Second Corinthians/Chapter 1:12-24/Commentary

Second Corinthians Chapter 1:12-24

Paul Defends His Integrity 2 Corinthians 1:12 “For our glorifying is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we behaved ourselves in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” “For”: “Paul can appeal for this cooperation of the Corinthians in prayer, because, contrary to what his opponents are saying about him, he discharges the duties of his apostleship with utter sincerity” (Tasker p. 45). “Our glorying is this”: “Our proud confidence” (NASV). “We boast in this, and our conscience backs it up” (Nor). “Now it is a matter of pride to us--endorsed by our conscience” (Phi). “Paul does not hesitate to be proud that his conscience bears him witness that his general behavior, more particularly in his dealings with the Corinthians, has been characterized by simplicity and godly sincerity” (Tasker p. 45). Paul often appeals to his clear conscience (Acts 23:1; 24:16; Romans 9:1; 1 Corinthians 4:4). There are times when a Christian must defend himself. “A certain type of pietism tells the Christian never to boast. Paul is free from this inhibition. Some people are so humble that their humility fails to acknowledge with joy what God has done” (Lenski p. 835). There is also a false humility that seems to want to take the blame for everything. Paul refused to plead guilty to sins which he hadn't committed. “Holiness”: Singleness, sincerity without self-seeking. “Sincerity of God”: “From pure motives and sincerity before God” (Wms). “There were no hidden actions in Paul's life. We might well add a new beatitude to the list, ‘Blessed is the man who has nothing to hide’” (Barclay p.

1

194). “His disinterestedness of purpose and transparency of life” (Hughes p. 25).

“The word Paul uses for purity (sincerity) is a most interesting word. It may well describe something which can bear the test of being held up to the light of the sun and looked at with the sun shining through it. Happy is the man whose every action will bear the light of day” (Barclay p. 194).

“Not in fleshly wisdom”: “That is, with the shrewdness and artfulness of a man prompted by motives of self-interest and self-aggrandizement” (Tasker p. 45). “He has never relied upon worldly cleverness” (Erdman p. 31). See 1 Corinthians 2:1-4.

“Such ‘fleshly wisdom’ seeks it own selfish ends in its own cunning ways” (Lenski p.

837). “His answer is that his whole conduct is dominated, not by human, calculating shrewdness” (Barclay p. 194). “But in the grace of God”: What dominated and controlled Paul's life was the grace of God, especially the grace displayed in the sacrifice of Christ. In view of such grace, Paul could no longer live a life which was directed by self-interest (Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15). This infers that a selfish “Christian” is a Christian who does not really understand what happened upon the cross. “We behaved ourselves in the world”: Before the eyes of men, in all places, and at all times. Interaction with the world, does not excuse sin. I am obligated to treat people in the world with the same honesty and sincerity that I treat my brethren. “And more abundantly to you-ward”: “But specially toward you” (Ber). “And above all with you” (Con).

“The Corinthians had had a better opportunity of assessing and appreciating the Apostles holiness of life and sincerity of purpose because he had spent no less than eighteen months continuously in their company, so that they could not excuse themselves by saying that they did not know him and the quality of his living well” (Hughes pp. 26-27). “He is content at this stage (of the letter) to leave his readers to draw their own conclusions from the contrast between the blameless consistency of his conduct and the behavior of the upstart adversaries who had spawned the calumnies against his good name” (Hughes p. 25). This is not the first time that Paul has asserted his personal integrity (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thessalonians 2:4-10).

2 Corinthians 1:13 “For we write no other things unto you, than what ye read or even acknowledge, and I hope ye will acknowledge unto the end” “For we write no other things unto you, that what ye or even acknowledge”:

2

“Acknowledge”: “That what you read and understand” (NASV). “It is clear that Paul had been accused by his opponents of being particularly insincere in his letters. ‘He means something different’, they said ‘from what he actually writes’. In reply, the apostle insists that his letter-writing has the same mark of sincerity as the rest of his conduct. There are no innuendos or reservations” (Tasker p. 46). For another indication of the same type of accusation, see 2 Corinthians 10:10. This accusation had been fueled by his change in travel plans (1:16-17). “If the Corinthians are honest with themselves, they must acknowledge from first-hand observance that his conduct in their city was marked by transparent genuineness: well, so it is also with his letters; they can trust the plain meaning of what they read” (Hughes p. 27).

“Paul insists that the meaning of his written words has always been obvious and plain. He has never tried to deceive. No one has been expected to read between the lines. He has said what he meant and has meant what he said” (Erdman p. 32).

