God,Grace,and Equality in 2 Cor. 8.13–14

Abstract

What does ‘equality’ (ἰσότης) mean in 2 Cor. 8.13–14? What is the significance of the phrase ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13)? To date, no one has sufficiently dealt with Paul’s striking use of ἐκ in the phrase ἐξ ἰσότητος. Dieter Georgi sought to explain it by comparing Paul’s use of ἰσότης with Philo’s understanding of the term as a divine cosmic power, but the majority of scholars have rightly rejected this comparison as unconvincing and implausible. However, in so doing, they overlook one of his major insights. Paul wrote ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13). This article accounts for Paul’s otherwise unexpected use of ἐκ by advancing a new reading of ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13) that takes seriously Paul’s broader theology of the Christ-gift in 2 Cor. 8–9. Contrary to many who reject the theological significance of ἰσότης in 2 Cor. 8.13–14, this article will disclose the nature of equality in Christ, God’s fundamental role in its realization, and its socially disruptive effects on gift-giving relationships in the church. What results is a sociotheological reading of ἰσότης, one that centers on the grace of God in Christ (2 Cor. 8.9).

Introduction

What does ‘equality’ (ἰσότης) mean in 2 Cor. 8.13–14? ¹ To answer this loaded question, one must answer a series of exegetical, cultural, and contextual questions: How do the phrases ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13) and ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης (8.14) relate to one another? How do they jointly relate to the immediate (8.1–15) and even broader context (chs. 8–9)? When Paul speaks of ‘equality’, does he have in view a divine cosmic power, a status, a principle of fairness or balance, a principle of proportional giving, reciprocity among friends, or something else? ² What is the best context to understand ‘equality’—the cosmos, politics, or friendship? In this article, however, the one question that will inform all these other questions is: Does Paul’s theology of grace in the context of 2 Cor. 8–9 afford a fuller, richer understanding of ἰσότης?

In a recent monograph, Georges Massinelli offers a theological reading of 2 Cor. 8–9, but when it comes to ἰσότης in 8.13–14, he argues that ‘the context does not recommend an interpretation of statements on equality in theological terms’ (2021: 266, emphasis added). This is confirmed, for Massinelli, by (i) the lack of a clear reference to God in 8.13–15 or to his direct involvement in the creation of equality and (ii) Paul’s ethical emphasis in 8.8–15. The only theological exception in 2 Cor. 8 is ‘the χάρις of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (8.9). But even there, for Massinelli, the Christological model is only meant to encourage ethical imitation. ³ For this reason, he concludes that it is ‘more likely that Paul’s teaching on equality is meant in ethical terms’ (2021: 267, emphasis added).

Larry Welborn argues similarly. To be sure, he likens his reading of 8.13–14 as ‘theological or, more precisely, christological’ (2017: 560), and he even admits that the significance of ἰσότης lies in ‘the inner logic of Paul’s theology’ (2017: 561). But he solely draws on the voluntary self-impoverishment of Christ in 8.9 and Phil. 2.6–8 to argue that this ‘moment in ancient history when the immutability of the divine was shattered . . . opened a space for human beings to achieve “equality”’ (2017: 562; see also Horrell 2016: 264). Aside from the question of divine immutability, one discovers here a separation between theology and ethics (or, in Welborn’s words, ‘the economic’ [2013: 88]). God does not play a direct role in the redistributive action of believers. For this reason, Welborn maintains that Exod. 16.18 in 2 Cor. 8.15 is not ‘an illustration of providential distribution’ but ‘a paradigm of the equality that human beings can achieve through redistributive action’ (2013: 87). For Welborn, ‘the divine and human change places in respect to the realization of equality. The voluntary self-impoverishment of the divine opens a new space for human action’ (2013: 88).

Ever since Dieter Georgi’s explicitly theological reading of ἰσότης, being essentially synonymous with ἐκ χάριτος and ἐκ θεοῦ (1992: 88–92), there has been a push to exclude God’s presence in human reciprocity, deny divine involvement in the process of equalization, and maximize human agency over against divine agency. ⁴ Welborn and Massinelli, in their distinct ways, are the most recent representatives of this approach.

While a huge debt of gratitude is owed to these scholars for their insightful labors, I do question whether their specific readings of ἰσότης in 8.13–15 accords with the theological tenor of 2 Cor. 8–9. ⁵ The contention of this article is, therefore, twofold. First, the oft-overlooked theological context of 8.1–12 calls for a rereading of the striking phrase ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13), with the curious preposition ἐκ offering rich possibilities for divine involvement in the establishment of ‘equality’ as Georgi insisted. ⁶ Second, the broader context of 2 Cor. 8–9, especially the fundamental role God plays in human κοινωνία, confirms the theological (rather than merely ethical) significance of ἰσότης in 8.14. When the distinct renderings of ἰσότης are established, it becomes evident that Paul theologizes the notion of equality by situating this ideal within the framework of κοινωνία—involving God and human parties—which promotes culturally unnerving ethical implications between parties in exchange. Because, for Paul, theology and ethics are organically connected like seed and tree.

The Theological Context of χάρις in 2 Cor. 8.13–14

Before we look specifically at 2 Cor. 8.13–14, we need to situate it within the immediate theological context (2 Cor. 8.1–15), one that places grace (χάρις) at the forefront of his appeal. ⁷ In the very first verse, Paul mentions ‘the grace of God [τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ] given to the Macedonian churches’ (8.1). He will then go on to speak of the χάρις (‘grace’ or simply ‘gift’) of our Lord Jesus Christ: γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι διʼ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχείᾳ πλουτήσητε (8.9). This verse instantly confronts us with an issue that has plagued scholarship for many years: what is the connection between the grace/gift of Christ in 8.9, the Macedonians’ gift in 8.1–5, and Paul’s financial appeal to the Corinthians in 8.6–15?

