Study 2 CORINTHIANS 8:1-24 ENCOURAGEMENT AND EXAMPLES IN GIVING

Verses 1-24
2 Corinthians 8 - ENCOURAGEMENT AND EXAMPLES IN GIVING

A. Examples and encouragement.
1. (2 Corinthians 8:1-5) The example of the Macedonian Christians.
Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God.
a. The grace of God: Paul is going to write about other churches and their example in giving. In his first few words on this subject, Paul shows he considers both the opportunity and the willingness to give a gift of the grace of God.
b. The churches of Macedonia: The northern part of Greece was called Macedonia. The southern part was called Achaia, and the city of Corinth was in the region of Achaia. Paul is writing about the example he sees in the churches of Macedonia. The churches of Macedonia were in cities such as Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea.
c. That in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality: Paul is reporting to the Corinthian Christians the example of the Macedonian Christians. The Macedonians, though they were in a great trial of affliction, and even though they were in deep poverty, still gave generously (abounded in the riches of their liberality).
i. Why was Paul writing about giving at all? What was he collecting money for? Paul was raising money to help the Christians in Jerusalem, who were very poor. He had previously mentioned this effort in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
ii. The poverty of the Macedonians is confirmed by secular history. The Romans took most of their wealth when they conquered this former homeland of Alexander the Great.
d. The Macedonians gave in two ways. First, they gave according to their ability in the sense that in total, their gift wasn’t very much. It was not a “large” gift in a total dollar sense. Secondly, since their heart was freely willing to give, and they gave in proportion to the little they did have, they gave beyond their ability.
i. The account of the widow’s giving in Luke 21:1-4 illustrates the same point. She only gave two mites, which was a very small amount of money. In that sense, she gave according to [her] ability. But since she gave all she had (after all, she might have kept one mite to herself), she gave beyond [her] ability. The same principle of giving was evident in the Macedonian Christians.
ii. “That poor widow’s mite was beyond the rich man’s magnificence, because it came out of a richer mind.” (Trapp)
e. Freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift: Paul didn’t have to beg for money from the Macedonian Christians (which he wouldn’t have done anyway). Instead, they were begging him (imploring us) to receive the gift!
i. Imploring us means that it was the Macedonians who were begging Paul for the privilege of giving, not Paul begging them for money.
ii. So, though the Macedonian Christians didn’t have much to give, they really wanted to give. They saw it as a privilege to give. True Christian generosity can’t be measured by how much one has to give. Often those who have less are more generous with what they have.
iii. “The example of the Macedonians is practical proof that true generosity is not the prerogative of those who enjoy an adequacy of means. The most genuine liberality is frequently displayed by those who have least to give. Christian giving is estimated in terms not of quantity but of sacrifice.” (Hughes)
f. Not as we hoped: The Macedonian Christians gave far beyond what Paul was hoping for. What made their giving so spectacular? It wasn’t the dollar amount. It was that they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. Why were the Macedonians were such good examples of giving? Because they first gave themselves to the Lord; then they gave their trust to Paul and the other apostles.
i. In giving, the real issue isn’t giving money. It is giving ourselves to the Lord. If we have really given ourselves to the Lord, then the right kind of giving will naturally follow.
2. (2 Corinthians 8:6-8) Paul’s tender, wise encouragement in giving.
So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. But as you abound in everything; in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us; see that you abound in this grace also. I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.
a. So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well: Paul’s associate Titus, as the bearer of this letter, was to encourage the Corinthian Christians to actually give him the collection to give to Paul. He was supposed to make certain that they did in fact follow through on what they had intended to do earlier.
i. We might imagine that the Corinthian Christians were willing to take up a collection for the saints in Jerusalem, and giving that money to Paul to take with him to Jerusalem. But when things became difficult between Paul and the Corinthian Christians, they may have been less willing to take up the collection and put it in Paul’s hands. One reason Titus was sent with this letter was to complete this grace in the Corinthian Christians, and make certain they followed through on their original intent.
ii. Complete this grace: The Corinthian Christians may have intended to give. They may have thought about giving. They may have been favorable to the idea of giving. Yet all of this was useless unless they did in fact complete this grace. Often, intentions, vows, and resolutions are useless without action. It was time for the Corinthian Christians to act, and Titus would help them do this.
c. As you abound in everything: Is Paul being sarcastic here? Probably. If the Corinthian Christians did indeed abound in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in . . . love for Paul, they had just begun to do these things. But the Corinthian Christians probably thought of themselves as abounding in all those things. So it is as if Paul is saying, “Very well, I’ll take your word for it. You do abound in all these things. So now, abound in this grace also.”
i. This grace also: Now, for the fourth time since the beginning of the chapter, Paul refers to giving money as a grace (grace of God . . . receive the gift . . . complete this grace). The fact that Paul would use the Greek word charis to describe financial giving means a few things.
ii. The ability to give and the heart to give is a free gift from God. Giving is a work of God’s grace in us. When you see a believer who is truly generous, a great work of God has been done in their heart. We should never say, “Well, they just want to write the checks and not get involved.” No; giving is getting involved, and it demonstrates a true work of God’s grace in the heart.
iii. Our giving should be like God’s giving of grace to us: giving freely, generously, because we want to give. When God gives to us out of grace, the motive for His giving is in Him, not based in the one receiving. That is how we should give; because the motive of the love and generosity of God is so big in our heart that we simply must give.
iv. Our giving, like God’s grace to us, should be offered without expectation of payment in return. God does not give to us expecting “payback.” We can never repay God. We can just serve Him and love Him in return.
v. “Once you see the matter of giving is centered in this lovely word grace, it lifts the whole act away from mechanics, from pressure and duty, from obligation and mere legalism. It lifts us up into the most lovely atmosphere of an activity which seeks by giving to convey to others all that is lovely, all that is beautiful, all that is good, and all that is glorious. What a lovely word this word is . . . For there is no area in the Christian life in which grace shines out so much, so beautifully, so delightfully, and so happily as when giving comes from the background of poverty.” (Redpath)
d. I speak not by commandment: Paul isn’t commanding the Corinthian Christians to give. Paul knew that giving from commandment isn’t giving at all; we call that kind of giving taxation!
e. I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others: Paul makes two important points here. First, giving can measure the sincerity of your love. Second, Paul openly compared the giving of the Corinthian Christians to the giving of the Macedonian Christians (testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others).
i. Many of us like to think that we can love without giving. But what does 1 John 3:17-18 say? But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. Jesus said much the same in Matthew 6:21 : For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. What we give, and how we follow through on our commitment to give, are valid tests of our love.
ii. Also, it is not unfair to compare our giving with the giving of others, at least in some sense. Jesus compared the giving of the poor widow with the giving of others (Luke 21:1-4). But we shouldn’t think that Paul is encouraging a fund-raising competition between the churches of Macedonia and Corinth. He is simply using the Macedonians (who gave so much even in their poverty) as an example of giving.
iii. Since the Corinthians had more than the Macedonians did, they should give more. Calvin puts it plainly: “Rich men owe God a large tribute and poor men have no reason to be ashamed if what they give is small.”
3. (2 Corinthians 8:9) A second example of giving: our Lord Jesus.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.
a. You know the grace of our Lord Jesus: From the context, and from how Paul has used the word grace in this passage, we know that Paul is writing, “You know the giving of our Lord Jesus.”
b. Though He was rich: When was Jesus rich? Before He added humanity to His deity and walked this earth. Here, Paul subtly, but definitely, points to the deity of Jesus. There is no way Paul could write though He was rich if Jesus had begun His existence in Mary’s womb.
i. And what riches! Jesus, as the eternal Second Member of the Trinity, as God the Son, living in the riches and splendor of the ivory palaces of heaven, surrounded constantly by the glory and power and majesty of God. The riches Jesus enjoyed before adding humanity to His deity make any amount of wealth on earth seem poor!
ii. Notice that it says that Jesus became poor when He was rich. Just as Jesus added humanity but never lost His deity, so He also “added” poverty but never “lost” His riches. “For He assumed poverty, yet did not lose His riches. Inwardly He was rich, outwardly poor. His deity was hidden in His riches, His manhood apparent in His poverty.” (Hughes)
c. Yet for your sakes He became poor: Jesus lived His earthly life as a poor man. We should not exaggerate the poverty of Jesus; after all, He was not a destitute beggar. Yet, He could say of Himself “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” (Matthew 8:20)
i. When we contrast the simple life of Jesus (He became poor) with His existence before adding humanity to His deity (He was rich), we are even more amazed. Poverty always feels worse when one has been rich.
ii. Most amazing of all is why Jesus accepted this simple life of poverty: yet for your sakes. This was Jesus’ “giving.” He gave financially in the sense that He accepted a humble life of poverty (when He had all power to live as the wealthiest man in all history), and He did it for [our] sakes.
iii. Why would Jesus need to become poor for your sakes? How does His poverty benefit us? Because it shows us the giving heart of God. Because it shows us the relative importance of material things. Because it makes Jesus open and accessible to all. Because it rebukes the pride that might refuse to come to a poor Savior. Because it gave others the privilege of giving to Jesus. Because it fulfilled the heart and will and plan of God, making our salvation possible.
d. That you through His poverty might become rich: Because of Jesus’ poverty (in all that was related to it), we can become rich. We have a share in Jesus’ eternal, heavenly wealth, because He came and had a share in our poverty.
B. Practical words of advice regarding giving.
1. (2 Corinthians 8:10-12) Follow through on your previous willingness.
And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago; but now you also must complete the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there also may be a completion out of what you have. For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.
a. Now you also must complete the doing of it: The Corinthian Christians had previously expressed a desiring and a readiness to give. Now, they actually had to do it!
i. The Devil will let you resolve as much as you like; the more the better, just as long as you never carry it out. “The tragedy of life so often is, not that we have no high impulses, but that we fail to turn them into actions.” (Barclay)
ii. John Trapp wrote more than 300 years ago, “This age aboundeth with mouth-mercy, which is good cheap, and therefore like refuse fruit is found growing in every hedge. But a little handful were worth a great many such mouthfuls.” How much truer is this today!
b. A completion out of what you have: We can’t give what we don’t have. God judges our giving against what resources we have. But the issue of what and how we spend is relevant to what you have. If you overspend and therefore never have any to give, you can’t excuse it before God by saying, “Well, I don’t have anything.”
c. If there is first a willing mind: When we give, God looks for readiness and a willing mind. These are the true marks of a generous heart before God, and are no more likely among the rich than the poor.
d. It is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have: Again, God does not expect us to give what we do not have. True Christian giving can not be measured by the amount. One might give a million dollars, and yet not give enough; another may give one dollar and be giving with tremendous sacrifice and generosity. True giving is measured by obedience, proportion and need, not by amount.
i. When the issue of giving is brought up, many ask “How much am I supposed to give?” Paul’s principles throughout this letter, and other letters, remind us that there is no one answer to that question for every believer.
ii. In giving, many go back to the Old Testament law of the tithe, the giving of ten percent unto the Lord. This is a good principle for giving, and perhaps a broad benchmark, yet the New Testament nowhere specifically commands tithing. But it certainly does speak of it in a positive light, if it is done with a right heart (Luke 11:42).
iii. But the New Testament speaks with great clarity on the principles of giving. It teaches us that giving should be regular, planned, proportional, and private (1 Corinthians 16:1-4); that it must be generous, freely given, and cheerful (2 Corinthians 9).
iv. Since the New Testament doesn’t emphasize tithing, one might not be strict on it for Christians (though some Christians do argue against tithing on the basis of self-interest). But since giving is to be proportional, we should be giving some percentage - and ten percent is a good benchmark - a starting place! For some to give ten percent is nowhere near enough; for others, at their present time, five percent may be a massive step of faith.
v. If our question is, “How little can I give and still be pleasing to God?” our heart isn’t in the right place at all. We should have the attitude of some early Christians, who essentially said: “We’re not under the tithe - we can give more!” Giving and financial management are spiritual issues, not only financial issues (Luke 16:11).
2. (2 Corinthians 8:13-15) Understand the cause you are giving to.
For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack; that there may be equality. As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.”
a. For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened: The Corinthian Christians were not giving so that the Jerusalem Christians would get rich and lazy at their expense. Paul was taking the collection so the Jerusalem Christians could merely survive. The goal was not to burden the Corinthian Christians, nor was it to make it all easy for the Jerusalem Christians.
i. Some like to say, “Give till it hurts. Then keep giving until it feels better again.” But God’s goal for us isn’t to “Give till it hurts.” The goal is not to afflict those who are doing the giving; it is to display the giving heart and love of Jesus Christ.
ii. “This teaching is needed to refute fanatics who think that you have done nothing unless you strip yourself completely and put everything into a common fund.” (Calvin)
b. But by an equality: Paul sees that the spiritual abundance of the Jerusalem Christians has blessed the Corinthian Christians. So, it should be a small thing for the Corinthian Christians to share with them their material abundance.
i. The equality Paul mentions here isn’t meant to imply socialism or communism, where all are said to live at the same economic level, and none are supposed to be richer than others are. Of course, communism and socialism themselves are evil, being noble ideas in theory, but absolute tyrannies when sharing is commanded at the end of a gun. But this is not the kind of equality Paul means anyway. “I acknowledge indeed that we are not bound to such an equality as would make it wrong for the rich to live more elegantly than the poor; but there must be an equality that nobody starves and nobody hordes his abundance at another’s expense.” (Calvin)
ii. “Thus do the Scriptures avoid, on the one hand, the injustice and destructive evils of agrarian communism, by recognizing the right of property and making all almsgiving optional; and on the other, the heartless disregard of the poor by inculcating the universal brotherhood of believers, and the consequent duty of each to contribute of his abundance to relieve the necessities of the poor. At the same time they inculcate on the poor the duty of self-support to the extent of their ability.” (Hodge)
c. Now at this time reminds the Corinthian Christians that this is just the way it is right now. There may be a time later when the spiritual abundance of the Corinthian Christians may minister to the saints in Jerusalem, and the material abundance of the saints in Jerusalem could minister to the Corinthian Christians.
i. But there is no idea of Jerusalem giving “spiritual” riches in exchange for material help. The saints in Jerusalem were not “selling” spiritual things. “Such an idea as that of the transference of the merits of the saints is, of course, quite foreign to the context.” (Bernard)
d. He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack: Paul’s quotation from Exodus 16:18 illustrates his principle. Everyone gathered what they could, some more and some less; but they all shared what they had gathered.
i. Hodge makes the point well: “Property is like manna, it will not bear hoarding.”
ii. “All that we have is manna . . . And just as manna, which was hoarded to excess out of greed or lack of faith, immediately putrefied, so we should have no doubt that riches which are heaped up at the expense of our brethren are accursed and will soon perish and their owner will be ruined with them.” (Calvin)
3. (2 Corinthians 8:16-24) How to receive Titus when he and his companions come for the collection.
But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he not only accepted the exhortation, but being more diligent, he went to you of his own accord. And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, and not only that, but who was also chosen by the churches to travel with us with this gift, which is administered by us to the glory of the Lord Himself and to show your ready mind, avoiding this: that anyone should blame us in this lavish gift which is administered by us; providing honorable things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. And we have sent with them our brother whom we have often proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, because of the great confidence which we have in you. If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker concerning you. Or if our brethren are inquired about, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ. Therefore show to them, and before the churches the proof of your love and of our boasting on your behalf.
a. But thanks be to God who pus the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus: Paul’s intention is to recommend Titus to them as a trustworthy bearer of their money.
b. And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches: Commentators have had a field day trying to identify the brother mentioned here. Who is he?
i. This brother accompanied Titus when he went to Corinth on Paul’s behalf.
ii. This brother was well known and praised in the gospel in all the churches.
iii. This brother was also chosen by the churches to travel with Paul, carrying the gift. Beyond these things we know nothing.
iv. As you might expect, Bible commentators have been ready to say whom they believe the brother to be. Some of the candidates have been Luke, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and a variety of others. But no one really knows. And it doesn’t really matter, or else God would have made it clear!
c. Avoiding this: that anyone should blame us in this lavish gift: Paul wisely avoided any gossip about his role in the collection by sending Titus and his companion to collect it, and accompany Paul in carrying it to Jerusalem.
i. Also in the sight of men is a reminder that all things financial in the church should be conducted above board and properly. Paul took whatever steps were necessary so no one could blame him with financial impropriety. Paul could write like a poet, and think like a theologian; but he could also act with the meticulous accuracy and integrity of the best accountant.
d. Therefore show to them, and before the churches, the proof of your love and of our boasting on your behalf: This is a strong encouragement from Paul to give! He is saying that when Titus and the unnamed brother come, the Corinthian Christians should show them a good offering. He is saying that the churches will also know of it. He is saying that the offering given will be proof of your love. And finally, he is saying that he has been boasting to others about what givers the Corinthian Christians had been, so he asks them now to come through and give like the givers he has been claiming they are!

