Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 10:12 - 10:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_10:12.[305] Reason assigned for this assurance ( οἷοί ἐσμεν … τῷ ἔργῳ ): for we are not like our boastful opponents, but, etc. If we were such people as they are, word and work might doubtless not harmonize in our cas.
οὐ γὰρ τολμῶμεν κ . τ . λ .] for we do not venture to number ourselves among, or compare ourselves with, certain people among those who commend themselves; but they,[306] measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are not rational; we, on the other hand, will not make our boast beyond measure, but, etc., 2Co_10:13. In οὐ τολμῶμεν is implied an irony which shows the want of humility in those people. Bengel aptly says: “sepem inter se et illos ponit.”
ἐγκρῖναι ] annumerare, to place in one category; inserere, as the Vulgate rightly has it (Hor. Od. i. 1. 35); construed with εἰς , μετά , ἐπί with genitive, and with the simple dative of the persons joined (Apoll. Rhod. i. 48. 227). See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 264.
συγκρῖναι ] might mean the same (Morus, Rosen-müller, Flatt, Reiche, and several, following the Peshito), but is defined by συγκρίνοντες in the contrasting clause as having the meaning comparare (Vulgate), which it very often has in later Greek, as also in Wis_7:29; Wis_15:18, equivalent to παραβάλλειν in Polyb. i. 2. 1, xii. 12. 1.[307] See, in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 278. Comp. Loesner, Obss. p. 273. Observe, moreover, the paronomasia of the two verbs, something like inferre aut conferre, the German zurechnen oder gleichrechnen; Ewald: eingleichen oder vergleichen [reckon to or reckon like].
τισι ] as in 2Co_10:2, not: even the least of them (Hofmann).
τῶν ἑσυτ . συνιστ .] This is the class of men, to which the τινές belon.
ἀλλά ] introduces the opposite in such a way that the procedure of the two parties is placed antithetically in juxtaposition: “We do not venture to reckon ourselves to or compare ourselves with them, but they proceed thus, we, on the other hand, thus.” We do not venture, etc., but between them and us there subsists the contrast, which does away with that ἐγκρῖναι ἢ συγκρῖναι κ . τ . λ ., that they, etc., whereas we, et.
αὐτοί down to οὐ συνιοῦσιν applies to the hostile τινές , and on this point one half of the expositors are agreed. But συνιοῦσιν , which is therefore not to be accented συνίουσιν (comp. on Rom_3:11), is not a participle (Chrysostom), so that it would be definition of quality to ἑαυτοῖς , which would quite unnecessarily make an anacoluthon, but it is the third person plural (Mat_13:13) for the Attic συνιᾶσιν , which is read by Lachmann, following B à **—so that ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες κ . συγκρ . ἑαυτ . ἑαυτοῖς is the point, in which the opponents show their irrationality (inasmuch as they measure themselves by themselves … they are irrational), and not the object of Οὐ ΣΥΝΙΟῦΣΙΝ (they do not know that they measure themselves by themselves), as Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, and several have held. To this last view, indeed, there is no grammatical objection (Valckenaer, ad Herod. III. 1, and on the distinction from the infinitive construction, Kühner, II. p. 357), but it would yield an inappropriate meaning; for the contrast ἩΜΕῖς ΔῈ Κ . Τ . Λ . shows that Paul did not mean to bring into prominence the blindness of his opponents towards their foolish conduct, but the folly of this procedure itself, whereas he proceeds quite otherwise. When those people measure themselves by themselves, judge themselves by their own personality, and compare themselves with this instead of with persons working more and better,[308] they are in this presumption of theirs (comp. Chrysostom 1) irrational, ineptiunt, οὐ συνιοῦσι . This, however, is not to be defined more precisely by arbitrary additions, such as: they do not know how ridiculous they make themselves (Chrysostom 2, Theophylact), or, how arrogant they are (Oecumenius), or what they are talking about (Augustine). Comp. rather Rom_3:11; Mat_13:13, al. Hofmann prefers the reading of à * 2Co 93: συνίσασιν (comp. on this Attic form, Act_26:4, and see Buttmann, Ausf. Sprachl. p. 548 ff.), and attaches ἙΑΥΤΟῖς to it: they are not conscious of this, that they only measure themselves and compare themselves, i.e. that only within their own selves they form their judgment respecting themselves, how far they are capable of apprehending, and to whom they are entitled to rank themselves equal. But the reading ΣΥΝΊΣΑΣΙΝ can only be regarded as a copyist’s error, through which, instead of ΣΥΝΙᾶΣΙΝ (Lachmann), there crept in the word ΣΥΝΊΣΑΣΙΝ well known from the Attic writers (e.g. Soph. El. 93; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 9), and this in turn was at once amended by the corrector A. And in no case can ἑαυτοῖς be separated from συγκρίνοντες , since συγκρίνειν in itself is an incomplete notion, which necessarily requires a specification of that with which comparison is made. Hofmann’s view is at once uncritical and illogical, apart from the fact that it very much disturbs the purposely chosen symmetry of the two participial definitions; hence it is also formally unsuitable.
