Context
Ancient Greek letters generally opened with an introductory greeting, followed by a short expression of praise and prayerful concern or thanksgiving for the recipients. Paul’s letters usually begin in the same way. However, this letter is unusual in that what follows the greeting is a benediction in which he blesses God, not for grace evident in the lives of his audience, as is the case in most of his other letters, but rather for the comfort he and his colleagues experienced in the midst of great affliction. Paul tells his audience that his afflictions are for their comfort and salvation, and that he hopes that as they share in the suffering, they will share in the comfort he has experienced as well. It has been suggested that Paul’s failure to bless God for the progress of his audience’s faith reflects the strained relationship between them, though this is by no means certain. In fact, while Paul sees himself as a ‘broker’ of God’s comfort to the Corinthians, he also looks to them to be ‘brokers’ of God’s grace to him through their prayers.1
Despite the unusual nature of this section, it performs the usual function, that is, to establish rapport with the audience and foreshadow major themes which are taken up later in the letter, including those of affliction and comfort, life and death, and the purpose of apostolic sufferings (4:7–18; 6:3–10; 7:4–7; 11:23 – 12:10; 13:3–4).
Comment
Paul’s opening words follow the formula found at the beginning of many ancient Greek letters: ‘A to B, greeting’. But Paul has expanded the formula with words that emphasize his apostolic authority (which had been called into question at Corinth), and by the inclusion of specifically Christian sentiments dominated by references to God: ‘by the will of God’, ‘the church of God’ and ‘God our Father’.
1. Paul describes himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God. For Paul‚ an apostle was one who had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:3–10; Gal. 1:15–16), had been entrusted with the gospel by him (Gal. 1:11–12; 2:7), and in whose ministry the grace of God was evident (Rom. 1:5; 15:17–19; Gal. 2:8–9). It was on the Damascus road that Jesus Christ apprehended Paul, entrusted him with the gospel, and commissioned him ‘to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake’ (Rom. 1:5). While Paul describes himself as an apostle of Christ, he insists that he was so by the will of God. There is a distinct parallel between the authority that Paul claimed and that exercised by the Twelve whom Jesus sent on the Galilean mission. To them Jesus said, ‘Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me’ (Matt. 10:40). Paul’s commission to be Christ’s emissary was backed by the will of God the Father. Paul needed to emphasize his authority at the beginning of the letter because it had been called into question at Corinth.
Included with Paul in the opening greeting is Timothy our brother. According to Acts 16:1–3, it was at Lystra, while on his second missionary journey, that Paul met Timothy. He was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father. Paul saw Timothy’s potential and recruited him as a member of the small missionary band. During Paul’s extended ministry in Ephesus on his third missionary journey, he sent Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. 4:17 mg.; 16:10), possibly as the bearer of 1 Corinthians. If Timothy was the bearer, we may assume he did in fact reach Corinth, though there is no explicit evidence that he did so, or of what transpired there if he did. What we do know is that Titus subsequently replaced Timothy as Paul’s emissary to that city. In any case, by the time Paul dictated the opening greeting of 2 Corinthians, Timothy had rejoined him in Ephesus. That his name is included with Paul’s in the address does not necessarily imply that Timothy was party to ‘the vigorous and passionate interchange with the Corinthian believers that is the chief subject of the letter’ (Barnett, p. 58), though it would seem Paul did not think Timothy was averse to being associated with the contents of the letter.
The Roman province of Achaia covered the southern half of present-day Greece, and included, as well as Corinth, the port-city of Cenchreae and also Athens. However, what Paul means by the whole of Achaia may not be coextensive with this Roman province. In 1 Corinthians 16:15–18 he referred to the household of Stephanas (of Corinth) as the first converts in Achaia. We know Paul made converts in Athens (Acts 17:34) before coming to Corinth, so it would seem that the region he speaks of as Achaia may not include Athens,2 and was therefore not coextensive with the Roman province so named. We know there were believers in Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1), and these are probably included among Paul’s addressees.
2. In ancient Greek letters the word ‘greeting’ (chairein) was used in the introductory formula, ‘A to B, greeting’. In New Testament epistolary contexts chairein is found only in Acts 15:23; 23:26 and James 1:1. In Paul’s letters chairein is replaced by the uniquely Christian word charis (grace), and in most cases this is expanded, as here: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The word charis itself is used extensively in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word hen, which is often found in expressions such as ‘to find favour in someone’s eyes’. When people found favour, it usually meant that the one showing favour acted to meet their needs or deliver them from their troubles (cf. e.g. Gen. 6:8; 39:4; Exod. 12:36; Num. 11:15; 32:5; 1 Sam. 20:29; Jer. 31:2). When Paul speaks of God’s grace, it often refers to God’s love shown in the sending of his Son into the world to effect salvation for humankind (cf. Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 8:9), but that having been done, it is now shown by repeated gracious acts of love, help and provision (cf. Rom. 8:32). In the context of opening greetings, as here, Paul is invoking God’s favour and loving care for his audience.
Peace translates eirēnē, which in classical Greek had a predominantly negative meaning (absence of hostility). But in the LXX eirēnē was used as an equivalent for the Hebrew word shalōm which carried positive notions of well-being, wholeness and prosperity enjoyed by those who were the recipients of God’s grace (cf. Num. 6:22–27). It is this positive idea that eirēnē bore for New Testament writers and especially for Paul. The peace which Paul invoked for his audience is primarily that objective peace with God won through Christ’s death (cf. Eph. 2:13–18), the realization of which produces in believers the subjective awareness of peace and well-being.
for I am God, and there is no other.
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
(Isa. 45:22–23, italics added)
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
The God of all comfort. With this added description of God, Paul introduces the main theme of the benediction and foreshadows much of what is to follow later in the letter. The word translated comfort (paraklēsis) belongs to an important word group which also includes parakaleō (to ask, exhort or to encourage, comfort) and paraklētos (advocate or comforter). Significantly, the use of parakaleō meaning ‘to exhort’, which was common in both the Greek and Hellenistic Jewish worlds, is almost completely absent from the LXX. On the other hand, the use of parakaleō meaning ‘to comfort’, which is rare in writings from the Greek and Hellenistic Jewish worlds, is common in the LXX. Outstanding examples of the use of this word in the LXX are found in Isaiah 40:1; 51:3; 61:2; 66:13, where the comfort spoken of is God’s deliverance of his people.3 The word paraklēsis is used by Luke in his Gospel when describing those who, like the aged Simeon, were ‘waiting for the consolation/comfort [paraklēsin] of Israel’ (Luke 2:25). The consolation expected was the deliverance which God would provide through the coming of the Messiah. For Paul, the messianic age had already begun, albeit while the present age was still running its course, and it is the overlapping of the ages which accounts for the surprising coincidence of affliction and comfort of which he speaks in the present passage. The final consolation of the children of God awaits the day of the revelation of Jesus Christ in glory. But because the messianic age has been inaugurated by Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, at his first coming, believers experience comfort in the present time as a foretaste of that final consolation.
4. In this verse Paul moves from the general description of the ‘God of all comfort’, to speak of him as the one who comforts us in all our troubles. There are two things we need to know. What were the troubles, and what was the nature of the comfort? It is fairly easy to identify what Paul meant by troubles. In 2 Corinthians itself there are a number of references to the troubles he experienced (1:8–10; 4:7–12; 11:23–29). These included the physical hardships, dangers, persecutions and anxieties he experienced as he carried out his apostolic commission.
The answer to the second question is not so easily determined. On the one hand, it is true that sometimes the comfort which Paul received was deliverance out of troubles. In verses 8–11 he speaks of deliverance from deadly peril, and in 7:5–7, where he describes the events immediately preceding the writing of this letter, he speaks of the release from anxiety experienced when Titus rejoined him in Macedonia. However, it is clear that Paul was not delivered from all persecution and affliction as a result of receiving comfort from God. The references to troubles in 2 Corinthians mentioned above are enough to show that. Nevertheless, it is obvious that up to the time of writing, God had delivered Paul out of all his troubles in the sense that none of them had proved fatal (vv. 8–11; cf. Acts 9:23–25; 14:19–20; 16:19–40).
5. Because the old age still persists, Paul says we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ. The idea of Christ’s sufferings being abundantly shared by Paul or believers has been variously interpreted: (a) Paul experienced suffering in his apostolic work just as Christ did in his work as Messiah.4 (b) The sufferings experienced by Christ are extended so as to reach and be shared by others (Barrett, p. 61). (c) To share the sufferings of Christ is an allusion to Christian baptism (Thrall, pp. 107–110). (d) The sufferings of Christ experienced by believers are not special sufferings, but those experienced by humankind in general, but Christians experience and understand them in a new way (Bultmann, p. 24). (e) Paul’s Jewish contemporaries expected the messianic age to be preceded and ushered in by a period of suffering. These were known as the messianic woes or birth pangs of the Messiah/Christ.5 (f) ‘Christ, who suffered personally on the cross, continues to suffer in his people’ while the old age lasts (Bruce, p. 178; Harris, p. 146; cf. Acts 9:4–5).
Evaluating the various suggestions, we can say the view that to share the sufferings of Christ is related to Christian baptism has found few supporters. Bultmann’s suggestion that it refers to humankind’s experience in general lacks cogency in the light of the lists of affliction in 2 Corinthians, all of which are related to Paul’s ministry as an apostle. On the other hand, some of the remaining suggestions could be combined. We could say that the sufferings of Christ refer to sufferings endured on behalf of Christ and experienced as a part of what the Jews called the birth pangs of the Messiah, while at the same time seeing some closer identification between Christ and the Christian sufferer. We could, for instance, say that while Christians endure the messianic woes for the sake of Christ, he at the same time suffers in his people (cf. Acts 9:4–5), or that united with Christ, they too fulfil the role of the Suffering Servant, and share his afflictions.6
As Paul shared abundantly in the sufferings of Christ because the old age is still running, so also his comfort abounds through Christ because the new messianic age had already begun (though it had not yet been fully brought in). As we have seen, this comfort can take the form of either deliverance out of affliction or encouragement in the midst of affliction which enables one to endure. This comfort can be mediated providentially through fellow believers, as was the case with Paul when Titus met him in Macedonia (7:6–7).
6. In verse 4 Paul indicated one positive outcome of the endurance of affliction: the ability to comfort others who are in affliction. Here in verse 6 he mentions a second positive aspect: If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation. There was a benefit to be received by the Corinthians as a result of Paul’s afflictions. Through his preaching ministry, which was accompanied by many sufferings, Paul made it possible for the Corinthians to share in this comfort. The comfort was understood to include both the firstfruits of salvation which are experienced in the present time, and final salvation at the last day. For this reason, Paul could say his afflictions were for their comfort and salvation. Later in the letter he says, ‘death is at work in us, but life is at work in you’ (4:12).
7. Despite the tension in the relationship between Paul and his converts after the writing of 1 Corinthians (see Introduction), he concludes this benediction section with the affirmation: And our hope for you is firm. Up until and including the time of writing chapters 1 – 9, Paul had not lost confidence in his audience (cf. 2:3; 7:4). Even when he wrote the ‘severe letter’, he was still sure that they would respond positively, and he had expressed to Titus his confidence that they would do so (7:12–16). Undergirding Paul’s confidence in them was the knowledge that God himself encouraged and strengthened them: because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort. Literally translated, the statement would read: ‘knowing that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the comfort’. Two matters call for comment.
8. In verse 7 Paul told his audience that as they share in ‘the’ sufferings, they also share in ‘the’ comfort. In this verse, introduced with the formula, We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, he moves from the general to the particular and informs them about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia, an experience in which he was comforted by God. This experience was still fresh in Paul’s memory. We lack sufficient information for a positive identification of what these Asian troubles were. A number of suggestions have been made (see ‘Additional note: Paul’s troubles in the province of Asia’, below), of which Jewish opposition stirred up against the apostle in Ephesus commends itself the most. In any case, encountering these troubles proved to be a devastating experience for Paul. He says, We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself.
9. Adding a further explanation of the seriousness of the situation he faced, Paul says, Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death (lit. ‘Indeed, we ourselves have received the sentence of death in ourselves’). This statement is difficult to interpret. Two factors are determinative: the meaning of the Greek word translated sentence (apokrima), and the significance of the words ‘in ourselves’ (en heautois). Paul’s reference to having received the sentence ‘in ourselves’ suggests that a subjective experience was involved. It was not so much a verdict pronounced by some external authority, but rather a perception in the heart and mind of the apostle himself. It follows then that the sentence (apokrima) was probably not one pronounced by some magistrate. It was more likely either the conclusion reached by Paul himself as he realized the dire straits he was in (so most commentators), or possibly the ‘answer’ (apokrima can mean either ‘answer’, ‘decision’ or ‘verdict’) given by God to the apostle’s prayer about this situation.7 In any case, he was in a hopeless situation, and humanly speaking there was no escape.
Paul says he experienced this despair so that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. Reliance upon God rather than upon one’s own ability is of fundamental importance in the Christian life, yet such an attitude does not come naturally. Very often, as in the case of the apostle Paul, facing impossible situations is necessary so that we might not rely on ourselves but on God. Paul perceived that one of the divine purposes involved when Christians are plunged into afflictions is to teach dependence on God.
For Paul, the deadly peril he faced in Asia must have been most distressing. Not only was the prospect of death involved (‘we despaired of life itself ’, v. 8), but it appeared that his missionary career was to be cut short and urgent projects be left undone. The problems in Corinth had not been resolved, the collection for the saints at Jerusalem (cf. chs. 8–9) had not been completed, and his own ambition to evangelize the western part of the empire would not come to fruition (cf. Rom. 15.22–29). As Hughes (p. 20) observes, ‘His feelings must have been not unlike those of Abraham when faced with the offering of Isaac… But he learnt also to have a faith similar to that of Abraham, who accounted “that God could even raise the dead”’ (cf. Rom. 4:17; Heb. 11:19). When Paul faced death, he learnt to rely upon God who raises the dead. He already knew God had raised Christ from the dead and would also raise up with Christ those who trust in him (1 Cor. 15:20–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). However, he seems to have learnt something more personal through his experience in Asia, that is, reliance upon God as the one who would raise him personally from the dead.
Having experienced a divine deliverance in the immediate past, Paul was encouraged to believe God would act on his behalf again: On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us. Paul was ever conscious of threats to his safety which emanated from his fellow countrymen (Rom. 15:30–31; 1 Thess. 2:14–16), and according to Acts there were to be yet further attempts made by them to kill him (Acts 20:3; 21:10–14; 23:12–15). Nevertheless, here Paul expresses his confidence that God will continue to deliver him. Some have suggested that this future deliverance which Paul anticipated was not from temporal dangers, but rather the final great deliverance of the last day. However, this is unlikely – the solicitation for his audience’s prayers in the next verse suggests that deliverance from present perils was uppermost in Paul’s mind.
Numerous attempts have been made to identify Paul’s troubles in Asia. While none of these can be regarded as conclusive due to lack of concrete evidence, nevertheless some commend themselves more than others:
(i) Denny suggests that it was the imminent danger of drowning implied in 2 Corinthians 11:25,8 but this is unlikely, not being the sort of experience one would describe as occurring ‘in Asia’.
(ii) A view adopted by several more recent commentators (e.g. Barrett, p. 64; Harris, pp. 170–172) is that the trouble Paul suffered was a grave illness. In favour of this view is the fact that it makes good sense of the perfect tense in ‘we felt we had received [eschēkamen] the sentence of death’ (v. 9). If Paul had been afflicted with a grave illness, then he might have felt as though he had received the sentence of death, and that it was only the life-giving power of God which could prevent that sentence from being carried out. However, the view is not without its problems. It entails a highly unusual (though not unique) use of the word translated ‘trouble’ (thlipsis), which is rarely used to describe illness. Also, if it is accepted that verses 8–11 are illustrative of the general truth of sharing comfort while sharing Christ’s sufferings (vv. 5–7), it is unlikely that Paul’s troubles ‘in the province of Asia’ were the result of a grave illness. Elsewhere when the apostle speaks of his troubles in such terms, they are best understood as persecutions and sufferings encountered in the course of his apostolic ministry (cf. Gal. 6:17; Col. 1:24).
