article8

§3 Accusations (2 Cor. 1:12–2:13)

After the thanksgiving in 1:3–11, the body of the letter begins with a lengthy section in which Paul seeks to deal with various accusations the Corinthians have made against his character and conduct (1:12–2:13). By the writing of 2 Corinthians, Paul has heard the good report from Titus that most of the Corinthians have been reconciled to Paul (cf. 7:6–7). Yet, because of the discrepancy between Paul’s written word and his actions, the Corinthians have become suspicious of Paul’s motives, accusing him of duplicity and double-mindedness, especially in regard to his travel plans. Why, for example, did he delay his third visit? Why, instead of coming to Corinth, did he write a “tearful letter” after his painful second visit? And why did he then go to Macedonia first, instead of coming directly to Corinth? The Corinthians’ suspicions against Paul stand in the way of a full and final reconciliation. Therefore, before his third visit to Corinth can take place with confidence, Paul needs to handle the accusations and clear up any misunderstandings, for he certainly does not want a repetition of the catastrophe that occurred during the painful second visit, which resulted in a Korah-like rebellion against Paul’s authority.

1:12 / Paul begins this section quite directly with a general declaration of his innocence. But it seems strange that the apostle would start off with a boast in a section dominated by accusations that have been leveled against him. Perhaps this is already a hint of the bitter irony that characterizes Paul’s boastful defense in the “Fool’s Speech” later in the letter (11:1–12:13). As verse 13 makes clear, the issue here is the apparent duplicity of Paul’s prior correspondence with the Corinthians, but the Jerusalem collection could also have been under attack. Certainly 1 Corinthians left Paul open to the charge of planning to embezzle the collection, for after refusing support from the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:15–18), despite the fact that he accepted it from the Macedonians (2 Cor. 11:7–11), he goes on to instruct them to take a collection ostensibly for Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1–4). The opponents probably targeted this apparent inconsistency, and Paul had to affirm his sincerity repeatedly (cf. 2:17; 7:2; 10:2; 12:14–18). Perhaps Paul also has in mind here the Corinthians’ accusation that he had failed to carry through with his promise to make an extended stay in Corinth (1 Cor. 15:5–7). We will come back to the nature of these charges below.

Paul refutes such charges by appealing to the witness of his conscience, the inner tribunal that determines whether one’s behavior agrees with the moral norms and requirements affirmed by the mind (cf. Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 4:2; 5:11; also 1 Cor. 10:25, 27). Since it acts as an independent judge over a person’s behavior, it can also be called in to testify. The conscience, however, may not function properly, and each person’s conscience may indicate a different correspondence between behavior and norms (cf. 1 Cor. 10:29b). Hence, Paul distinguishes the verdict of this personal tribunal from God’s own judgment and the judgment seat of Christ, before which everyone must appear (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 4:4–5, “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.… He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.”

When Paul appeals to the testimony, or “witness” of his conscience, he is fully aware that, according to the law of Moses, “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15; cf. 2 Cor. 13:1). The apostle would like the Corinthian church itself, which he founded, to be tangible evidence of the legitimacy of his apostolic office (cf. 3:2). But if they, who know him best, have sincere doubts about his veracity, he can appeal only to God or the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 9:1 [“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit”]; 2 Cor. 1:18, 23; 11:31). Paul may solicit the witness of the Corinthians’ conscience concerning what they already know about him (4:2; 5:11), but ultimately, because he is an apostle, Paul can be judged only by the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 4:3–5; 2 Cor. 5:10). As we shall discuss on 13:1, the revelatory mediator stands in a unique position in having to testify to his own veracity.

When Paul boasts in his clear conscience, does he contradict his later dictum, “I will not boast about myself, except about my weakness” (12:5)? Boasting is a sensitive issue for the apostle, especially since he had received a thorn in the flesh to keep him from it in the past (12:7). Paul is aware here, however, that his conduct toward the Corinthians in accordance with the will of God comes from the grace of God, and not from his own ability. As he states in 1 Corinthians 15:9, “by the grace of God I am what I am,” which summarizes his whole apostleship. Therefore, his boast is not self-praise, but rather a boast in the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17).

1:13a / Having affirmed his sincerity in verse 12, Paul proceeds in verse 13a to substantiate (For, gar) what he has said by addressing the specific grievance against his letter-writing. Evidently, the Corinthians charge Paul with having a hidden agenda in his letters: He writes one thing and does another. The problem is not that Paul’s letters are sometimes inadvertently difficult to understand or ambiguous (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Pet. 3:16), but that they are intentionally duplicitous and deliberately deceptive. Paul categorically denies this charge, claiming that his true motives are transparent for all to read and understand.

1:13b–14 / Paul hopes that the Corinthians’ grievances against him and their misunderstandings about his intentions will eventually be removed. The Corinthians have already understood him in part. Does this mean that the Corinthians’ understanding is partial or rather that part of the Corinthian congregation understands? The placement of the prepositional phrase after the pronoun you suggests the latter possibility. This interpretation is further confirmed by the fact that, throughout 2 Corinthians, Paul reckons with a majority that has favorably received the “tearful letter” and is now more or less reconciled to him (cf. 2:6), and with a minority that is still unrepentant and hostile toward him (cf. 10:2; 12:21; 13:2).

