8. Warning and Prayer
8
Warning and Prayer
Aiming for Maturity
1This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” 2I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, 3since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you.
5Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? 6And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. 7Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. 8For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. 9We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. 10This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.
11Finally, brothers, good-bye. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.
12Greet one another with a holy kiss. 13All the saints send their greetings.
14May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2 Corinthians 13:1–14
A. Warning (13:1–6)
1. Impending discipline in the third visit (13:1–3a). Paul’s first visit to Corinth had been for the purpose of planting a church there (Acts 18:1–18; 1 Cor. 4:15; 9:1). His second visit was so painful both to him and to his converts that he resolved not to visit them again for a while (2 Cor. 1:23; 2:1). Now he contemplates his third trip: “This will be my third visit to you,” he writes, resuming a point first introduced at 2 Corinthians 12:14.
Paul’s next sentence is a quotation from Deuteronomy 19:15: Every “matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” In the original context of the Pentateuch, this was a judicial regulation to discourage arbitrary trials based on the legal testimony of one biased witness who might be on some personal vendetta. Appeal to the verse here certainly casts Paul’s third visit in a forensic light; but it is not entirely clear why Paul quotes it. That he in some way relates the two or three witnesses to the warning he gave when he was with them the second time and to the prospect of the third visit is obvious; but the nature of the relation is more obscure. After all, repeated trips and warnings by one man are rather different from multiple witnesses.
For this reason some have taken this quotation from Deuteronomy to be saying no more than that when Paul comes he will be scrupulously fair: he will entertain no unsubstantiated charges. This interpretation suits the context of Deuteronomy, but it is not a very obvious way to take the words in the context of 2 Corinthians 13, primarily because it loses the link with the second and third visit.
On the whole, therefore, it seems best to relate the two or three witnesses to the second and third visits, but to remember that Paul is not citing a proof text or an authorization text (there is no “as it is written”). Rather, Paul has used biblical phraseology to say, in effect, “I have given you due warning: on my next trip, if there is no improvement I will take decisive action.”
That, at any rate, is what he goes on to say: “On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me” (2 Cor. 13:2b–3a). The words “I will not spare” in this context suggests Paul will be very stern in his use of apostolic authority if the conditions he fears are actually present. He hopes he will not have to be harsh in his use of authority (v. 10), but he points out elsewhere that he is prepared if necessary to use the whip (1 Cor. 4:21).
Some scholars minimize the extent of Paul’s authority, the snap in his whip. They hold he had no weapons of coercion whatever, nothing but the naked truth. The most Paul could do is go to Corinth and speak the truth forcefully and courageously. If the Corinthians then chose to reject him, they would be rejecting the gospel; and in that case Paul could do nothing more.
This interpretation is too weak. Already in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul instructs the Corinthian church to hand over a particularly gross sinner to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh [not ‘sinful nature’ as in NIV!]”—i.e., Satan would inflict him with disease ultimately leading to death, unless repentance on the part of the sinner intervened, along with gracious restoration brought about by a forgiving God. This is not mere excommunication (although excommunication is normally the severest sanction the church may levy); and although the example in 1 Corinthians 5 is a communal decision fostered by Paul, the apostle is not restricted to communal approval. After all, in 1 Timothy 1:20 the apostle Paul, without the support or ratification of any church group, delivers Hymenaeus and Alexander to the same punishment.
What we must remember is that God hates sin, but doubly so when it proliferates among his own people. Judgment may sometimes delay a long time in coming; but that is not always a sign of mercy. It may be a sign of wrath, since the forbearance, rather sadly, may provide extra opportunity for storing up sins until the full measure of holy wrath is poured out. The sharpness of some of the discipline in the New Testament church is correspondingly a sign of mercy, for punishment long delayed loses all deterrence. Moreover, “the apostolic churches were not independent democratic communities vested with supreme authority over their own members. Paul could cast out of them whom he would” (Hodge).
The people who would be the principal target of Paul’s discipline, granted that he finds the church in the shocking state he fears, are “those who sinned earlier or any of the others.” He is referring first of all to those who might still be enmeshed in gross, sexual sin, and then secondarily to those in the church who are doing damage by other than sexual means (cf. 2 Cor. 12:20).
