Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 11:1

Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 11:1 - 11:33

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 11:1 - 11:33

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

11:1 - 11:33

XIV.—HIS OWN BOASTRAST IN CONTRAST WITH THAT OF OPPONENTS. REASONABLE DEMANDS UPON THEIR FORBEARANCE .SEVERE DESCRIPTION OF HIS OPPONENTS. PREEMINENCE OF THE APOSTLE

2Co_11:1-33

¹Would to God [Would that] ye could bear with me a little in my folly [a little ²folly in me]: and indeed [ye do] bear with me. For [me; for] I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may presentyou as a chaste virgin to Christ. ³But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, Song of Solomon 3 your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. ⁴For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached [a Jesus whom we preached not], or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received [received not, ëáìâÜíåôå ], or another gospel, which ye ⁵have not accepted [accepted not, ἐëÜâåôå ], ye might well bear with him For I suppose I was not a whit [in any respect] behind the very chiefest [these super-eminent,] ⁶ ὑðåñëßáí apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have⁷been thoroughly [in every respect] made manifest among you in all things. Have [among all with respect to you. Or have, ὴ ́] I committed an offence in abasing myself ⁸that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. ⁹And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. ¹⁰As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasing [this boasting shall not ¹¹be closed against me, Þ êáý÷çóéò áὕôç ïὐ öñãÞóåôáé ] in the regions of Achaia. Where fore? because I love you not? God knoweth. ¹²But what I do, that will I [also] do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, ¹³they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the [om. the] apostles of Christ. ¹⁴And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed [transforms himself, ìåôáó÷ìáôßîåôáé ] into an angel of light. ¹⁵Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed [and become] as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. ¹⁶I say again, Let no man think me a fool [foolish, ἅöñïíá ]; if otherwise [but if it cannot be so, åἰ äὲ ì ́ͅ ãå ], yet as a fool receive me, that I [too, êὰãὼ ] may boast myself a little. ¹⁷That which I speak, I speak it not after [the manner of, êáôὰ ] the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. ¹⁸Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. ¹⁹For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. ²⁰For ye suffer [it patiently], if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you [insnares you, ëáìâÜíåé ], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. ²¹I speak as concerning reproach [By way of disparagement, I speak] as though we had been [were] weak. Howbeit [but], whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. ²²Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites?so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. ²³Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool [as though beside myself, ðáñáöñïíῶí ]), I am more; in [by, ἐí ] labours more abundant, in [by] stripes above measure, in [by] prisons more frequent, in [by]deaths oft. ²⁴Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. ²⁵Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night ²⁶and a day have I been in the deep; In [by] journeyings often, in [by] perils of waters [rivers], in [by] perils of robbers, in [by] perils by [from] mine own countrymen, in [by] perils by [from] the heathen, in [by] perils in the city, in [by] perils in ²⁷the wilderness, in [by] perils in the sea, in [by] perils among false brethren; In [by] weariness and painfulness; in [by] watchings often, in [by] hunger and thirst, in [by] fastings often, in [by] cold and nakedness. ²⁸Beside those things that are without [Beside other things which take place, ÷ùñὶò ôῶí ðáñåêôὸò ], that which cometh upon me daily [day by day], the care of all the churches. ²⁹Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? ³⁰If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. ³¹The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which [God, the Father of the Lord Jesus, who] is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. ³²In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king, kept [guarded, ἐöñïýñåé ] the city of the Damascenes with a garrison [om. with a garrison, desirous] to apprehend me: ³³And through a window [a small opening, äéὰ èõñé÷äïò ] in a basket was I let down by [through, äéὰ ] the wall, and escaped his hands.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Co_11:1-4. Would that ye could bear a little folly from me. Nay, indeed, ye do bear with me; for I am jealous of you with a godly jealousy.—The Apostle now felt compelled, in order to recover the respect he had once enjoyed in Corinth, and to destroy those influences which were utterly inconsistent with it, to maintain that his position in the Church was not only equal but far superior to that of those who disparaged him. This commendation of himself, to which he stooped in condescension to them and as a matter of duty to himself and the cause of truth he ironically calls a “folly‚” because it seemed to give undue importance to that which was insignificant and connected only with outward appearances. He therefore entreats them to bear with him, although he might seem for a while to contradict the principle he had just laid down.— Ὄöåëïí 1Co_4:8. [The word a shortened form of the Imperfect for ὥöåëïí (which some MSS. have instead), and in the later Greek it was used as an interjection like åἵèå , to express a wish. Its tense implies an incomplete action still in its course and not yet come to its perfection (Webster, p. 88, Winer, § 42, n. 2). It is connected with verbs in the Indicative, here with the Imperfect]. ̓ Áíåß ÷åóèå is the Hellenistic, and ἠíå÷åóèå the classical form.—The imperfect (not equivalent to the pluperfect) is an expressed, and implies that he could hardly expect its realization.—If we read (with de Wette, Fritzsche) ôῇ ἀöñïóýíῃ , ìïõ would have to be governed by ἀíåß ÷åáèå , a construction common in the New Testament, though unusual in the classic writers. Ìéêñüí has the sense of: a little, and the dative ôῇ ἀöñïóýíῃ signifies: in respect to foolishness. But according to the best supported reading ìïõ is not dependent upon ἀíåß÷åóèå but upon ìéêñüí , before which it is placed that it may become emphatic [my small degree of folly]. Such an emphasis makes insertion of an “also” unnecessary. In ìïõ ìéêñüí ôé there is probably a slight reference to the great folly of those boastful opponents which they had already endured, [ ἄöñùí is one who does not rightly use his powers. Hence Bengel says that it is a milder word than ìùñßá which implies a folly of a perverse or wicked kind. The fault of the ἅöñùí ( ἀöñïóýíç ) is imprudence or rashness (Mar_7:22)].—The doubt which after all is apparent in ἀíåß÷åóèå (that ye could or would bear) supplies an occasion for the expression of confidence when he adds, “but indeed ye do bear with me.” The object of ἀëëὰ is to correct the impression, which the wish he had just expressed might have produced‚ as if there were any doubt on the point: I need have no such desire, for you are already doing this very thing. Êáß has an intensive force: even in fact. Êáß is not in the Imperative [but in the Indicative: but you are in fact bearing‚ etc.‚] for as a request it would be feeble‚ and as a command unsuitable to the spirit of the context.—In 2Co_11:2 a reason is given for the expectation he had just expressed in 2Co_11:1. They had good reasons for the ἀíÝ÷åóèå ‚ inasmuch as the folly alluded to‚ had its origin not in a regard for his own interest or in pride‚ but in a Divine zeal for their welfare and for Christ’s honor. (Bengel: (amantes videntur amentes‚ lovers usually seem out of their wits]; comp. 2Co_5:13). The word æçëïῦí refers here to the jealously of love‚ the object of which is in the accusative ( ãõíáῖêá ‚ Num_5:14 : Ecc_9:1). He was jealous of the Church in behalf of Christ (to whom he‚ as the one who had made the match, had espoused it)‚ lest it should prove unfaithful‚ and be drawn off by seducing teachers from the simple dependence on Christ which his gospel had awakended in their hearts. He calls this feeling a zeal of God ( èåïῦ æÞëῳ )‚ which signifies here‚ not as in Rom_10:2‚ a zeal in behalf of God (gen. obj.)‚ for the feeling was properly in behalf of Christ; not merly one which came from or was produced by God; and still less qualitatively‚ a very great or holy zeal; but such a zeal as God has (gen. subj.). This zeal was felt by God‚ inasmuch as He was exceedingly desirous that the bride‚ whom He had provided for the Son‚ who acts in His name‚ should remain constant in her attachment; and it was of course felt also by those ministers through whose in strumentality this Divine work had been accomplished. With respect to this zeal of God (among men, jealousy) as the Husband of His people‚ comp. Isa_54:5; Isa_62:5; Jer_3:1. etc.: Eze_16:8‚ etc.; Eze_23:1 etc.; Hos_2:19.—The reason for his use of this expression he now proceeds to give when he adds (2Co_11:2)—For I have espoused you to one Husband‚ that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.—The word ἀñìüæåéí when applied to the conjugal relation signifies‚ to betroth‚ to marry.—The middle voice in other places signifies‚ to betroth one’s self; but among the more recent writers it has the same meaning as the active‚ and especially denotes the act of him who was instrumental in forming the engagement and who among the Jews always continued the medium of intercourse between the contracting parties. Comp. Joh_3:29 [and “Chrysostom’s epithet on the Apostle: íõìöáãùãὸò ôῆò ïἰêïõìÝíçò (Stanley)]‚ (not the guardian who had the charge of the education of the maiden‚ as if ἀñìüæåéí were equivalent to præparare, ornare; nor the father who made the contract for her);—The word to one husband‚ are emphathic‚ in contrast with their dependence upon their party leaders. The design which the espousal was intended to accomplish was to present to Christ a chaste virgin. He here gives the name of the one husband. The idea of virginal purity is especially prominent in the epithet chaste, on which the emphasis must be placed. The presentation refers to the period of the second advent (parousia), when the union of the Church with Christ will be completely realized (the marriage Supper of the Lamb). It is one part of this exclusive devotion of the Bride to her Lord, that she should remain chaste ( ἁãíüôìò ). [The ancient Fathers had much to say of the virgin purity of the Church, and of the duty of each Christian as a part of Christ’s betrothed Church to maintain “virginitas mentis,” which Augustine defines to be “integra fides, solida spes, sincera charitas.” Such views were striking in distinction from the spiritual polygamy and pollutions of heathenism and ancient heresy. Comp. Wordsworth]. In contrast with this endeavor on the part of the Apostle, he now mentions the danger which had awakened his fears:—but I fear lest, peradventure, as the serpent completely beguiled Eve by his many arts, so your minds might be led away from the simplicity which is in Christ (2Co_11:3). ÍïÞìáôá occurred also in 2Co_3:14; 2Co_10:5, and here signifies the mind itself, especially those faculties by which we think and will; for in the present case the reference is evidently to an impurity both in the intellect and in the will—a departure from the pure Gospel and a disturbance of their entire surrender of themselves to Christ. Beck (Seelenl. 52f.) makes it the corruption of all the spiritual powers of the soul, inasmuch as the thoughts and purposes are drawn away from the simplicity of truth by deluding the understanding with sophistries and the heart with vain hopes. The words öèáñῇ ἀðü are a constructio prægnans, and signify, to be led astray, i.e., to be brought off from any thing. The verb öèåßñåóèáé is significant, for it was not unfrequently appropriated to the destruction of virginal chastity (vitiare). In the present instance this spiritual chastity is called a simplicity in respect to Christ ( åἰò ÷ñéóôüí ) because it implied a simple dependence upon Christ. He illustrates this by a comparison with the temptation of Eve by the Serpent; in which the points of comparison are: 1, the feminine character of the Church ( ðáñèÝíïò ), and 2, the influence of Satan in both instances. He presumes that his readers were well acquainted with, and believed in, the seductive influence of Satan through the Serpent upon the woman, Genesis 3; comp. Joh_8:44; Rev_12:9; Rev_12:14-17; Rev_20:2; 1Jn_3:8. [Wordsworth finds in 2Co_11:3 “a clear assertion of the reality of the appearance of Satan in the form of a Serpent to Eve in Paradise,” and we may add that we have the Apostle’s sanction to the historical nature and accuracy of the history in Gen_3:1 ff. In ἐîáðáôÜù , which the Apostle uses both here and in 1Ti_2:14, the ἐê strengthens the idea of the deception. He thus expresses the thorough deception which passed upon the woman‚ and which he feared might take place among the Corinthians. Comp. Ellicott on 1Ti_2:14]. But those who had seduced the Corinthian Church are expressly called the ministers of Satan in 2Co_11:15. ÉÉáíïõñãßá suggests the various arts of deception and the false shows made use of by the Judaistic teachers, when they substituted their doctrine of the law for the pure Gospel Paul had preached. (Whether a Gnostic element was mingled with their instructions, and whether rhetorical and dialectic arts were employed in enforcing them, may be left undecided.—For if indeed he who is coming were preaching another Jesus whom we preached not, or ye were receiving another Spirit which ye accepted not, ye might well bear with him (2Co_11:4). This verse presents more than common difficulties, especially with reference to its connection with what precedes and what follows it. Some contend that the Apostle is here ironically giving the reasons for the solicitude he had expressed in 2Co_11:3. “For if my opponents teach and work among you things which are entirely new, you might well be pleased with them.” The idea expressed in plain terms would then be: “ye would, in fact, have reason to be much displeased with such novelties.” By his ironical reproach he would thus show what reason he had for anxiety on account of their complaisance toward those false Apostles. His reason for reproving them for such a complaisance he presents in 2Co_11:5. Thus Meyer. In like manner‚ Osiander‚ though he explains êáëῶò to mean: “you endure them finely; you find much delight in them, imagining perhaps that you will acquire some honor from them;” and he makes the Apostle give in 2Co_11:5 the reason for the ironical reproach in 2Co_11:4, by directly denying there the hypothesis on which they had claimed superiority over him, viz., because they had first preached the true Jesus and brought among the Corinthians the true Spirit and the true Gospel: “If, therefore, my opponents could claim superiority over me on this account, you might well be pleased with them. But such a claim is an empty assumption; for,” etc. On this interpretation, êáëῶò has a more appropriate meaning, and the connection with the preceding context is more obvious, but the idea of denying what had been supposed in 2Co_11:4, has something artificial in it. If no such irony is allowed in 2Co_11:4, its connection with 2Co_11:5, is still more difficult: “if he who presents himself preaches another‚ i.e., a better Jesus, etc.