This entire letter is written in light of the happy reunion of Titus with Paul and the good news he brought of the reconciliation of the Corinthians (7:5-16). Paul can now assume a level of trust and acceptance that allows him to be much more pastoral. After reasserting his sincerity and reaffirming his solidarity with the Corinthians (1:12-14), Paul defends his postponement of a promised third visit to Corinth (1:15–2:4) and counsels tolerance and love for an offender (2:5-11). After treating these issues Paul recounts the agony and the ecstasy surrounding his wait for Titus in Troas (2:12-13) and unnamed places in Macedonia (7:5-7). Like a bright burst of sunlight with the passing of a dangerous storm, the happy news Titus brought of the reconciliation inspires in Paul a joy, an optimism, a praise of the Corinthians, and a confidence for the future (7:8-16). The usual threats and warnings are replaced by an expression of “complete confidence” in the Corinthians (7:16) that would have seemed impossible only months before.
Introduction to the Body of the Letter (1:12-14)
After lifting up the themes of suffering and divine deliverance in the blessing and thanksgiving—and the way these bind him and the Corinthians in a common embrace—Paul begins the body of the letter. After the transitional “for” or “now” (gar) introducing the body of the letter (also Rom 1:16 or 18, Gal 1:11; 1 Thess 2:1), Paul states his “reason for boasting” (v. 12). Under the watchful eye of “conscience,” he reaffirms his
“moral rectitude” or “holiness” and “godly sincerity” so recently challenged (so RSV, NJB; NRSV’s “frankness and godly sincerity” is not well attested).
As is often the case, Paul here underscores the point made in his defense by contrasting the negative with the positive, juxtaposing conduct by
“fleshly wisdom,” (NRSV: “worldly”) and a modus vivendi “by the grace of God” (v. 12). In both Hellenistic and Jewish traditions opprobrium attached
to selfish bragging. Greeks took boasting as odious or offensive, and braggarts who heaped on themselves that which rightfully belonged to others were seen as boorish. Among Hellenistic Jews as well, empty boasting was a form of buffoonery or cowardice. Nevertheless, boasting in self-defense was acceptable and, when tempered by admissions of weakness, was admired. Paul’s boast here may be an echo of his defense in the “letter of tears” against the charges of the now departed rival apostles (chapters 10–13). Although it is unlikely that the “super apostles” actually preached a gospel of self-sufficiency, their boasting led Paul to think so, and Paul well knew the book of Jeremiah and doubtless knew his dictum on boasting:
Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth; but let those who boast, boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord. (Jer 9:23-24)
Of course, Paul wants to persuade the Corinthians that he is sincere and morally upright, but this is no simple rhetorical expedient to win them over.
Although he hopes to do that, he does more; he places his behavior first and foremost under divine scrutiny at the final grand assize on the “day of the Lord Jesus” (v. 14). As an apostle, he is acutely aware of his ultimate accountability to the one who sent him, namely God in Christ, and this eschatological emphasis on future accountability informs this entire introduction. Now he hopes his anticipated vindication will convince the Corinthians that he is sincere and true. (For a similar argument see 1 Cor 4:1-5.)
In v. 13 Paul presumes a level of trust that allows him to write frankly that what the Corinthians can “read and also understand” they will heed.
The “understanding” he proposes is dynamic and allows progress from a partial (“in part,” apo merous, v. 14) to a “more complete” (heōs telous, v.
13; NRSV: “until the end”) understanding so that they will commend each other at the judgment. Given past troubling misunderstandings, this hope of Paul is hardly misplaced. So although Titus’s report is encouraging, more improvement is needed, and, one might add, in Paul’s view is always needed. Implied in this encouragement to a more complete understanding is
Paul’s hope that the Corinthians will accept his ministry as authentic, his intentions as trustworthy, and his gospel as credible, and that this solidarity will be worthy of a joint commendation before the judgment.
