Troublesome Topic: DID PAUL’S CORRECTIVE LETTER CORRECT EVERYTHING OR JUST SOME THINGS?

The group that followed Cephas probably wanted more Jewish influence and more Jewish ceremonies (Ellicott). I have never seen any commentary say that Cephas (Peter) went to Corinth.

From the letter we call II Corinthians, it appears that a number of the problems addressed in I Corinthians had been corrected, but a few troublesome issues still remained.

Paul specifically states in II Corinthians 2:5-11 that the immoral man of I Corinthians 5 had repented. We gather from this passage that they had punished him, maybe through expulsion from their congregation as Paul had recommended (v. 6). Now it was time to show that man forgiveness, comfort, affirmation and love (vv. 7-8). I believe the immoral man spoken of in I Corinthians 5 had exerted a major negative influence in the congregation; therefore, his punishment and repentance were a major step in the right direction for that congregation.

Several of the big problems addressed at length in I Corinthians are not even mentioned in II Corinthians, leading us to believe that they were no longer a problem. These include the abuses of the Lords Supper, a counterfeit type of tongues, the use of various spiritual gifts outside of the rules that govern spiritual gifts, women who were out of control, law suits between believers, and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.  

The problems that remained were the following: Sexual immorality is mentioned at least once in II Corinthians (12:21), there were still some divisions and quarrels among them (12:20), and disorder is also mentioned in 12:20, but nothing more is said about disorder, and it is not tied specifically to the actions of women as it was in I Corinthians 14. That could mean that it was much improved but was still a slight problem. The biggest problems addressed in II Corinthians were the lack of respect for Paul’s spiritual authority and a devaluing of the suffering he had endured on their behalf. II Corinthians 11:1-15 addresses a specific individual whom Paul called a “false apostle” (v. 13), leading us to believe that an interloper had entered the congregation at Corinth before the letter we call I Corinthians was written. This interloper’s intent was to discredit Paul’s authority and teaching. He lifted himself up as an apostle equal to Paul or possibly better. Paul referred to that person as a “super-apostle”; we don’t know if that is what that man called himself or if it was Paul that dubbed him with that appellation to mock him. He may have tried to convince them to be more Jewish, more committed to following the specific regulations of the Torah.

From Paul’s letter to the church in Galatia, it appears that something similar had happened there too; a group of people, either locals or from another place, had convinced them that they needed to be more Jewish and follow the regulations of the Torah. The group that had influenced the church in Galatia had also used the tactic of trying to alienate that congregation from Paul (see Gal 4:17).

In Corinth, the discrediting of Paul opened the door for many of the problems that he tackled in I Corinthians.

In I Corinthians, Paul addressed the issue of his spiritual authority and defended his ministry once (chapter 9), but in II Corinthians he wrote about that issue over and over again. It is not an exaggeration to say that the entire letter of II Corinthians is dedicating to Paul defending his ministry and showing he was different from the “false apostle”, whoever that was. As part of showing the differences between himself and that false teacher, Paul emphasized several times all the suffering that he had endured on behalf of those he ministered to, such as the believers in Corinth. It is doubtful that the “false apostle” had suffered in this way. Paul also used the word “boast” quite a few times, yet he did not boast as proud humans often do, therefore, I believe there was a difference between Paul’s boasting and that of the “false apostle”.

Paul was hitting these issued hard because it is likely that the influence of this “false apostle” had eroded the authority of the leader of the congregation and opened the door for people to do whatever they wanted to do, including many women and that immoral man of I Corinthians chapter 5.

A question left unanswered by II Corinthians has to do with the leading elder of the church there. I speculate in an earlier lesson that I think the leading elder was the father of the young man that committed immoral acts with his stepmother. This cut the knees out from under the leader of the congregation, throwing the door open for all kinds of improper activity in the congregation which Paul had to address in I Corinthians. The unanswered question is this, Did the elder of the church begin to act like a leader once again or not? We are not told. The fact that several things changed in that congregation in the span of time between when those two letters were written seems to imply that something changed in the leadership of the congregation as well. We are not told, so it must not be important. The primary thing is that several key changes did occur in the congregation at Corinth during that time, and yet, just like all of us, there were still things they needed to work on.

Take note of how Paul ended the letter we call II Corinthians by giving special consideration to chapter 13 of that letter.

Paul repeated that he was planning to visit them again. Then he reminded them of the Old Testament requirement about accusations.

Why did he bring that up?  From verses one and two it sounds like Paul was planning on “holding court hearings” among them.

The clause“those who sinned” tells us there were still improper things going on in the church of Corinth, some of which were out-right sin. That phrase is probably referring to people other than the immoral man because he had already been disciplined and had repented. There were others who were guilty of various things that had negatively impacted the congregation who had not yet been confronted about them.

The phrase, “and all the rest” tells us that Paul was holding partially responsible the people who sat by and watched without doing anything while others committed terrible acts. The leadership had not led properly in those days, and Paul intended to hold him or them accountable.

Now let’s look at the clause “if I come to the [same]”. Some translations ignore the word “if” in this verse, but it should not be ignored. The Greek text actually says “if I come to the again”. It seems obvious that something is missing between “the” and “again”; the article is dangling in midair with nothing attached to it. It makes the most sense to add words such as “same situation”, making the clause read, “if I come to the same situation again”. I think Paul wrote it the way he did because there was no need for him to define it or mention details; they knew what he was talking about. This means that if Paul found any of the same situations addressed in the earlier letter we call I Corinthians, some of which he mentioned briefly in II Cor. 12:20 as still being concerns to him, he would deal with them forcefully; he would not go easy on the guilty because that had been done too many times already by the leader of the congregation with nothing good to show for it.

In II Cor 13:10 Paul told them that when he was writing these things to them before going to them so that when he arrived in person, he would not have to use his authority harshly (with severity). He reminded them that his spiritual authority came from God who had given it to him for building up the churches, not to tear them down, and Paul intended to use it as God desired.

He closed this letter a bit differently than most of his other letters that we have in the Bible.

 Even in his closing statement, Paul was still hammering home the themes he had been emphasizing throughout this entire letter. He wanted what was best for them; he was on their side, not against them and they should not be against him. They needed to stop being divided by petty things. Since he already addressed the issue of unity among them, the admonition to “be close” probably means “be close [to me]”. “Have the same mindset” means they needed to become united with a common purpose. “Be at peace” sums it all up succinctly.