Christ life & ministry manifests itself to others - part 1
2 Corinthians 11:1-8 · Bob Eckel · Oct 22, 2017
2 Corinthians (2017), No. 40
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926684376

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Randy kind of was prophetic last week. So let's turn to the Word of the Lord. We're in 2 Corinthians and we're going to start in verse 10. Since Randy taught last week, I'm going to ask him to start with verse 13 and read all the way down through verse 8 of chapter 11. So chapter 10, verse 13 down through our current text 1 through 8 in chapter 11.

But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure to reach even as far as you. For we are not overextending ourselves as if we did not reach to you. For we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ. not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men's labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows we will be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you. So as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another. But he who boasts is to boast in the Lord, for it is not he who commends himself that is approved, commands.

I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness, but indeed you are bearing with me. For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy, for I have betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his crackiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For one comes and preaches another, Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles, but even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so acknowledged.

In fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things. Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you.

Okay, let's just kind of remind ourselves where we're at here in chapters 10 through 13. We're kind of in this scenario where Paul is kind of constantly kind of defending himself here. And if you will, as Macaulay said, the emotions of Paul here are not easy to outline. And I think the idea of a continuity here is less clear than many other areas in which Paul has written and provided a scripture for the day. So let's just keep that in mind as we go forward. There's a lot of emotion here. There's nothing wrong with emotion if it's scripturally based, but yet we have to interpret this in terms of Paul trying to defend himself against the many accusations that have come his way.

So let's look at verses 1 and 2 in this chapter and combine these. Oh that you would bear with me in a little folly, and indeed you do bear with me, for I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. If I betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. This section represents a vindication of claims by false teachers against Paul's apostolic position, and that will continue going forward.

Let's pause here and remind ourselves where we're at. And what's the basis of this criticism? Well, it's Paul's boasting now. And I'm turning back to chapter 10, 2 through 4, which Randy didn't read, but I'm just taking you back to the earliest introduction to this whole issue.

I beseech you that I may not, when present, show courage with the confidence with which I count to be bold against some. who count of us as if we walked according to the flesh. Now keep in mind, you know, we all have the flesh. And if you read The Hungry Heart today, the flesh is always ugly, no matter how you count it. There's never the flesh shining bright and lovely before the Lord and his great grace and truth. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds.

So that kind of sets the stage for these four chapters, 10 through 13, which really is the accusation that Paul, in fact, is acting out of the old nature, although those that criticized him didn't understand the identification truths, I'm sure. So to what foolishness is Paul referring? He says, oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly. How do we interpret that, or foolishness? And don't read below that quite yet. boasting, would that be part of it? Well why would he refer to this as folly or foolishness? Because if he dwells on himself he's nothing but if he concentrates on things of Christ then there's room for edification.

Alright, I think that's kind of in the right track. I think we can look at what I put underneath that. Can you remember a time in which you responded in this manner? I mean, when you're put in a position of criticism, don't you often try to make light of it in some way? And try to kind of turn the momentum of that conversation into one that's less defensive, but just kind of folly?

Randy, you're shaking your head. It's one of those things where Paul is Dealing with these people who clearly esteem themselves very highly. Maybe arrogant, well, not maybe arrogant. I think we can say at least a percentage of them were arrogant. And so he's got to turn the tone down. I think that's a good observation that he's got to redirect the energy and kind of let's take this from a different angle because you guys are extremely carnal. Okay, I mean, there'd be another way to respond. What would that be about all these accusations? You could be very defensive. And all that does is fuel the fire. Exactly. And I think that's in the flesh what we would tend to do, right? The flesh has got to stand up for itself.

Paul's saying, hey, look, let's look at this a little bit differently. And he kind of is changing the direction in a way that might be more glorifying. We'll come back to that in a second. So next page, if you turn it, how is this perceived? How is someone who puts you in the defensive perceiving this kind of jocular, if you will, or foolish response?

