Understanding

2nd Corinthians 8: Charity or Socialism?

                                                (Love or Compulsion?)

 

“The goal is equality.” (2nd Cor. 8:14b)

Does Paul teach that our goal is to establish social and economic equality? Was Paul a social egalitarian? Was he on a mission to re-distribute money and resources until those in Macedonia had the same as those in, say, Jerusalem or Antioch? Was Paul implying or teaching that no person should have any less or more than any other person?

What did Paul mean by, “the goal is equality,” and why is this important?

If Paul advocated economic egalitarianism (equal distribution of material goods and resources), and by extension political and secular socialism, then there would be a case for the increasingly popular “social gospel,” which argues that true Christian evangelism is all about re-distributing wealth so that all occupants of this planet share more or less equally. The so-called social gospel replaces the Great Commission with a grand redistribution cause, and at its worst it displaces salvation by grace Alone in Christ alone with some hoped for achievement of economic redistribution and equality.

How we view these theories will reveal how understand the Gospel and how we view our responsibilities as believers and as the Church; it will reveal how we view Christ, God’s providence, the Bible, and the Great Commission.

Specific guidance appears in the biblical text itself, which elaborates on the meaning of the phrase, “the goal is equality’……

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed… At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need” (v.13-14a)

First of all, Paul wrote to believers, not to unbelievers. This narrows the field greatly and mitigates against the extrapolation of Paul’s comments to some universal restatement of the Gospel.  

Paul openly acknowledges that economic states and fortunes ebb and flow. There will be prosperous times, and there will be difficult times. “Equality” as Paul used the term has to do with providing for other believers’ critical need in the hardest of times, knowing that if and when the tables are reversed our need will likewise be addressed.

Thus, the “equality” Paul referred to was “reciprocity” or the expectation of reciprocal treatment in love, encouragement and practical assistance, not the mathematical equalization of possessions and money. In other words, Paul is not calling for the condemnation of those who are financially well off, rather he is calling for their assistance.

In addition, Paul urged reciprocity in giving and sharing within a context of oppression. The poverty of needy Christians resulted in large part from social and political persecution. Paul wrote of Christians relieving one another’s acute burdens, not of attempting to accomplish universal wealth redistribution as a socialist, egalitarian ideology.

Again, those to whom Paul wrote were Christians – specifically, the church in Corinth. Those to whom their gifts were sent were also Christians – specifically churches. This was a specifically identified church-to-church relief movement, not some secular, politically run, “big brother” movement to redistribute everyone’s possessions and money.

In addition, Paul’s fundraising and relief efforts were for the benefit of believers in need, not for “buying” unbelievers into the faith. We are reminded of Jesus’ words, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Jesus could have said, “By this all men will know you are my disciples, if you buy them off and impress them with gifts and your money and your wonderful generosity.” He could have said that, but He did not.

If we think the New Testament’s teachings about charity and sacrificial giving are essentially intended to be universal in scope, or even evangelical in purpose, rather than oriented primarily and explicitly towards believers in the Church, we need to study some more.

Beware of so-called “Christians” preaching global wealth re-distribution, calling it “the gospel” or “the social gospel” and using Biblical words but advancing leftist (we used to call it “Marxist”) socio-political ideals and anti-American, anti-capitalist agendas. They typically appeal to Christian “goodness” more than to Scripture, and when they do appeal to Scripture, it is invariably out of context. I have had dialogs with such people, and while they are true believers in their own private gospel, they are false in their teaching and understanding. They delight in taking valid Biblical precepts and wrestling them right onto their own universal, leftist bandwagon.

Christian unity and charity is another thing altogether. There is much in these chapters 8 and 9 of 2^nd Corinthians concerning proper attitudes in addressing the needs of fellow believers, sharing generously of our own discretion and our own abundance, and applying ourselves as a body of believers to these ideals. We note that Paul was not shy about asking for donations, creating competition by telling one group (the Corinthians) how generous another group (the Macedonians) had been, and sending colleagues to collect and transport funds to Christians in need.

Note that Paul appealed neither to Old Testament tithing laws nor to shame and guilt in his fundraising efforts. He appealed to a sense of gratitude arising from having been freed from sin and death by God’s grace. He appealed to the fact that the believers in Corinth, like their counterparts in Macedonia, were privileged to comport themselves fully as Kingdom citizens and as recipients – AND conduits - of God’s providence and grace.

