BIG IDEA:
A CHANGE OF PLANS DOES NOT NECESSARILY COMPROMISE ONE’S SINCERITY AND COMMITMENT
INTRODUCTION:
Charles Swindoll: Because of the turmoil in Corinth caused by the schisms, insubordination, and tolerance of immorality, Paul had written 1 Corinthians. Their response to that letter had been partly positive, but not completely. Pockets of resistance still remained. After receiving news that the church still had not fully repented of their disorder and disobedience, Paul had written an additional letter (2:4) —a blistering one, probably following up on the incestuous relationship denounced in 1 Corinthians 5:1-8. In any case, Paul wanted to wait for their reaction to that letter rather than arrive on its heels as if he were reinforcing his mandates with a personal visit to “crack heads” like a harsh and vengeful taskmaster. He wanted to wait until the matter was resolved and the church was restored to love, joy, and peace. His words are those of a loving shepherd, not an angry, self-serving tyrant.
Frank Matera: The first part of the unit (vv. 15–17) raises the issue of Paul’s altered travel plans concluding with two rhetorical questions about his integrity (v. 17). The second part (vv. 18–22) anchors Paul’s faithfulness in the faithfulness of God and Jesus Christ and is related to the first part by the words “yes” (nai) and “no” (ou), which are present in both parts. The opening verse of the second part (v. 18) acts as a transitional statement and affirms that as God is reliable, so is Paul’s word. In verses 19–20 Paul turns to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to undergird his integrity, and then in verses 21–22 he returns to God, whom he describes with four participles, translated as “sustaining,” “anointed,” “sealed,” and “given.” Thus Paul surrounds the central verses that deal with Christ (vv. 19–20) with two descriptions of God (vv. 18 and 22). In this way he grounds his apostolic integrity in the faithfulness of God and his Son, Jesus Christ.
John MacArthur: Second Corinthians is Paul’s defense of his genuineness and spiritual integrity against the false apostles’ slanderous attacks. In 1:12–14, he gave a general defense of his personal righteousness, appealing to the highest court in the human realm, his own conscience. As noted in the previous chapter of this volume, the apostle’s conscience exonerated him of all the false charges leveled against him. His personal life, relationships with others, and ministry were all above reproach. After that general response, Paul replied in 1:15 – 2:4 to the specific charge that he was not trustworthy. The false apostles claimed that Paul did not always speak the truth, but was unfaithful, fickle, and vacillating. They supported that trumped-up charge with the flimsiest, most trivial evidence: a change in Paul’s travel plans.
Instead of merely explaining why he made that change in plans, Paul dealt with the deeper issue of his integrity and truthfulness. Rather than engage in a battle of details, of specific charges and countercharges, he elevated the discussion to the motives and attitudes of his heart. By so doing, he provided a priceless look at a noble man of God. As this text unfolds, it reveals seven attitudes that were the benchmarks of his spiritual character: loyalty, honesty, reliability, authenticity, sensitivity, purity, and love.
David Garland: Paul’s changes in his travel plans and repeated failures to visit Corinth have cast suspicions on the sincerity of his love for them. He is the ever-absent father. Consequently, he seeks to lay the matter to rest in these verses. In 1 Cor 16:5–9 he told them that he would come to them after he went through Macedonia and perhaps even spend the winter with them. He specifically says that he did not want to make only a passing visit but to spend time with them. Because a “great door for effective work” had opened for him in Ephesus, he intended to stay there until Pentecost. He does qualify his own announced plans by saying “if the Lord allows” (1 Cor 16:7). As for the collection for the saints in Judea, he told them to put aside something every week and save whatever extra they earn so that he need not take up an offering when he comes (1 Cor 16:1–3). He did not plan to go to Jerusalem himself since he tells the Corinthians he will send letters of recommendation for any whom they approve to take the gift (1 Cor 16:3). He then writes that he expects them to send him on his way “wherever I go” (1 Cor 16:6), which entails assisting in making a journey possible by providing escorts, food, money, or means of travel. Meanwhile, Paul sent Timothy to visit them. If the verb in 1 Cor 4:17 is an epistolary aorist, which is most likely, then Timothy delivered 1 Corinthians. Paul’s interesting request — “see that he has nothing to fear while with you, because he is doing the Lord’s work, just as I am. So let no one look down on him. Send him on his way in peace so that he can come to me, because I am expecting him with the brothers” (1 Cor 16:10–11) — suggests that he had some forebodings about their reception of him.