Paul can already boast in the Corinthians (cf. 7:4; 8:24; 9:2), and he expects to continue to be able to do so until the day of the Lord (cf. Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 2:19). Paul expects that by the day of the Lord at the latest, when he and all other believers will stand before the judgment seat of Christ/God (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10), the Corinthians will completely understand what the apostle says and does and will thus be able to boast in him, and particularly in his heart (cf. 5:12), for at the Parousia, the Lord will reveal the purposes of the heart (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5; 13:12).

1:15–2:4 / Paul refutes the accusation that he is unreliable in his travel plans with two points. First, he shows that his evangelistic ministry is grounded in his apostolic commission (vv. 17–22). Second, he declares that he was faithful to this commission when he changed his plans in a situation that itself had changed (1:23–2:4).

1:15–16 / Confident that the Corinthians will understand him fully at the Parousia, if not before, Paul begins to explain his change in travel plans. Initially, Paul planned to visit Macedonia first and then go on to Corinth for a more extended stay (1 Cor. 16:5–7). In his itinerary in 2 Corinthians 1:15–16, however, Paul outlines two visits to Corinth: one directly after sailing from Ephesus, and the other following a visit to Macedonia. In this way, the Corinthians could send him finally on his way to Judea with the collection. Is the original plan for an extended stay in Corinth thereby scrapped? If so, this would have been interpreted as a gesture of contempt, since there had been so much conflict between Paul and the Corinthians.

In the revised plan that Paul gives in verse 15, the much-discussed expression, so that you might benefit twice (v. 15), probably refers not to the apostle’s second visit to Corinth in relation to the founding visit, but rather to the two stopovers he planned to make in Corinth in accordance with his revised travel plans. In that case, the Corinthians would have had a double benefit (or rather, “gift”) because Paul would have made Corinth both the starting and the finishing point of his collection for Jerusalem in the region, and the Corinthians would have had two opportunities to contribute to it. (We might even say a “double grace” to contribute, in view of all the trouble the Corinthians had been.) In the Corinthian correspondence, the term charis (most often translated “grace”) is frequently used in the sense of “gift” for the collection for Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:4, 6–7, 19). Now, as before, Paul wants the Corinthians to outgive the Macedonians who have given sacrificially (cf. 2 Cor. 8:6–7).

Paul must have changed his travel plans sometime between the writing of 1 Corinthians and the aftermath of the “painful visit” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:1, for, as of the writing of 2 Corinthians, the relationship between Paul and the church at Corinth was still disturbed over the issue. And Paul evidently thought that he would have to make one visit to correct the situation in the congregation and another on his way back from Macedonia to finish the collection. Furthermore, unlike 1 Corinthians 16:3–4, where he expressed some ambivalence, Paul was now determined to deliver the collection personally (cf. 2 Cor. 9:5).

When and in what form Paul told the Corinthians of his change in plans can no longer be ascertained. Several possibilities have been suggested: (1) the announcement was delivered by Titus either during his first visit to Corinth to see about the collection (cf. 2 Cor. 12:18) or during his stay in Corinth to handle the conflict between Paul and the church; (2) it was written in the so-called tearful letter, which Paul sent to the Corinthians after his “painful visit” (cf. 2:3–4); or (3) it was detailed for the first time in 2 Corinthians. There is no evidence that Paul sent another letter to Corinth between the writing of 1 Corinthians and the painful visit. The Corinthians’ accusation presupposes that Paul had broken his promise to visit them. At the time of the writing of the tearful letter, however, Paul was already determined not to travel to Corinth but to send Titus instead. Therefore, it is most probable that, as Paul left Corinth during the painful visit, he promised the Corinthians that he would return to them. Paul explains in 2:1–4 why he did not keep this promise. When Paul later departed from Ephesus (or Troas at the latest), he resorted to his first plan, i.e., to visit Macedonia first and then Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 16:5–7; Acts 20:1–3).

1:17 / In the form of two rhetorical questions, Paul draws a conclusion from what he has said about his changed travel plans in verses 15–16, a conclusion that reflects the charges leveled against him in Corinth. The rhetorical questions obviously expect negative answers. First, when Paul revised his itinerary, he did not do so lightly (i.e., capriciously or double-mindedly). He had a definite purpose in changing his itinerary: to give the Corinthians a double opportunity to participate in the collection (cf. v. 16). Second, Paul is not the kind of person who makes his plans in a worldly manner (literally, “according to the flesh”). In 2 Corinthians 10:2, Paul explicitly refers to people in Corinth who think that he walks “according to the flesh,” meaning that he is two-faced (i.e., timid in person but bold when away). Similarly, 2 Corinthians 1:17b reflects the accusation that the apostle speaks with a forked tongue, so that no one knows whether he is saying yes or no to a matter. The words in the same breath are not in the Greek text, but are added by the NIV translators to try to make sense of the difficult formulation. Yet, as L. L. Welborn has now shown, the double affirmation (yes, yes) and the double negation (no, no) substitute for an oath formula, which expresses the ambiguity of the situation in which Paul finds himself as a result of the Corinthians’ suspicions about him. In effect, Paul answers the charge of vacillating in his travel plans by stating that the Corinthians have forced him into establishing the truth of his statements with an oath. It is interesting to note that Paul is forced to use oath formulas both elsewhere in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor. 1:18, 23; 11:10, 31) and in other letters with apologetic contexts (Gal. 1:20; Rom. 9:1).