The second half of the expositors (Chrysostom hesitates between the two views) refer ΑὐΤΟῚ … ΣΥΝΙΟῦΣΙΝ to Paul, and consider συνιοῦσιν (to be written συνίουσιν ) as a participle, so that the measuring self by self, etc. appears to be the right kind of judgment.[309] Comp. Horace, Ep. i. 7 98: “Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est.” In this case either (a) οὐ συνιοῦσιν is considered as in contrast with ἙΑΥΤΟῖς : with ourselves, not with wise people, by which the conceited opponents would be ironically meant (Bos, Homberg, Schrader). Or (b) ἀλλὰ … ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς is taken as parenthesis, and Οὐ ΣΥΝΙΟῦΣΙ as one conception in apposition to ΤΙΣῚ ΤῶΝ ἙΑΥΤ . ΣΥΝΙΣΤ . (Schulz). Or (c) οὐ συνιοῦσιν is taken as apposition to the preceding ἙΑΥΤΟῖς : “neque existimo ex me, homine, ut istis placet, insipido,” Emmerling, whom Olshausen follows. All these views take the participles for the finite tenses (or rather as anacoluthic); but against them all the following ἡμεῖς δέ is decisive, which makes it logically necessary to refer ΑὐΤΟΊ to the opponents; for it cannot, as Emmerling and Olshausen think, form a logical contrast to the charge which is alleged to be implied in οὐ συνιοῦσιν , since ἩΜΕῖς ΔΈ would require to be put in antithesis to the accusers, and not to the accusation (which, besides, would only be expressed quite cursorily and indirectly by Οὐ ΣΥΝΙΟῦΣΙΝ ). Further, there may be urged against (a), that it would require οὐ τοῖς συνιοῦσιν with the article; against (b), that this interpretation is involved; against (c), not so much the want of the article—for οὐ συνιοῦσιν need not be in apposition, but might also be an accompanying definition of ἙΑΥΤΟῖς —as the fact that there is no hint in the context of any ironical adducing of such a charge, and hence it is not to be compared with 2Co_11:1; 2Co_11:16; 2Co_11:19, 2Co_12:11.
[305] This passage is most thoroughly discussed by Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 33 ff. (whom Billroth has entirely followed), and by Reiche, Commentar. Crit. I. p. 375 ff. Theodoret remarks: ἀσαφῶς απαν τὸ χώρημα τοῦτο γέγραφεν , and for this he advances as a reason: ἐναργῶς ἐλέγξαι τοὺς αἰτίους οὐ βουλόμενος .
[306] This emphasized they ( αὐτοί , they on their part) is fully justified in contrast to the following ἡμεῖς ; hence it is not, with Osiander, to be taken in the sense of soli, n its limitation to themselves.
[307] The objects compared may be of similar or dissimilar nature. On this point the word does not determine anything.
[308] Such an one thinks: what a great man I am, for how much I know and can do! how I even excel myself, etc.! His own ego is thus object and canon of the measuring and judging. Calvin aptly illustrates this by the example of the ignorant and yet so conceited monks. The juxtaposition of αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτούς palliates the conceit of the selfish nature. Comp. Plato, Protag. p. 347 E: αὐτοὶ δʼ ἑαυτοῖς σύνεισι διʼ ἑαυτῶν . It is well paraphrased by Reiche, p 380: “sibi ipsis e vana sua de se opinione virtutum meritorumque modulum constituentes atque se sibi solis comparantes, non potioribus meliusque meritis, quod si fecerint, illico quam sint nihil ipsi cognoscerent.” Hofmann, again, deals in subtleties, referring ἐν ἑαυτοῖς not only to the first, but also to the second participle, and (see against this, below) connecting the concluding ἑαυτοῖς with the following verb.
