Moving Beyond the Pain (2 Corinthians 2:5–11)

As we are seeing in our study of this letter, the themes of affliction, suffering, and pain—particularly relational pain—loom large. But so do the themes of comfort (1:3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 2:7; 7:4, 7, 13; 13:11) and restoration. Restoration is the theme of the passage before us.

The church had repented of its initial failure to discipline a sinning church member. The church member had responded to their discipline by repenting. But now the church was guilty of not forgiving and restoring him. They needed to repent of their unforgiveness. They needed to move beyond the pain caused by sin to pardon granted in the Saviour.

This passage provides much insight into the right exercise of church discipline. I believe we will agree with George Guthrie’s conclusion: “From a biblical perspective, church discipline constitutes a profound expression of grace: it offers a healthy form of accountability, which leads to healthy patterns of Christian living. It is one of the gifts of true biblical community.” Of course, only when it is exercised correctly.

We will look at this passage under three headings:

1. Corporate Pain (vv. 5–6)
2. Corporate Pardon (vv. 7–10)
3. Corporate Protection (v. 11)

Corporate Pain

The text first addresses corporate pain: “Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough” (vv. 5–6).

It is important to keep before us the context of what Paul is communicating, both historically and textually.  The historical setting is twofold. Paul is explaining why he changed his travel plans, twice, to visit them.

Rather than a pleasant visit (1 Corinthians 16:5–9), he had been compelled to make what turned out to be a painful visit (2:1). While there, he had been personally wounded by someone in the church and the church had passively stood by and did nothing. But Paul still planned to visit them twice more (1:15–16). Having returned to Ephesus, he had decided that the wisest and most loving course of action was to write a letter rather than pay a personal visit. In that painful letter (1:23–2:4), he had instructed the church, among other things, to discipline the offending brother. They had repented of their passivity and done the right thing (7:8–13). Apparently, the brother had repented. But now they needed to repent—of unforgiveness.

And so, before returning to his theme of explaining himself to his friends in Corinth (the overriding theme of chapters 1–7), he pauses to exhort the church about this matter.

Brothers and sisters, as Paul will make clear, a key to protecting the gospel is the biblical exercise of church discipline. This is the matter Paul addresses in this passage.

The Folly of Corporate Passivity

Paul highlights the folly of corporate passivity in v. 5. He recalls both his personal pain and the corporate pain that the offending individual had caused (v. 10). The offending member had either initiated Paul’s painful visit or intensified it. What was the offence?

Until I began to study 2 Corinthians, closely I always assumed, along with most older commentators, that the individual concerned was the man living in gross immorality mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5. But that does not appear to be the case, for several reasons.

First, clearly the offence Paul writes of here was one against him (v. 10), but this could not be said of the man in the incestuous relationship of 1 Corinthians 5.

Second, to bring in the matter of 1 Corinthian 5 into the discussion makes no sense, for there is no logical connection.

Finally, Paul’s language of great affliction and anguish (v. 4) does not describe the tone of 1 Corinthians. In conclusion, the person here in question is charged not with immoral but personal injury (12:11). Whatever the wrong done by the church member, clearly Paul was the primary target. Most likely, upon Paul’s “painful visit,” a church member, having been poisoned by the false apostles, personally insulted, repudiated, and probably slandered Paul.

Paul was personally “pained” and, unfortunately, the congregation had done nothing. Though most would not have approved or agreed with his mistreatment, for whatever reason, they responded passively. “The church itself failed to take any action initially, thus implicitly providing this person support” (Seifrid). Their silence was consent (see 12:11).

And yet Paul’s greater concern was that the church suffered because of this passivity. Note the words “he has caused [pain] … to all of you.” The words “not to put it too severely” refer to a burdensome amount of words. He did not want to say too much and thereby exaggerate. But he needed to make the point that both the individual’s sin and the church’s passive response to the sin had brought hurt to the church.

There are some lessons here for us.

First, unfortunately, this was neither the first nor the last time in church history when church members would tolerate sin. Biblical examples of this abound (see Numbers 14; 1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2:12–6, 18–23). Sometimes, congregations tolerate false teaching, or unqualified (even disqualified) leadership.

The letter highlight several godly characteristics of Paul, among them, his lack of fear of man. Paul feared the Lord and therefore was not passive in dealing with sin. Though he was patient (ergo, his restraint from a visit to confront their passivity in this matter knowing that at that point he would only exasperate the situation) he called out sin. He knew the leaven-like power of the word of God (hence his patience) and yet also knew the leaven-like power of sin, which necessitated his confronting it (see 1 Corinthians 5:6–8). This brings us to a second observation.

