2 Corinthians 2
ZerrCBCDavid Lipscomb Commentary On 2nd Corinthians 22 Corinthians 2:1 But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow.—Paul determined not to go to Corinth until he had a good report from them. Until they had improved so that he could come with words of approval rather than of condemnation.2 Corinthians 2:2 For if I make you sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad but he that is made sorry by me?—If he blamed them and made them sorry, who would comfort and make him glad, save those he had made sorry? [His first epistle had caused sorrow to himself and to the church. But the sorrow had resulted in repentance, and so, at last, in their joy and Paul’ s joy. The end had justified the means.]2 Corinthians 2:3 And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice;—In his first epistle he had told them of their wrongs in countenancing the incestuous man, and following false teachers. He most earnestly endeavored to show them their wrongs and bring them to repentance, that he might come to them, not with a rod, but in love and in the spirit of meekness. [He communicated with them by letter, instead of incurring the risk of a painful personal visit, because he was convinced that they would find their own joy in his joy— which, in the present instance, could not but be produced by the doing away of the existing evils according to the instructions contained in his letter.]having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.—[In case they acted according to his instructions their meeting would be one of mutual joy.]2 Corinthians 2:4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears;—He had felt deep affliction and anguish of heart to have to write the words of condemnation he had felt compelled to write to them. He wrote them in tears himself, not to grieve them, but out of his deep and abundant love for them.not that ye should be made sorry,—His love for them led him to seek to deliver them from their errors and sins, lest they should fall under the condemnation of God. [His ultimate and main object was, not that they should be made sorry, but that through sorrow they might be led to repentance, and so to joy.] but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.— True love for any person makes one seek to deliver the loved ones from wrong.
Sometimes people uphold their husbands, wives, children, and friends in a wrong course, and say they do it from love. This is not true and helpful love.
Love says get them pure and right before God, and insists on the discipline needed to purify them. Not to do this is to encourage them in their own ruin. A selfish determination to uphold one’ s family or friends in a course of wrong is not love. It is really hatred, in a Bible sense of the word.2 Corinthians 2:5 But if any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.—The incestuous person mentioned in the first epistle (1 Corinthians 5:1) is supposed to be here meant. If he had caused sorrow it was not to Paul alone, but they had felt it. The parenthetical clause says it would be too severe condemnation of them to say it had not caused them grief.2 Corinthians 2:6 Sufficient to such a one is this punishment—Paul felt that the guilty person had been sufficiently punished by “ the many” putting him away as he had directed.which was inflicted by the many;—Some expositors thing that “ the many” means the majority, and that a vote was taken, and a majority voted to put him away while the minority opposed it.
But the record does not show this. He did not command them to vote on it, but “ to deliver such a one unto Satan.” (1 Corinthians 5:5).
It was the question of obeying a plain command of God given through Paul— God himself decided the case. There is not an intimation that there was a single objection, or that an objection was called for. They obeyed; the man was put away. The order of God is that all Christians shall be of one mind and one voice.2 Corinthians 2:7so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him,—As he had been sufficiently punished to bring him to repentance, Paul admonishes them to forgive and encourage him.lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow.—Lest he should give up and be lost. It was a grievous and shameful sin, but not a word is said about vindicating the honor of the church. The end was to save the sinner.
Indeed, it is possible to vindicate the honor of the church by giving the children of the church up to ruin. Sometimes it is necessary for a father and mother to cut off a hopelessly wayward son from the family, lest he corrupt and lead the other members of the family into ruin; but it would be a strange father and mother that would think they had vindicated the honor of the family by giving a child over to hopeless ruin.
So a church should feel. The end of discipline, whether by individuals, or the church as a whole, should be to save the sinning one by delivering him from his sins.2 Corinthians 2:8 Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love toward him.—They should show their love by forgiving him, rewarding him, cherishing him, and making it evident to him that he was again recognized as a brother. [The expressions of love to him ought to be as public and as unmistakable as the expressions of disapproval and condemnation. Confirm here means public testimony of kind feeling to him by the reversal of his excommunication. ]2 Corinthians 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you,—One end of his writing of the difficulty instead of coming in person was to test their readiness to obey the will of God in all things, even where their personal friends were involved.whether ye are obedient in all things.—He found them obedient, and so was filled with joy. This shows that the conclusion under verse 6 is correct.2 Corinthians 2:10 But to whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also:—When the church forgave, Paul forgave. That is, he approved what the church did acting under his directions. What he had forgiven he had forgiven for their good.for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the presence of Christ;—He did it as a servant of Christ and by his directions.
What a church does by the direction of God, God does. When the church puts a man away from among them, in accordance with the law of God, God puts him away.