How about us? Are we acting out of a sense of gratitude for what God has done for us? In our sharing, are we in solidarity with the body of Christ? If we are, then we are giving from our abundance to the legitimate deficit of others in the faith. Are we doing this with appropriate passion and priority? My first thought, by far not my best one, is that this is an intensely personal and individual self-assessment; however, the Apostle Paul would disagree with me; he would relate the whole matter to the body of Christ, not to individual “me, myself and I -ism.”

It may be argued that as long as there are Christians in the world who are starving or suffering for serious lack of material resources, especially due to persecution for their faith, the body of Christ (that would be us) is missing the mark. It can also be argued with obvious validity that if some in the local church are suffering from lack of resources - through no laziness, aversion to work, entitlement mentality, or arrogance on their part – then the local church is missing the mark.

Good teaching encourages us to manage our finances in such a way as to move ourselves from a deficit to a surplus, and then determine how the surplus can be used more wisely by us. This is good as a corrective, remedial process. But it would be much better in the first place to apply sound financial principles early – principles such as regularly supporting the local church, systematic saving, giving as a matter of routine charity, using a monthly or weekly budget, and spending according to a plan which accounts for all of the above. The longer someone does NOT practice these things, the more deeply underwater they will tend to sink, and the more difficult it will be to swim to the surface or even know why the surface is a good place to be.

Most Americans overspend and abuse debt - especially credit cards - until the average American is a financial slave. This is clearly the case.

On the one hand, if the entire country began practicing sound financial habits, the entire world economy would utterly and immediately collapse. The term “house of cards” comes to mind. (That should tell us a lot about the state of the world economy!)

On the other hand, the entire country is not about to suddenly begin practicing sound financial habits, and sadly neither are most Christians, which leaves the door open for serious Christian believers to recover and reform financially without destroying the entire system. In other words, the door to financial health and repentance is wide open to those who will exercise their faith to walk through it.

2nd Corinthians 7: What’s Love Got to Do with It?

 

“…godly grief produces repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. ...see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you…” (2^nd Corinthians 7:10-11). 

Paul rejoiced that the Corinthian believers had accepted his earlier correction (1^st Corinthians) and taken his instructions to heart; they repented of the sin which they had previously tolerated and committed.

What’s love got to do with it?  

Here is the background. Earlier, in 1st Cor. 5:1-12, Paul had confronted the believers in Corinth concerning the sin of incest being committed among them. He urged them to “expel the wicked person.” It is evident from 2nd Cor. 2:5-11 & 7:8-12 that the Corinthians heeded Paul’s instructions, repented from their sin of accepting and celebrating such depravity, and took appropriate action with regard to the offender, who seems also to have repented.

Note that the sin was not confined only to the direct perpetrator; Paul’s correction was aimed at the whole community, which allowed and even approved of shameful, open sin. Having heard of their godly response to his correction, Paul now encourages them (2^nd Corinthians 2:6-8) to forgive and to restore the repentant offender.

That’s what love’s got to do with it!

This is a picture of confrontation and restoration, not merely “church discipline.” In other words, the main point of discipline is restoration of community and solidarity in Christ.

Paul was in no way “soft” on the Corinthian church’s prideful and arrogant acceptance of open and flagrant sin (1 Cor. 5:2). For a leader like Paul, and for that matter for anyone in the Church, that kind of softness would not be love, but complicity. Paul lovingly yet firmly broke the chain of complicity and called the sin what it was, exhorting the Corinthians to do likewise. Once the sin was confronted appropriately and honestly, a change of mind and heart took place among the Corinthians by the Spirit of Christ, and repentance was lived out by and among them.

In response, Paul encouraged the Corinthian believers to forgive and restore the offender, even as Paul affirmed and confirmed his love for the Corinthians.

Awareness… Confrontation… Acknowledgement… Repentance… Restoration.

God is love, and He has always been in the restoration business. If He was not, every one of us would be hopelessly and irretrievably lost!

God’s love for us, and Paul’s love for the Corinthian believers, is not merely some gushy inclination to agree with anything and everything in order to avoid offense, judgment or criticism. Love does not mean “acceptance” in the modern definition of the term, which entails approval of just about anything and everything. Love includes honest confrontation where called for, as long as the ultimate aim is restoration.

Again, that’s exactly what love’s got to do with it!