1:18 / To further substantiate his claim that he is not double-minded, Paul adduces both God (v. 18) and his apostolic message (v. 19). First, Paul invokes God as his witness that he is speaking the truth when he states that he has not been double-minded in his travel plans. In other words, Paul’s word to the Corinthians is unequivocal and dependable. The statement, God is faithful (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 1 Thess. 5:24), functions here as another oath formula. Paul thereby bases the trustworthiness of his own statements on the trustworthiness of God, and there can be no doubt from the OT that God is faithful (cf. Deut. 7:9; Pss. 19:7; 145:13). But how can Paul so glibly connect his own veracity with God’s faithfulness? In all likelihood, the apostle presupposes that he is the spokesman of God. Like Moses, who claims that his message is a word from the Lord, and that “God is faithful” (Deut. 32:1b–4), Paul claims that his message depends on God, and that God is faithful. Paul thereby emphasizes his mediatory apostolic role, a subject that he develops in detail in 2:14–4:6.

1:19 / As a second argument to substantiate his claim that he is not double-minded, Paul adduces his unequivocal apostolic message to the Corinthians. When Paul first preached to the Corinthians during his founding visit to Corinth, the content of his message was the Son of God, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–2). After God commissioned Paul to apostleship by revealing his Son in or to Paul, that he might preach the gospel to the nations (cf. Gal. 1:15–16), the apostle began to preach Jesus Christ as the messianic Son of God (cf. Acts 9:20), and this became the normal content of his gospel (1 Thess. 1:10). Paul pins his apostleship on this message. Silas and Timothy, Paul’s faithful coworkers who are known and trusted by the Corinthians, were with him during the founding visit (cf. Acts 18:5) and preached the same message. Paul reminds the Corinthians of the straightforwardness of his original message to them at that time. This was a message that the Corinthians obviously embraced, and their continuing faith attests to the character of the original message. Ultimately, the Corinthians cannot deny Paul’s original message to them and his mediatory role in bringing it to them without at the same time denying their own Christian existence (Paul uses a similar argument in 3:1–6). Their own faith and salvation are the tangible evidence that Paul’s preaching did not vacillate in either its intention or its outcome. The message that Paul preached to the Corinthians was unequivocally confirmed (Yes) to them in Christ: God revealed the message to Paul; Paul preached it; the Corinthians received it; and now they have it in Christ. The message was never retracted or amended (No) in any way.

1:20 / In verse 20a Paul explains (For, gar) why his message of Jesus Christ as Son of God was unequivocally confirmed to the Corinthians. Just as in verse 18 the faithfulness of God substantiates the veracity of Paul’s general apostolic “word” (including statements about his travel plans), so also here divine promises substantiate Paul’s more specific apostolic message of the gospel.

As Paul has mentioned repeatedly and in various ways in the previous context, the Corinthians are sons of God and thus brothers with Paul (cf. vv. 1, 2, 3). Hence, when Paul refers here to the “promises” that have already been confirmed to the Corinthians, he may have in view particularly the divine adoption of sons (cf. 2 Cor. 6:18, quoting 2 Sam. 7:14) that the Corinthians enjoy in Christ, the messianic Son of God promised beforehand through the OT prophets (Rom. 1:2–4). The only other use of the term in the letter comes at 2 Corinthians 7:1 and refers to an OT messianic adoption text (2 Sam. 7:14) as among the promises that Paul and the Corinthians already have. This does not, of course, exclude other promises from resonating with the text, especially since divine adoptive sonship includes Abrahamic heirship (cf. Gal. 3:26, 29; 4:1–7; Rom. 8:15, 17). Paul’s message of Jesus Christ as Son of God was unequivocally confirmed to the Corinthians, for the latter participate in the sonship of the Son of God, in whom the promises are affirmed by their fulfillment (“Yes”).

In verse 20b Paul draws an inference (And so, dio kai) from the fact that in Christ the Corinthians participate in the promises through Paul’s preaching. Whatever this line may mean in particular, it seems clear that Paul portrays himself as a revelatory mediator. Amen is a transliteration of a Hebrew word that serves to confirm what has been said before. The Corinthians were familiar with this use of Amen (cf. 1 Cor. 14:16). Here, the Amen is spoken by Christ (through him) in that the promises spoken beforehand are fulfilled in him. That affirmation is, in turn, communicated by Paul (by us) to others, including the Corinthians. All of this has a doxological purpose (to the glory of God).

1:21–22 / Paul further explains how God is faithful (and thus that Paul’s own message is unequivocal), emphasizing his activity in the whole process of incorporating believers into the promises. A more literal translation than the one given in the NIV seems preferable here, and could preserve both the parallelism and the word play from the Greek: “Now it is God who establishes us with you in the anointed one and has anointed us.” Just as in verses 19–20 Paul draws attention to the comparison between the messianic Son and the sons of God, so also here he makes a comparison between the anointed one (Christ) and the anointed ones. Hence, the second us most likely includes both Paul and the Corinthians, rather than referring to Paul alone. We see once again how suddenly Paul can change the referent of the first person plural pronoun (see on 1:4). God establishes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:8–9) the union of believers in Christ through baptism by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13). We may compare the teaching from Luke that Jesus was anointed with the Spirit for his messianic mission (cf. Luke 4:18, citing Isa. 61:1–2; cf. 4Q521 1.2.1–14; 1 Sam. 16:13). In that case, just as God “anointed” Christ with the Spirit at baptism as the messianic son of God (cf. Luke 4:18 with 3:22), so also he “anoints” believers with the Spirit at baptism to become sons of God (cf. Gal. 4:4–6; Rom. 8:15).