Second, sin in the life of the minority brings pain to the majority. The wrong done to Paul had not only hurt him (and, for a time, hindered his ministry) but also harmed the wider congregation. The lie of individualism is that a Christian can live like an island and the other “islands” are not affected. But like Indonesia, decisions made in Jakarta are felt in the rest of the Archipelago.

On a formative level, church members need to be quick to put to death any inklings of divisiveness, including gossip. Rebuke the offender. Watch your own life realising that your sin tempts others to sin. Refuse to be passive about sin in the camp. Don’t just stand there—do something!

The Faithfulness of Corporate Punishment

Verse 6 shows us the faithfulness of corporate punishment. As we are seeing, 2 Corinthians is the least doctrinal and the most personal of Paul’s letters. The intensity of his heart for this church resulted in a somewhat disorganised letter. Here, he moves quickly to a matter with which they were familiar—their obedient discipline of the offending member. And yet their obedience was dangerously close to morphing into disobedience!

The Corinthian church, having failed through passivity, were now in danger of the opposite error: failing through overreaction. Though initially guilty of complacency towards a sinning member, they were now condemning toward him. Paul exhorts them to be compassionate.

We can assume that Paul’s “painful letter” included an apostolic order to discipline the offender, not out of personal revenge but for the welfare of the church. They were to bring about corporate punishment. In Old Testament imagery, each was to take up a stone to bring about God’s declared judgement. What did this look like?

The word “punishment” and its cognates occurs several times in the New Testament and it carries the idea of “to censure,” “to admonish,” “to rebuke sharply,” or “to merit a penalty.” It is a strong word, used of Jesus when he rebuked the winds and the storm (Matthew 8:26) as well as on many occasions when he rebuked and cast out demons.

Apparently, the congregation had confronted and admonished, rebuked and censured, and probably cast out the offender. The “majority” of the congregation had exercised church discipline upon this member. This is instructive, in several ways.

First, the discipline was in accordance with apostolic norms and authority. Later Paul will highlight this (v. 9). The Bible demands discipline in the local church for unrepentant sin. To refuse to discipline because we think it is harsh, unloving, unhelpful, unproductive, or “unwelcoming” is to set ourselves against the Lord of the church (Matthew 18:15–20). That is neither wise nor safe. We are to fear the Lord which means we will not be controlled by our whims (see Matthew 10:28). We must never go beyond Scripture in church discipline (see below) but neither are we permitted to ignore Scripture’s command to discipline.

Second, the discipline was exercised by the congregation. As an apostle, Paul had unique authority (13:2), yet he respected the local church’s responsibility to do what the Lord had commanded them to do. It is worth noting that elders generally do not exercise church discipline (though, through our ministry, there are times when we pastorally remove someone from ministry, etc.). The congregation is called to carry out church discipline. This is why it is vital that those being brought into membership understand both their accountability and responsibility in this regard. As Derek Prime pastorally counsels, “Church discipline is an essential aspect of pastoral care. It begins with applications for church membership and is an important ground for establishing a church membership, rather than a casual relationship of belonging to one another.”

Third, the decision was not unanimous but it was overwhelming. Note Paul’s use of the word “majority.” The word means “the many,” which does not mean minority! But neither does it mean unanimity.

Ideally, church discipline will be agreed upon by the entirety of the congregation, but clearly this is not always the case, nor is it required. Unfortunately, emotions or relationships sometimes get in the way of carrying out a righteous course of action. Further, sometimes ignorance of the facts hinders a church member from “casting a stone.” However, meaningful membership means that members are not normally ignorant of what is happening in the church family. If they are, perhaps they should evaluate their commitment to the body of Christ.

Though a minority vote might arise over honest disagreement with the majority, one should be careful. Most likely, if the majority of faithful members, faced with the facts, give their heartsore amen, probably all of us should as well.

Finally, church discipline, carried out in accordance with God’s word, is sufficient. Paul’s words, “is enough” means that church discipline is sufficient to do what God has designed. It clearly worked here! Because biblical church discipline is sufficient, it need not be exceeded; it has biblical parameters. As we will see, the Corinthian church was close to going beyond these and was therefore being called back to biblical boundaries. We dare not add to God’s word, in any area, including church discipline. The same applies to the temptation to subtract from God’s word. That is, to refuse to exercise church discipline.

Church discipline is not an option for the faithful local church. Failure to confront sin—including sins of gossip, slander, divisiveness—invites spiritual disaster. But, as we will now see, church discipline is not merely about condemning sin. Its purpose is constructive.

Corporate Pardon

Our text highlights the responsibility of corporate pardon.

The individual had repented. Praise God! I appreciate Kent Hughes’s words, “This excluded man understood the mountainous doctrine of the church. And he could not bear to live apart from the benefits and comforts of the Body of Christ. He feared for his own soul.”

Because he repented, the congregation needed to forgive and restore him. “Such forgiveness is necessary for the welfare of the Corinthian church” (Tasker), including the welfare of the repentant. “The offender needs the encouragement of a warm, open, welcoming posture on the part of the community” (Guthrie). He needed to be restored (13:11).

The Obligation to Forgive

Paul addresses the obligation to forgive in v. 7. The word “turn” means “on the contrary.” Rather than holding a grudge and extending discipline beyond what was necessary (a sinful tendency with which we struggle), the Corinthians were on the contrary, to graciously restore the brother to the fellowship. This is a meaning of the word here translated “forgive.”

It is not the regular word for forgiveness but includes the idea of freely acting to rescue someone. Because we have been “freely rescued” by God’s grace, believers are obligated to graciously forgive the repentant. Our obligation is grounded in the cross work of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:32). As God, in Christ, has forgiven us in our repentance, we are to forgive repentant church members (Ephesians 4:32). The congregation had repented and had been reconciled to Paul. How dare they not do likewise with their brother.

Beautifully, our beautiful Jesus uses this term to illustrate God “cancelling the debt” of repentant sinners (Luke 7:42). This is how we are to respond to the repentant, regardless of the harm they have done.

Paul’s Pastoral Temperament and Tone

We must appreciate both Paul’s pastoral temperament and pastoral tone. After all, he was the one who was primarily sinned against and yet he was deeply sensitive to the feelings of the repentant offender. He urges the Corinthian church to come alongside with the same temperament and tone in order to encourage the repentant that all is forgiven and restored.

Pastoral Concern

The danger of not forgiving the repentant is that the brother will “be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” Paul is concerned that, if the Corinthian church does not reconcile with the repentant, he will drown in hopeless grief just as the Egyptian army was drowned by the unforgiving Red Sea (Hebrews 11:29). Or worse. As Paul will address in v. 11, unforgiveness by the church will result in the repentant being devoured by the wiles of the devil who is prowling about looking for a foothold (1 Peter 5:8).

Brothers and sisters, we all know the sorrow of grieving our Lord. Like Peter we have wept bitterly over our sin (Luke 22:62). And yet because the Lord Jesus had promised that he would repent, Peter’s grief was not “excessive.” It did not drown out God’s free grace of forgiveness (see John 21).

As we keep the cross of Jesus before us, as we are informed by the gospel, we will be empowered to freely forgive repentant church members, as God has forgiven us (Ephesians 4:32). This is not an option. And if you think it is, if you refuse to forgive the repentant, then seek the Lord for you probably need to be forgiven yourself (Matthew 18:34–35).

The Motivation to Forgive

Paul addresses the motivation to forgive in vv. 8–10. He continues to appeal for congregational pardon, restoration, and reconciliation. In these three verses, Paul motivates this forgiveness by two realities: love (vv. 8–9) and the Lord (v. 10).

Love

The word “beg” is the verbal form of the word often translated “comfort” in this letter, (which is the melodic line [1:3; etc.]). Paul’s exhortation is aimed at encouraging the church to encourage the repentant brother (see v. 7). Motivated by the love of Christ, motivated by their love for Christ, they were to confirm and ratify their love for their fellow Christian.

The word “reaffirm” means “to make authoritative.” It was sometimes used of ratification by an official assembly. That is probably the meaning here. Paul is saying, “I wrote that you should carry out church discipline under apostolic authority and I included instructions that if there is repentance then there must be forgiveness and restoration. It was not bare obedience that I was looking for but loving submission to my authoritative words, which are God’s words! Therefore, lovingly do all I said.”

Among other lessons, we learn that church discipline is an act of love, which makes us eager to forgive the repentant. Love is the healing balm for the pain. Love has everything to do with church discipline. If we are not motivated by biblical love, we dare not discipline.

Churches should make as big a deal over repentance as they do over discipline. In fact, like the prodigal’s father, a party might be in order! Brothers and sisters, let us be as zealous to celebrate righteousness as we are to be stirred by sin. This means we will be zealous for all of the apostle’s instruction. May we pass the test.

The Lord

The second motivation when pardoning the repentant is the lordship of Jesus Christ. Love and lordship are inseparable. As Paul concludes his exhortation to the church to forgive the repentant brother he makes clear that he harbours no grudge towards the offender, and neither should they. Paul is almost hesitant to even hint that he has anything to forgive. “Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ” (v. 10).

I love how Paul—who was both terribly treated and greatly hurt by this individual—writes in such a way as to minimise his mistreatment. The “throwaway” line (“if I have forgiven anything”) is Paul’s way of saying, “I forgive, but perhaps there was not much to forgive. After all, I am okay.” He is deflecting any personal concern over the wrong he suffered. His greater concern is the welfare of the gospel ministry of the local church (repeatedly throughout the letter). We see something of this in the words “in the presence of Christ.” Paul is saying that this whole matter of biblically forgiving their brother is motivated by the desire to be pleasing to Jesus, both now and when they stand before his Person (1:24). Paul is also making clear that Jesus is very present in this entire process. They are to respect his authority. They will give an account. As Kent Hughes puts it, “By invoking the lordship of Christ, Paul also focuses our hearts on Christ as the one who not only demands that we forgive but empowers us to do so.”

When the congregation of church members submits to the Lord Jesus Christ in exercising church discipline, as prescribed by him, they will experience his presence (Matthew 18:18–20). And what a comfort this is.

The presence of Christ assures us of the power of Christ and points us to the potential of Christ to restore sinning church members. So let us be obedient in all things knowing Jesus’ presence is with us. He empowers us to confront, forgive, and restore the repentant. Therefore, let’s just do it, being sure we do it correctly lest we fall. This is Paul’s last point.

Corporate Protection

The present text closes with an allusion to corporate protection: “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (v. 11).

Note that, immediately after writing about “the presence of Christ,” Paul points to the presence of Satan (see Job 1–2). Where Christ is at work in redemption, Satan is at work at condemnation. Where Christ brings about reconciliation, Satan seeks to cause alienation. We need to be careful. I love the words of George Guthrie in this regard: “Given the way Satan schemes for the disunity of the church, forgiveness and reconciliation provide beautiful strategies for disrupting his evil, church-dissolving schemes.” The Corinthian church was dangerously close to this.

As Paul concludes this paragraph, he warns of the potential damage resulting from failure to heed his instruction, namely, destruction by “Satan.” Chrysostom helpfully observes, “Some Satan destroys through sin, others through the unmeasured sorrow following on repentance for it … conquering us with our own weapons … to turn what is our good into evil.”

The word “outwitted” means to overreach, to take advantage, to make a gain. If the church does not follow through with church discipline—that is, if it does not forgive and restore—it will hand Satan a victory. He was looking for a foothold in Corinth (11:14; 12:7). They needed to beware not to let him “outsmart” them.

“Satan” means “accuser” (see Revelation 12:7–10). He is the church’s adversary, always looking for ways to counter the gospel. Whereas the gospel tells us there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1), Satan seeks to burden Christians individually and the church corporately with condemnation.

And because Paul was not unaware of such satanic “designs,” because he knew how Satan thinks and operates, he warned the church to take heed. We can summarise his wiles: “Satan delights to make a person under discipline feel that neither God nor his people love him and that there is no place for repentance or forgiveness” (Prime).

Lots of things can harm and mar a local church, many kinds of sins can disrupt her unity and gospel advancement, but perhaps not many things are more detrimental to a local church than a posture of unforgiveness.

When church members hold grudges, when church members refuse to reconcile with the repentant, when church members adopt the disposition of “I won’t forgive” and/or “I refuse to forget,” be sure Satan has secured an advantage.

Brothers and sisters, the local church is a city on a hill in which a watching world should see righteous expected and practised. But when there is failure to do so, there should be observable forgiveness sought, expressed, and experienced through the practicing of the proclaimed gospel.

Therefore empowered by his presence, may God grant us grace to move beyond the pain of being wronged to the place of pardon. This is good for our souls, it is good for the growth of the church, and all of this brings glory of our God.

AMEN