Now some logical conclusions must be reached from this last statement. (1) The Scriptures are not mysterious rather they reveal God's mystery in plain, understandable language. (2) Man is inexcusable for not reaching the proper understanding of what God said. All misinterpretation is man's fault. (3) Dozens of valid and yet contradictory interpretations for each verse do not exist. The Bible does teach one truth. (4) Moral suspicion is automatically cast upon any who claim the Bible is too confusing, or impossible for all sincere people to understand alike.

(5) For Paul, understanding what He wrote was as simple as reading his letters (Ephesians 3:3-4).

“And I hope ye will acknowledge unto the end”: “Understand until the end” (NASV). That they will ever recognize that what Paul writes is what Paul means.

2 Corinthians 1:14 “as also ye did acknowledge us in part, that we are your glorying, even as ye also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus” “Ye did acknowledge us in part”: “Just as you also partially did understand us” (NASV). “As I believe some of you have understood me” (Phi). “That we are your glorying”: “That we are your reason to be proud as you also are ours” (NASV). “Your pride and joy” (Lam). Paul viewed those that he had converted with pride and joy (Philippians 4:1). Likewise Paul and his fellow-workers should of held a special place in the hearts of the Corinthians. “In the day of our Lord Jesus”: The Second Coming 3

(1 Thessalonians 2:19; Philippians 2:16). “The mention of that day, on which all thoughts will be revealed, confirms Paul's claim of sincerity. He has no fear of what will then be disclosed as to his motives and conduct” (Erdman p. 32). Paul hopes that at the Judgment, he will have cause to take as much pride in them, as they can in him, which infers, that he will only be able to take pride in them, if they remain faithful (1 Corinthians 3:13-15). “In all that Paul and Timothy think about the Corinthians, say to them, and do regarding them, they keep that day in mind; and the Corinthians should ever do the same in regard to Paul and Timothy. How many hostilities, misunderstandings, unbrotherly actions would never occur if we ever kept in mind our connection with that day?” (Lenski p. 842).

The Change in Travel Plans “Paul refutes the charge that, as far as we can conclude, was bruited about in the past and not entirely silenced as yet, that one could not depend on his word, that his yea and his nay were confused so that one could not tell which he really intended when he used either. We at once see how flimsy a ground there was for challenging his veracity and his reliability; how only ill-will or something worse could prefer such a charge against any man on such grounds” (Lenski p. 843).

2 Corinthians 1:15 “And in this confidence I was minded to come first unto you, that ye might have a second benefit” “And in this confidence I was minded to come first unto you”: “Relying on this I meant to visit you” (Mof). “It was because I felt so confidence about all this” (NEB).

“In this”: This seems to refer back to verses 13-14. “Of mutual trust and esteem which he has just described. He did not suppose that his plans would be regarded as a ground for suspecting his motives or traducing his character” (Erdman p. 32).

“He had not assigned reasons for the change, had not thought it necessary, he had expected enough good-will on the part of the Corinthians to suppose that he was acting on the basis of good reasons. But no; from the report of Titus he now learned that he was still being attacked on this score” (Lenski p. 843). The Corinthians had enough problems of their own to work on, and yet some of them were accusing Paul of being a liar, because of a simple change in travel plans! Talk about hypocrisy!

“That ye might have a second benefit”: “Double delight” (Mof). “Double opportunity of spiritual profit” (Knox). “The benefit of a double visit” (NEB).

4

2 Corinthians 1:16 “and by you to pass into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come unto you, and of you to be set forward on my journey unto Judea” “And by you”: “The “second benefit” is explained, that is, being twice visited by Paul on the same journey. “By you”: “To visit you both on my way to Macedonia, and to come to you again on my return from Macedonia” (TCNT). “To be set forward on my journey unto Judea”: See 1 Corinthians 16:6. The original trip planned to Corinth, which included picking up the collection and it's escorts, was different from that given in 1 Corinthians 16:5-7. Paul had changed his travel plans from two short visits being paid to the Corinthians to one long visit. Evidently, upon receiving the First Corinthian letter some in Corinth had become upset at this change, and had used it as ammunition against the apostle. Ye the change made was very slight. He was still coming to Corinth and he even indicated in the First letter that this new plan would be even better (16:6-7).

