John Calvin Commentary 2 Corinthians 1:17

"When I therefore was thus minded, did I show fickleness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the yea yea and the nay nay?" — 2 Corinthians 1:17 (ASV)

Did I use fickleness? There are two things, especially, that prevent men's purposes from being carried out, or their promises from being faithfully performed. One is that they change them frequently, and the other is that they are too rash in forming their plans.

It is a sign of changeableness to purpose or promise what you almost immediately afterward regret. Paul declares he had not been guilty of that fault. "I have not," he says, "through fickleness drawn back from the promise that I made."

He also declares that he had been on his guard against rashness and misdirected confidence; for that is how I explain the expression—purpose according to the flesh. For it is, as I have stated, the common practice of men, as if they were not dependent on God’s providence and were not subject to His will, to determine rashly and presumptuously what they will do.

Now God, in order to punish this presumption, defeats their plans, preventing them from having a successful outcome, and in many instances subjects them to ridicule.

The expression according to the flesh, it is true, might be extended further, so as to include all wicked schemes and those not directed to a right end, such as those dictated by ambition, avarice, or any other corrupt desire. Paul, however, in my opinion, did not intend here to refer to anything of that nature, but only to rebuke that rashness which is all too common on the part of man, and in daily use in forming plans.

To purpose, therefore, according to the flesh, is not acknowledging God as our ruler, but instead, being driven by a rash presumption, which is afterward justly ridiculed and punished by God. The apostle, in order to clear himself from these faults, proposes a question, as if speaking for his opponents. Hence it is probable, as I have already said, that some unfavorable report had been spread by wicked persons.

That with me there should be yea, yea. Some connect this statement with what precedes, and explain it thus: "As if it were in my power to perform whatever I purpose, just as men determine they will do whatever comes into their mind, and order their ways, as Solomon speaks (Proverbs 16:1), while they cannot so much as govern their tongue."

And, undoubtedly, the words seem to imply this much—that what has once been affirmed must remain fixed, and what has once been denied must never be done. So James in his Epistle (James 5:12) says:

Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into dissimulation.

Furthermore, the context would in this way suit very well regarding what precedes. For to purpose according to the flesh is this—when we wish that, without any exception, our determinations shall be like oracles.

However, this interpretation does not agree with what immediately follows—God is faithful, etc., where Paul uses the same expression when he intends to suggest that he had not been unfaithful in his preaching.

Now it would be absurd if, in almost the same verse, he considered it a fault that his yea should be yea, and his nay nay, and yet at the same time claimed it as his highest praise. I am aware of what could be said in reply, if anyone were inclined to play with subtleties, but I have no taste for anything that is not substantial.

I have, therefore, no doubt that in these words Paul intended to rebuke fickleness, although they might seem open to another meaning, in order to clear himself from that slander—that he was accustomed to promise in words what he failed to do. Thus, repeating the affirmation and negation will not have the same meaning as in Matthew 5:37 and in James, but will have this meaning: "that yea should with me be in this instance yea, and on the other hand, when it pleases me, nay, nay."

At the same time, it is possible that this crept in through the ignorance of scribes, as the old translation does not repeat the words. However this may be, we should not be overly concerned about the words, as long as we understand the apostle’s intention, which, as I have said, clearly appears from what follows.