Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 12:1 - 12:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_12:1.[349] Scarcely has Paul, in 2Co_11:32 f., begun his καυχᾶσθαι τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας with the incident in Damascus, when he breaks off again with the thought which, in the instantaneous, true tact of his consciousness (comp. on 2Co_11:32 f.), as it were bars his way: ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ ΔΕῖ , Οὐ ΣΥΜΦΈΡΕΙ ΜΟΙ (see the critical remarks): to boast of myself is necessary, not beneficial for me. Let it be observed that οὐ συμφ . is the antithesis of ΔΕῖ (necesse, non utile est), and that a comma only must therefore stand after δεῖ ; further, that ΜΟΙ belongs not merely to ΣΥΜΦ ., but also to ΔΕῖ (Tob_5:14; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 3. 10, Anab. iii. 4. 35; Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 257);[350] lastly, that συμφ . means the moral benefit as opposed to the ethical disadvantage of the self-exaltation (comp. 2Co_12:7, and see Theophyl.): “saluberrimum animo ἡ τῆς οἰήσεως συστολή ,” Grotius. Comp. Ignat. Trall. 4 : πολλὰ φρονῶ ἐν θεῷ , ἀλλʼ ἐμαυτὸν μετρῶ , ἵνα μὴ ἐν καυχήσει ἀπόλωμαι . The δεῖ arose out of the existing circumstances of the Corinthians, by which Paul had seen himself necessitated to the καυχᾶσθαι ; but the οὐ συμφέρει prevails with him to pass on to something else and far higher, as that in which there lay no self-glory (2Co_12:5). With the reading δή (see the critical remarks) the δή would only make the notion of καυχᾶσθαι more significantly[351] prominent, like the German eben or ja [certainly, or indeed] (see Krüger, § 69, 19. 2; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 392; Bäumlein, Partikell. p. 98), but could not, as Hofmann (with an inappropriate appeal to Hartung) assumes, denote glorying “simply and absolutely,” in contrast with a καυχᾶσθαι τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας . This Paul would have known how to express by something like ἉΠΛῶς ΔῊ ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ .
ἘΛΕΎΣΟΜΑΙ ] not: I would (to which Hofmann practically comes), but: I will (now) come to speak. See Wolf, Curae; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ix. 83, p. 119.
γάρ ] He might also have said ΟὖΝ , but his conception is, that by his passing over to something else the Οὐ ΣΥΜΦΈΡΕΙ ΜΟΙ is illustrated and confirmed. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 235; Bäumlein, Partik. p. 86.
εἰς ὀπτασίας καὶ ἀποκαλ . κυρίου ] i.e. to facts, in which Christ imparted to me visions and revelations.[352] The genitivus subjecti κυρίου is the characteristic definition, which both words need (not simply the second, to which Hofmann limits it). Theophylact remarks that in ἀποκαλ . there is added to ὀπτασ . something more, ἡ μὲν γὰρ μόνον βλέπειν δίδωσιν , αὕτη δὲ καί τι βαθύτερον τοῦ ὁρωμένου ἀπογυμνοῖ . This distinction, however, keeps the two ideas apart contrary to their nature, as if the apocalyptic element were not given with the ὀπτασία . Ὀπτασία (“species visibilis objecta vigilanti aut somnianti,” Grotius) is rather a special form of receiving the ἀποκάλυψις (comp. Lücke, Einl. in d. Offenb. Joh. I. p. 27, ed. 2), which latter may take place by means of such a miraculous vision (Dan_9:23; Dan_10:1; Dan_10:16); see also Luk_1:22; Act_26:19. This is the meaning of ὀπτασία here, and ἀποκαλ . is a wider idea, inasmuch as revelations occur also otherwise than in the way of visions beheld, although here ensuing in that way; comp. 2Co_12:7, where ἀποκαλ . stands alone.
That Paul by what follows wishes to prove, with a polemic object against the Christine party, that external acquaintance with Christ was superfluous (so Baur; see also Oecumenius), is not to be assumed, just because otherwise the mention of his having had a vision of Christ would be necessary for its bearing on the sequel. Nor can we from this passage infer it as the distinctive feature of the Christines, that they had claimed to stand by visions and revelations in a mystical connection with Christ (Schenkel, Dähne, de Wette, Goldhorn; comp. also Ewald, Beyschlag), since Paul is contending against specifically Judaistic opponents, against whom he pursues his general purpose of elucidating his apostolic dignity, which enemies obscured in Corinth,[353] from the special distinctions which he, and not his opponents, had to show (comp. Räbiger, p. 210; Klöpper, p. 99 ff.).
[349] See on ver. 1 ff., Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 206 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 173 ff.; and again, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff.; also Holsten, zum Evang. des Paul. u. d. Petr. 1868, p. 21 ff.
[350] Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 404) objects that Paul must have written “solenniter et perspicue:” καυχᾶσθαι ἐμὲ δεῖ , οὐ δὲ συμφέρει μοι . But if μοι were not to be referred jointly to δεῖ , seeing that δεῖ with the dative and infinitive certainly is found in classical writers seldom (see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 399 f.), and never in the N. T., an ἐμέ would not be necessary; but καυχ . δεῖ may be taken absolutely: boasting is necessary (under the circumstances given), not advantageous is it to me. The non-use of δέ or ἀλλά is in keeping with the very common asyndetic juxtaposition of contrasted statements, 1Co_7:6; Rom_2:29; 2Co_5:3, et al. Reiche himself, defending the Recepta, lays the whole emphasis on μοι : my boasting takes place not for my own advantage, but for yours (in order to correct your judgment regarding me, etc.). He explains it, therefore, as if Paul had written: οὐκ ἐμοί or οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ συμφέρει . Theodoret had already taken it erroneously, quite like Reiche.
[351] “ Δή est particula determinativa, id verbum, quod sequitur, graviter efferens,” Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 2. Comp. also Hartung, Partik. I. p. 283. Erasm.: “gloriari sane non expedit mihi.” It might accordingly be taken also with a touch of irony, like scilicet: boast indeed I must. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 173 E; Hartung, l.c. Holsten also, l.c. p. 28, takes it in the ironical sense.
[352] As is well known, from this passage arose the apocryphal Ἀποκάλυψις Παύλου , and (or?) the Ἀναβατικὸν Παύλου . See Lücke, Einl. in d. Offenb. Joh. I. p. 244 ff. ed. 2. Theophylact finds the proof that this treatise is not genuine in ἄῤῥητα , ver. 4.
[353] According to Hilgenfeld, Paul means now to impart yet something greater than the vision of Christ (?) at his call. Not something greater, but something quite of another kind. Holsten, too, finds in the ὀπτασίας something, which exalts Paul above the original apostles, since to the latter such things had not been imparted after the resurrection of Christ. That, indeed, we do not at all know. We are acquainted with analogous disclosures also by Peter. And how scanty are our sources regarding the history of the Twelve!