Unusual - 2 Corinthians 12:11-21

12:11-12 - Not only are there false teachers claiming to be apostles of Christ, but they are disputing that Paul is one at all. I had never considered that people might not consider Paul and others as apostles because they did not personally travel with Jesus during his mortal ministry. I am 2,000 years removed from Jesus’ mortal ministry so it’s improbable that I would be aware of anyone who would have personally traveled with Jesus back then. That’s probably why I never questioned the authority of the apostles based on whether or not they were with Jesus, because it wouldn’t be possible to do it the other way. I mean, it makes sense, the false teachers had to discredit Paul in order to usurp his power for themselves. Interestingly, they seem to be disputing Paul’s authority as an apostle because they say that he didn’t associate with Jesus while he was alive in Palestine, but I’m going to venture a guess that they themselves didn’t either, which is ironic. But this concept requires us to ask ourselves what the requirements are for being an apostle. The Church defines an “Apostle” as a priesthood office and a special witness of Jesus Christ. I don’t know exactly what that means, a “special witness” but I would imagine that the definition would include some type of familiarity with the Savior that is not granted to the general population usually. If we use that definition, we can think that perhaps that means the apostles have physically seen Jesus, and that would make sense, but it’s not defined as that, so it could be as simple as an unusually strong conviction or testimony of the gospel. It could be ministering of angels; it could be revelation about specific aspects of the gospel that are uncommon. I think the definition of what a “special witness” means isn’t important, but the most important factor of the apostleship is being called by the President of the Church and ordained and given the proper keys by those who hold them. By that definition, Paul absolutely qualifies because he was called and ordained by the proper authorities. The IM says, “occasionally in the mission field, investigators are surprised to find out that our church has 12 apostles. They skeptically ask, ‘how could you have apostles today since they were not witnesses of Christ’s mortal ministry?’ Reminding them of the apostle Paul answers this question. However, as we read Paul’s epistles, it becomes apparent that he was the subject of the same kind of skepticism. We might imagine the false teachers among the Corinthians asking, ‘why should we believe your doctrine of Christ, you are not only of the original apostles who walked and talked with Jesus?’” Paul testifies “for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” He lists ways that they could know that he was a true apostle of Jesus Christ, starting with “truly the signs of am apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” Paul is saying that he wrought the signs of the apostles. The IM quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie noting the signs of an Apostle, which are “healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead; they are preaching and teaching and suffering in the Cause of Christ; they are walking uprightly before all men and being adopted into the family of God as his sons.’ I can’t help but as myself, do you have to be an apostle to perform those acts? Because I can think of people who did those things but were not ordained apostles. I think it goes back to, being a special witness of Jesus Christ. But here’s the kicker for that though, if someone is performing the works listed above, they would have to be righteous to the point that they wouldn’t claim to be apostles when they were not. So they might have the authority and ability to perform the miracles above, but they wouldn’t exalt their capacity above what they were called to. One way to put it is, “you can know I’m an apostle because I’m righteous enough to perform these miracles and if I were lying about being an apostle, then I wouldn’t be righteous enough to do these things.” 12:13-21 - Paul further asserts that they can tell he is an apostle because he only desires to bring them the good word of God, not to take from them or impoverish them by requiring that they support him. He promises that just like the last two times he visited them, the third time he comes, “I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.” Interestingly, the word “seek: is cross referenced with 1 Corinthians 10:33 which is when Paul says, “even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” It seems like Paul’s saying, “look I give the gospel everything I have, and don’t take anything in return from the people I serve. What else do you guys want?” And I guess the answer here is that what they want, what it will take to “convince” them that Paul is an actual representative of God, is nothing. There is nothing that he can do or say that will convince them if they don’t want to believe it and are just looking for an excuse. Not only did Paul not take advantage of them, but neither did Titus of the other “brother” that Paul sent with him to the Corinthians. If the selflessness was just an attribute of Paul personally, then it could be said that he was just an unusual guy, but the gospel didn’t hold truth because other people were using their positions for personal gain. But Paul points out that this wasn’t the case. None of the people who came to the Corinthians in the name of Jesus Christ took advantage of the people, nor did they teach anything different that what Paul taught. Paul asks, “did Titus make a gain of you? Walked we not in the same spirit? Walked we not in the same steps?” Basic human nature is hedonistic and selfish, and if there is one man who is not at all like that, then we can look at him as an anomaly. He’s probably nice to have around because he’s always working for your good and he’s trustworthy, but we could look at him and say, “he’s born like that,” or “I can never be like that because he’s the only one I know who is that way.” But if there are several people who are all that conspicuously different and they all believe in the same religion, then we have to ask ourselves, what’s the common denominator? We can rationalize to ourselves that one person was born with an extreme attitude of indifference toward self, but it is harder to make that same rationalization when it is several people and the only thing they have in common is this one belief structure. One person is unusual, many is inspiring.