Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 1:12 - 1:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_1:12-24
2Co_1:12. For Our rejoicing is this.—The word êáý÷çóéò , as it is used in 1Co_15:31, and frequently in this Epistle, is not equivalent to êáý÷çìá : that of which one makes his boast, for it signifies rather the act of boasting, the external expression of joyful confidence. It here relates to the whole moral conduct of the Apostle, as Bengel has it: even in seasons of adversity and in his conduct towards his opponents. The inward feeling of which it is the outward expression is the testimony of our conscience, to which it is emphatically directed by áὕôç . The word óõíåßäçóéò (here rendered conscience) is found also in 1Co_8:7; 1Co_10:25 et al. It is here closely connected with the objective sentence:—that in holiness and godly sincerity, we have had our conversation in the world.— ἈíáóôñåöÝóèáé occurs here and in Eph_2:3; 1Ti_3:16; Heb_12:18; 1Pe_1:17; 2Pe_2:18. In the Sept. of Pro_20:7, it is used as a rendering for äִúְäַìֵּêְ , and signifies the conduct, the way in which one acts. By ἐí is indicated the path in which the movement takes place, and which determines and directs the mode of action referred to. If we accept of ἁãéüôçò as the true reading, the idea will be that of a religious purity, arising from an unreserved surrender of the heart to God. On account of the numerous and independent critical authorities in its favor, and because ἁãéüôçò has too general a meaning in connection with åἰëéêñßíåßá , and might have been suggested by ôïῦ èåïῦ etc., Osiander gives the preference to ἁðëüôçò signifying a freedom from all irrelevant and private views, i. e., a plain single mind. Åἰëéêñßíåßá ôïῦ èåïῦ , godly sincerity, is either a purity like that which is in God, or one which comes from him or is wrought by him in those who submit themselves to him. Ôïῦ èåïῦ designates the source and the consequent resemblance. The idea of being acceptable to God necessarily follows from this, but it is not strictly contained in the expression. Still less does it signify what is demanded by God, and least of all what is superior, as if it were merely a superlative. The subjoined antithetic definition of the same idea:—not in carnal wisdom, but in the grace of God,—more precisely explains what is meant by ἐí ἁãéüôçò . The óïößá óáñêéêὴ (1Co_1:20 óïö . ôïῦ êüóìïõ ; 1Co_2:5 óïö . ἀíèñþðùí 1Co_2:6 ôïῦ áἰῶíïò ôïýôïõ ) forms in this passage a contrast on the one hand, to the holiness and godly sincerity, and the åἰëéêñßíåéá ôïῦ èåïῦ , and on the other, to the grace of God. This last phrase signifies God’s free grace; in which, however, is included a surrender and communication of his own infinite self with all the blessings of salvation; just as the holiness and the sincerity had involved a power which moved and directed the Apostle from within himself.—In contrast with this divine disposition, is presented that impure fleshly wisdom which belongs to our sensuous and selfish nature, and which inclines us to pursue our own enjoyment, profit, honor or applause, and hence leads us off into inconsistent courses of conduct. Osiander thinks that here is also an allusion to that theoretical kind of óïößá (1Co_1:3) which made use of the various artificial methods supplied by the Rhetoric and Logic of that period to gain influence over the minds of men. Theophylact: “words of stirring eloquence, and twistings of sophistries.”] But evidently a more practical kind of worldly wisdom was then uppermost in the Apostle’s mind.—The sphere of the conversation is the world, which, according to Meyer, is the profane portion of men, inasmuch as the Apostle’s object was to make his holy walk more prominent by the contrast. We may certainly regard the non-christian element in society as intended, in distinction from the churches, which were represented here by the Corinthians ( ðñὸò ὑìᾶò ). ÐåñéóóïôÝñùò (more abundantly) has reference to a higher degree, and not to a higher quality. Ðñὀò ὑìᾶò has the sense of: in intercourse with you, and it is therefore equivalent to, with you; Neander: “with reference to you. We may conclude from this verse that his opponents had charged him with practising a spurious kind of worldly wisdom, which indicated a lack of uprightness of heart.”—W. F. Besser: “Not as if his Christian intercourse with them had been characterized by any thing extraordinary, or beyond what he had shown in other places. He intended simply to say: “If there are any to whom I have not been manifest as a single-hearted and sincere minister of Christ, surely it cannot be you (1Co_9:2), for where in all the world have I been more completely known than among you?”