When the church restores following the law of God, God does it. It is a serious matter to a soul to be put away by the church of God.2 Corinthians 2:11that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan:—The advantage that Satan seeks is to get the sinning one entirely under his control. [That Satan is at the bottom of any policy fitted to defeat the work of the church in the struggle against sin is the principle involved in this very definite statement; and the nature of his agency warrants the special attention of all who are laboring for the purity and success of the church. The retention of the openly corrupt in the fellowship of the church, if this can be effected, serves Satan’ s purpose by contaminating the rest and lowering its standard of purity; but when this fails, through the faithful watchfulness of the guardians of the church (Acts 20:28-31), the hopelessness of all restoration to the fellowship even of the manifestly penitent will equally serve his purpose, as it will either harden the offender of drive him to despair, and thus indirectly weaken the influence of the church— a lesson to the servants of the Lord, to beware, both of laxity toward those who walk disorderly, and of the relentless severity towards those who, however deep their fall, give good evidence of genuine repentance.]for we are not ignorant of his devices.—Paul, through the Spirit was aware of the devices of Satan to lead the discouraged to ruin.2 Corinthians 2:12 Now when I came to Troas—[There is here an apparently abrupt transition, but Paul is only resuming the narrative he broke off at verse 4 in order that he might finish the topic of the painful circumstance under which the first epistle was written. He now briefly tells the effect that this change from a personal visit to a letter had upon himself, owing to the delay which was necessary in hearing from the effect it had produced. Titus had been sent to Corinth to look after the collection for the saints of Judea (2 Corinthians 8:6). While there he took an interest in the settlement of the troubles afflicting the church.
Paul depended on him in the matter and expected him to meet him at Troas and report the condition of the church, and how they received his letter. Paul, after the uproar led by Demetrius, left Ephesus on his intended visit to Macedonia.
He came to Troas, the seaport at which they embarked to pass over from Asia to Macedonia.]for the gospel of Christ,—He did not intend to make a rapid journey to Corinth, but a regular missionary tour.and when a door was opened unto me in the Lord,—He found an opening there for the gospel of Christ, a promise for good through preaching.2 Corinthians 2:13I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother:—He was so disappointed in not finding Titus on his arrival at Troas, and hearing from Corinth, that he could not tarry there contented. [This seems a singular confession, but there is no reason to conclude that it was actuated by any other spirit than the great anxiety he felt for the spiritual welfare of the Corinthian church. The very element in him, in virtue of which he could act for God at all, was already preoccupied, and though the people were there, ready to receive the gospel, it was beyond his power to preach it to them. His spirit was absorbed and possessed by hopes and fears and prayers for the Corinthians; and as the human spirit is finite, and only capable of so much and no more, he was obliged to pass by an opportunity which he would otherwise have gladly seized. He probably felt that it was more important to secure the stability and faithfulness of those who were already disciples than make new ones.]but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia.—He hastened on to Macedonia where he met Titus, heard a good report from Corinth; then sent him with another letter back to Corinth to complete the raising of the funds for the poor saints. (2 Corinthians 8:6-18).2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ,—He thanked God who always delivered him from danger and caused him to triumph over his enemies. He had done this at Corinth, over those denying his claim to be an apostle, even in his absence. [This sudden outburst of thanksgiving is very characteristic of Paul. He does not finish his story, telling where and when he met Titus, but lets this outburst of feeling imply the meeting and its glad results.
The first characteristic, then, of Paul’ s ministry is its continual triumph; so at least he feels as he rises suddenly out of his anguish of suspense and learns how fully the Corinthians had obeyed his instructions and how truly they trust him.]and maketh manifest through us the savor of his knowledge in every place.—[As in the diffusion of the sweet odor of the incense; so in the life of Paul, wherever he went there was the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ. That Christ should be known was the end of his mission, and was of all things the most acceptable to God.
Wherever he went he presented to men the knowledge of Christ through his preaching and life. And this, both when surrounded by those who accepted Christ and were thus in the way of salvation, and those who rejected him and were thus perishing (Colossians 1:18). For in each case his word was acceptable to God, as accomplishing a divine purpose.]2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God,—[Paul as a minister and his work of preaching Christ were acceptable to God whatever might be the result of his labors. God by him diffused the knowledge of Christ everywhere as a savor, for it was well-pleasing to God whatever might be the effect it produced. In the preceding verse the knowledge of Christ is declared to be a savor as of incense; here Paul is “ the sweet savor of Christ.” But it is not Paul as a man, not the purity or devotion of his life; but as a preacher of the gospel, and therefore the gospel he preached. In both uses the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ is said to be well-pleasing to God.
When Paul said he was a sweet odor of Christ, he meant that wherever he went he was the means of diffusing the knowledge of Christ, and that was acceptable to God.]in them that are saved, and in them that perish;—Paul was made a pleasant savor or offering as a servant of Christ unto God. That savor affected both those who believed and those who disbelieved.