‚ you may very properly be pleased with him; but this is not so. ” In this case the connection with 2Co_11:3 is not plain, unless we add yet further: “such an endurance is not well and I have good reason for my solicitude.” The reason for his implied assertion that this was not so, would then be given more fully in 2Co_11:5.—In êáëῶò ἀíåß÷åóèå we have an apparent reference to the ἀíÝ÷åóèå of 2Co_11:1. In the first place he tells them what reason they had for bearing with him: (2Co_11:2, æçëῶ ãὰñ —his reason for this he then gives further: ἡñìïóÜìçí — öïâïῦìáé äὲ .)—Now he says that after seeing how they had acted toward others, he surely had reason to expect such a forbearance from them. If the man who had come to them (among them) was preaching another Jesus, altogether different from the one he had preached, etc., they might well find the greatest delight in him, i.e., they might find the utmost conceivable pleasure in his adversaries. But if this were so, he surely had reason to expect that they would tolerate him and a little folly on his part; since he was in no respect inferior to these super-eminent Apostles (2Co_11:5). In this case we only need to retain a constant recollection of what had been said in the leading sentence (2Co_11:1)‚ to gain a consistent connection for the whole passage. No actual occurrence would be introduced by åἰ , but only a supposable though extreme case: an alteration of the fundamental principles of Christianity. In the apodosis or conclusion, he introduces a sentence of a different construction ( ἀíå÷åóèå ), but one which not unfrequently is found in classic writers. In such an apodosis the ἄí falls away, if the object is to imply that there was something surer and necessary, unless some circumstances to prevent it should take place, or if nothing is spoken of except what must have taken place according to the supposition (Passow, ἄí , D. 1.). [Winer, § 43. 2.] Had he said in the protasis: ἐêÞñõóóåí , etc., he would have implied that the whole supposition was an impossibility, and this is an assertion which he does not wish to make. The idea is: in the case supposed, you would indeed have been well pleased. He thus intimates that such a case was not an actual reality.—The present tense in the protasis does not compel us to take ἀíåß÷åäèå as a simple præterite: “you made yourselves well pleased,” thus expressing a real displeasure or only a compulsory satisfaction; nor as a question (“have you reason to be pleased with him?”) [The leading verbs in the conditional clauses ( êçñýóóùé ëáìâÜõåôå ) were each in the present, and we should naturally have expected that in the conclusion (apodosis) the verb would have been in the present also: ( ἀíå÷åóèå , ye bear with him). But instead of this the Apostle designedly softens the expression by saying ( ἀíåßòåóèå ): “ye might well bear with him.” In this way he avoids saying directly that they had actually borne with the assumptions of their false teachers.] Ὁ ἐñ÷üìåíïò in this connection does not signify that he who comes first must of course be the best, but simply that he who comes makes his appearance; the presence of his opponents is conceived of as the coming forward of a single person (Meyer). [Wordsworth: “ ὁ ἐñò is, he who cometh, i.e., he who is not sent with a regular ordination and mission. This is the true character of an unauthorized teacher. This one sends himself, in contrast with the Apostle who is sent by another, viz. by Christ.”] Ἂëëïí as applied to Jesus, is a mere denial of identity and the meaning therefore is: if he so preaches that the Jesus preached does not seem the same as the one before preached. (Not: ÷ñéóôüí , for then he would imply that same other one than Jesus was the true Messiah.)— Ἕôåñïí on the other hand, as applied to the gospel, signifies something different in nature or kind, comp. Act_4:12, Gal_1:6-7— ἘäÝæáóèå has not the same meaning with ἐëÜâåôå (to receive), but it signifies to accept, and refers to the time when they were converted. [Bengel says that this change of verbs was because “man is passive in receiving the Spirit but active in accepting the gospel.”]—As in the relative sentence the emphasis lies upon the negation, there is no ὑìåῖò .—In the words Ü ̀ ëëïí , and ἕôåñïí it is implied that the subjects compared are entirely different from one another, and not that the thing spoken of was more excellent in the estimation of the Apostle’s opponents. By ἕôåñïí ðíåῦìá we are also not to understand the spirit produced in the heart by the preaching of the law, viz., the spirit of fear (Rom_8:15), or the spirit of the world (1Co_2:12)‚ or more definitely‚ the earthly spirit of a party; and by ἕôåñïí åὐáãã . (scil. ëáìâÜíåôå ), those institutions or instructions which came wholly from men, etc.—[He had given two reasons for bearing with him‚ viz.‚ the jealousy which he, as the friend of Christ (the paranymph) might reasonably be expected to feel for them‚ and their easy toleration of those who were preaching something like another gospel; and] he now proceeds in 2Co_11:5 to show that if they could take such extreme pleasure in his opponents, they had some good reason for enduring him (comp. above)‚ since he was in no respect inferior to them. He now specifies some particulars.

