2 Corinthians 1:12-2:11

2 Corinthians 1:12-2:11

Introduction: Read the text. Reread the text closely (look for repeated words, pay attention to the conjunctions, figures of speech, etc.).

Literary Context: With the shorter epistles we will be able to spend more time discussing the literary context, which serves essentially as just a reminder of what we discussed in the previous chapter leading up to the one being discussed that day in class. With 2 Corinthians, we are going to summarize these different section in one or two sentences, but you will be expected to remember different aspects about the text for the test. So, summarize for me 2 Cor 1.1-11. (Paul beginning to reconcile, describing how God comforted him so that they may also be comforted).

1.12-14: In vv. 12-14 the key term is καύχησις “ground of boasting.” Boasting will be a much discussed subject in 2 Cor. The word group (two nouns and one verb) is used 29 times throughout the letter (concordance). To put that into perspective, these three words are only used 55 times in total in the NT (so more than half of those occurrences are here in 2 Cor.). Part of the reason for that rests with who the Corinthians are (or at least the culture in which they found themselves). Garland notes (and I agree with him) that 1 Cor as well as what we know of the culture testify that the city was filled with boastful braggarts. He writes: “Boasting, arrogance, and contempt for others of lesser status were common in the Corinthian environment and were gaining a secure place in the church as well” (86).

Paul will speak at length concerning the issue of boasting in oneself, and will instead reiterate the principle stated by Jeremiah whom he quotes in 2 Cor 10:17 “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Well, this is precisely what we find him doing in these three verses. His boast concerns his behavior (characterized by simplicity, with the idea of he was not trying to swindle them or be two face, and sincerity). He did not maintain this conduct through “the wisdom of the flesh” (a subject much discussed in 1 Cor), but by the grace of God. Notice how he attributes his Christian conduct to the grace of God and not as coming from his own good self.

These verses serve as a defense of his integrity. First he defends his conduct that was lived in the grace of God, in verse 13 he defends the sincerity of his letters. Apparently there were some who charged him of double speak or tried to manipulate what he had actually said. Verse 13 clearly states that he said what he meant and spoke in a straightforward manner.

Verse 14 again points to the reconciliatory dimension of this letter in which he depicts both parties on the day of the Lord boasting about what God has done in and through both. The Corinthians will recognize just how powerfully God worked in this suffering apostle (though for a time they looked down upon his suffering) and the apostle will boast in the grace of God displayed and at work in his spiritual children.

1.15-17: Now the defense of his integrity will shift from a somewhat general discussion concerning his conduct and his writings to a specific issue, namely, his change in travel plans. Apparently, as Kruse notes: “the Corinthians took (his change in plans) as evidence of insincerity in his dealings with them” (101).

These verses indicate that Paul had planned a double visit in which he would be able to spend a substantial amount of time with them (as he indicated that he wanted to do in 1 Cor 16). Witherington III suggests that Paul did make the first visit, but the plan changed when “he thought better of the second visit and sent a painful letter instead…this in turn led to a charge that he was not keeping his promises” (363). (The role of Titus 2 Cor 2:12-13). It certainly seems that some among them have used this change of plans and blown them out of proportion in order to attack Paul’s character. The charge would essentially be: “He fails to keep his promises, as Jesus taught us to do.”

Notice the language of verse 17. Is it familiar? Both Jesus and James use this language in regard to keeping oaths, deeming it unnecessary to make an oath but that one’s word should simply be “Yes” or “No.” Paul’s two questions in verse 17 expect a negative answer (the Gk. construction using the μήτι demonstrates this). “I was not being fickle when I wanted to do this, was I?” I do not make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’, do I?” Making plans “according to the flesh” implies a willingness to renege on promises made or to “speak out of both sides of one’s mouth.” Paul makes it very clear that his model for promise making does not come from the flesh.

1.18-22: Rather his model for promise making comes from God the Father and is in keeping with the faithfulness of the Gospel that he preached to them. It is worth noting that in Paul’s defense of his integrity in changing the travel plans he makes a theological argument first. He sees his actions through the lens of who he is in Christ.

The term pistos is fronted in verse 18. It is the point of emphasis. If the charge against Paul is that he was not faithful to his word, the rebuttal of Paul is that God is faithful and the message that Paul preached from God is trustworthy (it’s not “Yes” and “No” at the same time, but as we shall see, it is a resounding yes).