John Barclay provides much insight on the matter. He detects a ‘play of paradox’ in the use of the words ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’ (2013: 340). In short, he convincingly argues for the causal reading of πλούσιος ὤν (‘because he was rich [in generous self-giving]’) rather than a concessive nuance (‘although he was rich [in heaven]’). ⁸ He insists that the χάρις of Christ ‘consists not in giving up his wealth, to make himself poor, but in using his wealth (of generosity) in making himself poor [to enrich others]’ (2013: 340). Barclay then concludes that ‘“wealth” means not what Christ possessed, but with a different, paradoxical sense, the “wealth” of his generosity’ (2013: 340, italics original). ‘Wealth’ is not literal here but metaphorical, expressed through the giving of oneself to another in time of need.

Unsurprisingly, the same keywords that describe the wealth or χάρις of Christ (πτωχεύω, πτωχεία, πλουτέω, πλούσιος; 8.9) vividly depict the self-giving generosity of the Macedonians (8.1–5). They endure intense hardship and deep poverty (βάθους πτωχεία), but they also—contrary to worldly expectations—‘abounded in a wealth of generosity’ (τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς ἁπλότητος, 8.2). According to their ability (κατὰ δύναμιν) and beyond their ability (παρὰ δύναμιν, 8.3), they contributed to the collection willingly (αὐθαίρετοι, 8.3) and unexpectedly (οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν, 8.5). They ‘gave themselves’ (ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν) first to the Lord and then to the apostles by the will of God (8.4). And how did they give themselves? By participating in the χάρις of the collection toward the poor saints in Jerusalem (8.4).

But how was their participation possible? How did they generously and willingly contribute something when they, at face value, had nothing? The answer is simple: they gave what they received. They drew from God’s abundant resource of divine grace and, through that supernatural generosity, found a way to give in pinching poverty. They received grace (8.1), conformed to the paradoxical pattern of Christ (8.2–4), and so gave themselves ⁹ to the Lord and the apostles by giving who they were and what they had to the Jerusalem saints (8.5). Having received the χάρις of God (8.1), they nonidentically replicated the χάρις of Christ (8.9). They abounded (ἐπερίσσευσεν, 8.2) beyond human ability (παρὰ δύναμιν, 8.3) in both immaterial grace (their wealth of generosity) and material grace (their concrete contribution), confirming what Ulrich Schoenborn writes: ‘Gracia y dinero están más cerca uno a otro de lo que se imagina’ (1988: 217).

When Paul witnessed this grand display of God’s grace in (ἐν) the Macedonian church (8.1–5), it led him to encourage Titus to complete (ἐπιτελέσῃ) among them the grace of contributing to the collection (τὴν χάριν ταύτην, 8.6). The underlying assumption here is that Paul believes the same grace that worked in the Macedonians is at work in the Corinthians. For that reason, Paul mentions the immaterial abundance of the Corinthians. They abound in all things (ἐν παντὶ περισσεύετε), such as faith, speech, knowledge, love, and all diligence (8.7)—all spiritual gifts they obtained when they received the grace of God in Christ. ¹⁰ Χάρις in Christ organically produced χαρίσματα in the church. Now, Paul says, just as you abound (περισσεύετε) in immaterial grace and gifts, abound (περισσεύετε) ¹¹ also in material grace (ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι, 2 Cor. 8.7; i.e., the collection).

How Paul accomplishes this goal, however, is a delicate matter. He refuses to issue a command (οὐ κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω, 8.8). Instead, he wants to prove (δοκιμάζων) through the earnestness of the Macedonians (διὰ τῆς ἑτέρων σπουδῆς) that their love is genuine (γνήσιον, 8.8). By holding up the Macedonians as a model for the Corinthians to imitate, Paul is not seeking to incite competitive rivalry (contra Betz 1985: 48–53). Rather, Paul gives the Corinthians a glimpse of divine grace at work. The Macedonians progressed from immaterial earnestness (the wealth of generosity) to actual material giving, despite the depth of their poverty. Like Christ, they used their wealth to impoverish (or lower) themselves in order to enrich others. Paul’s hope is that the same creative grace, which brings something out of nothing, moves the Corinthians toward a voluntary, material contribution.

Now, the Macedonians are a model, but they are not the model. The Lord Jesus Christ is the archetype model. We see this in Paul’s sudden theological pivot in 8.9. Although this move seems to come out of nowhere, ¹² the γάρ of 8.9 answers two questions: (i) why does Paul not issue an apostolic command, and (ii) why should the Corinthians contribute to the collection? Because they know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (τὴν χάριν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). The genitives τοῦ κυρίου and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are best understood as subjective genitives. Χάρις here is the Christ-gift, his self-gift to the church. Christ is the model of self-giving love to be imitated, but he is much more than that. He is the gift, one in which believers participate, from which they draw and through which they give. ¹³ Believers are ‘in Christ’ (2 Cor. 5.17). They do not imitate him from afar, in some detached manner, as some mere external, ethical standard to reach (contra Windisch 1924: 251–52). Rather, Pauline imitation is best captured by the phrase ‘participatory imitation’ (see Webster 1986: 95–120), a participatio Christi that does not eliminate imitatio Christi (Allen 2009: 184; see also Barclay 2020b: 135). That is, by virtue of our union with Christ, we receive Christ as a gift before (ethical) example. ¹⁴ This is why Paul does not command them to evidence the genuineness of their love (8.8). Love organically arises from one who knows (rationally and relationally) the self-giving love of Christ.