Study 2 CORINTHIANS 7:1-22

2 Corinthians 7 - COMFORTED BY THE CORINTHIAN CHRISTIANS’ REPENTANCE

A. Cleansing and perfecting.
1. (2 Corinthians 7:1 a) In light of God’s promises.
Therefore, having these promises.
a. Therefore, having these promises: This is Paul’s natural conclusion to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. In those verses, Paul wrote about the need to separate from worldly influences, so we can live a close life with God.
b. The commandment to come out from among them and be separate (2 Corinthians 6:17) is coupled with a promise: I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters (2 Corinthians 6:18). If we separate ourselves from worldly thinking and acting, we are promised a closer relationship with God.
2. (2 Corinthians 7:1 b) Two things to do in light of God’s promises.
Beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
a. A negative thing to do: cleanse ourselves from all filthiness. There is a cleansing that God alone does in our lives, but there is also a cleansing which God wants to do in cooperation with us. Here, Paul is writing about a cleansing that isn’t just something God does for us as we sit passively; this is a self-cleansing for intimacy with God that goes beyond a general cleansing for sin.
i. There is a main aspect of cleansing which comes to us as we trust in Jesus and His work on our behalf; this work of cleansing is really God’s work in us, and not our work. This is the sense of 1 John 1:9 : If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
ii. But there is another aspect of cleansing which God looks for us to do with the participation of our own will and effort; not that it is our work apart from God, but it is a work that awaits our will and effort: let us cleanse ourselves. This aspect of cleansing is mostly connected with intimacy with God, and usefulness for service.
iii. “How can those expect God to purify their hearts who are continually indulging their eyes, ears, and hands in what is forbidden, and in what tends to increase and bring into action all the evil propensities of the soul?” (Clarke)
b. The cleansing is to be from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit. We often think of purity before the Lord only in terms of cleansing from all filthiness of the flesh. But there is also a filthiness of the . . . spirit to cleanse ourselves from.
i. Sometimes it is easier to deal with the filthiness of the flesh than the filthiness . . . of the spirit. During Jesus’ earthly ministry, those who were stained by the filthiness of the flesh (such as harlots and tax collectors) found it easy to come to Jesus. But those stained by the filthiness . . . of the spirit (such as the scribes and Pharisees) found it very hard to come to Jesus.
ii. Our pride, our legalism, our self-focus, our self-righteousness, our bitterness, and our hatred can all be far worse to deal with than the more obvious sins of the flesh. “There is a defilement of the spirit which is independent of the defilement of the flesh. The spirit can be defiled in many ways. I sometimes think that the sins of the spirit are more deadly than the sins of the flesh.” (Morgan)
iii. “I wish we were more concerned about cleansing ourselves from the filthiness of the spirit. I am inclined to think that some men heedlessly pollute their spirits; I mean that they do it wilfully.” (Spurgeon)
c. A positive thing to do: perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Paul isn’t writing about some state of sinless perfection. Perfecting has the idea of “complete” and “whole.” Instead of a state of sinless perfection, Paul is writing about a complete, “whole” holiness.
i. It isn’t enough to only cleanse ourselves from all filthiness. The Christian life is not to be only getting rid of evil, but continually doing and becoming good.
d. Isn’t it amazing that Paul could write cleanse ourselves, including himself among the Corinthian Christians in the category of those who need to be cleansed? If Paul could include himself among those who needed to be cleansed, what about us?
i. “I suppose that, the nearer we get to heaven, the more conscious we shall be of our imperfections. The more light we get, the more we discover our own darkness. That which is scarcely accounted sin by some men, will be a grievous defilement to a tender conscience. It is not that we are greater sinners as we grow older, but that we have a finer sensibility of sin, and see that to be sin which we winked at in the days of our ignorance.” (Spurgeon)
ii. “I remember hearing a man say that he had lived for six years without having sinned in either thought, or word, or deed. I apprehended that he committed a sin then, if he had never done so before, in uttering such a proud, boastful speech.” (Spurgeon)
iii. But we must take care that we cleanse ourselves and not concern ourselves with cleansing others. Most of the time we are more concerned with the holiness of others than our own holiness! “It were more in accordance with our tastes to cleanse other people, and attempt a moral reformation among our neighbors. Oh! it is easy to find our other men’s faults, and to bring the whole force of our mind to inveigh against them.” (Spurgeon)
B. Personal words about Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians.
1. (2 Corinthians 7:2-3) Paul’s appeal: Open your hearts to us.
Open your hearts to us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one. I do not say this to condemn; for I have said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together.
a. In 2 Corinthians 6:11-13, Paul wrote: We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open . . . you also be open. Then, in 2 Corinthians 6:14 to 2Co_7:1, he dealt with the worldliness that kept the Corinthian Christians from having the kind of open relationship they should have with Paul. Now, in writing open your hearts to us, Paul returns to idea he left off with in 2 Corinthians 6:11-13.
i. Paul has been completely honest with the Corinthian Christians. Now, he tells them they must be honest with Paul, and open to seeing the truth about Paul and his ministry.
ii. The Corinthian Christians believed many bad things about Paul - that he wasn’t being used by God, that he didn’t have the kind of image or authority or power an apostle should have - but their problem was not an information problem. Their problem was with their hearts. Their hearts had been open to the world, but not to Paul. In the “unequally yoked” passage, Paul told them to close their hearts to the world. Now it is time to open their hearts to him!
b. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have defrauded no one. Paul reminds the Corinthians of what they already know: despite what some troublemakers were saying about Paul, they had no good reason for criticizing him.
i. When Paul claims he has defrauded no one, remember that he was organizing a collection for the poor Christians in Judea, and had charge over a good amount of money (1 Corinthians 16:1-4)
ii. “Ministers must so live that they may, if need be, glory of their innocency and integrity, as did Moses, Samuel, Paul, Melancthon.” (Trapp)
c. I do not say this to condemn: Paul’s desire isn’t to condemn the Corinthian Christians, but to restore the bonds of fellowship between them again. Paul really loves the Corinthian Christians: I have said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together.
i. Paul was confronting the Corinthian Christians, but he did not want to condemn them. It is possible to confront without condemning, though those who are being confronted rarely think so!
2. (2 Corinthians 7:4-7) Paul is encouraged by good news from the Corinthian Christians.
Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my boasting on your behalf. I am filled with comfort. I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation. For indeed, when we came to Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears. Nevertheless God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, when he told us of your earnest desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more.
a. Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my boasting on your behalf: Yes, Paul has been bold in his criticism of the Corinthians. But he is also bold in his boasting about them.
b. I am filled with comfort. I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation . . . when he told us of you earnest desire, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more. Despite the many trials Paul was facing (from both within and without), he could find joy, and part of that joy was good news from the Corinthian Christians.
i. I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation: “I superabound in joy; I have a joy beyond expression.” Some think God wants us to endure tribulation with a blank, stoic face - the “stiff upper lip.” But God wants more from us than that. He wants us to superabound in joy even in all our tribulation!
ii. God brought comfort to Paul by hearing of the work God was doing among the Corinthian Christians. “No circumstances of personal affliction can dim the gladness of seeing souls grow in the grace of the Lord Jesus.” (Morgan)
iii. When Paul speaks of the coming of Titus, he actually picking up where he left off in 2 Corinthians 2:13. In a sense, 2 Corinthians 2:14 to 2Co_7:4 is one long digression - led by God of course, and containing some of the richest treasure of the New Testament!
c. Paul was having a hard time in Macedonia (our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears). But Titus had come to Paul when he was in Macedonia and he brought a good report of how the Corinthian Christians were turning back to Jesus and to Paul.
i. In spite of all his frustrations with the Corinthians, and in the midst of all his afflictions in ministry, Paul had real confidence and hope, because Titus brought him a good report of how things were going in Corinth.
ii. In 2 Corinthians 1:3, Paul declared that God is the God of all comfort. Here, Paul experienced that comfort through the coming of Titus and the news he brought from Corinth. Paul experienced the comfort of God through human instruments. Often, by turning away from people, we turn away from the comfort God wants to give us.
d. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears: This was Paul’s life in ministry. It was a life of great blessing, but also a life of many conflicts and fears. On the outside, Paul was constantly in conflict with enemies of the gospel and worldly-minded Christians. On the inside, Paul daily battled with the stress and anxiety of ministry.
e. Your earnest desire, your mourning, your zeal for me: Titus told Paul that the Corinthian Christians had not forsaken him completely. In fact, these things (desire . . . mourning . . . zeal) proved God really was doing a work in the Corinthian Christians, and Paul was comforted by knowing that.
3. (2 Corinthians 7:8-12) The severe letter and its effect.
For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: 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 clear in this matter. Therefore, although I wrote to you, I did not do it for the sake of him who had done the wrong, nor for the sake of him who suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear to you.
a. For even if I made you sorry with my letter: What letter? This probably is not the letter of 1 Corinthians, but a letter that Paul wrote in between 1 and 1 Corinthians.
i. It helps if we remember the sequence of events. Things were going badly among the Christians in Corinth, and in an attempt to get them on track, Paul made a quick, unplanned visit which only seemed to make things worse (the “sorrowful visit” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:1). After the failure of this visit, Paul decided to not visit Corinth again in person at the time, but he sent Titus to them, with a strong letter of rebuke. Paul was very worried about how the Corinthians would receive the letter, and if it would turn them to Jesus or just make them angry. But when Titus came back with good news from the Corinthian Christians, Paul was greatly relieved.
