2 Corinthians 1:1-11

Jeffry McKean

Sermon • Submitted 9 months ago • Presented 9 months ago

0 ratings

· 1 view

Notes

Transcript

2 Corinthians:

Author

The Pauline authorship of 2 Corinthians is not really contested. He states that he wrote it in two different places in the letter. The contents of the letter are familiar subjects in Paul’s other letters and the writing style is similar to other writings produced by him. Carson also points out, based on one of the major issues expressed in 2 Corinthians, that a copy-cat would hardly portray Paul as being “in danger of losing his authority at Corinth or as a pastor struggling to preserve the infant church there from apostasy” (2358). Pauline authorship is not really disputed here.

Date and Historical Circumstances

Paul’s relationship to the Corinthians is somewhat complex and involves several visits and perhaps even four letters, two of which are no longer extant. We talked about the first two, but now onto the third and fourth. Paul had warned in 1 Corinthians that should they persist in their rebellious ways that he would have to come and have a severe visit with them. Carson and Moo write: “From Paul’s perspective at the time, the ‘painful visit’ was a complete fiasco. At least one of the opponents had attacked him in deeply insulting ways (2 Cor. 2:5-8, 10; 7:12); worse, the work of the gospel was in serious jeopardy” (423). Your textbook notes: “Upon returning to Ephesus, Paul regretfully wrote his sorrowful letter to urge the church to discipline the leader of the opposition (2:1-11; 7:8)” (388). Titus was the one who carried this “severe” letter.

Upon his return he brought (apparently) a positive report concerning the majority of the Corinthians repenting. There remained, however, steady opposition from a vocal minority that was having a detrimental effect on the Christians in Corinth. This group has been identified by some as “Judaizers,” which in today’s scholarly conversation concerns Jewish Christians who went to Gentile Christians and compelled them to undertake the Law as a requirement for entry into God’s people. The problem, however, is that even though this group was certainly Jewish, they were also very well acquainted with the Hellenistic and Roman world in such a way that it is evident that they participated in the social pursuits and mores of the time.

Carson and Moo write: “Thus 2 Corinthians 10–13 presents us with what might almost be called a new kind of Judaizing: a Hellenistic Jewish movement that opposed Paul but was less concerned (so far as we know) with circumcision and with detailed observance of the Mosaic law than with prestige and power in accord with the contemporary values of Corinthian society” (447). So the situation by the time we get to 2 Corinthians has changed in that, though we still see the schisms in part that plagued the situation surrounding first Corinthians, now we also have a church invaded by outsiders who are in opposition to Paul’s apostolic authority. These Jewish opponents even claim to be apostles themselves in their attempt to undermine Paul.

Paul writes to address this situation about a year or so after he wrote 1 Corinthians, putting it around 56 A.D. He is in Macedonia at the time, perhaps (more specifically) Philippi (Wilkinson and Boa 389).

Purpose

Remember when we talk about a NT letter, we should probably not limit ourselves to one reason for writing but accept that an author probably has multiple reasons for writing. The same is the case here. Carson notes several reasons. 1. He writes in order to express some relief that the majority of Corinthians have responded positively to the severe letter and Titus’s delivering of that letter. 2. He writes to encourage the Corinthians to complete the collection that they had promised to send to Jerusalem. 3. He writes to prepare them for his next visit (this would involve their self-examination and self-judging) (ZSB 2359).

Ben Witherington III adds an additional reason for writing that I think is worth while to consider, and it ties in with what Carson stated. Witherington writes: “In 2 Corinthians, then, Paul seeks to reestablish positive contact and a healthy relationship with his Corinthian converts. It was important for him to do so, as we have seen, because he regarded them as his coworkers in the ministry of reconciliation (1:11, 24; 2:5ff.; 6:1). They will have received “God’s grace in vain” if they are estranged from Paul, the one who first mediated that grace to them. They cannot fully be reconcilers unless they are first fully reconciled” (339).

This accounts for the repeated usage of the term παρακαλέω (18 times throughout the letter, 4 times in just the first 7 verses, and the noun is used an additional 11 times throughout the letter and 6 times in the first 7 verses). The term can be translated as either “comfort” or “encouragement” and when used in the sense of “encouragement” it has the connotation of a softened command. In the first chapter the two terms are used in the sense of “comfort” (more on that in a moment), but we’ll see how he uses this to reconcile the Corinthians back to himself. Witherington comments on this, saying: “Obstacles were placed in the way of this reconciliation of the Corinthian Christians to Paul and thus to God by competitors opposing Paul and bidding for the hearts of his converts. In the face of this competition, Paul pulls out all the rhetorical stops in this letter. He begins by referring to paraklēsis as “comfort/encouragement,” rather than making a direct appeal” (339).

