2 Corinthians 8

CHAPTER VIII

The Second Part of the Epistle

Chapters Eight and Nine

Expediting the Matter of the Collection in Corinth

I. The Great Example of Macedonia

Our first information regarding the great collection is stated in 1 Cor. 16:1, etc. In their letter to Paul the Corinthians had requested directions regarding it, and Paul sends these in 1 Cor. 16. We learned that the Galatian churches were already following the method proposed to the Corinthians, namely that on each Sunday each person lay by what he could. When Paul wrote First Corinthians he expected to get to Corinth eight or nine months later and so asked that the whole collection be completed by that time so that men who were approved by the church might then carry the funds to Jerusalem. Just when, where, and how this movement toward a collection started we cannot say, for all we have is the remark made in Gal. 2:10 about remembering the poor, which Paul promised to do.

The next information we have is found in these two chapters of this epistle. In 9:2 we see that the collection was started in Corinth a year before Second Corinthians was written, and that means five or six months before First Corinthians was written. Paul boasts to the Macedonians about the early start that was made in Corinth and in Achaia; but he now boasts to the Corinthians about the wonderful response he had found in Macedonia and writes in detail about the Macedonians in order to enthuse also the Corinthians. The danger is that the Corinthians will fall behind, that when representatives from Macedonia come to Corinth to join the party that is to convey the collection to Jerusalem, they will find Corinth unready although here in Second Corinthians Paul is boasting that Corinth began already a year ago. So Paul tries to speed up the collection in Corinth by sending back Titus to help direct matters. Paul himself will get to Corinth in two or three months, the Macedonian representatives will accompany him.

We can follow the main events from Luke’s report in Acts 20:4, where he names the whole party which started from Corinth in the spring of the next year and carried the collection from the European churches to Jerusalem. Luke describes the whole journey. How the funds gathered in Asia and in Galatia were combined with those which had been collected in Europe we are not told. They were perhaps brought when the Ephesian elders met Paul and his party at Miletus (Acts 20:17). The collection must have been turned over to James and to the elders at Jerusalem when these received Paul and his party (Acts 21:17, etc.). In his defense before Felix in Acts 24:17 Paul mentions the fact that he had come to Jerusalem to bring alms to his nation.

We now go back to the six months that intervened between First and Second Corinthians. The relation between the Corinthians and Paul had become severely strained. All that we know about this is what we are able to gather from the two epistles themselves. We have this much in the way of facts. First Corinthians is filled with rebuke and corrections in every chapter. Conditions were bad, very bad in Corinth: party factions; the whole wisdom-folly; the case of incest; litigations; harlotry not considered wrong; wrong notions regarding marriage and celibacy; attending idol feasts; ruining the apage and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; the folly concerning gifts, forgetting love; capping this list the denial of the bodily resurrection. No wonder Paul shed tears while he was writing this letter (2:5).

Just consider this array of evils, all of which were found in one congregation. Timothy arrived in Corinth after this letter had been received. We know that after he returned to Paul in Ephesus, Paul sent Titus to Corinth. From Second Corinthians we gather that things had, indeed, looked bad in Corinth, and that Paul had feared even the worst. Judaizers had come in, and a movement to disown Paul was started. But the Corinthians thoroughly righted themselves with the help of Titus. Titus so reported to Paul in Macedonia, and Paul then wrote Second Corinthians.

But we see that because of all this disturbance the collection had fared illy. We may well suppose that it had gone by the board for the time being. It is with this background that Paul writes about it in order to set it going again. Paul had perhaps been attacked also on the score of this collection. We shall see how he guards his expressions. These two chapters regarding the collection are again a sample of how in a situation that is by no means simple Paul knows exactly the right thing to say, to touch only the purest motives, to avert every wrong implication, and to deprive every hostile mind of the least opening for an attack. The new part of the letter proceeds with transitional δέ.

2 Corinthians 8:1

1 Now we inform you, brethren, about the grace of God which has been bestowed in the churches of Macedonia, (namely) that in a great test of affliction the excess of their joy and their down to depth poverty exceeded in the riches of their single-mindedness.

Paul does not write: “I hear that the matter of the collection has stopped in Corinth; you must start it again.” He does not put this matter into diplomatic language by sugar-coating it with smooth words. Paul issues no command of authority. He knows only one principle for giving, and that is the giver’s own free will. He takes it for granted that the Corinthians, who have now returned to their true allegiance and love, will join in the movement of the collection (9:1). His aim in writing these two chapters on the subject is to make their participation pure and true in every respect, a product of the gospel spirit in every way, a delightful task that is performed in the fullest gospel consciousness. For this reason he starts with the Macedonians, who are now busy gathering their contributions in the finest Christian spirit.

It is Paul’s delight to praise where praise is due. He cannot write on this subject without glorying in what the Macedonians are doing. He would glory thus no matter to whom he might write. Invidious comparisons do not enter his mind. Legalistic promptings are impossible to him. All these beautiful fruits are pure “grace of God.” As far as the Corinthians are concerned, the only stimulation which Paul knows is that of rich gospel grace. He wants nothing from the Corinthians but a repetition of the delight which he is now experiencing among the Macedonians.

That he secured it we see from Rom. 15:26–28 which was written later in Corinth just before he and the selected delegates started for Jerusalem with the collection. The secret of Paul’s success in this field is still hidden from so many who now manage the finances of the church. A little law, often just law, seems to them to be much more promising than pure gospel. When they do try to use the gospel they do it awkwardly because down in their hearts they do not trust it for complete effectiveness with Paul’s full trust. Therefore their gospel appeals so often fail to ring true, and the results are, of course, according, which is not the gospel’s fault but the fault of those who do not trust it sufficiently.

Nor is it the fault of our people, for they would respond to Paul as the Macedonians and the Achaians once responded, if Paul could come to them. We stand in Paul’s place, we preachers and we church leaders. Would that his gospel trust and spirit radiated from us as we see it radiate in these two chapters and in all of Paul’s work!

“We inform you,” Timothy and I (1:1) and other assistants of mine. This is not an editorial “we”; there is none in the entire epistle. It is glorious news that “we” are able to send you Corinthians. The address “brethren” marks a new part of the letter and makes this part very personal for the Corinthians. The collection of the Macedonians should not be called “the grace of God.” On χάρις see 2:1; it is the undeserved favor of God with all that it bestows. “The grace of God, the one that has been bestowed (and is thus remaining) in the churches of Macedonia,” is something the Macedonians have received (and thus possess) from God, not something they bestow on God or on the poor in Jerusalem and thus on God.

Right here we have the full depth of Paul’s view. All our fruit of good works, all our beneficence and contributions of money, are God’s unmerited favor to us, his undeserved gift to us. How so? Every good work is the fruit of God’s operative grace. It is a treasure that he and his grace deposit in our basket. Blessed is he who has his basket overflowingly full of such gifts of God! Those who refuse to give turn their basket away when God wants to place another gift into it. Ah, they keep their gift and lose the gift to themselves which their gift might have been. Poor where grace would make them rich in good works to come with rejoicing, bearing their full sheaves (Ps. 126:6), to stand among those whom the King shall call “the blessed of my Father” (Matt. 25:34–40).