b. I do not regret it; though I did regret it: When Paul first wrote the “sorrowful letter” carried by Titus, he didn’t enjoy the idea of being so confrontational to the Corinthian Christians, even though they deserved it. That’s why he can write “though I did regret it.” At the same time, when Titus came back and reported the response of the Corinthian Christians (the earnest desire . . . mourning and zeal mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:7), Paul was happy for the effect the letter had. That’s why he can write “I do not regret it.”
c. The same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while: “In sin, the pleasure passeth, the sorrow remaineth; but in repentance, the sorrow passeth, the pleasure abideth for ever. God soon poureth the oil of gladness into broken hearts.” (Trapp)
d. Not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. Paul makes a clear separation between sorrow and repentance. They are not the same things! One can be sorry for their sin without repenting from their sin. Sorrow describes a feeling, but repentance describes a change in both the mind and in the life.
i. “Repentance is not sorrow only. It may be unaccompanied by sorrow . . . at the time, but sorrow will always follow, sorrow for the past; but this change of mind is the great thing.” (Morgan)
ii. “Sorrow alone accomplishes nothing. Peter was sorry he denied Christ, and he repented. Judas was sorry he betrayed Christ but, instead of repenting, he killed himself.” (Smith)
iii. Repentance sounds like a harsh word to many. But it is an essential aspect of the gospel, and has been called “the first word of the gospel.” When John the Baptist preached, he said Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand! (Matthew 3:2); when Jesus began to preach, He said Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17). When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, he told his listeners to repent (Acts 2:38).
iv. What was it that the Corinthian Christians had to repent of? Take your pick! It could have been any number of things, but no doubt it also included this: there were probably some “anti-Paul” people who criticized the absent apostle severely and unfairly, and the Corinthian Christians did not defend their godly spiritual father before these detractors.
e. You were made sorry in a godly manner: Paul did make the Corinthian Christians feel bad for their sin. But he did it in a godly way. He used the truth, not lies or exaggeration. He was honest, not using hidden agendas and manipulation. He simply told the truth in love. But not every preacher, or every person can say they do the same as Paul. And it isn’t right to try to make someone sorry in an ungodly manner.
i. That you might suffer loss from us in nothing shows why it is important to only make others sorrow in an godly manner. You may succeed in making them feel bad (sorrow). But the relationship you have with that person will suffer loss. You can win the “battle” yet lose the “war.” Paul wanted to protect his relationship with the Corinthian Christians, so he would only make them sorry in a godly manner.
f. Godly sorrow produces repentance unto salvation: Does this mean we are saved by our repentance? Not exactly. Repentance “is not the ground of our salvation; but it is a part of it and necessary condition of it. Those who repent are saved; the impenitent perish. Repentance is therefore unto salvation.” (Hodge)
i. Repentance must never be thought of as something we must do before we can come back to God. Repentance describes what coming to God is. You can’t turn towards God without turning from the things He is against. “People seem to jump into faith very quickly nowadays. I do not disapprove of that happy leap; but still, I hope my old friend repentance is not dead. I am desperately in love with repentance; it seems to be to be the twin-sister to faith.” (Spurgeon)
ii. Sorrow in itself doesn’t produce anything except bad feelings. But godly sorrow produces repentance. Since repentance is a change (in both thinking and action), we can tell if sorrow is really godly by seeing if it produces repentance. So godly sorrow cannot be measured by feelings or tears, but by what it produces.
iii. “How sorry do you think you have to be? What is the purpose of your sorrow for sin? It is to bring you to trust in the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not your sorrow that cleanses you from sin, but His blood. It is the goodness of God that leads a man to repentance. Has your sorrow for sin led you at one time or another fling all the burden of it at the feet of a crucified, risen Saviour? If it hasn’t, anything short of that is what Paul here calls sorrow that leads to death.” (Redpath)
iv. Real repentance acts. “If thou repent with a contradiction (saith Tertullian) God will pardon thee with a contradiction. Thou repentest, and yet continuest in thy sin. God will pardon thee, and yet send thee to hell. There is pardon with a contradiction.” (Trapp wrote these hard words!)
g. Since godly sorrow does such a great work, it is not to be regretted. It doesn’t feel good, but it does a good work. The sorrow of the world is different, because it produces death.
i. When sorrow is received or borne in a worldly way, it has the deadly effect of producing resentment or bitterness. We can regret that kind of sorrow. But godly sorrow produces a repentance, unto salvation, that is not to be regretted. “A repentance as a man shall never have cause to repent of. Job cursed the day of his birth; but no man was ever heard to curse the day of his new birth.” (Trapp)
ii. “In repentance there is a bitter sweetness, or a sweet bitterness - which shall I call it? - of which, the more you have, the better it is for you. I can truly say that I hardly know a diviner joy than to lay my head in my Heavenly Father’s bosom and to say, ‘Father, I have sinned, but thou hast forgiven me; and, oh, I do love thee!’“ (Spurgeon)
h. What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! All of these things showed that the sorrow of the Corinthian Christians was working real repentance.
i. What diligence: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, diligence. Repentance means to turn around, and it takes diligence to stay turned around. If one gives up easily, they can never walk in repentance, though they may perform acts of repentance.
ii. What clearing of yourselves: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, a clearing. It is a clearing of guilt and shame, from knowing that we have brought our sin to God, and we are now walking in the right way.
iii. What indignation: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, indignation. We are indignant at our selves for our foolishness in sin. This is the kind of attitude that makes repentance last. “I am glad that the Bible allows me to get mad, mad with the devil! To think that he had the audacity to pull me down and make me do that! What indignation, what fury at sin and all the agencies of Satan!” (Redpath)
iv. What fear: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, a fear that we would ever fall into the same sin again. Paul isn’t writing about a fear of God here as much as a fear of sin, and a fear of our own weakness toward it.
v. What vehement desire: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, vehement desire. This is a heart that really desires purity and godliness, and doesn’t want to sin any more. This vehement desire is expressed through heartfelt prayer and total dependence on God.
vi. What zeal: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, zeal. The Greek word speaks of heat; we are hot towards God and His righteousness, and hot against sin and impurity. Instead of laziness, we have zeal in our walk with the Lord.
vii. What vindication: Godly sorrow produces, and repentance shows, vindication. You are vindicated as a Christian, even though you have sinned. No one can doubt it, because the measure of a Christian is not whether or not they sin, but whether or not they repent.
viii. Proved yourself to be clear: When repentance is marked by the preceding characteristics, we are clear of guilt and sin. The stain of sin is gone! We can feel it, and others can see it! “Happy is that man who has had enough of the smart of sin to make it sour and bitter to him all the rest of his days; so that now, with changed heart, and renewed spirit, he perseveres in the ways of God, never thinking of going back, but resolved ‘through floods or flames’ to force his way to heaven, to be, by divine grace, master over every sin that assails him.” (Spurgeon)
i. In all things you proved yourselves to be clear: Their actions of repentance proved them to be clear. It wasn’t words or feelings that proved them to be clear, but actions.
i. “Godly sorrow that leads to repentance, therefore, is a sorrow that leads to a change of purpose, of intention, and of action. It is not the sorrow of idle tears; it is not crying by your bedside because once again you have failed; nor is it vain regret, wishing things had never happened, wishing you could live the moments again. No, it is not that. It is a change of purpose and intentions, a change of direction and action.” (Redpath)
j. In this matter: Paul is using godly discretion by not bringing up the whole affair again from the beginning. There was someone who had done wrong (him who had done the wrong) and there was someone who had been wronged (him who suffered wrong). But there was no need to go through the whole mess again.
k. I did not do it for the sake: Paul’s purpose in writing the “sorrowful letter” was not to take sides in a dispute among the Corinthian Christians. His purpose was to demonstrate his concern (that our care for you in the sight of God might appear to you).
i. Paul’s concern for the Corinthian Christians was evident, but amazing. “From all appearance there was never a Church less worthy of an apostle’s affections than this Church was at this time; and yet no one ever more beloved.” (Clarke)
4. (2 Corinthians 7:13-16) How Titus regards the Corinthian Christians after his visit.
Therefore we have been comforted in your comfort. And we rejoiced exceedingly more for the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all. For if in anything I have boasted to him about you, I am not ashamed. But as we spoke all things to you in truth, even so our boasting to Titus was found true. And his affections are greater for you as he remembers the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling you received him. Therefore I rejoice that I have confidence in you in everything.
a. His spirit has been refreshed by you all: The experience of Titus in Corinth, and his report from there, are sure evidence that the Corinthians have had a change of mind.
b. If in anything I have boasted to him about you: Paul had been “hopefully” boasting to Titus that the Corinthian Christians would respond well to the severe letter. Probably Titus was not so sure! But Paul’s boasting to Titus was found true!
c. His affections are great for you: Paul is assuring the Corinthian Christians that Titus loves them more than ever now. Probably, Titus had seen a lot of ugliness among the Corinthian Christians. Titus may have had a “chip on his shoulder” against them. So Paul wants them to know that after he saw and reported their repentance, Titus loves them more than ever now!
d. I rejoice that I have confidence in you in everything: Is Paul being sarcastic here? Probably not. He is probably simply trying to encourage the Corinthians, showing them that he is convinced their repentance was genuine.
i. “Thus by praising them, he further winneth upon them, whom before he had more sharply handled. Sour and sweet make the best sauce.” (Trapp)
ii. At the end of this chapter, Paul is praising the Corinthian Christians. They seem to be in a place of victory. But in the “sorrowful letter” (mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:1) there was no praise. What was the difference? The real repentance, reported by Titus and commented on by Paul in this chapter.
iii. All through this chapter, we see how concerned Paul was about his relationship with the Corinthian Christians. This shows that people were just as important to Paul as ministry. He didn’t want to do “ministry” at the expense of his relationships with people.