In verse 22 Paul continues his description of God. God has everything to do with the security of the present relationship that believers enjoy in Christ and with its future culmination. He has put the Spirit in their hearts, a theme to which Paul will shortly return in defense of his apostleship (cf. 3:3). The Spirit is here described as a deposit, i.e., “down payment,” or “first installment” (cf. 5:5; Eph. 1:14). Elsewhere the Spirit is described as “firstfruits” (Rom. 8:23). These metaphors suggest a connection between the present possession of the Spirit and the final redemption of the body at the resurrection, when the sons of God by adoption will be conformed to the image of the Son, their firstborn brother (cf. Rom. 8:23, 29; 2 Cor. 5:4–5), and share in the messianic inheritance (cf. Rom. 4:13; 8:17, 32).

Paul’s point in 1:18–22 is to show that God is faithful, and that he is God’s spokesman; therefore, the apostle’s unequivocal message, which mediated the promises to the Corinthians, is not susceptible to the charge of double-mindedness. Even if Paul’s travel plans have changed according to the changing circumstances, God’s message spoken through him to the Corinthians—the basis of his whole apostolic ministry—has not changed and is still in effect. Indeed, it establishes the Corinthians in Christ until the consummation.

1:23–2:4 / In 1:23–2:4 Paul gives the real reason that he changed his travel plans: to spare the Corinthians from judgment (1:23–2:2) and to write a letter that would promote reconciliation between the Corinthians and himself (2:3–4). The vocabulary recalls a trial scene, perhaps one much like that which Moses conducted against Korah, who led his followers in rebellion against Moses and Aaron over the issue of power and control (Num. 16–17).

1:23 / Paul begins the section by again calling upon God as his witness in yet another oath, this time in regard to the specific matter of his changed travel plans. Strangely, the NIV does not represent epi tēn emēn psychēn, which should be translated “against my life.” Paul puts his life on the line in calling God as witness against him if he is not telling the truth. Although in the face of opposition Paul must frequently avow that he is not lying (e.g., Rom. 9:1), and even calls upon God as a witness of his actions and speech (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 5:11; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10), he seldom stakes his own life on the truth of his claims. Here we can perhaps glimpse the magnitude of the ongoing opposition that Paul must have felt in Corinth. Despite the possible allusion to Matthew 5:33–37 in 2 Corinthians 1:17, Jesus’ teaching against taking oaths seems to be unknown to Paul.

By making this strong oath, Paul wants to assure the Corinthians in no uncertain terms that the real reason he changed his travel plans and refrained from returning to them as promised was not his alleged double-mindedness, but in order to spare you. The changes in Paul’s travel plans were an act of mercy on his part, as was his tearful letter (2:4). Paul was attempting to restore the Corinthians’ allegiance to him (cf. 2 Cor. 7:8ff.) and to delay judgment coming upon the congregation. At the end of the letter Paul warns the Corinthians that, when he returns to Corinth this next time, he will not “spare” them (13:2). Evidently, he had warned them during his second, painful visit of possible punishment for the church when he returned. The term used in each case is pheidesthai, which Paul uses, for example, in the sense of God’s not sparing his own Son but giving him up to death (Rom. 8:32). Hence, just as Paul calls upon God to take his life if he is not telling the truth to the Corinthians, so also the Corinthians’ very lives are at stake (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30) when the apostle comes to visit them. As the situation stood in the time between the painful visit and the news from Titus, Paul did not want to return to Corinth for fear that he would have to use his awesome apostolic authority, which the Lord gave him really for building the Corinthians up and not for destroying them (2 Cor. 10:8; 12:19–21). Already in 1 Corinthians Paul had warned the church that he might have to come to them “with a stick” (1 Cor. 4:21).

1:24 / Since Paul’s stated desire to spare the Corinthians from judgment (v. 23) strongly implies his apostolic authority to judge the Corinthians, Paul tries to avoid appearing too authoritarian and to reassure the Corinthians. When Paul states that we do not lord it over the Corinthians in the context of judgment, he may be alluding to Korah’s rebellion, which challenged the authority of Moses and Aaron by accusing them of exalting themselves over the Israelites (Num. 16:3, 13) and by arguing for equality. If Paul is alluding to this OT incident, then the we might include Timothy (cf. 2 Cor. 1:19), the co-sender of the letter (1:1), who would then be seen as an Aaron figure.

