καὶ Τιμόθ.] His relation to this Epistle is the same as that of Sosthenes to the first Epistle: he appears, not as amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender of it. See on 1Co 1:1.
ὁ ἀδελφ.] as at 1Co 1:1.
σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι κ.τ.λ.] Grotius: “Voluit P. exempla hujus epistolae mitti ad alias in Achaia ecclesias.” So also Rosenmüller, Emmerling, and others. But, in that case, would not Paul have rather written σὺν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις? Comp. Gal 1:2. And are the contents of the Epistle suited for an encyclical destination? No; he means, in agreement with 1Co 1:2, the Christians living outside of Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached themselves to the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have been the sole seat of a church-the metropolis of the Christians in the province. The state of matters in Galatia was different.
Under Achaia we must, according to the sense then attached to it, understand Hellas and Peloponnesus. This province and that of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See on Act 18:12.-2Co 1:2. See on Rom 1:7.
2Co 1:3. Ὁ Θεὸς κ. πατ. κ.τ.λ.] God, who is at the same time father of Jesus Christ. See on 1Co 15:24; Rom 15:6. Against the connection of τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ.λ. also with ὁ Θεός (Hofmann), see on Eph 1:3.
ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν] אֲבִי הַרַחֲמִים, i.e. the Father, whose fatherly frame of mind and disposition is compassionateness,-the compassionate Father (μάλιστα ἴδιον Θεοῦ καὶ ἐξαίρετον καὶ τῇ φύσει συγκεκληρωμένον, Chrysostom). Comp. on 1Co 2:8 and Eph 1:17. It is the qualitative genitive, such as we find in the language of the Greek poets (Seidl. ad Electr. 651; Herm. ad Viger. p. 890 f.). Rückert (comp. before him Theodoret) takes it as the genitivus effecti: “The Father from whom all compassion comes” (comp. 2Co 13:11; Rom 15:5; Rom 15:13, al.). But, since οἰκτιρμοί (comp. Plato, Polit. p. 305 B) is the subjective compassion (Tittm. Synon. 69 f.), it would have to be explained: “The Father who works in us compassion, sympathy,” and this sense would be altogether unsuitable to the connection. On the contrary, τῶν οἰκτιρμ. is the specific quality of the Father, which dwells in Him just as the Father of Christ, and in consequence of which He is also Θεὸς πάσης παρακλ.; and this genitive is that of the effect which issues from the Merciful One: “The compassionate Father and God who worketh every consolation.” This rendering, differing from that of the first genitive, is demanded by 2Co 1:4 (in opposition to Hofmann); comp. 2Co 7:6; Rom 15:5. As to οἰκτιρμοί, see on Rom 12:1. Observe that the characteristic appellation of God in this passage is an artless outflow of the experience, which was still fresh in the pious heart of the apostle, 2Co 1:8-10.
2Co 1:4. Ἡμᾶς] Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean himself exclusively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, according to the context), although often only as quite subordinate, he speaks in the plural. He does not express himself communicativè, but in the singular, where he gives utterance to his own personal conviction or, in general, to anything concerning himself individually (2Co 1:13; 2Co 1:15; 2Co 1:17; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 2:1-10; 2Co 2:12-13; 2Co 7:4; 2Co 7:7 ff., al.). Hence the frequent interchange between the singular and plural forms of expression.[122]
Chrysostom already gives the force of the present παρακαλῶν correctly: ὍΤΙ ΟὐΧ ἍΠΑΞ, ΟὐΔῈ ΔῚς, ἈΛΛᾺ ΔΙΗΝΕΚῶς ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΟΙΕῖ … ΔΙῸ ΕἾΠΕΝ Ὁ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶΝ, ΟὐΧ Ὁ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΈΣΑς.
ἘΠῚ ΠΆΣῌ Τῇ ΘΛΊΨΕΙ] concerning all our affliction. The collective sufferings are regarded as one whole. Afterwards, on the other hand, ἐν πάσῃ θλ.: in every affliction. ἐπί marks the ethical foundation, i.e. here the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373. Comp. 2Ma 7:5 f.; Deu 32:36. According to Rück., παρακαλ. denotes the delivering, and hence he takes ἐπί of the circumstances: in. See Matthiae, p. 1370. But throughout the passage παρακ. means to comfort; and it is quite an open question, how the comforting takes place, whether by calming or by delivering. God did both in the apostle’s cas.
εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ.] in order that we may be able, etc. For he, who for himself received comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of being able to comfort others. And how important was this teleological view of his own sorrows for the apostolic calling! “Omnia sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae refert,” Grotiu.
τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει] is erroneously and arbitrarily taken as equivalent to ΠΆΝΤΑς ΤΟῪς ἘΝ ΘΛΊΨΕΙ (see Emmerling, Flatt, Rückert). It means: those to be found in every trouble, the all-distressed; not: those to be found in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι, 2Co 4:8, 2Co 7:5.
ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] i.e. through communication of our own comfort, which we experience from God. This more precise determination of the sense is demanded both by the preceding mention of the purpose εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ., and by the ΑὐΤΟΊ. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives the comfort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may again be conveyed to others by the recei2Colossians 1 :But there is no analogy in the whole N. T. for this conception; for Mat 10:13 is merely a concrete illustration of the efficacy or non-efficacy of the ΕἸΡΉΝΗ ὙΜῖΝ.
Ἧς] Attracted, as in Eph 1:6; Eph 4:1, because one can say ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙΝ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕῖΝ. See Gieseler in Rosenmüller, Repert. II. p. 124; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5.
αὐτοί] ipsi, for our own selves, in contrast to the others to be comforted.
[122] Even in the plural mode of expression, however, he has always himself and his own relations primarily in view; and, owing to the versatility of his mode of conception, it is often quite a matter of accident whether he expresses himself singulariter or communicative. Hence the interchange of the two modes of expression in one sentence, e.g. 2Co 11:6 f.
2Co 1:5. Ground assigned for the ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τ. Θεοῦ.
περισσεύει εἰς ἡμᾶς] is abundant in relation to us, i.e. it is imparted to us above measure, in a very high degree. Comp. Rom 5:15.
τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ] are not the sufferings for Christ’s sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be expressed by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Billroth, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann), in so far as every one who suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as Christ suffered. Comp. Mat 20:22; Php 3:10; Col 1:24; Heb 13:13; 1Pe 4:13. See also on Rom 8:17. Hence Cornelius a Lapide, Leun, and Rückert render correctly in substance: “quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who render: “the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members;” comp. de Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ continuing to suffer in His members is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Act 9:4, and is contrary to the idea of His exaltation. See on Col 1:24.
διὰ τοῦ Χ.] through His indwelling by means of the Spirit. See Rom 8:9-10; Eph 3:17; Col 1:29, al.
2Co 1:6-7. Δέ] leading on to the gain, which the two, this affliction and this comforting, bring to the readers.
Be it that we are afflicted, we are afflicted for the sake of YOUR consolation and salvation; it redounds to this, that you are to be comforted and advanced in the attainment of Messianic salvation. In how far? According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein, and many, including Rosenmüller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche: through the example of the apostle in his confidence toward God, etc. But the context has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth and Olshausen: “in so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, through which comfort and salvation come to you;” so also Hofmann. Rückert, without ground, gives up all attempt at explanation. Paul himself has given the explanation in 2Co 1:4 by εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν κ.τ.λ. Hence the sense of the definition of the aim ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. κ. σωτ.: “in order that we may be enabled to comfort you, when ye come into affliction, and to further your salvation.” For this end we are put in a position by experience of suffering, as well as by that, which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the school of suffering (εἵτε παρακαλούμεθα κ.τ.λ.).
ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμ. παρακλ. τῆς ἐνεργ. κ.τ.λ.] i.e. in order to be able to give you the comfort, which is efficacious, etc. Paul does not again add κ. σωτηρίας here, because he has still to append to παρακλήσεως a more precise and detailed explanation, after which it was impracticable to bring in καὶ σωτηρίας; and it could be left out all the more readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representatio.
τῆς ἐνεργουμ. ἐν ὑπομ. κ.τ.λ.] which is efficacious in patient endurance of the same sufferings, which we also suffer. ἐνεργουμ., as in the whole N. T. (2Co 4:12; Rom 7:5; Gal 5:6; Eph 3:20; Col 1:29; 1Th 2:13; 2Th 2:7; Jam 5:16), is middle, not passive (3 Esdr. 2:20; Polyb. i. 13. 5, ix. 12. 3), as it is here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosenmüller, Emmerling, Billroth, Rückert, Ewald.[123] For the distinction between active (personal efficacy) and middle in Paul, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 273].
ἐν ὑπομονῇ] denotes that by virtue of providing which the παράκλησις is efficacious. It is therefore the working of the Christian ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙς, which we experience when Ἡ ΘΛΊΨΙς ὙΠΟΜΟΝῊΝ ΚΑΤΕΡΓΆΖΕΤΑΙ, Rom 5:3.
ΤῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ, ὯΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] in so far, namely, as they are likewise sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed to the readers are meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of Paul (and Timothy) (ὧν κ. ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν). Billroth, Olshausen, Neander understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far as these were jointly felt by all believers as their own in virtue of their fellowship of love with him. Compare Chrysostom on 2Co 1:7, also de Wette, who refers it partly to the foreboding, partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then, Paul would have been utterly illogical in placing the καί before ἩΜΕῖς; for it would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered (with Paul through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this exposition is, is shown, besides, by 2Co 1:4. It does not appear from this passage, we may add, that at that time the Corinthians had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s sake. Paul has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the future, as the following καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς κ.τ.λ. proves. Comp. on 2Co 13:11.
ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠ. ἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠ. ὙΜ.] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, with Griesbach and others, since ΕἸΔΌΤΕς is connected not with ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ, but with Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜῶΝ. The contents of 2Co 1:6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the readers for the future, that what is said by εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα … πάσχομεν will be verified in their case in afflictions which would come on them for Christ’s sake, so that they would in that case obtain from the apostle, out of his experience of suffering and consolation, the comfort which through patience is efficacious in such sufferings. Therefore he continues: and our hope is firm on account of you. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν does not belong either simply to Ἡ ἘΛΠ. ὙΜ., or simply to ΒΕΒΑΊΑ (Billroth), but to the whole thought of Ἡ ἘΛΠ. ὙΜ. ΒΕΒ. On ὙΠΈΡ, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and the contrary expression ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΑΙ ὙΠΈΡ ΤΙΝΟς, propter aliquem in metu esse.
εἰδότες] refers, according to a common anacolouthon, to Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜ., in which ἩΜΕῖς is the logical subject.[124] See Stall-baum, ad Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81 A; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. on Eph 4:2; Col 2:2. It introduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed: for we know that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are sharers also of the consolation. To have a share in the sufferings, and also in the consolation, to be excepted neither from the one nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Christian. Paul knows this in regard to his readers, and he grounds on it the firm hope for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings, they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation; to impart which consolation he is himself qualified (2Co 1:4) and destined (2Co 1:6) by his own experience of suffering and consolation. Accordingly, κοινωνοὶ κ.τ.λ. is contextually not to be explained of an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that in the sufferings and consolation of Paul (ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ παθήματα τὰ ἡμέτερα ὑμέτερα εἶναι νομίζετε, οὕτω καὶ τὴν παράκλησιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑμετέραν, Chrysostom. Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and others), but τὰ παθήματα and ἡ παράκλησις are to be taken generically. In both kinds of experience the Christian has a share; he must suffer; but he is not excluded from the consolation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it.
[123] The passive interpretation would be necessary with the reading of Lachmann, since salvation is the goal of the state of grace, and hence is wrought (Php 2:12-13; Mat 10:22; Jam 1:12); but nowhere is it conceived and represented as working in patience, and the like. This tells against that reading.
[124] With Lachmann’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald to the Corinthians (ὑμῶν); since you know, etc.
2Co 1:8. Οὐ γ. θέλ. ὑμ. ἀγν.] See on Rom 1:13; Rom 11:25; 1Co 12:1; 1Th 4:13.
ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψ.] regarding (de) the affliction, concerning the same. See Bernhardy, p. 244; Kühner, II. § 547, 2.
ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ] as in 1Co 16:19. What particular affliction is meant, and at what place it happened, we do not know. The readers, who must have known it, may have learnt it from Titus or otherwise. Perhaps it was the ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί, 1Co 16:9, who had prepared for him the extraordinary trial. The tumult of Demetrius in Ephesus, Act 19:23 ff. (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Vater, Schrader, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, and others), is not to be thought of, since Paul was not in personal danger there, Act 19:30, and immediately after the tumult set out on his journey to Greece, Act 20:1. Heumann, Emmerling, Rückert, Bisping, suggest a severe illness. Against this it may be urged that, according to 2Co 1:5, it must have been a πάθημα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (for the special experience must be held as included under the general one previously spoken of), as well as that Paul speaks in the plural. Both grounds tell at the same time against Hofmann, who thinks of the shipwreck, 2Co 11:25, to which, in fact, ἐν τ. Ἀσίᾳ, 2Co 1:8, is not suitable, even if we ventured to make a mere stranding on the coast out of the incident. Besides, the reading ῥύεται, 2Co 1:10, militates against thi.
ὅτι καθʼ ὑπερβ. κ.τ.λ.] that we were burdened to the uttermost beyond strength, a statement of that which, in regard to the affliction mentioned, is not to be withheld from the readers. καθʼ ὑπερβολήν defines the degree of ἐβαρ. ὑπὲρ δύναμ. See Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 1 f. (“ut calamitates vires meas egregie superarent”). The view which regards the two expressions as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, and many, including Flatt, Rückert, Osiander, Hofmann): so heavy that it went beyond our ability, would place alongside of each other the objective greatness of the suffering and its disproportion to the subjectivity (see de Wette): still the position of ἐβαρ., as well as the want of a καί before ὑπέρ, is more favourable to the view which takes ἐβαρ. ὑπ. δύν. together; and this is also confirmed by the subjectivity of the following ὥστε ἐξαπορ. κ.τ.λ. The suffering made itself palpable to him as a πειρασμὸς οὐκ ἀνθρώπινος (1Co 10:13). Rückert, moreover, has no ground for thinking that ἐβαρήθ. is inappropriately used of persecutions, attempts to murder, and the like, and that ὑπὲρ δύναμιν is also opposed to it. βαρύς, βαρέω, and βαρύνω are used of all troubles by which we feel ourselves burdened. See the passages from Homer in Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 202; comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 C; Soph. Trach. 151; Theocr. xvii. 61, and expressions like βαρύμοχθος, βαρύποτμος, βαρυπενθής, βαρυδαίμων, and the lik.
ὥστε ἐξαπορ. κ.τ.λ.] so that we became quite perplexed even (καί) in regard to life, placed in the highest perplexity even with regard to the preservation of our life, ἐκ strengthens the simple verb, iv. 8. Polyb. i. 62. 1, iii. 47. 9, 48. 4. The genitive (τοῦ ζῆν) is the usual case in Greek with ἀπορεῖν, in the sense of having lack of something; seldom is it found in the sense of being perplexed about something (Dem. 1380, 4; Plat. Conv. p. 193 E).
2Co 1:9. Ἀλλά] is the simple but, the contrast of the negation contained in ἐξαπορηθῆναι, which contrast, nevertheless, no longer depends on ὥστε: the independent position makes it all the weightier. There is therefore the less ground for taking ἀλλά as nay indeed, with Hofmann, and making it point to the following clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause αὐτοὶ κ.τ.λ. would be arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate-viz., “if we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to the end, that we,” et.
αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] for our own selves in our own consciousness-i.e. apart from what might take place from without, through divine interference, to cause a change in our position. This certainty in their own heart, however, could not but exclude all self-confidence; hence ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες κ.τ.λ.
ἀπόκριμα] not equivalent to κατάκριμα (so most, following Hesychius), but to responsum (Vulgate, Billroth), the award, decision. Comp. ἀπόκρισις. So in Suidas (see Wetstein) and Josephus, Antt. xiv. 17 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well: τὴν ψῆφον, τὴν κρίσιν, τὴν προσδοκίαν τοιαύτην γὰρ ἠφίει τὰ πράγματα φωνήν· τοιαύτην ἀπόκρισιν ἐδίδου τὰ συμβάντα, ὅτι ἀ̓ποθανούμεθα πάντως.
