2 Corinthians Part 13 (The third visit at last)

From ch12 v14 we come to the final portion of the epistle, and there is the interesting question of how it fits into the sequence of events in the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians. A brief summary of what we know;

1) Paul arrived in Corinth for the First Visit- Acts ch18 v1
2) At some point later, he wrote a First Letter giving fairly strict advice- 1 Corinthians ch5 v9
3) They wrote back asking questions, to which he replied in 1 Corinthians.
4) He wrote 1 Corinthians, which is really his Second Letter.
5) He visited Corinth as part of a plan to visit Corinth twice on his journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem. Unfortunately this Second Visit became the Painful Visit of ch2 v1, and he seems to have returned to Ephesus instead.
6) In place of his intended Third Visit, he sent a Third Letter, which was a letter of rebuke (the Anguished Letter). This seems to have been entrusted to Titus. The new plan was that Paul would travel north from Ephesus and Titus would travel north from Corinth, and the two would meet somewhere in Macedonia or Troas.
7) Having met Titus in Macedonia and heard his report (ch7 v6), Paul has been writing 2 Corinthians, the Fourth Letter in the sequence. Presumably this will be entrusted to Titus again, since Titus is being sent back to arrange the collection (ch8 v6). Then Paul will follow on for a postponed Third Visit, before sailing to Palestine with the collected money.

As for the place of these final paragraphs, the first clue is “I am ready to come to you for the third time” (v14, repeated in ch13 v1), which is obviously the visit he was expecting to make in ch9 v4, picking up the collection raised by Titus.

Slightly more puzzling is “I urged Titus to go and sent the brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you?” This looks like a reference to the visit of “Titus and the brother” projected in ch8 vv17-18. Except that the second sentence appears to be asking about the conduct of Titus when he was there. That is, no longer a projected visit, but one that has already taken place. That would make these paragraphs part of the content of a later letter than ch8. In other words, a second letter written from Macedonia. An unexpected Fifth Letter in the overall sequence. Though it is just possible that the second sentence is asking about the previous visit of Titus, the one which settled matters after the Painful Visit.

Finally, it’s worth noting the continuity of the two halves of the chapter. In v13 he got sarcastic about being criticised for not burdening them, and this discussion of not being a burden is continued through vv14-18. Of course this is exactly what we should have been expecting. EXCEPT THAT I’ve already noticed the suddenly unexpected change of mood in ch10 v1. The end of ch9 looked like the closure of a letter in which his relationship with the Corinthians had been sorted out. Then, without warning, he returned to a vigorously argumentative mood, which suggests to one school of thought that these chapters might be part of the “Anguished Letter”.

However, these various clues are now prompting me to the theory that the last four chapters of the epistle are really the Fifth Letter suggested just above. The proposition is that the “letters of recommendation” issue blew up again during the “collection visit” of Titus, and Paul is feeling obliged to write a second letter of rebuke. That is why he is now threatening to be more forceful in person during the projected Third Visit, which is not being cancelled this time. I have just checked on Wiki and find that nobody else seems to be offering a Fifth Letter theory, but that objection has never stopped me before.

Moving on to the content of these paragraphs, I’ve already noted that he denies any intention of being a burden to them. He is not seeking their property, but themselves. He wants to spend himself on them, just as parents do for their children. He also asks for evidence for an alternative charge, that he took advantage of them by guile. When have they know him do that, in person or through his agents?

They must not think that he is concerned with defending himself (v19). His real concern is for their upbuilding, in the sight of God. When he does come on that final visit, he does not want to find them “not what I wish”. Or vice-versa for that matter. He does not want to find quarrelling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. For in that case he would feel himself ashamed. “I fear that when I come again my God would humble me before you”, and he would be more mourning over the non-repentance of those who have been impure (v21)

He quotes the law that “any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses” (ch13 v1). What he is saying is that each of his three visits will be one of the necessary “witnesses” when he makes his charges against Corinth. So he now warns the unrepentant that “if I come again I will not spare them” (v2). If they want proof that Christ is speaking in him, he will prove it by the power of the Spirit. For Christ is not weak in dealing with them but powerful. “For he was crucified in weakness but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God” (v4).

In the remaining verses, he really is winding up the letter. He wants them to examine and test themselves. Unless they fail to meet the test (in which case Paul will think that he has failed), they should realise that Jesus Christ is in them. He cannot write anything against the truth, but he writes for the truth and prays for their improvement. “I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down” (v10).

His final appeal to them is that they agree with one another and live in peace.

What happened next? According to the story in Acts ch20, Paul left from Ephesus to Macedonia once the “Diana of the Ephesians” uproar had ceased, which must have been the persecution mentioned in the first chapter. Then he left “those parts” and “came to Greece”, which presumably means that he made it to Corinth in the end. However, he could not fulfil his original plan of sailing direct from Corinth to Jerusalem. “A plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria.” Instead, he went clockwise round the Aegean again, through Macedonia and Troas, making his final departure from the Ephesus region.

The original layer of Pauline material may have been brief notes written by a Hellenistic adventurer in the late 1st or early 2nd century. Such a character was described by the Ebionites and is preserved in the works of Epiphanius. A religious charlatan of undistinguished background, this minimalistic "Paul" enjoyed limited success in the region of Syria, or perhaps Asia Minor. We need only speculate that during his lifetime he had a following sufficient for the cachet of Pauline authorship to impart some authority. All else in the Pauline corpus is an accretion by other hands and later editors.
On the other hand the moniker "Paul" may have been chosen for no other reason than for its meaning of small, hence humble, "the least of the Apostles" (1 Corinthians 15.9), chosen by God to impart the divine message even to the high and mighty.

Whether or not an historical Paul can be identified, the fabricated Paul of the New Testament served an "historic purpose" in castigating heresy and defining righteous doctrine, the dogmas of a universal and inclusive faith. Without doubt, "Pauline epistles" continued to be written and amended well into the 2nd century. They were weapons in, and a consequence of, the struggle for orthodoxy.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Where do you find Palestine mentioned in the Bible? Or anywhere else?

a reply to: jarsue97
The area was routinely called "Palestine" in the English-speaking geography of the Victorian era. I've just googled "journey theough Palestine", in the expectation of finding a few dozen Victorian book titles, and came across this gem;
"The Last Journals of Bishop Hannington, Being Narratives of a Journey Through Palestine in 1884 and a Journey Through Masai-land and U-Soga in 1885". The British governed the region after 1922 under the authority of a document with the official title "The League of Nations mandate for Palestine".

There are people trying to tell you that it's a newly-invented name, but that's because they don't know anything about history.

a reply to: jarsue97
In fact the name goes back tp Roman times, post-A.D. 70, when the territory was re-organised as the province of PALAESTINA.