(iii) Tertullian identified Paul’s troubles in Asia with the fighting with ‘wild beasts in Ephesus’ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:329 (so too Plummer, pp. 15–17). Against this it is objected that the way Paul speaks of his troubles in 2 Corinthians 1:8 (‘We do not want you to be uninformed… about the troubles we experienced’) suggests that this was the first time he had mentioned it to the Corinthians, and that it must therefore have occurred after the writing of 1 Corinthians. Further, the statement, ‘I fought wild beasts in Ephesus’, should not be taken literally, for that would imply a death sentence which he would not have survived.
(iv) It has been suggested that during an Ephesian imprisonment Paul had been exposed to ‘such a deadly a peril’ (Furnish, p. 123). While there is no explicit information about an Ephesian imprisonment of Paul in the New Testament, some scholars argue that references Paul makes in verses 8–10 to despairing of life and deadly peril experienced in Asia imply an Ephesian imprisonment. Provided we accept the case for an Ephesian imprisonment, it is an attractive explanation of Paul’s troubles in Asia, more especially if along with it we also accept an Ephesian provenance for Philippians, in which there are allusions to an imminent death anticipated by Paul (Phil. 1:20–23; 2:17–18).
(v) Other commentators (e.g. Calvin, p. 11; Lietzmann, p. 100) identify the troubles in Asia with the tumult in Ephesus following the charges brought against Paul by the guild of silversmiths led by Demetrius, a tumult in which the Jewish opposition to Paul was also mobilized (cf. Acts 19:23–41). Yates draws attention to the possible leading role played by Alexander in stirring up the Jews (Acts 19:33), for one by the same name is mentioned again in 2 Timothy 4:14 as having done Paul ‘a great deal of harm’. Also, in the address to the Ephesian elders, Paul refers to the ‘severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents’ (Acts 20:19). Further, according to Acts, it was ‘Jews from the province of Asia’ who stirred up the crowd in the temple at Jerusalem so that rough hands were laid upon Paul (Acts 21:27). Had these Jews travelled from Asia to carry through in Jerusalem the persecution they had begun in Ephesus?10 Against this view it is argued that according to Acts 19 Paul does not appear to have been in such deadly peril or despair of his life as 2 Corinthians 1:8–11 implies, having been dissuaded by the disciples and some of the provincial officials (Asiarchs) (Acts 19:30–31) from venturing into the theatre during the tumult. This is a weighty objection, but can be largely neutralized when it is recognized that the writing of Acts was probably some thirty years removed from the events described, whereas when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 1:8–11 these events were still fresh in his memory.
It is the last of these suggestions that commends itself most to the present writer. However, as mentioned at the beginning of this note, none of the suggestions can be conclusive because of the paucity of concrete evidence available. While we cannot be certain about the nature of Paul’s troubles, we may be sure about the lesson he wished to draw from it: the importance of dependence upon God who raises the dead.
Theology
The introductory greeting reflects a number of matters of theological significance. First, Paul was commissioned as an apostle by Jesus Christ (an allusion to his encounter with him on the Damascus road), and this commission was by the will of God, indicating that those who received Paul and his message received Christ, and to receive Christ is to receive God who sent him (cf. Matt. 10:40). Second, the addressees are described as ‘the church of God that is in Corinth’, an indication that the church is not just a social organization, but is God’s possession in which God himself is pleased to be present (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24–25). Third, God, who was previously known as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is now described as ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’. That Jesus Christ is named as ‘the Lord’ implies the closest possible identification with Yahweh. God revealed himself fully in Christ, as Paul says in Colossians 1:19: ‘For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.’ God is also described as ‘the Father of mercies’. In the Old Testament, God’s mercies were revealed to Israel when he rescued them from their enemies, but it was through his great saving acts in Christ that God’s mercies were fully revealed. Paul describes God as ‘the God of all comfort’, the one who delivers his people from their enemies and strengthens them in the midst of afflictions. God’s comfort finds its ultimate expression in the saving work of Christ.
The word ‘conscience’ (syneidēsis) is found more often in the Pauline corpus than in the rest of the books of the New Testament put together. Unlike the Stoics, Paul did not regard conscience as the voice of God within, nor did he restrict its function to a person’s past acts (usually the bad ones), as was the case in the secular Greek world of his day.11 For Paul, conscience is a human faculty whereby people either approve or disapprove of their actions (whether already performed or only intended) and those of others.12 The conscience is not to be equated with the voice of God or even the moral law; rather, it is a human faculty which adjudicates upon human action in the light of the highest standard a person perceives, a standard that in the case of the Jews could be the norms of the Mosaic law and halakhic tradition, and in the case of Christians the norms of God’s past and present revelation.
Seeing that all of human nature has been affected by sin, both a person’s perception of the standard of action required and the function of the conscience itself (as a constituent part of human nature) are also affected by sin. For this reason, conscience can never be accorded the position of ultimate judge of one’s behaviour. It is possible that the conscience may excuse one for that which God will not excuse, and conversely it is equally possible that conscience may condemn a person for that which God allows. The final judgment therefore belongs only to God (cf. 1 Cor. 4:2–5). Nevertheless, to reject the voice of conscience is to court spiritual disaster (cf. 1 Tim. 1:19). We cannot reject the voice of conscience with impunity, but we can modify the highest standard to which it relates by gaining for ourselves a greater understanding of the truth.
In this verse Paul explains the nature of his boasting: our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity13 and godly sincerity. Paul behaves in this way in the world (i.e. wherever he carries out his mission), but he says he does so especially in our relations with you. He spent eighteen months with the Corinthians on his first visit to their city, and during that time, and in his subsequent contacts with them, he had been especially careful to act in an exemplary way. We can only guess at the reason why Paul was so careful in Corinth. Perhaps the Corinthians were more critical than most of the behaviour of itinerants (whose methods were not always exemplary) and Paul wanted it to be abundantly clear that as a messenger of the gospel he renounced all such questionable methods.
He says, We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace. The contrast between operating with integrity and godly sincerity and relying… on God’s grace on the one hand, and with worldly wisdom on the other, is one which surfaces frequently in Paul’s letters. For instance, later in this letter Paul asserts, ‘Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God’ (2:17; cf. 4:2). Worldly wisdom resorts to cunning (cf. 4:2) or cleverness with words (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1) to impress an audience. A ministry by the grace of God is one which relies upon the power of God (cf. Rom. 15:17–19; 1 Cor. 2:2–5; 2 Cor. 12:11–12). If God by his grace chooses to manifest his power, then the ministry will be effective; if not, then Paul will not seek to produce results by questionable means.
13a. Paul continues his general defence: For we do not write to you anything you cannot read or understand. One particular aspect of his integrity that had been called into question by the Corinthians related to what he had written. Paul responds to insinuations that in his letters he wrote one thing but intended another. Various suggestions concerning what letter(s) this might relate to include: the ‘previous letter’ (1 Cor. 5:9), the ‘severe letter’ (2 Cor. 2:3–4; 7:8–12), or parts of 1 Corinthians in which he wrote about refusing support (1 Cor. 9:12–18) and his travel plans (1 Cor. 16:5–7). The last of these is most likely as he proceeds to explain the reasons why he changed those plans (2 Cor. 1:15 – 2:4). In any case, Paul firmly denies that he wrote in a way other than a perfectly straightforward manner.
The word benefit (charis) may simply denote the joy Paul hoped would be experienced by the Corinthians when he visited them again. However, because Paul no longer thought of his relationship with others in purely human terms (cf. 5:16) – that is, apart from the significance of Christ – it is more likely that the benefit Paul had in mind should be understood in terms of the effects of his spiritual ministry among them (cf. Rom. 1:11–12).14
The word translated send me on my way (propemphthēnai) carries the sense of providing a person with things necessary for a journey. When Paul wrote of his intended journey to Judea, he had in mind his trip to Jerusalem with the collection taken up among the Gentile churches for the poor believers there (cf. Acts 20:1 – 21:17; Rom. 15:25–27).
17. The confidence with which Paul spoke in verse 15 was to a certain extent misplaced, for criticism of him had been entertained among the Corinthians. It was criticism of his changed travel plans that forced him to ask, Was I fickle when I intended to do this? The form of the question in Greek indicates that a negative answer is required. In effect, Paul says, ‘You do not think I was changing my plans in an off-hand manner, do you?’ The next question relates to Paul’s personal integrity: Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’? Again the question expects a negative answer. To make my plans in a worldly manner (lit. ‘according to [the] flesh’) would in this context imply a readiness to renege on commitments if they no longer suited him, with little concern for how this would affect the Corinthians. As if he would change his ‘Yes, yes’ to a ‘No, no’ without any compunction if it so suited him. Paul’s question is meant to evoke from his audience an emphatic denial that their apostle would act in such a way.
Paul’s expression, ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ (to nai nai kai to ou ou), echoes Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:37: ‘All you need to say is simply “Yes,” or “No” ’ (estō de ho logos hymōn nai nai, ou ou; lit. ‘let your word [be] “yes yes”, “no no” ’) and is repeated in James 5:12: ‘All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No” ’ (ētō de hymōn to nai nai kai to ou ou). James uses the expression, ‘Yes, yes, no, no’, in the same way as Jesus did, to teach the importance of straightforward truthfulness and to warn against the (inappropriate) use of oaths. Paul, on the other hand, uses it to deny that he was fickle when making his plans, being prepared to say ‘yes, yes’ and ‘no, no’ in the same breath.15
18. But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. This sentence constitutes an assertion under oath16 that Paul’s word to them was consistent with his firm intentions. He had not said one thing to them while being ready, without any compunction, to do something quite different if it suited him. Paul used oaths quite often in his letters (cf. Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:10, 31; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10) when he wanted to defend or lay heavy stress upon the truth of his assertions. This suggests that in the early church Christ’s words against swearing in Matthew 5:33–37 were understood as a criticism of the improper use of oaths, rather than their complete prohibition. According to Matthew 26:63, Christ himself was prepared to be placed under oath when answering the question of the high priest.
Paul specifically associates Silas (Silouanou, ‘Silvanus’ NRSV) and Timothy with himself in the preaching of the gospel in Corinth. Silvanus, who may be identified with the Silas (Silas) of Acts, was one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church chosen to carry the decision of the Jerusalem council to Antioch (Acts 15:22), and the one who became Paul’s colleague on the second missionary journey following the disagreements between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36–41). When Paul and Silas reached Lystra, Timothy, the son of a Jewish Christian mother and a Greek father, was recruited to join the small missionary team (Acts 16:1–3). Thus, when Paul came to Corinth for the first time, both these men were associated with him, and joined him in the ministry of the gospel there.
God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God. The Greek underlying this sentence is difficult to translate and interpret accurately, although its general thrust is clear enough. It may reflect the worship of the early church in which ascriptions of praise to God were offered ‘through him’ (Christ) by members of the Christian community and confirmed by their ‘Amen’ (implying assent). A similar form is found in many of the ascriptions of praise elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11; 2 Pet. 3:18; Jude 25; Rev. 1:6; 7:12), a fact which confirms the use of ‘Amen’ in this way in the early church. However, the immediate context (especially v. 19) suggests that the us by whom the Amen is spoken refers to Paul and his missionary colleagues.
Third, Paul says that God set his seal of ownership on us. The verb, ‘to set a seal on’ (sphragizō), is used in commercial documents found among the papyri of the sealing of letters and sacks so that nobody can tamper with the contents. Used figuratively, as in the New Testament, ‘to seal’ means to keep secret or stamp with a mark of identification or ownership (cf. Rev. 7:3–8). In Ephesians, Paul speaks of Christians being ‘marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 1:13; cf. Eph. 4:30), something that occurs at conversion as people are baptized (cf. Acts 2:38), and this is its meaning here also.
Fourth, Paul adds that when God put his seal upon us, he did so as he put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit. The Greek word translated deposit here by the NIV (and most other English translations) is arrabōn, and like sphragizō it is a commercial term. It is the pledge given by a purchaser to a seller as a guarantee that the purchase price will be paid over at the proper time. Here the term is applied figuratively by Paul to the Spirit whom God has given him and to whose presence he appeals as a guarantee of his apostolic integrity.17
The major thrust of verses 21–22, then, is that Paul and his colleagues have been made to stand firm by God and have been anointed with his Spirit.18 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 their gospel rests upon the work of God. It is the Spirit of God who makes them stand firm and anoints them, and whose presence is the authenticating seal upon their mission and message. The implication is that if this work of God in their lives guarantees their trustworthiness in the greater matter of the proclamation of the gospel, then surely it will also render them trustworthy in the lesser matter of their travel plans. Any changes in these will not be the result of mere fickleness, but of genuine concern for the Corinthians.
And I stake my life on it translates epi tēn emēn psychēn (lit. ‘upon my life’), which is taken to be part of an imprecatory oath whereby Paul calls upon God as witness against him if he is not speaking the truth. However, epi tēn emēn psychēn may also be translated ‘concerning my life’, and, if so, Paul is calling upon God as a character witness concerning his life, in support of the truthfulness of what he is saying. This fits better in the present context, and is consistent with the way Paul calls upon God as his witness in the four other places in his letters where he does so (cf. Rom. 1:9; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10), and with the way it was used in Greco-Roman tradition and in the literature of the Hellenistic and Roman period.19
Paul insists, it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth. The present context does not tell us from what the Corinthians were to be spared, but it seems from statements Paul makes elsewhere (13:1–4, 10) that they were spared disciplinary action which the apostle would have felt compelled to take.
Lest the Corinthians conclude from Paul’s allusions to disciplinary action that he exercised some form of spiritual tyranny over them, he adds, Not that we lord it over your faith. The role of an apostle (and of all Christian ministers) is that of a servant to the people of God (cf. 4:5), not that of a tyrant. But, as verse 23 reveals, serving the people of God does not mean doing only what pleases them. It may involve disciplinary action as well. After all, apostles (like all Christian ministers), while called to serve the people of God, must do so by carrying out the desires of their Master.
Paul emphasizes the centrality of Jesus Christ in the purposes of God when he says that all the promises of God find their ‘Yes’ in him. All the promises – the coming of a prophet like Moses, one who will sit on the throne of David and establish an everlasting kingdom of peace and justice, the Servant of the Lord who will bear the sins of God’s people, the establishment of the new covenant under which people’s sins will be remembered no more and the law of God that will be written in their hearts by the Spirit – all these promises and more find their fulfilment in Christ.
2:1. So I made up my mind that I would not make another painful visit to you. In 1 Corinthians 16:5–7 Paul informed his audience that he intended to visit them after passing through Macedonia. Subsequently he changed his plans so as to visit Corinth first on his way to Macedonia, and then again on his way back, so that the Corinthians might ‘benefit twice’ (1:15–16). He made the first of these promised visits, but because it turned out to be painful for both the Corinthians and himself, he did not make the return visit and wrote them the ‘severe letter’ instead (see Introduction, here). In some ways Paul found himself in a ‘no-win’ situation. If he had made another visit at that stage, it would have proved painful. If he did not make the visit, his opposition would appear to have won the day. And when he chose to write the ‘severe letter’, he ran the risk of being criticized for being bold when absent, but timid when present (cf. 10:1).