Jesus had certainly taught forgiveness and restoration, for example, in the discourse recorded by Matthew (Matt. 18:15-20). This passage is often and somewhat unfortunately described only as a teaching on “church discipline.” Here, Jesus taught that if a brother sins (implying that someone, at least, is aware of the sin), the offended party should go to the sinning brother (confrontation). If the brother does not listen (acknowledgement), the confronter returns with two or three witnesses. If the brother still refuses to acknowledge the sin, then the assembly is told about the offense, which further elevates the confrontation. If that does not bring the offender to acknowledgment and repentance, then he is to be given the right foot of fellowship, not in ultimate judgment and rejection of him, but in hopes that he will finally acknowledge the offense and move onto the path of restoration.

If none of this brings the offender around, then the problem may be worse than a believer missing the mark. There is the possibility that the offender is unregenerate and needs to come to faith in Christ. In such a case, “love” would not be expressed by overlooking the offense or allowing the offender to stay around as though his persistent, unrepentant offense and arrogance were forgotten. We might validly connect this kind of a situation with the Apostle John’s words at 1^st John 2:19, describing those who had chosen to leave the church and the fellowship of true faith, demonstrating that they were not born again in the first place:

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.”

In Matthew 18, what is the context of Christ’s teaching? The text immediately preceding Matt. 18:15-20 is about recovering and restoring a lost sheep, and the text immediately following is about forgiving a sinning brother 490 times (that means continuously) if necessary. So we see that Matt. 18:15-20 is part of a section of scripture that is fundamentally about love, forgiveness, and restoration - not punishment, recompense and “payback.” These harsher, unloving terms terms are the ones suggested by the term "discipline" as the word is commonly used (and misused) in our modern language and culture.

Given its present connotations, then, our common and frequent use of the term “church discipline” to describe this teaching might not be the very best choice. It seems to focus on punishment and institutional authority more than love and restoration.

So it would seem that both Matthew 18:15-20 and the lesson we read about in 1st and 2nd Corinthians could both be described as being about “Repentance and Renewal,” or “Loving Restoration of a Wayward Brother or Sister,” rather than the relatively sterile phrase “church discipline.” The latter description is technically true as far as it goes, but it may not go nearly far enough.

Though pastoral responsibility may be somewhat implied, neither the text in 2^nd Corinthians nor that in Matthew’s Gospel suggest it is solely the job of the pastor or elder(s) to take corrective/restorative actions in reaction to open and flagrant sin. Though it may sometimes work out that way in practice, the point is that the entire Church is to participate in a way of life which includes the loving confrontation, correction, encouragement, assistance, and restoration of those who are caught in grievous sin.

We are not referring to finger-wagging, condescending, publicly shaming, meddling, gossipy, self-magnifying, told-you-so, judgmental legalism here, but a process of loving restoration, and in the most extreme case, loving expulsion in hopes of bringing the offender to faith.

2nd Corinthians 6: Unequally Yoked

An often invoked and frequently underestimated passage begins at 6:14 and ends at 7:1; usually only one verse (v.14) is quoted: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” The context of the verse is not often investigated or explained, yet it is assumed we know Paul’s meaning when we say things like: “This verse clearly states believers must not marry unbelievers,” or “This tells us we should not have any non-Christian business partners.”

Of course there is wisdom in such principles, assuming they are validly applied. But Paul wrote no such thing here. The passage is simply not about these topics, at least not in any overt way. Yes, we can make some extended applications, but it is always best to first apprehend what the text of Scripture is getting at, because if we "skip over" the central, intended meaning and run straight to secondary applications, we miss the original point of the word of God. 

The immediate context of 6:14 is found in Paul’s statements which precede and follow it (6:11-13 & 7:2). These are nearly identical, repetitive calls for the Corinthians to open their hearts to him and his colleagues (6:12-13), and to “make room for us in your hearts” (7:2). Much of 2^nd Corinthians, in fact, takes up this very theme. Paul had previously written a hard letter of reprimand and correction (1^st Corinthians), and here sought reconciliation. 

His desire, however, was not motivated by a mere need for approval. Paul was not so self-centered in his concerns over the Corinthians, and he had something else in mind. In the immediate sense, he wanted the Corinthians to avoid rejecting sound apostolic teaching and attaching themselves to false teachers and false doctrines.

Consider the flow of events. Paul had left Corinth then later received a terrible report on their conduct. They were engaging in all sorts of sinful practices, and they were welcoming and supporting false teachers and false doctrines counter to the Gospel of Christ. Paul wrote a letter of rebuke and instruction (1^st Corinthians), then gratefully heard that the Corinthians had taken his letter to heart and repented. Now, in 2^nd Corinthians, Paul is attempting to repair the breach and also to instruct them against embracing false, heretical teaching and teachers. 

If we turn over to 2^nd Cor. 11, especially v.1-15 (see also 12:11-13), we find that Paul warned the Corinthians away from false teachers, the so-called “super apostles” (11:5, 12:11), who had been trying to undermine what Paul had taught concerning the true Gospel of Christ. Imposters were not only coming in behind Paul and teaching heretical doctrines, they were making money doing it. Corinthians, steeped as they were in a highly pluralistic culture, were conditioned from birth to embrace just about anything that came along, including idol worship in various forms. Paul exhorted them not to be “yoked” – that is, not to embrace, accept, synchronize with, apply themselves to, believe, or partner with - false apostles and teachers, who were unbelievers peddling false ideas, teachings and idols. 

Paul did not refer here to believers marrying unbelievers, believers doing business with pagans, or Christians engaging socially with non-Christians, though these things might possibly come into focus in application of this teaching. His concern was for the Corinthians to hold to true and correct beliefs, coming from true apostles and teachers, and consistent with the Gospel of Christ as Paul had preached and taught it to them. Paul hoped the believers in Corinth would forsake neither him nor sound teaching by running after imposters and charlatans. The clear inference here is that Paul, as he constantly did, called for sound belief and sound doctrine delivered through authentic, apostolic teaching.

The presence and danger of false teachers and false doctrines is a prevalent, recurring theme in the New Testament and a frequent concern and focus of the Church for centuries, in fact until quite recently. In early centuries of the Church, there was intense protective concern over Christian doctrines. Great ecumenical councils were held to address debates concerning the Trinity, the nature and work of Christ, the nature of salvation, and other key doctrines of the faith. What Christians believed and what the Bible actually said were held in great importance.

As recently as two centuries ago and even less, ordinary (including non-scholastic, non-“intellectual”) Christians studied doctrine very seriously and taught it carefully to their children and each other through the use of creeds, confessions, catechisms, and studies that today’s believers would mostly find – well, frankly challenging and unusual. Doctrines which were once taught, discussed and studied routinely in churches are now taught almost exclusively in graduate level seminaries, if at all. The true doctrines of the faith never changed, but we sure did. We became doctrinally indifferent to a very large extent. One result is that there are scores and scores of church-attending, self-professed Christians who are unfamiliar or even deceived about the basic, fundamental, key, foundational, essential doctrines of the faith.

Should we be seriously attentive to “what” we believe, or is all of that “doctrinal” stuff merely academic and strictly optional? Should we leave it up to each individual to decide whether to learn about scripture, theology and doctrine? Or should we apply ourselves to diligent, collective learning and affirmation of what we believe and why, so we can explain it to ourselves and our families, so we can represent it confidently and effectively to others, and so we are better protected against false doctrine and false teachers?

Let’s not forsake good, solid, doctrinal teaching because it seems challenging. Let’s study and learn the word of God, and let’s hold fast to its truths and doctrines with all our might. Let’s not accept every new or popular idea or teacher who comes down the pike, and let’s not pass off the great doctrines of the faith as “optional” or “mere head knowledge.” The apostolic teaching Paul wished to emphasize as important to the Corinthians is still available – it is in the form of the Holy Bible. Apostles and associates of apostles, after all, wrote the New Testament, which therefore IS our apostolic succession.

In summary, let’s not open ourselves to being “unequally yoked” by shunning serious Bible study, theology and Christian doctrine.

By the way, there are practical dangers to taking such verses as 2^nd Corinthians 6:14 out of context and then formulating life decisions using that approach. Broadly speaking, one of the dangers is that we can easily over-simplify and trivialize the teaching of scripture, missing the main point entirely. Here is an example, and it is one I have seen a number of times. I believe all pastors have seen this many more times than I have:

Someone (a Christian) meets a new love interest and tries to check off the “Christian” box to gain confidence that their choice of a mate will be “in God’s will.” One of the first precepts invoked is the one that says, “Do not be unequally yoked…” In order to put this precept (as understood) into practice, the Christian begins asking questions such as, “Are you a Christian?” And, “Do you go to church?” And, “Are you saved?”