2 Cor. 1.1

Jumping into the verses now, the first thing that I would have you note is the manner in which Paul speaks about his apostleship. It is not a position he has taken upon himself or laid hold of by his own achievement, but it is by the will of God that he his an apostle. Now, many commentators will discuss the need for Paul to defend his apostleship, with some even putting that as the main theme. This is an element of the letter, but I want you to see how Paul begins his other letters to see how he discusses his apostleship, and in doing so we’ll see how Paul views his commission. Let’s look at Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:1, and Eph 1:1. The phrase “Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus by means of the will of God” is identical in both 2 Cor 1:1 and Eph 1:1. In this we should see two things: the position of Paul and the initiative of God.

1. Let’s first look at the position of Paul. He is an apostle. The basic concept behind the secular use of the term apostle is “one that is sent with a commission.” He is a messenger, a delegate, or an ambassador who goes in the authority of another. The one who is sent is not bringing forth his own message, but that of the one who sent him. Paul clearly Christianizes the term by linking it to Christ. This is the title Paul most frequently uses of himself (especially in the introductions of his letters), and it speaks volumes of his understanding of his identity. I like what Foulkes says here: “(Using the term “apostle”), speaks of the great privilege, but also of the divine compulsion, of the commission laid upon him. He could not think of himself in relationship to others except in terms of his being sent to all with the gospel” (51).

2. God’s Initiative and Agent: Now Paul is what he is as a direct result of the will of God. There’s a preposition of means here: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by means of (διά) the will of God.” We recognize, having either read Acts or taken the class, that the call given to Paul was actually done through Christ, yet ultimately it was done on account of the will of God. Now, if Paul has attained this apostolic position by means of the will of God, then quite clearly, he did not attain it by means of achievement or merit.

Paul writes this to the “church of God that is at Corinth” (the phrase church of God simply denotes it as being God’s possession). He adds that this letter is being sent also to “all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia. Corinth was the capital of Achaia with about forty settlements surrounding it (Keener 500). It is reasonable to suspect that this letter would be circulated throughout the area.

2 Cor 1.2

The more you study Paul, the more you will see this greeting. This verse is identical to Eph 1.2, Phil 1.2, nearly identical to Gal 1.3, and very similar to Col 1.2. That being said, we are not just going to skip over it because it is worth diving into and considering just how he greets the churches.

In his greeting Paul Christianizes the two greetings of the day, the Gentile and the Jewish greetings. In Greek you would greet someone by saying “χαι̂ρε” (“hail”), and in Hebrew you would say “Shalom” (“peace”). Paul changes the Greek slightly to grace, pointing to the gift of God, the unmerited favor that we have received, and he notes the source of our peace with God and one another “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Think of the depth of this phrase as Paul says “Hello.” “God’s unmerited favor and the cessation of hostility and the blessings thenceforth to you from the source of these blessings, God our Father (with the cultural implications of the Father including how the entire household takes their bearings from the father and how if we all have one father, then we have been incorporated into the same household) and the Lord (which is to equate him with God and denote his lordship and right to rule over his subjects) Jesus Christ.”

2 Cor 1.3

From 3 through 11 we would typically expect to see a thanksgiving portion (as was the convention for letter writing at the time and was typical of Paul), but this time he does not focus on what God has done for and through his audience, but rather on what God has done for and through himself. The reason for this is perhaps the reconciliatory nature of the letter. David Garland writes, concerning this idea and the request for prayer by Paul in verse 11: “The switch from his normal thanksgiving pattern hints that the rift between Paul and everyone in the church has not yet been completely mended. He recognizes that healing after a bitter altercation takes time, and the signs of reconciliation must be expressed in concrete ways. Not until they can offer up prayers and thanksgiving to God for their apostle who experiences abundant sufferings for Christ and abundant comfort will his unshakable hope for them be fulfilled” (54).

This leads us to the παρακαλέω word group that is so often used in this letter (for both “comfort” and “exhortation”). Paul identifies God as the God of all “comfort.” What do you think of when you think of “comfort”? Do you suppose that’s what is in mind here? I have two notes for you on this point.