Sometimes, however, believers need a reminder. So, Paul purposely positions the examples of Christ and the Macedonians to stimulate a voluntary gift from the Corinthians. Had the apostle not mentioned divine grace in this context, these examples would be empty of any power and could only generate a competitive, compulsory gift—which is no gift at all.

Still, Paul is confident of their grasp of grace and the voluntary nature of their generosity, for, a year ago (8.10), they began not only to contribute (οὐ μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι) but even to desire it (ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ θέλειν, 8.10; cf. 8.11, 12: προθυμία). Notice how Paul (through the οὐ μόνον . . . ἀλλὰ καί construction) elevates the immaterial desire or wealth of generosity above the material contribution. Yet, for some unknown reason, ¹⁵ they were prevented from completing what they desired to do. But now, their immaterial desire (i.e., their generosity, willingness, self-giving love) should manifest itself in a material contribution—literally, the completion of the doing (τὸ ποιῆσαι ἐπιτελέσατε, 8.11). But they must be careful how they do so. Since the collection must be mutually advantageous (συμφέρει, 8.10), he encourages them to contribute from what they have (τὸ ἐπιτελέσαι ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν, 8.11). For (γάρ) one’s willingness (προθυμία) is acceptable (εὐπρόσδεκτος) according to what one has (καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ), not according to what one does not have (οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει, 8.12). For Paul, συµφέρει (mutual enhancement) can only be achieved by giving ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν. Only this sort of gift is acceptable (εὐπρόσδεκτος), specifically, to God—the Giver of all they possess (see Harris 2005: 585).

What emerges is a twofold principle that must guide the Corinthians when contributing to the collection: give from/out of what you have (ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν), not from what you do not (οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει). Abiding by this principle will determine whether they abound (περισσεύω) in the χάρις of the collection (8.7), progress from immaterial to material grace, and so complete (ἐπιτελέω) what they desired to do so long ago (8.10–11). But the Corinthians are not the most discerning judges of their own possessions, let alone of how to use what they possess, spiritually or materially. So, in 8.1–12, Paul prepares the soil and plants the seeds of his financial appeal. He spotlights divine grace from God, in Christ, through the Macedonians, showcasing the Giver and the creative power of χάρις: a church can give to the needy, even when their pockets seem empty (or will easily become empty), ¹⁶ because they draw from a divine account.

We can now return to the question we began with: what is the connection between the grace/gift of Christ in 8.9, the Macedonians’ gift in 8.1–5, and Paul’s financial appeal to the Corinthians in 8.6–15? In short, Paul wants them to know what it means to give ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν for the mutual enhancement (συμφέρει) of the community, which goes well beyond what a person materially possesses (as in the case of the Macedonians). It seems that he is directing their gaze away from their pockets and to the abundance of wealth in Christ. They have access to ‘grace-in-surplus’ (Barclay 2008: 411). All this sets the stage for understanding the theological significance of ἐξ ἰσότητος in 2 Cor. 8.13.

The Significance of ἐξ ἰσότητος in 2 Cor. 8.13

οὐ γὰρ ἵνα ἄλλοις ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν θλῖψις, ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἰσότητος·

(2 Cor. 8.13)

Exegetical difficulties abound in this text. To begin with, scholars disagree on whether γάρ introduces the grounds of (‘for’) or an inference from (‘certainly’ or ‘indeed’) Paul’s discussion in verses 11–12 (Harris 2005: 588; cf. Martin 1986: 259–60; Furnish 2008: 399), though γάρ as grounds is more likely. ¹⁷ There is also disagreement over which verbs should be supplied in 8.13. Should the negative particle d be joined to the ἵνα and be rendered imperativally (‘Let not there be…’), ¹⁸ or do the verbs θέλω (‘I do not desire that’) or (τοῦτο) λέγω (‘I do not say this in order that . . .’) make more sense? Related to this, one must determine whether ἵνα introduces a content clause (‘that’), purpose clause (‘in order that’), or result clause (‘so that’, ‘with the result that’). Then there is the all-important question of how to position ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος. Should a full stop be placed after the phrase (‘. . . that there may be equality. At the present time . . .’), or does this phrase go with the following verse (‘But that as a matter of equality, at the present time . . .’)? ¹⁹ Even more crucially—and this gets at the heart of the exegetical debates—does ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος indicate the goal/purpose (‘but that there may be equality’; an idiomatic use of ἐκ), the ground (‘on the basis of equality’; a causal rendering of ἐκ), or the source of the collection (‘out of/from equality’; ἐκ indicating source)?

Intricately connected to this last question is how to render the preposition ἐκ. Those who view the entire phrase as denoting the goal/purpose of the collection affirm an idiomatic use of the preposition and simply render it ‘so that there may be equality’. However, Georgi rightly insists that Paul did not write that: ‘he writes, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος’ (1992: 87, emphasis added). The preposition ἐκ must be taken seriously. ‘The ἐξ is critical’, writes Paul Barnett. ²⁰ For if Paul meant to speak of equality as the goal or purpose in 8.13, he could have excluded ἐκ, which is precisely what he does in the following verse (ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης, 8.14). There, the ὅπως clearly emphasizes the purpose or goal of equality in the relationship between the Corinthians and the poor Jerusalem saints. However, in 8.13, the conspicuous ἐκ within the γάρ clause strongly suggests that Paul has in view the ‘equality’ that serves either as the ground or the source of contributing to the collection. ²¹

