Forgiveness
INTRO: Redemption or Retaliation?
C. S. Lewis has said, “We all agree that forgiveness is a beautiful idea until we have to practice it.”
Thus the apostle called for redemption, not retaliation (2:5–11).
2:5–11 This passage is one of the best texts in all of Scripture on the godly motivation and rationale for forgiveness.
2:12. But Paul received good news about their compliance and the man’s repentance from Titus (2:12–13; 7:5–16).
Whatever the precise offense, it clearly involved Paul since he personally offers forgiveness (v. 10). At first the congregation had not rallied to Paul’s defense, but stung by his “severe letter” that demanded the person be punished, the majority inflicted some unspecified penalty on the man. Now the apostle calls for the church to end the penalty and reaffirm their love toward this man.
Paul’s inclusion of the church at this point is crucial. Had the offense been against Paul alone, he would have been compelled to heed his own advice in 1 Corinthians 6:7 and “rather be wronged” than pursue personal vindication. But in opposing Paul the integrity of the congregation was at stake, since the legitimacy of the Corinthians is inextricably bound up with that of Paul as their apostle (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1–3). Paul therefore felt it was warranted to take up this offense (cf. 2:3–4; also 1 Cor. 4:14–21).
Though Paul nowhere mentions the specifics of the offense itself, it must have involved some sort of slander against him and his apostolic relationship with the Corinthians. Perhaps the offender had been a person of influence who had sided with Paul’s opponents and led the opposition against Paul. Whatever the case, most of the Corinthians had initially sided with this slanderer. Later, after the majority had repented as a result of his “tearful letter” (2:4; 7:8–13), they grieved with Paul because of the offender’s influence over them. They consequently punished the offender (2:6), most likely by excluding him from the fellowship of the Christian community in accordance with the precedent set in 1 Corinthians 5:2, 5, 13.
Particularly apparent here is Paul’s sensitivity as a pastor: He avoids naming the culprit (vv. 5–8); he recognizes that Christian discipline is not simply retributive but also remedial (vv. 6, 7); he understands the feelings and psychological needs of the penitent wrongdoer (vv. 6–8); he appeals to his own conduct as an example for the Corinthians to follow (v. 10); and he is aware of the divisive operation of Satan within the Christian community (v. 11).
True forgiveness neither excuses the sin nor ignores what happened. It means that you still relate to that person in spite of what happened but also in light of what happened. Forgiveness, however, does not require that the church reinstate the person into a position of authority again but does require his reinstatement into their fellowship.
It means that you still relate to that person in spite of what happened but also in light of what happened.
Paul knows what it is to be burdened by sorrow (2:3, 13) and does not want to inflict such a state on anyone else unnecessarily. He worries that the man might be overwhelmed (lit. “drowned,” “swallowed up”) by excessive sorrow (see Ps 69:1).
Paul knows what it is to be burdened by sorrow (2:3, 13) and does not want to inflict such a state on anyone else unnecessarily. He worries that the man might be overwhelmed (lit. “drowned,” “swallowed up”) by excessive sorrow (see Ps 69:1). Christians are to live triumphantly, knowing that their sins have been forgiven by God; and living under an excessive, all-consuming guilt can only destroy life, not bring life. The past disgrace may continue to burden the offender, but now he will not need to carry the load alone but will have his fellow Christians to bear him up.
Along these lines, John Chrysostom cites the grief of Judas, which resulted in his suicide (Matt 27:3–5).
Sinners must pass through a period of despair, but the danger comes when they become permanently mired in gloom and lose all hope of forgiveness. Feeling that there is no way out can present an even worse danger to the soul. Along these lines, John Chrysostom cites the grief of Judas, which resulted in his suicide (Matt 27:3–5).
The issue of church discipline is a difficult one, and the danger is that we will go to one extreme or the other. On the one hand, we may not want to do anything when someone is guilty of an offense that brings disgrace upon or disrupts the community. We will bury our heads in the sand and hope that all the unpleasantness will soon go away. Or we may try to substitute cheap grace for real grace by letting bygones be bygones without signs of genuine repentance.
To begin with, they were to forgive him for his own sake, “lest [he] be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7–8). Forgiveness is the medicine that helps to heal broken hearts. It was important that the church assure this repentant member of their love.