1. According to the EDNT: “…the biblical sense of consoling (comforting) always connotes an element of the fulfillment of blessing…” Colin Kruse notes that the LXX uses the term in several instances concerning the deliverance of God’s people, and that Luke uses it when the old man Simeon was said to be “looking forward to the consolation (comforting) of Israel” (Luke 2:25). Kruse then writes: “The consolation expected was the deliverance which God would provide through the coming of the Messiah. For Paul, the messianic age had already begun…The final consolation of the children of God awaits the day of the revelation of Jesus Christ in glory. But because the messianic age has been inaugurated by Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, at his first coming, believers experience comfort in the present time as a foretaste of that final consolation” (87). God’s deliverance brings his people comfort.

2. God’s comfort is provided during his people’s suffering in the present. How can the modern notion of comfort be reconciled with this? Does God make us comfortable during our present suffering, turning thorns into pillows, and condemnation into congratulations? I think I agree with Garland that the modern notion of comfort (being comfortable) is not being expressed here, but rather, as he says: “Comfort relates to encouragement, help, exhortation. God’s comfort strengthens weak knees and sustains sagging spirits so that one faces the troubles of life with unbending resolve and unending assurance” (60).

2 Cor 1.4

Verse 4 states that God is the one who comforts us in all our affliction, and he follows this statement up with a “so that” phrase. Please pay attention to the little words and phrases because they make a huge difference. We may ask ourselves: “Why does God comfort us in affliction?” Is it so I may be comfortable? No. It is so that having been comforted by God, I too may go and comfort God’s people. The “so that” marks a Greek preposition of purpose. The purpose for the comforting is “so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” Jowett has an excellent quote concerning this. He writes: “God does not comfort us to make us comfortable but to make us comforters.” Garland adds: “(God’s comfort) is given not just to make us feel better but to bolster us for the task of fortifying others to face suffering” (64). This is exactly what Paul is about to detail further in the following verses.

How does affliction affect your attitude towards God’s comfort? Do you just want the escape? or Do you see it as an opportunity to bolster others?

2 Cor 1.5

Verse 5 identifies the present suffering as a sharing in the sufferings of Christ. There is a connection between Christ and his people that is evident in suffering (far from it being an indication that we are removed from God, it demonstrate an intimacy with Christ should it be Christian suffering). Christ identifies himself with his people, and thus their suffering is said to be his suffering. For instance, in Acts 9:4-5 (which is in the road to Damascus account) we find Jesus saying to Saul: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” and he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” So, the sufferings of Christ abound in us (we are identified in solidarity with him, and he with us).

The notion of abounding calls forth the image of a balance sheet. On the one side he has written “Sufferings of Christ in me” and under this he finds that he has a surplus, which would seem to indicate that this is more than he could bear, but what offsets this surplus? He has a surplus of comfort through Christ as well. If his sufferings are a result of his being identified in Christ, his comfort is wrought by means of Christ. This is the means by which he is able to endure any affliction because he knows that his comfort comes in a surplus from Christ and whether he is delivered from affliction or encouraged in the midst of it (as Kruse points out) he is able to endure it (89).

Does this verse (explained) encourage you? How so?

2 Cor 1.6

Now suffering may seem to be an obstacle to faith, much like getting punched in the face is an obstacle to boxing; though it is an intrinsic part of it, it may still take us by surprise, and in the case of Christian suffering we may ask ourselves: “Why me?” This doesn’t appear to be Paul’s question. In fact, he is intimately aware that his Christian suffering is not without purpose. He did not go to Philippi and receive a beating and think to himself “Why am I doing this?” Instead, this is his line of reasoning in verse 6: “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation.” Notice the outward perspective here. It is not “woe is me,” but rather “I’ll endure this (by the comfort of God) for your sake.” Kruse points out: “Through his preaching ministry, which was accompanied by many sufferings, Paul made it possible for the Corinthians to share in this comfort” (89). Wouldn’t that be a powerful statement of faith and reconciliation? Put yourself in their shoes? Imagine the person who brought you to Christ enduring severe beatings, abandonment, scorn, and shame. Imagine that the last visit you had with him/her went horrible, and then he/she writes these words: “If I am being crushed, it is for your comfort and your salvation.” Would that change things?

