Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 12:21 - 12:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_12:21. The interrogative interpretation (Lachmann, Lücke) is, viewed in itself, compatible not only with the reading ταπεινώσει (Lachmann), but also with the deliberative subjunctive of the Recepta (Lücke). Comp. Xenophon, Oec. iv. 4 : μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν τὸν Περσῶν βασιλέα μιμήσασθαι ; see in general, Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 159 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 203. But the usual non-interrogative explanation, which makes μή still dependent on φοβοῦμαι , not only makes the passage appear more emphatic (by the three parallels, μήπως
μήπως
μή ), but is also the only interpretation suited to the context, since, in fact, after the apprehension quite definitely expressed in 2Co_12:20, the negative question, in the case of which a No is to be conceived as the answer (comp. 2Co_12:17-18), would be inappropriate.
In μή compared with the previous μήπως there lies a climax as regards the definiteness of the conceptio.
πάλιν ] goes along with ἐλθόντος μον ταπεινώσῃ με ὁ θ . μ . πρὸς ὑμ . (comp. on 2Co_2:1), so that Paul reminds them how already at his second visit (comp. 1Co_5:9) he had experienced such humiliation. Connected merely with ἐλθόντος μου (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, de Wette, Wieseler, and many others), it would be without important bearin.
ἐλθόντος μου τάπ . με ] a construction also of frequent occurrence in classical writers. Comp. on 2Co_9:14, and see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 270 [E. T. 315].
ταπεινώσει με , not of bodily (Hofmann), but of mental bending, as in dejection. Comp. Polyb. iii. 116. 8, iv. 80. 3. “Nihil erat, quo magis exultaret apostolus, quam prospero suae praedicationis successu (comp. 1Th_2:20; Php_4:1); contra nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore animo redderetur, quam quum cerneret, se frustra laborasse,” Beza. Comp. Chrysostcm. The future ταπεινώσει (see the critical remarks), which expresses the apprehension that the sad case of this humiliation will withal actually still occur (see on Col_2:8), stands in a climactic relation to the previous subjunctives; the apprehension increases.
ὁ θεός μου ] as Rom_1:8; 1Co_1:4. In the humbling experiences of his office Paul sees paedagogic decrees of his Go.
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ] not among you, for how superfluous that would be! but: in reference to you, in my relation to you. So also Rückert, who, however (comp. Chrysostom, Osiander, and several), explains ταπεινώσις of Paul’s seeing himself compelled “to appear before them not with the joyful pride of a father over his good children, but with the punitive earnestness of a judge.” But the punitive earnestness of the judge is in fact no ταπεινώσις , but an act of the apostolic authority, and only follows subsequently, after the ταπεινώσις has taken place by the observation of the punishment-deserving state, which has made him feel that his efforts have been without resul.
πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων ], On προημαρτ ., comp. Herodian, iii. 14. 8 : ἀπολογεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰ προημαρτημένα . According to Rückert, Paul has written thus inexactly, instead of πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτ . τοὺς μὴ μετανοήσαντας . How arbitrary! In that case he would have expressed himself with downright inaccuracy. Lücke, l.c. p. 20, explains it more ingeniously: “Cogitavit rem ita, ut primum poneret Christianorum ex ethnicis potissimum τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων genus universum, cujus generis homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos, qui Corinthi essent, designaret definiretque.” But the reference to the unconverted sinners, who ubique ecclesiarum essent, is quite foreign to the context, since Paul had simply to do with the Corinthians (comp. previously πρὸς ὑμᾶς ), and hence these could not seek the genus of the προημαρτηκότων κ . τ . λ . here meant elsewhere than just in their own church. The right interpretation results undoubtedly from the order of the thoughts specified at 2Co_12:20, according to which ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ κ . τ . λ . cannot belong to μετανοησ . (comp. Lucian, de salt 84: μετανοῆσαι ἐφʼ οἷς ἐποίησεν ), as it is usually taken, but only to πενθήσω : and that I will lament[388] many of those, who have previously sinned and shall not have repented, on account of the uncleanness, etc. Thus Paul passes over from the sinful states named in 2Co_12:20 to quite another category of sins, and the course of thought accordingly is: “I fear that I shall not only meet with contentions, etc., among you, but that I shall have also to bewail many of the then still unconverted sinners among you on account of the sins of impurity which they have committed (Eph_4:30; Heb_13:17).” Not all προημαρτηκότες καὶ μὴ μετανοήσαντες in Corinth were impure sinners, but Paul fears that he will encounter many of them as such; hence he could not write at all otherwise than: πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων .[389] This explanation is adopted by Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 792], Bisping, and Kling.