2. For if I grieve you [plural], who is left to make me glad but you [singular, lit. ‘the one’] whom I have grieved? Paul asks who there would be to make him glad if, when he made the second of these promised visits, he caused the Corinthians further grief. He answers his own question by saying that only ‘the one’ he has grieved could make him glad again, usually interpreted to refer generally to the Corinthian believers.20
An alternative approach is to identify the ‘one’ of this verse with the one referred to in verses 5–8. In this case, the grief caused to the ‘one’ would be the grief of realizing that disciplinary action had been demanded of the congregation against him by Paul. The grief caused to the Corinthians (you) would be the rebuke implied by Paul’s (renewed) demand for disciplinary action, something they had been reluctant to carry through, even when their apostle had been grieved (cf. v. 3). This interpretation yields good sense. Paul caused grief to both the offender and the Corinthian congregation by his demand for disciplinary action. There can be little joy in his relationship with the Corinthians until the offender has been disciplined, brought to repentance and restored to fellowship. Then the ‘one’ whom Paul grieved will make him glad. See Introduction, for a suggested identification of the offender.
3. I wrote as I did. This refers to the writing of the ‘severe letter’ after the apostle’s return from the ‘painful visit’ (see Introduction, here). Paul wrote rebuking the Corinthians because they had not come to his defence when he was attacked by the one who caused him grief (2:5), demanding they punish this individual and making it clear that he expected their obedience in this matter (cf. vv. 6, 9).
Paul’s purpose in writing was so that when I came I would not be distressed by those who should have made me rejoice (i.e. in response to his letter he expected the Corinthians to take the necessary steps to remove the source of friction existing between them and their apostle). During the ‘painful visit’, Paul had been caused mental anguish by the offending individual, while the Corinthians, who should have made him rejoice, apparently stood by and did nothing. The ‘severe letter’ was intended to ensure that this would not happen again.
Not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you. In the ‘severe letter’ Paul must have reprimanded the Corinthians for their failure to support him, hoping to move them to repentance (cf. v. 3). He assures them that his intention was not to grieve them, but to let them know the depth of his love for them. He showed this not by glossing over a bad situation, but by confronting it and demanding (again) that the Corinthians take action. It takes real love to confront a difficult situation rather than side-stepping it. Ambrosiaster says, ‘Someone who rebukes another without feeling this way [with deep love] merely tramples on his feelings’ (Bray, p. 205).
7–8. Because he regarded the punishment as ‘sufficient’ (and presumably because the offender had been brought to repentance), Paul says, Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him. Although the punishment of the offender was deserved, it brought Paul no joy (cf. v. 2); it was restoration for which he longed. And if the church did not forgive and comfort him, there would be the danger that he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. The verb ‘to overwhelm’ (katapinō) was also 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 and comforted, may ‘drown’ in his sorrow, so he adds, I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. The Greek word translated to reaffirm (kyrōsai) was used in the papyri to denote confirmation of a sale or ratification of an appointment. It is used in Galatians 3:15 of the ratification of a covenant. The reaffirmation of love for which Paul calls, then, appears to be a formal act by the congregation, in the same way that the imposition of punishment in the first place appears to have been formal and judicial. Paul’s desire to see the repentant offender reinstated is a reminder that church discipline is intended not only as a punishment but also to be remedial.
9–11. Paul now shifts his attention from the offender to the Corinthians themselves. The primary purpose of the ‘severe letter’ appears to have been to demand disciplinary action against the offender, but Paul indicates that this was not the only purpose: Another reason I wrote21 to you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. What Paul expected was not obedience to him personally, but obedience to him as an apostle and ambassador of Christ. This did not mean he wished to ‘lord it over’ their faith but, as he wrote earlier, he was working for their joy (1:24).
Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. While calling upon his audience to forgive the offender (vv. 6–7), Paul assures them he also forgives him. Perhaps the apostle says this to allay any fears they might have that he would not approve the forgiveness and reinstatement of one who had hurt him so badly. And what I have forgiven – if there was anything to forgive – I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake. Three matters call for comment. First, Paul appears to be playing down the extent of his hurt when having said, what I have forgiven, he adds, if there was anything to forgive. There is no question that he had something to forgive, as the general thrust of 2:5–11 and 7:8–13 reveals. Second, Paul stresses that he had forgiven the offence for your sake. This shows that the apostle realized his own forgiveness was needed before the Corinthians themselves would feel free to forgive and effect reconciliation with the offender. His forgiveness would be for their sake, in that it opened the way for this reconciliation and thereby the restoration of a sense of well-being in the church. Third, the expression in the sight of Christ (lit. ‘in [the] face of Christ’) is difficult, and could be construed in a number of ways. It could be taken as an oath formula, in which case Paul would be saying, ‘As I stand in the sight of Christ, I have forgiven the offence.’ Alternatively, it could mean his forgiveness has the approval of Christ. In this case the translation would run: ‘What I have forgiven has been forgiven in the sight of Christ who looks down with approval.’ Finally, the expression could reflect the fact that at the time of writing the apostle had not had opportunity to express his forgiveness face to face with the offender, but nevertheless he had already forgiven the offence ‘in the sight of Christ’.
Because he did not find Titus in Troas, Paul says, I said goodbye to them and went on to Macedonia. The fact that he was prepared to leave behind a door that the Lord had opened for him in Troas and say goodbye to the infant church there only serves to underline his lack of peace of mind because he had not made contact with Titus, nor had his concern for the Corinthian believers been relieved. This concern was but part of what he describes in 11:28 when, concluding a long list of his apostolic sufferings, he says, ‘Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.’
Third, when moral failure occurred in the Corinthian congregation, opportunity was provided for Satan to cause further harm (2:10–11). This could involve fermenting further disharmony in the community and depriving them of one of their members indefinitely – if he was overwhelmed by excessive sorrow and not comforted and reinstated following his repentance.
14. Despite the difficulties of his mission, Paul is able to say, But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession. The words leads us in triumph translate thriambeuonti hēmas, the exact meaning of which has been the subject of much debate. The viewpoint adopted here is that thriambeuonti hēmas is best understood to mean that God, having ‘conquered’ Paul, now leads him as a ‘captive’ in his ‘triumphal procession’ (see ‘Additional note: the meaning of thriambeuonti hēmas in 2:14’). Paul uses the imagery of a triumphal procession accorded a victorious Roman general who leads his army through the streets of Rome up to the Capitoline Hill exhibiting the spoils and captives of war.
And uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. The imagery of the triumphal procession is carried over into this part of verse 14 and into verses 15–16.22 During the procession, incense was burnt to the gods, and the aroma wafted over the spectators as well as those in the procession. For those celebrating the victory, the aroma had pleasant associations, but for the vanquished, the associations were far from pleasant. It is noteworthy that the one whom Paul describes as led in triumph as a captive is the same one whom God uses to spread abroad the aroma of the knowledge of him, namely Christ, in whom the knowledge of God’s glory is displayed (cf. 4:6)
15. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. Paul can describe himself in these terms because, by the preaching of the word of God (v. 17), he spreads abroad the aroma of the knowledge of Christ. The triumphal procession background makes it possible to suggest the significance of Paul’s reference to his being to God a pleasing aroma of Christ. In the Roman victory procession, the incense was offered to the gods, even though it was the people who smelt its aroma. So likewise, while Paul is primarily concerned here with the response of the people to the proclamation of the gospel, nevertheless he realizes that the proclamation of Christ is well pleasing to God: it is to God the pleasing aroma of Christ.23
The smell of incense burnt to the gods in a Roman triumphal procession would have had different connotations for different people. For the victorious general and his soldiers and for the welcoming crowds, the aroma would be associated with the joy of victory. But for the prisoners of war, the aroma would have been associated with the fate of slavery or death which awaited them. Gospel preaching likewise has different connotations for different people, as the next verse explains.
16. Employing the imagery of the triumphal procession to describe the effects of his ministry, Paul says, To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life (lit. ‘to those [who are perishing] an aroma from death to death; to those [who are being saved] an aroma from life to life’). To those who accept the message of the gospel it brings life, but to those who reject the gospel it brings death (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18: ‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God’). The heavy responsibility of such a ministry forces the apostle to ask, And who is equal to such a task? It is not until 3:5 that we find Paul’s answer: ‘Not that we are competent in ourselves… our competence comes from God.’
17. Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. Paul implies that the heavy burden of responsibility he feels is due to the fact that he refuses to act like many others and simply peddle the word of God for profit. The verb used in the statement we do not peddle is kapēleuō, whose literal meaning was ‘to trade in’ or ‘to peddle’. Because of the tricks of petty traders who would adulterate their wine with water or use false weights, the word came to have negative connotations. Paul’s meaning here then is that he felt the burden of responsibility of gospel preaching so greatly because he refused to tamper with God’s word (cf. 4:2), to remove its offence so that like others he might peddle it for personal gain.
The word thriambeuō is found only twice in the New Testament, here and in Colossians 2:15, and not at all in the LXX, but it is found a number of times in extra-biblical writings (see LSJ, MM, BDAG s.v.). Six major interpretations of thriambeuō followed by an accusative object (as it is in 2:14) have been suggested. (i) To lead someone as a captive in a triumphal procession. This has the best lexical support, is the rendering of the NIV, NEB and GNB, and is adopted by a number of modern interpreters (cf. e.g. Thrall, pp. 191–195; Harris, pp. 243–246; Seifrid, pp. 84–86). (ii) To lead victorious soldiers in a triumphal procession. This does not have lexical support in extra-biblical texts. It is the interpretation underlying the NJB translation, and the choice of Calvin (p. 33), Allo (pp. 43–44), Héring (p. 18), Barrett (p. 98) and Bruce (p. 187). (iii) To cause someone to triumph. This is the rendering of the KJV, but it has no lexical support and has been abandoned by modern interpreters. (iv) To triumph over someone. This is its meaning in Colossians 2:15, the one other place where it is found in the New Testament: ‘And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over [thriambeusas] them by the cross.’ (v) To expose to shame. In this case, the idea of the triumphal procession is submerged, and thriambeuō is a metaphor denoting low esteem. (vi) To put someone on show or display. This view has been advanced by R. P. Egan. He rejects any association of thriambeuō with the Roman triumphal procession, arguing instead that Paul wishes to stress the idea of openness or visibility by the use of the verb.24
Of these interpretations, to lead someone as a captive in a triumphal procession is preferred by the majority of more recent commentators, though it does not fit that well into its context in 2:14–17 where Paul appears to be striking a positive note. He does this to balance the rather depressing account of his ministry in preceding verses where he spoke of affliction in Asia, criticisms of his integrity, pain experienced because of the offender, and his inability to settle to missionary work in Troas. For this reason, some modern interpreters have preferred to interpret thriambeuō to mean ‘lead victorious soldiers in triumphal procession’, despite its lack of lexical support. Alternatively, if we allow Colossians 2:15 to inform our interpretation, we could say that Paul depicts himself as one who has been defeated by Christ and made his captive. Christ ‘conquered’ him when, on the road to Damascus, he put a stop to his persecution of Christians, transformed him into his willing slave and commissioned him as an apostle to the Gentiles. Now God leads him as a willing captive ‘in Christ’s triumphal procession’ and spreads ‘the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere’.25
1. Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? self-commendation in itself was not reprehensible and was even necessary in situations where commendation by a third party was not possible. Elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, Paul does commend himself (4:2; 6:4), but he appears to have been reluctant to overdo it (cf. 5:12; 10:18).26 It is in this light, and aware of what he has just written in 2:14–17, that he asks, Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? However, criticism that he did not bring letters of recommendation forced him to ask, Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? Some people had come to Corinth with letters of recommendation because they needed them and had apparently asked the Corinthians for letters to facilitate the next stage of their mission. These people were probably critical of Paul for not doing so. When referring to some people, Paul would have had in mind the ‘many’ of 2:17, the false apostles who were already making their presence felt in Corinth. In any case, Paul regarded it as absurd that he should be required to bring such letters to the Corinthian believers or to ask them for letters of recommendation when he was their founding apostle. Thus Paul’s question (introduced by the Greek negative particle, mē) expects an emphatic ‘No’ as an answer.
However, a strong case can be made for the weaker reading, ‘your hearts’, because it fits well in the context. Earlier in this verse Paul says, ‘you yourselves are our letter’, and in the following verse he says, ‘you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry’. It was through Paul’s ministry that Christ constituted the Corinthians a letter of recommendation for him. This suggests that the letter was written on their hearts, not Paul’s. In this case, the very existence of believers in Corinth was testimony to the effectiveness and authenticity of Paul’s ministry. They were his letter of recommendation, written, he says, on our/your hearts, known and read by everyone.27
Here Paul answers the question he asked in 2:16 (‘Who is equal to such a task?’) by showing that his competence as a minister of the new covenant comes from God. In the process, he picks up and expands the allusion to Jeremiah 31:31 and the new covenant in verse 3, and by so doing introduces the contrast between ministries under the old and new covenants that he will develop in verses 7–18.
6. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant. Paul repeats here his answer to the question raised in 2:16 (‘Who is equal to such a task?’) by stressing that it is God who has made him a competent minister of the new covenant. The word translated ‘minister’ (diakonos) can mean either an agent acting as an intermediary, or an assistant who acts at the behest of a superior.28 In his ministry, Paul functioned in both these ways (cf. 5:20; 1 Cor. 3:5). The expression new covenant is found in only one other place in Paul’s writings, in 1 Corinthians 11:25, where it forms part of the Lord’s Supper tradition which Paul says he received (‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’). Both Jesus’ words of institution and Paul’s reference to the new covenant here indicate that the prophecy of Jeremiah has been fulfilled:
Having contrasted the new covenant ‘of the Spirit’ with the old covenant ‘of the letter’ in 3:6, Paul further contrasts them in 3:7–11 by an exposition of Exodus 34:29–32. His primary purpose in so doing is to demonstrate the greater glory of the new covenant under which he was privileged to minister as an apostle, and so explain why, despite so many difficulties, he does not lose heart (cf. 4:1).
8. Will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? Arguing from the lesser to the greater, Paul, having acknowledged that the ministry that brought death ‘came with glory’, asserts that the ministry of the Spirit is even more glorious. For under the old covenant the commandments were ‘engraved in letters on stone’, whereas under the new covenant the Spirit writes the law of God upon people’s hearts (cf. Jer. 31:31). Unlike the commandments ‘engraved in letters on stone’ which could not enable a person to fulfil their demands and so those who transgressed were subject to death, the Spirit who writes God’s law on people’s hearts also enables them to walk in the way of God’s commandments (cf. Ezek. 36:27; Rom. 8:3–4). For this reason, the ministry of the Spirit is far more glorious than the ministry of death.
9. If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! This is the apostle’s second argument from the lesser to the greater, demonstrating the more glorious character of new covenant ministry. Here ministry under the old covenant which was glorious is nevertheless described as a ministry that brought condemnation, and this is so because those who disobeyed the commandments ‘engraved in letters on stone’ were condemned.29 Ministry under the new covenant is described as more glorious because it is the ministry that brings righteousness. Now those who are guilty of transgressions are nevertheless accounted righteous by God because of the sacrificial death of Christ that inaugurated the new covenant (cf. Rom. 3:21–26). Once again, new covenant ministry is shown to be more glorious than old covenant ministry, for under the new covenant the grace of God is seen far more clearly.
10. For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. The whole point of verses 7–11 is focused in this statement. Such is the surpassing glory of the new covenant of which Paul was made a minister that the old covenant of which Moses was minister, though certainly attended by a glory of its own (Exod. 34:29–32), has now in comparison come to have no glory at all.