2Co_11:5-6. For I think that in no respect have I been behind these very superior apostles—The word ëïãßæïìáé denotes the result of careful reflection and probably has in this place still a delicate ironical tinge (Osiander).—In the negative ìãäὲí ὑóôåñãêÝíáé (the perfect reaching forward into the present) there is a modest reserve‚ inasmuch as he really had reason to boast of a positive superiority. But the ìãäὲí forbids a limitation of the expression to anything of a partial nature. The words ἱðåñëßáí ἅðüóôïëïé , however‚ both in this place and in 2Co_12:11, must apply to his opponents, previously designated by ἐñ÷üìåíïò and afterwards more particularly characterized in 2Co_11:13-15. According to Neander the Apostle intended by this compound word ( ὑðåëßáí ) to designate the extravagant importance which was attributed to or assumed by these false teachers, comp. 2Co_11:13. The whole connection is inconsistent with the interpretation prevalent in the ancient church‚ which applied the phrase to the principal Apostles‚ Peter‚ James and John (Gal_2:9)‚ and which the Protestants very generally accepted in their controversy with the Romanists on the subject of Peter’s primacy. Even if the expression contained nothing but praise rather than a bitter reproach, it would be entirely out of place in the argument.—But though I be perhaps rude in speech‚ I am not so in knowledge; but in every respect in regard to you we have been thoroughly made manifest among all men (2Co_11:6).—The Apostle here introduces a detailed explanation of what he had said in 2Co_11:5‚ with a concession that in one respect there might be an exception to what he had just said‚ inasmuch as his opponents might pride themselves on a kind of eloquence gained in the schools. This concession‚ however‚ he would not extend beyond the manner of discourse subordinate to that which ought to be the main point with an Apostle, viz., the ãíῶóéò ‚ the knowledge or perception of Divine truth (2Co_10:5; 2Co_2:14). The word é ̇ äéþôçò , 1Co_14:16, signifies a beginner‚ a bungler‚ an uneducated one who has no skill for the work in hand. [It does not deny any amount of education or skill on other or general matters. It signifies rather a man not professionally acquainted with that which he undertakes (Alford). Such a one might possibly perform the part assigned him even better than those who were trained to it‚ but he would do it in ways not taught in the regular schools. Paul was in reality a powerful speaker (Act_19:12; Act_22:1; Act_24:10; Act_26:2; Act_17:22)‚ but he did not speak in the methods usually practised by professional orators. Webster’s Synn. p. 215, and Trench, Synn. 2d Part, p. 152]. The occasion for such a reproach may be seen (comp. 2Co_10:10) in 1Co_1:17; 1Co_2:1; 1Co_2:4. The Apostle was an impressive but not an artificial orator. When he says, we have been thoroughly made manifest, etc., he passes as he often does in this epistle and in his other writings (e.g. 2Co_5:11; 2Co_10:11; 1Th_3:4-5) from the use of the singular to that of the plural ( öáíåñùèÝíôὲò ); from the individual to the collective or collegial form of expression. If öáíåñþóáíôåò be adopted as the true reading áὐôÞí ( ãíῶóéí ) must be understood. [The recent addition of the authority of the Sinaiticus to that which before was so strong in favor of this reading almost compels us to adopt it. Alford accepts of it and renders the clause thus: But in every matter we made things manifest, i.e., he made the things of the Gospel (not as our author suggests, his knowledge itself) known among all men].—The connection with 2Co_11:7 will not permit us to refer öáíåñùèÝíôåò to ãíῶóéí for what is there presupposed as well as what is implied in ἐíðáíôß (in the sense of: in every respect, not: at all times) requires a more general assertion. We see no need of supplying: “as an Apostle and an upright man‚” or anything of a similar kind to define more particularly what he meant by öáíåñùèÝôåò ; for the specification of what he intended was very obvious. In every respect, so far as you are concerned‚ we have been quite manifest among (with) all men; i.e. what we are to you‚ and what advantage you have derived from us is well known to every one (Meyer). [The phrase åἰò ὑìῖí cannot mean among you, as in the A. V., for that would have required ἐí ὑìῖí (Hodge)].—The second ἀëë ’ introduces not a second conclusion or apodosis, but something contrasted with ïὐ ôῇ ãíþóùé ‚ and it is called for by the transition to a more general assertion which includes the possession of the ãíῶóéò .—Mistaking this‚ some have connected it with 2Co_11:5‚ in such a way as to include åἰ — ãíþóåé in a parenthesis. This is not only unnecessary‚ but it deprives what is asserted in the parenthesis of all appropriate signification. After öáíåñùèÝôåò ‚ we may supply ἐóìÝí from the context‚ so that the general meaning will be: “not however with respect to knowledge, for in every respect are we manifest; or, we are plainly known,” etc.— Ἐí ðᾶóéí after ἐí ðáíôß is in the masculine and not in the neuter: [i.e. in all things among all men].—From the ἐí ðáíôß he now proceeds to select and give special prominence and vividness to one point‚ viz., the unselfishness of his whole life while he was at Corinth, 2Co_11:7 ff. [It would have been natural for him now to have gone on to speak of his knowledge‚ by means of Divine revelations‚ etc.‚ but the use of öáíåñùèÝôåò had suggested to him one of the charges made against him at Corinth, and he now proceeds immediately to answer this, leaving his “boast” of knowledge in spiritual things to be pursued afterwards (chap. 12). This charge was that he had taken no money from the Corinthians but had supported himself by his own labors; and from this his enemies had insinuated: 1, that if he had been a real Apostle he would have claimed a support as his right; 2, that it indicated a want of confidence in his brethren there; and 3, that he was now making his former disinterestedness a cover for large collections under Titus, ostensibly for the poor, but really for himself. The first two of these objections‚ as they bore on his affection and open dealing with the Corinthians‚ he answers immediately‚ but the third he does not notice till further on‚ 2Co_12:15-18. See Stanley].