The perfect participle προημαρτ . denotes the continuance of the condition from earlier times; and καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων has the sense of the futurum exactum: and who shall not have repented at my arrival. The προ in προημαρτ . expresses the sinning that had taken place in earlier times, which Lücke (comp. Olshausen) refers to the time before conversion (comp. the passages of Justin, Apolog. 1:61; Clement, Strom. iv. 12 in Lücke, p. 18 f.). But as the evils adduced in 2Co_12:20 only set in after the conversion, we are not warranted (see the plan of the passage specified at 2Co_12:20) to assume for the sins named in 2Co_12:21 the time before conversion, as, indeed, 1Co_5:1 also points to the time after conversion. But if we ask how far Paul with his προ looks back into the past of the Corinthians that had elapsed since their conversion, it might, if we regard 2Co_12:20-21 by themselves, appear as if he referred not further back than to that time, in which the contentions (2Co_12:20) and the sins of impurity censured in 1Co_5:1 (2Co_12:21) emerged. But as this happened only after his second visit, and as he says in 2Co_13:2 that he had foretold (comp. 2Co_2:1) punishment to the προημαρτηκόσι already at his second visit, it follows that with his προ he glances back from the present to the time before his second visit. After his first visit there had already emerged in Corinth evils, which humbled him at his second visit (2Co_12:21), and on account of which he at that time threatened (see on 2Co_13:2) these προημαρτηκότες with punishment; after his second presence there had now broken out, in addition, the contentions and sins of impurity which we know from his Epistles; and to all this, consequently to the whole time till after his first and before his second visit, he looks back, inasmuch as he says not merely ἡμαρτηκότων , but προημαρτηκότων Consequently Billroth is wrong in restricting the word merely to those “whom I already, through my second sojourn among you, know as sinners;” and Estius says too indefinitely, and also quite arbitrarily, as regards προ , not starting from the present time: ante scriptam priorem epistolam, while many others, like Rückert, do not enter on the question at al.
ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ κ . τ . λ .] if connected with μετανοησάντων , would be in respect or on account of. But, apart from the fact that μετανοεῖν (which, we may add, Paul has only here) is in the N. T. never connected with ἐπί (as Joe_2:13; Amo_7:3, LXX.), but with ἀπό (Act_8:22; Heb_6:1) or ἐκ (Rev_2:21 f., Rev_16:11), in this particular case the necessary and correct connection (see previously on πολλ . τ . προημ . κ . μὴ μετανοησ .) is with πενθήσω , the ground of which it specifies: o2Co 12:Just so Aeschin. p. 84, 14; Plut. Agis, 17; Rev_18:11; 1Sa_15:35; Ezr_10:6, al. Ἀκαθαρσία , here of licentious impurity, Rom_1:24; Gal_5:19; Eph_4:19. Then: πορνεία , fornication in specie. Lastly: ἀσέλγεια , licentious wantonness and abandonment (Rom_13:13; Gal_5:19; Eph_4:19; Wis_14:26).
ἔπραξαν ] have practised. Comp. on Rom_1:32.