Recollecting and Reconstructing a Painful Past (1:15–2:4)
The defense of Paul’s sincerity, the reaffirmation of his rectitude, and his imagined joint appearance with the Corinthians before the final judgment in vv. 12-14 all flow smoothly into the following paragraphs. In spite of the reconciling magic worked by Paul’s letter of tears and the steady hand of Titus (7:5-16), some Corinthians still are troubled about Paul’s abrupt and insulting cancellation of a promised third visit (12:14–
13:1; 1:15-16). This reneging on a promise was more than just an affront; it was a flat contradiction of Paul’s previous claim that he acted sincerely and uprightly (1:12-14). The issue of his trustworthiness once again raised its ugly head, moving Paul to construct a four-part defense that sounds strikingly like an appeal to a jury:
The facts of the case (vv. 15-16)
Rhetorical questions raised by the facts of the case (v. 17) A theological response to the questions (vv. 18-22)
Paul’s oath, swearing the truth of his reconstruction and his reason for canceling the proposed visit (1:23–2:4)
Let us treat each part of this defense in turn. First (a), Paul presents the facts of the case in vv. 15-16: As Paul rehearses the reasons for the cancellation, he repeats himself for emphasis. He “wanted,” “desired,” or “intended” (all present in eboulomēn) to visit Corinth first so that they might have a double
“grace” (charin) or “kindness” (v. 15, NRSV: “favor”). (Note the richness of the word charin, used here in one sense, but regularly in Paul’s letter fragments it can also refer to the offering for Jerusalem.) Then once again (v. 11), he wrote that he “wanted,” “desired,” or “intended” to travel directly across the Aegean to Corinth (the first “grace”), thence overland north to the churches in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and probably others). Then, with the collection in hand and the delegation from the churches, he would return to Corinth (the second “grace”), and with their support set sail for “Judaea.”
The exact nature of that support goes unstated. It probably included their part of the offering, Corinthian representatives, and possibly a letter.
Though unstated, the readers know Jerusalem to be its destination and that, more specifically, the “poor among the saints” there were to receive the offering (Rom 15:26). Those were his intentions and desires, but they went unrealized because of Paul’s own decision to cancel the trip abruptly and, heretofore, without explanation.
Second (b), rhetorical questions follow about the facts of the case (v.
17). Some in Corinth wondered why the trip was cancelled. Two rhetorical questions follow with negative answers implied: “Do I behave in a fickle manner . . . ?” (AT) and “Do I make plans like the world does saying, ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ in the same breath?” (NIV modified). The implied answer to both questions is, “No, no, absolutely not” (AT).
The questions apparently were inspired by charges of unreliability, untrustworthiness, and fickleness. Paul’s promises appeared to some as empty or worthless, and therefore untrustworthy. Any good relationship simply must be based on trust, and Paul’s role as their father and mother in the faith, their lover, their pastor, and their teacher made a possible rupture in the relationship all the more painful. Perhaps the distrust was not widely shared, but in light of the previous fiery exchange, it was potentially dangerous and therefore demanded a response.
Third (c), Paul’s theological rejoinder to the questions is given (vv. 18- 22). Paul’s instinctive response to these suspicions was religious. In the strongest possible way, he begins his response with a formulaic oath (Windisch 1924, 66), swearing by the faithfulness of God that the “word”
(logos, here, the gospel) he preached was consistent. Based on God’s action (vv. 18, 21-22) and on the faithfulness of Messiah Jesus, the preaching of Paul and his partners, Silvanus (Latin for Aramaic “Silas” in Acts 15:22) and Timothy, was always consistent, and it was always “yes” (v. 19). The
“yes” of God here echoes the redemption, eschatological renewal, and ongoing participation in the “new creation” set in motion by God’s reconciling action in Christ (5:17-18).
Verse 20 associates the credibility of Paul and his co-workers with the reliability of the promises of God. Perhaps while preaching in Corinth Paul noted that the promises once made to the ancestors (Abraham and Sarah and their descendents) were also available to Gentiles through faith (Rom 4:13, 14, 16, 20; 9:7, 8; Gal 3:14, 16-18, 22, 29; 4:23; 28). Those promises
of God revealed in the “son of God” are always resoundingly “yes,” making their “amen” to God possible (v. 20).
In vv. 21-22 we can follow a long, nigh untranslatable, incomplete sentence that summarizes Paul’s view of God. Using baptismal language Paul’s rambling sentence runs: “the confirming us with you in Christ and having anointed us (“christened” us, chrisas) and having marked us and having given the down payment of the spirit in our hearts [is] God” (AT).
Like branded slaves or cattle, converts were marked as owned and protected. This ownership fixed their identity in a client-lord economy of ownership and forged a religious connection between God-Christapostles- believers. Doubts about any link in the chain raised questions about the reliability of the others. Skepticism about the one sent cast doubt on the integrity of the sender and/or the veracity of the message of the herald sent (v. 19). Paul’s confidence in the truth of the story of God’s dealings with Israel, however, informed a conviction about history that almost takes the breath away. God is capable of saying “no” in the judgment, but even there God’s faithfulness is always a “yes.”
Now in “d” comes Paul’s oath, swearing the truth of his construction of events and his legitimate reason for canceling the promised visit (1:23–2:4).
In the background of this passage stands the painful, disastrous visit to Corinth leading to his hasty retreat (10:1, 10) and a “letter of tears”
dispatched probably from Ephesus (2:2-3) with Titus. Because of the pain that he, and the Corinthians as well, doubtless endured, he was torn. Should he return as promised, running the risk of making a bad situation worse? Or should he turn to a less direct and less threatening medium, i.e., a letter and an emissary? He chose the latter and begins this pericope with an explanation of his cancellation of the promised visit.
