Original Meaning
THE BODY OF the letter has ended. Paul now concludes his letter with personal remarks (vv. 5–12) and closing greetings (vv. 13–24).
As frequently in his letters, Paul’s personal remarks concern his current ministry itinerary (or about those of his representatives, when he was later imprisoned); these serve as a transition to his formal closing (e.g., Rom. 15:14–33; 2 Cor. 13:1–10; Eph. 6:19–22; Col. 4:7–9; Philem. 22). His goal of coming to Corinth after revisiting Macedonia (v. 5) did eventually materialize (Acts 20:1–6), but not as quickly as he had first hoped. The evidence of 2 Corinthians demonstrates that Paul made an intervening visit to Corinth between the two trips described in the book of Acts (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1) and probably wrote an additional letter between our 1 and 2 Corinthians to deal with a particular antagonist in the church there (2 Cor. 1:15–17; 1:23–2:4).1 Second Corinthians 8:10 and 9:2 state that the instructions just surveyed on the collection took place “last year,” suggesting that a number of months have intervened since 1 Corinthians. While here he anticipates leaving Ephesus shortly, the trip described in 2 Corinthians 7:5, which finds Paul at last en route to Corinth, must have taken place at least nine months later. If 1 Corinthians was written in the spring of A.D. 55, then Paul would have originally hoped to come during that same calendar year, whereas in fact he did not arrive for his prolonged stay until some time in 56.
His initial desire to spend a full winter in Corinth (vv. 6a, 7a) may still have been fulfilled, however, even if delayed by a year. (His letter to the Romans from neighboring Cenchrea is probably best dated to A.D. 57.) Paul’s motivation was at least twofold: (1) He wanted to have a significant period of time with the troubled Corinthians in hopes of substantially improving the situation in the church there; and (2) he hoped to avoid having to travel during that season of the year in which the high seas were generally impassable and travel overland was much more arduous. The verb translated “help … on my journey” (v. 6b) means “send me forth” and probably implies material assistance—food, money, and possibly even traveling companions for his trip. “Wherever I go” reflects the same uncertainty as in verse 4; as noted above, later Paul definitely decides to accompany the collection to Jerusalem. Yet in all this planning he knows full well that he must leave the door open for the Lord to change his itinerary (v. 7b).
Verses 8–9 inform us of Paul’s current location (Ephesus) and enable us to date the writing of this letter to the time of the events of Acts 19 (see the Introduction, p. 21). There we see ample illustrations of the two principles of verse 9—“a great door for effective work” and “many who oppose me.” The former included remarkable conversions and turning away from idols; the latter, occult opposition and town riots. The uprising instigated by Demetrius, however, has probably not yet occurred, since Paul seems to have left town shortly after that event (Acts 20:1), while here he envisions staying on for a while. “Pentecost” (v. 8) was the annual Jewish harvest festival (the Feast of Weeks). On that day the Holy Spirit descended on 120 of Jesus’ followers fifty days after his resurrection, to inaugurate the era of the new covenant (see Acts 2). Whether Christians had started to celebrate it as a festival is impossible to determine from this reference; it may simply be Paul’s natural way to refer to that time in late spring.
“If Timothy comes” in verse 10 is probably too indefinite, in light of Paul’s earlier statement that he is sending Timothy (4:17). “Whenever he comes” would be a better translation.2 Paul’s concern over how Timothy will be received is certainly related to their conflict with Paul himself, and it is probably heightened by Timothy’s youthfulness (1 Tim. 4:12) and possibly even by his personality. Second Timothy 1:7 seems to suggest that Timothy was a naturally timid person, though this may be inferring too much. “Refuse to accept” (v. 11) is literally “despise.” “Send him on his way” employs the same verb as “help me on my journey” in verse 6. The unnamed “brothers” probably include Erastus (Acts 19:22), the town clerk of Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and they would have been known to the Corinthians.
Verse 12 appears to respond to the final question the Corinthians had raised in their letter to Paul (cf. 7:1). Not only does Paul again say “now about,” but it is unlikely that he alone would have taken the initiative to urge Apollos to return to Corinth in light of the danger of inflaming the sectarian divisiveness there all the more. Did the Corinthians suspect that Paul was hindering Apollos from coming when they really wanted to see him?3 “Strongly” could also be translated “often.” The “brothers” are the same as in verse 11, plus Timothy. Apollos’ reluctance to go could reflect his concern to wait for a more opportune time when things had settled down in Corinth. “He was quite unwilling” is more literally, “it was entirely not the will,” leading some to suggest that we should think of God’s will instead of Apollos’. Presumably Paul would have thought the two coincided in this instance.
Bridging Contexts
PAUL’S DESIRES IN verses 5–7 reflect his concern to spend “quantity” and not just “quality” time with his spiritual children. As he consistently did in his ministry, he wants to revisit this church he has founded, so that he can minister by way of follow-up, training them in discipleship. Paul was never merely content to evangelize, make converts, and move on, even when it meant risking his life to return to the cities in which he previously ministered. Compare, most notably, his ministry in Lystra in Acts 14:19–20; this was a region he visited on each of his three missionary journeys.
Paul’s willingness to ask for financial support (implied in verse 6) fits his practice of accepting provisions from Philippi while he was ministering in Corinth (see above under 9:1–18). Although he had offended or upset some Corinthians, most likely including the powerful patrons in the church there, by not accepting money for ministry while in town, he was happy to use their help to minister in other places where “strings” were less likely to be attached.
“If the Lord permits” (v. 7) is a key proviso that should qualify every Christian’s plans and prayers (cf. Matt. 6:10; James 4:13–15), though this does not necessarily mean that we should speak it formally in every situation in which it is applied. People who overly punctuate their conversation with “God willing” often dissolve the meaning of those words into a mere cliché. But neither is there any scriptural warrant for deliberately excluding this qualifier from certain prayers, as if one would be perceived as vacillating in faith.
Paul’s twofold rationale for staying in Corinth in verse 9 provides a powerful model for Christians in many times and places trying to decide where to perform ministry or exercise their spiritual gifts. An open door and much opposition often go hand in hand, and they may jointly signify that God’s Spirit is mightily at work. To be sure, at times God brings blessing and prosperity for short intervals without significant antagonism. On other occasions, he allows seemingly unmitigated hostility, perhaps even for somewhat longer periods of time. But a prolonged lack of results in ministry more often than not suggests that it is time to move on, while prolonged prosperity without any difficulty should make one question if the full-orbed gospel with all its demands is clearly being preached.
Verses 10–11 further Paul’s emphasis on Timothy as his surrogate model (see under 4:16–17 and 11:1). His words here remind us to treat representatives and subordinates of Christian leaders with the same respect and consideration that we give to the leaders themselves.
Verse 12 demonstrates Paul’s remarkable willingness to put the unity of the church and the interests of his coworkers above his own personal desires and fears. One is reminded of his equally remarkable concession in Philippians that he rejoiced at those who were preaching the gospel out of rivalry to himself (Phil. 1:15–18), apparently since the word was truly going forth and people were being saved. Apollos’ sensitivity reminds us, however, that it is not always in the best interests of our congregations to accede to all their requests, particularly if they stand a good chance of exacerbating factiousness.
Contemporary Significance
DISCIPLESHIP IS A lost art in many Christian circles today. We have numerous prominent evangelists whose messages seemingly bring many to Christ but whose mechanisms for follow-up unfortunately leave a majority to fall by the wayside. The discipleship programs that we do institute often substitute programs and packaging for personal modeling and intimacy. As Christians, we too need quantity as well as quality time with each other, all the more so in our fast-paced, transient, and fractured society. Ours is an age in which the average length of a pastorate is shrinking rather than growing, and in which youth pastors have a short average stay in ministering to an age group that needs long-term modeling the most. Surely we need to recover an emphasis on “hanging in there” in ministry with the same group of fellow believers, through thick and thin and over the long haul. Similarly, church members must resist the inclination to “church hop” when things get tough and should recommit themselves to staying and working in difficult situations for positive resolutions of problems.4
The ministry of giving to itinerant Christian workers and providing hospitality for them when they are in our own communities can go a long way to rekindling some of the spirit of familial intimacy that Paul tried to instill in his churches. Giving to churches is good and should be generous, but it should often be supplemented by giving to individuals who have to raise their own support for ministry and by providing lodging and provision for visiting missionaries.
We must find ways to avoid treating church staffs as so hierarchical that the associate and assistant pastors are given less respect than our senior leaders. We must guard against treating those more dynamic or charismatic leaders as somehow inherently better or more worthy of respect than the quieter and less flamboyant ones. It is sad to observe the difficulty that many gifted and dedicated seminary graduates have in finding a job in full-time Christian ministry if they are fairly modest and unassuming. Age too must not necessarily be held up as a criterion of maturity or effectiveness in ministry, though clearly there are certain correlations in certain situations. Sometimes, younger pastors do a better job at certain ministries, most notably in youth work.
The seemingly innocuous caveat, “if the Lord wills,” should probably play a more prominent role in most of our thinking and planning than it presently does. Surely we must resist the heresy that demands us simply to “name it and claim it” and at times even declares that adding a clause about God’s will actually violates that will!5
It would be wonderful too if more Christians and churches could see that part of God’s will often involves doing the work of ministry through their “rivals.” Even if motives for ministry are not always exemplary (consider, e.g., the powerful sway financial remuneration holds for some today), if the genuine gospel is being preached with positive results, we should rejoice. Duplication of ministry, particularly in the West, runs rampant. Churches compete for the same parishioners, publishing houses try to outdo each other with the latest editions of Bibles or commentary series, missionary organizations fight each other for the best footings in newly opened mission fields, and so on. We need to encourage one another not to overlap so much when there is so much of the world largely unreached by each of these spheres of ministry. Then we can rejoice when others succeed, even if they hold slightly different theological perspectives than our own. On the other hand, outright heresy needs to be exposed, in love, as fraudulent, no matter how well-intentioned its practitioners.6