing that their actual giving will be a function of the gift or grace of the Spirit being allowed to operate within them.</p><p>We cannot know God’s grace without likewise ‘abounding’ with it ourselves. This can be in acts of generosity; the early believers&nbsp;were to ‘abound’ in generosity to the needy (<em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em> - the same word used about the abounding of God’s grace). But the spirit of ‘abounding’ is far more than material generosity. We are to ‘abound’ in the work of edifying the church (<em><a href='B:530 14:12'>1Co 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>); abounding in prayer for each other (<em><a href='B:590 3:10'>1Th 3:10</a></em>), rather than just praying once about someone else’s problem as a conscience-salving formality. Ask yourself- whether your prayer for others is of the ‘abounding’ quality that the Lord’s intercession was and is&nbsp;<em>for&nbsp;</em>you? We are to ‘abound’ in praise- for God’s abounding grace abounds through us to His glory if we praise Him for that grace (<em><a href='B:540 4:15'>2Co 4:15</a></em>):&nbsp; And so::. how is your praise? A mouthing off of familiar words and lyrics, that you’ve hummed and hymned for years? Or the internal praise that has some real fire and flame to it? As God makes His grace&nbsp;<em>abound</em>&nbsp;to us,&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to&nbsp;<em>abound</em>&nbsp;to every good work (<em><a href='B:540 9:8'>2Co 9:8</a></em>). We are to ‘abound’ in love to each other, as God abounds to us (<em><a href='B:590 3:12'>1Th 3:12</a></em>). This is why there will never be a grudging spirit in those who serve properly motivated by God’s abundance to us. This super-abounding quality in our kindness, generosity, forgiveness etc. is a feature lacking in the unbelievers around us. If we salute our brethren only, then we do not super-abound (<em><a href='B:470 5:47'>Mat 5:47</a></em>); if we love as the world loves its own, then we have missed the special quality of love which the Father and Son speak of and exemplify. This radical generosity of spirit to others is something which will mark us apart from this world.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:8'>2Co 8:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I speak not as direct commandment-&nbsp;</em>The Jerusalem Poor Fund project was not a direct commandment from the Lord Jesus nor directly inspired by some Holy Spirit edict. It was Paul's own initiative. Yet more specifically, Paul is writing of his request that they actually give the promised contributions to Titus at this time.</p><p><em>But rather through showing you the earnestness of others I am probing the sincerity of your love</em>- AV "But by occasion of the forwardness of others". Those "others" are the Macedonians. Paul excuses his urging of Corinth to come up with the cash because the speed Gk. or diligence of the Macedonians requires the Corinthians to now respond. The whole argument sounds somewhat contrived. The "probing" or testing is an image from metallurgy, and has been used about the final crucible of judgment day in <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>. Is it too much to think that Paul thought that their final judgment was related to whether they gave toward their poor brethren in this way? In which case he appears to be far too obsessive about garnering support for his project. If indeed Corinth had such passionate love and "fervent mind" toward Paul as he claims in <em><a href='B:540 7:7'>2Co 7:7</a></em>, and if truly "I have perfect confidence in you all" (<em><a href='B:540 7:16'>2Co 7:16</a></em>), then why this need to probe the sincerity of that love? Clearly his argument is contradictory- because his outpouring of enthusiasm in chapter 7 was on the cusp of emotion, although the recording of it is Divinely inspired.</p><p>But whatever, love must of course be sincere. Unless our ‘love’ reflects a genuine care and respect for the other person, it isn’t love. William Barclay suggests that the Greek word&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>, prostitution, is rooted in the verb&nbsp;<em>pernumi</em>- to sell. If our love is the love which is bought and sold, which goes to the highest bidder, which treats its object as a thing which can be discarded, or ‘loved’ without truly intimate union… then it’s actually a form of prostitution. Each time we ditch a friend because the going got tough, withheld love because we weren’t getting from it what we intended… we’re essentially showing a spirit of prostitution rather than love. This is why love in the end must always find practical expression in a self-sacrificial way. The Corinthians were to show the sincerity of their love implying there can be a fake ‘love’ by their generosity to the poor believers in Judea (<em><a href='B:540 8:7-8'>2Co 8:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:24'>2Co 8:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> See on <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>.</p><p><em>For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor as a pauper, that you through his poverty might become rich</em>- I have argued throughout this section that Paul is going too far in trying to patch things up with the Corinthians and is urging them to donate to the Jerusalem Poor Fund using whatever reasoning he can lay hold of. He now urges giving on the basis that the Lord Jesus was rich but became poor for us so that we who were poor might be made rich, and therefore they ought to give of their material wealth to the poorer brethren in Jerusalem. But 1 Corinthians 1 has stated that there were not many wealthy individuals in the Corinthian church. And thinking through the argument used here, the logic is far from tight. For the Lord Jesus was not materially rich. Our enrichment by Him is surely spiritually. But He did not lose his spiritual riches, becoming spiritually poor, in order that we who are spiritually poor should be enriched spiritually. Neither did He lose any material riches in order to spiritually enrich us. Not only is the logic of the argument not tight, but the meaning of riches and poverty is confused. The Lord's self giving on the cross should indeed motivate us to material generosity to the poor. But the metaphors used here are too mixed to make a very compelling argument once it is more closely analysed. He seems to make a similar mistake in :15 (see note there). This seems typical of the desperate tactics Paul is using to cajole the Corinthians into giving to the fund. There is no evidence they ever did, nor that what support was gathered from other churches was ever actually accepted when it arrived in Jerusalem.</p><p>We have each been touched by God’s grace, and His influence upon us leads us to reach out to influence others by lives of grace. The grace of the Lord Jesus cannot be received passively. The Corinthians’ response must be to make themselves poor, so that their poor Jewish brethren might be made richer:&nbsp;<em>Every</em>&nbsp;person who has been enriched in the Lord Jesus will in turn respond in a life and even a body language that somehow transforms others. <em><a href='B:240 13:8'>Pro 13:8</a></em> speaks of how our attitude to wealth is a crucial factor in our eternal destiny: “The ransom of a man’s life are his riches”. Just prior to that we read in <em><a href='B:240 13:7'>Pro 13:7</a></em>: “There is that makes himself poor, yet has great riches”. This verse is actually part quoted in <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>, about how on the cross, the Lord Jesus made himself poor, of no reputation, and now has been so highly exalted. Our living out of the Lord’s cross is shown in our making of ourselves poor. That is surely the unmistakable teaching of this allusion.</p><h4>Do we struggle to be truly generous to the Lord’s cause, and to turn our words an vague feelings of commitment into action? Corinth too were talkers, boasting of their plans to give material support to the poor brethren in Jerusalem, but doing nothing concrete. Paul sought to shake them into action by reminding them of “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor" on the cross (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>). Corinth had few wealthy members, but Paul knew that the cross of Christ would inspire in them a generous spirit to those even poorer than they. The richer should be made poor by what the Lord did, Paul is saying- not harmlessly giving of their pocket money. For He gave in ways that hurt Him, ways that were real, meaningful and thereby effective and powerful.</h4><p>To put it mildly, our experience of His death for us should lead us to be generous spirited in all ways. In appealing for financial generosity to poorer brethren, Paul sought to inspire the Corinthians with the picture of Christ crucified: “For ye know the grace gift / giving of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor Gk. a pauper, that ye through his poverty might be rich" (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>). In the light of this, we should not just be generous from the abundance of what we have; we should become as paupers in our giving. The Lord’s giving wasn’t financial; it was emotional and spiritual. And so, Paul says, both materially and in these ways, we should likewise respond to our brethren, poorer materially or spiritually than we are. “The very spring of our actions is the love of Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 5:14'>2Co 5:14</a></em> Philips; it “urges us on", NRSV).</p><p>Because in the Kingdom we will be given all the wealth that is Christ's, therefore we should sell what we now have and give to the poor (<em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em> cp. 44 NIV). But more than this, in a sense God&nbsp;<em>has now</em>&nbsp;given us the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em> NIV), and therefore we should in natural response to this give of our blessings (in whatever form) to make the poor rich, just as Christ did to us (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> alludes here). Basically, according to this, generosity (both of spirit and material giving) is proportionate to our faith that we both have now and will receive the matchless riches of God's grace in Christ. "Grace" is used by Paul in 2Cor. to refer to both the grace God has given us and the grace of giving which the Corinthians ought to respond to it with; as God had reached into their lives, so they should reach into the lives of their poverty stricken brethren.</p><p>In appealing for the Corinthians to be generous, Paul points out that the Lord Jesus became a pauper for our sakes, and therefore, because of the riches of salvation He has given to us, the&nbsp;<em>least</em>&nbsp;we can do is to reach out into the lives of others with what riches we may have (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> Gk:). This is why in <em><a href='B:540 8:1'>2Co 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>, Paul uses the word "grace" to mean both the grace of God and also our grace (gifts) in works of response. Thus he talks of bringing the "grace" of the money collected for the poor saints; he is talking about the gift they had made; but in the same context he speaks of God's grace in Christ. If we have received the grace of God's forgiveness and salvation (and so much&nbsp;more) in Christ, we must show that grace, that gift, by giving. Our heart tells us to give, our heart is in our giving, it's a natural outcome of a believing mind (<em><a href='B:540 9:5-8'>2Co 9:5-8</a></em>, J:B. Phillips). Our giving is a quite natural outcome of our faith in and experience of the cross.</p><p>The suggestion has been made that because Jesus increased in favour with men, He may have gotten on quite well in His secular life. Paul speaks about how although Jesus was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor a pauper, Gk. that we through His poverty might be rich. Clearly the reference is to the 'poverty' of the cross, that we might be spiritually rich- for He doesn't enable us to get materially rich through following Him. And yet the context of Paul's words is about the need to give up our material riches for Christ's people, and he cites the example of Jesus to inspire us in this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And herein I give my judgment</em>- The idea is 'my advice'. Paul has stated that in these matters he is not speaking by direct Divine commandment (:8); this is all his personal initiative.</p><p><em>For this is expedient for you-&nbsp;</em>There is no clear reason given for the expediency which would arise from their giving to the Fund. The word means 'profitable' and is used in <em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em> of how the Corinthians had been given the Spirit for their 'profit'. Perhaps Paul means that if the Spirit is really within them, then they will make the donation and 'profit' thereby.</p><p><em>Who were the first to make a beginning a year ago, not only to desire to give but to actually give-&nbsp;</em>The beginning was apparently in undertakings given to Titus that they would donate to the collection. Hence :6 speaks of Titus having begun this work in them, and now coming to them to finish it. This would place the previous visit of Titus about a year previously. Paul says that they had begun to do it a year ago- but then in :11 he asks them to "perform the doing of it" (AV). Again, Paul appears to be exaggerating. Had they actually begun 'doing', actually giving, i:e. putting money aside in collections, a year ago? Apparently not, for he asks them now to 'do' so (:11). But he likes to imagine that they began collecting a year previously as they had apparently undertaken to Titus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:11'>2Co 8:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now complete the doing also-&nbsp;</em>See on :10.</p><p><em>That as there was the willingness to want to give, so there may be the completion of the desire also, according to your ability-&nbsp;</em>Again there seems a contradiction; Paul has said that they began actually giving a year ago (:10), but now a verse later he downgrades that to saying that they had only expressed a willingness to give, and he urges them to now complete or (AV) 'perform' what they had intimated. We get the consistent impression of weak argumentation, because Paul is seeking by any means possible to get them to actually donate. "according to your ability" is an attempt to render a difficult and ambiguous Greek phrase; the GNB may be better with "do it with what you now have", as if to say 'As you haven't been actually collecting funds, well OK, just give what you right now have in your pocket'. This would mean that his claim that they had begun 'actually giving' a year ago (:10) was at best exaggerated. The loose logic in argumentation arises it seems from a desire by all means to get something out of them, in order to make the grand concept come true- of Gentile Corinthian Christians giving funds towards the welfare of conservative orthodox Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.</p><p>Paul’s focus upon the positive is really tremendous, especially coming from a man so far spiritually ahead of the weak Corinthians. He commends their “readiness” to donate, whilst pointing out they are more talk than action; and later speaks to others of “<em>our</em>&nbsp;readiness”, identifying himself with the Corinthian brethren whose lack of actual action had got him into so many problems in fulfilling what he had confidently promised on their behalf (<em><a href='B:540 8:11-12'>2Co 8:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>). He even gloried to others of their “readiness” (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>), whilst clearly not turning a blind eye to their failure to actually produce anything concrete. &nbsp;</p><p>The allusion here may be to <em><a href='B:480 12:43'>Mar 12:43</a></em>. Paul saw those generous ecclesias as the widow with one mite, and also as rich Mary giving what she had (<em><a href='B:480 14:8'>Mar 14:8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:540 8:11'>2Co 8:11</a></em>). This reveals his sensitivity; he knew some of them were poor, some rich. Yet he saw they were all making a real effort. And he understood this in terms of characters in the Gospels:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has-&nbsp;</em>See on :11. The "readiness" would refer to their agreement a year ago to support the Fund. They are to give from what they have in hand right away, and not to worry if the actual sum was small. The language of 'acceptability' is appropriate to sacrifices on the altar being accepted by God (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). Yet <em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em> uses the same word in casting doubt upon whether the collection would be 'accepted' by the Jerusalem Jews. Even if men don't accept our sacrifices, then God does.</p><p><em>Not according to what he does not have</em>- He is saying that lack of great resources need not stop their actual giving, because the desire to give ("the readiness") is critical And that principle is true for all time. A mean spirit is often excused by the knowledge that one doesn't have much to give. But the desire to be generous is critical, and means that the amount given is not of itself important. Paul had boasted for the past year that the Corinthians were "ready" (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>); but that meant nothing if the cash had not been actually donated. The Greek of <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em> could mean that if they actually gave, then they would glorify their own readiness of mind, which Paul sees as so critical in any giving.</p><p>The Lord taught men to give alms of such things as they had (<em><a href='B:490 11:41'>Luk 11:41</a></em>); as we have opportunity / ability, we must be generous to all men (<em><a href='B:550 6:10'>Gal 6:10</a></em>). These passages are teaching a&nbsp;<em>spirit</em>&nbsp;of generosity; and even a believer with literally&nbsp;<em>no</em>&nbsp;money can have a generous spirit. "If there be first (i:e. most importantly)&nbsp;<em>a willing mind</em>, it is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to that he hath not”:&nbsp;<em>Every man</em>&nbsp;was to contribute to the building of the tabernacle (cp. the ecclesia)&nbsp;<em>with a willing heart</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:20 25:2'>Exo 25:2</a></em> - Paul surely alludes here). They weren't told: 'Whoever is willing and able to contribute, please do so'. And yet the majority of us have at least&nbsp;<em>something</em>&nbsp;materially; and as we have been blessed, so let us give. "<em>Every man</em>&nbsp;according as he&nbsp;<em>purposeth in his heart</em>&nbsp;(generosity is a mental attitude), so let him give;&nbsp;<em>not grudgingly</em>, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver". See on <em><a href='B:510 11:29'>Act 11:29</a></em>.</p><p>Our intentions to do good can be counted as if they were performed. Thus if we have a generous spirit, and would love to be generous to the needy, but just can’t do it – it’s counted as if we’ve done it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:13'>2Co 8:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I do not say this so that others may be eased and you distressed-&nbsp;</em>Paul is not asking them to give to their serious detriment or "distress". He is looking for a symbolic donation- but there is no record that they made even that. "Distressed" is a term commonly used by Paul for the distress or affliction which almost inevitably accompanies the Christian life; but Paul doesn't wish to bring even that upon them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:14'>2Co 8:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But that as a matter of fairness</em>- The idea is of equality, that the surplus of Corinth may meet the deficit in Jerusalem.</p><p><em>Your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be an equality-&nbsp;</em>Paul is asking them to give only of what they had in 'abundance', superfluous to basic needs. Considering that there were not many wealthy in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1) and that most people lived a hand to mouth existence, we can conclude that by asking for this, Paul is seeking just a symbolic gift. The abundance of Jerusalem which supplied Gentile need is surely a reference to spiritual things. The language of 'supplying need' is used in a spiritual sense by Paul in <em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>. The idea of Jewish spiritual things being recompensed with Gentile material things is found in <em><a href='B:520 15:26-27'>Rom 15:26-27</a></em>: "For it has been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister to them in material things". Achaia here refers to Corinth. All the efforts of Paul to make them actually pay up gives the lie to his claim that "they were pleased to do it". There would have been no need for the high pressure of 2 Corinthians 8 if that were true. Again it seems Paul is obsessed with the idea of the Jerusalem Poor Fund, and loves to boast of the support he liked to imagine it had received. The Romans 15 passage goes on to speak of Paul's intended visit to Spain- and that too, so far as we know, never happened.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As it is written: He that gathered much did not have too much, and he that gathered little had no lack</em>- The preceding verse has argued that Jewish Christian spiritual abundance should elicit material support from Gentile Christians. But that was not true to reality- for the Jerusalem Jewish Christians soon returned to Judaism, and were against Gentile Christians, being largely responsible for Paul's arrest when he arrived in Jerusalem with what had been collected, and probably behind much of the Judaist trouble making in the Christian churches he founded. And now he uses an argument which is not completely apposite to the case he is trying to make. In the wilderness, some families could collect more manna than others due to weak health or lack of opportunity. But they shared the manna collected in a collective way, according to Jewish tradition, so that nobody had too much or too less. Those who could collect more gave their abundance to those who could not gather enough. This posits a material giving of our superfluous material wealth to those in the community who have a deficit in material wealth, and in this way "an equality" is achieved. But :14 has argued differently- that Jerusalem's&nbsp;<em>spiritual&nbsp;</em>wealth should be matched by Gentile&nbsp;<em>material</em>&nbsp;giving. The argument from the Jewish manna tradition about the stronger sharing with the weaker (which is not Biblically attested) is therefore not completely relevant. The Biblical account is that each family should gather their own manna for their family; so that Jewish tradition may not even have been correct or historically actual in any case. I noted on :9 that Paul makes a similar poor argument and confusion of category concerning the wealth of the Lord Jesus. He confuses material and spiritual, in a way out of character for Paul the intellectual rabbi, whose arguments are usually logically tight, compelling and watertight. All this arose, I suggest, from a desperate desire to make things work out regarding the Poor Fund and his vision of Jewish-Gentile unity within the wider church. Many well intentioned Christian leaders have made similar mistakes when seeking to enforce a unity in practice upon believers who are simply not mature enough nor ready for it.</p><p>Paul pleads with Corinth to see the similarities between them and the ecclesia in the wilderness; he wants them to personalize it all. He sees their gathering and redistribution of wealth as exactly analogous to Israel’s gathering of manna (<em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>)- and he so wishes his Corinthians to think themselves into Israel’s shoes. For then they would realize that as Israel had to have a willing heart to give back to God the wealth of Egypt which He had given them, so they were to have a willing heart in being generous to their poorer brethren (<em><a href='B:20 35:5'>Exo 35:5</a></em> = <em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em>). And they would have realized that as “last year” they had made this offer (<em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em> Gk:), so the year before, Israel had received Egypt’s wealth with a similar undertaking to use it for the Lord’s cause. As Moses had to remind them a second time of their obligations in Exodus 35, so Paul had to bring it again before Corinth. And if they had seen these similarities, they would have got the sense of Paul’s lament that there was not one wise hearted man amongst them- for the “wise hearted” were to convert Israel’s gold and silver into tools for Yahweh’s service (<em><a href='B:20 35:10'>Exo 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>They were fed with manna one day at a time- this is so stressed (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:19-20'>Exo 16:19-20</a></em>). There was to be no hoarding of manna- anything extra was to be shared with others (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>). But we live in a world where the financial challenges of retirement, housing, small family size if any family at all::. mean that there appears no other option but to 'hoard manna' for the future. To some extent this may be a reflection of the way that life in these very last days is indeed quite different to anything previously known in history; but all the same, we face a very real challenge. Are we going to hoard manna, for our retirement, for our unknown futures? Or will we rise up to the challenge to trust in God's day by day provision, and share what's left over? "Give us this day our bread-for-today" really needs to be prayed by us daily. Let's give full weight to the Lord's command to pray for only "our daily bread", the daily rations granted to a soldier on active duty. It's almost impossible to translate this term adequately in English. In the former USSR and Communist East Germany (DDR), there was the idea that nobody in a Socialist state should go hungry. And so if you were hungry in a restaurant after eating, you had the right to ask for some food, beyond what you paid for. In the former East Germany, the term&nbsp;<em>Sättigungsbeilage&nbsp;</em>was used for this in restaurants- the portion of necessity. It's this food we should ask God for- the food to keep us alive, the food which a Socialist restaurant would give you for free. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of anything more than this. It's an eloquent essay in what our attitude to wealth, materialism and long term self-provision ought to be.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:16'>2Co 8:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus-&nbsp;</em>We note that God can act directly upon the human heart. Although it may be that again Paul is exaggerating- for he had surely briefed Titus of his own expectations and intended outcomes, and I have argued on chapter 7 that Paul chose to over interpret the report of Titus when he returned to Paul from Corinth. "The same earnest care" refers to how the Macedonians had an "earnestness" (:8 s:w:) for the project. Titus and the Macedonians had the same urgency for the project, and Paul wants Corinth to likewise respond "urgently"- for the Greek for "earnest care" carries the basic idea of haste. The urgency was because Corinth had not in fact been collecting for the Fund as they had intimated they were doing, and something at least had to be contributed from them for Paul's boasting about them to be validated, and for the project to work out.</p><p>There is an urgency in the mediation of mercy towards others. When Paul thanks God that Titus has a heart of “earnest care” for the Corinthians, he uses a Greek word&nbsp;<em>spoude</em>&nbsp;which literally means “speed”, and is elsewhere translated “haste” – as well as “haste” and “business” (<em><a href='B:540 8:16'>2Co 8:16</a></em>). The heart that really cares will be characterized by a speedy and quick response, not a careful weighing up of a situation, nor a resignation of responsibilities to ponderous committees. See on <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:17'>2Co 8:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he indeed accepted our appeal; but being very earnest, he went to you of his own accord</em>- As noted on :16, it was Paul who appealed to Titus to go to Corinth and get them to donate to the Fund. But he says that Titus also went of his own will, in response to God confirming his 'earnestness' with more 'earnest care' placed in his heart (:16). We see here a cameo of how Christian action works out in practice. There are various stimuli- a request from another brother, a passion placed in our heart, and our own freewill passion of our own accord. God will not force anyone to work for Him against their will; but He will place callings in their heart, and confirm their response to it.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 8:18'>2Co 8:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches</em>- The obvious questions are as to who this brother was, and why the anonymity? Another brother is apparently mentioned anonymously in :22- although that may be another description of the same brother. If the anonymity was to preserve from persecution, why would a specific brother be targeted for persecution for being involved in a welfare project? If persecution is indeed a reason, then one suspects it was Paul's Jewish enemies who were trying to stymy the project. Which is why when Paul arrives at Jerusalem with what had been collected, the Jews get him arrested. And with the Judaist influence at Corinth being such a problem for Paul, we can imagine it was that same Jewish influence which was seeking to hamper Paul's pet project. The brother with a good reputation amongst the churches was Timothy (<em><a href='B:510 16:2-3'>Act 16:2-3</a></em>). <em><a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a></em> states that this letter was written by Paul and Timothy; it could be that although the letter was written by both of them, Paul is writing here, and referring to his co-author in this indirect way because that was appropriate literary protocol at the time. Paul wants to remind the audience of Timothy's strong qualifications, but he is aware that this a letter ostensibly co-authored by himself and Timothy. So he has to refer to Timothy in this indirect manner.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And not only this but he is the one who was appointed by the churches to travel with us in this act of grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the Lord and to show our own willingness to help</em>- Paul carefully doesn't define which churches had appointed this brother Timothy? to carry the collection. We can assume they were churches founded by Paul and loyal to him. What would have added to the credibility and success of the project was if those "churches" included the Jerusalem church and other Jewish churches in Palestine. The group of brethren who took the gathering to Jerusalem in <em><a href='B:510 20:3'>Act 20:3</a></em> were certainly pro-Paul loyalists and include no "circumcision" Christians. So whilst Paul was right to seek to glorify the Lord and to administer the project with integrity, placing himself beyond reproach as to financial mismanagement, the whole approach was forcing something on to others which they were clearly not supportive or nor willing to support. This is the problem with obsessive enforcement of projects upon others. Paul was clearly the administrator of the project, as he says himself here. And he simply lacked credibility with the hard core circumcision party who dominated the Jerusalem church; this was not his fault, indeed there was likely nobody who had the confidence of all the various factions to be able to pull off a project of this scope and scale. "To show our own willingness to help" is an attempt to translate two Greek words which literally mean "your ready mind" (as AV). The text could be stating that the "act of grace", the giving to the Fund in response to God's grace, would glorify both the Lord Jesus and also their willingness to assist in His work. But offering glorification of self as a reason to donate is really getting desperate.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:20'>2Co 8:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This was to avoid being blamed by anyone in this matter of charity which is ministered by us</em>- The "matter of charity", AV "this abundance", uses a term which concerns a large sum: "lavish gift" (NAB), "large sum" (NJB), "large fund" (JB). But the Corinthians hadn't yet donated anything, and as noted above, time was passing, Paul didn't want them to be burdened, and he was looking for just a symbolic donation from them. But he uses this term because of the huge significance which he saw in their donations. It really seems Paul was exaggerating things in his mind. Paul wisely got others involved in transporting the funds so that his integrity could not be questioned:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:21'>2Co 8:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we take care to do things honourably, not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men</em>- This is a quotation from <em><a href='B:240 3:4'>Pro 3:4</a></em> LXX. It is not enough to reason that we are correct before God; if we have a sense of His glory and our responsibility as His witnesses in this world, then we must be careful to appear correct before men too. Not because we wish their approbation, but because we seek to glorify God in the eyes of this world.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:22'>2Co 8:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things; but now, much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he has in you</em>- This could be a parallel description of the brother in :18. Or it could be another anonymous brother. The word "earnest" is used elsewhere only of Onesiphorus (<em><a href='B:620 1:17'>2Ti 1:17</a></em>), whose name means literally 'the bearer / carrier of profit', which would be relevant to bearing / carrying the Poor Fund to Jerusalem. I noted on <em><a href='B:540 7:16'>2Co 7:16</a></em> that Paul's "great confidence" in the Corinthians was because he wished to see them in a positive light, he over interpreted the report from Titus as meaning that they were indeed who he wished they were. And here too, this anonymous brother is described as having the same "great confidence" in the Corinthians. But as noted throughout chapter 7, I suggest that this is Paul projecting onto another brother his own mistaken feelings towards the Corinthians. He has decided that this anonymous brother will have the same view of them as he does. This is not to say that the record here is not inspired, nor that the Spirit was not with Paul. But as we read of David's bitter ranting against his enemies, his feelings on the cusp of emotion are recorded in God's words, so the record of Paul's feelings for the Corinthians are recorded- contradictory as they are, just as human emotion is often self-contradictory when love and personal investment are involved.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:23'>2Co 8:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker toward you; or our brothers, they are the messengers of the churches, they are the glory of Christ</em>- The Corinthians knew Titus, for he had already visited them. So this 'enquiry' would not be in the sense that they didn't know who he was. It was Titus who had visited them and 'begun' the project with them, and he had just returned to Paul from a visit to Corinth (<em><a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a></em>). And Paul was now sending him to them again in the hope they would give him the promised donations. So the 'enquiry' was rather of another kind, reflecting a hostility towards Titus and the brothers with him. This reveals that Paul's claim about the mutual love between Titus and the Corinthians was again an emotional exaggeration, and he had to as it were come down to earth and in reality defend Titus against the scepticism the Corinthians had about him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 8:24'>2Co 8:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore show them in the presence of the churches the proof of your love and of our boasting on your behalf</em>- Paul dealt with a very difficult situation in Corinth by being totally open hearted, when his natural sense must have been to be very cagey with them (<em><a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a></em>). Indeed, some of his most revealing autobiographical passages are found in 2 Corinthians, as he opens his heart to them. And he encouraged them to likewise&nbsp;<em>openly show before the ecclesias</em>&nbsp;their love for others (<em><a href='B:540 8:24'>2Co 8:24</a></em> s:w:). He surely had in mind the Lord’s teaching that our light should shine before others, because all things will ultimately be brought into the open (<em><a href='B:490 8:16-17'>Luk 8:16-17</a></em>). This doesn’t just refer to preaching; it refers to an open shining out of whatever spirituality we have, to everyone.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:1'>2Co 9:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For concerning the service to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you</em>- I have noted throughout commentary on chapters 7 and 8 that Paul's arguments are very emotional and desperate in many ways. He is seeking some actual real donation from the Corinthians as they had earlier promised. And he is using every possible argument, including some desperate ones, to get them to agree to give Titus and his team some cash or material donations when they come. So within the two chapters of high pressure reasoning which we have in chapters 8 and 9, it is hardly true that half way through he here says that it was really unnecessary for him to be writing to them about their donations, because he is so sure they are going to donate. He says he has "no need" (GNB) to be writing this because he knows their willing hearts (:2). So::. why then write two chapters of desperate urging if it was unnecessary? Again (see on <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>), Paul's logic and persuasion is uncharacteristically weak and uncompelling.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:14'>Rom 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:11'>2Co 8:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I know your readiness, of which I boast on your behalf to those in Macedonia, that Achaia has been prepared for the past year</em>- Paul could have taken the view that they were all talk, as people often are when it comes to money matters. Instead he boasts of their talk about wanting to support his project. In all human relationships, we can take a cup half full or cup half empty approach. Paul was so 'in love' with the weak Corinthians that he acted as if he really believed them, when clearly all the evidence was that he should have been wary of their promises. After all, these are the same Corinthians to whom he wrote 1Corinthians. It was surely an exaggeration to say that Achaia Corinth and the churches around it had been "prepared" for a year. Prepared to give? Or does he imply they had collected each week as he advised in 1 Corinthians 16, and were now ready for the donations to be picked up by Titus and his team, in order to be taken to Jerusalem? According to the usage of "prepared" in :3, that seems more the idea. As suggested on chapter 7, this is the boasting of a man deeply in love with a woman who just isn't going to come through on his expectations and hopes for her. Hope had morphed into reality in Paul's mind.</p><p><em>And your zeal has stirred up very many of them</em>- Paul could bid men follow him, that they might follow Christ. And the inspired word does bid us go down the road of comparing our behaviour with that of others. Paul boasted of the Corinthians’ enthusiasm in planning to make donations in order to provoke the ecclesias in Macedonia to a like generosity. Their zeal “provoked very many” (AV). We should provoke one another to love and good works, by example (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>). This is why Christian fellowship is built into our spiritual journey- for we take strength from others as well as from the Lord directly. He mediates His encouragement through others:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:3'>2Co 9:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I have sent the brothers, that our boasting on your behalf may not be made void in this respect. That, even as I said: You may be prepared</em>- Paul had already sent Titus and the two anonymous brothers mentioned in chapter 8, and it would seem they were carrying 2 Corinthians in their hands to give to the Corinthians. He asks them now to "be prepared", i:e. to hand over some actual donations; whereas he had boasted to others that Corinth was already "prepared" (:2). He wants them to live up to his exaggerated hopes and expectations of them. And this is exactly what causes so much friction in human relationships, especially in the spiritual sphere.