Study 2 CORINTHIANS 6:11-18

Verses 11-18
The apostle proceeds to address himself more particularly to the Corinthians, and cautions them against mingling with unbelievers. Here observe,par I. How the caution is introduced with a profession, in a very pathetic manner, of the most tender affection to them, i1 even like that of a father to his children,i0 {cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:11-13}. Though the apostle was happy in a great fluency of expressions, yet he seemed to want words to express the warm affections he had for these Corinthians. As if he had said, O ye Corinthians, to whom I am now writing, I would fain convince you how well I love you: we are desirous to promote the spiritual and eternal welfare of all to whom we preach, yet i1 our mouth is open unto you, and our heart is enlarged unto you, in a special manner. e And, because his heart was thus enlarged with love to them, therefore he opened his mouth so freely to them in kind admonitions and exhortations: 1You are not,i0 says he, i1 straitened in us;i0 we would gladly do you all the service we can, and promote your comfort, as helpers of your faith and your joy; and, if it be otherwise, the fault is in yourselves; it is because you are straitened in yourselves, and fail in suitable returns to us, through some misapprehensions concerning us; and all we desire as a recompense is only that you would be proportionably affected towards us, as children should love their father. Note, It is desirable that there should be a mutual good affection between ministers and their people, and this would greatly tend to their mutual comfort and advantage.par II. The caution or exhortation itself, not to mingle with unbelievers, not to be i1 unequally yokedi0 with them, {cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:14}. Either,par 1. In stated relations. It is wrong for good people to join in affinity with the wicked and profane; these will draw different ways, and that will be galling and grievous. Those relations that are our choice must be chosen by rule; and it is good for those who are themselves the children of God to join with those who are so likewise; for there is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad.par 2. In common conversation. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship and acquaintance with wicked men and unbelievers. Though we cannot wholly avoid seeing, and hearing, and being with such, yet we should never choose them for our bosom-friends.par 3. Much less should we join in religious communion with them; we must not join with them in their idolatrous services, nor concur with them in their false worship, nor any abominations; we must not confound together the table of the Lord and the table of devils, the house of God and the house of Rimmon. The apostle gives several good reasons against this corrupt mixture. (1.) It is a very great absurdity, {cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:14}, {cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:15}. It is an unequal yoking of things together that will not agree together; as bad as for the Jews to have ploughed with an ox and an ass or to have sown divers sorts of grain intermixed. What an absurdity is it to think of joining righteousness and unrighteousness, or mingling light and darkness, fire and water, together! Believers are, and should be, righteous; but unbelievers are unrighteous. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion can these have together? Christ and Belial are contrary one to the other; they have opposite interests and designs, so that it is impossible there should be any concord or agreement between them. It is absurd, therefore, to think of enlisting under both; and, if the believer has part with an infidel, he does what in him lies to bring Christ and Belial together. (2.) It is a dishonour to the Christian's profession ({cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:16}); for Christians are by profession, and should be in reality, the i1 temples of the living Godi0 - dedicated to, and employed for, the service of God, who has promised to reside in them, i1 to dwell and walk in them,i0 to stand in a special relation to them, and take a special care of them, that he will be their God and they shall be his people. Now there can be no agreement between i1 the temple of God and idols.i0 Idols are rivals with God for his honour, and God is a jealous God, and will not give his glory to another. (3.) There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolators, danger of being defiled and of being rejected; therefore the exhortation is ({cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:17}) i1 to come out from among them,i0 and keep at a due distance, i1 to be separate,i0 as one would avoid the society of those who have the leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and not i1 to touch the unclean thing,i0 lest we be defiled. Who can touch pitch, and not be defiled by it? We must take care not to defile ourselves by converse with those who defile themselves with sin; so is the will of God, as we ever hope to be received, and not rejected, by him. (4.) It is base ingratitude to God for all the favours he has bestowed upon believers and promised to them, {cf11ul 2 Corinthians 6:18}. God has promised to be a Father to them, and that they shall be his sons and his daughters; and is there a greater honour or happiness than this? How ungrateful a thing then must it be if those who have this dignity and felicity should degrade and debase themselves by mingling with unbelievers! i1Do we thus requite the Lord, O foolish and unwise?

Study 2 CORINTHIANS 6:11-15

Verse 11
Knowing therefore - We who are apostles, and who are appointed to preach the gospel, having the fullest assurance of the terrors of the day of judgment, and of the wrath of God, endeavor to persuade people to be prepared to meet Him, and to give up their account.

The terror of the Lord - This is, of the Lord Jesus, who will be seated on the throne of judgment, and who will decide the destiny of all people, 2 Corinthians 5:10; compare Luke 19:41. But they who fill their sermons with the denunciations of wrath; who dwell on the words “hell” and “damnation,” for the purpose of rhetoric or declamation, to round a period, or merely to excite alarm; and who “deal damnation around the land” as if they rejoiced that people were to be condemned, and in a tone and manner as if they would be pleased to execute it, have yet to learn the true nature of the way to win people to God, and the proper effect of those awful truths on the mind. The true effect is, to produce tenderness, deep feeling, and love; to prompt to the language of persuasion and of tender entreaty; to lead people to weep over dying sinners rather than to denounce them; to pray to God to have mercy on them rather than to use the language of severity, or to assume tones as if they would be pleased to execute the awful wrath of God.

But we are made manifest unto God - The meaning of this is, probably, that God sees that we are sincere and upright in our aims and purposes. He is acquainted with our hearts. All our motives are known to him, and he sees that it is our aim to promote his glory, and to save the souls of people. This is probably said to counteract the charge which might have been brought against him by some of the disaffected in Corinth, that he was influenced by improper motives and aims. To meet this, Paul says, that God knew that he was endeavoring to save souls, and that he was actuated by a sincere desire to rescue them from the impending terrors of the day of judgment.