Garland sums up the argument of verse 18 well: “God is faithful, and God’s faithfulness guarantees Paul’s word to them. That word involves far more than his travel plans. It encompasses Paul’s preaching of Christ among them” (102). This reasoning demonstrates the trustworthiness of God’s ambassador. They know that his word is trustworthy, how? Because he is preaching the message of God who is faithful.

And the word that he brought to them (along with Silvannus, who is better known as Silas, and Timothy) concerned the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Rarely do we find Paul using this full title for Jesus. Kruse notes that this occurs in just three other places in Paul’s writings (104). The question becomes: “Why?” It seems that he does so in order to point to the fullness of Jesus’s fulfillment of the OT promises. By referring to Jesus as the “Son of God” he alludes to the promise made to David concerning his descendant whom God would call his own son. By referring to him as “Christ” he alludes to all of the OT scriptures (including many of the Psalms) that refer to God’s anointed one.

So, by referring to Jesus in this manner he sets up the ground work for what he will state in verse 20, but in verse 19 his point is that there is no fickleness with Christ. As Kruse writes: “There is no inconsistency in Jesus Christ, the one proclaimed by Paul in his gospel—he is not ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, but always ‘Yes’, that is, he is utterly reliable” (104). And, as verse 20 makes clear, God demonstrates his faithfulness in keeping his promises in Christ, for “as many promises of God as there are, in him they are YES.” The promises given to Abraham, fulfilled in Christ. To David, fulfilled in Christ. To Israel, fulfilled in Christ. The EDNT notes: “Jesus Christ is the yes to all God’s promises (v. 20); he has shown them to be trustworthy” (456).

God has operated “in Christ” and Paul and his companions have affirmed the trustworthiness of this YES “through Christ.” They have given the “Amen” (truly, so be it, carrying the sense of positively affirming what was said) “through Christ” and this to the glory of God.

Now, we see how Paul has confirmed the trustworthiness of God and we wonder “to what end?” because was not his initial goal to rebut the notion that he himself was untrustworthy? It goes back to how Paul views his very self. Paul’s conduct is dictated by who he is in God (we saw that in verse 12), and it is this trustworthy God that continues to empower Paul (as well as the Corinthians). That is the idea expressed in verse 21. As Carson writes: “God was constantly producing stability not fickleness in Paul and the Corinthians, who were his secure possession, sealed and indwelt by the Spirit” (2363).

“Establishes” (βεβαιόω) is a present active participle here, meaning that God continues to “establish, or cause to stand firm” both the Corinthians and Paul in Christ. The rest of the participles are in the aorist and take place before. Thus, we could translate it: “having anointed us and having put his seal on us and having given us the Spirit, he establishes us.” This is worth noting because it roots God’s current and future faithfulness in his past acts of faithfulness. This is especially evident in his giving us the Spirit. He refers to it as the ἀρραβών, the first-installment. Now, what is expected when one receives a first-installment? Future installments. When you get the down payment, you anticipate the rest in full. Barclay writes: “When Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as an arrabon given to us by God, he means that the kind of life we live by the help of the Holy Spirit is the first instalment of the life of heaven and the guarantee that the fullness of that life will some day open upon us. The gift of the Holy Spirit is God’s token and pledge of still greater things to come” (211).

1.23-24: With such an emphasis put on the faithfulness of the God and the Gospel that Paul serves and proclaims, the understood question becomes: Would Paul, who serves and worships such a faithful God, who is continually being established and stabilized by him, be so fickle as to act according to the flesh in making his travel plans? Verses 23-24 are a resounding “NO.”

Paul calls on God as a witness against him. That is to say, that if Paul is lying and has changed his plans for worldly selfish reasons not in keeping with the promise making model set by God, God will be the one to destroy him. This then leads to Paul’s reasons for changing his plans. It was not a fickle reasoning, but a Christ-minded desire for their better. It was to spare them that he did not make the second trip. Should he have returned to them it would have resulted in an additional painful visit. He would have brought with him additional disciplinary action (as he alluded to in 1 Cor), and the result may have been a congregation of believers convinced that Paul wanted to rule as a tyrant over them. He makes it clear in verse 24 that his intent is not to rule them (though he has apostolic authority that he can exercise over them), but to “work with them for their joy.” Paul’s intent was for their “joy” not further grief.

