Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 12:16 - 12:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_12:16-18. Refutation of the possible slander, which assuredly was also actually ventured on the part of his adversaries, that, if he had not himself directly burdened the Corinthians, he had still done so in a cunning way indirectly by means of his emissaries.
In 2Co_12:16 Paul does not, indeed, speak in the person of his opponents, for otherwise, instead of ἐγώ , he must have expressed himself in the third person; but he clothes his speech in the words of his adversaries.[382]
ἔστω δέ ] concessive: but be it so, it may, however, be the case that I have not oppressed you. Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 516 C, al. (Krüger, § 54, 4. 2); also the εἶεν , very common in classical writers, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Euthyph. p. 13 D; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 1303, and for the similar use of the Latin esto, sit ita sane, Cicero, Tusc. i. 43. 102; De Fin. iv. 45.
ἐγώ ] my own perso.
ἈΛΛʼ ὙΠΆΡΧΩΝ Κ . Τ . Λ .] no longer depends on ἜΣΤΩ ΔΈ , but is the contrast—to be read as an exclamation—of ἜΣΤΩ ΔῈ , ἘΓῺ Οὐ ΚΑΤΕΒΆΡ . ὙΜᾶς : but cunningly I, et.
δόλῳ ] This would have been the case, if he had made plunder of them indirectly by a third han.
ἜΛΑΒΟΝ ] caught, figure taken from hunting. See on 2Co_11:20. Comp. on δόλῳ λαμβάν . Soph. Phil. 101, 107, 1266.—2Co_12:17-18 now show in lively questions, appealing to the reader’s own experience, how untrue that ἀλλʼ ὑπάρχων … ἔλαβον was. Have I then overreached you by one of those whom I sent to you? namely, by claims for money, and the like. The construction is anacoluthic, inasmuch as Paul, for emphasis, prefixes absolutely the τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς as the object of what he wishes to say, and then subjoins the further statement independently of it, so that the accusative remains the more emphatically pendent—a usage found also in classical writers. See Bernhardy, p. 133.
ὧν ] τούτων οὕς . Comp. Rom_15:18.
In 2Co_12:18 he now mentions, by way of example, Titus, whom he had encouraged to travel to Corinth, and his fellow-envoy, and he asks, significantly repeating ἐπλεονέκτ . and prefixing it: Has Titus overreached you? This journey of Titus to Corinth is not, as is otherwise usually supposed, the one mentioned in chap. 8, which had yet to be made, and in which Titus had two companions (2Co_8:18; 2Co_8:22), but the one made soon after our first Epistle, and mentioned in chap. 7. The fact that Titus ‘only is here mentioned, and not also Timothy (1Co_4:17; 1Co_16:10), is made use of to support the opinion that Timothy had not come to Corinth at all (see the Introd.). Comp. Rück. pp. 380, 409. But how groundlessly! From the long and close connection of the apostle with the Corinthians it may be even à priori concluded, that he had sent various persons to Corinth beside Titus; and he himself testifies this by the plural ὧν ἀπέσταλκα . But here he names only Titus instar omnium as the one last sent. Besides, it would not have been even proper to say: I have sent Timothy to you, since Timothy, in fact, was joint-sender of the letter (2Co_1:1).
τὸν ἀδελφόν ] the brother (fellow-Christian) well known to them (but unknown to us).[383] That in that mission he was quite subordinate to Titus is clear from συναπέστ ., and from the fact that in what follows the conduct of Titus alone is spoken o.
τῷ αὐτῷ πνευμ .] with the same Spirit, namely, with the Holy Spirit determining our walk and excluding all πλεονεξία . The dative is that of manner to the question how? Comp. Act_9:31; Act_21:21; Rom_13:13. It may, however, also be just as fitly taken as dative of the norm (Gal_5:16; Gal_6:16). We cannot decide the point. If the inward agreement is denoted by τῷ αὐτῷ πνευμ ., the likeness of outward procedure is expressed by τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἴχυεσι (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 276 D: τῷ ταὐτὸν ἴχνος μετιόντι ). But here the dative is local, as in Act_14:16; Jud_1:11 (comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 225 f.). So Pind. Pyth. x 20: ἐμβέβακεν ἴχνεσιν πατρός , comp. with Nem. vi 27: ἴχνεσιν ἐν Πραξιδάμαντος ἐὸν πόδα νέμων . Whose are the footsteps, in which the two walked? The footsteps of Paul, in which Titus followed his predecessor (comp. Lucian, Herm. 73), so that they thereby became the same, in which both walked—said with reference to the unselfishness maintained by both. The context does not yield any reference to Christ (1Pe_2:21).
[382] Let us conceive that they had asserted regarding Paul: ἔστω δέ · αὐτὶς οὐ κατεβάρησεν ὑμᾶς κ . τ . λ . This Paul makes use of, inasmuch as he, entering into their meaning, says of himself, what they have said of him—a mimesis, which is almost a parody.
[383] According to Wieseler, Chronol. p. 349, it was Tychicus, as also at 2Co_8:22. This rests on a combination drawn from Tit_3:12.