Paul now expresses the reason why he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 2:1 essentially summarises 2 Corinthians 1. Paul had purposed to delay his arrival in Corinth so that the brethren would have time to repent, 2 Corinthians 1:23. 2 Corinthians 2:1 exposes the apostle’s true desire and hope for the Corinthian Christians.
If Paul had to be with them in grief, 2 Corinthians 2:2, it would be due to their lack of repentance; however, he was confident that they would repent, and thus he determined to delay his travels so that they may have the needed time to do so.
The inferential subject is the first epistle that Paul wrote to the Corinthians due to their sinful practices. If this epistle’s contents made some ‘grieve,’ the same people would bring joy to the apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians 2:3. The word ‘grieve,’ in Greek, is ‘lupeo’, and it means to give pain.
Paul had literally ‘pained, grieved, and caused distress in the Corinthians due to their sin with his first epistle. These same distressed brethren had a choice to make in relation to their pain.
They were to repent and rejoice or be offended by Paul’s letter and grumble. Paul was confident that the letter would cause joy rather than grumbling, 2 Corinthians 2:3.
Hodge, in his commentary, says the following.
‘This does not mean merely that it would give them pleasure to see him happy, but also that obedience on their part, and the consequent purity and prosperity of the church, were as necessary to their happiness as to his.’
Paul’s first epistle was written with his ‘own hand’ in great anguish of heart, 1 Corinthians 16:21. It caused Paul great pain to write what he did to the Corinthians in the first epistle. The pain was so great that it caused him to cry ‘many tears,’ 2 Corinthians 2:4.
Constable, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Clearly, Paul claimed that love for the Corinthians moved him to write the severe letter. He wanted to make them repentant and consequently joyful, not oppressed and sorrowful. He wept over them. Doubtless, he wept again when he learned that his readers had misunderstood his best intentions.’
No one wants to think of beloved brethren walking in sin. Paul was a man who truly ‘loved’ brethren. No matter where they worshipped, if he had the opportunity to bring them out of their error, we did everything within his power to do so.
Shortly after his three-month stay in Corinth, he met up with the Ephesian elders. Paul told them, ‘Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you,’ Acts 20:26. Because Paul loved, he watched and warned brethren in sin with many tears, 2 Corinthians 2:4.
Before we get into the text, I believe it would be useful to have a review of the background to the text. After the introduction, Paul raises the matter that was causing him great concern, the division in the Corinthian church, which called for immediate attention.
Disunity in the congregation prevents the exercise of discipline and allows problems to go unchallenged and unchecked. In 1 Corinthians 5, he mentions his shock and dismay on hearing that immorality is being committed by someone in the congregation, and no action has been taken to deal with the offender.
Bearing in mind that the Corinthian letters were written early in Paul’s ministry, it is probable that the Corinthian church was without scriptural oversight at this time.
Contrast his opening greeting in the Corinthian letters with the greeting in the much later letter to the Philippian congregation, which he knew well and with whom he had an excellent relationship. Notice the absence of any reference to `Bishops’ in both Corinthian letters.
The exercise of discipline is virtually impossible, and, at best, extremely difficult, in a congregation that lacks a scripturally appointed eldership. Elders have both the duty and the responsibility to maintain the purity of the church, and their appointment should be a priority in the programme of any young congregation.
1. The offender is known to everyone in the congregation but is unnamed in Paul’s letter, 1 Corinthians 5:1.
2. The immoral relationship is described as being with ‘his father’s wife’, his stepmother, 1 Corinthians 5:1.
3. The church has done nothing about the offensive situation.
Paul’s implication seems to be that, because of their divided state, they lack either the will or the desire. Or the ability to deal with it. The remedy is clearly stated, ‘the guilty man should be excommunicated,’ 1 Corinthians 5:2.
4. This verdict is not primarily intended to be punitive, i.e. a punishment, but is meant to be corrective, 1 Corinthians 5:5.
Titus, who has carried a second letter, the ‘painful’ letter to Corinth, has found Paul in Macedonia, probably in Philippi and reported that the situation in Corinth has greatly improved and the guilty person has been confronted, dealt with, and has repented, 2 Corinthians 2:5.
How the church had acted is seen in 2 Corinthians 2:6, where he uses the word ‘punishment’. The word Paul uses here, in Greek, is ‘epitomic’, and it is different from the word for ‘punishment’ found in Matthew 25:46. The word in Matthew is the Greek word ‘kolasin’, and it relates to suffering a penalty.