The expression translated here as in comparison with (en toutō tō merei) may also be translated as ‘in this matter’, as is the similar expression (en tō merei) in 9:3, the only other place in the New Testament where it is found. If this is done, verse 10 could be translated: ‘Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it’ (ESV, italics added). ‘In this case’ would then refer back to the fact that the ministry of the law under the old covenant brought condemnation, whereas the ministry of the Spirit under the new covenant brings righteousness.
While it is true that the law as a regulatory norm no longer applies to believers, having been replaced by the work of the Spirit, it still has a role as it is re-appropriated in the light of Christ and in that way continues to be effective for ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Tim. 3:16).30
Verses 12–18 are an exposition of Exodus 34:33–35, which tells how Moses veiled his face after communicating God’s law to the Israelites so that they would no longer have to look upon the radiance of his face which resulted from his being in the presence of the Lord. Paul sees in the veiling of Moses’ face, which prevented Israel from seeing its radiance, something analogous to the ‘veil’ which lay over the minds of many of his Jewish contemporaries, preventing them from properly understanding the law of Moses when it was read in their synagogues. Believers, by contrast, are those from whose faces the ‘veil’ has been removed so that they ‘see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ (cf. 4:4).
Exodus 34:33–35, which forms the basis of Paul’s exposition here, gives no indication that Moses veiled his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of what was passing away. The apostle seems to have inferred this from the text. He saw in the passing of the radiance of Moses’ face a symbol of the abolition of the old covenant under which Moses ministered. He inferred that Moses lacked boldness because he knew the old covenant was to be abolished and he veiled his face so that the Israelites might not see the end31 of the radiance associated with the old covenant. Harris (p. 297) suggests that Moses veiled his face to prevent the Israelites from focusing upon its radiance, instead of giving heed to what they heard from him. Baker argues that the radiance of Moses’ face did not fade; rather, it was permanent and ‘blocked’ from the sight of the Israelites by the veil he put over his face because they were afraid.32
14. But their minds were made dull.33 The purpose of these words appears to be to correct any impression that Moses was to blame for the Israelites’ inability to behold the glory of the old covenant reflected in his face. Moses may have veiled his face, but it was the Israelites’ minds that were dull (cf. Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). Augustine comments, ‘The veil is not there because of Moses but because of their gross and carnal minds’ (Bray, p. 223). Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai (writing c. AD 150) said that it was the effects of the Israelites’ sin in making the golden calf while Moses was on the mount that resulted in their being unable through fear to look upon the brightness of Moses’ face (Str-B 3, p. 515).
For to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed. The dullness of mind of the Israelites of Moses’ day reminds Paul of the dullness of mind of the Jews of his own day, and he finds in the idea of the veil a way of describing that dullness. Just as the veil prevented the ancient Israelites from seeing the brightness of Moses’ face, so too the same veil, as it were, remained when the Jews of his own day heard the Old Testament read (as would have been the case with Paul himself before his conversion). They could not see that the old covenant had come to an end and the new covenant had already been inaugurated. Paul seems to imply that he is not to blame for his Jewish contemporaries’ failure to embrace the gospel – their minds are dull just as were those of the Israelites in Moses’ day.
Because only in Christ is it taken away. When people believe in Christ and join the Christian community, they experience at the same time the removal of the veil of ignorance and unbelief that previously prevented them from understanding the true meaning of the Old Testament, that is, its witness to Jesus Christ, the end of the old covenant and the inauguration of the new covenant which his coming brought about.34 When Paul says, only in Christ is it taken away, ‘it’ refers to the veil. Other commentators suggest that ‘it’ refers to the old dispensation, which was terminated by Christ. This is unlikely, as the veil is the subject of verse 14a and therefore presumably the subject of verse 14b as well, and also because in verses 14–16 the veil is the main object of Paul’s reflection.
15–16. What was said in verse 14 is reiterated in verse 15: Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts, and then in verse 16 the exposition is taken another step further: But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.35 This is an adaptation of Exodus 34:34: ‘But whenever he entered the LORD’S presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out.’ After Moses descended the mount and after he had communicated God’s message to the Israelites, he veiled his face so they would no longer have to look upon its brightness. However, when he went in before the Lord, he removed the veil and only replaced it again when he came out to the people. Paul applies this to his Jewish contemporaries by saying that if they accept the gospel and turn to the Lord, the veil over their minds will be removed.
Normally, when Paul uses the word ‘Lord’, it refers to Christ. But here, where he is adapting the LXX reading of Exodus 34:34, the title is best understood to denote God. We may add that for Paul it is now only through Christ that a person comes to God, for the glory of God now shines in the face of Christ (cf. 4:4, 6); nevertheless, in the present context the title Lord denotes God.
17. Now the Lord is the Spirit. These words have given rise to much debate. If the Lord is taken to refer to Christ, then it may be asked whether Christ is equated with the Spirit – with all the implications such an identification would have for the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the meaning of the statement can be determined only by seeing it in the wider context of Paul’s argument in this chapter.
18. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory. Paul takes up again his exposition of Exodus 34:33–35 (in which we are told how Moses removed his veil when he went in before the Lord). While Moses may have lacked boldness before the Israelites and so veiled his face (v. 13), when he went in before the Lord he did so with confidence and freedom, symbolized by the removal of the veil.36 Like Moses, then, Paul and all believers approach God in confidence and freedom with unveiled faces, and like Moses also, they behold the glory of the Lord. To express the latter, Paul uses the middle participle katoptrizomenoi. The middle form of the verb katoptrizō generally means ‘to behold oneself or something as in a mirror’, although there is evidence to show it could also be used to mean ‘to reflect as in a mirror’. However, the idea of beholding fits the context better. In Exodus 34:33–35, which forms the basis of Paul’s exposition, we are told that it was when Moses went in before the Lord that his face was unveiled, and at that time he was beholding, rather than reflecting, the glory of the Lord. Further, Paul’s idea of being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another (v. 18b) is better understood to occur while believers are beholding rather than reflecting the glory of God. Finally, in 4:6 it is certainly beholding the glory of God that Paul has in mind.
If we were to ask Paul in what way believers behold the glory of God, his answer would be that they do so as the ‘veils’ are removed from their minds so that the truth of the gospel is no longer hidden from them. It is in ‘the light of the gospel’ that they behold ‘the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’, and they see ‘the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ’ (4:3–6).
And we all… are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory. It is important to note that this changing into his likeness takes place not at one point in time, but is an extended process. The verb metamorphoumetha (‘we are being changed’) is in the present tense, indicating the continuous nature of the change, while the words with ever-increasing glory stress its progressive nature. The verb metamorphoō is found in only three other places in the New Testament. It is used to describe Jesus’ transfiguration in Matthew 17:2 and Mark 9:2, and Paul uses it in Romans 12:2 to denote moral transformation (‘Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind’, italics added).
In 3:7–18 Paul described the glory of the ministry entrusted to him – a ministry of the Spirit that brings life, righteousness and transformation of character to those who believe the gospel. In 4:1–6 he tells how, in the light of the great privilege of participating in such a ministry, he conducted himself and proclaimed the gospel. He also tells why the minds of some were still blinded to this gospel, and concludes by describing the essential content of his gospel – Jesus Christ as Lord – and by affirming that the glory of God shines in-the face of the Christ he proclaims.37 Barnett (p. 211) describes how Paul’s own experience is reflected in this passage:
He had been an unbeliever, blinded to the light of the gospel (v. 4). On the road to Damascus, however, Paul had seen the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, who is the image of God (vv. 4, 6). Having given him the ministry of the new covenant, God showed him mercy, illuminating his heart that he might give the light of the knowledge of God to others (vv. 1, 6). In proclaiming the word of God, the gospel that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord,’ Paul ‘sets forth the truth’ (vv. 2, 4, and 5), and he does so as their ‘slave’ for Jesus’ sake.
1. Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart.38 This ministry is the ministry of the Spirit under the new covenant whose glory Paul depicted in 3:7–18. The apostle was very conscious that his participation in this ministry was only through God’s mercy, for he never forgot that he was formerly a persecutor of the church of God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:12–16). The awareness of the great privilege and responsibility involved caused him not to lose heart, despite the many difficulties and sufferings he experienced in carrying out that ministry (cf. 11:23–28).
2. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways. What it means to renounce shameful (or disgraceful) ways is spelt out in the rest of the verse. Negatively, Paul says we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. He uses the word deception (panourgia) again in 11:3, where he says, ‘Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning.’ Paul asserts that in his preaching of the gospel there was no attempt to deceive by cunning or to distort the word of God.39 The verb translated ‘to distort’ (doloō) is found only here in the New Testament. Its use in extra-biblical texts in relation to the adulteration of wine40 suggests that Paul had in mind the distortion of the word of God, either by mingling it with alien ideas, or removing its offence so as to peddle it for personal gain (see commentary on 2:17). He appears to be responding to criticisms of the way he conducted his ministry, criticisms that had been entertained by the Corinthians.
Positively, he claims, On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. The contrast between using deception and setting forth the truth plainly, and between the word of God that has been distorted and the truth, is clear. By a straightforward presentation of the gospel, Paul commends himself to everyone’s conscience. For the apostle, the conscience is that human faculty by which people are able to approve or disapprove their actions (those intended as well as those already performed) and also the actions of others (see commentary on 1:12). Thus, by the straightforward nature of the truth, Paul invites the approval of everyone, convinced that when they judge him in the light of their own consciences, they will acknowledge that he has acted with integrity. The final words, in the sight of God, remind us that Paul, while concerned that the conduct of his ministry should commend itself to people’s consciences, was concerned ultimately to minister in a way that finds God’s approval. In 1 Corinthians 4:3–4 he goes so far as to say, ‘I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.’
4. In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers. The god of this age refers to Satan, who is permitted to exercise a limited rule in the present age (cf. John 12:31), a rule that will be terminated altogether with the coming of the new age at Christ’s return. In the meantime, he is active in blinding the minds of unbelievers to the truth of the gospel. The reason why many rejected Paul’s gospel is to be found not in deficiencies in his proclamation of it, but because their minds have been blinded by the god of this age (= Satan). In 3:14–16 Paul spoke of the veil over the minds of his Jewish contemporaries, which prevented them from understanding their own Scriptures. Here it is implied that Satan was involved not only in the veiling of the minds of Jewish people, but of all unbelievers. Other references in 2 Corinthians indicate that the activity of the god of this age (= Satan) is not restricted to the blinding of the minds of unbelievers, but is directed against believers as well, seeking to deceive them and to move them away from their devotion to Christ (cf. 2:11; 11:3, 14).
It is unusual for Paul to describe the gospel as that which displays the glory of Christ when elsewhere he frequently says the gospel he preaches concerns ‘Christ crucified’ (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; Gal. 3:1). However, in the next verse he says that he preaches ‘Jesus Christ as Lord’ (4:5), and in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 he describes the content of the gospel as ‘Christ died for our sins… was buried… was raised’ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3–4). The gospel includes the fact that the crucified One is the Lord who was raised from the dead, and this is sufficient to justify a description of the gospel as that which displays the glory of Christ.41
Paul says that the gospel concerns the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. There may be an allusion here to the creation of humankind in Genesis 1:26 (‘Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness’), especially in the light of the fact that Paul does speak of Christ as the ‘last Adam’, comparing (and contrasting) him with the ‘first Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45–49; cf. Rom. 5:12–19). There may also be an allusion here to Israel’s wisdom literature where Wisdom is personified and her glories celebrated: ‘For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness’ (Wis 7:26, NRSV). Strengthening the possibility of such an allusion is the fact that elsewhere Paul ascribes to Christ that role in creation which Israel’s wisdom literature ascribes to Wisdom (cf. Prov. 8:22–31; Col. 1:15–20). Bringing the two possible allusions together, it has been suggested that for Paul, Christ is the image of God after the fashion of Adam as far as his humanity is concerned, and after the fashion of Wisdom as far as his transcendence is concerned.42
5. For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. This statement constitutes a concise description of Paul’s ministry: his primary vocation was that of a preacher, the content of his preaching is Jesus Christ as Lord, and he ministers to people as their servant for Jesus’ sake.
Elsewhere when describing the content of his preaching, Paul says, ‘we preach Christ crucified’ (1 Cor. 1:23), which, like the preaching of Jesus Christ as Lord, is a shorthand pointer to the heart of his gospel. When the lordship of Christ is proclaimed, people are called to give their allegiance to him, but the one to whom they give their allegiance is also the crucified One, the one who died for them and was then raised as Lord of all. These two elements of the gospel need to be held together, for if they are not, the gospel itself is distorted.
6. In this verse Paul explains that the gracious work of God in his heart motivates his preaching of the gospel: For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ. This appears to recall Genesis 1:3: ‘And God said, “Let there be light.” ’43 If this is the case, Paul likens the revelation to him of God’s glory to the creative act of God whereby the darkness of the primeval world was banished by the light. Conversion is thus depicted as illumination revealing the true nature of Christ as the one in whose face the glory of God is displayed. Paul’s own conversion may well have prompted him to think in this way (Gal. 1:13–17; cf. Acts 9:1–9). Barnett (p. 224) comments, ‘There is an outward as well as an inward aspect here. Outwardly, on the way to Damascus, Paul saw “the glory of God in the face of Christ”; inwardly, and as a consequence, “God has shone in our hearts”… Whereas God’s outward revelation of his glory to Paul was unique, his inner enlightenment of the heart also describes the illumination of all who receive the gospel message.’
First, employing the imagery of the Roman triumphal procession, Paul says that through the preaching of the gospel God spreads abroad the ‘aroma’ of the knowledge of God everywhere. The gospel brings life to those who accept it, but death to those who reject it. Paul felt the heavy responsibility of this ministry because he refused to adulterate the gospel message to make it more acceptable, as ‘some’ did (2:14–17).
Having spoken of the glorious ministry in which he was privileged to participate in 3:7–11, and the light of the glory of God that has shone in his heart in 4:6, here in 4:7 – 5:10 Paul explains that he experiences all this in the context of suffering and weakness – he has this treasure in a jar of clay. He states this as a general principle in 4:7, illustrates it in 4:8–9, restates it as a principle in 4:10–12, and adds that despite all the difficulties he continues to operate in a ‘spirit of faith’ in 4:13–15. Then in 4:16–18 he says that because of his sufferings he is outwardly wasting away, yet inwardly he is being renewed day by day while he keeps his eyes fixed on ‘an eternal glory’. What this means is explained in 5:1–10, where he says that if ‘the earthly tent’ we now live in is destroyed, God will provide us with ‘an eternal house in heaven’ (5:1–5). This gives him confidence to make it his aim to please God, conscious that ‘we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due to us’ (5:6–10).
The contrast between the treasure and the jars of clay which contain it is intended to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. In 1:9 Paul testified that the affliction he experienced in Asia taught him ‘not to rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead’, and in 3:5 he acknowledges that ‘our competence comes from God’. In similar vein here, the frailty of the messengers shows that the all-surpassing power comes from God and is not inherent in his envoys. What this means is teased out in the following verses.
10. After the illustrations drawn from experience in verses 8–9, Paul states in another two antitheses the theological principle involved. In the first of these he says, We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. The word translated death (nekrōsin) can denote either the process of dying or being dead. The word is found in only one other place in the New Testament, in Romans 4:19 where it is appropriately translated as ‘dead’ when describing Sarah’s infertility (‘Without weakening in his faith, he [Abraham] faced the fact that his body was as good as dead – since he was about a hundred years old – and that Sarah’s womb was also dead’). However, here in the context of verse 10, nekrōsin is better understood to denote the process of dying: as Paul carries around the dying of Jesus in his body, he also experiences the life of Jesus – both of which signify process. In this case, the dying of Jesus is understood to be all his afflictions that culminated in his death. In like manner, Paul’s carrying around the dying of Jesus could be understood as all his apostolic sufferings that would in time culminate in his martyrdom. Bearing in our body the death of Jesus indicates that Paul’s sufferings (referred to in vv. 8–9) are similar to those of Christ himself (cf. Col. 1:24), excluding, of course, his vicarious death as an atoning sacrifice.
