2 Corinthians 1:12-2:11

Paul defends himself

Paul deals with two general accusations: (1) that he acted insincerely in his relations with the Corinthians, and (2) that his letters were duplicitous and evasive (writing one thing but meaning another).[] Paul counters these points by reminding them of his sincere and authentic lifestyle.

Of course, it must’ve been awkward for Paul to do this. After all, he wants the focus to be on Christ and his word—not on himself. Yet, he knows that if these accusations stand against him, then they will have an impact on discrediting Jesus and his teachings. Garland writes, “[Paul] wants to instill their confidence in him again because if he does not, he will lose the congregation to false apostles.”[] So, Paul defends himself in order to defend Christ.

(1:12) “We can say with confidence and a clear conscience that we have lived with a God-given holiness and sincerity in all our dealings. We have depended on God’s grace, not on our own human wisdom. That is how we have conducted ourselves before the world, and especially toward you.”

Paul immediately jumps into defending himself and his ministry, which is a major theme in this letter. Again, this is not for the sake of “image management,” but because if they do not trust him, they will not trust his message, which is from God.

“Say with confidence” (kauchēsis) is the word normally translated as “boasting.” There was a lot of boasting going on in Corinth—especially by the false teachers. What does Paul “boast” about? He boasts that he has “depended on God’s grace” and the “God-given” qualities that were developed in his life. This is what it means to “boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31; Jer. 9:23-24).

“Clear conscience.” Paul doesn’t have anything on his conscience. This doesn’t make him innocent (1 Cor. 4:4), but it is a strong starting place. Later, he appeals for the Corinthians to use their conscience to see if Paul has done anything wrong (2 Cor. 4:2; 5:11).

Paul states that his motives in ministry have been rooted in “holiness and sincerity.” Some translations render “holiness” (haplotēs) as “simplicity.” This makes better sense of the context, because it would refer to Paul’s single-mindedness (as opposed to double-minded). Paul is describing his pure motives (which is how the NET renders it). Paul is basically saying “I have no hidden agenda… I’m genuine!” This is in contrast to the false teachers in Corinth (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2).

“That is how we have conducted ourselves before the world, and especially toward you.” Paul had spent 18 months with the Corinthians, so this wasn’t an empty claim.

(1:13a) “Our letters have been straightforward, and there is nothing written between the lines and nothing you can’t understand. I hope someday you will fully understand us.”

The Corinthians misread Paul’s writing before (1 Cor. 5:9-11), but this was their fault—not Paul’s. The false teachers must have been arguing that he was writing one thing, but meaning another.[] But Paul has “no hidden agenda.”[] Or perhaps, that he wrote one thing, but he behaved differently in person. Paul’s critics said, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10). But later, Paul tells the Corinthians that he was honest about what he both said and did (2 Cor. 4:2-3).

(1:13-14) “Even if you don’t understand us now. Then on the day when the Lord Jesus returns, you will be proud of us in the same way we are proud of you.”

It seems like Paul is speaking of his desire for them to trust him, just as now they do in part, and that in the day of the Lord (likely the bema-seat of Christ) these motives will come to the surface (1 Cor. 4:5). Garland paraphrases, “Paul hopes that both he and they can boast in one another at the judgment, saying, Here is my church; here is our apostle.”[]

Paul defends his travel plans

This might seem like a strange change in context: Paul moves from defending his integrity to defending his travel plans. However, the Corinthians were suspicious of Paul precisely because they thought that he lacked integrity because he didn’t show up when they expected him. The operative word here is “expected.” As we’ll see, Paul never promised to be in Corinth at a certain time, and the Corinthian expectations were at fault.

(1:15) “Since I was so sure of your understanding and trust, I wanted to give you a double blessing by visiting you twice.”

Paul only visited them once, but he had planned to visit twice. We know this because Paul writes that it was the “third time” he would be coming to them (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1), implying a middle visit not mentioned in Acts. The “double blessing” could refer to Paul visiting twice, or it could refer to how the Corinthians would have twice the opportunity to be a blessing to Paul (1 Cor. 16:3, 6-7).[]

(1:16) “First on my way to Macedonia and again when I returned from Macedonia. Then you could send me on my way to Judea.”

