Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 2 Corinthians 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2:1. Quisquis fuerit capitum divisor, fecit hic ineptam sectionem, says Calvin with justice. The connexion with what goes before is very close. The Apostle is continuing his answer to the charge of levity. He had changed his plans in order to spare them. Having stated what he did not mean when he spoke of sparing them (1:24), he now explains what that expression does mean.
ἔρν δ ἐατ τῦο It is not easy to decide whether δ or γρis the right reading. External evidence seems to be somewhat in favour of δ, but γρis more likely to have been changed to δ than vice versa, and γρmakes a good connexion; ‘It was to spare you that I gave up the idea of another visit to Corinth, for I determined this for myself.’ But another γρimmediately after τ γρπσε ἐτκτ is unpleasing and somewhat unlikely, and δ makes quite a natural connexion, whether one renders it by ‘and’ or ‘but.’ ‘It was to spare you, and as regards myself, etc.’ For ἔρν, see on 1Co_2:2 and but 7:37; in the latter passage we have, as here, τῦοpointing forward to what is coming. The verb at once excludes the idea of levity or caprice; he thought the matter over and came to a definite conclusion; cf. v. 14; also Rom_14:13, where we have exactly the same construction as here, κίενwith an anticipatory τῦο followed by τ μ with the infinite; ἀλ τῦοκίαεμλο, τ μ τθνιπόκματ ἀεφ. In 1 Jn. τῦεcommonly refers to what follows (3:1, 8, 4:3); so also in 1 Cor. (1:12, 7:29, 15:50). Ἐατ is dat. commodi rather than dat. ethicus, which would have been μιrather than ἐατ. It was chiefly for their sakes that he postponed his visit; but he came to the conclusion that for his own sake he had better not have the pain. AV, following the Vulg., statui autem hoc ipsum apud me, has ‘But I determined this with myself,’ which would require πρ ἐατ or ἐ ἐατ, a reading found in no text. And ipsum is in the wrong place; we should have statui autem (or enim) mihi ipsi hoc.*
τ μ πλνἐ λπ πὸ ὑᾶ ἐθῖ. There is little doubt that this is the right order of the words; see below. The translation of them is disputed. Those who hold that 12:14 and 13:1 compel us to believe that St Paul had already paid two visits to Corinth, translate, ‘Not again in sorrow to come to you.’ ‘Again in sorrow’ is to be taken together and is emphatic by position. He has had to come once in sorrow; and if he visited them on his way to Macedonia, he would have again to come in sorrow. This he decided not to do. The distressing visit cannot refer to the long stay during which he converted them; therefore there must have been a second visit, which was probably short. See Introduction; also G. H. Rendall, p. 57. Among recent writers, “Is it not plain,” says K. Lake, “that this passage (2:1-11) implies a recent visit which had ended so unpleasantly that St Paul had determined not to come back if he was likely to undergo similar experiences?” (Earlier Epp. p. 150).
On the other hand, those who think that the silence of Acts and the difficulty of fixing a time for this second visit are fatal to the supposition that it took place, translate thus, ‘Not to come to you again (and this time) in sorrow,’ or, ‘Not at my second coming to come to you in sorrow.’ He had paid them one very happy visit, and he would not revisit them in circumstances which must make the second visit a sad one. There is no need to determine whether λπ means the sorrow which the Apostle must cause or that which he must feel: the context shows that he is thinking of both.
The AV has ‘heaviness’ for λπ here, with ‘sorrow’ in v. 3, 2:7, 7:10; Php_2:27, etc.; and ‘sorrow’ is used to translate other Greek words. Even the R. V. uses ‘sorrow’ for both λπ (often) and ὀύη which in Rom_9:2 it renders ‘pain.’
B 17, 37, Syr-Hark. Copt. support γρ D*, Aeth. support τ: almost all others support δ. T.R. with a few cursives reads πλνἐθῖ ἐ λπ. Nearly all authorities have πλνἐ λπ πὸ ὑᾶ ἐθῖ, but D E G, Syr. Pesh. have π ἐ λ ἐθῖ πὸ ὑᾶ. Copt. omits πλνand has ἐθῖ πὸ ὑᾶ ἐ λπ.
2. ε γρἐὼλπ ὑᾶ κτλ ‘For if I (with emphasis) make you sorrowful, who then is he that maketh me glad, but he that is made sorrowful by me.’ ‘Sorry’ and ‘sorrowful’ (6:10) are not synonymous, and the latter is what is meant here: see on v. 5. The κίmakes the τςemphatic and thus adds force to the question, ‘Why, who is there to make me glad?’ Ja wo ist denn dann noch einer, der mich erfreute So Bachmann. The answer to this question is ‘No one, for the only people who can cheer me have been made sad by me.’ The κίaccepts the previous statement, and the question shows what a paradox it involves; cf. v. 16; Mar_10:26; Joh_9:36. See Winer, p. 545; Blass, §77. 6. The singular ὁεφανν ὁλπύεο, does not allude to any individual. The rhetorical τςis necessarily singular, and thus the community is spoken of as an individual. The point is delicately put. ‘You Corinthians are my fount of joy; how could I be the one to wish to trouble with sorrow the source whence I draw my own gladness?’ But ὁλπύεο does not refer to the penitent rebel who has been pained by the process of conversion; and ad hoc vos contristo ut gaudeam de vobis (Pseudo-Primasius) is certainly not the meaning of the verse. Ambrosiaster is far better; ideo noluit ire, ne forte corripiens paucos multos contristaret, ipse etiam contristatus; compatiuntur enim omnia membra unius moerori.
