---

I. THE GROUND ON WHICH HE URGED IT — viz., that he deserved it.

1. It was a simple matter of justice. "We have wronged no man," etc. The apostle meets the charges against him by an assertion of his innocence, which appealed to their own witness. No one who read those words could doubt whether he was guilty, for there is a certain tone in innocence not easily mistaken. There are some voices that ring true. This reminds us of Samuel's purgation of himself when laying down his judgeship.

2. There is, however, a touch of graceful delicacy in the way he made this assertion of his innocence. A coarser man would have cared for nothing but the proof of his own integrity. Now St. Paul perceived that the broad assertion of this might give pain. It might seem to them as if this were spoken at them, and might wound those who had not suspected him. Therefore he adds, "I speak not this to condemn you" — i.e., "I am not defending myself against you, but to you, and only to assure you of my undiminished love." There was one thing in the character of St. Paul which often escapes observation. Besides his integrity, there was a refined courtesy which was for ever taking off the edge of his sharpest rebukes. Remember the courtesy with which his request to Philemon is put; the delicate exception in his answer to Agrippa — "except these bonds"; and how he pours love over one of his strongest condemnations in Philippians 3:18. It is only love which can give this tender tact. It was not high breeding, but good breeding. High breeding gracefully insists on its own rights; good breeding gracefully remembers the right of others. It is not "gentility," but gentleness. It is the wisdom from above, which is first pure, then gentle. There is a rough way and a gentle way of being true. Do not think that Christian polish weakens character, as polish thins the diamond. The polish of the world not only saps strength of character, but makes it even unnatural.

II. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE HOPED IT. He rested it on his candour: "Great is my boldness" — i.e., freedom — "of speech toward you." A scandalous crime had been committed. Now consider Paul's difficulty. If he rebuked the Corinthians, he would probably destroy his own interest, and irreparably offend them. If he left the crime unnoticed, he might seem to gloss it over. Besides this, the subject was a delicate one. Might it not be wise to leave the wound unprobed? Moreover, we all know how hard it is to deal harshly with the sins of those we love. Any of these considerations might have made a less straightforward man silent. But St. Paul did not hesitate; he wrote, calling wrong, wrong, and laying upon those who permitted it their full share of blame. Scarcely, however, had the apostle written the Epistle than misgivings began to cross his mind, as we see in ver. 8, where he says, "I did repent." To some persons this would be perplexing. If he regretted an act done under God's guidance, just as any common man might regret a foolish act, how could the apostle be inspired? But inspiration does not make a man a passive machine, as a musician might use a flute. When God inspires, His Spirit mixes with the spirit of man. These misgivings lasted a considerable time (2 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 7:5). Here I make a remark by the way: It is by passages such as these alone that we can appreciate the real trials of apostles and missionaries. It is a low estimate of the depth of apostolic trial to say that physical suffering was its chief element; and how much more degrading is it so to treat of the sufferings of Christ, of whom the prophet said, "He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied." It was not the nails that pierced His bands which wrung from Him the exceeding bitter cry, but the iron that had entered into His soul. To return. In Macedonia St. Paul met Titus, bearing a letter from the Corinthians, by which it appeared that his rebuke had done its work. Instead of alienating, it had roused them to earnestness; they had purged themselves of complicity in the guilt by the punishment and excommunication of the offender. This was the apostle's comfort; and on this ground he built his sanguine hope that the Corinthians would receive him (ver. 7). Conclusion: Learn —

1. The value of explanations. Had St. Paul left the matter unsettled, or only half settled, there never could have been a hearty understanding between him and Corinth. Whenever, then, there is a misunderstanding the true remedy is a direct and open request for explanation. In the world's idea this means satisfaction in the sense of revenge; in the Christian sense it means examination in order to do mutual justice. The rule for this is laid down by Christ: "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee," etc. It is the neglect of this rule of frankness that perpetuates misunderstandings. Words are misconstrued, and two upright men, between whom one frank, open conversation would set all right, are separated for ever.

2. The blessing of entire truthfulness. The affectionate relations between St. Paul and the Corinthians, though interrupted, were restored again, because he had been true. Learn, then, never to smooth away, through fear of results, the difficulties of love or friendship by concealment, or a subtle suppression of facts or feelings. The deadliest poison you can instil into the wine of life is a fearful reserve which creates suspicion, or a lie which will canker and kill your own love, and through that your friend's.

(F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

---

---

KJV: Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

WEB: Open your hearts to us. We wronged no one. We corrupted no one. We took advantage of no one.