The apostle tries further to defuse the situation by appealing to the mutuality between himself and the Corinthians, a theme begun in the opening (vv. 1–2) and thanksgiving (vv. 3–11). Despite his similarity to Moses, who had the divine authority to judge the congregation, Paul chose to spare the Corinthians. Unlike Moses, he is not in a ruler-subject relationship with the Corinthians. On the contrary, both Paul and the Corinthians are fellow workers, a description that Paul later uses of Titus, his trusted traveling companion and co-laborer (8:23). Furthermore, Paul and the Corinthians are working together for the benefit and joy of the latter, as manifested by the fact that the Corinthians stand firm in faith. The relationship between Paul and the Corinthians is therefore fundamentally positive (cf. 10:8; 13:10).

2:1–2 / Paul resumes his point from verse 23, that he did not return to Corinth too quickly after the painful (second) visit in order to spare the Corinthians from judgment (lit., “not to come to you again in sorrow”). If Paul had come to Corinth as promised, it would have meant more pain and sorrow for Paul himself (v. 2), but, more significantly, also for the Corinthians (v. 3). Instead of forcing the issue too quickly, Paul wanted to wait until there was some sign from the church of at least partial repentance and reconciliation before he would contemplate another visit, so he sent the tearful letter instead. Since Titus had recently brought him a positive report of the Corinthians’ improved attitude (7:6–7), Paul could now write 2 Corinthians in order further to prepare for his long-awaited third visit (cf. 13:1–2). As the accusations against Paul in the present section make clear, Paul is, however, still struggling to win the Corinthians’ total confidence and support.

2:3 / In verses 3–4 and verse 9, Paul gives three reasons why he wrote the tearful letter instead of coming to the Corinthians as promised after the painful visit. First, he wanted to prepare the way for his coming; for by changing his travel plans and writing a corrective letter instead (cf. 2:9; 7:8), Paul was merely delaying his trip to Corinth, not abandoning it altogether. He wanted to wait until the Corinthians were more receptive to him, so that his reunion with them would be an occasion for joy rather than sorrow. Remarkably, Paul expresses his confidence in all of the Corinthians, even the ones who are currently defecting from him and siding with the opponents. Such is his confidence in the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of this congregation (cf. 3:1–18). Paul’s hope for the Corinthians is firm (1:7) and his confidence in them is complete (7:4, 16). Of course, this is also grounded in the fact that Paul has already received evidence of the Corinthians’ willingness to be reconciled with him.

2:4 / The second reason Paul wrote the tearful letter was to show his love for the Corinthians. This verse informs us that the letter Paul wrote after his painful second visit to Corinth was indeed a tearful letter. Many interpreters consider 2 Corinthians 10–13 part of that tearful letter, although very little sorrow is expressed there, and the problem is caused by false apostles (11:5, 13) rather than by a member of the Corinthian church (see the Introduction). Some interpreters, therefore, have associated the phrase I wrote you out of great distress with 1 Corinthians, especially chapter 5, although the immoral brother there did not grieve Paul personally. More probably, the tearful letter is one of the lost letters of Paul, along with the one mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9.

The distress (thlipsis) that Paul experienced over the situation at Corinth is different from the life-threatening “hardships” he suffered at the same time in the province of Asia (1:8), although the same Greek word is used of both. Perhaps the term is used in the present context so that the Corinthians will realize that the anguish of soul they caused Paul at that time added internal grief to external affliction. This interpretation of thlipsis correlates with 7:5, where Paul uses a related term (thlibomenoi) to suggest that the tribulations that he suffered during the period before he heard from Titus included an external and an internal component (“conflicts on the outside, fears within”). We may also compare 11:28, which includes external dangers alongside the daily pressure on the apostle because his concern for all the churches.

If the use of thlipsis in 2:4 is thus designed to recall Paul’s tribulation as described in the thanksgiving (1:3–11), then it is interesting to note that his suffering in Asia happened for the sake of the Corinthians (1:6). Thus, both forms of thlipsis become expressions of Paul’s love and concern for the church. Paul explicitly states that he did not write the tearful letter to grieve the Corinthians, although he is aware that it did temporarily grieve them (cf. 7:8–9); rather, he wrote in order to show his love for them (cf. also 6:6; 11:11; 12:15). Paul cared enough to confront them by letter, but he cared too much for them to visit them personally at that time (cf. 1:23; 2:1). Evidently, Paul considers his apostolic presence even more powerful and more potentially injurious to the unrepentant Corinthians than his apostolic letters (cf. 10:11; 12:19–21; 13:1–2, 10), despite claims to the contrary in Corinth (cf. 10:10).

2:5–11 / In this section, Paul explicitly mentions the person who was chiefly responsible for making his second visit to Corinth so painful and who evoked the writing of the tearful letter (v. 5). Like Moses, Paul wanted to give the rebel(s) a chance to repent before executing great judgment among the people. Since the church had now dealt with this offender, he discusses how the church should forgive him and restore him to fellowship (vv. 6–11).

2:5 / The offender is introduced in verse 5 for the first time in the letter. Neither here nor in 7:8–13 does Paul go into any detail about what this unnamed person did to grieve him. Evidently, a member of the Corinthian church insulted Paul personally, while the church stood by passively (cf. 2 Cor. 12:11). Very likely, the offender acted under the influence of Paul’s opponents, who had recently come to Corinth, although nothing is said here about that connection. The insult must have been damaging to Paul’s apostleship, for it caused him to retreat from Corinth. Perhaps the offender was the leader of a group who questioned Paul’s divine sending and exalted position in the church, much as Korah led a rebellion against Moses for similar reasons (cf. Num. 16:3, 13, 28–29; see above on 1:23 and below on 2 Cor. 2:6–7). This might explain why Paul believed that the offender had grieved the whole Corinthian church, for in the case of Korah’s rebellion the whole congregation was threatened with divine judgment because of the sin of one person (cf. Num. 16:20–22, 26). Alternatively, the offender may have grieved just a subgroup of the congregation, for the phrase to some extent may be understood as meaning “in part,” that is, part of the congregation, as in 1:14 (see further on 2:6).