Switching to the first person singular, he swears by his life, calling on God as a witness to his truthfulness, that it was to spare them that he changed his plans (v. 23; cf. 11:31; 12:19; Gal 1:20; Rom 1:9; Phil 1:8; 1 Thess 2:5). Out of love or concern for them he decided to postpone his visit.
In his previous letter he had threatened to be more severe if he had to return to repair the damage (13:2). The hurt from that confrontation still persisted as Paul wrote, but because of their change of heart his response is now more moderate. He does not want to appear to bully them, lording it over them in faith matters (1:24). The collaboration of Paul, Timothy, and Silvanus had and has a positive intent. It is for the “joy” of those who remain steady
(“stand firm”) in their faith. As a gift of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), “joy” has a rich, eschatological nuance that endures even in times of distress and trouble (6:10; 1 Thess 1:6).
In this paragraph (2:1-4) Paul recalls an earlier painful and catastrophic visit (v. 1) that he, of course, was not eager to duplicate. As noted above in the “letter of tears” (10:1–13:10) and here in this letter that followed (vv. 5- 9), we gain the impression that a leader of an anti-Paul faction had slandered and humiliated him. That humiliation caused him to beat a hasty retreat (10:1) and to write the painful “letter of tears.” In that letter, while still in anguish and deep distress, he promised—or one might say threatened
—the Corinthians with a third visit. But without consulting them he abruptly, unilaterally, and arbitrarily cancelled that promised apostolic parousia (v. 1, NRSV: “visit”). He says it was to spare them, but the prospect of another ugly scene with even more hurt and collateral damage may have changed his mind (10:2-6; 12:14–13:1). He knew the high risk of writing and then dispatching the sharp and accusatory “letter of tears” with Titus, and he later admits that at first he regretted having done so (7:8).
Surely he was aware that the “letter of tears” might hurt them (v. 3) and of the high risk of hurtful letters; but as risky as that strategy was, the risk of doing nothing was greater.
As in a family, Paul takes for granted the deep level of interdependence between him and the addressees. He assumes that they also shared the sadness (lypē, NRSV: “pain”), hurt, and confusion that he felt. Likewise, the joy he anticipates will be a shared one (2:3). In v. 4, in what may be a more positive reconstruction of that sad chapter in their relationship, Paul returns to the letter written through a maze of tears in much “distress and anguish of heart.” The good news of the Corinthian reconciliation and renewed confidence in Paul (7:5-16) doubtless colored his memory of that painful episode. His statement that his angry letter was not designed to hurt is less than fully credible. A more candid recall of that event comes, however, in 7:8-10. In 2:4b Paul claims the real reason for canceling the promised visit was his love for them. Whereas it would be wonderful to have Paul comment on how his love informed that decision, unfortunately, we suffer in silence.
Reflections on Their Discipline of the Offender (2:5-11)
From the rationale for his cancelled visit Paul thinks aloud on the censure and punishment of the anonymous offender. While his face is hidden from us, Paul and the Corinthians obviously knew the “offender” by sight and reputation. Here he is only the nameless, faceless male tis, “one”
(v. 5) who humiliated Paul (2:1-4). The same indefinite pronoun, tis “one,”
that appears in 10:7-11 may point to the same individual. He seems to be a leader of an influential minority in the church and a spokesman for Paul’s harshest critics.
Still under the influence of the super apostles even after their departure, he was a powerful and influential peddler of their anti-Pauline propaganda.
He reckons himself, as did they, to be of Christ (10:7, 8, 10, 11). Otherwise, we know little of that which the assembly knew, i.e., the name of the man, his background, when the dispute happened, where it happened, what moved the community to act, and what action it took. The view once held that the offender mentioned here was probably the incestuous man of 1 Cor 5:1 who was living with his father’s wife has few advocates today. The man in 2 Corinthians directly attacked Paul; the offender in 1 Corinthians did no such thing. The offenses were totally different. The egregious sinner of 1 Corinthians 5 was guilty of what Paul believed to be a serious act of incest.
The offender of 2 Corinthians was charged with not only offending Paul but also sinning against the community. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul pronounces a severe sentence on the incestuous man requiring his expulsion and destruction by Satan, while the offender in 2 Corinthians received no sentence from Paul but was disciplined by the community instead and receives the forgiveness of Paul.
The spirit of accommodation and reconciliation seen above continues in 2:5-11, where the now more pastoral apostle urges the church to “forgive”
and “console” the repentant offender who so berated the apostle on his earlier “painful visit” (v. 7). This echoes the earlier emphasis on consolation so necessary for healing a fractured relationship.
