“Unity among the cattle makes the lion lie down hungry.” While this African proverb has a significant breadth of meaning, the sentence states the obvious: the isolated, the straggler, the young, and the wounded are vulnerable. A disunited herd is susceptible, and conversely, a united herd thwarts a predator’s intentions.

The Christian herd, the church, lacks unity, and we are vulnerable. Despite our best intentions and efforts, we have never perfectly presented ourselves as the “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” that we recite in the Nicene Creed. The reasons for our disunity are numerous, ranging from serious doctrinal divisions to common personality conflicts. At a minimum, the church often perceives itself as lacking unity.1 But throughout the entire history of the church, one issue persistently remains as a source of disunity: a lack of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is inherently a reaction, a response to wrongdoing. Drawing from the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21–35, Timothy Keller proposes a four-fold process for forgiveness. He says,

To forgive, then, is first to name the trespass truthfully as wrong and punishable, rather than merely excusing it. Second, it is to identify with the perpetrator as a fellow sinner rather than thinking how different from you he or she is. It is to will their good. Third, it is to release the wrongdoer from liability by absorbing the debt oneself rather than seeking revenge and paying them back. Finally, it is to aim for reconciliation rather than breaking off the relationship forever. If you omit any one of these four actions, you are not engaging in real forgiveness.2

Divine forgiveness, as pictured in the king, is the model for Christians. Yet unforgiveness among the king’s servants is not uncommon.

Considering our faith rests upon God’s costly and drastic forgiveness of sinners through the sacrifice of His own Son, recent Barna poll results are a bit disheartening. They asked over 1,500 Christians in the United States in 2018 about their experiences with forgiveness.3 While we do not know all the circumstances, 27% of practicing Christians have “someone that they do not want to forgive,” and only 55% have “received unconditional forgiveness.” Christians are struggling to forgive, and receiving forgiveness is not a universal Christian experience. This lack of forgiveness impacts the church, for consequences follow such disunity!

The church is vulnerable. She is prey. God’s people remember that an enemy seeks to devour them. The apostle Peter warns, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”4 The church cannot ignore the danger.

This vulnerability demands a response. Therefore, let us examine 2 Corinthians 2:5–11 as an example, wherein Paul identifies a vulnerable member and prescribes forgiveness to repel Satan’s intentions. To further equip the church in remedying her disunity, we must first recognize prevention as an appropriate (and biblical) way to engage in spiritual warfare. Second, we must reflect on the actual occasion for forgiveness in Corinth. Third, we must uncover Satan’s scheme in Corinth. Fourth, we must pay attention to the nature of forgiveness in Corinth since it operates as preventative spiritual warfare. Finally, we must receive a warning against merely maintaining a façade of forgiveness, that the church may aim to live in forgiveness and unity, shielded from Satan’s attacks.

1. Prevention as a Category for Spiritual Warfare

Spiritual warfare is not merely a synonym for exorcism. Tradition defines spiritual warfare as our human conflict with the flesh (the inner desire, temptation, and disposition toward sinful rebellion against God), the world (the fallen systems of familial, cultural, economic, and political evil), and the devil (the demonic host with their schemes to corrupt and enslave humanity in sin).5 Thus, despite the prevalence and publicity of exorcism in many Christian communities throughout the world, exorcism is only a small slice of the spiritual warfare pie.

Let us reorient ourselves toward spiritual warfare with the demonic. Our trifold response to the enemy consists of disposition, prevention, and action.6 Concerning disposition, one example includes the disciples after their kingdom mission in Luke 10. Jesus issues a correction to their joyful report of successful exorcisms, refocusing their joy on their salvation.7 Another example includes Jesus’s instructions to the church of Smyrna in Revelation 2:8–11, when he commands them to not fear suffering that would result from an imminent Satanic attack.8 Concerning action, the example of Paul’s commissioning stands out, as he testifies before Agrippa in Acts 26. Jesus gives Paul an action to perform, to set people free “from the power of Satan to God.”9 With this disposition/prevention/action paradigm in mind, the breadth of our conflict with the demonic becomes clearer.

Prevention merits further consideration. Certain texts seem to describe this form of spiritual warfare. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:1–5, Paul attempts to regulate the sexual rights and practices of married Christians in the Corinthian church. The section culminates in Paul commanding in verse 5, “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Ciampa and Rosner comment, “Paul has the realistic concern that abstinence may make the Corinthians susceptible to sexual temptation, the solution to which, if you are married, is to ‘drink water from your own cistern.’”10 Evidently, Satan (or more generally, Satan’s realm) aims to tempt Christians to various acts of sexual immorality. Paul recognizes the danger and provides a needed command to prevent Satan’s potential attack against the church. By this simple instruction, Paul leaves the Corinthians less vulnerable in spiritual warfare.