13. It is written: ‘I believed; therefore I have spoken.’ Paul’s quotation is from Psalm 116:10 (LXX 115:1). The psalmist relates how he trusted in God when he was immersed in distress and sorrow and that the Lord heard his cry for mercy. The point Paul makes based on this quotation is: Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and therefore speak. Despite the difficulties of his ministry, Paul says that he operates with the same spirit of faith as the psalmist did in the midst of his distress, and in this faith Paul goes on speaking, that is, he goes on proclaiming God’s word (cf. 2:17). There has been debate as to whether spirit of faith refers to a human disposition, as indicated when the initial letter is lower case (‘spirit’) or to the Holy Spirit, in which case the initial letter would be upper case (‘Spirit’).44 The former is the better option, as Paul is saying that, like the psalmist, his faith in God persists despite the sufferings he encounters. He is not making a point about the Holy Spirit being the one who inspires faith.
14. Because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus. Paul’s faith was strengthened by the knowledge that, should his sufferings intensify and culminate in death, the God who raised Jesus from the dead would also raise him along with Jesus. Paul makes a similar statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:14: ‘For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.’ In 1 Corinthians 15:20–23 Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as the firstfruits which are the sign of the full harvest to follow. God, who raised Jesus as the ‘firstfruits’ from the dead, shall surely raise us as part of the ‘full harvest’. This knowledge encouraged the apostle in the midst of his difficulties (cf. Rom. 8:11, 17).45
And present us with you to himself. The words to himself have no counterpart in the original, and translated literally this would read: ‘and present us with you’. To whom we will be presented is not stated, but seeing that it is God who raises and presents us, it follows that he will present us, not to himself, but to Christ. In 11:2 Paul speaks of believers being presented as ‘a pure virgin’ to Christ, their ‘one husband’.
Resurrection is not an end in itself. It is the gateway to immortality in the presence of God. Paul looks forward to the day when, being raised up, he will be presented along with his converts to Christ in the presence of God (cf. 1:14; Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 2:19).
15. Paul says of his apostolic preaching and suffering that all this is for your benefit (i.e. so that the Corinthians might experience the grace of God made known through the gospel). But there was a further reason why Paul endured all this: it was so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God. We see here both the penultimate (for your benefit) and the ultimate (to the glory of God) purposes of Paul’s apostolic ministry.
16. Therefore we do not lose heart. Therefore refers back to verses 14–15, where Paul expressed his confidence that the one who raised Jesus from the dead will also raise him on the last day, and in the meantime his ministry, accompanied though it was with many afflictions, was the means by which God’s grace was reaching more and more people.
Rather than losing heart because of his outward wasting away, Paul says that by God’s grace he was being inwardly renewed day by day. On the one hand, he encounters debilitating afflictions which affect him ‘outwardly’: he is hard pressed, perplexed, persecuted, struck down and being given over to death (vv. 8–11). On the other hand, he experiences a daily renewal ‘inwardly’. The best indication of what inward renewal involved is expressed in Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian believers:
17. Paul further explains the reason why he does not lose heart in the midst of affliction: For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. Paul’s troubles were, of course, neither light nor momentary in themselves. They were the burdensome and virtually constant accompaniment of his ministry. Yet, by comparison with the weighty and eternal character of the glory they were achieving for him, he could describe them as light and momentary (cf. Rom. 8:17–23). Paul saw a connection between the troubles he endured and the glory that would far outweigh them. More literally translated, verse 17 would read: ‘For our temporary lightness of affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory that is out of all proportion [to the affliction].’ The experience of affliction ‘is producing’ the glory to be revealed. How are we to understand the causal connection between the two? Among Paul’s Jewish contemporaries, there was a belief that the messianic age would be ushered in by a definite and predetermined measure of afflictions to be experienced by the people of God. These afflictions were known as the birth-pangs of the Messiah (cf. Mark 13:3–8, 17–20, 24–27 and parallels in Matt. 24 and Luke 21). It may be the belief that his afflictions were part of the birth-pains of the new age that lies behind Paul’s statement that the one ‘is producing’ the other. On the other hand, it may be better to see the connection simply in terms of God’s gracious blessing of believers who suffer for the sake of his Son. Paul states this clearly in Romans 8:17–18: ‘Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co – heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us’ (cf. Matt. 10:32–33; 2 Tim. 2:11–12). Calvin (p. 64) rightly rejects the idea that ‘by afflictions we can merit the inheritance that comes to us only by the gracious adoption of God’.
This passage is often studied in virtual isolation from the rest of 2 Corinthians because of its obvious importance for understanding Paul’s views about life after death. However, in seeking a proper understanding of 5:1–10, it is essential to see it in its context, especially in relation to what immediately precedes, for in fact 4:16 – 5:10 constitutes one integrated section. It is in the light of the outward ‘wasting away’ (4:16) and the fact that the ‘light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all’ (4:17) that Paul proceeds to explain what he looks forward to ‘if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed’ (5:1).
Others interpret the building from God… not built by human hands as a reference to Jesus’ resurrection body understood corporately, so that those who believe in him share in it now. But while it is true that we have is in the present tense, it must be remembered that it is part of a conditional sentence (if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have…) which puts the ‘having’ of the building from God into future time in relation to the destruction of the earthly tent.46 So it is not the resurrected body of Christ presently in heaven nor believers’ sharing in it now that Paul had in mind.
An important factor in determining Paul’s meaning is the parallelism existing in this verse. What is earthly and threatened with destruction in verse 1a is to be replaced by something corresponding to it which is heavenly and eternal in verse 1b. If the tent which forms our earthly dwelling denotes the physical body of the believer, it is reasonable to regard the building from God as a reference to another body, the resurrection body of the believer.47 By referring to the resurrection body as a building, Paul may be emphasizing its permanence, as compared with the impermanence of the present body he refers to as a tent.
There is a parallel passage in Romans, a letter written shortly after 2 Corinthians, which lends support to this view. Romans 8:18–24 also deals with the subject of the suffering experienced by believers, comparing it with the glory to be revealed to them. In that passage what the believer looks forward to at the revelation of this glory is the redemption of the body (v. 23), clearly a reference to the resurrection body of the believer. Seeing that this passage in Romans treats a similar subject to that dealt with in 2 Corinthians 4:16 – 5:10, and seeing that Romans was written just a short time after 2 Corinthians, it is reasonable to interpret verse 1b in the light of Romans 8:23 and so conclude that the building from God… not built by human hands refers to the resurrection body promised to the believer.
3. Because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. Consistent with the line of interpretation adopted, the nakedness which Paul expects to avoid when he puts on the heavenly dwelling is the nakedness of a disembodied spirit.48 Paul, as a Jew, would regard existence as a disembodied spirit as something to be eschewed. The promised heavenly body will save him from that. It may be that in emphasizing the future embodied state he is countering dualistic notions of salvation (the release of the soul from the prison of the body), which may have been of some influence in Corinth.
Because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Although the apostle groans, being burdened by sufferings and persecutions which afflict him while he remains in his present body, he does not therefore seek escape into a permanent disembodied state. He longs for a new and better embodiment.49 What he wants is then described with the use of two metaphors. First, employing a clothing metaphor, he says he wants instead to be clothed with his heavenly body. Second, using an eating metaphor, he says he wants his mortal body to be swallowed up by life. In this way his mortal body is not so much done away with, but is taken into and transformed in the immortal. Thus Paul shows that it is not release from bodily existence for which he longs, but for a bodily existence which is permanent and heavenly. In the categories of Romans 8:23, it is the redemption of the body for which he hopes, or in the terms of Philippians 3:21, the transformation of his body to be like Christ’s glorious body.
It is possible that Paul’s insistence that his ultimate hope is not for a disembodied existence but for a permanent embodiment in a resurrection body was also intended to counteract dualistic tendencies of some in Corinth who denied the resurrection of the body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12).
5. Having stated the nature of his hope for the future, Paul picks up again the idea introduced in 4:17 and reminds his audience that the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God. It is not a vain or empty hope that the apostle entertains, rather it is based upon the known fact that God himself has prepared us for such a future. It must not be overlooked that, in the light of 4:16–17, part of the process of preparation for the glorious future is participation in present suffering (cf. Rom. 8:17). But this truth must be complemented by that found in Romans 8:28–30, where God’s election, calling and justification of sinners form the basis upon which he prepares his children for glory. Theodoret of Cyr comments, ‘Since God the Creator foresaw the sin of Adam, he prepared a remedy for it. For he himself has given us the first fruits of the Spirit, so that by the miracles which the Spirit does in our midst we may be reassured that the promises of future glory are true’ (Bray, p. 241).
6–7. From the time Paul began in 2:14–17 to explain how, despite many difficulties, he remained confident in God, he has again and again affirmed his confidence and the fact that he does not lose heart (cf. 2:14; 3:4, 12; 4:1, 16). Here in verse 6 he picks up the theme again: Therefore we are always confident. Yet while affirming this, Paul confesses that the present situation does leave something to be desired: we… know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. What this means can be ascertained from the parenthesis he provides in verse 7 before returning to the main stream of his thought in verse 8. In parenthesis he says, For we live by faith, not by sight. This suggests that to be at home in the body (in the ‘earthly tent’) means that God is not accessible to our sight (and in that sense we are away from the Lord), but he is accessible to us by faith (cf. John 20:29). Ambrosiaster comments, ‘God is still present, but because we cannot see him we are said to be absent from him as long as we are in the body’ (Bray, p. 242).
10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. The apostle is determined to live in a way pleasing to the Lord because he knows that all believers must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. The word used here for judgment seat is bēma. Among the ruins of ancient Corinth there still remains an impressive stone structure known as the bēma (see Introduction, for more details). According to Acts 18:12–17, Paul was brought before the bēma (‘tribunal’) by angry Corinthian Jews who made accusations against him before the proconsul, Gallio. However, Gallio refused to sit in judgment in Jewish matters and drove Paul’s accusers from the bēma. Both Paul and his audience knew what being brought before the judgment seat in Corinth meant. What Paul is saying here is that we need to order our lives in the light of the fact that each one of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ (cf. Rom. 14:10).
So that each of us may receive what is due to us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. There is no question of a person’s salvation, one’s acceptance before God, depending upon what one has done in the body.50 In his letter to the Romans Paul makes it abundantly clear that no human being shall be justified in God’s sight on the basis of what he or she has done: ‘for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23). It was for this reason that God made a new way for people to be justified in his sight apart from works (cf. Rom. 3:21–26).
What then does Paul have in mind here when he speaks of receiving good or evil according to what a person has done in the body? It is a recognition that God will evaluate the lives and ministries of his children and reward those who have acted faithfully, while those who have not will suffer the loss of any reward. In 1 Corinthians 3:10–15 Paul applies this to the work of those who founded and built up churches: ‘The Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved’ (vv. 13–15).
It is important to note that it is what a person has done in the body that will be evaluated at the judgment seat of Christ. In the present context, where Paul has been speaking of living ‘at home in the body’ and ‘away from the body’, what a person does in the body can refer only to what he or she does in this life. All this means that what believers do in this life has serious implications. They are accountable to the Lord for their actions, and will be rewarded or suffer loss accordingly. This fact forms the basis of the next verse in which Paul speaks of knowing the fear of the Lord.
In 5:1–10 Paul expresses his confidence that if his afflictions were to intensify and culminate in death, so that the ‘earthly tent’ he lives in were to be destroyed, he would have a ‘building from God, an eternal house in heaven’. In other words, if he should die and his earthly body be destroyed, God would provide him with a heavenly body, a resurrection body. This was his ultimate hope. He makes clear that his first wish was not to be ‘unclothed’ (i.e. to be disembodied), but rather to be ‘clothed’ with the heavenly dwelling, his resurrection body. However, recognizing that he might die before the parousia and the general resurrection, he says he would rather be ‘away from the body’ and be ‘at home with the Lord’, implying a conscious existence in the presence of God even in a disembodied state, something that would be better by far than being present in the body but away from the Lord (cf. Phil. 1:21–24). Paul concludes this section by saying that in whatever state he finds himself, whether ‘at home in the body or away from it’, his aim is to please God, for all believers must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due to them according to what they have done while ‘in the body’. This is best understood not in regard to salvation, but as reward for service (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15).
There are two possible ways to understand Paul’s reference to persuading others. According to the first, he is saying that awareness of his accountability to God motivates him to be diligent in his efforts to persuade others, that is, to bring about in them the obedience of faith, as he was commissioned to do. What would have been involved in such persuasion can be glimpsed from a number of references in Paul’s writings (cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5; 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 1:28) and also the testimony of Luke in Acts (Acts 9:20–22; 13:16–43; 17:22–34; 19:8–10; 26:24–29; 28:23). He sought to remove intellectual barriers, to overcome prejudice and ignorance and to convince by argument, testimony and the straightforward proclamation of the gospel.
12. We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again. Paul is very sensitive about self-commendation (cf. 3:1; 10:18), and it is likely that some of the criticism directed against him was related to this. So he denies that, in defending the straightforward character of the persuasion he practises, he is indulging in self-commendation. Rather, what he is doing, he says, is giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. Paul is aware that there are those present in Corinth who are critical of his motives and methods, and he makes this defence of his integrity so that his converts may be able to deal with the criticisms of those people. He wants them to be able to feel justly proud of the way in which their spiritual father conducts himself, and so be able to answer his detractors. Calvin (p. 73) comments, ‘We are here taught that the servants of Christ ought to be concerned for their own reputations only in so far as it is for the advantage of the Church.’
The detractors who lurked behind the scenes in Corinth Paul describes as those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. From hints provided in both chapters 1 – 7 and the later chapters 10 – 13, we can see the sort of outward matters upon which these men prided themselves. These included the letters of recommendation they carried (3:1), their rhetorical prowess (11:5–6), Jewish ancestry (11:22), ecstatic visionary experiences (12:1) and the apostolic signs they performed (12:11–13). Paul implies that for them such outward matters were more important than the condition of a person’s heart, which is what God sees.51
13. If we are ‘out of our mind,’ as some say, it is for God. There are two possible ways in which this could be taken. First, it could be Paul’s response to charges that he was mad. Such charges were certainly made later in his career, and they had also been made against his Master. Jesus was accused of being mad because of his unflagging zeal (Mark 3:21) and because his teaching offended his hearers (John 10:20). This latter reason lay behind the charge of madness that Festus made against Paul (Acts 26:22–24), which charge, of course, Paul rejected: ‘“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable”’ (Acts 26:25).
Second, it could be Paul’s response to those in Corinth who denied that his ministry was truly spiritual because he gave no evidence of ecstatic experience. To this Paul would reply, ‘If we do experience ecstasy [exestēmen], that is something between us and God’ – it is not something to bragged about in support of the validity of my ministry. The first alternative is preferable in the light of the preceding verse where Paul denies he is commending himself to the Corinthians, but giving them grounds on which they can respond to his critics. It would make more sense in that case to insist on his rationality rather than on his ecstatic experiences.
The love of Christ, which so deeply influenced the apostle that he gave his whole life in unflagging zeal to his service, must be something quite exceptional. Paul was so affected, he says, because we are convinced that one died for all. It was not some vague idea of Christ’s goodwill that moved him, but rather the fact that one died for all. The verb died (apethanen) is in the aorist tense, pointing to the historic event of the cross. But it was not the bare fact of Christ’s death that moved Paul; it was the death of Christ understood in a particular way. It was his death for all (hyper pantōn). There has been a lot of debate about whether hyper should be understood to mean ‘instead of ’ (i.e. Christ dying ‘in place of ’ all) or ‘for the sake of ’ (i.e. Christ dying ‘for the benefit of ’ all, understood to mean something different from ‘instead of ’ all). Against the former, it has been argued that if Paul had meant to say Christ died ‘instead of ’ all, he would have used the Greek preposition anti, which more clearly expresses that idea. It is true that anti expresses the idea unambiguously, but while hyper need not denote ‘instead of ’, it may do so.