2Co_1:13-14. For we write none other things unto you—He now confirms his avowal that he had been sincere in his treatment of them, so far as relates to his Epistles. He probably has reference to the suspicions which his opponents had awakened, that his language meant something very different from that which they seemed to mean to an unsuspicious reader.—The full and well at tested reading ἀëë ̓ ἡ ἁ , equivalent to ἡ ἅ or ἀëë ’ ἄ , is a blending together of two constructions: ïὐê Üëë ̓— Þ and ïὐê ἀëëá — ἀëëὰ (comp. Meyer) [Jelf. Gram. § 773. Obs. 1–3].—But we are writing;—He here refers (as in 1Co_5:11) to that which he was then writing, and to the meaning which it properly conveyed: we have no other meaning in what we have written than what you yourselves read, and what is the literal signification of the language before the eye of the reader.—No other things unto you than what ye read, or indeed acknowledge.—The words or acknowledge, refer to what they had known, in other ways, of what he then meant. There is no need of an artificial distinction between ἀíáãéíþóêåéí in the sense of recognoscere, and ἑðéãéíþóêåéí in the sense of agnoscere (Calvin), a distinction which is, moreover, opposed to the uniform usage of ἀíáãéíþóêåéí in the New Testament.—In the succeeding clause another object of discussion is introduced. It is to be derived not from the preceding ἅ , as if it were equivalent to all that the Apostle in his sincerity had performed and suffered among them (Osiander), but it comes before us in the form of a distinct proposition, viz.: that we are your rejoicing. This sentence grammatically depends upon ἐðéãíþóåóèå [as that which they should continue to acknowledge unto the end], and not upon the intervening clause with which it might be connected according to the sense. The words might indeed be taken as a causal sentence, giving a reason for what is said in the previous clause (comp. Osiander), but the logical connection would certainly be less forcible.—The phrase, unto the end, means, as in 1Co_1:8, and Heb_3:6, the absolute end of all things, and not merely the Apostle’s close of life. In part, in the intermediate clause, expresses a limitation, not in opposition to unto the end, nor with respect to the recognition itself, as if equivalent to in some degree; but with respect to the persons recognizing, implying that only a part of the Church recognized him in his true character. This is the only view which accords with the facts. A reproach would not have been here appropriate. Êáý÷çìá occurs in 1Co_5:6; 1Co_9:15 f. In the day of the Lord Jesus, belongs to the principal proposition, but requires also to be joined to the incidental clause. He meant to express his confidence that they would steadfastly acknowledge that he was indeed the object of their glorying, and would continue to be so even to the last day, when teachers and churches shall stand before the great Chief Shepherd, and when all events and the way in which they have been brought about shall be open to inspection. He had no doubt that they would point with joyful triumph to him as the one through whom they and so many others had been brought to Christ, and to all the enjoyments and honors which have been derived from him, as the one to whom they owed their spiritual life with all its benefits and dignities; just as he on his side even then pointed to them as the honorable fruit of his labors (Comp. 1Co_9:1 s; 2Co_1:8; Php_2:16; 1Th_2:19).
2Co_1:15-20. Having thus drawn their hearts to a firmer confidence in him and to withstand more successfully the influence of his opponents, the Apostle now proceeds to repel the charge of inconsistency and fickleness which had been made against him because he had changed the plan of his journey in coming to them.—And in this confidence I was minded before to come unto you.—Most recent commentators refer the ðåðïßèçóéò (confidence, trust) to what has been expressed in ἐëðßæù , &c.; as if he was intending to say that under the influence of this confidence in their steadfast recognition of his true relation to them, he had at first formed the design to pay them a visit, &c.—Some would draw the ðñüôåñïí into immediate connection with ἐâïõëüìçí [q. d. I was before minded], but not only would this be incoherent in itself, since he was yet desirous of this thing, but it would also be unsuitable to äåõôÝñáí ÷Üñéí .—The position of the words ðñὸò ὑìᾶò ἐëèåῖí , by which ὑìáò is more properly contrasted with Macedonia, is attested by good authorities.—This had been the Apostle’s original intention, but it had been given up as early as when he wrote his first Epistle. Comp. 1Co_16:5. This alteration of his plan had become known to the Corinthians either by letter or by personal conversation, and it had been represented to them as an evidence of his general fickleness of character. Hence the propriety of this defence of himself. That ye might have a second benefit.—He here refers to what had been the object of his original plan.—Every visit he might make to them would be the occasion of many blessings, and would manifest the divine favor toward them. Had he visited them a second time, his presence with them would have been a second grace. Such had been his aim when he formed that earlier plan, the only motive of which they might see in the confidence he had just expressed. And now when he declares that that confidence always animated him and had prompted such a friendly purpose, he implies that no thought of a misconstruction of his motives could have crossed his mind when he changed his plan. ×Üñéò (grace or favor) has not the same meaning with ÷áñÜ , (as some would have the original read, signifying joy, or a new delight which his visit would give), nor does it signify an exhibition of human favor, but it is equivalent to ÷Üñéóìá ðíåõìáôéêüí (a spiritual gift) in Rom_1:11 (comp. Rom_15:29). The meaning äåõôÝñáí is not the same here as that of äéðëῆí would have been. We need not suppose that his first residence in Corinth, or his first Epistle is referred to as the first grace, for the context (2Co_1:16) shows evidently what he had in view, and this seems inconsistent with the otherwise probable hypothesis that ðñüôåñïí implies that the Apostle had been at Corinth since his first residence there. In 2Co_1:16 we have more definite information regarding this earlier plan, and light is thrown also upon what is meant by their receiving a second benefit, but we are not therefore to conclude that this latter expression stands out of its proper place.