But why then did he not use the verb ‘save’ instead of ‘deliver’? The answer is because in context he is thinking of salvation in terms of deliverance from the enemies consisting of final death and Satan (1 Corinthians 15.25-26; Hebrews 2.14-15), not salvation from sin. Compare again Colossians 1.13; 1 Thessalonians 1.10.

Thus we may see verse 10 as a triumphant expansion on the thought of ‘God Who raises the dead’.

He Declares That He Has Been Faithful To Them And To All (1.12-14)

1.12 ‘For our glorying is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we behaved ourselves in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.’

Having established the fact of God’s great saving activity, and in return for their faithful prayers (verse 11), he now wants them to be confident about the concern that he has for them. From a true conscience he ‘glories’ in how he has behaved towards the world, and especially ‘more abundantly’ towards them, in holiness and sincerity/purity of motive, a sincerity/purity of motive which he has put to the test before God and about which he has received clearance (‘of God’). And also in the grace of God rather than in fleshly wisdom. He is already indirectly rebutting the charge of fickleness found in verse 17, of ulterior motives (see 2.17; 4.2) and of dishonesty (8.20; 12.14).

He wants them to know that he has carefully examined his conscience, and that it is absolutely clear. He has no doubts that the grace of God is at work through him, so that he acts through God’s wisdom and not his own, and that what he is doing is being done in holiness and sincerity, as one totally set apart to God and one who is genuine through and through. (Let them recognise this and ask if the same is true of his opponents). Would that we all did the same.

Note the contrast between ‘fleshly-wisdom’ and ‘divine-grace’ (grace of God). Paul is borne along, not by some doubtful ‘wisdom’ which is really of the flesh (a hit at his opponents, compare 1 Corinthians 1.17; 2.4, 13), but by the unmerited favour and activity of the living God, which is ‘of God’.

1.13-14 ‘For we write no other things to you than what you read (anaginosko) or even understand (epignosko), and I hope you will understand (epiginosko) to the end (or ‘completely’), as also you understood (epiginosko) us in part, that we are your glorying, even as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus.’

(epiginosko can mean - ‘apprehend and acknowledge, receive fully as true, have spiritual knowledge’). He speaks here partly against the charge that what he is like when he is with them is very different from how he is when he writes to them (10.1, 10).

What he has written, he stresses, means exactly what they are reading and apprehending, nothing more nor less. And he hopes that they will eventually understand completely, (or will understand to the end), what they at present apprehend from it partially. That is that Paul is the one in whom they will be glorying in the day of the Lord Jesus because they owe to him their knowledge of the truth, the message of salvation that they received, just as he will be glorying in them because of what the Gospel has accomplished in them. Furthermore they will be glorying because they will recognise that he brought it to them in sincerity and truth (just as he was glorying in verse 12 in his own sincerity and genuineness in taking it).

In other words he wants them to know that his written words have no hidden meaning, no duplicity, no hidden agenda. They do not have to read between the lines. What he has written down is precisely what he means, in spite of what some tell them. (This may in fact suggest that his opponents just could not understand his teaching). And that is why they will discover in the day of the Lord Jesus that their glorying will be in Paul and his fellow-workers, because they will recognise in that day, when all truth is revealed, that it was he who brought them the genuine truth sincerely and honestly and openly, and that Paul’s glorying will be in them because of what they will prove to be as a result of genuinely hearing his words. Thus they will know then that Paul was a genuine Apostle and that he brought them Apostolic truth, and he will know that they are genuine believers because they responded to that truth.

It need hardly be said that this is the standard by which all who would serve God must constantly test themselves.

‘In the day of our Lord Jesus.’ This is the day when Jesus Christ as Lord will Himself finalise His purposes on behalf of His people. In that day, ‘the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’, those whom Christ has confirmed to the end will be presented to God blameless and unreproveable (1 Corinthians 1.8). It is the day when the spirit of those who are His will be saved in the ‘day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Corinthians 5.5). It is the day when Paul hopes to have something to glory of ‘in the day of Christ’ (Philippians 2.16). It is the day when they will finally be delivered from the power of death (verse 10). Thus it can be linked with the judgment seat (bema - tribunal) of God as referred to in Romans 14.10-12, or of Christ in 2 Corinthians 5.10, when all that a Christian has done will be tested for its worth, whether it be good or bad, especially his ministry for Christ (1 Corinthians 3.10-15), and everything will be laid bare, even the hidden things of darkness and the counsels of the heart, so that each might receive praise for what he has done which is worthy of such praise (1 Corinthians 4.5).

What glory will be ours when our accomplishments in His name and through His Spirit come out into the light. What shame will be ours when the shoddy work which results from our carelessness and unspirituality sees the light of day, and is despatched into the fire. And we will be the first to cry, ‘burn it up, it is not worthy’.

He Explains That The Change of Plans He Made Was Not Due To Fickleness

1.15-16 ‘And in this confidence I was minded to come first to you, that you might have a second benefit, and by you to pass into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and of you to be set forward on my journey to Judea.’

It was because of his confidence in his message, and in their readiness to receive it, that originally he had intended to come to them before going to Macedonia, so that they might have the benefit (charis - something resulting from God’s grace) of a second visit. And then after going to Macedonia to return to them for a third visit, prior to going to Judea (among other things with the collection money for the poor in Judea - 1 Corinthians 16.1). Why then did he not do so?

In verse 23 he will tell them that it was in fact to spare them in the light of what he would have to say as a result of the way they had treated him. But first he feels that he must establish the question of fickleness theologically. He is shocked to think that they might see him, the bearer of the true Gospel, as fickle. Fickleness, he wants them to know, is in fact a stranger to him (as it should be to us) because of Whom he serves. For central to being a servant of God is to be reliable. Although he will then point out that, for those who serve God, their plans must always be thoughtfully carried through and be subject to His will.

‘Of you to be set forward.’ The verb indicates that they were to arrange his journey to Judea, sending companions with him to carry ‘the collection’ for the poor in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16.1), and making all provision for those who went with him. Acts 20.2-4 may suggest that this never happened, but Luke is not necessarily being exhaustive there about who accompanied Paul.

1.17 ‘When I therefore was so minded, did I show fickleness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the yes, yes, and the no, no?’

Was then his failure to visit them in the way that he had promised due to ‘the fickleness’ (i.e. ‘the fickleness of which I am accused’)? Or was it because he made his decisions from his own selfish point of view (according to the flesh)? Is he the kind of person who keeps changing his mind saying ‘yes, yes’ and then ‘no, no’? The answer will now be a resounding ‘no’.

1.18-20 ‘But as God is faithful, our word toward you is not yes and no. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yes and no, but in him is yes. For however many be the promises of God, in him is the yes, wherefore also through him is the Amen, to the glory of God through us.’

