2 Corinthians 1:17 kjv

When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?

2 Corinthians 1:17 nkjv

Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?

2 Corinthians 1:17 niv

Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both "Yes, yes" and "No, no"?

2 Corinthians 1:17 esv

Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say "Yes, yes" and "No, no" at the same time?

2 Corinthians 1:17 nlt

You may be asking why I changed my plan. Do you think I make my plans carelessly? Do you think I am like people of the world who say "Yes" when they really mean "No"?

2 Corinthians 1 verses

2 Corinthians 1 17 Meaning

In 2 Corinthians 1:17, Paul is defending his integrity and the consistent truthfulness of his message and character. He refutes accusations of fickleness or unreliability regarding his change in travel plans to Corinth. He asserts that his decisions were not made on a whim or motivated by worldly (fleshly) considerations, which would result in contradictory "yes" and "no" statements. Instead, he implies his plans and message are stable and reliable, reflecting the faithfulness of God.

2 Corinthians 1 17 Context

Chapter 1 of 2 Corinthians finds Paul engaged in a fervent defense of his apostolic ministry and personal integrity to the church in Corinth. Following a difficult previous letter (often referred to as the "severe letter," not extant in canonical form), Paul's relationship with the Corinthians was strained. His original travel plan, as outlined in 1 Cor 16:5-7, was to visit them on his way to Macedonia and again on his return. However, he altered this plan, which led to accusations from his opponents in Corinth that he was unreliable, capricious, or even duplicitous—saying one thing ("yes") and doing another ("no"). This specific verse addresses these accusations directly. Paul's consistency was being called into question as a way to undermine his authority and the very gospel message he preached. The verse sets the stage for Paul to explain the spiritual and pastoral reasons behind his changed itinerary and, crucially, to affirm the steadfastness of God's character as reflected in Christ Jesus, which he will elaborate on in the subsequent verses.

2 Corinthians 1 17 Word analysis

• Therefore (οὖν - oun): This connective particle links the verse to the preceding discussion, implying a consequence or summation of the accusations Paul is facing concerning his broken travel plans (2 Cor 1:15-16).
• when I purposed (βουλεύεσθαι - bouleuesthai): The verb means "to take counsel, to decide, to resolve, to plan." It denotes a deliberate decision, not a spontaneous whim. Paul emphasizes that his plans were well-considered, not impulsive. This word also highlights the human act of planning, which Paul contrasts with potential "fleshly" motives.
• this: Refers directly to his previously stated travel plan and the decision to alter it, which became a point of contention.
• did I do it lightly (ἐλαφρίᾳ - elaphria)?: Elaphria means "lightness, frivolity, fickleness, caprice, instability." Paul asks rhetorically if his decision was trivial, unstable, or impulsive, suggesting the accusation that it was. This points to the severe nature of the charge: that his character was not steadfast.
• Or: Introduces a parallel, rhetorical question, further elaborating on the nature of the accusation against his planning.
• the things that I purpose (βουλεύομαι - bouleuomai): Repetition of the root verb for "to purpose" emphasizes the intentionality behind his actions, again highlighting his consistent thought process in his ministry and life.
• do I purpose according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα - kata sarka)?: Kata sarka translates to "according to the flesh," meaning "according to human motives, worldly standards, unspiritual considerations, or human weakness." This is a key polemical point, directly addressing the accusation that his decisions were driven by self-interest, instability, or carnal impulsiveness, rather than by spiritual guidance or consideration for the gospel and the believers.
• so that: Introduces the intended outcome or perceived consequence of planning "according to the flesh."
• with me there will be yes, yes and no, no (ναὶ ναὶ καὶ οὔ οὔ - nai nai kai ou ou)?: This idiomatic phrase signifies inconsistency, self-contradiction, and unreliability. It describes a person who says "yes" but means "no," or changes their mind frivolously, thus being untrustworthy. It echoes a common concern in the ancient world regarding oaths and agreements, and directly parallels Jesus' teaching in Mt 5:37 and Jas 5:12, where sincerity and truthfulness in speech are commanded. Paul denies that his communication or intentions are duplicitous or shifting in this way.
• Words-group by words-group analysis:
  • "When I purposed this, did I do it lightly?": Paul frames his changed plans not as arbitrary or flippant, but as deliberate. The question implies the serious consideration involved, countering the accusation of thoughtlessness or lack of care for the Corinthian church.
  • "Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh": This group of words defines the core of the accusation. "According to the flesh" in Pauline theology means guided by human, worldly, or sinful desires, rather than by the Holy Spirit. This accusation was profound, attacking Paul's spiritual authority and legitimacy as an apostle.
  • "so that with me there will be yes, yes and no, no?": This phrase directly states the practical implication of "fleshly" planning – unreliability and inconsistency. Paul here alludes to the perception of a person who gives a "yes" but delivers a "no," undermining all trust. His opponents would use this perceived fickleness to discredit his entire ministry and message, implying that if his travel plans were inconsistent, so too could be his preaching of Christ.

2 Corinthians 1 17 Bonus section

• The rhetorical structure of Paul's defense (using "did I do it lightly?" and "do I purpose according to the flesh?") forces the Corinthians to reflect on the seriousness of their accusations and Paul's actual intentions. He implies that such accusations attack the very reliability of God's message through him.
• The phrase "yes, yes and no, no" can also be interpreted as a subtle reference to Hellenistic legal and business practices, where an ambiguous statement or wavering agreement was seen as untrustworthy. Paul is distancing himself from such duplicity.
• This verse illustrates a broader theme in Paul's ministry: that his actions and conduct were consistent with the gospel he preached, striving to live in accordance with the truth of Christ rather than human expediency or a desire to please men (Gal 1:10).

2 Corinthians 1 17 Commentary

2 Corinthians 1:17 is a pivotal verse in Paul's defense against charges of unreliability leveled by some in the Corinthian church. The core of the accusation stemmed from Paul's alteration of his previously announced travel plans. By asking rhetorically if he "did it lightly" or "according to the flesh," Paul is addressing two primary charges: first, that his decisions were frivolous or made without proper consideration (lightly); and second, that his motivations were human, selfish, or carnal, rather than guided by divine wisdom or spiritual concern for the church (according to the flesh). The outcome of such "fleshly" decision-making, as implied, would be an unpredictable, contradictory ministry where a "yes" might not mean "yes" and a "no" might not mean "no."

Paul's rhetorical questions lay bare the seriousness of the challenge to his integrity. For an apostle, integrity was paramount; any perceived inconsistency could undermine the authority of his message. This sets the stage for Paul to assert in subsequent verses (1:18-20) that just as God's promises in Christ are a definitive "Yes," so too is his ministry consistently reflective of that divine truth. Paul’s response teaches that Christian leaders should strive for transparent communication and decision-making that is rooted in spiritual wisdom rather than worldly expediency, ensuring their words and actions remain consistent and trustworthy.

For instance, in a contemporary setting, this applies to pastors or church leaders making plans. If a pastor announces a significant initiative or decision (e.g., a missions trip, a building project, a change in program) but then cancels or changes it without clear explanation or perceived justifiable reasons, it could lead to questions of their "lightness" or planning "according to the flesh." This verse underscores the need for clear communication, integrity in decision-making, and motivations rooted in Christ's faithfulness, so that the leader's "yes" and "no" remain consistent and trusted.