—With respect to his being sent on his way, consult 1Co_16:6.— Ôïῦôï , in 2Co_1:17, has reference to the earlier plan which had been spoken of in 2Co_1:15 f. He is meeting the objection which had been raised against him on account of his change of purpose. The amount of this objection was, that he could not have reflected sufficiently upon his plan and the way in which he was to accomplish it,, and so that he became guilty of light-mindedness; or that if he had really intended to visit them, he either could not have been very strenuous in carrying out his purpose, and so had changed his mind without sufficient reasons, or he had not much regard to his promiss. That such an objection had been made to him, in fact, is not to be inferred, perhaps, from the article ôῇ , as if this referred to the particular lightness which had been imputed to him, for this may also be pointed to the levity which would generally be suspected in such cases.—Did I use lightness.— Ἐëáöñßá (lightness) is found nowhere else in the New Testament, although the adjective occurs twice (2Co_4:17 and Mat_11:30), but not with an ethical signification. ×ñῆóèáé , when used with reference to moral states or qualities, means to have a hand in, to be occupied with, to enter upon, some business, and is equivalent to: behaving or conducting one’s self in a certain manner. Ἄñá , in an interrogative sentence, implies that the inquirer will wait for an answer (well, really! indeed! comp. [Jelf. Gr. Gram., § 873, 2.] Passow I., 377), and hence indicates necessarily no logical deduction (a consequence from this state of thing.). The second question,—or the things which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh?—is either coordinated with the first (in which case ἤ is equivalent to aut), or subordinated to it ( ἤ having the force of an), and implying that the contrary would lead to an absurdity: “if, then, you would not charge me with levity, you must suppose that I form my purposes according to the flesh” (Meyer). This subordination would agree very well with the explanation which refers ἐ÷ñçóÜìçí to the purpose itself; but the coördination would suit best the interpretation which refers that word rather to the carrying out of the purpose, and introduces here the additional point respecting the improper spirit shown in the formation of the purpose. And yet this last is probably the more correct meaning. Êáôὰ óÜñêá however, refers to that which determines the mind when it is coming to a decision, or it is the same as to say that the conclusion was reached in the way in which the óÜñî usually determines us, i. e., in a carnal manner. The real meaning would be essentially the same on either interpretation. The opposite of this is: êáôὰ ðíå ͂ õìá . Where the spirit controls a man in all his conduct, the sole object of his consultations and conclusions is the honor, the kingdom and the will of God, but where the óÜñî (i. e., the nature of man, when it is confined to the pursuit of external and selfish objects), controls his decisions, nothing will be regarded but outward relations, selfish inclinations, personal interests, or something to accommodate, please, profit, or flatter himself.—A spiritual mind always makes a man decided, consistent, true to himself, and uniform in all his conduct; but a carnal mind makes him uncertain in all his ways, and involves him in many contradictory courses. This necessary result, the Apostle presents as if it were the object of the person’s design or aim, ἵíá ᾗ &c. If we follow the correct reading íáὶ íáὶ — ὄõ ὄõ (the Vulgate and some other verss. have simply íáé — ὄõ ), the second íáὶ and ὄõ might belong to the predicate: that the yea with me should be yea, and the nay should be nay (comp. Jam_5:12); and the whole might refer to an obstinate and presumptuous course of conduct, in which a man adheres to his determination, and resolves that his yea shall remain yea, and his nay shall continue nay. The idea would thus be that he will never change his mind, whether he had resolved upon a yea or a nay, a promise or a refusal, a doing or a declining to do something. But, according to the context, the objection the Apostle was here meeting was not so much to his consistent obstinacy as to his inconsistent fickleness. The double form of íáß , íáß and ïὔ , ïὔ is merely to give additional force to the simple form in 2Co_1:18, as in Mat_5:37. The predicate is either, should be with us also, nay, nay; i. e. the yea, yea, may become with us nay, nay; that is, the purpose or the promise may change about into just the opposite according to convenience; or (better) merely should be with us; in which case êáὶ has the ordinary sense of, and:—that there should be with me the yea, yea, and the nay, nay.—[Chrysostom forcibly gives the objection which is met by the Apostle in this passage (2Co_1:18-22) thus: “If when you promised to come to us, you failed to do so, and your yea is not yea, nor your nay nay; but what you say now you change afterwards, as you have done in regard to your coming to us, woe to us lest this also should be the case with your preaching! In order, therefore, that they might not think thus, he assures them that God was faithful, and that His word to them was not yea and nay; for in his preaching such changes could not happen, but only in his travels and journeyings.] Their objection must then have been that the Apostle had both these intentions together and at the same time, and hence that he could not be depended upon, was equivocal, self-contradictory, and took back at one time what he had just before promised (not as Olshausen arbitrarily assumes, that truth and falsehood were blended together).
Very different from all this was the actual conduct of the Apostle toward them, based as it was upon motives of the highest love and wisdom, 2Co_1:23.—As God is faithful, our word towards you is not yea and nay.—He here proceeds in the first place to meet the objection in a very solemn but lively manner (2Co_1:18), introducing his assertion with a äÝ (which, however, has not the force of ìᾶëëïí äÝ , as if he would give a still further denial to the question). Ðéóôὸò äὲ ὁ èåüò , ὅôé , &c., may here be taken either as saying that God’s fidelity was the reason he ventured to assert such a consistency for himself, i. e. he asserted such things of himself because God was faithful—God is faithful in this ( åἰò ôïῦôï ), and this fact makes it impossible that we should speak in this uncertain manner among you (Meyer)—or, as a solemn protestation: as surely as God is true, our word toward you, etc. de Wette, Osiander). The former seems harsh, and is not grammatically confirmed by a reference to Joh_9:17, where ὅôé has the force of: because, since. Ðéóôὸò ὁ èåüò may be a form of solemn affirmation as well as ἔóôéí ἀëÞèåéá ÷ñéóôï ͂ õ ἐí ἐìïß in 2Co_9:10, and it goes probably on the assumption that God was a witness. Comp. Rom_1:9; Php_1:8; 1Th_2:5. He thus brings forward the fidelity (reliableness) of God as a security for the reliableness of his own ëüãïò . But what does he mean by this ëüãïò ? Does it refer to his promise to visit them, or to his discourses generally, i. e. to everything he had said to them in any way? or finally does it refer to his doctrines and public instructions ( êÞñõãìá )? We are decidedly in favor of the last for the reason assigned in the next verse, in which the Apostle maintains that his instructions must be perfectly reliable because they consisted of truths which were incontrovertible and irresistible. Neander: “Every way in which he held intercourse with the Corinthians, his instructions as a whole.” But such an assertion of the credibility of his teaching should have an influence also to ward off those accusations which had been made against those decisions which related to his official work (such as his apostolical journeys), just as these latter had created a prejudice against his teachings.
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us (2Co_1:19).—[“In place of the preaching he here puts Him who was preached (metonomy); and says that the doctrine concerning the Son of God which he and Silvanus and Timotheus had preached contained no discrepancies, nor did they at one time preach this and at another time that, but they brought forward always the same doctrine.” Theodoret]. Ôïῦ èåïῦ , according to the true reading, precedes ãὰñ , and thus becomes emphatic, in order to give prominence to the Divine part of the subject of their preaching. It evidently has reference to what had been said in 2Co_1:18, respecting ὁ èåüò . Êçñõ÷èåßò relates to the preaching by which they had been at first brought to believe in Christ. He describes this as the common testimony of the three organs of Divine revelation who had been associated at that time (Act_18:5). It should not, however, be supposed that the Christ thus preached signifies the same thing as the preaching of Christ, for then ãὰñ would serve only to introduce an explanation or further exposition of what had been said in 2Co_1:18. Comp. 2Co_1:20. [In describing “the Son of God, Jesus Christ,” the epithets are accumulated “to express the greatness of Him whom they preached, and so to aggravate the impossibility of His connection with any littleness or levity.” Stanley]. Of Him, as he had been preached among the Corinthians, the Apostle says: he was not made yea and nay, but has been made yea in him; i. e., He has proved Himself among you as among others, not an untruthful, untrustworthy and ambiguous personage, saying yea and nay at the same time; but one in whom an everlasting yea, a pure, steadfast affirmation might always be found (comp. Heb_13:8; Rev_3:14). “The whole Old Testament revelation has proved to be true by means of the Christ who has been preached among you. And yet, what is thus true of the objective Christ, must be applied with equal truth to the word preached respecting him.” Neander. [The verb here used, ãÝãïíåí , signifies not mere existence, but a transition from one state, or character, or condition, to another (Webster’s Synn. of the Gr. Test., p. 199). Being in the perfect tense, it implies that the change spoken of is not only completed, but that the result of it is conceived of as permanent (Winer, § 41, 4). It hath become yea, and it remains yea in Him forever. My plans and purposes may change, but the subject of my preaching remains the same under every mutation of its preachers].