2 Corinthians 8:2

2 Epexegetical ὅτι describes this grace which was vouchsafed to the Macedonians. This was grace indeed, “that in a great test of affliction the excess of their joy and their down to depth poverty exceeded in the riches of their single-mindedness.” As the metal of coins was tested as to its genuineness, so the Macedonians have just undergone a severe “test of affliction” (genitive of cause). Was it persecution? Had the Macedonian province as such been “lacerated” by the Romans (R. W. P.)?

No matter; it left these churches with two effects: 1) excess of joy, 2) poverty down to the very depths (R. 607). See the clashing terms: affliction producing excess of joy—joy and poverty—excess of the one, and the other “down to depth,” κατὰβάθους. What an eye Paul has to see all these angles, these contrasting correspondences!

This excess of joy in so severe a test of affliction which brought them so great poverty exceeded “for the riches of their single-mindedness.” This excess did its exceeding in this direction (εἰς); it just bubbled over into this beautiful channel, namely “the wealth of their single-mindedness.” “Riches or wealth” is placed in contrast with the deep “poverty.” So deep was the poverty that you could not dip it out; so great their joy that it poured itself out in a tide of wealth. This is astonishing when it is put this way, but Paul labels all of the facts with exact terms. Every term states a fact, and Paul is able to put all the facts into one clause. Could you do that?

It is the moral, spiritual quality which Paul sees in the contribution which these Macedonians were making with such joy despite the affliction of poverty which had struck them. This quality stood the great test and was proven genuine. Paul calls it ἁπλότης, sincerity or “singleness” of heart, “single-mindedness.” See also 9:11. This word does not mean “liberality” (our versions), and it does not intend to. No; Paul says that the Macedonians fixed their minds on a single thing. And we know what that is: to let God’s grace give them its gift, namely this blessed work of helping in the collection.

There was no doubleness in their minds; no one stood up and said: “Why, we are so poor that somebody ought to take up a collection for us instead of asking us to give to others!” That crooked “single-mindedness,” I fear, would appear in many a church today that has members who are not nearly as poor as these Macedonians were. So the grace of God would be wasted by them. Despite the poverty which the affliction had brought to the Macedonians they had kept, yea increased, their greatest wealth and their joy with it. Grace of God, indeed!

2 Corinthians 8:3

3 Ὅτι is paratactic and not a continuation of the hypotactic ὅτι of v. 2. For according to ability, I testify, yea, beyond ability, voluntarily, begging of us with much urging this grace and this fellowship of the ministry for the saints and not (merely), as we hoped, but their own selves they gave in the first place to the Lord and to us through God’s will, so that we urged Titus that, as he had already begun, thus also he should complete for you, too, this grace.

That is the actual story of what the Macedonians have done, the inwardness of which is stated so effectively in v. 1, 2. Paul personally (note the singular) testifies that they contributed “beyond ability,” and that they did this “voluntarily,” of their own choice. Despite their deep poverty they insisted on giving far more than anyone could even think they could give. They made a joy of robbing themselves.

2 Corinthians 8:4

4 Paul and Timothy evidently tried to restrain them, at least those who were in the direst poverty; but they literally begged with insistent urging. The Greek is like the English: “begging of us (genitive of the person) this grace and this fellowship of the ministry for the saints” (accusative of the object). The nouns have the articles. They wanted “the grace,” i.e., “the grace of God” mentioned in v. 1. “And” is explicative, it adds what they considered a grace of God to themselves, namely “this fellowship” in giving, being in one communion with all the many other churches who were being vouchsafed the same grace. As has already been explained, they considered their gift a grace and a gift of God to themselves. They gave to the very limit in order to get into the communion of giving to the fullest possible extent. Paul calls it “the fellowship” (communion) of the ministry, the one for the saints,” διακονία, service rendered for the sake of service, for the benefit of others, namely the poor saints in Jerusalem.

“The grace” is not a favor from Paul, nor a favor from the Macedonians to the saints, but God’s favor to the Macedonians. They beg “us” for it because Paul and his assistants are managing the collection and the participation in it. “Grace and fellowship” are not a hendiadys, two words to denote one idea. Nor is κοινωνία anything but “fellowship” or “communion.” “The ministry for the saints” does not read like a technical expression, nor is οἱἅγιοι a specific term for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem; both Paul and Luke use it with regard to Christians as such, the ἡγιασμένοι whom God has sanctified as believers in Christ. The reason that Paul does not add “the saints in Jerusalem” is due to the fact that this is not necessary for his readers in Corinth.

2 Corinthians 8:5

5 The construction is perfectly simple, and all the modifiers of ἔδωκαν are heterogeneous: they gave 1) according to and above ability—phrase; 2) as people acting of their own accord—adjective; 3) begging of us, etc.—participle; 4) “and” in addition to all these points: “not (merely), as we hoped, but their own selves”—a clause. All these modifiers describe how the Macedonians gave, but the last introduces also the unexpected object, namely what they gave, “themselves first of all to the Lord and to us by God’s will.” “Not as we hoped” just contributions of money = they went beyond our hopes, they literally made a gift of themselves because of the way in which they gave. To give oneself when one gives a gift is the highest form of Christian giving. The idea is not, however, that of giving themselves for the work of the gospel but of a giving like that of the widow whom Jesus commended so highly. When she dropped her last coin, all her living, she gave herself into God’s hands in absolute dependence on his care. For her living she then had God alone. And no gift can please God as much as that.

When Paul writes that the Macedonians “gave themselves first of all to the Lord” and then adds “and to us by God’s will” he means that they did both “first of all” (πρῶτον), before they gave any money. Paul does not say first to the Lord and then to us. “To the Lord” and “to us” are not to be taken in the same way as some suppose, and the plea that this is a bold way for Paul to combine himself with the Lord is met by the obvious reply that this is not what Paul intends to say. Besides, “to us” is plural and does not mean to Paul alone; none of these “we” do. For this reason Paul says “to us through or by (διά) God’s will” (θέλημα, not the act of willing but the result of the act as recorded in the Word). The phrase belongs only to the pronoun. It is superfluous to say that it is God’s will that anyone give himself to the Lord. But when we give ourselves to any man we, indeed, need the expressed will of God for that.

It was by one act that the Macedonians “gave themselves” to both “the Lord and to us.” This act had two sides, one was directed “to the Lord,” the other was directed “to us” (Paul and his assistants)—to the Lord who was their Master, who purchased and won them—to us who are this Lord’s ministers; thus to the Lord to take care of his own but to us, the Lord’s ministers, in full devotion, in complete attachment. And the latter was “God’s will.” In other words, Paul and his helpers understood what the Macedonians intended and did by so liberally contributing to the collection as far as they (Paul, etc.) were concerned. As the Lord’s ministers they were making this collection, and these Macedonians were showing their complete devotion to them as such ministers.