The matter cannot be settled by consideration of this text in isolation. Other Pauline texts bearing upon the subject must be allowed to guide us. For example, in Galatians 3:13 Paul says, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, by becoming a curse for [hyper] us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”’ In that context Christ clearly endures God’s curse instead of us. There was absolutely no reason for him to endure God’s curse otherwise. So on the ‘pole’ (i.e. in his death upon the cross), he bore the curse of God instead of us. It is likely, therefore, that in the present context one died for [hyper] all means that Christ died instead of the all.52 This interpretation preserves the logical connection with what follows: and therefore all died. If Christ did not die instead of the all, then the all cannot be said to have died (the meaning of all is discussed along with the meaning of ‘world’ in the commentary on verse 19, where the latter is found). Only because Christ is the incarnate Son of God could the death of one be for all. Only the death of this one could redeem us from the curse of the law; the death of a mere human being could never achieve this.
It is the exceptional character of Christ’s love, understood as that which moved him to die in our place, which alone accounts satisfactorily for its great motivational power in Paul’s life (cf. Gal. 2:20: ‘The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’, italics added). It is just that function which the death of Christ has in the affirmation here in verse 14. Paul will provide further clues concerning the significance of Christ’s death in verses 18–21, but for the moment his main concern is with its motivational power, and this is carried over into verse 15.
This verse, with its reference to regarding Christ from a worldly point of view (lit. ‘according to [the] flesh’), was used by Bultmann (pp. 155–156) to argue that Paul showed little interest in the historical Jesus (Christ after the flesh), but focused rather upon the Christ of faith. However, such a view can claim no support from this verse, because Paul is talking about a way of knowing (‘according to the flesh’), not about a particular phase of Christ’s existence (Christ after the flesh = the historical Jesus). Paul is saying that previously he had an inadequate knowledge of Christ – one based on a worldly point of view – but now his understanding of Christ is no longer limited in that way. We should note the way Paul regarded Christ before and after his conversion to appreciate the contrast of viewpoints spoken of here. Before his conversion he would have regarded him as a false Christ, whose followers ought to be stamped out. Afterwards he knew Jesus was God’s Messiah, the one who was to make all things new, and to whom all people must be called to respond in the obedience of faith.
It is important to note that in one sense reconciliation has been accomplished already. God through Christ has already reconciled us to himself. He has broken down the barrier which separated us from him. What that barrier was and how it was broken down Paul describes in verses 19, 21. However, before doing that he indicates with the words and gave us the ministry of reconciliation that the reconciling process is in another sense still incomplete. The preaching of reconciliation has to be carried out and people must hear the call to be reconciled to God. Unless they respond to that call, they cannot actually experience reconciliation.
Not counting people’s sins against them. The verb Paul employs when speaking of God not counting (logizomai) people’s sins against them is a mathematical or accounting term used in relation to keeping a score of wrongs or crediting and debiting things to people’s accounts. What is involved in the non-Counting of people’s sins against them is expressed by Paul in Romans 4:8, citing Psalm 32:2: ‘Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.’ This blessing, Paul goes on to explain, is not restricted to Jews (‘the circumcised’), but is pronounced over all who believe, including Gentiles (‘the uncircumcised’) (Rom. 4:9–12). In the light of this, the universal expression the world in verse 19a is best interpreted to apply to all who believe, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, not extensively to every individual human being. Elsewhere Paul clearly implies that unless people repent, their sins are and shall be counted against them (cf. Rom. 1:18–32; 2:5–11; Eph. 5:3–6; Col. 3:5–6). Nevertheless, it is vital to stress that the death of Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 John 2:2) and make reconciliation possible for everyone, but this becomes effective only in those who respond positively to the message of reconciliation.
20. Because God entrusted him with the message of reconciliation (v. 19), Paul is able to say, We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. The Greek verb Paul uses in the expression we are… Christ’s ambassadors (presbeuō) means essentially ‘to be older or the eldest’, but came to be used in connection with functions for which the wisdom of age was a necessary prerequisite. In the political sphere it was used of ambassadors who were commissioned and given authority to represent their nations. In the religious sphere it was used figuratively, for example, by Philo when speaking of the angels or Moses as God’s emissaries. Jesus said the Twelve were to act as his representatives, and that whoever received them received him and the one who sent him (Matt. 10:40), a statement paralleled in the rabbinic adage: ‘a man’s agent is like to himself ’ (m. Berakoth 5.5).53 Paul was commissioned as an ambassador/apostle of Christ at his conversion and spoke in his name and with his authority (cf. 10:8; 13:10; 1 Thess. 2:6; 4:2), so that when he preached the gospel, people experienced the word of God at work in their hearts through the ministry of the Spirit (1 Thess. 1:4–5; 2:13). God, who reconciled the world to himself through the death of his Son, appealed to people, through his ambassador, to be reconciled to God.
We implore you on Christ’s behalf: be reconciled to God.54 This may reflect the language of Paul’s evangelistic preaching, but here the appeal is directed to members of the Corinthian church. Paul can hardly be implying that his audience had not yet responded to the gospel, for they had accepted the message he himself had brought to them. However, Paul’s apostolic authority and gospel had been called into question in Corinth, and in succeeding passages he entreats his converts not to accept the grace of God in vain (6:1–13), but to open their hearts to their apostle (6:11–13; 7:2–4). It is perhaps by way of preparation for these appeals that Paul employs the language of evangelistic preaching here.
21. Before proceeding to his appeal to the Corinthians in 6:1–13, for which he prepares the way in verse 20, Paul makes a highly compressed but extremely profound statement concerning the work of Christ: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us. This is the way Paul (in this letter) describes the basis upon which God reconciled us to himself. From this statement we get some idea of why the cross, as the expression of the love of God in Christ, had such great motivating power in the apostle’s life.
Paul describes Christ as one who had no sin (ton mē gnonta hamartian; lit. ‘who did not know sin’). To ‘know’ sin in this context is not to know about sin, but to know it by being personally involved in it. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus did not sin (cf. Matt. 27:4, 24; Luke 23:47; John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22). There may be an allusion here to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (‘he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth’, Isa. 53:9). It may be inferred from Paul’s statement that Christ had no sin, that only a sinless one could, through his death, be the agent of reconciliation (cf. 1 Pet. 1:19).
If becoming the righteousness of God means God has adjudicated in our favour and put us in right relationship with himself, then to be made sin, being the antithetical counterpart of this, will mean that God has adjudicated against Christ (because he took upon himself the burden of our sins; cf. Isa. 53:4–6, 12), with the result that the relationship of the human Jesus with God was (momentarily, but terribly beyond all human comprehension) severed. If this interpretation is correct, then we can perhaps begin to understand something of the agony of Gethsemane: ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done’ (Luke 22:42), and the awful cry of dereliction from the cross: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Matt. 27:46). We obviously stand at the brink of a great mystery, and our understanding of it can be only minimal.
Early Church Fathers wrestled with the implications of this mystery. ‘It is not “as if, when Jesus was fixed upon the wood of the cross, the Omnipotence of the Father’s Deity had gone away from Him; seeing that God’s and Man’s nature were so completely joined in him that the union could not be destroyed by punishment nor by death” (Leo I, Serm. 68.1).’ ‘“It was not he who was forsaken either by the Father or by his own Godhead,” wrote Gregory of Nazianzus. “But, as I said, he was in his own person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before” but now by his representative act saved (Orat. 30.5).’55
Theology
In defending the way he conducted his ministry, Paul was not indulging in self-commendation, but making it possible for his converts to be proud of him and supply an answer for those who criticized him. There is nothing to be gained by allowing false accusations to influence people and undermine our ministry when steps can be taken to set the record straight.
Paul speaks of two things that motivated him in ministry: (i) The fear of the Lord, for he knew that he, along with all believers, must appear before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of his life and ministry (5:10–11). (ii) The love of Christ who gave himself for him and for all people. Paul’s ministry was carried out in gratitude to his Lord, and a love for those for whom Christ died.
1. As God’s fellow workers… Following the theologically profound parenthesis of 5:21, Paul picks up again the theme of 5:20-his appeal to the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. The expression as God’s fellow workers is the NIV translation of a single Greek word, synergountes (‘working together with’). Although the party with whom Paul works could conceivably be understood as God, this would be at variance with his normal use of the word to refer to his colleagues (cf. 8:23; Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 1 Cor. 3:9; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; Thess. 3:2; Phlm. 1, 24). He is God’s ambassador (5:20), but God is not his co-worker.
4b-5. In great endurance. This appears to be the general heading for nine factors Paul adduces to commend his ministry. These comprise three sets of three. The first set, in troubles, hardships and distresses, is expressed in general terms, the second set represents particular examples, beatings, imprisonments and riots, while the third set speaks of hardships voluntarily undertaken, hard work, sleepless nights and hunger.56 Chapter 11 and the account of Paul’s ministry in Acts (cf. 13:50; 14:19; 17:5; 18:12; 19:29) provide the best commentary on these verses. Three of the factors call for explanation. By riots Paul means ‘civil disorders’ (cf. Acts 13:50; 14:19; 16:19; 19:29), his sleepless nights (cf. 11:27) were probably due to the pressures of travel, ministry and his concern for the churches, and hunger could refer either to fasting or lack of food.
It may seem strange that Paul should appeal to such hardships to commend his ministry. But underlying the appeal is the recognition that Jesus, the true Servant of God, was the Suffering Servant, and that loyal followers of Christ must be prepared to share his fate: ‘The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master’ (Matt. 10:24; cf. Acts 20:19).
In Romans 13:12 Paul writes, ‘The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armour [hopla; lit. ‘weapons’] of light.’ The exhortation forms part of a call for godly living, in contrast to revelling and drunkenness, and so on, so the expression ‘armour of light’ here stands for Christian character and behaviour.
We are genuine, yet regarded as impostors. Those who criticized Paul because he did not carry letters of recommendation (3:1–3) may have regarded him as an ‘impostor’, but those with godly discernment would recognize that he was a ‘genuine’ apostle. Known, yet regarded as unknown. By the world and by his critics, Paul was unknown, he was not ‘recognized’, but to those who no longer judged according to worldly standards, he was known and his apostolate was recognized.57 Dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed. Judged by worldly standards, Paul’s career was a miserable one. He was continually exposed to the danger of death, attacked by angry mobs and beaten by civil authorities, but God delivered him again and again (see 1:8–10 for the most recent deliverance), so that contrary to all expectation, he was not killed, but lives.
Sorrowful, yet always rejoicing. This antithesis is closely related to the previous two. In all his troubles Paul appeared a sorrowful sight to those who regarded him from a human point of view, but by the grace of God he was always rejoicing (cf. Acts 16:19–26). Poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything. It was a commonplace in Paul’s day (e.g. among Cynic and Stoic philosophers) to speak of having nothing materially, but possessing everything in a higher sense.58 Paul’s having nothing would be the result in part of refusing either to accept support from the Corinthians (11:7–9), or to ‘peddle’ the gospel for financial gain (2:17). Nevertheless, he regarded himself as truly rich, because he was already experiencing as a sort of firstfruits the spiritual blessings of the age to come. And further, he rejoiced that, though materially poor, he could make many rich by enabling them to share in spiritual blessings through Christ.
The purpose of Paul’s long commendation (vv. 3–10) is to show that no fault was to be found in his ministry, and thereby to clear the ground for an appeal to the Corinthians for a full reconciliation with their apostle. Having done this, Paul proceeds immediately to his appeal (vv. 11–13).
11. We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. When literally translated, we have spoken freely (to stoma hēmōn aneōgen) would be ‘we have opened our mouth’. Similar expressions are used of Jesus speaking (cf. Matt. 5:2; 13:35) and reflect a common Hebraic idiom meaning simply ‘to speak’. However, Paul’s expression, we have spoken freely (to stoma hēmōn aneōgen), is a Greek idiom denoting candour or straightforward speech. By adding that he has opened wide his heart to the Corinthians, Paul affirms that there is plenty of room for them in his affections.
This passage poses some problems for the reader because its connection with what precedes and follows it is not obvious. Whether or not it is to be regarded as a later interpolation has been discussed in the Introduction (here). It was concluded there that the interpolation theory raises greater problems than it solves, for it is extremely difficult to explain, on that theory, why anyone would introduce such a passage at this place. If it is not a later interpolation, we have two tasks before us: to understand the message of 6:14 – 7:1 itself, and to relate it somehow to the rest of the letter, especially its immediate context.
To understand the passage itself we need first to recognize its structure. It consists of: (i) an introductory exhortation not to be ‘yoked’ with unbelievers (6:14a); (ii) five rhetorical questions which bring out the necessity of heeding this exhortation (6:14b-16a); (iii) an affirmation of believers’ unique relationship with God (6:16b); (iv) a number of quotations from the Old Testament which highlight the privilege involved in this relationship and reiterate the content of the exhortation (6:16c-18); and (v) a concluding call to be cleansed ‘from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God’ (7:1).
14a. Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. The expression be yoked together (ginesthe heterozygountes) contains the idea of being unevenly yoked. The verb heterozygeō is found only here in the New Testament, but is used in the LXX at Leviticus 19:19 as part of a prohibition on yoking different types of animals together.59 In Deuteronomy 22:10 is found the command, ‘Do not plough with an ox and a donkey yoked together.’ Using language reminiscent of these prohibitions, Paul exhorts his audience not to enter into ‘partnerships’ with unbelievers. But what sort of partnerships did he have in mind? Were they marriage partnerships (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39), or were they partnerships in pagan practices (cf. 1 Cor. 10:14–22)? In the light of what follows (vv. 15–16), the latter seems more likely. Such an exhortation was particularly applicable to the Corinthian believers, evident from the fact that in his earlier letter Paul had to charge them not to eat in idol temples (cf. 1 Cor. 10:7, 14–22). Paul is not saying that believers should have no contact with unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–10; 7:12–15; 10:27; 14:22–24), only that they should not participate with them in idolatrous worship.
14b-16a. The opening exhortation of verse 14a is here backed up by five rhetorical questions which underline its importance. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? The contrasts between righteousness and wickedness, and light and darkness contained in these first two questions are found frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls also (e.g. 1QH 1:26–27; 1QM 3:19). The word Belial, found in the third question, What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?, is also found frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. 1QM 1:1, 5, 13, 15; 4:2; 11:8) and in intertestamental literature (e.g. T. Levi 3:3). In these writings Belial is a name given to the chief of demons, or Satan, and this is its meaning here.
16b. For we are the temple of the living God. Having emphasized the incompatibility of ‘the temple of God’ and idols (v. 16a), Paul shows why the Christian community must not become involved in idol worship: it is because its members constitute the temple of the living God. In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of both the individual Christian’s body (1 Cor. 6:16–20) and the Christian community as a whole (1 Cor. 3:16–17) as God’s temple. It is the latter sense which he employs here. The expression the living God is used frequently by the apostle (cf. Rom. 9:26; 2 Cor. 3:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10). Its background is the Old Testament contrast between the living God of Israel and the lifeless idols of pagan nations. In the present context the same contrast is implied. Elsewhere Paul states clearly that idols in themselves are nothing, the danger of idolatry being that the involvement with demonic powers active therein provokes the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor. 8:4–6; 10:19–22).