What is more, if one adopts the goal/purpose interpretation of ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13), translating it ‘but that there may be equality’, then you must read that phrase as a negative/positive contrast with the ἵνα clause. In other words, Paul wants to avoid a relationship of inequality (‘not that there may be relief for others, affliction for you’, 8.13a) and instead cultivate a relationship of equality (‘but that there may be equality’, 8.13b). But again, ἐκ disrupts the flow of that contrast, and this prepositional disruption, which Georgi calls ‘striking’ and ‘unexpected’, serves to place special emphasis on the motif of equality (Georgi 1992: 87; cf. also Garland, 1999: 382). So, the question arises: what does Paul intend to highlight through the striking, unexpected wording ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος? ²²

To provide an answer, we begin with the γάρ in 8.13 and how it relates to the preceding verses. As mentioned previously, the majority take it as the grounds of what precedes. But only a handful of commentators explicitly read 8.13 in light of 8.11–12. ²³ P. E. Hughes is a notable exception. He translates ἐξ ἰσότητος as ‘according to equality’ and notes that this ‘usage of ἐκ is the same as that in verse 11: ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν, “according to ability”’ (1962: 306). However, he joins ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος with verse 14 and so translates the verse: ‘For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time’ (1962: 305). But Thrall argues that

if the phrase is to be attached to v. 14, the one word ἰσότης is used in the same sentence in two quite different senses. This is not impossible, but the usual exegesis [i.e., connecting the phrase to verse 13] seems more likely. (2004: vol. 2, 540)

Hughes correctly interprets the γάρ as grounds and perceptively identifies a connection between ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν in 8.11 and ἐξ ἰσότητος in 8.13, but because he joins the latter phrase to verse 14, he misses an important contrast being made with ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος. ²⁴

A different reading can, therefore, be offered, one that extends the insights made by Hughes and yet accounts for the intriguing use of ἐκ and the intended contrast marked by Paul’s typical οὐ…ἀλλά construction. This reading, however, depends on a few important exegetical decisions.

The ἵνα in 8.13a should be construed as indicating purpose or result rather than content. ²⁵ This also means that the particle οὐ negates an implied independent clause. ²⁶ Scholars who agree with these two exegetical moves usually supply (τοῦτο) λέγω or something similar: ‘I am not saying this in order that . . .’ But what exactly is Paul ‘saying’? What is the referent of the word ‘this’ (τοῦτο)? Recall how, in the immediate context, Paul issues a command that he trusts will be obeyed willingly (cf. 8.8): ‘. . . complete [ἐπιτελέσατε] ²⁷ the doing [i.e., your contribution]’ (8.11). They started contributing a year ago (8.10), but now it is time to complete it. Paul then gives his twofold principle: the Corinthians should give ‘out of/from what one has’ (ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν, 8.11), ‘not according to what one does not have’ (οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει, 8.12). This helps us fill out what Paul is ‘saying’: ‘I am not saying this [i.e., to complete your contribution] in order that others may be relieved, [and] you may be afflicted; but [to complete your contribution] out of/from equality’.

Notice how this rendering resolves several issues. First, it better connects 8.13 with the immediate context, not only 8.11–12 but even the rest of chapters 8 and 9, as will be demonstrated. Second, it better explains the two uses of ἰσότης in 8.13 and 14. The first takes ἐκ and functions primarily as indicating the source of the collection, ²⁸ while the second appears in a ὅπως clause with γένηται and introduces the goal/purpose of the collection. Third, it renders unnecessary a negative/positive contrast between the ἵνα clause (an unequal relationship) and the ἀλλά clause (equal relationship). In the proposed reading, the ἵνα functions as a dependent clause, while the primary point of contrast in Paul’s typical οὐ…ἀλλά construction is between the implied independent clauses: (οὐ) ‘to complete your contribution’ and (ἀλλά) ‘to complete your contribution’, which aligns with Paul’s twofold principle in 8.11–12 (‘not from what you do not have [οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει]’ but ‘from what you have [ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν]’). The apostle is contrasting two different modes of contributing to the collection. Fourth, this rendering better explains the role of the ἵνα clause. The relationship of inequality (8.13a), which the Corinthians should avoid, finds its point of comparison in the relationship of equality in 8.14. If they give out what they do not have, it will surely bring ruin (θλῖψις) to themselves and relief (ἄνεσις) to the recipients. By contrast, Paul expands their understanding of giving ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν. They can give out of equality (ἐξ ἰσότητος), but equality in what?

The rendering of ἐκ as the source of the collection is more convincing exegetically than the goal/purpose interpretation (‘but that there may be equality’; an idiomatic use of ἐκ). However, the grounds interpretation is also possible (‘on the basis of equality’; a causal rendering of ἐκ). If ἐκ indicates grounds, ἰσότητος emphasizes the ‘equal status’ believers share in Christ (Georgi 1992: 88; Welborn 2017: 557, 560). If ἐκ indicates the source, ἰσότητος highlights the ‘equal access’ believers have to something. The former provides the reason why believers should contribute to the collection, whereas the latter describes how they should contribute. These are not mutually exclusive, of course. ‘Equal status’ can be assumed when two parties have ‘equal access’. However, while Paul assumes equal status in Christ, I would argue that he intentionally employs ἐκ to stress the idea of source in this particular context for the following reasons: (i) the parallel ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν points to the source of their possessions; (ii) the immediate context (8.1–15) amplifies God as the source of divine grace (8.1, 9); (iii) the Macedonians function as a model of how divine grace (8.1) works through human agency (8.2–5); and (iv) as will be argued later, the presence of abundance language (περισσεύω/περισσεία/περίσσευμα, 8.2, 7, 14; 9.8, 12) in the immediate and broader context, along with the OT citation of Exodus 16.18 (2 Cor. 8.15), portrays God as the overflowing fount of all grace in this economy.