This is said to the Corinthians who had of late turned away from devotion to these ministers. What a contrast the Macedonians are affording! Here is the example which the Corinthians should follow. Let them, too, first of all in this matter of the collection give themselves to the Lord in utter trust and to the Lord’s ministers in devoted adherence. Then whatever money they would give would be acceptable to God.

2 Corinthians 8:6

6 As a result (εἰςτό, R. 1090), Paul adds, we urged Titus (the aorist implies: successfully) that, as he had already begun, so also he should finish for you also this grace. Ἵνα is subfinal and states what was urged upon Titus. The Greek is satisfied with the mere aorist “as he did begin”; in English we want the time relation “had (already) begun.” Begun what? Evidently the work of collecting, which had lagged badly, which Titus had set in motion again; not all that Titus had begun in Corinth toward righting all the bad conditions. The context deals with only the matter of the collection.

We see that Titus is to return to Corinth at once. He is to finish what he began. Paul writes significantly: he is to finish “for you also this grace,” i.e., “grace of God” (v. 1). As for the Macedonians, so for the Corinthians the whole matter of the collection is to be a bestowal of God’s unmerited grace, is to be their own spiritual enrichment. Paul implies that this bestowal had begun in the case of the Corinthians and wants it fully completed.

We need not look askance at the statements that Titus began and is to finish this divine grace and then change the word χάρις into something human, namely the favor which the Corinthians extend by their contributions of money. Even God’s saving grace is extended through means, the Word and the ministry. As God’s minister Titus “began,” as such he is to “finish” this grace from God to the great enrichment of the Corinthians.

Here we have the right view of the work of the ministry in collecting money for the church. When we induce the congregations to give as these Macedonians gave, and as the Corinthians had begun to give and were to finish giving, we act as God’s means for bestowing additional measures of God’s grace upon them, we are helping them to new measures of priceless grace. In other words, we are enriching them and not impoverishing them. As to more and more bestowals of God’s grace, read the salutations to the epistles, in which the writers wish for their Christian readers “grace from God, our Father,” etc. (see 1:2). Grace does not exhaust itself in the one gift of righteousness when faith is kindled. Ever greater measures of grace are to become ours. But in this work of helping a congregation to be thus enriched by God’s grace the minister who does not first of all secure this enrichment for himself by the right kind of giving with his own heart and his own hand will be but a poor helper if he is a helper to any degree.

II. How the Corinthians Should Follow the Example of the Macedonians

2 Corinthians 8:7

7 Now, as in everything you abound—faith and doctrine and knowledge and all earnestness and love from you to us—continue to abound also in this grace!

This is the continuative ἀλλά which adds the other side. In v. 6 Titus is urged in addition to the fact that the Corinthians themselves are urged. Something similar is done in both cases: Titus is urged on the basis of what he had begun; the Corinthians on the basis of that in which they already abound; each is to crown past achievement, the one his work, the others their possessions. Ἀλλά is not adversative, nor does this connective break off as it sometimes does by dropping a subject to take up a more vital point, for what Titus and the Corinthians are to do is most closely related.

Paul is happy to acknowledge what the Corinthians have in abundance. “In everything” is not absolute as though their possessions cannot be augmented. This is indicated by five datives which are added only appositionally and without ἐν: “in everything—faith, doctrine, knowledge, earnestness, love.” Five is rhetorically the half of ten (fullest completeness), and thus this five calls for additions, one of which is named, “this grace.” The Corinthians have faith and are believers. They have λόγος, which is not “utterance” (our versions), Rede, or speech (λαλία or ῥήματα). The logos refers to the substance of what is said; it is not διδαχή, “teaching,” but more general, we may say “doctrine,” what the Corinthians believe and confess. Hence “knowledge” follows. These three thus belong together in the order in which they appear. They constitute a wonderful possession, especially when they are had in abundance (see the noun and the verb in v. 2): true faith resting on true doctrine and apprehended by true knowledge.

Added to these are the moral virtues: “all earnestness” that is inspired by faith, doctrine, and knowledge; and then love for the Lord’s ministers who have helped the Corinthians to attain this spiritual abundance or riches. The Greek has two expressive phrases: ἐξὑμῶνἐνἡμῖν; they are verbal opposites and yet belong together: the love that originates “from you” and rests “in us.” We say “from you to us” since our idiom does not use “in” as the Greek does.

The poorly attested reading which is unnecessarily preserved in the R. V. margin: “our love to you,” which reverses the pronouns, deserves no attention. It overlooks the close correspondence with v. 5, the fact that the Macedonians gave themselves “to us by God’s will.” Paul does not say: we gave ourselves to the Macedonians; so he does not here say: our love to the Corinthians. In both instances he says the reverse. Paul is now calling on the Corinthians to exercise their love to the Lord’s ministers in the collection which these ministers have gotten under way. This their love for them is not the only motive, yet it is a motive. In the case of the Corinthians it is to be a most important one which demonstrates their fully renewed loyalty to these ministers.

We have the imperatival ἵνα with its subjunctive. This ἵνα is a mere expletive (R. 933) and very much in place with the present tense, thus placing the imperative meaning beyond doubt: ἵναπερισσεύητε, “continue to abound!” Περισσεύετε could be either indicative or imperative and hence ambiguous; ἵνα makes it imperative. “In the grace” is again “the grace of God” as explained in v. 1. Note how this word runs through v. 1, 4, 6, 7. It has the same meaning throughout, and this is not the favor which the human givers bestow on the poor saints in Jerusalem.

2 Corinthians 8:8

8 Paul’s imperative is a sweet gospel command. “Abound in this grace!” means: “Let yourselves be made rich in God’s favor and grace!” This imperative is not like a military order (ἐπιταγή). Not by way of order do I speak (Paul dictates this letter) but as testing by means of others the genuineness of your love.

Τὸγνήσιον, the articulated neuter adjective, is used by Paul in the classic fashion instead of the abstract noun, here “the genuineness.” Δοκιμάζω is explained in v. 2 (“test”). Paul is not issuing orders to the Corinthians as a commander who is simply to be obeyed; he is doing a far deeper thing, he is using the loving earnestness of others (the Macedonians) as a simple means for testing the genuineness of the love of the Corinthians. He is giving the Corinthians an opportunity to compare their love with the love the Macedonians manifested in their great earnestness. The genuineness of what the Macedonians are showing is beyond question; it is, then, a good means (διά) for testing the Corinthians.

Paul means for testing the love of the Corinthians to him and to his assistants as God’s ministers. The context shows clearly that this love is referred to and not just love in general or love for the needy in Jerusalem. In v. 7 Paul acknowledges this love toward him and his helpers; it had declined but had revived and would now be tested by being asked to do something that would call it fully into action, namely this collection. In v. 5 he states that the Macedonians gave themselves to him and to his helpers in completest devotion by the way in which they responded in the matter of this collection.

