From: Mark Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 29 2000 - 19:20:25 EDT
Could anyone shed some light on these comments:
Quotes from: The New American Commentary, David E. Garland, 1999.
After learning of major problems in Corinth, especially the 'superapostles'
discrediting Paul's ministry, Garland writes:
“This unpleasant event forced Paul to make “a passing visit,” something he
said he wanted to avoid (1 Cor. 16:7). Then, Paul withdrew as suddenly as he
appeared, vexed and humiliated; and he did not return (1:23)."
"He apparently did not want to risk another rebuff and have his authority
undermined any further. His visit to Corinth seems to have exacerbated
rather than corrected the problem…”
After quoting 2 Cor. 12:21, Garland says, “Paul confesses that he is not
sure how to manage the situation since this person’s posture toward him
poisoned his relationship with the Corinthians.”
------------ END QUOTES.
Above are comments made in close proximity to each other. However, I sense,
if these assessments are correct, that Paul was somewhat unable to invoke
his apostolic authority in this situation, almost appearing impotent.
What I was unable to find were the passages to which Garland refers. I am
assuming he is putting this together based on passages in Acts and
elsewhere. Can anyone give me the various passages that Garland must be
basing these conclusions on?
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:32 EDT