And I trust also … - And I trust also you are convinced of our integrity and uprightness of aim. The same sentiment is expressed in other words in 2 Corinthians 4:2. It is an appeal which he makes to them, and the expression of an earnest and confident assurance that they knew and felt that his aim was upright, and his purpose sincere.

Verse 12
For we commend not ourselves again unto you - This refers to what he had said in the previous verse. He had there said that he had such a consciousness of integrity that he could appeal to God, and that he was persuaded that the Corinthians also approved his course, or admitted that he was influenced by right motives. He here states the reason why he had said this. It was not to commend himself to them. It was not to boast of his own character, nor was it in order to secure their praise or favor. Some might be disposed to misrepresent all that Paul said of himself, and to suppose that it was said for mere vain-glory, or the love of praise. He tells them, therefore, that his sole aim was necessary self-defense, and in order that they might have the fullest evidence that he, by whom they had been converted, was a true apostle; and that he whom they regarded as their friend and father in the gospel was a man of whom they need not be ashamed.

But give you occasion - This is a very happy turn of expression. The sense is, “You have been converted under my labors. You profess to regard me as your spiritual father and friend. I have no reason to doubt of your attachment to me. Yet you often hear my name slandered, and hear me accused of wanting the evidence of being an apostle, and of being vain-glorious, and self-seeking. I know your desire to vindicate my character, and to show that you are my friends. I, therefore, say these things in regard to myself in order that you may be thus able to show your respect for me, and to vindicate me from the false and slanderous accusations of my enemies. Thus doing, you will be able to answer them; to show that the man whom you thus respect is worthy of your confidence and esteem.”

On your behalf - For your own benefit, or as it were in self-vindication for adhering to me, and evincing attachment to me.

That ye may have somewhat to answer them - That you may be furnished with a ready reply when you are charged with adhering to a man who has no claims to the apostleship, or who is slandered in any other way.

Which glory in appearance - The false teachers in Corinth. Probably they boasted of their rank, their eloquence, their talents, their external advantages; but not in the qualities of the heart - in sincerity, honesty, real love for souls. Their consciences would not allow them to do this; and they knew themselves that their boasting was mere vain pretence, and that there was no real and solid ground for it. The margin is, “in the face.” The meaning is, probably, that their ground of boasting was external, and was such as can be seen of people, and was not rather the secret consciousness of right, which could exist only in the conscience and the heart. Paul, on the other hand, gloried mainly in his sincerity, his honesty, his desire for their salvation; in his conscious integrity before God; and not in any mere external advantages or professions, in his rank, eloquence, or talent. Accordingly, all his argument here turns on his sincerity, his conscious uprightness, and his real regard for their welfare. And the truth taught here is, that sincerity and conscious integrity are more valuable than any or all external advantages and endowments.

Verse 13
For whether we be beside ourselves - This is probably designed to meet some of the charges which the false teachers in Corinth brought against him, and to furnish his friends there with a ready answer, as well as to show them the true principles on which he acted, and his real love for them. It is altogether probable that he was charged with being deranged; that many who boasted themselves of prudence, and soberness, and wisdom, regarded him as acting like a madman. It has not been uncommon, by any means, for the cold and the prudent; for formal professors and for hypocrites to regard the warm-hearted and zealous friends of religion as maniacs. Festus thought Paul was deranged, when he said, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad,” Acts 26:24; and the Saviour himself was regarded by his immediate relatives and friends as beside himself, Mark 3:21. And at all times there have been many, both in the church and out of it, who have regarded the friends of revivals, and of missions, and all those who have evinced any extraordinary zeal in religion, as deranged. The object of Paul here is to show, whatever might be the appearance or the estimate which they affixed to his conduct, what were the real principles which actuated him. These were zeal for God, love to the church, and the constraining influences of the love of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. The word rendered here as “be beside ourselves” ( ἐξέστημεν exestēmenfrom ἐξίστημι ) means properly, to put out of place; to be put out of place; and then to be put out of oneself, to astonish, to fill with wonder; Luke 24:22; Acts 8:9, Acts 8:11; and then to be out of one‘s mind, to be deranged. Here it means that they were charged with being deranged, or that others esteemed, or professed to esteem Paul and his fellow-laborers deranged.

It is to God - It is in the Cause of God, and from love to him. It is such a zeal for him; such an absorbing interest in his cause; such love prompting to so great self-denial, and teaching us to act so much unlike other people as to lead them to think that we are deranged. The doctrine here is, that there may be such a zeal for the glory of God, such an active and ardent desire to promote his honor, as to lead others to charge us with derangement. It does not prove however that a man is deranged on the subject of religion because he is unlike others, or because he pursues a course of life that differs materially from that of other professors of religion, and from the man of the world. He may be the truly sane man after all; and all the madness that may exist may be where there is a profession of religion without zeal; a professed belief in the existence of God and in the realities of eternity, that produces no difference in the conduct between the professor and other people; or an utter unconcern about eternal realities when a man is walking on the brink of death and of hell. There are a few people that become deranged by religion; there are millions who have no religion who act as madmen. And the highest instances of madness in the world are those who walk over an eternal hell without apprehension or alarm.

Or whether we be sober - Whether we are sane, or of sound mind; compare Mark 5:15. Tyndale renders this whole passage: “For if we be too fervent, to God we are too fervent; if we keep measure, for our cause keep we measure.” The sense seems to be, “if we are esteemed to be sane, and sober-minded, as we trust you will admit us to be, it is for your sake. Whatever may be the estimate in which we are held, we are influenced by love to God, and love to man. In such a cause, we cannot but evince zeal and self-denial which may expose us to the charge of mental derangement; but still we trust that by you we shall be regarded as influenced by a sound mind. We seek your welfare. We labor for you. And we trust that you will appreciate our motives, and regard us as truly sober-minded.”

Verse 14
For the love of Christ - In this verse, Paul brings into view the principle which actuated him; the reason of his extraordinary and disinterested zeal. That was, that he was influenced by the love which Christ had shown in dying for all people, and by the argument which was furnished by that death respecting the actual character and condition of man (in this verse); and of the obligation of those who professed to be his true friends 2 Corinthians 5:15. The phrase “the love of Christ” ( ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ agapē tou Christou) may denote either the love which Christ bears toward us, and which he has manifested, or our love toward him. In the former sense the phrase “the love of God” is used in Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 13:13, and the phrase “love of Christ” in Ephesians 3:14. The phrase is used in the latter sense in John 15:9-10, and Romans 8:35. It is impossible to determine the sense with certainty, and it is only by the view which shall be taken of the connection and of the argument which will in any way determine the meaning. Expositors differ in regard to it. It seems to me that the phrase here means the love which Christ had toward us. Paul speaks of his dying for all as the reason why he was urged on to the course of self-denial which he evinced. Christ died for all. All were dead. Christ evinced his great love for us, and for all, by giving himself to die; and it was this love which Christ had shown that impelled Paul to his own acts of love and self-denial. He gave himself to his great work impelled by that love which Christ had shown; by the view of the ruined condition of man which that work furnished; and by a desire to emulate the Redeemer, and to possess the same spirit which he evinced.

Constraineth us - ( συνέχει sunechei). This word ( συνέχω sunechō) properly means, to hold together, to press together, to shut up; then to press on, urge, impel, or excite. Here it means, that the impelling, or exciting motive in the labors and self-denials of Paul, was the love of Christ - the love which he had showed to the children of men. Christ so loved the world as to give himself for it. His love for the world was a demonstration that people were dead in sins. And we, being urged by the same love, are prompted to like acts of zeal and self-denial to save the world from ruin.

Because we thus judge - Greek “We judging this;” that is, we thus determine in our own minds, or we thus decide; or this is our firm conviction and belief - we come to this conclusion.

That if one died for all - On the supposition that one died for all; or taking it for granted that one died for all, then it follows that all were dead. The “one” who died for all here is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus. The word “for” ( ὑπὲρ huper) means in the place of, instead of; see Philemon 2:13 and 2 Corinthians 5:20. It means that Christ took the place of sinners, and died in their stead; that he endured what was an ample equivalent for all the punishment which would be inflicted if they were to suffer the just penalty of the Law; that he endured so much suffering, and that God by his great substituted sorrows made such an expression of his hatred of sin, as to answer the same end in expressing his sense of the evil of sin, and in restraining others from transgression, as if the guilty were personally to suffer the full penalty of the Law. If this was done, of course, the guilty might be par doned and saved, since all the ends which could be accomplished by their destruction have been accomplished by the substituted sufferings of the Lord Jesus; see the notes on Romans 3:25-26, where this subject is considered at length.