We should not be surprised that Paul makes this collection a test of love toward himself. Love for Paul and for his assistants was love for the great work in which they were engaged. Through the collection the Corinthians would participate in this work; their hearts would be knit together in purest love with the ministers who lived in this work. Coldness and indifference in the matter of the collection would show how little they loved these ministers. Paul has no fear that contributions might be made only for his sake. He ever conducted his work so that this could not be done. He so completely merged himself and his work in the Lord that one could show genuine love to him only by loving the Lord and genuine love to the Lord only by loving also Paul and those who helped Paul.

2 Corinthians 8:9

9 “For” makes this plain. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that because of you he became poor while being rich in order that you by means of his poverty may become rich. Who would not love the Lord’s ministers who brought them to this Lord, through him to become so rich? This is not an isolated statement about the Lord’s grace. It is embedded in a significant context which deals with Paul and his assistants, and deals with them in an effort to enlist all their congregations in the great collection as a work of love. All of the motives which the Corinthians are to follow are twined together: love for the Lord, love for his ministers, love for their work, love for the needy saints. It is a harp of many strings on which one melody is to be played, and every string is to give its concordant note.

You know the Lord’s grace, Paul says, we have told you about that long ago and ever again. He restates this grace in a brief but extremely pertinent way. It is χάρις or “grace” in the fullest sense of the word, wholly undeserved favor. The full soteriological name is used: our Lord (his relation to us whom he purchased and won) Jesus (his personal name, which itself means Savior) Christ (his official name, the Anointed One sent us by God and anointed as our Prophet, High Priest, and King). It is his grace that Paul recalls to the mind of the Corinthians.

Ὅτι is epexegetical and defines this grace: “You know that he wants you to become rich.” Γινώσκετε = you realize. The Corinthians had experienced this enriching grace, had had some of these riches. Paul wants them to have much more. This verb often expresses the personal relation of the subject to its object (C.-K. 388), here the personal relation of the Corinthians to this grace of which they had had and were having rich experience.

How some can regard this passage as a reference to the mere example which Christ sets for the Corinthians passes understanding. In no way whatever is Paul pointing the Corinthians to Christ’s example and asking them to follow it. The very idea of comparing God’s (v. 1) or Christ’s grace (mark the word!) with the contributions we make for poor Christians is out of place. Unworthy sinners who ought to be punished may receive grace from God or Christ, but saints who are sinners can never receive grace from other saints who are also sinners. That thought never entered Paul’s mind. Four times we have had χάρις (v. 1, 4, 6, 7), four times as receiving God’s grace, i.e., a new measure of favor from God, each time in the sense that, when we respond to God by bestowing gifts of charity, this is a new measure of his grace to us.

Now Paul calls it “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” his unmerited favor to us, and describes it. The Corinthians had this grace but are to desire and to receive a new measure of it just as did the Macedonians even as it is the purpose of Jesus to make us literally rich in this grace of his. This is the sense of what Paul says and never that we are to copy Christ’s example of grace.

“Because of you he became poor while being rich,”—because of you, “in order that you by means of his poverty may become rich.” Both aorists are ingressive, a common force of aoristic verbs that express state or condition (R. 834; B.-D. 331). It was not the incarnation by which Christ became poor although this idea is often expressed. He is incarnate now and certainly not poor in his glorified incarnate state. He became poor by entering the state of humiliation. He entered this state simultaneously with his incarnation, but the two should not be confused or made identical. Christ entered the state of humiliation in order to be able to work out our redemption.

In what sense did he become poor? He laid aside the use of his divine attributes, their constant use and not their possession, their χρῆσις and not their κτῆσις. In his ministry he made some use of his omnipotence and his omniscience, namely in the miracles, which shows that he retained the possession. It likewise shows that he laid aside the use only in so far as this was necessary for his redemptive work. He emptied himself (ἐκένωσε, Phil. 2:7) of the use and not, as the Kenoticists claim, of the possession. Christ was and remained God, blessed forever (Rom. 9:5) during the entire state of his humiliation. This state pertained only to his human nature and ended at the time of the vivification in the tomb, Christ’s human nature then entered the state of eternal exaltation.

It makes little difference whether we translate πλούσιοςὤν: “while he was rich” or “though he was rich.” The latter cannot and does not mean that Christ ceased to be God, ceased to possess the attributes of his deity. To speak about ὤν serving in lieu of an imperfect participle is no gain since the imperfect is just as durative in meaning as is the present. It is unwarranted to say that, unless Christ gave up the riches, he did not really become poor as if being infinitely rich and not using the riches but walking in the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7 , etc.) is not a case of becoming poor. Yet, this is the ordinary way: a millionaire loses all his millions for good and all and then is poor. But does this ordinary experience in the unique case of the God-man when the figures of being rich and being poor are applied, not to outward possession of money, but to his own infinite attributes, change the realities of Christ’s case into the same sort of ordinary experience? Figurative language is illustrative of the realities, each figure of only one feature of the reality. Figures are helps and never more than that.

Christ, so rich, became so poor in order that we may become infinitely rich. In literal language: He who possessed all exaltation also in his human nature used such lowly humiliation in order that we, who were in utter abasement in our sin, may become exalted by his grace. The dative “by means of his poverty” is a dative of means. The aorist should be rendered “may become” (“might” in our versions is too potential). This ingressive aorist = may actually become; it is effective as well as ingressive, an aorist for that reason. “May become rich” is not only justification, not only this fundamental reception of grace for our enrichment, but also all that flows from justification. Romans 5 to 8 describe these results at length.

Here Paul has in mind the grace of Christ for our enrichment when by his grace we give to the needy. In 1:16 John writes: χάρινἀντὶχάριτος, “grace for grace,” grace in ever-new measure, in an endless stream. Do the Corinthians want this new and additional grace? Has all of the grace which they have already received been so sweet to them that they would delight in more of it? They need only to let Christ open their hearts to help these saints in Jerusalem. What a gift of grace that would be to the Corinthians themselves!

2 Corinthians 8:10

10 Still speaking for himself alone, Paul adds to the blessed purpose of Christ: And I am offering a judgment in this matter, for this is of advantage to you, you being such as began a year ago not only the doing but the willing. However, now finish also the doing in order that, as (there is) the readiness of willing, so also (there may be) the finishing from (the resources you) have.

All that he is saying is “a judgment in this” (matter or thing), γνώμηἐντούτῳ; Paul is giving it to the Corinthians as such (δίδωμι). The word γνώμη does not mean a mere personal opinion but much more; nor a formal resolution which the Corinthians are to adopt in a meeting similar to the one he formulated for them in 1 Cor. 5:3–5; it is less than such a resolution, namely a well-considered judgment which will have great and decisive weight with the Corinthians.

With γάρ Paul points out a special additional reason that this judgment of his should have special weight. Of course, this fact should have decisive weight that our giving is really a grace and an undeserved gift (χάρις) bestowed upon us givers by God and by our Lord Jesus Christ. But in addition to this general consideration there is the special advantage that will accrue to the Corinthians (ὑμῖνσυμφέρει) since they are such as had already begun this work a year ago; οἵτινες, as so often, has causal force: “because you are such as began.”

