Sunday School Lessons

OCTOBER 31, 2021

A CLEAR BRIGHTER VISION

INTRODUCTION:

1. The Apostle having referred to the transient brightness of Moses’ face, as a symbol of the passing glory of his ministry, here uses the fact that Moses veiled his face as a twofold illustration. (Verses 12-15)
a) First, it symbolizes the obscurity of the revelation made under the old dispensation. As the brightness of Moses’ face was covered, so spiritual truth was covered under the types and shadows of the Mosaic economy.
b) Second, it symbolizes the blindness which rested on the minds of the Jews, which prevented their seeing the true import of their own institution.
2. Nevertheless, as Moses removed the veil from his face when he turned to the Lord so both the obscurity of the Law and the blindness of the people are taken away when they turn to Christ. (Verses 1, 6)
3. The clearer and brighter vision of the Gospel not only removes the veil form the heart, but it liberates from bondage, and transforms into a Christ-like glory. (Verses 17, 18)
4. Because we have in Christ a clearer and brighter vision, we can use great plainness of speech in declaring this glorious Gospel. (Verse 12)

I. PAUL’S EXPERIENCE OF THE TRUTH AND EXCELLENCE OF THE GOSPEL LED HIM TO DECLARE IT WITHOUT RESERVE. (VERSES 12, 13)

A. HIS “PLAINNESS OF SPEECH” WAS BECAUSE OF HIS GREAT CONFIDENCE IN THE GOSPEL AS REVEALED IN THE NEW COVENANT, AND ALSO HIS CALLING AS A MINISTER OF CHRIST. (VERSE 12 with VERSE 4)

1. “Seeing then that we have such hope,” literally, “Having such hope,” i.e. because we have it.
a) What he here calls hope; in Verse 4 he calls confidence.
b) The hope to which he refers is the Gospel and its ministry, which were far superior to the Law and the ministry of Moses.
2. “We use great plainness of speech,” or “We are very outspoken.”
a) This stands opposed to all concealment, whether from lack of information, or timidity, or fear of consequences.
b) Paul therefore says that in his case it was a result of his firm conviction of his divine mission and of the truth and glory of the Gospel, that he proclaimed it fully and boldly.
c) May the same confidence produce the same effect in us.
d) This is indeed one of the glories of Christianity. It is characteristic of error to practice reserve and seek secrecy and concealment.

B. HIS “PLAINNESS OF SPEECH” REGARDING THE GOSPEL IS CONTRASTED WITH MOSES’ CONCEALMENT AND RESERVE, WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE OF HIS MINISTRY. (VERSE 13)

1. “And not as Moses…” that is, we do not do what Moses did, for he did practice concealment.
2. This is no impeachment of the character of Moses. Paul is not speaking of his personal character, but of the nature of his office.
3. The truth concerning man’s redemption was not “in other ages made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed to the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” (Eph. 3:5)
4. It was not consistent with the nature of Moses’ ministry to communicate the doctrines of redemption as do Christian ministers. He was sent to speak as it were in parables and types. He set forth truth in significant rites and ceremonies. He thus put a veil over the glory, not to hide it entirely, but to obscure its brightness.
5. This Moses did, as symbolized by the veil which he put over his face, so that the people “could not look stedfastly to the end of that which was abolished.” (Verses 7, 13)
a) “The end” here speaks of the termination, and not the design or scope, not as in Romans 10:4, where Christ is said to be “the end of the law,” that is, the object toward which it intended.
b) In Verse 7 Moses veiled his face in order to prevent the Israelites seeing how soon its brightness faded. This was symbolic of his ministry by which the people could not see the temporary, preparatory nature of that economy.
6. Mark 4:11 is in a measure parallel to what we have here. “…all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive.”

II. BY THE GOSPEL ALONE IS THE VEIL REMOVED FROM THE EYES AND HEART, SO THAT THE TRUE GLORY IS SEEN. (VERSES 14-16)

A. THE BLINDNESS OF THE JEWS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES REMAINED UNTO THAT VERY DAY. (VERSES 14, 15)

1. Even still, the Jews did not truly understand the ministry of Moses. They, for the most part, did not understand what was set forth in types and shadows. They did not see Christ’s person and work, as typified in their priesthood and sacrifices. Therefore, when the Old Testament Scriptures were read, they remained in their religious darkness.
2. Not even through the plain and unreserved preaching of the Gospel did they understand what Moses was setting forth. They considered the preaching of Christ to be offensive. In other words, the veil remained not taken away. Thus, when the Old Testament Scriptures were expounded, as Paul did at Rome in Acts 28:23, the same veil was over their hearts and minds.
3. This means that they remained satisfied with the external, ritual, and ceremonial, without any interest in what was the import of the types and symbols.
4. The Old Testament Scriptures are intelligible only when understood as predicting and prefiguring Christ. The knowledge of Christ removes the veil from the Old Testament. “Which veil is done away in Christ.”
5. The Jews did not understand the Scriptures in two ways. (Verse 15)
a) The veil was on the Scriptures. The message was obscure to them
b) The veil was over their hearts. The true want of knowledge was subjective. The Scriptures are sufficiently clear if they had a heart to understand them.

