2 Corinthians 1:12-22

2 Corinthians 1:12–22

Notes

Paul now responds to the criticisms the Corinthians gave him.

(1) He assures them in general terms that, based on the witness of his conscience, he has acted toward them in “holiness and sincerity” and that in the “day of the Lord Jesus” they will be able to take pride in him, just as he will take pride in them (1:12–14).

(2) He then rejects the particular criticism that his changed travel plans reveal him to be a man who makes his plans “lightly” and who had been disingenuous in his assurances that he would return to them directly (1:15–17).

(3) He affirms that both his gospel word and his personal word are from the God who is faithful to his promises and loyal to his people, whose ongoing orientation to Christ he underwrites (1:18–22).

(4) Paul now states why he did not return directly to them: it was to spare them another “Painful Visit” (1:23–2:1).

(5) He had written the letter with “many tears,” and, despite their negative interpretation of it, it was motivated by his love for them, to the end that when he returned to them it would not be an occasion of further grief but of mutual joy (2:2–4).

(6) Now that the majority have, in response to the “Severe Letter,” punished the offender, they must “forgive and comfort” the man, as Paul has, lest Satan get the upper hand by using the dispute as a way to divide the Corinthians from Paul their apostle (2:5–11).

(7) His account of his anguish at not finding Titus in Troas—where he had come for ministry—and thus not knowing how the Corinthians had responded to the “Severe Letter,” further serves to assure them both of his love for them and of the seriousness of the present difficulties between them (2:12–13).

This section (1:11–2:13) Paul sets forth a sustained and carefully developed defense against their criticisms, which appear to have placed great strains on their relationship. The point is clear: Paul sought to restore good relations between the Corinthians and himself in view of an upcoming visit, which is here hinted at (2:3; see, too, 9:4; chaps. 10–13 passim).

VV 12-14

Exordium:

Apologetic in character, it briefly and in general terms raises two connected issues, which will be dealt with immediately and at greater length (1:15–2:11): (1) Paul has, in fact, acted properly toward the Corinthians, and (2) his letters, including the present letter, are written intelligibly. By reestablishing his integrity in their eyes, Paul is seeking to strengthen the bonds of fellowship between himself and this church.

The five parts of an argumentative discourse in classical rhetoric:  exordium, narratio, confirmatio, refutatio, and peroratio.

The introduction (exordium) fosters good will with the hearers and leads them to the general theme of the sermon.  The narration (narratio) offers the basic facts under consideration in this argument.  The preacher focuses upon the material that needs to be known and states it briefly, clearly, and plausibly for the hearers.

He then leads the hearers from that material to a confession (confirmatio) and a defense (refutatio) of the teaching.  In situations where the hearers are congenial, the speaker usually moves from a confession of the teaching to a defense of that teaching in the face of opposing arguments.  In situations where the hearers are less congenial but not hostile, the preacher may need to begin with a defense of the teaching (that names and refutes the opposing viewpoints) before moving to the confession of the teaching.  This way, the argument that would prevent hearers from considering the teaching is dismissed before the teaching is then fully examined and confessed.

Regardless of the order of these two sections, the confirmation (confirmatio) offers the hearers the material that supports the teaching of the sermon.  Usually, the arrangement of these points begins with the strongest argument to be made for the case, lest the hearers feel that the argument is getting weaker as the sermon progresses. The refutation (refutatio) names and refutes the arguments opposing the teaching.  In this section, the preacher anticipates the objections of his hearers (or the culture in which his hearers live) and seeks to portray such objections honestly.  The preacher may make concessions to the opposing viewpoint, but ultimately he seeks to refute the opposition and thereby strengthen his own argument.

The conclusion (peroratio) offers the hearers a summary of the main points supporting the theme of the sermon and seeks to form an appropriate response in the hearers.  The conclusion, therefore, keeps the teaching of the sermon central in the minds of the hearers and appeals both to the head and to the heart.

Paul now launches into the main argument of the letter. His desire to be reunited spiritually with the Corinthians is contingent on a reinstated confidence in his sincerity on their part.

We see something of Paul’s pastoral method here. He makes the (somewhat?) charitable assumption that the Corinthians really do have a true, if partial, appreciation of his character. He then expresses the hope that this understanding will develop further in light of what will be fully revealed to them about him at the “day of the Lord Jesus.”

Two matters were of concern to them.

First, he failed to reappear in Corinth, as he had undertaken to do during his second visit. Instead he sent them a letter (1:17–2:1), a “Severe Letter” at that (7:8–9; 10:9–10).

