2 Corinthians 7:2-16

2 Cor 7:2-16

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

Literary Context: Please summarize 2 Cor 1:1-11 (Paul, beginning to reconcile, describes how God comforted him so that they may also be comforted). Now 1:12-23 (Paul defends his integrity and begins to explain the change of plans. He argues for the trustworthiness of his word based on the trustworthiness of God and the Gospel and the work that God is doing in him).

Now 2:1-11 (Paul explains why he changed his travel plans: to avoid causing too much pain. While the letter was necessary, and would cause pain, he did not want to cause excessive pain. He also encourages them to give the verdict of love for the individual who had caused much pain). Now 2:12-17 (Paul expresses his consternation at the absence of Titus’s report while Paul was in Troas. He then describes himself as one captured by the triumphant Christ, and within this asks “who is sufficient for these things?” pointing the ministry of the Gospel).

Now 3:1-18 (He points to the one who makes him sufficient to be an apostle and then describes the nature of the new covenant of which he is a minister, and it is the nature of this ministry that allows him to speak forthrightly about the glory of God made accessible only by means of Christ).

Now 4:1-18 (Paul continues to assert why he speaks boldly and the content of his preaching. He then underscores the power of God by highlighting his own frailty. As he continues to talk about why he can speak boldly he reiterates that his suffering is for the sake of others and demonstrates an intimacy with Christ rather than a separation from God).

Now 5:1-21 (Paul discusses the ‘outer vs. inner’ man in greater detail with an eye towards the unseen and his anticipation thereof and his ‘good courage’ that stems from his confident expectation. This doctrine leads to a proper conduct in Paul, that he makes it his ambition to please God by fulfilling the commission given him, and this leads to a further defense of his ministry where Christ’s love is stated to be the compelling force behind it. Recognizing that Christ died for all leads to a new view of others as either those in Christ or those in need of the ministry of reconciliation. The charge in 6:1 is to not have received this grace of God in vain).

Now 6:3-7:1 (In 6:3-10 Paul commends his apostleship through his endurance of many sufferings and hardships and noted that he did not put a stumbling block before anyone to give them cause to find fault with the ministry. The concept of causing another to stumble was incredibly important in the culture. In 6:11-7:1 Paul begins by saying that any failure to reconcile was not on his part but theirs, and then he proceeds to instruct them that this reconciliation would involve obeying the instruction of their apostle and cutting partnerships with the world).

7.2: The imperative in verse 2 is similar to 6:13. There the imagery was that of making their hearts wider so as to make room for Paul. In verse 2 the image is that of making up a room in their hearts for Paul. In this passage there is no doubt a sense of hospitality and warmness evoked by the term χωρέω.

It is unclear if there was a specific accusation that Paul has in mind as he gives this list of things he has not done; however, what is clear is that this serves as a further defense of his integrity demonstrated towards them. He has not treated anyone “unjustly” (ἀδικέω). Given what we read in chapter 5 we recognize that just the reverse was true, he had been treated unjustly by at least one of them. He has “corrupted no one.” According to Kruse, Paul’s usage of this term φθείρω in the Corinthian correspondence deals particularly with moral conduct. In 1 Cor 15:33 Paul states: “Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals.” Thus Kruse concludes: “Paul’s meaning in the present context is that he has caused the church no harm; his teaching and example have not corrupted it or encouraged immoral behavior” (187). Neither has he “taken advantage of/exploited for his own advantage” anyone. The term he uses here is the same term that he used concerning Satan in 2:11 where Satan is depicted as robbing the church of the repentant man. Paul will end up using it again twice in chapter 12 and in these three instances finances seems to be an underlying factor (interestingly enough, of the five occurrences of this term in the NT, four are in 2 Cor). Paul is thus stating that he has retained his integrity in all of these things and has not wronged the Corinthians at any point.