The phrase “for all,” ( ὑπὲρ πάντων huper pantōn) obviously means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made, and while it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others, and for their sakes, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference to any class or condition of people; and no particular applicability to one class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to anyone class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, anymore applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. The argument in favor of the general atonement, from this passage, consists in the following points:
(1) That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first principle - an elementary position - a maxim on which to base another important doctrine - to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument, like one of the first principles or maxims in science.
(2) it is the plain and obvious meaning of the expression - the sense which strikes all people, unless they have some theory to support to the contrary; and it requires all the ingenuity which people can ever command to make it appear even plausible, that this is consistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement; much more to make it out that it does not mean all. If a man is told that all the human family must die, the obvious interpretation is, that it applies to every individual. If told that all the passengers on board a steamboat were drowned, the obvious interpretation is, that every individual was meant. If told that a ship was wrecked, and that all the crew perished, the obvious interpretation would be that none escaped. If told that all the inmates of an hospital were sick, it would be understood that there was not an individual that was not sick. Such is the view which would be taken by 999 persons out of 1,000, if told that Christ died for all; nor could they conceive how this could be consistent with the statement that he died only for the elect, and that the elect was only a small part of the human family.
(3) this interpretation is in accordance with all the explicit declarations on the design of the death of the Redeemer. Hebrews 2:9, “that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” compare John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 1 Timothy 2:6, “who gave himself a ransom for all.” See Matthew 20:28,” The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many.” 1 John 2:2,” and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
(4) the fact also that on the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer, salvation is offered to all people by God, is a proof that he died for all. The apostles were directed to go “into all the world and to preach the gospel to every creature,” with the assurance that “he that believeth and is baptized shall he saved;” Mark 16:15-16; and everywhere in the Bible the most full and free offers of salvation are made to all mankind; compare Isaiah 55:1; John 7:37; Revelation 22:17. These offers are made on the ground that the Lord Jesus died for people; John 3:16. They are offers of salvation through the gospel, of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life to be made “to every creature.” But if Christ died only for a part, if there is a large portion of the human family for whom he died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalizing them with the offers of that which does not exist, and which he knows does not exist. It is of no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and he knows who the elect are, and yet he offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all, and no possibility that all to whom the offer comes should be saved, then God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating his character.
(5) if this interpretation is not correct, and if Christ did not die for all, then the argument of Paul here is a non sequitur, and is worthless. The demonstration that all are dead, according to him is, that Christ died for all. But suppose that he meant, or that he knew, that Christ died only for a part, for the elect, then how would the argument stand, and what would be its force? “Christ died only for a portion of the human race, therefore all are sinners. Medicine is provided only for a part of mankind, therefore all are sick. Pardon is offered to part only, therefore all are guilty.” But Paul never reasoned in this way. He believed that Christ died for all mankind, and on the ground of that he inferred at once that all needed such an atonement; that all were sinners, and that all were exposed to the wrath of God. And the argument is in this way, and in this way only, sound. But still it may be asked, What is the force of this argument? How does the fact that Christ died for all, prove that all were sinners, or dead in sin? I answer:
(a) In the same way that to provide medicine for all, proves that all are sick, or liable to be sick; and to offer pardon to all who are in a prison, proves that all there are guilty. What insult is it to offer medicine to a man in health; or pardon to a man who has violated no law! And there would be the same insult in offering salvation to a man who was not a sinner, and who did not need forgiveness.
(b) The dignity of the sufferer, and the extent of his sufferings, prove that all were under a deep and dreadful load of guilt. Such a being would not have come to die unless the race had been apostate; nor would he have endured so great sorrows unless a deep and dreadful malady had spread over the world. The deep anxiety; the tears; the toils; the sufferings, and the groans of the Redeemer, show what was his sense of the condition of man, and prove that he regarded them as degraded, fallen, and lost. And if the Son of God, who knows all hearts, regarded them as lost, they are lost. He was not mistaken in regard to the character of man, and he did not lay down his life under the influence of delusion and error. If to the view which has been taken of this important passage it be objected that the work of the atonement must have been to a large extent in vain; that it has actually been applied to but comparatively a small portion of the human family, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that God would suffer so great sorrows to be endured for nothing, we may reply:
(1) That it may not have been in vain, though it may have been rejected by a large portion of mankind. There may have been other purposes accomplished by it besides the direct salvation of people. It was doing much when it rendered it consistent for God to offer salvation to all; it is much that God could be seen to be just and yet pardoning the sinner; it was much when his determined hatred of sin, and His purpose to honor His Law, was evinced; and in regard to the benevolence and justice of God to other beings and to other worlds, much, very much was gained, though all the human race had rejected the plan and been lost, and in regard to all these objects, the plan was not in vain, and the sufferings of the Redeemer were not for nothing. But,
(2) It is in accordance with what we see everywhere, when much that God does seems to our eyes, though not to his, to be in vain. How much rain falls on ever sterile sands or on barren rocks, to our eyes in vain! What floods of light are poured each day on barren wastes, or untraversed oceans, to our eyes in vain! How many flowers shed forth their fragrance in the wilderness, and ‹waste their sweetness on the desert air,” to us apparently for nothing! How many pearls lie useless in the ocean; how much gold and silver in the earth; how many diamonds amidst rocks to us unknown, and apparently in vain! How many lofty trees rear their heads in the untraversed wilderness, and after standing for centuries fall on the earth and decay, to our eyes in vain! And how much medicinal virtue is created by God each year in the vegetable world that is unknown to man, and that decays and is lost without removing any disease, and that seems to be created in vain! And how long has it been before the most valuable medicines have been found out, and applied to alleviating pain, or removing disease! Year after year, and age after age, they existed in a suffering world, and people died perhaps within a few yards of the medicine which would have relieved or saved them, but it was unknown, or if known disregarded. But times were coming when their value would he appreciated, and when they would be applied to benefit the sufferer. So with the plan of salvation. It may be rejected, and the sufferings of the Redeemer may seem to have been for nothing. But they will yet be of value to mankind; and when the time shall come for the whole world to embrace the Saviour, there will be found no lack of sufficiency in the plan of redemption, and in the merits of the Redeemer to save all the race.
(A measure of truth is, doubtless, involved in this controversy concerning the universality of atonement; and the discussion of the subject in America, and more recently in this country, cannot fail ultimately to produce the most beneficial results. Yet we must express our conviction, that the seeming difference of opinion among evangelical people, has arisen from mutual misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding from the use of ambiguous phraseology. One says, Christ died for all people. No, says another, for the elect only. The dispute goes on and on, until at last the discovery is made, that while the same words were used by the disputants, each attached his own meaning to them. This ambiguity is painfully felt in the treatise of a distinguished writer, who has recently appeared on the limited side of the question. He does not explain, until he has advanced very far in the discussion, what sense be attaches to the common phraseology of “Christ dying for all men.”
He tells us afterward, however, that he understands it in the highest sense of securing salvation for them; when we are convinced, that much of the argument might have been spared, or at all events better directed, than against a position which few or none maintain. The author is himself sensible of this. “The question,” says he, “might, perhaps, have been settled at the outset by a careful definition of terms; but I have purposely deferred doing so, judging, that it might be done with better effect as the discussion proceeded. In speaking of the Saviour‘s dying for people, or dying for sinners, I have used the expression in what I conceive to be the strict and proper meaning, namely, as signifying his dying with an intention to save them. This, however, is not the only meaning the expression will bear, For all people, for sinners in general, the Saviour died. He died in their nature, he died in their stead, he died doing honor to the Law which they had violated; in other words, he died removing every legal obstruction that lay in the way of their obtaining life.”
The Death of Christ the Redemption of his People, p. 70. Now, it is only in this last sense, that any rational advocate of general aspect in the atonement will maintain that Christ died for all people. Nor could he desire better language in which to express his views, than that which is furnished in the above quotation. That the atonement has certain general aspects is now nearly admitted on all hands. “General it must be in some sense,” says the author already quoted, “if in some sense it be applicable to all, and that this is the case the foregoing statement undeniably proves,” p. 68. The general aspect of the atonement is argued, from those well-known passages in which it is declared to have a reference to people, all people, the world, and the whole world. The reader will find some of these passages quoted above in the commentary. Of this universal phraseology various explanations have been given.
Some have supplied the qualifying adjective “elect” in these places, where the design of atonement is said to embrace the “world.” Modern writers of the highest name, however, and on both sides of the question, have vied with each other in their indignant repudiation of any such expletive. “I have felt myself,” says Dr. Wardlaw, “far from satisfied with a common way of interpreting some of those texts which express the extent of the atonement in universal terms by means of a convenient supplement. According to this method of explanation, the world is, in such occurrences of it, made to signify the ‹elect world,‘ the word ‹elect‘ being inserted as a supplement, conceived to be necessary for the consistency of scripture. An ‹elect world‘ indeed, has become a phrase in common use with a particular class of commentators and divines; being employed with as much matter of course freedom, as if it had actually had the sanction of ordinary usage in the sacred volume; but it is not to be found there.”
And subjoins Dr. Marshall, writing on the limited side of the question, “It certainly is not to be found there, and with every word of this well-deserved censure I cordially agree.” Here then is one principle of interpretation fairly exploded, and few nowadays will have the hardihood to espouse it. Again, the phraseology has been explained of the world of Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately, Gentiles as well as Jews; and those who adopt this view tell us, that the Jewish system was narrow and exclusive, embracing only one people, the progeny of Abraham; that it was the design of God, in the fullness of time, to enlarge his church and to receive within her ample arms people of all nations, Jew and Gentile, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free; that the death of Christ was at once the fulfillment and abrogation of the typical system with all its special and exclusive rites; that by it the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the rest of the world was thrown down; that, therefore, it was natural to represent it as having a reference to all people and to the world, even when absolute universality was not and could not be intended. Such a vast enlargement of the scale on which spiritual blessings were now to be conferred, in consequence of the death of Christ, could not well have been expressed, it is alleged, in any other or in less universal terms. See this view of the subject well exhibited in Hill‘s System, vol. ii., John 3:16-17, “that the ‹world‘ means Jews and Gentiles, still if it is not any definite number of Jews and Gentiles, it is Jews and Gentiles as together composing the world of mankind.”
That the atonement, indeed, has a certain benign aspect toward all people, appears from its very nature. The exact equivalent view, as it has been not inappropriately termed, is now nearly abandoned. Rarely do we find any one affirming, that Christ endured exactly what the elect would have suffered and deserved, and that, therefore, there can be sufficiency in his death for that favored number and for none besides. What then is the light in which the atonement of Christ ought to be viewed? We think the only rational and scriptural account of it, is that which regards it as a great remedial scheme, which rendered it consistent with the divine honor and all the interests of the divine administration, to extend mercy to guilty people at large, and which would have been equally requisite, had there been an intention to save one only, or a million; numbers indeed not forming any part of the question. Here then is something done, which removes legal obstructions and thereby opens the way to heaven for all. And if any do not enter in, their inability is moral, and lies not in any insufficiency of the divine provision. This view, however, seems to furnish a just foundation for the universality of gospel invitations, while it fastens the guilt of rejecting gospel provision on the sinner himself.
Thus far we feel disposed to agree with our author in his commentary, or rather dissertation on the verse and the subject it involves. We maintain, however, that the atonement has a special as well as a general aspect; that while it is gloriously true that it looks to all people, it has at the same time a special regard to some. We object, therefore, to the statement, “that the atonement in itself considered had no limitation and no particular reference to any class or condition of people, and no particular applicability to one class more than to another.” This is similar to certain rash assertions that have recently been current in our own country; as that “while the atonement opens the door of mercy to all, it secures salvation to none;” that “Christ died as much for those who perish, as for those who are saved.” We cannot envy that reputation for acuteness which may be gained by the free use of such language.
Is it not God‘s design to save his people? Is not the atonement the means by which he does so, the means by which the purpose of electing love is fulfilled? And yet has that atonement no special reference to the elect? Further, if it be the means of saving them, does it not secure their salvation? Certainly, among people, if any effectual means were devised to accomplish a particular end, that end would be said to be secured by such means. The writer is aware of the ingenious evasion, that it is God‘s gracious purpose to apply the atonement, and not the atonement itself, that connects it with the elect, and secures their salvation. We are told, moreover, that we should look on the atonement by itself, and consider it in a philosophical way. The purpose to apply is an after arrangement. But first, a purpose to apply the atonement to a special class, differs in nothing from an original design to save such class by it, for that purpose must have been present to the mind of God in determining on atonement. To say that God saves a certain number by the atonement, and that yet in making it he had no special design in their favor, however it may recommend itself to philosophical refinement, will always be rejected by the common sense of mankind. Second. If we must consider the atonement apart from any special purpose connected with it, why not divest it also of any general purpose, that we may look on it steadily per se, and in this way reduce it to a mere abstraction, about which nothing could be either affirmed or denied?
The advocates of universal atonement, or some of the more forward among them, have recently carried out their views so far, as to deny that God in providing the atonement, or Christ in making it, had any special love to the elect. An eminent writer on that side, however, to whom reference has already been made, while he goes the length of denying special design, maintains the existence of special love, and administers a reproof to those of his own party, who go to this extreme. This is indeed an important concession, for special love is not very different from special design, nor is it easy to see how, in the mind of God, the one could subsist with out the other. “The love of the Father is the same thing as election. Election is nothing but the love of the Father formed into a purpose” - Marshall. Or the point may be put in this way. Had God in providing the atonement special love to the elect? Where is the proof of it? Doubtless in that very provision. But if God in making it had no design to save them by it, the proof is not only weakened but destroyed. Special love, therefore, necessarily involves special design.
To do away with anything like speciality of design, much has been said on the order of the divine decrees, especially as to whether the decree of atonement, or that of election, be first in order of nature. If that of atonement be first, it is asserted speciality is out of the question, as that is secured only by election, which is a posterior arrangement. On this subject it is more easy to darken counsel by words without knowledge, than to speak intelligibly. It may be fairly questioned, if those who have written most on it, fully understand themselves. Nor can we help lamenting, that so great a part of the controversy should have been made to turn on this point, which has hitherto eluded the grasp of the most profound, and drawn the controvertists into regions of thought, too high for the boldest flights of human intellect. After all that can be said on the subject, it must be allowed that the whole arrangement connected with the salvation of man, existed simultaneously in the mind of God, nor will anyone rise much wiser from inquiries into which was first and which last.
The truth on the whole subject, then, seems to be, that while the atonement has a general reference toward all, it has at the same time a special reference to the elect of God, or as it is well expressed in a recent synodical decision, “The Saviour in making the atonement bore special covenant relation to the elect; had a special love to them, and infallibly secured their everlasting salvation, while his obedience unto death, afforded such a satisfaction to the justice of God, as that on the ground of it, in consistency with his character and law, the door of mercy is open to all people, and a full and free salvation is presented for their acceptance.” The special aspect, indeed, ought no more to be denied than the general. It rests on a large number of what may be called special texts; as, “Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it,” etc. “For the transgression of my people was he stricken.” “I lay down my life for the sheep,” Ephesians 5:25; Isaiah 53:8; John 10:15.
Nor will it do to say of this numerous class of passages, that they find a sufficient explanation in the purpose of application, which is connected with the remedy for sin, since most of them are of a kind that connect the salvation of the elect directly with the atonement itself, and not with any after design of applying it. This idea seems but an ingenious shift to sustain a favorite theory. How direct, for example, is this connection in the following passage: “who loved me and gave himself for me.” No one who had not a theory to support, would ever think of introducing an after design of application to explain this. Indeed, as an able reviewer in one of our periodicals observes of the scheme that excludes a special design, “it separates too much the atonement from the salvation of man. It does not connect those that are saved, those that are regenerated by divine grace, at all specially with the sacrifice of Christ.” Another important branch of evidence on this point, lies in the special relation which Christ in dying sustained toward his people, as that of shepherd, husband, surety, etc., and which cannot be explained on any other principle than that of special design.
If the question were put, how we preserve our consistency, in thus maintaining both the general and special view, we reply, first, that if both views are found in scripture, it matters not whether we can explain the consistency between them or no. But second, it is not so difficult as some would imagine, to conceive of God appointing a remedy with a general aspect toward the race, but specially intended to secure the salvation of his chosen people.)
Then were all dead - All dead in sin; that is, all were sinners. The fact that he died for all proves that all were transgressors. The word “dead” is not unfrequently used in the scriptures to denote the condition of sinners; see Ephesians 2:1. It means not that sinners are in all senses, and in all respects like a lifeless corpse, for they are not. They are still moral agents, and have a conscience. and are capable of thinking, and speaking, and acting. It does not mean that they have no more power than one in the grave, for they have more power. But it means that there is a striking similarity, in some respects, between one who is dead and a sinner. That similarity does not extend to everything, but in many respects it is very striking.

