Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:1 - 3:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_3:1. Ἀρχόμεθα ] namely, through what was said in 2Co_2:17, regarding which Paul foresaw that his opponents would describe it as the beginning of another recommendation of himself. It is interrogative, not to be taken, with Hofmann, who then reads ἢ μή , as an affirmation, in which case a logical relation to the question that follows could only be brought out by importing something.[155]
πάλιν ] belongs to ἙΑΥΤ . ΣΥΝΙΣΤ ., and refers to experiences, through which Paul must have passed already before, certainly also in respect to his last Epistle (1 Corinthians 1-4; 5; 1 Corinthians 9; 1Co_14:17, al.), when the charge was made: ἑαυτὸν ΣΥΝΙΣΤΆΝΕΙ ! As to the reason why he regards the ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνειν to be such a reproach, see 2Co_10:18.
In the plural he in this chapter includes also Timothy, as is clear from expressions such as immediately occur in 2Co_3:2, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμ ., and 2Co_3:6, ἩΜᾶς ΔΙΑΚΌΝΟΥς .
ΣΥΝΙΣΤΆΝΕΙΝ ] as at Rom_16:1. Hence ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΑῚ ΣΥΣΤΑΤΙΚΑΊ or ΓΡΆΜΜΑΤΑ ΣΥΣΤΑΤΙΚΆ (Arrian. Epict. ii. 3. 1; Diog. L. v. 18, viii. 87), letters of recommendation. Regarding their use in the ancient Christian church, see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1194; Dought. Anal. II. p. 120.
εἰ μὴ κ . τ . λ .] nisi, i.e. unless it possibly be, that, etc. Only if this exigency takes place with us, can that ἄρχονται πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνειν be asserted of us. Such epistolary recommendations, indeed, we should not have, and hence we should have to resort to self-praise! The expression is ironical in character, and contains an answer to that question, which reveals its absurdity. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 8. Hence εἰ is not to be taken, with Reiche, as siquidem or quia, and μή as negativing the ΧΡῄΖΟΜΕΝ (as if it were ΕἸ Οὐ ΧΡῇΖ .).
Ὥς ΤΙΝΕς ] as some people (comp. 1Co_4:18; 1Co_15:12; Gal_1:7), certainly a side-glance at anti-Pauline teachers, who had brought to the Corinthians letters of recommendation, either from teachers of repute, or from churches,[156] and had obtained similar letters from Corinth at their departure thenc.
πρὸς ὑμᾶς , ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν ] In the former case, it might be thought that we wished to supply this need by recommendation of ourselves; in the latter case ( ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν ), that we, by our self-recommendation, wished to corrupt your judgment, and to induce you to recommend us to others. Both would be absurd, but this is just in keeping with the irony.
[155] The question that follows with ἢ μή would mean: “or do we not withal need?” etc., which does not fit in with ἀρχόμεθα when taken as an affirmation. Hofmann, however, imports the thoughts: whoever is offended al this, that Paul has no scruple in recommending himself, to him he offers to answer on his part the question, whether he and his official associates have any need of letters of recommendation.
[156] According to Gal_2:7-9, but hardly from the original apostles or from the church of Jerusalem under their guidance as such. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that individual members of the mother-church may have given such letters. We do not know anything more precise on the point: even from τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου , Gal_2:12 ff., nothing is to be inferred.