Untitled Sermon (3)

2 Corinthians 6:3-7:1

Introduction: Read the Text. Reread the text closely (look for repeated words, pay attention to the conjunctions, figures of speech, etc.).

Literary Context: Please summarize 2 Cor 1:1-11 (Paul, beginning to reconcile, describes how God comforted him so that they may also be comforted). Now 1:12-23 (Paul defends his integrity and begins to explain the change of plans. He argues for the trustworthiness of his word based on the trustworthiness of God and the Gospel and the work that God is doing in him).

Now 2:1-11 (Paul explains why he changed his travel plans: to avoid causing too much pain. While the letter was necessary, and would cause pain, he did not want to cause excessive pain. He also encourages them to give the verdict of love for the individual who had caused much pain). Now 2:12-17 (Paul expresses his consternation at the absence of Titus’s report while Paul was in Troas. He then describes himself as one captured by the triumphant Christ, and within this asks “who is sufficient for these things?” pointing the ministry of the Gospel).

Now 3:1-18 (He points to the one who makes him sufficient to be an apostle and then describes the nature of the new covenant of which he is a minister, and it is the nature of this ministry that allows him to speak forthrightly about the glory of God made accessible only by means of Christ).

Now 4:1-18 (Paul continues to assert why he speaks boldly and the content of his preaching. He then underscores the power of God by highlighting his own frailty. As he continues to talk about why he can speak boldly he reiterates that his suffering is for the sake of others and demonstrates an intimacy with Christ rather than a separation from God).

Now 5:1-21 (Paul discusses the ‘outer vs. inner’ man in greater detail with an eye towards the unseen and his anticipation thereof and his ‘good courage’ that stems from his confident expectation. This doctrine leads to a proper conduct in Paul, that he makes it his ambition to please God by fulfilling the commission given him, and this leads to a further defense of his ministry where Christ’s love is stated to be the compelling force behind it. Recognizing that Christ died for all leads to a new view of others as either those in Christ or those in need of the ministry of reconciliation. The charge in 6:1 is to not have received this grace of God in vain).

6.3: We are going to pick things up in 6:3 this morning. Paul now speaks of his ministry of reconciliation given him by God as an ambassador of God and as one who recognizes the importance of personal conduct as it effects public perception of a group (here Paul is concerned with how his personal conduct would affect the public perception of Christ and his Church). Keener notes: “‘Giving no offense’ was important for those in public office or for those whose behavior would influence public perceptions of their group” (508). Danker adds: “Since personal identity was intimately connected with one’s social usefulness, embarrassment to one’s home city was considered a cardinal sin in the Hellenistic world” (86).

The term Paul uses here is προσκοπή that means “stumble against, bump, slip” it has a transferred sense of “give offense” (TDNTA). He recognizes that his own personal conduct could have the effect of causing others to slip and thereby miss the ministry of reconciliation, thus the purpose statement in the second clause: “we put no stumbling block…, so that no fault may be found in our ministry.” Does Paul’s mentality here have anything to say to preachers today? Harris writes: “The principle in v. 3 is timeless and universally relevant. Christian ministry is discredited when the Christian gives offense by unchristian conduct” (quote from Kruse 177).

6.4-5: The commendation that he refers to in verse 4 reminds us of what he has said about the subject in other chapters. What I would add to that conversation here is that Paul is not commending himself as such, but rather commending his apostleship and ministry through his conduct. What follows are specific examples of just exactly how he does this.

VV. 4b-5 consist of a series of prepositional phrases each beginning with ἐν. The first usage of it is as a preposition of means. So he commends his ministry and does not lay a stumbling block “by means of endurance.” Just a note on endurance: as we discussed in chapter 1. As Garland pointed out, endurance is not a reliance of self, as Plato calls it: “courage that faces difficulties without expecting help or putting one’s confidence in others” (68). Rather, as the term is used in the LXX it signifies a “expectant waiting, intense desire” with that desire being directed towards God. This endurance is not a self-reliance, but a God-reliance. Garland, quoting from Spicq writes: “endurance” is a “constancy in desire that overcomes the trial of waiting, a soul attitude that must struggle to persevere, a waiting that is determined and victorious because it trusts in God” (68).