He denies utterly the suggestion that he is negative or fickle by pointing to the faithfulness of the God, with Whose word he comes and Whom he seeks to be like, and Who came in Jesus with a positive message, not one that was ‘yes’ and ‘no’, but that was ‘yes, yes’ and ‘Amen’. This then brings out the positiveness of Jesus, Whom Paul preached among them. He too was not ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

This is said not just in order to vindicate himself, but to vindicate the very message that he preaches. As certainly as God is faithful, so is his word faithful to them and not ‘yes’ and ‘no’, for he serves the faithful God (Deuteronomy 7.9; Isaiah 49.7) and brings His word. And just as certainly did God’s Son Jesus also have this faithfulness and this certainty, in that in Him also was ‘yes’. And he was preached by Paul, Silas and Timothy, so that they too were involved in His ‘yes’, and He was preached among them so that they might have experience of the power of Christ at work through Paul.

For however many were the promises of God, God’s Son Jesus Christ said ‘yes’ to them all. The whole of the Old Testament carried His backing. He was totally faithful to the promises of God, and confirmed that they would be fulfilled (see Matthew 5.18). So there is no failure in the faithfulness of God, or in His promises, or in Jesus Christ His Son. Nor would there be in those who proclaimed Him in power.

‘Wherefore also through him is the Amen, to the glory of God through us.’ So through God’s Son Jesus Christ everything that Paul proclaims (‘through us’), based as it is on His word, receives His ‘Amen’. It has His guarantee. It is sure and certain, thus bringing glory to God. And that is why the church can say ‘Amen’ to it all. Indeed in Revelation John can say that Jesus is ‘the Amen’ as the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3.14). And that faithful and true witness is confirmed in His servants who proclaim His truth, who themselves proclaim the faithfulness of God, by the power revealed through them, such power that the testimony of Christ was confirmed in those who heard (1 Corinthians 1.6; 2.4). For he and his fellow-workers are so closely connected with God and with Christ that they cannot be but faithful. They are imitators of God and of Christ, from whom they receive their power in their ministry.

‘Our word towards you is not yes and no.’ For their word is the word of the faithful God, it is the word of God’s Son Jesus Christ, to Whom all was ‘yes’, with Whom there is no ‘no’. And this word will be reflected in all the words they speak, whether in preaching or in promises. Thus there can be no fickleness in them.

For however many promises of God there are, God’s Son Jesus Christ says ‘yes’ to them all. And in the same way when He is acting through them it is with the ‘Amen’, to the glory of God. For they come in Christ’s name under Christ’s lordship, and through Him there can only be ‘Amen’ (let it be so) in the things of God.

‘Who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timothy.’ He, Silas (Silvanus) and Timothy had all preached among them ‘the Son of God, Jesus Christ’. The use of ‘Son of God’ here is the more directly to connect Jesus Christ to the God Who is faithful. Could those who preached such a One with such power themselves be fickle?

1.21-22 ‘Now he who is establishing (‘is confirming’) us with you in Christ, and anointed us, is God, who also sealed us, and gave us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.’

And this is confirmed by the fact of Who has established them, and how He has done it. Let them recognise Who it is Who is ‘confirming’, vindicating and authorising, he and his fellow-workers to them For he and his fellow-workers are, like the Corinthians themselves (‘with you’), God’s men, firmly being established (being confirmed) in Christ, just as they are. And let the Corinthians remember that their own being established (being confirmed) in Christ owes much to Paul (1 Corinthians 1.6, 8). And it is this same faithful God who has anointed them all and has also sealed them, and given them the earnest of the Spirit in their hearts.

The idea behind ‘anointing’ is essentially that of being set aside by God for His service. In the Old Testament kings, priests and prophets were all anointed. But it was only in certain specific cases that it resulted in the coming of the Spirit of God. Interestingly there is never any suggestion that priestly anointing resulted in the coming of the Spirit. That was for ‘the prophets’ (Numbers 11.29). The two ideas were therefore not necessarily parallel. Anointing and the coming of the Spirit of God are two separate ideas, even if the second did sometimes follow the first, and with Christians will occur together.

So here the anointing is the indication of their all being separated to the service for God, and as having received His truth so that they are able to discern it truly (1 John 2.20). That is why they have an anointing. While their being sealed, and thus confirmed as God’s, by reception of ‘the earnest of the Spirit’ in their hearts, is confirmation that they belong to God, and are sealed as His personal possession. The earnest of the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of what is theirs and of what is to come.

An earnest is a ‘sample’ of something that is promised, guaranteeing both the fact and the quality of what is to come. (When a trader had made a sale for future delivery he would often give a sample of the goods as evidence of the sale and as a guarantee of what the whole consignment would be like. It was called an ‘earnest’). So is the Spirit in their hearts God’s guarantee that they are His, and a sample of what they will be and will receive in the consummation, when God is all in all.

It is made clear that these blessings are elsewhere received by all who become Christians. An anointing which makes sure to them the truth is described in 1 John 2.20, 27; the sealing is described in Ephesians 1.13; 4.30 as signifying the presence of the Holy Spirit of promise and the guarantee of their partaking in the day of redemption, and the earnest of the Spirit is described as the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of God’s own possession (Ephesians 1.14).

So Paul is here linking he and his fellow-workers with the Corinthian Christians as fellow participants in the grace of God. They are all one in being set apart by Him and in being partakers in the sealing by, and work of, the Holy Spirit (compare 1 Corinthians 12.13). Let there therefore be no more division.

Some note here the trinitarian element which so constantly appears in Paul (compare 1 Corinthians 12.4-6). The work of the Godhead is carried forward by, in this case, the faithful God, ‘God’s Son’ and by the Holy Spirit. For we must not forget that the Son is ‘born of’ (is of the same essential nature as) the Father (John 1.14) and the Spirit ‘proceeds’ from the Father (John 15.26), is of His essence. Note in this verse that ‘God’ is specifically revealed as faithful, and was not ‘yes’ and ‘no’, in precisely the way that was revealed in the actions of God’s Son, which are thus seen as His actions. In all they do the two are one.

It should be noted, as against some, that none of these blessings are ever directly connected with baptism in the New Testament so that there are no grounds for linking them directly with baptism here, even though the later church, as it became more formal, would make the link. Clearly baptism would outwardly indicate those who had previously experienced these things, indeed in the early days would follow immediately after as an indication that they were Spirit endued. But in the early days the reception of the Spirit was rather indicated more visibly in the power and joy that came on them (Galatians 3.2, 5; Acts 13.52). In Acts this sometimes came before baptism, sometimes at baptism, and sometimes after baptism. But in all cases the Spirit had been at work first. Paul trusted in the word of the cross in power as the saving agent, not baptism (1 Corinthians 1.17-18).