As to ἐσχήκ., observe the perfect habuimus, which represents the situation as present. Comp. on Rom 5:2.
ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ.] divinely appointed aim of the αὐτοὶ … ἐσχήκαμεν. Comp. 1Co 1:15.
τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρ.] is to be referred not only to the future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in general, as that which is exclusively God’s doing. This characteristic of God is the ground of the confidence. For the awaker of the dead must also be able to rescue from the danger of death (2Co 1:10). Comp. Rom 4:17; Heb 11:19. See on Rom. l.c. “Mira natura fidei in summis difficultatibus nullum exitum habere visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human ἐξαπορηθῆναι, 2Co 1:8, could yet say of himself, 2Co 4:8 : οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι.
2Co 1:10. Result of this confidence, as well as the hope grounded thereon for the futur.
ἐκ τηλικ. θανάτου] out of so great death. Paul realizes to himself the special so mighty death-power which had threatened him (and Timothy), and by the expression ῥύεσθαι ἐκ θανάτου (see examples in Wetstein, p. 178) makes death appear as a hostile power by which he had been encompassed. Θάνατος does not signify peril of death (as most say, even Emmerling and Flatt), but it represents that sense. Comp. 2Co 11:23.
καὶ ῥύεται] The θλίψις, which had been survived in Asia, therefore still continued in its after-effects, which even extended over to Macedonia (perhaps by continued plots against their lives), and Paul and Timothy were still continuing[125] to experience the rescuing power of Go.
ἨΛΠΊΚΑΜΕΝ] have set our hope. See Herm. ad Viger. p. 748; Kühner, II. p. 71; comp. 1Co 15:19; 1Ti 5:5; 1Ti 6:17; Joh 6:45.
ὍΤΙ Κ. ἜΤΙ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΙ] that he will rescue (us) even further, namely, ἘΚ. ΤΗΛΙΚ ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ, in the continuing danger from the Asiatic enemies which was still to be apprehended in the future. In the fact that Paul speaks of a present, nay, of a future rescue, Rückert finds a support for his opinion regarding a dangerous illness (not yet fully overcome); see on 2Co 1:8. But could no machinations pass over from Asia to Macedonia? and could not these be recognised by Paul as the more dangerous, in so far as they were more secret? Comp. Act 20:3.
[125] Hofmann reads the passage: καὶ ῥύσεται, εἰς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν, καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται. Accordingly, he takes the first καί as an also, beginning an independent sentence. With this expressive reference to the future Paul looks forward to the wide voyages still before him. In opposition to this we have, from a critical point of view, the facts that ὅτι before καὶ ἔτι is wanting only in B D* 64, and that it is supported by preponderating witnesses, even by those which have the reading ῥύσεται for ῥύεται, as C and א; and, from an exegetical point of view, the fact that the repetition καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται amounts to a tautology without strengthening the thought in the least: for ἔτι follows as a matter of course from the ῥύσεται already said. Besides, against the whole reference to the shipwreck, see on ver. 8.
2Co 1:11. A trustful and conciliatory mention of the intercessions of the readers. This is regarded as not so much conditioning (Erasmus, Rosenmüller, Rückert, and others), as rather furthering the καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται: “he will also still save us, since ye also are helpful together for us,” etc. On the idea of the efficacy of intercession, comp. especially Php 1:19; Rom 15:30 f.
The reference of the συν in συνυπουργ. is to the apostle’s own work of prayer, with which that of the readers is joined by way of help: similar help on the part of other churches is just hinted by the καί before ὑμῶν.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] on our behalf. A transposition for τῇ δεήσει ὑπὲρ ἡμ. would indeed be grammatically possible (Bernhardy, p. 461), but is in the highest degree superfluous (in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Schulz, Rosenmüller).
ἵνα ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. κ.τ.λ.] divinely-appointed aim of the συνυπουργ. κ.τ.λ. The correlations are to be noted: 1. ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπ. and τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρ.; 2. διὰ πολλῶν and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; 3. χάρισμα and εὐχαριστηθῇ. Accordingly, there stand parallel to one another ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. and then διὰ πολλῶν; as also τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα and then ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Hence, it is to be connected and taken thus: that from many countenances for the gift of grace made to us thanks may be rendered by means of many on our behalf. Paul means that the thanksgiving for his (and Timothy’s) rescue (i.e. τὸ εἰς ἡμ. χάρ.[126]) is not to be offered to God by himself (and Timothy) alone, but that it is to be a rendering of thanks made for him by many through the mediation of many. The many are the same in ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. as in διὰ πολλῶν; but there they are conceived of as those who give thanks, and in διὰ π. it. as those who have been the procuring means of the thanksgiving, in so far as through their prayer they have aided in obtaining the apostle’s rescue.[127] πρόσωπον, according to the use of the later Greek (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380; Schweigh., Lex. Polyb. p. 540; Wahl, Clav. Apocr. p. 430), is taken as person by Luther and most others (already in codd. of the Italic version). But it is nowhere used thus in the N. T., not even in passages like Jud 1:16; and, if Paul had had person in mind, there would have been no motive for choosing ἐκ instead of ὙΠΌ. Hence we must abide by the literal signification, countenance (Billroth, Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann): the expression ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. is pictorial, for on the merry countenance the feeling of gratitude is displayed (Pro 15:30); it is mirrored therein, and goes out from it and upward to God in the utterance of thanksgiving. Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 53, in the same way rightly joins ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. as well as ΔΙᾺ ΠΟΛΛ. with ΕὐΧΑΡ., but he takes ἘΚ ΠΟΛΛ. ΠΡ. of those who have besought the rescue and have thereby become the causers of the thanksgiving, and ΔΙᾺ ΠΟΛΛῶΝ of the thanksgivers themselves. So also Neander. But by this view justice is not done to the mediating sense of διά, and the pictorial reference of προσώπων (see above) can, according to the text, be found only in the act of thanksgiving itself. It is obvious from what has already been said, that neither can ΔΙᾺ ΠΟΛΛ. be joined to ΤῸ ΕἸς ἩΜ. ΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ (Theophylact and others, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Kling), nor can ἘΚ ΠΟΛΛ. ΠΡΟΣΏΠ. be connected with ΤῸ ΕἸς ἩΜ. ΧΆΡ. as if it stood: ΤῸ ἘΚ ΠΟΛΛ. ΠΡΟΣΏΠ. ΕἸς ἩΜᾶς ΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ (Ambrosiaster, Valla, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including Flatt, Fritzsche, Diss., Rückert, de Wette). Only on our view does the simple construction, as given by the order of the words, remain without dislocation, and the meaning of the words themselves uninjured. Whether, further, in ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. the ΠΟΛΛῶΝ is masculine (Hofmann and Vulgate, “ex multorum facie”) or neuter, cannot be decide.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] on our behalf, superfluous in itself, but suitable to the fulness of the representation.
The time in which the thanksgiving is to happen is after the beginning of the ῥύσεται, not on the last day (Ewald).
The passive expression ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤΕῖΣΘΑΙ (comp. Hipp. Ep. p. 1284, 31) is conceived like ἀχαριστεῖσθαι (Polyb. xxiii. 11. 8), to experience ingratitude, to be recompensed with ingratitude. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 130 [E. T. 148].
[126] Not the apostolic office (Ewald, Osiander), which here lies far from the context. So also Hofmann: the gift of God, to preach Christ to those who do not yet know Him. In the ordinary interpretation, there was not the least need of a demonstrative: the article and εἰς ἡμᾶς is from the context demonstrative enough.
[127] It was quite unsuitable, and contrary to the construction purposely carried out by the correlate stated above, to take ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. προσώπ. or διὰ πολλ. as neuter, and either to explain the former, ex multis respectibus (Bengel, comp. Melanchthon-not even justifiable in the usage of the language), or the latter, prolixe (Castalio: “ingentes gratiae,” Wolf, Clericus, Semler, Storr, Rosenmüller). Comp. Luther. So also Hofmann takes διὰ πολλ. “abundant thanksgiving.” The Vulgate renders rightly: “per multos.”
2Co 1:12. The apostle now begins the vindication of himself, at first in reference to the purity of his walk in general (2Co 1:12), then in reference to his honesty in writing (2Co 1:13-14), and afterwards specially in reference to the changing of his plans for the journey (2Co 1:15-24).
γάρ] Ground assigned for the confidence uttered in 2Co 1:11, that the readers would help him by their intercession in the manner denoted: for we boast, according to the witness of our conscience, to have made ourselves worthy of your help.
καύχησις is not equivalent to καύχημα, materies gloriandi (so most, but in no passage rightly, see on Rom 4:2), but we should interpret: For this our boasting (which is contained in 2Co 1:11) is the testimony which our conscience furnishes that we, etc. In other words: This our boasting is nothing else than the expression of the testimony of our conscience, that, etc.; hence no αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπὸ καυχήσεως (Isa 12:1-3) can take place. The contents of this testimony (ὅτι κ.τ.λ.) shows how very much the καύχησις of Paul is a καυχᾶσθαι ἐν κυρίῳ (1Co 1:31). Accordingly, αὕτη is to be taken together with ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν (comp. 1Co 8:9 : ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη); τὸ μαρτύριον κ.τ.λ. is the predicate, which is introduced by ἐστί, and ὅτι κ.τ.λ. is the contents of the testimony. By the plain simplicity of this explanation we obviously exclude the view that αὕτη is preparative, and that it is to be referred either to τὸ μαρτύριον (Luther and most), or, more harshly, with Hofmann, to ὅτι κ.τ.λ., because in that case τὸ μαρτύριον κ.τ.λ. is made an interpolated appositio.
ἐν ἁγιότητι (see the critical remarks) καὶ εἰλικρ. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is not used superlatively, as Emmerling would still take it. Further, it neither denotes what is well-pleasing to God (Schulz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Rückert, Reiche), nor what avails before God (Calvin, Beza, Estius, Billroth, and others, following Theophylact), nor what is like God (Pelagius), nor the God-like (Osiander), which is God’s manner (Hofmann), but the moral holiness and purity established by God through the influence of the divine grace, as the following οὐκ ἐν σοφ. σαρκ., ἀλλʼ ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ proves.[128] So also Olshausen, de Wette, Kling, Neander, Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 261]. Comp. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Rom 1:17, εἰρήνη Θεοῦ, Php 4:7, and the like. The rare word ἁγιότης is found also in 2Ma 15:2; Heb 12:10; Schol. Arist. Thesm. 301. Regarding εἰλικρ., see on 1Co 5:8. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 A.
οὐκ ἐν σοφ. σαρκ. ἀλλʼ ἐν χάρ. Θεοῦ] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, for it is parallel to the previous ἐν ἁγιότ. κ. εἰλικρ. Θεοῦ, and gives negative and positive information about it. The σοφία σαρκ. is the merely human wisdom, the wisdom which is not the work of the divine influence (of the Holy Spirit), but of human nature itself unenlightened and unimproved, guided by the sinful lust in the σάρξ. See on 1Co 1:26.
ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ] is not to be explained of miracles (Chrysostom), nor yet with Grotius: “cum multis donis spiritualibus,” but without any limitation of the influence of the divine grace, under which Paul lived and worked.
The thrice repeated use of ἐν denotes the spiritual element in which his course of life moved (Eph 2:3; 2Pe 2:18).
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] i.e. among profane humanity. This serves by contrast to make the holiness of his walk and conversation more prominent. Comp. Php 2:15.
πρὸς ὑμᾶς] denotes the direction of his association, in intercourse with you. See Bernhardy, p. 265. More than with others, he had established such a relation with the Corinthians (hence περισσοτ.).
[128] With this fall to the ground also the scruples of Rückert against the word ἁγιότητι, which he either wishes to take abusive, like the Latin sanctitas, integrity, or conjectures in its stead ἁγνότητι. Reiche’s difficulty regarding ἁγιότ., that Paul talks of his purity as teacher, is also untenable. He certainly speaks of his entire conduct, not merely of his teaching.
2Co 1:13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious (2Co 1:10) περισσ. δὲ πρ. ὑμᾶς (2Co 1:12), in so far as it might be suspected as not honourably meant, he asserts his candour in writing, which must have been assailed by his opponents (comp. 2Co 10:10), who probably maintained, “His letters to us are not the expression of his genuine inmost opinion!”
For Znothing else do we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also understand; i.e. in our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our genuine opinion, but it agrees exactly with what the reading of the same, or your acquaintance with our mode of thinking and character, says to you. Comp. Theodoret. On γράφειν in its reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1Co 5:11. According to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought: “I cannot do otherwise, I must write thus.” But Paul is making an appeal to the readers.
ἀλλʼ ἤ] praeterquam, nisi. For examples in which the previous negative sentence has also ἄλλος, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 45; Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 354 B; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 36 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 5. The mode of expression depends on a blending of the two constructions
οὐκ ἄλλα … ἀλλά and οὐκ ἄλλα … ἤ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 81 B; Kühner, II. p. 438.
ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε, ἢ κ. ἐπιν.] This latter ἤ is in no connection with the former, in which case it could not but have stood a ἃ ἢ ἀναγ., ἢ καὶ ἐπιγ. This in opposition to Fritzsche’s way of taking it: “neque enim alia ad vos perscribimus, quam aut ea … aut ea, quae,” etc. ἀναγινώσκειν is to read, as it is usually in the Attic authors, and always in the N. T., not to understand, as Calvin, Estius, Storr,[129] following the Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this meaning often in classical Greek (Hom. Il. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206; Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6; Pind. Isthm. ii. 35; Herodian, vii. 7; comp. also Prayer of Manass. 12).
ἢ καὶ ἐπιγιν.] or also (without communication by letter) understand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily: “vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam aut tertiam lectionem, attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Rückert: “and doubtless also understand.” Quite against ἢ καί, which stands also opposed to the view of Hofmann: Paul wishes to say that he does not write in such a way, that they might understand something else than he means in his words. In this case we should have had καί only, since ἢ καί points to something else than to the reading, with which what he has written agrees.
The assimilation of the expressions ἀναγιν. and ἐπιγιν. (comp. 2Co 3:2) cannot be imitated in German, but in Latin approximately: legitis aut etiam intelligitis. Comp. on Act 8:30; Plat. Ep. II. p. 312 D.
ἐλπίζω δὲ κ.τ.λ.] The object to ἐπιγνώσεσθε is ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν κ.τ.λ., and καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγν. ἡμ. ἀπὸ μέρ. is an inserted clause: “I hope, however, that you will understand even to the end,-as you have understood us in part,-that we are your boast,” etc. We might also consider on ὅτι καύχημα κ.τ.λ. as a nearer object to ἐπέγνωτε ὑμᾶς (Estius, Rosenmüller, Billroth, Rückert, de Wette); but, since in this way ἐπιγνώσεσθε remains without an object (Billroth supplies: “that I think the same as I write;” comp. Rückert; Osiander: “all my doing and suffering in its purity”), the above mode of connection is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, Luther, Grotius, and others, also Olshausen (Osiander doubtfully), take ὅτι as for, stating the ground for καθὼς κ. ἐπέγν. ἡμ. ἀπὸ μέρ. But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still more wanting, since from the general καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν κ.τ.λ. no inference to the ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς restricted by ἀπὸ μέρους is warranted; the reason assigned would not be suitable to ἀπὸ μέρους. The connection which runs on simply is unnecessarily broken up by Ewald holding 2Co 1:13 and 2Co 1:14 on to μέρους as a parenthesis, so that ὅτι, 2Co 1:14 (that), joins on again to 2Co 1:12.
