2 Corinthians Part 2 (Argument)

“For our boast is this…” ch1 v12
At this point 2 Corinthians turns to a new theme. It looks as though the “newsletter” introduction was setting the scene for (and postponing) the continuation of a troublesome debate. The word “for” apparently connects the “blessing granted to us” in v11 with the testimony of his conscience, in v12, that he has treated the Corinthians rightly.

That word “boast” belongs to the long-running argument between Paul and opposition within Corinth. In 1 Corinthians, the resistance was apparently coming from “those who belong to Apollos”. Both sides accuse each other of boasting. His claim is based on his contact with Christ, and their claim is based on their “wisdom”. He criticises their laxity and they criticise his criticism. While the boast of the “I belong to Peter” party would have been based on their endorsement by the first followers of Jesus. Modern people do accuse Paul of being boastful and arrogant, but that’s because they don’t believe in his contact with Christ. If his claims are true, then it was his duty to say so.

He is defending himself against criticism of a previous letter. In the opening paragraph (as the RSV defines vv12-14), he deals with complaints about the tone of that letter. He has a clear conscience about this. As he has conducted himself towards the world at large, so he has conducted himself towards the Corinthians. That is, with holiness and sincerity and by the grace of God (rather than by earthly wisdom). They complain that they could not understand half of it. He answers that he intends, at least, to write nothing but what they can read and understand. If they only partly understand now, he hopes that they will fully understand later. Then, on “the day of the Lord Jesus”, they will as proud of him as he will be of them.

From v15, he is dealing with the fact that he changed his plans about a previous journey. The intention had been; Ephesus-Corinth-Macedonia-Corinth-Judaea. This would have given the Corinthians a double pleasure, seeing him twice. But he is now, we will find, in Macedonia, having gone there direct from Ephesus. He did start out on the original plan, but turned back at Corinth.

He protests (v17) that the change of plan did not come out of a vacillating nature, because such a nature belongs to the worldly man, trusting in his own wisdom. Paul is not like that. He does not hesitate between Yes and No. For the Christ whom he preaches is the eternal Amen or Yes of God, fulfilling all God’s promises. That is the God who has given him the Holy Spirit as a seal of his authority, and has commissioned him as apostle and established his relationship with the Corinthians.

No, the real reason for returning to Ephesus from Corinth and dropping the rest of the planned journey was that this first visit was “painful”, because some of them had quarrelled with him and earned his rebuke, and he wanted to spare them the pain of another such visit. Then it occurs to him that they might be offended by the idea that he can rebuke them. They might accuse him (might already have accused him) of “lording it over them”. This is not what he’s trying to do; “We work with you for your joy” (v24). I am reminded of the opening of Romans, where “that I may impart to you some spiritual gift” is tactfully amended in the next verse to “that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith” (Romans ch1 vv11-12).

The whole point of the intended second visit had been the hope that he and the Corinthians would be able to encourage each other and thus give each other joy. He feared that if he was obliged to give pain to somebody, they would not be able to give joy back. And he feared that if anyone gave him pain, he would not be able to give joy back to them. Better to avoid the conflict (ch2 vv2-3).

“For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you” (v4). This must be the description of a slightly earlier letter, in which he announced and explained the change of plan. He is now responding to their reaction.

His current purpose is to defuse the conflict, so he talks in terms of forgiveness, especially towards the person who caused him pain at his previous visit. Any punishment he may have received as a result of the “anguished” letter should be enough. The rest of the community, the real victims of the culprit’s behaviour, should now comfort him, so that he is not overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Part of the reason for the anguished letter was that he wanted to “test you and know whether you were obedient in everything” (v9). Let them show their obedience now by showing their love for the offender, expressing Paul’s forgiveness as well as their own.

He is willing to forgive “for your sake in the presence of Christ, to prevent Satan gaining the advantage over us”, as he would if conflict continued. No, we are not ignorant of the designs of Satan! (vv10-11).

In v12, he resumes the description of his recent northward journey. He was tempted to linger in Troas because of the opportunities to preach the gospel. However, he was anxious to re-join Titus and went on to Macedonia to find him. Later passages will explain the anxiety by showing that Titus was travelling on the original plan (Ephesus-Corinth-Macedonia) and would be able to report.

Paul’s thought in vv14-16 is going back for a moment to the experience of persecution in Ephesus. “But thanks be to God…” Why? We find that the gratitude is for the beneficial effect of the persecution which Paul and his friends have been experiencing (so this follows on from “the affliction in Asia” more than from “the anxiety in Troas”). Christ “leads us in triumph” (that is, as his prisoners), and by their agency spreads everywhere “the fragrance of the knowledge of him”. This is a fragrance which brings to life those who are “being saved”, who are being prepared for life, but has no beneficial effect on those who are headed towards death.

Paul declares in v17 that he and his friends are not, “like so many”, peddlers of God’s word, presenting a message for the sake of what they can earn from it. Rather, they are men of sincerity who speak “in Christ”, having been commissioned by God.

All Paul knew and preached about Christ was pretty much this.

Jesus died for our sins by crucifixion and was then raised from the dead three days later, according to prophecy. He was seen by many after the resurrection. He was a descendant of David, he was betrayed, he defined a bread and wine ritual for his followers, and the Jews killed him.

The End.

From beginning to end the life of the apostle St Paul is a fantasy, an evangelical adventure reminiscent of a Greek romance, comparable to the tales of Odysseus or Jason. Paul's success is peerless. Wherever the apostle goes a few words from the great man convinces pagans (and a handful of Jews) to convert on the spot to Christ – often along with their entire household. Lacing this remarkable tale of successful salvation is a heart-rending story of personal deprivation and suffering ("perils ... false brethren  ... hunger and thirst ... cold and nakedness"). No fewer than eighteen times does Paul survive a fate which would have killed lesser men. Only when the indefatigable crusader reaches Rome does he achieve his goal, a death that brings life eternal with his lord. Even headless, the apostle works a final miracle, spraying his executioner with milk.
Not a word has any fidelity to historical truth. But having achieved a death in Rome the real miracle of Paul began, the miracle of imposing a Pauline landscape on a city that had honoured the gods of polytheism for a millennium. Over the coming centuries the resourceful mind of religious fraudsters responded with aplomb, creating a Pauline Rome to delight the faithful and instil faith in the doubtful