In 1 Corinthians 16, we get Paul’s ‘Plan A’ for visiting Corinth, but here we see his ‘Plan B’ itinerary. Paul not only had to explain these changes (from A to B), but he also needed to explain his actual itinerary: Ephesus—Corinth (“the painful visit”)—Ephesus (where the Demetrius riot occurred)—Troas (2:12-13)—Macedonia (7:5—place of writing). So, neither ‘Plan A’ nor ‘Plan B’ was carried out as intended.

(1:17) “You may be asking why I changed my plan. Do you think I make my plans carelessly? Do you think I am like people of the world who say ‘Yes’ when they really mean ‘No’?”

Paul’s critics used this as an opportunity to charge Paul with being unreliable and untrustworthy (“yes, yes and no, no at the same time”; cf. Mt. 5:37). Harris writes, “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!”[] Paul’s critics weren’t simply charging him with fickleness, but also of changing his travel plans based on self-interest. The word “changed by plan” (NLT) or “vacillating” (NASB) literally means “lightly” (elaphria). This accusation had the effect of charging Paul with not having a stable or considerate character, or that he was an oath-breaker (Mt. 5:37; Jas. 5:12).[]

What is Paul’s argument by appealing to God’s trustworthiness? (vv.18-22)

There are many levels to Paul’s argument. The Corinthians were suspicious of Paul, and as a result, Paul appealed to God’s trustworthy nature. To put it simply, if God is trustworthy and if God sent Paul, then the Corinthians should consider Paul as trustworthy. Moreover, if the Corinthians came to faith through Paul’s preaching, then their foundation is only as stable as his trustworthiness—a theme Paul will expound throughout the letter (see especially chapter 13).

God the Father is faithful

(1:18) “As surely as God is faithful, our word to you does not waver between ‘Yes’ and ‘No.’”

Paul is arguing that he needed to change his plans, but this doesn’t mean that he lied.[] If Paul loses this argument, it could reflect poorly on God himself (v.19). He doesn’t want their cynicism to reflect poorly on Christ. This is why he appeals to the faithfulness of God, because he is ultimately defending God’s message.

God the Son is faithful

(1:19-20) “For Jesus Christ, the Son of God, does not waver between ‘Yes’ and ‘No.’ He is the one whom Silas, Timothy, and I preached to you, and as God’s ultimate ‘Yes,’ he always does what he says. ²⁰ For all of God’s promises have been fulfilled in Christ with a resounding ‘Yes!’ And through Christ, our ‘Amen’ (which means ‘Yes’) ascends to God for his glory.”

If the Corinthians trusted Paul with the gospel message, how much more should they trust him in these “relatively trivial affairs”?[] Regarding verse 19, Guthrie writes, “Jesus Christ is—has been and continues as—God’s yes to the question of whether human beings can be saved from the devastating power of sin.”[]

The Holy Spirit is faithful

(1:21) “It is God who enables us, along with you, to stand firm for Christ. He has commissioned us.”

Paul brings his argument full circle: God can be trusted; God sent Paul to the Corinthians; therefore, Paul can be trusted.

“Enables” (bebaioō) was the term Paul used to describe how the Corinthians were “established” by God’s grace (1 Cor. 1:8). Now, the Corinthians were not willing to affirm this great truth in return for Paul. That must’ve hurt.

“Commissioned” (chriō) is the Greek term for “anointed,” which is only used of Jesus and in only four NT passages (Heb. 1:9; Lk. 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38). Paul is teaching that he and his friends were anointed by God—just as Jesus was previously anointed. In the OT, being “anointed” was for priests, prophets, and kings. Since Paul, Silas, and Timothy were all anointed as well (v.19), we can infer that this is now for all believers. Belville writes, “By the action of anointing, then, Paul has in mind the Spirit’s empowering and equipping the church to carry forth Christ’s mission in the world.”[]

(1:22) “And he has identified us as his own by placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts as the first installment that guarantees everything he has promised us.”

