Changed Plans
INTRO:
Paul gives three reasons why he did not return to Corinth. He has mentioned his near-death affliction in Asia (1:8–10) which would have prevented him from coming. He implies that the sovereignty of God controls his agenda (1:12) and that he responds to the will of God for the glory of God (1:20). He now explains that he was anxious to avoid another painful visit that would only worsen the situation and make reconciliation all the more difficult (1:23–2:4).
His object is to get them to evaluate him properly so they can speak of him with pride, in spite of his afflictions, and will defend him against those who denigrate his ministry. His hope is that they will pray for him in his sufferings and give thanks for his deliverance rather than belittle him (1:11), that they will embrace him as their boast (1:13–14), and that they will come to acknowledge his complete straightforwardness and sincerity in carrying out his apostolic commission (1:13).
Paul’s deprivation and the unexpected shifts in his fortunes, his ministry style, and his frank criticism of the Corinthians have apparently offended some Corinthians. Those displeased with Paul have raised doubts about his sufficiency as an apostle. They also have cast suspicions on his integrity, scoffed at his rhetorical skills, and challenged his authority. While Paul claimed that his suffering deepened his solidarity with Christ and authenticated further his message, most in the ancient world would have assumed exactly the opposite. Such suffering would have refuted his claims.
Most assumed that the philosopher’s responsibility was to teach others the way to the good life and to exemplify it. Paul’s near-death experiences suggested that he was leading anything but the good life and that all this suffering was the result of God’s displeasure. He should no longer be trusted. As Harvey puts it:
Such reactions would come to a head when the sufferer actually made an appearance: he would bear the humiliating marks of the condition from which he was only just beginning to recover; his activities would be limited by the weakness of his “flesh.” And he would have lost the ability to do that by which he had always set particular store, namely to support himself during his visits and to lay no burden of care and hospitality upon his hosts.
1:16 come again. Paul had planned to leave Ephesus, stop at Corinth on the way to Macedonia, and return to Corinth again after his ministry in Macedonia (cf. 1 Cor. 16:5–7). For some reason, Paul’s plans changed and he was unable to stop in Corinth the first time. The false apostles who had invaded the church seized upon that honest change of schedule as evidence of his untrustworthiness and tried to use it to discredit him.
Paul’s Change of Plans. Paul’s “Plan A” was to travel from Ephesus to Macedonia to Corinth and possibly to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:2–8). His “Plan B” is Ephesus to Corinth to Macedonia to Corinth to (now definitely) Judea (2 Cor 1:15–16). His actual itinerary seems to have been Ephesus to Corinth (the “painful visit,” 2:1) to Ephesus to Troas (2:12–13) to Macedonia (7:5; the place of writing) to Corinth (Acts 20:2–3). Paul seemed to say “yes, no, yes” to Plan A and “yes, no” to Plan B. This was ammunition for his opponents’ attack. In this section Paul vigorously maintains that in all his dealings with the Corinthians he has been reliable and straightforward
Paul finally explained why he said he was coming, but did not. He did not come earlier because he wanted them to have time to repent of and correct their sinful behavior (see Introduction to 1 Corinthians: Background and Setting; see note on 1 Cor. 4:21). He waited instead for a report from Titus before taking further action (see chap. 7), hoping he would not have to come again, as he had earlier, to face their rebellion.
Paul now planned to make two visits to Corinth, one on his way into Macedonia, and the other on his way from Macedonia. He would then add the Corinthian collection to that of the Macedonian churches and go on his way to Jerusalem.
Alas, even Plan B had to be scrapped. Why? Because his own loving heart could not endure another “painful visit” (2 Cor. 1:23; 2:1–3). Paul had informed the church about his change in plans, but even this did not silence the opposition. They accused him of following “fleshly wisdom” (2 Cor. 1:12), of being careless with the will of God (2 Cor. 1:17), and of making plans just to please himself. They were saying, “If Paul says or writes one thing, he really means another! His yes is no, and his no is yes.”