ἕως τέλους] does not mean till my death (Hofmann), but till the end, i.e. till the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1Co 1:8; 1Co 15:51 f.; Heb 3:6.-2Co 1:14. καθὼς κ. ἐπέγν. ἡμᾶς compares the future, regarding which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding which he knows. And therefore he adds a limitation in keeping with the truth, ἀπὸ μέρους (comp. Rom 11:25); for not all the Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite against the usage of the language, takes ἀπὸ μέρους of time, inasmuch as the apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present was only a part of what he had to live with them. In that case Paul would have written ἕως ἄρτι in contrast to ἕως τέλους. Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of knowledge, quodammodo (comp. 2Co 2:5), with which Paul reproaches the readers, ὡς μὴ παντελῶς ἀπωσαμένους τὰς κατʼ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένας δια βολάς, Theodoret. But a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to the connection; and certainly the readers to whom ἐπέγνωτε applies had not only understood him quodammodo, but wholly and decidedly, that, etc. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. Comp. Chrysostom, according to whom ἀπὸ μέ ρους is added from modesty; also Theophylact, according to whom Paul is thinking of the imperfect exhibition of his virtue. But how could the readers conjecture this!
ὅτι καύχημα κ.τ.λ.] that we redound for glory (i.e. for the object of καυχᾶσθαι) to you, even as you to us on the day of the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day that you have had us as teachers, and it will be to our honour that we have had you as disciples. Comp. 1Th 2:19 f.; Php 2:16. With how much winning tact the addition κάθαπερ κ. ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν suppresses all appearance of self-exaltation! ὡς μαθηταῖς ὁμοτίμοις διαλεγόμενος οὕτως ἐξισάζει τὸν λόγον, Chrysosto.
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τ. κυρ. Ἰησοῦ] belongs to the whole ὅτι καύχημα … ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν, not, as Rückert arbitrarily thinks, to καθάπερ κ. ὑμ. ἡμῶν merely (so Grotius, Calovius, and others); nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to καύχ. ὑμῶν ἐσμεν.
[129] Calvin thinks ἀναγιν. and ἐπιγιν. are distinguished as agnoscere and recognoscere. So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius makes the difference: “et recognoscitis antiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscitis recentia.
2Co 1:15-16. Καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πεποιθ.] and by means of this confidence, viz. ὅτι ἕως τέλους ἐπιγν. κ.τ.λ. in 2Co 1:13-14. πεποίθησις (2Co 3:4, 2Co 8:22, 2Co 10:2; Eph 3:12; Php 3:4; Joseph. Bell. i. 3. 1) is later Greek. See Eustathius, ad Od. iii. p. 114, 41; Thom. Mag. p. 717; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 294 f.
ἐβουλόμην] Paul entertained the plan for his journey, set down in 2Co 1:16, before the composition of our first Epistle, and he had communicated it to the Corinthians (whether in the first now lost letter, or otherwise, we know not). But before or during the composition of our first Epistle he altered this plan (as we know from 1Co 16:5) to this extent, that he was not now to go first to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and from thence back to Corinth again (2Co 1:16), but through Macedonia to Corinth. The plan of travel, 1Co 16:5, was accordingly not the first (Baur; comp. Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.), but the one already altered, which alteration was ascribed to the apostle as indecision. This is intelligible enough from the antagonistic irritation of their minds, and does not require us to presuppose an expression in the alleged intermediate Epistle (Klöpper, p. 21 f.). Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius make the apostle say: I had, when I wrote to you 1Co 16:5, the unexpressed intention to arrive still earlier than I promised, and to reach you even sooner (immediately on the journey towards Macedonia). Quite a mistaken view, since such a mere thought would not have been known to his opponents, and no excuse for his fickleness could therefore have been engrafted on i.
πρότερον] belongs to πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν:[130] I intended to come to you first of all,-not, as I afterwards altered my plan, to the Macedonians first, and then from them to you. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rosenmüller and Rückert, connect πρότ. and ἐβουλ., which, however, on the one hand is opposed to the sense (for Paul cannot say, “I intended formerly to come to you,” since his intention is still the same), and on the other would not accord with ἵνα δευτ. χάρ. ἔχ.; for not the προτερον ἐβουλόμην, but the πρότερον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, was to bring in its train a δευτέρα χάρις.
ἵνα δευτέραν χάριν ἔχητε] δευτέραυ corresponds ingeniously to the πρότερον: in order that you might have a second benefit of grace. By χάριν is meant a divine bestowal of grace, with which Paul knew his coming to be connected for the church; for to whatever place he came in his official capacity, he came as the imparter of divine χάρις, Rom 1:11; comp. Rom 15:29. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, including Kypke, Emmerling, Flatt, and Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 622), hold that χάρις is equivalent to χάρα (and hence this is actually the reading of B L, some min., and Theodoret). Certainly χάρις also means pleasure, joy, and is, as in Tob 7:16, the opposite of λύπη (Eur. Hel. 661, and more frequently in Pindar; see Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 1191; also in Plato, Ast, Lex. III. p. 538), but never in the N. T. This sense, besides, would be unsuitable to the apostle’s delicate and modest style of expression elsewhere. Nor, again, is a benefit on the part of the apostle meant (Grotius, Rosenmüller, Schrader, Billroth, comp. also Hofmann), because the expression is only in keeping with his affection and humility (comp. 1Co 15:10) if a divine display of grace is meant. The comparison with 1Co 16:3 is therefore not to the point, because there a χάρις is named, of which the readers were givers. But what does he mean by δευτέραν χάριν? Many answer with Estius: “ut ex secundo meo adventu secundam acciperetis gratiam, qui dudum accepistis primam, quando primum istuc veniens ad fidem vos converti.” Comp. Pelagius, Calvin, Wolf, Mosheim, Bengel, Emmerling. But against this it may be urged: (1) historically, that Paul certainly had been already twice in Corinth before our two Epistles (see Introd. § 2); and (2) from the connection, that the δευτέρα χάρις in this sense can by no means appear as an aim conditioned by the πρότερον; for even a later coming would have had a δευτέρα χάρις in this sense as its result. This second reason is decisive, even if, with Schott, Erörterung, etc., p. 58 ff., and Anger, rat. temp. p. 72 f., we were to set aside the former by the supposition: “apostolum intra annum illum cum dimidio, quem, quum primum Corinthi esset, ibi transegit, per breve aliquod temporis spatium in regiones vicinas discessisse; sic enim si res se habuit, Paulus, etsi bis ad Corinthios venerat, ita ut in secunda, quam iis misit, epistola adventum tertium polliceri posset: tamen, quoniam per totum illud intervallum Corinthi potissimum docuerat, simile beneficium, quod in itinere seriore in eos collocaturus erat, jure secundum appellavit,” Anger, l.c. p. 73. The right solution results from 2Co 1:16, which is appended by the epexegetical καί, viz., that the δευτέρα χάρις appears as setting in through the πάλιν ἀπὸ Μακεδ. ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Paul had intended on his projected journey to visit Corinth twice, and had therefore proposed to himself to come to the Corinthians first of all (not first to the Macedonians), in order that they in this event might have a second χάρις on his return from Macedonia (the first χάρις they were to have on his journey thither). From this it is at once obvious: (1) how superfluous is the linguistically incorrect supposition that δευτέραν is here equivalent to διπλῆν, as Bleek and Neander, following Chrysostom and Theodoret,[131] take it; (2) how erroneous is the opinion of Rückert, that ἵνα δευτ. χάριν ἔχητε is put in a wrong place, and should properly only come behind ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 2Co 1:16. No; according to the epexegetical ͅκαί, 2Co 1:16, διʼ ὑμῶν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Μακεδ. serves to give exact and clear information as parallel to the πρότερον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, and then καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ Μακ. ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς as parallel to the ἵνα δευτέρ. χάριν ἔχητε. Comp. Baur, I. p. 338, ed. 2.
[130] The position of πρότερον, immediately after ἐβουλ. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rückert), which has preponderating evidence, and is therefore to be preferred, makes no difference in this respect.
[131] In other respects Theodoret, Bleek, and Neander, as also Billroth, Olshausen, and Rückert, agree in thinking that δευτέραν refers to the repeated visit to Corinth which had been intended after returning from Macedonia. But Chrys., quite against the context, explains the double joy as καὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ τὴν διὰ τῆς παρουσίας. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, and others.
2Co 1:17. Wishing this therefore (according to what has just been said), did I then behave thoughtlessly? Was this proposal of mine made without duly taking thought for its execution? μήτι supposes a negative answer, as always, in which case ἄρα (meaning: as the matter stands) makes no alteration, such as the suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Such a sense, as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, which is foreign here, could only be suggested by the context, and would have nothing to do with ἄρα (in opposition to Hartung, whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176 f.
τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ] The article marks the thoughtlessness not as that with which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth, Olshausen, Rückert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more precisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtlessness as such in general, in abstracto: have I then made myself guilty of thoughtlessness? ἐλαφρία belongs to the substantives in -ρια formed late from adjectives in -ρος. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 343. For the ethical sense (wantonness), comp. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 195, and ἐλαφρός in Polyb. vi. 56. 11; ἐλαφρόνοος, Phocylides in Stob. Flor. app. iii. 7.
ἢ ἃ βουλεύομαι, κατὰ σάρκα βουλεύομαι] ἤ is not aut (Billroth, Rückert, Osiander, Hofmann, after the Vulgate and most expositors), but an; for without any interrogation the relation of the two sentences is: My proposal was not thoughtless, unless it should be the case that I form my resolves κατὰ σάρκα. See Hartung, II. p. 61.
Mark the difference between ἐχρησάμην as aorist (historical event) and βουλεύομαι as present (behaviour generally).
κατὰ σάρκα] according to the flesh, after the standard of the σάρξ, i.e. so that I let myself be guided by the impulses of human nature sinfully determined, Gal 5:16 ff.
ἵνα ᾖ παρʼ ἐμοὶ τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ] By ἵνα is expressed simply the immoral purpose, which would be connected with the βουλεύεσθαι κατὰ σάρκα; in order that with me there may be the Yea, yea, and Nay, nay, i.e. in order that with me affirmation and denial may exist together; that I, according as the case stands, may assent to the fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it; to-day yea, and to-morrow nay, or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Billroth errs in thinking that in this explanation καί must be taken as also. That it means and, is proved by 2Co 1:18-19. The duplication of the ναί and οὔ strengthens the picture of the untrustworthy man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies. Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the reading of the Vulgate, τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὔ, which has very weak attestation. The article marks the ναὶ ναί and the οὒ οὔ as well-known and solemn formulae of affirmative and negative asseveration (as they were also in Jewish usage; see Wetstein, ad Mat 5:37). Comp. on ναὶ ναί, Soph. O. C. 1743. As to the main point, namely, that the ναὶ ναί and the οὒ οὔ are taken as the subject of ᾖ, this explanation has the support of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius (though conjecturing ἵνα μή instead of ἵνα), Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others; also of Rosenmüller, Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, and others; even Olshausen, who, however, sets up for ναί and οὔ the “peculiar” signification (assumed without any instance of its being so used) of “truth” and “falsehood.” The diplasiasmus ναὶ ναί and οὒ οὔ is not without reason (as Billroth and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excitement of the moral consciousness; whereas afterwards, in 2Co 1:18, where his words go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful God, the bare ναὶ καὶ οὔ is quite in its place. Note, further, that the simple expression of the coexistence of the yea and nay (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking, than if Paul had given a more precise explanation of the maxims of yea and nay. The readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could not but know that he was no yea-and-nay man. Others consider the second ναί and the second οὔ as predicates, so that a wholly opposite sense is made out of the words: in order that with me the Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, i.e. in order that I may stubbornly carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp. Jam 5:12. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth; Winer, p. 429 [E. T. 481], gives no decision. The context, however, before (“levitatis et inconstantiae, non autem pertinaciae crimen hic a se depellere studet,” Estius) and after (2Co 1:18-19), is decisive against this view. Hofmann imports into παρʼ ἐμοί a contrast to παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, so that the idea would be: to assent to or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s own self, without reservation, because purely as an expression of self-will, with which Jam 4:13 is compared.[132] Such a contrast could not but be based upon what went before, in itself as well as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis on παρʼ ἐμοί the order ἵνα παρʼ ἐμοὶ ᾖ would have been suitable; and the idea of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have demanded not καί but ἤ between the ναί and the οὔ. And was Paul, then, the man in whose resolves “the yea is always meant with the reservation of a nay”? Luther’s translation (comp. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the mark of interrogation is placed after κατὰ σ. βουλ., and in that case there is supplied nequaquam, of which negation ἵνα κ.τ.λ. specifies the purpose. This is intolerably arbitrary. Regarding the erroneous translation of the Peshito (Grotius agrees with it), which distorts the meaning from misconception, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 2.
[132] Similarly Ewald, but he takes παρʼ ἐμοί (with Camerarius) as penes me (“merely after my own pleasure to say and to do the one or the other”), as if, therefore, it were ἐν ἐμοί. Ewald compares Psa 12:5.
2Co 1:18. But according to His faithfulness, God causes our speech to you to be not yea and nay, not untrustworthy.[133] The δέ introduces the contrast (yea rather) to the state of things denied in the preceding question (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 95); and ὅτι is equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, like Joh 2:18; Joh 9:17; Joh 11:51; 1Co 1:26, al.: Faithful is God in reference to this, that our speech, etc., i.e. God shows Himself faithful by this, that, etc. Beza, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann, take πιστὸς ὁ Θεός as an asseveration: proh Dei fidem! Against all linguistic usage, for the ζῶ ἐγὼ … ὅτι (see on Rom 14:11), which is compared, is a habitual formula of swearing, which the πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, very frequent with the apostle (1Co 1:9; 1Co 10:13; 1Th 5:24; 2Th 3:3; 1Jn 1:9), is not. Nor can we compare 2Co 11:10, where a subjective state of things is asserted as a guarantee of what is uttere.
ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν] is by most understood of the preaching of the gospel, according to which Paul thus, against the suspicion of untruthfulness in his resolves and assurances, puts forward the truthfulness of his preaching,-in which there lies a moral argument a majori ad minus; for the opinion of Hofmann, that Paul means to say that his preaching stands in a different position from the conditioned quality of his yea and nay, falls with his view of 2Co 1:17. From 2Co 1:19, however, it appears to be beyond doubt that the usual explanation of λόγος, of the preaching, not in general of the apostle’s speech (Rückert), or of that unfulfilled promise (Erasmus in the Annot.), is the right one. Olshausen mixes up the two explanations.
[133] Erasmus says aptly, Paraphr.: “Sed non fallit Deus, cujus praesidio factum est, ut sermo noster, quo vobis illius evangelium praedicavimus, non vacillarit, sed semper sui similis fuerit.”
2Co 1:19. Ὁ γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱός] or, as Lachmann, Rückert, and Tischendorf, following preponderating testimony, have it rightly: ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ γὰρ υἱός (γάρ in the fourth place; see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 100; Ellendt, Lex. Soph, I. p. 339; Hermann, ad Philoct. 1437), marks the τοῦ Θεοῦ as emphatic, in order to make what is to be said of Christ, οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ κ. οὔ, felt at once in its divine certainty. To be God’s Son and yet ναὶ κ. οὔ would be a contradiction. In the whole ὁ … Ἰ. Χ. there lies a solemn, sacred emphasi.
ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν διʼ ἡμῶν κηρυχθείς] reminds the readers of the first preaching of Christ among them, of which Paul could not but remind them, if they were to become perfectly conscious, from their experience from the beginning, that Christ had not become ναὶ κ. οὔ. But in order to make this first preaching come home to them with the whole personal weight of the preachers, he adds, in just consciousness of the services rendered by himself and his companions as compared with the later workers, a more precise definition of the διʼ ἡμῶν, with more weighty circumstantiality: διʼ ἐμοῦ κ. Σιλουανοῦ κ. Τιμοθέου. For the two latter had been his helpers in his first labours in Corinth. See Act 18:5. From this it is obvious why he has not named others, as Apollos, but simply these (Calvin thinks, that these had been most calumniated); hence also there is no need to suppose any intention of making his assurance more credible (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others). A side glance at the Christ preached by Judaistic opponents (2Co 11:4) is here quite foreign to the connection (in opposition to Klöpper, p. 86 f.).
Σιλουανοῦ] Universally so with Paul (1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1); also in 1Pe 5:12. In the Acts of the Apostles only the shortened name Σιλας appears. Silvanus is here placed before Timothy, because he was an older apostolic helper than the latter. See Act 15:22 ff.
οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ κ. οὔ] He has not become affirmation and negation, has not showed Himself as untrustworthy, as one who affirms and also denies (the fulfilment of the divine promises, 2Co 1:20), as one who had exhibited such contradiction in himself. This Paul says of Christ Himself, in so far as in the personal objective Christ, by means of His appearance and His whole work, the ναί in reference to the divine promises, the affirmation of their fulfilment, is given as a matter of fact. Wrongly most expositors (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact) understand Χριστός as doctrina de Christo (“our gospel of Christ is not changeable, sometimes one thing, sometimes another, but it remains ever the same”), an interpretation here specially precluded by verses 20 and 21. This may be urged also against the similar interpretation of Hofmann, that, with the very fact that Christ has come to the readers through preaching, there has gone forth a Yea (the affirmation of all divine promises), without any intervention of Nay. Olshausen and Rückert take it rightly of Christ Himself; but the former puts in place of the simple meaning of the word the thought not quite in keeping: “Christ is the absolute truth, affirmation pure and simple; in Him is the real fulfilment of the divine promises; in Him negation is entirely wanting;” and the latter arbitrarily limits ἐγένετο merely to the experience of the Corinthians (“among you He has not shown Himself untrustworthy”). Paul, however, uses the words οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ κ. οὔ of Christ in general, and by ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν … Τιμοθ. directs the attention of the Corinthians to the recognition of the truth on their part and out of their own experienc.
ἀλλὰ ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν] of the two only the former, i.e. affirmation (that the divine promises are fulfilled and shall be fulfilled) is established in Him: in Christ is actually given the yea, that, etc. In the perfect γέγονεν (different from the previous aorist ἐγένετο) is implied the continuance of what has happened. Comp. on Col 1:16; Joh 1:3. Grotius, in opposition to the context (see 2Co 1:20), referred ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγ. to the miracles, by which Christ confirmed the apostolic preaching. And Beza awkwardly, and, on account of 2Co 1:20, erroneously, took ἐν αὐτῷ of God, whose Son is “constantissima Patris veritas.”
2Co 1:20. A more precise explanation and confirmation of ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν, running on to the end of the verse. Hence ὅσαι … ἀμήν is not to be put in a parenthesis, as Griesbach, Scholz, and Ewal.
τὸ ναί and τὸ ἀμήν cannot be synonymous, as most of the older commentators take them (“repetit, ut ipsa repetitione rem magis confirmet,” Estius), for this is rendered impossible by the correct reading διὸ κ. διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμήν (see the critical remarks). Rather must the former be the cause (διό) of the latter. And here the expression τὸ ἀμήν is without doubt to be explained from the custom in worship, that in public prayer a general Amen was said as certifying the general assurance of faith as to its being heard (see on 1Co 14:16). Accordingly τὸ ναί and τὸ ἀμήν are here to be distinguished in this way; τὸ ναί, as in the whole context, denotes the certainty objectively given (comp. on that point, Rom 15:8), and τὸ ἀμήν, the certainty subjectively existing, the certainty of faith. Consequently: for, as many promises of God as there are (in the O. T.), in Him is the yea (in Christ is given the objective guarantee of their fulfilment); therefore through Him also the Amen takes place, therefore it comes to pass through Christ, that the Amen is said to God’s promises; i.e. therefore also to Christ, to His work and merit, without which we should want this certainty, is due the subjective certainty of the divine promises, the faith in their fulfilment. Billroth, indeed (and in the main, de Wette), thinks the conception to be this: that the preachers of the gospel say the Amen through their preaching, so that τὸ ναί refers to the living working of God in Christ, in whom He fulfils His promises, and τὸ ἀμήν to the faithful and stedfast preaching of these deeds of God. But the saying of Amen expressed the assurance of faith, and was done by all; hence τὸ ἀμήν would be in the highest degree unsuitable for denoting the praedicatio. Finally, Rückert is quite arbitrary when he says that τὸ ναί relates to the fulfilment of the prophecies wrought by the appearing of Christ Himself, and τὸ ἀμήν to the erection of the church, which had grown out of that appearing.
The article before ναί and ἀμήν denotes the definite Yea and Amen, which relate to the ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ and belong to them. The article was not used before in 2Co 1:19, because no definite reference of the yea was yet specifie.
τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν διʼ ἡμῶν] a teleological definition to διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμήν with the emphatic prefixing of τῷ Θεῷ: to God’s honour through us, i.e. what redounds to the glorifying of God (2Co 8:19) through us.
διʼ ἡμῶν] nostro ministerio (Grotius), in so far, namely, as the ministry of the gospel-preachers brings about the Amen, the assurance of faith in God’s promises, Rom 10:14.
2Co 1:21 f. Δέ] not specifying the ground of τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν (Grotius), nor confirming the assurance that he had preached without wavering (Billroth), but continuative. Paul has just, with διʼ ἡμῶν, pointed to the blessed result which his working (and that of his companions) is bringing about, namely, that the Amen of faith is said to all God’s promises to the glory of God. But now he wishes to indicate also the inner divine life-principle, on which this working and its result are based, namely, the Christian stedfastness, which is due to no other than to God Himself.
On the construction, comp. 2Co 5:5; hence Billroth (whom Olshausen follows) has incorrectly taken ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν … Θεός as subject, and ὁ καὶ σφραγ. κ.τ.λ. as predicate. It is to be translated: “And He who makes us stedfast with you toward Christ, after He has also anointed us, is God; who also,” etc. Since the anointing precedes the βεβαιοῦν, and is its foundation, and Paul has not written ὁ δὲ χρίσας ἡμᾶς καὶ βεβαιῶν κ.τ.λ., it is not to be regarded with the expositors as qui autem confirmat et unxit, but καὶ χρίσας ἡμᾶς is to be taken as a definition subordinate to the βεβαιῶν, and καί as the also of the corresponding relation; otherwise, there would be a hysteron-proteron, which there is no ground for supposin.
εἰς Χριστόν] in relation to Christ, so that we remain unshakenly faithful to Christ. Chrysostom well says: ὁ μὴ ἐῶν ἡμᾶς παρασαλεύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς πίστεως τῆς εἰς τ. Χριστόν. The explanation: into Christ (Billroth, Olshausen) has against it the present participle. For the believers are already in Christ; their continued confirmation (βεβ., see on 1Co 1:6) therefore could not but take place in Christo, Col 2:7, not in Christum.
σὺν ὑμῖν] Paul adds, in order not to appear as if he were denying to the readers the βεβαίωσις εἰς Χριστόν. Estius says aptly: “ut eos in hac sua defensione benevolos habeat.” This agrees with the whole tone of the context; but there is not, as Rückert conjectures, a side-glance at those who had held the apostle to be a wavering ree.
χρίσας ἡμᾶς] here, without σὺν ὑμῖν, is a figurative way of denoting the consecration to office (Luk 4:18; Act 4:27; Act 10:38; Heb 1:9), i.e. to the office of teacher of the gospel, without, however, pressing the expression so far as Chrysostom and Theophylact: ὁμοῦ προφήτας καὶ ἱερεῖς κ. βασιλέας ἐργασάμενος. Whether, however, did Paul conceive the consecration as effected by the call (Billroth, Olshausen, Rückert) or by the communication of the Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Osiander, and many others, following the ancient expositors)? 2Co 1:22 is not opposed to the latter view (see below); and since the call to the office is, in point of fact, something quite different from the consecration, χρίσας is certainly to be referred to the holy consecration of the Spirit (comp. Act 10:38). Comp., further, 1Jn 2:20; 1Jn 2:27, and Düsterdieck on 1 John 1. p. 355. An allusion to Χριστόν (Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann, and others) would not be certain, even if there stood καὶ χρίσας καὶ ἡμᾶς, because Χριστόν is not used appellatively, but purely as a proper name. An anointing of Christ (as at Luk 4:18; Act 4:27; Act 10:38; Heb 1:9) is as little mentioned by Paul as by John. If, however, it had been here in his mind, in order to compare with it the consecration of the ἡμεῖς, he could not but have added σὺν αὐτῷ, or some similar more precise definition of the relation intended, to make himself intelligible; comp. the idea of the συζωοποιεῖν σὺν Χριστῷ, and the lik.
ὁ καὶ σφραγισ. ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.] is argumentative. How could He leave us in the lurch unconfirmed, He, who has also sealed us, etc.! How would He come into contradiction with Himself! This σφραγισ. ὑμᾶς does not present the same thing, as was just expressed by χρίσας ἡμ., in another figurative form; but by means of καί it adds an accessory new element,[134] namely, the Messianic sealing conferred, although likewise through the Holy Spirit (see the sequel), apart from the anointing, i.e. the inner confirmation of the Messianic σωτηρία. Comp. on Eph 1:13; Eph 4:30. It is not added to what the sealing objectively relates (to the Messianic salvation), because it is regarded as a familiar notion, well known in its referenc.
καὶ δοὺς κ.τ.λ.] is epexegetical of ὁ σφραγισάμ. ἡμᾶς, Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545].
τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος] Comp. 2Co 5:5. The genitive is the genitive of apposition, as 1Co 5:8 : the earnest-money, which consists in the Spirit, ἀῤῥαβών (also with the Romans arrhabo or arrha) is properly ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς ὠναῖς παρᾶ τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη προκαταβολὴ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας, Etym. M.; Aristot. Pol. i. 4. 5; Lucian, Rhet. praec. 17, 18. Then it is a figurative expression for the notion guarantee. See in general Wetstein, and especially Kypke, Obss. II. p. 239 f. For what the Holy Spirit is guarantee, Paul does not say, but he presupposes it as an obvious fact in the consciousness of the readers, just as he did with σφραγισάμ. The Holy Spirit is in the heart as an earnest-money given for a guarantee of a future possession, the pledge of the future Messianic salvation. Comp. 2Co 5:5; Eph 1:14. How? see Rom 8:2; Rom 8:10 f., 2Co 5:5, 2Co 8:15 ff.; Gal 4:6 f.; Eph 5:19. In ἀῤῥαβ., therefore, the climax τῶνμελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (Theodoret) is characteristi.
ἐν ταῖς καρδιαῖς ἡμ.] The direction is blended with the result, as 2Co 8:1 : He gave the Spirit, so that this Spirit is now in our hearts. Comp. 2Co 8:16, and on Joh 3:35.
[134] Hence καί is to be taken as also, not with the following καί, as well … as also; especially as καὶ σφραγ. and καὶ δούς are not two acts essentially different.
2Co 1:23. After Paul has vindicated himself (2Co 1:16-22) from the suspicion of fickleness and negligence raised against him on account of his changing the plan of his journey, he proceeds in an elevated tone to give, with the assurance of an oath (2Co 11:31; Rom 1:9; Gal 1:20), the reason why he had not come to Corint.
ἐγὼ δέ] Hitherto he has spoken communicativè, not talking of himself exclusively. Now, however, to express his own self-determination, he continues: but I for my own part, etc.
For examples of ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν μάρτυρα, see Wetstein. Comp. Hom. Il. xxii. 254. Θεοὺς ἐπιδώμεθα· τοὶ γὰρ ἄριστοι μάρτυροι ἔσσονται, Plat. Legg. ii p. 664 C.
ἐπὶ τ. ἐμ. ψυχ.] not: against my soul, in which case it would be necessary arbitrarily to supply si fallo (Grotius; comp. Osiander and others, also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 102), but, in reference to (for) my soul, “in qua rerum mearum mihi conscius sum, quam perimi nolim,” Bengel. It expresses the moral reference of the invocation, and belongs to ἐπικαλ., in which act Paul has in view that he thereby stakes the salvation (Heb 10:39; 1Pe 1:9; Jam 1:21) or ruin of his soul (Rom 2:9). Comp. the second commandmen.
φειδόμενος ὑμ.] exercising forbearance towards you. This was implied in the very fact of his not coming. Had he come, it must have been ἐν ῥαβδῷ, 1Co 4:21. Comp. 2Co 2:1.
οὐκέτι not again, as would have accorded with my former plan, 2Co 1:16. But since this former plan is altered already in 1Co 16:5 f., the ἔτι in οὐκέτι must refer to a visit preceding our first Epistl.
εἰς Κόρινθον] “eleganter pro ad vos in sermone potestatem ostendente,” Bengel.
2Co 1:24. Guarding against a possible misunderstanding of φειδόμενος. Theodoret says aptly: τοῦτο δὲ ὡς ὑφορμοῦν τέθεικεν; for the expression φειδόμενος might be interpreted as a pretension to lordship over fait.
οὐχ ὅτι] is equivalent to οὐκ ἐρῶ, ὅτι. See on Joh 6:46, and Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet. p. 128.
κυριεύομεν κ.τ.λ.] The apostle knows that no lordship over faith belongs to him; how the faith in Christ is to be shaped among the churches as respects contents, vital activity, etc., he has not to command, as if he were lord over it, but only to teach, to rouse, and entreat (2Co 5:20) thereto, to promote it by praise or blame, etc. The order κυρ. ὑμῶν τ. πίστ. depends on the form of conception: we do not lord it over you as to faith. Comp. on Joh 11:32, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 117 A, Rep. p. 518 C. This prefixing of the pronoun occurs very often in the N. T.; hence it was the more preposterous to supply a ἕνεκα before τῆς πίστ. (Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Flatt, and others).
ἀλλὰ συνεργοί] but (it is implied in my φειδόμενος ὑμῶν) that we are joint helpers of your joy, that it is our business to be helpful to you, so that you rejoice. To this destined aim an earlier coming would have been opposed, because it would have caused grief (2Co 2:1). The συν in συνεργοί refers to the union of the helping efficacy with the working of the Corinthians themselves. Contrary to the context, Grotius suggests: “cum Deo et Christo,” which Osiander also imports. The χαρά is not to be taken of the joy of blessedness (Grotius and others), but of the joy of the church over the improvement and the success of the Christian life amongst them. Only this agrees with the context, for the want of this success had been the cause of Paul’s formerly coming ἐν λύπῃ to the Corinthians, and of the necessity for his coming again ἐν ῥάβδῳ (1Co 4:21).
τῇ γὰρ πίστει ἑστήκατε] for in respect to faith ye stand; the point of faith, in respect to which you are firm and stedfast, is not now under discussion. Note the emphatic placing of τῇ πίστ. first. Theophylact well says: οὐκ οὖν ἐν τούτοις (τοῖς κατὰ πίστιν) εἶχον τι μέμψασθαι ὑμᾶς· ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ἐσαλεύεσθε. On the dative of more precise definition, comp. Polyb. xxi. 9. 3; Rom 4:19-20; Gal 5:1 (Elzevir). It does not mean per fidem, Rom 11:20, as Bengel and Hofmann hold (through faith you have an independent and firm bearing), in which case we should have for ἑστήκ. a very vague and indefinite conception; but it is, in substance, not different from ἐν τῇ πίστει, 1Co 16:13.
1. Paul an Apostle As to the reasons why he designates himself an Apostle of Christ, and adds that he has obtained this honor by the will of God, see the foregoing Epistle, where it has been observed that none are to be listened to but those, who have been sent by God, and speak from his mouth, and that, consequently, to secure authority for any one, two things are required — a call, and fidelity on the part of the person who is called, in the execution of his office. (214) Both of these Paul claims for himself. The false apostles, it is true, do the same; but then, by usurping a title that does not belong to them, they gain nothing among the sons of God, who can with the utmost ease convict them of impertinence. Hence the mere name is not enough, if there be not the reality along with it, so that he who gives himself out as an Apostle must also show himself to be such by his work.
To the Church of God We must always keep it in view, his recognising a Church to exist, where there was such a conflux of evils. For the faults of individuals do not prevent a society that has genuine marks of religion (215) from being recognised as a Church. (216) But what does he mean by the expression — with all saints? Were those saints unconnected with the Church? I answer, that this phrase refers to believers, who were dispersed hither and thither, throughout various corners of the province — it being likely, that in that greatly disturbed period, when the enemies of Christ were everywhere venting their rage, many were scattered abroad, who could not conveniently hold sacred assemblies.