Too often the inquirer, hearing generally affirmative responses, pretty much leaves it at that, satisfied that they and their new love will be “equally yoked” because the answers are something like “yes, sometimes, and oh sure.” Often there is a good deal of rationalization that goes on in this process. For example, though the answers given may be weak and insufficient to remotely approach the issue of equal and unequal yoking, the inquirer reasons (rationalizes) that he or she will change the person, once they are married, into someone who fully shares their faith and practices religion the same way he or she does. Perhaps he or she even imagines that God is guaranteeing the other person will come around and fully join the faith, so the two will not be “unequally yoked.” This may be heard as a statement something like, “God spoke to me and told me I am to marry… (this person).”

The problem here is that the “yoking” (coupling, joining) Paul referred to went far deeper than such superficial questions, answers and clichés could ever cover. What does “Christian” mean to the other person? Who is Christ? Who is God, and how is Christ a man and also God? What did Christ accomplish in history, and how has it been (and is it being) applied to the person? Is the person’s salvation by grace alone through faith received from God, or is it by his or her own work, or some combination of the two? What does it mean to “trust Christ?” What is Church? What is its purpose and how is it to be in the life of a believer? How does the person’s Christian faith affect the way they live? How has his or her life changed since and as a result of conversion? What teachers have influenced this person? What does this person read and listen to? How do the answers to such questions square with Scripture and with the great doctrines of the faith? Where might we differ on such understandings, and what are the implications of those differences?

Does the inquirer himself (or herself) know what their own answers are?

Without knowledge and understanding of such things about each other, there is no way of knowing whether or not a couple will be or will not be “unequally yoked” in the meaning of 2^nd Corinthians 6:14.

Does the sort of pre-qualification I describe seem way over the top and outside the realm of practicality? For most of us, it probably does. We simply are not equipped for it. We tend to be prone to reducing sound Biblical precepts to mere clichés. We might think of this habit and practice as “Biblical Reductionism.” We do it until it becomes a way of life. Consequently, many things seem “over the top” to us. The results can be quite devastating, and quite insidious, which is undoubtedly part of the reason Paul wrote about “unequal yoking”, and why God saw fit to include it in Holy Scripture.

The remedy, if one is needed, is rather simple for the believer: Dig into scripture. Get trained to read and understand it. Listen to good Bible expositors. Read sound books with sound Biblical teaching, and do not assume that a book fits this description simply because it is sold in a Christian bookstore or in the “religious” section at Barnes & Noble. Many if not most of them do not. Beware of “faddish” books and teachings – it is very rare for anyone to come up with something truly “new” in the way of Biblical doctrine or theology. Read old, tried and true Christian writings, rather than the fluffy stuff designed to hook customers and sell copies. Most of those will be gone and unheard of in a few years anyway.

Let’s love the Lord with all our minds as well as our emotions.

2nd Corinthians 4: The Gospel Truth & Only the Gospel Truth

 

         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         “…we do not lose heart.”    (2^nd Cor. 4:1)

                         “…we do not lose heart.”    (2^nd Cor. 4:16)

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Inclusio” – This is the name of a literary device which places text between two “brackets,” such that the brackets or bookends contain within and between them a thought unit or distinct section of writing. In Hebrew literature, including much of the New testament, such inclusios appear quite frequently and can be helpful in studying the text.  

Notice that there are 16 verses (inclusive) between the two quoted above. A review and re-reading of this particular section (2^nd Cor. 4:1-16) reveals all of the following:

The message of the Gospel had been delivered without cunning or tampering with the word of God, and by openly stating the truth (v.2), by not “veiling” or watering down or sugar-coating the Gospel (v.3), by not presuming that whether someone “hears” or receives the Gospel is up to the messenger or to how the truth is “packaged” (v.4-5), by not presuming to change these “jars of clay” (the messengers) into something more dazzling, special or charismatic than they are (v.7), by being real and human and vulnerable in and through affliction and persecution (v.8-9), by embracing the death of Jesus and by not only and always emphasizing what Jesus can “do for you” to make your life more fabulous, comfortable and exciting (v.10-12), by simply speaking out what is known and believed, in the confidence of the resurrection (v.13-14), all for the glory of God which is guaranteed and assured (v.15).