It led one forward to salvation; it confirmed those who believed not to condemnation. This was according to God’ s will, to save those who believe; to leave those who refuse to believe without excuse in their condemnation.2 Corinthians 2:16to the one a savor from death unto death;—The one class already dead in trespasses and sins, sinking deeper and approaching nearer, by every successive resistance of the truth, to the second death. “ Evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:13).to the other a savor from life unto life.—These are already alive unto God through Jesus Christ, and through faith in his name, having that life invigorated and developed by every successive welcome given to the word of life, and were thus led from one degree of salvation to another. [In neither case is the final issue as yet seen— the saved are but saved from their past sins and are “ guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5); the lost are neither wholly nor finally lost, but are on the way to it.][It is indeed a solemn truth that in the scheme of redemption nothing that God has done or said is indifferent. Everything is a two-edged sword. All Christian privileges, all means of grace, are, according as they are used, either blessings or curses, either an odor of life unto life eternal or of death eternal, to those to whom they come. This double effect of the gospel is set forth in the words of Simeon, when he took the child Jesus in his arms and said: “ Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34), and in the words of the Lord himself, “ For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.” (John 9:39). ]And who is sufficient for these things?—Who is prepared for such wonderful issues as these? [The question forced itself on Paul’ s mind as it forces itself on the mind of every true minister of the word of truth. Who can feel qualified for a work which involves such tremendous issues?
In himself no one is. But some one must preach the gospel, for the Lord Jesus, after his resurrection, said: “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15), and Paul knew that that responsibility rested upon him, for the Lord appeared unto him and said: “ For to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee.” (Acts 26:16-17).
And for this reason Paul accepted the responsibility, and said: “ 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 ministers of a new covenant.” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6). It is obvious that he here assumes his sufficiency, and proceeds to give the ground of the assumption.]2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as the many,—“ The many” certainly refers to the false teachers who had come among them and caused much disturbance. [The sense of responsibility as a preacher of the gospel is not shared by all who claim to be ministers of the word of truth. To be the bearer and the representative of a power with issues so tremendous ought surely to destroy every thought of self; to let personal interest intrude is to declare oneself faithless and unworthy.]corrupting the word of God:—[The expressive word rendered here “ corrupting” has the idea of self-interest, and especially of petty gain, at its base. The term was originally applied to tavern keeping, and extended to cover all the devices by which the wine sellers in ancient times deceived their customers. Then it was used figuratively as here, and of philosophers of selling the sciences, and in most cases like tavern keepers, blending, adulterating, and giving short measure. It is plain that there are two separate ideas here.
One is that of men qualifying the gospel, putting their own meaning into the word of God, temporizing its severity, dealing in compromise. The other is that all such proceedings are faithless and dishonest, because some private interest underlies them.
It is as likely to be avarice as anything else. A man corrupts the word of God, makes it the stock in trade of a paltry business of his own, and in many other ways than by subordinating it to the need of a livelihood. When he preaches not that awful message in which life and death are bound up, but himself, his cleverness, his learning, his witticism, his elocution, his fine voice he does so. He makes the word of God minister to him, instead of being a minister of the word; and that is the essence of the sin. It is the same if ambition be his motive, if he preaches to win disciples to himself, to gain ascendency over men, to become the head of a party which will bear the impress of his mind. There was something of this at Corinth; and not only there, but wherever it is found, such a spirit and such interests will change the character of the gospel.
It will not be preserved in that integrity, in that simple, uncompromising, absolute character which it has as revealed in Christ. Have another interest in it than that of God, and that interest will inevitably color it.
