Deeper Commentary

CHAPTER 2

2:1 But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow- As noted on 1:23, Paul changed his travel plans so as to avoid visiting Corinth until they were repentant. For he feared that if he did, the Spirit would compel him to bring judgment upon them for their gross immorality. Such judgment would however be a result of Paul's sorrow that they were as they were. Any form of church discipline must therefore be motivated and accompanied by genuine sorrow. In the whole saga with the immoral brother whom they had disfellowshipped, Paul had earlier written that his discipline should have been an outcome of their mourning for him (1 Cor. 5:2). Paul says he is determined that he will not come with sorrow- i.e. he is determined that they shall put things right. It was this willing of things through which perhaps explains the contradictory emotions he displays later in the letter- on one hand, rejoicing at the news of their apparent repentance, and yet threatening judgment for the major issues which were still unresolved. We cannot 'determine' others' changes, no matter how strongly we would wish for them.

2:2 For if I make you sorry, who then is he that makes me glad, but he that is made sorry by me?- "You made us sorry / upset us by your letter" is the typical stuff of church politics. And Paul tries to turn it round with a positive twist. But it seems no more than a playing with words: 'I made you sorry? Well if you are sorrowing really, unto repentance, then you will make me glad'. Paul writes later that they had sorrowed to repentance, and that his sorrow had been turned to joy by the news from Titus that they had changed (2 Cor. 7:9). But at this early stage of the letter, Paul writes as if they are still not made sorry to repentance. We can assume therefore that these early chapters were written before the news came of Corinth's repentance. My own take however is that Paul loved them with all the love of the lover who is over eager to interpret any news from the beloved in a positive way. For he has to conclude the letter with threats of major judgment upon them.

2:3 And I wrote this very thing, lest when I came, I should receive sorrow from those in whom I ought to rejoice- having confidence in you all, that my joy is in you all- What "thing" did he write that supposedly made them sorry? Presumably, from the later context, he refers to his command in 1 Cor. 5 for the immoral brother to be removed from their company. Corinth's response had been that they found Paul's demand most upsetting or 'sorrowful'. And he tries to make a play on the idea of 'sorrow' by saying that their sorrow could lead them to Godly repentance. In 2 Cor. 7 he rejoices at the news that their Godly sorrow had led to repentance; but I suggest this is an over eager desire to see the best in them, for he concludes 2 Corinthians lamenting their continued immorality and threatening major judgment to come. Yet he was 'confident' that his joy- the joy that would come from their repentance- is their joy. This all seems to reflect an over eagerness to see them as more than they really were. Perhaps that was the outcome of true love for them, imputing goodness to them; yet it was surely mixed with the same kind of over enthusiasm which Paul displays for the Jerusalem Poor Fund project.

2:4- see on Rom. 9:3.

For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears. Not that you should be made sorry, but that you might know the love that I have more abundantly for you- As Paul expected them to remove the immoral person from a motive of sadness (1 Cor. 5:2), so he too had made the request for the excommunication from many tears. He suggests he wrote with tears dripping from his cheeks as he wrote. His motive was therefore one of abundant love, not to make trouble for the sake of it, nor to intentionally upset them. "Anguish" suggests 'restraint' in the original Greek; perhaps Paul could have taken a harder line with them over the matter than he did, and his request for the offender to be removed was a restrained position, restrained by love. The "affliction" may refer to the great affliction he endured at the time of writing (s.w. 2 Cor.  1:8); as if whilst surrounded by great personal affliction, he still had emotional space to worry deeply about the situation in Corinth. It was at that very time of personal crisis that he had written to them about the matter, and that was a sign of his deep care for them.

2:5 But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not so much to me but in a sense (not to put it too severely) to you all- Paul blames the sorrow on the behaviour of the immoral brother. The "any" is the "one" of :6. Paul is seeking to make their sorrow his sorrow, just as he envisages his joy as being their joy (2:3). This again seems a rather forced way of reasoning; for they were claiming that his letter had made them sorry and calling him to account over it.

 2:6 Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority- There is no hint here that there was repentance by the immoral person. "Sufficient" can carry the sense of 'It has gone on for long enough now'. The disfellowship was intended to be temporary, Paul is saying. But that is not at all how he reasons in 1 Cor. 5 when commanding them to exclude the brother. It would seem that he is getting out of the situation by saying 'OK well he has been excluded long enough, have him back then'. He is so desperate to resolve the matter so that he and they are all at one on the matter.