The section under consideration concludes with Paul’s reiteration, the closing bookend: “So, we do not lose heart.”

Stay with the Gospel - In short, all we need for faith, assurance and perseverance is given in the simple truth and historical reality of Christ and what He has done (the Gospel.) We do not need to add dazzle and pop to make it “better” or “more acceptable.” Those who can hear and receive the Gospel will do so by the power of the Holy Spirit and the word of God, not by the power of our wonderful charisma and our entertaining and fabulous presentation.

We also do not need to change the Gospel of Christ into the Gospel of “Me”: “Let Me Tell You What God Has Done to Improve My Life.” While we may share such things along the way as a testimony to the goodness of God, we must not confuse such testimony with the actual Gospel, the primary, central message we are called and mandated to share.

If we do insist on “beefing up” the Gospel with our own inventions, we will set ourselves and others up for disappointment. We will cause “loss of heart.” That is because if we try to change the Gospel into something that is loaded with our own representations, there is a grave danger that those who hear “our” message will accept it, rather than the Gospel. Our own personal message will disappoint, every time. It will fall short of the Gospel, and it will fail miserably to deliver what Christ delivers by His completed work of redemption and justification.

The inevitable disappointment of a doctored, watered down, re-cast, personalized, “improved gospel” will cause hearers to lose heart. It will happen whenever rough times hit and the false implications or “promises” we made prove to be vacuous. It will happen when the will of God in a person’s life is difficult for them and looks different than the life of the “improved Gospel” messengers they have been listening to. It will happen when the storms which may have brought them to the message in the first place subside, leaving them with something which has become less than essential, and less than satisfying.       

Paul’s Example - There was no need for Paul to spin and manipulate the message of Christ and the Gospel. God had given it, Christ had accomplished it, so what could be added to make it any more effective or complete? Sure its meaning and truth were (and still are) hidden to some, but truth is God’s to reveal or conceal. Paul’s job was to share the light as it was given, without cute presentations, marketing, branding slogans, catchy book titles, and a Madison Street wardrobe. Paul was a deep thinker, not an entertainer. He shared knowledge of the Gospel, not sensationalism.

As far as we know, Paul ministered without a rocking band to warm things up, and he did not use an expensive sound system or elaborate stage props. He wrote heartfelt letters to those he knew and loved, and he preached the Gospel. He did not write books with titles designed to sell copies and start the latest “new” Christian movement. Paul did not invent new gimmicks and stories from his vast experience, in order to make the Gospel more palatable or fetching.

Legitimate Suffering - Neither did Paul or his colleagues resort to “spin” in order to remove themselves from affliction, persecution, and suffering. After all, suffering in “jars of clay” (corruptible bodies of flesh) showed that the real power by which men are justified and saved belongs to God, not Paul, and not the Corinthians.

Physical death and suffering was only “light momentary affliction” according to Paul, who pointed believers to far greater, unseen things. For the things that are seen are transient (temporary, giving way to something else), “…but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2nd Cor. 4:17-18).

Why was Paul writing along these lines? We can think of at least two reasons.

First, Paul was preparing and equipping the Corinthians for what would be soon coming to a neighborhood near them – terror and martyrdom, not tea parties and not “Your Best Life Now” book tours. The only choice available to some would soon be (1) open worship of the Roman gods and the emperor, along with public renouncement of Christ, or (2) being charged publicly, condemned for capital crimes, and quite possibly sentenced to torture and death.

Second, Paul was re-establishing himself with the Corinthians after hammering them with criticism in his previous letter, which thankfully brought about their repentance. In reconciling, Paul contrasted himself with those who were showing up in Corinth to pervert the Gospel with all sorts of sensational spin and false doctrines. Please read 2 Cor. 11:1-15 here, because it reveals Paul’s concern about these false “super-apostles,” who were coming to the vulnerable and volatile Corinthians and tickling their ears with errant teaching. These false teachers were preying on the church, often for money (11:7). They were, as Paul put it, posing as “angels of light” (11:14).

What about Us? - We are subjected to so much spin, flash and dazzle as Christians today! We are addicted to being entertained and titillated. Instead, we need to focus in on the Gospel, over and over and over again, and then some more. We need to know it and learn it and stay with it, and not allow ourselves to be taken in by all the superfluous offerings that are intended to sell more books, CDs and DVDs, make more money, jack up television ratings, draw in more donations, win more votes, pack more consumers into more mega-churches, make us look rather than be more spiritual, and get us focused on what is “seen” instead of what is unseen.

