Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 2:10 - 2:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_2:10. A second motive for the κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπ . And to whomsoever (in order to hold before you yet another motive) you give pardon as to anything, to him I also give pardon. Δέ , accordingly, is the simple μεταβατικόν . Rückert wishes to supply a μέν before γάρ in 2Co_2:9, so that 2Co_2:9 and 2Co_2:10 together may give the sense: “It was, indeed, my wish to find perfect obedience among you; but since you are willing to pardon him, I too am willing.” But here, too, this supplement is altogether groundless; nay, in this very case, where 2Co_2:9 is referred by γάρ to what goes before, the express marking of the mutual relation of the two clauses would have been logically necessary, and hence μέν must have been used. Further, the meaning contained in Rückert’s explanation would express an indifference and accommodation so strangely at variance with the apostolic authority, that the apostle would only have been thereby lowered in the eyes of his reader.
ᾧ δέ τι χαρίζεσθε , καὶ ἐγώ ] general assurance (and this general expression remains also in the reason assigned that follows), to which the present special case is subordinated. The reader knew to whom the ὅς and to what the τί were to be applie.
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ κ . τ . λ .] Reason assigned for what was just said. “For this circumstance, that I also pardon him to whom you pardon anything, rests on reciprocity: what also I on my part have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, I have pardoned with a regard to you”—i.e. in order that my forgiveness may be followed by yours. This definite meaning of διʼ ὑμᾶς (not the general: for your benefit, as Flatt, de Wette, Osiander, and many others have it) is, according to the context, demanded by ᾧ τι χαρ ., καὶ ἐγώ , in virtue of the logical relation of the clause containing the reason to this assurance. Paul, however, has not again written the present χαρίζομαι , but κεχάρισμαι , because he wishes to hold before his readers his own example, consequently his own precedent already set in the pardon in question. Between this κεχάρισμαι , however, and the χαρίζομαι to be supplied after καὶ ἐγώ , there is no logical contradiction. For in ᾧ δέ τι χαρίζεσθε the act of the sinner is considered as an offence to the church; as such, the church is to forgive it, and then the apostle will also forgive it: but in καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ὁ κεχάρισμαι it is conceived as a vexation to the apostle; as such, Paul has forgiven it, and that διʼ ὑμᾶς , for the sake of the church, in order that it too may now give free course to the pardon which the offence produced in it needed.[144] To this thoughtful combination of the various references of the act, and to the placable spirit by which the representation is pervaded, the intervening clause ΕἼ ΤΙ ΚΕΧΆΡΙΣΜΑΙ corresponds, which is by no means intended to make the act of pardon problematical (de Wette), or to designate it only as eventual, turning on the supposition of the church granting forgiveness (Billroth), but contains a delicate reference back to 2Co_2:5, in this sense, namely: if—seeing that the sinner, according to 2Co_2:5, has not properly grieved me, but you—that which I designate as κεχάρισμαι is really this; for the having pardoned presupposes the pardoner to be the injured party, which Paul, however, 2Co_2:5, denied himself to be.
Against all versions, Fathers and expositors, Rückert has taken κεχάρισμαι passively[145] of the pardoning grace which Paul experienced through his conversion. The sense would thus be: “for whatever I have got pardoned, if I have got anything pardoned, I have got it pardoned for your sakes (in order as apostle of the Gentiles to lead you to salvation).” See my third edition. This exposition is incorrect, partly because there is nothing in the text to suggest an allusion to the apostle’s conversion; partly because this pardoning grace was to him so firm and certain, and, in fact, the whole psychological basis of his working, that he could not, even in the most humble reminiscence of his pre-Christian conduct (comp. 1Co_15:9-10), have presented it as problematical by εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι ; partly because with this problematical inserted clause the very ἘΝ ΠΡΟΣΏΠῼ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ (explained by Rückert: “on the countenance of Christ beaming with God’s grace”) would be at varianc.
ἘΝ ΠΡΟΣΏΠῼ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ] i.e. in conspectu Christi, comp. Pro_8:30, Sir_32:4, denotes the having pardoned, in so far as it has taken place διʼ ὑμᾶς , in its fullest purity and truth. It has taken place in presence of Christ, so that He was witness of it. Interpretations at variance with the words are: in Christ’s stead (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Calovius, Wetstein, and others): by Christ, as an oath (Emmerling), and others. Hofmann, who without reason maintains that according to our view it must have run ὡς ἐν προσώπῳ Χ ., attaches the words to what follows, so that they would precede the ἽΝΑ by way of emphasis, like Τ . ἈΓΆΠΗΝ , 2Co_2:4 (see on Rom_11:31), and the meaning would be: Christ should not be obliged to be a spectator of how Satan deprives His church of one of its members. This interpretation could only be justified if we were in any way by the context prepared for the ἐν προσώπῳ Χ ., thus taken as a specially tragic feature of the devil’s guile. Besides, the thought that the devil injures the church under the eyes of Christ, would be nowhere else expressed.
Observe, further, how, according to this passage, the penitence of the sinner, just as much as the removal of the offence to the church, is the aim of church-discipline, and hence its initiation and cessation are to be measured accordingly; but the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgence[146] is at variance with this.
[144] Not: to get rid of the painful relation in which they stood to that sinner, as Hofmann infers, from his incorrect interpretation of ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς , ver. 5.
[145] This passive use would in itself be correct as to language. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10. The transitive use, however, is the more usual one, as at Gal_3:18; Act_27:24.
[146] Still Bisping finds its principles clearly traced out in this passage.