 2:7 So that to the contrary you should rather forgive him and comfort him- This command to "forgive him" suggests that he may not himself have been repentant. One would rather expect his penitence to be mentioned, both here and in 1 Cor. 5, if that were an issue. But there is no mention of it. Paul seems to want to move on, to put this issue behind them, so that they can focus on his pet project of the Jerusalem Poor Fund. "Forgive and comfort" are words full of association with the gift of the Spirit. Charizomai is not the usual word translated "forgive"; it means literally 'to gift', and charis is usually associated with the gift of the Spirit. Likewise "comfort" recalls the Spirit gift of the Comforter. Paul consistently appeals to the Corinthians to take the way of the Spirit in dealing with their issues. The receipt of the charis of the Spirit should lead us to likewise 'give'- both of our forgiveness, and also [as Paul will soon develop] in literal giving to the poor.

Lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his excessive sorrow- The psychological impact of disfellowship must be carefully considered. These words have been proven true time and again; those who are ejected from communion end up in spiritual shipwreck and with psychological issues as a result of being consumed, swallowed up, by the psychological trauma of rejection. And yet despite this, disfellowship of whole blocs of believers is practiced so freely by those who ought to know better. It is death and our mortality which is to be "swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. 15:54; 2 Cor. 5:4). This 'swallowing up' in sorrow may be a reference therefore to the opposite outcome- condemnation at the last day. This is the end product of keeping a believer 'out of fellowship', no matter what they have done. And our history is littered with examples of shipwreck of faith brought about by disfellowship. The mention of "sorrow" uses the same word used throughout the chapter so far, in dealing with the Corinthian complaint that Paul had made them sorry by asking them to disfellowship this individual. He has responded that their sorrow should morph into a Godly sorrow that led them to repentance, and he likes to think that the immoral man has this same Godly sorrow of repentance.

2:8 Therefore I beg you to confirm your love toward him- This was far more than an on paper re-admittance of the brother to church fellowship. They were to assure him that they loved him, which would suggest that it is the sense of love withdrawn which leads the excommunicated into the mire of "excessive sorrow" which swallows up faith (:7). It could be that "love" here is a reference to the agape, the love feast; they were to re-admit him to fellowship at the breaking of bread.

 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know, by putting you to the test, if you are obedient in all things- Again I would say that Paul is trying to defuse the situation by saying that his commandment to withdraw from the immoral man was a test of their obedience, and since they had done it, they could now resume fellowship with the brother. That, however, hardly seems a good reason to disfellowship someone, given the psychological shattering which it would have upon the person concerned. So I would again conclude that Paul is seeking by all means to defuse the tension, taking as much guilt on himself as he can. 

2:10 But to whom you forgive anything, I also. When I also forgive- if I need to forgive- then I do it for your sakes- Paul wants to move on from their complaint about his insistence that they separate from the immoral brother. With no mention of the man's repentance, he says that if they forgive him, then so does he. And his own forgiveness of the man was "for your sakes". Paul forgave the brother and moved on for the sake of peace with the Corinthians. This raises the interesting question of whether forgiveness can be granted or not granted for the sake of issues other than the actual behaviour or repentance of the offending individual.

In the presence of Christ, so- Paul was a placarding of Christ crucified before the Galatians (Gal. 3:1 Gk., see note there); and likewise here to the Corinthians he was “the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10 RSV).

2:11 That no advantage may be gained over us by the Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices- As noted repeatedly above, Paul appears to be backtracking from his position concerning the immoral man, for he sees that he is at loggerheads with the Corinthian church over it. He had commanded them to withdraw from the man, they had done so, but were now complaining that he had manipulated them to do this and they were "sorry" or upset with him about it. Paul could see that a rift between him and his converts in Corinth would be used by critics in order to damage the overall work of the Gospel, and particular his project of raising funds for the Jerusalem poor. The 'satan' was some organized opposition to Paul's work which troubled Paul's converts and made capital over any tensions between him and his convert. I'd guess the reference is to 'the Jewish satan', the Judaists who dogged Paul's steps around the mission fields of the first century. I have given more detail about this theory in The Real Devil. "Devices" translates a Greek word used almost exclusively in 2 Corinthians, translated "mind" with the sense of 'perception'. Paul knew that the adversary would perceive the tension between Paul and the Corinthians, and use it. Most of the references are to the "minds" [s.w. "devices"] of the Corinthians being brainwashed by Judaist false teachers (2 Cor. 3:14; 4:4; 11:3). This would rather confirm a Judaist reference for "the Satan".

2:12- see on 1 Cor. 16:9.

Now when I came to Troas for the sake of the gospel of Christ and when a door was opened to me in the Lord- As noted on 1:23, Paul changed his intention to visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia. He travelled via Troas- and that decision was blessed because a door was opened to him there in the Gospel's work. Frequently Paul uses the word "Gospel" as meaning 'the preaching of the Gospel'; the Gospel is in itself something which must be preached if we really have it (Rom. 1:1,9; 16:25; Phil. 1:5 (NIV),12; 2:22; 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:8; 2:8). The fact we have been given the Gospel is in itself an imperative to preach it. “When I came to Troas for the Gospel of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:12 RV) has the ellipsis supplied in the AV: “to preach Christ’s Gospel” [although there is no Greek word in the original matching ‘preach’] .

