2 Corinthians chapter 2

vs 1

This could suggest that Paul had already made one painful visit to them, and a second one would be too much. And considering Paul's language in 1 Corinthians, I think we can safely say that that visit would have been suitably painful enough.

vs 2

Seems like slightly odd logic here, but I guess you're going to be hardpressed to get joy and be glad from people who you have upset. Obviously the first trip, upsetting though it was, was necessary. Perhaps he means that a second upsetting trip would not be.

vs 3

Sounds like he also had confidence that they would do what he said. But the note that is worth making here, I think, is that Paul is very much keen to see the relationship repaired. He's certainly not burning off the Corinthians because they were a bunch of idiots.

vs 4

Ok, so there might have been some painful words in there, but they were not just to hurt them. They were to make the Corinthians realise that Paul had their best interests at heart, and really cared for them. As I said, he could have just burned them off.

Which brings me to my rant about the stupidity of absolute positivism which is sweeping our nation. This idea that you can't tell anyone anything negative ever is absolute crap. Life has bad parts. We need a language which can describe bad things. Not everything has a "good side", that is yin-yang taoist bullcrap. Sometimes, people need to hear that what they are doing is wrong. They need to hear 'no' as well as 'yes'. What happens when you take away one of these things? The other one becomes meaningless! Clips around the ear all round I say. Re-empower the emasculated authority figures!

vs 5

There were some particular people and instances that we learned of in Paul's former book which were particularly grieving. Paul is saying that even though they did grieve him, the grief was created more directly for the church as a body at Corinth, as they were present in this whole thing. The damage done to the church was greater than that done to Paul, because mostly I guess it is done to Paul's joy and gladness in the church, whereas the church had to more directly suffer the consequences of removing someone from fellowship.

vs 6

Well, at least there doesn't need to be any further punishment, which is nice.

vs 7

I think right here we see why the NT times punishment by a church of "putting them out of fellowship" just doesn't work here! How many people, when put out of their church today, would be "overwhelmed by excessive sorrow"? And how many would be so desirous of getting back in to the church that ousted them in the first place?

vs 8

Love should never have been out of the picture. In the same way that Paul made one painful visit out of love, and stopped the second one out of the same love, they should have put the person out of fellowship in love, only to receive him back with the same love.

vs 9

Is Paul really saying that this was like a communal testing of Abraham sort of thing? Sacrifice the sinful one, and Paul will return him to you eventually? Perhaps he is using that sort of metaphor.