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:4'>2Co 9:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Lest by any means, if there come with me-&nbsp;</em>This sounds as if Paul was actually going to accompany Titus, but according to how he has earlier written of his travel plans, we can assume that Paul intended himself to come to Corinth after Titus had actually secured the donations from them. Hence in :5 he writes of Titus and his team going on ahead of him to Corinth. But in <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em> Paul speaks as if his coming to Corinth was under question, and if he did visit them again, it would be in serious judgment upon them. We can conclude that this letter is a 'flow of consciousness' letter, Paul is writing down his thoughts and feelings as they come to him, in line with his policy of being completely open hearted to the Corinthians (see on <em><a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a></em>). He writes here as if all is going to work out, Titus will prepare them for the donations and they will make them, and then Paul and some Macedonians will come and be present when the donations are collected and taken on towards Jerusalem. But in <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em> he concludes the letter by writing that his visit is in question and it will be for judgment of the Corinthians. This kind of flow of consciousness writing is to be found often in the Psalms, Lamentations and at times in prophets like Jeremiah. It is all inspired, but gives us an insight into the internal thought processes of believers, with all their anger and irrationality and the contradictions of thought which we all experience as we cope with situations:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Some Macedonians and find you unprepared, we (not to mention you) would be embarrassed for my being so confident of your generosity-&nbsp;</em>These Macedonians were presumably Sopater, Aristarchus and Secundus, mentioned in <em><a href='B:510 20:4'>Act 20:4</a></em> as those travelling to Jerusalem with the collection. Paul mentions his own embarrassment first, and theirs only secondarily, in passing. He had too much personally invested in the project. Loss of face was far more significant in the first century world than we can imagine. To reason 'You had better donate or else I shall be embarrassed' is not a particularly strong argument, and reflects the urgent desperation Paul felt to by all means make this project work. But don't be too hard on Paul- he was sincerely motivated, but like many believers of his personality type, his pet project in the Lord's service had become obsessive for him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:5'>2Co 9:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you-&nbsp;</em>The 'urging' suggests Titus and his team were not altogether confident of the whole plan, and Paul had to urge them. This gives the lie to Paul's rejoicing in chapter 7 that Titus had been welcomed by the Corinthians and was relieved and confident in their giving. That, I suggested, was written on the cusp of the joy which comes from the love which believes all things, on the slenderest and most unrealistic of evidence.</p><p><em>And arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not, as it were, as an extortion</em>- Again there appears a tension within Paul's argument. He says that the gift must be "willing" and not extorted or pressured out of them. But he has just asked them to make the gift lest they be ashamed (:4). We are left with the impression of high pressure tactics being palmed off as 'things which don't really need to be said but I'll just mention them' (:1). "Extortion" is the word for coveting. We can give money generously, apparently, but do so from a motive of&nbsp;<em>covetousness</em>- the very opposite of true generosity and acceptable sacrifice. We can covet respect, admiration from our brethren::. and not give as a pure and private reflection of the endless grace we have received.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:6'>2Co 9:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But this I say: He that sows sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that sows bountifully shall reap also bountifully-&nbsp;</em>Paul now gives a more spiritual reason for their generosity. Our generosity to others now will lead to a reaping at the time of harvest, which is at the Lord's return. And yet from 1 Corinthians 15 we know that some of the Corinthians didn't believe in the Lord's resurrection and were sceptical of a claim of future harvest at the resurrection. So the whole appeal was at a level inappropriate to the spiritual level of the Corinthians; and we can learn from that in our dealings with weaker believers. "Bountifully" is the same word used in :5 for "gift"; the AV in :5 brings out the connection by calling their "gift" a "bounty". They would receive again the "bounty" or gift they sowed- but at the harvest, which 1 Corinthians 15 has explained is at the Lord's return and will be in the form of the nature of our resurrection body. Our generosity now has eternal consequence. And as 1 Corinthians 15 points out, there is an out of proportion increase between the seed sown and the body that later arises. We don't just get what we sow, but so much more. In the end, this is a question of levels. It's not that the "sparing" shall not be saved; but rather that they shall not eternally reap the blessings of their generosity in this brief mortal life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let each man do according to what he intends in his heart-&nbsp;</em>The Greek suggests that they were to do this in the future (AV "so let him give"). Which rather gives the lie to Paul's over enthusiastic claim that they had already started donating in actuality (<em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em>). He is asking them to now give something, even on a symbolic level. But for all the desperation of his position and pressuring of the Corinthians to donate, Paul does to his credit recognize that all giving must be from the heart. It was there in the heart that the Holy Spirit resided, at least potentially; and Paul is again hinting that their giving would be actualized by allowing the path of the Spirit in their thinking and actions. Giving according to the heart is an allusion to Israel donating towards the work of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 25:2'>Exo 25:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a></em>). The new tabernacle is the poorest of the Christian believers.</p><p><em>Not grudgingly, or of necessity-&nbsp;</em>Yet some of the reasons Paul urges for their giving were indeed from a motive "of necessity", e:g. to save face (:4). As discussed previously, this is another example of apparent contradiction within Paul's reasoning, so desperate is he to see this project work, at least on some level.</p><p><em>For God loves a cheerful giver-&nbsp;</em>The quotation is from <em><a href='B:240 22:8'>Pro 22:8</a></em> LXX "God blesses a cheerful and giving man". The blessing may be alluded to in :8-10 where the idea is that God blesses the generous with even more to give. Paul has written of how the abounding joy of the poor brethren in Macedonia abounded unto a generosity which was actually beyond their means (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>). And here when he goes on to speak of how God loves a “<em>cheerful</em>&nbsp;giver” (<em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>), he uses a word which James Strong defines as meaning ‘hilarious’, from the Greek&nbsp;<em>hilaros</em>. And yet our giving tends to so often be a matter of phlegmatic planning, to salve an otherwise uneasy conscience. But the picture Paul paints is of a man or woman&nbsp;<em>hilarious</em>&nbsp;in their giving to the poor. This isn’t the giving which watches for the response, and is offended if it isn’t what we expect. This is a picture of giving from the joy of giving, reflecting the Father’s generosity to us. And this, Paul says,&nbsp;<em>God loves</em>. Quite simply. We touch the heart of Almighty God by such giving. And yet this hilarious giving isn’t merely the emotion of a moment, the sort of thing played upon in many a Pentecostal gathering. It is to be a giving as a person ‘purposes in their heart’ (<em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>); and again, Strong challenges us with his definition of the Greek word translated ‘purposes’: “to&nbsp;<em>choose</em>&nbsp;for oneself&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;another thing (<em>prefer</em>), that is, (by implication) to&nbsp;<em>propose</em>&nbsp;(<em>intend</em>)”. But having made this conscious decision, to put, say, Sister Svetlana’s need before your preference for a new piece of furniture, we are to perform the actual giving with the hilarity of the cheerful giver. And as we know, Paul makes the point that such acts of generosity are acts of sowing, bringing forth fruits of righteousness; and the Lord will grant us yet more seed to sow in the same way. Forsaking all we have may not mean we are left with nothing:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 9:8'>2Co 9:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that you, having always all sufficiency in everything, may abound to every good work</em>- Paul often uses&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, "gift" or "grace", in connection with the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift, he feels, should elicit giving and grace within us, which is why in this section he puts "grace" for their giving to the Jerusalem Poor Fund. They had been asked to abound in this grace (see on <em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>), which in practice meant giving to the poor; and God was able in turn to make all grace abound to them. In this sense we receive grace for grace (<em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>). The gift of grace is not just a one off gift at baptism; in response to how we use it, so it will be given yet more to us. The simple principle is that God will empower us to do good works; we cannot blame a lack of good works on God not having empowered us.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:9'>2Co 9:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As it is written: He has scattered abroad, He has given to the poor. His righteousness abides for ever</em>- The generosity of God is to be a direct pattern for our own. And His giving is liberal and abundant, and is part of a righteousness which is eternal. Giving now has eternal consequence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:10'>2Co 9:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And He that supplies seed to the sower and bread for food shall supply and multiply your seed for sowing-&nbsp;</em>Seed is multiplied in order to be sowed, and not to be hoarded. Paul is not simply saying that if wealth comes our way, it is in order to give it away. For he was writing (according to 1 Corinthians 1) to those who were not "mighty" in this world or secular reckoning. He is writing to low wage earners, and encouraging&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to be generous with what they had, and to believe that they will be given "seed" in order to sow it by being generous to others. If we want to be sowers, which is part of our Christian calling, then God will give us the seed to sow. God will empower us to meet the needs and fulfil the callings received. <em><a href='B:600 1:11'>2Th 1:11</a></em> is explicit about this too: "To which end we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling and fulfil every desire of goodness and work of faith, with power". The desire to do good shall be fulfilled by God's empowerment. This takes quite some faith to believe, and it seems the Corinthians also stumbled at it. But the principles here stand true as a challenge for all time.</p><p>Paul likens generosity to sowing seed. If we do this for our poor brethren, then God will multiply our seed for sowing (RV); He will give us yet more with which to be generous with. We are “enriched unto all liberality” (<em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em> RV)- this is&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;we receive anything, to be liberal with it. And thus he writes in conclusion of “the proving of you by this ministration” (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> RV). This brief but vital teaching of Paul here is a proof of our spirituality. Our response to ministering to others is a proving of us. It’s as simple and as clear as that. And remember that Paul was writing these words to a&nbsp;<em>poor</em>&nbsp;ecclesia, amongst whom there were not many wealthy folk (<em><a href='B:530 1:26-28'>1Co 1:26-28</a></em>). Paul speaks of joy as a motive for generosity.</p><p><em>And increase the fruits of your righteousness-&nbsp;</em>The Old Testament allusions are to the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 55:10'>Isa 55:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:350 10:12'>Hos 10:12</a></em>. These passages imply an eternal quality to the righteousness, just as God's righteousness abides for ever (:9). The fruit of our generosity in this temporal life is eternal.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>.<br/><em>You will be enriched in every way for all your generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God</em>- "Enriched::. for" could be translated as AV "enriched::. to". Either way, the idea is in harmony with the teaching of the preceding verses, that we are enriched so that we may be generous- in whatever terms that enrichment comes. As stated earlier, we are given seed in order to sow it, rather than hoard it. Any enrichment for generosity is not as it were a reward for having been generous, but merely a provision to continue doing it. The fruit which sprung up from the seed sown, or the enrichment caused by generosity, is envisaged as being in spiritual terms. Thanksgiving to God would be produced as a result of their generosity. But again, the argument is true as it stands, but appears somewhat forced- please give your money as I direct you, so that I and my team can then give thanksgiving to God. I have noted through chapters 7-9 that Paul seems to use every argument possible to persuade the Corinthians to part with their cash, and at times his desperation is apparent. The idea of enrichment however is how Paul opened the Corinthian correspondence, reminding them that they had been "enriched in every way (<em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>) in having been given the Spirit in so many different ways- even though they were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) because they had not let the Spirit function. The similarity of wording is significant. The giving or grace of the Corinthians was to be enabled and rooted in the Spirit&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;or gift / enrichment they had been given. It was in this sense that Paul could say he had "made many rich" by his preaching ministry (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:12'>2Co 9:12</a></em><em>&nbsp;For the administration of this charity not only provides for the wants of the saints, but abounds also through many thanksgivings to God</em>- Paul was clearly the administrator of the charity project, although he sees himself as a 'deacon' or servant of it (NEV "administration"). And yet it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the project and its success had become obsessive to him. He sees it is a way in which poverty could be relieved, but much praise and glory elicited for God and His grace, if orthodox Jewish Christians in Jerusalem could fall to their knees in praise and thanks for their Gentile brethren's generosity to them in Corinth. Visions of Christian unity are likewise not unknown today to become obsessive, and those involved in them become too personally caught up in their success or failure. I pointed out on chapters 7 and 8 that there is no evidence that the famine continued in Palestine as severely nor as long as Paul's passion for the Poor Fund required; to the point that he had to ask others to pray that when he finally arrived in Jerusalem with the food and cash, it would be accepted by the brethren (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>).</p><p>Thanksgiving to God and His glorification can be elicited in multiple ways, and even if the Poor Fund project failed, glory to God could surely be achieved another way. But it seems too much had been personally invested in it. The fascinating story is recorded for our learning, and the lessons are powerful. The truth is that when Paul arrived in Jerusalem with the Poor Fund, the Jerusalem Jewish Christians provoked a riot, were certainly not happy to see him, forced him to demonstrate loyalty to the Jewish law, and I have argued in commentary on Acts- got him arrested and imprisoned. It is fantasy to imagine Paul arriving with those carrying the money and goods, and the saints in Jerusalem falling to their knees in praise to God for Paul's initiative and administration of the Corinthian's generosity. That's just not what happened. Paul's project was intended indeed to elicit many thanksgivings to God, but that was not the outcome. He writes here of what he hoped and dearly wanted to happen as if it had happened. There is in Hebrew and he clearly thought in Hebrew whilst writing in Greek a prophetic perfect tense, whereby God often expresses His hopes for the future in the past tense, as if they have happened. And Paul does the same here, writing of how his project has resulted i:e. surely&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;result in thanksgiving as a result of Corinthian generosity. The idea that this refers to some previous support of the Poor Fund doesn't really fit with the flow of the argument in this chapter. Paul had been asked by the Jerusalem elders to "remember the Jewish Christian, perhaps specifically Jerusalem poor" in return for not demanding the circumcision of Gentile converts (<em><a href='B:550 2:10'>Gal 2:10</a></em>). Paul dearly wished to be acceptable to the Jerusalem elders; for him culturally, Jerusalem was still the centre of the world. Perhaps his obsession with the Poor Fund arose partly from his desperation to be acceptable and pleasing to the Jerusalem elders. It would have been so very hard for Paul to experience a hostile reception by his Jerusalem brethren and perhaps a refusal of what support he had managed to gather for them. He was then forced by them to prove his orthodoxy, and it seems the Jerusalem Jewish Christians were the ones who orchestrated his arrest and imprisonment. The Lord surely worked to correct Paul's desire to please men.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By their approval of this service-</em>&nbsp;"Their approval" is an attempt to grapple with what seems an awkward phrase, rendered correctly by AV "By the experiment of this" service. Paul rather likes the idea of things being an experiment; for he has written earlier using the same word about his command for them to separate from the immoral brother (<em><a href='B:540 2:9'>2Co 2:9</a></em>). This was a test or experiment of their loyalty, rather than being necessary for the sake of that brother or those whom he had wronged (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>). There must be divisions within the church so that the tested / experimented with / approved might be made manifest (<em><a href='B:530 11:19'>1Co 11:19</a></em>). In these kinds of issues- division in the church, a case of an immoral brother or a project to support poor believers of a different ethnicity-&nbsp; the crucial issue is how we respond to the test or "experiment" which the situations provide. The apparently central issues (e:g. the poor at Jerusalem or the immoral brother) are in this sense the furniture of the scene. It is how we respond to the tests or experiments which is so critical.</p><p><em>They glorify God for your loyalty which you confess to the gospel of Christ, and for the generosity of your contribution to them and to all</em>- As noted above, Paul is speaking of his hopes as if they had actually happened. The Jerusalem Christians were not glorifying God for Corinthian generosity at that time; and there is no evidence they ever did, or that Corinth gave anything. The use of the word "loyalty" is unfortunate because the careful reader is already suspicious that Paul is too concerned with Corinthian loyalty to him and his pet project. It is also simply not the case that by not supporting a particular welfare initiative, we are being disloyal to the Gospel. Again the argument is high pressure and not completely sound. Here at the very end of the section about the Poor Fund, Paul perhaps betrays the way that what he hopes for in the Corinthians is what he wishes to see and states as having happened. He says that the Jerusalem poor are praising God for the way the Corinthians are generous to them "and to all". But this was surely the fantasy of love. There was no evidence the Corinthians were donating "to all", and all the other evidence in the letters reveals their serious immorality and spiritual weakness.</p><p>Initially, the Corinthians agreed to take up a collection for their poor Jewish brethren. Paul later encouraged them in this when their will to carry it out flagged, but the initial inspiration was from "the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> NIV). That Gospel doesn't state that to obey it, one must give money to the poor believers in Jerusalem. But Paul perceived that&nbsp;<em>effectively</em>&nbsp;it did; this was, in their context, part and parcel of confessing the Gospel. We learn from this that the Gospel has abiding power to transform lives after conversion as well as before.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>While they also, with prayers on your behalf, long after you by reason of the exceeding grace of God in you</em>- I noted earlier that Paul had exaggerated about the Corinthians supposedly longing for Titus and himself. And he makes a similar exaggeration here. The Jerusalem Christians likely had little knowledge of the Corinthians, and so the language of longing and praying is exaggeration. It was Paul who uses the word "long after you" several times about his longing after his brethren; and he imagines that the Corinthians have the same attitude to their brethren as he does. The grace (gift) "in you" is a reference to the gift of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the Corinthians, within them, which Paul has so often alluded to in his Corinthian correspondence. He urges the Corinthians to make use of that gift, to allow the path of the Spirit, which would elicit in them a giving of grace to others. But it is questionable whether in reality the Jerusalem Jewish Christians longed for the Corinthians upon that basis. But in theory, yes- the "fellowship of the Spirit" was and is a fellowship experienced on the basis of each believer having the Spirit at work in their hearts, and responding to it. This creates a fellowship with others who are allowing the same process.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 9:15'>2Co 9:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift</em>- As noted on :14, the gift in view is that of the Spirit, within the hearts of the believers. Paul thanks God for it, with the implication that the Corinthians should be more appreciative of and responsive to it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now I Paul-</em>&nbsp;The appeal to support the Jerusalem Poor Fund in chapters 7-9 is now finished, and Paul now returns to tackle the Corinthians over their serious spiritual inadequacies. For all the love, enthusiasm, imputation of righteousness, the loving them with a love which imagines good and exaggerated their spirituality- Paul was also realistically aware that they were heading the wrong way in their spiritual lives. "Now I::." suggests that the argument flows straight on from the preceding chapters. Chapters 7-9 appear to present the Corinthians in an unrealistically positive light, but now Paul turns to realities. The break in style is such that some have suggested that chapters 7-9 form a separate piece of correspondence. But "Now I::." indicates that Paul is fully aware of what he has just written, and is now returning to dealing with their suspicions of him and need for exhortation.</p><p><em>I myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ-&nbsp;</em>"I myself" emphasizes his personal approach to them. And he himself was acting as Christ to them, with His gentleness. His sarcasm and anger later in this letter must be read therefore either as a departure from his aim as here stated, or we are to read it as all the same expressing the Lord's meekness and gentleness. "I beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ" is surely a reference to the Lord's description of Himself as being, there and then, "meek and lowly of heart" (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>). Paul's point is that as the Lord was in His life, so He is now, in His heavenly glory.</p><p><em>I who in your presence am lowly among you-</em>&nbsp;"Lowly" was likely a reference to how his critics described his literal presence, perhaps hinting at some physical deformity. But the ultimate "lowly" one was of course the Lord Jesus, and Paul has just stated that he seeks to relate to them as Him, with His meekness. For the same word is used by the Lord in saying that He was "lowly in heart" (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>). And he has earlier stated that he feels "lowly" because of the bad state of affairs in Corinth (<em><a href='B:540 7:6'>2Co 7:6</a></em> s:w:). The Lord's lowliness of mind (s:w:) was at its zenith during His time of dying (<em><a href='B:570 2:3'>Phi 2:3</a></em>), and Paul sets that humbling of mind as the pattern for every Christian.</p><p><em>But being absent am bold toward you</em>- The contrast is between being present and yet being now absent from them. He is keenly aware of his absence from them (<em><a href='B:540 10:11'>2Co 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>). But he warns them that he will visit them and be in presence as he is when absent in his letters (:11). He earlier warned them that although he was absent yet through the Spirit he was present with them (<em><a href='B:530 5:3'>1Co 5:3</a></em>; also <em><a href='B:580 2:5'>Col 2:5</a></em> "Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit"). Therefore his presence or absence was not to be understood by them as significant. Any attempt to criticize the difference between his written style when absent and personal style when present was ill founded- because through the Spirit, he was present with them although absent. So they were not to think that what he was now going to write was just mere words, and his personal presence would be far less demanding.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:2'>2Co 10:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I beg you now, so that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh-&nbsp;</em>Paul has earlier expressed his fear that if he visits them, then he will boldly judge them. Indeed, he has given this as the reason why he delayed his planned visit to them. This attitude to his next visit stands in contrast to the claims in chapters 7-9 that they love him and he can't wait to see them and oversee the collection of their donations for the Jerusalem Poor Fund. He intended to boldly judge those who consider him as an unspiritual person, walking according to the flesh. The Spirit through Paul would judge them- and they would realize that he walked according to the Spirit and not the flesh. Paul was "confident" that he would judge some of them severely, and yet in <em><a href='B:540 8:22'>2Co 8:22</a></em> he has written of the confidence he has that they will respond to his appeals, and his "confidence in you in all things" (<em><a href='B:540 7:16'>2Co 7:16</a></em>). These were statements written on the cusp of loving enthusiasm for them, thinking the best of them. But he is also confident that not all is well with them, and that he shall have to judge some of them severely.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:3'>2Co 10:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For though we walk in the flesh, we do not fight in a fleshly way</em>- This is likely a quotation from the Corinthian detractors, who claimed that Paul conducted himself "in a fleshly way". Walking after the flesh rather than the Spirit is the way of condemnation (<em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:4'>Rom 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:16'>Gal 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:10'>2Pe 2:10</a></em>). Paul is having to defend himself against those who consider that he is not at all Spiritual. Paul has used the same word for "fight" with reference to his ministry generally in <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em>, and uses the same metaphor to Timothy (<em><a href='B:610 1:18'>1Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:4'>2Ti 2:4</a></em>). <em><a href='B:540 10:3-4'>2Co 10:3-4</a></em> is perhaps an allusion to the way that Jericho was taken with such a humanly weak battle plan. The point of the allusion is for us to see ourselves as those nervous Israelites desperately clinging on to their faith in God's victory rather than human strength. And we each have our Jerichos- habits, life-dominating patterns of thinking, that seem so impossible to shift.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:4'>2Co 10:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds-&nbsp;</em>The allusion is to the LXX of <em><a href='B:240 21:22'>Pro 21:22</a></em>: "A wise man attacks fortified cities and demolishes the fortress in which the ungodly trusted". Note that in <em><a href='B:540 9:6'>2Co 9:6</a></em> Paul has quoted from <em><a href='B:240 22:8'>Pro 22:8</a></em>, so this part of Proverbs was in his mind in formulating his argument in this part of the letter. We see here how the inspiration process worked- the ideas of the Spirit are reworked by the Spirit within the mind or spirit of the inspired writer. Paul sees himself really at war, using wisdom (according to the Proverbs allusion) to bring down all kinds of apparently solid and impregnable structures. His sense here is exactly that of 1 Corinthians 1, where he says that the Spirit overthrows the unspiritual wisdom of men which seems so strong. He perceives those strongholds as being in the minds of the Corinthians and the false teaching received.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 10:5'>2Co 10:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Casting down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ-&nbsp;</em>The "imaginations" are the "strongholds" of :4. The "high thing" continues the metaphor of bringing down fortifications, the reference being to high towers of defence. The picture is of the strongholds being stormed, and the captives taken into another citadel- where they are obedient to Christ. The whole metaphor is descriptive of internal thought processes and reflects how Paul realized that the state of mind is what Christianity is all about. It is thoughts and prideful attitudes which have to be overcome before obedience to Christ can be achieved in the mind. Paul has just written of being obedient to the Gospel in obeying its implications- in giving to the poor (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>). It is pride and the strongholds of human strength which hinder that obedience. Paul parallels "the knowledge of God" and having our thoughts in "captivity to the obedience of Christ". This is what it means to know God; the correct theological conclusions about God are not therefore in view when Paul writes of "the knowledge of God"; he uses 'knowledge' in the sense of relationship. He has earlier lamented that some in Corinth "have not the knowledge of God". To know God is to live in mental obedience to His Son. It is a matter of the Spirit in the mind, of having the spirit or mind of Christ within us.</h4><p>Isaiah is full of references to the proud being ‘made low’ by judgment- the same Hebrew word is common: <em><a href='B:290 10:33'>Isa 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 13:11'>Isa 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 25:11'>Isa 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:5'>Isa 26:5</a></em>. Perhaps Paul had this in mind when he said that our preaching is a bringing down of every high thing that is exalted against God (<em><a href='B:540 10:5'>2Co 10:5</a></em>). Our message is basically that we must be humbled one way or the other- either by our repentance and acceptance of the Gospel today, or through the experience of condemnation at the day of judgment. We’re calling people to humility. And we must ask whether the content and style of our preaching really does that.</p><p>Like John, Paul makes a seamless connection between defending true doctrine, and spiritually minded living in practice. Through destroying arguments and “every pretension that exalts itself against the knowledge of God”, we can “bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 10:3-5'>2Co 10:3-5</a></em> RV). This is because, as Neville Smart put it, “of the radical part played in the salvation of the individual by the ideas and beliefs he holds in his mind. They are in fact the roots from which his fixed attitudes and his daily actions spring, and from which they take their particular tone and colouring”.</p><p>“Though we walk in the flesh (cp. Paul's recognition of his fleshly side in Romans 7)::. the weapons of our (mental) warfare are not carnal (of our fleshly man), but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds". These strong holds which are pulled down are defined in v:5 as "imaginations::. every thought" which have to be 'cast (cp. 'pulled') down'. Those strong holds exist in the recesses of our natural minds. <em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em> encourages us not to yield our minds as weapons of sin, but as weapons of God (<em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em> AVmg:). Our thinking is a weapon, which both sides in this conflict can use. The sinful man within us is "warring against the law of my (spiritual) mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin" (<em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em>). Yet <em><a href='B:540 10:5'>2Co 10:5</a></em> describes our spiritual man as overthrowing our carnal man, and bringing those thoughts into captivity to the Christ man. The impression is created of constant attrition, with victories for both sides. In Romans 7 the impression is given that the carnal man is winning; whilst <em><a href='B:540 10:2-5'>2Co 10:2-5</a></em> paints the picture of the Christ man triumphant. To get this picture over, perhaps the Spirit used a spiritually depressed Paul in Romans 7, and a triumphant Paul at the time of writing 2 Corinthians 10?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And being in readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be made full-&nbsp;</em>This could mean that when they were fully obedient to Christ (:5), and had shown this in practice by obeying his command they donate to the Jerusalem Poor Fund, then he would punish the disobedience of others within the Corinthian church. On this basis we would have to assume that when Paul writes to 'you' here, he is writing to a subgroup within the church who will be obedient to him. But he seems to use "you" in a more general and natural sense throughout the letter. We get no impression elsewhere that he is writing to an obedient subgroup within the church. So we must consider other possibilities for interpretation. One possibility is that the more God's word abides in us, the more we will know our sinfulness (<em><a href='B:690 1:10'>1Jn 1:10</a></em>). Thus Paul would be speaking here as if when Corinth are more obedient, he will reveal further to them the extent of their weakness (<em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>).</p><p>Or it could be that the obedience of Corinth to Christ refers to their general spiritual maturity; once that was complete, then Paul could go further and move on to judge the disobedience of others apart from Corinth. This would connect with how Paul goes straight on to speak of how he had received, as it were, a measuring line which enabled him to preach in certain areas, including Corinth. When the spiritual growth of the Corinthian converts was complete, then his measuring line would be extended, and the Lord would allow him "to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you" (this is how I would interpret <em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:13-16'>2Co 10:13-16</a></em> RV). But a measuring line is Ezekiel's figure of Divine judgment; as if to say that once Corinth are obedient, then Paul can move on to other areas to revenge all disobedience / judge / measure them out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:7'>2Co 10:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Look at the things that are before your face, staring at you. If anyone trusts in himself that he is Christ's-&nbsp;</em>Any serious study of a Bible passage requires us to look at it in different translations and make some effort to understand the real meaning of the original- for sometimes the sense of a passage can completely change, depending on translation (especially in Job). Thus in the AV of <em><a href='B:540 10:7'>2Co 10:7</a></em>, Paul is made to ask a question: "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance?". In the RV, this becomes an affirmation: “Ye look at the things that are before your face". But in other versions, it becomes a blunt demand from Paul that the Corinthians should open their eyes to the true facts: "Look at things which stare you in the face" (J:B. Phillips).</p><p>On balance, on the strength of the context, I would go for a translation to the effect that Paul is rebuking them for looking at things from the outward appearance. For the same word translated "before your face" has been used by him in exactly this sense when he rebukes them for following those who look at life after the outward appearance (<em><a href='B:540 5:12'>2Co 5:12</a></em>). Paul's presence or face / outward appearance has just been described as unattractive and lowly (<em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>). Paul is now rebuking them for looking at things externally, whereas he has just explained in :4,5 that the essence of the Gospel is about internal transformation and spiritual things:By judging according to external appearances, they were concluding that Paul was not even "Christ's".</p><p><em>Let him remind himself that, even as he is Christ's, so also are we-&nbsp;</em>There's definitely a tendency to think that we can have a relationship with the Father and Son, and this is all that matters. John countered this tendency, by arguing that "If a man say and apparently this&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;being said by some brethren, "I love God", and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen" (<em><a href='B:690 4:20'>1Jn 4:20</a></em>). Paul foresaw this same tendency here in <em><a href='B:540 10:7'>2Co 10:7</a></em>: "If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him&nbsp;<em>of himself&nbsp;</em>think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's". "Of himself" suggests that our internal thinking, our self-perception, of ourselves as "in Christ" cannot be valid unless we perceive "Christ" as having our brethren "in Him" also. And Paul's own example showed what he meant; for in all his hardships he was comforted not just by the Father and Son directly, but by the faith of his brethren- even if that faith was weak (e:g. <em><a href='B:590 3:7'>1Th 3:7</a></em>). If we are sure we are the Lord's, let's remember that we aren't the&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;person He died for. Therefore we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;receive one another, as Christ received us, with all our inadequacies of understanding and behaviour (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>). We are thereby taught of God to love one another; we must forgive and forbear each other, as the Lord did and does with us (<em><a href='B:590 4:9'>1Th 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:8'>2Co 10:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I could boast, unashamedly and somewhat abundantly, concerning our authority- authority which the Lord gave for building you up and not for casting you down</em>- This doesn't mean that the authority given could not be used for 'casting down'. For the same word is used about how Paul could do just that (:4; <em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>). The idea is that the power had been given Paul not so much for casting down, but for building up edifying. Paul had the power / authority to judge them, and he purposefully delayed visiting them lest the Spirit lead him to punish them, perhaps in a literal sense. His attitude reflects that of the Lord- who came more to save than to judge / condemn, although that doesn't mean that He will not judge / condemn some.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:9'>2Co 10:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I will not, lest I appear to terrify you by my letters</em>- We see here how Corinthians is very much a flow of consciousness letter. He says he will not boast of his authority- but later he does, at great length (<em><a href='B:540 11:1'>2Co 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:16'>2Co 11:16</a></em>). Likewise in chapter 7 he writes down his passionate feelings of love and confidence in the Corinthians- and then comes down to a more realistic view of them. And he begins this current section by saying he will have the meekness and gentleness of Christ (:1) when in fact chapters 10-13 are Paul at his most bitter, sarcastic and angry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For they say: His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech of no account</em>- But was his physical presence indeed "of no account"? The Roman Governor Felix&nbsp;<em>trembled</em>&nbsp;at Paul's incisive logic- even in his prison uniform (<em><a href='B:510 24:25'>Act 24:25</a></em>). Hardened Agrippa was almost persuaded by Paul, on his own public admission, to become a Christian (<em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>). The Galatian converts would have pulled out their eyes from their sockets and given them to partially sighted Paul (<em><a href='B:550 4:15'>Gal 4:15</a></em>). The aggressive crowd, baying for Paul's blood, were held in one of history's most uncanny silences by the sheer personality of that preacher. He beckoned with his hand, and " there was made a great silence:::and when they heard how (Gk:) he spake::. they kept the more silence" (<em><a href='B:510 21:39'>Act 21:39</a></em> to <em><a href='B:510 22:2'>Act 22:2</a></em>). Pagans at Lystra were so overcome by his oratory that they were convinced he was the god Mercury come down to earth; it took Paul quite some effort to persuade them that he was an ordinary man (<em><a href='B:510 14:12'>Act 14:12</a></em>). This was the man Paul. He had undoubted ability as a preacher. Yet apparently the Corinthians mocked his weak physical presence; although Paul had undoubted charisma and power of personality, right up to the end. Was it not that he consciously suppressed the power of his personality when he visited Corinth? This was humility and self-knowledge indeed. Indeed, his reasoning in 2 Corinthians 10, 11 is that he could present himself to Corinth as quite a different brother Paul than what he did. Although Paul did have a significant physical presence, he doesn't dispute with the Corinthians about it. Instead he more humbly makes the point that presence or absence is insignificant in spiritual terms:&nbsp;</p><p>So I suggest that Paul made himself a weak person in his dealings with Corinth, just as the Lord also humbled himself, made Himself lowly as an act of the will. He could truly be all things to all people, he wasn’t constrained by his natural personality type as so many of us allow ourselves to be. This is why Paul could go on in :11 to warn Corinth that the next time he visits them, he won’t be weak. He will ‘be’ as he is in his letters. In all this we see the full import of the sacrifice and crucifixion of self of which the Lord repeatedly speaks. Putting meaning into words, this means that we will genuinely ‘be’ the person we need to be in order to help others.