In 2 Corinthians 2:6, the word would be better understood to mean ‘rebuke’ or ‘censure’. The church has, at last, brought the offence out into the open and has confronted the guilty man with his sin and then excommunicated him, denying him fellowship.
This action has been effective He has suffered the grief of repentance, 2 Corinthians 2:7, and has been made to understand that to be excommunicated means to be placed outside of the fellowship of God’s people and in the realm of Satan, where, if he remains, he will lose his salvation, 1 Corinthians 5:5. In that state, neither religious nor social contact with members of the church is permitted.
But since Excommunication is not amputation, which is permanent, but is a condition that can be reversed, and since, in this case, the guilty man has shown evidence of repentance, 2 Corinthians 2:7, Paul urges that the church to show him comfort, lest he becomes so depressed that he becomes completely crushed by his grief, or, as Paul puts it, ‘reaffirm your love,’ 2 Corinthians 2:8.
The previous verse, 2 Corinthians 2:6, may be understood in two different ways. Paul speaks of ‘the punishment which was inflicted by the majority’, which implies that the decision was not unanimous!
1. Does this mean that the congregation was not unanimous in the decision to ‘punish’ the guilty man? Or
2. Does it mean they were not unanimous in determining the manner or severity of the ‘punishment’?
It may seem to be unconceivable that anyone in the congregation would object to the man being faced with his immorality, but, bearing in mind the composition of the congregation Greeks, Jews and probably other races, and the immaturity of most of them, it is possible that there was a minority, as Paul’s words imply, that felt that ex-communication was too severe a punishment.
It may be that among the Jewish members, some had belonged to the stricter sect of Judaism, and these people believed that when a Gentile submitted to the ceremonies which admitted him into Judaism, his conversion cancelled all previous relationships, and this meant that he was free to form new relationships.
It is possible that they constituted the ‘minority’ that did not agree with the course of action taken by the majority, and it is clear to this group that Paul directed his illustration based on the Passover and the leaven, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8.
Obviously, there is much we do not know about the situation at Corinth. Paul does not give details. No names are mentioned. Neither the man nor his father is named, and the woman involved is described only as the man’s stepmother.
The phrase ‘his father’s wife’, 1 Corinthians 5:1, is the Hebrew form of ‘step-mother’. It is probable that no charge was made against the woman because she was not a member of the church and therefore she was outside the church’s jurisdiction.
Again, the man’s father may have taken a younger woman as his second wife, and this may have resulted in her affair with the younger man. Or, as some commentators suggest, the wife had been divorced by the father, and this immoral affair had developed with her stepson after the divorce, or may even have caused it.
We may speculate about the details of the case, but we cannot be certain! What we may say with certainty is that between this man and the woman, an immoral relationship developed which could not be tolerated because it defiled the Lord’s church, and discipline had to be enforced.
But the man’s excommunication must not be the last act in the matter because, as Paul points out, if the church cuts itself off from the man completely and permanently, ‘Satan gains a victory’, 2 Corinthians 2:11.
Imagine what would happen if a local congregation found it necessary to disfellowship a man and treated him as ‘dead’, and the neighbourhood learned about this? How quickly would it be said, ‘That’s Christians for you! That’s how they behave in that church!’ The effect on the public’s opinion of the church would be devastating.
1. The frequent failure to exercise Scriptural discipline has often resulted in damage to our congregations, weakening their internal spiritual strength and their external witness.
2. Elders or ‘leaders’ often lack the courage to act when an offence should be dealt with, and one of the sad reasons for this may be that, on earlier occasions, problems that should have been confronted have been deliberately ignored, or ‘swept under the carpet’.
3. In dealing with occurrences that require the application of scriptural discipline, Galatians 6:1-5, should never be overlooked.
The inferential subject of these verses appears to be the fornicator of 1 Corinthians 5:1. Apparently, the church in Corinth had followed Paul’s admonition by delivering the sinner to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the soul may be saved. This individual had caused sorrow among the brethren by his lawless deeds. Titus has obviously informed Paul of this news when meeting him in Macedonia.
Church ‘punishment’ or discipline had its desired effects, and the man repented. The church was now instructed to receive the repenting one back into its fellowship. Apparently, at this point, he had not been received back among them.
If the Corinthians delayed much longer in their forgiving and accepting the repenting back, such a one would be in danger of being consumed with ‘excessive sorrow’ and again fall away, 2 Corinthians 2:10-11. Paul was careful not to stress the man’s guilt or the congregation’s sorrow above that which would cause undue pain in the case.