κὶτςwithout ἐτν(אA B C, Copt.); other authorities insert. It is probably not original.
3. ἕρψ τῦοατ. This may be accepted as the right reading (see below), but its meaning is not certain, for both ἔρψ and τῦοατ may be understood in more ways than one.
Is ἔρψ a simple aorist referring to a previous letter? Or is it an epistolary aorist referring to the present letter? In other words, ought it to be translated ‘I wrote’ or ‘I am writing’? It is not quite certain that there is anywhere in N.T. an instance of ἔρψ as an epistolary aorist meaning ‘I am writing,’ although there are several cases which may be such. It is not such in 7:12, or 1Co_5:9, or 3Jn_1:9: in all three cases ἔρψ refers to a previous letter. It may be an epistolary aorist in 1Co_9:15 (see note there), but more probably it refers to an earlier part of the letter (see on 1Jn_2:21, 1Jn_2:26); and this is clearly the meaning of πογααin Eph_3:3. See Lightfoot on Gal_6:11, where ἔρψ may mark the place where St Paul ceased to dictate and began to write himself; also on Phm_1:19, where ἔρψ seems to show that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand. Ἐρψμνnear the opening of the Martyrdom of Polycarp is a clear instance, and there are instances in papyri. There is no doubt that ἔεψ is used in the sense of ‘I am sending’ in 8:18, 9:3; Php_2:28; Phm_1:12; and there is an interesting example in the papyrus letter quoted above (introd. to 1:3) from Apion to his father; ἔεψ σιτ εκννμυδὰΕκήοο, “I am sending you by Euctemon the little portrait of me.”* Other examples might be quoted.
What is stated here and what is stated in 7:8-12 show that ἔρψ does not mean ‘I am writing,’ in reference to this part of 2 Cor.; it means ‘I wrote,’ in reference to some earlier letter. Like ἔρν in v. 1, ἔρψ refers to what took place in the past; and it is possible that both aorists refer to the same period in the past. In that case the meaning would be that, when he decided not to come to Corinth. he sent a letter instead of coming. That is thoroughly intelligible and natural, and we may regard as certain that ἔρψ does not refers to 2 Cor. 1-9. It is equally certain that it does not refer to 1 Cor. The language of vv. 3, 4 and of 7:8-12 has to be explained in an unnatural manner, or indeed has to be explained away (see below), in order to make it fit 1 Cor.
The meaning of τῦοατ may be ‘for this very reason.’ That rendering is linguistically possible; see on 2Pe_1:5; Winer, p. 178; Blass, §49. But elsewhere (v. 5; Rom_9:17, Rom_9:13:6.; Col_4:8) St Paul writes εςατ τῦοto express this; and in v. 9; 1Th_3:3; 1Ti_4:10 we have εςτῦοwith a similar meaning. Nowhere else does St Paul use τῦοατ or ατ τῦο without ες in the sense of ‘for this reason,’ and the probability is that it is not used in that sense here. ‘This very thing’ is the simpler and more probable rendering; and what precedes shows what ‘this very thing’ was,—viz. that to spare them he had given up the idea of coming, because he did not wish to pay a (second) painful visit, and was dealing with them by letter instead of coming. It is quite possible that in these verses he is quoting his earlier letter, just as in 1 Cor. he sometimes quotes the Corinthians’ letter; but we cannot detect the quotations with any certainty. We may, however, feel sure that there was not only a letter from St Paul to Corinth before 1 Cor. (see on 1Co_5:9), but also a letter between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor.†
That 2 Cor. 10-13 is part of the latter letter is a theory which here finds further confirmation (see on 1:23). In 13:10 he says, ‘For this cause when absent I write these things, that when present I may not deal sharply.’ Here, with apparent reference to those very words, he says, ‘I wrote this very thing that I might not by coming have sorrow.’ It is natural that what he called ‘dealing sharply’ when they were in revolt, he should call ‘having sorrow’ now that they have submitted.
ἵαμ ἐθνλπνσῶ ‘In order that I might not by coming have sorrow.’ He does not say ἵαἐθνμ λ σῶ ‘that when I came I might not have sorrow.’ AV and RV. rather imply the latter reading.
ἀʼὦ ἔε μ χίεν ‘From the hands of those from whom I ought to have been rejoicing,’ if he had come. They were his spiritual children who ought to be making him happy by following his wishes and example (see on 1Co_4:16).
ππιὼ ἐὶπνα ὑᾶ. ‘Because I had reposed trust on you all.’ Even when they were rebels he was confident that there was real sympathy with him, and that they would wish to please him. Confidens vos omnes intelligere, quia tunc verum gaudium habitis, si ego gaudeo (Pseudo-Primasius). In the fulness of his heart he expresses what he hopes rather than what he knows; μγ τ οκνμν(Chrys.). For the construction cf. ο ππιόε ἐὶΚρο (Psa_125:1); also 2Th_3:4. Contrast 1:9, 10:7; Phm_1:21, where we have the more classical dative.