For some unknown reason, Paul modified his original plan and made a crisis visit to Corinth (1:15–16). Timothy, who had since returned to Ephesus, may have relayed that the situation had taken a turn for the worse. Paul cut short this emergency visit because of a painful confrontation with someone (2:1). The super-apostles may already have begun their meddling in the church, but the defining event was the abuse poured upon him by someone in the congregation. Less likely, it was someone from outside the congregation. His pain became intensified when the church either supported this individual or stood by silently and did not come to his defense (2:5; 7:12). The dispute does not seem to be over some theological deviation (see 1:24) but over some affront directed either at Paul’s person, ministry style, attempted discipline, or all of the above (see 7:12). Acts is silent about this painful visit (Acts 18:1–7; 20:3) and presents a congenial relationship between the Corinthian church and Paul. Paul’s letters, however, show that his relationship with the church had some troubled moments.
This unpleasant event forced Paul to make “a passing visit,” something he said he wanted to avoid (1 Cor 16:7). Paul withdrew as suddenly as he appeared, vexed and humiliated, and he did not return (1:23). Sometimes retreating is better than staying and fighting. By withdrawing, Paul sought to defuse an explosive situation and let things cool down. He did not want to risk another rebuff and have his authority undermined further. This visit to Corinth exacerbated rather than corrected the problem, and he decided that a return visit so soon after this embarrassing showdown would do little good. Unlike some leaders who try to hide their insecurity behind a blustering facade that projects their mastery of everyone and every situation, Paul is not afraid to let his frailty show. Even now, in this letter, he is apprehensive about returning to Corinth and openly shares his uneasiness with them: “I fear that when I come my God will again humiliate me in your presence, and I will grieve for many who sinned before and have not repented of the moral impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality they practiced” (12:21). He confesses that he is not sure how to manage the situation since this person’s posture toward him poisoned his relationship with the Corinthians.
Paul wrote the sorrowful letter, now lost (2:1–4), and dispatched Titus, not Timothy, to deliver it (see 1 Thess 3:1–3) rather than return himself to Corinth. Titus was an uncircumcised Greek (Gal 2:1–3) and may have been harder to intimidate than Timothy, or he may have possessed tougher skin and therefore was better suited to deal with stubborn opposition. The disaffected faction may have been only a small minority, but Paul wanted to test the obedience of the entire congregation to see if they would take it upon themselves to discipline the individual (2:9).
Paul had since gone to Troas and did not find Titus there as he expected. He was too preoccupied with worry about what was happening in Corinth to take advantage of another opened door for evangelism (2:12–13). Consequently, he headed on to Macedonia (2:12). The events in Corinth still burdened him (7:5) as he waited anxiously for Titus’s status report (2:13–14). When Titus finally arrived in Macedonia, Paul rejoiced over the good news that confirmed his confidence in them. The sorrowful letter released some of the tension by heightening it, that is, by confronting the issues directly (7:5–6).
Paul, however, had not won over the whole congregation (see 7:6–13). Pockets of resistance still existed. Members meeting perhaps in different house churches continued to oppose Paul and to champion the super-apostles. Nevertheless, Paul believed matters had been sufficiently settled for him to plan another visit. Second Corinthians was written to prepare for this next visit (see Acts 20:2). Paul sent Titus on ahead with this letter to solidify the support for him and to stimulate their preparations for the collection (8:1–7; 9:1–4). His return prompted this letter.
I. (1:15-16) PAUL MADE PLANS TO VISIT CORINTH
Frank Matera: In verses 15–17, then, Paul explains that the purpose of the revised travel plans was to provide the Corinthians with “a second grace” (deuteran charin), by which he means the favor of a second visit during which he would undoubtedly strengthen and encourage them in their faith (though Martin takes the phrase to mean a second opportunity for the Corinthians to be gracious to Paul). In effect, Paul is implying that he intended to extend to the Corinthians a special favor that he did not grant the churches of Macedonia, a double visit, thereby dispelling any suggestion that he was neglecting them (see Barrett, 75).
A. (:15a) Good Intentions
“And in this confidence I intended at first to come to you”
Colin Kruse: Paul’s confidence that the Corinthians will be proud of their apostle was the reason he made his plans to visit them.