Second, his refusal to accept payment (11:7–9) was thought to have been inspired by “craftiness”; it was not the lofty action it appeared to be (12:19; cf. 4:2; 7:2). These perceptions have given Paul’s critics in Corinth high moral ground from which to accuse him.

Paul use of the “boasting” vocabulary within the letter either (

1) mirrors the bragging of others about their achievements (see 11:10–12:9 passim), or

(2) discloses his own quite opposite understanding, as seen throughout the letter, which is, essentially, that boasting can only be “in the Lord”10 (10:17; 11:17; cf. Jer 9:23). As used here by Paul of himself, the word approximates “confidence” or “justifiable pride,” rather than some kind of self-glorification. In Paul’s appeal to the witness of his conscience he is specifically pointing, at the same time, to consistent observable behavior.

What is Paul’s source of his “boasting”? It is, as in the next phrase, “the testimony of our conscience” (NRSV).11 Paul has heard the charges of the Corinthians against him, and his conscience has answered him that their accusations are without foundation.

Paul measures his conscience by two criteria, apart from its own testimony:

(1) the consciences of others to which he appeals in regard to his behavior (4:2; 5:11), and

(2) God, in whose presence12 he lives (4:2; 8:21; cf. 7:12), before whom13 he speaks in ministry (2:17; 12:19) and whose potential future witness against him he faces (1:23; 5:10–11).14 This latter witness, therefore, is not so much psychological as eschatological. Paul knows that in that “day” the Lord Jesus “will expose the secrets of people’s hearts,” including his own (1 Cor 4:5). Thus Paul’s personal vindication of his own conscience is no light matter; it is done in the confidence of God’s present and eschatological vindication of him.

Paul’s contention is that he has acted with single-mindedness and sincerity. Everything is by the grace of God.

To this point Paul has written three letters—the “Previous Letter,” the canonical 1 Corinthians, and the “Severe Letter.”19 To which letter20 is he referring?

In all probability, they were particularly upset over the “Severe Letter” because

(1) it was the most recent letter,

(2) it came when he had led them to expect that he would come, and

(3) they thought he had written that letter to “grieve” them (7:8). Their complaint may not be that his letters are hard to understand (cf. 2 Pet 3:16)—that would not warrant his present reply—rather, they may be saying that they are deliberately so written, perhaps to intimidate them (cf. 10:9–10). Whatever it was, Paul denies altogether any doubtful motivation in writing to them, whether in any earlier letter or in the present letter. Whether by letter or in person Paul makes it his aim to be readily understandable (cf. 4:2).

UNDERSTAND FULLY SEE CANVAS and Connect to 1 Corinthians 13:12

Paul was confident that he had run his race without infringement. “I have finished the race,”142 he says, “I have kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7). His statement echoes the words of inscriptions in which athletes made the same boast about keeping the rules of their events. Thus in a second-century CE inscription in the theater at Ephesus, Marcus Aurelius Agathopus declares, “I kept faith.” It is interesting to note that another second-century inscription in the theater attests that “he [not Agathgopus but another] fought three fights, and twice was crowned.”)143 What Paul meant by keeping the faith was that he had been true to the gospel: he had faithfully preached it and had faithfully passed it on to others. Now he would have Timothy, in his turn, do the same (1:14; 2:2). Paul invokes the example of the athlete who “is not crowned unless he competes144 according to the rules” (nomimōs, “lawfully,” placed first in the clause for emphasis; 2:5). The rules of the games covered more than the conduct of the events themselves. They governed also the athletes’ preparation—the long months spent in training for the events. Thus nomimōs could mean not only “according to the rules” but also “with commitment and discipline and a readiness to endure hardship” (cf. 3:12). In 1 Cor 9:25 the competing athlete is exercising self-control, in effect, being a “professional.” So Paul wants Timothy to be a “professional” in his ministry, that is, to make the gospel—its preservation and transmission—his life’s work.