Thus it will be transformed into that which it was not, and its power is destroyed.]but as of sincerity,—Paul acted from pure motives and honest feelings, in opposition to corrupting by admixture. He could bear looking at through and through, for he was actuated by unmingled honesty and sincerity of aim.but as of God,—The source of truth, his authority, and from whom he had received his commission.in the sight of God,—He was ever conscious of God’ s presence and that his all-seeing eye was always upon him. [Nothing is better fitted to make a man sincere and honest than this.]speak we in Christ.—He was one who was united to him, living, moving, and acting as it were in his presence. [What a climax is here presented. All selfishness is excluded. Molded by God, inspired by his Spirit, in union with and encompassed, as it were, with Christ. Such a one speaking under such conditions was sufficient, for evidently his sufficiency was not in himself, but from God.] Verse 1 2 Corinthians 2The apostle Paul wrote much like some people talk; one thing led to another; and he often digressed from a line of thought, coming back to it only after a parenthetical discussion of something else. This trip through 2Corinthians is as exciting as a drive down Oak Creek canyon, with one sensational view following another. Paul concluded his explanation of the change in his plans (2 Corinthians 2:1-4), recommended leniency to the Corinthians in a disciplinary problem (2 Corinthians 2:5-11), touched on his waiting for Titus at Troas (2 Corinthians 2:12-13), and penned a masterpiece regarding the nature of gospel influence, drawing a rather rough analogy from the spectacle of a Roman triumph. But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow. (2 Corinthians 2:1) Regardless of how little we know of any sorrowful visit Paul had paid the Corinthians, the plain meaning of several passages in this letter demands the conclusion that it was made and that it cannot be identified with the original visit which led to the founding of the church. Paul wrote: “This is the third time I am ready to come to you (2 Corinthians 12:14); and he repeated it, “This is the third time I am coming to you” (2 Corinthians 13:1). Even the verse before us contributes to the certainty that Paul had already made two visits to Corinth when 2Corinthians was written; because it is very difficult to imagine that Paul here referred to his original visit to Corinth, which had resulted in one of the most successful preaching experiences of his whole life and the gathering of a mighty congregation of believers. No; there had to have been another visit, a sorrowful visit. Come again to you with sorrow … But, cannot this have the meaning of, “My second visit to you should not be a sad one,” rather than “I would not pay you a second sad visit”? Theodoret, Farrar and other learned commentators say that it can, and that “The notion of three visits to Corinth, one unrecorded, is a needless and mistaken inference."[1] Despite this, Paul’s double mention of his proposed visit as the “third” one (cited above) declares the certainty of a second one already made. The thing that upsets the commentators is that no one knows anything about that second visit, except as indicated here, that it was a sad one. We admire the frank honesty of David Lipscomb who said, “But this (2 Corinthians 13:1) with 2 Corinthians 12:14, makes it clear that he made a visit of which we have no record."[2] Extreme caution should be used, however, in accepting the wild and irresponsible assertions of some recent exegetes with regard to “what happened” at that unrecorded visit. It is the ridiculous postulations of some on what took place at that visit that have made it impossible for some scholars to admit that it took place; and, as regards the KIND OF VISIT alleged and in which Paul “was insulted,"[3] etc., etc. That VISIT did not occur, being nothing but the fruit of a fertile imagination! The silence of Luke in Acts with regard to that “second visit” “should not be taken as being in conflict with the natural interpretation of what Paul said here; many things are omitted by Luke."[4]Regarding the question of when that other visit (the second) took place, this too is a disputed problem. Hughes, Alford, Denney, Lightfoot, Zahn, Sanday and many others regard it as having occurred before 1Corinthians was written, rejecting out of hand the proposition that it took place in the interval between the two Corinthian letters of the New Testament. After reading all of the material available on the question, this writer simply does not know when it took place, but finds no fault with placing it between the letters, IF at the same time we reject totally the speculative allegations of imaginative critics whose arrogant assertions of what took place at that meeting are pure nonsense. How could any responsible scholar tell what happened at a meeting which might have happened before either of the Corinthians was written, and of which not one authentic syllable is anywhere recorded, either in the New Testament or anywhere else? Reluctant as arrogant scholarship may be to confess that it does not know, the certain fact of total ignorance on this point must be respected by all who regard the truth. [1] F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 8,2Cor., p. 36. [2] David Lipscomb, Second Corinthians (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1936), p. 169. [3] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 201. [4] Philip E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 52. Verse 2 For if I make you sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad but he that is made sorry by me?Farrar’s discernment of the meaning here is this: “Paul was unwilling to pain those who gladdened him, and therefore would not pay them a visit which could only be painful on both sides."[5]ENDNOTE: [5] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 36. Verse 3 And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice, having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.I wrote this very thing … This is most suitably understood as a direct reference to 1 Corinthians 16:5 ff where he told the Corinthians of his revised itinerary."[6] Some have referred these words to the “lost letter”; but such a reference is arbitrary. Besides, the understanding of these words as a reference to First Corinthians “has been the understanding of the church through many centuries."[7] Hughes, wise comment on this place is: The further we are removed in time from the original events, the more we should, as a matter of principle, hesitate to entertain novel theories in the face of a strong tradition of interpretation and in the absence of anything fresh in the way of external evidence. In a case of this kind, the probability is all in favor of the earlier exegesis being correct rather than the later conjecture.[8][6] Philip E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 56. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. Verse 4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be made sorry, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.This continues to be a reference to 1Corinthians, nor can this be construed as any sort of proof of a second lost letter between the canonical Corinthians. The notion that 1Corinthians could not have been written out of “anguish of heart” betrays a total insensitivity to the things which most assuredly can cause anguish of heart to any Christian, especially to the apostle who had converted them and had such love for them. The conditions at Corinth, described in 1Corinthians, were exceedingly deplorable. Incest, heartless lawsuits by the members before pagan judges, drunkenness at the Lord’s table, arrogant self-seeking among the members, denials of the resurrection, warring, loveless factions, etc., etc. “Any one of these things was sufficient to cause Paul real distress and the severest grief."[9] McGarvey also understood this verse as a reference to 1Corinthians. ENDNOTE: [9] Ibid. Verse 5 But if any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.The traditional interpretation of this makes it a reference to the incestuous person of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8. McGarvey saw in 2 Corinthians 2:3-5 above a plain hint of the connection between the two passages, since, he said, “By referring to 1 Corinthians 4:21 1 Corinthians 5:1, it will be seen that the threat of correction at his coming and the case of the incestuous person were twin thoughts in his mind."[10] Although this writer began these studies in 2Corinthians with the firm conviction that the offender mentioned in this passage is not the same as the incestuous person of 1 Corinthians 5:1 ff, extensive study of the question has inclined more and more to the traditional view that they are one and the same. For nineteen centuries, the almost unanimous position of scholars was that of accepting the two offenders as the same person; and no hard evidence of any kind has been discovered that could refute it. Some made the deduction that “deliverance to Satan” in 1Corinthians likely caused the death of the incestuous person, but such a deduction cannot be proved. In the light of this passage in 2Corinthians, if applied to him, he did not die. As was pointed out in the comment on 1 Corinthians 5:1 ff, there are many things about that episode which are simply unknown and unknowable. In all history, until very recent times, only one voice was ever raised in denial of the identity of the two offenders as one; and that was that of Tertullian who lived only about a hundred years after the times of Paul. Yet, even in his case, it appears that the universally held conviction of that time was denied by nobody except Tertullian; and he was able to offer no proof whatever to support it. As Hughes reasoned: If Tertullian had had any knowledge of a tradition or even hypothesis that a scandalous affront had been offered either to Paul or his deputy Timothy after the delivery of First Corinthians, or that Paul had paid an intermediate visit to Corinth during which his authority had been treated with contempt, and that he had afterward written an intermediate letter demanding the punishment of the offender, it is incredible that he should not have welcomed it as a corroboration of his own view that Paul did not here refer to the incestuous man.[11]How strange it is that Tertullian’s denial of the identity of these two offenders as being the same person should itself have become the most positive evidence of the very thing he denied. The ways of the Lord are not the ways of human beings. After considering this ancient voice from the sub-apostolic age, this writer feels the utmost confidence in receiving the long sustained opinion that the same offender appears in both passages. A corollary of this is the rejection of the notion that Paul’s second visit occurred between the Corinthian letters, and also that of “the severe letter” being anything other than a reference to the canonical 1Corinthians. He hath caused sorrow, not to me … Paul could not possibly have said this about some buffoon’s contemptuously insulting him in the public assembly at Corinth, which is the gist of most of the speculative descriptions of that alleged meeting. But in part … to you all … The scandalous conduct of the incestuous person was a public disgrace to the whole church; and to suppose that such an affront to Christian morality had not caused deep sorrow to the whole church is to suppose an impossibility. Paul too was sorry; but the scandal was not an affront to him, but a public calamity to the whole church. Every minister can recall incidents of great moral failure in a congregation and the heartache that inevitably came upon the whole congregation as a result. In part … indicates that not all of the congregation grieved; some “puffed up” libertarians did not have enough sense of Christian morality to cause them any grief whatever. [10] J. W. McGarvey, Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 177. [11] Philip E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 62. Verse 6 Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many.The tact and consideration of Paul are evident in his unwillingness even to mention either the name of the offender or to identify the shameful sin of which he was guilty. Inflicted by the many … This indicates that, according to his instructions (1 Corinthians 5:4), the whole congregation had dealt with the offender in a public gathering. There was no way to ease sin like that out of the church privately. Sufficient … This requires the understanding that the guilty man had put away his father’s wife, acknowledging his sin, and returning to the congregation with a plea for forgiveness. Verse 7 So that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore, I beseech you to confirm your love toward him.Forgive … comfort him … The notion of some, going all the way back to Tertullian, that the man’s sin was in any sense unforgivable is founded on a lack of perceiving the fact that the blood of Jesus Christ is more than sufficient to the cleansing of “all sin” (1 John 1:7), even of Christians. As a matter of truth, the incestuous person was hardly any greater sinner than many of the other Corinthians (1 Corinthians 6:8-11). The failure to believe Paul was here speaking of the incestuous person also stems from the failure to view a sin forgiven as being something infinitely removed from a sin unforgiven. I beseech you to confirm your love toward him … Nothing could be more unbecoming to a church, or to Christians, than to withhold forgiveness from a penitent Christian needing and asking it. It should be noted that Paul’s request that forgiveness be extended is made in this letter and that there is no mention of a prior request to that effect. Verse 9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye are obedient in all things.The “painful visit” and “severe letter” theorists have misread this verse. To this end also did I write … refers to the clauses following and not to the request of forgiveness, that is, the proof of obedience, which should be referred to his order of discipline for the incestuous man. Of course, if “to this end” is made to refer to a request for forgiveness for the offender, it would demand the postulation