This series of verses teaches us much about church autonomy. Notice that Paul was not dictating or exercising ‘lordship’ over the Corinthian church, but rather he was guiding them by divine principles; i.e., he was ‘helping’ them, 2 Corinthians 1:24.
Paul would have violated the autonomy of the church in Corinth if he had demanded that they discipline the erring one on said day and accept the erring back on said day, thus dictating every move in matters of judgment.
Only the Corinthians knew where the sinner stood among local brethren and God. Paul could only thereby give divine principles to their questions and allow the Corinthians to decide as to when the discipline and reinstatement of the church should occur.
Notice that Paul tactfully abstained from naming the sinner by name. It was not Paul’s desire to embarrass or shame the man by revealing his name. This should cause us all to raise a brow of inquisitiveness in relation to when one’s name should be put forth.
Though Paul had refrained from naming the sinner of 1 Corinthians 5, he did not refrain from naming ‘Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to Blaspheme’, 1 Timothy 1:20. Both cases, i.e., 1 Corinthians 5, and 1 Timothy 1:20, involved discipline.
Why call one by name and not the other? Paul named Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus as a means of warning. Here were men who were teaching false doctrines and seducing the minds of other faithful Christians, 2 Timothy 2:17-19.
The sinner of Corinth was affecting brethren with the sorrow of his sin; however, he was not intent upon faction and divisiveness, so that others would be led away with his teaching. The brethren knew whom Paul spoke of and thereby left it at that.
Here is the purpose statement of 1 Corinthians. Paul was putting the brethren to the test to see whether they would obey truth or human reasoning, 2 Corinthians 2:8. The apostle John spoke of this test, 1 John 3:10 / 1 John 4:1 / 1 John 4:6.
The Corinthians apparently passed the test and put the guilty fornicator away. Now Paul called upon them to forgive the repenting one, 2 Corinthians 2:10 / Matthew 16:19 / Matthew 18:18 / Luke 17:3 / John 20:23.
Being ‘obedient in all things’ includes forgiving people for sins they have committed and asking forgiveness of them. Some brethren are so bothered by certain sins that they cannot possibly forgive another for their deed.
Let us note that sin has no degrees of error in the eyes of God. James said that if we violate one part of the law, we violate it all, James 2:10. The Christian today is to set aside personal prejudice and exercise a consistent view of all sin.
Paul would now forgive those repenting sinners that the Corinthians forgave because they were acting under his inspired directions, 2 Corinthians 2:10 / Matthew 6:12 / Matthew 6:14-15 / Matthew 18:23-35 / Colossians 3:13 / Ephesians 4:32. Herein we see an authorised design of the church. The church is to remain pure, Ephesians 5:27.
God’s divine principles must be adhered to. One who would sin without repentance must therefore be addressed. If tolerance of said sins occurs on the part of the church, then Satan has gained an advantage over us, 2 Corinthians 2:11.
a. Satan’s advantage is over the unrepentant sinner.
b. Satan’s advantage would be over the tolerant church, 2 John 9-11.
To tolerate sin is to participate in sin and, thereby, the devil has an ‘advantage’ over the church. With one man’s sins, Satan has conquered the many. Brethren need to be careful with whom they sympathise and whom they fellowship. You may be otherwise doctrinally sound; however, a faulty view of another sinner will cause you to lose your fellowship with God, 1 John 1:5-7.
c. Satan may gain an advantage over us by using our prejudices and deep-seated convictions against us.
Those whose sins are grotesque may be more difficult for one to forgive, yet God says to forgive, or else be guilty of sin yourself.
While Paul gave the Corinthians time to repent, he busied himself with preaching truth to others. Acts 20:1-6 is the background to these verses. Notice Titus is not mentioned in Acts 20:4. Paul’s great ‘anguish’, 2 Corinthians 2:4, would have to continue until he met up with Titus in Macedonia, 2 Corinthians 7:5-6.
Apparently, Paul was simply relaying to the Corinthians his true love for their souls to the point of causing him great anxiety over whether they would repent of their sinfulness, 2 Corinthians 11:28.
Secondly, he indicated to them that while he delayed coming directly to them, he travelled northward to Troas from Ephesus that he might meet Titus and hear news from the Corinthian church, 2 Corinthians 2:12. Titus was not there, however, Paul found many ‘open doors’ of opportunity.
Paul was always looking for opportunities to preach to the lost, and God providentially provided those opportunities, but this time he failed. He was upset and had no rest because he was concerned about Titus, 2 Corinthians 1:13. He didn’t use the ‘open door’ that God supplied and left to go to Macedonia. Paul was distressed about Titus, ‘BUT’.
Think about a Roman procession. A general would return victorious after a war campaign; he would be wearing a purple robe, which signified he was nearly royalty or a deity, and it would be covered in golden embroidery.
He would ride into Rome on a white horse. Now, the general couldn’t just go ahead and do this; he had to meet certain criteria and get permission from the Roman Senate. These are the conditions.
1. The general had to have personally led the campaign and personally fought on the battlefield.
2. He had to have won the war, not just the battle.
3. The enemy he defeated had to have been outside of the Roman Empire.
4. He has to bring back his soldiers.
5. His army must have killed at least five thousand of the enemy.
Now that was the criteria, and so the general and his army would camp outside the city whilst the Senate decided as to whether or not he was worthy of a Roman procession through the streets of Rome. If he were granted permission and met the criteria, the senate would send a white horse with the purple robe.
The general would then lead his army to the centre of Rome, where he would display all the spoils of his war campaign and any slaves he captured, especially any leaders of the enemy. Along the route, there would be burning incense pots.
The general would reach the temple, sacrifice to their god and burn incense. After the burning of the incense, he would decide which captured slave he would set free and which slaves he would put to death.
Now, Paul never witnessed one of these because he hadn’t been to Rome at this point, but being a Roman citizen, he would be very aware of the practice, and if you read 2 Corinthians 2:14-17, again, you will get the bigger picture of the mind of Paul.
Harris, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Christ undertook a battle not rightly his; we share in a triumph not rightly ours.’
Victory over the devil and his devices occurs through the Gospel message, divine revelation and truth, 2 Corinthians 2:14 / 1 John 4:4 / 1 John 5:4. When a proper perspective of good, evil, heaven, hell, and the resurrection of the just and unjust is delivered to the lost, souls will have the opportunity to be saved. Paul found such an opportunity in Troas.
Not only is the Gospel message an ‘aroma’ unto the Lord, but the preacher of the Gospel message is, too, 2 Corinthians 2:15. The word ‘aroma’, in Greek, is ‘euodia’, and it means ‘a sweet smell’.
This word is only used two other times in the New Testament, i.e., Ephesians 5:2 / Philippians 4:18, and indicates those activities that please God. Clearly, one who preaches the true Gospel of salvation to the lost is pleasing to the Lord.
Secondly, notice carefully that it is not only the lost, those that perish, but for them that are saved as well, 2 Corinthians 2:15. Here is authority for edification among members of the body of Christ. The ‘we’ here would represent not only the apostles but preachers of the Gospel as well, 1 Corinthians 1:1 / 2 Corinthians 1:1.
The ‘aroma’ of this verse is ‘osme’ in Greek. A different word than the one used in 1 Corinthians 2:15, however, it has a similar meaning, i.e., ‘a smell, scent, odour, good or bad’. Whether the odour is sweet, 2 Corinthians 2:15, or sour to the Lord is dependent upon the reaction one has to the Gospel message.
The truth serves to push those who would reject the Gospel message further from the truth in the hardness of their hearts, Matthew 13:12, i.e., ‘death unto death,’ 2 Corinthians 2:16. Those who accept the truth are saved by that truth and thereby the truth serves as a sweet aroma to them leading ‘from life unto life,’ 2 Corinthians 2:16.
Here is the character defined. One character is hardened by truth, and the other grows stronger and stronger by truth. Even those who have obeyed the Gospel can be hardened by the instructions of truth, and thereby the truth moves them from death unto death; they are hardened in their sin. Life unto life occurs in the hearts of those who hear the truth, obey, and live out its instructions.
Paul asks, ‘and who is equal to such a task?’ 2 Corinthians 2:16. The word ‘equal’, or ‘sufficient’, in Greek is ‘hikanos’, and it means of persons, sufficient, competent, sufficient to prove a point, adequate.
The ‘such a task’ must be the idea of presenting such a message, truth, which has the power to save some and harden others in sin. Eternity is at stake with mankind, and so Paul concluded, ‘Who is truly qualified to teach these things?’ Paul did not see his own qualifications; however, he knew that the duty to preach was his and others’, Romans 1:14-17.
Furthermore, Paul stated that such qualifications come from God, and thereby he is qualified, 2 Corinthians 3:4-5. In fact, as we examine 2 Corinthians 3:4-5, it is apparent that anyone who would study and present divine revelation alone is not only qualified to preach but obligated to do so.
‘Many’ false teachers had corrupted the word of God in Corinth and the world, 2 Corinthians 2:17 / 1 Corinthians 15:12. The word ‘peddle’ in Greek is ‘kapeleuo’, and it means to be a retail dealer, drive a trade. It can also mean ‘anaesthetic’, which means soothing, all nicely, nicely.
It seems apparent that some false teachers were ‘peddling’ the word of God in a paltry and unserious way. When the message fit or benefited his life, he used it. When the message condemned a part of his life, he rejected it, 2 Corinthians 2:17.
Barnett, in his commentary, says the following.
‘How is Paul able confidently to attribute such negative motives to these men, while expecting his own claim ’of sincerity’ to be accepted? It appears that he is appealing to the known fact that these men have received some material benefit from the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 11:20, whereas Paul deliberately refused payment from them, 2 Corinthians 11:7-12 / 2 Corinthians 12:13-16.’
The Gospel was a mere piece of merchandise that was sold for self-profit and benefit. These brethren ‘adulterated’ the word of God! To adulterate is to mix two things that do not belong, i.e., a married man with another woman other than his wife.
Preachers of truth were rather characterised by preaching in ‘sincerity,’ 2 Corinthians 2:17. We defined the word ‘sincerity’, ‘heilikrineia’ in 2 Corinthians 1:12, as unmixed, without alloy, pure.
Now we have a complete picture of what preaching truth is all about. Preaching is to be done in ‘sincerity’, without mixture, pure, open and above board, as opposed to adulterating and mixing things in the Gospel that do not belong.
God has spoken divine truths, Isaiah 55:10-11 / 2 Timothy 3:16. Let all be satisfied with these divine truths and never place our human reasoning within and thereby adulterate, contaminate, defile, corrupt and make vulgar the word of God.
Truthful preaching is, therefore, to be ‘of God, in the sight of God’ as preaching men ‘speak in Christ,’ 2 Corinthians 2:17. This is authoritative preaching, 1 Peter 4:11.
The phrase ‘in Christ’ helps us understand better the instructions regarding the widow mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:39. She is to marry ‘in the Lord’, and so the command is to marry by the authority of Christ.
2 Corinthians 7:7 reveals that Titus had given Paul good news regarding the spiritual state of the Corinthian brethren. Titus also gave Paul the bad news. Some brethren were charging Paul with inconsistency, ‘fickleness’, 2 Corinthians 1:17, and self-approval, commendation, 2 Corinthians 3:1. Due to this information, Paul wrote the first epistle, the inferential subject of 2 Corinthians 2:1-4.
The first two chapters of 2 Corinthians served to give the Corinthian brethren Paul’s mode, method, purpose and expected product of the first epistle written to them in AD 57. When one examines 2 Corinthians 1-2, he has a true understanding of what ‘preaching truth in love’ is all about, Ephesians 6:15.
The mode of 1 Corinthians was love, 2 Corinthians 2:4. Love should be the model for all Christians’ actions. We expose sin and care for the physically needy because we love as God loves, 1 John 3:16-17 / 1 John 4:10 / 1 John 4:17.
The method of writing the epistle of 1 Corinthians was the authority of Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 1:12 / 2 Corinthians 2:17. It would only be through truth that the product of salvation would be achieved. Therefore, Paul was sufficient to deliver such a divine message because it was from God and not man, 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 / 2 Corinthians 3:4-6.
Every move on the part of Paul had a purpose. Paul revealed the deliberate act of sparing and delaying his coming unto the Corinthian brethren that they may have time to repent, 2 Corinthians 1:23.
1 Corinthians 2 reveals another purpose behind the writing of 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 2:9. Paul was putting the brethren to the test as we are commanded to likewise do, 1 John 3:10 / 1 John 4:1 / 1 John 4:6. The desired result of the first epistle to the Corinthians was that sorrow leading to repentance would occur, 2 Corinthians 2:2 / 2 Corinthians 7:8-10.
It did not bring joy to Paul to write such things as covered in the first epistle; however, it was necessary, 2 Corinthians 2:11. Paul eventually met with Titus in Macedonia.
Titus relieves Paul’s anxiety by fully informing him of the Corinthians’ response to his first epistle. Apparently, Titus had brought a favourable report to Paul in Macedonia.
The Corinthians had exercised the discipline upon the erring of 1 Corinthians 5, and thereby brought Paul joy, 2 Corinthians 2:5-7. Paul now ‘requests’ the Corinthians to forgive this one as he had repented, 2 Corinthians 2:8-11.
Herein is the consequence of preaching truth in love. Souls are saved, and brethren edified, only when truth, in all of its purity and authority, is preached, 2 Corinthians 2:17.