7.3: Now, this defense of his own integrity leads him to let them know that he is not calling upon the judge to then scrutinize harshly the prosecutor who brought the case against him. In other words, he is not defending himself in order to condemn them. He follows up this assurance with a reminder of his great affection for them, an affection we have seen him express not that long ago in 6:12-13. Here he speaks of “having them in his heart in order to die together and live together.” That is the word order of the verse in the Greek. The NIV reverses it, and I’ll point out why that is important in a moment.

The expression “to live together and die together” conveys intense loyalty and fidelity. It is a willingness to die shoulder to shoulder (think of a soldier saying these words to his commander 2 Sam 15:21). Keener writes: “The greatest expression of friendship in Greco-Roman literature was willingness to die with someone” (510). However, in reversing the terms Paul may very well be recalling the cruciform life of the believers. We have died with Christ and now live with him. He may also be recalling the yet future life of the believers, in which case Paul depicts an eternal fidelity between the two. Garland writes: “His phrasing refers to ‘future death in Christ and future life in Christ after death.’ The bond between them will therefore remain ‘in future death and future life’” (344-45).

7.4: The first two lines in verse 4 are parallel statements and both express a sense of boasting that Paul has in the Corinthians. The first can be translated “frankness” or “boldness of speech” which some translations follow; however, as Baker notes, the parallel nature of the two phrases points more to a double statement of confidence and boasting that Paul has in the Corinthians themselves (272).

The following two clauses don’t follow this same parallelism, but they do continue to express Paul’s joy and confidence as a result of the report from Titus concerning the Corinthians that Paul will discuss in vv. 5-16. He says: “I am filled with παράκλησις (comfort/encouragement), superabounding in joy in all our affliction.” This is not the language of someone who is greatly distressed and vexed spiritually, but the language of one whose confidence has been demonstrated to have been secure. He has not been disappointed, but is rather quite proud of his spiritual children. This is the language of someone whose concerns extend beyond his own nose (even in his affliction because they have done what is right, he is overjoyed).

7.5: That affliction is described in verse 5. In this we move on from the so-called “great digression” to resume the topic of ch. 2 and Titus’s report. In chapter 2 we found Paul moving on from Troas despite the open door for effective ministry because of his great concern for the Corinthians and the absence of Titus. We find him now in Macedonia undergoing that “crushing pressure” (θλῖψις, a term we became familiar with in ch. 1).

We do not know exactly where he was in Macedonia at this time, which makes it difficult to identify exactly what the “fighting without” was. It may refer to external physical persecution, quarrels and opposition, or even (as Garland suggests) spiritual warfare against Satan (351). Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the dangers he faced in Asia did not just all of a sudden cease.

The fears within are perhaps best seen as being related to Paul’s concern for the Corinthians themselves. Since he has sent the letter of tears he is greatly concerned with how it will be received and if they will respond properly to it. Kruse writes: “The fears within could refer to…fear about the spiritual losses that would be incurred if the Corinthians did not react positively to his ‘severe letter’” (190). This makes sense since what has brought superabounding joy to Paul is the report that he received from Titus.

7.6-7: Moving to verse 6 I want us to notice the language of encouragement/comfort that picks up from chapter 1. Paul places the credit for the comfort that he has been filled with where it rightfully belongs, the God who comforts (as he was called in ch. 1). Just by way of reminder, remember that comfort here is not so much in line with our modern notion of comfort, but as Garland states: “Comfort relates to encouragement, help, exhortation. God’s comfort strengthens weak knees and sustains sagging spirits so that one faces the troubles of life with unbending resolve and unending assurance” (60).

The manner by which Paul was comforted by God in this case was the reunion with Titus coupled with Titus being comforted by the Corinthians response. Now, it would be quite understandable if Titus went to Corinth with some trepidation; however, apparently he was well-received (if not initially, he was eventually) and the result was a reconfirmation that Paul’s longing and affection for the Corinthians was reflected by the Corinthians towards him with the result being greater joy (while the last verb here is translated as “rejoice” by some it carries the root word frequently translated “joy”). I like what Garland notes here about how comfort is depicted in this letter. “The image of ‘comfort’ in this letter is something like a baton that one passes to another Christian as we compete in a challenging and exhausting contest. The hurt, repentance, and renewal of friendship have deepened the relationship among all three parties: Paul, Titus, and the Corinthians” (352).