But not only did Paul have to explain these changes. His actual itinerary (see Introduction, 1.b) seems to have been: Ephesus—Corinth (= the “painful visit”)—Ephesus (where the Demetrius riot occurred)—Troas (2:12, 13)—Macedonia (7:5—the place of writing). In other words, neither Plan A nor Plan B was carried out as intended. Plan A was nullified by Paul’s crossing from Ephesus to Corinth on the “painful visit,” and Plan B was annulled by his return to Ephesus after that visit. It may be said that after the “sorrowful visit” Paul reverted to Plan A (see Acts 20:1–3, 16). To Plan A Paul had seemed to say, “Yes—No—Yes”; to Plan B, “Yes—No.” The apostle had apparently provided his opponents with a convenient handle for a charge of fickleness!
Boasting,” however, has a negative connotation for most people today. It smacks of vanity, arrogance, and audacity and is synonymous with bragging, vaunting ourselves, gloating, and showing off. Therefore we assume that it should be shunned by Christians who should be properly humble. Paul told the Corinthians that no one can boast in the presence of God (1 Cor 1:29; see Rom 3:27) and that they should not boast in men (the different leaders; 1 Cor 3:21). He himself was not a boastful apostle (1 Cor 9:15–16; 2 Cor 10:13–15), and he criticizes his rivals for their foolish boasting, which only reveals them to be false apostles and deceitful workers (12:13). In Phil 3:3–8 he catalogs his former grounds for boasting and confidence in the flesh but says that he disdains it all now as rubbish in comparison to knowing Christ as Lord. He tells the Galatians that he only boasts in the cross of Christ that has saved him not only from his sin but from a false trust in his own righteousness (Gal 6:14). Heralding his boast and hoping that the Corinthians will come to take pride in him as their boast may therefore seem inconsistent to the modern reader.
He could affirm with confidence—this is our boast—that the moral sensibilities of his conscience (cf. 4:2; 5:11), intensified by his knowledge of God’s Word, were without censure regarding his conduct, especially in his relations with the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 4:3–4). He said three things about his conduct. (1) It was with a singleness of heart. Instead of holiness (hagiotēti) Paul probably wrote “simplicity in the sense of singlemindedness” (haplotēti; cf. 2 Cor. 11:3). These two Greek words could easily have been confused by a manuscript copyist. (2) His conduct was in sincerity (cf. 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 2:17) of purpose that could stand the closest scrutiny. (3) His conduct was not in keeping with worldly (sarkikē, lit., “fleshly,” i.e., human) wisdom, for that is ultimately self-serving. Instead it was according to God’s grace, that is, he was guided by a love for others and sought what was in their best interests.
Why were the Corinthians accusing Paul of deception and carelessness? Because he had been forced to change his plans. He had originally promised to spend the winter in Corinth “if the Lord permit” (1 Cor. 16:2–8). Paul wanted to gather the offerings that the Corinthians collected for the poor Jewish believers and give the church the privilege of sending him and his associates on their way to Jerusalem.
It is only human nature to want others to appreciate us, even admire us. We normally become angry or hurt when they ignore us or pour contempt upon us. Some Corinthians had not properly appreciated Paul’s worth. Still, Paul is not venting his hurt feelings in this letter for being scorned. The problem is that they do not appreciate his work as an apostle because they have adopted a false means by which to measure apostles and spirituality.
Paul wants them to understand him better, to understand his ministry—how it is that a minister of the glorious gospel must withstand such dishonor and indignity—to esteem his motives behind his actions—how he had done all things without guile and with their best interests at heart. They have renewed their zeal for Paul (7:7, 11), but the statement in 1:14a implies that they have only a partial understanding of him, something he may have concluded from his discussion with Titus about his visit. He knows himself and wants them to know him fully. What may still confound them about Paul is how one so weak, so humble, so impoverished, and so afflicted “rightly claim to be a minister of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.” Paul does not desire to gain personal vindication or to rehabilitate his reputation for personal integrity as if he were only a discredited politician. Rather, he believes that if they understand him and his sufficiency as God’s apostle, then they will also understand better the nature of the cross and how it should be lived out in the lives of all followers of Christ.
