2 Coríntios 2
David Guzik · Citado em PreceptAustin
2 Coríntios 2
Guzik - Carrying on the thought from chapter one, Paul defends himself against the Corinthian Christians. Some among them criticized him because he changed his travel plans and did not come when he planned to. They used this change of plans to say of Paul, “He is unreliable and untrustworthy. We don’t need to listen to him at all.” But Paul explains there were many reasons why he did not come as planned, one of them being he was trying to spare the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 1:23). But I determined this for my own sake - In 2 Cor 1:15+ he had stated "I intended at first to come to you." In other words what he had only "intended" before (because boulomai expressed his wish or desire), he has now "determined." or as the NET renders it "I made up my own mind." MNT - "purposed in my self." TLB paraphrases it “No,” I said to myself, “I won’t do it. I’ll not make them unhappy with another painful visit.” That I would not come to you in sorrow again - Sorrow speaks of mental pain like Paul expressed in Ro 9:2 over the continual unbelief of his people Israel. This statement is similar to 2 Co 1:23 in which Paul affirmed "I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth."
2 Coríntios 2
Guzik - It seems that Paul thought it best to give the Corinthian Christians a little room, and give them space to repent and get their act together. He didn’t want to rebuke and admonish them all the time. Since this was Paul’s heart, he knew that another visit of the same kind would be of little benefit for either Paul or the Corinthian Christians.
2 Coríntios 2
Guzik asks who is such a one? -- He is probably the same one that Paul told the Corinthian Christians to confront in 1 Corinthians 5. The phrase such a man is used in both books to describe the man sinning in an incestuous affair. He lived immorally with his stepmother...Some commentators disagree and think Paul speaks of another man all together. They believe this man sinned by insulting Paul to his face during his “painful visit.” But 2 Corinthians 2:10 says that Paul expected the Corinthian Christians to forgive the brother first, then he would forgive. If the offense had been something personal towards Paul, we would expect it to be the other way around. In fact, Paul plainly says he has not grieved me. His first offense was not against Paul. So, it is likely that such a man was the one Paul said must be confronted in 1 Corinthians 5." (2 Corinthians 2) William Barclay favors such a one to be one different than the incestous man in 1 Corinthians 5 writing "again we have a passage which is an echo of trouble and of unhappiness. When Paul had visited Corinth there had been a ring-leader to the opposition. This man had clearly personally insulted Paul who had insisted that discipline must be exercised upon him. The majority of the Corinthians had come to see that his conduct had not only hurt Paul, but had injured the good name of the whole Corinthian Church. Discipline had been exercised, but there were some who felt that it had not been sufficiently severe and who desired to impose a still greater punishment. It is now that the supreme greatness of Paul emerges. His plea is that enough has been done; the man is now penitent and to exercise still further discipline would do far more harm than good. It might simply drive the man to despair, and to do that is not to serve Christ and the Church, but to offer an opportunity to Satan to lay hold upon the man. Had Paul been actuated by merely human motives he would have gloated over the hard fate of his former enemy. Nowhere does the majesty of his character better emerge than on this occasion, when, in the graciousness of his heart, he pleads for mercy on the man who had hurt him so much. Here is a supreme example of Christian conduct in face of injury and insult. (2 Corinthians 2 Commentary) Gromacki - The church responded to Paul’s directives set forth in his letter and through his representative, Titus. They disciplined the offender. If he was the infamous fornicator, he was excommunicated (1 Co 5:5, 13). If he was a critic of the apostle, then he was also publicly rebuked and/or severed from ecclesiastical fellowship (cf. 1Ti 5:19–20). (2 Corinthians - Stand Firm in the Faith) Bernard on the majority - That it was inflicted only by “the majority” (for so we must translate τῶν πλειόνων; see reff.) is sufficiently accounted for by remembering the presence of an anti-Pauline party at Corinth, who would not be likely to follow the Apostle’s instructions. Murray Harris on the majority - What was the view of the implied minority? In light of v. 7a, it seems likely that they were a pro-Pauline clique, the “ultra-Paulinists,” who regarded the penalty as insufficient. (Expositor's Bible Commentary)