Consequently, a source reading of ἐκ can be captured by the following dynamic equivalent translation: ‘For I am not telling you to complete your contribution in a way that relieves others and afflicts you. That would be giving out of what you do not have. Rather, complete your contribution out of what you do have, from your equality in grace’ (8.13).

The literal translation of ἐξ ἱσότητος (‘out of equality [in grace]’) can be glossed as ‘equal access to divine grace’. This rendering better explains the way Paul seems to cater to the Corinthians. He uses as an example the Macedonians, who gave to the collection during a test of affliction (θλίψεως) and out of the depth of poverty (πτωχεία, 8.2). He nevertheless does not desire the Corinthians to give in a way that brings affliction (θλῖψις, 8.13). The obvious question becomes: what then is the point of using the Macedonians as an example? The point of emphasis cannot be on the financial circumstances of their giving, since he encourages the Corinthians not to give in such a way that brings θλῖψις. Instead, Paul is highlighting the ultimate origin of their giving: τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (8.1). The Macedonians, in the face of sheer poverty, drew from a divine surplus and shared their wealth of generosity. Although financial circumstances may differ, Paul wants the Corinthians to realize what is theirs in Christ: equal access to the same divine storehouse.

But why would Paul stress God as the source of the Corinthians’ contribution? Perhaps the apostle wants to keep them focused on the very thing that will drive giving rather than deter it. If a believer acknowledges that they can contribute out of/from what God possesses, then that will likely expand their generosity. Believers can withdraw from a divine account, one which unceasingly overflows with immaterial χάρις that manifests itself in material giving in order to meet material needs. The Corinthians could have lacked a practical awareness of this truth (see Barclay 2008: 410). Moreover, since the Corinthians share this equal access to divine grace with other believers, this is a perfect segue for his discussion in 8.14, where ‘abundance’ (περίσσευμα) is reciprocated with a church in ‘need’ (ὑστέρημα).

In the end, when one considers the variety of ways ἰσότης in 8.13–14 has been defined by scholars, two things become clear. The first is that many interpret both instances of the term as indicating purpose/goal. That is why Georgi’s original insight about the first instance is immensely valuable. The ἐκ cannot be ignored. Second, and certainly not unrelated to the first, nearly every commentator rejects Georgi’s definition of ἐξ ἰσότητος, ²⁹ even those who agree with some pieces of his exegetical-theological analysis (Griffiths 2005: 16–17; Welborn 2017: 556–58; Massinelli 2021: 266). He has been criticized for assuming that Paul and Philo hold to the same cosmology, for over-theologizing the notion of ‘equality’ ³⁰ and for over-emphasizing divine agency in the collection, along ‘with its own dynamic’ (Thrall 2004: vol. 2, 539; cf. also n. 4 earlier). But we should not dismiss him entirely. While I, too, reject Georgi’s definition of ἰσότης as a divine cosmic power, he was certainly onto something when he insisted that the term was practically interchangeable with ἐκ χάριτος and ἐκ θεοῦ, and that God is ‘the actual source of giving and receiving’. ³¹ Still, this cannot be established solely from the word itself, not even from the immediate theological context. It requires theological nuance from the broader context of 2 Cor. 8–9, with special focus on the κοινωνία relationship of ἰσότης between the Corinthians; the Jerusalem saints; and, quite surprisingly, God. ³² Once that is in place, it becomes easier to see how both instances of ἰσότης can be understood theologically.

The Tripartite κοινωνία of ἰσότης in 2 Cor. 8–9

When Paul speaks of equality in 8.13–14, he clearly has two parties in view, the Corinthians and the poor Jerusalem saints, who share in κοινωνία with one another. That is why friendship has been recently promoted as the most fitting cultural background for their relationship in 2 Cor. 8–9. ³³ After all, the parallels in Nicomachean Ethics 8–9 are quite striking. Like Aristotle, Paul depicts the friendship between the Corinthians and Jerusalem saints as one of κοινωνία (Eth. nic. 9.13), ³⁴ marked by ἰσότης (8.13–14). ³⁵ But despite the similarities, Paul departs from Aristotelian friendship in one significant way. Christian κοινωνία involves a divine party—God in Christ by the Spirit—who functions as the basis of their relationship (cf. 1 Cor. 1.9). The rendering of ἐξ ἱσότητος (8.13) as ‘out of equality [in grace]’ or glossed as ‘equal access to divine grace’ introduces a divine party onto the human scene of κοινωνία. In Christ, believers share a common Lord from whom, through whom, and to whom they give and receive grace.

Many are opposed to this idea, however. Scholars argue that it diminishes human agency ³⁶ and imposes theology onto a social term like κοινωνία (Ogereau 2012: 373, 377) or an ethical term like ἰσότης (Massinelli 2021: 266–67). But, as we will see, divine agency energizes human agency in a noncompetitive relationship (Barclay 2006: 7), and the theological significance of κοινωνία and ἰσότης emerges from an analysis of the broader context. God plays a fundamental role in Christian κοινωνία, and this tripartite κοινωνία informs the way we interpret ἰσότης, both as the source (8.13) and as the goal of Christian giving (8.14).

God’s Fundamental Role in Christian Κοινωνία (2 Corinthians 8–9)

Although χάρις is used to describe human contributions to the collection (2 Cor. 8.4, 6, 7, 19; cf. 1 Cor. 16.3), only two instances of the phrase τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ appear in 2 Cor. 8–9. The first is 8.1, which is clearly God’s χάρις given to the Macedonians. But the second is 9.14, which depicts the Corinthians’ χάρις to the Jerusalem saints. The fact that both originate in God (τοῦ θεοῦ) demonstrates that God stands at the beginning and end of the circle of grace: χάρις flows from the Giver (8.1), and χάρις returns to the Giver (9.15.). In fact, Paul gives thanks (χάρις) to God as a response to ‘his indescribable gift’ (τῇ ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ, 9.15), which is not ‘something but someone’ (Barclay 2018: 17, emphasis original). The gift is Jesus Christ in 8.9, God’s voluntary self-gift, the very χάρις of God (cf. Gal. 2.20; 5.4).