I mean, if you were going to accuse somebody of something and somebody came back with kind of a limerick of some sort or something to put it kind of out of mainstream, how would that person perceive that response by you? A weak response. I think people, somebody would say, oh, well, see, he's not really with it. I mean, he can't really respond to what I've said. So you think the response would be one of criticism then, of that kind of folly, if you will?

Well, it's allowing you, I mean, putting this in a modern dialogue context, you've reframed the problem and you're in control now by making it seem a little smaller than it was made out to be. So Paul is regaining control. Yeah, this may seem like philosophy 101 here, the next thing, but perception is 100% of the truth, isn't it? It's not what the facts are, it's what's perceived. And so their perception of his folly is just a ridiculous way for him to be dealing with this issue. I mean, they're accusing him of false doctrine. And he's kind of a little flippant, as Tom might say, and that's how it's perceived.

In 2 Corinthians 11-16, I say again, let no man think me foolish. But if you do, perception, yet as foolish receive me that I also may glory a little bit. This is another distraction, if you turn to that verse, his foolishness, you may perceive it as foolish, but I may glory a little. There is no real victory here.

There may be a little one, but the concept here is he is perceived as being foolish, but he is really trying to distract them from what they believe to be the truth, which is really the truth in which he stands. Kind of a complicated verse to really sort out, but I think this is kind of a way to defend that's not pejorative. It's a way to defend that ultimately distracts the people criticizing him, that he may in fact bring this to more light. And the next verse really reflects on that.

Alright, here Paul is asking the body to bear with him and that's kind of be patient. So remember who this is addressed to. This is not addressed to those criticizing him. It's being addressed to the body of Christ in Corinth. So presumably he's talking to believers who are being distracted by all the false accusations to which Paul has been subjected.

So what's jealousy? This is a fun term. In the Greek it implies ardent love and or apprehension of departure. To be jealous of somebody means you really care for them, don't you? Some guy comes up to Margaret and says, I don't like the way he's carrying himself there very much. Is it an apprehension of departure? Maybe it should be. I haven't talked to her about this recently.

Jealousy can be righteous jealousy, and we'll come back to that in terms of godly jealousy. But in the flesh, jealousy can be a very bad thing, can't it? Why is it a bad thing from the human perspective, not spiritual so much? It makes enemies, doesn't make friends. Okay, and what's the basis of jealousy often? Selfishness. Yeah, self-serving. If you're jealous of something, your own concern is what you're expressing that jealousy for. Yeah, because people can be jealous of someone else's job, Their athletic ability. You can be jealous of a lot of things. Absolutely. Their intellect. It's just a negative.

In general, if you think of Greek philosophy, the concept of, and by the way, this is not of the Lord. We're going to talk about godly jealousy in a second. But the jealousy that the Greek language speaks about is an ardent love and or apprehensive departure. And this is really a good thing in terms of the way the Greeks interpreted it. And that probably fits in well with Greek philosophy. Now, then, what's godly jealousy? wanting the best for the person who doesn't realize he's not dealing with grace right, not dealing with the Lord's generosity right, not dealing with a whole bunch of things that are of the Lord. Okay, now keep in mind that the godly jealousy is portrayed here would be the exchange life, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not that I You know, it's kind of funny, it makes me return to something I frequently refer to. You don't have to like everybody, you just have to love them. And that love comes from a different nature, doesn't it? In our human existence, can you love your neighbor as yourself? I'm failing at that day in and day out.

But godly jealousy is one in which God's great grace and truth relates to a love that's unequivocal, not circumstantial, and one that's everlasting. Boy, that's not a human love. Notice if you go back to verse 2, let me pull that back here again. For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy, not human jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. Wow.

Don't you think a lot of times That's what drives people to want members of their family to become saved and their children to grow in the Lord. It's that jealousy. That's a godly jealousy. That's a godly jealousy that you want other people to experience that. You want them to be part of that. So how's Paul's godly jealousy being applied here to the church at Corinth to whom he is writing this letter. This is a sincere desire, as you said, for their salvation, growth, and grace and truth.