Vulnerability appears to be a central concern. Christians can behave sinfully or unwisely, thereby exposing themselves to a greater risk of spiritual attack from Satan (or the flesh and the world). Prevention steps into potential vulnerabilities and limits the enemy’s reach into those areas. Now, by analyzing 2 Corinthians 2:5–11, let us consider how forgiveness qualifies as an essential form of preventative spiritual warfare.

2. The Occasion for Forgiveness in 2 Corinthians 2:5–11

Someone has again disturbed the Corinthian church. It does not appear to be a hypothetical situation. Victor Furnish says, “Paul has a specific individual in mind, although the person is never named.”11 The immediate context lacks specific details concerning the offender’s name or his sin.

Perhaps the broader context of the Corinthian letters could identify the culprit. The traditional reading of this passage identifies this person with the rebuked man from 1 Corinthians 5, but more recent scholarship points us away from that conclusion.12 After all, 1 Corinthians does not read like a “tearful letter” (2 Cor 2:4). Instead, it seems that there is another correspondence after 1 Corinthians, and this situation is distinct from the man who engaged in incest.13 Of course, similarities exist between the two incidents, but having more than one case of congregational discipline seems not only possible but probable in this scandal-filled church that struggles with Christian love.

In other words, we do not know who this man is. “In 1 Corinthians, the evildoer is identified as a man who was involved in an incestuous relationship with his father’s wife. In 2 Corinthians, the evildoer is simply identified as someone who has been a source of grief for Paul and the community.”14 He is a troublemaker, perhaps an “anti-Paul ringleader,” but his identity is hidden from this letter, perhaps to further assist the healing and reconciliation that Paul prescribes.15

We experience similar difficulties in trying to identify the sin of this man, for “the details of the incident that lies behind these words are not clear.”16 Since he is likely not the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5, we are left to speculate using the broader context. Again, this lack of specificity is probably intentional. Chrysostom comments, “Notice that Paul nowhere mentions the crime, because the time had now come to forgive.”17 Yet a variety of possibilities are posited. Seeing the man as a part of the false apostle challenges in Corinth, Judith Diehl suggests, “It may have been that the rival missionaries and ‘false apostles’ ([1 Cor] 11:13) were envious of Paul and his position, and so labored to discredit, demean, and demolish Paul.”18 Furnish speculates, “All things considered, it would appear that the offense in question has been some slander of Paul and his apostleship, an affront compounded by the congregation’s [initial] unwillingness to discipline the individual responsible.”19 Especially with the remainder of the letter in mind, this suggestion is not without merit. Ralph Martin guesses that this man “raised the charge of Paul’s failure to keep promises made (according to 1 Cor 16:1–8) of a lengthy visit to Corinth,” bringing Paul’s reputation into doubt.20 And of course, while deemed unlikely by most commentators, one could join Garland (along with most ancient interpreters except for Tertullian) and venture that this man is in fact the sexually immoral man from 1 Corinthians 5, meaning that Paul’s instructions here ensure the completion of a prolonged discipline process.21 Yet the text appears to be written in such a way that the crime is kept in the past so we can comfortably accept this uncertainty concerning the sin in the present. The only conclusion that we can safely and confidently reach is that the unnamed man is a source of grief to Paul and the church.22

In contrast, the previous response of the Corinthian church to this man is plain. They had disciplined him severely. The church had learned that “moral sins are not confined to persons immediately involved but usually affect the entire congregation.”23 They had given no blind eye to this man. Instead, “in response to Paul’s tearful letter,” the community had imposed discipline.24 And it does not appear to be minor or informal.25

It could not have been a simple reprimand, because the wording here shows that it has some enduring aspect or consequences which can—and, Paul believes, ought to—be now discontinued. It is likely to have been some temporary exclusion from the Christian community, or at least from such central congregational activities as the eucharistic meal.26

Discipline has rightfully occurred, but it seems indefinite. A path to reconciliation is absent. Meanwhile, grief continues to strangle the love and life of the Corinthian church, demanding Paul’s intervention once again.

3. The Satanic Scheme in 2 Corinthians 2:5–11

While Paul is probably not envisioning Satan as literally cackling outside the Corinthian church doors, he recognizes the grief and discord in the foreground even as he warns about Satan “lurking in the background.”27 Excessive sorrow might overwhelm the man (2 Cor 2:7) if the punishment has no conclusion despite his apparent contrition. Furnish paints a picture saying, “The image is of a person being drowned by (presumably his own) tearful grieving.”28 In this situation, Satan strikes. The fourth-century commentator Ambrosiaster says, “The devil, who is always subtle in his tricks, would then see that this man’s mind was an easy prey, approach him and suggest that at least he should enjoy the things of the present, given that he has been denied any hope of future reward.”29 This man is vulnerable.

Satanic schemes ever swirl about the Corinthian church. There are so-called apostles whom Paul brands as Satanic in 11:12–15, and they might be the agents of Satan who will rob the church of this penitent yet unreconciled man.30 He desperately needs forgiveness and the safe shelter of the united Christian community.31

As a good shepherd of the church, Paul instructs the church once again. At least here in chapter 2, he largely overlooks any wrong that he himself has suffered to protect the church, including the offender.32 The letter opens Paul’s heart, and “the apostle’s deep interest in this man’s welfare is only too obvious.”33 But the Corinthian church must share his heart. They previously obeyed in discipline; now they must obey in forgiveness.

Paul calls the Corinthian church to respond to the man with a few words: forgive (2:7), comfort (2:7), and reaffirm your love (2:8), but forgiveness (in its various forms) is repeated three times in verse 10. The heart of the matter is settling the past offense and reconciling. This act should be done publicly and formally, just as the original offense was not dealt with surreptitiously. Colin Kruse says, “The reaffirmation of love for which Paul calls, then, appears to be a formal act by the congregations, in the same way that the imposition of punishment in the first place appears to have been formal and judicial.”34 They need to forgive completely and unreservedly, and Paul cannot forgive in their stead. The Corinthian church must lead. Even though Paul has already forgiven the offender, Paul structures the text, “Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive,” so that “the reference to the community’s forgiveness precedes Paul’s.”35 The Eastern church father Theodoret of Cyrus summarizes, “Paul’s command now is that they should unite the member to the body, return the sheep to the flock, and show him their most sincere love and affection.”36 After all, it seems that the offender is experiencing godly sorrow for his previous act, and “when a sinner repents, both reconciliation and reinstatement should follow as a matter of course.”37

Upon reading this new apostolic missive, the church may be surprised, thinking they had been faithfully following Paul’s instructions. Martin says, “The readers may have been expecting Paul to endorse their action and ‘confirm’ (κυρῶσαι) whatever discipline they had imposed. Instead, he uses the verb to issue the call: now ‘affirm’ your love for him. The mixing of a legal term (κυρόω, ‘confirm’; BAGD) and a non-legal one (ἀγάπη, ‘love’) is striking.”38 Furthermore, Paul uses a positive word for forgiveness. While χαρίζομαι normally means “to give,” “several times in Pauline literature it means ‘to forgive.’”39 This usage probably reflects the idea of a pardon or conveying graciousness. The Corinthian church is not merely “wiping out an offense from memory,” they are giving grace and even themselves back to the disciplined.40 Of course, as they return to fellowship, this action of forgiveness does not negate all consequences: “Forgiveness does not require the church to reinstate the offender into a position of authority again, but does require his reinstatement into their fellowship.”41 Thus, Paul calls the Corinthian church to a surprising act of forgiveness, overflowing with grace.

In a sense, Paul calls the church to be truly Christian. Shogren says, “The NT consistently teaches that the imperative to forgive one’s fellows is based squarely on God’s gracious forgiveness,” and he appeals to Jesus’s parable of the unmerciful servants and Pauline passages like Colossians 3:13 and the book of Philemon.42 In essence, the church forgives as she has been forgiven and taught forgiveness in Christ. This connection arguably arises in 2 Corinthians:

Reading 2 Corinthians 2 in a much wider context, one senses an implied relationship between Paul’s counsel on forgiveness and repentance and his teaching that the Corinthians are called to engage in the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:16–21). Thus, just as “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them,” so presumably should the Corinthians themselves engage in such a ministry, seeking reconciliation with Paul and among themselves.43

With Satan at the metaphorical door, Paul knows that only gospel-rooted, Jesus-modeled forgiveness can heal the community, restore the penitent, and slam the door in Satan’s face: “‘[Paul’s] call for forgiveness’ changes an ‘I win, you lose’ situation to one where brothers in Christ win and Satan loses.”44

4. Forgiveness as Preventative Spiritual Warfare in 2 Corinthians 2:5–11

The Corinthian church is in peril. If they “harbor ill will toward a repentant sinner, instead of showing love, mercy, and grace,” Satan would win.45 Paul implores them to act, for the status quo is a Satanic victory. Martin says,

Two measures would bring about this result of the enemy’s success in the matter. If, on the one hand, the offender were to be lost to the church by lapsing into “excessive despair” and remorse, then Satan’s work would be achieved; if, on the other side, Paul and the church were to withhold their love and acceptance, the church’s enemy would be just as pleased.”46

Judging by Paul’s instructions, this catastrophic outcome is inevitable, not a mere possibility, if they fail to heed the epistle. They cannot continue to discipline this man, or the entire ordeal becomes “destructive rather than constructive.”47 The church must forgive.

Forgiveness prevents Satan from accomplishing his aims. Collins says, “If the community heeds Paul’s advice, Satan’s attempted robbery will be foiled. This would be one small victory for the community and one small defeat for Satan, whose ultimate defeat is on the eschatological horizon.”48 Paul knows that the Corinthians know what Satan is scheming. The text says οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὰ νοήματα ἀγνοοῦμεν, and Furnish retranslates the faint wordplay, “for we are not unmindful of his mind.”49 Witherington frames it similarly, for Paul “is mindful of what is in the Devil’s mind.”50 Satan is not a distant concern; he is a real and pressing problem that can hurt the church if they fail to forgive.51 And if the Corinthian church forgives, they are finally living up to the instructions of 1 Corinthians 13, learning to love one another! Paul has guided them along another step toward “Christian maturity.”52

Forgiveness is not an optional Christian practice. Not only have we received forgiveness, but this text portrays a Christian community that requires Christian forgiveness for health and vitality. Morris says, “It is the way of the world to nurture grudges against those they think have wronged them. It is the way of those forgiven by Christ to forgive freely the wrongs people do to them.”53 We ought to be Christian and Christ-like, reflecting his forgiveness to those around us. But forgiveness also strips Satan of his ability to exploit the sins of the saints. As Garland says, “Showing forgiveness is thus one way for the church to close the door on Satan’s evil schemes (Eph 6:11).”54 We cannot help but forgive because of Christ, the church, and the enemy.

5. Conclusion

Forgiveness, though essential, remains painful. Most Christian leaders know the travail of forgiving. Diehl mentions this dynamic concerning 2 Corinthians 2:5–11, “Necessary and often difficult, ministers must forgive terrible words, intentions, attitudes, and behaviors of the very people whom they try to serve. Paul stood up for this person, which may have been what the congregation did not do for Paul during the ‘painful visit.’”55 But forgiveness is a sign of Christian strength, not weakness. “So often we think forgiveness is for weaklings. Somehow we think we are vulnerable when we forgive. In a certain sense, we are making ourselves vulnerable to other people, but we are actually vulnerable to Satan if we fail to forgive.”56 Painful and essential, forgiveness is the action of the strong. Satan preys upon the weak, those who do not forgive along with those who are unforgiven.

In a time when many Christians do not experience forgiveness and unity in their local church, we may attempt to merely portray that we believe in forgiveness. But do we engage in self-denying, grace-giving, sin-forgiving work? Speaking from the context of Christian ministry in Canada, John Friesen bemoans this façade of forgiveness:

Pretty well everyone likes to talk about forgiveness, but not too many people can tell many happy stories about it…. As a youth growing up in a rural Saskatchewan congregation and later on as a young clergyman just entering the profession, I experienced great difficulty trying to understand how Christians who allegedly believed in God’s forgiveness for themselves could be so unrelenting toward others.57

Actual forgiveness seems to be in short supply. After surveying the stories of wicked people who found the forgiveness of Christ, Brent MacDonald challenges us toward a more radical course of forgiveness and acceptance, “If you believe that God sent Jesus to save the worst of sinners, you must believe that God can and does change hearts and minds. He’s in the business of transformed lives. It’s easy to pay lip service to this idea, but you’ll prove your true understanding by your actions.”58 And like the church in Corinth, we are beckoned to forgive, and even though we know we should, we might find ourselves reluctant to forgive.

Meanwhile, while we struggle to forgive, the church is vulnerable. The enemy lurks, preying upon our lack of unity. “Satan fans the flames of hurt into an inferno of hostility. Satan is powerless, however, before a united community filled with love and humble forgiveness.”59 Yes, we forgive because we are forgiven, but we also forgive because we are in a spiritual conflict. Maarten Kuivenhoven says with urgency, “When exercised, forgiveness is God’s gift of defense for the church against Satan…. We can’t afford not to forgive someone who has confessed sin.”60 But if we wish to put up a defense, forgiveness must be exercised, not merely suggested or discussed! Thus, with Kistemaker we assert, “If God forgives a sinner, the church must do no less.”61 And in so doing, we force the lion to lie down hungry.