Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Corinthian Crisis': for review

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Toseland <paul AT toseland.f9.co.uk>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Corinthian Crisis': for review
  • Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 16:04:59 +0000


Richard Fellows writes,

>Do you think that he visit [the first visit of 2 Cor 1:15]
>was announced by the 'former letter' or by Timothy? i.e.
>do you think they knew about it when 1 Cor was written? I
>wonder whether they would have sent a delegation with a
>letter if they were expecting an imminent visit.

Paul announced already during his second visit to Corinth
his intention of returning (2 Cor 13:2); I think that in
the ‘Previous Letter’ he may have stated his intention of
visiting Corinth as soon as possible, but that his plan
suffered a setback (1 Cor 4:18). I have argued in ‘The
Corinthian Crisis’ that Timothy set out for Corinth
expecting Paul to join him there, so it is likely
that the Corinthians would have learned of the plan of 2
Cor 1:15-16 from Timothy.

>All commentators, including yourself, are forced to
>suppose that the travel plan of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was
>cancelled because of bad news from Corinth, or because
>of a bad experience of Paul in Corinth. But Paul is
>clear that he had made his plan with confidence (2 Cor
>1.15). If the plan was cancelled because of something
>which reflected badly on the Corinthians, then Paul is
>mentioning a misplaced confidence, and this would be
>surprising in a letter of reconciliation. It would
>conflict with his purpose of emphasizing how well
>founded his confidence had been (see 7.14-16). He
>would, in effect, be saying, 'I was confident in you,
>but you let me down'.

I have argued in ‘The Corinthian Crisis’ that Paul's
major aim in 2 Cor 1:12-7:16 is to defend his handling
of the recent crisis. His argument hinges not on his
confidence in the Corinthians per se, but on his confidence
in God: he was confident that, come what may, on the Day of
the Lord he would stand before God with his Corinthian
converts, and they would be his ‘boast’, and he theirs (2 Cor
1:14). It is to this confidence that he refers in 1:15. The
Corinthians had behaved badly, to be sure, but the final
outcome demonstrated that his confidence was not misplaced
(2 Cor 7:8-12). I have argued that this happy outcome, in
Paul's understanding, was brought about God, who worked in
the hearts of the Corinthians to bring about their repentance.

Paul had been given the task of building up the church in
Corinth, not of tearing it down (2 Cor 10:8; 13:10), and
in his handling of the crisis he had properly fulfilled
this mandate. In sending the ‘Letter of Tears’ instead of
visiting Corinth to deal in person with the rebellion, he
had taken what must have seemed a terrible risk; indeed, as
I have argued, some in Corinth criticized him heavily for
this. However, he had boasted to Titus that the Corinthians
would ‘come through’, and indeed they did (2 Cor 7:14).

>Along with most commentators, you conjecture that Paul
>received bad news from Corinth shortly after writing 1
>Cor.: i.e. before Pentecost. That is how most people
>explain Paul's change of plan and/or his writing of the
>tearful letter. But 1 Cor itself does not anticipate
>problems of that sort. When he wrote it he was
>confident enough to give them his travel plan. You
>avoid the problem to some extent by speculating that
>the bad situation was brought about by the arrival of
>outside missionaries after Stephanas etc. had left
>Corinth. This is something that Paul could not have
>anticipated, because it is an unlikely event. But the
>fact that it is an unlikely event tells against your
>reconstruction. You require that their arrival be
>within a very narrow time window and that weighs
>against you (and others).

In evaluating the probability that rival missionaries arrived
in Corinth during the narrow window that I postulate, one
must look at the evidence. Most scholars agree that their is
no evidence in 1 Cor of such a threatening presence in Corinth;
but I have argued from evidence in 2 Cor 2:17, 4:2 and other
passages (pp 148-53 pc) that the intruders were in Corinth when
the ‘Letter of Tears’ was composed; moreover, it helps explain
the extraordinary militancy of the church during this period.
I think the intruders were probably invited to Corinth by members
of the church who had, in effect, hired them. It would not be so
surprising if they arrived in Spring; most people preferred to
avoid travel in the winter.


>It would be out of character for Paul to say that he
>would NOT come if they did not reform, since he tells
>them elsewhere that he will come and use his authority
>if they do not reform (1 Cor 4.20-21; 2 Cor 10-13).
>What is more, it would have been a major loss of face
>to have changed tactics in that way.

In each of these passages, Paul threatens to discipline certain
individuals within the church; the measures he may have in
mind are presumably indicated in 1 Cor 5:3-5. However, he would
then expect to carry out such measures with the co-operation of
the church as a body. At the time of the crisis, however, Paul was
faced with a rebellion of the whole church; a visit at this time
would have been disastrous. He would have faced the dreadful
prospect of ‘handing over to Satan’ the whole church, of tearing
down what he had built. The ‘false apostles' would have been
ecstatic! But he believed that such an act was both unnecessary
and contrary to his mandate. His offer of coming to Corinth ‘no
more' was perfectly genuine, but it was made in the confidence that
it would be declined.

Regards.

Paul Toseland
http://www.toseland.f9.co.uk/paul/ccindex.htm




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page