2.1-4: This brings us to chapter 2 in which the painful visit and the third letter are described with a little more detail. Paul “judged within himself” not to make another painful visit. As Kruse points out, Paul is in a no-win situation. If he makes the return visit, it will be painful. If he doesn’t, then his opponents will appear to be the winners. If he writes to them, then he will be accused of (as he was accused) “being bold when absent, but timid when present” (2 Cor 10.1).

What Paul describes here is filled with pain. This was no easy decision, but made so as to avoid causing further pain than necessary for the Corinthians. The noun λύπη (hurt, pain, sadness) is used three times in these 11 verses, and the verb form of the word is used 5 times in that same span. Quite clearly the subject of these verses is pain. Paul’s reasoning for not making the return visit (not reasoned according to the flesh, but reasoned according to the character and working of God) was for the benefit of the Corinthians.

Verse 2 demonstrates the intimate connection between Paul and the Corinthians. Why would he desire to come and inflict further pain, for they are a source of his gladness? Harris notes: “To cause them pain was to experience pain himself, a pain that could be relieved and then converted into gladness only by their repentance” (450). Think in terms of a father with his children. It does not bring me joy to punish my children because they are a source of joy to me.

This leads Paul to say why he wrote instead. See, the pain would still need to be inflicted in part, but Paul would spare them and himself of the full measure of it. He wrote, so “that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice.” This lost letter was severe and was written to ensure that the next visit would not be painful (a visit that Paul plans to make after 2 Cor). This is part of the purpose for his writing 2 Cor as well (albeit with a good report from Titus preceding it). He states in 13:10 “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.”

In the latter half of verse 3 he demonstrates that he can be confident in writing because (presumably through the working of the Holy Spirit) he still felt sure of their goodwill towards him. If they fully understood his love for them (that they are his joy and that he is not eager to cause them pain), then they would want to bring him joy (just like a child wants to make his father happy). Kruse writes: “Most likely, Paul, despite the current distress he felt, continued to have confidence in the basic goodwill of his converts based upon his assurance of the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives” (112).

But verse 4 makes clear that this “severe letter” was no cake walk to write. The letter was written “through many tears.” Whatever pain they felt as a result of the letter was matched or even surpassed by the one who wrote it, but the purpose of writing it was not for the pain. Again, we’ll go back to the example of a father. A father spanks his child (or disciplines the child) not for the sake of merely inflicting pain. Such a man would be a terrible father. Rather, the punishment is given to demonstrate the love of the father. Keener notes that in this time: “Disciplining a son with a rod was considered loving behavior for a father…” (358).

Carson talks about the grammatical construction of this phrase and how it fits the Semitic idiom of “not X, but Y” which means something like “not primarily X, but Y.” He gives the example from Hosea 6:6 “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” Well does this mean that God does not desire sacrifice? Clearly he did at the time of the command, but the primary desire was for mercy. So Carson notes: “Here Paul is not rejecting pain or grief as a God-given means of repentance. Love and the infliction of pain are not incompatible. God can use love-inflicted pain to produce a ‘repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret’ (2 Cor 7.10)” (ZSB 2364). The primary intent was not pain, but so that the Corinthians would know the abundant love that Paul has for them. Thus, the letter limits the amount of pain inflicted, and has the better chance of producing this “Godly-grief” that leads to repentance rather than a worldly-grief that leads to despair.

2.5-11: From this Paul moves to the specific incident and individual who played a leading role in Paul’s early departure from Corinth. There is a lot of speculation surrounding just who this individual is. Early church writings stated that this was the same man that was to be dealt with in 1 Cor 5 (the man in the incestuous relationship); however, most commentators reject this identification for a number of reason (though I suggest that you read Garland’s discussion of the subject in the NAC. He gives what I think are fair reasons for maybe identifying these two as the same individual). However we identify him (and Paul for purposes of reconciliation does not go into further details about the incident nor does he name the individual), it is relatively clear that the issue at hand was not so much a theological debate but rather the individual took issue with Paul personally and challenged his authority outright during Paul’s painful visit to them.