“if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3).
How should Christians treat a fellow believer who has sinned? The way we have been treated by Christ. Forgiveness is offered as the unexpected means of breaking the cycle of sin and “un-grace.” Comfort is offered in the face of affliction (2:7).
Love is reaffirmed so that the guilty party will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow over brokenness in a relationship (v. 8). Even if we are called upon to administer consequences for sin or restorative discipline, these obligations do not remove the greater obligations of love and forgiveness.
2:5. The event that made his visit painful (v. 1) and prompted the severe letter seems to have centered around the action of a certain man at Corinth. Whether he was a member of the Corinthian church or someone visiting them is not clear. Paul did, however, regard him as a Christian.
2:6. Their response had been to discipline the offender. Punishment may be too strong a translation of the Greek word epitimia. Perhaps “censure” is better. This discipline, whatever it was, was made by the church “as a whole” (hē hypo tōn pleionōn) rather than the majority (cf. 7:11).
Pharisaic Judaism also stressed receiving back repentant offenders. Groups like the one reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, required a time of punishment to elapse before the repentant could be fully restored to the community, and Roman and Greek law assumed the carrying out of a sentence. The Corinthian Christians may thus wonder what to do with the man now that he has repented.
2:6 punishment … inflicted by the majority. This indicates that the church in Corinth had followed the biblical process in disciplining the sinning man (cf. Matt. 18:15–20; 1 Cor. 5:4–13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14). The Gr. word for “punishment,” used frequently in secular writings but only here in the NT, denoted an official legal penalty or commercial sanction that was enacted against an individual or group (city, nation). is sufficient. The process of discipline and punishment was enough; now it was time to show mercy because the man had repented (cf. Matt. 18:18, 23–35; Gal. 6:1, 2; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13; Heb. 12:11).
2:7 to forgive. It was time to grant forgiveness so the man’s joy would be restored (cf. Ps. 51:12, 14; Is. 42:2, 3). Paul knew there was—and is—no place in the church for man-made limits on God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness toward repentant sinners. Such restrictions could only rob the fellowship of the joy of unity (cf. Matt. 18:34, 35; Mark 11:25, 26).
True discipline is an evidence of love (see Heb. 12). Some young parents with “modern views” of how to raise children refuse to discipline their disobedient offspring because these parents claim they love their children too much. But if they really loved their children, they would chasten them.
The anonymous person had repented, and now Paul only identifies the transgression euphemistically, “if anyone has caused grief,” and identifies the person in a veiled way as “the one who did the wrong” (7:12). Naming names and specifying the crimes and punishment would only unleash more grief by bringing more shame on the one who has now repented and has been sufficiently punished.
The majority of ancient commentators identified the offender as the man guilty of living with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1–5). Paul insisted that the Corinthians discipline the man by evicting him from their fellowship because he was a corrupting influence. He previously had instructed them not to associate with those who were immoral, but the Corinthians apparently ignored his instructions for some reason (1 Cor 5:9–11). Paul’s belief that this man’s sin gave the whole community a bad reputation (1 Cor 5:2) may explain why he says that he caused pain to all of you (2:5). Paul refers to the involvement of the whole church in disciplining and restoring the one who did wrong (2:9; 7:12), which conforms to his admonition for them to discipline the man in 1 Cor 5:4–5. Satan is also mentioned in both texts. In 1 Corinthians they are to exercise discipline by delivering the offender to Satan; in 2 Corinthians they are to keep Satan from gaining an advantage over them by forgiving the offender, by accepting him back into their fellowship. A reference to Christ also appears in both texts: “In the name of the Lord Jesus” (5:4); “in the face of Christ” (2:10).
The majority of modern commentators emphatically reject identifying the offender with the man guilty of incest in 1 Corinthians 5. Barrett says that this view “is now almost universally, and rightly, abandoned,” and Bultmann argues that “under no circumstances” can it be right.163 Several matters challenge this view. First, Tertullian, in the heat of the Montanist controversy, refuted this connection because he could not accept that such a short disciplinary period was adequate for the particularly abhorrent sin of incest (On Modesty, 13–15). The gentleness and reserve with which Paul treats the offender does not seem to match the offense, even if he had repented.
