哥林多后书第二章：在赦免与香气之间

引言

哥林多后书第2章看似由三段彼此独立的内容组成：一段“痛心不堪”的牧养解释（2:1–4），一段关于惩戒与赦免的具体处置（2:5–11），以及一段从特罗亚到马其顿的行旅插叙，忽而又转向高亢的“凯旋”与“香气”的宏大神学宣告（2:12–17）。

然而若以保罗的牧者心肠与使徒职分（apostolic ministry）为主轴，本章呈现出一种高度一致的逻辑：福音的权能并未避开教会内部的伤痛与治理，反而在“责备—悔改—赦免—坚固”的共同群体历程中，彰显出基督得胜的馨香；同时也在传道者“出于神、在神面前、在基督里”的纯正动机中，拒绝一切“掺杂”。

卫理宗传统特别擅长把这两条线合并为一个救恩论（soteriology）与教会论（ecclesiology）的整体：恩典（grace）是神主动施行的拯救，却总以“负责任的恩典”（responsible grace）的方式把人纳入回应与操练；而这种回应不是孤立的个人主义，而是在“社会群体的恩典”（social grace）中彼此守望、互为管教与扶持。这正是本章从“忧愁的信”走向“香气的见证”的神学张力所在。卫斯理宗神学方法的“四支柱隐喻”（the Wesleyan quadrilateral as a metaphor）——以圣经为独特权威，并由传统、理性、经验加以照明与领受——也为我们提供一种既忠于经文、又贴近教会实践的读法。

一、2:1–4：牧者的“忧愁”不是情绪管理，而是爱中的劝戒与共同群体（society）的重建

保罗说：“我自己定了主意再到你们那里去，必须大家没有忧愁……我先前心里难过痛苦，多多流泪，写信给你们……”（林后2:1、4）。这里的关键不是“保罗是否太敏感”，而是他如何理解使徒权柄的目的：不是压制对方，而是为对方的喜乐与更新负责。

卫斯理在《Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible》解释2:4时，把保罗的写信动机明确为“忠信的劝戒”（faithful admonition）与“丰盛的爱”（abundant love）——“我先前心里难过痛苦，….不是叫你们忧愁，乃是叫你们知道我格外地疼爱你们。” 这对卫理宗极为关键：在卫斯理的救恩教牧神学中，爱并不取消劝戒；恰恰相反，爱必须以真理为其形状（shape），并以圣洁为其目标（end）。因此，2:1–4把“牧养性的忧愁”确立为一种属灵行动：它是一种为了共同群体（society）被建造（edification）而暂缓探访、选择书信的“次佳方案”，其核心是把对方带回福音的秩序。

从卫理宗角度，这一段自然而然地关联到“恩典的媒介及途径”（means of grace）与“彼此督责”（mutual accountability）：若教会只把恩典理解为“神单方面赦免我”，便会把劝戒视为多余；但若承认恩典既主动又塑造人，则劝戒就成为神塑造圣徒之道的一部分——不是法庭式定罪，而是医生式治疗（healing discipline）。

二、2:5–11：教会纪律的目的不是“让他记住痛”，而是防止他被忧愁吞没，并堵住撒但的“计谋”

1. 事件轮廓：惩戒已足够，赦免必须及时、公开且有爱之确认

保罗谈到那位“叫人忧愁”的人（2:5）。他刻意不提当事人的名字，既维护个人的尊严，也防止教会滑入以流言与窥私为动力的审判文化。卫斯理注意到这种“显著的温柔”，并指出“刑罚既由多人施行，已经够了”（2:6）。他强调：保罗“从未提他的名字，也未在此提他的罪”，而“by many”意味着全会众对处置的同意，而非仅是领袖决定。这直接触及卫理宗对共同群体（society）的理解：纪律并非少数人的权力展示，而是全体在爱中共同承担圣洁秩序的责任。

紧接着，保罗提出一句极具牧养力量的话：“倒不如赦免他，安慰他，免得他忧愁太过，甚至沉沦了。”（2:7）这里的“沉沦”原意是被“吞没/吞下”般的绝望压垮；保罗担心的不是“惩戒不够严”，而是“惩戒过度使悔改者毁灭”。卫理宗传统常被误解为“过度强调操练与纪律”，但本节迫使我们承认：真正的圣洁纪律若不以复和为终点，就会蜕变为属灵暴力。

因此保罗进一步说：“所以我劝你们，要向他显出坚定不移的爱心。”（2:8）这不是私下说“算了”，而是让共同群体（society）以可见方式“坚固/确认”爱：悔改者需要被重新纳入群体关系网，才能在恩典中站立。