</p><p>"His letters, say they (Paul's detractors in the new Israel) are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible::. though I be rude in speech::. Christ sent me::. to preach the Gospel: not with wisdom of words (mg. speech)" (<em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:6'>2Co 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>):&nbsp;This is all the language of Moses, Paul’s hero. Paul would have remembered Stephen saying how Moses was formerly full of worldly&nbsp;<em>wisdom</em>&nbsp;and "mighty in words" (<em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>), even though Moses felt " I am not eloquent (mg. a man of words)::. I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (<em><a href='B:20 4:10'>Exo 4:10</a></em>). Maybe Paul likewise was mighty in words and wisdom, but felt like Moses that he wasn’t. He allowed Moses’ legendary humility to personally inspire him, rather than just admire it from afar, ticking the box, saying yes, Moses was humble…</p><p>It was believed that nature and destiny had decreed your place, and there was to be no questioning of it. Thus according to the first century principle of 'physiognomics', a slave was born with a muscular, servile body, an upper class female Roman was born beautiful, etc. The idea of education was to train them up to be as they were intended to be by nature. The ancient world believed that all that was decreed and predestined by nature would have some sort of physical reality in the appearance of a person. Hence the challenging nature of Paul's command not to judge by the outward appearance; and again, Divine providence overturned all this by choosing Paul as such a "chosen vessel", when his outward appearance and manner of speaking were so weak and unimpressive, literally 'lacking strength' (<em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:11'>2Co 10:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Well, let such a person reckon this, that what we are in word by letters, when we are absent, such will we be also in deed, when we are present</em>- As noted on :1&nbsp;<em>But being absent am bold toward you</em>, there is effectively no difference between Paul's presence and his absence, for in his physical absence he is still spiritually present with them, just as the Lord Jesus is. Paul is moving towards the position that when he does come and visit Corinth in the flesh, he is likely to be led by the Spirit to be seriously judgmental towards them. This is a far cry from his earlier positive comments in this letter that he is delaying coming to them so that when he does come, they will have fixed things up and made donation to his Jerusalem Poor Fund. These apparent contradictions within the letter have been explained by some on the basis that we have here various letters stitched together. But why do that? And the various proposed sections all join to each other seamlessly. I therefore have adopted the view that the letter was written under inspiration as a flow of consciousness, just as the inspired Psalmists both curse and bless their enemies within the same Psalm.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we are not bold enough to class or compare ourselves with those that commend themselves</em>- The sarcasm here seems at variance with Paul's opening statement in :1 that he is going to appeal to them with the meekness and gentleness of Christ. Again, as noted on :11, this is a flow of consciousness letter, with Paul writing how he felt at the moment. The AV offers: "We dare not make ourselves of the number", and "the number" may be a technical term referring to a group of self-declared apostles who claimed that they were "the number", perhaps referring to how the initial apostles are described with the term "the number of the names" (<em><a href='B:510 1:15'>Act 1:15</a></em>). Although Paul says he will not compare himself with those who commend themselves, he goes on at length to do just that in chapters 11 and 12. Rather like he begins this section by saying he will appeal by the meekness and gentleness of Christ (:1) and proceeds to write in anything but that tone. Once again- this is a flow of consciousness letter, with Paul expressing one feeling and then going on to write in a different way. The only other time the Greek word for "compare" occurs is again to the Corinthians, where Paul insists we must compare spiritual things with spiritual things and not confuse the categories by comparing fleshly things with spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em>). But here Paul will go on to do just that, justifying himself in fleshly terms in order to confirm his spiritual authority. Paul has said that he needs no commendation of himself, because that commendation is known in their consciences, if they have the Spirit within and are in touch with it (<em><a href='B:540 4:2'>2Co 4:2</a></em>). But then he says that in order for them to answer those who glory in outward appearance, he will give them some good ammunition to use by boasting of his qualifications (<em><a href='B:540 5:12'>2Co 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:4'>2Co 6:4</a></em>). He will now go on again to commend himself, claiming that it is their fault, and their refusal to commend him according to their own consciences, the Spirit within them, has compelled him to boast (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>). In all this we see the rather jumbled logic which accompanies a desperate desire to persuade by all means, and even under Divine inspiration of the record, the jumbled logic reflects this desire of Paul to by all means get them onside.</p><p><em>These are without understanding, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, which is unwise</em>- Paul points out the weakness of all peer-reviewed criticism. They measured themselves by their own standards and benchmarks which they themselves had chosen, rather than by God's standards. And Paul will now use the same word for 'measuring' to describe how he has been given a measure by God to teach and pastor them (:13).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:13'>2Co 10:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But we will not boast beyond our measure but rather according to the measure of the province which God apportioned to us- a measure to reach even to you</em>- The image of 'measuring' according to the measure God had given Paul connects with how the false teachers measured themselves according to measures and benchmarks of their own creation (see on :12&nbsp;<em>Measuring themselves</em>). Paul considered they were geographically and spiritually within a measure or allotted territory given to him and therefore they should respect him and not follow the false teachers. Whether he was specifically given such an allotment of authority is not recorded. We wonder whether Paul is now using every possible argument he can to get the Corinthians onside with him, rather as we saw him doing in appealing for them to donate to his Jerusalem Poor Fund. We recall from 1 Corinthians 1 that Paul initially claimed to be approaching the Corinthians with only a Christ-centered attitude, stating he had baptized few of them, and all following of personal preachers was wrong. But his desperate appeal for authority at this final stage of the correspondence seems rather more human than that initial approach. Christ is not "divided", Paul had originally argued (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>), but now he uses the same word to say that God had apportioned (s:w. "divided") to him and his team the authority and responsibility for Corinth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:14'>2Co 10:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we are not overextending ourselves in our boasting, as though we did not reach unto you</em>- "Overextending" may be a quote from what the critics were saying about Paul. Perhaps the argument from the false teachers was that they were the local pastors, and for Paul to claim any authority in Corinth was an overextension of his authority.</p><h4><em>For we were the first to come as far as you in preaching the gospel of Christ</em>- As noted on :13, Paul's claim to have authority over the Corinthians because he first preached to them is at variance with his attitude in 1 Corinthians 1, where he rightly claims that Christ is paramount, and who preached or baptized them is irrelevant. And he repeated that in <em><a href='B:530 15:11'>1Co 15:11</a></em>, where he argues that God's grace working through the preachers is all important, and who preached the Gospel to the Corinthians is irrelevant because whoever it was ("I or they"), they were just vehicles for God's saving grace.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So we are not boasting beyond our measure in other men's labours; but rather we hope that as your faith grows, our influence among you may be greatly increased-&nbsp;</em>The critics may have claimed that it was their labours which were responsible for the church at Corinth. Paul is paving the way to boast of all his labours for the Corinthians which we will read in chapters 11 and 12. Paul's hope was that his influence amongst the Corinthians would increase as they matured spiritually. But this desire for personal influence and loyalty (a card he played in his appeal for their donations to his Poor Fund in chapters 7-9) is a far cry from his earlier claim to not want any personal influence but just to see the influence of the Lord Jesus growing in his converts. See on :14. But the AV is again more literally faithful to the difficult Greek here: "Having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly". This could mean that their spiritual maturity would enable his line or territory of work to be expanded. For Paul felt he would not be given new areas to preach in if the Corinthians had not matured in the faith. He in this case would be arguing that their immaturity and revolt against him was holding up his spreading of the Gospel further, as if God would "increase" his sphere of work if the Corinthians matured; and:16 seems to confirm this. Again, whether or not God had specifically stated that is unrecorded, and we could read this as another desperate argument to by all means keep the Corinthians loyal to him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:16'>2Co 10:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another's area of influence</em>- See on :15. This can be read as a desperate appeal for Corinthian loyalty to him, lest other areas be as it were deprived of the Gospel. We are left to decide whether this was really the case or if it is just part of an increasingly desperate appeal for their personal loyalty. For Paul had earlier turned away from unresponsive Jewish audiences in order to go preach further to the Gentiles, rather than remaining with those Jews until they accepted his message:&nbsp;And in Romans 15 he openly speaks of his ambition to preach in Rome and Spain, the "lands beyond" Corinth. He gives no condition to be fulfilled for that, but rather perceives it all as part of his calling.</p><p>Paul spoke of how both he and other brethren had their specific “line" or sphere in which they were intended to witness (<em><a href='B:540 10:16'>2Co 10:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 19:4'>Psa 19:4</a></em> AVmg:; <em><a href='B:370 7:17'>Amo 7:17</a></em>). We each have ours, whether it be the people who live in our block of flats, an area of our own country or city; or another part of the world. Paul clearly had a purpose- to spread the Gospel in a semi-circle around the Roman empire (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>), beginning from Jerusalem, through Asia and Italy, then Spain (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>), North Africa and back to Jerusalem. Speaking of how he planned his journeys, he comments in <em><a href='B:540 1:17'>2Co 1:17</a></em>:&nbsp;“When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes yes, and no no?”:&nbsp; Again we see a definite purpose, not the kind of human intention which vacillates between yes and no; for this is inimical to the person who has true purpose. The mission in our minds, the path ever before us, makes our decision making so much clearer than it is for those who dither over which flavour coffee to have tonight::. Truly could Paul say at the end: “But you have followed my teaching, my conduct, and my purpose in life; you have observed my faith, my patience, my love, my endurance, my persecutions, and my sufferings” (<em><a href='B:620 3:10-11'>2Ti 3:10-11</a></em>). And he is set up as a model for each of us (<em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:17'>2Co 10:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he that boasts, let him boast in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>This is the quotation from <em><a href='B:300 9:24'>Jer 9:24</a></em> with which Paul began his recorded letters to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 1:31'>1Co 1:31</a></em>). But I have shown in earlier commentary on this chapter that Paul's attitude is at variance with the non-partisan spirit which he had shown there. Despite knowing this principle, Paul is now as it were carried away to boast in the flesh. Again he states a principle and then appears to break it, as witnessed in his promise to entreat them by the gentleness of Christ (<em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>) and going on to use bitter sarcasm and angry manipulation against them. This confirms my conclusion that this letter is an inspired 'flow of consciousness' recording of Paul's feelings. The context of <em><a href='B:300 9:24'>Jer 9:24</a></em> urges glorying in the Lord because judgment is coming- and that rather fits what Paul is going on to threaten.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it is not he that commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends-&nbsp;</em>For "commends", see on <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>. And yet Paul goes on to commend himself in the next two chapters. Just as he says he will approach them in the gentle spirit of Christ (:1) and goes on to write to them otherwise. His immediate reference is to the false teachers who commended themselves (:12). Only the Lord's commendation is worth anything, and not the commendation of men. But in his desperate love for Corinth and desire to persuade them, he now embarks upon self-commendation, breaking his own principles and then blaming it on them for compelling him to do so (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:1'>2Co 11:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me</em>- Paul is asking them to bear with, or stick with, his reasoning as an unwise fool. He laments that they 'bear with' the false teachers, who demanded their loyalty and rejection of Paul; three times he uses the same word of how they 'bear with' these men who abuse them (:4,19,20). So the emphasis should be on the&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;in "Please bear with&nbsp;<em>me</em>", and not with these pretenders. This reading is confirmed by the way that :2 goes on to say that this is because Paul is as their father, who has betrothed them to Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I am jealous over you with a Godly jealousy. For I betrothed you to one husband, that is, that I might present you a pure virgin to Christ-&nbsp;</em>The betrothal period lasted a year; the father of the bride was expected to keep her sexually pure. This period of a year may refer to the year he has already waited for them to produce the collection money (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). But during that betrothal period, he feared they had not been faithful to Christ because of their alliances with the false teachers. Paul considered himself their father and them to be his children (<em><a href='B:530 4:15'>1Co 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:13-15'>2Co 12:13-15</a></em>). This analogy demonstrates that preaching is not all about getting a response which leads to conversion; the end point in view is not baptism, but a person remaining faithful for Christ until the end. The image of betrothal suggests that some guarantee had been given, and the guarantee in our relationship with the Lord Jesus is the Spirit given as the guarantee in our hearts; only here in 2 Corinthians is it spoken of in precisely that way (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>).</p><p>Paul speaks in <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em> of ‘presenting you’ at the last day- he uses the same Greek work in a context of ‘standing before’ the judgment seat (<em><a href='B:520 14:10'>Rom 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:14'>2Co 4:14</a></em>). Christ will present us to Himself at judgment day, as an unspotted bride / church (<em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>)- but Paul perceived that Christ will achieve this by working through people and pastors like himself. Paul aimed to “present” s:w. every man perfect in Christ by warning and exhorting them (<em><a href='B:580 1:28'>Col 1:28</a></em>). We will present ourselves (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em> s:w:) to Him at the judgment; but He presents us, and others who have laboured for us will present us, because Christ will have worked through them to present us to Himself unspotted. The cross results in the suffering Lord being able to “<em>present</em>&nbsp;us holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight” at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>). Having said that, Paul goes right on to say that his goal is to “<em>present</em>&nbsp;every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (<em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:28'>Col 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>). The sufferings of Jesus were not lost on Paul. He understood that he likewise must share in them, in order to “present” his brethren acceptable at the last day. For Paul, the events of Calvary were not far away in time and place, a necessary piece of theology::. They compelled him to act, to stay up late at night preparing something, to pray, to live the life of true concern for others, to warn, encourage, write, endlessly review his draft letters to get them right, search through Scripture for relevant guidance for his friends… this was the life begotten in him by the cross. As the Lord died to present us “perfect”, so Paul laboured to present us perfect. And neither the Lord Jesus nor Paul are mere history for us. This is all our pattern… In one sense, we present ourselves before the judgment seat (<em><a href='B:520 14:10'>Rom 14:10</a></em> s:w:; AV “stand before”). In other ways, we are presented there by our elders, e:g. Paul; and yet above all, we are presented there spotless by the Lord’s matchless advocacy for us. And of course the essence of judgment is being worked out right now, as we daily present ourselves to the Lord, as the bodies of the animals were presented to the priest for inspection before being offered (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). We are presenting ourselves to the judge right now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve with his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ</em>- Note the focus upon their minds. Throughout Corinthians, Paul has taught that the role of the Spirit in the heart / mind is crucial to spirituality. The mind was and is the battleground for temptation, and the arena in which we develop spirituality. Paul did not want their minds to be led astray NEV "corrupted" from Christ. NEV "the simplicity that is in Christ" could as well be rendered as NIV "<em>to&nbsp;</em>Christ". The idea is that the Christian is mentally focused upon a man, the Lord Jesus. The problem with false theologies and other gospels is that they remove that focus, they are a corruption of the mind, and hence a different spirit (:4) from that which is to be Christ's. The corruption of the mind from this focus is described in :4 as receiving "a different spirit". The focus is intensely upon the human mind or heart, and whether or not the spirit of Jesus is there. This, in summary, is what Christianity is all about and how a Christian is defined- whether the spirit of Christ is in the heart or not. All the&nbsp;<em>angst&nbsp;</em>about doctrinal correctness and the struggle for correct interpretation must be seen in that light. If we have not the spirit of Christ, we are none of His; and if we do, then we are his.</p><p>Paul's imputation of righteousness to the Corinthians is reflected in the way he likens them here to the innocent Eve in Eden, when previous correspondence has revealed the depth of their moral (especially sexual) depravity. Clearly Paul read the Genesis account of the serpent as literal, seeing the literal serpent as now representative of the Judaizers who were preying upon the minds of the believers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if he that comes-&nbsp;</em>"He that comes" could be a generic reference to the false teachers who came to them, presumably sent from Jerusalem to destabilize Paul's work; their 'coming' suggests they were not local Corinthians. There could however be a specific individual in view, whom Paul is careful not to name because he was well known and perhaps for fear of difficulties which would be created by specifically naming him:&nbsp;This may be the reference of <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>, which speaks of a particular messenger or envoy of 'Satan', the Jewish opposition, sent to be a pain in the side for his ministry. The coming one, “he that comes”, was understood in Judaism as the Messiah, “he that comes in the name of the Lord”. The false teachers in view are therefore presented as anti-Christs, fake Messiahs, teaching and embodying “another Jesus”.</p><p><em>Preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you did not receive, or a different gospel, which you did not accept-&nbsp;</em>Receiving the spirit and accepting the Gospel of Jesus are paralleled. The situation in 1 Corinthians 14 see notes there was that the Corinthians claimed to have Holy Spirit gifts, but actually the manifestations of ecstatic utterances they were claiming to experience were not at all Holy Spirit gifts, but rather an imitation of the idol cults. The aorists here would seem to imply that they accepted a gospel, another Jesus and another spirit at one specific moment. As if an individual had come and preached a fake imitation of Christianity- replete with a Jesus, a gospel and a spirit to be received. We note that the true Gospel features a receipt of the Spirit when the real Christ is accepted. This is not a reference to the miraculous gifts, but to the guarantee of salvation received in the heart, which must be responded to (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>). Perhaps the 'other Jesus' being taught was a Jesus who did not rise from the dead and was therefore currently inactive (recall the arguments of 1 Corinthians 15) and who ministers no Spirit, therefore, to believers. This is worryingly similar, in practice, to the approach to Jesus taken by some conservative forms of Christianity today.</p><p><em>It seems you think you do well to go along with him</em>- See on :3. They 'bore with' "go along with" these false teachers instead of bearing with Paul (:1).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:5'>2Co 11:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>But I reckon that I am not in the least inferior to these so called super apostles</em>- This group declared themselves to be "the number" (see on <em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>), the true apostles. But they had declared themselves as this, without any signs from the Lord affirming them as such. Paul “supposed”, the same word translated “impute” as in ‘imputed righteousness’, that he was not inferior to these apostles, because he was a true apostle. He knew this was how his Lord counted him. But he felt himself as less than the least of all saints (<em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>) and quite unworthy of the title apostle: “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am” (<em><a href='B:530 15:9-10'>1Co 15:9-10</a></em>). He felt the status and acceptance imputed to him, as we should.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:6'>2Co 11:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Although rude in speech, I am not in knowledge. No, in every way have we made this manifest to you in all things</em>- Paul was falsely accused of being an&nbsp;<em>idiotes</em>&nbsp;"rude", an uneducated and simple person who pretended to the intelligentsia. This was patently untrue. But Paul doesn't attack the lies, he argues that even if that is true, and he doesn't bother justifying himself, then it could not be said that he was lacking in true knowledge. Again he is appealing to them to stop judging after the outward appearance (see on <em><a href='B:540 10:7'>2Co 10:7</a></em>), but to look to the essence, the Spirit within. Paul can say that they surely know what “knowledge” he has, because he has been thoroughly manifested Gk:&nbsp;<em>phaneroo</em>&nbsp;to them in absolutely every way; there was nothing he knew which he hadn’t shared with them. He is so open with them that he doesn’t just write in a political, guarded way to them, watching every word.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:570 4:16'>Phi 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>Or did I commit a sin-&nbsp;</em>This kind of sarcasm is hardly in line with Paul's claim to now be appealing to them in the spirit of the Lord's gentleness and meekness (<em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>). His bitterness reveals that his previous positivity about them in chapter 7 was uttered on the cusp of emotion, hoping against hope because of the love he had for them.</p><p><em>In abasing myself so you might be exalted, because I preached to you the gospel of God for nothing?</em>- Paul told Corinth that he had abased himself so that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;might be exalted. This is one of Paul's many allusions to the Gospels; this time to <em><a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>, which teach that he who abases himself will&nbsp;<em>himself</em>&nbsp;be exalted. But Paul was abasing himself so that Corinth could be exalted, so that they could share the exaltation he would receive on account of his humility. In all this, of course, he reflected to his brethren the very essence of the attitude of the Lord Jesus for toward us. It was through refusing funding for his work from the Corinthians that he&nbsp;<em>abased</em>&nbsp;himself that they might be&nbsp;<em>exalted</em>- all language of the crucifixion (cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:8-9'>Phi 2:8-9</a></em>). Thus his refusing of legitimate help to make his way easier was an enactment in himself of the cross. We live in a world which has made the fulfilment of personal aims of paramount importance. It has affected the fabric of every society, and become embedded in every mind. To&nbsp;<em>live to serve</em>, to put oneself down that others may rise… this is strange indeed. John the Baptist had this spirit, for he rejoiced that he decreased whilst the Lord’s cause increased. Paul likewise abased himself that others might be exalted, after the pattern of the cross. God’s gentleness, His humility / bowing down (Heb:) has made us great, lifted us up (<em><a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a></em>). And we respond to it by humbling&nbsp;<em>our</em>selves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:8'>2Co 11:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you</em>- Accepting support from other churches was hardly robbing them, and the idea of robbing holy places / churches was particularly viewed as the language of sacrilege (<em><a href='B:520 2:22'>Rom 2:22</a></em>). Paul uses this particularly arresting term to grab attention, but it is also true to say that he was exaggerating his case, as so often in his very emotionally charged relationship with the Corinthians. His refusal to take money from the Corinthians is presented as a self-abasement; but his decision must be tempered against the fact that he did in fact take support from others, just not Corinth.</p><p><em>Took wages</em>- See on <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The ministry that I received</em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:540 11:8-15'>2Co 11:8-15</a></em>, when properly translated, perhaps reflects Paul at his angriest and most abrasive: “I robbed other churches an exaggeration, getting money from them to be a minister to you:::as the truth of Christ is in me- I swear that this reason to be proud will not be stopped as long as I work in the area of Achaia You ask me why do I do this? Do you think it’s because I don’t love you? God knows I do It’s because what I do- and I am going to go on doing it- shuts up some people who are trying to pretend they are as good as we are, those fakes Such apostles are treacherous workmen. They deck themselves out as apostles of Christ and it’s no wonder people are fooled… but they’ll get what’s coming to them”. Even through the barrier of words, time, culture and distance, the abrasion of Paul in full-flow comes down through the centuries. This was hardly the promised approach in the meekness and gentleness of Christ (<em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>), which all goes to show that 2 Corinthians is written as a flow of consciousness letter- which explains many of the apparent contradictions and tensions within it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:9'>2Co 11:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>.</p><h4><em>And when I was present with you and was in want-&nbsp;</em>His time of "want" in Corinth was part of being "abased" whilst there amongst them (:7). The same word is translated "destitute" in <em><a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a></em>. If he had asked for support or accepted it from the local Corinthians, the implication is that this abasement and want would have been avoided. Perhaps he was indeed destitute, until the Macedonians got assistance to him. "In want" is the Greek word translated "inferior" in :5. Paul was not at all lacking behind the so called "apostles"; but he had been lacking in material things. And that was his qualification as a true apostle. The fact Paul clearly at times had money, and came from a wealthy background, makes all the more impressive his being destitute and "abased" for the Gospel.</h4><p><em>I was not a burden on anyone. For the brothers, when they came from Macedonia, supplied all my needs; indeed in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so will I remain</em>- Paul had the same policy in Thessalonica where he also resisted being burdensome (<em><a href='B:590 2:6'>1Th 2:6</a></em> s:w:). <em><a href='B:510 18:3'>Act 18:3</a></em> says that Paul worked in Corinth as a tentmaker when he first arrived there. The fact his needs had to be supplied by the Macedonians would indicate that he was unable to continue being self-supporting in this way, presumably because of an economic blockade against him organized by the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:10'>2Co 11:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me boasting about this throughout the regions of Achaia</em>- Paul's boasting about his independence from the Corinthians seems rather strange and somewhat human rather than spiritual. Seeing that he had been supported by wages paid by the Macedonians (:8,9), his financial independence from the Corinthians was not a great thing to boast about.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:11'>2Co 11:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And why? Because I do not love you? God knows, I do</em>- "God knows", along with his appeal to the truth of Christ within him (:10), all suggests that Paul's claims here would be received cynically by the Corinthians, and so Paul feels the need to swear in some way to his truthfulness. But he might have perhaps taken more comfort from his own observation earlier, that his authenticity as an elder having authority over them was in fact known by them within their own consciences (see on <em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>). Yet in this section (chapters 10-13) Paul often seems to stray from his own principles as he is overly caught up with his personal investment in the situation at Corinth. He should have left it at that, but instead, he makes all kinds of oaths "God knows" and human self-justification. We too can clearly understand and espouse a principle yet allow the humanity of a situation to allow us to indulge in personal self-justification when we have claimed to understand that this is not the way to go.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:12'>2Co 11:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But what I do, that I will continue to do, so I may not provide an opportunity to those that desire such an opportunity, and so that their boasting will be shown to be not the same as ours</em>- Clearly there were some at Corinth seeking opportunity to bring Paul down. He was up against consciously organized opposition, which he understandably sums up as "the satan" / adversary. Paul's boasting is made, he claims, so that he can as it were out boast the opposition. He has made up his mind to go down the path of human boasting, and says he will continue to do so, because he will deprive his critics of any opportunity to boast. But as observed many times in this letter, we are here reading flow of consciousness writing. Paul is writing down his thoughts as they come into his mind, and all emotions are at first blush contradictory. For it is obvious that my justifying himself, he will not by any amount of autobiographical truth somehow shut down his opponents by outboasting them. Nor will be rid them of opportunity to attack him. And such a path of action is in contradiction to his correct principle of not comparing ourselves amongst ourselves as men (<em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>There is indeed allusion to the deceit of the serpent in Eden, who was of course adversarial 'satan' = adversary, but this is not to say that Paul read the serpent as anything more than a literal "beast of the field" as indeed the serpent is presented in Genesis. As the serpent deceived Eve by his subtilty, so these false apostles worked deceitfully. These false apostles accused Paul of having the characteristics of the serpent- crafty and taking people in with guile (<em><a href='B:540 12:16'>2Co 12:16</a></em>). It is these very words and allusion to the serpent which Paul now uses about the false apostles here and in :3 and this explains the usage of serpent imagery. It all seems a rather tit for tat situation- he was trying to outboast them, and calls them the names they call him. This is all in contradiction of Paul's earlier arguments that he will not commend himself as others do nor compare himself with others. But he is carried away in a desire by all means and by every kind of argument to try to win the Corinthians to Christ and to himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>&nbsp;:&nbsp;</em>It needs to be recognized that Paul’s writings very often allude to extant Jewish and Gentile literature, sometimes quoting verbatim from them, in order to correct popular ideas. Thus Paul quotes Aratus (<em><a href='B:510 17:28'>Act 17:28</a></em>), Menander (<em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>) and Epimenides (<em><a href='B:630 1:12'>Tit 1:12</a></em>) – he uses odd phrases out of these uninspired writings by way of illustration. I’ve shown in&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>&nbsp;that much of the Biblical literature does this kind of thing, e:g. the entire Pentateuch is alluding to the various myths and legends of creation and origins, showing what the truth is. The fact Paul’s 21st century readers are largely ignorant of that literature, coupled with Paul’s rabbinic writing style not using specific quotation rubric or quotation marks, means that this point is often missed. It’s rather like our reading of any historical literature – parts of it remain hard to understand because we simply don’t appreciate the historical and immediate context in which it was written. When Paul speaks of Satan being transformed as a bright Angel, he’s actually quoting from the first century AD&nbsp;<em>Life of Adam and Eve</em>&nbsp;(12–16) which speculated that ‘Satan’ refused to worship the image of God in Adam and therefore he came to earth as a bright Angel and deceived Eve: “Satan was wroth and transformed himself into the brightness of angels, and went away to the river” (For references, see Susan Garrett,&nbsp;<em>The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 45:&nbsp;<em>The</em>&nbsp;<em>Life of Adam and Eve</em>&nbsp;was apparently widely quoted and alluded to in the first century – see throughout M. Stone,<em>&nbsp;A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve</em>&nbsp;(Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1992)). Paul’s quoting from that document; although in a preceding verse (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>) he has stressed that “the&nbsp;<em>serpent</em>&nbsp;beguiled Eve by his subtilty”. He’s reaffirming the Genesis account, which doesn’t speak of a personal Satan, but rather simply of a serpent, created as one of the “beasts of the field”. So we could paraphrase Paul here: ‘I know that the Jewish writings say that the serpent wasn’t really a serpent, it was ‘Satan’, and was actually in the form of a bright Angel. Now that’s not the case – let’s stick with Genesis, which speaks of a literal serpent. But OK, in the same way as in the Jewish myth Satan became a bright, persuasive Angel, well, these false teachers from the Jews appear as wonderful, spiritual people – but following them will lead you to the same catastrophe as fell upon Eve as a result of being deceived’.</p><p>The way Paul uses the word&nbsp;<em>metaschematizo</em>&nbsp;“transform” three times is interesting – “the stress is so heavy here because Paul is turning their own word against his opponents” (Neil Forsyth,&nbsp;<em>Satan and the Combat Myth</em>&nbsp;(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989) p. 269). If this is the case, then we would yet another example of which there are so many in Corinthians of Paul using a term used by his enemies in order to answer them – which would mean that he is not necessarily agreeing with it. Indeed the apocryphal Jewish&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Moses</em>&nbsp;claims that because Satan appeared as such a dazzling, shining Angel, Eve was inevitably deceived by him. Paul here would thus be alluding to this idea – not that his allusion means that he supported the idea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:15'>2Co 11:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It is no great thing therefore if his servants also fashion themselves as servants of righteousness</em>- Servants or ministers of righteousness is a Jewish term, allusive to the priests. The Jewish satan or opposition to Paul's work had servants / ministers who appeared to be righteous people:&nbsp;Judaism presented the faithful as "the righteous" and the servants of righteousness were those who ministered to Judaist congregations. But they were in fact servants of what Paul terms 'the satan', his term as previously referenced for the Jewish opposition. And his later self-justification in this chapter implies that they presented themselves as true Jews of the seed of Abraham:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Whose end shall be according to their work-&nbsp;</em>The lazy servant was punished out of his own mouth (<em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em>); and even in Job's time, this principle of Divine condemnation was known (<em><a href='B:220 9:20'>Job 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 15:6'>Job 15:6</a></em>). The Judaizers too were to have an "end that will correspond to their deeds" (<em><a href='B:540 11:14-15'>2Co 11:14-15</a></em> RSV). Jewish theories of the time accept that God punished the Satan figure, but the demons got around the punishment and tempt men to sin– as if God somehow was outwitted in the supposed struggle. But here Paul says that these men will indeed be punished and will not get out of it. The&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Adam</em>&nbsp;likewise minimizes human sin by claiming that ‘Satan’ in fact raped Eve, thus leading to the fall; the&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Moses</em>&nbsp;claims that because Satan appeared as such a dazzling, shining Angel, Eve was inevitably deceived by him. Paul here alludes to this idea– not that his allusion means that he supported the idea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:16'>2Co 11:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I say again, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, accept me as a fool so that I may also boast a little</em>- The accusation was that Paul was "foolish", lacking the wisdom which the false teachers claimed to have. Paul is breaking his own principles now, acting as a fool, comparing himself with others, boasting in the flesh rather than the Spirit, and not as earlier leaving the Corinthians to realize his sincerity in their own spirit / conscience. He is driven by a desire as he puts it elsewhere to "speak in human terms" to by all means persuade them to remain with him and not go after the false teachers. Again we note that he (like the Lord Jesus) faces false statements and beliefs by going along with them and reasoning from their wrong perspective. If they thought him a fool, he will reason with them from the starting point that he is a fool- rather than protesting multiple times that he is being slandered and is no fool.