THE VICTOR’S REWARD

If the rules were kept and the race was won, the winner was rewarded. The victor was crowned with the wreath that belonged to those particular games. At the Olympic games, it was a laurel wreath. The herald would announce the victor’s name, his parentage, and his country; the hellanodikai would then take the wreath from where it lay on a table of ivory and gold and place it on his head; in his hand they placed a palm branch. At the Pythian games, the wreath was of laurel; at the Nemean, of celery, although some say that the wreath was of parsley. At the Isthmian, it was at first a pine wreath. Later, according to Plutarch, “when the contest was made sacred, they adopted the celery crown of the Nemean games.”145 Still later they appear to have reverted to pine (either way, it was “a crown that would not last,” 1 Cor 9:25).146 In 2 Tim 2:5, Paul speaks of the athlete being crowned147 and, similarly, in 1 Cor 9:24–25: “Do you not know that those who run in the stadium run all, but only one receives the prize?148 … But we compete for a crown that lasts for ever.” Each of these passages emphasizes the athlete’s preparatory training more than his reward. In Phil 4:1, on the other hand, the thought of the reward is more prominent. Here Paul describes the Philippians as the wreath149 with which he himself will be crowned at the end of his course if only they stand firm, for they will be the living proof (harking back to his earlier discussion in Phil 2:16) that he had neither “run” nor “trained” in vain. Similarly, the Thessalonians will be his “crown of pride,”150 that is, the victory wreath of which he could boast, as victorious athletes boasted of theirs, at the Parousia of Christ (1 Thess 2:19). Conversely, Paul hopes that the Corinthians will make the same boast of him on that great day (2 Cor 1:14).

On the “day of the Lord Jesus” the Corinthians (and others believers) will be the visible object of the apostle’s confidence. They will then be—what they already are to him—a tangible evidence of his ministry and a basis for his confidence as an apostle (cf. 1 Cor 9:2; Phil 4:1). But as surely as24 they will be the basis of his confidence on that “day,” so let them take “justifiable pride” (“boast”) in his ministry to them now. They will indeed be proud of him then, among other things because he has conducted himself toward them in “holiness and sincerity … from God” (v. 12); so let them be confident in him now (cf. 5:12).

The “day of the Lord Jesus” is the occasion of the general resurrection (4:14) and the universal judgment (5:10), and issues in the union between the heavenly Lord and his betrothed, the church (11:2).

MARRIAGE

It now seems certain that, as a rule, the people of Paul’s world did not live in large, extended families, as has sometimes been supposed. The literary and epigraphical evidence from Rome, limited though it is, certainly gives no support to the view that Roman households usually included a number of smaller family units, all subject to the rule of a patriarch. Rather, the norm appears to have been the nuclear family, much as in our own day, with couples marrying and leaving their parental homes to make new homes of their own and to form their own families.5

The institution of marriage was fundamental to Greco-Roman society. To marry and to have children was regarded as the duty of all Roman citizens and no less of Greeks and of Jews. These peoples in particular—the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans—were the chief constituents of Paul’s world, and their cultures shaped his perception of marriage and gave rise to the metaphors that he drew from the rites and practices associated with it.

Greco-Roman Marriage Customs

Roman men usually married between the ages of twenty-five and thirty years (those of the senatorial elite a few years earlier). Most women married in their middle or late teens (girls from aristocratic families somewhat earlier, perhaps between twelve and fifteen). Thus, there was often a considerable age disparity between husband and wife, although not as great as was generally the case with the Greeks. Roman law allowed girls to marry at twelve years.6 In republican times all three forms of marriage had the wife “under the hand [manus],” that is, under the authority, of her husband, the forms differing according to the couple’s social class, whether patrician or plebian.7 These older rites (some of which may have survived until as late as the second century CE) were replaced by a new form of marriage, in which the wife technically remained a member of her paternal household, subject to its patria potestas, instead of passing under the manus of her husband and the patria potestas of his family. In practice, this gave the woman a large measure of independence, making it possible for her to inherit, accumulate, and administer her own property and even to divorce her husband if she so desired.8

By the first century CE, under the “new” law of marriage, Roman women had come to enjoy a remarkable freedom compared with their former status.9 Similar changes were also taking place among the Greeks. But Greco-Roman women were still subject to many restrictions—restrictions that were more the product of circumstance and custom than of any deliberate policy to keep them down. One such factor in their continuing secondary status was the customary difference in ages between men and women at the time of marriage.10 A young girl marrying an older man, however much freedom she might notionally enjoy, would find it difficult in practice to assert her independence. Of course, not every wife was younger than her husband, nor were the consequences of the husband’s usual seniority the same in every case. But a letter from Pliny about his third wife illustrates a situation that would not have been uncommon. Pliny was a man in his forties and his third wife, Calpurnia, was still in her teens. Writing to Calpurnia’s aunt, he described his wife as shrewd, frugal, loving, and devoted. But it is clear from the tenor of his letter that he still regarded her as something of a child, and there is no suggestion that she was on an equal footing with her consular husband. She clearly took second place to his political interests and public achievements.11