(214) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 48.
(215) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 51, 52.
(216) “A true child of God may have sad falls, as we see in Peter and David, yet for all this not be quite excluded out of the covenant of grace: they did not lose their sonship, even in those sad transgressions, and will God be more severe to a whole Church than to one person?” — Burgesse on 2. o 1:0. (Lond. 1661) — Ed.
3. Blessed be God He begins (as has been observed) with this thanksgiving — partly for the purpose of extolling the goodness of God — partly, with the view of animating the Corinthians by his example to the resolute endurance of persecutions; and partly, that he may magnify himself in a strain of pious glorying, in opposition to the malignant slanderings of the false apostles. For such is the depravity of the world, that it treats with derision martyrdoms, (217) which it ought to have held in admiration, and endeavours to find matter of reproach in the splendid trophies of the pious. (218) Blessed be God, says he. On what account? who comforteth us (219) — the relative being used instead of the causal particle. (220) He had endured his tribulations with fortitude and alacrity: this fortitude he ascribes to God, because it was owing to support derived from his consolation that he had not fainted.
He calls him the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not without good reason, where blessings are treated of; for where Christ is not, there the beneficence of God is not. On the other hand, where Christ intervenes,
by whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
(Eph 3:15,)
there are all mercies and all consolations of God — nay, more, there is fatherly love, the fountain from which everything else flows.
(217) “Des martyres et afflictions des fideles;” — “The martyrdoms and afflictions of believers.”
(218) “Cherche matiere de mespris et diffamation aux enseignes magnifiques de victoire, lesquelles Dieu dresse à ses enfans;” — “Seeks matter of contempt and defamation in those splendid tokens of victory, which God furnishes to His children.”
(219) “Who is comforting (ὁ παρακαλῶν) — that doth never cease to do it, that never withdraweth his consolations. It is his nature to be always comforting — as the devil is called ὁ πειραζων, because he is always tempting. ” — Burgesse on 2 Corinthians p. 157 — Ed.
(220) “Ce mot, Qui, est mis pour Car, ou, Pource que ;” — “This word, Who, being used instead of For, or, Because. ”
4. That we may be able to comfort There can be no doubt, that, as he had a little before cleared his afflictions from reproach and unfavorable reports, so now he instructs the Corinthians, that his having come off victorious through heavenly consolation was for their sake and with a view to their advantage, that they may stir themselves up to fellowship in suffering, instead of haughtily despising his conflicts. As, however, the Apostle lived not for himself but for the Church, so he reckoned, that whatever favors God conferred upon him, were not given for his own sake merely, (221) but in order that he might have more in his power for helping others. And, unquestionably, when the Lord confers upon us any favor, he in a manner invites us by his example to be generous to our neighbours. The riches of the Spirit, therefore, are not to be kept by us to ourselves, but every one must communicate to others what he has received. This, it is true, must be considered as being applicable chiefly to ministers of the Word. (222) It is, however, common to all, according to the measure of each. Thus Paul here acknowledges, that he had been sustained by the consolation of God, that he might be able himself to comfort others
(221) “Pour son proufit particulier;” — “For his own private advantage.”
(222) “It is not enough for the ministers of the gospel to have devoured many books of learning, to be able to decide polemical questions in divinity, to convince gainsayers, to be doctors angelical, subtle or profound; to be mallei hereticorum — the hammer of heretics. Unless also they have the experimental works of God’s Spirit upon their own souls, they are not able to apply themselves to the hearts of others. Paul had not been able to comfort others, if the Lord had not practically acquainted him with heavenly consolations.” — Burgesse on 2. o 1:0, p. 178 — Ed.
5. For as the sufferings of Christ abound — This statement may be explained in two ways — actively and passively. If you take it actively, the meaning will be this: “The more I am tried with various afflictions, so much the more resources have I for comforting others.” I am, however, more inclined to take it in a passive sense, as meaning that God multiplied his consolations according to the measure of his tribulations. David also acknowledges that it had been thus with him:
According to the multitude, says he, of my anxieties within me,
thy consolations have delighted my soul. (Psa 94:19.)
In Paul’s words, however, there is a fuller statement of doctrine; for the afflictions of the pious he calls the sufferings of Christ, as he says elsewhere,
that he fills up in his body what is wanting in the
sufferings of Christ. (Col 1:24.)
The miseries and vexations, it is true, of the present life are common to good and bad alike, but when they befall the wicked, they are tokens of the curse of God, because they arise from sin, and nothing appears in them except the anger of God and participation with Adam, which cannot but depress the mind. But in the mean time believers are conformed to Christ, and
bear about with them in their body his dying, that the life of Christ may one day be manifested in them. (2. o 4:10.)
I speak of the afflictions which they endure for the testimony of Christ, (Rev 1:9,) for although the Lord’s chastisements, with which he chastises their sins, are beneficial to them, they are, nevertheless, not partakers, properly speaking, of Christ’s sufferings, except in those cases in which they suffer on his account, as we find in 1. e 4:13. Paul’s meaning then is, that God is always present with him in his tribulations, and that his infirmity is sustained by the consolations of Christ, so as to prevent him from being overwhelmed with calamities.
6. Whether we are afflicted. From the circumstance that before the clause our hope of you is steadfast, there is introduced the connecting particle and, Erasmus has conceived the idea, that some word must be understood to correspond with those words — for your consolation and salvation — in this way, whether we are afflicted, IT ISfor your consolation. I think it, however, more probable, that the connecting particle and is used here as meaning: Thus also, or in both cases. He had already stated, that he received consolation in order that he might communicate it to others. Now he goes a step farther, and says, that he has a steadfast hope, that they would be partakers of the consolation Besides, some of the most ancient Greek manuscripts introduce immediately after the first clause this statement — and our hope of you is steadfast. (227) This reading removes all ambiguity. For when it is introduced in the middle, we must necessarily refer it to the latter clause, equally as to the former. At the same time, if any one wishes to have a complete sentence in each clause, by supplying some verb, there will be no great harm in this, and there will be no great difference as to the meaning. For if you read it as one continued statement, you must, at the same time, explain the different parts in this manner — that the Apostle is afflicted, and is refreshed with consolation for the advantage of the Corinthians; and that he entertains, therefore, the hope, (228) that they will be at length partakers of the same consolation, with what is in reserve for himself. For my own part, I have adopted the way that I have judged the more suitable.
It is, however, to be observed, that the word afflicted here refers not merely to outward misery, but also to that of the mind, so as to correspond with the opposite term comforted. (παρακαλεῖσθαι) Thus the meaning is, that the person’s mind is pressed down with anxiety from a feeling of misery. (229) What we render consolation, is in the Greek παράκλησις, — a term which signifies also exhortation. If, however, you understand that kind of consolation, by which a person’s mind is lightened of grief, and is raised above it, you will be in possession of Paul’s meaning. For example, Paul himself would well-nigh have fallen down dead under the pressure of so many afflictions, had not God encouraged him, by raising him up by means of his consolation. Thus, too, the Corinthians derive strength and fortitude of mind from his sufferings, (230) while they take comfort from his example. Let us now sum up the whole matter briefly. As he saw that his afflictions were made by some an occasion of holding him in contempt, with the view of calling back the Corinthians from an error of this nature, (231) he shows in the first place that he ought to be in high esteem among them, in consideration of advantage redounding to themselves; and then afterwards he associates them with himself, that they may reckon his afflictions to be in a manner their own. “Whether I suffer afflictions, or experience consolation, it is all for your benefit, and I cherish an assured hope, that you will continue to enjoy this advantage.” (232)
For such were Paul’s afflictions, and his consolations also, that they would have contributed to the edification of the Corinthians, had not the Corinthians of their own accord deprived themselves of the advantage redounding from it. He, accordingly, declares his confidence in the Corinthians to be such, that he entertains the assured hope that it will not be vain, that he has been afflicted, and has received consolation for their advantage. The false apostles made every effort to turn to Paul’s reproach everything that befell him. Had they obtained their wish, the afflictions which he endured for their salvation, had been vain and fruitless; they would have derived no advantage from the consolations with which the Lord refreshed him. To contrivances of this nature he opposes his present confidence. His afflictions tended to promote the comfort of believers, as furnishing them with occasion of confirmation, on their perceiving that he suffered willingly, and endured with fortitude so many hardships for the sake of the gospel. For however we may acknowledge that afflictions ought to be endured by us for the sake of the gospel, we, nevertheless, tremble through a consciousness of our weakness, and think ourselves not prepared for it. (233) In that case, we should call to mind the examples of the saints, which should make us more courageous.
On the other hand, his personal consolation flowed out to the whole Church, inasmuch as they concluded, (234) that God who had sustained and refreshed him in his emergency, would, in like manner, not be wanting to them. Thus their welfare was promoted in both ways, and this is what he introduces as it were by way of parenthesis, when he says — which is made effectual in the endurance, etc. For he wished to add this clause, by way of explanation, that they might not think that they had nothing to do with the afflictions which he alone endured. Erasmus takes the participle γουμένης in an active sense, (235) but a passive signification is more suitable, (236) as Paul designed simply to explain in what respect everything that befell him was for their salvation. He says, accordingly, that he suffers, indeed, alone, but that his sufferings are of use for promoting their salvation — not as though they were expiations or sacrifices for sins, but as edifying them by confirming them. Hence he conjoins consolation and salvation, with the view of pointing out the way in which their salvation was to be accomplished.
(227) Dr. Bloomfield, who gives to this reading of the passage his decided preference, says of it: “The evidence in its favor is exceedingly strong; while that for the common reading is exceedingly weak.” — Ed.
(228) “Qu’il ha certain espoir;” — “That he has a sure hope.”
(229) “θλίψις ”, says Dr. Bloomfield, in his Notes on Mat 24:9, “properly signifies compression, and figuratively constraint, oppression, affliction, and persecution.” — Ed.
(230) “Voyans les passions du sainct Apostre;” — “Beholding the sufferings of the holy Apostle.”
(231) “Afin d’oster aux Corinthiens ceste mauuaise fantasie;” — “With the view of ridding the Corinthians of this wicked fancy.”
(232) “Iusques en la fin;” — “Until the end.”
(233) “Et ne pensons point estre assez forts;” — “And do not think that we are sufficiently strong.”
(234) “Les fideles recueilloyent de là, et s’asseuroyent;” — “Believers inferred from this, and assured themselves.”
(235) “Traduisant, Qui oeuure ou besongne;” — “Rendering it, Which works or labors.”
(236) Dr. Bloomfield, in his Notes on 1. h 2:13, explains ἐνεργεῖται, to mean — “is made effectual, ” or “shews itself in its effects,” and adds: “This view I find supported by the opinion of Schott, who maintains that ἐνεργεῖσθαι, is never in the New Testament used as a middle form, with an active sense; but always (especially in St. Paul’s writings) as a passive. Indeed, Bp. Bull, Exam. p. 9, goes yet farther, and asserts, that it is scarcely ever so used, even in the Classical writers (I believe he might have said never) but always in a passive sense.” — Ed.
7. Knowing, that as However there might be some of the Corinthians that were drawn away for the time by the calumnies of the false Apostles, so as to entertain less honorable views of Paul, on seeing him shamefully handled before the world, he, nevertheless, associates them with himself both in fellowship of afflictions, and in hope of consolation. (237) Thus he corrects their perverse and malignant view, without subjecting them to an open rebuke.
(237) The Corinthians were κοινωνοί partakers of, or in communion with him in his afflictions. What is more humble and lowly (τί ταπεινοφρωνέστερον) than Paul in this expression? saith Chrysostom — they who had not in the least measure shared with him in sufferings, yet he maketh them copartners with him. They are, as Salmeron expresseth it, Copartners in the gain and in the loss with Paul. They venture (as it were) in the ship together.” — Burgesse. — Ed.
8. For I would not have you ignorant He makes mention of the greatness and difficulty of his conflicts, that the glory of victory may thereby the more abundantly appear. Since the time of his sending them the former epistle, he had been exposed to great dangers, and had endured violent assaults. The probability, however, is that he refers here to the history, which Luke relates in Act 19:23, though in that passage he does not so distinctly intimate the extent of the danger. As, however, he states that the whole city was in a tumult, (Act 19:29,) it is easy from this to infer the rest. For we know what is the usual effect of a popular tumult, when it has been once kindled. By this persecution Paul declares he had been oppressed beyond measure, nay more, above strength, that is, so as not to be able to endure the burden. For it is a metaphor taken from persons who give way under the pressure of a heavy load, or from ships that sink from being overladen — not that he had actually fainted, but that he felt that his strength would have failed him, if the Lord had not imparted fresh strength. (238)
So that we were in anxiety even as to life itself — that is, “So that I thought life was gone, or at least I had very little hope of it remaining, as those are wont to feel who are shut up so as to see no way of escape.” Was then so valiant a soldier of Christ, so brave a wrestler, left without strength, so as to look for nothing but death? (239) For he mentions it as the reason of what he had stated — that he despaired of life. I have already observed, that Paul does not measure his strength in connection with help from God, but according to his own personal feeling of his ability. Now there can be no doubt, that all human strength must give way before the fear of death. Farther, it is necessary that even saints themselves should be in danger of an entire failure of strength, that, being put in mind of their own weakness, they may learn, agreeably to what follows, to place their entire dependence on God alone. At the same time I have preferred to explain the word ἐξαπορεῖσθαι, which is made use of by Paul, as denoting a trembling anxiety, rather than render it, as Erasmus has done by the word despair; because he simply means, that he was hemmed in by the greatest difficulties, so that no means of preserving life seemed to remain. (240)
(238) “Pressed above measure. (καθ ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ἐβαρήςθημεν.) The words βάρος and βάρουμαι, are applied sometimes to the enduring of a burden, (Mat 20:12; Gal 6:2,) whether it be a temporal burden or spiritual [...] In this place it seemeth to be taken from porters, who have a burden imposed upon them, more than they are able to stand under; or as Chrysostom, from ships which are over much burdened, and so are in danger of being lost. And as if there were not emphasis enough in the word pressed, he addeth another to aggravate it — (καθ ᾿ ὑπερβολήν) — above measure — Above strength. (ὑπὲρ δύναμιν.) Chrysostom observeth this differeth from the other. For a burden may be exceeding heavy, yet to some mighty man it may not be above his strength. When Samson (Jud 16:3) carried away the gates of the city Gaza, with the posts and barre upon his shoulders, here was a burden out of measure heavy; no ordinary man could do so; but yet to Samson it was not above his strength. Thus it was with Paul, who may be called a spiritual Samson, for that heavenly might and power which God had endowed him with; he is assaulted with a trouble that was not only hyperbolically weighty, but also above his strength. Paul had no more power to stand under it.” — Burgesse on 2. o 1:0, pp. 269, 270, 278. — Ed.
(239) “Vn champion si preux et magnanime, perdoit — il courage attendant la mort ?” — “Did a champion so valiant and magnanimous lose heart, looking for nothing but death?”
(240) Εξαπορεῖσθαι properly signifies to be utterly at a stand, not knowing how to proceed. — In Psa 88:8, where David says — I am shut up, and I cannot come forth, the Hebrew words ולא אצא (velo etse,) are rendered in the Septuagint — καὶ οὐκ ἐξεπορευόμην — and I could not come forth. It is worthy of notice that, in the metre version, the idea expressed by Calvin, as implied in the verb ἐξαπορεῖσθαι, is fully brought out — “find no evasion for me.” — Ed.