Paul Explains His Reasons For What He Has Done And Calls For Leniency On The One Who Had Sinned And Has Now Repented (1.23-2.11).

Paul now explains why he had changed his travel plans after his hurtful visit and then explains the subsequent severe letter he had had to send to them. Both these events had seemingly happened after he had written 1 Corinthians. And then he gives further instructions because of how great had been the effect of his severe letter. He did not want anything to be taken too far.

In 1 Corinthians, while he had had to rebuke, it had been in expectation of things being put right without too much difficulty, so that he had not anticipated that it would put a barrier in the way of his visiting them for a goodly period. But when he had subsequently paid them a quick visit it had turned out to be a very hurtful one, for someone had raised the church up in opposition against him, so much so that he had felt it best to leave Corinth immediately and deal with the matter by a severe and strong letter, rather than by having an open and possibly permanently damaging confrontation.

What the further trouble was is open to interpretation. What seems clear is that one person was mainly behind it all (verses 5-7), and that somehow he had managed temporarily to get a good proportion of the church (or of one particular house church which Paul visited) on his side. The result was that when Paul had made his surprise visit to Corinth, that person, supported by other members of the church, had made hurtful and spiteful accusations against him, presumably with ‘here, here’ being heard in the background along with a lot of scowling faces, and had roused so much ill feeling that Paul had felt it best to withdraw quickly in order to preserve the peace and unity of the church.

The accusations presumably included the fact of his supposed fickleness in not visiting them when he had promised to, probably stirred up by clever manipulation, and possibly included the fact that now he had come it was only for a quick visit, and not the long stay he had promised. The suggestion was therefore probably made that it demonstrated that he was both unreliable and dishonest. This might have especially affected those who had seen themselves as the primary targets of 1 Corinthians.

The main person who had opposed him might well have been someone who was concerned to gain pre-eminence, and had won some adherents, and did not want Paul’s interference. Possibly it was he, along with some of those who saw themselves as super-spiritual, who stressed that Paul’s weakness, and appearance, and sufferings, demonstrated that he was not really an Apostle of God. But even the less antagonistic members might well have been upset that now that he had come he had said that it was only for a short visit, and thus have joined in the dissatisfaction against Paul.

A less sensitive Apostle might, after consideration of what was happening, have remained so as to demonstrate that his authority could not be questioned, without having regard for the long term effects, concerned more for their own reputation than the food of the church. But Paul was not like that. He was not concerned about his hurt pride, or his position for its own sake. All he took into account was the long term benefit of the church. And he had therefore immediately left Corinth because he had felt that that could not be achieved at this time by harsh personal action, or fighting his corner in person, leaving long term hurt all round. He had recognised that it must be dealt with in another way. Present feeling was running too high.

At which point he had sent a severe letter, the severe letter which he will now refer to, which turned out to be so successful that he has to advise leniency towards the person involved.

1.23 ‘But I call God for a witness on my soul, that to spare you I forbore coming to Corinth.’

So why then had Paul failed in his promise to come to Corinth? He calls on God to witness to the truth of what he says. It was in order to spare them what would have resulted from his arrival had he come in person. He had felt that the result he desired was better achieved by his severe letter (2.1-4) and the arrival of Titus among them.

That he felt it necessary to make such an oath shows how difficult the position was. He clearly felt that it overrode the Lord’s teaching that oaths should be avoided in normal relationships. Here it was necessary because it was important for the sake of the Gospel to establish the facts without doubt. He wanted them to know that there really was no other reason for his absence than that he had wanted to spare them sorrow.

‘On my soul’ probably simply means ‘on me’, that is, ‘on what I speak from my inner heart’. Although some see it as indicating something stronger, ‘on my very life’.

In other words he did not want them to be left with the impression that that the reason that he had not come was because he was sulking, or because he was so angry that he wanted nothing to do with them. And a mild explanation at this point might have left them with just such a feeling, and with the idea that his explanation was just an excuse and that he was just being devious. So he was concerned that they did recognise that he was being honest and that that was the true reason, so he confirmed it by this mild oath.

But what does he mean by ‘spare you’? The probability is that he had recognised that he might have to speak very severely about the person in question, and those who were supporting him, in the presence of the whole church, which might have left a longstanding sense of grievance among them. Some might even have been brought in to the situation who were not really to blame, and who might well have been caught in the cross fire, leaving a further trail of resentment. Much misunderstanding might have arisen. This would then have been a hindrance to his future ministry among them. On the other hand his view had been that an Apostolic letter, and a visit by Titus who was clearly not directly involved, would not be taken so personally, and would hopefully strike at the right targets, leaving the way open for a further visit by him.

(That we do not have more details is annoying for the commentator, but it is actually for the good of the church due to the thousands of church situations to which it can be applied, thus giving church leaders an example of unselfish pastoring to go by and to imitate).

1.24 ‘Not that we have lordship over your faith, but are helpers of your joy. For in faith you stand fast.’

He wants them further to know that he is not suggesting that their faith depended on this, nor that he feels that he has the right to criticise their faith. That is between them and God. (He is not talking about the content of their faith, but the genuineness of it). And besides he knows that their faith is firm, that they stand fast in faith. But rather it was in order to establish their joy and ensure peace among them. It was the harmony and contentment of the church that he was concerned about.

2.1-3 ‘But I determined this for myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow. For if I make you sorry, who then is he who makes me glad but he who is made sorry by me? And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from those of whom I ought to rejoice, having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.’

Paul’s desire was to bring them joy, not sorrow. Thus he had determined that after his previous hurtful visit he would not again visit them until he could come in joy. For how could he make sorrowful face to face those who should rather be bringing gladness to his heart had they been in the right frame of mind to receive his words, those whom he loved? That is why he had written his severe letter, confident that what they really wanted was in fact what he wanted, and that therefore to come and bring them sorrow by his presence unnecessarily, when he should be rejoicing in them, was not to be considered. For he was confident that in the end what brought him joy would bring them joy and thus they would accept his letter and resolve the situation.

This again does not mean simply that Paul could not bear people thinking ill of him, and that all that he thought of was his own joy. His concern was rather not to cause any friction which might be lasting. So that those whom he should in the future be helping and over whom he would then rejoice, should not be so put off that he could not in future help them, with the result that neither would rejoice. He was thinking of them and their futures, and the harmony and growth of the church not of himself.

2.4 ‘For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears, not that you should be made sorry, but that you might know the love that I have more abundantly to you.’

For the truth was that he loved them dearly, so much so that the severe letter had cause him much anguish of heart. Composing it had not been easy. It had been a great burden to him. And his prime intention had not been to make them sorry, although that had been necessary, but in order to show that he really cared about them, and that what he was requiring as an Apostle was really for their benefit, and was because of his concern and love for them.

This statement would seem to confirm that the letter referred to is not 1 Corinthians, but an unknown letter, because while he had been firm in 1 Corinthians, there is nothing about it that suggests tears of anguish.

2.5 ‘But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow, not to me, but in some measure (so that I do not press the case too heavily) to you all.’

Indeed the reason that he dealt with the offender so strongly in his letter is not because of the sorrow the man has caused him, he does not think of that, but the sorrow he has caused, (up to a certain point, for he does not want to overexaggerate), to the whole Corinthian church. However he stresses that he does not want to overstate the case. The sorrow that they have experienced is probably not equal to his own. (This very concern not to overstate the case stresses that when he speaks of the depths of his own sorrow he means every word of it).

‘But in some measure (in part).’ To a certain measure, to a certain level.

2.6-8 ‘Sufficient to such a one is this punishment (‘censure, reproof, reprimand’) which was inflicted by the many, so that, in contrast to that, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love towards him.’

It appears that in response to his severe letter the church has repented and meted out quite severe punishment on the offender, possibly in the form of a severe public reprimand and even exclusion from some of the benefits of the church, for example from the love feasts or from taking part in the services. Now therefore he feels that it is time for them to forgive him and reinstate him. The punishment inflicted by the majority of the church has been quite sufficient. It has resulted in his repentance. Now they must show forgiveness and come alongside to help him and comfort him, in case his sorrow and remorse becomes so overwhelming that it devastates him. So, says Paul, I beg you (or ‘urge you’) to ‘confirm’ your love towards him. ‘Confirm’ has legal significance and suggests a specific act of restoration by which the man is assured of their love.

Most old commentaries identify this man with the man in 1 Corinthians 5 who was to be committed to Satan (cast out of the church). The main reason why this is unlikely is the personal hurt that this one has caused to Paul. While the man in question in 1 Corinthians sinned deeply, even though it distressed Paul it was not particularly against him. There was no reason there why Paul’s forgiveness should especially be sought, whereas the man in view here has acted in such a way as to require precisely that. Nor is it clear how even such a dreadful kind of adultery should cause Paul the distress described in verse 4. The only way in which it could be so is if the same man had obtained sway over the whole church, and had led the attack on Paul. And would such a man have repented at Paul’s letter if previously he had been so obdurate?

It is far more likely that this man was one who had sought to usurp Paul’s place in the hearts of the Corinthians, possibly entering among them as a newcomer with letters of commendation from someone of importance, and had done it in a particularly obnoxious manner, with false insinuation and accusations, and a show of strength, probably assisted by special cronies. He had done it in such a subtle way that he had influenced many of the church sufficiently to cause them to side with him against Paul when Paul paid his unexpected visit. But he must have been to some extent genuine for him to be so repentant. He appears to have been a dupe of Satan rather than an evil man.

2.9 ‘Because for this purpose also I wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things.’

He assures them that the main reason that he had written the severe letter to them was not in order to obtain punishment for the man, but so that he could test out their own obedience to him as an Apostle, ‘in all things’, not just what they chose to accept. That was what really mattered. He was not out for revenge. Rather he had wanted to find out if they would again respond to his authority and follow his instructions about everything he had written. And it had turned out well.

2.10-11 ‘But to whom you forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, it is for your sakes in the presence of Christ, so that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices.’

So now he was ready to completely forgive, because the man had truly repented and was in a state to receive forgiveness, and this was so that Satan might not gain advantage out of the situation. It was good that the man had had to humble himself. But it would not be good if that led to him losing faith and hope. And they had to keep in mind Satan’s wiles and devices, which they were surely fully aware of.

He therefore assures them that when they forgive the man, as he has exhorted, he will forgive him as well. (Note that he still leaves the decision in their hands. A pastor who forces his people to accept his will is no pastor). Indeed that for their sakes he has already forgiven the man ‘in the presence of Christ’, (probably signifying in prayer before Him), if indeed his forgiveness was necessary, for what mattered most was Christ’s forgiveness, and their forgiveness, so that Satan might not have any opportunity to gain any advantage over them.

Paul Demonstrates How Concerned He Had Been But Rejoices That His Ministry Has Been Thoroughly Vindicated (2.12-17).

Having dealt with the question as to why he had failed to visit them as he had promised, and what had happened subsequently, Paul brings home to them the relief that had been his when he learned that they had responded positively to his letter. Together with an unexpected opportunity at Troas where God had worked abundantly it had made him recognise that even in the darkest hour God continually leads His people in triumph. God is not defeated by circumstances. They are but stepping stones leading to His further glory.

2.12-13 ‘Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and when a door was opened to me in the Lord, I had no relief for my spirit, because I did not find Titus my brother, but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia.’

He first describes the great concern that he had had about the situation in Corinth. He had been so upset that when he arrived in the port of Troas with a view to crossing to Macedonia, and had found there a great opportunity for the Gospel, he had nevertheless cut it short because he was so eager to get to Macedonia to hear Titus’ report.

‘When I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ.’ This may mean that the reason why he was in Troas was his concern for the Gospel of Christ, either because of his desire to learn from Titus as quickly as possible what the Corinthian response had been, or because he had been driven out of Ephesus for the sake of the Gospel of Christ. But more likely it means that whatever had been his intention, God had had different intentions. God’s intention had been the furtherance of the Gospel of Christ in Troas, and that was why he found himself there at that particular time. He was there for the Gospel of Christ. Whichever it was the main point is that the purpose of his being there was in one way or another the furthering of the Gospel. And God rewarded him by opening for him a door of opportunity in Troas.

For while he had hoped to meet Titus there, coming to him from Corinth via Macedonia, and had been disappointed, he had found that meanwhile there were those in Troas ready to receive the Gospel, which was an encouragement in a dark hour.

‘And when a door was opened to me in the Lord.’ We do not know exactly what this involved, but clearly Troas presented a welcome break and positive opportunity after the trials of Ephesus and in view of the equal pressures of the Corinthian situation. We may assume that he found people ready and willing to hear him and his fellow-workers. Compare here Acts 14.27. How it must have lightened his heart. And knowing Paul we need not doubt that he took the opportunity as best he could, given the short time available, even though he now felt urged to go to Macedonia in order to meet Titus.

Yet even though things were opening up at Troas he was so pressed in his spirit that he had felt that the latter had to have precedence. So having ministered there in Troas for a short while, (how else did he know that there was an open door?), possibly while awaiting ship, (and we may assume having made arrangements for the work to be carried on), he determined to move on, and he took his leave of the people in Troas and took ship for Macedonia, almost certainly leaving others behind to continue the ministry (how else could he justify leaving a manifest work of God?).

