The Tearful Letter, 2:3-4
Paul’s unplanned, emergency visit to
Corinth had been a disaster. He must have hurried back to Ephesus hurt,
angered, and perplexed. Although he had evidently promised the Corinthians a return
visit on the way to Macedonia, thus allowing him to see them yet again on his
way from there (1:15-16), once back in Ephesus he seems to have thought better
of the idea. His stated explanation for canceling the visit was that the
Corinthians might be spared (1:23), presumably meaning that they might be
spared his anger and censure. Other factors may also have entered into his decision—for
example, his fear of being unable to cope with the situation; or, more
positively, his unwillingness to delay or give up a mission to Troas (see
2:12), which lay along the route of his original itinerary (Ephesus-Troas—Macedonia—Corinth;
cf. 1 Cor 16:5-9). Whatever the reason or reasons, the plan was changed, and in
place of a visit Paul sent the letter which is described in these verses.
According to the traditional view,
this tearful letter is to be identified with 1 Cor, and the offender referred
to in 2 Cor 2:5-11 (and 7:12) is the man concerning whom Paul gives
instructions in 1 Cor 5:1-5. However, there are decisive reasons (discussed
above) why the person mentioned in 1 Cor cannot have been the offender mentioned
here in 2 Cor, and if that identification falls through, so does the
identification of 1 Cor with the tearful letter. There are also decisive
arguments against the more recent and widespread view that 2 Cor 10-13 (and
perhaps 2:14-7:4 as well) derive from that letter, one of which is that chaps.
10-13 were written in anticipation of a visit (12:14; 13:1), while the tearful
letter was written in lieu of a visit (1:23). Indeed, the present passage shows
that the cancellation of the visit and the dispatch of the tearful letter were
very closely associated in the apostle’s own mind. The visit had been canceled
because he wanted to spare them and avoid further grief (1:23; 2:1-2), and the
letter had been written out of his love for them and not to aggrieve them (vv.
3-4). In fact, then, it would appear that at least part of the impact of the
letter on the congregation was the news it contained that the first phase of
the “double visit” was being called off (see v. 3, And I wrote this very
thing, referring to the canceled visit in vv. 1-2).
In 1:23 Paul had stressed the hurt
another visit would have inflicted upon the congregation, and now he writes
about the hurt it would have caused him (v. 3). Both points have been made in
v. 2, consistent with the apostle’s conviction that he and his congregations
are bound so fully and closely together in the gospel that the joy o the one is
the joy of the other (v. 3; cf. 1:5-7, 24 and Phil 1:25, and see Gulin
1932:265-66). Nowhere does Paul refer so directly and specifically to his love
for the Corinthians as he does here (v. 4; cf. 1 Cor 4:21; 16:24). One could
argue that the tearful letter had actually been written out of pique, not love,
and that only Titus’ report of its goo effect (7:6-8) allows Paul to describe
it now as he does. That may in part be the case. It is also true, however, that
his “anxiety for all the churches” (11:28), and not least for the church in
Corinth, is the type of anxiety a parent feels for a child, an anguish compounded
of worry, fear, and hope, but rooted finally and decisively in love (see,
notably, Gal 4:19-20; 1 Cor 4:21; cf. Gulin 1932:266). (Victor Paul Furnish, II
Corinthians [AB 32a; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1984], 159-60)