This God-reliance was demonstrated “in” numerous kinds of adversity. I’m using the ESV for the English here. “In afflictions” translates a term that means something along the lines of a crushing pressure (TDNTA). If you’ve ever worked in a wheat field you may have put some wheat in “tribulation” by picking the head rubbing away the chaff and eating the grain. The “in hardships” refers to “necessities” and here the idea is, as logos has “a distressing state; especially one that arises out of matters of necessity.” The “in calamities” (στενοχωρία) depicts a “narrowness” and thus the idea is “a distress of an especially oppressive and constricting condition” (logos).

These three comprise the general sufferings, but six more will follow that are more specific. Garland notes that the second set of three “beatings, imprisonments, riots,” all refer to “suffering endured at the hands of others” and these were evident in the writing of Luke in Acts as well as others of Paul writings (there are literally four epistles of his referred to as the “prison epistles”). The last set of three “labors, sleepless nights, hunger” all refer to “suffering endured by way of self-discipline” (307). Now, how does enduring such things commend the ministry of reconciliation through Christ? They all point to the sustaining of God, who makes the vessel of clay sufficient for the task. Garland writes: “The hardship reveal that he has received crushing blows that have not crushed him” (2 Cor 4:8) (308).

6.6-7: Now the list of virtues that follow in vv. 6-7 are connected to vv. 4-5 through the last set of sufferings. Those were all volitional. He chose to undergo those things. Witherington adds: “The point is not merely that Paul has endured, but that he has endured and has kept his integrity intact, which shows his character. His virtues show how he handled the hardships. The hardships and virtues together are meant to demonstrate that Paul has pure motives and authenticity as an apostle” (399).

The reference to the Holy Spirit is a little unexpected; however, seeming how these virtues are linked to the Spirit in other Pauline letters, it is not surprising. He is engaged in the ministry of the Spirit (as he said in ch. 3), so we ought to expect him to engage in that ministry in the power of that same Spirit, which is perhaps depicted here as being the source of these virtues in Paul. If this is Paul’s point, however, he reiterates it when he states “in the power of God.”

The second clause in verse 7 describes the means by which he endures and commends his apostleship: “weapons of righteousness.” This is a metaphor based on warfare, and it is not unfamiliar to Paul. In Rom 6:13, using the same term (ὅπλον), he says: “Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as a ὅπλον of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.” The same Gk. term translated “righteousness” is also frequently translated as “justice.” To do righteousness is to live justly by the word of God. To wield weapons of righteousness is not only to be in a state of rightness before God, but to do righteousness. How would “enduring by means of weapons of righteousness” look in your life?

6.8-10: Moving to vv. 8-10 the preposition shifts from ἐν to διά in verse 8, and it seems to me that this indicates a temporal element. Thus, Paul endured by means of weapons of righteousness during glory and dishonor, and during bad report and good report. This begins a series of what were probably the reactions to Paul’s ministry, and much of this was evidenced in Acts.

There were times in which Paul was honored (and we should expect that by this he means that the ministry of reconciliation was well received and responded to appropriately); however, there were clearly times in which he was dishonored in the community. Think of Paul’s time in Lystra. First, he was honored (falsely as a god and he rent his garments), but very shortly after at the instigation of some opponents, those in Lystra stoned him.

Danker notes: “To be held in honor…was a goal highly prized in Greco-Roman society. The underlying Greek term, doxa (glory) denotes the reputation one reaps for extraordinary performance. It’s opposite is dishonor” (93). Paul wielded the weapons of righteousness during both, maintaining his integrity in endurance so as not to cause others to stumble against the ministry of reconciliation.

I’ll comment on just one more pair of reaction: “as having nothing and possessing everything.” Paul’s having nothing was a direct result of his choice to labor without pay (as he told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians; not that he never received support from the churches, but he abstained from receiving such from Corinth). Yet, as Kruse writes: “he regarded himself as truly rich, because he was already experiencing as a sort of firstfruits the spiritual blessings of the age to come. And further, he rejoiced that, though materially poor, he could make many rich by enabling them to share in spiritual blessings through Christ” (180).

