For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. –2 Corinthians 12:14
Before you put that verse on a coffee mug and send it to your parents to explain why you aren’t getting them a Christmas present, perhaps consider the context of 2 Corinthians 12 first.
The Context
We will not understand this verse without understanding a little about the patron/client relationships in the Roman world. When a traveling salesman, speaker, or explorer came to a new land he would find a wealthy and influential person to support his venture. It was a great honor to be considered a patron. And it was beneficial to be the client of a well-respected patron. In a world which relied so heavily on hospitality such a thing was vital.
But there were also strings attached to this relationship. It’s not completely analogous, but we see something similar in our politician/donor relationships. If someone gives a substantial donation to a politician then he/she expects to have some say on policy and the way the politician will govern. The same was true in the ancient world. The patron had a bit of influence on the client he was supporting.
When Paul came into Corinth he completely rejected this model. He refused to take their money. This was relatively insulting. Hence, we read in 2 Corinthians 12:13 that the Corinthians felt disrespected by Paul. They wondered why Paul would receive support from the churches in Macedonia and yet refuse support from them.
In 2 Corinthians 12:11-21 Paul is sharing why he continues to refuse to “be a burden” to them. The crux of his argument is that his relationship to the Corinthians is that of a father and his children. It is the duty of a father to provide for his children, not the other way around.
The Meaning:
Paul’s meaning here is not to be considered a universal principle but an illustration. The key phrase here is “children”. Paul’s meaning we can derive from the context. He does not mean adult children and their relationship with their aging parents. He means small children who are under the care and guidance of their parents. As an example, I do not expect my small children to pay our mortgage. Instead, I know it is my duty as a parent to provide nurturing for them and to work towards their maturity.
This doesn’t really move the potential offense, though. Paul is basically calling the Corinthians children. Yet, that should not surprise us. He said this much in 1 Corinthians. They are still exhibiting immaturity. If they want to show that they have matured, then Paul has given them a perfect avenue to do so; namely, the Jerusalem mission. But Paul rejects their patronage because it would not be for their benefit. That would put them in the role of father and Paul in the role of child. This would harm their understanding of the gospel, and so even though potentially being misunderstood Paul continues down the path of love.
Conclusion:
This is why context is vital when reading Scripture. If you ripped this verse out of context, you’d end up actually encouraging disobedience of a verse where the intention is to lay down a principle about care for family:
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8
If possible, widows should be provided for by their immediate family members. That is the principle Paul is laying down. In fact, the principle in Scripture is that children are required to help their parents as they age. The roles reverse.
Always look at the surrounding context and find the meaning of a verse based on the author’s original intention. It is clear from the context that Paul is not teaching something which would contradict 1 Timothy 5. Yes, parents should provide for their children when they are pursuing their maturity and growth. It’s the loving thing to do. But there comes a time when these roles reverse and children should care for their parents.
—
Photo source: here
One Comment
Comments are closed.