He was still coming to Corinth, still coming to pick up the collection, still wanting the Corinthians to help him on his journey, and he was still headed for Judea. What's the big deal? In reality, this accusation did not place Paul in a bad light and it placed in the Corinthians in a bad light, because they had become upset over the smallest of matters. “The sad thing is that any of his friends should ever have allowed themselves to be persuaded to entertain such calumny, especially when their intimate knowledge of his character should have assured them that any change of plan must have been prompted by the best of reasons” (Hughes p. 33).

2 Corinthians 1:17 “When I therefore was thus minded, did I show fickleness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the yea yea and the nay nay?”

“Thus minded”: “When I thus made up my mind” (Knox). “When I wanted to do this” (Beck). “Now because I changed my original plan” (Amp). “Did I show fickleness?”: “Did I show any fickleness of purpose” (TCNT). “Do you suppose I did it lightly” (Knox). “Was I stable” (Amp). “He refers to that lightness of character which permits a man to make a promise he has no intention of fulfilling” (Erdman p. 32).

“Paul finds it incredible that any at Corinth could really have thought that a change in plan pointed to a change in character” (Hughes p. 34). “Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh”: As an ordinary man of the world 5

guided by trivial or purely selfish considerations, so that he could say ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’ and then follow it almost at once with ‘No’,’No’?” (Tasker p. 47). “The yea yea and the nay nay?”: “Saying, Yes, today, and, No, tomorrow” (Bas). “To have my Yes mean No, if I want it so” (Wms). “Nor was it a question of the abandonment of his original project, but only a modification of it. Indeed, as they well knew, it was in themselves, not in him, that the real cause of the change in plan lay (1:23-2:1): it was they, not he, who were guilty of inconstancy and fickleness; it was they who, after having responded to him with so clear a yea, had admitted into their fellowship false apostles whose object was to persuade them to say nay to their true Apostle.

Had they remained steadfast and loyal, the plan as originally conceived would have been carried through” (Hughes p. 34).

Unfortunately often the same abuse is directed at the leaders among God's people today. Sometimes members get upset at the elders for coming down hard on them, but they never seem to ask themselves, “Why did the elders have to do that?” Why, because of your unrepentant attitude and unfaithfulness, that's why! At times you will hear some Christians complaining about the hard preaching where they attend.

Yes, the preacher might be out-of-line, and yet at the same time, could it be that unfaithfulness among the members, including the very ones who are complaining might be the reason behind such "hard lessons"? So before you believe a complaint, check it out!

2 Corinthians 1:18 “But as God is faithful, our word toward you is not yea and nay” “But as God is faithful”: “As surely as God is true, he affirms, his own words to the Corinthians are not the words of a vacillator who says ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ almost in the same breath” (Tasker p. 47). “When God speaks His positive does not carry a hidden negative. And so it is with His chosen Apostle. It is not an emphatic yes which may be expected to turn into an equally empathic no (this is the force of the repetition in the expression ‘the yea yea and the nay nay’)” (Hughes p. 35). “Our word toward you”: All that Paul said in dealing with them, from very simple information concerning travel plans, to the gospel message. In accusing Paul of being a liar, they have unwittingly accused God of being unfaithful, because Paul was God's chosen vessel to deliver His message to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:11; Acts 9:15; 2 Corinthians 1:1). This attack upon Paul cannot be limited to Paul, for if Paul was a liar when it came to simple travel plans, what about the gospel that he had preached to them? A gospel that contained many promises still yet in the future?

6

2 Corinthians 1:19 “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yea and nay, but in Him is yea” “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us”: The Jesus preached by Paul and his companions is not a Christ of uncertainty and contradictions. “Christ who is the object and sum of Paul's preaching, is unchangeable” (Hebrews 13:8)” (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 45). “Nothing could be more incongruous than to suspect of insincerity the Apostle whose entire being was dedicated to the service and proclamation of Him who is the Truth and the Same yesterday, today, and for ever” (Hughes p. 35). “When the God of truth conveyed to you readers the Christ of truth He used us as His instruments. Could he possibly have used instruments that were devoid of truth?” (Lenski p. 849). “Silvanus”: A form of Silas. He had been with Paul and Timothy at Corinth (Acts 18:5). “By in Him is yea”: “Nothing in Him or in His Word was ever or is now even questionable” (Lenski p. 850). This last truth needs to be kept in mind when people start speculating about God changing His mind concerning some command or condition for salvation. The assumption is that such would make God more "compassionate".

Actually, such a doctrine makes God a look like a liar and the Bible, a book of empty threats and promises.