of an intermediate letter, there being no request of forgiveness for the offender in 1Corinthians, as there had been no repentance at the time 1Corinthians was written. Thus, another supposed “proof” of the intervening “severe letter” is nothing but an improper reading of this verse. Verse 10 But to whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the presence of Christ; that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.Titus had informed Paul of the successful issue of the order of discipline enforced upon the incestuous man, only with the exception that some of the church seemed unwilling to forgive and reinstate him. Paul added the record of his own forgiveness of the man’s sin, “in the presence of Christ” as an added inducement to making his forgiveness and reinstatement complete. His devices … The device of Satan which surfaces in this paragraph is that of a super-piety that will not forgive offenders even when they have put away their sin, repented, and asked forgiveness. This device is still being used by the devil. Verse 12 Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and when a door was opened unto me in the Lord, I had no relief for any spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia.I had no relief … Paul had gone to Troas after the riot at Ephesus (on his way to Macedonia) as recorded in Acts 20:1; and, from what is said here, it is clear that great opportunities for the gospel strongly inclined Paul to take advantage of those opportunities; but the anxious uncertainty that he felt because of the still unresolved situation in Corinth made it impossible for him to remain. Titus’ meeting with him there, as evidently planned, did not occur; and as almost a year had passed since his epic letter had been sent (1Corinthians), he decided to press on into Macedonia in the hope of meeting Titus on the way. That reassuring meeting with Titus came to Paul’s mind as these words were written; and the news was so encouraging that he burst into an extended expression of praise and thanksgiving to God, forming a rather lengthy parenthesis between this mention of Titus and the resumption of his line of thought again in 2 Corinthians 7:5. Verse 14 But thanks be to God, who is always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest through us the savor of his knowledge in every place.THE TRIUMPH Suddenly, in the light of the good news brought by Titus, Paul sees the glorious triumph of the gospel through him; and he compared it to a glorious triumph, like those for Roman emperors, with Christ as the great Conqueror and himself as a captive participating in it and sharing in the glory of it. The Corinthians knew about triumphs, for the triumph of L. Mummius over the conquest of Corinth was one of the most splendid spectaculars the world had ever seen; and then in A.D. 51, only five or six years before 2Corinthians was written, Claudius had celebrated his triumph over the Britons; “and their king Caractacus had been led in the procession, but his life was spared."[12]Such a triumph always featured the conquering here, whose many captives were led behind, some to be freed, others to be slaughtered as a feature of the spectacle; and Paul’s appeal to the triumph metaphor envisioned Christ as the great Conqueror who leads all people, whether they will or not; Paul’s view of himself in this was that of his being willingly led in the train of Christ and expecting to receive his mercy at last. “The haughty Cleopatra had said, `I will not be led in triumph’”;[13] and there are many like that with regard to Christ. [12] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 30. [13] Ibid. Verse 15 For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a savor from life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?Vast quantities of incense were burned along the route of a Roman triumph; and those who were in the heroic procession found the meaning of that odor an assurance of their death on the one hand, or of their life, if they were spared, on the other hand. The overwhelmingly delicious odor that marked the triumph meant death for some, life for others. Paul here affirmed that it is like this with the gospel. It saves some, destroys others. In a similar way, the parables of Jesus enlightened some, but hardened and destroyed others. Not the gospel, but people’s response to it, is the determinator. McGarvey pointed out the extremely significant phrases “from death” and “from life” as used in this passage. To the unbelieving, the news of the gospel is from one who was crucified and is dead; so, for them, it is an odor from death unto death, even eternal death; but to Christians, the news (odor) is “from life,” that is, from One who is alive forever more. Hence, the news of the gospel is “from life unto life” in them that are saved.[14]Paul’s use of this analogy is somewhat loose, for he made several applications of it. In 1 Corinthians 4:9, he pictured the apostles as bringing up the rear of the triumphal procession, which was the position of those appointed to die in the arena. Nevertheless, this is one of the most effective and instructive analogies in the Pauline writings. Who is sufficient for these things …? The meaning of this is: “What kind of ministry could be adequate for such a task?"[15] And Paul’s unhesitating reply is, “Ours is!” And why is the ministry of Paul the apostle sufficient for such heavenly usage? The answer is thundered in the next verse being this, that he was preaching the pure gospel of God without adulteration like that practiced by the false apostles and teachers who were hindering the Corinthians. [14] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 181. [15] Frank G. Carver, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 519. Verse 17 For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.Corrupting the word of God … The figure here is originally that of a tavern keeper who mixes poor wine with good to increase his profits."[16] In such a comparison as this, two things appear: (1) there is the disclosure of the true motive of false teachers who are in the gospel business for the profit they can make for themselves, and (2) there is the usual method of such teachers, that of adding to the gospel substances that are no part of the true gospel with the intention of making it more acceptable to sinners who rebel at the true gospel. As Carver said of this: The first leads to the second. To approach the ministry with motives of personal profit, ambition, or vanity, is already to adulterate it. He who makes the word serve his advantage rather than being a servant of the word changes the very character of the gospel.[17]Paul’s quadruple affirmation of the integrity of his own ministry is the profound declaration that it was conducted: (1) in sincerity, (2) of God, that is, by his direct authority and order, (3) in the sight of God, that is, openly and in view of all people as well as in the sight of God, and (4) in Christ, which means, as a pure and faithful member of the spiritual body of Christ (the church), and in full compliance with all Christian duties. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid.