Robert Hughes: “At first” (1:15), as presented in an earlier itinerary, Paul would have visited them twice, which he knew (in his confidence of their good relationship) would be a mutual blessing. But the great troubles in Corinth and his sorrowful visit had put an end to those hopes. Paul had to stay away in order to spare them his severe discipline. But some, interpreting his change as a fleshly vacillation, had questioned his intentions; did Paul stay away because he disliked them?
B. (:15b-16) Mutual Benefit
- Paul Blessing the Corinthians
“that you might twice receive a blessing.”
Ralph Martin: δευτέραν χάριν is variously rendered “benefit” (KJV/AV, RV, NEB, NIV, Menzies, Goudge, Denney, P. E. Hughes), a second “kindness” (Barrett), “a second opportunity for rejoicing” (Héring), “double delight” (Moffat), “second sign of his esteem” (Allo), “a second proof of my goodwill” (BAGD). Our translation follows Fee (“a double opportunity for kindness”), with a variation.
a. On the Way to Macedonia
“that is, to pass your way into Macedonia”
b. On the Return Trip Back from Macedonia
“and again from Macedonia to come to you”
- Paul Receiving Blessing From the Corinthians
“and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea”
II. (1:17-22) HE MADE THESE PLANS WITH FULL INTEGRITY OF COMMITMENT
— the commitment which characterizes God, who fulfills all His promises
Frank Matera: Instead of providing the Corinthians with the kind of practical excuse that they might have expected, Paul establishes his apostolic integrity on a firm foundation that cannot be assailed: the faithfulness of God and of God’s Son.
A. (:17-18) Paul’s Word of Commitment Corresponds to the Faithfulness of God
- No Problem of Indecision
“Therefore, I was not vacillating when I intended to do this, was I?”
Ralph Martin: The allegation of vacillation—blowing hot and cold at the same time—arose directly out of a reneging of Paul’s travel promises (vv 15–16).
John MacArthur: Paul was not fickle. His circumstances changed but not his heart attitude. Here Paul affirms that he is loyal to his flock. He would always do whatever he could for their spiritual benefit, as the Corinthians had ample evidence to prove.
- No Problem of Contradiction
“Or that which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with
me there should be yes, yes and no, no at the same time?”
Mark Seifrid: Paul denies that he plans “according to the flesh.” To think, act, or speak “according to the flesh” is to do so on the basis of the powers, abilities, and inclinations of the fallen human being. As becomes apparent in this letter, to so think and act is to operate on the basis of that which is outward and perceptible. Living “according to the flesh” inevitably comes to entail duplicity and hypocrisy: appearances are used to hide our self-seeking lives.
- True to His Word
“But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no.”
Richard Pratt: Paul began his response to the charge of duplicity with an oath: as surely as God is faithful. The charges against him appeared so serious that Paul felt the need to authenticate his claims as strongly as possible. His oath before God witnessed to his truthfulness and integrity.
Paul used a type of argument common among Jewish rabbis in his day. He argued from a greater matter to a less important matter. He called the Corinthians to evaluate the accusation of duplicity in a small matter (his delayed visit) in light of his integrity in a great matter (preaching the gospel). Since he had maintained integrity in the greater matter, his integrity in the smaller matter should not have been questioned.
Philip Hughes: Paul finds it incredible that any at Corinth could really have thought that a change in plan pointed to a change in character.
David Garland: Since God is faithful (1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; see 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; see also Heb 10:23; 1 John 1:9), and God has commissioned him to preach the gospel, his message from God is faithful and his actions to proclaim that message are also faithful. God’s faithfulness stands behind those commissioned to preach Christ (see 3:4–6). That word is unequivocal and does not fluctuate with the market or change with the tide.
Unreliable, capricious, and impetuous ministers can lead others to regard the gospel they preach as untrustworthy and not worth thoughtful consideration. Paul argues that the Corinthians know the gospel he preached to be trustworthy, and that attests to his trustworthiness. Without saying so explicitly, he insinuates that he failed to come as announced because God overruled his plans. They should infer that God prevented his coming as planned because it was for their greater good.
B. (:19-20) Christ Models the Integrity of Commitment
- (:19) Christ is the Ultimate Standard for Integrity of Commitment
“For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us –
by me and Silvanus and Timothy – was not yes and no,
but is yes in Him.”
No vacillation / no Indecision / no Confusion / no Contradiction
Philip Hughes: 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 forever. The veracity of the Christ, by faith in whom, in accordance with the word of God, their lives had been completely transformed, was evidence conclusive to them of the veracity of him who had endured so much in order to bring the message to them.