(1) the sinner is as insensible to the glories of the heavenly world, and the appeals of the gospel, as a corpse is to what is going on around or above it. The body that lies in the grave is insensible to the voice of friendship, and the charms of music, and the hum of business, and the plans of gain and ambition; and so the sinner is insensible to all the glories of the heavenly world, and to all the appeals that are made to him, and to all the warnings of God. He lives as though there were no heaven and no hell; no God and no Saviour.
(2) there is need of the same divine power to convert a sinner which is needful to raise up the dead. The same cause does not exist, making the existence of that power necessary, but it is a fact that a sinner will no more be converted by his own power than a dead man will rise from the grave by his own power. No man ever yet was converted without direct divine agency, anymore than Lazarus was raised without divine agency. And there is no more just or melancholy description which can be given of man, than to say that he is dead in sins. He is insensible to all the appeals that God makes to him; he is insensible to all the sufferings of the Saviour, and to all the glories of heaven; he lives as though these did not exist, or as though he had no concern in them; his eyes see no more beauty in them than the sightless eyeballs of the dead do in the material world; his ear is as inattentive to the calls of God and the gospel as the ear of the dead is to the voice of friendship or the charms of melody; and in a world that is full of God, and that might be full of hope, he is living without God and without hope.

Study 2 CORINTHIANS 5:5-10

Verse 5
Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing - The phrase “self-same thing” here means this very thing, that is, the thing to which he had referred - the preparation for heaven, or the heavenly dwelling. The word “wrought” here ( κατεργασάμενος katergasamenos) means that God had formed or made them for this; that is, he had by the influences of the Spirit, and by his agency on the heart, created them, as it were, for this, and adapted them to it. God has destined us to this change from corruption to incorruption; he has adapted us to it; he has formed us for it. It does not refer to the original creation of the body and the soul for this end, but it means that God, by his own renewing, and sanctifying, and sustaining agency, had formed them for this, and adapted them to it. The object of Paul in stating that it was done by God, is to keep this truth prominently before the mind. It was not by any native inclination, or strength, or power which they had, but it was all to be traced to God; compare Ephesians 2:10.

Who also hath given - In addition to the fitting for eternal glory he has given us the earnest of the Spirit to sustain us here. We are not only prepared to enter into heaven, but we have here also the support produced by the earnest of the Spirit.

The earnest of the Spirit - On the meaning of this, see the note on 2 Corinthians 1:22. He has given to us the Holy Spirit as the pledge or assurance of the eternal inheritance.

Verse 6
Therefore we are always confident - The word used here ( θαῤῥοῦντες tharrountes) means to be of good cheer. To have good courage, to be full of hope. The idea is, that Paul was not dejected, cast down, disheartened, discouraged. He was cheerful and happy. He was patient in his trials, and diligent in his calling. He was full of hope, and of the confident expectation of heaven; and this filled him with cheerfulness and with joy. Tyndale renders it: “we are always of goud cheere.” And this was not occasional and transitory, it was constant, it was uniform, it always ( πάντοτε pantote) existed. This is an instance of the uniform cheerfulness which will be produced by the assured prospect of heaven. It is an instance too when the hope of heaven will enable a man to face danger with courage; to endure toil with patience; and to submit to trials in any form with cheerfulness.

Knowing - see 2 Corinthians 5:1. This is another instance in which the apostle expresses undoubted assurance.

While we are at home in the body - The word used here ( ἐνδημοῦντες endēmountes) means literally to be among one‘s own people, to be at home; to be present at any place. It is here equivalent to saying, “while we dwell in the body;” see 2 Corinthians 5:1. Doddridge renders it, “sojourning in the body;” and remarks that it is improper to render it “at home in the body,” since it is the apostle‘s design to intimate that this is not our home. But Bloomfield says that the word is never used in the sense of sojourning. The idea is not that of being “at home” - for this is an idea which is the very opposite of that which the apostle wishes to convey. His purpose is not at all to represent the body here as our home, and the original word does not imply that. It means here simply to be in the body; to be present in the body; that is, while we are in the body.

We are absent from the Lord - The Lord Jesus; see the notes, Acts 1:24; compare Philemon 1:23. Here he was in a strange world, and among strangers. His great desire and purpose was to be with the Lord; and hence, he cared little how soon the frail tabernacle of the body was taken down, and was cheerful amidst all the labors and sufferings that tended to bring it to the grave, and to release him to go to his eternal home where he would be present forever with the Lord.

Verse 7
For we walk - To walk, in the Scriptures often denotes to live, to act, to conduct in a certain way; see the notes on Romans 4:12; Romans 6:4. It has reference to the fact that life is a journey, or a pilgrimage, and that the Christian is traveling to another country. The sense here is, that we conduct ourselves in our course of life with reference to the things which are unseen, and not with reference to the things which are seen.

By faith - In the belief of those things which we do not see. We believe in the existence of objects which are invisible, and we are influenced by them. To walk by faith, is to live in the confident expectation of things that are to come; in the belief of the existence of unseen realities; and suffering them to influence us as if they were seen. The people of this world are influenced by the things that are seen. They live for wealth, honor, splendor, praise, for the objects which this world can furnish, and as if there were nothing which is unseen, or as if they ought not to be influenced by the things which are unseen. The Christian, on the contrary, has a firm conviction of the reality of the glories of heaven; of the fact that the Redeemer is there; of the fact that there is a crown of glory; and he lives, and acts as if that were all real, and as if he saw it all. The simple account of faith, and of living by faith is, that we live and act as if these things were true, and suffer them to make an impression on our mind according to their real nature; see the note on Mark 16:16.