The Corinthians are not just beginning; they began a year ago, but they had allowed the collecting to lag during recent months. It was good for them to take a new look at this blessed work, to see it with Paul’s eyes, to note that it was not merely a work of doing something for other people but really a bestowal of a new measure of grace upon themselves by God and by Christ. Their great desire for this grace will now move them mightily after the delay to finish this work, to finish it so that it will be grace and enrichment for themselves from God and from their Lord Jesus Christ.

For this reason Paul states it in this significant way: you began a year ago “not only the doing but the willing” (substantivized object infinitives). He places the willing in the second place because this is the essential thing. No mere doing, even if it were completed (ποιῆσαι, effective aorist), would make the work a grace from Christ, for one might do the giving only outwardly, only because others were also giving, etc. No; Paul says, you also began the willing, the essential thing in this matter; and the infinitive θέλειν is present and thus durative, a willing that remains operative all the time. To have such willing is to have grace and enrichment from God, the giver of all grace, and from Christ, the mediator of all grace in having become poor for our enrichment.

2 Corinthians 8:11

11 So Paul says: “Now finish also the doing” (aorist, the complete doing). And do this “in order that, as (there is) the readiness of willing, thus also (there may be) the completed finish.” In “the readiness of the willing” the genitive infinitive may be regarded as appositional: the readiness which consists in willing. Καθάπερ denotes correspondence. Paul does not make the completed finish the measure for the readiness of willing but does the reverse. Most properly. Let our completed deed measure up to our readiness and our will! For so often we will, we say we are ready, and we also mean it; but alas, when the deed is finished it falls far below our well-intentioned readiness.

Many a measure is passed in a congregational meeting, in a church convention. It is voted with zest, unanimity, enthusiasm, and then, when we look at the final deed (τὸποιῆσαι, τὸἐπιτελέσαι), it turns out to be but half a job. So the individual starts with high resolve and often ends with only partial execution.

Now God looks at the willing (τὸθέλειν, durative), for this is in the heart, this is decisive for grace and enrichment for ourselves. On the willing also depend the doing and the completing. But if these do not follow, it is due to the fact that the willing has not been genuine, true, deep, effective. The doing to completion is the evidence and the proof of the right willing. You may will with a loud voice, unless your will produces the corresponding deed, it is hollow, no grace of God and of Christ to you whatever, no enrichment for your spiritual life. Read 1 John 3:17, 18.

Paul’s conception of true Christian giving as being a grace of God and of Christ which enriches us would, if it filled our preachers and our people, mightily stimulate their readiness to will and their fully completing what they thus will. The final phrase, which uses another infinitive as a noun: ἐκτοῦἔχειν, leads over to the next thought. The six substantivized infinitives, three aorists, three presents, all placed so close together, are striking and exhibit Paul’s linguistic skill, the more so when we note how exactly they are used to express Paul’s thought. Note even the arrangement: one present infinitive between two aorists (first three), then one aorist between two presents (the second three). The last could easily be some other form of expression, but it completes the six. Literally: the completion “from or out of the having” = out of the resources you continue to have. Give as you have, i.e., as God’s goodness lets you have of his beneficent abundance.

2 Corinthians 8:12

12 Paul elaborates this: For if the readiness is there—and Paul assumes that it is—(it is) fully acceptable (to God) according as one may have, not according as one does not have. This is said for the comfort of the poor. Let no poor man who is eager to give grieve because he has little, perhaps even nothing, to give; let him not think that, because he has nothing to give, he is deprived of the grace of God and the enrichment which his giving would be to him. His readiness to give is fully acceptable (εὑπρόσδεκτος, which is stronger than δεκτός) to God as though he had much and gave accordingly instead of not having and not being able to give. For the grace and the enrichment lie in this readiness which God bestows and which is so acceptable to him and not merely in the size of the gift.

When a man has something he may give, God measures his readiness to give according to what he may have. That is the first point. If one should have much and yet gives little, his readiness is according; it is small, its acceptability on the part of God is equally small. If one has whatever he has and gives in full accord with that, his readiness is according, and the acceptability on the part of God is also according. In other words, the willing is measured by the deed. But this cannot be applied to the man who actually has nothing at all that he can give.

The standard (καθό) applied in the one case cannot be and thus is not applied in the other (οὑκαθό). God looks at his readiness alone, regards that alone as acceptable. We say he accepts the will for the deed. Moreover, he is able to know fully without a deed on our part what genuineness there is in our willing and our readiness. The thought is as clear as it can be, and the words state the thought exactly. The man who cannot give a thing will, because of his readiness, have the same enrichment in proportion to his readiness.

The enrichment is always in the degree of readiness in the heart.

2 Corinthians 8:13

13 We must understand this whole matter of giving to the saints aright as “for” now explains. It is not at all a matter of giving as much as possible to others even to the point of impoverishing ourselves—as though the virtue of giving lay in that. Then he who is too poor to give anything would, indeed, be entirely excluded. But this is entirely a matter of ἰσότης (the word is even repeated), of “equity” or “equalization.” In Christian giving the matter of the giver and those to whom he gives is always made even, we may say is balanced. All that Paul has been saying from v. 1 onward has been stating that, and it comes to a point here where “the willing” and “the readiness” are measured by the rule “as one may have” but not in the case of him who has readiness (perhaps great) but has nothing besides that, no actual gift that he can give. He is by no means excluded from this blessed equalization.

For (it is) not that others may have relief, you distress; but (it is a matter) due to equalization—just at present your abundance for their deficiency in order that also their abundance may redound for your deficiency in order that there may get to be equalization, even as it has been written (and is thus still on record): He having much did not get to have more, and he having little did not get to have less.

The two datives ἄλλοις and ὑμῖν are merely the common idiom with the forms of εἶναι: “to be for,” i.e., “others have—you have.” Note “I have had ἄνεσιν” in 2:12 and 7:5, the noun meaning “relief,” its opposite θλῖψις thus denoting “distress.” This matter of Christian giving is not one of furnishing all possible relief to others even to the point of leaving ourselves in distress. The perfection of giving does not aim at (ἵνα, purpose) providing relief for others at the price of distressing destitution for ourselves. We should not so understand v. 4, the Macedonian giving “beyond ability.” For one thing, that would be stopping up one hole by opening another, relieving paupers by just making new ones. But this is not Paul’s point although some commentators think it is and then praise Paul for being “sensible.”

2 Corinthians 8:14

14 Paul’s point is that Christian giving is not a one-sided matter. If it were, relief for others and distress for ourselves would constitute its perfection. And then the man who has nothing (v. 12) is in this distress to start with and could get no grace or blessing from this matter at all, for he could not join in this one-sided operation. No, ἀλλά, Paul says, it is something ἐξἰσότητος, entirely. He, of course, uses the Greek idiom “out of, due to equalization”; we should say “based on equalization or equality.” The Greek conception is: drawn “from” equality; and the noun means “sameness,” two sides are even, alike, balanced. In true Christian giving the ledger is always balanced.