Betrothal

The new form of marriage was preceded by a betrothal consisting of an agreement entered into by the couple12 in the presence of their relatives and friends, some of whom acted, in a formal sense, as witnesses to the proceedings. At the betrothal, the man gave a number of gifts to the woman, the most important of which was a ring.13 This was given as a pledge of his fidelity. In the presence of the witnesses the woman then placed the ring on the third finger of her left hand in acceptance of his pledge.14 The ring was probably a survival of the ancient coemptio, the practice whereby the father “mancipated” his daughter to her husband by way of a notional sale, of which the arra, or pledge, was an important preliminary.15 Arra (or arrha) is the Latin form of the Greek arrabōn (which, in turn, was probably Phoenician in origin). The word had a wide commercial application; the business of acquiring a wife was but one example.16 We cannot be sure, then, whether it was from the rite of betrothal in particular or from business practice in general that Paul drew his metaphor, but three times he speaks of the Holy Spirit as an arrabōn (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). Understood in commercial terms, he is picturing the Spirit as a pledge, perhaps the “part payment,” of what will one day be “paid” in full (the final blessings of salvation). As a metaphor from marriage, on the other hand, the Spirit is portrayed as the token of our “betrothal,” given in anticipation of our “marriage” at the return of Christ.

Jewish Marriage Customs

Jewish concepts of marriage are also evident in Paul’s metaphors. Second Corinthians 11:2 is clearly Jewish in its origin: “I feel a divine jealousy for you,” he says, “for I ‘betrothed’17 you to Christ, to present18 you as a pure virgin19 to one husband.”20 In the Old Testament Israel is commonly depicted as the bride or the consort of God (a “bride” who often disappointed her “husband”).21 It was natural, then, for Paul to use this image of the church. Marriage among the Jews involved two separate steps: the betrothal and the wedding. Usually a year elapsed between the two, during which the woman was considered to be the man’s wife. The contract of betrothal was binding and could not be dissolved except by death or divorce. The status of betrothal is exemplified in the law of adultery. If a betrothed woman was found to be unfaithful, she was held to be no less guilty than if she had been married, and she was punished accordingly.22

Two men played an important role in the formation of a Jewish marriage. One, known as “the friend of the bridegroom,” took the groom’s part, and the other represented the bride.23 They had a number of duties. They acted as liaisons between the bride and groom. To all intents and purposes, the representatives conducted the couple’s wooing, and when the matter was settled, it was the “friends” who arranged the wedding and sent out the invitations. The “friend of the bride” had a particular duty to which Paul refers in this passage: he must ensure that the bride came to her wedding as a virgo intacta. Paul saw himself, vis-à-vis the Corinthians, in the role of the friend. He had wooed and won them for Christ. He had “betrothed” them to Christ, and now he was bound (so he felt) to present them as “a pure virgin” to their prospective “husband.”24 Recent events at Corinth, however, have made him nervous on that score: “I am afraid,” he says, “that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, so your thoughts will be turned away [corrupted] from the sincere and pure devotion which you have to Christ” (v. 3; cf. Gen 3:13). He fears that they might embrace “another Jesus”—a Jesus different from the one he had preached to them in Corinth (v. 4), from the Jesus of the apostolic tradition.25 Of course, there was and is no other Jesus. But there were other claimants to the Corinthians’ hearts and minds. Hence Paul’s stress on the one “husband” to whom they are promised.

In Eph 5:27, he again portrays the church as a bride. No “friend of the bride” is mentioned because it is not part of the point that he is making. Christ is portrayed as presenting26 the church to himself. The particular interest of this passage, from our point of view, lies in its possible reference to two features of marriage that Jews and Gentiles had in common and to a third feature that was peculiarly Jewish. First, his appeal to husbands “to nourish”27 and “to nurture”28 their wives may allude to the marriage contract, in which the husband is said to “owe” certain things to his wife (and she to him). In verse 28, husbands are said to “owe”29 to their wives the duty of love, and the very words of verse 29, “to nourish and nurture,” have been found in a marriage contract of that time.30 Second, verse 26 may contain a reference to the bridal bath. A Greek bride, for example, would often bathe in a stream sacred to a god or goddess to be cleansed of impurity—in a moral or religious sense, the literal washing symbolizing the inner purification.31 A Jewish bride would similarly bathe in a symbolic act of purification. This practice may have originated as a rite of passage—her being transferred as a piece of property from one man to another. But it had come to be seen as a religious rite signifying inner purification.32 And so Paul says of Christ that he gave himself for the church to sanctify33 it (set these people apart from all others) for himself, “having cleansed34 it in the water of the [prenuptial?] bath35 [and] with [the spoken] word” (vv. 25–26).36 And herein may be a third reference to a facet of the marriage rite as it was practiced in Paul’s day: in a Jewish marriage the spoken word was important—the legality of the marriage depended on what precisely the man said.37