6. The Jews are not alone in their blindness to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. The religion of many professing Christians consists in nothing more than outward observances. They have no heart for anything deeper.

B. THE VEIL SHALL REMAIN UPON THE HEART UNTIL IT TURNS TO THE LORD. (VERSE 16)

1. So long as the people were turned away from the Lord the veil remained.
2. The allusion seems to be to what is recorded in Exodus 34:29-35, as it is expounded by the Apostle here. When Moses was among the people, he wore a veil, but, when he returned to the Lord, he removed it.
3. Some understand “it” as referring to Moses, as representing the Law. “When Moses is read, the veil is upon the heart,” but “When it (Moses, i.e. the Law) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” When the Law is directed to Christ, Who is the end of the Law, the message then becomes clear.
4. The most natural subject of the verb shall turn is heart. A veil is on the heart but when it (the heart) turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
5. It is the heart that is the true seat of understanding. We must be given a heart to know the Lord. (Jer. 24:7)

III. THE TWO GREAT RESULTS OF THIS GOSPEL UNVEILING ARE LIBERATION FROM BONDAGE AND CONFORMITY TO CHRIST. (VERSES 17, 18)

A. THE TURNING OF THE HEART TO THE LORD IS BY THE MINISTRATION OF THE SPIRIT REFERRED TO IN VERSE 8.

1. The things that were being compared are the ministration committed to Moses, and the ministration committed to Paul. The latter, being the ministration of the Spirit (the Gospel) is the more glorious. The former was a ministration of death, while the latter is a ministration of life. Life and life-giving are inseparable from the idea of the Spirit.
2. The Gospel as the source of life is called spirit (small “s”), so the translators render it thus in Verse 8, since spirit is being contrasted with letter.
3. It is, however, the Holy Spirit, and He alone, Who turns the heart to the Lord, and in doing so, writes the Law upon the heart. (Verse 3; Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10)
4. “Now the Lord is that Spirit,” says the Apostle.

B. IN THE GOSPEL, IT IS THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST THAT LIBERATES AND SETS US FREE. (VERSE 17; JOHN 8:36)

1. Set free from the curse of the Law.
2. Liberated from its yoke of bondage.
3. Free to walk in its holy precepts by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

C. THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THIS LIBERTY IS HERE STATED. (VERSE 18)

1. Who are these so effected? “But, we all.”
a) All who have turned to the Lord. (Verse 16)
b) All who have been set free from bondage by the Spirit of the Lord. (Verse 17)

2. What is their advantage? “…with open faces.”
a) The veil has been removed, they have unveiled faces.
b) They have a brighter vision now of those blessed truths that were before obscured in types and shadows.

3. What are they now able to do and by what means? “…beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord.”
a) They see in the looking glass of the Gospel the glory of the Lord.
b) They now see clearly the person of Christ, Who was the subject of the prophetic Scriptures, and the object of the ceremonies of the Law. They see in Him the end of the Law for righteousness. (Rom. 10:4)
c) By the Gospel, they see “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (Ch. 4:6)
d) This is a continuing experience. ‘beholding”

4. What effect does this continuous beholding have on these? “…are changed into the same image, from glory to glory.”
a) The chief desire of those hearts that are turned to the Lord is to be like Him.
b) By constantly beholding Him in the Gospel, believers are themselves being changed.
c) This is a progressive change. “…from glory to glory,” that is, for one degree of glory to another.
d) This is according to God’s predestinated purpose. (Rom. 8:28)

5. By what instrumental power is this glorious change effected? “…even as by the Spirit of the Lord,” even by the Spirit of Sanctification.

OCTOBER 17, 2021

PAUL’S FITNESS FOR HIS CALLING AS A MINISTER OF THE NEW COVENANT

INTRODUCTION:

1. In his second Epistle, Paul has again found it necessary to defend the integrity of his ministry.
2. As for the Corinthians themselves, he could argue that god had through his ministry worked grace in them authenticated by the seal of the Holy Spirit. (Ch. 1:21, 22) Surely the Spirit of truth would not put His seal upon that which was false.
3. Besides this, God had by him made manifest “the savour of His knowledge,” that is the Gospel of Christ, not only there in Corinth, but in every place. (Ch. 2:14) To those whose hearts were opened, it was ‘a savour of life unto life.”
But, to the unbelieving, and sin-lovers, it was “a savour of death unto death,” only further hardening their already hard and impenitent heart. (Ch. 2:16)
4. Although the concluding verses of the preceding chapter contained so strong an assertion of Paul’s integrity and fidelity, he says it was not written for the purpose of self-commendation.
5. He needed no such commendation, and he gives the reason why.

I. THE CORINTHIANS THEMSELVES WERE HIS COMMENDATION. (VERSES 1-3)

A. THE OPENING QUESTION IS ASKED, ANTICIPATING THE ACCUSATION OF HIS CRITICS. “DO WE BEGIN AGAIN TO COMMEND OURSELVES?” (VERSE 1a) This was often Paul’s method. He would anticipate the objections of false teachers and frame their question for them.

1. In writing this Epistle, Paul’s mind was filled with conflicting feelings. On the one hand, he was filled with gratitude to God and love to the saints for their faith and obedience; and on the other hand, with feelings of indignation at the wickedness of the false teachers, who were watching to turn everything against him.
2. Although he entertained no spirit of self-commendation in his former thanksgiving and assertion of his sincerity (Ch. 2:14-17), yet he knew that his enemies would put that construction on what he had said. He can hear them saying, “he was promoting himself.”
3. Of course, their charges were untrue. It is sadly the case with some ministers that they like to “toot their own horn,” so to speak. However, when Paul spoke of his sufferings, or of the success of his ministry, or of his abundant labors, it was never for self-commendation.

B. THE SECOND QUESTION IS ASKED IRONICALLY, FOR HOW COULD AN APOSTOLIC MISSION SO WELL AUTHENTICATED NEED FURTHER RECOMMENDATION? (VERSE 1b) “Or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you…”

1. It is here implied that the false teachers had gained access to them on the strength of certain letters of recommendation.
2. If they were to go elsewhere, they were so little known, that they would have needed letters from the Corinthians. “…or letters of commendation from you.”
3. It was God Who opened doors unto Paul, (Ch. 2:12) and after that, it was his faithful stewardship that provided his commendation.

C. THE CORINTHIANS IN THEIR CONVERSION WAS AN EPISTLE OF CHRIST AUTHENTICATING PAUL’S MISSION AND FIDELITY. (VERSE 2)

1. What better letter of commendation than one written by Christ, which the Apostle asserts that these converts were. (I Cor. 9:2)
2. Not only were these believers’ letters written by Christ, but they were written in Paul’s heart. Thus, he speaks of it as a certainty and as an inward knowledge.
3. This letter was not only known by the Apostle inwardly, but it was there to be read of all men. We as believers read such letters of Christ with joy and affection. However, they are a written witness of God’s grace in salvation to all men. There is no greater testament to the truth of the Gospel than a genuine convert.

D. THE FACT THAT THE CORINTHIANS WERE TO PAUL AN EPISTLE OF COMMENDATION IS HERE CONFIRMED. (VERSE 3)

1. The conversion of the Corinthians was the work of Christ, affected by the ministry of Paul.
2. Considered as a letter, they were the letter of Christ written by the hand of Paul as Christ’s instrument.
3. The superior worth of this epistle is that it is not written with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God. Anyone can write with ink, but Christ alone can write with the Holy Spirit.
4. This is a figurative way of expressing that true conversions are a divine, supernatural work, and therefore the irrefutable proof that Paul was the minister of Christ.
5. This great work speaks of the great New Covenant blessing. Christ in saving sinners, writes His Law, that was before written on tables of stone, in the fleshly tables of the heart. (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:10)

II. PAUL’S SUFFICIENCY AS A MINISTER OF THE NEW COVENANT WAS DUE IN NO MEASURE TO HIMSELF, BUT TO GOD. (VERSES 4-6)

A. HIS CONFIDENCE IN HIS DIVINE MISSION AND HIS APOSTLESHIP HE HAD FROM CHRIST, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD. (VERSE 4)

1. It was confidence so humble, and yet it did not whither in the presence of God.
2. This confidence he had through Christ.
3. It was not self-confidence, but a conviction of the truth of the Gospel and of the reality of the vocation which he had received from Christ.
4. His confidence was that God had called him and that God’s callings also included His enablements.

B. HE HAD NO MISGIVINGS ABOUT WHAT WAS NOT, AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF HIS SUFFICIENCY. (VERSE 5)

1. He was not in and of himself sufficient to think anything. He was not the source of his sufficiency.
2. What he disclaims is the ability in himself to think anything right or good. His fitness for the work, whether consisting in knowledge, or grace or fidelity, or efficiency, did not arise out of anything he was in or of himself.
3. The word is to be taken in its simplest sense, to think. Certainly, it is easier to think good than to do good. In this Paul confessed that he was powerless and empty. “Our sufficiency is of God” (I Cor. 15:10)

C. HE AFFIRMS THAT IT WAS GOD WHO MADE HIM AN ABLE (SUFFICIENT) MINISTER OF THE NEW COVENANT. (VERSE 6) This verse clearly confirms what that sufficiency was of which he had been speaking.

1. He says not that God had found, but made us able. (sufficient)
2. Paul here declares that God made him an able minister of the New Testament, or covenant. (Greek – diathekes)
3. The covenant formed between God and His people Israel at Mount Sinai is called the Old Covenant. The Gospel dispensation as distinguished from the Mosaic is called the New Covenant. (Matt. 26:28; I Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8; 9:15)
4. However, as Charles Hodge remarks, “As the promises of the Gospel, and especially the great promise of redemption by the blood of Christ underlay both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, the plan of salvation, or the covenant of grace, is also called the New Covenant, although older than the Mosaic covenant, to distinguish it from the covenant of works formed with Adam”
5. It is not always easy to determine whether the term “new covenant” refers to the Gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant of grace inaugurated in the first promise made to our fallen parents. And neither is it always easy to decide whether the term “old covenant” designates the Mosaic covenant, or the covenant of works. The context must in every case be our guide. In the present case it is plain that by the New Covenant the Apostle means the Gospel as distinguished from the Law; the Christian, as opposed to the Mosaic dispensation.
6. The Apostle declares himself a minister of the New Covenant, the nature of which is by contrast, “not of the letter, but of the spirit.”

a) The words “letter” and “spirit” as here used mean the law and the Gospel. This we know because it is these that he proceeds to compare. This understanding is consistent with his use of these terms elsewhere. (Rom. 2:27; 7:6; Gal. 3:3)
b) The ground of these designations lies in the fact the Law is something written and that it is written as something external and objective. It was not an inward principle or power. It held up rule of duty, but it could not impart ability. On the other hand, the Gospel is spiritual. It is the power of God unto salvation. (Rom. 1:16)

7. Note the contrast.

a) “For the letter killeth.” How so? It demands perfect obedience. It says, “Do and live.” It says cursed is everyone that fails. (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12)
b) “The spirit giveth life.” Or, “the Gospel giveth live.” The Gospel in the letter of it shows the way of life, and in the hand of the Holy Spirit gives life.

III. THE NEW COVENANT AND ITS MINISTRY FAR EXCELS IN GLORY THE OLD COVENANT AND THE MINISTRY OF MOSES. (VERSES 7-11)

A. THE ONE WAS A MINISTRATION OF DEATH, AND THE OTHER OF LIFE. (VERSES 7, 8)

1. That the Law was glorious was evident in Moses the Mediator, whose shining face reflected the majesty and glory of God manifested in that Law. (Verse 7; Exod. 34:29, 30) Yet it was a ministration of death, because it had no power in it to give life; it could only condemn.
2. There is, however, a more excellent glory in the Gospel, for it gives life. It demands no less than the Law, but what it requires it also provides. (Verse 8)

B. THE ONE WAS THE MINISTRATION OF CONDEMNATION, BUT THE OTHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. (VERSE 9)

C. THE TRANSCENDENT GLORY FO THE GOSPEL HAS FOREVER ECLIPSED THE GLORY OF THE LAW. (VERSE 10)

D. THE GLORY OF THE ONE WAS TRANSIENT, WHILE THAT OF THE OTHER IS ABIDING. (VERSE 11)

September 26, 2021

REVISITING THE CASE OF DISCIPLINE MENTIONED IN THE FIRST LETTER

INTRODUCTION:

1. In our last lesson, we observed Paul answering charges of inconsistency and lightness that were leveled against him by some at Corinth because of alterations in his plans to visit Corinth. (Ch. 1:15-17)
2. His sudden transition from defending his veracity as a man, to asserting his consistency as a preacher, shows that his enemies had applied the former charge to his doctrine.
3. These charges he refuted soundly by reminding them that his doctrine was that of Christ with whom there is no yea and nay, only yea. Christ, the Son of God, whom he preached is the yea and the amen of all divine truth. Plus, through Paul’s ministry God had worked in them His grace, and sealed it by the Holy Spirit. (Verses 18-22)
4. Having set the record straight, he gave the real reason why he had not come to them in keeping with the original plan. It was to spare them. He did not wish to appear among them as a judge, which would have been unavoidable, seeing what the state of affairs was at the time. (Verses 23, 24)
5. As we now come to the beginning of Chapter 2, there is no change of subject. To what he had said before, he here adds that he had determined not again to visit Corinth under circumstances which could only give pain to them and to himself.

I. TO HIS STATED CHANGE OF PLANS FOR GOING TO CORINTH, HE HERE ADDS SOME AMPLIFICA- TION. (VRS. 1-4) Paul had stated that the real reason why he had not come to Corinth at the time he had intended was that he would spare them. He wished not to come as a judge among them. There were many things amiss in the church, as the first letter testifies, but here it is implied that the matter of greatest grief and concerned was the case of incest. This situation was intolerable. For this reason, he did not come in person, but instructed them by letter what must be done and why. (I Cor. 5:1ff) They had apparently received his instructions, and acted upon them. This was well pleasing to Paul, and since their actions had had the desired effect on the guilty party, he will go on to instruct them in their duty to forgive and restore the brother.

A. PAUL HAD DEFERRED HIS VISIT BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT COME IN HEAVINESS OF SPIRIT. (VERSE 1)
1. This, Paul had determined with himself, that is, for his own sake. Thus he delicately intimates that in sparing them he was also sparing himself much pain.
2. It is here implied that Paul had already made a visit to Corinth under painful circumstances. There is evidence that Paul had been twice to Corinth before this letter was written. (Ch. 12:14, 21; 13:1) Having gone once to correct abuses, he was anxious not to have a second painful interview, so he delayed the visit, and waited for Titus to return to report what effect the letter had.

B. PAUL WISHED HIS NEXT VISIT TO BE ONE OF MUTUAL JOY AND REFRESHING. (VERSE 2)
1. Paul realized that unless his visit should cause them joy, it would bring no reciprocal joy to himself.
2. It is wonderful and precious how inspiration leaves in full play the characteristic peculiarities of the inspired writers. We learn through their writings, not only the mind of the Spirit, but also the personality of the writers. Paul’s refinement and courtesy are just as plainly revealed in his epistles, as his intellectual power and moral courage. In no other epistle of Paul is this more evident.
3. Paul here asks, “How can I receive joy for one to whom I bring sorrow?”
4. There were many Saints at Corinth who would have needed no reproof, and they were indeed Paul’s joy and crown, but if he came on a mission of judgment, where would be the rejoicing?

C. THE PURPOSE OF THE FORMER LETTER WAS THAT HE MIGHT THEREBY ADDRESS THEIR SIN, RATHER THAN COMING IN PERSON. (VERSE 3)
1. Safe to say, those who condemned his not coming, and used it to impugn his character and ministry, would not have been glad had he come.
2. But also, as he reiterates again, he would have had sorrow from them of whom he ought to rejoice.
3. Paul was satisfied that what made him happy would make his beloved brethren at Corinth happy too. “Having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.”

D. HIS LETTER TO THEM FLOWED FROM A BROKEN HEART. (VERSE 4) His great grief here spoken of was apparently (as indicated by the context) over the case of incest in the church. He was deeply grieved over the fact of the sin, but also for the lack of action by the church respecting the matter.
1. He was compelled to write and insist that they deal with the situation in a proper manner.
2. In this, he would have them know, that it was out of love for them that he acted so aggressively.
3. The preacher’s motive for reproving and rebuking God’s people must ever be love, just as the parent the child.

II. REGARDING THE PERSON WHO HAD BEEN UNDER DISCIPLINE, HE NOW DIRECTS THEM TO RE- STORE HIM, AND GIVES THE REASONS WHY. (VRS 5-11) From what follows, we can conclude most happily that the ordered discipline of the person guilty of incest have had its desired effect, and therefore the church must be as aggressive in their forgiveness and reinstatement as they were in their censure of him. (See I Cor. 5:5)

A. HE TELLS THEM OF THE GRIEF THAT THE MAN IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TO HIM. (VERSE 5)

1. “But if any have caused grief, he hath grieved me, but in part.” This statement has been variously interpreted.
a) That the man’s sin was only part of his grief. That his grief was also over some who did not mourn, but were puffed up. (I Cor. 5:2)
b) That the sin was a grief to him but in part because many of them were grieved also.
c) That his grief was but in part because the church had followed his instruction, and the man had repented.
d) That he was grieved but in part, because it was not the whole church that had grieved him.
2. Of these interpretations, the last seems most likely, because of the next words that are added, “That I may not overcharge you all,” that is, that I may not load you all with the imputation, as if you were all involved in it.

B. HE TELLS THEM THAT THE PUNISHMENT WHICH HAD BEEN INFLICTED UPON THE OFFENDER WAS SUFFICIENT. (VERSE 6)

1. The church had been obedient to Paul’s directions.
2. The desired end was achieved, in that; the man had repented, and shown proof of it.
3. There was no more reason to continue the censure. There was now reason for rejoicing.

C. HE DIRECTS THEM TO RESTORE THE MAN WITH ALL SPEED. (VERSES 7, 8)

1. They were to forgive him. They could not remit the guilt (only God can so forgive sin), but it was their duty to remit the punishment. It appears that this they had not done.
2. They were to comfort him. This meant to receive him again into full fellowship.
3. Otherwise, Paul feared the man might be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Paul clearly had intelligence that the man had experienced godly sorrow. This was good, but it is the Christian way to comfort the brokenhearted.
4. They were to now confirm their love to him.
a) Paul beseeches them to see to this, lest the man be swallowed up by overmuch sorrow.
b) The word “confirm” properly means to ratify with authority by some formal public act. The Apostle is apparently calling on them to reinstate this man into the Fellowship of the church by some formal act.

D. HE PERSUADES THEM TO THIS DUTY BY SEVERAL WEIGHTY ARGUMENTS. (VERSES 9-11)

1. For sake of the penitent person, as already considered. (Verse 7)
2. For their own sakes, that they prove themselves obedient in all things. Just as they had obeyed the Apostle in deal- ing with the offender, now they must prove their obedience in restoring the penitent.
3. Paul was ready to concur with them in the matter. “To whom you forgive, I forgive also.”
a) This he would do for their sakes, out of love for them, and for their advantage.
b) This he would do for Christ’s sake, or in Christ’s name, as an Apostle, and in conformity to His doctrine an example.

4. He adds another reason that is most weighty: “Lest Satan get an advantage against us.” (Verse 11)
a) To indulge sin is on the one hand, to allow Satan an advantage.
b) But, on the other hand, to have an unforgiving spirit, is to give advantage to the enemy.
c) Satan has many devices (stratagems), and we must not allow ourselves to fall prey to any of them, for we are not ignorant of them.

III. HE REPORTS TO THEM OF HIS TRAVELS AND LABORS IN THE GOSPEL, HIS SUCCESSES, AND ALSO SOME CONCERNS THAT HE HAD. (VERSES 12-17)

A. HIS UNEASINESS IN NOT FINDING TITUS AT TROAS HAD CAUSED HIM TO GO FROM THERE TO MACEDONIA. (VERSES 12, 13)

1. In execution of his plan to go from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth (I Cor. 16:5) Paul came to Troas.
2. There, the Lord had opened to him an opportunity to labor successfully in the Gospel, yet he had no rest in spirit, because of concern for Titus. Titus was supposed to meet Paul at Troas and report to him of the state of things at Corinth, and especially the effect produced by his former letter.
3. We can see how he considered this to be a turning point in the history of the church. If they submitted to his authority, and corrected the abuses which he addressed in the letter, then he would be greatly relieved, and hope- ful for their stability and progress. But, if they refused to regard his injunctions, then he could foresee their com- ing destruction.

B. HE BLESSED GOD FOR THE SUCCESSFULNESS OF HIS LABORS EVERYWHERE. (VERSES 14-16)

1. God caused Paul and his fellow-laborers in the Gospel to triumph in every place. (Verse 14) In spite of fierce opposition at every turn, God was making manifest the savour of his knowledge by them in all places where they went. That is, men were brought to a knowledge of God through the preaching of the Gospel. They were given a heart to know the Lord.

2. However, the Gospel did not always have that same good effect on all who heard it. (Verse 16)
a) In every place it brought some to a knowledge of God and salvation, but not all.
b) Although to some the savour was that of life, to others it was the savour of death.

