Sermon Tone Analysis

Paul may have identified himself by name here so his readers would have no doubt that what he proceeded to say indeed came from him.

He began by gently asking his readers to respond to his appeal to submit to his apostolic authority.

This was important so that when he came he would not have to deal severely with those who opposed him (cf.

).

The description of himself in verse 1b is his critics’.

Those individuals were saying that Paul was behaving as a carnal Christian (v.

2; cf.

1:12–24).

He sent forceful letters to them, especially his “severe letter,” but when he was with them in person he was less aggressive.

However his meekness and gentleness were characteristics of Christ rather than signs of personal timidity (v.

1; cf. ; ).

Paul did not want to have to be critical when he arrived in Corinth, yet he was ready to be if necessary.

Constable

Christians face the influences of the world and, consequently, adopt a defensive posture.

As soon as someone deprives them of any honor, rank, possession, or goods they react vigorously.

But this defensive attitude reveals an inner weakness of character and a lack of understanding of the full teachings of Christ.

Kistemaker

Paul is compassionate (v.1)

Paul’s enemies put a negative spin on his compassion, scornfully condemning it as cowardly weakness.

They slanderously accused him of being meek when face to face with them, but bold toward them when absent! Tapeinos (meek) is used elsewhere in the New Testament as a positive virtue, but Paul’s opponents meant it in a derogatory sense.

When confronted face to face, his adversaries insinuated Paul was a weakling; in today’s terminology, he was a wimp.

But put him a safe distance away, they sneered, and he would act as fierce as a lion.

It is true that Paul was humble.

In he wrote that he had been “with [them] in weakness and in fear and in much trembling.”

But the false apostles took Paul’s genuine humility, his lack of confidence in himself apart from God’s power, and twisted it into cringing weakness.

They were not completely unlike those in Israel, who expecting the Messiah to come in power and annihilate their enemies, rejected Jesus when He proved to be “gentle and humble in heart” (; cf. ; ).

The allegation that Paul was bold when absent but weak when present was a clever contrivance.

Any way Paul answered could be twisted.

If he reaffirmed his strength in his letters, or defended his meekness in their presence, he would seemingly confirm one of the false allegations.

Therefore, to answer his opponents’ charges, Paul shows in the closing section of this epistle how his life and words weld strength to weakness, proving that one can be a bold warrior for the truth, while at the same time compassionate.

MacArthur

Paul is the only one of the Bible writers who discarded his Jewish for his Gentile name.

It is the transliteration of the Latin paulus (παυλυς) or paulles (παυλλες) meaning “little.”

Some think it had reference to his diminutive stature (, ).

It was a common practice among the Hebrews to give their children a Gentile name in addition to the Jewish one.

The apostle’s Jewish name was Saul.

His Gentile name gains the ascendancy on his first missionary journey as he deals with the Roman officer on Cyprus, and thereafter marks him out as the apostle to the Gentiles.

Wuest

Meekness---even-tempered

gentleness---leniency and compassion shown toward offenders by a person or agency charged with administering justice

humble---marked by meekness or modesty; not arrogant or prideful

bold---to have or be marked by confidence or assurance

Right at the beginning of this passage are two words which set the whole tone which Paul wishes to use.

He speaks of the gentleness and the sweet reasonableness of Christ.

Prautes, gentleness, is an interesting word.

Aristotle defined it as the correct mean between being too angry and being never angry at all.

It is the quality of the man whose anger is so controlled that he is always angry at the right time and never at the wrong time.

It describes the man who is never angry at any personal wrong he may receive, but who is capable of righteous anger when he sees others wronged.

By using that word Paul is saying at the very beginning of his stern letter that he is not carried away by personal anger, but is speaking with the strong gentleness of Jesus himself.

The other word is even more illuminating.

Sweet reasonableness is the Greek word epieikeia.

The Greeks themselves defined epieikeia as “that which is just and even better than just.”

They described it as that quality which must enter in when justice, just because of its generality, is in danger of becoming unjust.

There are times when strict justice can actually result in injustice.

Sometimes real justice is not to insist on the letter of the law, but to let a higher quality enter into our decisions.

The man who has epieikeia is the man who knows that, in the last analysis, the Christian standard is not justice, but love.

By using this word Paul is saying that he is not out for his rights and to insist on the letter of the law; but is going to deal with this situation with that Christlike love which transcends even the purest of human justice.

Now we have come to a section of the letter which is very hard to understand—and for this reason, that we are hearing only one side of the argument.

We are hearing only Paul’s reply.

We do not know accurately what the charges were which the Corinthians levelled against him; we have to deduce them from the answer which Paul gives.

But we can at least try to make our deductions.

(i) It is clear that the Corinthians had charged Paul with being bold enough when he was not face to face with them but a pretty poor creature when actually there.

They are saying that when he is absent he can write things that he has not the courage to say in their presence.

Paul’s reply is that he prays that he may not have occasion to deal with them personally as he knows he is quite capable of doing.

Letters are dangerous things.

A man will often write with a bitterness and peremptoriness which he would never use to another person’s face.

Exchange of letters can do a deal of harm which might well have been avoided by a face to face discussion.

But Paul’s claim is that he would never write anything which he was not prepared to say.

(ii) It is clear that they charged him with arranging his conduct on human motives.

Paul’s answer is that both his conduct and his power come from God. True, he is a man subject to all the limitations of manhood, but God is his guide and God is his strength.

What makes this passage difficult to understand is that Paul uses the word flesh (sarx) in two different senses.

(a) He uses it in the ordinary sense of the human body, flesh in its physical sense.

“We walk,” he says, “in the flesh.”

That simply means that he is, like anyone else, a human being.

(b) But he also uses it in his own characteristic way for that part of human nature which gives a bridgehead to sin, that essential human weakness of life without God.

So, he says, “We do not walk after, or according to, the flesh.”

It is as if he said, “I am a human being with a human body, but I never allow myself to be dominated by purely human motives.

I never try to live without God.”

A man may live in the body and yet be guided by the Spirit of God.

Paul goes on to make two significant points.

(i) He says that he is equipped to deal with and to destroy all the plausible cleverness of human wisdom and human pride.

There is a simplicity which is a weightier argument than the most elaborate human cleverness.

Once there was a house party at which Huxley, the great Victorian agnostic, was present.

On the Sunday morning it was planned to go to church.

Huxley said to a member of the party, “Suppose you don’t go to church; suppose you stay at home and tell me why you believe in Jesus.”

The man said, “But you, with your cleverness, could demolish anything I might say.”

Huxley said, “I don’t want you to argue.

I want you just to tell me what this means to you.”

So the man, in the simplest terms, told from his heart what Christ meant to him.

When he was finished, there were tears in the great agnostic’s eyes.

“I would give my right hand,” he said, “if I could only believe that.”

It was not argument, but the utter simplicity of heartfelt sincerity which got home.

In the last analysis it is not subtle cleverness which is most effective but simple sincerity.

(ii) Paul speaks of bringing every intention into captivity to Christ.

Christ has an amazing way of capturing what was pagan and subduing it for his purposes.

Max Warren tells of a custom of the natives in New Guinea.

At certain times they have ritual songs and dances.

They work themselves up into a frenzy and the ritual culminates in what are called “the murder songs,” in which they shout before God the names of the people they wish to kill.

When the natives became Christian, they retained these customs and that ritual, but in the murder songs, it was no longer the names of the people they hated, but the names of the sins they hated, that they shouted before God and called on him to destroy.

An old pagan custom had been captured for Christ.

Jesus never wishes to take from us our own qualities and abilities and characteristics.

He wishes to take them and to use them for himself.