and not only [so], but [is] also chosen by the assemblies as our fellow-traveller with this grace, ministered by us to the glory of the Lord himself, and [a witness of] our readiness;
The verse before this one introduced an unnamed brother, and Paul now adds a second thing about him. The churches chose this man to help carry their gift to the poor believers in Jerusalem, which raises two questions: what did that choosing involve, and why does Paul call money a grace?
The Greek word behind "appointed" is rare. Darby says its normal use, not its word history, settles the meaning.
That word means quite simply "they chose." Going by its origin, it hints at the act of stretching out the hand, a common way of voting. But its regular meaning is to choose. The New Testament uses it in this sense twice (2 Corinthians 8:19; Acts 10:41, "witnesses chosen beforehand by God"). These passages leave no doubt about its meaning.
The churches gave the money, so the churches named the men who would carry it. Kelly ties this to Acts 6, where the twelve apostles told the believers in Jerusalem to pick such men themselves.
Here we see an important principle, in exact agreement with the direction of the twelve in Acts 6. The Christian crowd gave the means, so they were left free to choose the administrators. This was as wise as it was gracious... Where the saints gave, they used their own best judgment to choose who would rightly handle their gifts. That held for one assembly, and for the special work of many assemblies together. But in no case did they interfere with the ministers of the word. These the Lord gave, not the church.
Arguments about how church leaders are installed often reach for the word "appointed" here. Dennett answers that this verse is not about that at all.
Here, the churches did the appointing, but we have nothing except the word itself to show the method of appointment. However, this is not the appointment of an elder. It is only the sending of a man by the assemblies to act with the apostle in handling their gifts — an entirely different thing!
Paul refused to travel alone with the fund. Gaebelein reads the whole arrangement as a guard against suspicion.
In all this ministry Paul used great caution. He was "guarding against this, that no one should blame us about this generous gift that is being administered by us." He aimed at "what is honourable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of men." There is always a danger of reproach in these matters. Messengers were chosen to travel with the apostle "with this grace (the collections) which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and as a witness of your ready mind." The apostle knew the schemes of the enemy. So he guarded against suspicion and damaging hints.
Paul would not send even Titus, his fellow worker, on his own.
There can be no doubt that Paul had full confidence in Titus. Even so, he arranged for two other believers to travel with him, to protect Titus and his reputation, so that everything would be confirmed by at least two witnesses.
Paul never settles on one plain name for the money. He keeps renaming it across these two chapters, and Hardt collects the names.
He uses a great variety of expressions for the gift for Jerusalem. In this way he brings out its value in the sight of God: ministry to the saints (8:4; 9:1); "this grace" (8:6, 7, 19); for the glory of the Lord (8:19); a rich gift (8:20); "the proof of your love" (8:24); "the proof of... our boasting" (8:24).
Beside the Lord's glory, the verse names a second purpose: a ready mind. Commentators differ over whose readiness it is — Gaebelein read "your", while Stuart argues for "our", the reading modern versions follow.
Where did this readiness come from? Was it the natural kindness of the human heart bubbling up? The apostle traces it all to its right source — God. It was the grace of God given to the churches of Macedonia... Everyone around him was ready for this good work. So Paul was ready to take charge of their gifts along with others. It was all for the glory of the Lord Himself, and as a witness of our (not your) ready mind. One motive moved all hearts in Greece together to help those in need in Judea: the Lord had made Himself poor for them.
- Grace given. Paul calls the money a grace, a ministry, and a proof of love. His names for it lift a collection into something of value in God's sight.
- Grace chosen. "Appointed" here means chosen. The churches did the choosing themselves, with the same word Acts 10:41 uses of God choosing His witnesses.
- Grace carried. Those who give may pick the men who handle the money. But the church never picks the Lord's ministers of the word. He gives those.
- Grace guarded. Paul would not travel alone with the fund. Extra companions and two witnesses shut the door on blame, because he knew the enemy's schemes.
- Grace crowned. The whole errand aims at the glory of the Lord. He made Himself poor for them, and that is why they were ready to give at all.
avoiding this, that any one should blame us in this abundance [which is] administered by us;
Paul is gathering a large gift from many assemblies for poor believers in Jerusalem. In this verse he explains why he will not carry it alone: the question is not whether he is honest, but what people could say.
Paul never speaks of this collection as plain money. One writer lists the names he gives it.
He uses a great variety of expressions for the gift for Jerusalem, and so brings out its value in the sight of God: ministry of the saints (8:4; 9:1); "this grace" (8:6, 7, 19); for the glory of the Lord (8:19); a rich gift (8:20); "the proof of your love" (8:24).
Money attracts accusation, and Paul knows it. One writer sets his caution beside the damage money has done to the church since.
There is always danger of reproach in these matters... The apostle knew the enemy's schemes, so he guarded against suspicion and malicious hints. See what damage the love of money — covetousness, which is idolatry — has done in the professing church, and what offence it has given to unbelievers.
Paul had every reason to say his record spoke for itself. Instead, his standing made him more careful.
It was not enough for him here that God would know all, so that he might leave it to Him to justify him in His own time and way. If there was any way to prevent even suspicion, he would use it. Not using it might itself become a cause of suspicion... He did not build on his apostleship, or on the clear blessing God had given his work. He never thought himself above the need to clear his name by the same precautions anyone would expect from any other man.
Does such care show a lack of trust in God? One writer says the opposite.
Here is the moral reason for the caution. It is not lack of faith, but faith working by love, which would cut off occasion from men, as well as walk with a pure conscience before God. Paul's words about providing things honourable before the Lord and before men allude to Proverbs 3:4 in the Greek version of the Old Testament.
The practical answer was a team. Paul sent Titus with two others, and the arrangement protected the men as much as the money.
Paul clearly had full confidence in Titus. Even so, he arranged for two other brothers to travel with him, to protect Titus and his reputation (8:18, 22). That way at least two witnesses would confirm everything (verses 20-21). He valued his fellow worker Titus (verse 23), and he did not want any shadow of suspicion to fall on him.
Paul did not appoint the escorts himself. The assemblies that raised the money chose the men who would carry it.
Here we see an important principle, exactly in line with what the twelve apostles directed in Acts 6. The whole body of Christians gave the money, so the apostles left them free to choose those who would handle it. This was as wise as it was gracious. They kept clear of any appearance of favouritism. They stayed with their own work and with prayer, the condition of power... Where the saints gave, they chose. They used their best judgment for the right use of their gifts, whether in one assembly or for the special work of many assemblies.
This care was never meant to stop with Paul. One writer turns it into a test of honesty.
Indeed, the more honest a man is, the more he should want others to examine his actions. So too, anyone trusted to handle money in an assembly should make sure that others check the amounts and the use of any funds.
- The danger. Money in religious hands always draws reproach. The enemy is quick to turn it into suspicion.
- The refusal. Paul would not lean on his apostleship or his record. If a precaution could remove suspicion, he took it.
- The motive. His care was not weak faith. It was faith working by love, cutting off occasion from men and keeping a clear conscience before God.
- The method. Three men travelled together, so at least two witnesses confirmed everything.
- The result. Those who give choose who handles the gift. The honest man welcomes the check.