Here it is being manifest as being espoused of one husband as a pure virgin to Christ. This kind of took me back to the Old Testament through some of my concordances. or commentaries that I was reading. So as reflected for the bride for the high priest in Israel, in Leviticus it says, a widow, or one divorced, or a profane woman, a harlot, these shall he not take, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. So this is to the earthly high priest. So this had some tradition in Jewish history here. And now we're talking about God himself, not the high priest who's a representative of everything that God stood for to the Old Testament people, the Jews in particular.

So I'd go ahead and say that as an apostle, Paul sensed this responsibility to educate and present the church in truth and purity as a bride under Christ. It's kind of a troval kind of atmosphere that represented, I think, the history that was part of the nation of Israel.

Notice, one husband. Also the importance of being a pure virgin too. And that leads me, Roger, to the next page where I say, does this smell at all like works? How are we doing as being presented as pure virgins? That's the joy of Ephesians 5. Let's turn to it. We're going to read that. Let's turn to Ephesians 5, 27 through 32. And I'd like somebody to read that, please. And speak up as you read, please. that he might present to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless.

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church. because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

This mystery is great but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. So the idea, remember, there is no condemnation of those that are in Christ Jesus, for a wretched man that I am. So even though we sense that we are failing, I don't know about each one of you, but sometimes I'm falling short of God's glory, but the concept here is that we are looked at as a pure and sinless and virtuous member of the body of Christ and that's what's going to be presented. So it smells as works in that how you doing, it's not how you're doing in terms of your performance, it's how are you doing with your faith and your abiding in God's great grace and truth. Any further thoughts about this being presented as a chaste version? Obviously we're not that we're sinners saved by grace, but yet as Christ presents us for the marriage ceremony of the Lamb, ultimately we are pure.

That's what's so important to keep in mind, position and condition always. If you try to mix the two, you get a muddled mess because you realize you can't, as you walk in this, you'll never attain your position that you have, which is perfect in Christ. And that's why you have to be so steeped in position before you understand condition. You know, the desire of the entire New Testament, be it the writings of Paul or Peter or John, is ultimately to lift us up in grace and truth and have that growth in abiding, that sanctification continuously occurring in our lives.

And as Miles so often points out, there's death before life often in many of us each and every day, but by our faith and believing that we're righteous before him. Remember, he hath made him who knew no sin to be made righteousness for us, that ultimately we are new creations in Christ Jesus. All right, good.

Let's turn now to verse three. But I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. We'll talk later, okay? Well, you know, people blame Adam for not overseeing Eve well enough, right? No spiritual leadership. You know, when Margaret and I were talking about this last night, a little bit, you know, what role does the husband have in the marriage situation, which is to be a spiritual leader? So Adam let Eve down. He wouldn't oversee what he was doing there.

Anyway, we could blame Eve for the initial sin, for sure. But we've all inherited that, haven't we? Don't forget verse 2 about presenting the church as a chaste virgin unto the Lord. So don't forget verse 2 when we go, what does Eve have to do with this? I state that Paul fears the impact of the devil on the church at Corinth and fails to state how his craftiness subtlety, if you will, motivated by false wisdom, by the way, will be implemented. And as in the garden, his ways are often crafty.

I mean, think about the way Satan works. And notice where this influence is manifested. Where is it manifested? And it kind of reflects what I follow this with. Do we need Satan as referred to here in the Genesis 3, 1-11 passage as Eve was deceived to corrupt our minds? It's manifested in our minds, isn't it?

Also, the focal point here is the deception. The fact that it was Satan is one issue, but we can be deceived by our own nature, we can be deceived by a myriad of things. The world of flesh and the devil can deceive us, obviously. So Roger, that opens up the door. How important is Satan in our day-to-day lives? He's been, you know, he's a done deal.

Well, you know, in Hebrews 2.14, it says Satan's been positionally done away with, but yet he's not in terms of the condition done away with. But, you know, I don't know about, you know, there are three things that are an antithesis to the holiness we have in the Lord Jesus Christ. One is our flesh, the sin nature.