There is never a debit; never so much to our credit for so much we have done. God conducts all of it on the principle of a perfect ἰσότης or balance. We are always even.

We construe ἐν with the rest of the verse as an explicative apposition to ἐξἰσότητος (as we have translated above). Here is the evenness in every account relative to giving as it appears in the case of the saints at Jerusalem: “just at present (ἐντῷνῦνκαιρῷ) your abundance for their deficiency,” that is the one side. But its purpose (ἵνα) is “that also their abundance may get to be (ingressive aorist) for your deficiency,” that is the other perfectly balanced side. And the purpose of the whole is (ὅπως is now used in order to avoid another ἵνα, R. 986) “that there may get to be (again ingressive) equalization.”

There is an exegesis which states that these two “abundance” (that of the Corinthians and that of the saints in Jerusalem), and the two “deficiency” (that of the saints and that of the Corinthians) are alike, are entirely financial: you help them now, times may change, and when you get to be as poor as they now are, and they get to be as prosperous as you now are, they will help you. Did a Christian giver ever give from such a motive, with such a purpose? Then Paul has written all that precedes in vain. And what about the poor man who can send no gift to the saints in Jerusalem! He can send only his readiness—and that will be all that he can expect in return!

Others state that Paul wants to re-establish what is called the Jerusalem communism (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32), but it is now to be a communism between Corinth and Jerusalem. Paul’s ideal is said to be a communism in which all Christians have equal financial means. Still others think that what Paul says about a return to be made to the Corinthians will come to pass when the national conversion of the Jews takes place, when Jerusalem will flourish above all other cities of the world and will dispense its wealth to poor Gentile Christians in the world (von Hofmann).

Others think that “at this present time” implies a future time, and thus introduce Luke 16:9: the saints at Jerusalem will receive the Corinthians into everlasting habitations, will testify before the Lord about the Opferfreudigkeit of the Corinthians. The Catholic Church adds: Locus hie apostoli contra nostrae aetatis haereticus ostendit, posse Christianos minus sanctos meritis sanctorum adjuvari etiam in futuro saeculo. Esthius. Christians of insufficient sanctity can in the future world be helped by the merits of the saints, i.e., by the merits of their works of supererogation. Finally, the return which the saints at Jerusalem will make is thought to be their intercession for the Corinthians, their admonition, example, and the like. This is to make things equal in return for the financial help which they have received; Rom. 15:27 is referred to.

This last view is on the right track, for it sees that the terms “abundance” and “deficiency” are not entirely material, but it misunderstands the immaterial. “Just at present” is not in contrast with a future date; “just at present” refers to all that is said. There is a play on the terms: “your abundance”—“your deficiency”; “their deficiency”—“their abundance.” The key to the double meaning is the word “equalization” as stating the purpose to be achieved. According to all that precedes this key fits only the spiritual abundance and deficiency on the one side (Corinth) and the material or financial deficiency and abundance on the other side (Jerusalem). The idea is unwarranted: You Corinthians can help poor Jerusalem so that if ever you become poor, and if ever Jerusalem becomes rich, and if ever these contingencies happen to synchronize, Jerusalem may then help you; you Corinthians together with all the Gentile churches take out this financial insurance and place it in Jerusalem!

A double equalization is the purpose (ὅπως): one in Corinth which is spiritual; the other in Jerusalem which is material; and the greater is the first. Physical aid is to wipe out and thus to equalize the physical need obtaining in Jerusalem; the material deficiency is to become material abundance. This part is simple. But note that this requires τὸποιῆσαι and τὸἐπιτελέσαι, deed and completion of deed on the part of the Corinthians (v. 10, 11). Exactly. The Corinthians have an abundance, but they also have a deficiency.

Their abundance is their readiness and their willingness; their deficiency is the grace and the enrichment which God and Christ want them to have (v. 1–10). The equalization is accomplished the moment the Corinthian readiness and willingness become finished action by relieving the Jerusalem deficiency and raising it to abundance, for by this action that grace and that spiritual enrichment will be the Corinthians’ as God and Christ purpose. The ἰσότης will be effected. This finishing of the deed will make the grace of God and of Christ, the enrichment intended for them, actually and factually as abundant as are their readiness and their willingness. Wonderful—by effecting an evening-up in Jerusalem (material) a far greater and more blessed evening-up (spiritual) will be achieved in Corinth. This, all of it in its double interaction, is the divine purpose.

2 Corinthians 8:15

15 It is like the equalization that is recorded in Exod. 16:17, 18, an evening-up that was also purposed by God and was also effected by him. The LXX and the Hebrew agree, and Paul quotes the LXX, but he places the subject first in the first clause and uses τὸὀλίγον in place of τὸἔλαττον. With ὁτὸπολύ we supply ἔχων, also with the next subject (R. 1202). The man who went out and gathered a lot of manna had no more than he needed; and the man who gathered only a little did not have less than he needed. This is a simple historical illustration. In every illustration the point of the illustration should be noted, and we should not stress anything beyond this point. An illustration is never an allegory. Here the one point is to show a divinely arranged equalization.

This illustration is not intended to illustrate how the equalization in Jerusalem, in Corinth, or between the two is to be effected. This illustration of the manna is not to illustrate in what the equalization of which Paul is speaking is to be made, namely in food, in material things. The man who had more manna did not give of his abundance to the man who had less manna and in this way produce equality. The giving on the part of the Corinthians to the saints is not illustrated. In the illustration only manna (food for the body) appears. The spiritual benefit accruing to the Corinthians is thus not illustrated.

An illustration confines itself to only one point and hence is always much less than the reality which it illustrates. In the illustration the large amount of manna strangely shrank. Nothing that is similar to this appears in Paul’s reality. Vice versa, the small quantity proved ample, just as ample as the large quantity. It is not so in the case of Paul’s reality. If all these things were so, we should have an allegory and not just an illustration.

But out in the desert there was a divinely intended equalization, yet it was neither socialistic nor communistic. In a double way a similar and much more blessed equalization is God’s purpose and intention for the Corinthians in connection with the saints at Jerusalem.

Who in Corinth would not respond and eagerly, enthusiastically fall in line with the gracious intention of God and of Christ?

III. Sending Titus and Two Other Brethren

2 Corinthians 8:16

16 Transitional δέ introduces the new subject. Now thanks to God for giving the same earnestness regarding you into the heart of Titus! The exclamation needs no copula although the optative of wish or the imperative is usually supplied. The participle: “to him who is giving” states for what Paul is thanking God, and we so translate. “The same earnestness regarding you” = the same as my own; this is a case of ἐν used in the sense of εἰς as explained by R. 585 and B.-D. 218, it is a remnant of the old use of ἐν with the accusative. Paul thanks God for filling Titus with such earnestness for the Corinthians because he is sending Titus back to Corinth, whence he had just come (v. 6).