But what does the metaphor mean? Paul’s readers could hardly have failed to see in the bath an allusion to baptism—baptism being, as it were, the symbolic precursor to their union with Christ. This might lead us to suppose, then, that the “word” is the baptismal formula: “in the name of the Lord Jesus” or “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.”38 But if the “word” is deemed to be a part of the metaphor and not simply Paul’s added comment, it might be better understood as the gospel, represented in the metaphor by some such declaration of the bridegroom to the bride as “I love you.” Or so, at least, Marcus Barth suggests:

The “word” by which a man validly betroths a woman to himself and makes her his wife can have many forms, as the rabbinical examples … have shown.… Whatever be the specific form of the binding declaration made by a man—it has in all cultures and ages only one substance: “I love you.” … It is probable that verse 26 describes the Messiah as the Bridegroom who says this decisive “word” to his Bride and thereby privately and publicly, decently and legally binds himself to her and her to him.39

VV 15-17

First he reminds the Corinthians of the revised itinerary he presented to them during the “Painful Visit” (vv. 15–17), to which then, apparently, unlike now, they raised no moral objections.

He made that plan confident in the Corinthians’ trust in him as their apostle, which, he implies, they do not now have. By inference he is asking: “If you were confident in my spiritual motives for that changed itinerary, why do you doubt my motives for this changed itinerary?” Is he hinting that their present lack of confidence is because they are peeved that the Macedonians are now getting the same or more attention from him than they?

The Itinerary

At the time of writing 1 Corinthians, during the previous calendar year, Paul outlined plans for a visit to Corinth, which would coincide with the Corinthians’ finalization of the collection. He would leave Ephesus after Pentecost (spring), travel through Macedonia during summer and fall, and arrive in Corinth, where he would spend the winter before being sent on his way to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:5–6).

As things turned out, however, he made an unscheduled visit to Corinth beforehand, which resulted in pain for both him and them (2:1). It was probably during this visit that he changed his plans, “confident” of the Corinthians’ understanding of him (vv. 14, 15). At the time he felt the Corinthians would place a charitable interpretation on such a change, especially since it would have involved the “double benefit” of two visits to them.

Reflecting on that changed itinerary he now writes, “I planned to visit you first5 so that you might benefit6 twice,” that is, by a second visit, on his return to them from Macedonia (as in v. 16). That plan deliberately provided for two visits, the implication being that the second visit would be for a longer period. Paul confidently and objectively believed his visits would bring spiritual benefits to the Corinthians7 (as he likewise expected of his coming to Rome—see Rom 1:11; 15:29). It is because he expects his visits to bring blessing that he can rebut the accusation of making his plans for “worldly” motives (vv. 12, 17).

Paul now rehearses8 the itinerary of the second plan. Corinth was to have been the pivot. He would, literally, “pass through you to Macedonia,9 come again to you from Macedonia and be sent by you10 to Judea.”11 Apparently this plan brought him pleasure in prospect, suggesting the anticipation of a profitable time among them.

In this revised plan, as briefly summarized here, there is no mention of Paul’s return to Ephesus, which he did, with the full knowledge of the Corinthians,13 and by the most direct route. After all, the visit from Ephesus to Corinth was unscheduled. Presumably he would need to return to the Asian metropolis before making his departure. On his return to Ephesus he faced the ordeal mentioned earlier (vv. 8–11), and, for reasons he will soon give (1:24–2:2), he abandoned the revised plan in favor of the original itinerary (1 Cor 16:5–6).

Now he asks two pointed rhetorical questions,16 each demanding a negative17 answer.

Some apparently complain that he made his plans “lightly”18 (impulsively?), others that he made them “according to the flesh”19—in other words, while his words20 at the time were “Yes, yes” (“I am coming back soon”), he really meant “No, no”21 (“I am not coming back until much later”).

Paul rejects outright the negative interpretations of his conduct implied by his answers in this verse. His rejection may be seen (1) by the assertiveness of the fourfold repetition of the personal pronoun “I,” and (2) by a grammatical structuring of his question that allows only a negative answer to both questions

VV 18-22

He interrupts this explanation, however, to make an important theological statement about the faithfulness of God (vv. 18–22).

