Menu Home

Resolution to the weakness series (What Tamie’s learnt)

Many readers of this blog will be familiar with my ongoing issue with trying to understand the Bible’s teaching about God’s power in weakness. Some of the questions I have carried have been why I should seek to grow in my skills or go to Bible college if God works through the weak. Does being educated and Western (and therefore wealthy and powerful, on a global scale) mean I am somehow an inhibitor to God’s ministry? Most answers I was given were pragmatic rather than biblical but I was keen to grapple with the issue according to what the Bible says, especially in 2 Corinthians. So when I found out we would collaborate on our Corinthians essay questions, I suggested the following: The less adequate the minister is, in and of himself or herself, the better he or she is at demonstrating that the power of the gospel comes from God’ (Sze-kar Wan) To what extent is this Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians? What are the implications of this for contemporary ministry?

The vast majority of the literature on 2 Corinthians follows the dominant paradigm of ‘power in weakness’. The big question is what the ‘weakness’ is that shows God’s power. Wan argues for inadequacy of skills. Paul claims that his competence comes from God, not him (2 Cor 3:5).  This sets up a contrast: if it is clear that the minister isn’t skilled, you can only attribute their survival or their ministry to the power of God. On the surface, this appears to be the argument of 2 Corinthians except for 2 big problems:

  1. The accusations against Paul (his ‘inadequacies’) are not limited to skills. They include skills like his presentation and personal presence but they also include his refusal to boast or buy into the Corinthian patronage system. Some people try to get around this by suggesting that the ‘weakness’ is suffering but that doesn’t cover all of the accusations either. So you need a category that includes both skills and suffering into the equation.
  2. If this is Paul’s message, it does not match his method. He uses fine rhetorical skills to make his point. If he’s arguing for inadequacy, he’s doing it very adequately! Some people try to say he’s just being ironic but this doesn’t seem to square with his argument about being incompetent.

So you need a better definition of weakness than either skill inadequacy or suffering. I read Forbes who suggested that the Greek word for weakness (ἀσθενεια) had connotations of status. That gave me the idea of developing an argument based on the idea that Paul’s argument is not that God can use him even though he is incompetent but that God can use him even though he is low in status. Each of the accusations against Paul do work within this category. It works for the catalogue of hardships (like being shipwrecked, beaten, etc) too: they are so horrific to the Corinthians that they would elicit contempt for him from them. Same deal with the thorn in his flesh in Ch.12 – he shows himself to be unimpressive and lowly in their sight.

The argument crystalised for me in thinking about the jars of clay of 2 Cor 4. This is normally read as an image of fragility, partly because of the “perplexed but not in despair, etc” bit that comes after it. But I wonder whether this is how the Corinthians would have read it? Corinth was known for its bronze and ornamented jars and I think that the contrast of the clay jar is that it is not that it is breakable rather than durable but plain rather than ornate. It’s a question of status, not practicability or usefulness. If this is the case, it’s the humility of a lowly thing that God uses that emphasises his glory.

Of course, there is a connection between status and skill set but Paul uses his skills to cut against any inclination to revere him, turning notions of boasting on their head and seeking to transform the understanding of the Corinthians rather than put himself up. The long and the short of it is that I concluded that it’s OK for Christians to have strong skills. Paul has no problem using them because what highlights God’s power is not skill inadequacy but lowliness of status. And that’s what’s going on in the talk of the cross in 2 Cor 4-5. The issue is not Christ’s physical sufferings so much as the lowliness of the position that his sufferings brought. In 2 Corinthians, the focus is not on inadequate skills but on humility and lowly status. That doesn’t solve all the issues I’ve raised in the weakness series but it goes a long way to giving me some resolution.

Categories: Uncategorized Written by Tamie

Tagged as:

Tamie Davis

Tamie Davis is an Aussie living in Tanzania, writing at

5 replies

  1. It just struck me that “weakness = low status” is really the continuation of the great biblical drift of overlooking the firstborn, the choosing of Jacob, the last being first, which is also behind the beginning of Paul’s earlier letter:

    Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles… Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. … Therefore, as it is written: “Let those who boast boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:20-31)

    I’m so glad you’ve posted this — it’s such an important point, because the ‘power in weakness’ thing gets us so confused!

  2. I agree. Thanks for this post, reading it helped me work through an issue I hadn’t realised I have!

    I’m starting to think, however, that in Christian ministry we can use one (skills) to replace the other (status). As in, we sign up for a life of having low status in the eyes of the world, but we try to make up for it by becoming competent, well-equipped, skilled superChristians?

  3. Yep, I agree. The interesting thing about 2 Corinthians is that it’s Christians (i.e. the Corinthians) to whom Paul is speaking and to whom he highlights his lowliness of status. Here’s a few sentences from the application part of the essay:

    One need only peruse the Facebook status updates of evangelical mega-church leaders who apparently have hot wives, smart children, harmonious relationships with all people, wildly fruitful ministries and incredible devotional lives. Though these are dressed up in Christian language, they often function as little more than status symbols. Why do they feature so prominently in their self-presentation while the more shameful aspects of their lives remain untold? How different from Paul who is unconcerned with his own status!

  4. @ Amanda re using skills to replace status, I think that’s a huge issue for us. In our society our skills (level of education, ability to perform complex tasks) form a large part of our status. Doctors and lawyers are high status people because of what they know and do. I think it was different in Paul’s world – status came from wealth, ancestry and rank in the imperial system. I wonder if its also a matter of self-assertion or self-aggrandisement. Jesus could have called an army of angels to prevent his arrest, but chose not to. By contrast, the Corinthians flaunted their gifts and abilities rather than using them to serve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: