Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 12:7 - 12:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_12:7. καί ] is the simple copula, not even (Fritzsche). The course of thought, namely, is: For this reason I abstain from καυχᾶσθαι (2Co_12:6), and—to return now to what I said in 2Co_12:1-5—as concerns those revelations which I, though without self-glorifying, leave not unmentioned (2Co_12:5), care is taken of this, that I do not vaunt myself on this distinctio.
τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλ .] Dativus instrumenti: because the revelations imparted to me have a character so exceeding,—a nature transcending so utterly all the bounds of what is ordinary. The order of the words is inverted, in order to make the whole attention of the reader dwell on τῇ ὑπερβ . τ . ἀποκαλ ., to which the discourse here returns.[367] Comp. 2Co_2:4; Gal_2:10, al. See on Rom_11:31.
ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκὶ κ . τ . λ .] “Ex alto habuit revelationem, ex profundo castigationem,” Bengel. It is not to be connected so as also to take in ἵνα ἄγγελος Σατ . με κολαφ . (Knapp), nor is σκόλοψ to be considered as a prefixed apposition, and ἄγγελος Σατ . as subject (Tertullian, and probably also Chrysostom, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 127). For it may be urged against the former, that an inappropriate relation of meaning would result from it; and against the latter, which Hofmann has again preferred, that there is no reason whatever for departing from the usual order of the words, since even with it the ἵνα με κολαφ . applies to the angel of Satan. The ordinary construction is to be retained as the simplest and most natural; according to this, ἄγγελος εατ . appears as an appositional more precise definition of σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί : there was given to me a thorn for my flesh, an angel of Satan.
ἐδόθη ] by whom? The usual answer, given also by Rückert, Olshausen (“the educating grace of God”), Ewald, is: by God. See especially, Augustine, de nat. et grat 27: “Neque enim diabolus agebat, ne magnitudine revelationum Paulus extolleretur, et ut virtus ejus proficeretur, sed Deus. Ab illo igitur traditus erat justus colaphizandus angelo Satanae, qui per eum tradebat et injustos ipsi Satanae.” Certainly ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι is the purpose not of the devil, but of the divine will, without which the suffering in question inflicted by the devil on the apostle could not affect him; but just because the latter has thought of the devil as the one from whom that suffering proceeded, he must have conceived him also as the giver, because otherwise his mode of representation would be self-contradictory. Doubtless Satan is only the mediate giver,[368] who thereby is to serve the divine final aim ἵνα μὴ ὑπαιρ .; but the explanation, that Paul had wished to say (?) that God had permitted (so also Chrysostom and Theophylact) Satan to torment him (Billroth) is a quite arbitrary alteration of what Paul actually says. His meaning is rather, and that expressed in an active form: Satan has given to me a thorn for the flesh, in order to torment me with it—which has the moral aim ordained in the divine counsel, that I should not vaunt mysel.
σκόλοψ ] only here in the N. T. It may mean stake, ξύλον ὀξύ , Hesychius (Homer, Il. viii. 343, xv. 1, xviii. 177; Herod. ix. 97; Xen. Anab. v. 2. 5), but also thorn (Lucian, Merc. cond. 3; LXX. Hos_2:6; Eze_28:24; Num_33:55; Sir_43:19, and Fritzsche in loc., Dioscor. in Wetstein), as, indeed, it may also denote anything pointed, splinters, ridges, etc. The Vulgate has stimulus. It is here commonly taken as stake, many, like Luther, thinking of a penal stake.[369] Comp. σκολοπίζω , impale, ἀνασκολοπίζω , Herod. i. 128. But as the conception of a stake fixed in his flesh has something exaggerated and out of keeping about it, and as the figurative conception of a thorn pressed into the flesh with acute pain might very naturally occur to him from the LXX. (Num_33:55; Eze_28:24), the latter signification is to be preferred. Comp. Artem. iii 33: ἄκανθαι καὶ σκόλοπες ὀδύνας σημαίνουσι διὰ τὸ ὀξύ .