2 Corinthians 8:17

17 For he accepted the urging though, being the more earnest, went forth of his own will to you. Both aorists present the action from the standpoint of the Corinthian readers; they are usually called epistolary aorists. When the Corinthians read these verbs, the verbs will express the past actions indicated. Ὅτι may be explicative: “the earnestness that, etc.” (as in v. 2); or may be “for” at the head of a new statement (as in v. 3, which see). The urging is noted in v. 6, its acceptance by Titus is now being noted. Μέν and δέ balance this with Titus’ own willingness to go. Αὑθαίρετος is the same word that was used in v. 3, the Greek idiom uses an adjective whereas we prefer an adverb.

There is no need of puzzling about the durative “giving” of God when the actions of receiving and going forth are punctiliar, about this earnestness from God and yet the going forth of one’s own will. God was giving Titus this earnestness through Paul; Paul even says that it is the same as his own. Titus grew more earnest under Paul’s urging (“we urged Titus,” v. 6). “The same” is not one of degree but earnestness of the same quality; the degree lies in the comparative “more earnest.” So we have this picture: God filling Titus with the same kind of earnestness as Paul’s regarding the Corinthians, doing this under the urging of Paul and others until Titus accepted; and, his earnestness growing still more in intensity when he now went forth to Corinth, he really went of his own will. “Being the more earnest” explains “of his own will.” Verse 6 would leave the impression that Titus went only because he was urged, thus with at least some reluctance. But his own earnestness, which was put into his heart by God, soon grew so that he went wholly of his own will. It was important for his work in Corinth that the Corinthians should know this. It was the best recommendation which Paul could send along with Titus. When one notes what Paul writes, all is clear.

2 Corinthians 8:18

18 Two others are to accompany Titus; we hear about the first of these two. Moreover, we sent with him (again the epistolary aorist) the brother whose praise in connection with the gospel (is) throughout all the churches, and not only (this), but who also was voted as our travel companion in this grace which is being ministered by us to show (πρός) the Lord’s glory and our own readiness, (thereby) avoiding that anyone blame us in this bounty which is being ministered by us.

The question is raised as to why Paul does not mention the name of this brother, and the answer is given that he must later on have turned out badly, and that his name was deleted when this epistle was published in Corinth. But that conclusion is unwarranted. Paul does not give the name of the third brother (v. 22). Did both of them turn out badly so that both names were suppressed? These two brethren arrived with Titus and the letter; it was not necessary to mention their names.

The supposition that “whose praise in connection with the gospel (is) throughout all the churches” describes this brother as an evangelist who was highly esteemed in the Macedonian churches, is extremely probable. But as the clause reads, he was not one of Paul’s own assistants like Timothy, Titus, Silas, and Luke but an evangelist on his own account. The development of the church was proceeding independently.

2 Corinthians 8:19

19 In addition to mentioning the personal excellence of this gospel worker Paul in an emphatic way with οὑμόνονδέ, ἀλλὰκαί, “moreover not only (this), but also,” points to the fact that this evangelist was officially appointed by vote of the churches to be “our travelling companion.” This refers to the journey by which the great collection is finally to be carried to Jerusalem. Acts 20:4 names seven men, and no doubt all of them were appointed by vote. This evangelist was one of these seven. Being from Macedonia, he was either Sopater of Berea, or Aristarchus, or Secundus of Thessalonica.

Χειροτονέω means to vote by holding up the hand. The supposition that a number of churches could not thus vote for a man is unwarranted. His name was proposed in church after church, and because of his splendid reputation all voted for him to be their representative. Paul therefore used him to help with the work at Corinth already at this time. It was six months later, the following spring, when the whole delegation left for Jerusalem.

When Paul writes: our travel companion “in this grace which is being ministered by us,” we take this to mean “the grace of God” mentioned in v. 1. See the exegesis of that verse and follow χάρις through v. 4, 6, 9. The whole movement of the collection is a grace of God and of Christ to those engaged in it, a part of the enrichment (v. 9) which Christ wants the givers to have. “Being administered by us” (by Paul and his helpers) means administered for God.

Commentators and dictionaries refer χάρις to the grace and favor which the givers bestow on the poor saints at Jerusalem and hence say that Paul and his helpers administer this kind human favor for these givers. How they can do so we cannot understand since the word “grace” is used five times in succession in the same sense, and two of those times (v. 1 and 9) so decisively, once with reference to God, once with reference to Christ. In the consciousness that he and his helpers are ministering this grace as a gift from God and Christ to the givers Paul twice writes this plain passive: “being administered by us,” which means that God and Christ were employing them to minister and not that the givers were employing them. The brother about whom Paul writes had the high honor of being elected by the churches as Paul’s fellow traveller in this divine work which administered such grace of God to all these churches.

“Being ministered by us πρός the Lord’s glory and our own readiness” means “for” this glory and this readiness, i.e., “to show” both. Paul and his helpers are doing this ministering for the Lord’s glory as his ministers who are bringing all his grace and riches (v. 9) to the churches and thus also this grace. And when they show his glory they at the same time show their own readiness as his ministers.

Προθυμία is the same word that was used in v. 11 and 12, where it denotes the “readiness to will” and thus by the act of giving receiving the Lord’s grace; here it denotes the readiness of Paul and of his assistants to minister this grace to the churches by moving their willingness to action. There is not the least incongruity but the fullest harmony between “the Lord’s glory” and “our own readiness” when it is a matter of divine grace that is ministered. The combination seems strange only when it is referred to human grace that is ministered, for then “for the Lord’s glory” ought to suffice.

2 Corinthians 8:20

20 Paul continues with a plural participle in the nominative: στελλόμενοι. This brings up the question regarding the aorist passive singular participle χειροτονηθείς after “not only, but also” in v. 19. Both participles are regarded as anacolutha by some grammarians (R. 431, 433, 439, 1134). B.-D. 468, 1 makes the anacoluthon in στελλόμενοι greater by connecting this participle with the preceding ἡμῶν and not, as others do, with the subject of συνεπέμψαμεν in v. 18. R. 1136 even calls the construction of these participles a “volcanic eruption.”

But Paul makes v. 18–20 one grand statement in one full sentence. The participles are not anacoluthic. We do not need the explanation of R. 1134 that στελλόμενοι is the Greek use of the participle as the finite indicative. We should remember that in the Greek the participles have number, gender, and case, which is not the case in the English; hence the Greek can use participles with precision and with a freedom that is not possible in other languages. And that is done here. That singular nominative participle in v. 19 is grammatically exact and is perfectly understood by the Greek reader as further describing the brother; the plural participle in v. 20 is equally exact and clear to the Greek reader. Robertson says that we must let the Greek have his standpoint. Most certainly.

This middle participle with μή means: we “arranging this lest anyone blame us” which = “avoiding that anyone blame us.” Paul adds: “in connection with this bounty which is being ministered by us.” “Bounty” is the proper word where there is a reference to possible blame. It is “bounty” for the saints at Jerusalem. The blame which Paul intends to avoid is by no means that he and his personal assistants might be charged with stealing some of this bounty. He is speaking about something else. The arrangement which he is making is that he is asking the congregations in the different provinces to elect “traveling companions,” a delegation to carry the bounty to Jerusalem. This delegation and not Paul and an assistant or two of his is to make the presentation of the bounty in Jerusalem.