3. But, in either case, the faithful preacher of the Gospel is a sweet savour to God. (Verse 15)
a) The preacher’s job is to faithfully preach Christ. It is God Who must make it effectual. (I Cor. 3:6; Psa. 110:3)
b) The faithful steward is pleasing to his master on the basis of faithfulness. (I Cor. 4:1, 2)

C. HE PROFESSES HIS FAITHFULNESS TO THE WORD OF GOD AND HIS SINCERITY IN STRIVING TO PLEASE GOD. (VERSE 17)

1. Though many did corrupt the Word of God, the Apostle’s conscience witnessed to his fidelity.
2. It is not our business to add our notions to the doctrine of God. We must not either add to it, or diminish ought from it, but declare it as it is.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2021

PAUL DEFENDS HIS INTEGRITY

INTRODUCTION:

1. We are aware from the concluding chapter of the first epistle that Paul’s intention and hope was to come and visit the church at Corinth. (I Cor. 16:5-7)
2. It appears from our present passage that Paul’s original plan was to go directly from Ephesus to Corinth, and from there into Macedonia, and then back to Corinth, and from there to Jerusalem. (Verses 15, 16) But, he then decided that, God willing, he would go to Macedonia before going to Corinth. (I Cor. 16:5)
3. So eager were the false teachers at Corinth to find reasons of complaint against him, that they made this change of plan a grievous offence, and a proof that he was not to be depended upon either as to his purpose or his doctrine.
4. Thus, we have in these verses a vindication of himself and his fellow-laborers. First, he will attest to the integrity of himself and his companions in ministering the Word. Their ministry was according to truth, and their lives were consistent with what they preached. Secondly, he vindicates himself against charges of undependability. Any changes in his travel plans were not due to levity, or inconsistency on his part, but rather to the will and providence of God.

I. HE ATTESTS TO HIS AND HIS FELLOW-LABORERS’ COMPLETE SINCERITY AND INTEGRITY IN PREACHING THE GOSPEL. (VERSES 12-14)

A. THEIR INTEGRITY WAS ATTESTED TO BY THE SINCERITY OF THEIR CONVERSATION (BEHAVIOR). (VERSE 12)

1. This he does in a most humble manner, not by way of boasting, but as appreciative for the help of their prayers. (Verse 11; Heb. 13:18)
2. This they had done by God’s grace. “Not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world.” (Verse 12b)
3. It is essential for ministers of the Gospel to demonstrate in their daily walk of the sincerity of their ministry. For this they must have God’s grace; and for this they earnestly ask for the prayers of God’s people.
4. The Apostle could heartily attest that they had walked honestly toward them that were without, and toward them. “We have had our (good) conversation in the world, and to you-ward.”

B. HE APPEALS TO THE TESTIMONY OF CONSCIENCE. (VERSE 12) “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience…”

1. It was a matter of rejoicing, for his conscience testified that his life was of a singular purpose, and with all sincerity he had kept to that purpose.
2. Paul could say, “My joyful confidence consists in the consciousness of sincerity.” Paul was aware of his integrity, and his conscience, the guardian of his soul attested to the fact.
3. His conscience bore witness that his was “godly sincerity,” as opposed to “fleshly wisdom.” Literally, “the sincerity of God,” as distinguished from mere natural sincerity as a moral virtue.

C. HE APPEALS TO THE CORINTHIANS, THEMSELVES, FOR VERIFICATION, BASED ON WHAT THEY HAD OBSERVED. (VERSES 13, 14)

1. The conduct of Paul and his companions fell, in part, under the observation of the Corinthians, and they knew how well these men had behaved themselves.
2. In this, he could say “we are your rejoicing.” When the church is blessed with ministers who conduct themselves holily and justly and unblamably (I Thess. 2:10), it is reason for rejoicing.
3. Likewise, the saints, in the same way give cause for their pastors to rejoice, when they know that the people are walking and holiness. “As ye also are ours.” (Verse 14c; III John 4) this joy shall be complete “in the day of the Lord Jesus,” that is, when the Lord Jesus shall come.

II. HE VINDICATES HIMSELF FROM THE IMPUTATION OF LEVITY AND INCONSISTENCY. (VS. 15-24)

A. HIS CHANGE OF PLANS WERE NOT DUE TO LIGHTNESS, FOR HIS INTENTIONS WERE SINCERE. (VERSES 15-17)

1. It was “in the confidence” (Verse 15a), of their good opinion of him, i.e. that they rejoiced in him and he in them (Verse 14), that he was most desirous to come to them. (Verse 15)

a) He was not fearful of coming, for he did not doubt that the great majority of the church would warmly receive him.
b) The troublemakers were only a small minority in the church. They were no doubt loud and very visible, but nonetheless a minority.

2. Paul had sincerely desired that they, by his coming first to Corinth before going to Macedonia, and then back again to Corinth after going to Macedonia, should receive “a second benefit.”

a) They, according to his first intention, would have had the benefit of seeing him twice.
b) By “benefit” is meant as the term is generally used in Scripture, religious blessing. Paul desired this for their spiritual good. This shows that he had the heart of a true minister of Christ.
3. His original plan also included being helped on his journey to Jerusalem by them. They would have, had not only the pleasure of helping him, but some of them may have had the blessing of escorting him part way. This was a common custom. (Verse 16c)
4. Could they possibly have thought that he had lightly considered these things? “When I was thus minded, did I use lightness?” (Verse 17a)
5. Would they accuse him of acting in the flesh? “Do I propose according to the flesh?” Was Paul in the habit of being governed by the flesh? (Verse 17b)
6. Was he in the habit of contradicting himself? Did he affirm and deny the same thing? “That with me there should be yea, yea and nay, nay?”

B. HE WOULD NOT HAVE IT INFERRED BY THE CORINTHIANS THAT HIS GOSPEL WAS UNCERTAIN. (VERSES 18-22)

1. His preaching was never contradictory. (Verse 18) He did not preach one thing and then another. His sudden transition from the question about his veracity to defending his consistency as a minister of Christ shows two things.

a) First, his enemies had brought both charges against him, basing the latter on the former. This is why we must be above reproach, lest our inconsistencies reflect badly on the Gospel.
b) Second, Paul was more concerned for the Gospel then for his own reputation. Thus he aggressively denied these false charges, for the Gospel’s sake.

2. His preaching was true, because he preached Christ and Christ is true. (Verse 19, 20) There is no contradiction, no yea and nay in him, therefore there was no contradiction in Paul’s doctrine, because it was a trustworthy exhibition of the Person and work of Jesus Christ, Who is the Son of God. As the Son is one in nature with the eternal Father, Who is immutable.

a) There is no yea and nay in either the Father or the Son. (James 1:17; Heb. 13:8)
b) To this truth all of his readers could testify. (Verse 20) Christ was preached to them consistently, not only by Paul, but also by Silvanus, and Timotheus (this refers to the first visit to Corinth) as the way, the truth, and the life; that he was made their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. (I Cor. 1:30) In all these things there is no uncertainty, but all things are yea in Christ.

3. His preaching was perfectly consistent, for Christ is yea, and all of the promise of God in him are yea, because they are made in Christ. (Verse 20)

a) “All the promises,” literally, “as many promises,” that is, as many promises as had been made from the beginning concerning Messiah.
b) “In Him are yea.” Literally, “in Him were the yea,” for in Him they had their affirmation and accomplishment.
c) “And in Him the Amen.” This is simply repeating the same, using the Hebrew equivalent of yea, which is “Amen.” Christ is the Amen, the faithful and true witness.” (Rev. 3:14)

4. It is by the preaching of the gospel that men are brought to say “AMEN” to the divine promise to the glory of God. “Unto the glory of God by us.” (Verse 20c)
5. That which was wrought in them through Paul’s ministry (and other faithful men) was the work of God the Father in Christ Jesus the Son, which work had the seal of the Holy Spirit. (Verses 21, 22)

a) How could any recipient of such grace and power doubt either their source or the One in Whom alone they are received? (Verse 21; II Pet. 1:3, 4)
b) God has put in every true believer the Person of the Holy Spirit, Who bears witness to the truth, and Who is Himself the earnest of all that is promised Him by way of inheritance. (Verse 22)

III. HE SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT THAT HIS NOT COMING TO THEM AS PREVIOUSLY PLANNED WAS DUE NOT TO LIGHTNESS, BUT RATHER TO LENITY. (VERSES 23, 24)

A. IT WAS THAT HE MIGHT SPARE THEM. (VERSE 23)

1. He knew that there were things amiss among them, and such things as deserved censure, and he desired not to come with the rod, but in love and tenderness. (See I Cor. 4:21)
2. He assured them that this was the true reason in a very solemn manner. “I call God for a record upon my soul.” Even his harshest critics would not think he would call upon God to countenance or bear witness to a lie.
3. As he further explains this reason in the next chapter, we will learn that, for his own sake, he wished not to come to them with the rod of discipline, but rather as a loving father, so that his own soul might be made glad. This reflects a true pastor’s heart. As with God, judgment is his strange work.

B. HE ASSURED THEM THAT HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE UPON THEM ANYTHING BUT WHAT GOD HAD REVEALED. (VERSE 24)

1. Even an Apostle was not to try and become “lord over God’s heritage.” (I Pet. 5:3)
2. Paul and others who labored in the Word were simply “ministers by whom they believed.” They had no dominion over their faith, but were helpers of their joy.