Second Corinthians teaches us that genuine Christian ministry is characterized by “simplicity and godly sincerity” (2 Cor. 1:12), that church officers aren’t self-sufficient (2 Cor. 3:5), and that ministry is more dying to self than it is self-promotion (2 Cor. 4:11–12). Paul elected not to accept compensation from the Corinthians, not wanting to introduce a stumbling block (2 Cor. 11:7–9). He didn’t carry letters of recommendation with him (2 Cor. 3:1–3). He refused to practice cunning (2 Cor. 4:2) or to tickle ears (2 Cor. 2:17) because it wasn’t his ministry or his message—it is God’s. The same is true of all Christian servants in the new covenant.

Like 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians covers a myriad of issues in addressing a church that is beset by immorality, false teachers, sectarianism, and theological confusion. In this letter, the Apostle Paul’s care and concern for the Corinthian church are palpable. Let’s consider three important characteristics of the letter that help us understand and apply its overall message.
1. Second Corinthians represents the culmination of Paul’s intense dealings with the church at Corinth.
The founding of the church in Corinth (around AD 52) took place during Paul’s second missionary journey (see Acts 18:1–11). Luke tells us that Paul stayed in Corinth for more than eighteen months. It seems that soon after Paul left Corinth for Antioch, significant problems arose in the new congregation. Paul found out about these problems while in Ephesus on his third missionary journey (see Acts 19). In all likelihood, 2 Corinthians is the fourth letter that Paul had written to the church within a span of roughly two years:

Letter 1: The “previous” (nonextant) letter (see 1 Cor. 5:9)
Letter 2: 1 Corinthians
Letter 3: The “severe” (nonextant) letter after the “painful” visit (see 2 Cor. 2:3–4; 7:8–12)
Letter 4: 2 Corinthians

Paul sent the “severe” letter through Titus, who returned to Paul with a joyful report of the church’s repentance and loyalty to the Apostle and the Apostolic teaching. Thus, 2 Corinthians is a “happy” (though not perfect) culmination of a complex relationship between the Apostle and the Corinthian believers. Paul’s joy at the report from Titus regarding the Corinthians’ welfare (see 2 Cor. 7:6–7) demonstrates what the Apostle valued in the life of the church. These include the peace, purity, and unity of the church (including church discipline), as well as the Christian’s ethical conduct, humility, and generous stewardship. If the Apostle was so anxious that this church possess and manifest these attributes, we ought to work toward these in our churches and our Christian lives as well.
2. Second Corinthians provides a strong defense of Paul’s Apostolic ministry.
Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate, contra the false “super-apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5), that his Apostleship is genuine because he has been commissioned and entrusted by the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ to speak in His name (see 2 Cor. 5:18; 13:3).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by M.R. Conrad |
Saturday, December 23, 2023
In these short stanzas, Wesley teaches rich truths about the person of Christ (Christology) and salvation (soteriology). The composition of this hymn follows the inspired guidelines of Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” With so many quotes and allusions to Scripture, the word of Christ dwells richly in “Hark the Herald.” 

Across the world, Christmas carols carry deep doctrinal truths where few other witnesses would be allowed. These carols ring out from apostate cathedrals of Europe, through pop music artists online, and even in glitzy Asian malls.
In particular, Charles Wesley’s “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” proclaims bold truths about the person and work of Christ that most carolers do not even realize as they sing the familiar lines. Let’s walk through the lyrics of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” and discover what doctrines and Scripture passages Charles Wesley (and later editor George Whitefield) reference throughout this beloved Christmas carol.
1. Jesus is Savior, King, and Messiah.
(1) Hark! The herald angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King;Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!”Joyful, all ye nations rise, Join the triumph of the skies;With th’angelic host proclaim, “Christ is born in Bethlehem!”Hark! the herald angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King!”
The hymnwriter, Charles Wesley, launches directly into the Christmas account, paraphrasing lines from Luke 2:9–15. He focuses on Jesus’ titles of king, savior, and messiah. As king, Jesus brings peace. As Savior, He reconciles man to God. Finally, as messiah, He fulfills the prophet’s words in Micah 5:2 as a ruler born in Bethlehem. Wesley tucks all these doctrinal truths into one stanza and hides them in plain sight in the words of the angels on Christmas morning.
2. Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man.
(2) Christ, by highest Heav’n adored; Christ the everlasting Lord;Late in time, behold Him come, Offspring of a virgin’s womb.Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail th’incarnate Deity,Pleased with us in flesh to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel.
Read More
Related Posts:

The gospel does not repudiate the existence of the nations. It Christianizes them as they maintain their unique cultural distinctives that do not conflict with the Christian faith.  In the New Jerusalem that comes down to earth, the Bible says, “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it (Rev. 21:24).” Nations will not cease to exist in the new heavens and the new earth.  Jesus told us to disciple the nations, not to assimilate them.

