Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 13:2 - 13:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_13:2. Ὡς παρὼν … νῦν is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it is a definition to προλέγω , which interrupts neither the construction nor the sense. I have said before, and say beforehand, as at my second visit (“sicut feci, cum secundo vobiscum essem,” Er. Schmid), so also in my present absence, to those who have formerly sinned, and to all the rest, that, when I shall have come again, I will not spare. Accordingly ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον leaves no doubt as to the temporal reference of προείρηκα . Moreover, from 2Co_13:2 alone the presence of the apostle, which had already twice taken place, could not be proved. For, if we knew that he had been only once, προείρηκα would certainly refer to the first epistle, and ὡς παρὼν κ . τ . λ . would have to be explained: as if I were present for the second time, although I am now absent (comp. Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Baur, and others).[393] But, as it is clear from other passages that Paul had already been twice in Corinth, and as here in particular ΤΡΊΤΟΝ ΤΟῦΤΟ ἜΡΧΟΜΑΙ immediately goes before, that view, in which also the ΝῦΝ would simply be superfluous and cumbrous, is impossible. Beza, who is followed by Zachariae and Märcker, connects awkwardly (seeing that ΤῸ ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟΝ and ΝῦΝ must correspond to each other) ΤῸ ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟΝ with ΠΡΟΛΈΓΩ . Hofmann also misses the correct view, when he makes Ὡς serve merely to annex the quality (“as one having been there a second time, and now absent”), in which the apostle has said and says beforehand. In this way ὡς would be the quippe qui from the conception of the speaker, as in 1Co_7:25, and παρών would be imperfect. The two clauses of the sentence, however, contain in fact not qualities subjectively conceived, but two objective relations of time; and hence ὡς , if it is to have the sense given above, would simply be irrelevant (comp. 1Co_5:3 a; 2Co_10:11; Php_1:27) and confusing. Paul would have simply written: προείρηκα παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ προλέγω ἀπὼν νῦν .
τοῖς προηματηκόσι ] See on 2Co_12:21. It is self-evident, we may add, that the ΠΡΟ in ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤ . has from the standpoint of the ΠΡΟΛΈΓΩ a greater period of the past behind it than from the standpoint of the ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΚΑ , and that the ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤΗΚΌΤΕς , whom the present ΠΡΟΛΈΓΩ threatens, were more, and in part other, than those to whom at the second visit the ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΚΑ had applied. The category, however, is the same; and hence it is not to be said, with Lücke, that from our passage it is clear: “quibus nunc, tanquam προημαρτηκόσι , severiorem castigationem minatur apostolus, eosdem jam tunc, quum olim ( προείρηκα ) minitatus esset, προημαρτηκότας fuisse.” Paul had at his second presence threatened the προημαρτηκότες , and he threatens them also now. On the two occasions the threat referred to the same genus hominum, to those who had sinned before the time at which Paul discoursed to the Corinthians, and were still sinners; but the individuals were not on the two occasions quite the same. Certainly at least there were now ( προλέγω ) not a few among them, who had not been included on the previous occasion (see 1Co_1:11; 1Co_5:1, comp. with 2Co_12:20-21).
καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν ] Thus ΤΟῖς ΜῊ ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤΗΚΌΣΙ . To these he then said it before, and he says it so now, by way of warning, of deterring. It is the whole other members of the church that are meant, and Paul mentions them, not as witnesses, but in order that they may make the threatening serve according to the respective requirements of their moral condition to stimulate reflection and discipline; hence τοῖς λοιποῖς , even according to our view of ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤ ., is not without suitable meaning (in opposition to de Wette).
ΕἸς ΤῸ ΠΆΛΙΝ ] On the ΠΆΛΙΝ used substantially, see Bernhardy, p. 328, and on ΕἸς in the specification of a term of time, Matthiae, p. 1345. Comp. ΕἸς ΑὖΘΙς , ΕἸς ὈΨΈ , Ἐς ΤΛΟς , and the lik.
Οὐ ΦΕΊΣΟΜΑΙ ] The reasons why Paul spared them in his second, certainly but very short, visit, are as little known to us, as the reason why Luke, who has in fact passed over so much, has made no mention of this second visit in the Book of Acts.
[393] To this category belongs also the strange view of Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p 203: “This is the second time that I am present among you and yet absent at the same time.” Paul, namely, had, in Lange’s view, the spirit-like gift of transplanting himself with the full spiritual power of his authority during his absence into the midst of the distant church, which had doubtless felt the thunderclap of his spiritual appearing. In Corinth this had taken place the first time at the exclusion of the incestuous person, 1Co_5:3, and the second time now. Of such fancies and spiritualistic notions there is nowhere found any trace in the apostle. And what are we to make in that case of the νῦν ? The only correct view of this νῦν and its relation to τὸ δεύτερον is already given by Chrysostom: παρεγενόμην δεύτερον καὶ εἶπον , λέγω δὲ καὶ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς , ἀνάγκη με μοιπὸν ἀληθεῦσαι . Comp. also ver. 10.