Paul is particularly blunt in this threat because (he tells the Corinthians) “you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me” (2 Cor. 13:3a). They were so sub-Christian in their thinking that Christlike gentleness and meekness meant little to them. They preferred manifestations of power, however exploitative and arbitrary they might be (11:20). Paul’s gentleness they therefore misjudged as weakness, preferring the triumphalistic pushiness of the false apostles. Paul responds by saying that if it is power they want to see as the absolute criterion of genuine apostolicity, they may get more than they bargained for: he may be forced to display the power of the resurrected Christ, speaking through him in the thunderous tones of punishment, another version perhaps of the judgment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11).
2. Support for Paul’s authority in the power of the resurrected Christ (13:3b–4). Paul now clarifies this last point. If it is Christ who is speaking through Paul, the Corinthians had better understand that, whatever they think of Paul, Christ himself “is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.” In short, Paul is reminding his converts that their quarrel is ultimately with the glorified Christ, the risen Lord who has been exalted to the Father’s right hand. Those who do damage to the church stand under the threat of divine retribution (1 Cor. 3:17). Whatever weakness the Corinthians ascribe to Paul, they ought to recognize that behind Paul stands the omnipotent Christ, who will by no means permit the sins of the Corinthian church to run forever unchecked.
But as soon as he has said this, Paul recognizes that the Corinthians may misinterpret it. They may say to themselves, “You see? Christ himself is a figure of power! So why does Paul make so much of the meekness and gentleness of Christ when Paul himself is perfectly willing to draw attention to Christ’s power when it suits him?” Paul must therefore demonstrate that the Lord Jesus Christ is the supreme example of both weakness and strength, and that these two virtues stand in a definite relation to each other.
“For to be sure,” Paul writes, “he was crucified in (lit. ‘out of’) weakness, yet he lives by God’s power.” Christ has not always been characterized by displays of power. He lived and ministered in a spirit of meekness and gentleness, and he was crucified out of weakness. This peculiar way of phrasing things means something like “because of weakness.” But Paul does not mean by this that Christ was crucified for no other reason than because he was weak, i.e., because he did not have the power to withstand his foes. Doubtless Paul was aware of Jesus’s claim, even in Gethsemane, that he had at his disposal legions of angels (Matt. 26:53; cf. John 10:18). Christ was never so weak he was forced to death as is a martyr. What Paul means is that Christ lay down his life “out of” the context of weakness, i.e., because weakness was what he had chosen in his determination to do the Father’s will. He was crucified because of weakness in the sense that all the benefits that flow to us from his grace gush forth out of the context of his own self-denial, the just dying for the unjust to bring us to God.
Christ was crucified out of weakness; yet, Paul goes on to insist, “he lives by God’s power.” In other words, “the cross does not exhaust Christ’s relation to sin; He passed from the cross to the throne, and when He comes again it is as Judge” (Denney). Paul himself does not here lay out quite so much detail; but his point is similar. Jesus’s self-adopted weakness, supremely displayed in his crucifixion, is not the last word: God raised him from the dead. Here is a shattering manifestation of power; and this is as characteristic of Jesus as the weakness of the cross. The cross and the resurrection go together; Jesus displays both weakness and power.
But in this manifestation of dual virtues, Christ stands as a model for Christians; and if for Christians, then supremely for Christian apostles. That is the conclusion Paul draws; for once he has described Christ’s display of both weakness and power, he writes, “Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you” (2 Cor. 13:4b). Paul means that his own experience will mirror Christ’s (cf. 4:10). Like all other believers, the apostle Paul lives this side of death; and therefore one principal sign of Christian existence will be “the same kind of vulnerability that Christ himself chose to adopt” (Barrett). Powerful life is primarily the prospect of the future; for although Christ has been raised from the dead as the firstfruits of believers, the believers themselves do not experience the same power to a similar degree until Christ returns (1 Cor. 15:20–28). Some of that resurrection power is operative in believers now to make us holy (e.g., Eph. 1:19–20; 3:16–17); and in the apostle Paul, some of that same resurrection power has been granted to enable him to handle the Corinthian situation. In Paul’s weakness, God’s power will be perfectly displayed “to serve you,” for the Corinthians’ benefit (even if discipline is not usually perceived as a benefit at the time by those who undergo it, Heb. 12:5–13).
Paul’s main points are clear. On his prospective third trip, he threatens to bring stern discipline if that is necessary (2 Cor. 13:1–3a); and the display of power such discipline presupposes will be supported by nothing less than the power of the resurrected Christ. This inevitably leads to a further warning: if judgment is so impending, then the Corinthians ought to examine themselves to ward off possible destruction.
3. Self-test for the Corinthians (13:5). The Corinthian believers, confident of their own wisdom, had been blissfully testing Paul and other claimants to apostleship; but they should have been testing themselves. “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith,” Paul writes; “test yourself” (2 Cor. 13:5a). The word “yourselves” is empathetic in position: yourselves, as opposed to everybody else. In an earlier letter Paul told them to “stand firm in the faith” (1 Cor. 16:13); now he tells them to examine themselves to see if they are “in the faith.” In both instances “in the faith” means “in the Christian faith,” i.e., in the Christian religion, designated “faith” by Paul because it is the God-revealed religion which, from the human perspective, is characterized by faith.
Now if the Corinthians are truly Christian, they will realize that Christ Jesus is in them—unless, of course, they fail the test. If Christ Jesus is in them, then they, like Paul, should hunger to know something of Christ’s meekness and gentleness, something of his weakness. Like Paul, they will pursue not only the power of his resurrection but also “the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10). That is what they must inevitably come to recognize—unless of course they fail the test.
Paul has wisely placed the Corinthians in a cleft stick. Since in his metaphor they administer the test to themselves, they are unlikely to fail themselves. The logic of Paul’s entire presentation, however, demands that if they “pass” themselves, they must pursue the crucified Christ as diligently as they pursue the exalted Christ. The only alternative is that they fail the test.
That Paul should encourage believers to indulge in the introspection of self-examination has raised many questions in the minds of some readers. In the magisterial Reformation, so much emphasis was placed on the fact that salvation was by grace, through faith alone, that many reforms equated saving faith with assurance. If a believer lacks assurance, it was argued, it is because he or she lacks truly saving faith. Calvin himself draws a false negative inference from this text, saying that Paul “declares that those who doubt their possession of Christ and their membership in His Body are reprobates”—which of course does not follow from the text.
The truth is that doubt regarding one’s status before the sovereign Lord can stem from many different causes. If doubt springs from uncertainty regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s cross-work, then the doubting believers must be led back to the many passages that attest its perfection. But if doubt springs from suppressed sin, the proper course for removal of the doubt is repentance of the sin, confession, and, where possible, restitution. Similarly, if a believer is very confident he is accepted in the beloved and is written in the Lamb’s book of life, not because he feels morally superior, but because he thoughtfully joins the Lord’s people in singing
Nothing in my hands I bring
Only to Thy cross I cling.
—then self-examination is superfluous. If, however, this alleged believer is puffed up with unrestrained self-importance, unqualified self-love, moral laxness, or major doctrinal deviation, then the apostle John (to go no further) has a set of three tests to impose (1 John): doctrinal commitment, love for the brothers, and moral obedience to Christ Jesus. If someone fails any one of these tests, John declares that person is no Christian at all (e.g., 1 John 2:1–9). At this point the emphasis of the reforms is seen to be a trifle simplistic; for in the appropriate situations, the Scriptures focus on subjective grounds of assurance (i.e., transformed lives), just as in other contexts they focus on the objective ground (the cross-work of Christ).
In short, when a person is broken in spirit and contrite before the God of all justice, grace comes and pronounces absolution and grants confidence. But when a person is haughty and arrogant, the product of well-cultivated triumphalism, unconscious of grace or of any need for it, then grace flees and a stern apostle warns, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.”
There are millions of professing believers in North America today (to say nothing of elsewhere) who at some point entered into a shallow commitment to Christianity, but who, if pushed, would be forced to admit they do not love holiness, do not pray, do not hate sin, do not walk humbly with God. They stand in the same danger as the Corinthians; and Paul’s warning applies to them no less than to the Corinthian readers of this epistle.
4. Entailment of passing the test (13:6). Paul’s next step at first sight seems out of context: he switches from talking about the Corinthians’ passing or failing, to his own passing of the test. Then suddenly what Paul is up to becomes clear, and we realize he takes a brilliant step when he writes, “And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test.”
Paul’s point is that if the Corinthians, as a result of their self-examination, decide that they are true believers, then there is an unavoidable entailment: the man who led them to their first steps of faith and their initial experiences of grace cannot be quite as useless as some of them have been suggesting. There must be some merit at least to his claims to apostolicity: i.e., Paul passes the test they have erected.
The irony is rich. If the Corinthians declare they have failed the test, then doubtless, Paul will be humiliated (cf. 2 Cor. 12:21); but in that case the Corinthians are in no position to point the finger at anyone. If on the other hand, they feel they have passed the test, then since Paul did all the initial evangelization among them, he is the last person they are in a position to condemn.
Clearly this is not a principle that is universally applicable. For instance, not every evangelist is laying claims to apostolic powers; and in some cases the evangelist himself might have turned renegade in the interim between his evangelization of a particular group and the application of the test. Nor is this exactly the same as saying that success validates all credentials. The argument works well in this context because of the peculiar nature of the charges leveled against Paul by the Corinthian church.
The warning is over. Paul now turns to the prayer he constantly offers to God for the Corinthians.
B. Prayer (13:7–9)
1. Its object (13:7a). “Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong.” Paul might have been spending time praying for his personal apostolic vindication, or at least that the Corinthians might come to their senses; but his grasp of priorities does not fail. He prays that in this present confrontation the Corinthian church might do no wrong, i.e., that they will be preserved and restrained from sin. “This is the most desirable thing we can ask God, both for ourselves and for our friends, that we and they may do no evil; and it is most needful, that we often pray to God for the grace to keep us, because without that we cannot keep ourselves. We are more concerned to pray that we may not do evil, than that we may not suffer evil” (Henry).
2. Its motive (13:7b). Paul knows his Corinthians. He is all too aware that they have a penchant for twisting his argument to mean that he is fawning up to them, trying to honey up to their good graces again (cf. 3:1; 5:12; 12:19). Anticipating that even at this late stage in the argument some of the believers in Corinth might twist his reference to passing the test to mean he is still after some shoddy bit of personal gain, Paul insists not only that his central prayer in these circumstances is that the Corinthian believers may do no wrong, but that he is able to utter such a prayer with complete, personal disinterest: “Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed.”
Paul’s argument is profoundly humbling. His prayer is that the Corinthians might do no wrong; and in this context, the wrong they might do is to continue with their triumphalism and its evil entailments (cf. 2 Cor. 12:20–21), including the failure to take appropriate action against the intruding false apostles (cf. 10:1–2, 6). If the Corinthians do the right thing, not only will they be pleasing God, but they will avoid the display of apostolic severity and power (cf. 13:2, 10). Of course, in that case Paul might once again appear weak to them: he promised to come in power, they might say, but once again he shows up with what he calls the meekness and gentleness of Christ.
No matter. “It would be better for the Corinthians to do what they knew to be good and right, even if this were to place Paul seemingly in the wrong, than that they should do something wrong” (Harris). It is doubtful if Paul is very sanguine about the outcome; but whatever the personal price, he is willing to pay it if only their own conduct is right before God and man.
Here is the heart of a true apostle, a Christian so steeped in radical discipleship and firm self-discipline that his every care is for the people he serves, not for his own reputation. He is no hireling, but a true under-shepherd, willing to be counted a failure, a sinner, even a counterfeit, if only the people he serves may be lifted up in their faith. Paul is the perfect antithesis to triumphalistic leadership.
3. Its assurance (13:8). Paul’s next words are so aphoristic they are a little difficult to understand: “For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” One way of taking it appears to be a statement reflecting Paul’s determination: i.e., the “cannot” is not an ontological impossibility but Pauline assurance of what he would not do under any circumstance. He cannot do anything against the truth, even if it means he himself is misunderstood by his converts; he can only act for the truth, i.e., in line with the gospel of God and all that entails in the lives of believers.
Alternatively, it is just possible Paul means that he cannot do anything against the gospel, where the truth already exists. He cannot use his apostolic authority to provide a display of powerful confrontation and discipline in a situation where the truth already has free course in the lives of the people, for that would be to undermine the truth. He can use his apostolic powers of discipline only for the truth, i.e., where gospel purity is lacking and needs to be restored. This latter interpretation admirably fits the context of this passage. It suggests once again that the display of apostolic power the Corinthians so much want to see is something Paul would use only as a last resort to restore the truth. His normal approach is to avoid such power confrontations. The aphorism thereby provides assurance that Paul’s prayer for the Corinthians is backed up by the assurance of a distinctively Christian mix of apostolic weakness and strength.
4. Its aim (13:9). Paul’s point now comes clear, as he overtly returns to the heart of his prayer: “We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection.” Paul’s constant, burning prayer is for the Corinthians’ perfection, i.e., their restoration to Christian values, their achievement of some degree of real maturity, their abandonment of the false gospel, their rejection of false apostles, their pursuit of Christian character. Nothing pleases Paul more than to see his converts mature, strong, and robust in their faith. He is glad, he says, when they are strong. If this means he appears weak, i.e., lacking in displays of power, he is still glad. He has no desire to set up scenes where he may use his apostolic authority to build a kind of personal aura. He would much rather leave his apostolic arsenal at home, and watch his converts grow to the full maturity that does not need the constant external discipline and regulation of an apostle.
There is a very humbling model for all true Christian leadership in Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians. Pressed to the limit, his attitude is not at all retaliatory and cheap. He still desires above all the spiritual well-being of his converts. Of no interest to him at all are questions of personal gain, financial reward, security, promotion, or personal reputation. His energies are focused on bringing his converts to maturity, restoration, perfection. If along the way this entails further steps of self-abasement, he is not perturbed by the prospect. What upsets him far more is the possible need for confrontation, for that would suggest there are all too many serious sins in the congregation. In no respect does Paul more closely resemble the Master he loves and serves than in his attitude to the church of which he is an apostle. May God raise up a generation of like-minded spiritual leaders.
C. Paul’s Balanced Purpose in Writing (13:10)
“This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.” In this sentence Paul tells his readers at least part of the purpose in his writing; but in some respects the verse also serves as a summary of 2 Corinthians 10–13. Paul has been charged with writing weighty letters while absent, yet proving weak when he shows up personally on the scene. In one sense the charge is justified, but Paul says the reason why he writes these things, during his absence from the Corinthians, is so that when he actually arrives he will not have to be harsh in his use of the apostolic authority entrusted to him. If the letter does its proper work, there will be repentance and obedience to the gospel in Corinth, and Paul will not be forced to display the stern power of discipline with which the Corinthian believers are otherwise threatened.
Thus Paul simultaneously hopes for good results, and issues a final warning in case his hopes are dashed. He recognizes that the overarching purpose of God in entrusting authority to him is to build the church; yet he knows that sometimes a necessary if painful intermediate step is to tear down faulty construction (cf. also 2 Cor. 10:8). However reluctant the apostle is to use his power in so destructive a fashion, he quietly reminds the church, one more time, that he is prepared to take such steps if his letter does not succeed in purifying the church in advance of his arrival.
It is important to recognize the sweep and independence of the apostolic authority presupposed by such a warning. Although Paul sees that in certain respects the evidence of his apostolic authority is the Corinthian church itself, along with other churches he has established, his authority is in no way dependent on those churches. If the Corinthian church should prove largely false, he feels free to destroy the work and remove the rot, in the hope of building something better. That is not his preference: he prefers to devote his energies to edification, not to discipline. But he is aware of the authority given to him to accomplish either task. Which one he will have to perform in this case now depends very much on the Corinthians themselves.
In these final lines, 2 Corinthians 13:11 still casts a backward glance at the rest of the epistle, whereas the remaining verses might well be found at the end of any of Paul’s letters. Paul announces the end of his missive with a cautious “Finally, brothers, good-bye.” Then, as if he is still burdened for his readers and cannot let them go without offering one more brief word of exhortation, he provides four brief injunctions.
The first is, “Aim for perfection” (the word used is cognate with the “perfection” mentioned in 2 Cor. 13:9). There he prayed for the Corinthians’ perfection; here he exhorts them to it. In both instances he is after the same thing: Christian maturity. In the context of the entire epistle, this injunction means, in practical terms, that the Corinthians must receive Paul’s delegates with Christian hospitality, abandon any lingering idolatry (6:14–7:1), continue preparing a generous contribution for the relief of the poor believers in Jerusalem, and, in the light of the last four chapters, abandon triumphalism and one-upmanship while instituting discipline in the church.
The second injunction is, “Listen to my appeal.” This too forces the readers—whether the Corinthians or ourselves—to review the epistle. More, it makes the exhortation to aim for perfection a question of obedience to apostolic appeal and exhortation, not an optional extra.
“Be of one mind,” the third injunction, probably means more than “get along with one another.” Rather, Paul wants the members of the Corinthian church so to work through their differences of opinions, bringing them to the test of the apostolic gospel, that they will become of one mind. As he writes to them elsewhere, “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Cor. 1:10). Modern evangelicals who share a common allegiance to the Scriptures would do well to foster this sort of attempt to come to one mind and thought as to what the Scriptures mean. Too many of us are so threatened by our fellow believers or are so bound up with our denominational distinctives, that we are afraid to be reformed by the Word of God or too proud to be corrected by those with whom we disagree. The apostle expects us to work at the business of being of one mind.
Fourth, Paul tells the Corinthians to “live in peace.” One-upmanship and triumphalism invariably breed polarization, jealousy, factions, slander. If the Corinthian believers repent of the sins at the core of their rebellion, they will overcome some of the entailments. The injunction to live in peace focuses on those entailments and reflects the high priority the Bible places on the demonstration of unity and peace among God’s people (e.g., Eph. 4:1–3).
To these four injunctions Paul appends a blessing: “And the God of love and peace will be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11). This could be taken in one of two ways. It might mean that God, the source of love and peace, will provide his own resources of these virtues to empower the Corinthians to obey the injunctions. The expression “the God of love and peace” in that case means that God is the giver of love and peace. Alternatively, and perhaps somewhat better in this context, love and peace may be seen less as God’s gifts than as God’s characteristics (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 14:33). In that case the promise of the presence of the God of love and peace is contingent upon obedience to the injunctions. If the Corinthians aim for perfection, listen to Paul’s appeal, learn to be of one mind and live in peace; they will find that the God of love and peace is with them. Otherwise, they will discover that the same God is the one who empowers the apostle Paul to bring the stern discipline to the wayward people of God.
Paul winds up with some standard salutations that he invests with Christian overtones. The kiss was a common form of greeting in the Mediterranean world, and still is in many places. But Paul tells the Corinthians to greet one another with a “holy kiss,” not because he is suggesting that kisses by non-Christians are “unholy,” but because the fellowship and love that the kiss of greeting ought to reflect in the Christian community are holy (cf. also Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20). It goes beyond the evidence to label the holy kiss a cultic act, as if it belonged to a set liturgy; but at its best it ought to reflect unity of mind coupled with love and peace in the Christian assembly.
At the same time the Corinthians need to be reminded they are not the only Christians in the world. The sentence “All the saints send their greetings” (2 Cor. 13:13)—presumably all the believers in the area from which Paul writes, the Christians in one of the Macedonian churches such as Philippi, Thessalonica, or Berea—is therefore more than courtesy: it is a healthy reminder to all believers from the Corinthians on to see themselves as part, but only part, of the entire body of Christ. Such a sense of unity should prove both exhilarating and sobering. It should afford us a vision of the scope of God’s redemptive operation, yet permit us to see that our local group of believers is not the center of the entire church. The Corinthians’ way was to trivialize the gospel and the church, while magnifying believers. God’s way is to display the grandeur of the church, while humbling believers.
And so we arrive at the final benediction: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). The order of the persons of the Godhead—Son, Father, Holy Spirit instead of the more usual Father, Son, Holy Spirit—may owe something to the enormous emphasis on self-sacrifice and self-abasement in these chapters (cf. 8:9), since those virtues were so magnificently manifested by Christ. The grace shown by Christ condemns our self-centeredness and triumphalism, the love of God demonstrated by Christ’s grace banishes our jealousy and factionalism, and the fellowship the Holy Spirit creates among us renders ridiculous the petty one-upmanship of minds mired in self.
E. Aftermath
Did these chapters turn the situation in Corinth around? We do not know for certain. Elsewhere, a group of churches or church leaders abandoned Paul (cf. 2 Tim. 1:15), despite his warning about the impending defection (Acts 20:29–31). But in this case, there are small bits of evidence to suggest that the Corinthians responded positively to Paul’s moving epistle and obeyed his injunctions. The most important evidence springs from the fact that when the threatened third visit actually took place (cf. vv. 2–3), Paul found time to write his Epistle to the Romans. That letter betrays some anxiety about the future (15:30–31), but none about the present. Moreover, in light of his remarks in 2 Corinthians 10:15–16a, Paul would not have been planning at that time to travel on to Spain (Rom. 15:24–28) if the Corinthian situation were still unresolved. The fact that the Corinthians collected their share of the funds Paul was gathering for the believers in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26–27) presupposes, to say the least, that there was no final rupture between the apostle and the Corinthians.
Yet for our purposes, the most important question we may ask concerns what effect this book will have in our own lives and congregations. The Word of God written by the apostle Paul does not have its most potent effect on our lives when we ask antiquarian questions about the way it has touched others, but when we wholeheartedly obey it.