The grief and pain heaped on Paul by the offender, Paul notes, was communal, not primarily or exclusively personal. The identities, destinies, and mission of Paul and the churches were intertwined. If one member of the body [of Christ] suffers, he said, the whole body suffers (1 Cor 12:26; 2 Cor 11:28). This mindset prompts Paul to say the offense was not just against him but instead was against the whole church (v. 5).
It was Titus who brought word to Paul that a “majority” (not all!) of the penitent assembly was in the process of disciplining the chief “offender” (v.
6; cf. 7:5-16). Whether the punishment was a rebuke, censure, or temporary expulsion is uncertain. In any case, in an honor-shame cultural habitus, shame inflicted in any form was deeply humiliating. In spite of the slander and degradation Paul suffered on his most recent visit, in one of his grander gestures he reaches out to salvage the offender. Fearing the harsh
“punishment” (epitimia) by the “majority” will “overwhelm” the miscreant, Paul asks the church to pardon (charisasthai; NRSV: “forgive”) him; to encourage him with kindness (parakalesai; NRSV: “console”); and to reassure him of their love (vv. 7-8). Not a word is given to keep a close eye on him or to put him through a period of trial before accepting him. For Paul, the genealogy of this language of grace reaches back to God, and a proper response requires an outstretched hand to the wayward in an unconditional gesture of reconciliation.
In light of the harsh rhetoric and sneering sarcasm of the “letter of tears,” Paul’s suggestion that he wrote the “letter of tears” to test their mettle and to see if they were obedient in every way sounds a bit disingenuous (v. 9). The “letter of tears” gives another impression entirely, namely that Paul was fighting for his life; that he was hurt and angry; and that his cutting remarks were designed to bring the Corinthians to their senses. Verse 9 appears to be a post-facto creation to cover Paul’s regret at having written such a slashing and hurtful “letter of tears” (7:8). Echoing his stress on interdependence and the mutuality of suffering, Paul urges his converts to forgive the offender (v. 7) with an assurance that “whomever [they] forgive, [he] also forgives . . . in the presence of Christ” (v. 10). In Christ’s presence they can do no other lest they succumb to the designs of Satan (v. 11). It is possible that Paul knew the petition, “Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Luke 11:4; Matt 5:12), but not provable. He certainly knew the reality even if he did not know the petition.
The warning against the uncanny designs and deceptions of Satan echoes Paul’s earlier warning about the cleverness and guile of his adversaries, whom he stigmatizes and demonizes as ministers of Satan, disguising themselves as “apostles of Christ” or “ministers of
righteousness” (11:15). We cannot know what he intends, but this passage
—along with others—does reveal the depth of Paul’s mythology of evil. He saw his own life and that of his converts unfolding in a world under the dominance of Satan, the very incarnation of evil (4:4). The power to dominate and enslave, like that of addicting drugs, Paul felt, can only be broken by a higher power. This apocalyptic mentality that promised liberation from those clutches was hopeful but soberly realistic about the gravity and difficulty of the struggle.
Paul’s Anguished Wait on the Outcome of Titus’s Reconciling Mission (2:12-13)
Finally, Paul recalls Titus’s mission to reconcile the alienated Corinthians and chronicles his own trip north to Troas, approximately 150 miles distant, to meet him. There he had agreed to rendezvous with Titus, whom he had dispatched on a reconciling mission to Corinth with the
“letter of tears” (12:18). Esteemed for his leadership skill, his service to the gospel, his concern for the Corinthians, his trustworthiness and sincerity, and his diplomatic acumen (8:16-24), Titus was an ideal choice. After his own recent disastrous encounter with the Corinthians (2:1, 3-4), however, Paul could not have been confident that this strategy would work.
Although Paul’s preaching of the gospel in Troas while he awaited Titus’s arrival met good success, Paul was beside himself with worry about the outcome of Titus’s mission. When he could stand it no longer, he set sail for Macedonia, hoping to intercept Titus along the way (7:8) and learn whether his reprimand had worked. There is no hint whatsoever that Paul’s worry was over Titus’s safety on the road. He surely had some concern, but his primary and sickening worry was over the outcome of his reconciling mission in Corinth.
So much hinged on the positive outcome of Titus’s efforts. If Paul lost the church in Corinth, the capital of the province of Achaia, his entire Gentile mission would suffer, his credibility might be compromised, and his version of the gospel for the Gentiles would be imperiled. And just when the account has us leaning forward in anticipation of its anticipated outcome, it abruptly ends. This suspenseful drama is interrupted by almost five chapters of Paul’s defense of his “ministry.” Then, amazingly, 7:5-16