The more particular declaration and reason assigned in the next verse shows that what had just been asserted had reference to the experience, not merely of the Corinthians, (who had been spoken of in the phrase, preached among you), but of Christians in general; For however numerous may be the promises of God (in the Old Testament), in Him is the yea, (i. e., the affirmation of them, 2Co_1:20); inasmuch as they are actually fulfilled in Him or He secures their fulfilment in the future. By means of His person and work, the certainty of all God’s promises has been practically confirmed (comp. Rom_15:8; Joh_1:17; Act_3:21). To this external confirmation in Christ, corresponds the Amen, which is not added merely to strengthen the yea (as the Rec. would make it), but it expresses the unanimous assent which believers yield to the objective truth, the confession they make with respect to the actual fulfilment everywhere taking place at the time, with an allusion also to the Amen which the primitive Christians were in the habit of responding in their public assemblies. Even this confession is by means of Christ, for inasmuch as the fulfilment itself takes place in Him, the confession must be drawn from believers by Him through our means to the glory of God. Or: all God’s promises are yea in Christ’s person and work, i. e., in His name, as it is proclaimed in the Gospel, and are Amen in the Church which confesses His name (Besser).—The words äἰ ἡìῶí [through or by means of us] might possibly be referred to believers in general, but the context more naturally connects them with those only, who are Christ’s ministers; and the Amen is either the joyful and believing testimony of such ministers, or (more correctly and more strictly conformed to the usage with respect to ἀìÞí ), the public expression of confidence which all believers gave. The phrase to the glory of God by us is in apposition with that which precedes it, and signifies, that which glorifies God by our means, i. e., when we who proclaim the Gospel are the instruments of producing the confidence thus expressed (Meyer).—The article is placed before íáß and ἀìὴí in 2Co_1:20, because the yea has here acquired a definite position with respect to the ἐðáããåëßáé . There is no necessity of supplying a subject for the affirmation in this yea (as e. g. in ἀëëὰ íáὶ ἐí áὐôῷ ãÝãïíåí ), nor of understanding by it that which He (i. e., Christ) has affirmed (the preceding yea), but it is itself the subject. [Bengel: Christ preached, i. e., our preaching of Christ became yea in Christ Himself]. [Obviously, then, the Apostle would argue, there could be no variableness in the subject ( ëüãïò ) of His preaching, since God who gave it was faithful, and Christ who is its substance is the same in all ages, however the promises respecting Him might vary. The whole revelation of Christ, whether in Old Testament writing or in the preaching of the Apostle and his companions, had been one everlasting affirmation from God to men like a mighty yea poured forth from heaven through all generations. He was then, had been, and ever would be the same (Exo_3:14; Joh_8:58). Even in the experience of those to whom the Apostle was writing, this was manifest, for they were accustomed in all their assemblies to join with believers of every age and country in responding their hearty Amen to the instructions and worship of the Church. Thus the earth’s Amen responded to heaven’s yea in Christ]. In 2Co_1:20, ἐðáããåëßáé refers to the promises not of the New, but of the Old Testament, such as the Apostle speaks of in Gal_3:16 ff. and Rom_4:13; to the promise of salvation in all its clear details, and not merely to that of the Holy Spirit.—Even with the reading given in the Recep.: êáὶ ἐí áὐôῷ ôὸ ἀìÞí (retained by Osiander, with Tischendorf and Reiche), we need no other explanation than that we have just given. We shall not need to refer the yea to the God who promises and the Amen to the Christ in whom the promises are fulfilled (Beza); nor to regard the Amen as an expression of what is complete truth, i. e., an idea expressed in two languages (as in the case of Abba, Father), with reference to both Jewish and Gentile Christians; nor yet to make the Amen God’s seal to man’s Amen, i. e., to the confidence they thus expressed (?) (Osiander). Even on the supposition that the Amen refers to the subjective confidence of believers, it would not be inconsistent with the Apostle’s aim to set forth the complete objective certainty of the Divine promises, secured as they were in all their strength through Christ, and so forming a basis on which he could claim confidence for himself. That internal confidence which the Corinthians had yielded to his preaching, and which they had openly confessed, was a sufficient proof of his trustworthiness as an Apostle. Neander: “In this way he met in the most effectual manner the suspicions which his opponents had cast upon his instructions, by appealing to the experience which the Corinthians had received of the power of Divine grace through Christ upon their hearts.” But after all the arguments which have been urged against the reading, äéὸ êáὶ äἰ áὐôïῦ we do not regard them as of sufficient weight to induce us to set it aside, or to give us entire confidence in that of the Recepta. [The sense of the two readings is somewhat different. By Lachmann’s reading (preferred by Calvin and most of the ancient expositors), it is asserted, that, however various God’s promises might be, their yea was in Christ, and hence that the Amen which expresses human experience must be in Him also. According to this, not only do the promises receive their confirmation in Christ, but we experience and assent to their truth. By the common reading the Apostle simply asserts, that the promises had received their verification, (their yea and Amen), in Christ. Certainly the tenor of the Apostle’s argument is most strengthened by the former reading].