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:17'>2Co 11:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>What I will now speak in this confidence of boasting, I speak not after the Lord but as in foolishness</em>- "After the Lord" is a reference to his opening statement in this section that he is now going to reason with them according to the gentle humility of Christ (<em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>). He is not saying that this record of his words is not Divinely inspired. This is yet further evidence that 2 Corinthians is an inspired record of a flow of consciousness, whereby Paul wrote down what he thought and felt at the time. This explains the apparent tensions- in this case, between approaching them "after the Lord" Jesus, and yet now departing from His meekness and gentleness in order by all means to persuade them on the terms of comparison which they had set up.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:18'>2Co 11:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Seeing that many boast after the flesh, I will boast also</em>- He is seeking to outboast his boastful competitors, despite having earlier stated that he dare not ever compare himself with others, for that was "not wise" (<em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>). As noted on :16 and :17, this was a departure from his own principles:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:19'>2Co 11:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For being wise, you bear with the foolish gladly</em>- This kind of sarcasm is not really much of an argument, and seems more reflective of Paul's anger, the anger of love unrequited, than any serious attempt to persuade the Corinthians. He is calling the competitors "foolish", and clearly thinks the Corinthians are not really "wise" because they are following such fools. But in terms of winning their hearts and minds for Christ and himself, such language and quips were surely hardly effective, indeed quite the opposite.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:20'>2Co 11:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it seems you follow a man if he brings you into bondage, if he devours you, if he takes you captive, if he exalts himself, if he hits you on the face</em>- The "bondage" and "captivity" was to the Mosaic law, and Paul often uses this imagery in writing of the Law in Romans and Galatians. The 'devouring' probably referred to the financial demands made upon them by the false teachers. Why would immoral Gentile Christians be at all attracted by such Judaists? As noted on Titus, such false teachers were attractive to the weak Gentile Christians because their conscience about their misbehaviour was salved, on the basis of paying some money and doing a few symbolic acts of obedience. Many religions have swept to mass popularity on the same basis. These false teachers exalted themselves over their flock and were aggressive to them ("hits you on the face"). And still they returned for more. One wonders why aggressive priests in popular churches have any loyalty from their flocks when they behave likewise. But they do- because they are all about guilt tripping a spiritually weak flock and then demanding money and symbolic obedience. Smiting on the face was a punishment for heresy or blasphemy within the synagogue system (<em><a href='B:470 5:39'>Mat 5:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:2'>Act 23:2</a></em>), although it was often administered gently and more as a symbolic gesture. They who were so immoral, replete with church prostitutes according to 1Corinthians, were willing to be beaten for their supposed apostasy from Jewish ritual law. And doubtless after receiving it, they felt clean in their conscience and were willing to support and pay those who had punished them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:21'>2Co 11:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To my shame, I can say, we were too weak to do that-&nbsp;</em>Such leadership as discussed on :20 was seen as "strong". Paul sarcastically says that he was too weak to have treated his flock like that.</p><p><em>Yet wherein any is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am bold&nbsp;</em>also- What follows is some sort of encomium, a list of a person's biographical achievements. But it is presented as a sarcasm about Paul’s encomium see on <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>. Here in <em><a href='B:540 11:21'>2Co 11:21</a></em> to <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>, all the classic elements of the encomium are to be found- his origin and birth, training, accomplishments, comparison with others etc. But he has written that those who compare themselves with others (<em>synkrinontes</em>) are fools (<em><a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a></em>), and that he himself has been speaking as a fool, a raving madman. That was what he thought of an encomium after the flesh. This is all a needful lesson for our generation, surrounded as we are by pressure to trust in education, achievements, being humanly cool and impressive. Paul goes on to say that actually, he prefers as a Christian to "boast of things that show my weakness" (<em><a href='B:540 11:30'>2Co 11:30</a></em>). Instead of speaking of glorious "deeds of the body", he speaks of his labours, imprisonments, beatings etc. And thus he draws out the paradox, incredible for the first century mind- his real strength and power is in his weakness, for it was this that made him trust in God and in the grace of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>). Instead of impressing those around him, Paul sought to impress the Father and Son above. His strength was not, as society then thought, in what he had inherited and developed from the communities into which he was born- it was rather in the grace of God transforming his character. His patron, his teacher and elder, was the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead (<em><a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em>), rather than any visible 'elder' of his natural communities.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:22'>2Co 11:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I</em>- Clearly the false teachers were Jews, confirming that the 'Satan' referred to in :14 is some kind of personification of the entire Jewish resistance to Paul's work. Paul could have argued on a more spiritual level, as he does in Romans and Galatians, that ethnic descent is irrelevant. But here he takes a more human approach, arguing with them on the same terms of reference which they use.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:23'>2Co 11:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as like a madman) I more, with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death</em>- We note that only a fraction of Paul's sufferings are recorded in Acts, which is a reminder that Biblical history is highly condensed. We see a fraction of the biography of the people we encounter in the pages of the Bible. Many of the imprisonments and beatings would have been at the hand of the synagogue system, which had the authority to discipline their members with temporary arrests and beatings. As we will also note on :24, Paul could have avoided these by making a clean break with Judaism, leaving the ministry to the Jew to Peter as the Lord intended, and going solely to the Gentiles. But he chose not to follow completely the Lord's intention for his ministry- and suffered for it. I have given multiple examples in commentary on Acts. This doesn't mean the Lord didn't work with him; but as in our own lives, going His way is easier than insisting upon our own ways. Some of the beatings may have been from the Romans; but in this case, we wonder why they beat him, seeing that they did not beat Roman citizens like Paul (<em><a href='B:510 22:25-26'>Act 22:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:27'>Act 23:27</a></em>). Perhaps he had been unable to prove his citizenship in some cases; or perhaps he preferred to identify as a Jew and downplayed his Roman citizenship, suffering for it, because he so wished to identify with Israel in order to bring Israel to the Lord Jesus. In Philippi he seems to have kept quiet about his citizenship until after he had been scourged. But again, so much of this could have been avoided if Paul had followed the path of ministry envisaged by the Lord, to go to the Gentiles and leave the Jews to Peter.</p><p>Paul was ever aware of his own proneness to failure. He saw himself as tempted to be like the man in the parable who thought he should have more, because he had laboured more abundantly than the others (<em><a href='B:470 20:12'>Mat 20:12</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:540 11:23'>2Co 11:23</a></em>).</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 11:24'>2Co 11:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Of the Jews five times I received thirty nines lashes-&nbsp;</em>When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp;But such punishments from the synagogue system could have been avoided if Paul had not gone to the Jews and left them to Peter; see on :23. Forty lashes were thought enough to kill a man, and the thirty nine lash punishment was only to be given to a man once in his lifetime, according to synagogue law. The repeated experience of such major beating would have left Paul's back a real mess. In <em><a href='B:510 22:25'>Act 22:25</a></em> we get the impression Paul was willing to be scourged yet again, but at the last minute played the card of his Roman citizenship to avoid it. Perhaps this was because the previous lashings had left him so deformed and infected that he realized that if he were to be lashed again he would probably die.</h4><p>The pattern of preaching which we see in the Father and in the Lord Jesus must be our model. He identified with us in order to 'get through' to us; the power of His personality and work rests in the fact that He was genuinely human. God Himself chose this method, of manifestation in a Son of our nature, in order to redeem us. We can do likewise, in identifying with our audience; living as they do when in a mission field; learning their language, both literally and metaphorically; patient bearing with those suffering from depression, Aspergers, alcoholism, various neuroses::. to win them. Thus to the Gentiles Paul became as a Gentile; and as a Jew in order that he might win them who were under the law (<em><a href='B:530 9:20'>1Co 9:20</a></em>). This is exemplified by the fact that he underwent synagogue floggings (<em><a href='B:540 11:24'>2Co 11:24</a></em>)- which were only administered to Jews who willingly submitted to the punishment because they were orthodox Jews. This was the extent to which Paul became as a Jew in the hope of winning the Jews. Fly by preachers, seeking to establish a colony of their home base, will never achieve much lasting success. Paul would pay any price in order to identify with his audience, in order to win them to Christ. He was living out the spirit of Jesus, who likewise identified Himself with us to the maximum extent in order to save us. “Forty lashes minus one” was a synagogue punishment, based on <em><a href='B:50 25:2-3'>Deu 25:2-3</a></em>, which could only be administered to members of the synagogue community- and apparently, the members had the right under local Roman law to resign from the synagogue and escape the punishment. It would’ve been far easier for Paul to disown Judaism and insist he was not a member of any synagogue. But he didn’t. Why? Surely because this was the extent to which he was willing to be all things to all men, to truly be a Jew in order to save the Jews. And we too can choose daily the extent to which we identify ourselves with those whom we seek to save. It’s not simply the case of a Western missionary suffering privations along with the impoverished local population to whom he or she seeks to preach. It’s about us each getting involved in the mess of others’ lives, at great personal cost, in order to show true solidarity with them, on which basis we can more effectively witness to them. This is surely the way in which we are to ‘love the world’; this inhuman world, this enormous collection of desperate, lonely people, into whose mundane experiences we can enter simply through genuine, caring, person-to-person encounter. And by doing this we will find ourselves. For it seems to me that the truly creative and original personalities, the Lord Jesus being the supremest, are those who give of themselves in order to enter into the lives and sufferings of others. And that, by the way, may explain why there are so few truly freethinking minds. Paul didn’t just love the Jewish people in theory, he didn’t draw a distinction between the Jews as persons, and their role or status before God. He loved them as persons, and so he suffered for them in order to save them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Three times I was beaten with rods, once was I stoned, three times I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been adrift at sea-&nbsp;</em>Only one beating with rods is recorded (<em><a href='B:510 16:22'>Act 16:22</a></em> s:w:), but Acts records only a fraction of Paul's sufferings. Beating with rods was forbidden to Roman citizens by the&nbsp;<em>Lex Porcia</em>, but Paul kept quiet about his Roman citizenship in order to receive it (<em><a href='B:510 16:37'>Act 16:37</a></em>). He so wished to identify as a Jew in order to save the Jews; all he had to do was utter the words&nbsp;<em>Civis Romanus sum&nbsp;</em>and he could have avoided these beatings with rods, which often caused the death of the victim. We must ask to what extent we are willing to suffer in order to achieve identity with those we seek to save by our witness. The shipwrecks were prior to that on the journey to Rome; the Acts record of Paul's travels says nothing of them and we wonder how many other dramas were not recorded.</p><p>Paul endured one of the most traumatic lives ever lived- beaten with rods, shipwrecked, sleepless, cold, naked, betrayed, robbed, beaten, and so much of this isn’t recorded (e:g. the three shipwrecks and two of the beatings with rods he speaks of in 2 Corinthians 11 aren’t mentioned in Acts). And yet he implies that even more than all that, he felt the pressure of care for his brethren in the churches. His heart so bled for them… Paul lived a traumatic life, lived with weakness, fear, trembling, tears, distress, dying daily, burdened beyond measure, despairing of life, having the sentence of death, sleeplessness… and all this would have had quite some effect upon him nervously. Almost certainly it would have lead him to be depressive, and this may explain some of these flashes of anger. Yet these flecks of pride and anger reflect something of Paul's former self. He is described as fuming out hatred against the Christians like an animal; he was driven by hate and anger. Stephen's death sentence was against Pharisaic principles; and it was a studied rejection of the more gentle, tolerant attitude taught by Gamaliel, Paul's early mentor ("though I distribute all my belonging to feed the poor::." is Paul virtually quoting Gamaliel- he clearly was aware of his stance). People like Paul who come from strict, authoritarian backgrounds can have a tendency to anger, and yet in Paul there seems also to have operated an inferiority complex, a longing for power, and a repressed inner guilt. Although Paul changed from an angry man to one dominated by love, to the extent that he could write hymns of love such as 1 Corinthians 13, there were times when under provocation the old bitterness and anger flashed back. We too have these moments, and yet in the fact that Paul too experienced them even in spiritual maturity, we have some measure of comfort. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:26'>2Co 11:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>On frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, in danger from robbers, in danger from my own people, in danger from Gentiles, in danger in the city, in danger in the wilderness, in danger at sea, in danger from false brothers</em>- Travel in the first century was a risky business; flash floods "rivers" in Asia Minor claimed many lives. And Paul additionally had to cope with the opposition of both Jews and Gentiles. To obey the great commission to take the Gospel out into the world was therefore a call to face danger and hardship. In spiritual terms, that same calling has not been made any less radical for we who face so many distractions and issues which would likewise discourage us from obeying it.</p><p>The "false brothers" were surely those of <em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>, the Jews bent on derailing Paul's missionary work by entering the churches he founded under the guise of being converts. Paul is here hinting that he knows exactly who the false teachers of Corinth are; or as he puts it in <em><a href='B:540 2:11'>2Co 2:11</a></em>, he was not ignorant of the devices of the Jewish satan. Paul mentions this problem last in this list because he wanted to highlight how aware he was of it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In toil and hardship</em>- Literally, weariness and pain. Perhaps Paul's traumatic life resulted in some form of M:E. or similar disease, causing pain and sucking his energy, resulting in insomnia.</p><p><em>In many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, in frequent fastings, in cold and nakedness-&nbsp;</em>Paul loved Israel with the love of Christ: he describes his hunger, thirst, nakedness, insomnia and loss of all things in the very language used about Israel's condemnation (<em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em> alludes <em><a href='B:50 28:48'>Deu 28:48</a></em>). In other words, he saw himself as somehow bearing their punishment for apostasy in his own life, as if he was some kind of suffering representative for them. His sufferings were the very opposite of what the Judaists believed should accompany an accredited spiritual teacher, for they practiced a form of the prosperity Gospel, having a proverb that "a goodly house, a fair wife, and a soft couch” were the prerogatives of the “disciples of the wise”. Paul is in a way confirming their secular view that he was 'unwise'. But as he has stated in 1 Corinthians 1, there is a total inversion of secular wisdom and blessing for those who are of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:28'>2Co 11:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Besides those things that are without, there is the daily pressure of my anxiety for all the churches</em>- Paul identified his biggest pressure as "the care of all the churches" which he said 'came upon (Gk. to throng / mob / rush at) (him) daily' (<em><a href='B:540 11:28'>2Co 11:28</a></em>)- as if he woke up each morning and had these anxieties thronging his mind:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:29'>2Co 11:29</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>Who is weak, without me being weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?</em>- The word he uses for “weak" is one which features frequently in his writings, and it nearly always refers to the spiritually weak (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1-2'>Rom 14:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:11-12'>1Co 8:11-12</a></em>). He was so sensitive to his brethren that when he considered their spiritual weakness, he felt the same. He identified with them, he could put his arm around someone who was all slipping way and say “I’m with you" and so evidently mean it. He had a genuine and obvious sense of solidarity with them. He wasn’t critical of them to the extent that he made a barrier between him and them. They knew his disapproval of their ways, but yet it was so evident that his heart bled for them. And when Paul saw a brother being offended, he burnt. His heart burnt and bled as he saw someone drifting away with a chip on their shoulder. He didn’t just shrug and think 'Well that’s up to them, their choice'. He cared for them. That brother, that sister, and their future meant so much to him. If Paul had lived in the 21st century, he would have telephoned them, written to them, visited them, met with them regularly. To be weak and to be offended are bracketed in <em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em>: "Your brother is offended, or is made weak". And here in <em><a href='B:540 11:29'>2Co 11:29</a></em> we have the same idea: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?". The parallels imply that if the weak brother was offended, Paul himself was as it were offended, even though he himself didn’t stumble. He could identify with the spiritual weakness of others to the point of feeling that he himself had committed it or was in the shoes of the sinner- even though he himself was innocent. Paul could share with the Corinthians that he ‘burnt’ every time a brother stumbled from the way, feeling weak with the weak. The 'burning' could be a reference to the figurative usage of fire as the end destruction of the condemned at the last day. Paul felt their condemnation as if it were happening to him. He did not shrug and turn away but rather felt their spiritual situation as being his, such was his identity with them. He was no mere platform speaker, or a church member only theoretically connected with their brethren by common ascent to a statement of faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:30'>2Co 11:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If it is necessary for me to boast, I will boast of the things that concern my weakness</em>- The supreme qualification was in his weakness. We noted on :21 that Paul has been presenting a kind of inverted form of the biographical list of achievements which was commonly known as an 'encomium'. And now he sums up his humiliations with an incident which for him epitomized the humiliation which characterized his entire ministry. His glorying in his infirmities in <em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em> is similar.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:31'>2Co 11:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed for always, knows that I do not lie to you</em>- The Corinthians considered Paul to be a liar, hence his frequent protestations that he is speaking the truth before God. Judaism spoke of God as the ever blessed One, but Paul here makes it clear that this title is true through His being the Father of the Lord Jesus, through whom His blessings are now articulated to men.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:32'>2Co 11:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In Damascus, the governor, under Aretas the king, guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to capture me</em>- Paul has his historical facts correct, for Aretas was an Arabian king from Petra who briefly ruled over Damascus. If the Bible is a forgery or uninspired, there would be major blunders in historical fact; but there are not. The Jews clearly had influence with him, far more than the Acts record indicates, and had his whole garrison (AV- an appropriate term, seeing Aretas of Petra had only recently taken control in Damascus) trying to catch Paul. There was therefore a mobilization of a large number of soldiers in order to stop Paul escaping Damascus. Hence the impression it left upon Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 11:33'>2Co 11:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And only through a window I was let down in a basket by the wall and escaped his hands</em>- Paul sees this escape through a window in a basket as so humiliating because it associates him with David's escape from Saul's persecution. And Paul- the former Saul- saw himself as having persecuted David-Jesus and was ashamed of it. Paul seems to take a certain pleasure in this inversion of values. He boasts of how his greatest moment was when he was let&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;a wall in a basket, in fear for his life (<em><a href='B:540 11:30-33'>2Co 11:30-33</a></em>). "In antiquity a Roman soldier who was first up a wall and into a conquered city would win a special award called a wall crown. Paul says he will boast of being first&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;the wall"- running from the enemy (Ben Witherington,&nbsp;<em>The Paul Quest</em>&nbsp;p. 124). He was the very reverse of the classical ancient warrior. This inversion of values is just as hard and counter-cultural to live by in our world. It's quite possible that garbage was lowered over the wall into a rubbish tip at the foot of the wall, which would have added to the humiliation. Outside the city, with wild dogs howling amongst the stinking garbage::. this was the Biblical picture of condemnation. And Paul experienced it and through that humiliation was saved. In essence, we pass through the same experience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:1'>2Co 12:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I must go on boasting (though there is nothing to be gained by it). I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord</em>- I have earlier explained the various tensions and apparent contradictions within 2 Corinthians by proposing that Paul is writing down his feelings and emotions as a flow of consciousness, albeit recorded under inspiration. This explains the volatile change of feelings and approach, one moment passionately 'in love' with them, the next bitterly angry and resentful against them. He has explained that indeed boasting or attempting to outboast his competitors is not the way to go. Here in <em><a href='B:540 12:1'>2Co 12:1</a></em> he again recognizes that, but feels compelled to go on boasting. In chapter 11, Paul has as it were concluded his list of sufferings by citing what to him was the supremest humiliation- being lowered in a basket from the walls of Damascus into the rubbish tip beneath. But now he seems to revert to boasting about his qualifications in terms which might impress his competitors and their supporters. This reversion to a previous theme which he had supposedly concluded is evidence enough that indeed, we are dealing with a flow of consciousness record. "Visions and revelations" were the very things which the false teachers claimed to have.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:2'>2Co 12:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I knew a man in Christ, fourteen years ago-</em>&nbsp;Paul makes one of his most significant boasts mindful that he should not be boasting really. This may explain his reference to himself only in indirect terms, in an attempt not to boast overmuch about such a holy thing. He does this elsewhere (see on <em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em>). "I knew a man" would be better "I know a man" (RV); the person in view was still alive. The vision which he received may well have included something about Jew and Gentile unity; for 14 years previously on some chronologies would take us to the time of the Jerusalem Council. Or the reference could be to the trance in the temple (<em><a href='B:510 22:17'>Act 22:17</a></em>) in which he was told to go to the Gentiles.</p><p><em>Whether in the body, I do not know, or whether out of the body, I do not know; God knows-&nbsp;</em>Paul stresses this twice. Perhaps his idea was that the mode of the vision was unimportant; it was the message which was all important. The mode of revelation was important to the Jewish mysticists; whilst Paul is indeed trying to outboast them 'foolishly', he is also saying that the mode is insignificant. Whether a man went to Heaven in a bodily form to get a revelation is irrelevant compared to the message.</p><p><em>Such a person was caught up to the third heaven</em>- The picture of being "caught up" is presented right after that of Paul being let down the wall of Damascus as refuse, into the rubbish tip at the foot of the walls; an incident he presents as his greatest humiliation. But it was that bringing down which was the basis for his being lifted up so high, following the pattern of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>The idea of seven heavens currently held in Judaism and Islam is not Biblical. There were at Paul's time only three understandings of heaven: the literal air, the sky, and Heaven itself where God dwells. Paul may simply mean 'Heaven' but he uses this Jewish terminology because his opponents in view were Judaists. Another popular suggestion is that the first heaven refers to the Mosaic law; the second heaven to the Christian dispensation, and the "third heaven" to the Kingdom age. But this is problematic because one would expect 'heavens and earth' to be the phrase used for a dispensation of things. And before the Mosaic law there was also some form of Divine dispensation upon earth, which this schema ignores. So I read Paul as simply referring to 'Heaven', which he parallels with "paradise" (:4). Paradise was understood in Jewish terms as Heaven; although one could argue that it refers to the Kingdom of God on earth when the paradise of Eden is restored. We would note in that case that Paul has recently presented the Corinthian church as Eve in paradise, now tempted by the serpent of the Judaizers (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). If paradise was where the Corinthians were now situated, in prospect at least, perhaps Paul means that he saw a heavenly vision of how things really are for the church from the Heavenly viewpoint. It would be this vision which motivated Paul to keep on keeping on so tenaciously with the Corinthians, and would explain his obsessive insistence upon the success of the Jerusalem Poor Fund. This heavenly vision of how God saw the Gentile believers would have likewise inspired Paul to continually view them as being&nbsp;justified in Christ and acceptable to God. It would explain his extraordinary motivation for the Corinthians, and why he mentions this vision at this point. He doesn't utter in words what he saw- because his ministry for them was a public statement of his striving to achieve that ideal.</p><h4><br/>We are real life men and women, only too aware that although yes, we are in Christ, we are also all too human still. We still sin the sins and think the thoughts and feel the feelings of those around us. We are only who we are, born in such a town, living in such a city, doing a job, trying to provide for a family. In our minds eye we see the spotless lamb of God, moving around Galilee 2000 years ago, doing good, healing the sick. But He was there, and we are here now, today, in all our weakness and worldly distraction. He was as He was, but&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are as we are. Reading through his letters, it is apparent that Paul saw himself as two people: a natural man, a Jew from Tarsus, a Roman citizen living in the Mediterranean world::. and also, a man in Christ. This is why he here says of himself: “I knew a man in Christ”, who had great visions 14 years previously (at the council of Jerusalem of Acts 15), and who was subsequently given a “thorn in the flesh”. “Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory”, he writes (<em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em>), as if separating himself from this more spiritually exalted man who saw these visions. Paul is surely telling us that he sees himself as two people. He makes the point clearly: “I will not be a fool::. I am become a fool” (:6,11). He was the greatest apostle; although he was nothing (:11). This language comes to a crisis in <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>: “When I i:e. the natural Paul am weak, then am I the spiritual Paul strong”.</h4><p>The Corinthians were mainly Gentiles, but Paul speaks of them as “When you were Gentiles…” (<em><a href='B:530 12:2'>1Co 12:2</a></em> RV). They had a new racial identity in Christ, and yet, he also reminded them at times that they were Gentiles. We too cannot obliterate who we are or where we came from. But superimposed upon this must be the realisation than now, we are in Christ.</p><p>Paul is in many ways a working model of how we should be aware of the two people within us. In writing to Corinth, he was highly sensitive to the danger of sinning by justifying himself as he needed to. To overcome this problem, he speaks (through the Spirit) as if he is two quite different people; the fleshly man, and the spiritual man. 2 Corinthians 11 is full of statements concerning himself, which he makes "as a fool”. His frequent usage of this word "fool" points us back to the Proverbs, where a "fool" is the man of the flesh. <em><a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a></em> says that a fool has a 'left handed' mind, which in Jewish thinking was a reference to the "man of the flesh" of the N:T. There are a number of apparent contradictions between passages in 2 Corinthians 11, 12 which are explicable once it is appreciated that Paul is speaking firstly "in the flesh", and then concerning his spiritual man. Thus he insists that he is not a fool (<em><a href='B:540 11:16'>2Co 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:6'>2Co 12:6</a></em>), whilst saying that he is a fool (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>). He says he will not boast about himself, but then he does just that. He claims to be among the greatest apostles, and in the same breath says he is nothing (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>). His boasting was "not after the Lord", i:e. the man Christ Jesus within Him was not speaking, but the fool, the man of the flesh, was speaking (<em><a href='B:540 11:17'>2Co 11:17</a></em>). The supreme example of this separation of flesh and spirit in Paul's thinking is shown by <em><a href='B:540 12:2'>2Co 12:2</a></em>: "I knew a man in Christ (who heard great revelations)::. of such an one will I glory, but of myself will I not glory". But <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> clearly defines this "man" as Paul: "lest I should be exalted::. through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh". The "man in Christ" of whom Paul spoke was his own spiritual man, who was "in Christ". It is interesting that here Paul defines "myself" as his natural man, whereas in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em> he speaks of "myself" as his spiritual man. The point is made that at different times we identify ourselves either with the man of the flesh, or with the spiritual man within us. In 2 Corinthians 11, 12, Paul consciously chose to identify himself with the natural man, in order to boast to the Corinthians. It is worth noting that “fourteen years ago" takes us back to the Council at Jerusalem. The revelations given to Paul then were probably confirmation that the Gospel should indeed be preached to the Gentiles. This was the "third Heaven" dispensation. The wonder that Paul would be used to spread the Gospel world-wide so mentally exalted Paul that he needed a thorn in the flesh to bring Him down to earth. Yet, for the most part, we seem to shrug our shoulders at the wonder of our preaching commission.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:3'>2Co 12:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I knew such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I do not know; God knows)</em>- See on :2&nbsp;<em>Whether in the body, I do not know, or whether out of the body, I do not know; God knows</em>. The word for word repetition is the way Jews emphasized the totality of their truthfulness. Paul is emphasizing the wonder of the things heard; the form in which they were heard was utterly unimportant compared to the content of the message. And that principle remains true to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:4'>2Co 12:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>How he was caught up into Paradise-&nbsp;</em>See on :2&nbsp;<em>Such a person was caught up to the third heaven</em>. Paul appears to equate paradise with "the third heaven", but it's also feasible that he is describing two stages of exaltation; one to the third heaven, i:e. Heaven, and then further into "paradise".</p><p><em>And heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter</em>- Alluding to how Moses saw the greatest visions of God of any man in the Old Testament; visions which he could not repeat; he only repeated the words of command which he was given. He did not tell Israel what he saw in Exodus 34. It could be that Paul is saying that what is heard in Paradise cannot be spoken on earth; or at least, cannot be articulated 'lawfully', in the terms of the Mosaic law. In this case, such visions are not really any confirmation of having Divine authority in one’s message. Therefore the claims of the Jewish false teachers, and those of Paul, were equal on one level- but were unimportant, because their message was not going to be comprised of what they may or may not have heard in Paradise. Because what is heard there is "unspeakable".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>On behalf of such a one will I boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, save in my weaknesses-&nbsp;</em>This is as stated in <em><a href='B:540 11:30'>2Co 11:30</a></em>. Paul is inverting all human wisdom and worldviews here by saying that greatness and qualification is in weakness and not human strength. Earlier Paul has reminded them that he first preached the Gospel to them in "weakness" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em> s:w:). He seems to have in view physical frailty of health, which would encourage the view that the thorn in the flesh which we will now read of was some physical weakness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:6'>2Co 12:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if I wanted to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be speaking the truth. But I will not boast, lest anyone should account me above that which he saw me to be, or hears from me-&nbsp;</em>This awkward statement would appear to be Paul's way of explaining why he has just written about himself in the third person, and apparently distancing himself from the Paul who really did have things to truthfully boast about. Paul has now twice stated in two verses "I will not boast", whilst he is evidently doing just that. His argument that 'This isn't really me:::' has limited value. I would say that this letter is the record of a flow of consciousness, and Paul is baring his heart to them. The very genuine love he has for them and passion for their salvation and the unity of Christ's body has led him to get worked up into a frenzy of trying to persuade them by all means:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I should not be exalted overmuch</em>- The usage of words with the&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;prefix is common in this section. The self proclaimed&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;or super apostles could not be equalled by Paul because a true servant of Christ will be held back from being&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;exalted. Paul repeats this phrase twice in this verse to emphasize the point.</p><p><em>A thorn in the flesh</em>- An impediment of some sort. Whatever or whoever the opposition, there could be no thorn in the Spirit; any retardation of Paul's work was only on a human level. The thorn was Satan's "messenger", and I suggest below that this refers to an individual coordinating the Jewish campaign against Paul's missionary endeavours. But there are other quite feasible suggestions about the thorn in the flesh; and these are not to be excluded. It's quite possible that the repeated beatings Paul suffered from the Satan the Jews resulted in various health issues such as poor eyesight which meant that indeed, the human "thorn" resulted in 'thorns' in Paul's physical health.</p><p>Here, then, are some other alternatives concerning the thorn:<br/>Poor Eyesight<br/><em><a href='B:550 4:10-13'>Gal 4:10-13</a></em> speaks of an 'infirmity in the flesh' which would have led many to despise Paul's preaching; and yet the Galatians overlooked this when they first heard Paul's preaching. Speaking of the same period of time, Paul reminisces how they would have been willing to pluck out their own eyes and give them to him (<em><a href='B:550 4:15'>Gal 4:15</a></em>). This would seem to make a fairly firm connection between the "thorn in the flesh" of <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> and the "infirmity in the flesh" of poor eyesight. Thus he concludes the Galatian letter with a&nbsp;reference to the large letter he had written with his own hand (<em><a href='B:550 6:11'>Gal 6:11</a></em>); not " large" in the sense of long, but perhaps referring to his physically large and unimpressive handwriting. Paul "earnestly beholding the council" employs a Greek medical term for squinting as a result of poor eyesight (<em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/><br/>Malaria<br/>The description of Paul being with the Corinthians in "weakness and::. trembling" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>) uses a specific medical term describing the malaria shakes. "Weakness" is the same word as here in <em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em>, where the thorn in the flesh is a "weakness" given which actually qualifies Paul as an apostle. This would explain why he was "in peril of waters" (Gk. 'rivers'; <em><a href='B:540 11:26'>2Co 11:26</a></em>)- the breeding grounds of mosquitoes. Poor eyesight could be associated with malaria; although it us difficult to understand the malaria just beginning in mid-life as suddenly as the 'thorn in the flesh' passage seems to suggest. Paul may well have had malaria, as any such traveller was likely to- quite in addition to any physical 'thorn in the flesh':&nbsp;</p><p>A Spiritual Struggle<br/>However, there are reasons to think that whilst Paul may have had a physical ailment, the "thorn in the flesh" may have referred to a spiritual affliction. One would expect to read about a thorn in the&nbsp;<em>body</em>&nbsp;if Paul was only speaking of a physical weakness. But in Paul's thinking, "the flesh" so evidently refers to the more abstract things of human nature. The context of the "thorn in the flesh" passage would suggest that it was a spiritual weakness. Paul says that he will not boast of himself, "except in my infirmities" (<em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em>). One of his "infirmities" was therefore his "thorn in the flesh". He is saying that he will not boast of his physical sufferings (which might include his weak eyesight) and achievements, rather he will exult in the fact that he, a man riddled with spiritual infirmity, especially one particular thorn in the flesh, had been used by God, and God's grace was sufficient to overcome all his spiritual weakness. Now this would fit in with the quintessence of Paul's belief: that by grace alone, not human achievement, God works through human weakness to bring about His purpose. Paul isn't adding to his list of physical glorying by saying 'And you know, on top of all this, I've had to struggle all my life with physical weakness'. This would only be continuing his boasting of 2 Corinthians 11. But now he changes, and says that he wants to glory in his spiritual weakness, and how God has worked with him despite that:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul asked for the thorn to be taken away; but the answer was that God's&nbsp;<em>grace</em>&nbsp;was sufficient. Grace tends to be associated with forgiveness and justification, rather than with the ability to keep on living with a physical ailment. Likewise Moses, Paul's hero and prototype, asked a similar three times for entry to the land, and was basically given the same answer: that God's gracious forgiveness was sufficient for him. &nbsp;</p><p>Women?<br/>When Paul talks about being buffeted by a thorn in the flesh, he is in fact almost quoting passages from the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 33:55'>Num 33:55</a></em> and <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>, where "thorns" which would buffet the&nbsp;<em>eyes</em>&nbsp;of Israel&nbsp;were the Canaanite tribes (cp. <em><a href='B:330 28:24'>Eze 28:24</a></em>); and especially, in the context, their women. If they intermarried, those women and what they brought with them would be made by God as thorns in Israel's flesh. The implication could be that Paul had not driven out his Canaanites earlier, and therefore God gave them to Him as a thorn in the flesh, just as He had done to Israel earlier. There is fair reason to think that Paul had been married; he could not have been a member of the Sanhedrin and thus had the power to vote for the murder of the early martyrs unless he had been married and had children (<em><a href='B:510 26:10'>Act 26:10</a></em>). His comment that he wished all men to be in his marital position (<em><a href='B:530 7:8'>1Co 7:8</a></em>) has another slant in this case: he wished them to have had the marriage experience, but be in the single state. As a leading Pharisee, his wife would have been from an appropriate background. " :::for whom I have suffered the loss of all things" would then have been written with a sideways glance back at his wife, children he never saw::. all that might have been. In gripping autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a child) he lived without the knowledge of law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of commandments registered with him; and this "wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (<em><a href='B:520 7:8'>Rom 7:8</a></em>). "Concupiscence" is a conveniently archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of Paul, the Greek&nbsp;<em>epithumia</em>&nbsp;is invariably used in a sexual context:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>As an ardent Pharisee, with all the charisma of the unashamed extremist and evidently rising leader, it is almost certain that the inevitable interplay of sexuality and spirituality, of flesh and spirit, would have played itself out. And after conversion, the inevitable attraction of the committed missionary would have been evident; not least in the charismatic preaching of a new and ultimately true religion which was largely comprised of young / middle aged females (according to contemporary historians). No wonder Paul's slanderers made him out to be immoral; it was the easiest slur to cast. At Thessalonica he was even accused of preaching solely in order to get the praise and financial support of women (so <em><a href='B:590 2:3-12'>1Th 2:3-12</a></em> implies). And as a man, with the commandments of God producing in him all manner of concupiscence, he would not have lightly shrugged off all these temptations. If this " thorn in the flesh" became particularly strong at a certain time, this could be seen as reference to the beginning of some illicit relationship:&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>And yet it cannot be overlooked that as outlined above, there does seem to be an evident link between the thorn in the flesh and literal blindness (<em><a href='B:550 4:10-13'>Gal 4:10-13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>). The explanation may be that because of Paul's wandering eyes and mind, his sight was severely impaired. He likens his ailment to a man plucking out his eyes with his own hands (<em><a href='B:550 4:15'>Gal 4:15</a></em>), using language unmistakably recalling the Lord's command to pluck out, with ones' own hands, the eyes that offend, that we might enter the Kingdom. The command of <em><a href='B:470 5:28-29'>Mat 5:28-29</a></em> is in the very context of lustful thinking and looking. In His desire to save us, God has His way. Paul saw that his weakness for women would have cost him the Kingdom, and that therefore the Lord had plucked out his eyes. He had been given a thorn in his flesh spiritually; and so the Lord had given him a thorn in the flesh physically, that he might conquer that spiritual weakness. The other reference to plucking out the offending eye is in <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>, in a context regarding the paramount need not to offend the little ones. Could it be that Paul's limitation was to protect some of his converts from stumbling? And so with us, the offending eye or limb must be plucked out or cut off; and if we will not do it, the Lord will: either now, by grace, or in the final destruction of condemnation. We either fall on the stone of the Lord and are broken now, or that stone will fall upon us, and grind us to powder. We either chose the baptism of fire now, or we will be consumed anyway by the fire of judgment. The logic of devotion, self-control and self-sacrifice is powerfully appealing:&nbsp;</p><p>God&nbsp;<em>gave</em>&nbsp;Paul his thorn in the flesh. Whilst God tempts no man- for temptation is a process internal to human nature- He may still have a hand in controlling the situations which lead to temptation. Hence the Lord bid us pray that the Father lead us not into temptation. Each of us has his own specific human weaknesses. When the apostle wrote of shedding&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;sin which doth so easily beset us (<em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em>), he may have been suggesting that we each have our own specific weakness to overcome. This is certainly a comfort to us in our spiritual struggles. We aren't alone in them. They were given to us. We aren't alone with our nature. The purpose and plan of God for us is articulated even through the darkest nooks of our very essential being. Understanding this should make us the more patient with our brethren, whose evident areas of weakness are not ours.</p><p><em>A messenger of Satan</em>- The Satan in view is the Jewish opposition to Paul's missionary work. An envoy / messenger / representative of that Satan had been allowed by God to operate in order to stop Paul being over exalted. And yet the work of this "thorn" was a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. It is quite possible that the Lord's work suffers because He has to work in such a way so as not to allow our pride to arise to such a point that we are turned out of the way to salvation. If we had developed to the point that we were not so prone to pride or other weaknesses, His work would prosper the more. There is the implication that one particular “messenger” of the Jewish Satan organized the persecution of Paul – Alexander (<em><a href='B:620 4:14-15'>2Ti 4:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:20'>1Ti 1:20</a></em>). The link between the messenger of Satan in <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> and those of <em><a href='B:540 11:13-15'>2Co 11:13-15</a></em> indicates that this person was a member of the ecclesia also. A primary application of the "man of sin" passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 may well be to this individual being in the temple (i:e. the church – <em><a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a></em>) of God, “whose coming is after the working of (the Jewish) Satan” (<em><a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a></em>). This person could apparently do miracles – as could the Jewish Christians in the early church (<em><a href='B:650 6:4-6'>Heb 6:4-6</a></em>). This man of sin is “the son of perdition” (<em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>), a phrase used to describe Judas (<em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>). This suggests an allusion back to Judas, and indicates that the man of sin might also be a Jew, who was within the ecclesia, as Judas was, but who betrayed Christ because he wanted the aims of Judaism to be fulfilled rather than those of Christ. The “day of Christ” referred to in <em><a href='B:600 2:2-3'>2Th 2:2-3</a></em>, before which time the man of sin must be developed, was primarily the destruction of Jerusalem in A:D. 70 – which again indicates a primary Jewish fulfilment of the “man of sin”. Notice that organized Jewish opposition to Paul’s preaching was very intense at Thessalonica – <em><a href='B:510 17:5-13'>Act 17:5-13</a></em>. The Lord Jesus could have returned in AD70 and therefore passages like 2 Thessalonians 2 had a possible fulfilment in the first century. His coming was delayed because the various preconditions were not met- so that such prophecies will be fulfilled in spirit but perhaps not to the letter in our last days.</p><h4>The work of this messenger of Satan resulted in Paul developing the spiritual characteristic of humility. The Satan stopped Paul from being proud. Pride is produced by the Devil – <em><a href='B:610 3:6-7'>1Ti 3:6-7</a></em>. So we have the situation where Satan stops the work of Satan. Again, this does not make sense under the traditional interpretation of Satan. <em><a href='B:480 7:20-23'>Mar 7:20-23</a></em> says that pride is a result of our evil heart. Thus the trial brought on Paul by a person acting as a Satan to him stopped his evil desires – another use of the word “Satan” – from leading him into the sin of pride. “Satan” can be used to describe a man (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>) and the Greek word for messenger / angel can also apply to men (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 11:10'>Mat 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:24'>Luk 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a></em>). “Satan” may also refer to the adversarial Jewish system, and thus the messenger of Satan is most likely a man acting on behalf of the Jews.</h4><p>Everywhere in Paul’s writings, as well as in Revelation, ‘Satan’ always has the definite article – apart from here. Likewise, this is the only time Paul uses the form&nbsp;<em>Satan</em>&nbsp;rather than his usual&nbsp;<em>satanas</em>. One reason for that could be that Paul is alluding to or quoting from known Jewish literature or ideas which mentioned a “messenger of Satan”. Another possibility is that he refers here to an Angel–Satan – for the Greek word translated “messenger” is also that for Angel. In this case, he saw himself as Job, suffering affliction from an Angel–adversary, in order to bring about his spiritual perfection. I have noted the similarities between Job and Paul elsewhere (See my<em>&nbsp;Bible Lives</em>&nbsp;Section 3-3-8).</p><p><em>To harass me, that I should not be exalted too much</em>- Paul uses the same word in <em><a href='B:530 4:11'>1Co 4:11</a></em> concerning how Paul right then was being harassed. The reference was to Jewish instigated opposition to his mission. “The messenger of Satan” is probably the same as the ministers of Satan referred to in <em><a href='B:540 11:13-15'>2Co 11:13-15</a></em>, which we have interpreted as the Judaizers in the early church who were discrediting Paul and seeking to undermine Christianity. The buffeting done by this “messenger of Satan” is defined in v. 10: “Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions::." (i:e. in my thorn in the flesh which God will not take away). Note the parallel between the thorn and those things it caused. The reproaches refer to the Jewish ministers of Satan saying things like, “his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (<em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>), as previously explained. The necessities and persecutions quite clearly refer to the constant waves of persecutions he received by the Jews which the book of Acts describe. This would fit the language of “buffeting” – implying physical discomfort that he experienced periodically. The infirmities would refer to the ill health which his persecutions by the Jews no doubt resulted in – being beaten until he appeared dead (<em><a href='B:510 14:19'>Act 14:19</a></em>) must have done permanent damage, as would receiving “forty stripes save one” five times and thrice being “beaten with rods” because of the Jews (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em>). Thus the passage probably refers to an organized program of persecution of Paul by the Jews which began after the vision of <em><a href='B:540 12:1-4'>2Co 12:1-4</a></em>, from which time he dates his experience of the thorn in the flesh. It was from this time that Paul’s zealous preaching to the Gentiles no doubt stimulated the Jews to more violent opposition to him. Their complaint against him was often that he was adulterating the Jewish religion by allowing Gentiles the chance of salvation by what he preached.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>.</p><p><em>Concerning this thing-&nbsp;</em>The Greek could as well be translated 'this person', reinforcing the possibility that one particular envoy from the Jewish satan is in view. This singular "thing" is paralleled with the string of afflictions listed in :10 which were all brought upon Paul due to the Jewish opposition to his ministry: "weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses::.". They were all orchestrated not simply by the "satan", the Jewish system, but by a specific envoy of it. It would not be going too far to think that the man of sin envisaged in 2 Thessalonians 2 refers to this same individual. He was envisaged as taking power in the temple and being destroyed at the Lord's return. I would say that this was one of the possible scenarios which could have been fulfilled if there had been enough spiritual fruit to have enabled the Lord's return in AD70. There was not and therefore His return has been delayed until our last days, and the "man of sin" will have a slightly different fulfilment.</p><p><em>I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me</em>- The Greek word for “thorn” can mean a “stake” – as was used for crucifying. This was to buffet Paul, as Christ was buffeted at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>). Like Christ in His last hours, Paul prayed for the buffeting of Satan to be removed (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 22:42'>Luk 22:42</a></em>). Paul “besought the Lord thrice” for this and so did Jesus in the Garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>). Also like Christ, Paul’s prayer for release was not granted, ultimately for his spiritual good. Thus it is implied that because of Paul’s sufferings at the hands of the Jewish Satan throughout his life, his whole life was “crucified with Christ” in that he experienced constantly the sufferings Christ had in His last few hours. This is exactly what we see in <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:9'>2Co 12:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to me-</em>&nbsp;We are left to speculate as to whether this was the answer Paul perceived in the lack of answer to his prayer, or whether the Lord actually spoke this to Paul in a vision. We can interpret God's silence as His word to us.<br/><em><br/>My grace is sufficient for you. For my power is made perfect in weakness-&nbsp;</em>This is an allusion to the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>, where Jacob has been made weak with his thigh dislocated, in order to learn that God's grace is sufficient for him, and he needs literally nothing else. Paul would be saying that he has been taught (and learned) the same lesson as Jacob. Strength being perfected through human weakness is the whole lesson of the cross (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>). It could be that the example of the Lord was the answer Paul received- perhaps there was no vision or statement from the Lord to Paul, but he deduced the Lord's word to him from the cross of his Lord. "My power" is interpreted in the next sentence as "the power of Christ". This would confirm such a line of interpretation. By sharing in the weakness of Christ, in His sufferings, then God's resurrection power shall be manifested in us. Paul has used the same word for "weakness" in saying earlier that human weakness shall finally be changed by experiencing a resurrection after the pattern of Christ's (<em><a href='B:530 15:43'>1Co 15:43</a></em>).</p><p><em>Therefore most gladly will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me</em>- As suggested above, connection with the weakness / suffering of Christ means that His power shall be manifest in us (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em> "For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him; but we shall live with him through the power of God toward you"):&nbsp;</p><p>Paul earnestly asked three times for his "thorn in the flesh" to be removed (:9). The wonder is that he only asked three times. He knew it was for his spiritual good, and he believed this. Moses asked at least twice (maybe three times?) for him to be allowed to enter the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; Psalms 90); but the answer was basically the same as to Paul: "My grace is sufficient for thee". The fact Moses had been forgiven and was at one with his God was so great that his physical entering the land was irrelevant. And for Paul likewise, temporal blessings in this life are nothing compared to the grace of forgiveness which we have received (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then am I strong</em>- It is in our very weakness, the weakness of the man made to realize the weight of his own mediocrity and failure to achieve, that&nbsp;<em>the power of God breaks forth</em>. Reading through his letters, it is apparent that Paul saw himself as two people: a natural man, a Jew from Tarsus, a Roman citizen living in the Mediterranean world::. and also, a man in Christ. He speaks of how “I bruise myself”, as if the one Paul was boxing against the other Paul (<em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em> RVmg:). This is why in this autobiographical passage in 2 Corinthians 12, he says of himself: “I knew a man in Christ”, who had great visions 14 years previously (at the council of Jerusalem of Acts 15), and who was subsequently given a “thorn in the flesh”. “Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory”, he writes (<em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em>), as if separating himself from this more spiritually exalted man who saw these visions. Paul is surely telling us that he sees himself as two people. He makes the point clearly: “I will not be a fool::. I am become a fool” (:6,11). He was the greatest apostle; although he was nothing (:11). This language comes to a crisis in <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>: “When I i:e. the natural Paul am weak, then am I the spiritual Paul strong”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 11:5'>2Co 11:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>I have become foolish. You compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you. For in nothing was I behind the super apostles, though I am nothing-&nbsp;</em>Paul has written that it is inappropriate to commend ourselves or get involved in comparisons amongst ourselves. But carried away in a desperate desire to prove himself to them in their terms, which was surely rooted in love for them, he has done just that. But he now blames them for his lack of self control. And yet even in 1Corinthians, Paul clearly had a tendency to boast: "For it is better for me to die, than that anyone should make my boasting void" (<em><a href='B:530 9:15'>1Co 9:15</a></em>). Perhaps he would have been better to just admit his weakness here rather than blaming it on others. And we can take a lesson from that in many other aspects of life apart from a tendency to boast.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:12'>2Co 12:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly the signs of an apostle were done among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works-&nbsp;</em>Paul rightly considers his patience with the Corinthians as a sign even greater than all the miracles he had worked amongst them. We recall that the Acts record doesn't mention all these miracles performed by Paul in his 18 months in Corinth- reflective of the inspired record's lack of emphasis upon the miraculous element. The message was and is all important. All these miracles were done, but the Corinthians now doubted Paul's credentials as a Divinely approved apostle. Likewise Israel saw miracles daily in the wilderness through the provision of manna and water- but like the Corinthians, they did not believe. And so the role of miracles in eliciting real faith is demonstrated to be minimal. Not only does Pentecostalism need to consider this fact; but we too need not wish that God would miraculously intervene in human life in order to strengthen our faith. In the long run, even in the medium term, that is not what is achieved by the miraculous. The message, the Spirit within the heart, real relationship with the living, risen Lord Jesus- this is of the essence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:13'>2Co 12:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For in what way were you made inferior to the other churches, except that I was not a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong</em>- Paul's sarcasm here will hardly win him the desired result- the return of the Corinthians both to him and to the truth of the Lord Jesus. We have here an example of his emotionally charged state shining through in the letter, especially when we recall how he began this section by writing that he would now appeal to them in the meek and gentle spirit of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>). The "burden" in view appears to be financial- he had not asked them for material support, although he had been in need of it, and this was now misinterpreted as meaning that he had treated them as inferior to the other churches, especially those in Macedonia, who had supported him whilst he had lived in Corinth. Whichever way Paul turned, no matter how he argued, the Corinthians were falling out of love with him. And his desperation shows. The whole record here is a worked example of how relationships amongst baptized believers can go sour, and even if one party is innocent, the psychological processes will continue until there is a permanent rift.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:14'>2Co 12:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Behold, this is the third time I have been ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you-&nbsp;</em>The "burden" appears to be of asking for money, according to the second part of the verse. We could even read this statement as Paul saying 'Forget about all I wrote previously about your giving to the Jerusalem Poor Fund. I don't seek even that now'. This retreat from a previously held and strongly argued position is typical of the lover who is losing the beloved being willing to make any compromise. The "third time" doesn't have to mean that he was planning his third visit to them; rather does he mean that twice before he has planned a visit, but changed his plan because he realized that if he came, they would not be spiritually ready for him, and the Spirit would lead him to judge them. And now a third time he was contemplating making a visit to them, aware of the same possible negative outcome.</p><p><em>For I do not seek your things, but you. For the children ought not to save up for the parents, but the parents for the children-&nbsp;</em>Paul was seeking 'them', their salvation, their relationship with him. He had earlier advised them to "save up" for his coming by putting aside something each week, so that they could present it to him as an offering for his Jerusalem Poor Fund (<em><a href='B:530 16:2'>1Co 16:2</a></em>). But he appears to now be saying that they needn't do even that. They could forget all he had written about the Fund. He wanted by all means to preserve his relationship with them as his children. He even takes some false guilt over the matter by saying that it wasn't right of a father to ask his children to save up for him- it ought to be the other way around. Yet such passionate love comes just a verse after the bitter sarcasm of :13. Indeed this is a flow of consciousness being written and recorded under inspiration, giving us a unique insight into Paul's thought and feelings, and enabling us to thereby fully enter into the tragic falling out of love which happened between Paul and Corinth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 15:24'>Luk 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more abundantly, am I loved the less by you because of this?</em>- Paul's spending and being spent was for "you" (:14), "your souls", i:e. yourselves. He refers to their salvation; not because he believed in an immortal soul, but in the sense that he understand that salvation is personal. They themselves, as persons or selves / souls, could be saved and he was prepared to sacrifice all for this end. He did so inspired by the Lord, who for our sakes became a pauper in his death on the cross (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>). Confronted with spiritual weakness we can so easily just turn away, considering it 'their problem'. But Paul physically and&nbsp;mentally expended himself for them, motivated by the Lord's love on the cross. He sets us a huge challenge. And the more abundantly he poured out his love, the less they loved him. This is really the classic, tragic final stage of the falling out of love process, all recorded in great detail for our learning. They were guilty, in the bigger picture; but the situation was made the more painful for everyone by Paul's way of seeing them as he wished them to be, rather than more realistically facing up to the fact that his hopes and expectations of them were not going to be realized:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul had enough self-knowledge to say that his love for Corinth was growing more and more (although this was expressed in an ever-increasing concern for their doctrinal soundness); he told the Thessalonians likewise that his love for them was increasing and abounding (<em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:12'>1Th 3:12</a></em>). And Paul could therefore exhort the Philippians and Thessalonians to also increase and abound in their love for each other, after Paul's example (<em><a href='B:570 1:9'>Phi 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:12'>1Th 3:12</a></em>). Paul's love for his brethren grew and grew,&nbsp;<em>even though they didn't notice this.</em> The 'you don't know just how much I love you' syndrome is surely one of the cruellest in human experience. A growth in true love, true concern, isn't always apparent to our brethren. But if our growth is after Paul's pattern then this will be our experience too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:16'>2Co 12:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But granting that I myself did not burden you, you say I was crafty, and got the better of you by deceit</em>- Throughout Corinthians Paul is quoting phrases from their allegations and questions, but it is not always exactly apparent. Perhaps using quotation marks we could translate: "Nevertheless, "being crafty", I "caught you with guile"". The New Testament so often seems to mix interpretation with Old Testament quotation; here especially we need to imagine the use of quotation marks. Given these feelings about Paul by "you", the church at Corinth (for there is no hint that only a small subgroup is being addressed), we conclude that his earlier joy at their love for him, and his confidence in them in all things (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>) was written on the cusp of emotion, making them be in his own mind what he hoped they could be. The imagery of craft and deceit recall the serpent in Eden; this would explain why Paul has earlier claimed that it is the Jewish false teachers who were like this, and not him (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). Paul's lack of demand for material support from them was being read by them now as an example of craft- because he wanted to only get money out of them in the longer term. When relationships deteriorate to this extent, every act or word past or present, no matter how sincere and loving, is going to be misinterpreted. Perhaps this whole miserable account is recorded for us as comfort- that when these things happen to us in our relationships, it's not a sign of failure on our part. For Paul went through the same:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:17'>2Co 12:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But did I really take advantage of you by any one of them whom I have sent to you?-&nbsp;</em>The fact Paul had not asked them to materially support him was being twisted by some conspiracy theory to mean that when Titus was sent to them, he was really working for Paul in order to get cash out of them for Paul personally. Yet in chapter 7, Paul has claimed that Titus was much encouraged by their attitude, and he himself was 'over the moon' with confidence in them because of the good news brought by Titus. But the visit of Titus was clearly interpreted as Paul craftily taking advantage of them; and we conclude again that his statements about the Titus visit in chapter 7 were his own wild over interpretation of a few ambiguous words. If Paul was capable of that, even with Spirit guidance, we are too.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 12:18'>2Co 12:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I urged Titus to go and I sent the brother with him. Did Titus take any advantage of you? Did we not act in the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps?</em>- The accusation was apparently that Titus was Paul's instrument and part of his crafty plan to extract money from them for his own benefit. Paul agrees that Titus had visited Corinth as a result of his 'urging', perhaps implying that Titus himself had doubted the wisdom of the visit. And Paul agrees that Titus shared Paul's spirit to the extent that effectively, his visit was Paul's visit. They 'took the same steps'. But he goes on to say that his spirit was solely to upbuild them (:19). Paul has elsewhere explained that he had changed his plans to personally visit them because he feared that the Spirit would lead him to severely judge the Corinthians if he visited them. But here he says that the visit of Titus was effectively Paul's visit, because they took "the same steps". Both Titus and Paul were motivated by the same Spirit and therefore their steps were identical. This same association of the Spirit with "steps" is found in <em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk in step with the Spirit". His refusal to personally visit Corinth was therefore surely playing some kind of game with God's Spirit, a form of brinkmanship. He and Titus were led by the same Spirit and therefore the visit of Titus was as it were the visit of Paul. They took the same steps as they were in step with the same Spirit- for "the same spirit::. steps" refers to the Spirit and steps of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:670 2:21'>1Pe 2:21</a></em> "That you should follow His steps"). But Paul did not go personally because he feared the Spirit would lead him to judge and condemn the Corinthians for their unspirituality. Perhaps Paul would have done better to follow the Spirit's lead and recognize Corinth for who they were, and judge them as the Spirit led him to- rather than wilfully misinterpret the reception of Titus by the Corinthians (see on 2 Corinthians 7) and hold on to his own obsessively positive view of them against all evidence.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:19'>2Co 12:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You think all this time that we are excusing ourselves to you. But in the sight of God we speak in Christ-&nbsp;</em>"All this time" is a significant phrase, in that it means that Paul's exuberant rejoicing at the Corinthians' loyalty and warm reception of Titus (2 Corinthians 7) was him believing these things in his own mind, having the love which turned hope and fantasy into reality in his own imaginations. As often demonstrated, this letter is a flow of consciousness piece of writing, recorded under inspiration, allowing us a unique insight into the feelings of Paul- a man who so loved the weakest of his converts and lived out in psychological reality the truths expressed in his great love poem of 1 Corinthians 13. All along, "all this time", they had been sceptical, and Paul knew it; but he had the love that hoped and believed all things.</p><p><em>All things, beloved, are for your upbuilding-&nbsp;</em>Paul had earlier written exactly this to the Corinthians, when urging that "all things be done unto upbuilding" (<em><a href='B:530 14:26'>1Co 14:26</a></em>). The recurring theme of 1Corinthians was that the upbuilding of others should be paramount in the Christian life; and it was "upbuilding" which the way of the Spirit was all about. And Paul can say that it was this Spirit which motivated both Titus and himself (:18). It was God who was upbuilding the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em> s:w:), but He operates in this work through human agents- every willing member of the body of Christ. All and every effort to upbuild others will have His blessing and we will sense that we are His vehicle in the work. But as with the case at Corinth, this is not to say that those we work with will necessarily respond.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:20'>2Co 12:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I fear, lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not as I would wish, and should myself be found by you such as you would not wish. Lest by any means there should be quarrelling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder</em>- The issues Paul had raised in 1Corinthians had not really been dealt with; the extreme sexual immorality and use of church prostitutes had not been addressed. And yet he still places issue like gossip, belligerent attitudes and division as of primary concern, even before the sexual issues he will raise in :21. We noted on 1Corinthians that he had done the same there. The presence of these things would mean that he would act towards them in an unpleasant way- through the direct judgment of the Spirit. The sober warning to us all is that the wrong attitudes listed here, so commonly encountered in church life, warrant direct Divine judgment just as much as the sexual immorality of the next verse. The list of wrong behaviours listed here corresponds with the list of works of the flesh in <em><a href='B:550 5:20'>Gal 5:20</a></em>. We noted on :18 that Paul feels that he and Titus are walking according to the Spirit, not the flesh, and there is a connection made with <em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>. Paul is therefore continuing his great theme to the Corinthians- that their problems with the flesh all arose from a refusal to allow the Spirit to operate.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you-&nbsp;</em>Paul has in view that the Spirit may well lead him to severely judge them. But to be used in that way would be a very humbling experience for Paul. Any disciplining of others should likewise be a humbling for us, rather than any expression of pride or superiority (as in <em><a href='B:550 6:1'>Gal 6:1</a></em>). The idea of being humbled is exactly that used by Paul regarding the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em> s:w:). Paul had earlier been humbled in Corinth, when he was left destitute and yet never asked the Corinthians for material help (<em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>). For Paul to meet the Corinthians and have to judge them as unspiritual would be humbling for Paul, as he had boasted about their strengths to others and inflated them in his own mind. To have to judge them for not being like that would be humbling for Paul.</p><p><em>And I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality and sensuality that they have practiced</em>- Paul had earlier urged them to mourn over those they had to discipline for sexual immorality (<em><a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a></em>). All such discipline should be done in genuine mourning. The sexual issues raised with the Corinthians in 1Corinthians are not raised by Paul in2 Corinthians until this point. He has been giving them exaggerated praise for separating from the immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5, and trying to get them to donate to his Jerusalem Poor Fund. And he has written in very inflated terms about their devotion to him and the Lord in chapters 7-9. Through all that, he has not raised with them the obvious issue as to why they had not dealt with their issues of sexual immorality. Now he has apparently given up any hope of getting any donations out of them (see on :14) and is realizing the reality of things with them, he returns to these more obvious concerns. Paul knew they were impenitent of these sexual issues- and yet speaks so glowingly of them in chapter 7 and elsewhere. Yet again I have to make the point that he was so in love with them that he wrote on the cusp of emotion, and the inspired record has preserved his feelings and flow of consciousness- for our learning.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is the third time I am coming to you</em>- Paul connects this "third time" with the need for two or three witnesses. Is he trying to argue that the three witnesses against Corinth equate with his three visits to them? For each time the Spirit would have witnessed against them. Here we have an example of the liberal interpretation of Old Testament passages; for the requirement of two or three witnesses obviously refers to two or three separate witnesses, and not one person witnessing the same behaviour two or three times. Such out of context allusion is common in the Bible and in rabbinic interpretations. This doesn't justify us in treating the text likewise (seeing we are not inspired), but it should also serve as a foil to the claim that context and logical corollary are all important in Biblical interpretation.</p><p><em>At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established-&nbsp;</em>The quotation from <em><a href='B:50 19:15'>Deu 19:15</a></em> suggests that the consequences of the trial would be serious, perhaps involving death or being cut off from the Lord's people. Such severe punishments could be executed by the apostles in the first century; we think of Ananias and Sapphira. The same words are used as in <em><a href='B:470 18:16-17'>Mat 18:16-17</a></em> concerning dealing with personal offences; but they are applied by Paul to dealing with moral and doctrinal problems at Corinth (= <em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:4-5'>1Co 5:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:9'>1Co 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:1-6'>1Co 6:1-6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them-</em>&nbsp;The enumeration of the visits is because Paul is viewing his two or three visits as the two or three witnesses against Corinth (see on :1). This threat of judgment for unrepented of moral sin had therefore hung over the Corinthians ever since the time of 1Corinthians. This makes Paul's expression of confidence in them "in all things" in chapter 7 rather questionable. He appears to have written that on the cusp of emotion, obsessed with the possibility of their giving to the Jerusalem Poor Fund to the extent that he overlooked their unresolved gross moral failings. "I will not spare" calls for comparison with how Paul had earlier aborted a planned visit to Corinth in order to "spare" them judgment (<em><a href='B:540 1:23'>2Co 1:23</a></em>). There is no record however that Paul ever made the threatened visit. The silence of the record is intentional, as we are left to struggle with the issues of whether patience with apostasy is to be limitless, or whether we are at times to act; and with the obvious question as to how far we can take precedent from an apostle who had the Spirit gifts of discernment and judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:3'>2Co 13:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Seeing you seek proof that Christ speaks in me (who toward you is not weak but is powerful in you)-&nbsp;</em>Gk. "of the Christ that speaks in me". "Toward you" could as well be rendered 'among / within you'. His threatened judgment of them would be the final proof that indeed, he is of Christ. His words were those of Christ. And yet 2 Corinthians is a flow of consciousness letter, recording the emotions and gut reactions of Paul with all the contradictions and paradoxes which there are within human emotions. His final judgment of them, however, would be the word of Christ toward them. Again Paul returns to his favourite theme with the Corinthians- that Christ is indeed potentially within them through the gift of His Spirit / presence in their hearts (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>). They had not actualized it, they acted as if He was "weak" within them; but if only they would, they would perceive a perfect congruence between the Spirit in them and them and that within Paul. For Christ at least potentially is all and within all those baptized into Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him; but we shall live with him through the power of God toward you-</em>&nbsp;Paul's much mocked "weakness" in the flesh was on account of his identification with the crucified but glorified Christ. Because we are in Christ, His death was not an isolated historical event. We also are weak&nbsp;<em>with</em>&nbsp;Him, on account of having been baptized into Him (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em> RV), such is the identity between us and Him. When Paul reflected upon his own sickness which the RVmg. calls his stake / cross in the flesh, he could say in all sober truth that he gloried in his weakness, because his identity with the weakness of Christ crucified also thereby identified him with the strength and power of the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:540 11:9'>2Co 11:9</a></em>). The same spirit of Christ which is within us now is the basis upon which we shall be immortalized in a bodily form at the last day. <em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em> says this explicitly: "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you now, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall then, at the last day give life also to your mortal bodies- through His Spirit that dwells in you now". This is why if we do not have the Spirit of Christ transforming us now, we are none of His both now and eternally. That same "power of God" was as equally available to the Corinthians as it was to Paul; he would live eternally with Christ on account of God's power "toward within you". All accusation and answers to them would unnecessary if they would only perceive that the same Spirit worked within Paul as was within them. It was Judaism which did not know "the power of God" (<em><a href='B:470 22:29'>Mat 22:29</a></em>) and their influence led the Corinthians to likewise not recognize that power which was potentially within them by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:620 4:6'>2Ti 4:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless indeed you fail to meet the test</em>- The Greek grammar suggests an emphasis upon "yourselves". They were to test themselves, rather than putting Christ and Paul to the test. As explained on :4, if they were in touch with the Spirit of Christ within them, then they would perceive that it was the same Spirit within Paul. All examination of his legitimacy as a brother and apostle would therefore be unnecessary, because the answer would be found within them, in their own hearts and consciences where the Spirit ought to have been active (see on <em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>). This is why Paul urges them to realize that Christ was within them. And if they did not know that, then they had failed the test.