This digression serves two purposes:

(1) It locates the motives and behavior of Paul, the servant of God, within the character and actions of the faithful God whom he serves. There is no hiatus between God and the actions of his “minister” (cf. 6:4).

(2) Further, by its focus on the apostolic proclamation as the fulfillment of the divine promises (v. 20), Paul introduces the eschatological thread that he will take up later in the letter (i.e., 3:3–6), reaching its climax in the apostolic call to the Corinthians to be reconciled to God since the “day of salvation” has now come (5:14–6:2). By this striking theological statement, which is able to stand in its own right, the wayward groups within the messianic community in Corinth are put on notice that they will soon be exhorted to align their attitudes and behavior with God’s saving actions.

(see above on Classical Argument) It seems likely that these verses are classifiable rhetorically as an “apologetic encomium.” Whereas vv. 12–14 serve as an exordium in which the chief apologetic elements are introduced, these verses—as in forensic and apologetical political speeches of the period—set out to neutralize suspicion or prejudice.1

In vv. 18–22 the apostle continues to defend himself against their objections to him, but now indirectly, by means of an apparent theological digression, asserting the faithfulness of God.

This faithfulness of God is seen

(1) in the unambiguous Son of God (God’s eternal “Yes”) as proclaimed by Paul (vv. 18–19),

(2) in the fulfillment of the promises of God (v. 20), and

(3) to his people by his ongoing guarantee of their Christward focus, in consequence of his gift to them of the Spirit (vv. 21–22).

Paul has seized the opportunity both to defend his integrity and to teach about matters on which he will elaborate further later in the letter:

(1) the proclamation of Christ in fulfillment of the “promises” of God;1

(2) God’s gift of the Spirit to those who have receptively heard that word;2 and

(3) God’s guarantee of the ongoing Christward orientation—together, that is, Paul’s and theirs—of a Spirit-“christed” people.3

Significantly, Paul will point to the Corinthians’ experience of “the Spirit of the living God” (3:3) to legitimate himself as a “minister of the new covenant” (3:6; cf. 13:5). This short passage lays the foundation for that important theological apologetic for Paul’s ministry.

Paul’s Oath

This format—an assertion about God followed by Paul’s assurance about his own integrity—possibly represents an oath formula.7 This is the solemn witness of his conscience regarding the probity of his conduct toward them (v. 12).

So Furnish, 135, based on the statement about God followed by ὅτι, which is followed by a statement about Paul’s integrity; see also Thrall, 1.143–44. It is less likely to be causal; “our word to you is not ‘Yes and No’ ” because (ὅτι) “God is faithful.”

Paul’s play on the word Logos (Preached received and incarnate)

If the kerygmatic “word” was true to the God who is faithful to his promises and loyal to his covenant people, so, too, is Paul’s personal “word” about his travel plans.10 Paul, like the God with whom he is in partnership and whose spokesman he is (5:20–6:1), is faithful. He did not, as a matter of fact, say to the Corinthians, “Yes, I am coming back soon,” when he really meant, “No, I am coming back later.” He changed those plans, and for good reasons; but he did not lie when he was present with them in Corinth.

On that basis—hence the connective “for”11—Paul asserts that the “word,” “the Son of God, Jesus Christ,” who was proclaimed by Paul and his associates in Corinth, was not ambiguous (“Yes” and “No”).12 On the contrary,13 Christ—incarnate and exalted—is God’s unambiguous and unretracted “Yes.” Thus Paul picks up their criticism of him (his “word” is at the same time “Yes” and “No”) and turns it into a powerful christological affirmation, namely, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, stands as the abiding “Yes” of God.

Six years ago in Corinth it began with the preaching of Paul, Silas, and Timothy

Paul is Faithful as the God who called him is Faithful (Numbers 23:19)

Christ is the fulfillment of all the promises of God made under the old covenant, and thus of that covenant in its entirety; no promise remains unfulfilled. “In him” God has spoken his “Yes.” His fulfillment is absolute, dimming whatever glory there had been in the old covenant (3:10). Those who are “toward” him have the Spirit (vv. 21–22); those who are “in him” have “become the righteousness of God” (5:21), and are “the new creation” (5:17). Now that God has pronounced his affirmation in Christ incarnate and exalted there can be no going back to the covenant that promised him, as the peddlers seek to do (3:7–11).

If Christ is God’s yes then He is the Church’s Amen since through him the church praises and prays to God!

In short, Paul has argued in vv. 18–20 that as God is faithful, so, too, is Paul’s “word.” His personal “word” is subsumed within his kerygmatic “word.”