2Co_1:21-22. [One thought still lingers in the Apostle’s mind, which he must express before he returns to his personal defence (comp. Stanley)]. The firm faith which Christ had effected, and which had brought such glory to God by means of the preaching of the Gospel, he now traces back to its ultimate author (2Co_1:20).—Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God.—In the first place he represents God as firmly establishing, so far as related to Christ (1Co_1:6), not only those who preached the Gospel, but those who had been brought by them to the Christian faith. The former he had enabled to preach Christ in such a way as to deserve and to secure the confidence of their fellow-men; and the latter he had induced to exercise a steadfast faith, and to hold forth an unshaken confession of the truth. In the next place he presents God as anointing the Apostle and his assistants; that is, as bestowing upon them that spiritual inspiration which was needful for their duties. [There is certainly nothing in the mere language or grammatical construction which intimates that he associated all Christians with these inspired teachers in the enjoyment of these blessings. In the confirmation ( âåâáéῶí ), indeed, he expressly includes the Corinthians to whom he was writing, and this is spoken of as an event which was then (present participle) taking place. But with an almost evident design he extends this participation to none of the remaining facts (the anointing, the sealing and the earnest of the Spirit), which are represented as having taken place (aorist participles) once for all at an earlier period (probably when the Apostles and the other teachers were consecrated to their public offices, and when, of course, the Corinthians were unconverted). As we know that miraculous gifts had been conferred upon the Corinthians, a special reason may have existed for applying the confirmation alone to them ( óὺí ὑìῖí ). And yet it must be conceded, that nothing in the nature of either of these benefits, so far as they are known to us, would necessarily limit their application to any class of believers. Even if the unction in 1Jn_2:20; 1Jn_2:27 be explained of a miraculous endowment, it would be difficult to give such an interpretation to Eph_1:13 f. Dr. Hodge also calls attention to the fact, that when an official anointing is spoken of in the New Testament, it is only in relation to Christ and never with reference to the Apostles or other preachers, whereas all believers are said to receive the more ordinary unction of the Holy Spirit. The ancient expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret and Ambrosiaster) attached much importance to this passage as a special description of the privileges of all believers as the anointed prophets, priests and kings of God. On the whole, although we must grant that the Apostle has expressly limited the anointing, the sealing and the earnest of the Spirit to himself and his fellow-laborers in their official capacity, and the confirmation to them and the Corinthians, we see nothing in the endowments themselves or in the analogy of similar passages, which should prevent us from giving these expressions a much more extensive application, since they refer to those spiritual benefits which are promised to all Christians as well as their public teachers.] With respect to the anointing ( êñßóáò ), comp. Joh_2:20-25, where the unction of believers ( êñῖóìá ) is spoken of; and Luk_4:18; Act_4:27; Act_10:38; Heb_1:9. Preachers of the Gospel should be imitators of Christ, and this they can be only as they partake of the Divine Spirit (official grace).—The äὲ indicates that an additional subject is introduced, for it is here metabatic (or transitional), and not adversative. The phrase åἰò ×ñéóôüí has in this place the sense of: in respect to Christ, or, in the direction of Christ, and not of: within or in Christ. The former signification is undoubtedly the simplest, but the representation of the Apostle requires that we should conceive of the union with Christ as a continuous and progressive one, and it may be doubted whether åἰò will bear such an interpretation. Óὺí ὑìῖí (with you) is used here, not merely to conciliate the good will of the readers (Meyer, Osiander), but it enters much more essentially into the course of the argument. W. F. Besser:—“He takes the Corinthians themselves for his witnesses, from their own experience, that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ makes the course of His people sure by the Holy Spirit.”—It would be altogether inappropriate and even contradictory to the spirit of the text to suppose that the Apostle had here a collateral reference to those who affected to regard him as a reed shaken, by the wind (Rückert).—In the second and in the next succeeding ἡìᾶò the Apostle does not include his readers with himself, for in the previous part of the sentence he had expressly distinguished ἡìᾶò from them, and had made it refer exclusively to himself and his fellow laborers.—The anointing refers not merely to the original vocation but to the subsequent spiritual endowment of the persons spoken of. The expression [paronomasia] intimates that there was a resemblance between the anointed ones and Him who was in a preeminent sense the Anointed One. Neander: “As it was customary to transfer every predicate of the Old Testament Theocracy, in a spiritual sense, to Christianity, we have the chrism which was used in the consecration of priests and kings applied to the spiritual consecration of the Christian by the presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart. The reference is to the consecration of all believers to the general priesthood.”