A boastful group of rivals has compounded the problem for Paul. They arrived on the scene, wormed their way into the congregation’s affections, and exalted themselves by portraying him in a negative light. His pride may have been hurt by the Corinthians’ rejection, but he disdains this shameless contest for honor. He does not want to be adored by them, and he does not need an ego boost. Yet he also does not want to be ignored by them. He wants to instill their confidence in him again because if he does not, he will lose the congregation to false apostles. He wants to preserve his relationship with the church. He does not want them to doubt his integrity and then be taken in by whatever false gospel his opponents champion. What he wants to do in this letter is to restore the relationship between the two of them. Paul therefore speaks of the mutuality of pride: we are your boast as you also are ours.
It is a delicate situation. How do you boast inoffensively and in accordance with the gospel? Yet boasting is not always wrong. It all depends on the basis for boasting. Boasting is related to confidence, and confidence is good if one places it in the right things. Paul’s understanding of boasting derives from Jer 9:23–24, which he partially cites in 10:17 and 1 Cor 1:29: “ ‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the LORD.” If one boasts in human achievements, then it is sinful. If one boasts (or glories) in what God has done, then it is good.
The witness of his own conscience, which only God can judge, bears testimony to his honorable motives and behavior. The word “conscience” should not be understood as some inner voice that urges us to do what is right or nags us when we do wrong.54 It refers to “the human faculty whereby a person either approves or disproves his or her actions (whether already performed or only intended) and those of others.” It denotes the human faculty of critical self-evaluation.56 Paul argues that the inner tribunal of his conscience has assessed whether or not he conducted himself according to the norms of holiness and godly sincerity. The verdict of his conscience is yes, he did. Later in the letter he trusts that their consciences will reach the same decision (see 4:2; 5:11).
It is not sufficient to say that our conscience will tell us. Our conscience is largely formed by the culture in which we live so that we may miss what God is saying to us.” Many have done evil in good conscience. For example, Paul was sure that he was doing God’s will before his conversion when he violently persecuted the church (Phil 3:6). In 1 Cor 4:4 Paul says that even a clear conscience does not clear him before God: “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.” The judgment of our conscience is only right if it accords with God’s norms. The apostle Paul was so attuned to God’s calling and so imbued with Christian values that his conscience was now a reliable judge of his conduct.
Paul defends his integrity against any doubters by insisting, “What we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present” (10:11). Paul begins his defense with three verdicts from his conscience about his conduct.
1. He has acted with sincerity. The reading “with holiness” in the NIV has strong manuscript support. The variant reading “with sincerity,” “simplicity,” “frankness” (en aplotēti) possibly makes more sense in the context if Paul is countering charges about his integrity (see 4:2). He affirms that he has held nothing back from them.62
He always acted with sincerity and integrity. Integrity prompts one to act on what is right even if it is risky, unpopular, or unpleasant and to do so steadfastly when the hail of criticism falls. L. Smedes says: “When a person makes a promise, he stretches himself out into circumstances that no one can control and controls at least one thing: he will be there no matter what the circumstances turn out to be.” Paul was such a person.
2. The root meaning of the word translated “sincerity” (eilikrineia) refers to something “examined by the light of the sun and found pure.”
2. The root meaning of the word translated “sincerity” (eilikrineia) refers to something “examined by the light of the sun and found pure.” Paul is found to be truthful, honest, and transparent (in contrast to the peddlers of the word, 2:17). Spicq contends that the word does not connote “so much an absence of duplicity or hypocrisy as a fundamental integrity and transparency; it can be compared to innocence.” Paul knows, however, that he will be judged by the light of the Son of God and will be found pure because he is being transformed into his likeness (3:18).
Paul’s defense makes clear that his exemplary conduct is guided by God’s grace. Comparing this statement (“we have not done so according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace”) with a parallel statement in 1 Cor 2:5, “so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power,” we see that Paul also understands grace as an expression of God’s power (2 Cor 12:9). Grace here refers to the power God grants to live according to God’s will and is the driving force behind his work as an apostle (see 1 Cor 3:10; 15:10).
In the Old Testament “anointing,” pouring olive oil over someone’s head, attested that God had set that person apart for ministry (royal, priestly, etc.); Paul adopts that image here. Both 1:21 and 1:22 signify that God attests to Paul’s integrity.
