Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 10:1 - 10:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_10:1. Δέ leads over to a new section, and its position lays the emphasis on αὐτός ; comp. on Rom_7:25 : ipse autem ego, I, however, for my own self, independently and without bias from the action of others among you. See what follows. With this αὐτὸς ἐγώ , Paul, in the feeling of his elevation above such action, boldly casts into the scales of his readers the weight of his own personality over against his calumniators. The expression has something in it nobly proud and defiant; but the ἔμφασις τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ἀξίας (Theodoret, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others, including Billroth) lies not in αὐτός , but in ἐγὼ Παῦλος simply. While many, as Beza and Olshausen, have left the reference of αὐτός quite unnoticed, and others have arbitrarily imported what the context does not suggest, such as Erasmus, Bengel, and also Hofmann;[298] Eminerling and Rückert assume that Paul wrote from 2Co_10:1 onward with his own hand, so that the αὐτός was explained to the readers by the altered handwriting. Comp. Ewald, according to whom Paul meant only to add a short word of conclusion with his own hand and therewith to end the letter, but on beginning this concluding word, felt himself urged to enter on a detailed discussion of the matter itself in its personal relations. But, seeing that Paul has not added anything like Τῇ ἘΜῇ ΧΕΙΡΊ (1Co_16:21; Col_4:18), or at least written ΓΡΆΦΩ ὙΜῖΝ instead of ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶ ὙΜᾶς , there is no sufficiently certain hint of this explanation in the words themselves, the more especially as the ΑὐΤῸς ἘΓΏ is frequently used by him elsewhere (2Co_12:13; Rom_7:25; Rom_9:3; Rom_15:14). Rückert finds a confirmation of that hypothesis in the fact that this Epistle does not, like the First, contain some concluding lines in his own hand. But most of the apostle’s letters contain nothing of the sort; and this Epistle in particular, on account of its whole character and on account also of its bearer, stood so little in need of any authentication, if there was to be such a thing, from his own hand, that his enemies would have made themselves ridiculous by doubting the authenticity of the composition. Apart from this, it remains very probable that Paul himself wrote the conclusion of the Epistle, possibly from 2Co_13:11 onward, without mentioning the fact expressl.
ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΠΡᾼΌΤΗΤΟς ΚΑῚ ἘΠΙΕΙΚΕΊΑς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ , by means of the meekness and gentleness of Christ; i.e. assigning a motive for compliance with my exhortation by pointing to the fact, that Christ, whose example I have to imitate, is so gentle and meek (Mat_11:29-30; Isa_42:2; Isa_42:8; Isa_52:4-7). Comp. Rom_12:1; 1Co_1:10. The gentleness and meekness of Christ belong to the divine love manifested in Him (Rom_8:39; Tit_3:4 ff.), and are continually shown by Him in His heavenly government, in the working of His grace, in His intercession, etc. Estius designates rightly the ground of the motive assigned: “quia cupiebat non provocari ad severitatem vindictae” (which would not be in harmony with Christ’s meekness and gentleness). On ἐπιείκεια , clementia (Act_24:4), which is often found in connection with πρᾳότης (as Plut. Pericl. 39, Caes. 57; Philo, de Vita Mos. p. 112), comp. Wetstein. It is attributed even to God (2Ma_10:4; Bar_2:27) and to Wisdom (Wis_12:18). Bengel gives the distinction of the two words: “ πρᾳότης virtus magis absoluta; ἘΠΙΕΊΚΕΙΑ magis refertur ad alios.” It is the opposite of standing on one’s full rights, Plato, Def. p. 412 B: δικαίων κ . συμφερόντων ἐλάττωσις .
ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν κ . τ . λ .] I who, to the face, am indeed humble, of a subdued, unassuming character among you, but in absence have courage towards you—a malicious opinion of his opponents, designed to counteract the influence of the apostle’s letters, which he here appropriates to himself μιμητικῶς . Comp. 2Co_10:10. ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ , coram, is not a Hebraïsm, but see Wetstein on the passage; Hermann, ad Soph. Trach. 102; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 612. There is no need to supply anything after ταπεινός , neither ΕἸΜΊ nor ὬΝ . On ΤΑΠΕΙΝΌς , comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 5, where it is connected with ἀνελεύθερος ; Dem. 1312. 2.
[298] Erasmus: “ille ipse vobis abunde spectatus P., qui vestrae salutis causa tantum malorum et passus sum et patior.” Bengel, however, hesitates between three references: “ipse facit antitheton vel ad Titum et fratres duos, quos praemisit P., vel ad Corinthios, qui ipsi debebant officium observare; vel etiam ad Paulum ipsum majore coram usurum severitate, ut αὐτός , ipse, denotet ultro.” Hofmann, still referring to the collection, makes the apostle lay emphasis on the fact that this exhortation comes from himself, in contradistinction, namely, from what those others (chap. 9) will do in his stead and by his order (comp. Bengel’s 1st). But the whole matter of the collection was completely ended at 2Co_9:15. After the exclamation of thanksgiving in 2Co_9:15, a παρακαλεῖν of his own in this matter is no longer suitable; and, besides, the emphatic vindication of the apostolic authority in that case would be uncalled for.
REMARK.
Rückert is wrongly of opinion that the assertion of the opponents had been true, and just on that account had been so ill taken by Paul; that he belonged to those in whom natural impetuosity is not united with personal courage. Against this there is the testimony of his whole working from Damascus to Rome; and outpourings like 2Co_6:4 ff. al. do not lack internal truth. Comp. besides, passages like Act_20:22 ff; Act_21:13; Act_24:25; 2Co_11:23 ff. al. That assertion of his opponents may be explained from the fact that, though there were not wanting disturbing phenomena even at his second arrival in Corinth (2Co_2:1, 2Co_12:21), it was only subsequently that the evils had become so magnified and multiplied as to necessitate his now writing (in our first Epistle) far more severely than he had spoken in Corinth.