Even the ‘generosity’ (ἀπλότης) that the Macedonians exhibit toward the Jerusalem saints can be traced back to divine χάρις. The term ἀπλότης appears three times (8.2; 9.11, 13). ³⁷ The connection between Christ’s generosity in 8.9 and the Macedonians in 8.2 has already been noted, but the appearance of ἀπλότης in 9.11 also sheds light on ἀπλότης in 8.2. In 9.11, Paul writes, ‘You will be enriched [πλουτιζόμενοι] in every way to be generous [ἁπλότητα] in every way, which through us such generosity ³⁸ is producing thanksgiving to God [εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ]’. Paul employs the divine passive participle πλουτιζόμενοι, reminding the reader of the paradoxical wealth of Christ (πλούσιος) that enriches (πλουτέω) others (8.9) as well as the Macedonians’ enrichment (πλοῦτος, 8.2) before explicitly using the word ἀπλότης. Connecting the dots, the one who provides enrichment to be generous can be none other than God himself.

If that is not enough, this becomes crystal clear when Paul identifies the one who receives all the gratitude in human giving. The generosity of the Corinthians toward the poor saints will produce εὐχαριστία, ³⁹ not toward the Corinthians per se but toward God (τῷ θεῷ, 9.11). This is because, ultimately, the Jerusalem saints do not receive from the Corinthians but through them. They are mediators of God’s χάρις, so the Giver gets the gratitude (Bruehler 2002: 209–24; Antony 2013: 307–9).

Murray Harris (2005: 644) notes a theologically illuminating parallel between 9.8 and 9.11, which sheds light on 8.1–5:

9.8: δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν περισσεῦσαι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν.

9.11: ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι εἰς πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα, ἥτις κατεργάζεται διʼ ἡμῶν εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ·

Notice how ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόµενοι summarizes 9.8a (δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν περισσεῦσαι εἰς ὑμᾶς). But in 9.8a, God specifically enriches his people by making all grace (πᾶσαν χάριν) abound (περισσεῦσαι) toward them. The divine passive πλουτιζόμενοι (9.11a) is filled out by God’s abundance of πᾶσαν χάριν (9.8a). They are mutually interpretive. God enriches his people by abounding in χάρις toward them. But God abounds (περισσεῦσαι) in χάρις toward his people (9.8a) for a purpose: in order that (ἵνα) they may abound (περισσεύητε) in every good work (9.8b). It is no surprise to see χάρις and περισσεύω inextricably connected. Divine grace always abounds. ⁴⁰ That is why Luther and Calvin viewed God as an eternal, overflowing fountain of liberality, like a bucket unceasingly overflowing with water that is never less full. What is striking about 9.11, however, is that God’s χάρις abounds specifically as human ἁπλότης (generosity).

According to Harris, the phrase εἰς πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα in 9.11a is parallel with ἵνα…περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν in 9.8b. In other words, generosity (ἁπλότης) results from being ‘enriched’ by God (πλουτιζόμενοι, 9.11a), and being enriched by God means nothing other than God abounding (περισσεῦσαι) in all grace (πᾶσαν χάριν) toward his people (9.8a). This means humans abound in generosity toward others only because God in Christ first abounded in χάρις toward them, which recalls Paul’s earlier discussion. The χάρις of God (8.1) caused the Macedonians to abound (ἐπερίσσευσεν) in joy and, more importantly, a wealth of generosity (τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς ἁπλότητος, 8.2). Divine χάρις worked in and through them. How? Through receiving, participating, and embodying the χάρις of Jesus Christ toward others (8.9) (Barclay 2020b: 135). Divine self-giving led to human self-giving, both immaterially and materially.

Like the Macedonians, the Corinthians’ abundance also originates in divine abundance or excess. Without God’s χάρις, there would only be need. But just in case readers miss this, Paul includes a small yet significant word into his discussion: πᾶς. Humans can abound in every good work (πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, 9.8b), because God has given all grace (πᾶσαν χάριν, 9.8). And just in case readers miss it the first time, Paul adds three more instances of πᾶς (ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν) to depict the way believers ‘abound’ (περισσεύητε) in benevolence and attain self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια, 9.8b).

What a strange description of αὐτάρκεια. Paul takes a term familiar among the Stoics and Cynics and imports a diametrically opposed definition. For the apostle, αὐτάρκεια captures the posture of the believer in Christ, utterly dependent on the χάρις of God in Christ (cf. Phil. 4.12). This is better defined as ‘Christ-sufficiency’. But we should note that ‘Christ-sufficiency’ is not merely for oneself. The purpose statements in 2 Cor. 9.8b (ἵνα) and 9.11a (εἰς) prevent such a reading. Believers receive to give (or better, to mediate) God’s abounding χάρις.

This makes sense of the ambiguity of agency in 2 Cor. 9.9–10. Scholars debate over whether Ps. 112.9 (111.9 LXX) refers to God or humans (e.g., Starling 2012: 254; Stegman 2014: 163–65; Eubank 2015: 180–81). It reads, ‘He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever’ (2 Cor. 9.9). Who is the referent of the pronoun ‘he’? God, ⁴¹ humans, ⁴² or both? I agree with those who discern an intentional ambiguity in this text. ⁴³ Divine and human agency coalesce into a symbiotic energism wherein God distributes his χάρις (cf. 9.8) freely through human agency to provide for the needy, resulting in an ‘entanglement of agencies’ (Barclay 2008: 410).