6.11-13: In verse 11 Paul uses a Hebrew idiom to express frankness and openness of speech. Lit. the phrase is “we have opened our mouths to you.” In previous passages in 2 Corinthians, he stated his willingness to speak openly and freely to the Corinthians. In 3:12 he wrote: “Since we have such a hope, we are very bold.” He also stated in 4:2 “but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.” This frankness is because he speaks the unadulterated Gospel and recognizes that he is accountable to God. (Verse 13 reciprocal love of father to child and child to father).

Here, the opening of his mouth is coupled with a “widened heart” and both expressions point to his deep emotional love that demonstrates itself in exhortation for the Corinthians. The phrase “opened wide our hearts” is in the perfect tense, meaning that this is a past action with continuing effects. As he has loved them before, he continues to love them. There is enough room in his heart for them. In fact, in verse 12 he states that there is “not a narrowing in us.” The verb στενοχωρέω carries with it a sense of “narrow, confine” (we saw a word in this word group earlier). It is also in the present tense, so we could translate the two phrases together: “Our hearts have been and are widened, they are not narrowing.”

Paul makes it clear here that the failure to reconcile between the two (Paul and Corinth; Corinth and God’s ambassador) does not lay with Paul, but with the Corinthians. Paul’s heart has been widened, but THEIR σπλάγχνον (lit. bowels, the seat of one’s affections) have been narrowed. In our language we might say “their love has grown cold.”

In verse 13 Paul calls for a reversal of this narrowing on the basis on their familial relationship. In 1 Cor Paul referred to himself as a “father” to them. That is, since he brought them the Gospel he became their father through the Gospel. In the Roman culture, familial relationships had certain demands, and the father-child relationship operated underneath the Roman concept of pietas. This is “a bond of ‘reciprocal, dutiful affection’” with love being a major part of this affection. We can see in this two things: the deep emotional love with which Paul loved the Corinthians, and the responsibility of fictive kinship relationships in the early church. The Corinthians have a responsibility to return the affection that their spiritual father gave and continued to give them.

6.14: This reconciliation would involve obeying the instruction of their apostle and cutting partnerships with the world. The “cutting partnerships with the world” is the essence of vv. 14-7:1. The term ἑτεροζυγέω is only used once in the new testament and seems to be an allusion to Deut 22:10 “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.” Ralph Gower explains that the reason for this command was “there would be an unequal pull that might cause suffering for the weaker animal” (89).

With this instruction Paul is forbidding partnerships with unbelievers, but what kind of relationships does he have in mind? Very frequently our minds would go to the marriage relationships, so that one should marry one who is a believer, and while this is solid advice that has scriptural basis in 1 Cor, here it appears that Paul has something a little broader in mind. It appears that this is a prohibition against partnerships in pagan practices. This does not mean that they can have no contact with the unbelieving world (see 1 Cor 5:9). It does mean that they ought not be allied with the world in idolatrous practices (as the following verses make clear).

6.15: The five rhetorical questions that follow highlight the absurdity of the Corinthians partnering with unbelievers in matters of idolatry. He first asks: “For what partnership (μετοχή) do righteousness and lawlessness (ἀνομία)?” These are opposites. How can they have a partnership? It would be just as absurd as suggesting that there could be a κοινωνία (fellowship) between light and darkness. Despite the worst dating advice you hear, opposites do not attract. When one is righteous, he cannot be lawless. When the lamp is lit, the darkness dissipates.

It would be equally absurd to suggest that there is “harmony/agreement” between Christ and Satan. The term translated harmony here is συμφώνησις. The TDNTA notes about the verb from that it means “‘to agree or be in harmony with.’ It is used for musical harmony, and also for the fitting together of stones in a building.” It’s where we get the term “symphony” (but don’t fall into the fallacy of thinking that the English term imparts meaning to the Gk. It’s just fun to note). So, what harmony can there be between Christ and Beliar (the Jewish name for the Devil)? Is there a contract between the two? Has God struck a deal with the Devil? No. The implication being that Christians ought not engage is such activities that cut against or compromise the interests of God (Garland 335).

