CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE (κορίνθιους, δεύτερα ἐπιστολὴ̀ πρὸ̀ς τούς; the second of two books or epistles in the New Testament addressed by St. Paul to the Christian community at Corinth).

1. Background. The period of Paul’s contacts with the Corinthians is indicated in Acts (Acts 18:1-18; 20:2, 3). During the latter part of the first visit to Corinth which Paul made, Gallio became proconsul at that city. Since sources date the beginning of Gallio’s proconsulship in a.d. 51 or 52, the first visit of Paul to Corinth can be dated with confidence. Some five or six years later Paul spent three months in Greece, presumably at Corinth, following which he went to Macedonia and from there to Jerusalem. For his relationships with the Corinthians between these two visits we are dependent upon the correspondence which he had with them.

In attempting to determine the extent of the correspondence which Paul had with the Corinthians, the most widely-discussed hypothesis refers to four letters. The first letter is commonly referred to as the “lost letter” (cf. 1 Cor 5:9) in which Paul specifically required that Christians in Corinth were to separate themselves from immoral persons. The second letter is the “pastoral letter,” more commonly known as the canonical epistle (1 Cor) in which Paul treated a number of problems existing in the Christian congregation at Corinth. The hypothesis refers to a third letter, frequently described as the “painful letter” (cf. 2 Cor 2:4), which prob. was written in the aftermath of a serious crisis between Paul and the Corinthians. In this letter Paul was attempting to relieve the strained relations. The fourth letter is the “thankful letter,” more commonly known as the canonical epistle (2 Cor). In this letter Paul’s spirit overflows with relief at the news of improved relations which Titus reported.

Involved in the consideration of the extent of the Corinthian correspondence is the related matter of the number of visits which Paul made to Corinth. Reference already has been made to the two visits which are recorded in Acts. It is not possible to say that these were the only visits to Corinth. In the light of this impossibility, there is a strong inclination today to consider the probability of another visit. This probability rests upon data gleaned from 2 Corinthians. According to this epistle, relations had become very critical. Upon realizing how serious the deterioration really was, Paul sent Titus to Corinth with the “painful letter” (cf. 2 Cor 2:4).

In explaining the identity of this “painful letter” two points of view have had much more impressive support than other points of view. The one point of view is the traditional equating of 1 Corinthians with the “painful letter.” This view does not consider seriously the possibility of more than two visits by Paul to Corinth. The other point of view, on the basis of more recent study, considers it improbable that Paul’s state of mind when writing 1 Corinthians can be described by his words in 2 Corinthians 2:4. In the light of this improbability and also in the light of the impossibility of limiting Paul’s visits to Corinth to two, there is a decided shift to the hypothesis that Paul made another visit. This turned into a humiliating experience for Paul. Following this he wrote in an attempt to rectify the situation. Consequently, most contemporary views consider the probability of another letter. To the inquiry concerning the availability of such a letter, there are two contemporary replies. One reply is that such a letter has been preserved, at least in part, in 2 Corinthians 10-13. This reply is subjected to strong criticism because of the insufficient evidence upon which it is based. The other reply is that the letter has been lost, just as the letter alluded to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 is regarded lost. While this reply encounters fewer difficulties than the first reply, it provides no data for obtaining any knowledge of the contents of such a letter.

It may be that some progress can be made toward a partial understanding of the contents of the letter by correlating Paul’s probable second visit to Corinth and the strained relations involved with the “painful letter” which he wrote in an attempt to alleviate the tense crisis. Assuming that Paul wrote such a letter after such a painful visit to Corinth, he may well have written concerning matters which distressed him greatly and which had occasioned his hurried and humiliating departure from Corinth. This “painful letter” was taken by Titus to Corinth. Meanwhile, Paul prepared to leave Ephesus for Macedonia, where he expected Titus to rejoin him and report on developments at Corinth. After a lapse of time extending for some days or weeks, Titus reached Paul and gave him a heartening report. The Corinthians were repentant and wanted reconciliation (2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:9, 10). For Paul, the grief and anxiety gave way to thankful joy (2 Cor 7:6, 7, 13-16). He knew that he could return to Corinth without fear of being rejected or facing a rebellious congregation.

Before Paul could return to Corinth for the third visit, two matters needed attention. For one thing, Paul was in Macedonia for the purpose of making sure that the churches had prepared their collections which he was to take to Jerusalem. For another, the unsettled and tense relations between Paul and Corinth had interrupted the efforts to complete the collection in Corinth. With the memory of humiliating rejection removed, and with the anticipation of another visit to Corinth, Paul wrote the “thankful letter” (2 Cor), which was considered to be his last known letter to Corinth.

2. Unity. The MS evidence for the unity of 2 Corinthians is particularly impressive. The present arrangement of the epistle is found in all the MSS. None of the MSS divide the epistle, and among the MSS there is no variation which suggests disunity. Consequently, there is no evidence from the MSS to create any doubt concerning the unity of the letter.

Notwithstanding the MS support for the unity of 2 Corinthians there have been and continue to be impressive attempts to show that there is internal evidence of disunity. This disunity is borne out by the difference in the tone of chs. 1-9 which is “thankful,” and the tone of chs. 10-13 which is “severe.” In addition to the difference in the tone of the two sections, it is pointed out that there is a difference in reference to point of time. The first section contains references to the past (1:23; 2:3, 9), while the second section contains references to the future (10:6; 13:2, 10).

The most plausible attempt to establish the disunity of this epistle involves the following arguments: (1) comparative study of 2:3, 4; 10:1, 2; 11:2, 3 indicates another letter than 2 Corinthians; (2) this letter may be identified as the “severe (or painful) letter” written to relieve the tense relations which developed between Paul and Corinth during the interval between 1 and 2 Corinthians; (3) chs. 10-13 constitute a section of the epistle that conforms to the supposed contents of the “severe (or painful) letter”; (4) therefore, chs. 10-13 were written some time before chs. 1-9; (5) later, 2 Corinthians was put in its present form by the Corinthian congregation and then circulated among the churches.

The arguments for the unity of the epistle are: (1) there is no evidence of MS disturbance which would permit the supposition that 2 Corinthians was originally two letters, or parts of two letters, incorporated into one letter; (2) while chs. 1-9 have a “thankful” tone, this is not the only tone found in this section (cf. 1:23), and while chs. 10-13 have a “severe” tone, this is not the only tone found in this section (cf. 12:20), thus minimizing the incompatibility of the two sections; (3) the attempt to date chs. 10-13 chronologically earlier than chs. 1-9 and to identify it with parts of the “severe letter” has not yet been validated in the light of MS evidence supporting the unity of the epistle; (4) the uncertainty of assertions which indicate that portions of the “severe letter” are extant.

3. Authorship, date and origin. The author is unquestionably Paul, for none other than Paul has ever been suggested as the author. It is more characteristic of his style and manner than any of the other epistles in the NT which are attributed to him. It contributes significantly to our knowledge of Paul by providing much autobiographical material and revealing glimpses into his personality, including his emotions, his personal sense of integrity and his incisive grasp of what it meant to be a genuine apostle of the Lord. External evidence attests his authorship, for it has been a well-documented fact that 2 Corinthians was circulated throughout the churches as early as a.d. 140. At this early date, the epistle was recognized without question as Pauline. That recognition remains as strong today as ever.

Precision in dating is difficult, if not impossible, by reason of the complicated character of the historical background of the Corinthian correspondence. The most important and yet the most ambiguous element is the interval separating the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians. In trying to determine the length of the interval, it is necessary to allow sufficient time for the activities of Paul which occurred during this period. First Corinthians is most commonly dated during the spring of a.d. 57. In keeping with this date 2 Corinthians is variously dated from as few as six months to as many as eighteen months later. The usual approach is to keep the interval as minimal as humanly possible. Accordingly, some attempt is necessary to include all of Paul’s known activities during this period. The starting point is dating 1 Corinthians some time before Pentecost in a.d. 57 (cf. 16:8). The epistle was written in Ephesus. Paul left Ephesus and spent time in Macedonia and Greece (cf. Acts 20:1-6). The three months spent in Greece must have been during winter, since he left Corinth and arrived in Philippi in time for the Passover (Acts 20:6). Departing from Philippi, Paul arrived in Jerusalem in time for Pentecost (20:16). The date for this is presumed to be a.d. 58. The most likely time for Paul to have written 2 Corinthians during this period would be October of a.d. 57. This would allow for his departure from Ephesus some time after writing 1 Corinthians in a.d. 57 during the spring months. He would have time to be in Macedonia and he could send 2 Corinthians sometime in October of a.d. 57 before his arrival for the winter months in Corinth. Regarding the phrase “a year ago” (2 Cor 8:10; 9:2), Paul did not intend a full chronological year. Since the new year of the civil calendar began in September, Paul was simply ref erring to the previous year. Second Corinthians could have been written in October prior to his arrival in December to spend the winter months with the Corinthians. The letter was written prob. at Philippi. With the coming of Titus reporting upon a greatly-improved situation, Paul writes from Macedonia of his joy and of his plans to come to Corinth shortly. In all probability, Paul journeyed to Corinth soon after he sent Titus with the letter.

4. Purpose. The chief purpose of 2 Corinthians is to prepare the church at Corinth for Paul’s visit which he is soon to make. However, this effort to prepare the church should not obscure the influence of the critical situation through which Paul had just passed in his relations with the Corinthians. Nor should it obscure Paul’s sigh of relief and his attitude of joyous thankfulness over the fortunate change of attitude on the part of the Corinthian church. The complexity of the occasion requires that oversimplification of stating the purpose be avoided. The letter was written in a period of greatly improved relations between Paul and the Corinthians. Immediately preceding this period there had been serious differences which endangered Paul’s leadership at Corinth. With the threatened rebellion no longer troubling Paul to the extent he was troubled at the height of the crisis, he wrote to the Corinthians, communicating to them his thankful relief. Moreover, he wrote to them concerning the collection which he expected to gather for the church at Jerusalem. This project had fallen behind in the critical situation that developed. Furthermore, apparently because there remained residual elements of unrepentant minorities, Paul wrote with extraordinary vigor and vehemence concerning his authority as an apostle. In anticipation of his coming visit to Corinth, Paul wrote with great force concerning his claim to unequivocal apostolic leadership over the Corinthian congregation. His opponents who had challenged his apostolic authority were, in return, challenged by Paul himself as he marshaled impressive evidence authenticating his apostolic authority and leadership. All of this constrains Paul to write to the Corinthians that he expects to visit them shortly.

5. Content, including outline. This epistle is not as systematically structured as 1 Corinthians. The most likely explanation is that Paul has more of an emotional rather than a logical order for the letter. The first part reveals a deep emotional outpouring of grateful thanksgiving over the easing of the tense situation. In this part Paul reveals his delicate sensitiveness to the strained relations. He also shows great joy over the restoration of Corinthian loyalty to him. The second section discloses a fervent appeal for liberality in the collection for the church at Jerusalem. Paul informs the Corinthians that Titus and others are coming to help them in this project. The third section manifests an indignant spirit as Paul vehemently asserts the authority of his apostolic office and ministry. The epistle is outlined as follows:

Outline

6. Themes.

a. “A man in Christ.” In 1 Corinthians where Paul counsels on church problems, the self-portrait is that of a Christian minister. In 2 Corinthians where he gives strikingly intimate glimpses into his own person, the self-portrait is that of “a man in Christ” (12:2). In utter frankness, he spoke of his bodily presence as weak and his speech as contemptible (10:10). He shared the weakness of humanity and felt the gusts of emotion, whether in affectionate love or vehement indignation. He wrestled with the problems of human existence. Yet it is unmistakably clear that a newness has come into his life. As a man in Christ, Paul is a new creature (5:17). He knew this by personal experience.

The self-portrait of Paul is one of the truly fascinating features of this letter. While the Book of Acts, in part, provides the frame of reference for Paul’s travels and correspondence, 2 Corinthians gives autobiographical information which is invaluable. Dominant motives in Paul’s life were gratitude to God and Christ (1:3; 5:14), reverent awe before the Lord (5:10, 11) and genuine love for the churches (2:4; 11:11). The churches which he founded were his special joy and concern (2:2, 3). As a Christian, Paul willingly suffered with Christ (1:5) and bore in his body the dying of Christ (4:10). He also shared the risen life of Christ (4:10, 11) and his ministry was a continuing triumph in Christ (2:14). Moreover, he gloried in infirmities (12:9) and was content with weaknesses, insults, persecutions and calamities for the sake of Christ. Although he had been robbed, starved, and imprisoned many times, and although he had to endure the agony of a “thorn in the flesh” (12:7) as well as the “care of all the churches” (11:28), he was a living witness to the power of Christ in his life (12:9). Integrity and faithfulness characterize his ministry, with toil and suffering being indelible marks identifying him as a true apostle (1:12; 6:3-10; 11:23-29). His message was “Jesus Christ as Lord” (4:5).

b. “The ministry.” Perhaps nowhere in the NT is the theme of the ministry set forth in its sublimity as in 2 Corinthians (cf. 2:14-5:21). Paul treats this theme in terms of a pageant of triumph, followed by a predicament of trial and concluding with a proclamation of a theme. Describing the work of the ministry as a long triumphant march, Paul gives thanks to God (2:14). Evidence of this triumph is no less than the Corinthian church. The Spirit of God working through the ministry of Paul has accomplished this (3:2, 3). Neither psychological persuasion nor sociological trends adequately explain the phenomenon of the Christian community at Corinth. The explanation is found in the work of the ministry, which has succeeded because of the triumphant power of the Spirit (3:4-6). God, who in the beginning said, “Let there be light,” has spoken the same words to the hearts of the Corinthians (4:6).

Next, Paul discusses the work of the ministry in connection with the predicament of trial. This triumphant ministry is committed to earthen vessels subjected to great affliction and tribulation (4:7-10). This is the paradox of the ministry. Although it is as a valuable treasure, it is entrusted to vessels of far inferior value. In a vivid series of four contrasts, Paul declared that a constant succession of serious crises afflicting him never defeated him (4:8, 9). His point is that every desperate situation which has threatened these earthen vessels has become an occasion for God’s triumphant power and glory. Paul willingly served and suffered, even as Jesus did, but he was not overpowered through affliction. Instead, God’s power has made him victorious. Although the tribulations have taken an exhausting toll of the outward man, the power of God has renewed the inner man (4:16). The glory of the Lord has transfigured the afflictions (4:17).

Finally, Paul describes the theme of the ministry. It is the ministry of reconciliation (5:18). No passage of Paul’s letters is more important than his passage on the ministry of reconciliation (5:14-19). In this Scripture he declares that God in love has effected not simply a legal acquittal but more significantly a vital personal relationship to God and an inner transformation of life (5:17). This is the heart of the apostolic gospel ministry engaged in proclaiming reconciliation. The reconciling work of God through Christ involved a great paradox. It is this: the One who died for all knew no sin, yet it was this One whom God made to be sin for us (5:21). The theme of the ministry is that reconciliation has been accomplished. Paul affirmed that he was faithful in the performance of this ministry (6:3-10).

c. “The collection.” Paul’s collection for needy Christians at Jerusalem had an important role in his missionary efforts. He has devoted two chs. (8, 9) to this matter. This is significant for it indicates that it is to make a major contribution in the relations between Paul and the Corinthians. His motivation for taking a collection was not only his response in human sympathy to those in need, but also his ecumenical concern for the unity between the Jerusalem Christians and his Gentile churches.

His appeal to the Corinthians to complete the collection has three grounds: (1) since the Macedonian churches were so liberal in their giving, the Corinthians should know of this; (2) since Jesus Christ so willingly gave Himself, the Corinthians should emulate Him (8:9); (3) since they had earlier pledged, Paul urges them to fulfill their pledge as a matter of integrity and conscience (8:10-12). For Paul all Christian giving was to be considered in the light of the immeasurable and constant gifts of God, and the example of the self-giving of Christ (5:18; 8:9; 9:15). Man’s most important gift is that of himself to the Lord (8:5). True Christian giving is voluntary (9:5, 7), cheerful (8:2; 9:7), generous (8:2, 3; 9:6, 11). It is motivated by love (8:8) and by faith that God will provide (9:8). There is the resolve to fulfill one’s responsibility (8:10, 11). Openness and honesty are necessary (8:20, 21). True Christian giving builds unity, understanding and mutual concern among all Christians (9:12-14). It was not without significance that Paul urged the Corinthians to have the larger outreach in their giving. They were to think of that far-away place, namely, Jerusalem, and they were to develop a concern through giving. Paul nourished the concept of “benevolent giving” among his churches.

Bibliography J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1900); K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (1911); A. Menzies, The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (1912); A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1915); R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (1935); R. H. Strachan, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1935); H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I - II, 4th ed. (1949); F. V. Filson, “The Second Epistle to the Corinthians” (The Interpreter’s Bible) (1953); R. V. G. Tasker, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1958); E. P. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (1962).