The second is Satan and his power and subtlety. By the way, he's subtle, the way he works. And that could be manifested in many different ways. And the third's the world system in which we live. I mean, all three of these things are anti-Christ, if you will. And they're all capable of deceiving us. But the fact that Paul mentions Satan means that scripturally, it's true. Satan is conditionally still around and manifesting himself in, by the way, subtle ways. But he's representative of the idea of deception.

I like that. Yeah, that's good writing. That's well stated. I think that's really good. And he works through the minds. I mean, you know, we're surrounded by the appeal of the world system to our intellects. You know, evolution has to be there. That's the fact, right? So we accept that as fact because the world system tells us through our minds that we have plenty of evidence to support evolution.

Well, that's not what the scripture says. Now we're not going to get into that discussion here today because you know I'm a scientist too and I have to kind of see yeah there is some evidence to support evolution but if Christ was resurrected from the dead I have to believe God for what he said we're created in his image. Now whether that took six days or whatever I've taken a position that it took six days and God is about fooling the intellect of mankind which is the mind. Satan appeals to the mind not the position we have in Christ Jesus. And the mind can be influenced by both.

Okay? Now, how would you interpret simplicity here? Simplicity that is in Christ? Well, it seems like he's trying to counter his critics there, that they're trying to make it complicated. They want to go back to keeping the law. They have all kinds of other motives. He's saying it's a very simple thing. make it complex and deceive people.

It's not complex. It's the simple gospel that Christ died, buried and resurrected. They'll make it deep and hard. Very simple, isn't it Roger? It's very simple. And notice, if you compare simplicity and context here, what it's being compared to is craftiness and subtlety. That's a whole different ballgame, isn't it?

And think about the world system, the way it operates. Think of the newspapers we read, everything we're hearing and seeing that's media projected. It gets you really questioning everything. that everybody does from a self-righteous perspective. Randy?

Paul, when he's writing to Colossians 2.7 and 8, he says, Having been firmly rooted and now being built up in him and established in your faith, just as you are instructed and overflowing with gratitude, see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy men according to the elementary principles of the world rather than according to Christ. Perfect for this. What was the chapter and verses for that? Colossians 2, 7 and 8.

When I deal with people who are, I'll say courting liberalism within the church, it's almost always a philosophical thing where somebody says, okay, Christianity is supposed to make the world a better place. Which is funny, I don't find that anywhere. But that's the position. And when they pursue it, it's a philosophical discussion that the world is... I heard it on NPR enough times. And they go sliding over to it and it appeals to their senses. And it sounds simple. That's the simplicity.

Or why is there so much pain in the world? If there really was a God, all these children wouldn't have died, and all these things wouldn't have happened. I don't think that the world is the Lord's place. That's not His home. The whole world is sitting in the lap of the evil ones. That's right. But they don't want to blame Satan for those things. It's not about Satan. It's about why didn't God do something? There must not be a God. Everything that falls short in the world system from a liberal perspective is a lack of adequate education. If we educate people more, we're just going to have a better world in which to live. As if cleverer devils do a better job. Talk about subtlety. Isn't that subtle? Yeah, it is. It's not simple.

Bobby, by that criteria, do you think our country would be doing the best? We'd probably have more people with degrees. It was funny, we were overseas in England for five years, Bonnie and I, and they were amazed at how many Americans had all these advanced degrees. The average British citizen did not have, because education isn't as available as it is here. So they said, well, you guys have all kinds of degrees. It's interesting.

If you use that thought process, we ought to be the kindest, bestest, nicest people around, right? But no. Europe's attempting to catch up because there's some cultures, like Spain for an example, that thinks that education should be free. Advanced education should be governmental responsibility. It comes from that subtlety that ultimately if people become more educated, it's going to be a better world in which we live. denies the power of the sin nature because it operates in many spheres and many places. And we have so many people that have degrees that they don't have jobs. They can't work. I'm just smart to have that job. Right, exactly.