</p><p>If we cannot examine ourselves and know that Christ is really in us, then we are reprobate; we "have failed" (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em> G:N:B:). Self-examination is therefore one of those barriers across our path in life which makes us turn to the Kingdom or to the flesh. If we can't examine ourselves and see that Christ is in us and that we have therefore that great salvation in Him; we've failed. I wouldn't be so bold as to throw down this challenge to any of us in exhortation. But Paul does. It's a powerful, even terrible, logic.</p><p>The NT speaks of "the faith in Christ" or "the doctrine of Christ". "The faith", the body of doctrine comprising the Gospel, is all epitomized in a real person. To know we are "in the faith" is to know that Christ is in us (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>). "The faith", the set of doctrines we must continue believing, is paralleled with the man Christ Jesus. Jesus was "the word made flesh", and "the word" very often refers to the word of the Gospel rather than the whole Bible. The life which the corpus of doctrine brings forth is essentially the life and living of the man Christ Jesus. He was and is the supreme and living example of the living out of all the doctrines. It has been well said by Frank Birch that&nbsp; “Faith is not simply the intellectual acceptance of a body of doctrine. Faith is ultimately shown in a person, the man, Christ Jesus".</p><p>There is a question which cuts right to the bone of each of us; right through the debates and semantics which increasingly shroud our Christian lives. 'Can we be completely certain that should Christ return now, we will be in the Kingdom?'. Posing this question provokes widely different response- from 'Of course not How presumptuous', to that of the present writer: 'By God's grace- yes'. We can't say ultimately because we may fall away in the future- but we should be able to assess the spiritual state we are in at this present point in time. If we cannot do this, then our salvation is very much at risk; as Paul bluntly told Corinth: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>). They sought proof that Christ was in Paul (<em><a href='B:540 13:3'>2Co 13:3</a></em>), yet he challenges them to know whether Christ is in them personally. The implication was that if they could not judge that, they were in no position to ask whether Christ was in Paul- or any other. This is vintage Paul; the logic is irresistible.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:6'>2Co 13:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>But I hope you shall know that we have not failed the test</em>- Paul's hope as ever is for their repentance, through recognizing the Spirit of Christ within them and walking according to the Spirit. If they did that, as explained on :4 and :5, they would perceive that the same Spirit was within Paul, and he too had not failed the test but was legitimate.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now we pray to God that you do no evil. Not so we may appear to have met the test, but so you may do what is right-&nbsp;</em>This prayer raises the question as to whether our prayers can influence the moral behaviour of others. And surely we can have such influence, otherwise such prayer would be unnecessary and pointless. In the final unenterable algorithm of salvation, there is a role played by the prayers and faith of third parties. when the Lord saw the faith of the friends, he forgave the sins of the paralyzed man (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). In His wisdom, God has set up the whole algorithm to include these factors. This is why we like Paul should continually be in prayer and concern for our erring brethren, and why we should invite their prayers for our salvation and forgiveness. This is one reason why we need fellowship with each other- real fellowship, sharing our real spiritual situations with each other, and not simply spending a few hours each week in the same hall going through well established rituals which salve our religious consciences.</p><p>David's requests in areas apart from forgiveness and salvation largely centred around his desire for God to grant spiritual help to others. There are many examples of praying for God to help others spiritually: <em><a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 30:18'>2Ch 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:9'>Phi 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:19'>Phi 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:9'>Col 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:10'>1Th 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:11'>2Th 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:16'>2Ti 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:16'>1Jn 5:16</a></em>. Surely this was also the spirit behind Abraham's intercession for Lot to be saved out of Sodom. Granted a certain modicum of spirituality in those being prayed for, Noah, Daniel and Job all delivered the souls of others by their prayerful righteousness (<em><a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a></em>). When we pray for others, God sees it as them praying (if they have a modicum of spirituality), in the same way as when the Lord Jesus prays for us, He interprets what He knows to be our spirit to God, recognizing that we don't know how to pray in words as we should (<em><a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a></em>). The Lord Jesus prayed for us concerning spiritual issues which at the time we did not understand (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>), and Paul especially seems to have grasped this example.</p><p><em>Though we may seem to have failed</em>- The idea may be as Vine suggests: "We pray God that you do no evil, not in order that your good conduct may attest the excellence of our teaching and example, so that we shall be approved; but in order that you may do what is good, thus rendering it impossible for us to prove our apostolic authority by administering discipline. In that case we shall be as men unapproved". We must find a true, self-condemning humility now, unless it will be forced upon us at the judgment. And thus Paul can say that “we be&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;reprobates” (<em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>), using a Greek word elsewhere translated “castaway”, “rejected”, in the context of being rejected at the judgment seat (<em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em>). Yet he says in the preceding verse that he is most definitely&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;reprobate (<em><a href='B:540 13:6'>2Co 13:6</a></em>). Here we have the paradox: knowing that we are not and by grace will not be rejected, and yet feeling and reasoning as if we are.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:540 13:8'>2Co 13:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we can do nothing against the truth but only for the truth-&nbsp;</em>If our motivation is for the salvation of others to God's glory, whatever choices we make in exercising that conscience cannot be ultimately against that final truth of eternal salvation. The Paul-Corinth had focused upon specifics- whether he was correct to ask them to support the Jerusalem Poor Fund, right or wrong in his attitude to taking material support from them, justified or not in considering himself their spiritual father etc. But these questions are merely cosmetic. The essence comes down to our motivation, and if that is pure, then we cannot be legitimately accused of doing anything "against the truth". The tension between<em>&nbsp;kata</em>&nbsp;"against" and&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;"for" is to be found in <em><a href='B:480 9:40'>Mar 9:40</a></em>, to which Paul surely alludes: "He that is not against us is for us". God likewise is "for" us and therefore nothing and nobody can be "against" us (<em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>); and that same positive spirit is found in His ultimate usage of all we seek to do towards the salvation of others to His glory.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:9'>2Co 13:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we rejoice, when we are weak and you are strong-&nbsp;</em>The 'weakness' could mean that if they were truly strong in the Lord, then Paul would be 'weak' to administer discipline:&nbsp;<em>We&nbsp;</em>are weak and&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>are strong connects to the paradox established in <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>, the only place where these words for "weak" and "strong" occur. Paul had learned that when&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;was weak, then&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>was strong. But now he speaks of how he wishes&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;weakness to be&nbsp;<em>their&nbsp;</em>strength. He wished the strength he experienced from his weakness to be shared with and experienced by them. The strength he gained through weakness was the strength of Christ; and he wished that same strength to be experienced by them. And he believed that his sufferings for them in his weakness could actually lead to their spiritual strengthening (see on :7). The same ideas are expressed in :4, where Paul says that the power of God which shall energize him is the same "power of God toward&nbsp;<em>you</em>".</p><p><em>This we also pray for, even your perfecting</em>- Their perfecting was perhaps the outcome Paul wished to arise out of his visit to them; for he uses the same word in <em><a href='B:590 3:10'>1Th 3:10</a></em> of how he longed to visit the Thessalonians and "perfect that which is lacking in your faith". He would far rather that be the outcome to his visit than judgment unto condemnation. Again we see that the efforts of a third party, in this case through visiting weaker believers, could result in their spiritual strengthening towards salvation (see on :7). God is able to "perfect" the faith and spirituality of His children (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>); and this surely is done by the work of the Spirit on the hearts of believers. This is why Paul concludes by wishing that this process of perfecting s:w. "mending" would be permitted by them in their hearts (:11); and connected with this wish is his final desire that the&nbsp;<em>koinonia</em>, the participation "fellowship" of the Holy Spirit would be experienced by them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this cause I write these things while absent, that I may not when present with you deal sharply with you, according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up, and not for casting down</em>- "Deal sharply" may be a technical term for a rebuke from the Holy Spirit; it is only elsewhere used in <em><a href='B:630 1:13'>Tit 1:13</a></em> "rebuke them sharply". If they did not change, then Paul's Spirit power would have to be used to 'cast them down'. But the Spirit was given for their building up more than their casting down. We are surely correct to read in this ellipsis. 'Not A but B' doesn't have to mean 'not at all B'; but rather 'More for B than for A':&nbsp;Paul was desperately hoping that they would change so that his visit would not result in judgment for them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:11'>2Co 13:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 11:18'>1Co 11:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>Finally, brothers, farewell. Be perfected-&nbsp;</em>Being perfected by the Lord's ongoing work with us is in view in <em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em> and <em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>. He is indeed active in human hearts by the Spirit. See on :9&nbsp;<em>Your perfecting</em>. There are times when Paul's inspired commentary opens up some of the Lord's more difficult sayings. "Be you therefore perfect" has always been hard to understand (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>). Paul's comment is: "Be perfected" (<em><a href='B:540 13:11'>2Co 13:11</a></em>). This is quite different to how many may take it- 'Let God perfect you' is the message.</p><p><em>Be comforted. Be of the same mind. Live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you</em>- The&nbsp;<em>parakleo</em>&nbsp;or comfort in view was that of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. This is Paul's final appeal for them to allow the Spirit given in their hearts at baptism to work and transform them (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>). The "same mind" appealed for is not asking them to have identical positions on everything. Rather it is an appeal to accept the mind of Christ, the Spirit. As demonstrated in notes :4 and :9, this was the real basis for unity between the Corinthians and Paul; and between them and the Lord Jesus. Allowing the work of the Spirit in their hearts would empower them to live in peace with each other, as they were seeking to emulate the same one mind that of the Spirit, of the Lord Jesus. And through this they would experience the presence of the God of love and peace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:12'>2Co 13:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 16:16'>Rom 16:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>Greet one another with a holy kiss</em>- According to the&nbsp;<em>Apostolic Constitutions</em>, the early church kissed each other at the breaking of bread meeting. This would have been the one time in the week that the church gathered together, as typically many would have been at work, as a fair proportion of the converts were apparently slaves. This was the time when the letters from Paul would be read.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>All the saints greet you</em>- Paul was writing from Macedonia, where he claimed the brethren would be disappointed if Corinth didn't come through on the promise to support the Jerusalem Poor Fund. All the same, they sent their greetings to these weaker brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:540 13:14'>2Co 13:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all</em>- Paul's parting statement is an appeal for them to allow the gift of the Spirit to be with them. "Grace" is&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, 'gift'. The gift of the Lord Jesus is the Comforter, the Spirit given to every baptized believer in Him- including the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>). Despite having received it, they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). There is a fellowship of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 13:14'>2Co 13:14</a></em>) in the sense that all who live the same spiritually-centred life will thereby be bound together in a powerful and inevitable fellowship. When, for example, two Christian mothers strike up conversation about the difficulty of raising children in this present evil world, when two brethren talk about the difficulties of living as Christ would in today’s business world… there is, right there, in those almost casual conversations, the fellowship of the spirit. It isn’t just a social connection because we belong to the same denomination.</p><p>Paul's farewell is no standard wish for their general wellbeing; it is a desire that they allow this gift to be with them. This is the fellowship or participation of the Holy Spirit in their lives which was and is the key to all spiritual progress. The "all" in "be with you all" is the last word, but is significant- for there were some without the knowledge of God, deeply in sin and now ignorant of the basic Gospel they had once espoused. But still Paul wished the activity of the Spirit in their hearts; he was not writing to some subgroup of more committed believers at Corinth. It was and is the only hope for transformation towards salvation.</p><p><em>No one forbidding him</em>- Paul uses the same word to speak of how the Jews forbad or hindered his preaching to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). His entire ministry had been characterized by Jewish opposition and hindrance to his work. This period was the only one where he could preach without any hindrance; and it was because he was at last doing what the Lord had intended for him from the start, witnessing to the Gentiles, rather than arguing with the Jews and giving free reign to his various psychological issues relating to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)</em>- Consider how in Galatians Paul uses so many negatives, as if his passion and almost rage at the false teachers is coming out: “An apostle&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;from men… the gospel preached by me is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;man’s gospel…&nbsp;<em>nor</em>&nbsp;was I taught it… I did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;confer with flesh and blood, I did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;go up to Jerusalem… I do&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;lie… Titus was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;compelled… to&nbsp;<em>false</em>&nbsp;brethren we did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;yield… those ‘of repute’ added&nbsp;<em>nothing</em>” (<em><a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:11-12'>Gal 1:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:16'>Gal 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:20'>Gal 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:3-4'>Gal 2:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em>). The way he says “Ye have known God, or rather, are known of God” (<em><a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a></em>) seems to indicate through the “or rather…” a very human and passionate touch in his writing, as if he was thinking out loud as he wrote. Throughout 2 Corinthians particularly his writing in places can be described as an inspired flow of consciousness.</p><p>Authority in spiritual ministry doesn't depend upon any human authorisation. Paul's authority is linked specifically to the fact God raised Jesus from the dead. That resurrection led to the great commission and the Lord's empowerment of all witness to Him as risen and exalted. But this empowerment is given not only to Paul. All demands for authorization of ministry, e:g. to perform baptisms or decide who to fellowship in the church, is therefore utterly missing the point. We are authorized by the Lord, and the great commission applies to us all. In any case, once we start arguing that only some are authorized to perform ministry, the question is raised as to&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;they are authorized. And the Bible is silent about that. All manner of secular power brokering philosophy comes into play, but Paul and anyone led by the Spirit of the risen Lord will have nothing to do with that.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:2'>Gal 1:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And all the brothers that are with me, to the churches of Galatia</em>- Those&nbsp;<em>sun</em>&nbsp;Paul may refer to brothers who supported Paul's position on the Law, which was going to be the burden of this letter. It was Paul who was the inspired author but he is making the point that there were other brethren who agreed with his position. The churches of Galatia could have referred to quite a few of the congregations Paul is recorded as founding in Acts; because he sees his responsibilities as being to his own converts and his letters are generally addressed to those he has converted. These groups were largely Gentiles. I have noted elsewhere, especially on Titus, Corinthians and 1 Timothy, that Gentile converts often brought with them immoral practices. Yet they became attracted to Judaism because their religious conscience could be more easily salved by obedience to a set of ritual requirements, and their more fundamental moral habits would then be left unquestioned. Legalism to this day remains incredibly attractive to those who subconsciously seek to justify themselves in immoral practices. This is why the Galatian letter begins with strong theological arguments against returning to the Law, and then moves on to tackle practical issues of immorality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ</em>- Although Paul is going to upbraid them, he sincerely wishes them, as no mere formality, the peace with God which comes from His grace, rather than legalistic obedience to Jewish laws.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father</em>- The Lord's death is presented as the supreme sin offering, which had an outcome in practice- separation from this present evil world. Judaism tacitly allowed the Gentile converts to remain effectively in that world, but with a conscience cosmetically salved by a few acts of ritual obedience. The purpose of the cross was so that we might be separated out from this present evil world. To remain in the world, to stay in the crowd that faced the cross rather than walk through the no man's land between, this is a denial of the Lord's death for us. See on <em><a href='B:550 6:14'>Gal 6:14</a></em>. Paul had his inspired mind on the phrase in the Lord’s prayer which requests deliverance from evil. Clearly enough, Paul didn’t understand “the evil” to be a personal cosmic Satan, but rather the moral “evil” of this world and those who seek to persecute believers.</p><p>Much of Paul’s writing is understandable on various levels. In some places he makes allusions to contemporary Jewish writings and ideas – with which he was obviously very familiar given his background – in order to correct or deconstruct them. This is especially true with reference to Jewish ideas about Satan and supposedly sinful Angels ruling over this present world. The idea of deliverance from this present evil world or age is an example. As more and more Jewish writings of the time become more widely available, it becomes increasingly apparent that this is a major feature of Paul’s writing. The Jewish writings all held to the teaching of the two ages, whereby this current age was supposed to be under the control of Satan and his angels, who would be destroyed in the future age, when Messiah would reign and Paradise would be restored on earth (see 1 Enoch 16:1; 18:16; 21:6; Jubilees 1:29; T. Moses 1:18; 12:4). Paul frequently uses terms used in the Jewish writings concerning the Kingdom age, the eschatological age, and applies them to the experience of Christian believers&nbsp;<em>right now</em>. When <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> states that Christ killed the Devil in His death on the cross, this is effectively saying that the future age has come. For the Jews expected the Devil to be destroyed only at the changeover to the future Kingdom age. In 4 Ezra, “This age” (4:27; 6:9; 7:12), also known as the “corrupt age” (4:11) stands in contrast to the “future age” (6:9; 8:1), the “greater age”, the “immortal time” (7:119), the future time (8:52). 4 Enoch even claims that the changeover from this age to the future age occurs at the time of the final judgment, following the death of the Messiah and seven days of silence (7:29–44, 113). So we can see why Paul would plug in to these ideas. He taught that Christ died “in order to rescue us from this present evil age” (<em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:38'>Rom 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>). Therefore if the old age has finished, that means Satan is no longer controlling things as the Jews believed. For they believed that Satan’s spirits “will corrupt until the day of the great conclusion, until the great age is consummated, until everything is concluded (upon) the Watchers and the wicked ones” (1 Enoch 16:1, cf. 72:1). And Paul was pronouncing that the great age had been consummated in Christ, that the first century believers were those upon whom the end of the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>&nbsp;had come (<em><a href='B:530 10:11'>1Co 10:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:5'>Gal 1:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen</em>- Christianity seeks to give eternal glory to the Lord Jesus; this is what we shall be doing eternally, and we must begin now. But Judaism devalued the role of Messiah. And we too can usefully assess teachings according to how far they give glory to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you to the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel</em>- Paul describes himself as having been called by God, by grace; and in this context he comments how&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;called the Galatians to the grace of Christ (<em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em> cp. 15). His response to his calling of grace was to go out and preach, thereby calling men to that same grace, replicating in his preaching what God had done for him. True preaching reflects a certain artless selflessness. And so here Paul writes of his preaching to the Galatians in the third person: “him Paul that called you into the grace of Christ” (<em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em> AV). And likewise he talks about himself while at the Jerusalem conference, where he was given so clearly the ministry of converting the Gentiles, as if he hardly identifies himself with himself: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago::. I knew such a man::. of such an one will I glory, yet of myself I will not glory” (<em><a href='B:540 12:1-4'>2Co 12:1-4</a></em> - the context makes it clear that Paul refers to himself, seeing that he was the one given the thorn in the flesh as a result of the revelations given to this “man”). In <em><a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a></em> Paul could have written: ‘We came with the Gospel’, but instead he uses the more awkward construction: ‘Our Gospel came…’. He, Paul, was subsumed beneath the essence of his life work- the preaching of the Gospel.</p><p>And yet we could also argue that Paul had a way of turning things rather too personally. They had deserted the grace of Christ, yet Paul expresses this in terms of them turning away from him personally. This tendency to over personalize things, it could be argued, was at the root of so much of his pain with the Corinthians as expressed in 2 Corinthians.</p><p>"Deserting" translates&nbsp;<em>metatithemi</em>, literally 'handed over', implying there was some other hand at work. As there is no cosmic satan doing this, I conclude that this higher hand was God's, confirming them in the way they wished to go. <em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> speaks of God doing likewise, giving people over to the mindset they themselves desired. He confirms us in the path we wish to go.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Not that there is another one; but there are some who trouble you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ</em>- A distorted Gospel was no Gospel. The Judaizers were not calling for a wholesale abandonment of Christianity; rather they were preaching a Judaized version of the Gospel which was so distorted that it was not a Gospel. We note from this that a belief system which merely names the name of Christ is not therefore acceptable just because it claims to be an interpretation of Christianity. The 'troublers' are described with the same word in <em><a href='B:510 15:7'>Act 15:7</a></em> concerning the Jewish Christians who went out from the Jerusalem ecclesia to urge the Gentile converts to be circumcised; and of the Jews in Thessalonica who troubled the crowds to persecute Paul. It would seem that the same elements were involved- Jews driven by jealousy and anger at the perversion of the Jewish faith, as they saw it, by Paul's message of Christianity. It was part of a well organized system of derailing the churches Paul founded, referred to by him at times as the 'satan', the adversary. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em> about some single individual who was the troubler in Galatia; as if in that locality they were controlled by a particularly charismatic and influential individual whom Paul leaves nameless.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:8'>Gal 1:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But though we, or an angel from heaven</em>- God can deceive people to confirm them in the way of understanding they wish to go in (<em><a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a></em>). But this could simply be hyperbole. But perhaps the individual troubler of Galatia in <em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em> (and see on :7 above) was being presented as an angel, a Divine messenger. This would then enable us to understand <em><a href='B:540 11:14'>2Co 11:14</a></em> as referring to the same individual troubling Corinth which the same Judaistic message- the satan there was apparently revealed as an Angel of light, and he had his followers; just as there was one specific 'troubler' in Galatia (<em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em>) who had fellow 'troublers' (<em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em>).</p><h4><em>Should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be accursed</em>- Again it could be argued that Paul was over personalizing the issue by writing of the Gospel "which we preached to you". The&nbsp;<em>anathema</em>&nbsp;("accursed") was a Jewish synagogue term meaning excommunication. This may be the closest we get in Paul's writings to a request to actually excommunicate anybody in a religious sense; and it was clearly necessary. Seeing he is not afraid to ask for someone to be excommunicated, it is noteworthy that he doesn't recommend it for dealing with the huge raft of immoral individual behaviour and other moral and intellectual failure which filled the early churches.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:9'>Gal 1:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As we have said before, so I now say again: If anyone preaches to you any gospel other than that which you received, let him be accursed</em>- The&nbsp;<em>anathema</em>&nbsp;(see on :8) was for those who were teaching a false Gospel. Paul's approach to his churches, full as they were of moral and doctrinal failure, was to insist that the platform be secured; it was the false teachers who were to be removed. But he exemplifies endless patience with the flock who had been misled or were simply weak in the faith. Paul often refers to the 'receipt' of the Gospel; he saw "the Gospel" as definable and something which was received upon hearing the preaching of it. And yet clearly there was no lengthy package of theology in view.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For am I now seeking the favour of men or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ</em>- Although Paul made himself all things to all men, he didn’t just seek to please men (<em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>). He sought their salvation and approached them in appropriate terms, but he didn’t just seek to please them from a human viewpoint. He didn’t cheapen the Gospel. The argument here suggests that serving<em>&nbsp;Christ</em>&nbsp;is being placed in opposition to serving<em>&nbsp;men.</em>&nbsp;Thus he sees one application of serving mammon as acting in a hypocritical way in order to please some in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:11'>Gal 1:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For, brothers, I make known to you, as regards the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not from man</em>- The implication was that the Judaist opposition were claiming that Paul had just made up his interpretations and called it "the Gospel". Or perhaps there was some conspiracy theory that he was the agent of some other man. Whilst the Gospel was not "from man",&nbsp;<em>kata anthropos</em>, yet Paul uses that same term in saying that he can reason at times in that way, "after the manner of men", humanly speaking (<em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>). But the core of the Gospel was from the Lord Jesus and not from men.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:12'>Gal 1:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through direct revelation from Jesus Christ</em>- See on :1. As a rabbi, it was important to justify teaching by explaining that he had been taught it by some greater rabbi. Paul cuts right across these expectations (see on :10), and says that his message had not been taught to him. He had received it directly from the Lord Jesus, who is the central part of the message he preached.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:13'>Gal 1:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and made havoc of it</em>- "Made havoc" is literally 'destroyed', and the same word is used in <em><a href='B:550 1:23'>Gal 1:23</a></em> of how he 'destroyed' "the faith". He draws a parallel between the church and the faith; for the true church is based upon the true faith. The same word is used of how he "destroyed" the Christians in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 9:21'>Act 9:21</a></em>). This clearly means he murdered Christians, including perhaps some of those who were converted in Jerusalem at Pentecost. This sort of behaviour was a way of life elicited by Judaism; and Judaism is therefore to be judged by its fruits as seen in Paul. Whilst repeatedly taking full personal responsibility for his actions, Paul sees that they had been elicited by Judaism, "the Jews' religion". To return to that was therefore serious indeed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:14'>Gal 1:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 15:2'>Mat 15:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my fellow countrymen, being even more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers</em>- Paul could have been such a high flyer; he profited (materially, the Greek could imply) in the Jews' religion above any one else. But he resigned it all. He wrote some majestic words which ought to become the goal of every one of us: "But what things were gain to me materially?, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss&nbsp;<em>for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord</em>: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I way win Christ" (<em><a href='B:570 3:7-8'>Phi 3:7-8</a></em>). As noted on :13, whilst not at all dodging his personal responsibility for his actions, he sees the murder and hatred towards Christians as the fruit of zeal for Judaism. The traditions of Paul's fathers cp. "our fathers" when referring to the patriarchs refers surely to Paul's rabbinic forefathers. Casuistic following of the implications of previous expositions and judgments of those who have gone before resulted in murder. This was the fruit of Judaism, and all belief systems are to be judged by their fruits.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>But when-</em>&nbsp;"But when" suggests there was a specific time when God decided to call Paul to manifest His Son. But we should not too quickly assume that this time was on the Damascus road, for the Lord there made the point that Paul had been pushing against the pricks of conscience for some time. Perhaps the calling was at the time of Paul's birth, when the umbilical cord was cut and he was separated from his mother's womb. The calling of grace is an idea Paul uses in Romans to exemplify God's grace, and he thereby makes himself the parade example of grace to all believers. In <em><a href='B:550 1:15-16'>Gal 1:15-16</a></em>, Paul speaks as if his calling to preach the Gospel and his conversion co-incided. He clearly understood that he had been called so as to spread the word to others. Paul uses the word&nbsp;<em>kaleo&nbsp;</em>to describe both our call to the Gospel, and the call to preach that Gospel (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:9'>1Co 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:15'>1Co 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:13'>Gal 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:9'>2Ti 1:9</a></em>). He doesn’t separate his call from that of ours; he speaks of how God called “us” (<em><a href='B:520 9:24'>Rom 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:7'>1Th 4:7</a></em>). We may not all be able to live the life of itinerant preaching and spreading the word geographically which Paul did. And yet clearly enough Paul sets himself up as our pattern in the context of his attitude to preaching. Our lamps were lit, in the Lord’s figure, so as to give light to others. We are mirrors, reflecting to others the glory of God as far as we ourselves behold it in the face of Jesus Christ.</p><p><em>It was the good pleasure of God-&nbsp;</em>Our salvation was "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by::. renewing of the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>). Thus in Paul's case "it pleased (lit. 'willed') God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace" (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>) - not Paul's works. Thus our obedience to the truth was "through (on account of) the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:670 1:22'>1Pe 1:22</a></em>). Against this must be balanced <em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>: "Faith cometh by hearing::. the word of God". God's Spirit was involved in bringing about our calling, and is also present in the word by which we are called.</p><p><em>Who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace</em>- Paul seems to have admired the humility John the Baptist manifested in his preaching, for he often alludes to John- perhaps because he heard him live. For he was living in Jerusalem at the same time as John's ministry. He knew he had been chosen from the womb for his mission, as John had been (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em>). There is also allusion to Jeremiah being likewise known from the womb. Paul felt he had been “separated unto the preaching of the gospel of God”; and he uses a word which the LXX uses for the separation of part of a sacrifice to be consumed (<em><a href='B:20 29:24'>Exo 29:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 29:26'>Exo 29:26</a></em>). The Greek word for "witness" is&nbsp;<em>martus</em>, from whence 'martyr'. To witness to Christ is to live the life of the martyr; to preach Him is to live out His cross in daily life. Yet the Lord’s servant being called from the womb (<em><a href='B:290 49:1'>Isa 49:1</a></em>) was applied by Paul to himself (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>)- see on <em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>. Choice from birth, calling, ministry to the Gentiles all recalls the servant known from birth (<em><a href='B:290 49:1'>Isa 49:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:5'>Isa 49:5</a></em>). This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ. He saw himself as in Christ, and so the Lord's mission became his as it becomes ours.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:16'>Gal 1:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>To reveal His Son in me-&nbsp;</em>Saul of Tarsus must’ve seemed the most unlikely of men to convert to Christ. But he later refers to how God chose “to&nbsp;<em>reveal</em>&nbsp;his son in me”. The Greek word&nbsp;<em>apokalupto</em>&nbsp;means literally ‘to take the cover off’. The implication is that Christ is passively within each person, but has to be revealed in them, through response to the Gospel. The cover can be taken off every single man or women with whom we come into contact The Galatians passage could equally mean that Paul was called as an apostle to ‘take the cover off’ Christ to others; and yet Paul felt his calling was to all people on earth, to the ends of the world (<em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>)- to every single person of all the Gentile nations (<em><a href='B:520 15:11'>Rom 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>That I might preach him among the Gentiles-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>To preach Christ is to reveal Him to men through ourselves- this is the purpose for which we are called, that our lamp was lit, to reveal Christ to others through us. And thus Paul could conclude by saying that he bore in his body perhaps an idiom for his life, cp. the ‘broken body’ of the Lord we remember the stigmata of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>). The whole burden of his message was therefore the Lord Jesus, rather than theology or clever apologetic arguments.