This mediatorial role is further amplified by the term διακονία. Paul refers to the collection effort four times as a διακονία (8.4; 9.1, 12, 13; cf. Rom 15.31) and employs διακονέω twice to speak of the administration of this project (8.19, 20). But the most theologically telling instance occurs in 8.4, where the terms κοινωνία, χάρις, and διακονία are bound together: τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους. The καί is best understood here as a hendiadys (Windisch 1924: 246), which, according to Georges Massinelli (2021: 295),

suggests that the Macedonians considered participation in the collection a way to receive and experience God’s χάρις. In fact, this occurrence of the term χάρις is the most ambiguous in 2 Cor. 8–9, so that it is particularly difficult to determine whether it refers to the divine or the human gift. One might even regard this ambiguity as the most effective expression of Paul’s belief that the collection is at the same time human and divine χάρις.

I completely agree. I would only rephrase the last sentence this way: ‘. . . the collection is divine χάρις flowing through human χάρις’. Further underscoring this mediatorial flow is the fact that διακονία should not be translated ‘ministry’ as elsewhere (Acts 1.17, 25; 20.24; 21.19; Rom. 11.13; 12.7). Its basic meaning, according to John Collins, is ‘go-between’ or ‘mediator’ (1992: 42). But when ‘a third party is understood to be the recipient of a beneficent activity’ (2018: 32), as in 8.4, a better gloss is ‘mission’. ⁴⁴ This is a mediating mission, where God streams χάρις through Paul’s κοινωνία with the Macedonians for the sake of the Jerusalem saints. ⁴⁵

The mediating momentum of this mission is further bolstered by the last two instances of the term διακονία. Paul describes the collection project as ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας (9.12). The mediatorial aspect of διακονία here is confirmed by the phrase δι᾽ ἡμῶν in the previous verse, as argued by Collins. δι᾽ ἡμῶν (9.11) shows that ‘the rendering of the service’ (ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας, 9.12) happens ‘through Paul and his associates’ and so underscores their role as brokers of God’s beneficence in the collection. ⁴⁶ Even the term λειτουργία carries the basic sense of mediating gifts, especially if priestly service on behalf of God is in view (cf. 2 Chron. 35.16 LXX). All this accords well with the last instance of διακονία (9.13), where the Corinthians will see the ‘evidence [of their love; cf. 8.8] provided by this mission’ (Collins 2018: 219) and glorify God (δοξάζοντες τὸν θεὸν) for their obedience to the gospel of Christ.

What becomes evident in 2 Cor. 8–9 is that human κοινωνία entails κοινωνία with God, the source and ultimate Giver of χάρις within the divine economy. This places κοινωνία in the theological limelight, ⁴⁷ with God playing a fundamental role in Christian solidarity. He is the overflowing fount of human liberality toward the poor Jerusalem saints (9.13). In reality, without God’s χάρις, there would be no human generosity, as we saw previously in the connection between 9.8 and 9.11. Divine grace breeds human grace. And yet, that grace really is ‘their [αὐτῶν] wealth of generosity [ἁπλότητος]’ (8:2; cf. 9.13) and their ‘good work’ (ἔργον ἀγαθόν, 9.8). No violence is done to human agency. ⁴⁸ A believer can choose to be a conduit or a cul-de-sac of grace, but they are truly themselves when they broker God’s goods rather than hoard them. As Orrey McFarland explains, ‘Receiving the gift of Christ, and therefore existing in Christ, reconstitutes and enables a person to give; not giving is inconsistent with one’s identity in Christ’ (2015: 209). The Corinthians need this theological reminder through an ethical appeal. Their ability to contribute to the collection rests not in them but in grace. They are not the source of their generosity. God is. This, for Paul, is central to κοινωνία, and κοινωνία is central to the collection.

Having laid out the theological pattern of κοινωνία between the Corinthians, Jerusalem saints, and God, as well as their distinct roles in the relationship, we now turn to 2 Cor. 8.14. Can this instance of ἰσότης be read theologically? Does the broader context support this?

The Significance of Ἰσότης in 2 Cor. 8.14

As previously mentioned, Welborn specifically views 2 Cor. 8.13–14 as human space created by God where the goal of equality can be achieved but where God is not fundamentally involved, whereas Massinelli does not think ἰσότης can be interpreted theologically. Underlying these claims is the denial that God plays a role in the process of equalization. But this all depends on how one defines ‘equality’.

I have argued that, in 8.13, the Corinthians are to complete their contribution ἐξ ἰσότητος—that is, ‘out of/from an equality [in grace]’. This means God plays a vital role as the source of the ‘abundance’ of χάρις exchanged among believers. I also argued that the language of ‘abundance’ throughout the broader context (2 Cor. 8–9), along with the fundamental role God plays in κοινωνία, proves that their ‘abundance’ (περίσσευμα) in 8.14 is founded and funded by divine grace (McFarland 2015: 192). This means that, contrary to Massinelli, ⁴⁹ even if God is not explicitly mentioned in 8.13–15, Paul could never conceive of human reciprocity apart from divine activity.

