Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 13:1 - 13:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_13:1. As Paul has expressed himself by μήπως ἔρις κ . τ . λ . in 2Co_12:20, and in 2Co_12:21 has explained himself more precisely merely as regards that μήπως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς (see on 2Co_12:20), he still owes to his readers a more precise explanation regarding the κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε , and this he now gives to them. Observe the asyndetic, sternly-measured form of his sentences in 2Co_13:1-2.
τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ] The elaborate shifts of the expositors, who do not understand this of a third actual coming thither, inasmuch as they assume that Paul had been but once in Corinth,[390] may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and Wolf’s Curae. According to Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 202 f. (comp. also Märcker, Stellung der Pastoralbr. p. 14), τρίτον τοῦτο is intended to apply to the third project of a journey, and ἔρχομαι to its decided execution: “This third time in the series of projects laid before you above I come.” Linguistically incorrect, since τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχ . cannot mean anything else than: for the third time I come this time, so that it does not refer to previous projects, but to two journeys that had taken place before. On τρίτον τοῦτο , this third time (accusative absolute), that is, this time for a third time, comp. Herod. v. 76: τέταρτον δὴ τοῦτο … ἀπικόμενοι , LXX. Jdg_16:15 : τοῦτο τρίτον ἐπλάνησάς με , Num_22:28; Joh_21:14. Bengel correctly remarks on the present: “jam sum in procinctu.”
ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων κ . τ . λ .] On this my third arrival there is to be no further sparing (as at my second visit), but summary procedure. Comp. Mat_18:16, where, however, the words of the law are used with another turn to the meaning. Paul announces with the words of the law well known to his readers, Deu_19:15, which he adopts as his own, that he, arrived for this third time, will, without further indulgence, institute a legal hearing of witnesses (comp. 1Ti_5:19), and that on the basis of the affirmation of two and three witnesses every point of complaint will be decided. Not as if he wished to set himself up as disciplinary judge (this power was vested ordinarily in the church, Mat_18:16, 1Co_5:12-13, and was, even in extraordinary cases of punishment, not exercised alone on the part of the apostle, 1Co_5:3-5), but he would set agoing and arrange the summary procedure in the way of discipline, which he had threatened. Nor did the notoriety of the transgressions render the latter unnecessary, seeing that, on the one hand, they might not all be notorious, and, on the other, even those that were so needed a definite form of treatment. Following Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Estius, and others, including recently Neander, Olshausen, Raebiger, Ewald, Osiander, Maier, have understood the two or three witnesses of Paul himself, who takes the various occasions of his presence among the Corinthians as testimonies, by which the truth of the matters is made good,[391] or the execution of his threats (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, comp. Bleek, Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann) is to be decided (Theophylact: ἐπὶ τῶν τριῶν μου παρουσιῶν πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀπειλητικὸν κατασταθήσεται καθʼ ἱμῶν καὶ κυρωθήσεται , ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσατε · ἀντὶ μαρτύρων γὰρ τὰς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τίθησι ). But if Paul regarded himself, under the point of view of his different visits to Corinth respectively, as the witnesses, he could make himself pass for three witnesses only in respect of those evils which he had already perceived at his first visit (and then again on his second and third), and for two witnesses only in respect of those evils which he had lighted upon in his second visit for the first time, and would on his third visit encounter a second time. But in this view precisely all those evils and sins would be left out of account, which had only come into prominence after his second visit; for as regards these, because he was only to become acquainted with them for the first time at his third visit, he would only pass as one witness. Consequently this explanation, Pauline though it looks, is inappropriate; nor is the difficulty got over by the admission that the relations in question are not to be dealt with too exactly (Osiander), as, indeed, the objection, that the threat is directed against the προημαρτηκότες , avails nothing on the correct view of 2Co_12:21, and the continued validity of the legal ordinance itself (it holds, in fact, even at the present day in the common law) should not after 1Ti_5:10 have been doubted. Nor does the refining of Hofmann dispose of the matter. He thinks, forsooth, that besides the προημαρτηκότες , all the rest also, whom such a threat may concern, are now twice warned, orally (at the second visit of the apostle) and in writing (by this letter), and his arrival will be to them the third and last admonition to reflect. This is not appropriate either to the words (see on 2Co_13:2) or to the necessary unity and equality of the idea of witnesses, with which, in fact, Paul—and, moreover, in application of so solemn a passage of the law—would have dealt very oddly, if not only he himself was to represent the three witnesses, but one of them was even to be his letter.
καί ] not in the sense of ἤ , as, following the Vulgate, many earlier and modern expositors (including Flatt and Emmerling) would take it, but: and, if, namely, there are so many.[392] Paul might have put ἤ , as in Mat_18:16, but, following the LXX., he has thought on and, and therefore put i.
πᾶν ῥῆμα ] everything that comes to be spoken of, to be discussed. Comp. on Mat_4:4.
σταθήσεται ] will be established ( éÇ÷åÌí ), namely, for judicial decision. This is more in keeping with the original text than (comp. on Mat_26:25): will be weighed (Ewald).
[390] Most of them, like Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Wetstein, Zachariae, Flatt, were of opinion that Paul expresses here, too, simply a third readiness to come, from which view also has arisen the reading ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν instead of ἔρχομαι in A, Syr. Erp. Copt. To this also Baur reverts, who explains ἔρχομαι : I am on the point of coming. But this would, in fact, be just a third actual coming, which Paul was on the point of, and would presuppose his having come already twice. Beza and others suggest: “Binas suas epistolas (!) pro totidem ad illos profectionibus recenset.”
[391] Grotius, in consistency with the view that Paul had been only once there, quite at variance with the words of the passage pares down the meaning to this: “cum bis terve id dixerim, tandem ratum erit.” Compare also Clericus. The explanation of Emmerling: “Titum ejusque comites certissimum edituros esse testimonium de animo suo Corinthios invisendi,” is purely fanciful. The simple and correct view is given already by Erasmus in his Paraphr.: “Hic erit tertius meus ad vos adventus; in hunc se quisque praeparet. Neque enim amplius connivebo, sed juxta jus strictum atque exactum res agetur. Quisquis delatus fuerit, is duorum aut trium hominum testimonio vel absolvetur vel damnabitur.”
[392] It corresponds quite to the German expression “zwei bis drei.” Comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 10 : δύο καὶ τρία βήματα . See Krüger and Kühner in loc. In this case καί is atque, not also (Hofmann).