Since it is made by elected representatives from all the churches, these churches will receive the credit for the bounty and not Paul. The money comes from the churches and not from Paul. The credit belongs to them, and Paul’s arrangements are made so that it will be given to them.

The entire delegation is named in Acts 20:4. These representatives made the presentation. When Paul wrote 1 Cor. 16:3, 4 he had this plan of a delegation in mind. At that time he had not yet decided as to whether he himself would accompany the delegates; he might only give them letters that would accredit them to Christians with whom they might stop en route, accredit them also in Jerusalem. Paul eventually went with the delegates. No one is to cast the reproach on Paul that he is stealing honor or credit from the churches. This is the proper place to say that, in connection with this delegate who had already been duly elected.

2 Corinthians 8:21

21 For we are taking advance thought for things honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men. This recalls the LXX of Prov. 3:4 and not the Hebrew; compare Rom. 12:17b. We have the same thought in Phil. 4:8; 1 Pet. 2:12, and elsewhere. Καλά are “things excellent,” often in the sense of “honorable.” This is not a reference to “financial accounts” as if Paul and his assistants were handling the money as it was being collected. 1 Cor. 16:2 is sufficient in regard to that. “We are taking advance thought,” as is explained in v. 20, refers to the delivery of the money and arranging in advance for a delegation so that even in the sight of men no question could be raised as to Paul’s appropriating special credit to himself.

2 Corinthians 8:22

22 Moreover, we sent along with them our brother whom we have tested out often in many things as being earnest and now much more earnest with much confidence in you.

“Our brother,” as distinguished from “the brother” referred to in v. 18, means that this is one of Paul’s associates while the other man is not. The use of “our brother” shows that those are mistaken who in v. 18 translate τὸνἀδελφόν “his brother,” namely a physical brother of Titus’. Some regard “our brother” as containing the literary “our” and thus referring to Paul’s physical brother. Others think of Luke, Apollos, etc. We know that this is not a man who was elected as a delegate for the journey to Jerusalem as the other is (v. 19). This is a man who was tested out often and in many things in the past and was always found “earnest.” B.-D. 416 makes ὄντα complementary to the verb; R. 1123 has it predicative to the adjective. “Being earnest” states the result of past tests: “that he is (indeed) earnest.” Let us note that “earnestness” (σπουδή) occurs in v. 8 and 16; then the comparative adjective “more earnest” in regard to Titus in v. 17, and now both the positive and the comparative in regard to this third brother.

Always found “earnest” in all of Paul’s past experience with him, Paul is now sending him along to Corinth, not only for this reason, but also because, like Titus, he is now, after having heard the entire report of Titus and having seen Titus become “more earnest” (v. 17) for the work in Corinth, “much more earnest with great confidence in you.” His confidence toward or in (εἰς) you makes him “much more earnest” about the task in Corinth than he has been in other tasks that were assigned to him by Paul. The Corinthians will certainly be eager to justify this brother’s confidence in them.

2 Corinthians 8:23

23 But Paul makes a difference. Titus is the main character among the three men who were sent to Corinth, the other two are his aids. Call them a committee with Titus appointed as the chairman by Paul. The idea is not that Paul endorses Titus “up to the hilt,” the other two not up to the hilt. Paul makes no difference on that score; but the Corinthians are to regard Titus as the leader of the little commission. The supposition of their “handling funds” and being “financial agents” is wide of the mark. These are not collectors.

Whether (anything comes up) about Titus, (he is) my own associate, for you a fellow worker; whether our brethren (be discussed, they are) commissioners of churches, Christ’s glory. Εἴτε—εἴτε without verbs is classic; we supply whatever the connection requires. But note the distinction: on the one hand ὑπὲρΤίτου, on the other just the nominative. So also in harmony with this distinction Titus is with you in my interest and in yours as “my own associate and for you a fellow worker”; but “our brethren” are with you in the interest of the churches, in the interest of Christ.

“About Titus” the matter is clear: as Paul’s special associate he has been working together with the Corinthians and continues in this status. But the third brother is also an associate of Paul’s as v. 22 shows; only the second has been voted as a delegate to Jerusalem. This means that “our brethren” are not, as is generally assumed, the two in addition to Titus, but all three, Titus included. Questions may be raised about the leader Titus or about all three, the entire committee. When Titus proceeds with his two aids, and it is asked how he comes to do so, the answer is: as Paul’s own representative who is working for the Corinthians with his aids. If all three are discussed as being outsiders and not Corinthians they are representatives of “churches” (no article: quite a few of them), for a lot of churches are engaged in this collection.

Ἀπόστολοι is generally regarded as “men sent by the churches.” But none were thus sent to Corinth; even the second was not thus “sent” to Corinth. He was sent to Corinth by Paul just as Titus and the third were sent by Paul. He was voted only a travel companion for the transfer of the collection to Jerusalem like six others (Acts 20:4). It was too early for him to start on that journey; six months later the start was made, and in the meanwhile Paul is using him in Corinth.

This explains δόξαΧριστοῦ which could not exclude Titus and apply only to the other two. In 1 Thess. 2:20 Paul says to the Thessalonians: “Ye are our glory”; so here these brethren are “Christ’s glory.” One person is another person’s glory when he exhibits the glorious work of that person. So these three were Christ’s glory because they were representatives of many churches who were busy with the work which these three had come to further in Corinth.

2 Corinthians 8:24

24 And thus the admonition is added: Accordingly, display to them in the sight of the churches the display of your love and of your glorying about you! The emphasis is on the last phrase. These men (all three) are “apostles of churches” (v. 23) who were sent by Paul, but by him as connected with all these churches. Whatever treatment the Corinthians accord these three men will thus be “in the sight of the churches.” This is said in order to awaken the full consciousness in the Corinthians that they are one church among all these their sister churches.

Today this unity and this fellowship between the congregations or churches are often ignored and set aside. One church cares little or nothing as to how its action affects its sister churches. It boldly outrages not only the feelings but the confessional convictions of its sister churches that are, perhaps, located in the same city. Inner unity is destroyed. Such disregard exhibits a low moral condition, a deep decline in spirituality. How can he love God, whom he has not seen, who does not love his brother, whom he sees? 1 John 4:20. Does this not apply also to the relation between churches?

“Display the display,” like “die the death,” is a case of the cognate object, the object intensifying the idea of the verb. Some texts have the present participle instead of the aorist imperative; but no one knows what to do with such a reading except to guess at a corrupted text. “The display of your love and of our glorying about you” is one display: by showing their love in the matter of the collection the Corinthians are to justify all the boasting which Paul and Timothy (1:1) and other assistants have made about the sort of people the Corinthians are Note the neat little chiasm: nouns outside and ὑμῶνκαὶἡμῶν, the pronouns, brought significantly together inside. This appeal surely met responsive ears.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.