2Co_11:7-12. Or have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted‚ because I preached unto you the gospel of God without charge?—[The particle ἢ is not rendered in our Eng. versions‚ and yet it is expressive as marking a transition to a new objection by his oppenents (Hodge)]. The Corinthians would necessarily understand the Apostle‚ when he asserted that he had been made manifest among them‚ as in every respect maintaining that he had behaved himself honorably among them. This induces him to raise the question given in 2Co_11:7. As the object of this question is to ward off from himself a very foul reproach‚ it implies a very painful and bitter reproof. His opponents probably represented his gratuitous labors and his earning of his own support by his daily toil‚ as a letting down of his apostolic dignity, not merely a defect and a violation of decency, but as an ἁìáñôßá [a transgression of established law]‚ as a refusal of the dignity and position which God had assigned him, and perhaps also as a contempt for the Corinthians themselves by scorning to receive any thing from them. The relation of the following sentences to the principal proposition and to one another has been variously explained. The two sentences, ôáðåéíῶí ἐìáõôüí ‚ etc., and ὅôé — ὑìῖí ‚ may be coördinated [so as to be two forms of expressing the same thought] and may be thus regarded as a misrepresentation: 1, of the Apostle’s humility; and 2, of his disinterestedness. On the other hand‚ the first sentence may be taken as the essential part of his offence‚ and the second as an epexegesis of the first. Or‚ finally, ὅôé — ὑìῖí may be regarded as the proper substance of the objection, and ôáðåéíῶí , etc., as describing‚ in a parenthesis‚ or in a transposed or hyperbatic sentence‚ the character of the act of preaching the Gospel without support (as if he had said: because humbling myself‚ I preached the Gospel without charge). The correct way undoubtedly is to make the one sentence subordinate to and not coördinate with the other; and then the best‚ and probably the easiest‚ way is to take the participial sentence as a parenthesis [Have I committed an offence in abasing myself, because I preached‚ etc.]. It is, however‚ not to be resolved into: while I was abasing myself (Meyer). By the words abasing myself that ye might be exalted‚ which he brings forward to the earlier part of the sentence‚ he shows how he thought his gratuitous preaching might be and ought to be regarded. His opponents looked upon it as an act of self-degradation‚ whereas it deserved to be esteemed an act of affectionate self-renunciation‚ an abstaining from the assertion of an acknowledged right (1Co_9:4)‚ and a supporting himself by the work of his own hands (Act_18:3)‚ to which he submitted for their good ( ἵíá ὑìåῖò ὑøùèῆôå ). The exaltation at which he aimed was not merely that of general prosperity‚ but a spiritual elevation from the depths of a sinful corruption to the heights of a Christian salvation. In the words‚ preaching the Gospel without charge‚ we have a refined contrast between what is gratuitous and what is of the utmost possible cost and value ( ôïῦ èåïῦ is here the gen. auctoris). [Meyer: “observe the collocation of the words äùñ . ô . ô . èåïῦ åὐáãã .: the Divine or most precious Gospel for nothing.”]—I spoiled other churches‚ receiving wages from them‚ that I might minister to you (2Co_11:8). The idea contained in äùñåὰí he here more fully carries out; and he places in contrast with the Corinthian Church some churches (the Macedonian‚ comp. 2Co_11:9)‚ on whom he had made demands‚ in order that he might serve them (officially‚ åὐáããåëéæüìåíïò ). Ἐóýëçóá is a strong expression and calculated to awaken shame in the hearts of those to whom he wrote‚ inasmuch as it implies that others in straitened circumstances had been reduced to want in order to do them a favor (comp. 2Co_8:2). The word is more particularly explained when he comes to say ὀøþíéïí ëáâþí (1Co_9:7), which signifies wages for service performed for a livelihood. This he received while he was doing service for the Corinthians; it was contributed, not for the poor‚ like that mentioned in 2Co_8:4; 2Co_9:1‚ but for the promotion of their spiritual welfare. [Chrysostom: “he did not say took‚ but robbed‚ i.e.‚ I stripped them bare and made them poor. And‚ what is surely greater‚ it was not for superfluities‚ but for the supply of his necessities; for when he says wages he means necessary subsistence. And‚ what is more grievous yet‚ to do you service”]. He first speaks of what was needful during his journey to Corinth‚ and while establishing himself there. Immediately afterwards he speaks of his condition while residing there.