So if you turn to page 5 at the top it says when we stand in truth in Christ we listen to what is being said we're putting our self in a position where Paul is with all the criticisms about his boasting. We listen to what is being said and determine it's worth or more accurately the lack thereof. And that's really what we're all about. And then when we're criticized for taking that position, how do we respond? Or do we then respond? And Paul's using folly here a bit to respond. How do we respond?

I don't think it's becoming defensive. How does the world system, if we're being criticized as believers, how does the world system perceive how we respond and how should we respond? Sometimes not responding can be the best thing we can do, right? I think becoming defensive and pejorative is not the best way to respond, but yet we don't roll over like a doormat and be walked all over either.

I think this has to be circumstantial, and I can't tell you how to respond, but if the Spirit shows up and we're not acting in behalf of self-defense and in the flesh, that response will ultimately be pondered going forward by the people who are being critical. We'll just let the Lord take care of that.

So Paul's using what he considers, you know, folly or foolishness as perceived by the world system, in fact, to respond. But he's defending himself, too, I think, based on truth. We'll see that in the verses that follow in the weeks that are ahead of us here, too. All right, verse 5. For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. So, in a sense, that sounds a bit defensive. But let's go forward. Could this have been perceived as more boasting? What do you think? Hey, I'm just I'm equal these other guys here. The interpretation all relates to whom I refers to now again.

You know, if one of us showed up in the emergency room and something related to a psychiatric perception of the emergency room physician, he or she thinks that there's something wild and crazy going on here. And you say, well, I have another nature. You know, this is my first nature. And they're going to ask you if you would be considered a candidate for a schizophrenic medication. Right? You have two natures here. But we're still I, aren't we? And one thing that often has come up historically, the idea of, gee, where did that source? Was that source my old nature? Was that my new nature?

No, I think the life of Christ that lives out is I. And I is not questioning where something's coming from. The life lived by faith is one in which I represents the new nature. So if, in fact, Paul is defending himself in the flesh, then that I is misrepresenting who he is in Christ. But if that I stands for his new nature in Christ Jesus, then this is not boasting, but it represents the strength and truth of the gospel and how everything has worked.

Consider the Internal Order of the Greek as supposed, so I think that's a little bit Reckon, by the way, consider, reckon, suppose. How would you think interpretation differs based on those three verbs? Consider or I consider, I suppose that I am not, I suppose seems a little weaker than consider and reckon is a bit stronger term. I think in the light of chapter 10 where he's talking about people's self-evaluation, He's using that same principle or idea of that. So suppose is kind of mild and weak. But I think consider is a bit stronger and I think reckon is even stronger. For I reckon that I am not at all inferior. So that's positional truth, I think.

Reckoning would be what we're called on in Romans 6.11, right? Reckon yourself to indeed be dead unto sin, right? So reckon is consider it true and I think for I consider it true that I am not all inferior is more humbly placed. I suppose seems weaker. But some translations refer to suppose or call it suppose. I probably think consider a record is the best term here in context. What credibility does Paul imply here?

In other words, if you're responding to a criticism that you're boasting, And he said, I reckon that I'm not really inferior. By the way, I really consider myself not inferior. Well, look at what God's done for me. Miracles, all the labors, the teachings, the sermons and beyond.

Paul's credibility as an apostle cannot really be criticized, can it? Is that his view? Or is that positionally to God's glory and what have God uses? Don't you think he's reminding them where he came from? I mean, he's reminding them that he actually is an apostle because he was with Christ. I mean, he got all of this, his teaching, everything that he's done has come directly from Christ. I think they know this. They're believers.

But I think he's reminding them. Do you really think that's true? Do you think that the epistles that Paul wrote to these various churches around Asia He doesn't really mention that, does he? I think his reputation precedes him. because they wouldn't have accepted him as openly as an apostle. They're concerned here. There are false teachers that are persuading him that the doubt Paul.