ἔρψ without ὑῖ (אA B C O P 17, Am. Copt., Ambst.): other authorities insert. C O, Chrys. have ατ τῦο A, Copt. Arm. omit ατ: other authorities have τῦοατ, which D E F G, Latt. Goth., Aeth. place before ἔρψ D F, Latt. insert ἐὶλπνafter λπν σῶ(א A B O P, Chrys.) rather than ἔω(א C D E F G K L); cf. 1:15; Rom_1:13; Php_2:27.
4. ἐ γρπλῆ θίες…δὰπλῶ δκύν These strong words, expressive of deep emotion and intense distress, are quite in place, if they refer to a letter of which 10-13. formed a chief part. That passionate outburst of feeling might well have been written in ‘deep affliction and anguish of heart amid a flood of tears.’ But, as a description of the state of his mind when he wrote 1 Cor., the language is extravagant.* It might apply to the short section about the incestuous person, but that is only a fragment of the Epistle; and nowhere in the range of his extant letters can we find any considerable portion to which this statement would so fitly apply as to 10-13.
It is interesting and instructive to compare the Apostle’s description of his own condition during the writing of this vindication of his own authority with J. H. Newman’s statements respecting himself, while he was writing the marvellous Apologia pro Vita sua in the spring of 1864. He wrote to Sir F. Rogers on April 22; “During the writing and reading of my Part 3 I could not get from beginning to end for crying.” He wrote to Mr. Hope-Scott on May 2; “I have been writing without interruption of Sundays five weeks. I have been constantly in tears, and constantly crying out with distress.”
The Apostle’s statement explains (γρ how it came about that one whose function it was to be a ‘helper of their joy’ (1:24) should write a letter which was sure to cause great sorrow. That incongruity was only too keenly felt by the writer, and it caused him intense distress. Yet the object of the letter was not to spare himself and inflict pain on them, but to prove the reality of his affection. He had had more than enough of λπ.
The change from ἐ to δάhas significance. It was out of a condition of affliction that the letter was written, and it passed through a flood of tears. We should more naturally say ‘amid many tears.’ There is a similar change from ἐ to δάin Rom_2:27: for δάof “attendant circumstances,” cf. Rom_4:2, Rom_8:25, Rom_16:20. Both πλῆ and κρίςmay be taken with both substantives; ‘out of much affliction of heart and much anguish of heart.’ In class. Grk. σνχ is nearly always literal, of actual contraction, junction or check. It occurs Luk_21:25 and nowhere else in N.T. In LXX it occurs Jdg_2:3; Job_30:3; Jer_52:5; Mic_5:1 (4:14), with a variety of meanings. Jerome’s carelessness in revision is seen again in his rendering of the word. In Luk_23:25 he has pressura for both ἀάκ and σνχ, although Lat. Vet. distinguishes with compressio and necessitas, and here he has angustia for σνχ.
In his speech to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, St Paul twice mentions his frequent tears (Act_20:19, Act_20:31). One may call it softness, as Calvin remarks, but it is more worthy of a hero than illa ferrea durities Stoicorum would have been. The Apostle was no Stoic, and for him the suppression of all emotion was no road to perfection. The sympathy which he felt he showed, with utter disregard for Stoical ἀάεαand ἠεί, and Epicurean ἀααί: ἄοο κὶπρ φσνψχςκνσςis a doctrine to which he could never subscribe.
ἀλ τνἀάη ἵαγῶε Placing τ ἀάη in front of ἲαthrows great emphasis on the word; cf. τνπωῶ ἵαμηοεωε (Gal_2:10). He could have spared himself the pain of writing such a letter; he could have come at once and used severity, without giving them time to return to their obedience: but his love for them would not allow him to do either. As Chrys. points out, the run of the sentence requires ‘not that you should be made sorrowful, but that you should be induced to repent.’ Instead of this he substitutes ‘that you should know the exceptional love which I have for you.’ It was affection, not cold or cruel severity which made him write. He bears ‘Corinth’ written on his heart; 1:12, 3:2; 12:15; 1Co_4:15, 1Co_9:2: κτγυανιτνλγνβυόεο ἐιπσσα ατύ (Theophyl.). That ἀάηis not a word of Biblical origin has been shown by Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 199). It has been found in Egypt in papyri of the Ptolemaic period.
2:5-17. The Treatment of the Great Offender and the Result of the Severe Letter
The offender ought now to be freely forgiven. And for the intense relief caused by the report of you brought by Titus I thank God who does not allow ministers that work in sincerity to fail.
5As regards him who has been the cause of the sorrow, it is not so much to me that he has caused it (I do not wish to be considered at all) as to all of you; and perhaps not to all of you, for there may be exceptions, and I do not wish to be hard upon any one. 6I think, therefore, that the punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient in the circumstances, and those who thought it inadequate need not insist upon anything more; 7on the contrary, you may now turn round and forgive and encourage him. 8If you fail to do this, a person in his circumstances may sink down in despair in the excess of his grief. I therefore implore you to leave him no longer in suspense, but at once, by some formal act, put into execution, not any sentence of further punishment, but the renewal of your love for him. 9This request that you should forgive him is not at all inconsistent with the letter which I sent instead of coming, for I wrote that letter, not so much in order to be severe on him, as to have a sure test whether in all respects you are prepared to obey me. 10You have proved your loyalty by punishing where punishment was due; but now, if you decide to forgive, you may rest assured that I agree with that decision; for—and this is one more point—if there has been anything for me to forgive, it is for your sakes that I have forgiven it, not thoughtlessly, but as in the presence of Christ. 11Satan is always on the watch to get an advantage over us. He did get an advantage when he caused this member of our body to sin so grievously. Are we to let him have another advantage—over a sinner that has repented?
