‘Have To’: How We Distort the Gospel with One Phrase
What book of the New Testament do you think of as the clearest discussion of cruciformity? Of the upside-down logic of God’s reign? Of pure, distilled liberation theology?
Until I just finished translating it, I would never have thought of 2 Corinthians, but I’m now convinced it’s exactly that.
The gospels are full of discussion of all those things, and Jesus exemplifies them in so many ways. James is basically a manifesto on justice for the poor. Galatians is emphatic about inclusion for all people groups.
And 2 Corinthians says succinctly: “When I am weak, that’s when I’m powerful.”
That’s it. That summarizes the entire book.
That leaves me with some questions:
If Paul spends thirteen chapters trying to show that his complete lack of coercion toward them is the point, then why does he threaten them?
If he is trying to get them to see his vulnerability and refusal to wield power over them are what legitimize his calling, then why does he attempt to manipulate them?
If he insists that the so-called “super apostles” are actually “false apostles” precisely because they posture themselves above the community, then why does he menace them with his words in 2 Corinthians 13:10?
This is what I’m talking about:
“So I write these things while I am away from you, so that when I come I may not have to be severe in using the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down” (2 Corinthians 13:10 NRSVue).
Here’s how I hear this verse in that translation:
I’m writing these things to correct you, so you’ll have time to shape up before I get there. If you don’t, I’ll be forced to use my God-given authority to tear you down. I would rather build you up, but if you leave me no choice, I’ll do what I have to do.
What just happened? That’s not in line with being weak for their benefit (2 Corinthians 13:3-4). It’s not in line with being like Christ. In fact, it’s contrary to the whole message not only of 2 Corinthians but of the entire New Testament.
It’s not just nonsensical, it’s abusive. It’s the kind of logic a husband uses when he beats his wife for displeasing him and says, “Look what you made me do!”
So what do we do with this? Is it proof that the Bible is unreliable? Or that Paul is a manipulative egomaniac?
It would be.
But that’s not what it says.
Every major translation arbitrarily adds the words “have to,” and that addition completely changes the meaning of the verse.
Here’s my translation, which stays closer to the Greek:
“That’s why I’m writing these things while I’m away, so that—in alignment with the freedom that the Liberating Sovereign gave me for building up, not tearing down—I won’t treat you harshly when I’m there” (2 Corinthians 13:10 LIT).
Do you see the shift? I’ll break it down. It’s subtle but essential.
In a super-literal translation that follows the Greek word-for-word in order, it reads like this:
“Because of this, I’m writing these things while away so that when I’m present I might not make use [of you] harshly according to the freedom/authority which the Sovereign/Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down.”
Notice the complete lack of “have to.”
The LIT rendering moves the clauses around to make it easier to follow, but it’s far more literal in meaning than any of the major translations available. Of course, a more literal translation is not always the best translation, but in this case, it preserves the meaning more faithfully.
Here’s the difference in meaning as I see it:
The traditional translation creates a scenario in which Paul threatens the Corinthians with harsh treatment and implies that if he does treat them harshly, they will have been asking for it.
But the LIT rendering shows that it’s about something completely different: Paul taking accountability for his own actions.
He knows he would be tempted to be harsh with them if he waits until he is with them in person to confront them. So, instead of waiting and reacting in the moment, he takes proactive steps to communicate in a way that he thinks is beneficial for them, for building them up.
He is practical about preventing himself from betraying his calling, preventing himself from tearing them down. That’s why he writes the letter before he gets there: It’s not a warning for them but an accountability measure for himself.
But, if that’s what’s happening here, why do all the other translations add “have to”?
Every translation effort necessarily involves some creativity in bringing things into English. Languages aren’t codes to decipher. There’s rarely a perfect match between phrases. Even in my hyper-literal translation above, I had to add “[of you]” to make it make sense in English. That’s part of the deal when working across languages.
There’s no secret decoder ring in a cereal box. And selecting the first entry in a Greek lexicon isn’t the move of an experienced translator; it’s what you do in your first semester as a student.