7.8: Verse 8 is reminiscent of 2:4 in which he stated that his intent in writing was not to cause λυπέω (to grieve, to be in pain) but to let them know the abundant love that he has for them. Here he acknowledges that the letter did cause them to λυπέω (grieve), but despite that he does not regret having written it. However, his heart remains on full display here. He does not regret having written it, but in the same breath he can say “if also I was regretting it, seeing that that letter grieved you for an hour.” Two things to note here: first, the inclusion of that last phrase “for an hour” demonstrates that their grief was relatively short; second, Paul’s inclusion of this clause shows that his desire was not to grieve them and that he felt regret only in the fact that he had to grieve them.

The best way I can explain this paradoxical statement is the discipline that a father metes out to his child. I have never wanted to spank my kids or make them cry through discipline and in a certain sense regret having to do it, but I have never really regretted it, knowing that the discipline accomplished the correction in behavior that I was looking for. This is what Paul expresses here.

7.9: So, rejoicing (his joy) was not the result of their grief, but what their grief led to: repentance. Please define repentance for me please. Logos captures the sense well: “a change of self (heart and mind) that abandons former dispositions and results in a new self, new behavior, and regret over former behavior and dispositions.” Their grief led to true repentance, and that is quite obviously reason to rejoice.

He describes their grief as “according to God” which Harris translates as “God intended” (493). Godly grief leads to repentance, which means that it must be more than just a feeling sorrow for having done something but provokes that change of mind and action. As a result, Paul states that while the letter did grief them for an hour, they did not suffer loss. Just what this “loss” is is uncertain. It may be that here Paul refers to the severing of their relationship, or he may be using the term in a similar way that he does in 1 Cor 3:15 concerning the loss of reward that will be received if one’s work does not pass the test on the last day. Kruse follows this latter line of thinking, and states: “Paul may have felt that the Corinthians’ positive response to his ‘severe letter’ had saved them from such a loss” (192).

7.10: This leads Paul to contrast the two types of grief: godly vs worldly. Godly grief produces repentance “unto salvation” without regret. That it produces repentance has already been established, but now he adds that repentance is a necessary element of salvation (he does not at this time need to mention faith in Christ and baptism because neither of these are the subject at hand and he has discussed the necessity of both in other passages). This salvation is “without regret.” Notice how different such a final state is compared to worldly grief. Salvation without regret vs. death. That’s the final product of worldly grief. A good example of both of these are Peter and Judas. Peter experienced “God intended” grief that led to repentance and his reinstatement as an apostle. Judas experienced worldly grief, regret with an attempt to undo his mistake, and ultimately this grief led to his own suicide.

7.11: In an earlier purpose statement in 2:9 Paul says that he wrote to “test you.” In essence, he wants to see their proven character. Now in verse 11 he wants them to see their own proven character as well and just what has produced that character, namely “God intended grief.” The list given here should be understood in light of the conflict between the individual and Paul and the Corinthians failure to properly address it. This God intended grief produced “eagerness and a desire to clear yourselves.” It also produced an “indignation” most likely directed towards the offending party, and this coupled with “fear” (φόβος) which may be seen as directed toward God (for this has been seen as a motivator for proper conduct twice already in this epistle). The longing that was produced is probably the longing for Paul that the relationship between the Corinthians and the apostle may be restored (Garland 357). The object or direction of their zeal is not specified by Paul, but it may have something to do with their desire to see justice done as Paul states right after. If this is the case, then Paul may be speaking of their “lackadaisical approach to the disciplinary matter” (Garland 357). Their desire for justice was evidenced in chapter 2 and their correction of the offender and Paul’s need to encourage them to restore their relationship with that one as well.

With “God-intended grief” having accomplished its purpose, the Corinthians can now be said to be “undefiled” concerning these things. They have “greatly mourned” (7:7) and repented.