2. “在基督面前”的赦免：既是属灵权柄，也是共同群体（society）医治

保罗说：“你们赦免谁，我也赦免谁；我若有所赦免的，是在基督面前为你们赦免的。”（2:10）卫斯理解释“在基督面前”（“in the person of Christ”）为“藉着基督所赋予我的权柄”（“by the authority wherewith he has invested me”）。这并非把赦免变成“使徒特权”，而是强调赦免的公共性：教会的赦免不是心理疗愈技巧，而是基督在教会中施行复和的权柄与恩典。

卫理宗在此处的独特贡献，在于将赦免重新置于“恩典的秩序”之中：神的赦免不仅临到个人的内在生命，同时也通过教会生活的恢复而得以实现。换言之，教会的复和并非仅是心理安慰或形式接纳，而必须以真实的悔改与真实的接纳为前提，才能体现出救恩在共同群体（society）中的完整性与公共性。

3. 撒但的“计谋”：不是玄学阴谋论，而是利用教会的两种极端

保罗给出赦免的目的：“免得撒但趁着机会胜过我们；因我们并非不晓得他的诡计。”（2:11）希腊文“胜过/占便宜”，含“取得优势、欺诈得利”的语义；“计谋/意念”即其策略与盘算。卫斯理进一步指出，撒但的意图不仅在于摧毁人的“肉体”，更在于毁坏其“灵魂”；他强调：“一个灵魂的失落，是整个群体的共同损失。”（“the loss of one soul is a common loss”）。这一见解揭示了卫斯理神学的核心：救恩绝非孤立的个人事务，而是深深嵌入共同群体（society）之中。一个灵魂的沉沦，不仅是个人的悲剧，更是整个群体的亏损与责任。

更值得注意的是，卫斯理在讲道《Sermon 42, “Satan’s Devices”》中，用一句极尖锐的短语概括撒但最常用的手段之一：把福音本身撕裂成互相敌对的碎片——“将福音分裂，使它自相攻击。” （“dividing the gospel against itself”）。若把这句嵌入2:11，就能看见撒但在教会纪律中的两种“得利方式”：

• 极端一：只惩戒不赦免——把“圣洁”变成绝望，最终使悔改者被忧愁吞没（2:7）。

• 极端二：只赦免不管教——把“赦免”变成纵容，使罪的破坏性继续腐蚀共同群体（society）。

保罗的道路是“第三条路”：以真理施行惩戒，以爱完成复和；既不把罪轻描淡写，也不把悔改者永远钉在羞辱里。这正是卫理宗在“圣洁（holiness）—爱（love）—共同群体（society）”三者之间长期追求的有机结构。

三、2:12–13：敞开的门与不安的心——传道者的“效率”必须让位于对群体灵魂状态的关切

保罗来到特罗亚，“主也给我开了门”（2:12），这是典型的宣教机会与事奉扩展；但他却说“心里不安”（2:13），因为找不到提多，不能得知哥林多人的回应。这里揭示一条极不现代的事奉逻辑：事奉机会再大，也不能替代对具体群体灵魂光景的牧养责任。

卫斯理宗传统一方面非常重视“门”的开启——布道、植堂、差传、社会关怀；另一方面也同样重视“问责与关怀”的网格（class meeting / band meeting 的属灵精神）。阿尔伯特·奥特勒（Albert C. Outler）指出，卫斯理的改革将“权威”问题置于新的语境之中：它不再仅仅依赖制度化的层级，而是转向更贴近个人良心与群体共识的模式，并与“可问责的门徒实践”（accountable discipleship）紧密结合。这一转向不仅重塑了教会治理的结构，也强调信仰生活的共同群体维度，使个人灵命的成长与群体责任形成有机互动。

若以此查看2:12–13，保罗的“不安”并非缺乏信心，而是体现一种“可问责的使徒性”：他不能把哥林多人丢给一封信之后就只追逐新的事奉舞台，而不关心哥林多教会的属灵回应；相反，他必须确认，那封使人忧愁的信是否真正促成了悔改与复和。这种姿态揭示了保罗事奉的核心逻辑：使命不仅关乎扩展，更关乎群体生命的更新。

这也为后文“谁能当得起这事”（2:16）埋下伏笔：传道者若把自己当作项目经理，“门”越多会越兴奋；但若把自己当作灵魂守望者，门越多反而越惧怕——因为每一道门后面都是永恒的生死抉择。