God’s faithfulness is to be seen

(1) in the Son of God preached in Corinth as God’s unambiguous, unretracted, and now-eternal “Yes,” and

(2) in the fact of all the promises of God having been kept in the Son of God, as proclaimed by the apostles.

Likewise “faithful” is the “word” of Paul, the minister of the God who speaks unambiguously (cf. 1:13) and who keeps his promises. Their very existence is predicated on it.

The faithful God “makes both us [i.e., Paul, Silas, and Timothy] and you [i.e., the Corinthians] stand firm in Christ” (or, more literally, “Christward”42). God is the guarantor43 of a lifelong, and indeed of an eternity-long, relationship with Christ. The Corinthians’ Christward focus results from the apostolic kērygma of the Son of God (v. 19), whose reception was accompanied by God’s gift of the Spirit in their hearts.

In consequence, Christ having been “preached,”

God “guarantees us Christward” (present tense), having “

(1) anointed …

(2) set his seal …

(3) put his Spirit in our hearts” (aorist—completed action—tense). God’s ongoing “guarantee”47 (a commercial term for an undertaking by a seller to a purchaser) of us toward Christ is in consequence of the gift of his Spirit accompanying the hearing of the message of the Son of God (cf. Gal 3:2).

A GUARANTEE FROM THE BUSINESS WORLD

In 2 Cor 1:21–22, Paul goes on to say, “God has anointed3 us; moreover, it is he who has sealed4 us.” Sealing is another commercial metaphor. The practice is mentioned in the Old Testament, in both a literal5 and a figurative sense,6 and was still common in Paul’s day, especially in commercial and legal circles.7 In a world in which not everyone could read or write, a seal was an easily recognizable sign. It could indicate ownership, and it also served to validate documents. A will, for example, was deemed valid only when it was sealed and presented to the authorities with the seals still intact. Sometimes a seal served as a trademark indicating the particular brand of a product. Galen refers to an eye ointment from Lemnos that could be identified in this way.8 Goods on consignment were sealed as a mark of ownership and a guarantee that they had not been interfered with in transit. Paul uses this metaphor of “sealing” to say that believers belong to God.9 Of the four participles in these verses (2 Cor 1:21–22), the first is a present (bebaiōn, “guarantees”; see n. 1) and the others are aorists (crisas, sphragisamenos, dous, “has commissioned, sealed, put”), all pointing to something already accomplished. There is a sense in which God goes on guaranteeing our position in Christ (the present tense), and there is a sense in which this position has been established once for all and the matter is ended (the aorist). Although the Spirit strictly belongs with the last of these aorist participles (“who … put his Spirit in our hearts”), the syntax of the sentence allows us to link the Spirit no less with the sealing.10 (In Eph 1:13–14 and 4:30 believers are said to be “sealed with the Spirit.”) The Spirit, then, is evidence of God’s ownership. The Spirit’s presence tells us (and perhaps tells others also) to whom we belong, with the added assurance (clearly expressed in Eph 1:13–14) that this “seal” will guarantee our safety in transit.11

Finally, “God … has given an installment”12 of what is to come: “He has put his Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor 1:22). This is one of three places in which believers are said to have the installment or “the earnest” of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 5:5; Eph 1:13–14). The concept of the earnest was a familiar one, and the same word was used by Jews, Greeks, and Romans (originally derived, it seems, from the Phoenicians). It was something given in anticipation of payment for goods, services, and so on. F. Lyall points out that there was a significant difference between Greek and Roman law in the precise definition of the earnest. In Roman law the earnest was simply a token of goodwill, not an essential part of the contract. It might be money, but it might also be a gift of some other kind, not uncommonly a ring (e.g., a betrothal ring). To the Greeks, however, the earnest was a part of the price to be paid—a downpayment—with the balance to follow.13 Instead of pressing the metaphor along either Greek or Roman lines, it is of more value to explore the idea of not yet having received the “full payment” of our salvation.14 We are redeemed—there is no question of that—but we await our final redemption.15 God’s Spirit is with us in anticipation of that day (as arrabōn) and to see that we arrive there intact (as “seal”).

God currently “confirms” Paul’s gospel word and the Corinthians as Christ’s people in giving them the Spirit (cf. 13:5–6). This point should not be lost on the Corinthians, who hold the activity of the Spirit among them in high regard (cf. 1 Cor 14:12). If they have the Spirit of God arising from Paul’s preaching of Christ, as they do, why are they tending to reject him as a true minister of Christ (cf. 3:2–6)?