One question we must therefore ask is, why does he mention this brief interlude when he describes almost nothing of the success he had there? One reason may well have been that it was because he wanted the Corinthians to know just how eager he had been to learn of their response, so much so that he had cut short his work in a place where he was welcome in order to learn about the response of people who, when he had visited them, had not made him welcome. That may have included the fact that he wanted them to recognise that others recognised him even if some of them did not.

But another may well be because, in his present state, now that he had learned the good news about the Corinthian response to his letter and of the success of Titus’ visit, and was more settled in his spirit, he remembered that when he had been most hard pressed, and had had other things on his mind, God had still worked through him in power, demonstrating that he was still His chosen Apostle, and that God was at work through him still, causing him to triumph. It is probably that glorious thought that partly causes the digression that now takes place in order to give thanks to God for the wonderful way He had worked even when all seemed dark and gloomy. For now he had the opportunity to think of it that had been what had helped to sustain him at that time.

That would help to explain why at this point he breaks off the narrative, which he will resume in 7.5. The connection there seems at first sight to be so good that some have thought that 2.14-7.4 was introduced into the narrative later. However, there is no manuscript evidence to support that idea at all, and the change of person from singular to plural in 7.4 would seem to be decisively against it.

Much more likely is it that the digression occurred because of another of Paul’s flights of imagination (as we have noted briefly in 1.10), which this time then continued in what would prove to be true Pauline fashion (compare for example Ephesians 3.1 with 4.1).

But what was it that sparked off the triumphant declaration of thanksgiving and triumph in the next verse? Was it that on mentioning Macedonia Paul was suddenly flooded with the realisation of what had followed, his learning of the repentance and restoration at Corinth which the mention of arrival in Macedonia brings home to him? Or was it the remembrance of the fact that when he was at his most pessimistic God had opened a new door of opportunity at Troas, showing that all was not lost after all. Or was it both? For suddenly it dawned on him, even as he was writing, that whatever his state of mind, and however dark things seemed, God was constantly triumphing and leading His servants in a triumphant march of victory

(The incident at Troas would also reinforce to the Corinthians that even when opposition was greatest God was always with him in power and that there were always those to whom God would speak through him as the Apostle to the Gentiles, and who would listen).

2.14-16 ‘But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and is making known through us the fragrance of his knowledge in every place. For we are a sweet fragrance of Christ to God, in those who are saved, and in those who perish. To the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. And who is sufficient for these things?’

The memory of his reception in Troas at such a dark hour, combined with the Corinthian turn around, reminds him again of how God has His own ways of going about things ‘in every place’. How easy it was in the dark days and the bad times to forget that God was the One Who triumphed against all difficulties. He had been too weighed down to think about it at the time but now that he thinks back on it he realises what the triumph in Troas, along with the triumph in respect of Corinth, had actually meant to him. And his mind switches from those triumphs to all his other times of triumph, and he bursts out in grateful thanks to God. He had been in despair at the time but God had not. And God had reminded him that He was still in command. And his heart overflows with the memory.

He remembers what a relief it had been at the time of his utmost constraint, that he had found himself like a victor, (or alternately a prisoner of Christ), marching in the train of God the triumphant General, as he saw the work that God was ready to accomplish through him in Troas, and had done even in such a short stay. And thinking about it he cannot help but give voice to his gratitude. Even in a place like Troas, (which he had intended merely to be a port of embarkation), and in the concerned state that he was in with all his thoughts set on the Corinthians, he had found that God made open to men the fragrance of His knowledge through him, just as He had in so many other places. It was a reminder that God could work everywhere, and had, and that he had really had no need to despair. And when he had arrived in Macedonia and had heard the good news from Corinth it was the icing on the cake. He realised that God was triumphant everywhere.

The Roman Triumph was a glorious affair. It was a public display in honour of a triumphant general returning from a wholly victorious campaign which had added greatly to the prestige of the Empire. In that glorious procession, led by the highest authorities in Rome, would be found captive prisoners in chains, trophies of war, the priests with their censers of incense, and the general himself in his chariot, resplendently dressed, followed by his victorious troops, and surrounded by the massed and cheering crowds.

Paul elsewhere used the picture of the captives so led in chains to depict Christ’s triumph at the cross (Colossians 2.15; Ephesians 4.8; 1 Corinthians 4.9), depicting Him as having defeated the power of the Enemy, and the thought here may be that Paul saw God as leading him as His captive in triumphant victory, bringing Himself glory through him (1 Corinthians 4.9).

But more likely in view of what immediately follows is that Paul saw himself as a part of the triumphant procession led by the triumphant God, with himself one of those who swung the censers, the dispensers of incense, giving off a savour which spelled a future life of glory to the General’s army and miserable deaths to the enemy captives. (There are numerous possible variations of the theme, but it is the significance that matters rather than the exact detail).

‘‘But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ.’ The Triumph was a once in a lifetime experience, a testimony to victory, but for those who serve God, says Paul, it is a constant experience, for victory goes on and on. The picture begins with him describing God as the triumphant general, leading in triumph his adherents and followers, in this case those who are ‘in Christ’. It is only those who are in Christ who enjoy the Triumph. And now that the Corinthian issue is largely settled he has time to remember, along with this triumph, all God’s past triumphs, summed up in what had happened at Troas. God was the great victorious General indeed.

‘And is making known through us the fragrance of his knowledge in every place.’ Paul had thought in terms of Ephesus and Corinth, (he targeted the large cities) but Troas? Yes, even there God had been active. For in every place, well known or not, God gives of the fragrance of His knowledge through His people. And that was what God had done through him briefly in Troas. ‘The fragrance of His knowledge.’ True knowledge of God is like a sweet fragrance to those who respond and receive His word, breathing it in to enjoy its excellence.

(Troas was in fact an important seaport 20 kilometres south south west of the site of Troy and was made a Roman colony by Augustus, although rarely mentioned in secular literature. Its artificial harbour basins provided necessary shelter from the prevailing northerly winds and it was the port from which ships crossed to Neapolis in Macedonia. It was at Troas that Paul had received his call to Macedonia years before (Acts 16.8-9). It was there, where later there was a substantial church, that he would raise Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20.7-12)).

‘For we are a sweet odour of Christ for God, in those who are being saved, and in those who are perishing. To the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.’ Just as the knowledge of God is a fragrance, so is the messenger of the Gospel a sweet odour of Christ on God’s behalf, wafting a fragrance both to those who are being saved and those who are perishing. ‘We are a sweet odour.’ The bearers of the incense dispensers of God marching in the Triumph may well be described in terms of what they bear and dispense.

‘To one a fragrance of death to death.’ This may be suggestive of the chained captives in the Triumph who smelled the incense and recognised that it spelled their death. The incense was partly offered in gratitude for their defeat and its consequences. They knew that they were seen as rebels and only fit to die. It might then remind them of the spices that would often be burned as incense at the funerals of important people, the fragrance of death, and have seen it as an omen. In a similar way, says Paul, will all rebels receive the fragrance of death. So what should have been the fragrance of the knowledge of God to them, had become to those who have rebelled the odour of death, a message to them from death itself.