τῇ σαρκί ] is most naturally attached to σκόλοψ as an appropriating dative (comp. Castalio): a thorn for the flesh, which is destined to torment that sensuous part of my nature which lusts to sin (in specie, to self-exaltation). Fritzsche, who, with Winer, Osiander, and Buttmann, takes τῇ σαρκί as defining more precisely the part of μοι (see as to the σχῆμα καθʼ ὅλον καὶ μέρος , more used by the poets, Nägelsbach on the Il. ii. 171, iii. 438; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 266; Jacobs, Delect. Epigr. p. 162, 509; Kühner, II. p. 145), objects that τῇ σαρκί seems inappropriate, because it is inconceivable that a σκόλοψ should torment the soul, and not the body. But this objection would apply, in fact, to Fritzsche’s own explanation, and cannot at all hold good, partly because it is certainly possible to think figuratively of a σκόλοψ tormenting the soul (see Artemid. l.c., where, among the figurative references of ἄκανθαι κ . σκόλοπες , he also adduces: καὶ φρόντιδας καὶ λύπας διὰ τὸ τραχύ ), partly because σάρξ does not denote the body absolutely, or only according to its susceptibility (Hofmann), but according to its sinful quality which is bound up with the σάρξ . The objection, on the other hand, that salutary torment is not the business of an angel of Satan (Hofmann), leaves out of consideration the divine teleology in the case; comp. on 1Co_5:5.
ἄγγελος Σατᾶν ] Paul considers his evil, denoted by σκόλοψ τ . σ ., as inflicted on him by Satan, the enemy of the Messiah, as in the N. T. generally the devil appears as the originator of all wickedness and all evil, especially also of bodily evil (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 372 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 462). By the addition of ἄγγελος Σατ . in apposition to σκόλοψ τ . σ . the σκόλοψ is personified, and what is an ἔργον of Satan appears now, under the apostle’s vivid, concrete mode of view, an angel of Satan. The interpretation which takes the indeclinable Σατᾶν ,[370] occurring only here in the N. T. (see, however, LXX. 1Ki_11:14; 1Ki_11:22; 1Ki_11:25; Aq. Job_1:6), as the genitive, is the usual and right one. For if ΣΑΤᾶΝ be taken as a nominative, it must either be a nomen proprium: the angel Satan (Billroth), or it would have to be taken adjectivally: a hostile angel (Cajetanus and others, including Flatt). But the latter is against the standing usage of the N. T., into which ùÒÈèÈå has passed only as a nomen proprium. Against the former no doubt Fritzsche’s reason is not decisive: “sic neminem relinqui, qui ablegare Satanam potuerit” (comp. Rückert), since Satan in his original nature was an angel, and might retain that appellation without the point of view of the sending coming further into consideration; nor can we, with Olshausen, urge the absence of the article, since ἌΓΓ . ΣΑΤ . might have assumed the nature of a proper name; but the actual usage is against it, for Satan, so often as he occurs in the N. T., is never named ἄγγελος (Rev_9:11 is not to the point here, see Düsterdieck in loc.), which was a very natural result of the altered position of the devil, who, from being an ἌΓΓΕΛΟς before, had become the prince (Eph_2:2) of his kingdom, and now had angels of his own (Mat_25:41, comp. Barnab. 18).
ἵνα με κολαφίζῃ ] design of the giver in ἐδόθη μοι κ . τ . λ .: in order that he may buffet me (Mat_26:67; 1Co_4:11; 1Pe_2:20). The present denotes the still subsisting continuance of the suffering. See Theophyl.: οὐχ ἵνα ἅπαξ με κολαφίσῃ , ἀλλʼ ἀεί . Comp. Chrysostom. The subject is ἌΓΓΕΛΟς ΣΑΤᾶΝ , as indeed often the continuation of the discourse attaches itself to the apposition, not to the subject proper. See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 143 f. Fritzsche himself, indeed, regards σκόλοψ as the subject,[371] and assumes that the vivid conception of the apostle has transferred to the subject what properly belongs only to the apposition, to which view he had been moved by the similar sound of σκόλοψ and κολαφίζῃ , as well as by the personification of σκόλοψ . But how easily might he have found a word which would have suited the conception of the personified σκόλοψ , and would not have been inappropriate to the apposition ἄγγ . Σατ .! But in fact he has chosen a word which does not suit σκόλοψ at all, and suits ἄγγ . Σατ . exclusively, and hence we are not warranted in denying that the word belongs to ἄγγ . Σατ . Besides, this connection is most naturally suggested by the relations of the sense; for only by ἵνα με κολαφ . does ἄγγ . Σατ . come to be a complete apposition to σκόλοψ τ . σ ., inasmuch as the element of pain in the case expressed in σκόλοψ τ . σ . is not yet implied in the mere ἄγγ . Σατᾶν , but is only added by ἵνα με κολαφ .
ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι ] paedagogic aim of God’s guidance in this κολαφίζειν . See above. The devil and his angels serve, against their intention, the intention of God. See Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 382 f. In the repetition of the same words there is expressed the deeply felt importance of this telic destination. See Heindorf, ad Phaed. p. 51 ff.; Matthiae, p. 1541. Comp. also Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix.
Lastly, as concerning the thing itself, which Paul denotes by σκόλοψ τ . σ . κ . τ . λ ., it was certainly known by the Corinthians from their personal acquaintance with Paul without any more precise indication; to us at least any special indication has been denied. For a great host of attempts at explanation, some of them very odd, see Poole’s Synopsis; Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 518 ff.; Wolf, Cur. The opinions are in the main of three kinds: (1) that Paul means spiritual assaults of the devil (what are called injectiones Satanae), who suggested to him blasphemous thoughts (Gerson, Luther, Calovius), stings of conscience over his earlier life (Luc. Osiander, Mosheim; also Osiander, who includes also a bodily suffering), and the like. The Catholics, however, to whom such an exposition, favouring forms of monastic temptation, could not but be welcome, thought usually of enticements of Satan (awakened, according to Cardinal Hugo, by association with the beautiful Thecla!)[372] to unchastity (Thomas, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and many others, and still Bisping), for which Augustine and Theophylact are often wrongly quoted as vouchers. (2) That Paul means the temptations on the part of his opponents[373] engaged in the service of Satan (2Co_11:13; 2Co_11:15), or the temptations and troubles of his apostolic office in general (Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Fritzsche, Schrader, Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 401). (3) That Paul means a very severe bodily suffering (Augustine and many others, including Delitzsch and Hofmann), in connection with which conjecture has lighted on a variety of ailments, such as hypochondriac melancholy (Bartholinus, Wedel, and others), pain in the head ( τίνες already in Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Jerome, ad Gal_4:14, mention it; so also Teller), haemorrhoids (Bertholdt), “falling sickness or something similar” (Ewald, Hofmann), epileptic attacks of cramp (Ziegler, Holsten), and several others.
Against No. 1 we cannot urge τῇ σαρκί , since the devil’s influence would have, in operating on the moral consciousness, to start certainly from the σάρξ , where the principle of sin has its seat (Romans 7), but we may urge σκόλοψ and ἵνα με κολαφ ., figurative expressions which evidently portray an acute and severe pain. Besides, under such a constant spiritual influence of the devil, Paul would not appear in a manner in keeping with his nature wholly filled by Christ (see especially, Gal_2:20), and with his pneumatic heroism. Enticements to unchastity are not even to be remotely thought of on account of 1Co_7:7; it would be an outrage on the great apostle. Against No. 2 it is to be remarked that here a suffering quite peculiar must be meant, as a counterpoise to the quite peculiar distinction which had accrued to him by the ὑπερβολὴ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων . Besides, adversaries and official troubles belonged necessarily to his calling (see especially, 2Co_4:7 ff., 2Co_6:4 ff.), as, indeed, he had these in common with all true preachers of Christ, and knew how to find an honour in them (comp. Gal_6:17); hence he would certainly not have besought the taking away of these sufferings, 2Co_12:8. It is believed, no doubt, that this explanation may be shown to suit the context by 2Co_12:9 compared with 2Co_12:10 (see especially, Fritzsche, p. 152 f.), but ἀσθένεια in 2Co_12:9-10 expresses only the category, to which also that special suffering belonged. Accordingly No. 3 remains at all events as the most probable, namely, the hypothesis that Paul bore in his person some kind of painful, chronic bodily evil, which seemed to him as inflicted by Satan.