</p><p><em>Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood</em>- Paul's attitude to his brethren seems to have changed markedly over the years. He begins as being somewhat detached from them; perhaps as all new converts are initially. We see the Truth for what it is, we realize we had to make the commitment we did, and we are happy to do our own bit in preaching the Truth. But often a real concern and care for our brethren takes years to develop. Paul seems to tell the Galatians that the Gospel he preached had not been given to him by men, because in the early days after his conversion he was rather indifferent towards other Christian believers; "(Paul) conferred not with flesh and blood" after his conversion, neither did he go to see the apostles in Jerusalem to discuss how to preach to Israel; instead, Paul says, he pushed off to Arabia for three years in isolation. He was unknown by face to the Judean ecclesias, and even after his return from Arabia, he made no special effort to meet up with the Apostles (Galatians 1). The early Paul comes over as self-motivated, a maverick, all too ready to fall out with Barnabas, all too critical of Mark for failing to rise up to Paul's level of fearless devotion (<em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:17'>Gal 1:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 26:16-19'>Act 26:16-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>Nor did I go to Jerusalem to those that were apostles ahead of me; but I went away into Arabia, and returned to Damascus</em>- As noted on :12, Paul resists the Rabbinic style of saying that his message is supported by the opinions of other learned men from the same religion who had preceded him. This is the force of his statement that he did not go to see those who had been in Christ "ahead of me". Arabia could refer to various desert areas; we are left to imagine that this period in the wilderness formed his spiritual position by direct contact with the Lord Jesus. But it could also be read as a recognition of weakness- that instead of going to preach the Gospel he went instead into isolation. And thus he was glorying in his weakness as a qualification; see on :10. The return to Damascus, where he had almost been lynched and escaped it in a most humiliating way (<em><a href='B:540 11:31-33'>2Co 11:31-33</a></em>), is really impressive; just as Paul returned to cities where he had been badly persecuted. Such was his care for his converts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:18'>Gal 1:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days</em>- The mention of three years may be another hint that he had not got on with witnessing to the Gentiles as he might have done; he is glorying in his weakness, as noted extensively on :10. "Visit" translates a term which can mean 'to learn from'; we see here Paul's humility. He as the literate, intellectual rabbi went to Jerusalem not to sit at the feet of some learned rabbi, but to be taught by an illiterate fisherman from Galilee. This again is a reversal of all the qualifications Judaism boasted in; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But none of the other apostles did I see, except James, the Lord's brother</em>- Judaism stressed which big names were supporting a position or individual, and Paul is consciously subverting this. See on :10. We likewise should be unashamed to subvert the peer review qualifications which are so popular these days. Observe how Paul counts James as an "apostle" although he was not one of the 12, perhaps anticipating the objection raised in Corinth that Paul was not really an apostle because he was not one of the 12.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:20'>Gal 1:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie</em>- Clearly Paul's version of events was questioned. All manner of conspiracy theories and slander had arisen, as they do in the life of anyone who devotes themselves to preaching Christ in truth. The origin of the 'troublers' of <em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em> was likely Jerusalem (see note there). Paul is answering the objection that 'Jerusalem' did not support him by strongly agreeing with it- and insisting that he had higher authority than Jerusalem, namely, his direct relationship with the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:21'>Gal 1:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia</em>- Cilicia was Paul's home area. Again, he may be glorying in his spiritual weakness, saying that he had returned to his roots rather than going out into the world as he had been commissioned. For Barnabus had to come to Tarsus and as it were drag Paul with him on his first missionary journey. Such boasting in weakness is a subversion of any attempt to present a humanly strong case for authority; see on :10. "Regions" translates&nbsp;<em>klima</em>, which according to Vine referred "originally to an inclination or slope of ground: the supposed slope of the earth from the equator to the pole". Here we have an example of scientifically incorrect terms being used in the Bible without correction; and this helps explain the language of demons being used in the Gospels regarding mental illnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:22'>Gal 1:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I was still unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ</em>- Paul speaks warmly of these churches in <em><a href='B:590 2:14'>1Th 2:14</a></em>, showing his eagerness to believe the best about others, with the love that believes all things. The churches which were in Christ suggests there were some 'churches' not in Christ. The term&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;was used for any gathering or assembly, and referred to the synagogues in small town and villages, some of whom had become Christian, and thus become assemblies which were in Christ. Christianity would have spread by the conversion of such synagogue assemblies here and there. The Lord did not ask His people to leave the synagogue system as part of their acceptance of Him; He just predicted that the time would come when His converts would be thrown out of that system (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>). This reflects how there was no concept of guilt by association, no demand of breaking association with an apostate system. If Jesus was accepted as Christ and preached as such, then the systems antithetical to that would themselves cast out the Lord's people. The&nbsp;<em>angst</em>&nbsp;about separation from error which has blighted the body of Christ was therefore unknown in the first century church.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:550 1:23'>Gal 1:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They only heard say: He that once persecuted us now preaches the faith of which he once made havoc</em>- See on :13 "made havoc". Paul had arranged their persecution without seeing their faces (:22). But he was a household name amongst the Christian synagogues (see on :22).</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 1:24'>Gal 1:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they glorified God in me</em>- The house churches in the area around Jerusalem "Judea" were obvious targets for Paul, who sought to drag Christians Jews into Jerusalem for punishment. They glorified not Paul but God's grace which had worked within Paul to bring about his conversion.</p><p>Chronology of Paul’s Life</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Standard Chronology Of Paul's Life</td><td>John Robinson's Chronology Of Paul's Life (2)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AD 35 Paul’s conversion&nbsp;<br/>36-38 In Arabia (1)<br/>38-43 Preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem<br/>44-46 Working in Antioch and Syria<br/>46-48 First missionary journey<br/>49-50 Jerusalem Conference<br/>50-52 Second missionary journey<br/>53-57 Third missionary journey<br/>57-59 Arrest- Jerusalem-Caesarea<br/>59-62 To Rome; first imprisonment<br/>63-66 Release; travels in Asia, Greece, Spain<br/>64-68 Nero’s persecution of the Christians<br/>67 Arrest, imprisoned in a dungeon in Rome<br/>68 Final trial; executed.</td><td>AD33 Conversion&nbsp;<br/>35 First visit to Jerusalem<br/>46 Second famine-relief visit to Jerusalem<br/>47-48 First missionary journey<br/>48 Council of Jerusalem<br/>49-51 Second missionary journey<br/>52-57 Third missionary journey<br/>57 Arrival in Jerusalem<br/>57-59 Imprisonment in Caesarea<br/>60-62 Imprisonment in Rome</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Notes</h4><p>(1) "Arabia" is from the word 'Arabah', and occurs in the LXX in <em><a href='B:50 2:8'>Deu 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:17'>Deu 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:49'>Deu 4:49</a></em> to mean simply the wilderness. Since Paul went there from Damascus, it has been suggested that he mixed with the Damascene Essene group. There are extensive parallels between the Qumran texts and the letter to the Hebrews, which could lend support to this suggestion- as if Paul wrote to an audience he knew:&nbsp;<br/>(2) J:A:T. Robinson,&nbsp;<em>Redating The New Testament</em>&nbsp;(London: SCM, 1976) pp. 52,53.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:1'>Gal 2:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, also taking Titus with me</em>- See chronology of Paul’s life on <em><a href='B:550 1:24'>Gal 1:24</a></em>. The events and agreement mentioned in <em><a href='B:550 2:1-10'>Gal 2:1-10</a></em> need not be identical with the council of Acts 15. It could've occurred at the visit of <em><a href='B:510 11:30'>Act 11:30</a></em>. Paul’s various visits to Jerusalem recorded in Acts are hard to mesh into what he writes in Galatians. It seems that his visit to Jerusalem of <em><a href='B:510 9:26'>Act 9:26</a></em> is that referred to in <em><a href='B:550 1:18-21'>Gal 1:18-21</a></em>; and the visit spoken of in <em><a href='B:550 2:1-10'>Gal 2:1-10</a></em> is that of <em><a href='B:510 11:1-18'>Act 11:1-18</a></em> rather than that of Acts 15. The fact Titus wasn’t compelled to be circumcised (<em><a href='B:550 2:3'>Gal 2:3</a></em>) matches the outcome of <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em>; and Paul’s description of the meeting as private (<em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em>) sounds more like the visit of Acts 11 rather than the public council of Acts 15. In a long and fascinating study, Paul Achtemeier makes a good case that the decree of Acts 15 was not “the&nbsp;<em>result</em>&nbsp;of the conflict in Antioch reported in <em><a href='B:550 2:11-14'>Gal 2:11-14</a></em>, but the&nbsp;<em>cause&nbsp;</em>of that conflict”- Paul J. Achtemeier,&nbsp;<em>Paul and the Jerusalem Church</em>&nbsp;(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005) p. 58. This would mean that the advice Paul gave to the Corinthians about food which was contrary to the Acts 15 decree was actually given before that decree was given (<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:32'>1Co 10:32</a></em>).</p><br/><p>2:2&nbsp;<em>And I went up there by revelation</em>- He means that he didn't go and attend a unity meeting from any political reasons, there was no human buying in or selling out. He was told by Spirit revelation to go there, and he did.<br/><em><br/>And I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles</em>- Paul says something similar in <em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em>, where he again declares to the Corinthians the content of the Gospel message he had preached to them. The content he summarizes in <em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em> ff. is quite basic. The message of the Gospel was simple, not complicated.</p><p><em>But privately before them who were of repute</em>- This is a lovely example of considering others' positions and being sensitive and wise. Paul didn't want to engage the well known names in public debate. He knew that human pride being what it is, they might be unable to humble themselves before others and accept what he was saying as right. He knew he was in the right, but he engaged them privately so that there would be no public showdown. He knew that if there were to be that, then the Lord's work might well be damaged and his overall work would be in vain if converts turned away because of division. The problem with those who know they are in the right is that they often feel thereby empowered to get involved in public debate and demonstration of the error of others; my earlier years were characterized by such wrong attitudes. Possession of truth is like driving a very powerful car. You don't drive it as fast as you can just because you have that car and you can drive it fast. We must consider the slowness of others. The Lord knew the truth about demons, but He used that truth appropriately. And Paul did likewise in this matter of Gentile inclusion and the passing of the Mosaic law. He considered his audience and their weakness, realizing that it is so hard for public figures to backtrack and admit being in the wrong. He sought an appropriate forum in which to engage them- and that was a private meeting. There's so much we can learn from this. The same word translated "repute" is found in <em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em> and James, Peter and John who were 'reputed' pillars of the church are clearly in view. We note that even believers of their standing were liable to find it hard to backtrack on publicly advertised positions. And Paul showed the grace to appreciate that, rather than launching a head on public attack on their positions. By contrast, Paul records how later, after Peter had privately agreed with Paul's position in Jerusalem, Paul had to publicly confront him at Antioch when Peter backtracked on the private agreement (:11). There’s a place for public confrontation, but only after private entreaty. Indeed the whole account here sounds like a parade example of following the Lord's advice in Matthew 18, to approach a brother privately and only then publicly rebuke him before the church.</p><p><em>Lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain</em>- Unity and avoiding division is vital. Paul even argues in <em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em> that all his colossal missionary effort would have been a 'running in vain' if the ecclesia divided into exclusive Jewish and Gentile sections. This may be hyperbole, but it is all the same a hyperbole which reflects the extent to which Paul felt that unity amongst believers was vital.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I went up there by revelation</em>- He means that he didn't go and attend a unity meeting from any political reasons, there was no human buying in or selling out. He was told by Spirit revelation to go there, and he did.<br/><em><br/>And I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles</em>- Paul says something similar in <em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em>, where he again declares to the Corinthians the content of the Gospel message he had preached to them. The content he summarizes in <em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em> ff. is quite basic. The message of the Gospel was simple, not complicated.</p><p><em>But privately before them who were of repute</em>- This is a lovely example of considering others' positions and being sensitive and wise. Paul didn't want to engage the well known names in public debate. He knew that human pride being what it is, they might be unable to humble themselves before others and accept what he was saying as right. He knew he was in the right, but he engaged them privately so that there would be no public showdown. He knew that if there were to be that, then the Lord's work might well be damaged and his overall work would be in vain if converts turned away because of division. The problem with those who know they are in the right is that they often feel thereby empowered to get involved in public debate and demonstration of the error of others; my earlier years were characterized by such wrong attitudes. Possession of truth is like driving a very powerful car. You don't drive it as fast as you can just because you have that car and you can drive it fast. We must consider the slowness of others. The Lord knew the truth about demons, but He used that truth appropriately. And Paul did likewise in this matter of Gentile inclusion and the passing of the Mosaic law. He considered his audience and their weakness, realizing that it is so hard for public figures to backtrack and admit being in the wrong. He sought an appropriate forum in which to engage them- and that was a private meeting. There's so much we can learn from this. The same word translated "repute" is found in <em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em> and James, Peter and John who were 'reputed' pillars of the church are clearly in view. We note that even believers of their standing were liable to find it hard to backtrack on publicly advertised positions. And Paul showed the grace to appreciate that, rather than launching a head on public attack on their positions. By contrast, Paul records how later, after Peter had privately agreed with Paul's position in Jerusalem, Paul had to publicly confront him at Antioch when Peter backtracked on the private agreement (:11). There’s a place for public confrontation, but only after private entreaty. Indeed the whole account here sounds like a parade example of following the Lord's advice in Matthew 18, to approach a brother privately and only then publicly rebuke him before the church.</p><p><em>Lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain</em>- Unity and avoiding division is vital. Paul even argues in <em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em> that all his colossal missionary effort would have been a 'running in vain' if the ecclesia divided into exclusive Jewish and Gentile sections. This may be hyperbole, but it is all the same a hyperbole which reflects the extent to which Paul felt that unity amongst believers was vital.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:3'>Gal 2:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But not even Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised</em>- See on <em><a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a></em>. Paul's comment that Gentile Titus was not compelled to be circumcised would suggest that actually, James and the Jerusalem elders were now compelling&nbsp;Gentiles to be circumcised.</p>


text:
<p>. Peter was up against the same problem, when he writes of false teachers secretly entering in (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). His usage of the same word as Paul here uses is a reflection of Peter's humility. For here, Paul is criticizing Peter for allowing this false teaching to enter unopposed. And Peter in his maturity realizes his error, and appeals to others not to repeat it. This is the humility of maturity in Christ.</p><p><em>That they might bring us into bondage</em>- The term used in <em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em> about the Judaizing element within the church, seeking to bring believers into the bondage of the Mosaic law. We naturally wonder why they went to such an extent in doing this. But this is all an essay in the power of legalism, and the way legalists consider that anything justifies the end of maintaining a traditional, legalistic system. Such defence of entrenched legalism is a psychological classic- it releases extraordinary energy and bitterness because of the belief that the end must justify any means. These same "false brothers" are referred to with the same word in <em><a href='B:540 11:26'>2Co 11:26</a></em> as a group who literally endangered Paul's life. They were within the ecclesia. But legalists within ecclesias today show a similar hatred which the Lord judges as murder.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:5'>Gal 2:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>We did not yield to them in submission-&nbsp;</em>Even though they “seemed to be somewhat” and were in the eyes of some “in repute” (<em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em> ASV). The same Greek word translated “subjection” is found in <em><a href='B:530 16:16'>1Co 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:1'>Tit 3:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:670 5:5'>1Pe 5:5</a></em> about submission to elders in the ecclesia. Paul’s example shows that merely because an elder demands subjection, this doesn’t mean we should automatically give it- even if others do. We should be “subject” to those who are in our judgment&nbsp;<em>qualified</em>&nbsp;to demand our subjection (<em><a href='B:530 16:16'>1Co 16:16</a></em>); and “subjection” in Paul’s&nbsp;writings usually refers to our subjection to the Lordship of Jesus. Our subjection must be to Him first before any human elders.</p><p><em>Even for a moment-&nbsp;</em>There would have been a temptation to just make a momentary acquiescence to the demands of the legalists. But such politics was not acceptable to Paul.</p><p><em>So that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you</em>- If we give in to legalists, then others lose the truth of the Gospel. The salvation of others can be affected by third parties. We really can make others stumble, and legalism is one of the most common forms of this happening. We enter the one body of Christ by baptism into the one body of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>). We therefore have a duty to fellowship all who remain in the body (<em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>). Paul describes Peter as not walking according to the truth of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a></em>) by effectively saying there were two bodies, of Jews and Gentiles, and only fellowshipping one of these groups rather than the entire one body. Paul says that this would mean that the truth of the Gospel would be lost. Paul put all the ecclesial politics behind him and withstood Peter "to his face". If we know "the truth" of Christ's Gospel, we will fellowship all those in Him and in that Truth. If we don't, Paul foresaw that ultimately "the truth of the Gospel" would be lost (<em><a href='B:550 2:5'>Gal 2:5</a></em>). Tragically, in man-made attempts to preserve the Gospel's Truth the rest of the body has often been disfellowshipped. But by fellowshipping all the body, the "Truth" is kept</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatever they were, it makes no matter to me, God does not accept man's person) they, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me</em>- The Greek is hard to translate. The idea, I suggest, is that when these brethren were "in conference" AV they had something added to them; but this meant totally nothing to Paul. This is indeed true to experience- when men, even brethren, come together, they can have an aura and power greater than the sum of their component parts. But this 'buzz' was seen through by Paul as he kept strictly to spiritual principle and would not be swayed by the power attached to men publicly together as it were on the platform.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:7'>Gal 2:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Gospel to the circumcision-&nbsp;</em>“The gospel of the circumcision” being given to Peter and that of the Gentiles to Paul evidently means ‘the duty of preaching the gospel’. The Gospel is in itself the duty of preaching it.</p><p>I have noted throughout the commentary on Acts that Paul in fact went to the Jews in practice, and suffered because of it. So what he is saying here may be theory rather than practice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:8'>Gal 2:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he that worked through Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, worked through me also to the Gentiles</em>- In <em><a href='B:550 2:7-8'>Gal 2:7-8</a></em>, we read that Peter was given a ministry to preach to Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. But in <em><a href='B:510 15:7'>Act 15:7</a></em> Peter says that God used him to take the Gospel to the Gentiles- and the implication of 1 Peter is that he had made many converts in Gentile areas of Asia Minor. The reconciliation of these statements may be that God changed things around- Peter's ministry to the Gentiles was handed over to Paul, and Paul's initial work amongst the Jews was not for him to continue but for Peter. And so the Father may work with us, too. My simple point is that we are each given our group or area of potential responsibility for preaching, and we should be workers together with the Father and Son to achieve what they have potentially made possible for us. And we each, in God’s master plan, have an area of opportunity opened up to us for us to preach in, and this area may be changed, reduced, moved or expanded according to our freewill response to God’s desire to use us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, then James, Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship</em>- Yet the Lord promises each believer that we can become "pillars" in His future temple (<em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>). We will all therefore in spirit take on the position of elders. In no way are we to see Christianity as a spectator religion, with a group of specialists acting effectively as priests. We are all to enter the spirit of responsibility which goes with eldership.</p><p><em>That we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision-&nbsp;</em>James, the leader of the Jerusalem ecclesia, got Peter and John to join him in making Paul to agree to preach only to Gentiles, whilst they would teach the Jews (<em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em> NIV). This was contrary to what the Lord had told Paul in <em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> - that he had been converted so as to preach to both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul took no notice of the ‘agreement’ they tried to force him into- he always made a priority of preaching first of all in the Jewish synagogues and to the Jews, and only secondarily to Gentiles. He did this right up to the end of the Acts record. Paul got drawn into politics in the church. Although he went along with the Acts 15 decree and even agreed to propagate it, he never mentions it in his writing or speaking, and later he writes about food regulations and the whole question of Gentiles and the Law as if he disagreed with it. Perhaps as he matured, he saw the need to speak out against legalism in the ecclesias rather than go along with it for the sake of peace:&nbsp;</p><p>We can ourselves so easily form into groups of brethren and ecclesias, papering over our differences as happened in Acts 15, adopting a hard line (as Jerusalem ecclesia did in <em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em> over Gentile believers), then a softer line in order to win political support (as in Acts 15), then back to a hard line (as in Acts 21). We ought to be men and women of principle. We look back at the senior brethren of those days arguing so strongly about whether or not it was right to break bread with Gentile believers, “much disputing” whether or not we should be circumcised… and it all seems to us such an elemental disregard of the clear teaching of the Lord Jesus and so many clear Old Testament implications. But there were background factors which clouded their perceptions, although they themselves didn’t realise this at the time. And so it can be with us, if we were to see ourselves from outside our own historical time, place and culture, it would probably be obvious that we are disregarding some most basic teachings of the Word which we know so well. Like them, our blindness is because the environment we live in blinds us to simple Bible truth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:10'>Gal 2:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Only they asked us to remember the poor, which very thing I was also zealous to do</em>- The Jewish poor at Jerusalem. Paul's attempts to do this via the Jerusalem poor fund weren't particularly successful; another indication that this compromise was not ultimately blessed by the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:11'>Gal 2:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned-&nbsp;</em>This is extreme language. Peter’s name Cephas is used because he had reverted to his Jewish roots. Refusing to fellowship our brethren because of pressure from more conservative brethren can make us stand condemned. There is a&nbsp;<em>direct</em>&nbsp;relationship, in God's judgment, between how we treat others and what will happen to us. This is to the extent that what we do to others, we do to ourselves. If we condemn others, we really and truly do condemn ourselves. Thus when Peter refused to fellowship Gentiles, Paul "opposed him to the face, because he stood condemned". Just as Peter had condemned himself by denying the Lord, so he had done again in refusing to fellowship the Lord's brethren. Realizing the seriousness of all this, Paul didn't just let it go, as many of us would have done in such an ecclesial situation. He realized a man was condemning himself; and so he risked causing a lot of upset in order to save him from this. Many of us could take a lesson from this.</p><h4>The Peter who had come so far, from the headstrong days of Galilee to the shame of the denials, and then on to the wondrous new life of forgiveness and preaching that grace to others, leading the early community that developed upon that basis…that Peter almost went wrong later in life. Peter and the Judaizers makes a sad story. And as always, it was a most unlikely form of temptation that arose and almost blew him right off course. As often, the problem arose from his own brethren rather than from the hostile world outside. There was strong resistance in the Jewish mind to the idea that Gentiles could be saved without keeping the Mosaic law. And more than this, there was the feeling that any Jewish believer who advocated that they could was selling out and cheapening the message of God to men. Paul has to write about this whole shameful episode in Galatians 2. It becomes apparent that Peter very nearly denied the Lord that bought him once again, by placing on one side all the evidence of salvation by pure grace, for&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>men whether they be Jew or Gentile, which he had progressively built up over the past years. Paul, using Peter’s old name, comments how Cephas seemed to be a pillar- but wasn’t (<em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em>). Paul “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (<em><a href='B:550 2:11'>Gal 2:11</a></em>). Peter and some other Jewish believers “dissembled” and along with Barnabas “was carried away with their dissimulation”, with the result that they “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel”&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:550 2:12-14'>Gal 2:12-14</a></em>). Paul’s whole speech to Peter seems to be recorded in <em><a href='B:550 2:15-21'>Gal 2:15-21</a></em>. He concludes by saying that if Peter’s toleration of justification by works rather than by Christ was really so, then Christ was dead in vain. Paul spoke of how for him, he is crucified with Christ, and lives only for Him, “who loved me and gave himself for me”. These were exactly the sentiments which Peter held so dear, and Paul knew they would touch a chord with him. &nbsp;</h4><p>Yet Peter very nearly walked away from it all, because he was caught up in the legalism of his weaker brethren, and lacked the courage to stand up to the pressure of the Judaizers on him. Peter had earlier stayed with a tanner, a man involved in a ritually unclean trade (<em><a href='B:510 9:43'>Act 9:43</a></em>). This would indicate that Peter was a liberal Jew, hardly a hard-liner. His caving in to the Judaist brethren was therefore all the more an act of weakness rather than something he personally believed in. For it was Peter, too, who had gone through the whole Cornelius experience too And many a humble, sincere man in Christ since has lost his fine appreciation of the Lord’s death&nbsp;<em>for him</em>&nbsp;and the whole message of grace, through similar sophistry and a desire to please 'the brethren'. In some of his very last words, facing certain death, Peter alludes to this great failure of his- his second denial of the Lord. He pleads with his sheep to hold on to the true grace of God, lest “ye&nbsp;<em>also</em>, being led away (s:w. <em><a href='B:550 2:13'>Gal 2:13</a></em> “carried away”) with the error of the lawless, fall…” (<em><a href='B:680 3:17'>2Pe 3:17</a></em>). Ye&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;invites the connection with Peter himself, who was led away by the error of the lawyers, the legalists- whereas his sheep had the error of the law<em>less</em>&nbsp;to contend with. The point surely is that to go the way of legalism, of denying the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, is every bit as bad as going to the lawless ways of the world. Peter was carried away with the “dissimulation” of the Judaizers (<em><a href='B:550 2:13'>Gal 2:13</a></em>), and he uses the same word when he appeals to the brethren to lay aside “all hypocrisies” (<em><a href='B:670 2:1'>1Pe 2:1</a></em>); he was asking them to do what he himself had had to do. He had been a hypocrite, in living the life of legalism within the ecclesia whilst having the knowledge of grace. We may so easily pass this off as a mere peccadillo compared to the hypocrisy of living the life of the world 6 days / week and coming to do one’s religious devotions at a Christian church on a Sunday. But Peter draws a parallel between his own hypocrisy and that of such brethren; this is how serious it is to bow to the sophistry of legalism. It may be that an unjust disfellowship ought to be contended, and we say nothing. Or that a sincere, spiritual brother who places his honest doubts on the table is elbowed out of being able to make the contribution to the community he needs to. In our after the meeting conversations and in our&nbsp;Sunday afternoon chats we can go along with such things, depending on the company we are in. And it seems just part of Christian life. The important thing, it can seem, is to stay within the community and keep separate from the world. But not so, is Peter’s message. His ecclesial hypocrisy was just as bad as that of the worldly believer whom Peter wrote to warn. Paul seems to go even further and consciously link Peter’s behaviour with his earlier denials that he had ever known the Lord Jesus. He writes of how he had to reveal Peter’s denial of the Lord’s grace “before them all” (<em><a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a></em>), using the very same Greek phrase of <em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>, where “before them all” Peter made the same essential denial. &nbsp;</p><p>The sad thing about Peter’s reversion to the Judaist perspective was that it was an almost studied undoing of all the Lord had taught him in the Cornelius incident. There he had learnt that the Lordship of Jesus, which had so deeply impressed him in his early preaching, was in fact universal- because “He is Lord&nbsp;<em>of all</em>”, therefore men from&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) nations were to be accepted in Him (<em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>). God shewed him that he was not to call any man common or unclean on account of his race (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). But now he was upholding the very opposite. And he wasn’t just passively going along with it, although that’s how it doubtless started, in the presence of brethren of greater bearing and education than himself. He “compelled” the Gentile believers to adopt the Jewish ways, as if Peter was a Judaizer; and every time that word is used in Galatians it is in the context of compelling believers to be circumcised (<em><a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 2:3'>Gal 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:12'>Gal 6:12</a></em>). So it seems Peter actually compelled brethren to be circumcised. And the Galatian epistle gives the answer as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;this was done; brethren chose to be circumcised and to preach it lest they suffer persecution for the sake of the cross of Christ (<em><a href='B:550 5:11'>Gal 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:12-14'>Gal 6:12-14</a></em>). Consistently this letter points an antithesis between the cross and circumcision. The body marks of Christ’s cross are set off against the marks of circumcision (<em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>); and the essence of the Christian life is said to be crucifying the flesh nature, rather than just cutting off bits of skin (<em><a href='B:550 5:24'>Gal 5:24</a></em>). Peter’s capitulation to the Judaizers, Peter's revertal to circumcision, was effectively a denial of the cross, yet once again in his life. There was something he found almost offensive about the cross, an ability to sustainedly accept its message. And he turned back to circumcision as he had earlier turned to look at John’s weaknesses when told he must carry the cross. And we turn to all manner of pseudo-spiritual things to excuse our similar inability to focus upon it too. &nbsp;</p><p>Eventually Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentile brethren (<em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>). But he had learnt to eat with Gentile brethren in <em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em>; he had justified doing so to his brethren and persuaded them of its rightness, and had been taught and showed, so patiently, by his Lord that he should not make such distinctions. But now, all that teaching was undone. There’s a lesson here for many a slow-to-speak brother or sister- what you start by passively going along with in ecclesial life, against your better judgment, you may well end up by actively advocating:&nbsp; It can be fairly conclusively proven that Mark’s Gospel is in fact Peter’s. Yet it is there in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em> that Mark / Peter makes the point that the Lord Jesus had declared all foods clean. He knew the incident, recalled the words, had perhaps preached and written them; and yet Peter acted and reasoned as if he was totally unaware of them:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul gently guided Peter back to the Cornelius incident, which he doubtless would have deeply meditated upon as the inspired record of it became available. Peter had been taught that God&nbsp;<em>accepted</em>&nbsp;<em>whoever</em>&nbsp;believed in Him, regardless of their race. But now Paul had to remind Peter that truly, God “<em>accepteth&nbsp;</em>no man’s person” (<em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em>). The same Greek word was a feature of the Cornelius incident: whoever believes&nbsp;<em>receives</em>, accepts, remission of sins (<em><a href='B:510 10:43'>Act 10:43</a></em>), and they&nbsp;<em>received</em>, accepted, the Holy Spirit as well as the Jewish brethren (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). With his matchless humility, Peter accepted Paul’s words. His perceptive mind picked up these references (and in so doing we have a working model of how to seek to correct our brethren, although the success of it will depend on their sensitivity to the word which we both quote and allude to). But so easily, a lifetime of spiritual learning could have been lost by the sophistry of legalistic brethren. It’s a sober lesson. And yet Peter in his pastoral letters (which were probably transcripts of his words / addresses) makes these references back to his own failure, and on the basis of having now even more powerfully learnt his lesson, he can appeal to his brethren. And so it should be in our endeavours for our brethren. Paul warned him that by adopting the Judaist stance, he was&nbsp;<em>building again&nbsp;</em>what had been destroyed (<em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>). And Peter with that in mind can urge the brethren to&nbsp;<em>build up</em>&nbsp;the things of Christ and His ecclesia (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em> s:w:), rather, by implication, that the things of the world and its philosophy:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For before that certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision</em>- The whole nature of the agreement in <em><a href='B:550 2:6-10'>Gal 2:6-10</a></em> could be read as smacking of dirty politics- Paul could continue to convert Gentiles and not force them to be circumcised, but James and Peter would continue their ministry to the Jews, and Paul would get his Gentile converts to donate money to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. It all could be read as having the ring of a 'deal' rather than an agreement strictly guided by spiritual principles. James not necessarily the same James who wrote the epistle seems to have acted very ‘politically’. He sent his followers to pressurise Peter not to break bread with Gentiles in Antioch (<em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>). Then there was a conference called at Jerusalem to discuss the matter. There was “much disputing”, there wasn’t the clear cut acceptance of Gentiles which one would have expected if the words of Jesus had been taken at face value, and then James said ‘Nobody ever came from me telling any Gentile they must be circumcised and keep the Law. They are all welcome, just that they must respect some of the Mosaic laws about blood etc:, and keep away from fornication’. This contradicts Paul’s inspired teaching that the Mosaic Law was totally finished. <em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em> records that James&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;sent brethren to Antioch trying to enforce the Law upon Gentiles And then later, the Jerusalem ecclesia boasted of how many thousand members they had, “and they are all zealous of the law”. They then asked Paul to make it clear that he supported circumcision and keeping the Law (<em><a href='B:510 21:19-24'>Act 21:19-24</a></em>). In passing, we note how hurtful this must have been, since Paul was bringing funds for their ecclesia which he had collected at the cost of damaging his relationship with the likes of Corinth. He meekly obeyed, perhaps it was playing a part in the politics in the church, although he had written to the Colossians and others that there was no need for any to be circumcised nor keep the Law, indeed these things were a denial of faith in Jesus. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:13'>Gal 2:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 23:28'>Mat 23:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy</em>- Peter uses the same word in warning his flock against hypocrisy (<em><a href='B:670 2:1'>1Pe 2:1</a></em>); knowing full well that he had publicly rebuked for being a hypocrite. In this we see the humility which made him a true elder, appealing to others not to make the same mistakes he had made.