This endowment of the Spirit is the source of God’s three closely connected actions within.

The first—“God … christed us Christward” (eis Christon … chrisas)48—must be regarded as deliberate a play on words, signifying that God has “made us Christ’s people,” “a messianic community.” Here Paul may be implicitly rebutting the alternative ministry of the Judaizers, as if to say that only through the Christ proclaimed by Paul (as opposed to the Jesus proclaimed by them) and the related experience of the Spirit have the Corinthians become Christ’s people, the eschatological messianic community of the new covenant (3:3, 6, 8, 18; cf. 11:2, 4).

The second, “he set his seal of ownership on us,”49 returns to and reinforces the commercial imagery associated with “he guarantees.” The “seal”—often in wax—is a mark of ownership, but also a guarantee of authenticity. The “seal” is nothing less than the Spirit himself, by whom God has marked believers as his own ultimate possession.50 As in Eph 1:13 and 4:30, the “seal” is here also eschatological. On the “day of redemption” God will take possession of those who are already sealed as his own.

The third, God “put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come,”51 is another commercial image. As the first and lesser payment guaranteeing full settlement, the “deposit” underlines and makes even clearer the two-stage eschatological structure implicit in the previous metaphor, the “sealing.” As the Spirit himself is the “seal,” so, too, he is both the “deposit” and “what is to come,” the full settlement (cf. 5:5, 7–8). Christian believers live between the ages. The inauguration of the age of the new covenant lies behind; the coming age lies ahead (1:14; 4:14, 16–5:10). The Spirit as God’s “seal” and “deposit” is the evidence within us as individuals, and as congregations, that the old covenant has been fulfilled, but that the coming age is “not yet” (see on 5:2–5).

Let the Corinthians understand that God remains loyal toward them, underwriting their ongoing relationship with Christ and guaranteeing to give his Spirit fully at the end, of which that given in part at their initiation into Christ is a pledge.

A trinity of persons, based on function rather than ontology, with the persons—Christ, God, Spirit—mentioned in the same order as the famous “grace” of 13:14

The fulfillment of God’s promises are not static but dynamic. When you receive preaching you continuously experience the eschatological blessings in your everyday life.

Paul explains his change of plans

(The Lutheran Study Bible, page 1982)

Look

How closely Paul’s life was bound up in the lives of the Corinthians and their lives in his! It was important for the Corinthians to know that. That is why Paul began this letter as he did—pointing out how both his afflictions and comfort were geared toward the Corinthian’s spiritual well-being. He must continue to help them understand how much he loved them. Why? Because he had decided to postpone his trip to Corinth, and some in Corinth were taking that as a sign that Paul was uncaring and fickle.

Verse 12 “Not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God”—Paul did not make plans to suit his own needs and wants. Rather, he followed where God graciously led him. He knew that whatever God does, he does for the sake of his kingdom. Paul had to change his plans when God led him to do so.

Verse 17 “‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’”—Paul had not been talking out of both sides of his mouth, in a worldly way, when he planned to visit the Corinthians.

Discuss

1. By God’s grace, and through Titus’ss ministry, many of the Corinthians’ problems had been solved. But there were still some in the congregation who questioned Paul’s motives and sincerity. Explain three reasons Paul gives for the Corinthians to trust him.

• Verse 12a Paul testified that his conscience was clear regarding how he had conducted himself among the Corinthians—in holiness and sincerity.

• Verses 12b, 13a Paul wrote to them in a way they could understand. He expressed his thoughts and motives clearly. He was not the source of the present misunderstanding.

• Verses 13b, 14 Paul was confident that when they understood him, they could boast of his actions before God on the Last Day, just as he would boast about their faith.

2. Explain Paul’s original itinerary. Describe the change he made.

Paul intended to sail from Ephesus to Corinth, go north and visit the Macedonian congregations, then revisit the Corinthians and set sail for Jerusalem. Instead, he went first to Macedonia and then south to Corinth and visited them only once.

3. Read between the lines of verse 17. How were some of the Corinthians attacking Paul?

They claimed he was making his plans lightly, in a worldly manner.

4. How was Paul’s way of dealing with the Corinthians fashioned after the way Jesus treats us?

Jesus is never fickle. Whatever he does in our lives is always a “yes” to our prayers.

Apply

5. God has given us many blessings that assure us he will remain faithful. What are those blessings?

God makes us stand firm. He anointed us with the Holy Spirit, a deposit guaranteeing what is to come.

Paul’s change of plans stemmed from a sincere desire to serve the Corinthians.