Second, deliverance for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor 5:5) would seem to involve something more drastic than a brief suspension from the church gatherings. If Paul relented and reversed himself on the stern punishment, it might add to the impression that he vacillates or is too meek when dealing with sin. Would Paul have insisted on such profound chastisement only to test whether they would obey him in all things?
Third, Paul says he forgives him before they have (2:10). This statement suggests that the man committed some personal injury against Paul, but there is no indication from 1 Corinthians 5 that the incestuous man directed any insults Paul’s way.
Fourth, how could Paul say that he had forgiven someone who sank to such depths that even pagans considered his behavior abhorrent? How could Paul say “if there was anything to forgive” (2:10) if he has in mind such a sin?
Fifth, critics of this view point to the inconsistent references to Satan. In 1 Cor 5:5 Satan is the means of chastisement; in 2 Cor 2:11, he is a crafty enemy to guard against. Finally, Héring argues that the incident concerning the incest happened long ago and was settled by an anathema.
Paul does not believe that discipline should be meted out for discipline’s sake. The purpose of handing him over to Satan was to destroy his fleshly orientation and to save his soul (1 Cor 5:5). It was not, as Furnish contends, so that he is “totally cut off from the community and left to the ultimately destructive powers of Satan—that is, physical death, the same order of judgment involved for those who profane Christ’s body at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:29–30, illness and death).” The “flesh” in this passage refers to an orientation to life characterized by “self-sufficiency” (see Gal 3:3; 5:24; 2 Cor 10:13; Rom 8:5–8; 1 Cor 3:3). The Spirit refers to an orientation characterized by absolute reliance on God (see Gal 5:16–17, 25; Rom 8:4, 9).
Paul has no interest in retribution and does not want them to be punitive. The goal was reached when the man repented, and consequently the punishment need not continue.
Paul’s inclusion of the church at this point is crucial. Had the offense been against Paul alone, he would have been compelled to heed his own advice in 1 Corinthians 6:7 and “rather be wronged” than pursue personal vindication. But in opposing Paul the integrity of the congregation was at stake, since the legitimacy of the Corinthians is inextricably bound up with that of Paul as their apostle (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1–3). Paul therefore felt it was warranted to take up this offense (cf. 2:3–4; also 1 Cor. 4:14–21).
They should confirm their love to the forgiven brother for the Lord’s sake (2 Cor. 2:9–10). After all, discipline is as much a matter of obedience to the Lord as it is obligation to a brother. The problem was not simply between a sinning brother and a grieving apostle: it was also between a sinning brother and a grieving Saviour. The man had sinned against Paul and the church, but he had most of all sinned against the Lord. When timid church leaders try to “whitewash” situations instead of facing them honestly, they are grieving the heart of the Lord.
The “you ought” in the NIV is not in the Greek, although it may be implied. Plummer notes that Paul does not tell them “what they must do.” In 2:8, “He does not invoke his Apostolic authority and command forgiveness; as an equal he entreats them to grant it.”
3. Paul also underscores their need to show love. He tells the Colossians:
As God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity (Col 3:12–14).
The reaffirmation of love requires some public, concrete expression rather than just mouthing expressions of love.
“I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake” literally reads “in the face of Christ” and could have a variety of possible meanings. It may mean in “the light of the forgiveness which they had all received through Christ (cf. Col 3:13; Eph 4:32).” But it is more likely that Paul refers to “in the presence of Christ”203 or perhaps as Christ looked on with approval and as a witness. It is comparable to the way the father of the prodigal son would have looked on with approval had his eldest son rejoiced at the repentance of his younger brother and received him with welcoming forgiveness. With this expression Paul also reminds them that forgiveness cannot be unmindful or indulgent. Christ is our judge (1 Cor 11:32), who assesses what we forgive too easily and what we refuse to forgive.
Now it is time to pass the ultimate test of whether their repentance is indeed legitimate. Nothing less than the validity of their own salvation is on the line in the call to forgive others. Those who have repented and experienced mercy from God have no choice but to extend the same mercy to those who have done likewise (Matt. 6:12, 14–15).