But I think he's reminding them where he's coming from. OK. Tom, your thoughts here. I'm thinking that those range of senses consider reckon the other one. Suppose. Yeah. Suppose our goal from low key to casual observation to absolute certainty almost thump the table, I know it's true.

And so it's kind of like a trinity of emotions depending on the Lord to handle the situation better than I can dream of in my wildest fleshly ways. You know, I think this text is so much, this so much relates to us today because Paul, you know, really is human. This is not the Lord Jesus Christ who was born without sin and never sinned. I mean, to walk in Christ's footsteps is an impossibility for all of us, but Paul was real. He was as human as we were, and we are.

And these eminent apostles he refers to, I think in Galatians 2.9, list three, Peter, James, and John. There could have been others, but I think that possibly is who he's related to. Randy, your thoughts?

It's one of those things where the the parsing on the Greek there is self-reflection. In the end, he's talking about his self-reflection on... it's because logos is actually the root word, which is the idea of something. So his self-evaluation is kind of the parsing on that one. So we can't... with Paul being foolish, you know, he's saying, all right, let's carry this on and it's almost exaggerative. Other thoughts about this verse? Well, while I wonder, you know, actually, I haven't seen it. I listened to Macaulay.

He kind of refers to the people called the super apostles. And actually, I have a note here where it says, you translate it as eminent apostles, but I have a note that says it could be superimposed on. So I kind of wonder if he isn't saying these guys came along and said, you know, Paul, he's an impossible. We are the super. I mean, I get the impression I haven't actually we haven't gone through the rest of the book yet, but that these these they pass themselves off as being the superimposed on. So it's Paul. But then where the where the real.

So I don't know. And this verse kind of is in that. I just wonder about it. I don't know. I haven't seen the translation superimposal come across in the American Standard. But Colin refers to it a few times. I haven't found the verses. I mean what are some of the other adjectives and other versions. I have eminent and what I the new King James which is my favorite version. What I'm sorry.

Chief Chief Chief Chief. Yeah I did see that. It's a it's above the cheapest is basically the compound word there. Does that mean super? I guess so. But it seems like if he's saying, you guys think you're the super apostles, I'm at least equal with you. That's actually kind of almost if you take it in that light, it would be like, well, OK, guys, I'm at least on the same level with you, right?

I mean, they're past. He thinks he knows they're not right. He knows they're So you sense that the people criticizing him are being called apostles. So you're interpreting apostles more broadly as teachers, not just simply the 12. And of course Judas Iscariot is not included in the 12. Most people see that Matthias was not that 12, that it's really Paul.

And we, I think, accept that scripturally from other verses elsewhere. But you're thinking the apostles is interpreted more broadly. I get the gist, and this is only because we've listened to Macaulay so much, that he attacks these three chapters saying, well, there's these super-apostles. He calls them super-apostles. And I couldn't find that in my translation. It's one thing I hadn't tracked it. We haven't got there yet. So I'm just wondering. Well, it's right here. That's it. It's right there. That's it then. So that takes a little different twist on the thing.

He's saying, well, OK, guys, you think you're the most eminent, I'm at least equal with you. Will you grant me that? Even though they're out to lunch. I don't know. Well, in 1 Corinthians, he does say in chapter 3 where he says, well, some say I'm of Paul's, some of them of Paul's, and some of Peter's. So I think the apostles is probably still more literal, but either way, The chiefest of the apostles, pick your favorite. Mine's Paul, so... Well, he says, I'm at least on the same par with him, don't you?

Well, so I interpreted this pretty narrowly as the twelve, but then it could have more broad implications. I think that's an interesting point. Thanks, Roger. Alright, so let's go on to verse six. Even though I am untrained or rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge. But we have thoroughly manifested you in all things. Now, what do you make of Paul's being untrained or rude in speech? Is this language? Is this the translation? Is this his public speaking style? Is this his lack of formal education? Or is this something else? What are your thoughts?