2 Corinthians 1:20 “For how many soever be the promises of God, in Him is the yea: wherefore also through Him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us” “How many soever be the promises of God”: “As many as may be the promises of God” (NASV). “In Him is the yea”: “Every promise of God finds its affirmation in Him” (Phi). “In Christ is the Yes that fulfills them” (TCNT). Concerning the questions, “Will God fulfill His promises?” “Will God keep His Word?” The appearance of Jesus Christ into the world, His death upon the cross, and His resurrection from the dead, give the resounding answer, YES! “In Christ is the yes, the grand consummating affirmative, to all God's promises. In Him all things ‘which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms’ achieve their fulfillment (Luke 24:44).

The covenant promises addressed to Abraham and his seed are realized in His single person (Galatians 3:16)” (Hughes p. 36). All future promises to believers also find their fulfillment in Him. Just as sure as God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus is coming again (Acts 17:31). “Wherefore also through Him is the Amen”: 7

“Wherefore also by Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us” (NASV). “That is why, when we give glory to God, it is through Him that we say our Amen” (Knox).

“Because Christ is the divine ‘Yes’ or ‘Amen’ that Christians are moved to say ‘Amen’, i.e. ‘yes indeed’, ‘this is the truth, when they are engaged in worship” (Tasker p. 48).

“Amen”: “The Hebrew root from which it is derived conveys the idea of firmness and reliability, and the utterance of ‘Amen’ in public or private worship after prayers and thanksgivings expresses confidence in the faithfulness of God and the certainty of His promises. Our Lord employed the term in a unique manner when He placed it at the beginning, either singly or in repetition, of many of His most solemn utterances—‘Amen, amen (truly, truly) I say unto you..’, thus in a most arresting manner emphasizing for His hearers the absolute authenticity and immutability of His teaching. The application of the term to Christ as a title in Revelation 3:14 is particular significant: ‘These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness’.

There could be no greater assurance of divine faithfulness than that!” (Hughes pp.

37-38). “How illogical, then, while by their ‘Amen’ attesting the trustworthiness of God, to suspect the trustworthiness of the Apostle who taught them to do so!”

(Hughes p. 38).

2 Corinthians 1:21 “Now he that establisheth us with you in Christ, and anointed us, is God” “Now he that establisheth us with you”: “Now He who establishes us with you in Christ” (NASV). “We owe our position in Christ to this God of positive promise” (Phi). “Establisheth”: To conform. We should note that it is God's will that Christians stand firm in Christ. Spiritual weakness, up and down faithfulness, hot and cold periods of love for God or spurts and then lapses of zeal, are not in harmony with the will of God. If this is the pattern that has characterized our lives thus far, then we are not where God wants us to be (Colossians 1:23).

“Us with you”: “He does not claim for himself any steadfastness in Christ, or any trustworthiness which is not possible to other faithful believers” (Lipscomb p. 33).

The word "us" includes not only Paul, but also his fellow-workers. “To suspect his reliability was, in fact, to cast a shadow over their own stability, for it is a case of ‘us with you in Christ’, not ‘us different from you’” (Hughes p. 39). This statement also stresses the unity that Paul feels between himself and the Corinthians, a unity that they should likewise feel. “Anointed us”: To consecrate (Robertson p. 213). “It is he 8

who has consecrated us to this special work” (Phi). “And has commissioned us” (RSV). Kings, prophets, and priests were anointed when inaugurated in their several offices; to anoint may therefore mean to qualify by divine influence, and thereby to authorize anyone to discharge the duties of any office (Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38). Christians are spoken as being priests (1 Peter 2:5,9) and kings (Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10), and this consecration took place when we were released from our sins by His blood (Revelation 1:5), that is, when we were baptized. (Acts 2:38) 2 Corinthians 1:22 “who also sealed us, and gave us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” “Sealed us”: To stamp (with a signet or private mark) for security or preservation (literally or figuratively). “Who stamped me with His seal” (Mof). “Now a seal was a sign of ownership” (Erdman p. 34). “A seal is affixed for various purposes, for security, concealment, distinction, authentication, attestation, and confirmation.

Several purposes are sometimes combined. The idea is here that of ownership --God marked us for His own” (Lenski p. 855). In the Ephesian letter this "sealing" takes place in baptism (Ephesians 1:13). When we submit to baptism, we are marked out as belonging to God (1 Corinthians 6:19), and this "seal" remains with us unto the judgment. (Ephesians 4:30). Hence, if we become unfaithful we can never escape the verdict that rests upon unfaithful children of God (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Unfortunately many commentators interpret this phrase as meaning that once one becomes a Christian, they can never lose their salvation. It's amazing that anyone would reach that conclusion from this passage. Especially, considering the fact of "who" this passage was written to, that is, the Corinthians! Such an interpretation of the word "sealed" must completely disregard all the warnings in the First Corinthian letter (1 Corinthians 3:16-17;10:1-12), and the warnings that follow in this letter (2 Corinthians 12:20-13:5).