You may have noticed my use of ‘freedom’ where all major translations use ‘authority’ (except KJV, which uses ‘power’) to render exousia. That’s not a mistake. It’s another example of how translators get so used to reaching for the usual option that they forget other legitimate ones even exist.
And again, if your assumption is that power-plays are necessary, why would you even think of translating it any other way?
But in this case, there’s no creativity or judgment call needed, nothing to add to make it make sense. It’s completely uncalled for to add “have to.” In fact, adding those words takes it farther away from the meaning, not closer.
So again, why?
Because most of us can’t imagine a world, even guided by Jesus, that truly rejects power over others. It’s so ingrained in us to believe that some form of control over people is necessary and right that even Spirit-led, Jesus-following Bible translators can’t make sense of that verse without it. They think it’s nonsense, a meaningless string of words, until they add “have to” to reintroduce authority as domination.
It’s not nonsense.
People thinking it’s nonsense is nothing new though. Paul addressed that very thing in his first letter to the Corinthians:
“22 You see, Jews demand signs and Greeks seek out worldly wisdom, 23 but we announce a crucified Christ, both an obstacle for Jews and nonsense to other peoples, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, we announce Christ as God’s powerful act and God’s wisdom. 25 The supposed nonsense of God is wiser than what humans consider wisdom, and the supposed weakness of God is stronger than what humans consider strength” (1 Corinthians 1:22-25 LIT).
Worldly wisdom can’t imagine a world in which controlling others isn’t necessary. Worldly strength assumes violence is a required tool for survival.
It’s natural to believe these things. But Paul insists on something contrary to our instincts and to what most of us assume to be true.
And of course, Paul isn’t inventing something new. Jesus himself had already addressed what it means to be called to leadership in the Heavenly Reign, with its counterintuitive logic that flips the world’s assumptions about power upside-down:
“You see how the leaders of other peoples lord over them, and the powerful people impose control over them. 26 It will not be that way with you. Instead, whichever of you wants to become important among you will be a servant among you, 27 and whichever of you wants to be first will take on the role of a worker enslaved to the rest of you” (Matthew 20:25-27 LIT).
We all forget this teaching sometimes though. It’s impossible to hold onto it all the time because every system, every institution, every group, and every relationship is saturated with the message that strength means power over others. We do our best to resist it, but it takes constant effort.
So, like the rest of us in our own ways, translators sometimes stray from the path of Christ, even while translating the scriptures about Christ. Like the so-called “super apostles,” they completely miss the point. And like the Corinthians, we must be vigilant. We must watch out for the work of false apostles, even in the text of our Bible translations and the logic of domination they teach.
This isn’t just about being picky about translation choices. It’s about resisting the constant current flowing against the way of Jesus. It’s about enduring in the insistence that power looks like weakness. It’s about staying faithful to the path that follows Jesus as a servant willing to suffer, rather than as a despot pursuing conquest.
Paul wasn’t just trying to avoid using justified, if unpleasant, coercion and shame. He was ensuring he would stay faithful to Jesus, to the way that would rather die than tear others down.
When we let domination slip into our lives, into the church, and even into the Bible, we misrepresent the entire gospel. We misrepresent Christ. We erect fortresses that keep people out of the Heavenly Reign and away from understanding God’s love.
And as Paul said,
“3 You see, though we walk in bodies, we don’t go on the march according to self-serving impulses 4 because the tools of our campaign are not self-serving but are empowered by God for tearing down fortresses—dismantling assumptions 5 and every barrier raised against the understanding of God, driving every pattern of thought toward the Christlike way of humble responsiveness” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5 LIT).
Like Paul, we have to be willing to endure any cost rather than embrace coercion of others. Like Paul, we have to take pride not in power over others but in the willingness to endure any hardship if it means empowering others.
Like Paul, when we are weak, that’s when we’re strong.
Anything less is not the gospel of Christ, “who humbled himself, taking listening to instruction as far as death, even death by a cross” (Philippians 2:8 LIT).