To be part of the community of faith entails a responsibility to hold each other accountable to Christ as judge, under whom and in whose name we are called to a growing obedience and to an open admission of our faults. Such a responsibility will also entail punishing those whose continual and flagrant sin casts scorn on Christ’s call and character as the Lord of the church.
Not to forgive the repentant is evidence that we have not repented and experienced forgiveness ourselves (cf. Jesus’ parable of the unmerciful servant in Matt. 18:21–35). This principle is as relevant today as it has ever been, especially in a litigious society such as ours. But its acceptance as a way of life will depend on regaining a sense of our own sin and need for repentance, a recognition of what it means to be forgiven by a just God and an appreciation of the way in which our attitudes toward others reflect our attitude toward the Lord.
Paul’s concluding greetings in Rom 16:20, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet,” may seem ironic—a God of peace crushing an enemy. But Satan is the enemy of peace. He is defeated by reconciliation. Christian love and charity neutralize all of Satan’s powers over us and serves as an invisible, protective shield.
2:9–11. Playing into the hands of Satan’s “devices” (KJV; “schemes”—NASB, NIV) might mean to leave the disciplined person in Satan’s hands after his repentance (cf. 1 Cor 5:5). One of Judaism’s most basic convictions about Satan was that he was a deceiver and could come in various disguises.
A heart that has been forgiven much is a heart that forgives much (Matt. 18:21–35). On the one hand, because we know the depths of our own sin, we do not take the sin of others lightly. Paul indicates that the sinner in this case has undergone some form of church discipline (2 Cor. 2:6). On the other hand, because we know the depths of forgiveness that we have in Christ, we do not require payment for the sins of others. In the community of faith, sin is never overlooked. Rather, sin is directly addressed, acknowledged, and forgiven. In this way, we outwit Satan, whose intentions are to keep us in unrepentant, unforgiving, and divisive sin (v. 11).
The NT teaches that some offenses are serious enough to warrant corporate church discipline, such as open, unrepentant immorality (1 Cor 5:1–11), actively spreading false teaching (Rom 16:17), or divisiveness (Titus 3:10). In such cases there are six stages in successful discipline: (1) The identification of the wrongdoing (2 Cor 2:5), which implies an offending party and sometimes an injured party (7:12). (2) The punishment, which the majority or full assembly administer (v. 6). (3) Pain or grief (vv. 5, 7), which the wrongdoer suffers (v. 7) and in a different sense the whole congregation feels (v. 5). (4) Repentance (implied in v. 6), which is the outcome of “godly sorrow” (7:9–10). (5) Forgiveness (vv. 7, 10), which the whole congregation and the offended party grant. (6) Affirmation (v. 8), which involves publicly reinstating and restoring the wrongdoer to full fellowship within the congregation.
Paul used a different word (but with similar meaning) for “devices” (wiles) in Eph. 6:11. It, along with the words for “take advantage” and “ignorant,” strongly implies that Satan targets the believer’s mind, but God has provided protection by unmasking Satan’s schemes in Scripture, along with providing the counteracting truth.
2:9–11. Paul’s concern in this matter was not simply personal vindication or primarily that an erring brother be brought in line but that the Corinthian congregation could demonstrate the strength of their commitment to Paul (cf. 7:2). Their love and devotion to him would be affirmed by their being obedient to his directives (cf. John 15:14).
We grieve the Holy Spirit and “give place to the devil” when we harbor an unforgiving spirit (Eph. 4:27–32).
Verse 11 states an additional but related purpose. This was to avoid being outwitted by the master strategist, Satan, who was bent on creating discord within the church at Corinth, either between the church at large and a dissident minority or between the repentant wrongdoer and his fellow Christians. To withhold forgiveness when the man was repentant was to play into the hands of Satan, who already had gained one advantage when the man sinned. There is a point at which punishment can become purely vindictive (cf. v. 6) and suffering a penalty can drive one to despair (v. 7; Col 3:21). Christian discipline certainly includes punishment administered in love, but it is not simply retributive or punitive; it is also remedial or reformatory (cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 11:32; 2 Cor 7:9, 10; 13:10). It aims at reinstatement after repentance, through forgiveness and reconciliation.
Both 1 Cor 5:5 and 2 Cor 2:11 reflect a belief that the church, if successful in fending off Satan’s wiles, is a bastion against Satan—a place where Satan does not rule. Although the implications of being expelled from a church community may not be as significant today when someone can join another group quite easily, in the first century it would have had a serious impact.