Turning to ἰσότης in 8.14, then, one can see that divine activity as the surplus of grace traveling from God through human agency. Believers will give out of their abundance (τὸ ὑμῶν περίσσευμα, 8.14), but only insofar as they function as channels of God’s abundance. At the present time, ⁵⁰ the abundance (περίσσευμα) of the Corinthians meets the need (ὑστέρημα) of the poor Jerusalem saints. The content of this abundance—since they are drawing from their equality in grace (ἐξ ἰσότητος)—is immaterial χάρις that results in material giving ⁵¹ in order that (ἵνα) the receiving party can reciprocate. Unlike the exploitative, one-way giving in 8.13a, the poor Jerusalem saints will, at a later time, draw from the same storehouse and give out of their abundance (περίσσευμα) when the Corinthians are in need (ὑστέρημα). The key here is that God, in and through the grace of Christ (8.9), ⁵² overflows in abounding grace to and through his church to meet the needs of his people, resulting in ἰσότης. ⁵³ This is why the proof text of Exod. 16.18 (2 Cor. 8.15) is such a fitting note to end on. At the least, it affirms ‘a radical dependence on God’ (Hays 1989: 90) and so directly connects him to the process of equalization. For divine abundance leads to ‘surplus distribution’ (Barclay 2008: 413) among believers, and the purpose or goal (ὅπως) of redistributing God’s surplus to one another is, over time, equality (ἰσότης, 8.14).

So, what does Paul mean here by ἰσότης? If ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13) refers to the source of Christian giving, ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης (8.14) denotes an equal sharing in and of divine grace. Put differently, the goal of accessing God’s grace is to share grace-in-surplus with one another. ⁵⁴ This sharing, however, can be unpacked a bit more.

First, mutually sharing in grace assumes a solidarity in gift and need. Both parties not only witness the Christ-gift (8.9)—rationally and relationally—through their union and communion with Christ by faith, but they also become witnesses of the Christ-gift, in word and deed. They embody the wealth-in-poverty paradox of Christ to one another. The one in a state of abundance (wealth) lowers himself (poverty), entering the needy ‘space’ of others, and gives what is necessary to exalt them. In so doing, they nonidentically reenact the gospel (Horrell 2016: 263–64). As Luther said, Christians ‘ought to become to the other a kind of Christ, so that we may be Christs to one another’ (in Wengert 2016: 525, emphasis added). The ‘one another’ is crucial here since the receiving party will be in a state of abundance (wealth) and will one day return the gift. How? By lowering themselves (poverty), entering the needy ‘space’ of others, and providing what is necessary to exalt them. In and through the sharing of grace, participants see the person of grace. This is Christian generosity.

Second, mutually sharing in grace implies mutual mediation. Believers give the given gift (Webb 1996: 84). God honors believers, Calvin explains, ‘by sending to us, through their hands, as rivulets, the blessings which flow from the inexhaustible fountain of his liberality’. ⁵⁵ Believers are mutual brokers. They receive and give, give and receive. The all-sufficient, superior giver does not exist; neither does the all-dependent, inferior recipient. In Christ, the ongoing recycling of grace creates, enables, and sustains communities of mutual support and co-interest (see Barclay 2017: 109–26). But the ultimate goal of equality is not to have the same amount in our ‘accounts’ (contra Vassiliadis 1992: 48), share the same rung on the social ladder, ⁵⁶ eradicate debt and obligation from Christian relationships, ⁵⁷ or even experience ‘proportional equality’. ⁵⁸ Ἰσότης captures the believer’s equal share in and reciprocation of the wealth of God’s self-giving love in Christ to those in need. An oscillating asymmetry marks their relationship, with God funding the needy through conduits of abundance. ⁵⁹

Third, mutual sharing in grace counteracts worldly patterns of gift exchange. Giving is meant to empower others rather than exploit them, to exalt others rather than exclude them, and to enrich others rather than embarrass them. Ruin is to be avoided (θλῖψις), for yourself and others, and giving should produce rest (ἄνεσις) among both parties. God intends his gifts to be used in the way he deems acceptable (εὐπρόσδεκτος, 9.12), not by hoarding them but by paying them forward. Only then does a Christian possess divine gifts as they ought to be possessed. ⁶⁰

And yet, fourth, mutual sharing in grace confronts but does not completely eradicate social identity, status, and even institutions in this world. ⁶¹ Instead, grace uses them to display and affirm an identity that captures the deepest part of who we are. Social institutions, such as the household, become opportunities for participants to exhibit/share incongruous grace with one another, turning the world upside-down through their tangible commitment to a countercultural gospel. This could be the reason why Paul does not abolish social identities between a master (Philemon) and a slave (Onesimus) but rather views them as a ‘present age’ opportunity to showcase their κοινωνία, their ἰσότης in grace, their common identity in Christ, and their ability to give and receive the most valuable commodity in the world, irrespective of their identity in the flesh. In this respect, social identities, status, and institutions rather than simply being an opportunity to exploit, exclude, and embarrass become the pitch-black backdrop on which to display the diamond of the gospel.

Conclusion

Based on the immediate and broader context of 2 Cor. 8–9, where Paul’s theology of χάρις and a tripartite κοινωνία relationship are on full display, the theological significance of ἰσότης can be offered in 8.13–14 and its ethical or social implications teased out. By rendering ἐξ ἰσότητος (8.13) as ‘out of equality [in grace]’, glossed as ‘equal access to grace’, God’s fundamental role as source comes to the fore. By rendering ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης (8.14) as ‘that there may be equality [in sharing grace]’, glossed as ‘equal sharing of divine grace’, God’s involvement in the process of equalization comes into focus. Human and divine agency cowork harmoniously in the attainment of ‘equality’, as believers reciprocate God’s abundant χάρις to one another in time of need. To be ‘equals’ becomes less about having the same amount in our ‘accounts’ or possessing the same social status. It has to do with an equal access, sharing, and participation in the grace of God in Christ (8.9). ⁶² Consequently, divine grace carries sociotheological implications for the church in a world driven by hierarchy, status, and competition.