He also asks: “or what portion does a believer have with an unbeliever?” The term here is μερίς that means “a share, portion, part.” The Christian has an inheritance from God; does the unbeliever? The “portion” belongs to the heir, not those who hate the Father.

6.16: This leads to the final question in the series: “and what συγκατάθεσις (joint agreement) is there between the temple of God and idols?” Garland writes: “The word “agreement” (sygkatathesis) refers to some kind of consensual affiliation, such as a pact joining persons together in common cause. The verb form is found in Exod 23:33 (LXX) in the prohibition of joining with the inhabitants of the land in some kind of agreement because of their idolatry” (336). Now, the physical temple clearly had no affiliation with idolatry, and the Corinthians may have been aware of the number of lives that the Jews were willing to lose to keep idolatrous images out of the temple (think of Pilate).

If such was the case with a physical building, how much more should it be for those who comprise the temple of the living God (very frequently God is described as “living” in the context of paraenesis against idolatry for he is living while they are clearly not, being made of wood and stone and such).

Paul introduces the following Scripture quotations with the phrase “even as God said,” which is not his usual Scripture quotation formulas, but is also perfectly apt here since God is the active speaker in these verses with Israel being the original audience. The first quotation marks the special relationship that God has with his people in that he dwells among them and can be said to “walk in their midst.” The quote likely comes from Lev 26:11-12 “I will place my dwelling in your midst, and I shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.” Applied to the Church, and to Corinth, the suggestion is that God dwells among them, and this has tremendous implications for their conduct.

6.17: The first quotation in 6:17 comes from Isa 52:11 “Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of it, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.” This was spoken by the prophet to the people of Israel appealing for them to depart from the place of exile and return to Judea and Jerusalem. As Garland points out, in the original quotation the carrying of the vessels “necessarily precludes any contamination with idols” (337). The separation is a call to holiness.

The promise is then given that those who turn away from idols are received by God. Kruse and others suggest that the latter part of verse 17 is a partial quotation of Ezekiel 20:34 with a similar context as the Isaiah passage: “I will bring you out from the people and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out.” Kruse writes: “The primary reference of the text was to the exiles returning from Babylon, but again Paul applies a text to the Corinthians who are being called to abandon involvement with idolatry” (184).

6.18: The cultic language of vv. 16-17 gives way to familial language. Paul has been blending texts up to this point (as was common with Jewish writers) and he appears to be doing so again here. Deut 32:19 refers to the people of Israel as God’s “sons and daughters” (Paul’s inclusion of the term daughter here is probably best explained as an allusion to this passage). However, in 2 Sam 7:14 God told David that he would have a unique relationship with one of David’s offspring. The text states: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.” That promise was ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those located in Christ are adopted into the household of God. We are “adopted sons and daughters.”

Thus, the turning away from idols and to God is accompanied by acceptance into the household of God (and culturally speaking they would understand that members of a household have certain responsibilities towards one another).

7.1: This leads to the renewed appeal towards holy and pure conduct. Notice what word begins this verse. What’s the question we ask? Since we have this promise of being received by God (reconciled to God) when we turn from idols and separate ourselves from such partnerships, “let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates the body.” Purity was necessary for cultic participation, and such is necessary if we are to be the temple of God.

The things that contaminate no doubt point to the partnerships with idolatry. Two examples of this were demonstrated in 1 Cor. First in 6:15-18 one “sinned against his own body” by sleeping with a prostitute. Second in 10:19-21 eating at a pagan temple and foods sacrificed to idols constituted “being partners with demons.” These are two very practical examples, and two things that the Corinthians could “be separate and touch no unclean thing” that they had previously engaged in.

Notice also that “fear of God” is a motivating factor in holy conduct once again (formerly Paul stated it as his motivating factor to fulfill his commission, now he encourages the Corinthians to take it up as theirs for holy conduct and abstaining from partnering with idols). This will lead Paul to reiterate his appeal for reconciliation in vv. 2-3 suggesting that their failure to do so has been in part hampered by their failure to adhere to his instruction on these things. They must cease all idol worship to be reconciled to God, or they will have believed in vain.