‘A fragrance from death to death.’ It was a message from personified death, the great enemy (1 Corinthians 15.26, 55) to those as good as dead, and indeed already dead in sin, that they were doomed, that death would be their lot, eternal death. All was death. As often with Paul ‘death’ spells the final end for those who will not be raised to eternal life. In the background may have been the idea of poisonous fumes from a burning fire.

‘To the other a fragrance from life to life.’ But to those who marched in victory the fragrance of the incense was a reminder of victory, and of the good times ahead, the beginning of a new life as they received the rewards of victory. In the same way, to those who received and believed the fragrance coming from the messengers of God, it was a fragrance from the One Who is life itself, from the One Who is the Resurrection and the Life (John 11.25; 14.6), as offering eternal life to those who receive Him and follow Him (John 1.12-13; 10.28). Here all is life. He Who is the Life is bestowing life.

In later Jewish literature the Torah (Pentateuch) was likened to a medicine or drug which brings benefit or harm depending on how it is used. It is either a medicine of life or a deadly poison (although not a fragrance). The ideas may well have been around in Paul’s time and some think that it may have influenced his ideas. Compare here 3.4-6 where the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. But if so he replaces the Torah with the knowledge of God through Christ.

‘And who is sufficient for these things?’ The thought overwhelms him. What man or woman is sufficient (competent, capable, adequate) to cope with such privileges and glory? The answer, of course, is ‘none’. Neither Paul nor his opponents have such sufficiency. For it can only be through God that such sufficiency is experienced (3.5).

2.17 ‘For we are not as the many, corrupting (or ‘peddling’) the word of God, but as of sincerity. But as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.’

So, Paul concludes, they should now be able to see the truth about him and his fellow-workers. They are not, like many, corrupting and misinterpreting the word of God, or alternately hawking it about and peddling it for money. Those who did such things were people who claimed to be ‘sufficient’ but were not. Rather Paul and his fellow-workers are ‘of sincerity’. They are genuine and true in their presentation of the word of God. They have no desire for worldly gain. Indeed they are revealed to be ‘of God’, following in His triumphal train, and successfully wafting His truth to many. And it is because they are ‘of God’ that, in His very presence and before His very eyes, they speak in Christ.

And having now been caught up in his theme, and in his gratitude to God, he continues it on, only coming back to his narrative in 7.5.

He Is Not Speaking Like This To Commend Himself. Indeed The Corinthians Themselves Are His Letter of Recommendation, Written By The Spirit of God (3.1-6).

He firmly points out that he does not need to commend himself to them like this, for are they not themselves a testimony to his success in Christ? They are his letters of recommendation. And he goes on to describe the wonder of what has happened to them. It is the Spirit of the living God Who has written in their hearts the new covenant sealed by the blood of Christ. They have been reborn and transformed by His activity. What they are enjoying is no outward covenant written on stone, which in the end results in failure and condemnation. It is one written by God within them which has transformed them, and it all began through the ministry of Paul. Thus can they know that he is a true Apostle of God.

3.1-3 ‘Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? or do we need, as do some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men, it being revealed openly that you are a letter of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.’

‘Are we beginning again to commend ourselves?’ What he has just been describing of their being triumphantly led by God in victory must not be misunderstood. We have not said it, he stresses, in order that we may commend ourselves. For the truth is that he and his fellow-workers do not need to commend themselves. The Corinthian Christians are themselves the proof of their commendation.

So having glorified God for leading him and his fellow-workers continually in triumph Paul now stresses that the Corinthians have even greater reasons for recognising that they are true servants of Christ and that he is God’s true Apostle. Others would come with letters of recommendation, (see Acts 9.2; 22.5; 18.27; Romans 16.1) but he and his fellow-workers do not need letters of recommendation. They do not even need to commend themselves. The Corinthians themselves are his letters of recommendation, openly revealed to all men. For they owed their very rebirth to him and his ministry, and he wants them to know that they are written in the very hearts, both of him and his fellow-ministers.

‘Written on our hearts.’ They are not just converts, they are beloved brothers and sisters. We need not press the illustration It was to get over a point. It soon changes so that it becomes ‘their hearts’.

‘Ministered by us.’ They should remember through whom this wonderful work, now in their hearts, was ministered.

Paul needed no letters of recommendation because he only went to virgin territory, to places of new opportunity or to churches that he himself had founded. In the first case a letter of recommendation would have been useless, in the second it should have been unnecessary.

Note the stress on ‘all men’. Unlike his opponents Paul’s triumph is not localised. All the world knows of it for they see it in those who have come to Christ under his ministry (compare ‘in every place’ - 2.14).

Indeed all who see the Corinthian Christians recognise that they are a letter of Christ (a letter that reveals Christ, or that is from Christ and written by Him), written with something far superior to ink. They are written with the Spirit of ‘the living God’, the life-giving God, the powerfully active God, and the writing paper is not stone tablets, but their human, beating hearts. So their very lives, Paul says, declare his credentials.

The contrast is with Moses’ message, written in tablets of stone (Exodus 31.18). Moses’ message was an outward one, even if it was written with the finger of God, the writing of the old covenant. It did not of itself change hearts. It spoke of deliverance, but it also laid down requirements without giving the power to fulfil them. But the message they have received was written on the inward heart by the Spirit of the living God, it was living and vital, life-changing and personally applied, and by it they had entered into God’s new covenant (verse 6) sealed by the blood of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11.25).

In mind were the words of God in Jeremiah 31.33, ‘I will make a new covenant --- this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts and I will write it in their heart, and I will be their God, and they will be My people --- for they will all know Me from the least of them to the greatest.’ And this combined with Ezekiel 36.27, ‘A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.’ In both cases there is the stress on ‘new’. This would not be just a continuation of the old but would have a different basis. It would work within and not from without, an inward transforming rather than a bringing to commitment, although the very transformation would result in full commitment. So, says Paul, all that was promised in God’s word was fulfilled in them through his ministry. What needed he of a better witness?

Paul is not degrading the old covenant. The old covenant was written with ‘the finger of God’, emphasising its importance and God’s personal concern. And it came in glory (verse 7). But the new was more effective because it was written by ‘the Spirit of the living God’, God’s personal dynamic, life-giving action in the heart, and came with even greater glory. Although here we should note how Luke can use the term ‘the finger of God’ to express the work of the Spirit (compare Luke 11.20 with Matthew 12.28). So the point is more on where the action was carried out, in the first case on tablets of stone, in the second case directly in the heart, than on Who by.