2:13 I had no relief for my spirit, because I did not find Titus my brother, but taking my leave of them, I went into Macedonia- Not only on a personal level, but also collectively, we can limit the amount and extent of witness. Thus Paul had a door opened to him to preach in Troas, but the ecclesial problems in Corinth that were so sapping his energy meant he had to leave those opportunities inadequately used (2 Cor. 2:12,13 RSV). He had been expecting Titus to meet him there with good news from Corinth, but Titus didn't come. So he left the Gospel opportunities there in order to hurry on to Macedonia and then get to Corinth as soon as he could because he was worried by the lack of news from them.

2:14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ and makes manifest through us the savour of His knowledge in every place- Despite all the setbacks with the Corinthians Paul felt that somehow we are "always", time and again, caused to triumph in Christ (2 Cor. 2:14), participating day by day in the daily grind (and hour by hour at times) in His triumphant victory procession (so the allusion to the Roman 'triumph' implies). The spirit of ambition shouldn't just be an occasional flare in our lives; it should characterize our whole way of living and thinking. All things work together for good- and the changed plans necessitated by the weakness of the Corinthians led Paul to Troas and an opportunity for preaching there, and thus the knowledge of Christ was made manifest in another place, Troas. So despite all discouragement from the weakness of others and church politics, we are actually being led in triumphal procession behind Christ the victor. This passage invites us to see the Lord Jesus after His victory- which can only refer to His victorious death on the cross- leading a victory parade.

It could be argued that in that triumph, we are the triumphant soldiers, carrying with us burning incense. "More than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8:37). This represents our preaching of the Gospel, as part of our participation in the joyful glory of the Lord’s victory on the cross. And yet that incense is used as a double symbol- both of us the preachers, who hold the aroma, and yet we are also the aroma itself. We are the witness. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (Mt. 5:15) and the Gospel itself (Mk. 4:21). But the motivation for it all is our part in the victory procession of the Lord, going on as it does down through the ages, as He as it were comes home from the cross.

But it was captive, defeated soldiers who were led in a Roman triumph, and led to death at the end of it. It was called "the march to the scaffold", and is clearly to be connected with the call to pick up our cross and follow the Lord on His "last walk" to the place of crucifixion. Paul has already used this figure in 1 Cor. 4:9, where he considers himself and the apostles as the chief, most significant prisoners of war on display in the triumph: "God has set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death. For we are made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men". And again the 'march to the scaffold' is in view in 2 Cor. 4:10-12, where again the word "always" is stressed: "Always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body. For we who live are always being delivered to death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So then death works in us". We can see ourselves as the defeated, being led to death by the Lord's victory, which was His death on the cross. And yet also as the triumphant soldiers. For our death is "working" for us; through that death with Him, we live, the servant becomes the master. And this process of losing now that we may also win, death that life might come, is "always" being experienced by us. Because the idea here is of the "magnificent defeat". The image of defeat merges into that of victory, just as the cross was the ultimate defeat in secular terms, and yet the 'lifting up' on the cross was the lifting up of the Lord in the glory of victory. We too may appear defeated in this life, through domestic, financial or health crises. But through those defeats, we are in fact being led behind the Lord. The image of the Lord leading us in a triumph thus merges with His own image of us following Him in His 'last walk' to the place of crucifixion- bearing our crosses, walking towards our own death.  

The savour of knowledge being made manifest refers to how incense was burned during the triumph in honour of the gods who were thought to have given the victory. Our witness, our savour to others, is therefore to be deeply motivated in a sense that the Lord Jesus is the source of our victory, and this triumphal procession. And it was the conquered captives who were to hold the incense in honour of the gods who had conquered them. No wonder Paul sees in the Roman triumph a fruitful source of metaphor. It all hangs together with strong appropriacy.

2:15 For we are a sweet savour of Christ to God in those that are saved and in those that perish- Note the present continuous tenses. Men are in the process of being saved or perishing. We are making the answer now, as we encounter the "savour" of the Gospel call. The same arresting use of the present continuous tense is common when it comes to salvation or perishing: "The Lord added to them daily those who were being saved... the word of the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God...  our Gospel is veiled to those that are perishing" Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 4:3). The preacher is his message; if the doctrines of the Gospel are truly in us, then we ourselves will naturally be a witness to it in our lives. The Gospel is the savour of Christ; and yet we personally are the savour (2 Cor. 2:14,15); we are the epistle and Gospel of Christ (2 Cor. 3:3). The "saved" were the Corinthians, in the first context; the perishing were those new ears at Troas who had heard the message. They each had the choice as to how to perceive the savour coming to them.