The malefactor’s insult may also have included one or more of the accusations that Paul handles in the present section (1:12–2:4). For example, the accusation of untrustworthiness and double-mindedness leveled against Paul for his change of travel plans (1:15–2:4) could have been the cause of his grief. The malefactor may also have accused Paul of either unholiness (v. 12), insincerity (v. 12), or deception (v. 13). Perhaps the collection that Paul ordered the Corinthians to take on a weekly basis until he came (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–4) became the basis for the malefactor’s accusations against the apostle, for almost immediately after referring again to the man (7:12), Paul launches into an extended discussion of the collection that he wants the Corinthians to continue assembling (chs. 8–9). Ultimately, however, we do not know what the offender did to cause Paul grief, and we are groping in the dark. In 2:5 Paul is concerned merely to adumbrate an incident that the Corinthians know all too well. In any case, the offender’s attack on Paul exceeded the bounds of acceptable controversy from the apostle’s perspective.

From verse 5b it is clear that the actions of the malefactor had an impact on the whole church. But in what sense did he grieve the Corinthians even more than he grieved Paul? Perhaps he challenged the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship and thus called the whole church that Paul founded into question. Perhaps the judgment that this person experienced in particular was felt to some degree by the whole congregation. More probably, the offender grieved the church by causing Paul to send the tearful letter, which in turn brought grief to the recipients (7:8–11). The Corinthians were somehow implicated in the offense, even if they were merely passive during the assault.

2:6 / Paul announces that the offender’s punishment is now sufficient and that the Corinthians should restore him to fellowship. By the writing of 2 Corinthians, the majority of the church at Corinth seems to have carried out the discipline of the malefactor that Paul had apparently ordered in the tearful letter (cf. 7:12). The term “the majority” probably indicates most of the members of the Corinthian church, with dissenters or abstainers still in existence. On the other hand, it may reflect a Hebrew technical term meaning the congregation as a whole (so, e.g., J. C. VanderKam). The interpretation of this expression is crucial to the question of the unity of 2 Corinthians, for if there are two (or more) factions within the Corinthian church, that might explain why Paul would vary his approach in different sections of the letter: first conciliatory and positive (2 Cor. 1–9) and then sarcastic and harsh (chs. 10–13). On the other hand, if Paul makes no distinction between groups within the church, then we are compelled to assume not only that he addresses the church as a whole but that the various sections of 2 Corinthians were written in very different situations. As we have seen on 1:13–14 and 2:5, however, Paul seems to divide the congregation into at least two subgroups: the part that has already understood him and the other that he hopes will eventually understand (1:13–14); or the part that carried out Paul’s directive to punish the offender and the other that was grieved by this punitive action (2:5). Paul explicitly mentions “factions” in the latter section of the letter (12:20; cf. 10:2).

We do not know what form the punishment may have taken, but 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 indicates handing an immoral man over to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh” (v. 5) and exclusion of the individual from the fellowship. Are we to assume in our passage that Titus brought Paul word that the offender had repented of his misdeed, or that Paul absolved him unilaterally? Did the Corinthians appeal to Paul on behalf of the man? These questions are not directly answered in the text, but we find clues to their answer from the traditional background and from the subsequent context.

As far as the traditional background is concerned, an interesting parallel to the idea that the offender’s punishment was sufficient (hikanos) is found in Wisdom 18:20–25, which describes the plague that struck Israel in the desert when they rebelled against Moses and Aaron after Korah’s rebellion (Num. 16:41–50). During that judgment, Aaron is said to have intervened on behalf of the people by an intercessory prayer (Wis. 18:22, 23), so that the destroyer yielded: “for merely the trial [or, experience] of the wrath was enough (hikanos)” (v. 25). In other words, it was deemed sufficient that the community suffered the plague without being completely consumed (see also Isa. 40:2). Likewise in 2 Corinthians 2:6, the punishment of the malefactor who rebelled against Paul is deemed “sufficient.” If Paul has Numbers 16:41ff. in mind as he writes (see Additional Notes below on 2 Cor. 2:15), perhaps our passage implies that Paul interceded on behalf of the offender (cf. 2:10), so that his punishment (and that of the church) would abate. The fact that Paul may be alluding to this OT tradition is supported by the following verse.