There could be no clearer distinction than here of those who are offered a means of life, but of whom many turn it down, and those who by the working of God’s sovereign power are brought to respond and be saved. The one are offered the writing of God on the tablets of stone, the other receive the work of the Spirit in their hearts establishing His word there and transforming them.

3.4-6 ‘And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant. Not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.’

And this is the confidence that he has, a confidence that he has through Christ as he looks towards God. His confidence is not in himself, or in his own resources, but in the fact that what has come, has come through Christ and what He has deserved. Thus as he looks towards God he has no doubts of what will result, for it is all of Christ.

So it is not that he looks to his own sufficiency. He and his fellow-workers do not look on themselves as sufficient (adequate). They have no high opinion of themselves. They make no claims of superiority for themselves. They do not look to their own resources. They are not boasters like others. Their sufficiency is from God, and it is He Who, having called them, has made them sufficient with His own sufficiency, as ministers of the new covenant.

In the background of this idea of sufficiency and adequacy may lie the question in Joel 2.11 (LXX), ‘who is sufficient (adequate) in it (the day of the Lord)?’ The answer is no one. In LXX it is God alone Who is ‘the Sufficient One’, for this is regularly the translation for El Shaddai (Ruth 1.20; Job 21.15; 31.2; 40.2). Thus they recognise that any sufficiency that they have must come from Him.

And this new covenant (binding relationship with God) is not written in letters, it is totally of the Spirit, as He writes the covenant within their very beings. For the covenant given in letters was one that they were unable to fulfil. At first they received it with joy and gladly subscribed to it. But later, even as they read it, it condemned them and destroyed them. It withered their hearts. They had failed to live up to its demands. But in contrast the Spirit gives life. He makes them as those who love God and desire to keep His law (Romans 8.4). It renews their hearts. And He gives them life and makes them aware of that new life that they possess (Romans 6.4), because they have been accepted by God in Christ, and have received His very life within them (Galatians 2.20; Ephesians 3.17). It continually renews their hearts.

‘For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.’ For a similar idea compare Romans 2.29; 7.6. There was nothing wrong with the words of the old covenant itself. It was holy, and righteous and good (Romans 7.12). The wrong was in man’s heart and in his attitude towards it, and the description ‘the letter’ emphasises that wrong use. Man was taken up too much with the detail and failed to see behind it the graciousness of God and the need for a change of heart wrought by God. He refused to respond to God through it, thus bringing on himself the sentence of death. He relied on outward circumcision, and failed to recognise that he must be ‘inwardly circumcised’ (Romans 2.29). Thus the detail killed him. But the Spirit first gives life, revivifying the spirit, and as a result He brings about that response, so that man responds in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter which inhibits response (Romans 7.6). The same fragrance is wafted to all, but to one it brings life, while to the other it brings death (2.14-16).

The Contrast Between the Old and the New, Between Moses’ Covenant and Christ’s Covenant (3.7-11)

3.7-8 ‘But if the ministration of death, written, and engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly on the face of Moses for the glory of his face, which glory was passing away, how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory?’

At the thought of the new covenant he now digresses as he considers the wonder of what he is talking about. What a contrast there is between the two covenants. The first, the old covenant, did come with glory. But it proved to be a ministry of death in that it could not give life because of man’s insufficiency, and could only therefore sentence to death. Yet as it was given, did not the glory of God shine on the face of Moses? Yes, but the significant fact was that Israel could not even look at him (Exodus 34.29, 35). That was in itself an indication of the situation. They could not accept the glory because of the sinfulness of their hearts. They could not bear the holiness of God. What God was giving was glorious, but man shied from it. He could not bear it. And even then the glory connected with its giving was a passing glory, a fading glory. Eventually it passed way. Thus indicating its temporary nature.

But if such a covenant was given in glory, even if it was fading glory, how much more glorious will be the ministration of the spirit. The thought here is of the new spirit of life put within them, in contrast with death. That is far more glorious.

‘The ministration of death.’ Paul later expands on this idea elsewhere. The prime intention of the Law was to give life. The man who does it shall live by it (Romans 10.5). But it became a ministration of death because of man’s weakness. He did not live by it. Thus it could only condemn him.

3.9 ‘For if the ministration of condemnation has glory, much rather does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.’

He compares the two covenants. The one administered condemnation. It pointed man to his sin but could do nothing further for him (although God did provide through the sacrificial system a means of atonement. But even that became trivialised - Isaiah 1.11-15). But the other actually administers righteousness. It firstly makes men righteous in the sight of God (5.21) and then it works righteousness within their hearts. But what does ‘righteousness’ signify here? We do not have to take either/or. It means righteousness overall. At the moment of conversion righteousness is imputed, we are accounted righteous, and at the same time righteousness is imparted, we are made righteous by the impartation of the Spirit and the transformation of the heart. How much more glorious then is the second covenant rather than the first. It is a covenant that ministers forgiveness and mercy from the start, and which works within men the ability to succeed (Philippians 2.12-13).

3.10-11 ‘For truly that which has been made glorious has not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasses For if that which passes away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.’

‘In this respect’ or ‘in this case’ may also be translated ‘partially’ (thus ‘that which has been made glorious partially has not been made glorious’ i.e fully glorious), but either way the sense is clear.

For while we can certainly say that the first was made glorious, its glory is as nothing when compared with (in respect of) the second. For the second so surpassed the first in glory, that the glory of the first is totally outmatched. So while the first covenant was made in glory, it was in a glory that was passing away, it was a secondary glory. How much more then will the superior second covenant be made in glory, and in a glory which remains. It will never pass away. For that glory is the glory of the Lord revealed and enjoyed by those who can now look on Him without fear (verse 18).

For the first covenant ministers death and is passing. The second ministers life and righteousness, and is eternal. We must, however, remember that this is the final verdict, looked at from what each can finally achieve. Of course the same God Who acts through the second covenant acted through the first. That too was a covenant of grace, and that too offered a means of salvation. But in the end it turned out that it was only taken up by the few. It was a matter of their choice. On the other hand all who enter into the second covenant find salvation, for it is a covenant of salvation, and puts those who respond to it within God’s saving purposes in Christ. It is a matter of His choice. The first covenant having given deliverance (I am the Lord Who has delivered you), goes on to make demands, which may not be fulfilled, the second gives deliverance, and then gives power, and goes on giving and giving again and again.

We are not to think from this that the first covenant was a failure. It succeeded in what it set out to do. It established Israel as a nation made up of many conglomerate parts, it provided them, especially through the prophets, with a basis for moral living which was unsurpassed until Christ came, and it provided a means of salvation through God’s appointed means. But in itself it could not give life. It offered life, but only on condition of a true response of faith and obedience, and that response was mainly lacking. Under it God did in mercy give life to those who truly responded to Him, but true response was small. The second covenant is, however, a covenant of life. It does not only offer life, it imparts life. And those who respond to it are in Christ, and enjoy all the benefits that He has purchased for them through His blood.