Prudent Questions - Before we fall head over heels for the latest teacher, the most exciting preachers, the latest faddish “Christian” book, the flashiest televangelist, or the latest “manifestation,” we should ask ourselves:

1. Are Jesus Christ and His work of redemption front and center? Is His name coming up often? Does everything point to Him? Is it all about Him, or is it more about “me, myself and I”?
2. Is the word of God being used properly, carefully, and in context? Is it the final and ultimate place for judging the veracity and authenticity of doctrine and tradition? Is God’s word expounded, or is it mined for a quick verse or passage merely to support the speaker or writer’s points? Is God’s word treated flippantly or reverently?
3. Is the message and approach Gospel centered? Is the Gospel central and primary, or is it peripheral?
4. Does the book or tape or teacher expound on truths known and held for many centuries, or is there a claim of “new truths” and “new revelations” not previously known? If the latter is the case, then great care, caution, and skepticism are in order.
5. Which is paramount, the work of Christ or the work of the believer? To the extent the work of the believer is encouraged, is all such work clearly and carefully grounded in the finished work of Christ?
6. Is there a strong message of salvation by grace through faith, and not by works? Or is there a message of salvation by grace through faith plus something extra? Is there a claim of some special, additional spiritual status or position to be gained by doing something “extra” which will separate the super-Christian from the ordinary one? If so, extreme caution is called for.
7. Are the great truths and doctrines of classical Christianity held without compromise, or are they allegorized to satisfy those who would deny the literal resurrection of Christ, or the incarnation of the Son of God, or the Holy Trinity, or the virgin birth of Christ, or His atoning death, or man’s hopeless depravity, or justification by faith alone?

Great Commission - Some may say, “Hey, wait a minute! We need to make the message real and palatable to those who need to be entertained. We need to package the Gospel so they can hear and receive it! That is how more will be saved.”

We truly need to repent of this sort of thinking and acquaint ourselves with the fact that the Gospel of Christ is the most exciting, wonderful, amazing, transforming bit of good news ever given. It stands on its own, and it will be received by the power of the Holy Spirit, that is, by those given ears to hear by the Spirit of Christ. It will be rejected by those who cannot and will not hear, no matter how much bling and pop we try to inject.

The Great Commission does not say:

“Go into all the world and come up with the most dazzling, innovative, entertaining, impressive ways you can conjure up to make this Gospel digestible to all those people out there who need to be manipulated and coerced into listening and agreeing with you. Take out what they won’t accept, and put in things they will like more. If they won’t accept the real Gospel, at least give then something they will accept. By all means get them to “come forward,” or “raise their hands without anyone looking.” Get them to make some kind of a response, and when they do, make sure they are not disappointed – take them in and get them as busy as possible, doing whatever you can think of to convince them that all their doing is not only fun and exciting, but secures or anchors their “salvation” and justifies them before God. Convert the word “salvation” from meaning rescue from God’s righteous judgment and wrath, to meaning instead a sublime release into their own individual, personal comfort and satisfaction in this present life.” 

2nd Corinthians 3: The Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life

 

“…the letter kills…” (2nd Cor. 3:6)

What letter “kills?”

The ministry that brought death “was engraved in letters of stone.” (v.7)

The glory of the tablets (the ten commandments, the Law of Moses) was “transitory” (temporary, leading to something greater, v.7), but the surpassing glory of Christ is greater than the Law of the tablets for two reasons stated here by Paul:

(1)    Unlike the written Law, the Gospel brings RIGHTEOUSNESS (v.9); and

(2)    Any “relationship” we might think we have with the written Law breaks down immediately; by contrast, union with Christ LASTS (v.11) – that is, the righteousness that comes by faith in Christ (Rom. 4:5) is as permanent and sure as Christ Himself.

The written law, unlike the Gospel of Christ, ensures death and condemnation to anyone who violates it, even where violations come only in the form of private, inner thoughts and attitudes (see Matt. 5:20, 21-22, 27-28, 43-47). As sinners, and as sons and daughters of Adam, we are guilty under the law of God before we even attempt to do outward works of righteousness!

How is it, then, that it can be said, “I love the law” or “The law is good?” The Psalmist sang, “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me” (Psalm 119:97-98). Paul wrote many centuries later, while in union with Christ, “…the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12).