2:7 / As a result (hōste) of the offender’s punishment being enough, the Corinthians should pardon the offender. The verb translated here be overwhelmed is katapothē (from katapinein), meaning “be swallowed up” with total extinction as a result (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54; 2 Cor. 5:4). Paul may have chosen this verb because, in the context of the offender’s punishment being “enough” (2 Cor. 2:6; cf. Wis. 18:25), it would recall that those involved in Korah’s rebellion were “swallowed up” (katapinein) by the earth (cf. Num. 16:30, 32, 34). In that case, the punishment to which the offender was exposed could have resulted in his demise (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5), for to be swallowed up in sorrow leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

The Corinthians are instructed to forgive the malefactor (cf. Gal. 6:1). The errant brother is not irrevocably condemned. Even one who commits the most heinous offense can be saved at least on the day of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5). The church is also instructed to comfort (parakalein) the offender. If this person is thereby delivered from being “swallowed up” in a divine judgment similar to that experienced as a result of Korah’s rebellion, perhaps the term should here be translated “deliver” (see on 1:3–11).

2:8 / Because the offender was in danger of being swallowed up in death, Paul forcibly repeats his exhortation to the Corinthians: I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.

2:9 / The third reason, in addition to those given in verses 3–4, that Paul wrote to the Corinthians instead of visiting them as promised is given in verse 9. When Paul wrote the tearful letter he could not have known whether the Corinthians would be obedient in punishing the offender. As Paul explains in 7:12, he wrote to them so “that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are.” Since that time, Paul has learned from Titus that the church has indeed complied. As an apostle, Paul has the authority and goal of making the Corinthians obedient (10:5–6). Indeed, the reason for which Paul received apostleship was to bring about obedience of faith among the nations (cf. Rom. 1:5).

The NIV translates verse 9b to see if you would stand the test. A more literal translation would be “in order that I might know your character” (cf. Phil. 2:22). Paul was subjecting the Corinthians’ character to examination and approval, by seeing whether they would comply with his directive to punish the offender and thereby reaffirm Paul’s apostolic authority. Whereas in the previous context Paul has been handling accusations leveled against his own character by the Corinthians, Paul now turns the tables by stating that he was examining the Corinthians’ character (see the similar reversal in 12:19–21).

2:10 / Just as Paul has already urged the Corinthians to forgive the malefactor (vv. 7–8), Paul now reaffirms his willingness to forgive him for the sake of the Corinthians in the sight of Christ or “in the presence of Christ.” The phrase “in the presence” (lit., “in the face”) is used in the LXX of being in close physical proximity to another person (cf. Jer. 52:25; 2 Macc. 14:24; Prov. 4:3; 25:7). In light of Paul’s whole train of thought in 2:14–4:6, however, the idea of “in the presence of Christ” is at least latent, for Paul argues in that passage that he is a Moses-like revelatory mediator who has direct access to the very presence of God in Christ, that is, the throne of God and Christ in heaven (see below on 2:14, 17; 12:2–4).

When Paul states that he has forgiven the malefactor for the sake of the Corinthians “in the presence of Christ,” he probably means this quite literally. The image is possibly that of Moses making intercession for the Israelites in the presence of God (see the allusion to Num. 16:1ff. above and Additional Notes on 2:17 [the allusion to LXX Exod. 32:11A] below). If Paul’s forgiveness of the malefactor was for your sake, then the whole Corinthian church may have been somehow adversely affected by the offender’s punishment, for the offender caused the church more sorrow than he did Paul himself (cf. 2 Cor. 2:5). In that case, Paul’s intercession would actually have been for the whole church. The reason Paul cautiously puts in the clause, if there was anything to forgive (better: “if I have forgiven anything”), is perhaps a realization that, just as the offense was ultimately against Christ, insofar as it was his apostle who was slandered, so also the forgiveness must ultimately come from Christ and not merely from the apostle.

2:11 / The purpose for which Paul forgave the malefactor in the presence of Christ is so that Satan would not gain the advantage in the situation. There is little doubt that the name Satan (ho Satanas) is related to the Hebrew verb satan meaning “to slander, accuse” (cf. Pss. 38:21; 71:13; 109:4, 20, 29; Zech. 3:1). In later Jewish tradition, Satan is responsible for many of the sins mentioned in the OT. For example, it was Satan who was responsible for the Israelites worshipping the golden calf, because he deceitfully declared that Moses would not return from Mount Sinai (b. Šabb. 89a).

In 2 Corinthians 2:11 Paul may be playing on the meaning of “Satan” as “Slanderer,” just as in 6:15 he seems to play on the popular etymology of Belial (“yokeless”), another of the many names for the “devil.” Paul has been slandered by the malefactor, who is perhaps conceived as an agent of the “Slanderer” (cf. 12:7). Furthermore, if Paul has sought the forgiveness of the man “in the presence of Christ” in heaven (2:10), perhaps the apostle’s familiarity with Satan and his ways (cf., e.g., Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor. 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess. 2:18; also 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 1:20; 5:15) stems not merely from his acquaintance with the Jewish tradition (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14 with Apoc. Mos. 17:1), but also from personal encounters with Satan in heaven (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7).