9. Nay more, we had the sentence of death This is as though we should say — “I had already laid my account with dying, or had regarded it as a thing fixed.” He borrows, however, a similitude from those who are under sentence of death, and look for nothing but the hour when they are to die. At the same time he says, that this sentence had been pronounced by him upon himself, by which he intimates, that it was in his own view that he had been sentenced to death — that he might not seem to have had it from any revelation from God. In this sentence, (241) therefore, there is something more implied than in the feeling of anxiety (ἐξαπορεῖσθαι) that he had made mention of, because in the former case there was despair of life, but in this case there is certain death. We must, however, take notice, chiefly, of what he adds as to the design — that he had been reduced to this extremity, that he might not trust in himself For I do not agree with what Chrysostom says — that the Apostle did not stand in need of such a remedy, but set himself forth to others as a pattern merely in appearance. (242) For he was a man that was subject, in other respects, to like passions as other men — (Jas 5:17) — not merely to cold and heat, but also to misdirected confidence, rashness, and the like. I do not say that he was addicted to these vices, but this I say, that he was capable of being tempted to them, and that this was the remedy that God seasonably interposed, that they might not make their way into his mind. (243)
There are, accordingly, two things to be observed here. In the first place — that the fleshly confidence with which we are puffed up, is so obstinate, that it cannot be overthrown in any other way than by our falling into utter despair. (244) For as the flesh is proud, it does not willingly give way, and never ceases to be insolent until it has been constrained; nor are we brought to true submission, until we have been brought down by the mighty hand of God. (1. e 5:6.) Secondly, it is to be observed, that the saints themselves have some remains of this disease adhering to them, and that for this reason they are often reduced to an extremity, that, stript of all self-confidence, they may learn humility: nay more, that this malady is so deeply rooted in the minds of men, that even the most advanced are not thoroughly purged from it, until God sets death before their eyes. And hence we may infer, how displeasing to God confidence in ourselves must be, when for the purpose of correcting it, it is necessary that we should be condemned to death.
But in God that raiseth the dead As we must first die, (245) in order that, renouncing confidence in ourselves, and conscious of our own weakness, we may claim no honor to ourselves, so even that were not sufficient, if we did not proceed a step farther. Let us begin, therefore, with despairing of ourselves, but with the view of placing our hope in God. Let us be brought low in ourselves, but in order that we may be raised up by his power. Paul, accordingly, having brought to nothing the pride of the flesh, immediately substitutes in its place a confidence that rests upon God.Not in ourselves, says he,but in God
The epithet that follows, Paul has adapted to the connection of the subject, as he does in Rom 4:17, where he speaks of Abraham. For to
believe in God, who calleth those things that are not, as though they were, and to hope in God who raiseth the dead,
are equivalent to his setting before him as an object of contemplation, the power of God in creating his elect out of nothing, and raising up the dead. Hence Paul says, that death had been set before his eyes, that he might, in consequence of this, recognize the more distinctly the power of God, by which he had been raised up from the dead. The first thing in order, it is true, is this — that, by means of the strength with which God furnishes us, we should acknowledge him as the Author of life; but as in consequence of our dulness the light of life often dazzles our eyes, it is necessary that we should be brought to God by having death presented to our view. (246)
(241) “The Greek word is ἀποςκριμα, used here in this place only in the New Testament. [...] The most genuine translation is sentence; for so Hesychius expounds the word κατακριςμα — ψὢφο ”, whom Favorinus followeth verbatim in this, as in many other particulars. [...] The word then doth signifie a sentence passing upon him, that he must die. This he had received, but from whom? Not from God, for God delivered him; nor from the magistrate; there was no such decree that we read of against him. Therefore it was onely from his own feares, his own thoughts, which maketh him say — he had received it in himself. [...] God’s thoughts were other than Paul’s. Paul absolutely concluded he should die, but God had purposed the contrary.” — Burgesse. — Ed.
(242) “Il se propose aux autres comme pour exemple, non pas qu’il en fust ainsi quant à luy;” — “He sets himself forth, as it were by way of example — not that it had been so as to himself.”
(243) “De peur qu’ils ne saisissent plenement son esprit et son coeur;” — “That they might not take full possession of his mind and his heart.”
(244) “Sinon que nous tombions en telle extremite que nous ne voyons aucune esperance en nous;” — “Except by our falling into such an extremity, that we see no hope in ourselves.”
(245) “Comme il nous est necessaire premierement de venir comme à mourir;” — “As we need first to come as it were to die”
(246) “Il nous est necessaire pour estre amenez à Dieu, d’estre reduits â telle extremite que nous voyons la mort presente deuant nos yeux;” — “It is necessary, in order that we may be brought back to God, that we should be brought to such an extremity, that we see death presented before our eyes.”
10. Who hath delivered us from so great a death Here he applies to himself personally, what he had stated in a general way, and by way of proclaiming the grace of God, he declares that he had not been disappointed in his expectation, inasmuch as he had been delivered from death, and that too, in no common form. As to his manner of expression, the hyperbole, which he makes use of, is not unusual in the Scriptures, for it frequently occurs, both in the Prophets and in the Psalms, and it is made use of even in common conversation. What Paul acknowledges as to himself personally, let every one now take home as applicable to himself.
In whom we have an assured hope. He promises himself as to the future, also, that beneficence of God, which he had often experienced in the past. Nor is it without good reason; for the Lord, by accomplishing in part what he has promised, bids us hope well as to what remains. Nay more, in proportion to the number of favors that we receive from him, does he by so many pledges, or earnests, as it were, confirm his promises. (247) Now, although Paul had no doubt that God would of his own accord be present with him, yet he exhorts the Corinthians to commend to God in their prayers his safety. For when he assumes it as certain, that he will be aided by them, this declaration has the force of an exhortation, and he means that they would not merely do it as a matter of duty, but also with advantage. (248)
“Your prayers, also,” he says, “will help me.” (249) For God wills not that the duty of mutual intercession, which he enjoins upon us, should be without advantage. This ought to be a stimulus to us, on the one hand, to solicit the intercession of our brethren, when we are weighed down by any necessity, and, on the other, to render similar assistance in return, since we are informed, that it is not only a duty that is well pleasing to God, but also profitable to ourselves. Nor is it owing to distrust that the Apostle implores the friendly aid of his brethren, (250) for, while he felt assured, that his safety would be the object of God’s care, (251) though he were destitute of all human help, yet he knew that it was well pleasing to God, that he should be aided by the prayers of the saints. He had respect, also, to the promises that were given, that assistance of this kind would not be in vain. Hence, in order that he might not overlook any assistance that was appointed to him by God, he desired that the brethren should pray for his preservation.
The sum is this — that we follow the word of God, that is, that we obey his commandments and cleave to his promises. This is not the part of those who have recourse to the assistance of the dead; (252) for not contented with the sources of help appointed by God, they call in to their aid a new one, that has no countenance from any declaration of Scripture. For whatever we find mentioned there as to mutual intercession, has no reference to the dead, but is expressly restricted to the living. Hence Papists act childishly in perverting those passages, so as to give some colour to their superstition. (253)
(247) Granville Penn reads the passage as follows: “Who hath delivered us from so great a death; and will deliver us: in whom we hope that he will deliver us.” — “The Vat. and Ephrem MSS.” he observes, “read ῥύσεται, not ῥύεται, as in the rec. text. The latter reading seems to have been substituted, because ῥύσεται, occurs again in the following sentence; but the Apostle repeats the word, that he may qualify it by ἠλπίκαμεν, (we hope.”) — Ed.
(248) “Mais aussi auec bonne issue, d’autant qu’ils seront exaucez;” — “But also with good success, inasmuch as they will be heard.”
(249) “L’aide, dit il, que vous me feriez par vos prieres, ne sera point sans fruit;” — “The aid, he says, that you will afford me by your prayers, will not be without advantage.”
(250) “You also helping together by prayer for us, (Συνυπουργούντων καὶ ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὣ δεήσει.) The particle καί is emphatical, You also — implying, that neither God’s promise, nor his power, would procure this mercy alone without their prayer. Besides the goodness of God on his part, there must be prayer on their part. The word in the original for helping is emphatical, being twice compounded. ̔υπουργούντων doth denote the service and ministry of those who are under us; and so it doth imply, that the Church doth owe as a debt unto their spiritual guides earnest prayer for them. [...] Then there is the preposition σύν added, which doth denote not only their effectual prayers, but their concord and agreement therein, and that in their public and solemn assemblies. Again, the word signifying — to work, and labor, doth denote what the nature of prayer is — that the soul labors therein, is fervent, full of agonies; which showeth that the customary formal prayers of most people are not worthy of the name: there is no labor, or fervency of the soul therein. — They labored by prayer. They did not labor by using friends to solicit the magistrate in Paul’s behalf, for there was no hope from them, but they made their addresses to God.” — Burgesse. — Ed.
(251) “Que Dieu auroit soin de son salut et proufit;” — “That God would take care of his safety and advantage.”
(252) “Qui out leurs recours aux prieres des saincts trespassez;” — “Who have recourse to the prayers of departed saints.”
(253) “Pour desguiser et farder leur superstition;” — “To disguise and color over their superstition.”
11. That the gift bestowed upon us through means of many persons. As there is some difficulty in Paul’s words, interpreters differ as to the meaning. I shall not spend time in setting aside the interpretations of others, nor indeed is there any need for this, provided only we are satisfied as to the true and proper meaning. He had said, that the prayers of the Corinthians would be an assistance to him. He now adds a second advantage that would accrue from it — a higher manifestation of God’s glory. “For whatever God will confer upon me,” says he, “being as it were obtained through means of many persons, will, also, by many be celebrated with praises:” or in this way — “Many will give thanks to God in my behalf, because, in affording help to me, he has favorably regarded the prayers, not merely of one but of many.” In the first place, while it is our duty to allow no favor from God to pass without rendering praise, it becomes us, nevertheless, more especially when our prayers have been favorably regarded by him, to acknowledge his mercy with thanksgiving, as he commands us to do in Psa 50:15. Nor ought this to be merely where our own personal interest is concerned, but also where the welfare of the Church in general, or that of any one of our brethren is involved. Hence when we mutually pray one for another, and obtain our desire, the glory of God is so much the more set forth, inasmuch as we all acknowledge, with thanksgiving, God’s benefits — both those that are conferred publicly upon the whole Church, and also those that are bestowed privately upon individuals.
In this interpretation there is nothing forced; for as to the circumstance that in the Greek the article being introduced between the two clauses by many persons, and the gift conferred upon me appears to disjoin them, (254) that has no force, as it is frequently found introduced between clauses that are connected with each other. Here, however, it is with propriety introduced in place of an adversative particle; (255) for although it had come forth from many persons, it was nevertheless peculiar to Paul. To take the phrase διὰ πολλῶν (by means of many) in the neuter gender, (256) as some do, is at variance with the connection of the passage.
It may, however, be asked, why he says From many persons, rather than From many men, and what is the meaning of the term person here? I answer, it is as though he had said — With respect to many. For the favor was conferred upon Paul in such a way, that it might be given to many. Hence, as God had respect to many, he says on that account, that many persons were the cause of it. Some Greek manuscripts have ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν — on your account; and although this appears to be at variance with Paul’s design, and the connection of the words, it may, nevertheless, be explained with propriety in this manner: “When God shall have heard you in behalf of my welfare, and that too for your own welfare, thanks will be given by many on your account.”
(254) “Car à suyure l’ordre du texte Grec il y auroit ainsi mot à mot, Afin que de plusieurs personnes, à nous le don conferé, par plusieurs soit recognu en action de graces pour nous;” — “For, following the order of the Greek text, it would be literally thus: In order that from many persons the gift conferred upon us, may by many be acknowledged with thanksgiving on our account.”
(255) “En lieu de quelque article aduersative qu’on appelle, comme Toutesfois ou Neantmoins;” — “In place of some adversative particle, as it is called, as for example, Notwithstanding or Nevertheless.”
(256) “De rapporter ce mot Par plusieurs, aux choses;” — “To take this phrase, By means of many, as referring to things. ”
12. For our glorying is this. He assigns a reason why his preservation should be a subject of interest to all — that he had conducted himself (258) among them all insimplicity and sincerity He deserved, therefore, to be dear to them, and it would have been very unfeeling not to be concerned in reference to such a servant of the Lord, that he might be long preserved for the benefit of the Church. “I have conducted myself before all in such a manner, that it is no wonder if I have the approbation and love of all good men.” He takes occasion from this, however, for the sake of those to whom he was writing, to make a digression for the purpose of declaring his own integrity. As, however, it is not enough to be approved of by man’s judgment, and as Paul himself was harassed by the unjust and malignant judgments of some, or rather by corrupt and blind attachments, (259) he adduces his own conscience as his witness — which is all one as though he had cited God as a witness, or had made what he says matter of appeal to his tribunal.
But how does Paul’s glorying in his integrity comport with that statement,
He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord?
(2. o 10:17.)
Besides, who is so upright (260) as to dare to boast in the presence of God? In the first place, Paul does not oppose himself to God, as though he had anything that was his own, or that was from himself. Farther, he does not place the foundation of his salvation in that integrity to which he lays claim, nor does he make confidence in that the ground of his dependence. Lastly, he does not glory in God’s gifts in such a way as not at the same time to render all the glory to him as their sole Author, and ascribe everything to him. (261) These three exceptions lay a foundation for every godly person glorying on good grounds in all God’s benefits; while the wicked, on the other hand, cannot glory even in God, except on false and improper grounds. Let us therefore, first of all, acknowledge ourselves to be indebted to God for everything good that we possess, claiming no merit to ourselves. Secondly, let us hold fast this foundation — that our dependence for salvation be grounded exclusively on the mercy of God. Lastly, let us repose ourselves (262) in the sole author of every blessing. Then in that there will be a pious (263) glorying in every kind of blessing.
That in the simplicity (264) of God. He employs the expression simplicity of God here, in the same way as in Rom 3:23, the glory of God; and in Joh 12:43, the glory of God and of men. Those who love the glory of men, wish to appear something before men, or to stand well in the opinion of men. The glory of God is what a man has in the sight of God. Hence Paul does not reckon it enough to declare that his sincerity was perceived by men, but adds, that he was such in the sight of God. Εἰλικρινείᾳ (which I have rendered purity) is closely connected with simplicity; for it is an open and upright way of acting, such as makes a man’s heart as it were transparent. (265) Both terms stand opposed to craft, deception, and all underhand schemes.
Not in fleshly wisdom. There is here a sort of anticipation; for what might be felt to be wanting in him he readily acknowledges, nay more, he openly proclaims, that he is destitute of, but adds, that he is endowed with what is incomparably more excellent — the grace of God “I acknowledge,” says he, “that I am destitute of fleshly wisdom, but I have been furnished with divine influence, and if any one is not satisfied with that, he is at liberty to depreciate my Apostleship. If, on the other hand, fleshly wisdom is of no value, then I want nothing that is not fitted to secure well-grounded praise.” He gives the name of fleshly wisdom to everything apart from Christ, that procures for us the reputation of wisdom. See the first and second chapters of the former epistle. Hence, by the grace of God, which is contrasted with it, we must understand everything that transcends man’s nature and capacity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which openly manifested the power of God in the weakness of the flesh.
More abundantly towards you Not that he had been less upright elsewhere, but that he had remained longer at Corinth, in order that he might (not to mention other purposes) afford a fuller and clearer proof of his integrity. He has, however, expressed himself intentionally in such a way as to intimate that he did not require evidences that were far-fetched, inasmuch as they were themselves the best witnesses of all that he had said.
(258) “We have had our conversation (ἀνεστράφημεν.) The verb ἀναστρέφω, is compounded of ἀνὰ, again, and στρέφω, to turn — a continual coming back again to the point from which he set out — a circulation — beginning, continuing, and ending everything to the glory of God; setting out with divine views, and still maintaining them; beginning in the Spirit, and ending in the Spirit; acting in reference to God, as the planets do in reference to the sun, deriving all their light, heat, and motion from him; and incessantly and regularly revolving round him. Thus acted Paul: thus acted the primitive Christians; and thus must every Christian act who expects to see God in his glory.” — Dr. Adam Clarke. — Ed.
(259) “Par les affections qu’ils portoyent à d’autres pour des raisons friuoles, et quasi sans scauoir pourquoy;” — “By attachments that they cherished towards others on trivial grounds, and in a manner without knowing why.”
(260) “Qui est celuy, tant pur et entier soit il ?” — “Where is the man, be he ever so pure and perfect?”
(261) “Et rapporte toutes choses a sa bonte;” — “And ascribes everything to his goodness.”
(262) “Arrestons nous et reposons du tout;” — “Let us stay ourselves, and wholly repose.”
(263) “Bonne et saincte;” — “Good and holy.”