</p><p>Paul withstood the pressures of the ‘circumcision party’ within the early church, and rebuked Peter for caving in to them (<em><a href='B:550 2:12-13'>Gal 2:12-13</a></em>). But then he himself caved in under pressure from the same group, and obeyed their suggestion that he show himself to be not opposed to the keeping of the Mosaic Law by paying the expenses for the sacrifices of four brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when I saw that they did not walk straightly according to the truth of the gospel</em>- Gk. 'with straight feet', like the cherubim. Correct walk / behaviour is therefore related to the fact we have believed the&nbsp;<em>true</em>&nbsp;Gospel, i:e. we hold the right Gospel rather than the wrong one. The true Gospel was simple- believe in the Lord's death and resurrection and the salvation in Him, identify with it in baptism, and indeed it shall be true for us. In this lies the importance of doctrine. This is why <em><a href='B:290 29:13'>Isa 29:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:24'>Isa 29:24</a></em> speaks of repentance as 'learning doctrine'; Israel went astray morally because they allowed themselves to be taught wrong doctrine.</p><p><em>I said to Cephas before all: If you, being a Jew, live as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?</em>- Paul uses Peter's old name because he feels Peter has slipped back to his old positions and is at this time not living according to the Lord's hope and expectation of him, which was that he would be a rock, Peter, the rocky one.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:15'>Gal 2:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>We being Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles</em>- Paul is using here terms well known within Judaism, appealing to people, as we should, in their own terms and language. But Paul returns to allude to this term "sinners" in :17. There he reasons that if we seek to be justified by the Law whilst in Christ, then we shall be left unredeemed sinners. Thus, he reasons, you who are so defiantly Judaistic are declared sinners, and even worse than ignorant "sinners of the Gentiles".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law</em>- Paul seems to be saying that their very reason for belief in Jesus for justification was because they knew there was no justification through keeping the Law. In our commentary on Acts 7, we sought to develop the idea that Paul was deeply touched by the inability of Law to save, and this led to the pricks in his conscience towards throwing himself upon faith in Jesus for justification. The motive for 'belief in Jesus' is therefore no mere agreement with an impressively interlinking set of theologies, but rather a desperate awareness that apart from Him, I cannot be saved from my sins. See on :19&nbsp;<em>I through the law::.</em></p><p><em>But through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified-&nbsp;</em>Like Abraham, we are justified by the faith in Christ; not faith in Christ, but more specifically the faith in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>). The use of the definite article surely suggests that it is our possession of the same doctrinal truths (the Faith) which Abraham had, which is what leads to faith in Christ and thereby our justification. The life Paul lived was by the Faith of Christ; not simply by faith, as a verb, which is how grammatically it should be expressed if this is what was meant; but by the Faith (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>):There is an intended ambiguity in the phrase “the faith of Abraham" (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>); this 'ambiguous genitive' can mean those who share "the (doctrinal) faith", which Abraham also believed; or those who have the kind of belief which Abraham had.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:17'>Gal 2:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if, while we seek to be made righteous in Christ, we</em>&nbsp;<em>ourselves also are found sinners</em>- See on <em><a href='B:550 2:15'>Gal 2:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Sinners of the Gentiles</em>.</p><p><em>Is Christ then a servant of sin? God forbid-&nbsp;</em>Christ would be bringing people into sin if He on one hand offered justification by faith in Him, and yet on the other, demanded obedience to the Mosaic law. "Servant",&nbsp;<em>diakonos</em>, means that "sin" is a personification. If Paul had believed in a personal Satan, surely this would've been the place to use that word.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor</em>- The "things" of justification by the Mosaic law. The same word is used by the Lord in saying that He had not come to "destroy" the Law but to fulfil it (<em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em>). Paul surely alludes here, and understood the Lord to be saying that He had indeed come to destroy the Law, but through fulfilling it; and that although He had not at that early point in His ministry destroyed the Law, yet He would do so- in His death. Paul thus sees his own part in the things which the Lord Himself achieved, just as we too can play our part in things like reconciling the world to God, which were personally achieved by the Lord's sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:19'>Gal 2:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God</em>- This is very much the language of baptism in Romans 6. Paul understood that at baptism, he had died, which meant that he was no longer bound to obey the law, but rather, more positively, he was obligated to "live to God". Peter makes the same point, probably also in a baptism context (<em><a href='B:670 4:2'>1Pe 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>). Paul says that "through the law" he had come to this position; and his autobiographical comments in Romans 7 suggest that it was through his experience of failure to obey the law that he was driven to throw himself upon Christ and death with Him. This was his point in <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em> - see notes there.</p><p>Galatians was one of Paul’s earlier letters. In it, he speaks of his own baptism: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live” (<em><a href='B:550 2:19-21'>Gal 2:19-21</a></em>). Years later he writes to the Romans about&nbsp;<em>their&nbsp;</em>baptisms, in exactly the same language: “All of us who have been baptized… our old self was crucified with him… the life he lives he lives to God” (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-10'>Rom 6:1-10</a></em>). He clearly seeks to forge an identity between his readers and himself; their baptisms were and are as radical as his in their import. Note how in many of his letters, especially Galatians and Corinthians, he switches so easily between “you” and “we”, as if to drive home the fact that there was to be no perception of distance between him the writer and us the readers. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>I have been crucified with Christ</em>- Another reference to his baptism and the subsequent life spent living out those principles in practice (see on :19). <em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em> uses the same term for baptism- "crucified with Him". This is the idea of co-crucifixion, and the word is used about the thieves being crucified with Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 23:42'>Luk 23:42</a></em>). The repentant thief is a type of us all. We died with Christ there; everything within us cries out that 'I would not have done this'. But we did. We through baptism are counted as having died and risen with Him. To be crucified is not so much a command we are to obey but a fact about our status in Christ which is to be believed. We count ourselves as dead to sin with Christ on the cross (<em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em>).</p><p><em>And it is no longer I that live but Christ living in me</em>- "I have been crucified with Christ: the life I now live is not&nbsp;<em>my&nbsp;</em>life, but the life which&nbsp;<em>Christ lives&nbsp;</em>in me; and my present bodily life is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me". The spirit of the risen Christ lived out in our lives is the witness of His resurrection. We are Him to this world. His cross affects our whole life, our deepest thought and action, to the extent that we can say with Paul, in the silence of our own deepest and most personal reflection: “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>).</p><h4><em>I live in faith</em>- The Gospel of the Lord Jesus isn't a collection of ideas and theologies bound together in a statement of faith. It is, rather, a proclamation of facts (and the Greek words used about the preaching of the Gospel support that view of it) concerning a flesh and blood historical person, namely the Lord Jesus Christ. The focus is all upon a concrete and actual person. Paul in <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em> doesn't say: 'I live by faith in the idea that the Son of God loved me'. Rather: "I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself up for me" (RV). Faith is centred in a person- hence the utterly central importance of our correctly understanding the Lord Jesus. We are clearly bidden see the man Jesus as the focus of everything.</h4><p><em>And that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up</em>- A reference to the unique method of the Lord's death, consciously giving up His last breath in the words "Father into Your hands I commend my spirit", a life not taken from the Lord but consciously given up by Him. And that supreme act of self giving was "for me".</p><p><em>For me-&nbsp;</em>There is the sustained implication that the personal relationship between Jesus and each of His followers is totally personal and unique. The Abrahamic covenant is made personally with every member of the seed “in their generations" (<em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em>). The records of the renewing of the covenant to Isaac and Jacob are but indicators that this is the experience of each one of the seed. This means that the covenant love of God and the promise of personal inheritance of the land is made personally, and confirmed by the shedding of Christ's blood, to each of us. Paul appreciated this when he spoke of how the Son of God had loved him and died for him personally, even though that act of death was performed for many others (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>). This is one of the most essential mysteries of our redemption; that Christ gave Himself&nbsp;<em>for me</em>, so that He might make&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;His very own; and therefore I wish to respond in total devotion to Him and His cause, to make Him the Man I fain would follow to the end. And yet He did it for&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;and for&nbsp;<em>you</em>; for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of us His people. All the emphasis on fellowship and family life, good as it is, must never blind us to this ultimately&nbsp;<em>personal</em>&nbsp;relationship with the One who gave Himself for us. Each time a believer enters into covenant with Christ through baptism, blood is in a sense shed; the Lord dies again as the believer dies again in the waters if baptism. The Hebrew word translated ‘to cut a covenant’ is also translated ‘cut off’ in the sense of death (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:2-3'>Lev 20:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:9'>Isa 48:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 2:21'>Pro 2:21</a></em>). Death and blood shedding are essential parts of covenant making:&nbsp;In <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>, Paul wrote of “the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me”; and yet some years later he wrote in conscious allusion to this statement: “Christ loved&nbsp;<em>the church</em>&nbsp;and gave himself&nbsp;<em>for it</em>” (<em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>). He looked out from beyond his personal salvation to rejoice in the salvation of others. He learnt that it was God manifestation in a multitude, not individual human salvation, that was and is of the essence. And we follow a like path, from that day when we were asked ‘why do you want to be baptized’, and we replied something to the effect ‘because I want to be in the Kingdom’. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 2:21'>Gal 2:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I do not make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing</em>- Strong language, but this is what all trust in legalistic obedience to law amounts to. We can frustrate the intention of God's grace, we can void or frustrate s:w. the will of God against ourselves by refusing baptism (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em>). So much can be wasted, like the wine / blood of Christ pouring out on the earth unless we become new wineskins. "Make void" means literally to abrogate; perhaps the idea is that Paul had abrogated the Law, and not God's grace. And all this terrible waste of God's grace can come about, in the context of this chapter, by being pressured by legalistic brethren into rejecting salvation by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:16'>Gal 4:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>O foolish Galatians Who has bewitched you?</em>- Literally, 'cast the evil eye over you'. Paul didn't surely believe in such things, but like the Lord Jesus, he uses the language of the day without as it were footnoting the fact he doesn't literally believe in those things. Paul is writing to those who thought they were now going to be saved by obedience to the Jewish law. But Judaism taught that obedience to the Law shielded Judaists from the 'evil eye' and magic spells. Paul is saying that the opposite is, as it were, the case. They had been "bewitched" to return to the Law, and were thus under, as it were, the curse which comes to those who seek justification by it. He goes right on to talk about the "curse of the law" and how believers in Christ are saved from this (<em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). His references to salvation from this "curse" must be read in the context of this opening play on the idea of being bewitched or under a curse.</p><p><em>It was before your own eyes that Jesus Christ was openly&nbsp;displayed as crucified</em>- Gk. 'placarded'. When Paul preached to the Galatians, he placarded forth Jesus Christ crucified in front of them: his preaching of the Gospel involved a repeated and graphic portrayal of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth as a historical event (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>). We are “in Christ” to the extent that we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;Christ to this world. In this sense He has in this world no arms or legs or face than us. Paul was a placarding of Christ crucified before the Galatians; to the Corinthians he was “the face of Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 2:10'>2Co 2:10</a></em> RSV). It was this marred visage of Paul which had impressed the Galatians with how much Paul was Christ-manifest: “Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” (Galatians 4). He could truly say in <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>: “I am crucified with Christ”, and that before their eyes “Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth ‘placarded’, crucified among you… for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus” (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>). Thus to preach through cross carrying means sharing in the Lord’s sufferings. It may mean being crucified by our brethren for it as He was, physical hardship and pain…&nbsp; but this is the ground of credibility for our witness.</p><p>It seems that Paul had gone through the process of crucifixion with them so realistically, that it was as if Christ had suffered before their eyes. If you have seen that, Paul says, and the vision remains with you, how can you turn away? And this is a powerful motivator for us too. The man who sees, really sees, something of the Lord's agony, simply won't turn away, doctrinally or practically. But if we turn away from the consideration, the motivation will not be there to keep on responding. In this sense the crucifixion record&nbsp;<em>almost</em>&nbsp;has a mystical power in it, if it is properly apprehended. Thus Paul could tell the Galatians that in him they had seen Jesus Christ placarded forth, crucified before their own eyes (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>). Paul knew that when people looked at his life, they saw something of the crucifixion of the Lord. The Galatians therefore accepted him " even as Christ Jesus" (<em><a href='B:550 4:14'>Gal 4:14</a></em>). He could describe his own preaching as “this Jesus, whom I preach unto you…” (<em><a href='B:510 17:3'>Act 17:3</a></em>), as if Jesus was right there before their eyes, witnessed through Paul. As the Lord was Paul’s representative, so Paul was Christ’s. The idea of representation works both ways: we see in the Gospel records how the Lord experienced some things which only we have; and we show aspects of His character to the world which nobody else can manifest.</p><p>If we can rise up to all this, placarding forth the Lord's crucifixion sufferings in our lives, then there will be a power and credibility to our preaching which will be hard to resist. It was before the eyes of the Galatians that they saw in Paul, Jesus Christ crucified (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>). But the only other reference to the eyes of the Galatians is in <em><a href='B:550 4:15'>Gal 4:15</a></em> - where we read that they had been so transfixed by Paul's preaching that they had been ready to pluck out their eyes. And where's the only other reference to plucking out eyes? It's in the Lord's teaching, where He says that if our eye offends us, we should pluck it out <em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em> - same Greek words used. The connection is surely this: Paul's personal reflection of the crucified Jesus was so powerful, so compellingly real and credible, that it motivated his hearers to rise up to the spirit of the very hardest demands of the moral teaching of that same Jesus. Insofar as we genuinely live out the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, our preaching of His radical moral demands will likewise be heeded. The crucified Christ that Paul placarded before their eyes was " the truth" (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:14-16'>Gal 4:14-16</a></em>); and the integrity and reality of that truth was confirmed by the congruence between the example of Paul, and the reality of the crucified Jesus whom he manifested to them. In Paul's body language, in his character, in his response to problems and frustrations great and small, in the way he coped with physical weakness, his audience somehow saw the crucified Christ. In the same letter, Paul reminds the Galatians how they had initially seen him preaching to them in a weak bodily state, and had seen Christ in him then (<em><a href='B:550 4:13-14'>Gal 4:13-14</a></em>). He says in <em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em> that they saw Christ crucified in him. Perhaps the way Paul handled a sickness or bodily weakness which he then had, somehow reflected to his audience the spirit of Christ crucified.</p><p>The effort we should consciously make to allow the life of Christ to be lived in us, is a natural outflow of the basic doctrine: that Christ was our representative. If we love Him and the record of His life, we will see in Him and His living the essence of our own: the same betrayal, barriers with His family and all close relationships, the pouring out of the love of God to a world and people who misunderstood, who thought they understood but didn’t, who were blind, who thought they saw, who only broke from the petty materialism of their lives to listen to Him because they thought they might get some personal benefit…all the time, He poured out His grace and the Father’s love. And He kept on to the final unspeakable, unwriteable, unenterable agony at the end. And even there, we sense He was not gritting His teeth trying to be patient, trying not to sin…He was pulsating with a love for men, a care for Pilate (comforting him that another had a greater sin); concern for the women who wept crocodile tears, that they might really repent; praying for forgiveness for those who knew not i:e:, fully what they did; preaching to the thieves in whispers, each word taking an agony of pain, heaving Himself up on the nails to get the air to speak it… To love one’s neighbour as oneself is to fulfil the law (<em><a href='B:550 5:14'>Gal 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>); and yet the Lord’s death was the supreme fulfilment of it (<em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em>). Here was the definition of love for one’s neighbour. Not a passing politeness and occasional seasonal gift, whilst secretly and essentially living the life of self-love and self-care; but the love and the death of the cross, for His neighbours as for Himself; laying down His life “for himself that it might be for us” in the words of Bro. Roberts. In Him, in His time of dying, we see the definition of love, the fulfilment of the justice and unassuming kindness and thought for others which was taught in the Mosaic Law. And we through bearing one another’s burdens, through bearing with their moral and intellectual and spiritual failures, must likewise fulfil the law, in a voluntary laying down of our lives for each other (<em><a href='B:550 6:2'>Gal 6:2</a></em>). And in this, as with the Lord, will be our personal salvation.</p><table><tr><td></p><h4></td><td></td></tr></table><p><em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em> AVmg. makes the act of breaking bread a command, an imperative to action: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, shew ye the Lord’s death, till he come". If we are going to eat the emblems, it is axiomatic that we will commit ourselves to shewing forth His death to the world, like Paul placarding forth Christ crucified in our lives (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em> Gk:). The Passover likewise had been a ‘shewing’ to one’s family “that which the Lord did unto me" (<em><a href='B:20 13:8'>Exo 13:8</a></em>), the redemption we have experienced.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:2'>Gal 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing works of the law, or by hearing with faith?</em>- This is not a reference to receipt of the miraculous Spirit gifts; for only some received these in the first century. <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em> is clear about the difference: "He that supplies to you the Spirit and works miracles among you". Not all had the miraculous gifts, indeed Paul downplays their importance in 1Corinthians. But all the Galatians are spoken of as having 'received the Spirit'. I suggest this refers to the gift of the Spirit which all believers in Christ receive at baptism (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>)- the internal power towards holiness and spirituality, Christ in us, His mind / spirit within us. The same words are used in <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em> of how the Spirit was to be received once Christ was glorified and had poured out this gift upon His people. This Spirit is received by the believers, not by the world, and is&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;us (<em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em>). The receipt of this Spirit means that we in our hearts can cry "Abba, Father" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>). Later in our chapter here, Paul speaks of receiving the Spirit as receiving the blessing of Abraham (<em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em>)- the blessing which in <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em> is defined as the power to turn us away from sin. Paul's immediate point here is that the Spirit was received by them not because they obeyed law, but because they had believed and been baptized into Christ. <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em> is quite clear that the Spirit received by all the Galatian converts was a gift of Divine relationship within their hearts: "And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:3'>Gal 3:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit</em>- The reference is to having begun spiritual life at their baptisms by receiving the Spirit (see on :2).</p><p><em>Are you now perfected in the flesh?</em>- The function of the Holy Spirit is to guide our spiritual development unto maturity or 'perfection'. Obedience to Law will not achieve this. The same word is used in describing how the Lord has "begun a good work within you" and will perform or 'perfect' it until the day we meet the Lord (<em><a href='B:570 1:6'>Phi 1:6</a></em>). This work is essentially&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;us. We are in a program of development, and attempting to justify ourselves by work will interrupt that program.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:4'>Gal 3:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Did you suffer so many things in vain? If it be indeed in vain-&nbsp;</em>The connection is with Paul's thought in <em><a href='B:550 2:21'>Gal 2:21</a></em> a few verses earlier- that if we are justified by works, then Christ has suffered in vain. And our sufferings, which are a sharing in His sufferings, will likewise be in vain. Paul several times uses this powerful idea of life "in vain". If we do not enter the Kingdom, if we refuse to be new wineskins, then the blood of the new covenant flows out wasted on the ground. All is vain, compared to salvation. This general attitude to life under the sun and all human endeavour is indeed powerful.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Does he that supplies to you the Spirit</em>- As noted on :2, this refers to the gift of the Spirit in the hearts of believers after baptism. The same word for "supplies" is used in <em><a href='B:580 2:19'>Col 2:19</a></em> of how the Lord Jesus as the head of the body supplies nourishment to every part. The Lord Jesus is indeed an active Lord. He ministers psychological, spiritual strengthening to all parts of His body, which is the church.</p><p><em>And works miracles&nbsp;among you, do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?</em>- See on :2&nbsp;<em>Did you receive the Spirit</em>. Note the present tenses. Despite the apostasy in Galatia, the Lord Jesus still actively ministered His Spirit and enabled miracles to be done, just as God did to an apostate Israel in the wilderness. Even in the first century, the work of the Spirit was not just confined to the miraculous gifts; thus "He that supplies to you the Spirit&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;works miracles among you" suggests that there was a non-miraculous work of the Spirit then. It seems clear that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were not possessed by all first century believers; and yet the epistles often imply that all believers had received the Spirit (e:g. <em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>). The resolution of this is in the fact that all believers then and now receive the non-miraculous effect of the Spirit. Indeed, <em><a href='B:720 1:19'>Jud 1:19</a></em> suggests that 'having the spirit' could just refer to someone who is not "sensual", i:e. of the flesh. John was "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb::. (going) in the Spirit and power of Elias::. waxed strong in spirit" (<em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:80'>Luk 1:80</a></em>); but "John did no miracle " (<em><a href='B:500 10:41'>Joh 10:41</a></em>). David associated having God's holy Spirit with having free fellowship with Him due to sins being forgiven, paralleling the holy Spirit with "a right spirit within me::. a clean heart" (<em><a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:12'>Psa 51:12</a></em>); and Paul spoke of God's willingness to forgive us as "the spirit of grace" (<em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>), i:e. His spiritual gift. Paul's reasoning in <em><a href='B:550 3:5-6'>Gal 3:5-6</a></em> is similar- the Spirit is ministered to us by faith, in the same way as Abraham's faith resulted in righteousness being imputed ('ministered') to him. Thus imputed righteousness is made parallel to the gift of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:6'>Gal 3:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:570 3:6'>Phi 3:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Even as Abraham believed God, and that faith was imputed to him for righteousness</em>- His faith was weak, just as faith was weak in Galatia. See on <em><a href='B:520 4:1-4'>Rom 4:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:18-19'>Rom 4:18-19</a></em>. Paul's point in <em><a href='B:520 4:3-5'>Rom 4:3-5</a></em> is that Abraham was counted as righteous for his faith and not because of his works; the promises of the Kingdom salvation were made to him whilst he was uncircumcised.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:7'>Gal 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Know that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham</em>- 'Of' in the sense of being the descendant of. Faith is the defining family characteristic of the Abraham family- and not race or physical descent. "The real descendants of Abraham are the people who have faith" (GNB).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>And the scripture, foreseeing that God would make the Gentiles righteous by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham</em>- Abraham was promised that "all the nations" i:e. "the Gentiles" would be blessed. Paul strains from this so it could seem to those not used to rabbinic exegesis that this blessing was not stated to be in response to any works- so it must therefore have been offered purely on the basis of faith. If they were to be given a blessing not on the basis of works, but on account of Abraham' singular seed, Jesus::. then such blessing would involve them being counted righteous, i:e. worthy of blessing, just because they believed this promise.</p><p><em>When it says: In you shall all the nations be blessed</em>- This was 'preached to Abraham'; and he chose to believe it. It was spoken to him before he had done any works of obedience or before he had believed anything. He was told, effectively, that he would be blessed / saved. And he believed it. The Gospel likewise comes to us out of left field, as it were. We are promised that we shall be saved- and if we believe it, we shall be.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:9'>Gal 3:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then, they that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham</em>- "With" translates&nbsp;<em>sun,&nbsp;</em>the idea being that believers are blessed by association with Abraham. And :27-29 explain that this is through baptism into Christ, who is Abraham's specific seed.</p><p>Verses 10-13 are a parenthesis concerning the curse of the Law. If read without the parenthesis, the flow of thought goes straight on: "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (v:9)::. that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles" (v:14).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse</em>- See on <em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Bewitched you</em>.</p><p><em>For it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do all things that are written in the book of the law</em>- The quotation is from the LXX of <em><a href='B:50 27:26'>Deu 27:26</a></em>. The Masoretic text is different: "Cursed is he who doesn’t confirm the words of this law to do them". This is an example of where so often the NT seems to prefer to quote the LXX over the MT. This has significant implications for any who insist upon the earth being 6000 years old as based upon the OT genealogies, for the figures are significantly different in the L.<XX/p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:11'>Gal 3:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now it is evident that no one is justified by the law before God For, The righteous shall live by faith</em>- The thought is very similar to that in Romans. <em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em> uses the same phrase&nbsp;<em>para Theos</em>&nbsp;to reason that the&nbsp;<em>doers</em>&nbsp;of the law are justified before God; and nobody does the entire law. But here (as in <em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>) Paul uses a related but slightly different argument. He says that we are not justified by deeds "before God" because of the very existence of the concept of justification&nbsp;<em>by faith</em>; and he quotes <em><a href='B:420 2:4'>Hab 2:4</a></em> as an exemplification of this.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:12'>Gal 3:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the law is not of faith</em>- Today likewise, legalism does not induce faith. It is our awareness of our disobedience and a deep sense of inability to be righteous which leads us to the faith which is a throwing of ourselves upon Divine grace and the Lord's cross.</p><p><em>But: He that does the commandments shall live in them</em>- The 'living' in view, in the context, seems to be 'living eternally'; for Paul has just said that the righteous shall live eternally by faith (:11). He therefore understood <em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em> to mean that life eternal was possible through perfect obedience to the Mosaic law: "You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances; which if a man does, he shall live in them". Notice that "in them" is added by the translators to make better sense of the simple statement that the obedient man "shall live". The truth of this interpretation is in the fact the Lord Jesus was indeed perfectly obedient to the Law and therefore lived for ever; He had to die for multiple reasons, but it was not possible that death should hold Him, seeing He had the right to eternal life through His perfect obedience; and therefore He was resurrected.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>.</p><p><em>Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us</em>- See on <em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Bewitched you</em>.</p><p><em>For it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree</em>- The idea is not that for some reason, being hung on a tree made a person "cursed". Those who had sinned unto death, according to the law of Moses, were "cursed" by that law; and those dead, legally cursed people were then hung on a tree. The point is that we have each become cursed by the Law of Moses through failing to completely obey it. And the perfect Lord Jesus was our representative; He there on the cross was and is everyman. It flows naturally from this that we would wish to immerse ourselves into His body there on the cross, identifying with Him, so that His resurrection can become ours. That is of course the meaning of baptism, but the spirit of that identification is to carry on through daily life and thought afterwards.</p><p>Note that Paul likens the Lord on the cross to the body of the criminal lifted up&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;death, not in order to lead to death (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>)- as if he understood the Lord to have been effectively dead unto sin at the time the body was lifted up on the cross. It was as if the idea of the cross had been lived out throughout the Lord’s life; He was dead as He lived, and dead to sin at the point that His body was lifted up on the tree.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This was so that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith-&nbsp;</em>Paul was so positive about his Galatians, many of whom he says seemed to be departing from the Christian faith. He feared he may have “laboured in vain” for some of them (<em><a href='B:550 4:11'>Gal 4:11</a></em>), but he writes of his expectations in a totally positive way: “Christ hath redeemed us… that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that we might receive the promise of the Spirit i:e. salvation” (<em><a href='B:550 3:13-14'>Gal 3:13-14</a></em>). “For ye are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>)- yet Paul could write this despite knowing his readers’ lack of faith in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 1:6'>Gal 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:3-5'>Gal 3:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:11'>Gal 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:21'>Gal 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:4'>Gal 5:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:7'>Gal 5:7</a></em>):&nbsp; “And because ye are sons… thou art no more a servant, but a son: and if a son, then an heir of God though Christ” (<em><a href='B:550 4:6-7'>Gal 4:6-7</a></em>). “So then brethren we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free” (<em><a href='B:550 4:31'>Gal 4:31</a></em>). If we believe that we ourselves will be there, we will spark off an upward spiral of positive thinking in the community of believers with whom we are associated. Think carefully on the Lord’s words to the Pharisees: “For ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). If we don’t believe we will be there, we end up discouraging others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 15:57'>1Co 15:57</a></em>.</p><p><em>Brothers, I speak in human terms. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it has been confirmed, no one makes it void, or adds thereto</em>- The confirmation of the covenant was 'previous' to the giving of the Law of Moses (:17). The confirmation was in the fact that God made an oath by Himself (<em><a href='B:650 6:13-18'>Heb 6:13-18</a></em>); the promise itself, and then His word of oath, made two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie. The simple covenant of salvation was that anyone who believed the promises to Abraham and associated themselves with his seed will be eternally saved and blessed. Nothing has been added or subtracted from that ever since it was given. The Lord's death was yet another act of confirming that covenant, and appealing to men and women to believe it and participate in it; but His life and death did not of themselves add anything to the salvation covenant promise given to Abraham, and which forms the basis of the Gospel. And likewise, the law of Moses did not void nor add to that covenant.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He did not say: And to seeds, in the plural, but in the singular: And to your seed, who is Christ</em>- A case can be made that the whole New Testament is a form of&nbsp;<em>Midrash</em>&nbsp;on the Old Testament, re-interpreting it in the light of Christ. Paul so often employs the same literary devices found in the rabbinic&nbsp;<em>Midrashim</em>, e:g:&nbsp;<em>al tiqra</em>&nbsp;read not thus, but thus- <em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em> is a classic example.</p><p>The promises were made to Abraham's future seed, the Lord Jesus. He did not personally pre-existed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is what I mean; the law which came years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise of no effect-&nbsp;</em>The confirmation of the covenant s:w. :15 "confirmed" was in that God swore it with an oath. The promise to save people who believed in His offer of blessing / salvation was absolutely certain. The logic of the argument here could suggest that actually, salvation was open to Gentiles in Old Testament times if they simply believed in the Abrahamic covenant. For it was not in any sense annulled; the Lord's death was simply an extra confirmation of it, and enabled believers to identify with the seed.</p><p><em><a href='B:550 3:15-20'>Gal 3:15-20</a></em> stresses how the Law came after the promises to Abraham, and cannot disannul them. Reasoning back from Paul's writing, we can arrive at some understanding of what the Judaists were saying. Their position was that baptism of Gentiles into the Abrahamic covenant was fine, but they must keep the Law for salvation. Paul is pointing out that the promises to Abraham offer eternal inheritance in the Kingdom on the basis of faith and grace, and neither the Law of Moses nor any other form of legalism can change that fundamental basis. An appreciation of the promises will therefore root us in the wonder of salvation by grace, to the point that we will reject all forms of legalism whenever they are proposed in the ecclesia, and whenever our own flesh seeks to justify itself by works achieved rather than by humbly accepting forgiveness of sins. That the Lord's death took away the Law can be assented to us and passed by. But the RV of Romans draws a difference between "<em>the</em>&nbsp;law" and "law" without the article, i:e. legality. Because we are saved by grace, no legal code, of Moses or anyone else, can save us. Therefore we are free- but that freedom is so wonderful that we are under “the law of Christ", the rigid principle of always seeking to act as this Man would do, who freed us from law. Otherwise, we end up replacing one form of legalism under Moses with another, a set of laws given by Jesus. He&nbsp;<em>has</em>&nbsp;saved us in prospect, outside of any law. And we are to rejoice in this and yet respond to it. Dostoevsky's epic&nbsp;<em>The Brothers Karamazov</em>&nbsp;is really a parable of the terrible burden of this freedom and the forgiveness of sins. In it, Jesus returns to earth. He is arrested, and the Inquisitor visits Him in the middle of the night. He tries to explain to Jesus that people do not want freedom. They want security. He argues with Jesus, that if one really loves people, then you make them happy- but not free. Freedom is dangerous. People want law, not responsibility; they want the neurotic comfort of rules, not the danger of decision making and the burdens it brings. Christ, says the Inquisitor, must not start up this business about freedom and grace and the commitment and responsibility it demands. Let things be; let the church have its laws. And will Jesus please go away. The life of grace to the extent that it must be lived is a radical confrontation- it creates the necessity of making pure freewill decisions to do and think acts of grace in response to God's grace. Grace has been presented as the easy way out. It isn't. It is far, far more demanding than legalism.</p>