In the expression everything that contaminates, the Greek word molysmos is employed, a word found only here in the New Testament and only three times in the LXX (Jer. 23:15; 1 Esdr. 8:80; 2 Macc. 5:27). In all cases it denotes religious defilement.
The whole passage, 6:14 – 7:1, then, constitutes a call and encouragement for Christians to have nothing to do with idol worship and to perfect holiness out of reverence for God. The difficult question remains as to why, if it is not an interpolation, the passage is included by Paul at this point in the letter. Various suggestions have been made, all of which have some merit (see Introduction), including: (i) Paul is picking up his exhortation that his audience ‘not receive God’s grace in vain’ (6:1), something they would be doing should they become involved again in idolatry; (ii) being deeply concerned to re-establish fellowship with the Corinthians (cf. 6:11–13; 7:2–4), Paul reminds them that full restoration of fellowship can be achieved only if they cease all involvement with idol worship; (iii) Paul is warning his audience that if they were to join the opposition to him and his gospel, such action would be tantamount to siding with Satan/Belial. He calls on them to avoid any such liaison and to be reconciled with their true apostle instead.
2. Here, following the section calling for no compromise with paganism (6:14 – 7:1), Paul renews his appeal to the Corinthians (cf. 6:11–13) to open their hearts to their apostle: Make room for us in your hearts. The verb form is aorist imperative, indicating that Paul was looking for some specific action, rather than simply making a general exhortation, which in turn suggests he believed there was still some reticence on the part of the Corinthians to open their hearts to him. In the earlier appeal (6:11–13) he stressed that his own heart was open wide towards them and that the remaining restriction in the relationship was on their side.
3. I do not say this to condemn you. Paul may have felt that the strong defence of his own integrity in verse 2 might be taken to imply a criticism of the Corinthians’ integrity, and there were certainly aspects of the Corinthians’ attitudes to Paul in the past that deserved censure. However, these words constitute an immediate denial of such an attitude on his part. On the contrary, his attitude towards them was much more positive: I have said before that you have such a place in our hearts that we would live or die with you.60 In 6:11–12 Paul told the Corinthians that his heart was open wide to them, and here he reinforces that affirmation. In the papyri the idea of living and dying together is found where mutual friendship and loyalty are extolled. The idea is that friendship will be sustained throughout life and will keep friends together even in the face of death (cf. Mark 14:31).
4. Despite the fact that there may still have been some reticence on the part of the Corinthians to embrace him fully in their affections, Paul nevertheless felt and expressed great confidence in them: I have spoken to you with great frankness; I take great pride in you. This expression of pride, repeated later in verses 14, 16 in relation to assurances he gave to Titus when he sent him to Corinth, indicates that despite the attack made upon his integrity by the offender (cf. v. 12 and Introduction, pp. 33, 55–60), Paul still believed in the basic loyalty of the Corinthians. They just needed to be released from restrictions brought about by painful past events and the criticisms they had entertained concerning his integrity. When Paul says, I am greatly encouraged; in all our troubles my joy knows no bounds, it is almost certainly a reflection of the great relief and joy he experienced when he heard of the steps taken by the Corinthians in obedience to the demands he made in the ‘severe letter’ and reported to him by Titus when they met in Macedonia (cf. vv. 5–7). The Corinthians had demonstrated their loyalty to their apostle, so he is able to say, I am greatly encouraged, and that despite the afflictions he was experiencing even as he wrote these things (cf. v. 5).
Theology
People who have responded positively to the gospel and have begun enjoying its benefits must ensure they do not ‘receive God’s grace in vain’ (6:1–2). What Paul was warning the Corinthians against was entertaining criticisms of the gospel and of him as its messenger, lest they fail to benefit fully from the grace of God made available to them. The lives of ministers must not become a stumbling-block hindering people from embracing the gospel (6:3). Rather, they need to commend themselves by the way in which they endure hardships, by godly living and truthful speech in whatever situation they find themselves (6:4–10).
In the distress in which he found himself in Macedonia, Paul says, God… comforted us by the coming of Titus. The meeting with Titus, so long delayed but finally achieved, brought great relief to the apostle, but as he goes on to say, the relief he experienced was brought about not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. When Titus set out for Corinth as Paul’s envoy after the apostle’s own ‘painful visit’, he would have done so with a good deal of apprehension, despite Paul’s expressions of confidence in his converts. When he arrived and saw how they responded to Paul’s ‘severe letter’, and how they received him, he was greatly relieved and comforted (cf. 7:13b-16). When Paul received news of Titus’ relief, he too was comforted as he told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever (see commentary on v. 11, where the nature of this response is spelt out in greater detail). It was not only the pleasure of meeting up with Titus that brought comfort to Paul, but also the news of the improved condition of the Corinthian church, news that they were deeply concerned about and longing for their apostle.
There is an important difference between the regret (metamelomai, ‘to regret’) Paul felt and the repentance (metanoia) to which the Corinthians were led. Paul felt regret when he became concerned about the effect his ‘severe letter’ might have upon the Corinthians. The Corinthians’ repentance produced grief as they realized what they had done and not done, and this resulted in a marked change in their behaviour.
Biblical examples of godly sorrow can be seen in the cases of David (2 Sam. 12:13; Ps. 51), Peter (Mark 14:72) and Paul himself (Acts 9:1–22), while examples of worldly sorrow are to be found in the cases of Esau (Gen. 27:1–40; Heb. 12:15–17) and Judas (Matt. 27:3–5). It is worth noting that Paul acted to head off the possibility of mere worldly sorrow in the case of the ‘offender’ when in 2:7 he urged his audience to reaffirm their love for him so that he might not be overcome with excessive sorrow and so be lost to the church (see commentary on 2:5–11).
12–13a. Because of the Corinthians’ positive response to the ‘severe letter’, Paul was able to explain to them his real motive in writing: So even though I wrote to you, it was neither on account of the one who did the wrong nor on account of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. He says that he wrote not simply to get action taken against the ‘offender’ or just to have his own position vis-à-vis the Corinthians clarified and vindicated, but rather that the Corinthians themselves, by experiencing such godly sorrow, might realize how much Paul really meant to them. Thrall (pp. 495–496) addresses the question of whether this accurately reflects Paul’s original intention when he wrote the ‘severe letter’ or how he interpreted it retrospectively. She suggests that it ‘should be attributed to an Hebraic manner of speaking whereby a negated alternative is not intended to be negated absolutely, “but only in comparison with the alternative, which is much more important”’.
But just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting about you to Titus has proved to be true as well. Despite their earlier failure to defend their apostle when he was maligned, it would appear Paul still believed there would be a basic readiness to respond positively to his ‘severe letter’, and he had assured Titus along these lines when he sent him to Corinth. The Corinthians’ response to Titus when he visited them proved that Paul’s boasting about them was true.61
16. Paul concludes this major section of the letter with an expression of confidence in the congregation: I am glad I can have complete confidence in you. Paul’s expression of confidence paved the way for broaching with them again in the next two chapters the matter of the collection.62
Theology
In this section of his letter (7:5–16) Paul picks up and expands upon the theme of ‘the God of all comfort’ introduced in 1:3–7. There God comforted him directly; here he does so ‘by the coming of Titus’ who brought news of positive changes in the Corinthians’ relationship to Paul. That Titus could bring such heartening news was the result of the work of God in the lives of the Corinthians.
This section also provides insight into Paul as a pastor. He was prepared to exercise ‘tough love’ when sending the ‘severe letter’, but this was done with genuine care for the Corinthians, such that, having sent it, he initially regretted doing so, fearing it might cause them harm. But as it turned out, the effect was very positive and brought about real change in them and a great desire for a restored relationship with their apostle. This was a great encouragement to Paul and a source of real joy when he received news of it from Titus. All this underlines the fact that Paul was no laissez-faire pastor, nor was he just clinically objective, but he was deeply involved emotionally with his converts. In fact, he saw one of the purposes of his ‘severe letter’ being to enable the Corinthians to recognize how devoted they really were to him.
Having spoken of his joy and relief on hearing the news Titus brought of the Corinthians’ response to his ‘severe letter’, Paul proceeds to raise with them the matter of the collection being taken up among the Gentile churches to assist the poor believers in Judea. They had been hit hard by famine during the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54), and the largely Gentile church at Antioch (Syria) had responded quickly by sending relief by the hand of Barnabas and Saul (Paul) (Acts 11:27–30). In Galatians 2:10 Paul tells how the leaders of the Jerusalem church, having recognized his apostolate to the Gentiles, urged him to continue remembering the poor, which thing, he said, he was eager to do. By the time he wrote 1 Corinthians (c. AD 55), he had already begun soliciting aid from the churches of Galatia, and the Corinthians had heard about it and asked to be allowed to share in this ministry (1 Cor. 16:1–4). And by the time 2 Corinthians was written (c. AD 56), Paul had contacted the Macedonian churches and they had begged him ‘for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people’ (8:4). He was now using the example of their generosity to stimulate the Corinthians to carry out what they had earlier shown themselves ready to do (8:1–7; cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–4), just as he had previously used the example of the Corinthians’ readiness to motivate the Macedonians (9:1–5).
The question as to whether both chapters 8 and 9 were originally connected with chapters 1 – 7 is discussed in the Introduction (here). It was concluded that the evidence in favour of unity is at least as strong, if not stronger, than that against. The connection between chapters 1 – 7 and chapters 8 and 9 can be explained along the following lines. In chapters 1 – 7 Paul responds with great relief and joy to the good news brought by Titus of a turn for the better in the relationship between the Corinthians and himself. He concludes that response with an expression of his confidence in the Corinthians (7:14–16). Because the relationship was for the time being in a good state, he could remind the Corinthians of their earlier desire to contribute to the collection for the Judean Christians, urging them now to complete what they had previously begun.63 So although the subject matter of chapters 8 and 9 is quite different from that of chapters 1 – 7, the former can be explained as arising from the latter.
That Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians was successful in dealing with this matter is evident from his comment in Romans 15:26 written just a few months later: ‘Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.’ The churches of Achaia, of course, included the Corinthian church (cf. 9:2).
Comment
In these verses Paul uses the example of the Macedonian believers’ remarkably generous response to the collection appeal to motivate the Corinthian believers to carry out what they had previously shown themselves ready to do, to provide relief for the believers in Jerusalem.
Paul says of the Macedonians that their overflowing joy… welled up in rich generosity. He mentions the Macedonians’ generosity repeatedly in his letters (cf. Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:1–4; 11:9; Phil. 1:5; 2:25; 4:15–16, 18). Jesus told the Twelve when he sent them out on the Galilean mission, ‘Freely you have received; freely give’ (Matt. 10:8). The Macedonian Christians knew the joy of being the recipients of God’s free grace, and in that joy they gave freely. Because of their own situation, what they gave was probably quite a small amount, but measured against their extreme poverty it represented rich generosity (cf. Mark 12:41–44). Calvin (p. 107) comments,
6. So we urged Titus, just as he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. Seeing the extraordinary response of the Macedonians prompted Paul to urge Titus to follow up his earlier efforts to encourage the Corinthians to participate in the collection. Verse 10 refers to the time when the Corinthians first began to participate (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–4), but it is unlikely that Titus was involved at that early stage, because 7:14 suggests that the visit to Corinth from which he had just returned (7:5–7) was his first to the church there. It is more likely, therefore, that it was on his recent visit that Titus, seeing the Corinthians responding so positively to Paul’s ‘severe letter’, began to work with them on the matter of the collection. In the present context, then, Paul tells his audience that he has urged Titus to complete what he began on his recent visit.
7. But since you excel in everything – in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you64 – see that you also excel in this grace of giving. If the words, since you excel in everything, had been found in 1 Corinthians, we would suspect the use of satire (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 – 3:4; 6:5), as if Paul were saying, ‘If you think you excel in everything…!’ But in the context of a passage connected with chapters 1 – 7 – a letter of reconciliation, relief and joy – satire would be out of place.
When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he acknowledged their excellence in ‘speech’ and ‘knowledge’ (1:4–7), but the earnestness and love Paul mentions in the present context are qualities called forth by the ‘severe letter’. The words, the love we have kindled in you, translate tē ex hēmōn en hymin agapē (lit. ‘the love from us in you’). If, as we have suggested, this love was kindled through Paul’s ‘severe letter’, it is possible to understand how it was ‘love from us in you’.
The closing words of verse 7, see that you also excel in this grace of giving, are construed in the NIV as a command (regarding hina plus subjunctive as an imperative). Alternatively, Paul’s words may be interpreted as an exhortation expressing a wish rather than issuing a command (cf. NRSV: ‘we want you to excel also in this generous undertaking’). Either way, Paul expects his converts to respond positively to what he says.
9. To support his call to the Corinthians to express their love by generous participation in the collection, Paul cites the example of Christ: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Beginning his statement with the words, for you know, indicates that Paul is reminding them of truth they already knew, the content of which functions as an authoritative example for believers. When Paul speaks of the grace of God, or as here, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, what he refers to is not merely an attitude or a gracious disposition, but God’s love expressed in concrete saving action on behalf of humanity. And similarly, it is a concrete expression of love that Paul expects from his audience.
Irrespective of the degree of poverty which Jesus may have experienced (and this can be exaggerated), it is not economic poverty about which Paul writes here. Most likely, he had in mind Jesus’ whole incarnate life. In this case his becoming poor relates to setting aside his pre-existent glory in the presence of the Father. Statements in John’s Gospel illustrate the self-imposed ‘poverty’ involved in the incarnation: he who was in the beginning ‘with God’ and who ‘was God’ (John 1:1–2) ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us’ (John 1:14). ‘He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him’ (John 1:10–11; cf. Phil. 2:5–8.)
10. Having cited the example of Christ’s self-giving love, Paul urges his audience to show the genuineness of their own love by a concrete act of compassion: And here is my judgment about what is best for you in this matter. Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. The apostle was not averse to making demands which he regarded as commands of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37–38), but he distinguishes his own judgments or opinions as an apostle from such authoritative commands (cf. 1 Cor. 7:25, 40), as he does here when prefacing it with here is my judgment. Paul’s judgment was that it was best for them to finish now what they began last year. He knew that representatives from the Macedonian churches (to whom he had boasted of the Corinthians’ readiness) would soon arrive in Corinth. If the Corinthians had not carried through in this matter by then, they would be embarrassed before the Macedonian Christians (cf. 9:1–5), so it would indeed be best for them to complete now what they had previously begun.
The reference to what was begun last year probably relates to the action taken in response to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 16:1–4. The expression translated last year (apo perysi) is used in the papyri to mean some time during the previous calendar year. Thus the time reference could be to a point as recent as one month or as long as twenty-three months ago. In this context, assuming the Corinthians’ original initiative in the matter was expressed in their letter to which Paul responded when he wrote 1 Corinthians, the point in time to which apo perysi refers will be determined by the period of time we judge to have elapsed between the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians, possibly about one year (see Introduction).
We might have expected Paul to refer to ‘what they not only began to desire but also to give’. However, the order is the reverse of this. He refers to what they began not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. This throws emphasis upon the fact that the Corinthians’ earlier actions sprang from their own desires, not from pressure applied by the apostle. But the Corinthians’ good intentions had failed to produce further results over the past year.
11. Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. The expression, finish the work (to poiēsai epitelesate), is imperative in form, but in this context functions as an exhortation or entreaty rather than a demand (cf. the similar use of imperatives in 5:20; Matt. 6:10–11; Luke 11:1; John 4:7, 31). Paul exhorts them to let your eager willingness to do it last year be matched now by your completion of it. This would probably involve renewing the practice of setting aside a sum of money on the first day of every week, as Paul advised (1 Cor. 16:2). No matter how strong one’s willingness may be, it is fruitless unless expressed in action. True love never leaves us content just to talk; it has to be expressed in practical ways (cf. Luke 19:1–10; 1 John 3:16–18).
