2 Corinthians Part 7 (The news from Titus)

From ch7 v5, Paul returns to the “newsletter” which opened the epistles. In fact this story firmly ties together this theme and the “quarrel with the Corinthians” theme, showing that there is no need for scholars to separate them out as different letters.

He had already told them (ch1 vv12-13) that he moved on from Troas to Macedonia because he was anxious to find Titus again. It becomes clear that Titus must have taken on the visit to Corinth which Paul abandoned, presumably travelling straight from Ephesus and possibly taking with him the “anguished letter” previously mentioned. He would then continue the original plan (ch1 v15) by travelling up to Macedonia, moving clockwise round the Aegean. The expectation was that he would somewhere meet Paul, who was travelling on his newly planned anticlockwise journey, and would be able to report on the Corinthian reaction. That explains why Paul was so restless about achieving the rendezvous, and why he makes a point of telling them about his restlessness.

The successful meeting was comforting to Paul (v7), not just because of the pleasure of meeting his friend again, but also because he was pleased with what he heard about Corinth “He told us of your longing, your mourning, and your zeal for me.” In other words, they were repentant, as a community, about the confrontation at the “painful visit”. So he now regrets, a little, that his letter “grieved” them, even for a little while. Though he is not entirely sorry, because it was “a godly grief”. The kind of grief which leads men into repentance and salvation, as distinct from “worldly grief” which leads only to death.

The effect of this godly grief was earnestness, an eagerness to clear themselves from their collective guilt, an indignation against the chief offender and willingness to punish him, alarm about their relationship with God and a zeal to get it restored. “At every point you have proved yourselves guiltless in the matter” (v16). The real benefit of the letter was not that wrongs were righted, but that they discovered the reality of their zeal.

He was also pleased for the sake of Titus, that Titus should have gained a good impression of the Corinthians. For his pride in their community had prompted him to boast to Titus about them, so it was very embarrassing when things started going wrong and Paul felt he was put to shame on the matter. But their reception of Titus justified Pal’s boasting, in the end. What Titus now remembers about them is their obedience, because they received him with “fear and trembling” as the representative of Paul’s authority. So Paul rejoices, because he has great confidence in them.

Paul's poor memory?
Or simply two fables that don't agree!
In 1 Corinthians 11,16 the apostle claims to have baptised "none but Crispus and Gaius" and Stephanas (and his household). Paul actually declares, "For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel." (1.17).
Acts however tells a different story. 18.8 reports that Crispus, all his house, and "many of the Corinthians" were baptised. Nor should we overlook the baptisms at Philippi: Lydia of Thyatira and her household (Acts 16.14,15) and the awestruck jailer and his family (16.33)
Acts 19.1,5 adds that in Ephesus Paul baptised about a dozen followers of John the Baptist "in the name of the Lord Jesus.

originally posted by: redchad
Paul's poor memory?
Or simply two fables that don't agree!
In 1 Corinthians 11,16 the apostle claims to have baptised "none but Crispus and Gaius" and Stephanas (and his household). Paul actually declares, "For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel." (1.17).
Acts however tells a different story. 18.8 reports that Crispus, all his house, and "many of the Corinthians" were baptised. Nor should we overlook the baptisms at Philippi: Lydia of Thyatira and her household (Acts 16.14,15) and the awestruck jailer and his family (16.33)
Acts 19.1,5 adds that in Ephesus Paul baptised about a dozen followers of John the Baptist "in the name of the Lord Jesus.

No, not poor memory. Paul didn't want to cause divisions in the congregation, people were making a big deal out of who was baptizing them, as if being baptized by an apostle was a better baptism. Any baptized Christian brother could baptize newly converted ones. Paul stated that his focus wasn't on baptizing, so as not to stumble others, and to keep his focus on the preaching. Others could baptize, and it would mean just the same as if he was doing it. Obviously he had authorization to do so from Jesus himself Matthew 28:19-20. All baptized Christian brothers have authority to baptize newly converted ones.

ETA: (That's a lot of use of the word baptism there 😆)

a reply to: redchad
You are misquoting;
Paul said "... did not baptise many OF YOU" (meaning the people in Corinth)
That makes the baptisms in Philippi and Ephesus irrelevant.

If he baptised only a few people in person, for the reason he gives, then the "many" must have been baptised by others. Acts tells us that Silas and Timothy had arrived from Macedonia, and he had already made the acquaintance of Prisca and Aquila. Presumably they did most of that work. For that matter, there were no restrictive rules at the time to prevent Crispus and Stephanas and other early converts from baptising some of the next set of converts.

And I have warned you before. You have been on ATS long enough to know the form about thread drift, which applies as much in this forum as in any of the others. The topic of a thread is controlled by the title and the opening post. Mods have a habit of deleting posts which try to take threads in a different direction, and that has happened to you once already. If it happens again, you will get resentful and blame me. If you must share your "list of objections to Paul which I picked up on the internet", it would be better to make your own thread in the "Conspiracies in religion" forum, where it would get more attention and a few flags.