Documents and jars of merchandise were sealed to show that no one had tampered with their contents. The stamp of the person witnessing a document would be pressed into the hot wax, which then dried over the string tied around the rolled-up document. Paul means that God attested the contents of the ministry of himself and his colleagues (cf. 3:2–3).
There is no yes and no about Jesus Christ. He is God’s “eternal yes” to those who trust Him. “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are yes in Christ. And so through Him the Amen is spoken by us to the glory of God” (2 Cor. 1:20, NIV). Jesus Christ reveals the promises, fulfills the promises, and enables us to claim the promises!
In his life, death, and resurrection, Christ Jesus is the Yes to every one of God’s promises. In the life of a believer, the confirmation of this Yes is the “Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (v. 22). Having this seal causes the believer to be far more concerned about the witness of God than the witness of men (v. 23).
As Paul exemplified in this situation, living in light of God’s acceptance causes us to respond well to unwarranted or anticipated criticism. God’s promises develop in us a paradoxical life of both confidence and meekness. We become humble rather than arrogant, faithful rather than doubtful. This in turn serves as a worshipful response—a means of uttering our “Amen to God for his glory” (v. 20).
1:20 in Him are Yes. All God’s OT and NT promises of peace, joy, love, goodness, forgiveness, salvation, sanctification, fellowship, hope, glorification, and heaven are made possible and fulfilled in Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24:44). Amen. The Heb. word of affirmation (cf. Matt. 5:18; John 3:3; Rom. 1:25). Paul reminded them that they had said a collective “yes” to the truth of his preaching and teaching.
1:21, 22 Christ … God … Spirit. A clear reference to the 3 members of the Trinity. The authenticity of Paul’s spiritual life and that of every genuine believer is verified by these 4 divine works (“establishes us,” “anointed us,” “sealed us,” “given us the Spirit”) accomplished in their lives. For the critics to attack Paul’s authenticity was equal to tearing down God’s work as well as the church’s unity.
1:22 sealed us. Refers to the ancient practice of placing soft wax on a document and imprinting the wax with a stamp that indicated authorship or ownership, authenticity, and protection. The Holy Spirit attaches all these meanings to His act of spiritually sealing believers (see notes on Eph. 1:13; cf. Hag. 2:23; Eph. 4:30). guarantee. A pledge or down payment. The Spirit is the down payment on the believer’s eternal inheritance (see note on Eph. 1:14; cf. 2 Pet. 1:4, 11).
Finally, when you have a clear conscience, you will be on good terms with the Spirit of God (2 Cor. 1:21–24). The word established is a business term and refers to the guarantee of the fulfilling of a contract. It was the assurance that the seller gave to the buyer that the product was as advertised, or that the service would be rendered as promised.
The Holy Spirit is God’s guarantee that He is dependable and will accomplish all that He has promised. Paul was careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit; and, because the Spirit was not convicting him, he knew that his motives were pure and his conscience was clear.
The dispute does not seem to be over some theological deviation (see 1:24) but over some affront directed either at Paul’s person, ministry style, attempted discipline, or all of the above (see 7:12). Acts is silent about this painful visit (Acts 18:1–7; 20:3) and generally presents a congenial relationship between the Corinthian church and Paul. Paul’s letters, however, clearly show that his relationship with the church had some rocky moments.
1:17 Someone in Corinth seized on his postponed visit and blew it out of proportion in much the way politicians use negative campaigning to embarrass and defeat their rivals. They recast his failure to come into a breach of promise, giving it the worst possible interpretation. Paul cannot deny that he changed his plans but rejects the negative construction given to it. He did say one thing and do another, but that does not mean that he is indifferent to them, that he makes his plans without thinking, or that he is irresponsible. Rather, what he wanted to do he was unable to do.
We are aware, however, that unreliable, capricious, and impetuous ministers can lead others to regard the gospel they preach as untrustworthy and not worth serious consideration. Paul argues that the Corinthians know the gospel he preached to be trustworthy, and that attests to his trustworthiness. They should infer therefore that God prevented his coming because it was for their greater good. Without saying so explicitly, he insinuates that he failed to come as announced because his plans were overruled by God.