- (:20) Christ Fulfills All of God’s Promises
“For as many as may be the promises of God, in Him they are yes;
wherefore also by Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.”
Anthony Thiselton: Why is Paul so emphatic about God’s “yes” and his faithfulness or constancy? From the Corinthians’ viewpoint, Paul’s saying that he had to do what God wanted might seem to shift the blame for inconstancy from him to God. He is therefore all the more eager to stress God’s constancy. Further, God’s promises especially to Israel receive confirmation through Christ. Jesus Christ is the “yes” that fulfils these promises (v. 20).
Scott Hafemann: Paul’s open-ended description in verse 20 of these promises (“no matter how many promises God has made”) reflects his conviction that Jesus is both the midpoint and climax of redemptive history. There is no event in Israel’s history or promise granted to God’s people that does not find its significance or fulfillment in Christ. God’s unchanging commitment to pour out his grace toward his people by meeting their needs reached its climax in the sending of Christ for their sins (cf. 5:21). So too God’s promise to deliver his people from sin and evil, the ultimate fulfillment of which is their resurrection from the dead, also takes place in Christ (cf. 4:14). And God’s intention to judge the world is likewise brought about by Christ (cf. 5:10). Hence, God’s apparent change of plans in first sending Christ to the cross (cf. Mark 10:45) before he comes to judge (cf. 1:14; 5:10) was, in reality, a consistent fulfillment of his promises to bless the nations (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 3:21–26; 4:11; Gal. 3:13–14).
The unexpected nature of Christ’s first coming was, in reality, the unfolding of God’s overarching plan and promise to pour out his grace on his people. Similarly, Paul’s commitment in Christ to meet the needs of the Corinthians led him to change his plans in order that they might experience God’s grace or “benefit” as much as possible (not once, but twice). In other words, because Paul’s intention remained the same, his plans changed! Paul utters his agreement (his “amen”) to what God has done in Christ (i.e., meet their needs), not only in word by preaching the gospel, but also in deed by acting like Christ himself toward the Corinthians.
David Garland: The implication is that if they affirm that the message about Christ is trustworthy, then they should also be able to affirm that the messengers are trustworthy. How can they say yes to God while saying no to God’s apostle? Since they believed God endorsed the trustworthiness of the messengers in the proclamation of the gospel, then God will also vouch for their trustworthiness in the less serious business of making travel plans.
C. (:21-22) The Rest of the Godhead Ensures the Integrity of our Commitment
- (:21) God the Father Ensures the Integrity of our Commitment
“Now He who established us with you in Christ and anointed us is God.”
Richard Pratt: God made them all stand firm in Christ. “Stand firm” (bebaioo ) describes believers’ faithful devotion to Christ. Instead of letting them waver or stumble, God had empowered Paul and the Corinthians to remain committed to Christ. The perseverance of those who were taught by Paul indicated God’s blessing and validated Paul’s ministry.
John MacArthur: As important as they were, Paul’s ultimate claim to integrity and authenticity as God’s messenger and Christ’s apostle was not his loyalty, honesty, reliability or any other personal feature; it was what God had done in his life
- (:22) God the Spirit Ensures the Integrity of our Commitment
“who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.”
Charles Swindoll: The Greek word for “sealed” is sphragizō [4972]. The middle voice of the verb, used here, carries the sense that the Holy Spirit sealed us for Himself. Commentator C. K. Barrett gives us a little background on the meaning of the “seal” in the ancient world: “The seal, given and preserved intact, was proof that a document had not been falsified, or goods tampered with in transit. It was also a mark of ownership; and the Christian, sealed . . . with the Spirit, was both visibly marked out as God’s property, and secured ready to meet examination at the day of judgment.”
Though the promises of God were set in stone and irrevocable, the Corinthians should have held Paul’s own hoped-for plans as tentative, subject entirely to the will of God. Instead they had misunderstood his intention as a promise, an error that opened the door to the unfounded charge of fickle vacillation.
Thrall: Summary: The essential points in 21b–22 are therefore these. Paul answers his readers that God has “anointed” them (with himself and his associates) as members of the messianic community destined to reign with Christ, and that he has “sealed” them as belonging to his chosen people. Hence they are heirs, all of them, to the divine promises which find their fulfilment in Christ (v 20). In the gift of the Spirit, moreover, they have received the first instalment of the promised salvation which will be consummated at the Parousia.