[388] πενθήσω is taken by Theophylact and others, including Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, and de Wette, as a threatening of punishment; and Grotius even thought that the apostles may have discharged their penal office not without signs of mourning, “sicut Romani civem damnaturi sumebant pullam togam.” But the whole reference of the word to punishment is in the highest degree arbitrary, and at variance with the context. For it is only at 2Co_13:1 ff. that the threat of punishment follows; and the ταπεινώσῃ με ὁ θεός μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς , with which καὶ πενθήσω is connected, warrants us only to retain for the latter the pure literal meaning lugere aliquem, which is very current in classical writers (Hom. Il. xix. 225, xxiii. 283; Herod. vii. 220; Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 3) and in the LXX. (Gen_37:34; Gen_50:3, al.; Sir_51:19; Jdt_16:24). The word does not at all mean to prepare sorrow, as Vater and Olshausen explain it. Calvin therefore is right in leaving the idea of punishment out of account, and aptly remarks: “Veri et germani pastoris affectum nobis exprimit, quum luctu aliorum peccata se prosequuturum dicit.” Estius, too, rejects any reference to punishment, and finds in πενθήσω that Paul regards those concerned as Deo mortuos. Comp. Ewald. Under the latter view too much is found in the word, since the context does not speak of spiritual death, but specifies the ground of the mourning by ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ κ . τ . λ . Hence we must adhere to Calvin’s exposition as not going beyond either the meaning of the word or the context. Calovius also says very correctly (in opposition to Grotius): “Non de poena hic Corinthiorum impoenitentium, sed de moerore suo super impoenitentia.” De Wette, followed by Osiander, finds in πενθ . the pain of being obliged to proceed with the special punishment of excommunication, and explains πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτ . κ . μὴ μεταν . ἐπὶ κ . τ . λ . of the worst among the unconverted sinners guilty of unchastity. In that case the chief points of the meaning must be mentally supplied, for which there is the less warrant, seeing that πενθήσω is parallel to the ταπειν . με ὁ θ ., expressing subjectively that which is denoted by ταπειν . κ . τ . λ . objectively.
[389] The objections of de Wette against my explanation will not bear examination. For (1) from the fact that Paul, in order to express his alarm and anxiety regarding the unchaste, mentions withal the category of sinners in general, there does not arise the appearance as if he would not have to mourn over the latter; but out of the collective wickedness in Corinth he singles out the unchastity which was prevalent there as specially grievous. This species of sinners appears under the genus of Corinthian sinners as one of the two chief stains on the church (the other was the party-spirit, ver. 20). Further, (2) the προημαρτηκότες in 2Co_13:2 are not any more than here a species, but likewise the category, to which the kinds denoted in vv. 20 and 21 belonged. (3) The connection of ἐπὶ κ . τ . λ . with πενθήσω is not unnatural, but natural, since πολλοὺς τῶν προημ . κ . μὴ μεταν ., taken together, is the object of πενθ ., so that Paul has observed the sequence which is simplest of all and most usual (verb—object—ground). The objections of Osiander and Hofmann are not more valid. Those of the latter especially amount in the long run to subtleties, for which there is no ground. For Paul certainly fears that he will have to lament the non-repentance of the persons concerned, and the sins which they are still committing at the time. This is clearly enough contained in καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων ; and as to ἧ ἔπραξαν , Paul very naturally writes the aorist, and not ᾗ πράσσουσιν , because he transplants himself, as in μὴ μετανοησ ., to the point of time when he arrives and will then judge what they have done up to that time. He might also have written ᾗ πράσσουσιν , but would thereby have deviated from the conformity of his conception of time introduced with κ . μ . μετανοησ . (which is that of the futurum exactum), for which he had no occasion. It is incorrect, with Hofmann, to say that μετανοησάντω refers to the time when Paul was writing this, and that, because there was still space for them to repent up to the time of his arrival, he has not spoken generally of the impenitent, but of many (who, namely, would remain hardened). According to the context, μετανοησάντων can only apply to the time of his impending ἐλθεῖν , when he will have to lament many of the old and still at that time non-repentant sinners, on account of their impurity, etc.