1:20 The faithfulness of God’s word is most clearly manifested in the coming of his Son (1:20a). All of God’s promises to Israel find their yes in him. Christ is God’s yes to the promise to Abraham that by his seed all the nations of the earth will gain blessing104 and to David to raise up David’s offspring and to establish his throne forever. In Christ we not only see all God’s promises coming to fruition but also God’s unqualified yes to humankind.
The implication is that if they affirm that the message about Christ is trustworthy, then they should also be able to affirm that the messengers are trustworthy too. How can they say yes to God while saying no to God’s apostle? Since they believed God endorsed the trustworthiness of the messengers in the proclamation of the gospel, then God will also vouch for their trustworthiness in the less serious business of making travel plans.111
1:22 The sealing metaphor draws on ancient custom in Paul’s everyday world and could have a variety of meanings. Something was sealed or stamped to indicate ownership. The Spirit has stamped us as belonging to God as opposed to the principalities and powers (Eph 1:13). In Eph 4:30 the sealing of the Spirit refers to the believer being marked as God’s possession and kept secure for the day of redemption. We were bought with a price (1 Cor 6:20); therefore we do not belong to ourselves but to God. Seals were also used to attest to truthfulness as a legal guarantee, to guarantee the security of something (see Rom 15:28), to guarantee the quality of goods, or to provide proof of identity (see Rom 4:11). Paul has told the Corinthians that they are the seal of his apostleship (1 Cor 9:2), that they validate him as an apostle. But the meaning of sealing in this text is controlled by the idea of marking ownership. They belong to God as God’s possession. Thus “sealing” marks the beginning of God’s work in believers.
We can now summarize Paul’s defense so far. He was not content simply to give them reassurances of his integrity; he spells out a theological basis for his integrity. Paul uses theologically rich terms in this paragraph for the Spirit’s activity in believers’ lives to confirm his reliability. He does not make the conclusion explicit but leaves it for his readers to infer. What he does is completely governed by the Spirit, not worldly standards or self interest. It is the same Spirit that empowers their lives and guarantees their salvation. Therefore he had good spiritual grounds for changing his plans.130 His motives were God honoring, not frivolous. They cannot attribute his changes in plans to his capriciousness. His personal whimsy does not propel his apostolic work.
although their actions warrant additional instruction. Paul’s posture in the face of sin is one of abundant love (v. 4), which flows from the comfort that he himself has received through the death and resurrection of Christ (1:5).
2:3 I wrote this very thing. Paul’s reason for writing was that those in sin would repent—then there could be mutual joy when the apostle came.
Allied to the charge that Paul had arbitrarily altered his travel plans regarding Corinth according to the mood of the moment, there was in all probability the accusation that by doing so he had shown himself to be a spiritual dictator who tried to dominate his converts and their faith and did not hesitate to cause them pain.
1:23–2:1 In answering this charge, Paul solemnly invokes the God who is faithful (1:18) as Paul’s own witness to the truth of statements like these: “The reason I postponed my intended visit to Corinth was to spare you a second painful visit (1:23b; 2:1). So far from being unstable in my desires, as some of you insist (cf. 1:17), I have the settled purpose of promoting your highest good and joy (1:24) and saving you unnecessary pain or sorrow.”
Paul therefore does not respond to doubts about his character by saying: “ ‘Trust me! I know what I’m doing and it’s for your good.’ Rather, he is saying in effect, ‘Trust God, His promises have been fulfilled in Christ, and our faithfulness in dealing with you had been assured by our preaching Christ to you.’ ” Paul defends himself with a theological argument. Meeks notes: “The stability of God’s promises provides the necessary context for moral action, particularly when the action itself is defined as faithful, that is, action befitting the pattern of God’s action, which may defy the customary and commonsensical.” Since God is faithful (see 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; see 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; see also Heb 10:23; 1 John 1:9), and God has commissioned him to preach the gospel, his message from God is faithful and his actions to proclaim that message are faithful. God’s faithfulness also stands behind those whom he has commissioned to preach Christ (see 3:4–6). That word is unequivocal and does not fluctuate with the market or change with the tide.