12My disturbing anxiety about you is now removed; but it was so intense that, although, when I came to Troas to preach the Gospel, God gave me openings there which were very favourable, 18yet I could not settle to any fruitful work, because Titus, who was to bring me news of you, was not to be found there. In my eagerness to learn what success he had had among you I said good-bye to Troas and went on to Macedonia to meet him the sooner. 14But, God be thanked, all has turned out for the best. God, as always, led us along in His triumphal train with Christ, using us as His instruments to diffuse the sweet odour of His Gospel in every place. 15For it is of the fragrance of Christ that we ourselves are a sweet savour to God among both those who are in the way to deliverance and those who are in the way to destruction, 16to the one being a savour exhaled from death and breathing death, to the other a savour exhaled from life and breathing life. It is an awful charge, and what ministers are competent to undertake it? 17Some are not, but by God’s grace we are. For, unlike most teachers, we are not men who for their own ends corrupt God’s message. No; with sincerity in our hearts, nay with God in our hearts, and with His eye upon us, as befits those who are members of Christ, we deliver our message.
5-11. This paragraph about the great offender is not really a digression (Meyer), and the fact that we should have a good sequence of thought if it were omitted does not prove it to be a digression. It is part, and not on unimportant part, of St Paul’s vindication of himself. The Corinthians’ chief grievance was his sending them a severe letter instead of coming to them for the long and happy visit indicated in 1Co_16:5-7. But there was also the treatment of the ringleader against Apostolic authority. The majority censured him in a way which some thought inadequate. The Apostle assures them that the action of the Church in condemning the offender satisfies the requirements, all the more so as the person condemned is very penitent. He assures them that he is more than ready to join in their formal restoration of the man to favour; and there is now no bar to his coming.
We are ignorant as to the exact nature of the penalty which was inflicted by the majority, but apparently it was not that which St Paul was believed to require. Possibly it was that suggested in 1Co_5:11, τ τιύῳμδ σνσίι, as also in 2Th_3:14, μ σννμγυθιατ, ἵαἐταῇ where we have the important addition, κὶμ ὡ ἐθὸ ἡεσε ἀλ ννεετ ὡ ἀεφν In accordance with this addition, the Apostle now pleads earnestly for a generous forgiveness. Punishment had been inflicted in order to rescue him from perdition by inducing him to repent; and he had repented. If punishment were continued, it might drive him to perdition by making him desperate.
We are ignorant also as to who this offender was and as to what was the exact nature of his offence. But “it should no longer require to be proved that this offender is not the incestuous person of 1Co_5:1, but some one who had wronged Paul himself” (Moffatt, Int. to the Literature of the N.T., p. 122). This theory is still advocated by Zahn (1909), McFadyen (1911), and others, and therefore it is necessary to point out once more how untenable it is. Tertullian’s vigorous argument almost suffices without any others (De Pudic. 13). After quoting this passage (5-11) he asks whether the Apostle could possibly have written in this effusively indulgent way about a man who had been guilty of fornication aggravated by incest, and this without one word of severity about the past or warning about the future.* We must remember that, if the offender here is the incestuous person of 1Co_5:1, then the incest was of a specially monstrous character, for the sinful union was contracted in the lifetime of the man’s father. This passage and 7:12 refer to the same case, and there, if ὁἀιήα is the incestuous son, ὁἀιηέςmust be the woman’s injured husband, who was still alive when St Paul wrote.†This adds immense force to Tertullian’s question. Moreover, it is unlikely that St Paul would view such a sin simply as an injury inflicted by one man on another. When he treats of incest in 1 Cor., it is the infection of the whole Church upon which he enlarges (v. 6, 7, 11, 13). Lastly, it is incredible that St Paul would say (v. 9) that he had insisted upon the punishment of so grievous a sin, merely to test the Corinthians, whether they were ready to obey him in all things.
If ὁἀιηεςis the Apostle himself, the language used here and in 7:12 is quite natural. This man had grossly wronged St Paul, but the particulars are unknown to us.* Of such an offender St Paul might reasonably say that he had demanded his punishment to test the loyalty of his converts. This man had insulted and defied him. The personal affront St Paul could treat as nothing, but he could not allow his authority to be defied. The man must be punished, and punished by the community; that would test their loyalty. If this was done, the amount of punishment was of comparatively small importance; and when the man had expressed contrition, prolongation of his punishment would do more harm than good. On this interpretation, everything falls into its place. From a feeling of delicacy, St Paul uses indefinite language; it sufficed to tell the Corinthians what he meant, but it does not suffice to tell us.†
5. Ε δ τς The indefiniteness begins at once. ‘But if any one has caused sorrow, it is not to me that he has caused it.’ The personal element is brushed on one side at once; the injury to the Church, whose members are members of Christ, is what matters. The argument that we have here a τςand a τιῦο (v. 6) and Στνς(v. 11), and that in 1Co_5. we have also a τς(v. 1) and a τιῦο (v. 5) and Στνς(v. 5), and that therefore this passage refers to the same case as that, is very shallow. In every sinful πᾶμ (7:11) there is a τςand a τιῦο, with Satan at work also. The use of τιῦο in the two places is different. In the other case St Paul refuses to stain his letter with the name of such a transgressor, and perhaps intimates that any one who transgresses in a like manner will receive the like punishment. In this case, he refrains from naming him out of consideration for the offender’s feelings, whose case he states hypothetically; ‘if there is such a person’: in v. 10, 7:14, 10:7 we have a similar use of ε. So also there is difference in the way in which Satan is introduced in each case. There he was made the instrument of chastisement; here he is to be guarded against as a crafty enemy.
ἀλ ἀὸμρυ (ἵαμ ἐιαῶ πνα ὑᾶ. This is the best arrangement of a sentence which has suffered by being dictated; ‘He hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all.’ So RV and others. He does not wish to be severe, but it is really the whole Corinthian Church that has been troubled by this man’s ἀιί. A qualifying ἀὸμρυ is inserted, because there were a few who were not distressed by the scandalous treatment of the Apostle.
It is possible, with Mosheim, Olshausen, and others, to include πνα in the parenthesis and make it the acc. after ἐιαῶ ‘that I press not too heavily upon all.’ But this gives a weak position to πνα, and leaves ὑᾶ awkwardly alone after the parenthesis. If πνα is taken with ὑᾶ we have a pointed and almost necessary antithesis to ἐέ ‘not me but all of you.’
The AV rendering, ‘He hath not grieved me but in part: that I may not overcharge you all,’ follows Tertullian, Vulgate, Luther and others, but it cannot stand, for ἀλ does not mean ‘except’ (Mar_10:40), and St Paul is not urging that he has been distressed even ‘in part’; he is dismissing the personal affront altogether. It is not quite certain whether ἀὸμρυ means that not quite all the Corinthians had been distressed, or that all of them had been distressed to some extent; but the former is much more probable as being more true, and this is an additional objection to the rendering in AV. B. Weiss understands ἀὸμρυ as limiting the action of the λλπκς the offender was only partly the cause of the Corinthians’; grief; the other part was caused by the Apostle’s severe letter. Hofmann gives ἀὸμρυ the highly improbable meaning of ‘for a time,’ and with perverted ingenuity makes the first part of the verse interrogative; ‘If any one has caused sorrow, is it not to me that he has caused it?’ The answer to this question is, ‘Yes; nevertheless, for a time (that I may not press too heavily on you all) sufficient to such a one, etc.’ This is a very clumsy construction, and—what is far more serious—it destroys the tact and delicacy of the Apostle’s appeal by laying the whole emphasis on the personal injury to himself—the thing about which he desires to say as little as possible. *
In Biblical Greek, ἐιαενis peculiar to Paul, who always uses it in a metaphorical sense (1Th_2:9; 2Th_3:8) and with the acc. Appian has it several times, always with the dat. (examples in Wetstein); and it is found in inscriptions. Cf. κτβρῖ, 12:16. On the whole verse see Stanley and Alford.
6. ἱαὸ τ τιύῳἡἐιιί ατ. ‘A sufficient thing for such a person is this punishment.’ We may understand ἔτ, but ἐτνis more probable. This substantival use of the neuter adjective accompanied by a feminine substantive is found elsewhere; ἀκτντ ἡέᾳἡκκαατς(Mat_6:34); ἀετνἐτντῖ Ἰυαοςἡἐιερσςατῦ(the reading of D and other authorities, Act_12:3); ἡψχ πεό ἐτντςτοῆ (Luk_12:23). Blass, §31. 2, quotes also ἱαό ἐτν(Luk_22:38), but the meaning there is, ‘Enough of this subject,’ not, ‘two swords are a sufficient thing.’ There is perhaps a slight difference of meaning between ἱαό and ἱαή The latter would mean that the existing ἐιιί need not be prolonged. The former means that no additional penalty need be imposed. But this cannot be insisted on. †The meaning here is that ‘the punishment is a sufficient thing.’ It is not said that it is adequate to the offence, but that it satisfies the requirements of the case. ‡Apostolic authority has been defied, and the Church, acting through the majority, has censured the offender. Nothing further is necessary.
In Wisd. 3:10 we have ο δ ἀεεςκθ ἃἐοίατ ἕοσνἐιιίν but nowhere else in Bibl. Grk. does ἐιιί occur. In Attic Grk. it means ‘possession of political rights,’ ‘citizenship.’ The transition to ‘punishment’ is curious, the intermediate step being ‘getting one’s due’: the citizen gets his due, and the criminal gets his. Cf. the Biblical use of ἐιιᾶ = ‘rebuke, censure severely,’ and the classical use of τ ἐιίιν= ‘legal penalty.’ The Latin renderings of ἐιιί vary; increpatio (Tert.), correptio (Aug.), objurgatio (Vulg.); in Wisd. 3:10, Vulg. has correptio. It is possible that both ἱαό and ἐιιί are forensic terms. In 2Th_1:9 St Paul has δκ = ‘punishment,’ a word of somewhat similar history, passing from ‘customary rights,’ through ‘legal action’ to ‘penalty.’ ‘Punish’ and ‘punishment’ are freq. in O.T., but not so in N.T.