If, as seems likely, this man did publicly attempt to humiliate Paul and challenge his authority, he was engaging in what Garland refers to as a “Roman custom of publicly ridiculing enemies with invective to humiliate them and divest them of their friends” (121-22). Marshall notes that “fear of public humiliation ran deep in Roman and Greek society” (Garland ft note 173 page 122). We are aware that it was an honor shame culture where honor was a limited resource and this individual was apparently operating wholly in this culture.

However, Paul makes it clear that this issue was not just a matter of personal grievance, but one that lead to pain for the entire community. There is some discussion concerning the phrase “not to put it too severely” for it could equally be rendered “not to be too severe” with an understood (him), but it seems likely that Paul is here making it clear that he is not exaggerating the point. He was not the primary one who was caused pain by the incident, it was them.

Verse 6 lets us know that the majority meted out a proper punishment against the individual. The phraseology may indicate a small minority that did not assent to the punishment, or it may just mean “everyone but the individual.” The point of focus in this verse is the sufficiency of the punishment. The word ἱκανός is fronted. The formal punishment (for the Gk term here indicates that it was a formal punishment) has been sufficient. This in turn lets us know that punishment in the church is both retributory and remedial. The offender receives the proper punishment for a crime and this punishment is given to lead this one to repentance.

And in the following verses we see that this very thing has taken place. Verse 7 then indicates the churches proper response when one repents: “forgive graciously” (the Gk. here is related to the Gk. χάρις translated “grace”) and παρακαλέω (encourage, comfort) a term we have become familiar with thanks to chapter 1. The reason for doing so is because without this gracious forgiveness and the comforting that causes weak knees to be strengthened, he would be “devoured by excessive grief.” Again the noun λύπη occurs here (that we have been translating as pain) and is that which the Christian seek to mitigate. With the λύπη has led to repentance, being devoured (for that is the word picture of the verb used by Paul here) by excessive grief would lead to despair.

Thus in verse 8 Paul “encourages” (παρακαλέω) them to “reaffirm” their love for him. Keener notes that the term “confirm” was “often used in legal settings with reference to confirming the verdict; here the Corinthians are to confirm their love instead” (502). “Here is our verdict: We love you.” For the man operating in an honor-shame culture who had formerly sought to destroy Paul, such an affirmation would speak volumes concerning the grace he had just received. Whereas he sought to make Paul a nobody, Paul sought to reinstate him as a member of the family.

Now in verse 9 Paul tells them that the reason that he wrote the letter of tears was “so that I may know your proven character, if you are obedient in all things.” Bottom line is, Paul wanted to know if they would respond to the incident in a godly fashion or if they would fail the test and remain bystanders, or worse yet, advocates of one who blatantly disregarded the authority of one sent by God. The answer from the majority was: “Yes.”

There obedience would be needed further in the matter of reinstating and forgiving the individual. The first sentence of verse 10 could be translated: “Anyone you graciously forgive, I also.” “Your verdict, is mine.” In fact, Paul takes the initiative to forgive and (for the benefit of the individual) even downplays the personal offence that he incurred. This demonstrates his unwillingness to nurse a grudge or to lord over a person their own personal sin as his triumph over them.

But, we should not get stuck in the thought that “I forgive others for my own benefit, for it is a horrible thing to hold a grudge and just makes you feel worse.” Yeah, sure, whatever. Paul makes it clear that forgiveness and an unwillingness to hold a grudge is for the sake of the one who has sinned (as we just saw in the previous verses) and for the sake of the body of believers (as he says: “if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ”), and all this occurring “before the face of Christ.”

There is an additional purpose statement attached to this, however, “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.” The term translated “outwitted” here is πλεονεκτέω. It is part of the word group that is often translated “covet” and the like. As it is used in the Jewish literature it refers to defrauding or unlawful gain. The TDNTA asserts that in Paul’s writing the term always carries the sense “take material advantage” with one exception, 2 Cor 2:11. However, Kruse and Garland both argue that this idea may still be present here in that Satan is seeking to “defraud” or “rob” the Church (and thus God) of that which rightly belongs to him, namely the individual that had been punished. In this sense, Paul would be arguing that the punishment has been sufficient to lead to repentance, but if it persists it would lead to the theft of the individual by Satan.