[309] According to Emmerling, μετρ . ἑαυτ . ἐν ἑαυτ . applies to abstinence from promises which transcend their powers, and the συγκριν . ἑαυτ . ἑαυτοῖς to the “judicium ferre de se ad normam virium suarum, factorum et meritorum.” According to Olshausen, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες is intended to mean: we measure ourselves by what the Lord has imposed on us!
REMARK 1.
Against our explanation (which is found in substance also in Augustine, Chrysostom 1, Theodoret, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Hammond, Wetstein, Zachariae, and others, including Rückert, Reiche, Neander, Osiander, Kling, partly also in Hofmann), it has been objected (see especially Fritzsche and Billroth) that ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κ . τ . λ . cannot apply to the opponents, because manifestly different modes of dealing, and not different persons, would be opposed to each other, in which case Paul could not but have written: ἡμεῖς γὰρ οὐ … ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κ . τ . λ . But by this very contrast of persons first introduced by ἀλλά ( ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ … ἡμεῖς δέ ) the opposite of the mode of action previously negatived is exhibited in a truly concrete and vivid way, and by no means illogically, seeing that in fact by the previous ἑαυτοὺς τισί the contrast of persons introduced with ἀλλά was very naturally suggested. On the other hand, it would not have been logical, if Paul had written ἡμεῖς γὰρ οὐ τολμῶμεν … ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κ . τ . λ ., since then doubtless the persons, but not that which is asserted of the persons, would stand in logical contrast with one another; for what is asserted would need to be substantially in both clauses one and the same thing, which would be denied of the ἡμεῖς , and affirmed of the αὐτοί . It has been objected to our explanation of οὐ συνιοῦσιν that it is against the context; but it is, in point of fact, to be observed, that on the one hand it gives a very delicate explanation concerning the ironical οὐ τολμῶμεν , and that on the other hand the following ἡμεῖς δὲ κ . τ . λ . with logical accuracy opposes to the previous ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κ . τ . λ . the thought: we, however, abide by the measure which God has imparted to us, so that in κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος , οὗ ἐμέρ . ἡμ . ὁ θεὸς μέτρου there lies the contrast to the irrational procedure of the opponents measuring themselves by themselves. He who measures himself by himself, seeing that in fact he lacks an objective standard, falls with his boasting εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα , like those opponents; but not he, who knows himself determined by a limit set by God. Finally, the objection, that by our interpretation οὐ συνιοῦσιν gets a thought imported into it which its literal tenor does not actually present (Hofmann), is quite groundless, since οὐ , by a quite common usage, turns the συνιοῦσιν into its opposite, consequently οὐ συν . expresses the ἀσυνεσία , the irrationality and folly of those men in their procedure.
REMARK 2.
By leaving out oh οὐ συνιοῦσιν · ἡμεῖς δέ , but retaining καυχησόμεθα , 2Co_10:13 (see the critical remarks), the meaning results; “sed me ex meo modulo metiens mihique me conferens, non praeter modum, sed ad modum ita mihi praefiniti spatii, ut ad vos quoque pervenirem, gloriabor” (Fritzsche).[310] But if καυχησόμεθα also is left out, as Fritzsche and Billroth approve, Paul in 2Co_10:15 turns back to ΟὐΚ ΕἸς ΤᾺ ἌΜΕΤΡΑ in 2Co_10:13, and then adds the still necessary verb anacoluthically in the participle: “sed me ipse mihi conferens, non praeter modum … 2Co_10:15, non praeter modum inquam me efferens” (Fritzsche). The suitableness of the meaning and of the antithetic character in the several parts, as well as the unexceptionable warrant of the anacoluthon, have been aptly shown by Fritzsche, pp. 41, 43 f. But the rejected words cannot thereby be deprived of their critical title to exist.
[310] Comp. Ewald: “but modestly and cautiously measuring ourselves by ourselves and our abilities, and comparing ourselves with ourselves and our labours already achieved and clear before the world and before God, we will not (like those intruders) boast without measure, but at most will boast according to the measure of the standard which God imparted to us as measure, and which accordingly among other things authorized and strengthened us, that we attained even unto you and founded you.”