Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 11:12 - 11:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_11:12.[327] Positive specification of the reason, after brief repetition of the matter which calls for it ( ὃ δὲ ποιῶ , καὶ ποιήσω ).
Since Paul, in accordance with 2Co_11:10, wishes to specify the aim inducing the future continuance of his conduct, καὶ ποιήσω must be apodosis (comp. Erasmus, Annot., Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf), and must not be attached to the protasis, so as to make it necessary to supply before ἵνα a ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΟΙῶ (Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Castalio, Emmerling), or τοῦτο ποιῶ κ . ποιήσω (Rückert, but undecidedly), or simply ΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ (Osiander, Ewald).
ἽΝΑ ἘΚΚΌΨΩ Κ . Τ . Λ .] in order that I may cut off the opportunity of those, who wish (exoptant, Beza) opportunity, namely, to degrade and to slander me. Τὴν ἀφορμήν , having the article, denotes the definite occasion, arising from the subject in question, for bringing the apostle into evil repute. Had he caused himself to be remunerated by the Corinthians, his enemies, who in general were looking out for opportunity ( ἈΦΟΡΜ . without the article), would have taken thence the opportunity of slandering him as selfish and greedy; this was their ἀφορμή , which he wished to cut off ( ἈΝΑΙΡΕῖΝ , Chrysostom) by his gratuitous working. Others understand by ΤῊΝ ἈΦΟΡΜΉΝ the occasion of exalting and magnifying themselves above him (Calvin, Grotius, Flatt). But according to this, we should have to assume that the false apostles had taken no pay, on which point, after the precedent of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Billroth, and others, Rückert especially insists. This assumption, however, which Neander also supports (comp. against it, Beza), has against it à priori the fact that Paul lays so earnest stress on his gratuitous preaching—which would not be appropriate to his apologetico-polemic train of argument, if on this point he had stood on the same footing with his opponents. Further, 2Co_11:20 and 1Co_9:12 are expressly opposed to it; and the objection of Rückert, that the apostle’s testimony to the baseness of his opponents loses much of its force owing to his passionate temperament, is an exaggerated opinion, to which we can concede only this much, that his testimony regarding his opponents is strongly expressed (comp. 2Co_11:20), but not that it contains anything untrue. If they had worked against him from honest prejudice, it would have been at once indiscreet and un-Christian in him to work against them. Rückert’s further objection, that the adversaries, if they had taken payment where Paul took none, would have coupled folly with selfishness, is unfounded, seeing that in fact, even with that recommendation in which Paul had the advantage of them by his unpaid teaching, very many other ways were left to them of exalting themselves and of lowering his repute, and hence they might be all the more prudent and cunning. Comp. on 2Co_11:6.
ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται κ . τ . λ .] may be parallel to the previous clause of purpose (Düsterdieck). Yet it is more in keeping with the logical relation—that here something positive, and previously only something negative, is asserted as intended—and thereby with the climactic course of the passage, to assume that ἽΝΑ ἘΝ ᾯ ΚΑΥΧ . Κ . Τ . Λ . is the aim of ἐκκόψω τὴν ἀφορμὴν τ . θ . ἀφ ., and thus the final aim of the ὃ δὲ ποιῶ , καὶ ποιήσω in regard to the opponents: in order that they, in the point of which they boast, may be found even as we. This is what I purpose to bring about among them. If, namely, the enemies did not find in Paul the opportunity of disparaging him as selfish, now there was to be given to them withal the necessity (according to his purpose) of showing themselves to be just such as Paul[328] in that, in which they boasted, i.e. according to the context, in the point of unselfishness. Hitherto, forsooth, the credit of unselfishness, which they assigned to themselves, was idle ostentation, see 2Co_11:20. De Wette makes objection, on the other hand, that they could not have boasted of unselfishness, if they had shown themselves selfish. But this was the very point of his enemies’ untruthfulness (2Co_11:13, comp. 2Co_5:12), that they vaingloriously displayed the semblance of unselfishness, while in fact they knew how to enrich themselves by the Christians. Theodoret aptly says: ἔδειξε δὲ αὐτοὺς λόγῳ κομπάζοντας , λάθρα δὲ χρηματιζομένους . Düsterdieck, too, can find no ground in the context for saying either that the opponents had reproached the apostle with selfishness, or had given themselves out for unselfish. But the former is not implied in our explanation (they only sought the occasion for that charge), while the latter is sufficiently implied in 2Co_11:20. The expositors who consider the opponents as labouring gratuitously understand ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται of this unpaid