I think that something else would be looking at the apostles as a selection of units, almost like a kid collecting baseball cards and saying, this one's the best, and I got two of them. Yeah, I was there, I've been there. In fact, I won't tell you my baseball card story. I could be somewhat richer today if I had kept my baseball cards. Yeah, I tried to actually. My problem is that my generation held on to their baseball cards. We all did. They're not they're not worth anything. I have like willing days.

We've come down this path before because Paul earlier when I covered the chapter 10, the first, you know, eight verses or so, he talks about how he's just he's not a slick dude. It's just not true. You know, if you're looking for slick apostles, look at these old super apostles or eminent apostles. They're the slick guys. I'm just not that kind of person.

You know, you're not going to get the, you know, this nice suits or suits back. When I saw rude, I thought Trump like. I mean, it kind of fits, doesn't it? But Paul was highly educated. He was. Oh, we know he was very educated. I know, but he just didn't. He didn't know how to present himself. And he actually had his physical. He wasn't a good looking guy. He was, you know, as you saw before, back in ten, he didn't look bad. great-looking and he had deformities and issues and whatever else.

Don't judge a book by its cover, right? So let's look at First Corinthians, the second chapter, one through four. And I, brethren, when I came to you did not come with excellence of speech. or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified, knowledge, and I was with you in weakness and fear and in much trembling, and my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, not power."

So that kind of tells us again that his speech was probably not perfect in many ways. You know, Paul in his ministry wanted to be in with the Lord for three years. I doubt there's anything that the Lord spoke to him that he'd remember the rest of his life. I didn't quite hear that clearly. Jack, the second part of that? Paul was very close to the Lord. Paul was close to the Lord. When Paul finally saw the Lord for who he was, he remembered everything that the Lord had told him. Okay, that's the knowledge, isn't it?

He may not have been able to express that as clearly as he wanted to, but this is not a dull mind here we're dealing with. Other thoughts about this section? Some people think this might be the history of the flesh with his inability to speak. I think it was something more physical. Many people think it's vision. Wrote in large letters or whatever. We don't need to spend a lot of time with that.

So in what knowledge does he have confidence? And I think this is likely doctrine. This is not just facts of everything. His knowledge is doctrine. But whatever this has been, it's been manifested among them in all things. Acts 20, 27, for I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. And I sense, I mean I kind of pulled that out of context, but I think it represents that Paul was steeped in God's doctrine or the truth. Along that line, that's why when he wrote his letters, scripture, it's right on. His fleshly inabilities didn't come through. That's what kind of It confused people at some level, but it just showed that he really understood what was going on. He could express it. A better medium for him was the written word. And we see that with some people.

If you think about the TVM evangelists, some of them are gifted in speech and stage presence and everything, but often flawed in doctrine, right? And I think Paul's saying, you know, I'm not a stage person, but boy, I know the truth of the word of God. And I agree with Randy, Paul's the most eminent of the apostles. So I put a note here, now the church must be spirit led to interpret by faith and abide and apply.

I'm steeped in doctrine. That's what I know. My knowledge is there. And this is not, I think, a fleshly boasting. This is really identification. I'm standing in truth. And remember, truth trumps everything else, trumps love and all the other things listed in 1 Corinthians 13. Without the truth, there is nothing.

Now, one of the most difficult parts of this, I've left the end because I knew we wouldn't have enough time. So I didn't like Roger putting 7 and 8 with my task here. I should have stopped at verse 6. Do I have next week? I forgot about that. I don't think I can make it, Roger. Only the two other teachers are laughing at that. I'm not sure what that means. I'm not going to try to interpret that.

Okay, did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you. Okay, first of all, we have here a kind of abrupt transition from the previous verses. It's kind of like chapter 7 when we just finished chapter 1 here.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of... Like I said, it's emotional, you get emotional and you don't say things... Word all out. Here it is. This is what I did. So you can fault Roger for giving me these two this week. But since I'm teaching next week, I haven't looked past today actually, Roger, in terms of what my schedule is looking like.