[374] Only this evil cannot at all be specified more precisely than that it made itself felt in its paroxysms by shocks of pain, which might be compared to blows; but in what part of the body it had its seat (possibly proceeding from the head) cannot with certainty be inferred from κολαφίζειν , since this word, like the more correct Greek κονδυλίζειν , denotes buffeting with the fist. More specific conjectures are mere fancies, are liable to be enlisted in the service of tendency-criticism (Holsten, who attaches to this suffering the disposition to visionary conditions), and come to some extent into sharp collision with the fact of the apostle’s extraordinary activity and perseverance amid bodily hardships. The hypothesis of a bodily suffering, with the renunciation of any attempt to specify it more precisely, is rightly adhered to, after older expositors, by Emmerling, Olshausen, Rückert, de Wette, Beyschlag, et al. (though Rückert here also appeals to the alleged traces of sickness in our Epistles, such as 1Co_2:2, 2Co_4:12, as well as to Gal_4:13-15); while others, as Neander and Billroth, content themselves with an utter non liquet, although the former is inclined to think of inward temptations.[375]
[367] Lachmann, who has adopted διό before ἵνα (see the critical remarks), puts the whole of ver. 6, ἐὰν … ἐξ ἐμοῦ , in a parenthesis, and places a full stop after ἀποκαλύψεων in ver. 7, so that κ . τῇ ὑπερβ . τ . ἀποκαλ . goes with εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις (Lachmann has struck out μου , but on too slender authority) in ver. 5, and διὸ ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι begins a new sentence. But in that case not only would καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλ . come in haltingly after a very isolated and, as it were, forlorn fashion, but Paul would have given to the parenthesis an illogical position. Logically he must have written: ὑπὲρ δὲ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ καυχήσομαι ( ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι … ἐξ ἐμοῦ ) εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων . Ewald follows Lachmann’s reading, but, not assuming any parenthesis, attaches καὶ τῇ ὑπερβ . τῶν ἀποκαλ . to μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται κ . τ . λ ., and that in the sense: even by these abundant disclosures led astray, if I should express myself, namely, as to their contents. But apart from the consideration that Paul would have expressed such a sense too unintelligibly by the mere dative and without more precise definition, utterances regarding the contents of the ἀποκαλύψεις , had he made them, would have fallen within the category of what is denoted by ἢ ἀκούει τὶ ἐξ ἐμοῦ , and consequently in so far the logical accuracy of μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογ . κ . τ . λ . would fail.
[368] Comp. Hofmann: “an evil which befalls him in accordance with God’s will, but through the working of a spiritual power opposed to God.”
[369] In the gloss: “It is a stake, where people are impaled, or crucified, or hanged.”
[370] Σατανᾶ , read by Lachmann and Rückert on the authority of Δ * B D* F G à * 67**, is a correct interpretation.
[371] Comp. Augustine, Conc. 2 in Psalms 58 : “Accepit apost. stimulum carnis, a quo colaphizaretur.”
[372] See, regarding this mythical association, the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischend. Act. apocr. p. 40 ff.
[373] So Chrysostom and others. Many among these, because of the singular, think specially of one pre-eminently hostile antagonist. So, among the ancient expositors, Oecumenius, and, among the modern, several cited by Wolf, and also Semler and Stolz. Chrysostom and Theophylact name, by way of example, the smith Alexander, Hymenaeus, and Philetus.
[374] In this respect, too, we find a parallel in the history and mode of view of Luther, who, as is well known, suffered from violent attacks of stone (which visited him with especial severity on the Convention at Schmalkald), and likewise ascribed this suffering to the devil as its author.—Chrysostom exclaims against the view of a bodily evil ( κεφαλαλγία ): μὴ γένοιτο · οὐ γὰρ ἂν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Παύλου ταῖς τοῦ διαβόλου χερσὶν ἐξεδόθη , ὅπου γε αὐτὸς ὁ διάβολος ἐπιτάγματι μόνον εἶκεν αὐτῷ Παύλῳ . An argument nimium probans!
[375] The most strange interpretation of the passage is given by Redslob in the Progr. d. Hamb. Gymnas. 1860, who goes so far as to make out of it a jesting designation of Silvanus ( ñìåï , Eze_28:24)!