But some have been puffed up, as if I were not coming to you;
Paul is writing to a church he founded, and part of it has decided he is not coming back. They treated his distance as safety, and this verse names that mistake.
These were real members of the church. One writer traces how they reasoned themselves out from under Paul's oversight.
There were some at Corinth who, though both in and of "the Church of God," had no sincere desire to be subject to his will. They were falsely elated. This was most likely built on mistaken ideas about Christian liberty, and kept up by a sense of their own ability. So they had already grown distant in sympathy and aim from the man who had brought them to birth through the gospel. In their minds they had learnt to shake off what they thought of as the yoke of apostolic oversight. Paul's absence was their opportunity. He had spoken of seeing them again, but they guessed he would find plenty to keep him busy far away.
The same writer names where that reasoning left them.
They were judging by the flesh. So they were lulling themselves and their followers into a false security. The apostle's words are meant to wake them from it.
The ESV says "arrogant" here. Older translations read "puffed up," and that phrase runs through the whole letter. One writer maps where it lands each time.
Sadly, the story of the church at Corinth is the story of the church in responsibility down the centuries. Schools of opinion and human wisdom all end in a "puffing up" of the flesh. Four times the apostle calls the Corinthian believers "puffed up." In 1 Corinthians 4:6 they are puffed up for one against another. In verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter he points to those puffed up in their speech, seemingly against the apostle himself. In 1 Corinthians 5:2 he has to reproach them for being puffed up when they should have mourned over what was going on among them. Is it not a happy thing to notice that when we move in the "more excellent way" of love this feature will be absent? "Love… is not puffed up."
Nothing outward cures it. One commentator tests "the flesh" — human nature left to itself — in one setting after another.
Take the flesh by itself and it is lawless, so that God has to bring the flood on it. Put it under law, and it is not subject to the law of God, and cannot be. Put flesh in the presence of Christ — God come in grace — and it crucified Christ. Bring in the Holy Spirit, and men resist Him. Put flesh in the third heaven, and it will be puffed up. Put it in a fourth heaven, if there were one, and it would be more puffed up still.
Paul names no one, and that decides who has to answer.
He knew that in Corinth some were puffed up in the vanity and pride of the flesh. He does not single them out, but holds the assembly as such responsible for the condition. They thought to have things their own way, counting on no intervention by Paul. But he would come, he says, if the Lord wills. Then he would show up what was merely speech, and what was true power… This sober, sound, discerning spiritual power matters deeply.
He could have come at once and shut the trouble down. One writer explains why he held back.
He might have come with the rod, and no doubt his presence would have stopped many abuses and silenced many a chattering preacher… Now if his aim had been to establish his claim to authority, this would have been the quickest way. But he was fully conscious of his authority, and his question was how to use it for building up. His aim was not to get agreement with his commands simply by being there. His delight was to see obedience flowing from grace, as in the Philippians, who obeyed not only in his presence but much more in his absence. He wanted order produced by inward life, not by outward restrictions.
Their confidence was all talk. Paul promises to test something else, and his question still reaches us.
Sadly, then as now, "some are puffed up" and pay no attention to the inspired teaching of the apostle. To such people the apostle shows that the real test of spirituality is not in speech, but in the power of life… The apostle asks how he will come to them. Will it be with a rod to chasten, or in love and a spirit of meekness to build up? We may well ask how he would come to Christendom today; how would he come to us?
- Air — "Arrogant" here means puffed up: inflation, not size. It is the flesh swelling on human wisdom and party loyalty, and Paul names it four times in this letter.
- Absence — They read Paul's delay as their opportunity. They shook off his oversight and settled into a false security.
- Answerable — He names no one. He holds the whole assembly responsible for the condition.
- Aim — He could have come with a rod and silenced them. He wanted obedience flowing from grace, not order imposed by his presence.
- Assessment — When he came, speech would not be the measure. The test of spirituality is power of life — and the same test reaches us.
but I will come quickly to you, if the Lord will; and I will know, not the word of those that are puffed up, but the power.
Paul had heard that some in Corinth were talking loudly on the assumption that he would never show up. His reply is short. He plans to come, but only if the Lord wills. And when he arrives, he will not be measuring their talk.
The ESV calls them arrogant; older translations say "puffed up," and that is the wording the commentators use. Their boldness had a calculation behind it: distance felt safe.
He knew that in Corinth some were puffed up in the vanity and pride of the flesh. He does not single them out, but holds the assembly as such responsible for the condition. They thought to have things their own way, counting on no intervention by Paul. But he would come, he says, if the Lord will, and would show up what was merely speech, and what was true power.
The words "if the Lord wills" are not filler. One writer sees them as the opposite of the boldness Paul is facing. Where that dependence is missing, he says, something is wrong in the soul.
Let us first note the saving condition he attaches to his decision to return. Some people have no habit of depending on the will of God. That absence usually comes paired with the opposite habit, a self-confident boldness. Together they are one of the surest signs of a low and fleshly state of soul. It was the lack of this restraint that loosed the tongues of those who were "puffed up," so that they talked with such pride while Paul was away. But Paul had learned another and better way, and he would teach it to anyone willing to learn.
The phrase is not only for an apostle's travel plans. One writer says it belongs in everything we do.
Here the Spirit of God gives us the right words for all our acts and ways. We can find nothing better than what He graciously chooses to give. "If the Lord wills" covers everything that should guide our movements, whether the Lord delays or not.
Some read Paul's delay as fear, and "if the Lord wills" can sound like hesitation too. It is neither.
Some had concluded, from the apostle not going to Corinth and sending Timothy instead, that he shrank from visiting the assembly there. The false apostles had hinted the same, in their pride, to belittle him. But he was indeed coming, and for this he depended on the Lord's will. Yet subjection to the Lord in no way weakens the conduct of His servants. So when he comes, the apostle tells them, he will know what is real — "the power" — not pretentious talk. Power is the essential mark of "the kingdom of God." It stands in contrast with "the word," which Greek ears were always used to, and sadly the Jews for the most part.
Paul plans to "find out" where their claims come from, not what they sound like. Anyone can talk.
He would find out the origin and quality of this thing that was raising its head. He would hardly bother to ask what these self-promoting teachers said, but he would sift their work carefully. Their claim to authority would be measured against his. Human self-will can easily make big claims, but power comes from God.
The same test falls on us. It weighs life, not fluency.
The real test of spirituality is not in the speech, but in the power of life. As for speech, the Apostle warns us a little later that we can speak like an angel and still be nothing. We may well ask, how would he come to the Christian world today; how would he come to us?
"Puffed up" is not a one-off insult here. It runs through the letter, and the letter also names its cure.
Four times the apostle speaks of the Corinthian believers as "puffed up." In 1 Corinthians 4:6 they are "puffed up for one against another." In verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter they are puffed up in their speech, seemingly against the apostle himself. And in 1 Corinthians 5:2 he has to reproach them for being puffed up when they should have mourned over the conditions among them. Is it not a blessing to notice that, as we move in the "more excellent way" of love, this feature will be absent? "Love... is not puffed up" (1 Corinthians 13:4).
- Absence — some grew bold because they assumed Paul would never come. He held the whole assembly responsible.
- Condition — "if the Lord wills" is the habit of dependence. Without it, self-confident boldness marks a low state of soul.
- Scope — that phrase is meant to regulate all our movements and plans, not only large decisions.
- Strength — submitting to the Lord's will does not weaken a servant; Paul is both dependent and certain he is coming.
- Test — he will weigh where the talk comes from, not the talk itself. The real measure is power of life, and the letter's cure for being puffed up is love.
For the kingdom of God [is] not in word, but in power.
Paul had been away from Corinth, and some men there had grown loud, sure he would never return. He answers that he is coming, and that he will test them by power, not by talk — the mark of God's kingdom.
Paul tells them he is coming. He names what he will look at when he arrives, and what authority he carries. Older translations read the verse as "not in word, but in power."
He was indeed coming, and that depended on the Lord's will. But being subject to the Lord in no way weakens how His servants act. So the apostle tells them that when he comes he will take account of reality — "the power" — not pretentious talk. That is the essential mark of "the kingdom of God." It stands in contrast to "the word," which Greek ears had always been used to, and sadly the Jews for the most part too. He had power and authority from God, however slow he might be to use it.
Everything in the verse turns on what "the kingdom of God" means.
The subject of this short discourse is "the kingdom of God." That expression points to an order of things in which God brings in divine power. As the apostle says, "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." I judge it to be, as someone else has said, "the exercise or display of the ruling power of God under any circumstances."
Paul uses the phrase elsewhere too, and there it describes present character rather than a period of time.
The apostle Paul often speaks of the kingdom of God, not as a period of God's dealings but as a moral display. He says that "the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom. 14:17.) He says, too, that "the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Cor. 4:20.)
It is easy to assume that this power must be impressive to watch.
The apostle spoke of coming to them, and of knowing "not the speech of those who were puffed up, but the power." Let us note the fact most carefully: "the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." What marks that kingdom is not speech, but power. That is so at all times, though the power may not be the kind that dazzles nature, or wins merely human applause.
Anyone can produce words with nothing real behind them. So speech is a poor test of where a person stands.
Sadly, then as now "some are puffed up" and entirely indifferent to the inspired teaching of the Apostle. To such people the Apostle shows that the real test of spirituality is not in the speech, but in the power of life. As far as speech is concerned, the Apostle has to warn us a little later that we can speak like an angel and yet be nothing. The kingdom of God is not set forth by our words merely, but in what we are as shown by spiritual power.
If the kingdom is characterised by power rather than talk, then belonging to it is not something a person can talk his way into either.
Later on the kingdom was established, when the Holy Spirit bore witness to Christ risen and glorified at God's right hand. From 1 Corinthians 4:20 we learn that it "is not in word, but in power"... This deeply blessed character of the kingdom of God has a result. Even when Christ was here, and every lovely feature of it appeared in perfection in His Person, a person still had to be born wholly anew to see it. Still more must he be born anew to enter it once established. We only enter it in reality when the Spirit applies the word to our souls in power, and so we share a life and nature suited to such a kingdom.
- Power, not talk. Paul will not weigh what the loud men at Corinth said. He will look for what is real, because reality is the essential mark of God's kingdom.
- Power defined. "Kingdom of God" means the ruling power of God in exercise, under any circumstances.
- Power now. Paul uses the phrase for a moral display now. He also describes the kingdom as righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
- Power unseen. This power may not impress anyone. It may win no applause and dazzle nobody, and it still marks the kingdom.
- Power tested. Anyone can speak like an angel and be nothing. The true test is the power of life. And that life is only ours when the Spirit applies the word and gives us a nature suited to the kingdom.
What will ye? that I come to you with a rod; or in love, and [in] a spirit of meekness?
Paul ends this part of his letter by handing a decision back to the Corinthians. The question is not whether he will come, or when, but how — and that depends on the state he finds them in.
His question is not a sign of weakness. He has the authority from God; what he leaves open is the manner.
So the apostle reminds the Corinthian saints of this. He had spoken of the special bond between them and him, as their father through the gospel. He also had power and authority from God, however slow he might be to use it. It was for them to decide how he was to come, for this was the real question — not whether, nor when, but how: with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness? What he desired himself, as he says elsewhere, was their building up, not their destruction.
(Where the ESV says "gentleness," older translations say "meekness." Several writers use that older word.)
The two options are not love against no love. Love is behind both, but one of them cannot show its warmth.
He gives them the choice about how he should come to them. Will it be with a rod, that is, with sharp, chastening authority as an apostle? Or in love and the spirit of meekness? In the first, love would not be lacking, but it could not express itself freely and with affection. And meek submission would be out of place where judgment of evil is required.
There was a reason for his delay. Coming then would have forced the rod into his hand.
He preferred to wait or turn aside, rather than visit the Corinthians in the condition they were then in. Had he come at all, he must have come with a rod, and this he could not bear. He wished to come with nothing but kindness. He wanted to blame nobody and to say nothing painful and humiliating to them. In truth it was more humiliating to him, for he loved them. A parent feels shame in his child's shame far more than the child can feel it. The apostle felt just that about those he had brought to birth through the gospel.
He could have stopped the disorder by showing up in strength. He chose the slower road, because obedience forced by his presence was not what he wanted.
He might have come with the rod, and no doubt his immediate presence would have stopped many abuses and silenced many a chattering preacher... Now if his object had been to establish his claim to authority, this would have been the quickest way. But he was fully conscious of his authority, and the question for him was to use it for building up. His delight was to see obedience flowing from grace. He saw it in the Philippians, who obeyed not only while he was present but much more in his absence. He wanted order produced by inward life, not by outward restrictions... He had the rod at his command, but he did not fight, nor raise his voice.
The choice was not random. It rested on the character of the God whose Spirit guided the apostle.
The power that guided the apostle was the Spirit of the unchanging God. His workings, in their effects, must match the state of those among whom He came. To the meek He would show meekness, but would wrestle with the stubborn. Love is His nature, and mercy His delight; but He resists the proud in anger. He tests the hearts and ways of His people; and as they regard Him, so will He be found by them.
The verse ends with a question. One writer turns it on the reader.
The apostle asks, how shall he come to them? Will it be with a rod to chasten, or in love and the spirit of meekness to build up? We may well ask, how would he come to Christendom today; how would he come to us?
- How, not whether. He was coming either way. The only open question was how, and they held the answer.
- How the rod feels. The rod does not mean love is gone. It means love cannot speak warmly while it must judge evil.
- How love waits. He stayed away rather than arrive with a rod. He felt their shame as a parent feels a child's.
- How authority acts. He had the power to force obedience and refused to use it. He wanted obedience that flows from grace, not order forced from outside.
- How God answers. Meekness meets meekness; pride meets resistance. Their condition settled the answer, and ours settles it for us.