2 Corinthians 12:21

Lest again when I come my God should humble me before you, and I should mourn for many of them that have sinned heretofore, and repented not of the uncleanness and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Paul was determined that nothing would prevent his cleaning up the mess in Corinth. Neither the displeasure of the sinners to be rebuked, nor his own pathetic grief over the fallen, nor any humiliation before God that would come of dealing with such wickedness would deter the effective steps contemplated. There was no way then, nor is there now, for the holy teachings of Christ to be accommodated to the lustful sins mentioned here. The magnificent Paul would meet the challenge frontally; there would be no compromise; and either the sinners would renounce their sins or the church of God would renounce them.

Filson identified these last two verses (2 Corinthians 12:20-21) as "one of the strongest arguments"[43] for repudiating these last four chapters as part of this epistle. If these verses are the "strongest" arguments in favor of such a hypothesis, the hypothesis has practically no support at all; because, as we have seen, there is nothing here which is required to be interpreted in any such manner.

Uncleanness, fornication, lasciviousness ... These are not mere synonyms for one sin, but are a general description of all kinds of profligate living. "Uncleanness" means luxurious impurity and profligacy; "fornication" refers to promiscuous sex indulgence and prostitution; "lasciviousness" describes all kinds of misconduct and defiance of public decency.

Lest again when I come my God should humble me ... Clines insisted that "again" modifies "humble" instead of "when I come."[44] Likewise Hughes commented that "What Paul fears here is a second humiliation."[45] If that is so, why does the word "again" in the Greek text stand at the head of the sentence, prior to and adjacent to the verb (a participle) "coming," and further removed by the pronoun "me" from that which it is alleged to modify?"[46] This is clearly another case of scholars bolstering their subjective opinions by tampering with the text. The King James Version and the English Revised Version (1885) both have properly placed "again" as a modifier of Paul's coming, and not of any anticipated humiliation. Even the RSV refused to go along by changing it, leaving it as it is here. Of course, what is intended by the change is to make this a comment of Paul on that "painful visit." We do not deny that there was another visit; but this verse may not be pressed into service to prove it.

[43] Floyd V. Filson, op. cit., p. 416.

[44] David J. A. Clines, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 440.

[45] Philip E. Hughes, op. cit., footnote, p. 472.

[46] The Interlinear Greek-English Testament, The Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 739.