“Earnest of the Spirit in our hearts”: “The Spirit's security deposit” (Ber). “Earnest”: Of Hebrew origin; a pledge, i.e. part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest: earnest. “An earnest was not only a pledge; it was a partial payment. It was the first installment of the thing which had been promised” (Erdman p. 34). “The first down payment by which he who makes it assures the recipient of final payment in full” (Lenski p. 855).

Many consider the Holy Spirit Himself to be the earnest money given (Ephesians 9

1:13-14; 2 Corinthians 5:5). The next question would be, which or what manifestation of the Spirit would be considered "earnest money"? Or, are all the ways in which the Spirit manifests Himself? Clearly, the following would be proof that God is seriously about saving Christians. 1. The Spirit's revelation (i.e. the N.T.) (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Ephesians 3:3-5) 2. The spiritual gifts which some First Century Christians exercised, including many of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 12:11). Some feel that a non-miraculous personal indwelling of the Spirit in the believer is the "earnest of the Spirit". My problem with this view is that even those who believe in such an indwelling, point out that such an indwelling has no visible evidence. It just seems to me, that the down payment under consideration in these passages is something tangible, that a Christian could point to an say, "See, God is serious about fulfilling all His promises to us." “Nevertheless the present gift of the Spirit is only a small fraction of the future endowment. This idea also would be suggested by the usual relation between the earnest-money and the full payment�

(Hughes p. 42).

Therefore Christians have only received a small amount of the actual promises they stand to inherit, if they only continue to trust God (Romans 8:18; 1 Peter 1:4). The forgiveness of sins, removal of guilt, fellowship with God's people, the avenue of prayer, are only a small fraction and small sample of what "Spiritual Life" is really all about. As a result the Christian should never despair in this life, even if life here is difficult, the blessing we received here are only a small fraction of what awaits us.

On the other hand the non-Christian has everything invested in this present life.

Then this is the whole reward (Matthew 6:1-4).

Some valuable truths concerning the Holy Spirit must be gleaned from these passages. Paul includes the Corinthians with himself in 1:21-22. Both had been "anointed", "sealed", and given the "earnest" of the Spirit, and yet, both could end up lost (1 Corinthians 9:27; 10:1-13). Both could still sin, and the Corinthians had (2 Corinthians 12: 20-21). The Corinthians had failed to grow, despite the facts found in 1:21-22. (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Some of the Corinthians had been persuaded and fooled by the false teachers among them, despite 1:21-22 (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

The Real Reason for the Postponement of His Visit

10

2 Corinthians 1:23 “But I call God for a witness upon my soul, that to spare you I forbare to come unto Corinth” “I call God for a witness upon my soul”: “Whatever my opponents may say, I invoke God as a witness against my soul--if I speak falsely” (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 46). “I call God for a witness”: Which Paul often did (Romans 1:9; Galatians 1:20; 1 Thessalonians 2:5,10). “Upon my soul”: “To my soul” (NASV). As a second witness to support the truthfulness of what I am about to say. “The taking of oaths would be superfluous were it not for the presence of sin in the world and the satanic debasement of language into a vehicle of falsehood instead of truth” (Hughes p. 46). “This phrase, ‘Upon my soul’ could almost mean, 'against my soul’--that is, ‘may my life be forfeit if I am not speaking the truth’” (Hughes p. 46). Here we learn that Jesus' teaching against oaths (Matthew 5:33-37), cannot be properly interpreted as forbidding the taking of all oaths, because in such a case even wedding vows would be unscriptural, in addition here Paul would be violating the will of Christ. Rather that teaching must be viewed as regulating oaths and eliminating all humanly devised oaths which contained escape clauses. We need to realize that even God Himself makes use of oaths (Hebrews 6:13ff).