working, of which they had boasted, so that Paul in this view would say: in order that they, in this point of which they boast, may be found not better than we. See Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, comp. Billroth and Rückert; Billroth and others (comp. Düsterdieck above) taking withal the second ἵνα as parallel to the first, which Rückert also admits. But against the hypothesis that the opponents had taught gratuitously, see above. And the not better than we arbitrarily changes the positive expression καθὼς ἡμεῖς into the negative. Lastly, this explanation stands in no logical connection with what follows. See on 2Co_11:13. Following Augustine, de serm. Dom. in monte, ii. 16, Cajetanus and Estius regard ἵνα … ἡμεῖς as an exposition of ἈΦΟΡΜΉΝ : occasion, in order to be found as we, and ἐν ᾧ καυχ . as parenthetical: in quo, sc. in eo quod est inveniri sicut et nos, gloriantur. Comp. also Bengel. But the opponents did not, in fact, boast of being like Paul, but of being more than he was (2Co_11:5), and wished to hold him or to have him held as not at all a true apostle, 2Co_11:4. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who, attaching the second ἵνα to ἈΦΟΡΜΉΝ , and referring[329] ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται to the apostleship of which the opponents boasted, finds Paul’s meaning to be this: maintaining in its integrity the gratuitous character of his working, he takes away from those, who would fain find ways and means of making their pretended apostleship appear equal to his genuine one, the possibility of effecting their purpose. But in the connection of the text, ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται on the one side and ΚΑΘῺς ΚΑῚ ἩΜΕῖς on the other can only denote one and the same quality, namely, the unselfishness, of which the opponents untruly boasted, while Paul had it in truth and verified it. Olshausen has been led farthest astray by taking the second ἵνα as the wish of the opponents; he imagines that they had been annoyed at Paul’s occupying a position of strictness which put them so much to shame, and hence they had wished to bring him away from it, in order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be found even as they. And the ἘΝ ᾯ ΚΑΥΧ . is to be taken, as if they had put forward the authority to take money as an object of glorying, as an apostolic prerogative (1Co_9:7 ff.); so that the whole passage has therefore the ironical meaning: “Much as they are opposed to me, they still wish an opportunity of letting me take a share of their credit, that I may allow myself to be supported as an apostle by the churches; but with this they wish only to hide their shame and rob me of my true credit: in this they shall not succeed!” But that the opponents had put forward the warrant to take money as an apostolic prerogative, is not to be inferred from 1Co_9:7 ff., where Paul, in fact, speaks only of the right of the teacher to take pay. Further, there is no ground in the context for the assumed reference of ἐν ᾧ καυχ .; and lastly, in keeping with the alleged ironical meaning, Paul must have written: ΕὙΡΕΘῶΜΕΝ ΚΑΘῺς ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΟΊ , which Olshausen doubtless felt himself, when he wrote: “in order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be found such as they.”
On ἐκκόπτειν , in the ethical sense of bringing to nought, comp. LXX. Job_19:10; 4Ma_3:2 ff.; Plat. Charm. p. 155 C; Polyb. xx. 6. 2. The opposite: παρέχειν ἀφορμήν (Bähr, ad Pyrrh. p. 237).
On the double ἵνα , the second introducing the aim of the first clause of aim, comp. Eph_5:27; Joh_1:7. Hofmann, without reason, desires ὍΠΩς in place of the second ἽΝΑ .
[327] See regarding ver. 12, Düsterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 517 ff.
[328] Beza well gives the substantial meaning: “Isti quidem omnem mei calumniandi occasionem captant, expectantes dum poeniteat me juri meo renuntiantem in praedicando evangelio ex manuum mearum labore victitare. At ego nunquam patiar hanc laudem (qua ipsos refello) mihi in Achaiae ecclesiis praeripi. Imo in hoc instituto pergam, ut et ipsos ad exemplum meum imitandum provocem, nedum ut quam captant occasionem inveniant.”
[329] De Wette and Düsterdieek also refer ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται to the apostolic working and dignity. According to the latter, the meaning would be: in order that they, as regards unselfishness, may let themselves be found just such as I, the apostle vilified by them, and may in this way show what is the worth of their boastful claim to apostolic dignity. Even this clear interpretation does not remove the difficulty that, as the καύχησις of Paul concerned the gratuitous nature of his labouring (ver. 10, comp. 1Co_9:15), so also the καυχᾶσθαι ascribed in the immediate context to the opponents, and pointing back by καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς to the apostle’s conduct (which was the subject-matter of his boasting), requires no other object, nay, when we strictly adhere to the immediate connection, admits of no other.