—And when I was present with you and was in want, I was chargeable to no man (2Co_11:9 a). When I also suffered want ( êáὶ ὑóôåñçèåßò )‚ when I became destitute ( ὑóôåñåῖóèáé in Luk_15:14, êáὶ concessive), when, particularly, what I had brought with me was exhausted‚ and what I could earn was not sufficient. Êáôáíáñêᾶí ôéíïò (I was chargeable lo no one) occurs also in 2Co_12:13-14). [Wordsworth: “The metaphor is from the fish‚ íÜñêç , or torpedo‚ which attaches itself to other creatures and produces torpor in that to which it attaches itself, and then endeavors to derive nourishment from it. ‘I was not‚’ says Paul‚ ‘like a torpedo to any among you’ ”]. According to Hesychius, the word has the sense of âáñýíåéí , properly to grow torpid‚ and so to press down upon any one. Jerome speaks of it as a Cilician expression‚ meaning gravare; in this place to be a burden to any one by relying upon him for support. Others regard it as meaning here: to be inactive in my duties. Ïὐäåíüò in the sense of: to no one’s disadvantage [i.e.‚ not enough to injure any one]‚ would not be appropriate in this passage (comp. 2Co_11:9), nor in 2Co_12:13-14.—For that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied. (2Co_11:9 b.)—This was the way in which he avoided being burdensome. The words need not be regarded as a parenthesis [as in Alford and Stanley]. ÉÉñïóáíáðëçñïῦí ὑóôÝñçìÜ occurs also in 2Co_9:12. As in all this connection no allusion is made to the Apostle’s supporting himself by his own earnings‚ we may reasonably doubt whether the ðñὸò in this compound verb contains any hint‚ of the kind‚ as if it implied an addition to what he earned. We rather understand by it an addition to the small amount which he perhaps yet possessed‚ or that which was necessary to complete what he lacked. The brethren here mentioned were possibly Silas and Timotheus‚ who we know actually came to him from Macedonia (Act_18:5)‚ and may have brought with them additional means for his support. The Corinthians knew very well whom he meant. Php_4:15 has no reference to this transaction. It is very likely that he had some reference to such means of support when he goes on—in every thing I have kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so will I keep myself. (2Co_11:9 c.)—That is‚ he had always kept from being burdensome to them in any way‚ and he now announces that this would be his principle of action for the future ( êáὶ ôåñÞóù ). This was said that they might not think he was reminding them of these things in order to induce them afterwards to contribute to his support‚ or to establish some claim upon them for another time. This assurance he further confirms by a solemn affirmation—As the truth of Christ is in me‚ this boasting shall not be closed against me in the regions of Achaia (2Co_11:10). A similar expression is found in chapter 2Co_1:18 and Rom_9:1. He pledges the truth of Christ which dwelt within him and which was pure truthfulness‚ in opposition to all hypocrisy or falsehood, as the security or warrant for what he was asserting, viz. that this boast (about keeping himself free in future‚ êáὶ ôçñÞóù , should never be suppressed; i.e.‚ that he would always so conduct himself that no one would be able to contradict him when he confidently maintained that his life had been and should be unselfish. [Alford (with whom Dr. Hodge agrees) maintains that there is no oath or even solemn affirmation here‚ but that the expression is exactly analogous to that in Rom_9:1‚ and signifies: “the truth of Christ is in me, that, etc.; i.e.‚ I speak according to that truth of which Christ Himself was our example, when I say that‚” etc.]. The metaphor in öñáãÞóåôáé is essentially neither that of a road hedged in‚ nor of a stream dammed up‚ but a öñÜóóåéí óôüçá ‚ i.e.‚ a stopping of the mouth, inasmuch as êáý÷çóéó is talking in a loud tone (comp. Rom_3:19; Heb_11:33; Psa_107:42; Job_5:16; 2Ma_14:36). The êáý÷çáéò personified. Its mouth shall not be stopped‚ it shall never be put to silence. Åἰò ἐìÝ is here simply, in respect to me, not adversatively, as if he had meant, for my injury or in spite of me. In ἐìÝ also may be perceived a silent contrast to those with whom it would be very different. “The truth of Christ is in me‚” contains nearly the same idea with that which asserted that the life of Christ was in him, and other expressions of a like nature Gal_2:20; 1Co_2:16; Rom_8:9-12) Olshausen’s interpretation: “as truly as I am a Christian‚” is not in accordance with the spirit of the words. Rückert’s explanation, on the other hand: “This assertion, that my boasting shall never be taken from me, is the truth of Christ in me, i.e.