Paul wants him expelled from the fellowship in hopes that the shock would force him to change his fleshly orientation. Now that the individual has repented, Paul worries that they not allow Satan to gain advantage (2 Cor 2:11). Satan has had him long enough; Paul wants him forgiven and restored or excessive sorrow might overwhelm the man. Paul knows that Satan will try to undermine the reconciliation and forgiveness.
His call for forgiveness changes an “I win, you lose” situation to one where brothers in Christ win and Satan loses. The brother is won back to Christ and not lost to Satan.
The verb pleonekteō (passive voice) can mean “gain advantage” or “outwit” (see 7:2; 12:17; 1 Thess 4:6). It could also mean “rob.” Satan will rob the community of a member of their group. If Paul refers to the man in 1 Corinthians 5, they may have turned him over to Satan, but Satan cannot keep him if he repents. If the community does not forgive and accept the contrite offender, however, Satan may cheat them of another soul. For Paul, Christians experience salvation as a part of a community, not as isolated free agents. If the community stubbornly blacklists persons who have sinned and genuinely repented, they bear responsibility if they drive them away from Christ and back into the clutches of Satan. We can only ponder, for example, what might have happened in Jesus’ parable had the returning prodigal son run into his elder brother first rather than the outstretched arms of his forgiving father. Throughout the Corinthian correspondence Paul seeks to build up community (see 1 Cor 12:12–26), and that requires taking responsibility for one another, disciplining when necessary, forgiving when appropriate, and never doing anything that might lead to another’s eternal ruin (1 Cor 8:7–13).
In this passage Paul reveals that showing forgiveness is one way for the church to close the door on Satan’s evil designs to destroy it. Satan’s realm is one where immorality, the thirst for revenge, ruthlessness, heartlessness, and deadly rancor hold sway. Those who are in Christ have received God’s free pardon, and they are transferred into a realm where faith, hope, love, and tender mercies rule. Satan is powerless before a united community filled with love and humble forgiveness.
Satan’s goal is always to foil God’s work of reconciliation. Note how the wiles of Satan work in the Gospel narratives. Satan induces one disciple, Peter, to try to dissuade Jesus from obeying God’s will in going to his death (Mark 8:31–33). When that fails, Satan coaxes another disciple, Judas, to help ensure Jesus’ death by handing him over to the enemy (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). Satan can be behind both moral laxity—anything goes—and a callous inflexibility—everyone goes who does not toe the line. Satan can use the church’s permissiveness in failing to chastise sinners in their midst to bring it to ruin, and he can use the church’s rigidity in failing to forgive chastened sinners to bring it to ruin. All too often, “efforts to remove evil may lead to the ultimate triumph of evil.” Therefore we should be wary because Satan can be at work even in attempts to purify the church. A situation that requires forgiveness is the time when Satan can work his worst and is the most dangerous. Satan fans the flames of hurt into an inferno of hostility. The next verses demonstrate how Satan schemes through the conflict between fellow Christians to undermine their preaching in the world.
Hence, motivated by our hope in Christ for the future (1:21–22) because of what he has done for us in the past (1:19–20), we discipline and forgive others in the present, both for the sake of our own spiritual health and for the good of the church (2:10–11). For the spiritual growth of others and the unity of the church are the true source of joy for those being made into the image of Christ (cf. Phil. 2:1–2). As a result, God’s plan for his people is to make punishment the pathway to repentance so that discipline, rather than leading to “excessive sorrow” (2:6–7), purifies our devotion. This is the countercultural message of the gospel. Punishment for the sake of repentance and renewal stands in direct opposition to what in our culture appears to be only “natural,” namely, to punish for the sake of revenge.
What is ultimately at stake is not Paul’s personal reputation as an apostle, but the work and witness of God in the world. For that reason, his warning must be equally heeded today: Satan’s scheme is to destroy the unity of the church in Christ (2:11), a unity forged by grace (1:12) and forgiveness (2:7). This is his target, since it is the unity of forgiven sinners forgiving one another that embodies and manifests the love of Christ “in the world … in the holiness and sincerity that are from God” (1:12).