“Placing” or more accurately “sealed” (NASB, sphragizō) is a “mark of ownership, but also a guarantee of authenticity.”[] We are permanently sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30).

The Corinthians were accusing Paul of being fickle and backing out of his trip. Is God this way as well? Not at all! God promises his Holy Spirit, and he won’t ever leave us. Kruse asks, “Why does Paul make these assertions at this point in his letter? It is to show that the integrity of the apostolic band and the truthfulness of the gospel rests upon nothing less than the work of God.”[]

Why did Paul change his plans? For their benefit!

(1:23) “Now I call upon God as my witness that I am telling the truth. The reason I didn’t return to Corinth was to spare you from a severe rebuke.”

Alongside the accusation of Paul’s fickleness, was the accusation that Paul was a spiritual dictator, who didn’t hesitate to cause them pain (“that does not mean we want to dominate you,” v.24). The Corinthians were judging Paul’s motives. In reality, Paul didn’t come for their benefit. Paul’s purpose was to promote the Corinthians’ joy (1:24) and saving them from unnecessary sorrow (2 Cor. 2:1). Paul implies that he would’ve brought disciplinary action when he came (2 Cor. 13:1-4, 10).

“The reason I didn’t return to Corinth was to spare you from a severe rebuke.” Paul didn’t come to Corinth because he knew that this would make reconciliation more difficult. This is why he waited and wrote this letter instead. He wanted to prepare them before he arrived.

(1:24) “But that does not mean we want to dominate you by telling you how to put your faith into practice. We want to work together with you so you will be full of joy, for it is by your own faith that you stand firm.”

“We want to work together with you so you will be full of joy, for it is by your own faith that you stand firm.” Paul’s appeal is that they are on the same team. They are coworkers together—not enemies who cynically judge each other.

Questions for Reflection

Read 1:12-22. Much like listening to one side of a phone conversation, we only have Paul’s response to the Corinthians. Based on Paul’s response, what accusations do you think the Corinthians were hurling at Paul?

How does Paul respond to these accusations?

2 Corinthians 2:1-11 (Forgiving a wayward brother)

(2:1) “So I decided that I would not bring you grief with another painful visit.”

Paul visited them in between 1 and 2 Corinthians (see Introduction), and this visit must have been tense (2:5-11; 7:9, 12; 10:10). Consequently, Paul wanted to give some time to let the dust settle before returning again. This is why he didn’t return for a double visit (“twice receive a blessing,” 2 Cor. 1:15).

(2:2-4) “For if I cause you grief, who will make me glad? Certainly not someone I have grieved. ³ That is why I wrote to you as I did, so that when I do come, I won’t be grieved by the very ones who ought to give me the greatest joy. Surely you all know that my joy comes from your being joyful. ⁴ I wrote that letter in great anguish, with a troubled heart and many tears. I didn’t want to grieve you, but I wanted to let you know how much love I have for you.”

This “sorrowful letter” could be a lost letter. However, in our view, it is likely what we know as 1 Corinthians. Paul doesn’t tell us when he wrote this letter, and it could just as easily refer to 1 Corinthians. Most commentators (Harris, Kruse, etc.) don’t link up the man of 1 Corinthians 5 with 2 Corinthians 2—though Harris admits that many older commentators did hold this view.[]

Paul’s “great anguish” is parallel with the pain he suffered earlier (2 Cor. 1:8-9). Kruse comments, “It takes real love to confront a difficult situation rather than side-stepping it.”[] Paul didn’t write his “painful letter” to hurt them. The Corinthians misunderstood Paul’s intention. Paul wrote to them for their own good—to bring them to the point of repentance. Wiersbe writes, “[Paul] knew (as every loving parent knows) that there is a big difference between hurting someone and harming him. Sometimes those who love us must hurt us in order to keep us from harming ourselves.”[]

(2:5) “I am not overstating it when I say that the man who caused all the trouble hurt all of you more than he hurt me.”