ἡὑὸτνπεόω. ‘Which was inflicted by the many’ (RV) or ‘by the majority,’ rather than ‘by many’ (AV). A similar correction should be made 4:15, 9:2; 1Co_10:5; Php_1:14; cf. 1Co_15:6. It may be lawful to translate ο πεοε ‘many’ or even ‘several’ (Blass, §44. 4), but in this and other places in N.T. ‘the many’ or ‘the majority’ is probably right. They are contrasted with a minority who did not concur in what was done by ο πεοε, and it is often assumed that this minority opposed the infliction of the ἐιιί as being excessive, or as being altogether undeserved. Those who hold this view remind us that there was an anti-Pauline party at Corinth which would be sure to refuse to punish a man whose only offence was that of having defied St Paul. But there is no hint that this minority had been patronizing a rebel. St Paul tells them that ‘contrariwise they should rather forgive’ the rebel, which implies that hitherto they had refused to forgive him. It is more likely that the minority were the Paul party (1Co_1:12, 1Co_1:13), who thought that one who defied the Apostle ought to be much more severely punished; and it is this minority whom he is specially addressing. Kennedy, Second and Third Corinthians, pp. 100 f.; Lake, Earlier Epistles, p. 171.
7. ὥτ τὐατο μλο κτλ ‘So that on the contrary you may rather forgive him fully and comfort him.’ The ἕτ gives the natural consequence of the view that the penalty which has been imposed satisfies the requirements. So far from imposing anything more, they may put an end to what has been imposed. He is not telling them what they must do; there is no δῖ. He tactfully points out the logical consequence of admitting the ἱαό, and leaves them to act upon it. The μλο is probably genuine (see below), and it indicates that there were still some who felt that the punishment was insufficient. For χρσσα, which implies making the man a present of the remainder of the penalty, * and forgiving him absolutely, cf. 12:13; Luk_7:42, Luk_7:43; Col_2:13, Col_2:3:13; Eph_4:32.
μ πςτ πρσοέᾳλπ κτπθ ὁτ ‘Lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up by his overmuch sorrow.’ Neither here nor 9:4 nor 12:20 does the AV give the right force to μ πς it does so 1Co_9:27; Gal_2:2. Various conjectures are made as to what the Apostle feared might be the result; apostasy, reckless indulgence in sin, suicide. It is more important to notice that this implies that the man had already repented; he was no longer rebellious; and vera poenitentia est jam cessare a peccato (Herveius). Evidently, his grief was already great, and there was danger of his despairing of being restored to favour in Christian society. For κτπνι in the metaphorical sense cf. v. 4; 1Co_15:54; 1Pe_5:8. It is freq. in LXX. The ‘swallowing,’ as Chrys. says, may be ὡ ἐὶθρο, ὡ ἐὶχιῶο, ὡ ἐὶκύωο. In the Ep. of the Churches of Lugdunum and Vienna those who had apostatized are said to have been swallowed by the Beast, ἵαἀονχεςὁθρ οςπόεο ᾤτ κτππκνι ζνα ἐεέῃ(Eus. H.E. v. ii. 6). The rather superfluous repetition of ὁτιῦο at the end of the sentence gives a touch of compassion, enforcing the plea. Locus diligenter observandus, says Calvin; docet enint qua aequitate et clementia temperanda sit disciplina Ecclesiae, ne rigor mtodum excedat. Severitate opus est ne impunitate (quae peccandi illecebra merito vocatur) mali reddantur audaciores. Sed rursus, quia periculum est, ne is qui castigatur animum despondeat, hic adhibenda est moderatio; nempe ut Ecclesia simulatque resipiscentiam illius certo cognoverit, ad dandam veniam sit parata. He goes on to contrast the cruel sentences of the penitential system. The comment is remarkable as coming from so rigorous a disciplinarian.
H. C. Lea points out that in the Roman Catholic version of the N.T. there is a note appended to this text explaining that “the Apostle here granted an indulgence or pardon in the person and by the authority of Christ to the incestuous Corinthian whom he had put under penance, which pardon consisted in a releasing of part of the temporal punishment due to sin.” This, says Lea, is “a typical instance of the facility with which men read into Scripture whatever they desire to find there” (Hist. of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, iii. p. 5). *
A B, Syr-Pesh., Aug. omit μλο, which is found before ὑᾶ in אC K L O P, Syr-Hark. Vulg. Copt. Arm., Chrys. Ambrst. and after ὑᾶ in D E F G17, Goth., Thdrt. Tert.
8. δὸπρκλ ὑᾶ. He does not invoke his Apostolic authority and command the forgiveness; as an equal he entreats them to grant it. The community had selected and enforced the penalty, whatever it may have been, and he leaves to them the removal of it. He respects the democratic feeling of the Corinthian Church, and he respects the spirit of the Lord’s commission to the whole Church. “It is a fact of the highest importance and clearly established by the documents, that the commission given on the evening of the first Easter Day—the ‘Great Commission’—was given to the Church and not to any class in the Church—to the whole Church and not to any part of it, primarily. ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained’ (Joh_20:22 f.). The words are the Charter of the Christian Church, and not simply the Charter of the Christian Ministry” (Westcott, Ephesians, pp. 169 f.). On that first Easter evening, not all the Apostles were present, and others were present who were not Apostles. The commission, in the first instance, was to the community as a whole. The Apostle here makes his appeal to the whole community, and not to any class of officials, and he leaves the community free to act. The change of meaning from πρκλσι ‘to comfort’ (v. 7), to πρκλ, ‘I beseech’ (v. 8), should be noted: see on 1:4.