We may summarise the situation, some of which is read in by implication, as follow:

• 1) The written covenant, the letter, kills, because it is external and cannot change the heart of a man. It is a ministration of death. It catches a man out, points the finger at him, and destroys him. But the Spirit gives life, because He enters into a man’s very being and writes on His heart, imparting the righteousness that is required. His is an unceasing ministration of life.
• 2) Both covenants came with glory, but one was passing away and was less glorious, because it led to condemnation, while the other is permanent and is exceedingly glorious, because it leads to righteousness and acceptance.
• 3) The mediator of the first bore a fading glory and the covenant was temporary, the Mediator of the second has a continuing glory and the covenant is eternal

Paul’s purpose in writing this downstaging of the old covenant and exaltation of the new may partly have been as a result of Judaising influences in the church. Especially if missionaries had come from Jerusalem with letters of commendation, causing part of the opposition against his message (see 11.18-23 compare 3.1) and laying a great emphasis on Moses as God’s ideal. It is pointing out that in the end what Moses brought was not sufficient.

Consideration of the Consequences of the Difference In the Two Covenants (3.12-18)

3.12-14 ‘Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech, and are not as Moses, who put a veil on his face, that the children of Israel should not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away, but their minds were hardened, for up to this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ.’

The contrast between Moses and the Gospel continues. Having such a hope, the hope of experiencing glory, results in the preacher (in context Paul and his fellow-workers) being able to speak with much boldness of speech, in comparison with Moses who was compelled to hide his face. For the Gospel is an everlasting Gospel, and its glory goes on and on, and it imparts glory, but what was on Moses’ face slowly passed away, and was largely unwelcome to those who saw it. They did not want God to get too close. The one is eternally permanent, and applies to all, the other was temporary, for it was of limited application.

‘That which was passing away.’ It is not strictly the glory that is seen as ‘that’, as what was passing away, for doxa is feminine. It is probably the idea that lay behind the glory, the significance of the glory, what God had wanted to convey through the glory, that was what was passing away.

So the veil on Moses’ face resulted in a hardening of their hearts. Because of the veil they were not made to face up to the reality of what God was. They could hide from God’s light. Thus their obedience also fell away. And, Paul adds, the same situation continues today. When men hear ‘Moses’ read there is still a veil there, just as when they heard the covenant of old. The words are there but the significance is hidden. Had their eyes been opened to see the significance of what God was offering they would have recognised that the old covenant has been done away in Christ. But they have failed to see what He is offering because like the people of old they prefer the veil to remain. They shy away from the true revelation of God.

‘That the children of Israel should not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away.’ This could mean that it was so that they would not be able to look at the final stages of the fading (the end), or so that they would not look on the purpose (the end, the aim) of the glory, which was to reveal to them something of Himself.

Paul was not the only Jew to believe that the Jews were in darkness. The Qumran community was of the opinion that those in Jerusalem "do not know the hidden meaning of what is actually taking place, nor have they ever understood the lessons of the past" (1QMyst 2-3), while the Essenes likened the nation to "the blind and those that grope their way" (Cairo Damascus Document 1:8-9). The sad thing, however, is that their hearts too were veiled unless some did finally respond to the Gospel.

3.15 ‘But to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.’

The final phrase in verse 14 is repeated, but this time going a step further and applies the veil, not to ‘Moses’ but to their own heart. For the fact is that it is not just ‘Moses’ (the Torah) that is veiled, there is a veil on their own hearts. It is there as a result of their choice. They chose to let Moses wear the veil. Now they choose not to come to the light of God (John 3.19). They prefer darkness, hiddenness. As he will say later they have been blinded by the god of this world (4.4). We can contrast this with the disciples whose minds were opened so that they saw the significance of Messianic teaching in the Old Testament (Luke 24.45-46 compare 24.32 with 25-27).

3.16 ‘But whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away.’

Here we have to interpret ‘it’. So, it could mean ‘but whenever the heart (referring back to verse 15) of a man turns to the Lord’, or ‘whenever there is a turning to the Lord’ or ‘whenever a person turns to the Lord’, the veil is taken away. The overall idea is the same and the verb gives the impression of the swiftness of it. The person looks and lives.

‘To the Lord.’ Taken in context we would expect ‘the Lord’ to mean Jesus Christ (compare 1.2, 3, 14; 4.5, 10, 14; 11.17 and see 1 Corinthians 8.6 and Paul’s regular unquestionable references to Jesus Christ in that letter as ‘the Lord’ (2.8; 4.5; 6.14; 10.21; 11.20, 26, 27, 29; 12.3, 5; 15.47). Then the idea would be the general one that all men have a veil over their hearts, and when they turn to the Lord Jesus Christ it results in the veil being taken away (see 4.4).

But strictly the veil is in context said to be over the hearts of those who hear ‘Moses’. So alternately it may mean ‘whenever anyone (who is listening to the reading of the Law) turns to the Lord the veil is taken away’ signifying those who listen to the reading of ‘Moses’ (verse 15). It is then declaring that any such who genuinely reach out to the Lord, here referring back to the Lord of the Old Testament, (Who however is Jesus Christ) will in that be enlightened, with the necessary result that they turn to Jesus Christ. The corollary is that those who cling to Moses are still veiled.

3.17 ‘Now the Lord is the spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’

We must probably see this as an explanation of Whom ‘the Lord’ is in verse 16. If ‘the Lord’ there refers back to the Lord in the Old Testament because it has Jews in mind, then this is simply pointing out that the Spirit of the Lord is the Lord manifested in power. The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, freedom from the Law, freedom from condemnation. Turning to the Lord truly results in such freedom.

The suggestion that it simply means the Holy Spirit as bearing the title ‘Lord’ must be seen as doubtful because it would be unusual to speak of ‘turning to the Spirit’ as would be implied in verse 16. That would be using an idea which is unparalleled elsewhere. The Spirit always points away from Himself. Furthermore the reference to the ‘Spirit of the Lord’ in the second part of this verse also suggests that there too the Lord is not the Spirit either. He cannot be the Spirit of Himself. In fact taking ‘Spirit of the Lord’ to signify the Spirit of Yahweh, ‘the Lord’ in that phrase here means the God of the Old Testament.

But if it did mean ‘the Lord is the (Holy) Spirit’ then it would suggest that it was Paul’s intentions to indicate that Jesus is the Lord (verse 16), and the Spirit is the Lord (verse 17a), although also still being the Spirit of Yahweh (the Lord) (verse 17b), Who is Lord over all, a clear statement of the triunity of ‘the Lord’.

However, the probability in the context of Corinthians must be that the Lord in verse 16 refers to Jesus Christ. And the