For Paul, Satan is a conquered, yet still dangerous, foe. Although “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20), Satan is still “the god of this age,” who blinds the minds of unbelievers from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Cor. 4:4), and he is “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (Eph. 2:2). There can be no fellowship between the realm of Belial and unbelievers, on the one hand, and the realm of Christ and believers, on the other; for they are as mutually exclusive as darkness and light (2 Cor. 6:14–16). Nevertheless, Satan tries to thwart believers at every point, either by leading them astray to “another gospel” (11:3–4) or by tempting them (1 Thess. 3:5; 1 Cor. 7:5). Likewise, Satan tries to thwart the apostle, whether by afflicting him (2 Cor. 12:7), by preventing him from going to certain places at certain times (1 Thess. 2:18; cf. Rom. 1:13), or by rendering his apostolic work useless (1 Thess. 3:5). Paul is aware that Satan has schemes by which he can gain the upper hand (cf. Eph. 6:11; 4QMMT C 29, referring to “the plans of evil and the scheme of Belial”). Therefore, in this spiritual warfare against a formidable adversary, believers need to be properly equipped with the armor of God, so that they may be able to withstand the onslaught (1 Thess. 5:8; Rom. 13:12; Eph. 6:10–18).

Because he does not want Satan to triumph in this struggle, Paul has forgiven the offending brother for the Corinthians’ sake. Evidently, the apostle wants to present a united front against the adversary, for otherwise the enemy would outwit Paul. If Satan can divide the Corinthian church even more deeply than it already is (cf. 1:10; 3:1–4; 4:14; 6:1, 4, 6; 12:14–31), then he will have succeeded in completely neutralizing its witness, its role in attesting to the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship, its contribution to the collection, and its partnership with the apostle in the westward expansion of the gospel. If we can see 2 Corinthians as an appeal for concord (see Introduction; also on 13:11), then the readmission of the offender serves the purpose for writing the letter.

2:12–13 / Having discussed the issue of the one who slandered him during his painful second visit (vv. 5–11), Paul abruptly resumes his train of thought from verse 4, where he mentioned that his tearful letter was written as a reaction, under great distress and anguish. In verses 12–13 Paul goes on to state that, while waiting to hear of the Corinthians’ response to his letter, he himself was overwhelmed with concern over the situation, and that he actually changed his travel plans because of that concern. Hence Paul is able to show that, far from being double-minded, his single-mindedness toward the Corinthians resulted in the change of plans that brought him to Macedonia. The apologetic tone of verses 12–13 is palpable once it is seen in the context of the foregoing section on accusations against Paul.

2:12 / Paul begins by explaining what he was doing in the period after sending the tearful letter. After his traumatic second visit to Corinth, he stayed in Ephesus for a while and then traveled to Troas (or to “the Troad,” i.e., the whole region in which the city was situated) in northwest Asia Minor in order to do some missionary work. When Paul went is uncertain, but it was probably after the nearly fatal tribulation mentioned in 1:8–11. Why Paul went is also uncertain, other than that he seems to have made prior arrangements with Titus to meet him there (see v. 13). But why did Paul choose to meet Titus in Troas and not somewhere else? In the port city of Troas there was probably already a small number of believers to whom Paul had preached the gospel on his second missionary journey (cf. Acts 16:8–10; 20:7). Now he evidently wanted to continue the work that he had started there. The metaphor of an opened door indicates that the Lord had given him a good opportunity to preach the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 16:9; Col. 4:3; Acts 14:27).

2:13 / Having mentioned the successful missionary work in which he was engaged in the period after sending the tearful letter, Paul then describes how his concern for the situation in Corinth overwhelmed him. Despite the good opportunity for spreading the gospel in Troas, Paul did not wait there for the arrival of Titus. Paul wanted to hear as soon as possible from Titus how the letter had been received in Corinth (cf. 7:6–15). When he did not meet Titus in Troas, Paul became so anxious that he traveled to Macedonia in order to try to find Titus, in effect reverting to his original plan of going to Macedonia before coming to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 16:5). Paul evidently knew that after delivering the tearful letter to the Corinthians and hearing their response, Titus would have taken a northerly route, making his way back to Paul in Troas via Macedonia. Here again we notice that, in describing his travels, Paul thinks in terms of Roman provinces like Achaia (1:1; 9:2; 11:10), Asia (1:8), and Macedonia (1:16; 2:13; 7:5; 8:1; 11:9). He obviously has at least a mental map in view.

If Paul was willing to relinquish a golden opportunity to preach the gospel in Troas, an opportunity that the Lord himself had opened for Paul (v. 12), that shows how much the church at Corinth meant to him, and how concerned he was over the outcome of the situation. Whereas formerly the Corinthians, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, had given Paul’s spirit rest, probably at the time they delivered the Corinthians’ letter to Paul (1 Cor. 16:17–18; cf. 7:1), Paul now had no peace of mind (lit., “no rest for my spirit”; cf. 7:13b). Only Titus’s report of a positive reply from the church at Corinth could do that. And much was riding on that response for Paul’s entire enterprise: the success of his collection for Jerusalem, the advance of his mission to Spain, and the spiritual lives of the Corinthians themselves. No wonder Paul was uneasy! This anxiety is part of Paul’s regular apostolic suffering on behalf his churches (cf. 7:5; 11:28).

At this point, Paul interrupts his travelogue and delays telling us how he met Titus in Macedonia and what Titus told him; he continues that story in 7:5–16. By delaying the narrative, Paul heightens the suspense in the letter and puts greater emphasis on the intervening section (2:14–7:4), in which he defends the legitimacy of his apostleship and appeals to the Corinthians to reconcile themselves to him. Actually, Paul has already begun both his defense and his appeal for reconciliation in the thanksgiving (1:3–11) and in the section on accusations (1:12–2:4).