2:14-17 2 Cor. 2:14-17 seems to have a series of allusions back to Mary’s anointing of the Lord:

 

The simple point of the allusions is that we like Mary are spreading the smell of Christ to the world; she is our pattern for witness. 

2:16- see on Mt. 3:11.
To the one a savour from death to death; to the other a savour from life to life- The smell of the incense, representing the truth of Christ manifested by Paul in his work with both the Corinthians and unbelievers, was variably received. For some it had the putrid smell of death; and those who received it that way would be led to eternal death. Perhaps the savour arose from the death of Christ, but led disbelievers to death; or it in one sense leads to death, because we are pictured as captives being led to death in the Lord's triumph. But in another sense, death has the smell of life. Because for us, "to die is gain". The ultimate game over becomes our greatest win. The savour arising from His resurrection would lead believers in it to eternal life. For them, the smell was pleasant and was perceived as the message of life, leading to eternal life. Paul is here alluding to Rabbinic views of the Law. Debarim Rabba, sec. 1, fol. 248: “As the bee brings home honey to the owner, but stings others, so it is with the words of the Law.” “They (the words of the Law) are a savour of life to Israel, but a savour of death to the people of this world". Or in Taarieth, fol. 7, 1, “Whoever gives attention to the Law on account of the Law itself, to him it becomes an aromatic of life, but to him who does not attend to the Law on account of the Law itself, to him it becomes an aromatic of death". Paul is writing of the Gospel of Christ in the same terms as the Law of Moses. For these allusions to have been appreciated, we can only conclude that there was significant Judaist influence at Corinth, which was leading some to reject the "savour of Christ" in favour of the Law. Gentile, immoral and immature Christians were attracted to the Judaist argument because it freed them up to live immoral lives, with their conscience salved by tokenistic, legalistic obedience to a few laws.

And who is sufficient for these things?- As if to say, 'We simply don't appreciate the power and the implications of the logic we are putting before men'. There is no third way.Their encounters with us are a matter of life or death. They face in our preaching the ultimate issues of the cosmos. And this is what we love about Christianity; the eye of the tiger is to be faced, the cosmetic cover of religion is cut through, and we face the ultimate issues raw and in stark relief. Before all those who smell the savour of the Gospel is the choice of eternal death or life. The choice of life is, however, the choice of death. Bonhoeffer got it right in a way only a man who was facing death for his faith could do: "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die". And Paul, like any serious preacher of the Gospel, felt insufficient to be the one bringing this message of such ultimate importance. It is our sense of insufficiency which is our sufficiency as preachers; it is the most vital qualification. He is here quoting from the LXX of Ex. 4:10 [and also Joel 2:11], where Moses likewise feels he is not competent or "sufficient". Moses was presented in Judaism as an icon to be respected from a distance, rather than imitated. And Paul chooses a point of Moses in weakness, and bids us feel the same. And yet be used as he was, to save others. He will answer this question in 2 Cor. 3:5,6: "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant".

2:17 For we are not as most, corrupting the word of God; but as of sincerity and as of God- "Corrupting" in Greek can mean 'pedalling'. The false teachers in Corinth demanded payment for their teaching- and received it. The message was a corruption of God's word, and not some totally pagan set of teaching. It was the word of God in a corrupted form. And that would fit exactly with the Judaizers, who were corrupting God's word in the Law of Moses- and selling their teachings. It could be that the allusion to pedalling continues the picture of the Roman triumph which has been such a source of allusion in the previous verses. For it was common at the triumphs for pedallers to line the route selling cheap incense which could be then burnt in honour of the gods who had supposedly given the victory. Paul would therefore be saying that we are burning the true unadulterated incense in the Lord's victory train, and he is not just a peddlar selling cheap, adulterated incense; for "we do not tamper with God's word" (2 Cor. 4:2).

In the sight of God we speak in Christ- Or, "presence of God". Paul is using language which the Jews applied to the Angels. I take this to suggest that Paul felt himself to be so at one with his guardian Angel that he can appropriate such Angelic language to himself. Paul twice assures his readers that he speaks the truth because he is speaking in the sight / presence of God (2 Cor. 2:17; 12:19). The fact God is everywhere present through His Spirit, that He exists, should lead us at the very least to be truthful. In the day of judgment, a condemned Israel will know that God heard their every word; but if we accept that fact now then we will be influenced in our words now. And by our words we will be justified (Ez. 35:12). Reflection upon the omniscience of God leads us to marvel at His sensitivity to human behaviour. He noticed even the body language of the women in Is. 3:16- and condemned them for the way they walked. Paul says that he does not personally profit from his preaching, but in the sight of God does he preach (2 Cor. 2:17 RVmg.). Our motivation in preaching, whether it be to demonstrate intellectual prowess, or to sincerely save somebody, or merely to look good in the eyes of our brethren, is all weighed up; and so we must preach in the sight of God, knowing He watches.

 

|