7.12-13a: In verse 12 Paul provides further clarification for why he wrote. He did not write just to chastise the offender and have him reprimanded (though this action would certainly be expected), nor did he write (as Kruse puts it) “to have his own position through the Corinthians clarified and vindicated” (193). These were not the primary reasons for writing (they were sub reasons, but the language here is that of comparison not exclusion. It’s as if he is saying: “These were not my main reasons for writing”). Instead he wrote so that it would be clear to the Corinthians themselves before God “their eagerness for Paul and his associates.” They are accountable for their actions and conduct towards Paul “before God.”

It is difficult to determine what Paul means by “eagerness” here. It would seem strange to interpret it as “eagerness to punish” given what Paul has just said, so one wonders if he means “eagerness to reconcile with Paul” or something along those lines. Whatever the case may be “God-intended grief” produced its desired effect, and “because of this” Paul and his associates were comforted/encouraged.

7.13b-14: Really, if there was any trepidation on the part of Titus, it was completely put to rest by their reception of him. Now, does this mean that they made a complete 180 degree turn and are now acting in perfect concert? No, I would say probably not as it seems readily apparent that Paul still had to clarify why he did not make that return visit and the entire conversation from chapter 1-7 has an underlying sense of Paul’s defending his own ministry. So, were things perfect? Probably not; however, the Corinthian response was fairly positive. In fact, Titus returns to Paul with much joy and a “refreshed spirit.” The term ἀναπαύω means “rest; refresh.” It is ceasing from the labor in order to be refreshed. Titus, rather than having a painful visit, had a refreshing one, which would surely have been a great joy to Paul.

Paul’s joy would have been compounded by the fact that he spoke well of these Christians and was confident that they would do the right thing. If they had failed, then his confidence would have been misplaced and he would have suffered that awful thing called “shame” (NRSV translates the corresponding Gk term “disgrace”). Remember, we are dealing with an honor-shame culture (we also have an honor-shame culture, but not to the same degree). Paul spoke on his honor and trusted the Corinthians to make good on his word, and they proved faithful. Now, that’s worth thinking about. Given all that we know about Paul’s relationship to this church, if we were in the same position, perhaps we would have some doubt as to if they would respond correctly. What does this say about Paul? What does it tell us about ourselves?

7.15: Paul then notes Titus’s own heart for the Corinthians that abounded as a result of their reaction to his visit. The Gk phrase is “τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ περισσοτέρως εἰς ὑμᾶς.” Σπλάγχνον refers to the inner parts, the bowels of an individual. Titus’s guts “abounded toward you.” Of course this is a Greek idiom that makes little sense in our vernacular. In the Graeco-Roman world the guts were the seat of one’s emotions. One felt compassion for another in his σπλάγχνον, and you’ve no doubt felt this kind of physical sensation where you feel something in the pit of your stomach. In today’s English we might say that Titus’s “heart abounded toward them.” He has an abundance of affection for the Corinthians.

Why? Because they responded in obedience. Apparently Titus came with some command, and the Corinthians were obedient to it. The mention of “welcoming him with fear and trembling” again points to the motivating element for proper conduct, the fear of the Lord. We suspect that they received Titus as Paul’s emissary and thus (by extension) one who is serving the Lord. If their failure at Paul’s visit was to improperly receive their apostle, they would not make the same mistake with the apostle’s delegate.

7.16: The result is that Paul rejoices. Titus’s report and their response has brought him great joy, and it has reinforced the confidence that he has in them. Now, this confidence needs to be clarified in one major way. As we have seen throughout 2 Cor., Paul’s confidence is rooted in God’s working in them. It is God’s activity that Paul is confident about, and he see this activity in the Corinthians in their response. We might also note that to a certain extent this commendation stands in contrast to what we will find in chapters 10-13.

I am inclined to think that Paul’s confidence concerns their willingness to be grieved according to God and thus repent in the future as they have demonstrated in Titus’s visit. Paul can speak boldly and with confidence concerning their obedience to his instruction.

This comment also paves the way for his discussion of the funds to be gathered and brought to the poor living in Jerusalem that will begin in chapter 8 and extend through chapter 9.