(264) “The most ancient MSS. read ἁγιοτητι, (holiness) — not ἁπλοτητι, (simplicity.)” — Penn
(265) “The word used here εἰλικρινείᾳ and rendered sincerity — denotes properly — clearness, such as is judged of or discerned in sunshine, (εἴλη, sunshine, and κρίνω, to judge,) and thence pureness, integrity. It is most probable that the phrase here denotes that sincerity which God produces and approves; and the sentiment is, that pure religion, the religion of God, produces entire sincerity in the heart. Its purposes and aims are open and manifest, as if seen in the sunshine. The plans of the world are obscure, deceitful, and dark, as if in the night. ” — Barnes. The same term is made use of by Paul in 1. o 5:8, and in 2. o 2:17. On comparing the various instances in which this term is employed by the Apostle, we have occasion to observe the admirable harmony between his exhortations and practice. — Ed.
13. For we write no other things Here he indirectly reproves the false apostles, who recommended themselves by immoderate boastings, while they had little or no ground for it; and at the same time he obviates calumnies, in order that no one may object, that he claims for himself more than is his due. He says, therefore, that he does not in words boast of anything that he is not prepared to make good by deeds, and that, too, from the testimony of the Corinthians.
The ambiguity, however, of the words, has given occasion for this passage being misinterpreted. Αναγινώσκειν, among the Greeks, signifies sometimes to read, and at other times to recognize. Επιγινώσκειν sometimes signifies to discover, while at other times it means what the Latins properly express by the verb agnoscere , to own, as among lawyers the phrase is used to own a child, (266) as Budaeus also has observed. In this way ἐπιγινώσκειν means more than ἀναγινώσκειν For we say that a person recognises a thing, that is, that being silently convinced of it in his judgment, he perceives it to be true, while at the same time he does not acknowledge it, or, in other words, cordially intimate his assent to it.
Let us now examine Paul’s words. Some read thus — We write no other things than what ye read and acknowledge, which it is very manifest is exceedingly lifeless, not to say senseless. For as to Ambrose’s qualifying the statement in this way — You not only read, but also acknowledge, there is no one that does not perceive that it is quite foreign to the import of the words. And the meaning that I have stated is plain, and hangs together naturally, and, up to this point, there is nothing to prevent readers from understanding it, were it not that they have had their eyes shut, from being misled by the different meanings of the word. The sum is this — that Paul declares, that he brings forward no other things than what were known and perceived by the Corinthians — nay more, things as to which they would bear him witness. The first term employed is recognoscere , (to recognize,) which is applicable, when persons are convinced from experience that matters are so. The second is agnoscere , (to acknowledge,) meaning that they give their assent to the truth. (267)
And, I hope, will acknowledge even to the end. As the Corinthians had not yet perfectly returned to a sound mind, so as to be prepared to weigh his fidelity in a just and even balance, (268) but at the same time had begun to abate somewhat of their perverse and malignant judgment respecting him, he intimates, that he hopes better as to the future. “You have already,” says he, “to some extent acknowledged me. I hope that you will acknowledge more and more what I have been among you, and in what manner I have conducted myself.” (269) From this it appears more clearly what he meant by the word ἐπιγινώσκειν. (acknowledge (270)) Now this relates to a season of repentance, for they had at the beginning acknowledged him fully and thoroughly; afterwards their right judgment had been beclouded (271) by unfair statements, but they had at length begun to return in part to a sound mind.
(266) “Ce que disons Auouer: comme on dira Auouer vn enfant ;” — “What we express by the verb to own, as when you speak of owning a child. ”
(267) The word ἀςναγινώσκετε, “properly means to know accurately, to distinguish. It is probably used here in the sense of knowing accurately or surely, of recognizing from their former acquaintance with him.” ᾿Επιγινώσκειν “here means that they would fully recognize, or know entirely to their satisfaction, that the sentiments which he here expressed were such as accorded with his general manner of life.” — Barnes. Dr. Bloomfield, who approves of the view taken by Calvin of the meaning of the verb ἀναγινώσκετε, remarks, that the word is employed in the same sense by Xenophon. Anab., 5:8, 6, as well as elsewhere in the Classical writers. — Ed.
(268) “C’est à dire, pour en iuger droitement;” — “That is to say, to judge of it aright.”
(269) “Que vous cognoistrez de plus en plus comme i’ay conversé entre vous, et comme ie m’y suis gouuerné, et ainsi auouërez ce que maintenant i’en di;” — “That you will acknowledge more and more how I have conducted myself among you, and how I have regulated myself, and thus you will assent to what I now say.”
(270) “Que c’est qu’il a entendu par le dernier des deux mots desquels nous auons parler, lequel nous auons traduit Auouer ;” — “What it was that he meant by the last of the two words of which we have spoken, which we have rendered — Acknowledge.
(271) “Obscurci et abbastardi en eux par les propos obliques des faux — Apostres et autres malins;” — “Obscured and corrupted by the unfair statements of the false Apostles, and other malicious persons.”
14. For we are your glorying. We have briefly adverted to the manner in which it is allowable for saints to glory in God’s benefits — when they repose themselves in God alone, and have no other object of aim. Thus it was a ground of pious glorying on the part of Paul, that he had, by his ministry, brought the Corinthians under obedience to Christ; and of the Corinthians, on the other hand, that they had been trained up so faithfully and so virtuously by such an Apostle — a privilege that had not been allotted to all. This way of glorying in men does not stand in the way of our glorying in God alone. Now he instructs the Corinthians, that it is of the greatest importance for themselves that they should acknowledge him to be a faithful, and not a merely pretended, servant of Christ; because, in the event of their withdrawing from him, they would deprive themselves of the highest glory. In these words he reproves their fickleness, inasmuch as they voluntarily deprived themselves of the highest glory, by listening too readily to the spiteful and envious.
In the day of the Lord By this I understand the last day, which will put an end to all the fleeting (272) glories of this world. He means, then, that the glorying of which he is now speaking is not evanescent, as those things are that glitter in the eyes of men, but is abiding and stable, inasmuch as it will remain until the day of Christ. For then will Paul enjoy the triumph of the many victories that he had obtained under Christ’s auspices, and will lead forth in splendor all the nations that have, by means of his ministry, been brought under Christ’s glorious yoke; and the Church of the Corinthians will glory in having been founded and trained up by the services of so distinguished an Apostle.
(272) “Vaines et caduques;” — “Empty and fading.”
15. In this confidence. After having given them reason to expect that he would come, he had subsequently changed his intention. This was made an occasion of calumny against him, as appears from the excuse that he brings forward. When he says that it was from relying onthis confidence that he formed the purpose of coming to them, he indirectly throws the blame upon the Corinthians, inasmuch as they had, by their ingratitude, hindered, to some extent, his coming to them, by depriving him of that confidence.
That ye might have a second benefit The first benefit had been this — that he had devoted himself for the entire period of a year and six months (Act 18:11) to the work of gaining them to the Lord; the second was their being confirmed, by means of his coming to them, in the faith which they had once received, and being stirred up by his sacred admonitions to make farther progress. Of this latter benefit the Corinthians had deprived themselves, inasmuch as they had not allowed the apostle to come to them. They were paying, therefore, the penalty of their own fault, and they had no ground for imputing any blame to Paul. If any one, however, prefers, with Chrysostom, to take χάριν (benefit) as used instead of καράν , (joy,) I do not much object to it. (275) The former interpretation, however, is more simple.
(275) “Most modern Commentators explain the χάριν gift or benefit; but the ancient Commentators, and some modern ones, as Wolf and Schleus, gratification for χαράν. It should seem to mean benefit generally, every spiritual advantage, or gratification from his society, imparted by his presence.” — Bloomfield One MS. reads χαράν Kypke, who renders χάριν, joy adduces instances in support of this meaning of χάρι ”, though acknowledged to be unusual, from Plutarch, Polybius, and Euripides. The phrase is rendered in Tyndale’s version, (1534,) and also in Cranmer’s, (1539,) and Geneva, (1557,) versions — one pleasure moare. — Ed.
17. Did I use fickleness? There are two things, more especially, that prevent the purposes of men from being carried into effect, or their promises from being faithfully performed. The one is that they make changes upon them almost every hour, 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 afterwards regret. With that fault Paul declares he had not been chargeable. “I have not,” says he, “through fickleness drawn back from the promise that I made.” He declares also that he had been on his guard against rashness and misdirected confidence; for such is the way in which I explain the expression — purpose according to the flesh For it is, as I have stated, the common practice of men, as though 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, with the view of punishing this presumption, defeats their plans, so as to prevent them from having a prosperous issue, and in many instances holds up themselves to ridicule.
The expression, it is true, according to the flesh, might be extended farther, so as to include all wicked schemes, and such as are not directed to a right end, as for example such as are dictated by ambition, avarice, or any other depraved affection. Paul, however, in my opinion, did not intend here to refer to any thing of that nature, but merely to reprove that rashness which is but too customary on the part of man, and in daily use in the forming of plans. To purpose, therefore, according to the flesh, is not owning God as our ruler, but, instead of this, being impelled by a rash presumption, which is afterwards justly derided by God, and punished. The apostle, with the view of clearing himself from these faults, proposes a question, as if in the person of his opponents. Hence it is probable, as I have already said, that some unfavorable report had been put in circulation by wicked persons.
That with me there should be yea, yea Some connect this statement with what goes before, and explain it thus: “As if it were in my power to perform whatever I purpose, as men determine that they will do whatever comes into their mind, and order their ways, as Solomon speaks, (Pro 16:1,) while they cannot so much as govern their tongue.” And, undoubtedly, the words seem to imply this much — that what has been once affirmed must remain fixed, and what has been once denied must never be done. So James in his Epistle (Jas 5:12) says,
Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into dissimulation.
Farther, the context would in this way suit exceedingly well as to what goes before. For to purpose according to the flesh is this — when we wish that, without any exception, our determinations shall be like oracles. (276) This interpretation, However, does not accord with what immediately follows — God is faithful, etc., where Paul makes use of the same form of expression, when he has it in view to intimate, that he had not been unfaithful in his preaching. Now it were absurd, if almost in the same verse he reckoned it as a fault that his yea should be yea, and his nay nay, and yet at the same time laid claim to it as his highest praise. I am aware of what could be said in reply, if any one were disposed to sport himself with subtleties, but I have no relish for anything that is not solid.
I have, therefore, no doubt, that in these words Paul designed to reprove fickleness, although they may seem to be susceptible of another meaning, for the purpose of clearing himself from that calumny — that he was accustomed to promise in words what he failed to perform in deeds. (277) Thus the reiterating of the affirmation and negation will not have the same meaning as in Mat 5:37. and in James, but will bear 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 it may have crept in through the ignorance of transcribers, as the old translation does not redouble the words, (278) However this may be, we ought not to be very solicitous as to the words, provided we are in possession of the apostle’s intention, which, as I have said, clearly appears from what follows. (279)
(276) “Que nos deliberations et conseils soyent comme oracles et reuelations Diuines;” — “That our purposes and plans shall be like oracles and Divine revelations.”
(277) “He (the apostle) anticipates and repels a reproach of ἰλαφρία, or ‘lightness of purpose, ’ in that change of mind, as if he was ‘a yea and nay man, ’ (Shaksp.), on whose word no secure reliance could be placed. In the next verse he calls God to witness that his word to them was not, ‘both yea and nay; ’ and in the beginning of the following chapter, he explains to them, that it was for their sakes that he abstained from executing his first intention.” — Penn. — Ed.
(278) The rendering of the Vulgate is as follows: “Ut sit apud me est et non;” — “That with me there should be yea and nay. ” This reading — τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὔ, (yea and nay), is found in one Greek MS., as stated by Semler. Wiclif, (1380,) following the Vulgate, reads — “that at me, be it is and it is not. ” — Ed.
(279) “It was a proverbial manner among the Jews (see Wet.) of characterizing a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying, ‘his yes is yes, and his no is no’ — that is, you may depend upon his word; as he declares, so it is; and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is therefore to be considered here (Mat 5:37) not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny; in which case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely ναὶ καὶ οὔ (yea and nay,) without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns, is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, (2. o 1:20,) ‘For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen. ’ (ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμὴν) — that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Greek tongue, to turn by means of the article any of the parts of speech ‘into a noun.” — Campbell on the Gospels, volume 2. — Ed.
18. God is faithful. By the term word he means doctrine, as is manifest from the reason that he adds, when he says, that the Son of God, who is preached by him, is not variable, etc. As to his being always consistent with himself in point of doctrine, and not differing from himself, (280) he intends that by this they shall form a judgment as to his integrity, and in this way he removes every unfavorable suspicion of fickleness or unfaithfulness. It does not, however, necessarily follow, that the man who is faithful in doctrine, is also observant of truth in all his words. But as Paul did not reckon it of much importance in what estimation he was held, provided only the majesty of his doctrine remained safe and sound, he, on that account, calls the attention of the Corinthians chiefly to that matter. He intimates, it is true, that he observed in his whole life the same course of fidelity, as the Corinthians had seen in his ministry. He seems, however, as if intentionally, in repelling the calumny, to transfer it from his person to his doctrine, because he was unwilling that his apostleship should be indirectly defamed, while he was not greatly concerned as to himself in other respects.
But observe, with what zeal he applies himself to this. For he calls God to witness, how simple and pure his preaching was — not ambiguous, not variable, not temporizing. In his oath, too, he connects the truth of God with the truth of his doctrine. “The truth of my preaching is as sure and stable as God is faithful and true.” Nor is this to be wondered at, for the word of God, which Isaiah says endureth for ever, (Isa 40:8,) is no other than what prophets and apostles published to the world, as Peter explains it. (1. e 1:25.) Hence, too, his confidence (281) in denouncing a curse upon angels, if they dared to bring another gospel, one that was at variance with his. (Gal 1:8.) Who would dare to make the angels of heaven subject to his doctrine, if he had not God as his authority and defense? With such an assurance of a good conscience does it become ministers (282) to be endowed, who mount the pulpit to speak the word in Christ’s name — so as to feel assured that their doctrine can no more be overthrown than God himself.
(280) “N’a point dit l’vn, puis l’autre;” — “Does not say one thing and then another.”
(281) “De là vient aussi que S. Paul est bien si hardi;” — “Hence, too, it comes that St. Paul is so very bold.”
(282) “Et annonciateurs de la parolle de Dieu;” — “And heralds of the word of God.”
19. For the Son of God Here we have the proof — because his preaching (283) contained nothing but Christ alone, who is the eternal and immutable truth of God. The clause preached by us is emphatic. For, as it may be, and often does happen, that Christ is disfigured by the inventions (284) of men, and is adulterated, as it were, by their disguises, he declares that it had not been so as to himself or his associates, but that he had sincerely and with an integrity that was befitting, held forth Christ pure and undisguised. Why it is that he makes no mention of Apollos, while he mentions by name Timotheus and Silvanus, does not exactly appear; unless the reason be, as is probable, that the more that individuals were assailed by the calumnies of the wicked, (285) he was so much the more careful to defend them.
In these words, however, he intimates that his whole doctrine was summed up in a simple acquaintance with Christ alone, as in reality the whole of the gospel is included in it. Hence those go beyond due limits, who teach anything else than Christ alone, with whatever show of wisdom they may otherwise be puffed up. For as he is the end of the law, (Rom 10:4,) so he is the head — the sum — in fine, the consummation — of all spiritual doctrine.
In the second place, he intimates that his doctrine respecting Christ had not been variable, or ambiguous, so as to present him from time to time in a new shape after the manner of Proteus; (286) as some persons make it their sport to make changes upon him, (287) just as if they were tossing a ball to and fro with their hand, simply for the purpose of displaying their dexterity. Others, with a view to procure the favor of men, present him under various forms, while there is still another class, that inculcate one day what on the next they retract through fear. Such was not Paul’s Christ, nor can that of any true apostle (288) be such. Those, accordingly, have no ground to boast that they are ministers of Christ, who paint him in various colors with a view to their own advantage. For he alone is the true Christ, in whom there appears that uniform and unvarying yea, which Paul declares to be characteristic of him.
(283) “Il dit donc que sa parolle n’a point este oui et non, c’est à dire variable; pource que sa predication,” etc.; — “He says, then, that his word had not been yea and nay, that is to say, variable; because his preaching,” etc.