πρκλ ὑᾶ κρσιεςατνἀάη. Oro vos, constituatis in eum dilectionem (Tert.). Obsecro vos, ut confirmetis in illum caritatem (Vulg.). The differences are characteristic, and constituo is perhaps better than confirmo, in the sense of ‘make effective’; we have constituere libertatem, victoriam, pacem, concordiam fidem, etc. We need not suppose that κρσιimplies that a formal resolution, rescinding the previous sentence, is to be passed, any more than ‘ratify’ would imply that in English. What the Apostle cares about is the change from censure to affection; the way in which the affection is to be made effective he leaves to them. What it is that they are to ratify is kept with effect to the last. Comp. Luk_14:18, where πριεσα comes as a surprise at the end; one would have expected just the opposite. At Corinth there were some who wished for a more severe punishment on the offender than censure and separation. The Apostle says, Ἑώαετ μλςτ σμτ, σνψτ τ πίν τ πόαο, θρὴ ατ δάει δίαε ποήε γρὑᾶ μ μνντμοτ σνρενἀλ κὶσνποτ (Thdrt.). With κρσιεςατνἀάη comp. ἐυώηὁἀρςτ Ἀρά (Gen_23:20). In papyri (Oxyrh. 513, 4) ἐυώη οκα. Thuc. VIII. lxix. 1, ἡἐκηί κρσσ τῦαδεύη
9. εςτῦογρκὶἔρψ. ‘For it was just for this that I also wrote’; the ‘just’ marks the emphasis on εςτῦο which looks forward to ἵαγῶ As in v. 3, ἔρψ refers to the letter between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor., of which 2 Cor. 10-13 is probably a part. The κίmarks the agreement of this letter with that, not of this letter with what he had said, or of this passage with the earlier part of this letter. And we must not translate as if we had κὶγρεςτῦο
τνδκμνὑῶ. The proof of you, i.e. he wished to have them tested; ut cognoscam probationem vestram (Tert.), which is better than ut cognoscam experimentum vestrum (Vulg.). In 2:9, 8:2, 13:3, Vulg. has experimentum for δκμ, as also in Php_2:22; but in 9:13 and Rom_5:4 it has probatio. AV has ‘experience,’ ‘experiment,” ‘trial,’ and ‘proof,’ but without following Vulg. in its changes.
ε εςπναὑήοίἐτ. ‘Whether in all respects ye are obedient,’ ‘whether to every call of duty you lend your ear.’ They were not to be obedient just so far as the claims made on them pleased them. The ἐτ. ‘ implies that the proof was satisfactory; they are obedient in all points; cf. ἐτ ἄυο (1Co_5:7). Here, as in 7:12, St Paul seems to be interpreting his original intention in writing the letter by the light of the actual results of the letter.
The reading ἧfor ε may possibly be right; * it refers to δκμν ‘the proof whereby ye are, etc.’ This would strengthen the ἐτ in indicating that they are found to be perfectly obedient. St Paul does not say, and perhaps does not mean, that they are obedient to himself: rather, they are obedient to the principles of the Gospel.
Once more we have considerable confirmation of the theory that 10-13. is part of the severe letter to which allusion is made by ἔρψ here and in v. 3. In 10:6 he says, ‘Being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled’; here he says, ‘For it was just for this that I also wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things.’ As in v. 3 and 1:23, he here writes in the past tense of the same thing as that of which in 10-13. he writes in the present tense. It is quite natural that in the previous letter written in severity, he should speak of ‘avenging disobedience,’ and that in this letter of reconciliation he should omit all allusion to such a possibility. That within the compass of a dozen verses we should have three close parallels between 1.-9. and 10.-13., and all of the same character, make a case of considerable strength. And we shall find other facts pointing in the same direction.
A B 17 have ᾗ other authorities ε Cf. Heb_6:14, where ε μνhas been corrupted to ἧμν
10. ᾧδ τ χρζσε κγ. They had joined with him in condemning; he joins with them in forgiving. They had shown obedience in consenting to censure; let them now be sure of his consent if they desire to give love instead of blame. The Apostle is not promising always to follow their lead in exercising leniency: although the statement is general, it is manifestly limited to the particular case; and with regard to that he is not acting in the dark. He has the report of his official representative Titus to guide him, and that made it clear to him that generous treatment of the offender would do a great deal of good and little or no harm.
κὶγρἐὼὃκχρσα. Here we have κὶγρ(contrast v. 9), introducing an additional reason, and ἐώis emphatic; ‘For also what I have forgiven,’ I on my side as distinct from you. AV is faulty in turning the perfects into aorists.