Older commentators held that this was the man who was removed from fellowship for adultery in 1 Corinthians 5.[] Recently, modern commentators have rejected this view, arguing that this is an unknown man who wronged Paul and the church. We reject this modern view in favor of the older theory. See (2 Cor. 2:5-8) Who is this believer described here?

(2:6) “Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority” (NASB).

Not everyone voted in favor of removing this man from fellowship. There must have been some detractors even after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 5. They might have spun this situation to the effect that this was really a personal problem between Paul and the man (i.e. “Paul had his feelings hurt, but we shouldn’t remove him from the church!”).[] This could be why Paul is careful to note that the “majority” sided with his view.

Regarding the word “punishment” (epitimia), Kruse comments, “The word translated punishment (epitimia) is used only here in the New Testament, but in extra-biblical writings it is used of the imposition of either legal penalties or commercial sanctions. Its use here approximates to the former sense and suggests that the congregation had acted formally and judicially against the offender.”[] We reject the notion that church discipline is equivalent with judicial punishment. Jesus already paid for our sins at the Cross. Any discipline we receive is for our good and for the good of others—not for the sake of justice. Instead, we understand this word to refer to “rebuke.”[] The verbal form carries this meaning throughout the NT. In this case, it was the rebuke of the entire church, resulting in the man being removed.

(2:7-8) “Now, however, it is time to forgive and comfort him. Otherwise he may be overcome by discouragement. ⁸ So I urge you now to reaffirm your love for him.”

The Corinthians were formerly lax and permissive with the man from 1 Corinthians 5. Now, it seems that they had swung to the equal and opposite extreme, and now they were more rigid and legalistic with discipline. Paul, by contrast, is following the balanced perspective of Jesus: “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3).

The Corinthians needed to learn to forgive. C.S. Lewis wrote, “We all agree that forgiveness is a beautiful idea until we have to practice it.”[]

They not only need to “forgive” the man, but also to “comfort” him. This harkens back to 2 Corinthians 1:3-7. When we are hurt, we experience God’s “comfort,” and this allows us to extend this sort of “comfort” to others.

“Overcome” (katapinō) was used of “animals who ‘devour’ their prey, and of waves or waters which ‘swallow up’ objects and people. Paul is afraid that the offender, if not forgiven, may ‘drown’ in his sorrow.”[]

(2:9) “I wrote to you as I did to test you and see if you would fully comply with my instructions.”

Paul wrote to see if they would be willing to take a moral stand in this man’s life. Now that he was repentant, they should allow him back in.

(2:10) “When you forgive this man, I forgive him, too. And when I forgive whatever needs to be forgiven, I do so with Christ’s authority for your benefit.”

This is an interesting element of forgiveness. Paul viewed forgiveness as being “in the sight of Christ” (NIV). Paul took this man’s sin to Jesus and found the ability to forgive him. Paul led the way in forgiving this man, so that the Corinthians would do the same.

(2:11) “So that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes” (NASB).

“We are not ignorant of Satan’s schemes” implies that Paul understands that Satan has tactics that he uses repeatedly. This also implies that we can and should learn what these are (see “Satan’s Tactics”). In this case, Satan leverages unforgiveness and inflames bitterness in a community as a “beachhead.” He does this to establish ground from which to launch accusations into believers’ lives in hopes of dismantling the church (cf. Eph. 4:26-27). This is Satan’s tactic, and the solution is forgiveness.

“Advantage” (pleonekteo) means “to exploit, outwit, defraud, cheat” (BDAG). In this context, it could refer to Satan taking “advantage” of their bitterness, keeping a repentant man out of fellowship.[]

Questions for Reflection

What do we learn about the nature of biblical discipline from this section? In what ways is discipline different than justice?

In what ways has the church in Corinth changed since Paul wrote 1 Corinthians?

Satan uses our lack of forgiveness as a “method” or “scheme” to ruin the church? What other tactics could Satan use that are similar to this one?

Do you see Satan using tactics in your church? Like Paul, what can you do to help people recognize Satan’s schemes and turn to God?