When I was in my last year as a student at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia in 1972, I had to preach my senior sermon under the tutelage of Dr. Jay Adams.  Videotaping was the new thing back then, and after the sermon was preached Dr. Adams would sit down in a small room with the student, and while playing the tape he would critique the sermon. I’m sure he heard better sermons than mine.
Dr. Adams was always honest and to the point. There was one thing he said to me that I will never forget.  “Larry, you need to either change your accent or go back to Appalachia.”  He was right and I went back to Appalachia.  I have been ministering here now for over fifty years.  Although the Appalachian Mountains extend from Maine to Alabama, the heart of Appalachia is southern West Virginia, Southwest Virginia, and extreme Eastern Kentucky—what might be considered coal country.
The heart of Appalachia is my heritage.  Traditionally, it has been a closed community because of its rugged mountains and its people who have a common ancestry.  Not many people move to the heart of Appalachia.  It developed a unique culture of its own and formed a distinct version of the English language. We shared a common religion, common habits, and common rituals.  For example, the rite of passage for a boy to become a man required hunting with a rifle (or preferably with a bow and arrow) and killing a deer, a male buck.  The number of points on the antlers added to your masculinity.
A common tale among my folks there in Appalachia was that the best place to find a wife was at a family reunion. Although, I did not meet my wife at a family reunion, I did meet her at a church picnic.  After we were married, she became interested in genealogy, and we soon found out that we were cousins. We were kin.  As a community-oriented people we tended to marry others within the Appalachian boundaries because we didn’t travel much beyond the mountains.
Before I was married, and after graduating from a local college, I moved away from Appalachia to attend Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.  I soon felt a bit out of place in the big city.  Educationally, I was behind most students.  Culturally, I did not quite fit in. I found some American students to be condescending. I felt much more at home with fellow Asian students because it seemed to me that I was from a different country as much as they were. My roommates and best friends during my seminary years were from Korea and the Philippines. Living outside of Appalachia made me aware of how much I had in common with my own people back home, how much I had in common with minority groups, and how different I was from most other Americans.
Now to my point.  Having read much of the literature of Kinism and being from Appalachia, I often wonder if I am a Kinist (soft or hard?).  Samuel Sey’s recent article on The Aquila Report (Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism) pushed me to ask that question again, as I have asked myself many times in the past.
Any friendship with Kinists in the modern Reformed world is almost the kiss of death.  Kinism and Anti-Kinists are major enemies of each other. Most communications are filled with troubling language and inevitably someone on either side is accused of denying the gospel.   I have dear friends on both sides of the issue.  I don’t always agree with the Kinists and when I do disagree, they are quick to call my hand.  Among Anti-Kinists, I don’t usually even bring up the topic.  I read the literature from both sides of the isle, and I try to pick the choice nuggets from each.  Because of my experience in Appalachia, I can identify with some tenets of Kinism, and yet I’m still working on how this may apply to other people in different places.
I don’t believe interracial marriage is sinful.  For those who choose to make that decision, I am fully supportive, even though I believe it brings additional challenges with it.   Some of the finest Christian people I know are in interracial marriages. What bothers me today is that the modern media is normalizing it through popular venues such as TV commercials.  Individual choice among consenting adults is one thing.  Propaganda is another.
I have no problem with legal immigration. However, I am opposed to the invasion of illegal immigrants. The melting pot in America is quickly becoming a boiling pot.  I don’t believe multi-culturalism will survive in the long-run. I believe that nations are biblically defined by a common border, a common language, and a common religion (see my book on Critical Race Theory and the Church – Chapter 3).  In addition, my experience in Appalachia tells me that a common heritage is also critical.  Cultural Marxism is pushing the United States into tribalism, and the humiliation of this once-great country may soon be ahead of us.  I am afraid we interpret the Bible through the lens of American pluralism (now polytheism) more than we do through biblical categories.
The creation of languages at the Towel of Babel was not a judgment upon the concept of a nation per se.  It was a judgment upon a false religion that refused to implement the cultural mandate to subdue the whole earth (Gen. 1:28). God’s mandate required people-groups to spread across the entire globe, conquering all things on this earth for the glory of God, not building one large city with a tower reaching to heaven for the glory of man. Grace does not negate the creation of the nations; it redefines and redirects their goals in accordance with the words of Christ.
Having studied the arguments from both Kinists and Alienists (as they are called by Kinists), I could only wish that they could sit down at a table and discuss their differences in a civil way.  However, I don’t expect this to happen, no more than I expect a conversation between Christian Nationalists and their opposition.  I don’t expect these Christian leaders to talk to one another.  Just inflammatory words from both sides.  I’ve been around too long.  The future will reveal who was right and who was wrong. We’ll just have to wait and see, or maybe our grandchildren will see. In the meantime, the ammunition will continue to fly.
I believe Christians from various ethnicities can worship in the same local church.  We can all worship together.  However, I find that if different people-groups want to worship separately, it is not a sin.  In the PCA, more than 10% of our churches are Korean-American churches who speak the Korean language in their worship services. To help them in this endeavor, the PCA Book of Church Order has been translated from English into the Korean language.  Of course, they are welcome in traditional white Anglo-Saxon Christian churches, but they have chosen to worship in accordance with their own nationality, even as they live in America. They feel much more comfortable in doing so.  I have no problem with that.  They are my brothers and sisters in the Lord, and I respect their choice. On a denominational level where we all speak English we work well together. No one ever accuses them of being racists.
The gospel does not repudiate the existence of the nations. It Christianizes them as they maintain their unique cultural distinctives that do not conflict with the Christian faith.  In the New Jerusalem that comes down to earth, the Bible says, “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it (Rev. 21:24).” Nations will not cease to exist in the new heavens and the new earth.  Jesus told us to disciple the nations, not to assimilate them.
Thus, am I a Kinist?  I married my cousin.  We have common ancestors.  We were both raised in the Appalachian culture, and we were both Presbyterians. We have been very happy and blessed. It’s natural to love your own people as we respect other people-groups as well. It has nothing to do with racism. My way is not the only way, but it has been a great blessing in my life.  In that sense, maybe you could even call me a hyper-Kinist.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: