Skip to main content

2 Corinthians 1:12-24

You can read the text here.

Paul now moves on to begin a defense against a complaint leveled by the Corinthians. They charged his with being unreliable or untrustworthy because he did not keep his plan to visit Corinth. Paul rebuts that. He acted with sincerity and on judgment day both will be proud of each other when their mutual sincerity is proven.

Paul did mean what he said. He wanted to visit and intended to. He is Christ's ambassador and "the reliability of Christ who puts the divine promises into effect is reflected in the reliability of his apostle."[1] God is faithful and that should be good enough for the Corinthians since Paul is his authorized ambassador.[2] God anointed him for this work, and gave them both the Spirit as a guarantee of God's grace, a continuation of the grace they had already seen through Paul. Thus, they should trust Paul's sincerity because God's has already been demonstrated.

The goal of his visit was to be uplifting to the Corinthians, to bring them joy. However, if he had come he would have had to chastise them. So, he was not inconsistent, because it was not possible for him to have the type of visit that he had originally intended. None of this implies superiority on the part of Paul, he is carrying out his commissioned role to serve the Corinthians and bring them the joy of the Lord and this was the way to do it.

--------------------------------------
[1] Thrall p. 136.

[2] As Matera notes, Paul doesn't give excuses as one might expect.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat