Crisis of Confidence
For numerous reasons Paul's personality, experiences and his way of fulfilling his apostolic commission came under critical review. It seems clear his apostolic commission was called in question early in the game (1 Corinthians 9:1) and his character was maligned. Plummer summarizes the situation in light of 2 Corinthians, "His opponents attributed to him unspiritual and worldly motives and conduct; that he was capricious and shuffling, verbose and vain-glorious, at once a coward and a bully." No doubt things got worse as time went on but Paul was already under pressure before the second epistle. When he left after the first visit, some arrogant critics predicted he wouldn't have the nerve to come back (see 1 Corinthians 4:18-19).
The Corinthians thought Paul was gutless and wimpy
For example, they said he lacked authority because he didn't punch their lights out when they disagreed with him or misbehaved (see 2 Corinthians 1:24; 10:1). And this was why, some said, he kept changing his mind about returning to them. He was afraid to come! Of course he could write tough letters but his bodily presence was pathetic even when he did turn up (see 2 Corinthians 1:23).
The problem was made worse when (at some point) outsiders came in claiming to be apostles and exhibiting a triumphalist and overpowering approach to the assembly. An approach some (many?) preferred. See 2 Corinthians 11:20-21.
The Corinthians thought Paul cared little for them
This would be another reason he stayed away: he found other places more attractive. He said he cared and he couldn't wait to get back but other places beckoned and, 'out of sight out of mind'. He was the kind of preacher who'd cancel meetings when an engagement more prestigious or convenient or profitable was offered.
Then there was the support question. He refused to take support from them and this, so it was implied, showed he wanted no intimacy with them. It showed he wanted to remain independent of them and that he didn't love them (see 2 Corinthians 11:11 and 12:13). I've come across a few preachers who said they wouldn't take a salary from a church so they could maintain their independence. Their tone and attitude was bad. They didn't care for the brothers/sisters and wanted to feel free to walk away when it suited them.
The Corinthians thought Paul was devious, cunning and crafty
In 12:16 he quotes an accusation that he is cunning (same word as used in 11:3 of the serpent). Paul was a snake in the grass, some said. This probably explains why he uses the word phaneroo nine times in the letter and stresses his openness before God and them. He speaks of having renounced the hidden things of shame and craftiness (4:2) and having nothing to do with veils (3:18).
In this he is unlike the hero of his Jewish critics Moses. Moses (for one reason or another) was forced to veil his face to hide the fading glory of the covenantal law. Paul's ministry doesn't require that of him. The glory that Moses enjoyed and brought was found only in the presence of God and away from the eyes of people. The glory enjoyed and ministered by Paul was seen by every believer who saw the face of the Christ Paul proclaimed and reflected. See 2 Corinthians 3.
The Corinthians thought Paul, at best, was a 2nd rate apostle.
The Corinthians were keen to follow 'the big preachers'. This tendency says a lot about Corinthian pride and preoccupation with their reputation. 2 Corinthians 12:13 shows they were concerned about their image.
See the material on Paul and Antioch which might underscore their assessment of Paul as a second rater. And note the discussion about letters of recommendation and self-recommendation. See 2 Corinthians 3:1; 5:12; 10:12,18.
The crisis put the church in danger and undermined the gospel
To Paul, the outsiders who exacerbated the crisis offered another Jesus. See 2 Corinthians 11:4,13. A Jesus for whom the cross was finished and now should only be seen as glorious and exalted. This Jesus was to be paraded by triumphant messengersand Paul was far from triumphant.
What incensed Paul was not what they thought of him, but that what they thought of him was the result of the kind of gospel they offered, the kind of Jesus they proclaimed. Their kind of Jesus would not produce a career like Paul's. His was too filled with suffering, with failure, with reluctance to rip up and tear down he wasn't strong or successful enough. But Paul saw his gospel--the proclamation and embodiment of it--as intimately connected with Christ's suffering and glory, not as simply past, but as continued in Christ's Body as a whole and in his specially commissioned ambassador's.
Then too, this Pauline loss of confidence would affect the contribution to the poor saints at Jerusalem which in itself would be a tragedy and would hinder the unification of Jews and Gentiles throughout the world. This gift from the Gentile world to the Jews would have been seen by Paul as part proof of his gospel since Isaiah texts spoke of this kind of thing in eschatalogical times. See Isaiah 49:23; 60:5,10,14,16. It also fulfilled a commitment made to Peter and James which would ease any concern felt there since Paul had confronted Peter and agreed to a proposal by James that would establish Paul's love and respect for his people (see Galatians 2:1-10, 11; Acts 21:17ff).
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.