What say ye? ***I really think regarding 2 Corinthians 8:9 that Albert Barnes (Barnes notes) said it best in the following: Btw, I will give what he said in two parts.
***Part 1: Verse 9. For ye know, etc. The apostle Paul was accustomed to illustrate every subject, and to enforce every duty, where it could be done, by a reference to the life and sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ. The design of this verse is apparent. It is to show the duty of giving liberally to the objects of benevolence, from the fact that the Lord Jesus was willing to become poor in order that he might benefit others. The idea is, that he who was Lord and Proprietor of the universe, and who possessed all things, was willing to leave his exalted station in the bosom of the Father and to become poor, in order that we might become rich in the blessings of the gospel, in the means of grace, and as heirs of all things; and that we who are thus benefited, and who have such an example, should be willing to part with our earthly possessions in order that we may benefit others.
The grace. The benignity, kindness, mercy, goodness. His coming in this manner was a proof of the highest benevolence. Though he was rich. The riches of the Redeemer here referred to, stand opposed to that poverty which he assumed and manifested when he dwelt among men. It implies
(1.) his pre-existence, for he became poor. He had been rich; yet not in this world. He did not lay aside wealth here on earth after he had possessed it, for he had none. He was not first rich and then poor on earth, for he had no earthly wealth. The Socinian interpretation is, that he was “rich in power and in the Holy Ghost;” but it was not true that he laid these aside, and that he became poor in either of them. He had power, even in his poverty, to still the waves, and to raise the dead, and he was always full of the Holy Ghost. His family was poor; and his parents were poor; and he was himself poor all his life. This, then, must refer to a state of antecedent riches before his assumption of human nature; and the expression is strikingly parallel to that in Philippians 2:6, seq. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation,” etc.
(2.) He was rich as the Lord and Proprietor of all things. He was the Creator of all, (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16 and as Creator he had a right to all things, and the disposal of all things. The most absolute right which can exist is that acquired by the act of creation; and this right the Son of God possessed over all gold, and silver, and diamonds, and pearls; over all earth and lands; over all the treasures of the ocean, and over all worlds. The extent and amount of his riches, therefore, is to be measured by the extent of his dominion over the universe; and to estimate his riches, therefore, we are to conceive of the sceptre which he sways over the distant worlds. What wealth has man that can compare with the riches of the Creator and Proprietor of all? How poor and worthless appears all the gold that man can accumulate, compared with the wealth of Him whose are the silver, and the gold, and the cattle upon a thousand hills?
Yet for your sakes. That is, for your sakes as a part of the great family that was to be redeemed. In what respect it was for their sake, the apostle immediately adds when he says, it was that they might be made rich. It was not for his own sake, but it was for our.
***Part two: He became poor. In the following respects:
(1.) He chose a condition of poverty, a rank of life that was usually that of poverty. He “took upon himself the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:7.
(2.) He was connected with a poor family. Though of the family and lineage of David, (Luke 9:4) yet the family had fallen into decay, and was poor. In the Old Testament he is beautifully represented as a shoot or sucker that starts up from the root of a decayed tree. See Barnes “Isaiah 11:1”.
(3.) His whole life was a life of poverty. He had no home, Luke 9:58. He chose to be dependent on the charity of the few friends that he drew around him, rather than to create food for the abundant supply of his own wants. He had no farms or plantations; he had no splendid palaces; he had no money hoarded in useless coffers or in banks; he had no property to distribute to his friends. His mother he commended when he died to the charitable attention of one of his disciples,. (John 19:27 and all his personal property seems to have been the raiment which he wore, and which was divided among the soldiers that crucified him. Nothing is more remarkable than the difference between the plans of the Lord Jesus and those of many of his followers and professed friends. He formed no plan for becoming rich, and he always spoke with the deepest earnestness of the dangers which attend an effort to accumulate property. He was among the most poor of the sons of men in his life; and few have been the men on earth who have not had as much as he had to leave to surviving friends, or to excite the cupidity of those who should fall heirs to their property when dead.
(4.) He died poor. He made no will in regard to his property, for he had none to dispose of. He knew well enough the effect which would follow if he had amassed wealth, and had left it to be divided among his followers. They were very imperfect; and even around the cross there might have been anxious discussion, and perhaps strife about it, as there is often now over the coffin and the unclosed grave of a rich and foolish father who has died. Jesus intended that his disciples should never be turned away from the great work to which he called them, by any wealth which he would leave them; and he left them not even a keepsake as a memorial of his name. All this is the more remarkable, from two considerations:
(a.) That he had it in his power to choose the manner in which he would come. He might have come in the condition of a splendid prince. He might have rode in a chariot of ease, or have dwelt in a magnificent palace. He might have lived with more than the magnificence of an oriental prince; and might have bequeathed treasures greater than those of Croesus or Solomon to his followers. But he chose not to do it.
(b.) It would have been as right and proper for him to have amassed wealth, and to have sought princely possessions, as for any of his followers. What is right for them would have been right for him. Men often mistake on this subject; and though it cannot be demonstrated that all his followers should aim to be as poor as he was, yet it is undoubtedly true that he meant that his example should operate constantly to check their desire of amassing wealth. In him it was voluntary; in us there should be always a readiness to be poor, if such be the,will of God; nay, there should be rather a preference to be in moderate circumstances, that we may thus be like the Redeemer.
That ye through his poverty might be rich. That is, might have durable and eternal riches, the riches of God’s everlasting favour. This includes
(1.) the present possession of an interest in the Redeemer himself. “Do you see these extended fields?” said the owner of a vast plantation to a friend. “They are mine. All this is mine.” “Do you see yonder poor cottage?” was the reply of the friend, as he directed his attention to the abode of a poor widow. “She has more than all this. She has CHRIST as her portion; and that is more than all.” He who has an interest in the Redeemer has a possession that is of more value than all that princes can bestow.
(2.) The heirship of an eternal inheritance, the prospect of immortal glory, Romans 8:17.
(3.) Everlasting treasures, in heaven. Thus the Saviour compares the heavenly blessings to treasures, Matthew 6:20. Eternal and illimitable wealth is theirs in heaven; and to raise us to that blessed inheritance was the design of the Redeemer in consenting to become poor. This, the apostle says, was to be secured by his poverty. This includes probably the two following things, viz.:
(1.) That it was to be by the moral influence of the fact that he was poor, that men were to be blessed. He designed by his example to counteract the effect of wealth; to teach men that this was not the thing to be aimed at; that there were more important purposes of life than to obtain money; and to furnish a perpetual reproof of those who are aiming to amass riches. The example of the Redeemer thus stands before the whole church and the world as a living and constant memorial of the truth that men need other things than wealth; and that there are objects that demand their time and influence other than the accumulation of property. It is well to have such an example; well to have before us the example of one-who never formed any plan for gain, and who constantly lived above the world. In a world where gain is the great object, where all men are forming plans for it, it is well to have one great model that shall continually demonstrate the folly of it, and that shall point to better things.
(2.) The word “poverty” here may include more than a mere want of property. It may mean all the circumstances of his low estate and humble condition; his sufferings and his woes. The whole train of his privations was included in this; and the idea is, that he gave himself to this lowly condition in order that by his sufferings he might procure for us a part in the kingdom of heaven. His poverty was a part of the sufferings included in the work of the atonement. For it was not the sufferings of the garden merely, or the pangs of the cross, that constituted the atonement; it was the series of sorrows and painful, acts of humiliation which so thickly crowded his life. By all these he designed that we should be made rich; and in view of all these the argument of the apostle is, we should be willing to deny ourselves to do good to others.