‚ is as surely true as if Christ Himself asserted it,” is rather forced. Instead of saying ἐí ὑìῖí ‚ he more solemnly and beautifully says, in the regions of Achaia ( ἑí ôïῖò êëῖìáòéí ôῆò ̓ Á÷áéáò . Meter). Êëßìáôá means a district or a region of country‚ and it occurs also in Rom_15:23; Gal_1:21. It was very possible for Paul’s readers to explain this assertion so as to make it an indication of his aversion to them and estrangement from them‚ inasmuch as love usually receives with readiness what is offered by a beloved one‚ and even what is done from a different motive. He guards against such a construction when he subjoins—Wherefore? Because I love you not? God knoweth (2Co_11:11).—He calls God to witness that his resolution to receive nothing from them, sprung not from any defect of love toward them. He then proceeds (in 2Co_11:12 a). to explain positively the object he had in view, and the reasons which moved him in this whole affair.—But what I thus am doing‚ I will also continue to do‚ that I may cut off the occasion from those who desire an occasion.—He refers once more to this matter in ὅ äὲ ðïéῶ , êáὶ ðïéÞóù ‚ which is not a single proposition, corresponding to ἐôÞñçóá and ôçñÞóù in 2Co_11:9‚ for in that case äéὰ ôïῦôï ðïéῶ or ðïéῶ êáé ðïéÞóù would have to be understood. The assurance refers to his future course‚ and this makes it necessary that êáὶ ðïéÞóù should be the concluding proposition of the sentence (Meyer). A ôïῦôï before it can very well be dispensed with. He thus testifies that he had had his eye upon his opponents in this affair‚ and that his object had been that no one should be able to allege that he thus showed that he had no affection for the Church. This he expresses in a final sentence: that I may cut off the occasion‚ etc. By ἀöïñìÞí he designates the particular matter with respect to which his adversaries wished to assail him; the occasion for making an attack upon him. According to the context this must refer to his disinterestedness. When he took nothing from the Corinthian Church‚ his object had been to deprive his opponents of all power to disparage him for his want of this disinterestedness. In ôὴí ἀöïñìÞí the article implies‚ this precise occasion. The last ἀöïñìÞí ‚ without the article‚ signifies‚ any occasion in general.—that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we (2Co_11:12 b).—Some connect this second final sentence with the first‚ and regard ἐí ὦ êáõ÷ῶíôáé as a parenthesis‚ referring to åὑñåèῶóé êáèὼò êáὶ ἡìåῖò . [This goes on the supposition that they themselves took money of the Corinthians‚ and desired that the Apostles should do so “in order that (in this matter on which they boasted) we might be found even as they”]. In opposition to this it must be recollected‚ that they pretended to be superior to Paul. It may‚ however‚ be said that his opponents regarded the reception of money as an apostolic prerogative‚ and hence that this was the object of their êáõ ÷ᾶóèáé (1Co_9:7 ff.) [:“from those who desire occasion that in this apostolic right of which they boast‚ they might be found even as we,” i.e., they desired that we should receive money as an apostolic right‚ that thus they and we might stand before the people on the same level of apostolical authority in the matter of receiving a maintenance (Stanley). But in whatever way this second final clause is made dependent upon the first‚ and thus expressive of the desires of Paul’s antagonist]‚ the whole passage assumes an ironical tinge‚ and implies that‚ although they would willingly allow him to participate in their boast, it was only that they might thus conceal their own shame, and deprive him of his just fame (Olshausen). But such a view of the passage is justified neither by what is said in 1Co_9:7 ff. (where no allusion is made to any such assertions of his opponents)‚ nor by our context. In such a case also the words‚ ought to have been åὑñåèῶìùí — áὐôïß . The correct construction would seem to be to coördinate the second final sentence with the first [i.e.‚ regard both as expressive of the Apostle’s design in keeping himself as he was]‚ and yet this seems to imply that these opponents actually received nothing from the people, and prided themselves upon that fact‚ and endeavored to make it a ground for triumphing over the Apostle. Paul‚ in this case‚ says that he had given such a direction to his conduct that in this respect they should be found like himself‚ i.e.‚ that they should have no reason for preference to himself. Such an explanation, however, is opposed to what is contained in 2Co_11:20, 1Co_9:12‚ and to our context (2Co_11:13), even if we pass over the necessity of giving to êáèὼò the strange meaning of‚ no better than. Besides‚ how could he urge upon their consideration his own gratuitous services among them‚ if his opponents were in the same position. [Alford proposes another interpretation. He finds the clue to it in 2Co_11:18 ff., where he thinks this êáõ÷ῶíôáé is again taken up and described as being