(284) “Et mensonges;” — “And fallacies.”
(285) “Des calomniateurs et mesdisans;” — “By calumniators and slanderers.”
(286) “En sorte qu’il l’ait transfiguré, maintenant en vne sorte, tantost en vne autre, comme les Poëtes disent que Proteus se transformoit en diuerses sortes;” — “So as to present him in different shapes, now in one form, then in another, as the poets say that Proteus transformed himself into different shapes.” The following poets (among others) make mention of the “shape — changing” Proteus: — Virgil, (Georg. 4:387); Ovid, (Met. 8:730); Horace, (Sat. 2:3, 71, Ep. I. 1:90.) See Calvin on John, vol. 2, p. 256, n. 1. — Ed.
(287) “En toutes manieres;” — “In every way.”
(288) “Celui de tous vrais et fideles ministres;” — “That of all true and faithful ministers.”
20. For all the promises of God — Here again he shows how firm and unvarying the preaching of Christ ought to be, inasmuch as he is the groundwork (289) of all the promises of God. For it were worse than absurd to entertain the idea that he, in whom all the promises of God are established, is like one that wavers. (290) Now though the statement is general, as we shall see ere long, it is, notwithstanding, accommodated to the circumstances of the case in hand, with the view of confirming the certainty of Paul’s doctrine. For it is not simply of the gospel in general that he treats, but he honors more especially his own gospel with this distinction. “If the promises of God are sure and well-founded, my preaching also must of necessity be sure, inasmuch as it contains nothing but Christ, in whom they are all established.” As, however, in these words he means simply that he preached a gospel that was genuine, and not adulterated by any foreign additions, (291) let us keep in view this general doctrine, that all the promises of God rest upon Christ alone as their support — a sentiment that is worthy of being kept in remembrance, and is one of the main articles of our faith. It depends, however, on another principle — that it is only in Christ that God the Father is propitious to us. Now the promises are testimonies of his fatherly kindness towards us. Hence it follows, that it is in him alone that they are fulfilled.
The promises, I say, are testimonies of Divine grace: for although God shows kindness even to the unworthy, (Luk 6:35,) yet when promises are given in addition to his acts of kindness, there is a special reason — that in them he declares himself to be a Father. Secondly, we are not qualified for enjoying the promises of God, unless we have received the remission of our sins, which we obtain through Christ. Thirdly, the promise, by which God adopts us to himself as his sons, holds the first place among them all. Now the cause and root of adoption is Christ; because God is not a Father to any that are not members and brethren of his only-begotten Son. Everything, however, flows out from this source — that, while we are without Christ, we are hated by God rather than favorably regarded, while at the same time God promises us everything that he does promise, because he loves us. Hence it is not to be wondered if Paul here teaches, that all the promises of God are ratified and confirmed in Christ.
It is asked, however, whether they were feeble or powerless, previously to Christ’s advent; for Paul seems to speak here of Christ as manifested in the flesh. (1. i 3:16.) I answer, that all the promises that were given to believers from the beginning of the world were founded upon Christ. Hence Moses and the Prophets, in every instance in which they treat of reconciliation with God, of the hope of salvation, or of any other favor, make mention of him, and discourse at the same time respecting his coming and his kingdom. I say again, that the promises under the Old Testament were fulfilled to the pious, in so far as was advantageous for their welfare; and yet it is not less true, that they were in a manner suspended until the advent of Christ, through whom they obtained their true accomplishment. And in truth, believers themselves rested upon the promises in such a way, as at the same time to refer the true accomplishment of them to the appearing of the Mediator, and suspended their hope until that time. In fine, if any one considers what is the fruit of Christ’s death and resurrection, he will easily gather from this, in what respect the promises of God have been sealed and ratified in him, which would otherwise have had no sure accomplishment.
Wherefore, also, through him let there be Amen. Here also the Greek manuscripts do not agree, for some of them have it in one continued statement —As many promises of God as there are, are in him Yea, and in him Amen to the glory of God through us. (292) The different reading, however, which I have followed, is easier, and contains a fuller meaning. For as he had said, that, in Christ, God has confirmed the truth of all his promises, so now he teaches us, that it is our duty to acquiesce in this ratification. This we do, when, resting upon Christ by a sure faith, we subscribe and set our seal that God is true, as we read in Joh 3:33, and that with a view to his glory, as this is the end to which everything should be referred. (Eph 1:13, and Rom 3:4.)
The other reading, I confess, is the more common one, but as it is somewhat meagre, I have not hesitated to prefer the one that contains the fuller meaning, and, besides, is much better suited to the context. For Paul reminds the Corinthians of their duty — to utter their Amen in return, after having been instructed in the simple truth of God. If, however, any one is reluctant to depart from the other reading, there must, in any case, be an exhortation deduced from it (293) to a mutual agreement in doctrine and faith.
(289) “Le fondement et la fermete;” — “The foundation and security.”
(290) “Que celuy en qui toutes les promesses de Dieu sont establies et ratifices, fust comme vn homme chancelant et inconstant;” — “That he, in whom all the promises of God are established and ratified, should be like a man that is wavering and unsteady.”
(291) “Il a presché le vray et pur Evangile, et sans y auoir lien adiousté qu’il ait corrompu ou falsifié;” — “He preached the true and pure gospel, and without having added to it anything that had corrupted or adulterated it.”
(292) “The most ancient MSS. and versions read the verse thus: — ὃσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ διό καὶ δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ᾿Αμὴν, τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς” δοξαν δι ᾿ ἡμῶν;” — “For all the promises of God are in him yea; because they are, through him, who is the Amen, to the glory of God by us.” — Penn
(293) “Qu’il scache tousiours qu’il en faut tirer vne exhortation;” — “Let him always know this — that we must deduce from it an exhortation.”
God, indeed, is always true and steadfast in his promises, and has always his Amen, as often as he speaks. But as for us, such is our vanity, that we do not utter our Amen in return, except when he gives a sure testimony in our hearts by his word. This he does by his Spirit. That is what Paul means here. He had previously taught, that this is a befitting harmony — when, on the one hand, the calling of God is without repentance, (Rom 11:29,) and we, in our turn, with an unwavering faith, accept of the blessing of adoption that is held out to us. That God remains steadfast to his promise is not surprising; but to keep pace with God in the steadfastness of our faith in return — that truly is not in man’s power. (294) He teaches us, also, that God cures our weakness or defect, (as they term it,) when, by correcting our belief, he confirms us by his Spirit. Thus it comes, that we glorify him by a firm steadfastness of faith. He associates himself, however, with the Corinthians, expressly for the purpose of conciliating their affections the better, with a view to the cultivation of unity. (295)
21.Who hath anointed us. He employs different terms to express one and the same thing. For along with confirmation, he employs the terms anointing and sealing, or, by this twofold metaphor, (296) he explains more distinctly what he had previously stated without a figure. For God, by pouring down upon us the heavenly grace of the Spirit, does, in this manner, seal upon our hearts the certainty of his own word. He then introduces a fourth idea — that the Spirit has been given to us as an earnest — a similitude which he frequently makes use of, and is also exceedingly appropriate. (297) For as the Spirit, in bearing witness of our adoption, is our security, and, by confirming the faith of the promises, is the seal (σφραγὶς), so it is on good grounds that he is called an earnest, (298) because it is owing to him, that the covenant of God is ratified on both sides, which would, but for this, have hung in suspense. (299)
Here we must notice, in the first place, the relation (300) which Paul requires between the gospel of God and our faith; for as every thing that God says is more than merely certain, so he wishes that this should be established in our minds by a firm and sure assent. Secondly, we must observe that, as an assurance of this nature is a thing that is above the capacity of the human mind, it is the part of the Holy Spirit to confirm within us what God promises in his word. Hence it is that he has those titles of distinction — the Anointing, the Earnest, the Comforter, and the Seal. In the third place we must observe, that all that have not the Holy Spirit as a witness, so as to return their Amen to God, when calling them to an assured hope of salvation, do on false grounds assume the name of Christians.
(294) “D’apporter de nostre costé vne correspondance mutuelle à la vocation de Dieu en perseuerant constamment en la foy;” — “To maintain on our part a mutual correspondence to the call of God by persevering steadfastly in the faith.”
(295) “Expressement afin de les gaigner et attirer a vraye vnite;” — “Expressly for the purpose of gaining them over and drawing to a true unity.”
(296) “Par les deux mots qui sont dits par metaphore et similitude;” — “By these two words which are employed by way of metaphor and similitude.”
(297) “Αῤρ᾿αβὡν and the Latin arrhabo are derived from the Hebrew ערבון (gnarabon) — a pledge or earnest; i.e., a part of any price agreed on, and paid down to ratify the engagement; German, Hand — gift. ” — Bloomfield. “The word appears to have passed, probably as a commercial term, out of the Hebrew or Phenician into the western languages.” — Gesenius. — Ed.
(298) “If God having once given this earnest, should not also give the rest of the inheritance, he should undergoe the losse of his earnest, as Chrysostome most elegantly and soundly argueth.” — Leigh’s Annotations. — Ed.
(299) “A seal was used for different purposes: to mark a person’s property, to secure his treasures, or to authenticate a deed. In the first sense, the Spirit distinguishes believers as the peculiar people of God; in the second, he guards them as his precious jewels; in the third, he confirms or ratifies their title to salvation. [...] An earnest is a part given as a security for the future possession of the whole. The Holy Ghost is the earnest of the heavenly inheritance, because he begins that holiness in the soul which will be perfected in heaven, and imparts those joys which are foretastes of its blessedness.” — Dick’s Theology, volume 3 — Ed.
(300) “La correspondance mutuelle;” — “The mutual correspondence.”
23. I call God for a witness. He now begins to assign a reason for his change of purpose; for hitherto he has merely repelled calumny. When, however, he says that he spared them, he indirectly throws back the blame upon them, and thus shows them that it would be unfair if he were put to grief through their fault, but that it would be much more unfair if they should permit this; but most of all unfair if they should give their assent to so base a calumny, as in that case they would be substituting in their place an innocent person, as if he had been guilty of their sin. Now he spared them in this respect, that if he had come he would have been constrained to reprove them more severely, while he wished rather that they should of their own accord repent previously to his arrival, that there might be no occasion for a harsher remedy, (303) which is a signal evidence of more than paternal lenity. For how much forbearance there was in shunning this necessity, when he had just ground of provocation!
He makes use, also, of an oath, that he may not seem to have contrived something to serve a particular purpose. For the matter in itself was of no small importance, and it was of great consequence that he should be entirely free from all suspicion of falsehood and pretence. Now there are two things that make an oath lawful and pious — the occasion and the disposition. The occasion I refer to is, where an oath is not employed rashly, that is, in mere trifles, or even in matters of small importance, but only where there is a call for it. The disposition I refer to is, where there is not so much regard had to private advantage, as concern felt for the glory of God, and the advantage of the brethren: For this end must always be kept in view, that our oaths may promote the honor of God, and promote also the advantage of our neighbours in a matter that is befitting. (304)
The form of the oath must also be observed — first, that he calls God to witness; and, secondly, that he says upon my soul For in matters that are doubtful and obscure, where man’s knowledge fails, we have recourse to God, that he, who alone is truth, may bear testimony to the truth. But the man that appeals to God as his witness, calls upon him at the same time to be an avenger of perjury, in the event of his declaring what is false. This is what is meant by the phrase upon my soul. “I do not object to his inflicting punishment upon me, if I am guilty of falsehood.” Although, however, this is not always expressed in so many words, it is, notwithstanding, to be understood. For
if we are unfaithful, God remaineth faithful
and will not deny himself (2. i 2:13.)
He will not suffer, therefore, the profanation of his name to go unpunished.
(303) “Remede plus aspre et rigoureux;” — “A harsher and more rigorous remedy.”
(304) “Moyennant que ce soit en chose iuste et raisonable;” — “Provided it is in a matter that is just and reasonable.”
24. Not that we exercise dominion He anticipates an objection that might be brought forward. “What! Do you then act so tyrannically (305) as to be formidable in your very look? Such were not the gravity of a Christian pastor, but the cruelty of a savage tyrant.” He answers this objection first indirectly, by declaring that matters are not so; and afterwards directly, by showing that the very circumstance, that he had been constrained to treat them more harshly, was owing to his fatherly affection. When he says that he does not exercise dominion over their faith, he intimates, that such a power is unjust and intolerable — nay more, is tyranny in the Church. For faith ought to be altogether exempt, and to the utmost extent free, from the yoke of men. We must, however, observe, who it is that speaks, for if ever there was a single individual of mortals, that had authority to claim for himself such a dominion, Paul assuredly was worthy of such a privilege. Yet he acknowledges, (306) that it does not belong to him. Hence we infer, that faith owns no subjection except to the word of God, and that it is not at all in subjection to human control. (307) Erasmus has observed in his Annotations, that by supplying the Greek particle ἕνεκα, it may be understood in this way — Not that we exercise dominion over you — with respect to your faith — a rendering which amounts almost to the same thing. For he intimates, that there is no spiritual dominion, except that of God only. This always remains a settled point — pastors have no peculiar dominion over men’s consciences, (308) inasmuch as they are ministers, not lords. (1. e 5:3.)
What then does he leave to himself and others? He calls themhelpers of their joy — by which term I understand happiness. At the same time he employs the term joy as opposed to the terror which tyrants awaken through means of their cruelty, and also false prophets, (309) resembling tyrants, that rule with rigor and authority, as we read in Eze 34:4. He argues from contraries, that he did by no means usurp dominion over the Corinthians, inasmuch as he endeavored rather to maintain them in the possession of a peace that was free, and full of joy.
For by faith ye stand. As to the reason why he adds this, others either pass it over altogether in silence, or they do not explain it with sufficient distinctness. For my part, I am of opinion that he here again argues from contraries. For if the nature and effect of faith be such that we lean, in order that we may stand, (310) it is absurd to speak of faith as being subject to men. Thus he removes that unjust dominion, with which, he had a little before declared, he was not chargeable.
(305) “Es — tu si insupportable, et si orgueilleux ?” — “Are you so insufferable and so proud?”
(307) The views here expressed by Calvin are severely animadverted upon in the following terms by the Romanists, in the Annotations appended to the Rheims version of the New Testament: “Calvin and his seditious sectaries with other like which despise dominion, as St. Jude describeth such, would by this place deliver themselves from all yoke of spiritual Magistrates and Rulers: namely, that they be subject to no man touching their faith, or for the examination and trial of their doctrine, but to God and his word only. And no marvel that the malefactors and rebels of the Church would come to no tribunal but God’s, that so they may remain unpunished at least during this life. For though the Scriptures plainely condemne their heresies, yet they could writhe themselves out by false glosses, constructions, corruptions, and denials of the bookes to be canonical, if there were no lawes or judicial sentences of men to rule and represse them.” To these statements Dr. Fulke in his elaborate work in refutation of the errors of Popery, (Lond. 1601,) p. 559, appropriately replies as follows: “This is nothing els but a lewd and senselesse slander of Calvin and vs, that we despise lordship, because we will not be subject to the tyranny of Antichrist, that would be Lord of our faith, and arrogateth vnto himselfe auctoritie to make new articles of fayth, which have no ground or warrant in the word of God. But CALVIN did willingly acknowledge all auctoritie of the ministers of the Church, which the Scripture doth allow unto them, and both practiced, and submitted himselfe to the discipline of the Church, and the lawful gouernours thereof, although he would not yield unto the tyrannicall yoke of the Pope, who is neither soueraigne of the Church, nor any true member of the same. Yea, Calvin and we submit ourselves, not only to the auctoritie of the Church, but also of the Ciuile Magistrates to be punished, if we shall be found to teach or doe any thing contrary to the doctrine of faith, receyued and approved by the Church, whereas the Popish clergy, in causes of religion, will not be subject to the temporal gouernors, judgement, and correction.” — Ed.
(308) “Que les Pasteurs et Evesques n’ont point de iurisdiction propre sur les consciences;” — “That Pastors and Bishops have no peculiar jurisdiction over consciences.”