ε τ κχρσα. A gracious parenthesis; ‘if I have forgiven anything,’ i.e. ‘if I have had anything to forgive.’ He is not suggesting a doubt as to whether he has granted forgiveness, but he puts the fact of there being something for him to forgive as a mere hypothesis. The hypothetical statement is exactly parallel to ε τςλλπκν ‘if there is such person, he has received forgiveness so far as I am concerned.’ Some would translate, ‘what I have been forgiven, if I have been forgiven anything,’ which is grammatically possible, but it spoils the appeal, and is out of harmony with δʼὑᾶ ἐ ποώῳΧ. St Paul is not thinking of the Corinthians’ change of attitude towards himself, but of his own towards the offender and them. It is ‘for their sakes’ that he has so entirely blotted out the thought of the man’s offence. Their relation towards the offender has been a painful one, but it need not continue; let it be changed for a happy one.
ἐ ποώῳΧιτῦ ‘In the presence of Christ’; in facie Christi, or in conspectu Christi (Calv.); ὡ τῦΧιτῦἐοῶτςκὶἀεκμνυτῖ γνμνι (Thdrt.). Cf. εφανμνἑ ποώῳατῦἐ πνὶκιῷ(Pro_8:30). This is more probable than ‘in the person of Christ’ (AV, RV); in persona Christi (Vulg.), an Christi Statt (Luth.), or ‘unto the glory of Christ’ (Chrys.). See on 1:11. But, however we may translate the expression, the purpose of it is to correct a possible misunderstanding of δʼὑᾶ. Although it was for their sakes that he acted as he did, yet he remembered whose eye was upon him to approve or condemn his action.
κγ (א A B C2 D E O P) rather then κὶἐώ(א C* F G K L), as in most places where such crasis is possible. ὅκχ ε τ κχ(אA B C F G O) rather than ε τ κχ ᾧκχ(D2 K L 17). Baljon suggests that ε τ κχis a gloss. It would be a very clever gloss,—subtly Pauline. As in the case of 1:6, 7, there is difference of opinion about the division of the verses. Some editors assign ἵαμ …Στν to v. 10.
11. ἵαμ πενκηῶε ὑὸτ Στ ‘To prevent our being overreached by Satan.’ The man is penitent and is freeing himself from Satan; what a grievous error to aid Satan in getting control over him again! Chrys. remarks that the Apostle is quite right in speaking of the πενξαof Satan, of his getting more than his due. That Satan should take man by sin is proper to him, but that he should do so through man’s repentance is too much, for repentance is our weapon, not his. Vulg. has at non circumveniamur a Satana, * which is not so good as ne fraudemur (Tert.), but better than ne possideamur (Aug. Ambrst.). The verse explains the δʼὑᾶ. It was to the Corinthians’ advantage and the Apostle’s as well (his including himself in this gain is a delicate touch) that Satan should not be allowed to gain through a Christian’s penitence: debemus cavere ne remedium nostrum fiat ejus triumphus (Ambrose). Nowhere else in Bibl. Grk. is the passive of πενκενfound. In LXX the verb is rare; in N.T. both πενκενand πενκη are peculiar to Paul. The ‘us’ or ‘we’ means the Church as a whole, not the Apostle.
ο γρατῦτ νήααἀνομν This is probably an intentional play upon words, but it can hardly be imitated in English; ‘for we are not unwitting of his wiles’: non ignoramus astutias ejus. This is the rendering of Pseudo-Cypr. (De sing. cler. 19) and of Ambrst. Sedulius has versutias; Tert, injectiones. Vulg. is very capricious in its translation of νήαα a word which in N.T. is almost peculiar to 2 Cor., in which it always has a bad sense. Here it has cogitationes, in 3:14 (with Cypr. Test. 1. 4) and in 11:3 it has sensus, in 4:4 mentes, in 10:5 intellectum (sing.), and in Php_4:7 intelligentias. Chrys. gives a variety of expressions to represent τ νήαα all of them pointing to the wiliness of the evil one; τ δλρν τ κκμχνν τ πιίο, τ ἐὶποχμτ ελβίςἐηεσιό: and this thought is freq. in Paul (4:4, 11:14; 1Co_7:5; 2Th_2:9). See on 3:14.
Of the Scriptural designations of the evil one, four are found in this Epistle; ‘Satan’ (here, 11:14, 12:7), ‘the serpent’ (11:3), ‘Beliar’ (6:15), ‘the god of this age’ (4:4). Elsewhere St Paul calls Satan ‘the tempter’ (1Th_3:5), ‘the devil’ (Eph_4:6, etc.), ‘the evil one’ (Eph_6:16), ‘the prince of the power of the air’ (Eph_2:2). It is not necessary to dwell on the obvious fact that here and elsewhere he regards the evil power which opposes God and the well-being of man as a personal agent. Excepting 12:7, Στνςalways has the article in the Pauline Epp. So also most frequently in the rest of the N.T. But, whether with or without the article, Στνςin N.T. is always a proper name which designates the great Adversary of God and man.
12, 13. From the λπ caused by the great offender the Apostle returns to the θίι which was nearly fatal to him in Asia, from which the news brought by Titus enabled him to recover. But the joyous recollection of the recovery makes him omit to mention the news. This dropping a subject and taking it up again is very natural, especially in a man of strong feeling, who dictates his letters.
12. Ἐθνδ εςτνΤῳδ. ‘Now’ (not ‘furthermore,’ AV) ‘when I came to Troas.’ The words might mean ‘to the Troad,’ the region between the Hellespont and Mount Ida, but a town must be meant. * St Paul would not tell Titus to meet him in a large district, and the city of Troas was a convenient landing-place from Macedonia. Its full name