By adding according to your means, Paul indicates that his exhortation is not unreasonable, but takes into account their situation as well as the needs of the Judean believers. He is not suggesting they do what the Macedonians did, who not only ‘gave as much as they were able’, but ‘even beyond their ability’(v. 3).
12. For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have. Paul explains here what he meant by the brief reference to ‘according to your means’ in verse 11. In doing so, he makes two points about gifts that are acceptable to God. First, there needs to be a willingness to give and no sense of compulsion. Second, the size of the gift is acceptable when it is in proportion to what one has. Speaking of the collection in 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul says, ‘Each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income.’ That Paul had to explain this to the Corinthians may be an indication that one reason why they had not completed what they had begun was because they felt their resources prevented them from raising a suitably large amount. Calvin (p. 112) comments, ‘If you offer a small gift from your slender resources, your intention is just as valuable in God’s eyes as if a rich man had made a large gift out of his abundance.’65
The word acceptable (euprosdektos) is found in three other contexts in Paul’s letters. It occurs in Romans 15:16, where Paul speaks of the Gentiles being an ‘acceptable’ sacrifice to God. It is found again in Romans 15:31, where he expresses his hope that the collection will be ‘favourably received’ (lit. ‘acceptable’) to the Judean Christians. And in 2 Corinthians 6:2 it is used of the day of ‘God’s favour’ (lit. ‘acceptable time’), ‘the day of salvation’. Thus Paul uses euprosdektos of acceptability both to God and to human beings. In our present context, where the word is used in an absolute sense, and where no human acceptance is in view, acceptability before God of the Corinthians’ gift is intended. Paul assures his audience that when they give according to what one has, that is acceptable to God. His view is a sane one in that it takes account of the giver’s situation and does not expect a response which is according to what one does not have (cf. Tobit 4:8 NRSV: ‘If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have’). Chrysostom says, ‘Look at how unbelievably wise Paul is. After pointing out the need and showing them an example, Paul leaves the Corinthians to do as much as they can, letting the example of the Macedonians do its own work of persuasion. He knew that imitation was a more powerful incentive than exhortation’ (Bray, p. 274).
14c-15. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.’ Paul finds an illustration of equality in the experience of the exodus community. When God provided manna from heaven, each family head was to gather ‘an omer for each person you have in your tent’ (Exod. 16:16). As they gathered according to their needs, ‘the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little’ (Exod. 16:18). It is implied that the Lord miraculously ensured that the amounts gathered were sufficient for each person’s need.66 The needs of all were met, no-one suffered want and no-one had an oversupply. This model illustrates the ideal which Paul sets before his audience. They too should ensure that there is an equality of needs being met among the Christian communities. And for this to occur, those enjoying an abundance should meet the needs of those in want. Calvin (p. 114) comments, ‘I acknowledge indeed that we are not bound to such an equality as would make it wrong for the rich to live more elegantly than the poor; but that there must be such an equality that nobody starves and nobody hordes his abundance at another’s expense.’
Here Paul commends the three brothers he is sending to Corinth to assist in the administration of the collection. Titus is commended first (vv. 16–17), then the brother ‘praised by all the churches for his service’ (vv. 18–19), and thirdly ‘our brother who has often proved to us in many ways that he is zealous’ (v. 22). The passage concludes with a summary commendation of all three (v. 23) and an exhortation that the Corinthians give proof of their love (for Paul) and the truth of his boasting about them (to the Macedonians) when the three brothers arrive (v. 24). Between the commendations of those whom he is sending, Paul digresses briefly to say that he is trying to ‘avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift’ (vv. 20–21). It is this concern that probably accounts for the rather full commendations Paul makes.
18–19. And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel. What is more, he was chosen by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering. Paul does not name this brother67 who will accompany Titus, but he commends him on two counts. First, he is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel (en tō euangeliō), that is, in preaching the gospel.68 Second, he has the confidence of those churches who selected him to join those conveying the collection to Jerusalem. Paul does not name this brother or the churches that selected him for the task, though presumably they were the Macedonian churches. It is clear that whoever this well-spoken-of brother was, he and the churches who chose him shared Paul’s view concerning the importance of the collection.
The final words of verse 19 indicate the purposes for which Paul accepted responsibility for administering the collection. It was in order to honour the Lord himself and to show our eagerness to help. The collection, taken up among Gentile converts and given to Jewish believers, was a tangible expression of the reconciliation which God had effected through Christ. By reconciling both Jew and Gentile to himself through the cross, God had at the same time reconciled the two groups to one another. So the collection, as a tangible expression of the new relationship between Gentile converts and Jewish Christians, reflected the grace of God in the lives of those concerned, and therefore can be said to honour the Lord himself as the beneficiaries were moved to praise God.
However, the collection was carried out also to show our eagerness to help. Paul had fought long and hard to preserve the freedom of the gospel for his Gentile converts, and had won the approval of the Jewish mother church for the gospel he preached among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:1–10). It had been agreed that Gentile converts need not submit to circumcision nor take upon themselves the yoke of the law (Acts 15:1–35). Because of the two fundamentally different lifestyles, the Gentile churches could easily have gone their own way and had virtually nothing to do with the Jewish churches. When the leaders of the Jerusalem church affirmed Paul’s gospel for the Gentiles, they asked him ‘to remember the poor’ (Gal. 2:10). Paul saw this as an important demonstration of unity between the two different expressions of Christianity, and was therefore eager to promote a collection among the Gentiles, as this would show his good will and that of his churches towards the Jewish believers.
21. Paul further emphasizes the extreme care taken, by saying, For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.69 Paul’s words echo those of Proverbs 3:3–4:
Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
bind them round your neck,
write them on the tablet of your heart.
22. Following the brief digression in verses 20–21, Paul commends the third member of the group being sent to Corinth. In addition, we are sending with them our brother who has often proved to us in many ways that he is zealous. Unlike the ‘brother’ mentioned in verse 19 who was ‘chosen by the churches’, this person is described as our brother, implying perhaps that he was chosen by Paul. It is hard to know why Paul did not name either the person he commended in verses 18–19 or the one he mentions here. The former was ‘praised by all the churches’ and presumably would have been known to the Corinthians. The latter was almost certainly known to them also, for Paul goes on to say that he is now even more [zealous] because of his great confidence in you.70 It is worth noting how important the quality of ‘zeal’ was to the apostle, both when commending Christian workers and when exhorting believers generally. We might place other qualifications higher on our list of priorities, but for Paul zeal was among the most important (cf. e.g. 7:11, 12; 8:7, 8, 16, 17; Rom. 12:8, 11; Eph. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:16, 17).
23. Paul here sums up his commendation of the three-man team in such a way as to answer any who might ask, ‘Who are these men?’ He begins: As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you. Titus’ close association with Paul as his partner (koinōnos) is stressed, suggesting that he is functioning as Paul’s apostolic representative. The words, as for Titus, translate eite hyper Titou. Betz (p. 79) notes that the word hyper was used when making ‘a legal statement on someone’s behalf ’ and reinforces the view that Paul was introducing Titus as his official representative. This is the only place where Paul uses the word partner (koinōnos) of a colleague, but he uses fellow worker (synergos) several times to denote both male and female colleagues (Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 3:2; Phlm. 1, 24).
The statement, they are representatives of the churches and an honour to Christ, translates apostoloi ekklēsiōn, doxa Christou (lit. ‘messengers of the churches, [the] glory of Christ’). ‘[The] glory of Christ’ could refer to ‘the messengers/apostles’ (as in the NIV), in which case it may be understood to imply that these men worked for the ‘glory of Christ’ in that they participated in the administration of a collection which was ‘to honour the Lord himself ’ (v. 19). Alternatively, ‘[the] glory of Christ’ could refer to the churches (as implied by the punctuation in the NRSV: ‘they are the messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ’). Barnett (p. 427) suggests that the churches were the glory of Christ because, against the dark background in which they were situated, they shone brightly and so glorified Christ. However, in context where Paul is commending these three envoys, he is probably referring to them as the ‘glory of Christ’ rather than the churches that sent them. Betz (p. 82) argues that the very vagueness of the expression reflects ‘the language of diplomacy’, in this case to enhance the status of these brothers.
1–2. There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the Lord’s people. In one sense there was no need for Paul to write about the collection (as he did in ch. 8) because the Corinthians had shown their readiness by raising the matter with him in the first place (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–4).71 He underlines this fact by saying, For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians. The content of that boasting is then stated briefly: telling them that since last year you in Achaia72 were ready to give. On since last year (apo perysi), see commentary on 8:10. The effect of Paul’s boasting about the Corinthians’ readiness is then recorded: and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action (i.e. most of the Macedonians).
For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we – not to say anything about you – would be ashamed of having been so confident.73 In fact, several Macedonians did come to Corinth, and were included among those who accompanied Paul from there on his journey to Jerusalem (i.e. Sopater, Aristarchus and Secundus; see Acts 20:4). If these people arrived in Corinth and found the Corinthians unprepared, Paul’s embarrassment would be acute, exceeded only by the humiliation experienced by the Corinthians themselves.
5. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you had promised. Then it will be ready as a generous gift, not as one grudgingly given. Paul sent Titus and the two brothers (8:16–24) ahead to avoid the need for a hasty collection when he arrived with the Macedonian delegation, and the embarrassment and humiliation that would cause. Generous gift translates eulogian (lit. ‘blessing’), foreshadowing the spiritual as well as the material effects of the gift (cf. vv. 12–14).
8. This verse is replete with comprehensive expressions which speak of God’s ability to bless his people so that they may abound in good works.74 Paul begins: And God is able to bless you abundantly (lit. ‘And God is able to make all grace abound to you’). In the case of the Macedonians, whose response to the collection Paul cited as an example in 8:1–5, the grace of God enabled them to contribute generously out of their poverty. In the case of the Corinthians, whom Paul considered better-off at the time (8:14), the grace of God shown to them is to be understood as the blessing of relative affluence. The purpose of God’s blessing is then spelled out: so that having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. The meaning of the word translated all that you need (autarkeia) had been coloured by its use in ethical discussions from the time of Socrates. In Cynic and Stoic philosophy it was used of the person who was self-sufficient. So Seneca, a Stoic and contemporary of Paul, understood autarkeia as that proud independence of outward circumstances and of other people which constituted true happiness.75 Paul uses the word differently. For him autarkeia denoted not self-sufficiency, but the sufficiency provided by God’s grace, and as such it made possible not independence of others, but the ability to abound in good works towards them
9. To reinforce his exhortation that the Corinthians contribute bountifully, Paul quotes verbatim from Psalm 111:9 (LXX, ET 112:9): As it is written: ‘They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures for ever.’ The psalm celebrates the blessedness of the one who fears the Lord and delights in his commandments. Such a person is blessed by God with material prosperity also, and is accordingly generous to the poor. Paul sets forth this God-fearing person as an example of those who abound in good works (they have freely scattered their gifts to the poor).
The meaning of their righteousness endures for ever (lit. ‘his righteousness endures for ever’) has been variously interpreted. Some argue that Paul has in mind God’s generous giving, and then ‘his righteousness’ is God’s righteousness which clearly endures forever (so e.g. Barnett, p. 440). However, in the psalm the subject of the generous giving is the human person, and Paul introduces the quotation to reinforce the point that, because of God’s blessing, the Corinthians will be able to ‘abound in every good work’ (i.e. to contribute generously to the collection). If this is the case, it is the righteousness of the Corinthian giver that will endure forever. How is this to be understood? Clearly not in the sense that generous giving establishes a person’s righteousness in God’s sight. Thrall (p. 582) suggests righteousness here is to be understood in terms of benevolence, something enabled by God who provides the means (cf. v. 10) so that it continues for ever (i.e. throughout life). The righteousness of such people is not based upon their generosity to the poor, but expressed in it. It is the sort of thing Paul describes elsewhere as ‘faith expressing itself through love’ (Gal. 5:6).
12. This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. The expression this service that you perform translates hē diakonia tēs leitourgias tautēs (lit. ‘the service of this ministry’). The noun leitourgia, and its cognate verb leitourgēo, were used in non-biblical Greek to denote civil service rendered to the state by its citizens, and also of service more generally, for example, that of slaves to their masters. In the LXX the words are used extensively of cultic service to God, and so also in Hebrews (cf. Heb. 8:6; 9:21; 10:11). Paul uses the words elsewhere when speaking of monetary gifts made by Christians (Rom. 15:27; Phil. 2:30) and of their faith (Phil. 2:17). The provision of monetary gifts, which Paul describes as ‘services’ (leitourgias) in Philippians 2:30 (NRSV), are later described as ‘a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God’ (Phil. 4:18). The cultic background is very clear. Paul regarded Christian giving not only as service rendered to those in need, but also as service to God. It is important to note that for Paul the ultimate purpose of the collection, as of all forms of Christian ‘service’, is that thanksgiving should overflow from grateful hearts to God. The importance of thanks-giving to God is a recurring theme in this letter (cf. 1:11; 4:15).
15. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift! This verse strikes a note sounded already in 8:9. There the grace of Christ was shown in his becoming poor for our sakes so that we might become rich. That was God’s indescribable gift. The word indescribable (anekdiēgetos) which Paul uses here is found neither in classical Greek nor in the papyri. It appears first in the New Testament and only in this verse. It appears to be a word the apostle himself coined to describe the ineffable character of God’s gift. Once coined by Paul, it was used by Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians (written c. AD 95) when writing of God’s ‘indescribable’ judgments, love and power (1 Clem 20:5; 49:4; 61:1). The important thing to note is that for Paul all Christian giving is carried out in the light of God’s indescribable gift, and therefore ought to be done with a cheerful heart as an expression of gratitude to God, as well as in demonstration of concern for, and partnership with, those in need.
It is important to remember that people’s capacity to be generous is ultimately made possible by God’s generosity. He who provides ‘seed to the sower’ can enrich us in every way and increase our capacity to give to those in need. This, of course, presupposes that there will always be those who are in need (as Jesus said, ‘The poor you will always have with you’, Mark 14:7), and they must not be expected to be generous in the same way as those who are rich.
The significance of the collection for Paul and his mission is the subject of much debate.76 Clearly, the collection was intended to be a compassionate response to the pressing needs of Judean Christians, and an expression of the unity of the Jewish and Gentile sections of the church (2 Cor. 8:14–15; cf. Rom. 15:25–27). Some similarities (and some differences) have been noted between the way Paul speaks of the collection and the way in which the Jewish temple tax was administered.77 And, more conjecturally, it has been suggested that Paul conceived the bearing of the collection to Jerusalem by representatives of the Gentile churches in terms of the Old Testament prophecies of the latter days when the nations and their wealth would flow into Zion (Isa. 2:2–3; 60:5–7; Mic. 4:1–2). Furthermore, it is proposed that Paul hoped this would convince Jewish Christians that God was fulfilling his ancient prophecies, and as this realization dawned upon unbelieving Jews, they would become jealous when they saw Gentiles enjoying the blessings of God first promised to them, and that would trigger the repentance of Israel for which Paul longed (Rom. 11:11–14, 25–32). Unfortunately, things did not work out as Paul is thought to have hoped. Although he was warmly received by those in the Jerusalem church when he arrived with those bearing the collection (Acts 24:17–26), it did not trigger repentance on the part of unbelieving Jews. Shortly afterwards, his presence in the temple with those undergoing purification rites resulted in a tumult, his arrest and a further hardening of Jewish people against the gospel.78 This suggestion that Paul thought of the collection in terms of those Old Testament prophecies has been found unconvincing by the majority of recent commentators, for it constitutes a large superstructure built upon the foundation of inferences from a rather limited evidential base.