Oh, I know Margaret's going to be gone. So we pray for her. She's going to be grandma this week. Is Kristen away? They're going back to Seattle to look at their rental property back there. So she's going to be a grandma to three people this week on her own.

All right. So the question of the class is, do you think this is related to the doctrine to which you just spoke? The knowledge that he just spoke or is this kind of separate from that? Well, certainly it's all about money instead of what was going on previously. So I'd have to say a shift isn't.

I have trouble relating it to what he just stated, his positioning himself as. It's another point he wants to make. I think that's why Macaulay said that the emotions that Paul... Emotions are not good or bad, but the emotions are not things we can trust. So Paul is kind of letting it all hang out here. And by the way, oh, you know, I have another thought.

Did I really commit sin in humbling myself? Okay. So is Paul really asking himself here, did he commit a sin or an offense in not charging them for his preaching? This is more folly, isn't it? I mean, he's kind of jostling this whole area and just kind of making a tangential move away from the criticism. And in this process, he states that he also humbled or abased himself, again, the source. Is this Paul in the flesh? Or is this Paul's position becoming conditioned in terms of who he's defending or representing? By the way, true humility is never self-imposed.

I don't know, one of the Hungry Arts, maybe a month ago, just reminded us of that. I'm going to be humble. Good for you. If you think you're going to be humble, you're not being humble. By the way, I think this is something that we all face day in and day out, isn't it? Remember, reminding you of what Hal has said, and I say this so much, but Margaret reminds me, you may be the only Bible people ever read.

When we self-impose humility, that's to make someone think better of us, isn't it? But when we take into consideration every minute of every day and how we're perceived, that walk we have in the new creation we are in Christ Jesus is a humbling position. We're not robots, but we live by faith that ultimately the way we respond, the humility we are before Christ allows that to be perceived in the right way. But boy, self-imposed humility doesn't make it.

It looks phony. I think I'm guilty of that sometimes, trying to appear humble. Randy, your thoughts? I'm kind of smirking because I just remembered faking it so well when I was younger, to always having the appearance of whatever it was, but not having the empowering of the Holy Spirit was draining. Sunday mornings were exhausting because I had to be appearing good. Put on Phony Randy, right? And you know, is this something you work on? Gee, I'm going to work on not self-imposing humility.

No, this is knowing the Lord Jesus Christ and increasingly seeing his life manifest in us by faith. And notice, however, the sacrificial manner in which he preached to them. I mean, I think that that was sacrificial and obviously that's of the Lord. What churches? Well, I think these are the churches of Macedonia and perhaps Philippi and Thessalonica. And by the way, these were poor churches who were given now to meet the needs of a rich church in Corinth.

And so that seems in contrast, doesn't it? And so how do we interpret robbed or despoiled? Now, despoiled would be a good example that might be in a war situation where your enemy has been killed and his gun and ammunition are there and you in fact pick up the ammunition and gun and take it with you. Is that robbing? Not in context. That's despoiling. In other words, someone has died and his gun and ammunition are there, and you take it to use. I mean, that's the enemy.

And in a sense, I think that's kind of the best interpretation as an analogy to what he did in the churches of Macedonia. Somebody was paying his wages, so to speak. He just pointed it out. And again, I think this is ironic, or a better term for this is sarcastic. It's kind of a folly, again, that he's using to try to distract the Church of Corinth away from all the false accusations.

So I think Paul's standing strong in his position here, but it's again how it's being perceived that is really relevant. And we'll continue on that theme then next week as the buzzer has gone off. Any other thoughts about today? I'm going to self-impose humility and say this was a tough section to really dissect. I'll let you interpret like that. We'll talk after class. Roger, close us in prayer.

We thank you, Father. Thank you for your time today, Lord. Thank you for the blessings we have. Thank you for Paul's words, Father. We know that they're In scripture, Father, we know that for our benefit, help us to be able to understand and your spirit would guide us. In Christ's name, Amen.