四、2:14–17：“凯旋”与“馨香”——福音不是“成功学”，而是神把基督的香气借着软弱的器皿扩散出来

1. “常率领我们在基督里夸胜”：凯旋不是自我荣耀，而是被神带入得胜行列

保罗忽然爆发式赞美：“感谢　神！常率领我们在基督里夸胜，并借着我们在各处显扬那因认识基督而有的香气。”（2:14）

“率领……夸胜”所对应的希腊词与公开凯旋行列有关，强调把得胜“公开展示”。卫斯理在注释里指出：这不仅是胜利，更是“公开显明”的胜利；并联想到凯旋行列中的香料焚烧。这一解释非常贴近2:15–16的“香气双效”。

卫理宗在此常提出一种“反成功叙事”的神学立场：神的凯旋并不意味着传道人在社会评价中的荣耀，而是指神在基督里推进救恩计划的不可阻挡。换言之，保罗的“夸胜”并非自我庆贺，而是宣告神“正在得胜”。这一视角彻底颠覆事奉中的绩效主义（ministerial triumphalism）：传道人并不拥有凯旋，只是被神卷入祂的凯旋行列。

2. “我们在神面前，无论得救的、灭亡的，都有基督馨香之气”：福音的同一香气带来两种相反结果

保罗说：“因为我们在　神面前，无论在得救的人身上或灭亡的人身上，都有基督馨香之气。”（2:15，和合本）这里“馨香/香气”可用来概括其“怡人的香味/芬芳”的意象。

卫斯理特别强调“to God”的意义：传道人首先要在神面前散发基督的香气，而不是以人的回应为首要目标。这样的次序，与第17节中“在神面前说话”的呼应，构成一个清晰的框架——福音事奉的核心观众是神，其次才是人群与世俗舆论。

保罗接着说：“在这等人，就作了死的香气叫他死；在那等人，就作了活的香气叫他活。”（2:16）卫斯理把这里解释为“强烈香料对不同人的不同作用：有人得复苏，有人却剧烈不适”。这就逼出一个尖锐却必要的神学事实：福音不是中性资讯；它要么使人更活，要么使人更死。传道人无法把福音削弱成“人人舒服的普世友善”，因为福音本质上带着审判与拯救的两刃性。

司布真（C. H. Spurgeon）在《The Two Effects of the Gospel》（以林后2:15为经文）同样强调福音对不同人的两种效果。加尔文在评注林后2:14–17时也沿着“神借使徒显明基督得胜与香气”的方向推进。卫理宗在吸收这一传统共识时，会进一步把“香气双效”落在救恩论的现实操练上：神的恩典真实临到人，但人也真实可能抗拒；因此教会既要大胆传扬，也要以耐心牧养、陪伴人从抗拒走向顺服。

3. “谁能当得起这事”：能力问题最终不是技巧，而是圣灵的“使人成其所是”

“这事”并非仅仅指讲道技巧，而是揭示一个更深的事实：传道人竟被神使用，成为关乎永恒生死的“香气载体”。因此保罗发出感叹：“这事谁能当得起呢？”（2:16）卫斯理对此直言：“没有一个人能胜任，除非依靠神的圣灵大能。”（“No man living, but by the power of God's Spirit.” ）

这段经文与卫理宗“负责任的恩典”（responsible grace）形成了深刻的互补：我们确实肩负责任——悔改、赦免、确认爱心，并谨防撒但的诡计；然而，我们也必须承认，真正使人“当得起”的，不是人的技巧或自我训练，而是圣灵的能力。兰迪·麦道克斯（Randy L. Maddox）在论“负责任的恩典”时指出，这一张力至关重要：救恩在最终意义上完全出于神的能力，但神并不“撇下我们而独自成就” （without us）。哥林多后书第2章将这一张力具体化：若缺少人的悔改与群体的赦免，复和无法完成；但若缺少圣灵的能力，悔改会沦为自责，赦免会流于形式，而“馨香”也无法成为基督的真实见证。

4. 2:17 的“掺杂”与纯正：拒绝把神之道当作牟利商品

保罗以一节极具辨识度的话结束本章：“我们不像那许多人，为利混乱　神的道；乃是由于诚实，由于　神，在　神面前凭着基督讲道。”（2:17）

这里“混乱/掺杂/做买卖”背后是希腊词义可以指“零售/贩卖”，并引申为“掺假、败坏”。卫斯理更用一个非常具体的比喻解释：像酒商把酒与低劣液体混合；而真正的讲道应当毫无掺杂，忠实传递神纯净的话语，而非夹带人的私货（“without any mixture… transmitting His pure word, not our own”）。这句注释几乎可以被视为卫理宗讲道伦理（preaching ethics）的金句：讲道最大的危险之一，不是“缺乏精彩”，而是把神之道与人的私货混合——无论那私货是金钱利益、名望欲望、党派立场、文化焦虑，或是把福音简化为自我实现。

此处再与《Sermon 42, “Satan’s Devices”》那句“使福音自相分裂” （“dividing the gospel against itself”）并置，就会看见：撒但既能用“分裂福音”毁坏教会，也能用“掺杂福音”腐蚀讲台；而保罗提出的对治是对讲道者的明确定位：出于诚实（sincerity）、出于神（from God）、在神面前（in the sight of God）并在基督里（in Christ）。这四重定位构成讲道者的属灵“防伪标记”，确保信息纯正、动机清洁、焦点归神。

五、卫理宗的有机整合：把本章从“事件处理”读成“救恩的共同群体形态”

如果我们仅将哥林多后书第2章视为一次“教会危机处理”，就会错失其深厚的神学意涵；然而，若把它理解为“救恩如何在共同群体中实现”，其卫理宗的独特意义便会清晰呈现出来。

1. 救恩不是脱离共同群体的个人体验，而是在“社会的恩典”（social grace）中被塑造

麦道克斯在《Social Grace: The Eclipse of the Church as a Means of Grace…》开宗明义指出：关键问题不在政体，而在教会作为“恩典的媒介”（means of grace）——即神藉此培育基督徒生命并在世界传播救赎影响的渠道。这恰是林后2章的现实图景：惩戒、赦免、安慰、确认爱心、堵住撒但诡计——这些都不是“附加选项”，而是神在共同群体中施行救恩医治的方式。

同一篇文章还引述卫斯理对“社会圣洁”（social holiness）的澄清：圣洁不仅“难以如此存在”，甚至“根本无法没有群体而存在”。若把这句话放回2:7–8，就会明白：悔改者若被隔离在群体之外，他的忧愁很可能会吞没他；而当群体以爱确认他，圣洁就不再是抽象道德，而是可呼吸的属灵空气。

2. 传道者的职分是“基督香气”的载体，而非“市场化宗教产品”的供应者

林后2:17对卫理宗讲道实践具有高度当代性：在宗教消费化环境中，讲道很容易变成“迎合”或“包装”。然而保罗的自我定位——“由于神、在神面前、凭着基督”——把讲道重新放回敬虔与敬畏：讲道首先是对神负责的言说，其次才是对听众负责的表达。卫斯理用“掺假酒商”的比喻把风险说穿：最危险的是“混合我们自己的东西”。

3. “当得起”来自圣灵：卫理宗的操练性并非自救，而是顺服圣灵的塑造

林后2:16与卫斯理的注释把能力根源钉牢在圣灵。同时，麦道克斯关于“负责任的恩典”的论述提醒我们：神并不把人当作被动材料，而是把人纳入回应。于是，本章的完整卫理宗图景是：圣灵赐能力—人真实回应—共同群体施行纪律与复和—基督香气扩散—神得荣耀。这是一条从“忧愁的信”通往“凯旋的感谢”的救恩路径。

结语：本章的“终点”不是事件平息，而是教会成为基督香气的共同群体

哥林多后书第2章最终引领我们进入一个既敬畏又充满安慰的结论：神在基督里得胜的凯旋，竟愿意借着一群并不“当得起”的人，在各处显扬认识基督的馨香（2:14–16）。然而，这并不意味着教会可以忽视内部的罪与伤痛；恰恰相反，教会如何施行惩戒与赦免，如何安慰并确认爱心，如何拒绝掺杂并在神面前忠实传讲，正是这“香气”得以扩散的关键途径。

当教会在实践中保持平衡，既不纵容罪，也不弃绝悔改者；既拒绝将福音商品化，也避免使讲台沦为个人私货的渠道；既承认圣灵的赋能，又承担群体间彼此守望的责任时，保罗在哥林多后书2:14所发出的“感谢神”便不再只是文本中的修辞性感叹，而成为教会生活的真实经验与呼吸。这一论断揭示了保罗神学的核心逻辑：教会的见证并非抽象理念，而是通过纪律与赦免、群体复和以及讲道纯正等具体实践，彰显基督得胜的馨香。

五个自我反思问题

1. 当我面对犯罪或伤害时，我更倾向于哪一种极端：只强调惩戒，还是只强调赦免？我是否允许福音把我带到“真理中的爱”那条更难走的路？（2:6–8）

2. 我是否见过或参与过一种“过度忧愁”的氛围，使悔改者几乎被吞没？我愿意为“确认爱心”付出怎样具体、可见的代价？（2:7–8）

3. 在哪些议题上，我正在经历“把福音分裂，使它自相攻击”的试探——用某一部分真理反对另一部分真理？我如何识别这是否是撒但的“计谋”？（2:11）

4. 我是否把“事奉的门开了”（机会、平台、扩展）当作可以取代对具体群体灵魂状态的关切？我是否愿意像保罗一样，为人的属灵回应而忧心、不安？（2:12–13）

5. 在讲道与教导上，我有哪些“掺杂”的风险：为了讨好、为了名声、为了利益、为了立场？我是否真正活在“在神面前、在基督里”的敬畏中？（2:17）

2 Corinthians Chapter Two: Between Forgiveness and Fragrance

Reference Theme: The Triumph of Christ and the Witness of the "Fragrance"

"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place." (2 Corinthians 2:14)

Introduction

At first glance, the second chapter of 2 Corinthians appears to consist of three distinct and unrelated sections: a pastoral explanation of a "sorrowful" letter (2:1–4), a specific directive concerning discipline and forgiveness (2:5–11), and an autobiographical travelogue from Troas to Macedonia that abruptly shifts into a soaring theological declaration of "triumph" and "fragrance" (2:12–17).

However, when approached through the lens of Paul’s pastoral heart and his apostolic ministry, the chapter reveals a highly coherent internal logic. The power of the gospel does not sidestep the pain and governance challenges within the church. On the contrary, it is precisely within the communal process of "admonition—repentance—forgiveness—confirmation" that the sweet savor of Christ’s triumph is made manifest. Simultaneously, this fragrance is preserved through the preacher's pure motivation—acting "of God, in the sight of God, in Christ"—which refuses all "adulteration."

The Wesleyan tradition is particularly adept at weaving these two threads into a cohesive whole of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). In this framework, grace is understood as God’s proactive work of salvation, yet it is always realized as "responsible grace," which invites human beings into a life of response and discipline. This response is not isolated or individualistic but is lived out in "social grace," where believers watch over one another in mutual accountability, discipline, and support. This theological tension is precisely what animates the chapter's movement from a "sorrowful letter" to a "fragrant witness." The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, as a metaphor for theological method—which holds Scripture as the unique and primary authority that is illuminated and received through the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience—provides a way of reading that is both faithful to the text and deeply connected to the life of the church.

I. 2:1–4: The Pastor's "Sorrow" Is Not Emotional Management, but Admonition in Love and the Rebuilding of the Community

Paul states, "But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness... For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears..." (2 Cor 2:1, 4). The key issue here is not whether Paul was "too sensitive," but how he understood the purpose of his apostolic authority: not to dominate others, but to be responsible for their joy and renewal.

In his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, John Wesley identifies the motivation behind Paul's letter in 2:4 as a combination of "faithful admonition" and "abundant love." Paul wrote "not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you." This point is critical for the Wesleyan perspective. In Wesley's pastoral theology of salvation, love does not cancel out admonition; on the contrary, love must take truth as its shape and holiness as its end. Therefore, 2:1–4 establishes "pastoral sorrow" as a spiritual action. It was a "lesser of two evils" approach—delaying a visit and choosing to write a letter for the sake of the community's edification, with the core aim of restoring the congregation to the order of the gospel.

From a Wesleyan viewpoint, this section naturally connects to the concepts of "means of grace" and "mutual accountability." If the church understands grace merely as "God unilaterally forgiving me," then admonition becomes superfluous. But if grace is understood as both proactive and formative, then admonition becomes part of God’s method for shaping saints. It is not courtroom condemnation but a form of healing discipline.

II. 2:5–11: The Purpose of Church Discipline Is Not to "Make Him Remember the Pain," but to Prevent Him from Being Overwhelmed by Sorrow and to Thwart Satan's "Schemes"

1. Outline of the Event: The Punishment Is Sufficient; Forgiveness Must Be Timely, Public, and Confirmed in Love

Paul refers to the one who "hath caused grief" (2:5) without naming him, both to protect the individual and to prevent the church from descending into a culture of gossip-fueled judgment. Wesley notes this "remarkable tenderness," pointing out that the "punishment, which was inflicted of many" was sufficient (2:6). He emphasizes that Paul "never mentions his name, nor his crime," and that the punishment "by many" signifies the consent of the whole congregation, not a unilateral decision by leaders. This directly touches upon the Wesleyan understanding of the community: discipline is not a power play by a few but the shared responsibility of the entire body to uphold a holy order in love.

Following this, Paul offers a profoundly pastoral command: "So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (2:7). The original Greek word for "swallowed up" conveys a sense of being completely overwhelmed and crushed by despair. Paul's fear was not that the punishment was too lenient, but that excessive punishment would destroy the repentant person. While the Wesleyan tradition is sometimes misunderstood as overemphasizing discipline, this verse forces the acknowledgment that any discipline aimed at holiness, if it does not end in reconciliation, degenerates into spiritual violence.

Therefore, Paul urges, "Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him" (2:8). This is not a private suggestion to "just forget about it" but a call for the community to visibly "confirm" or "ratify" its love. The repentant individual needs to be reintegrated into the relational network of the community to stand firm in grace.

2. Forgiveness "in the Person of Christ": Both a Spiritual Authority and a Community Healing

Paul declares, "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;" (2:10). Wesley explains "in the person of Christ" as "by the authority wherewith he has invested me." This does not turn forgiveness into an exclusive "apostolic privilege" but underscores its public nature. The church's forgiveness is not a therapeutic technique but the very authority and grace of Christ's reconciliation at work within the church.

The unique Wesleyan contribution here is to situate forgiveness within the "order of grace." God’s forgiveness is not only an internal experience for the individual but is realized through the restoration of community life. In other words, reconciliation in the church is not mere psychological comfort or formal acceptance; it requires both genuine repentance and genuine acceptance to manifest the full, public integrity of salvation within the community.

3. Satan's "Schemes": Not a Metaphysical Conspiracy Theory, but the Exploitation of Two Extremes in the Church

Paul states the purpose of forgiveness is "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices" (2:11). The Greek term for "get an advantage" implies gaining the upper hand or profiting through deceit, while "devices" refers to his strategies and calculations. Wesley notes that Satan’s intent is not only to destroy the "flesh" but to ruin the "soul," emphasizing that "the loss of one soul is a common loss." This insight reveals a core Wesleyan conviction: salvation is never a purely individualistic affair but is deeply embedded in the community. The damnation of one soul is not only a personal tragedy but a loss and a responsibility for the entire group.

Even more pointedly, in his sermon, Sermon 42, "Satan’s Devices," Wesley summarizes one of Satan's most common tactics with a sharp phrase: "dividing the gospel against itself." Applying this insight to 2:11 reveals the two ways Satan can "get an advantage" in matters of church discipline:

• Extreme One: Punishment without Forgiveness—This turns "holiness" into despair, ultimately causing the repentant to be overwhelmed by sorrow (2:7).

• Extreme Two: Forgiveness without Discipline—This turns "forgiveness" into indulgence, allowing the destructiveness of sin to continue eroding the community.

Paul's approach is a "third way": discipline is administered in truth, and reconciliation is completed in love; sin is not downplayed, nor is the repentant person permanently shamed. This reflects the organic structure of "holiness—love—community" that Wesleyan thought has long sought to cultivate.

III. 2:12–13: An Open Door and a Restless Spirit—The Preacher's "Efficiency" Must Yield to Concern for the Spiritual State of the Community

When Paul arrived in Troas, "a door was opened unto me of the Lord" (2:12)—a classic opportunity for mission and ministry expansion. Yet, he "had no rest in my spirit" (2:13) because he could not find Titus and learn of the Corinthians' response. This reveals a profoundly counter-cultural ministry logic: no matter how great the opportunity, it cannot replace pastoral responsibility for the spiritual condition of a specific community.

The Wesleyan tradition, on one hand, deeply values open "doors"—evangelism, church planting, missions, and social concern. On the other hand, it equally values the network of "accountability and care" embodied in the spiritual ethos of the class meeting and band meeting. Albert C. Outler noted that Wesley’s reforms placed the question of "authority" in a new context, shifting authority away from institutional hierarchy and toward a model of accountable discipleship rooted in individual conscience and community consensus. This shift not only reshaped church governance but also emphasized the communal dimension of faith, creating an organic interplay between individual spiritual growth and community responsibility.

Viewed through this lens, Paul's "restlessness" is not a lack of faith but a demonstration of "accountable apostleship." He could not simply abandon the Corinthians after sending a difficult letter to pursue a new stage for ministry; he had to ensure that the sorrowful letter had truly produced repentance and reconciliation. This posture reveals the core of Paul’s ministry: mission is not just about expansion but about the renewal of life within the community.

This concern also sets the stage for the question in 2:16, "who is sufficient for these things?". If a minister sees himself as a project manager, more open doors are exciting. But if he sees himself as a guardian of souls, more doors can be terrifying—because behind every door lies a choice of eternal life or death.

IV. 2:14–17: "Triumph" and "Sweet Savour"—The Gospel Is Not a "Successology," but God Diffusing the Fragrance of Christ Through Weak Vessels

1. "Always Causeth Us to Triumph in Christ": Triumph Is Not Self-Glory, but Being Led by God into the Procession of Victory

Paul erupts in praise: "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place" (2:14).

The Greek term for "causeth us to triumph" is associated with a public triumphal procession, emphasizing a victory put on open display. In his commentary, Wesley notes that this is not just a victory but one made "publicly manifest" and connects it to the burning of incense in such processions, an image that fits perfectly with the "fragrance" of verses 15-16.

From this, a Wesleyan perspective often presents a "counter-narrative of success." God's triumph does not equate to the minister's glory in the eyes of society; rather, it refers to the unstoppable advance of God’s salvation plan in Christ. In other words, Paul’s "triumph" is not self-congratulation but a declaration that God "is triumphing." This perspective completely subverts ministerial triumphalism: the preacher does not own the triumph but is simply swept into His triumphal procession.

2. "For We Are unto God a Sweet Savour of Christ, in Them That Are Saved, and in Them That Perish": The Same Gospel Fragrance Produces Two Opposite Results

Paul explains, "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish" (2:15). The term "sweet savour/fragrance" conveys the image of an "agreeable odour/aroma."

Wesley places special emphasis on the phrase "to God." The minister's first priority is to be a fragrance of Christ before God, not to achieve a certain response from people. This ordering, which corresponds to the declaration "in the sight of God speak we" in verse 17, provides a clear framework: the primary audience of gospel ministry is God, not the crowd or public opinion.

Paul continues, "To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life" (2:16). Wesley likens this to the effect of a strong perfume on different people: some are revived, while others find it overpowering. This leads to a sharp but necessary theological conclusion: The gospel is not neutral information; it either brings more life or more death. The preacher cannot dilute the gospel into a universally palatable message of goodwill, because it inherently carries the two-edged nature of judgment and salvation.

This understanding is shared across the broader tradition. C. H. Spurgeon preached on "The Two Effects of the Gospel" from this text, and John Calvin's commentary follows the same line of thought. In absorbing this consensus, the Wesleyan perspective adds a practical application rooted in its doctrine of salvation: God’s grace is genuinely offered to all, but it can be genuinely resisted. Therefore, the church must both proclaim the gospel boldly and pastor with patience, accompanying people as they move from resistance to submission.

3. "Who Is Sufficient for These Things?": The Question of Competence Is Ultimately Not About Skill, but About the Holy Spirit's "Enablement"

"These things" refers not just to preaching skills but to the staggering reality that a minister is used by God as a "vessel of fragrance" bearing eternal life and death. This realization prompts Paul's cry: "And who is sufficient for these things?" (2:16). Wesley’s answer is direct: "No man living, but by the power of God's Spirit."

This verse forms a profound complement to the Wesleyan concept of "responsible grace." We do indeed bear responsibility—to repent, to forgive, to confirm love, and to guard against Satan’s schemes. Yet, we must also confess that what truly makes one "sufficient" is not human skill or self-discipline, but the power of the Holy Spirit. As Randy L. Maddox argues regarding "responsible grace," this tension is vital: salvation is ultimately and entirely from God’s power, but God does not accomplish it "without us." This chapter gives that tension concrete form: without human repentance and communal forgiveness, reconciliation cannot happen; but without the Holy Spirit's power, repentance becomes self-flagellation, forgiveness becomes a mere formality, and the "fragrance" fails to be a true witness of Christ.

4. The "Adulteration" and Purity of 2:17: Refusing to Treat the Word of God as a Commodity for Profit

Paul concludes the chapter with a statement of sharp distinction: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2:17).

The Greek term translated as "corrupt/adulterate/peddle" can mean "to retail" or "to hawk," with the extended meaning of "adulterating for profit." Wesley explains this with a vivid analogy of a vintner who mixes wine with inferior liquids. True preaching, he argues, must be "without any mixture," faithfully transmitting God’s pure word, "not our own." This commentary serves as a golden rule for Wesleyan preaching ethics: One of the greatest dangers in preaching is not a "lack of brilliance," but mixing the Word of God with our own wares—whether that contraband is financial gain, a desire for fame, partisan politics, cultural anxieties, or a reduction of the gospel to self-help.

Placing this alongside Wesley's phrase from Sermon 42—"dividing the gospel against itself"—we see that Satan can destroy the church by splitting the gospel and corrupt the pulpit by adulterating the gospel. Paul's remedy is a fourfold spiritual orientation for the preacher: out of sincerity, from God, in the sight of God, and in Christ.

V. The Wesleyan Organic Integration: Reading This Chapter from "Incident Management" to "the Communal Form of Salvation"

If we read 2 Corinthians 2 merely as a case study in "church crisis management," we miss its deep theological significance. If, however, we read it as a depiction of "how salvation is realized in community," its distinctively Wesleyan meaning comes into clear focus.

1. Salvation Is Not an Individual Experience Detached from Community, but Is Shaped in "Social Grace"

In Social Grace: The Eclipse of the Church as a Means of Grace and Social Change in the Wesleyan Tradition, Randy L. Maddox argues that the critical issue is not polity but the church functioning as a "means of grace"—the channel through which God nurtures Christian life and extends redemptive influence in the world. This is precisely the picture we see in 2 Corinthians 2. Discipline, forgiveness, comfort, confirming love, and thwarting Satan's schemes are not "optional extras"; they are the very ways God administers salvific healing in the community.

Maddox also quotes Wesley's clarification on "social holiness": holiness not only struggles to exist but "cannot exist at all" without community. Applying this to 2:7–8, we understand that if the repentant man remains isolated, his sorrow will likely swallow him. But when the community confirms him in love, holiness ceases to be an abstract moral ideal and becomes the very spiritual air he can breathe.

2. The Preacher's Office Is a Vessel of the "Fragrance of Christ," Not a Purveyor of "Marketized Religious Products"

2 Corinthians 2:17 holds profound contemporary relevance for Wesleyan preaching practice. In a culture of religious consumerism, preaching can easily become an exercise in "catering" or "packaging." Paul's self-positioning—"of God, in the sight of God, in Christ"—returns preaching to its foundation of piety and awe. Preaching is first a responsible word spoken to God before it is a responsible word spoken to an audience. Wesley’s "adulterating vintner" analogy exposes the risk: the greatest danger is "mixing in our own stuff."

3. "Sufficiency" Comes from the Holy Spirit: Wesleyan Discipline Is Not Self-Salvation, but Submission to the Spirit's Shaping

2 Corinthians 2:16 and Wesley's commentary anchor true sufficiency in the Holy Spirit. At the same time, Maddox’s work on "responsible grace" reminds us that God does not treat humans as passive objects but invites them into response. Thus, the complete Wesleyan picture in this chapter is: The Holy Spirit gives power—humans truly respond—the community implements discipline and reconciliation—the fragrance of Christ spreads—God is glorified. This is the path of salvation that leads from a "sorrowful letter" to a "triumphant thanksgiving."

Conclusion: The "End Point" of This Chapter Is Not the Resolution of an Incident, but the Church Becoming a Community of Christ's Fragrance

Ultimately, 2 Corinthians 2 leads us to a conclusion that is both sobering and deeply comforting: God’s triumph in Christ is willingly manifested through a group of people who are not "sufficient," spreading the sweet savor of the knowledge of Christ in every place (2:14–16). This does not mean, however, that the church can ignore internal sin and brokenness. On the contrary, how the church administers discipline and forgiveness, how it comforts and confirms love, and how it refuses to adulterate the gospel and preaches faithfully before God are the very means by which this "fragrance" spreads.

When the church maintains this balance—neither condoning sin nor abandoning the repentant, neither commodifying the gospel nor allowing the pulpit to become a platform for personal agendas, and acknowledging both the Spirit’s empowerment and the shared responsibility of mutual care—then the "thanks be to God" of 2 Corinthians 2:14 ceases to be mere rhetoric. It becomes the lived experience and very breath of the church. This insight reveals the core logic of Pauline theology: the church's witness is not an abstract idea but the fragrance of Christ's triumph, made manifest through the concrete practices of discipline, forgiveness, communal reconciliation, and preaching with integrity.

Five Questions for Self-Reflection

1. When I face sin or hurt, which extreme am I more inclined toward: emphasizing only discipline or emphasizing only forgiveness? Am I willing to let the gospel lead me down the more difficult path of "love in truth"? (2:6–8)

2. Have I witnessed or participated in a climate of "overmuch sorrow" that nearly swallowed a repentant person? What specific, visible price am I willing to pay to "confirm love"? (2:7–8)

3. On what issues am I currently tempted to "divide the gospel against itself"—using one part of the truth to fight another part? How can I discern if this is one of Satan's "devices"? (2:11)

4. Do I treat an "open door for ministry" (opportunity, platform, expansion) as a substitute for concern over the spiritual state of a specific community? Am I willing, like Paul, to be restless for the sake of people's spiritual response? (2:12–13)

5. In my preaching and teaching, what are my risks of "adulteration": for the sake of approval, reputation, gain, or a partisan stance? Do I truly live in the awe of speaking "in the sight of God, in Christ"? (2:17)