—It is rather an overstraining of the word when it is made (Bengel) to imply a communication both of strength and of fragrancy (2Co_2:15); or, in addition to this, the clear and accurate discernment of truth, which was sometimes given from above, and which made its recipients inaccessible to all forms of error and falsehood (comp. 1Jn_2:27); or some character indelibilis in the evangelical sense, a permanent Divine endowment by which one became holier and more inviolable, on account of some special prerogative or dignity which he acquired as the Lord’s anointed (Osiander; comp. Psa_105:15); or, finally, the quality imparted in the three-fold office, i. e., the refreshing and cheering influence (Psa_40:15), which all Christians receive when they are made prophets, priests and kings unto God, and are strengthened for their conflicts with the world, sin and Satan (anointing of the athletae). 2Co_1:21 can be correctly construed only as an independent sentence, of which 2Co_1:22 was designed to give an additional explanation. If we take 2Co_1:21 as the subject and 2Co_1:22 as the predicate, so that the idea should be: God who stablishes and hath anointed us hath also sealed us, the âåâáéῶí , which now forms the connecting link with the preceding passage, ceases to be the principal and becomes a merely incidental thought.—In 2Co_1:22 the phrase—Who also hath sealed us—has reference to the Christian character of all those who had been ordained to the office of teaching, and points out the true source of those peculiar endowments which qualified them for their work. The sealing ( óöñáãßæåóèáé ) signifies in general the act by which a man designates something as his property. Here, as in Eph_1:13; Eph_4:30, it signifies that Divine assurance of adoption which is effected by the communication and inward witness of the Holy Spirit. Osiander describes it as the complete consecration of one to the service and fellowship of the Lord and his uninterrupted continuance therein (comp. Rev_7:2; 2Ti_2:10). The phrase—and hath given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts—is here added epexegetically, for in this communication of the Spirit lies the true power of the sealing. The whole phrase is a brachylogy [a concise expression] in which the act and its result are taken together; for it is implied that the Spirit is in such a way given that he abides in the heart.— Ἀῤῥáâþí is properly the earnest-money, e. g., in a bargain, when some part of the price agreed upon is paid beforehand, in token that the contract is ratified and that the purchaser is bound for the payment of the whole. It is therefore a pledge or security. If we take the genitive ( ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò ) partitively, the sense will be, that a communication of the Spirit is begun, and that the portion given is a pledge that the communication will be completed hereafter. If we follow the analogy of 2Co_5:5, we must regard the communication of the Spirit as the proper warrant for expecting a complete salvation, the actual inheritance (the êëçñïíïìßá ). The Spirit therefore should be looked upon as the earnest of the whole salvation; properly speaking, the earnest is, or consists of, the Holy Spirit, and the genitive hero is one of apposition [Winer, Gr. d. N. T. § 48, 2]. Comp. on this subject Rom_8:2; Rom_8:10-11; Rom_8:15-17. It seems altogether too contracted a view of this passage to make all that is here said refer exclusively to the testimony which the Spirit bore in the hearts of the original preachers of the Gospel to the truth of their official character. [The expressions more properly relate to the complete assurance which they possessed that they were, both as believers and as preachers of the truth, under the direction of an infallible Divine Spirit.]
2Co_1:23-24. In the two preceding verses, the Apostle had set forth the firm basis God had given for the confidence his hearers might repose in him, and in consequence of which he had been so abundantly authenticated both as an Apostle and a Christian. This had prepared the way for the appeal to God which he now makes with an irresistible power:—Moreover I call God for a witness against my soul.—This is a solemn affirmation respecting his failure to visit Corinth according to his previous intention and the reasons which kept him from going. Instead of the general us, he now uses the singular I, because he is about to speak of personal matters in which no one but himself was involved. The prominence of the ἐãὠ is increased by its close connection with äὲ (comp. Osiander: [“As God had placed a divine seal upon him and his word, according to 2Co_1:22, so he now seals his own word with the name of God.”]) Åðß has its peculiar sense of against, Meyer makes it mean for (comp. 2 Macc. 2:37), but here it means in respect to; Neander: over my soul. The former sense is more appropriate to the nature of a solemn affirmation or oath (comp. Jos_24:22), The sense is: “If what I now say is untrue, may God appear as a witness against my soul, and may I fall under his condemnation.”—The condition was necessarily implied and hence was not expressed. The phrase, my soul ( ôὴí ἐìὴí øõ÷Þí ) does not apply to the inmost spirit, that which the Apostle always regarded as especially akin to, and conscious of, God, and which he therefore places here in this sacred relation to the Omniscient God (Osiander). According to Beck (Seelenl. § 2) the soul is that in which the life is found, and hence is always named as the subject when a preservation, deliverance, peril or loss of life is spoken of.—This solemn asseveration was justifiable on moral grounds, because his credit as an Apostle had been called in question, and with this was essentially connected the honor of Christ, who had sent him, and the cause of God which he represented at Corinth. In like manner, Gal_1:20; Rom_9:1 f, and other places. W. F. Besser: Even Augustine, in his day, refers to this solemn oath of the Apostle, to prove that our Lord could not have intended in his Sermon on the Mount (Mat_5:34) to prohibit every kind of swearing, but only those oaths which were useless and were an unhallowed profanation of God’s name, and hence were arbitrary and uncalled for. In this place Paul made use of an oath, as Christ did (Mat_26:64), when the honor of God called for it.— ÏὐêÝôé implies that he had been in Corinth before he wrote his First Epistle (comp. Meyer). [Our A. V. translates ïὐêÝôé as if it were= ïὔðù ; Tyndale, more correctly: “not eny moare;” Conybeare: “I gave up my purpose;” Alford: “No more, i. e., after the first time.” Paul does not deny that he had as yet been at Corinth, but only explains why he had not gone there at the time, and on the journey, of which he was speaking. It seems probable from this whole passage (2Co_1:15-23) that Paul had paid no visit to Corinth between the sending of the First and Second Epistles. See Introd. § 6.]. The reason he had not gone directly to Corinth, according to his earlier intention, but had visited the Macedonian churches first and had contented himself with writing to the Corinthians, is expressed in öåéäüìåíïò ὑìῶí —that I came not to Corinth any more, in order that I might spare you.—He had hoped that they would be induced by that Epistle to return to their right mind and would be so completely restored to their proper relation to him, that he would not be obliged to treat them with a rod of severity (1Co_4:21). He was not, however, even then without anxiety on this point (2Co_12:20 f; 2Co_13:1 ff.)—Not that we have dominion over your faith (2Co_1:24).—He here anticipates and meets any misconstruction which might be put upon what he had just said about sparing them ( öåéäüìåíïò ), and he obviates the appearance of domineering which some might find in it.— Ïὐ÷ ὁôé is equivalent to saying: I say not that etc. (a common brachylogy), i. e., “the words öåéäüìåíïò ὑìῶí are not intended to imply,” etc.— Êõñéåýïìåí is not here to be so connected with ὑìῶí as to make ἔíåêá necessary to be understood before ôῆò ðßóôåùò [as if he had meant: over you with respect to your faith]; nor is ôῆò ðßóôåùò to be considered as equivalent to ôῶí ðéóôåõüíôùí : them that believe. His object was to say that when he spoke of sparing them, he meant not to use his apostolic authority in a lordly way to control their faith, their inward religious life, and their spiritual action with respect to Christian truth. All this he knew must be the result of a free surrender, and a voluntary determination, of their own minds, not merely at first, but ever afterwards, on each renewed act of faith. A positive expression of his meaning is given in the words:—but are helpers of your joy.—‘Your joy, your “rejoicing in the Lord,” can thrive and maintain its existence only by your putting forth all the energies of your faith in the work of progressive sanctification, in abstaining from all selfish and fleshly desires, and in the perfecting yourselves in love and a positive likeness to Christ.’ In this way not only would their faith be proved, but their hearts would be filled with Christian cheerfulness, and they would become conscious of a genuine and established spiritual life. In all this he had endeavored to assist them by the exercise of discipline, by earnest admonitions, by a strict adherence to the upright course which a genuine love demanded, and by strenuously persevering in the path of duty, whatever censures he might find it needful to inflict on them for their remaining inconsistencies. [As inspired men the Apostles had power to prescribe what ought to be believed, the objective truth on which all right faith is grounded, but they claimed no other authority over men’s subjective faith. “He claimed no right to control their spiritual convictions, but only their outward conduct, and hence he might speak of having spared them only in respect of external discipline” (Erasmus’ Paraphrase). Thus careful was he to recognize the right of private judgment even under the spiritual jurisdiction of inspired men. The reason he gives is, that Christians were steadfast only when they exercise a free faith in God alone, without the attempted constraint of human authority.] The óýí in óõíåñãïß refers neither to God nor to Christ, nor to his companions in office, as if he had said that he worked in common with them, but to his readers for whose welfare he was concerned, and whose activity in their own behalf was presupposed. That he was here speaking of nothing but a cooperation with them in promoting their joy (in this sense) and not directly of faith, is confirmed by the final clause:—for by faith ye stand,—or rather, in respect to faith ye are steadfast. The Dative here shows wherein or in what respect they were steadfast (comp. Gal_5:3), and does not point out [as our English A. V. makes it] the reason, or the efficient cause of their stead-fastness. [See, however, Winer, Gr. d. N. T., § 31, 3].