“That to spare you I forbade to come unto Corinth”: “This postponement of the intended visit was a sign of forbearance, for which they should have been grateful” (P.P. Comm. p. 7). “Spare”: Paul's change in travel plans (2 Corinthians 1:15-17), was not due to cowardice, fickleness or selfishness, instead it was the result of intense concern for the Corinthians. Just think if Paul had come as planned he would have encountered all the problems mentioned in the first letter. Now, how pleasant of a visit (esp. for the Corinthians) would that have been? On the first Sunday that Paul was in town, he would have seen the Lord's Supper abused, the assembly in mass confusion with the abuse of the tongues, and possibly been greeted by a Christian who was married to his father's wife! Coming to the Corinthians, as planned prior to the writing of the First Corinthian letter, would have certainly meant the "rod" for many in Corinth. (1 Corinthians 4:21). “They were not ready for his return. His coming would have caused them pain. He must have exercised severe discipline. He wished to give them time to repent” (Erdman p. 35). There is no weakness on the part of Paul in this delay, even God delays (2 Peter 3:9), yet the time of forbearance does have a limit (2 Corinthians 13:2).

11

2 Corinthians 1:24 “Not that we have lordship over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for in faith ye stand fast” “Not that we have lordship over your faith”: “We are not trying to dominate you and your faith” (Phi). “Paul excludes every wrong implication that some opponent might attach to the word ‘sparing you’, as though Paul and his helpers were high lords over the Corinthians and as such exercised clemency when they pleased” (Lenski p. 861).

Paul did have authority (1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Corinthians 10:8), yet Paul did not make up rules where God had not (1 Corinthians 7:28). Ultimately the Corinthians did not have to answer to Paul, rather they had to answer to the God that Paul served (2 Corinthians 5:10). “Human lordship is exercised when faith is made to be or to do what some man demands; the Lord's lordship is exercised when He by His Word (including those times it is presented by human instruments) tells us what our faith should be and do” (Lenski pp. 861-862). The same man who wrote this, also commanded the Church to withdraw from an unrepentant Christian (1 Corinthians 5). Hence, when someone is teaching you what you need to do from the Word of God, the charge of "their lording it over me", is a false charge. In the N.T. people were commanded to repent, be baptized, cease specific sinful acts and attitudes, stay married, treat their spouses and children properly, obey their parents, obey the laws of the land, practice hospitality, love their neighbors, obey the elders, and so on, yet none of this was ever viewed as violating 2 Corinthians 1:24. Paul is not issuing human threats rather he is simply giving them God's view of the situation. If the Apostles did not feel that they had the right to elevate their own opinions to Divine law, then certainly no one since has been given that right.

“But are helpers of your joy”: “We work with you for your true happiness” (TCNT).

“We would help you to achieve happiness” (Knox). “Because he wished to increase their happiness and not to cause them sorrow, he had refrained from visiting them” (Erdman p. 36). Paul wished that when he did come, it would be an occasion of mutual joy. The instructions in the New Testament, the commands given through the Apostles are designed to result in happier lives, and not a more miserable one (1 Peter 3:8-12). “Paul, moreover, so far from wishing, like some despot, to oppress and subjugate the Corinthians by the relentless imposition of authority, desires to be a helper of their joy--that is, that he may assist them to arrive at that state of unclouded communion with God and fellowship with each other” (Hughes p. 50).

12

“For in faith ye stand fast”: “You have a standing of our own in the faith” (Mof).

“You stand on your own feet in your faith” (Beck). The only place of acceptance with God is the place of occupied by obedient faith (Romans 1:17). No one can stand in the faith for you. This verse contradicts those religious teachings which allow parents or others to believe for you.

Closing Observation William Barclay presents some insight thoughts concerning this section of Scripture: “Paul used severity and rebuke unwillingly. He only used them when he was driven to use them and when there was nothing else left to do. There are some people whose eyes are always focused to find fault, whose tongues are always tuned to criticize, in whose voice there is always a rasp and an edge. Paul was not like that. If we are constantly critical and fault-finding, if we are habitually angry and harsh, if we rebuke far more than we praise then the plain fact is that even our severity loses all its effect. It is discounted because it is so constant...When Paul did rebuke he did it in love. He never spoke merely to hurt. There can be a sadistic pleasure in seeing someone wince at a sharp and a cruel word. But Paul was not like that. When Paul rebuked, the last thing he wanted was to domineer. Finally, for all his reluctance to rebuke, for all his desire to see the best in others, for all the love that was in his heart, Paul nonetheless will and does rebuke when rebuke becomes necessary. Not seldom we refrain from rebuke because of mistaken kindness, or because of the desire to avoid trouble. But there is a time when to avoid trouble and when to seek for a lazy and a cowardly peace is to court a still greater danger. If we are guided by love and by consideration (1 Corinthians 13:4-8), not for our own pride but for the ultimate good of others, we will know the time to speak and the time to be silent” (pp. 199-201).

13