It is contradistinguished from living simply under the influence of things that are seen. God is unseen - but the Christian lives, and thinks, and acts as if there were a God, and as if he saw him. Christ is unseen now by the bodily eye; but the Christian lives and acts as if he were seen, that is, as if his eye were known to be upon us, and as if he was now exalted to heaven and was the only Saviour. The Holy Spirit is unseen; but he lives, and acts as if there were such a Spirit, and as if his influences were needful to renew, and purify the soul. Heaven is unseen; but the Christian lives, and thinks, and acts as if there were a heaven, and as if he now saw its glories. He has confidence in these, and in kindred truths, and he acts as if they were real. Could man see all these; were they visible to the naked eye as they are to the eye of faith, no one would doubt the propriety of living and acting with reference to them.
But if they exist, there is no more impropriety in acting with reference to them than if they were seen. Our seeing or not seeing them does not alter their nature or importance, and the fact that they are not seen does not make it improper to act with reference to them. There are many ways of being convinced of the existence and reality of objects besides seeing them; and it may be as rational to be influenced by the reason, the judgment, or by strong confidence, as it is to be influenced by sight. Besides, all people are influenced by things which they have not seen. They hope for objects that are future. They aspire to happiness which they have not yet beheld. They strive for honor and wealth which are unseen, and which is in the distant future. They live, and act - influenced by strong faith and hope - as if these things were attainable; and they deny themselves, and labor, and cross oceans and deserts, and breathe in pestilential air to obtain those things which they have not seen, and which to them are in the distant future.
And why should not the Christian endure like labor, and be willing to suffer in like manner, to gain the unseen crown which is incorruptible, and to acquire the unseen wealth which the moth does not corrupt? And further still, the people of this world strive for those objects which they have not beheld, without any promise or any assurance that they shall obtain them. No being able to grant them has promised them; no one has assured them that their lives shall be lengthened out to obtain them. In a moment they may be cut off and all their plans frustrated; or they may be utterly disappointed and all their plans fail; or if they gain the object, it may be unsatisfactory, and may furnish no pleasure such as they had anticipated. But not so the Christian. He has:
(1) The promise of life.
(2) he has the assurance that sudden death cannot deprive him of it. It at once removes him to the object of pursuit, not from it.
(3) he has the assurance that when obtained, it shall not disgust, or satiate, or decay, but that it shall meet all the expectations of the soul, and shall be eternal.
Not by sight - This may mean either that we are not influenced by a sight of these future glories, or that we are not influenced by the things which we see. The main idea is, that we are not influenced and governed by the sight. We are not governed and controlled by the things which we see, and we do not see those things which actually influence and control us. In both it is faith that controls us, and not sight.

Verse 8
We are confident - 2 Corinthians 5:6. We are cheerful, and courageous, and ready to bear our trial. Tyndale renders it: “we are of good comfort.”

And willing rather to be absent from the body - We would prefer to die. The same idea occurs in Philemon 1:23. “Having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better.” The sense is, that Paul would have preferred to die, and to go to heaven; rather than to remain in a world of sin and trial.

To be present with the Lord - The Lord Jesus; see the note on Acts 1:24; compare Philemon 1:23. The idea of Paul is, that the Lord Jesus would constitute the main glory of heaven, and that to be with him was equivalent to being in a place of perfect bliss. He had no idea of any heaven where the Lord Jesus was not; and to be with him was to be in heaven. That world where the Redeemer is, is heaven. This also proves that the spirits of the saints, when they depart, are with the Redeemer; that is, are at once taken to heaven. It demonstrates:

(1)That they are not annihilated.

(2)that they do not sleep, and remain in an unconscious state, as Dr. Priestley supposes.
(3)that they are not in some intermediate state, either in a state of purgatory, as the Papists suppose, or a state where all the souls of the just and the unjust are assembled in a common abode, as many Protestants have supposed; but,
(4)That they dwell with Christ; they are with the Lord ( πρὸς τὸν Κυρίον pros ton Kurion). They abide in his presence; they partake of his joy and his glory; they are permitted to sit with him in his throne; Revelation 3:21.
The same idea the Saviour expressed to the dying thief, when he said, “today shalt thou be with me in paradise;” Luke 23:43.

Verse 9
Wherefore - ( Διὸ Dio). In view of the facts stated above. Since we have the prospect of a resurrection and of future glory; since we have the assurance that there is a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens; and since God has given to us this hope, and has granted to us the earnest of the Spirit, we make it our great object so to live as to be accepted by him.

We labor - The word used here ( φιλοτιμούμεθα philotimoumethafrom φίλος and τιμὴ timēloving honor) means properly to love honor; to be ambitious. This is its usual Classical signification. In the New Testament, it means to be ambitious to do anything; to exert oneself; to strive, as if from a love or sense of honor. As in English, to make it a point of honor to do so and so - Robinson (Lexicon); see Romans 15:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:1 l. It means here, that Paul made it a point of constant effort; it was his leading and constant aim to live so as to be acceptable to God, and to meet his approbation wherever he was.

Whether present or absent - Whether present with the Lord 2 Corinthians 5:8, or absent from him 2 Corinthians 5:6; that is, whether in this world or the next; whether we are here, or removed to heaven. Wherever we are, or may be, it is, and will be our main purpose and object so to live as to secure his favor. Paul did not wish to live on earth regardless of his favor or without evidence that he would be accepted by him. He did not make the fact that he was absent from him, and that he did not see him with the physical eye, an excuse for walking in the ways of ambition, or seeking his own purposes and ends. The idea is, that so far as this point was concerned, it made no difference with him whether he lived or died; whether he was on earth or in heaven; whether in the body or out of the body; it was the great fixed principle of his nature so to live as to secure the approbation of the Lord. And this is the true principle on which the Christian should act, and will act. The fact that he is now absent from the Lord will be to him no reason why he should lead a life of sin and self-indulgence, anymore than he would if he were in heaven; and the fact that he is soon to be with him is not the main reason why he seeks to live so as to please him. It is because this has become the fixed principle of the soul; the very purpose of the life; and this principle and this purpose will adhere to him, and control him wherever he may be placed, or in whatever world he may dwell.

We may be accepted of him - The phrase used here εὐάρεστοι εἶναι euarestoi einaimeans to be well-pleasing; and then to be acceptable, or approved; Romans 12:1; Romans 14:18; Ephesians 5:10; Philemon 4:18; Titus 2:9. The sense here is, that Paul was earnestly desirous of so living as to please God, and to receive from him the tokens and marks of his favor. And the truth taught in this verse is, that this will be the great purpose of the Christian‘s life, and that it makes no difference as to the existence and operation of this principle whether a man is on earth or in heaven. He will equally desire it, and strive for it; and this is one of the ways in which religion makes a man conscientious and holy, and is a better guard and security for virtue than all human laws, and all the restraints which can be imposed by man.

Verse 10
For we must - ( δεῖ dei). It is proper, fit, necessary that we should all appear there. This fact, to which Paul now refers, is another reason why it was necessary to lead a holy life, and why Paul gave himself with so much diligence and self-denial to the arduous duties of his office. There is a necessity, or a fitness that we should appear there to give up our account, for we are here on trial: we are responsible moral agents; we are placed here to form characters for eternity. Before we receive our eternal allotment it is proper that we should render our account of the manner in which we have lived, and of the manner in which we have improved our talents and privileges. In the nature of things, it is proper that we should undergo a trial before we receive our reward, or before we are punished; and God has made it necessary and certain, by his direct and positive appointment, that we should stand at the bar of the final judge; see Romans 14:10.

All - Both Jews and Gentiles; old and young; bond and free; rich and poor; all of every class, and every age, and every nation. None shall escape by being unknown; none by virtue of their rank, or wealth; none because they have a character too pure to be judged. All shall be arranged in one vast assemblage, and with reference to their eternal doom; see Revelation 20:12. Rosenmuller supposes that the apostle here alludes to an opinion that was common among the Jews that the Gentiles only would be exposed to severe judgments in the future world, and that the Jews would be saved as a matter of course. But the idea seems rather to be, that as the trial of the great day was the most important that man could undergo, and as all must give account there, Paul and his fellow-laborers devoted themselves to untiring diligence and fidelity that they might be accepted in that great day.

Appear - ( φανερωθῆναι phanerōthēnai). This word properly means, to make apparent, manifest, known; to show openly, etc. Here it means that we must be manifest, or openly shown; that is, we must be seen there, and be publicly tried. We must not only stand there, but our character will be seen, our desert will be known, our trial will be public. All will be brought, from their graves, and from their places of concealment, and will be seen at the judgment-seat. The secret things of the heart and the life will all be made manifest and known.

The judgment-seat of Christ - The tribunal of Christ, who is appointed to be the judge of quick and dead; see the John 5:25 note; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31 notes. Christ is appointed to judge the world; and for this purpose he will assemble it before him, and assign to all their eternal allotments; see Luke 7:37; to acquire, to obtain, to receive. This is the sense here. Every individual shall take, receive, or bear away the appropriate reward for the transactions of this life of probation; see Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:25.

The things - The appropriate reward of the actions of this life. “done in his body.” Literally, “the things by or through ( διὰ dia) the body.” Tyndale renders it: “the works of his body.” The idea is, that every man shall receive an appropriate reward for the actions of this life. Observe here:

(1) That it is the works done in or through the body; not which the body itself has done. It is the mind, the man that has lived in the body, and acted by it, that is to be judged.
(2) it is to be for the deeds of this life; not for what is done after death. People are not to be brought into judgment for what they do after they die. All beyond the grave is either reward or punishment; it is not probation. The destiny is to be settled forever by what is done in this world of probation.
(3) it is to be for all the deeds done in the body; for all the thoughts, plans, purposes, words, as well as for all the outward actions of the man. All that has been thought or done must come into review, and man must give an account for all.
According to that he hath done - As an exact retribution for all that has been done. It is to be a suitable and proper recompence. The retribution is to be measured by what has been done in this life. Rewards shall be granted to the friends, and punishments to the foes of God, just in proportion to, or suitably to their deeds in this life. Every man shall receive just what, under all the circumstances, he ought to receive, and what will be impartial justice in the case. The judgment will be such that it will be capable of being seen to be right; and such as the universe at large, and as the individuals themselves will see ought to be rendered.

Whether it be good or bad - Whether the life has been good or evil. The good will have no wish to escape the trial; the evil will not be able. No power of wickedness, however great, will be able to escape from the trial of that day; no crime that has been concealed in this life will be concealed there; no transgressor of law who may have long escaped the punishment due to his sins, and who may have evaded all human tribunals, will be able to escape there.