Robert Hughes: The Spirit was God’s bond between Paul and the Corinthians and also His confirmation of Paul’s divine approval. The charge of fleshly action brought that bond and approval under suspicion. The Corinthians needed to share in God’s suffering and comfort (1:3-11) and to affirm His faithfulness in the Spirit (1:21-22). They were to reaffirm God’s faithfulness in the gospel and in Paul’s decision-making process, lest their faith in the gospel fall along with their disillusionment with Paul. The issue was indeed that serious (see 11:3-4).
III. (1:23 – 2:4) HE CHOSE TO CHANGE HIS PLANS – TO SPARE THEM APOSTOLIC DISCIPLINE
George Shillington: With his broad defense now in place, Paul can proceed to answer the specific charges against him and seek reconciliation between himself and his converts at Corinth. He acknowledges two facts for which he is held responsible and advances a motive for each of them. The first fact is that he did not visit Corinth as he had planned initially. The reason was to spare them pain. The second fact is that he wrote a painful letter, because he loved them and wanted to rekindle joy between himself and them. . .
The fact-motive structure of this text is as follows:
Motive—to spare you. (1:23)
Fact—I did not come again to Corinth. (1:23)
Elaboration—I do not mean. (1:24 – 2:2)
Fact—I wrote to you as I did. (2:3a)
Motive—so that I might not suffer pain. (2:3a)
Elaboration—for I am confident about all of you. (2:3b-4)
A. (1:23 – 2:2) Apostolic Discipline would be Painful for the Corinthians and for Paul
- (:23-24) Apostolic Discipline would be Painful for the Corinthians
a. (:23) Motive of Mercy (in not coming to discipline)
“But I call God as witness to my soul,
that to spare you I came no more to Corinth.”
David Garland: He does not spell out what he wanted to spare them from, but we can safely assume he has in mind severe chastisement. His reasons for not returning had nothing to do with any wavering in his purpose or fear of being humiliated again. He wanted to spare them from being humiliated and the severe discipline that might forever alienate them from him and even from the faith.
b. (:24) Humility of Mutuality (rather than leadership by lordship)
“Not that we lord it over your faith,
but are workers with you for your joy;
for in your faith you are standing firm.”
John MacArthur: Paul never abused his apostolic authority to gain prestige or power, or to further his own selfish aims. His goal, even in disciplining the unruly Corinthians, was the joy that holiness would bring them.
Eric Mason: “Lord it over” leadership seeks to control people. “Lord it over” leadership controls people because they don’t trust the Lord. Let me give you this for free: if any leader in a church tries to control every decision you make in your life, they are wrong. You don’t prepare grownups by doing everything for them. “Lord it over” leadership wants to control people and outcomes for their own purposes, but a decisive disciple maker gives you room to fail. Paul refused to lord it over them.
Raymond Collins: Rather than domineering and lording over the Corinthians, the evangelists want to be coworkers (synergoi) with them. Paul is determined that the Corinthians understand the nature of their relationship. Rather than standing over the Corinthians as their bosses, Paul and his companions stand in a horizontal relationship with them. More often than not, when Paul uses “work” in its various forms (from the root erg-), he is referring to the work of the gospel. This is especially the case when he compounds the use of the root with syn, “with.” The Corinthians are united with Paul and the other missionaries in the proclamation of the gospel, the fruit of which is joy.
- (2:1-2) Apostolic Discipline would be Painful for Paul
a. (:1) Discipline is an Occasion for Sorrow
“But I determined this for my own sake,
that I would not come to you in sorrow again.”
Richard Pratt: The pain of rebuke is necessary at times in Christian relationships but not always appropriate, even when sin and error persist in the church. Paul practiced what he told the Colossians: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Col. 4:6).
David Garland: The greatest pain for Paul was not caused by their treatment of him but by their failure to live according to their Christian calling and deserting the true gospel of the cross and resurrection for a false, but more glittering, gospel of success dispensed by false apostles.
b. (:2) The Sorrow is Mutual
“For if I cause you sorrow,
who then makes me glad but the one whom I made sorrowful?”