The second half of verse 6 reinforces what the Corinthians were told in verse 4. God comforts Paul so that he may comfort others, and this comfort is not to make us comfortable, but to give us the God empowered endurance to endure the sufferings. I like what garland notes here about the term “endure.” It is not a reliance of self, as Plato calls it: “courage that faces difficulties without expecting help or putting one’s confidence in others” (68). Rather, as the term is used in the LXX it signifies an “expectant waiting, intense desire” with that desire being directed towards God. This endurance is not a self-reliance, but a God-reliance. Garland, quoting from Spicq writes: “endurance” is a “constancy in desire that overcomes the trial of waiting, a soul attitude that must struggle to persevere, a waiting that is determined and victorious because it trusts in God” (68).

Does this change your perspective on suffering/comfort/endurance?

2 Cor 1.7

It is somewhat astounding that Paul’s hope concerning these Corinthians remains firm. Reading 1 Corinthians alone might cause us to lose a little hope, but taking onto that the fact that he had a fiasco of a visit with them followed by a sorrowful letter brought to them by Titus may have caused us to just throw up our hands and say: “They’re hopeless.” But, if we notice here, Paul’s hope is not rooted in what they have done or their own ability, but in what God has done and continues to do. His hope remains firm “because he knows that they are sharers of the sufferings (perhaps we could reasonably add to this the assumed “of Christ”), and also the comfort. The sufferings occur because of the solidarity with the sufferings of Christ, and the comfort comes from the God of all comfort.

2 Cor 1.8

In verses 8-10 Paul becomes more specific, in fact, this whole section can be seen as an argument “from the general to the specific.” Verse 8 and 9a demonstrate the “surplus of ‘Sufferings in Christ’” while 9b-10 demonstrate the “surplus of ‘Comfort through Christ’.”

We cannot know for sure exactly what event Paul is referring to here (though some reasonably suggest that he is talking about the Ephesus incident with the silversmiths), but it becomes readily apparent that Paul’s greater concern is to highlight the enormity of the affliction. Garland writes: “In the final analysis we cannot know precisely what affliction Paul had in mind because he does not tell us. He only describes its severity. The string of superlatives conveys the intensity of his suffering. It was something that left his life hanging by a thread” (77). Verse 8 highlights how the situation was “beyond their power/ability.” If it depended upon them, they were toast, and they recognized that their very lives hung in the balance (Kruse has a good explanation for the phrase “in ourselves we have received the sentence of death” as conveying a subjective conclusion rather than a formal death sentence).

2 Cor 1.9

But these took place “so that we may not put our trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead.” Here is a specific example of that God-reliance endurance we just noted. Endurance cannot be fixed in ourselves, but must be rooted in God. It is not self-reliant, but God-reliant. While the phrase “God who raises the dead” is familiar in Jewish literature of the time (think of Paul discussion of Abraham in Romans) it clearly takes a more Christ centered focus in the Pauline literature. In Gal 1.1 Paul says: “Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” In Col 2.12 he states: “when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” The Christian life is lived in the resurrection power of God, and whatever took place in Asia, it served to increase Paul’s reliance upon God and to recognize who he is to an even greater extent.

2 Cor 1.10

Remember as we were discussing “comfort” initially that in the Biblical usage of it (esp. in the OT) it carries with it an element of a fulfillment of blessing, and more specifically with an eye towards God’s deliverance, for God’s deliverance brings his people comfort. Well what do we have here in verse 10? Deliverance. See how Paul spoke from the general to the specific. Now having detailed the “surplus of Sufferings in Christ” he has gone on to detail the “surplus of Comfort through Christ” with the express purpose of comforting (bolstering the Corinthians to endure through God). Verse 10 is no intangible or mere wishful thinking declaration either. It’s “God has delivered us from this physical and real peril, and he will do it again.” There will come a point in his travels where God will make it abundantly clear to Paul that he must go to Rome, but the road there would require great suffering. Well, having been delivered once, his comfort abounds and his God-reliance persists through the afflictions.

2 Cor 1.11

This verse encourage cooperation and appreciation. The cooperation is between Paul (together with Timothy) and the Corinthians. We can easily see how the reconciliation that Paul desires is being brought to bear upon the Corinthians. I suffer for you. I am comforted for you. Pray with me. The result is that “many faces with give thanks on our behalf for the gracious gift given to us.” Notice that the cooperation that Paul is calling for is not for his benefit, but to the praise of God, and this with a heart of thanksgiving for what he has done for Paul and his travel companions.

Related Media

Related Sermons