Questions by E.M. Zerr On 2nd Corinthians 21. What had Paul determined? 2. Was he decided about it? 3. Coming otherwise, how would it make them? 4. If so, what would he then require of them? 5. Did this refer to any previous writing? 6. Had he not written, what might have happened? 7. Instead, what should he have of them? 8. In whom did he express confidence? 9. On what was it based ? 10. State his mind when he wrote before. 11. Did he write in order to grieve them? 12. What did he wish to make manifest? 13. Notwithstanding, did any grief result? 14. Did it affect Paul? 15. Was he overwhelmed by it? 16. State his care for them here. 17. What man is referred to in verse 6? 18. What had been inflicted upon him? 19. Was it done by one or more? 20. In place of punishment, what should be given now ? 21. Lest, perhaps, what? 22. If comforted, would he be excused? 23. What should they confirm toward this man? 24. To this end what had Paul done before? 25. What would indicate their proof to Paul ? 26. Tell what act of Paul’ s was like theirs. 27. For whose sakes did he do this? 28. Who is meant by “ your/* verse 10? 29. I whose person was it all done? 30. This was to prevent what in Satan? 31. Of what was Paul not ignorant? 32. Had this man been in Satan’ s hands recently ? 33. To what city did Paul say he had come? 34. For what purpose had he come ? 35. What was there opened to him? 36. Tell what caused his unrest. 37. What did he do about it? 38. Was he ever in that section before? 39. For what does he here thank God? 40. What does God make manifest? 41. Through whom is it made manifest ? 42. What sort of savor were they to God? 43. In what two classes was this true? 44. What lot awaits the saved? 45. And what fate the other class? 46. Can man alteT this arrangement? 47. Do a few corrupt the word of God? 48. Who are not included in this class? 49. In what purpose does Paul act? 50. In whose view does he thus act?
2 Corinthians 2:1
2 Corinthians 2:1. This chapter continues the thought introduced in verse 23 of the preceding one. Heaviness is from LUPE, which Thayer defines, “sorrow, pain, grief,” and he explains it at this passage to mean, “of one who on coming both saddens and is made sad.” Paul was always conscientious and would not keep back any unpleasant chastisement that was due his brethren. (See chapter 7:8.) However, by waiting a while longer before appearing in person, the brethren were given space to profit by the letter which he had sent to them, which caused some grief as we shall see later.
2 Corinthians 2:2
2 Corinthians 2:2. Since the sorrow over wrongdoing would be mutual between the guilty person and the one who chastised him for it, the only way the re-buker could be made glad would be by the repentance of the guilty one. Hence we can understand why Paul delayed his coming to Corinth until they had time to reflect and make adjustments.
2 Corinthians 2:3
2 Corinthians 2:3. This verse has virtually the same thought as the preceding one in its first part. Having confidence. Paul believed the Corinthian brethren would rejoice in whatever they saw would bring joy to the apostle.
2 Corinthians 2:4
2 Corinthians 2:4. Like a firm but kindhearted parent, Paul wrote his rebuke of the brethren in Corinth, although it pained him in his heart to do so; he knew they might be grieved also. But the purpose of the epistle was not merely for their grief, but to show them his great concern and love with reference to their spiritual welfare.
2 Corinthians 2:5
2 Corinthians 2:5. Paul is referring to the fornicator reported in chapter 5 of the preceding epistle, although no specific mention is made of him nor his sin. Not grieved me but in part. Paul does not claim to be the only one who is grieved over the affair; he is bearing only a part of the burden. Not overcharge you all. A part of the congregation at first had endorsed the fornicator, and thus were responsible for the grief that had been brought upon Paul by the circumstance. However, the apostle did not want to make too strong a complaint about it, since the guilty one had evidently repented of his wrong in committing the deed, and the church had taken the right attitude toward the epistle written that included the subject.
2 Corinthians 2:6
2 Corinthians 2:6. The church has no authority to administer physical punishment, but the word refers to the rebuke and disciplinary action that was taken against the fornicator. Inflicted of many. The last word is from an original that literally means a majority. The New Testament church does not decide religious matters by what is generally known as a “majority vote.” In the present case it will be noted that Paul uses the term as a contrast with a man. There was just one man who had committed the act, but the chastisement was administered by many more than one, namely, by the church when it was “gathered together” (1 Corinthians 5:4).
No final act of discipline can be scripturally performed except in a general assembly of the disciples. In such a meeting each member of the congregation has the right to offer scriptural objections to what is being proposed. If no such objection is stated, then the action must be regarded as that of the entire assembly; the act of many.
2 Corinthians 2:7
2 Corinthians 2:7. This verse considered alone might leave the impression that the church was still holding the charge against the fornicator, but we shall soon see that such was not the case.
2 Corinthians 2:8
2 Corinthians 2:8. Paul would not tell them to confirm their love toward the man, if they had not granted him any love at all. But sometimes brethren are too indifferent about certain matters, and expect others to take too much for granted. In as serious a case as the present one, they should not act in that way, but should so conduct themselves that the brother would have no doubt of the love of the church.
2 Corinthians 2:9
2 Corinthians 2:9. Did I write has reference to the first epistle to the Corinthians. The Philippians were especially ready to do their duty even when the apostle was not present (Philippians 2:12), and he concluded to make a test of the faithfulness of the brethren in Corinth, by remaining away long enough to see their reaction to the written instructions of the first epistle.
2 Corinthians 2:10
2 Corinthians 2:10. In 1 Corinthians 5:3-4 Paul shows that the act of discipline that he commanded to be done would be by his endorsement and participation, even though he really were not present. By the same token, the action of the church in forgiving the penitent man would be endorsed by him, though absent. In the person of Christ means to be acting by His authority. Being an inspired apostle of Christ, Paul could act as His representative in the matter. Not only did he have the authority to share in the act of forgiveness toward the penitent man, but he was personally so inclined.
2 Corinthians 2:11
2 Corinthians 2:11. Verse 7 indicates that if the brethren did not give the penitent one sufficient proof of their love, he would be overcome with sorrow or despair, and might be driven farther out into the world again. Of course that would be an advantage to Satan to have a soul lost to the church and gained for his realm. Devices means purposes and plans, and Satan always plans on using every occasion to injure the truth.
2 Corinthians 2:12-13
2 Corinthians 2:12-13. Even an apostle feels the need of encouragement from his brethren. When Paul arrived in Troas on this mentioned occasion, he observed an open door or opportunity for preaching the Gospel. But he had expected to meet Titus there to report how the church had reacted to his first epistle. Not seeing him at this time, his disappointment cut short the work and the apostle went on to Macedonia, another province made up of Greek people, lying just north of Greece proper.
2 Corinthians 2:14
2 Corinthians 2:14. Paul was induced to change his plans on account of the disappoint ment. However, a devoted servant of Christ will not permit such an experience to lead him astray, for his trust in the Lord will enable him to triumph. Savour means odor or fragrance, and Paul likens the knowledge of Christ to something pleasingly fragrant.
2 Corinthians 2:15
2 Corinthians 2:15. The pronoun we refers to any men who preach the Gospel. Such work is a sweet savour (taste or odor) in the estimation of Christ, and such is true whether the ones to whom it is preached accept it and are saved, or reject it and perish.
2 Corinthians 2:16
2 Corinthians 2:16. God does not wish that any soul will be lost, yet if the Gospel is rejected, it will become a savour (odor) of something that is deadly. The same Gospel will act as a life-giving odor for those who inhale it with sincerity. Hence the true preacher of God’s word has the assurance that whether his hearer accepts or rejects it, the result will be as God expected it, and thereby it will “not return unto Him void” (Isaiah 55:11). The results of preaching the truth of God will be the same regardless of who does the preaching. However, it was especially true of the apostles since they were the ones who first preached it and did it by direct inspiration. That is why Paul asserts that he is sufficient (qualified) for these things.
2 Corinthians 2:17
2 Corinthians 2:17. Paul emphasizes his fitness for the aforesaid work, and specifies one qualification, namely, that he is not one who corrupts the word of God. Sincerity means a state of being pure or unmixed, and such was the kind of preaching Paul was doing; he gave it to the people unmixed with human traditions.