What is going on here?

How can Paul derogate the “letter” engraved on tablets of stone, as he does here in 2nd Corinthians, and yet we find praise for the Law in the Psalms and by Paul’s own hand in his letter to the Romans? How are we to understand this?

When we hear someone teach that the Law is good because it brings us abundant life, what are we to make of that, when Paul clearly teaches that the Law brings death? Does the Bible contradict itself on this?

Two concepts are critical in sorting this out: Context and Categories. Let’s consider these in addressing our question.

As we know, it is always crucial to read and understand the scriptures in context. We are not to rip out verses or short passages, compare them to other, often unrelated verses, and then either draw erroneous interpretations or throw up our hands in frustration over supposed “contradictions.” Instead, we must read “large” for context, understanding the smaller parts of scripture in context of the whole.

What is the overall message, intent and point, and how does it help us to grasp the author’s (and God’s) meaning?

Categories are also crucial. They are the central topics of the text. For example, suppose we read a section of scripture on the process of sanctification which occurs after someone is converted. In that case, the category is sanctification, along with, perhaps, discipleship. If we read that section of scripture as though the writer is dealing with salvation (that is, if we “read in” salvation), then we mix or misconstrue categories, and our understanding suffers, perhaps critically. This is called “making a category error.”

Another possible category (there are many) is personal righteousness which the law cannot provide to us – in fact, the written laws of the Old Covenant serve to show us how widely we miss the mark in our own unrighteousness and how much we need to be rescued by someone or something totally beyond ourselves and beyond our meager and insufficient efforts. When the Law is viewed in this category of personal righteousness, and when God’s righteous judgment and wrath are acknowledged as fitting our failure to be personally righteous, the Law is said to “bring death” rather than life.

Yet another possible category altogether is God’s revelation of right and wrong, and of good and evil. The Law reveals these to us, and in so doing the Law also reveals God’s nature and holiness. When we view the Law in this category (revelation of right, wrong, good and evil), we can certainly agree that the Law is good. As good as the Law is in this context and category, it is surpassed, personified and in a word - fulfilled - by Christ, whose own complete righteousness is then credited to those who put their faith and belief in Him.

Prophecy, specifically messianic prophecy, is another category. It is that which presages and predicts the incarnation and the work of Jesus Christ. The Law and the Prophets point us to Christ and the gospel, and this also makes the Law very good. So, when viewed in the context and category of messianic prophecy, the Law is good.

So in reading and understanding scripture, context and category are crucial. Entire denominations and cults have been built upon reading scripture out of context and mixing or misconstruing categories. Over the centuries, hundreds of vile heresies have been hatched and spread on the basis of misreading and misinterpreting scripture. Many have practiced reading Scripture amiss all of their lives.

In fact, reading any book or piece of literature well and effectively requires attention to these very principles. Sadly, they are seldom taught in school or in the Church.

If we can learn and practice taking context and category into proper account, then we can see more clearly into the scriptures. For example, we can understand that the Law brought death, AND it revealed the goodness and holiness of God. The Law revealed our unrighteousness and condemnation, AND it revealed our dire need for Christ, pointing us to Him. The law brought death, because sin always failed the righteous requirement of the law (Rom. 7:11). That same righteous requirement is fulfilled in us through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:3-4), as we possess His very righteousness by grace, through faith, and in the power and work of the Holy Spirit.

Now all glory belongs to Christ, and all authority in heaven and earth belongs to Him. Nothing and no one short of the Father and the Holy Spirit can stand beside Him on the merits, yet we stand with Him by grace. The contrast between the Law and Christ (that is also to say, between the letter of the Law and the Spirit of Christ) is the contrast between death and life, just as Paul taught. Yet, by keeping the Law in all its substance, Christ ratified the Law and proclaimed it to be good by His very life!

By the way, did you know that ultimately we are saved entirely by works? That’s right! This may seem quite strange coming from me, but it is true. So we are faced with a riddle: How can we be saved by grace alone, and not by works, yet also be saved entirely by works?

The answer is that we are saved by someone else’s work! We are saved because Christ completed all the work necessary to secure our salvation by grace through faith in Him. We are saved by HIS work, not ours, and it is His work that is credited to us by the grace of God, and only by His grace.

Saved by His work, and not our own,

We are saved by grace alone!