Frank Matera: The mention of joy provides Paul with a transition to the second part of the unit (2:1–4), in which he employs the dialectic of rejoicing and sadness to describe his unique relationship to the community. Since the Corinthians are his dear children and he is their founding father (1 Cor 4:14–15), there should be a mutual exchange of joy between the community and its apostle, and this is what Paul hoped his apostolic visit would effect. Since his second visit to Corinth resulted in grief for him and the community, however, he decided against making the promised return visit to Corinth, lest grief be added to grief. After all, if the apostle saddened his children by a further visit, how could they—saddened by him—give him joy? Consequently, instead of visiting them again, Paul returned to Ephesus and wrote a letter out of “a sense of great affliction and anguish of heart, with many tears.” The reference to “affliction” (thlipsis) recalls what Paul has already written about this topic in his benediction. But there is no mention of godly consolation, which must wait until Titus’s report (7:6).
David Garland: If he adds to the sadness with another acrimonious clash, the problems between them would only deepen. The result would produce the exact opposite of joy. Paul’s solution for resolving the situation was to write a painful letter of rebuke instead of confronting them face-to-face.
B. (2:3-4) Loving Pastoral Exhortation Points the Way Towards Joy Instead of Sorrow
(By giving them time to deal with their problems, Paul could make a joyful visit)
- (:3) Pastoral Exhortation Based on Confidence of Follow Through
“And this is the very thing I wrote you, lest, when I came,
I should have sorrow from those who ought to make me rejoice;
having confidence in you all that my joy would be the joy of you all.”
Scott Hafemann: Paul had the confidence that his mercy toward the Corinthians would have its desired result: The Corinthians would repent and once again share Paul’s joy in Christ (2:3b). The very existence of 2 Corinthians is itself testimony to the fact that Paul’s confidence, if not fully realized (note his emphasis on “all of you” in 2:3), was not misplaced. Paul’s love for the Corinthians, expressed in the severe warnings and calls to repentance of his previous letter (2:4), was the instrument God used to bring the majority of the Corinthians back to Paul (cf. 7:8–12). Paul’s hope is that his present letter will do the same for the rest (cf. 13:5–7).
- (:4) Pastoral Exhortation Flowing out of a Concerned Heart of Love
“For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with
many tears; not that you should be made sorrowful,
but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.”
Philip Hughes: Genuine love always experiences profound grief when it perceives those who are loved falling into error and disloyalty; it always manifests itself in deep concern for their best and highest interests. By writing, rather than immediately coming to them in person with a rod, he lovingly afforded them an opportunity for self-examination, repentance, and reformation.
David Garland: Paul is not stoical about the pain the dispute caused him. He does not try to hide his emotion but boldly expresses it. He had felt deeply their affection for him, and the apparent withdrawal of that affection had deeply wounded him. He wrote from great psychological anguish and through many tears. It was not simply personal hurt that caused the tears. He wept over those who were ethically impure (Phil 3:18) and over those who had veered from God’s will.
Discipline is never painless for the one who delivers it or the one who receives it. Calvin points out that godly pastors weep within themselves before making others weep. Paul is neither ironhearted nor ironhanded. His love for them motivated his actions entirely. If they were grieved, he leaves no doubt that he was grieved more.
Paul insists that the grief he caused them was the surest sign of his love. He gives them direction and rebukes them as a loving father would (see also 7:8–10; 10:6; 1 Cor 4:14–16, 21). In the Jewish tradition about paternal discipline, chastisement is proof of love.
Robert Gromacki: The usage of the two words of emotion plus the adjective “much” reveal that the apostle was not cold and heartless. Rather, the source . . . of the epistle was a compassionate, loving concern.
John MacArthur: The lying teachers were dead wrong about Paul. He was not an untrustworthy deceiver, and to take a trivial issue and attempt to use it to discredit his ministry was reprehensible. As he examined his heart honestly before God, Paul found loyalty, honesty, reliability, authenticity, sensitivity, purity, and love—the traits that mark all godly pastors.
* * * * * * * * * *
PREACHING CHRIST:
1) The Body of Christ has been designed to function in such a way that every time we are together corporately there is the expectation of mutual blessing – both the giving and receiving of blessing. This is due to our interdependency on what role each member in the body contributes. Christ as the Head of His body orchestrates the flow of these blessings.
2) Verse 19 shows that Christ Jesus as the Son of God was the focus of all of Paul’s preaching along with that of the other apostles and their delegates.
3) Christ is the ultimate standard for integrity of commitment.
4) All of the precious promises of God find their fulfillment in Christ who demonstrates the faithfulness of God to keep His Word.