Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:3 - 3:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_3:3. Φανερούμενοι ] attaches itself in construction to ὑμεῖς ἐστε , to which it furnishes a more precise definition, and that in elucidative reference to what has just been said γινωσκομένη … ἀνθρώπων : since you are being manifested to be an epistle of Christ, i.e. since it does not remain hid, but becomes (continually) clear to every one that you, etc. Comp. on the construction, 1Jn_2:19.
ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ ] genitivus auctoris (not of the contents—in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact): a letter composed (dictated) by Christ. Fritzsche, l.c. p. 23, takes the genitive as possessive, so that the sense without figure would be: homines Christiani estis. But in what follows the whole origin of the Epistle is very accurately set forth, and should the author not be mentioned—not in that case be placed in front? Theodoret already gives the right vie.
ἐπιστολή is here not again specially letter of recommendation (2Co_3:2), but letter in general; for through the characteristic: “you are an epistle of Christ, drawn up by us,” etc., the statement above. “you are our letter of recommendation,” is to be elucidated and made good.
In the following διακονηθεῖσα … σαρκίναις Paul presents himself and Timothy as the writers of the epistle of Christ ( διακον . ὑφʼ ἡμ .), the Holy Spirit as the means of writing in lieu of ink, and human hearts, i.e. according to the context, the hearts of the Corinthians, as the material which is written upon. For Christ was the author of their Christian condition; Paul and Timothy were His instruments for their conversion, and by their ministry the Holy Spirit became operative in the hearts of the readers. In so far the Corinthians, in their Christian character, are as it were a letter which Christ has caused to be written, through Paul and Timothy, by means of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. On the passive expression διακονηθ . ὑφʼ ἡμ ., comp. 2Co_8:19 f.; Mar_10:45; note also the change of the tenses: διακονηθ . and ἐγγεγραμμ . (the epistle is there ready); likewise the designation of the Holy Spirit as πνεῦμα θεοῦ ζῶντος , comp. 2Co_3:6. We may add that Paul has not mixed up heterogeneous traits of the figure of a letter begun in 2Co_3:2 (Rückert and others), but here, too, he carries out this figure, as it corresponds to the thing to be figured thereby. The single incongruity is οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις , in which he has not retained the conception of a letter (which is written on tablets of paper), but has thought generally of a writing to be read. Since, however, he has conceived of such writing as divinely composed (see above, πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος ), of which nature was the law of Sinai, the usual supposition is right, that he has been induced to express himself thus by the remembrance of the tables of the law (Heb_9:4; comp. Jer_31:31-33); for we have no reason to deny that the subsequent mention of them (2Co_3:7) was even now floating before his mind. Fritzsche, indeed, thinks that “accommodate ad nonnulla V. T. loca (Pro_3:3; Pro_7:3) cordis notionem per tabulas cordis expressurus erat, quibus tabulis carneis nihil tam commode quam tabulas lapideas opponere potuerit.” But he might quite as suitably have chosen an antithesis corresponding to the figure of a letter (2Jn_1:12; 2Ti_4:13); hence it is rather to be supposed that he came to use the expression tabulae cordis, just because he had before his mind the idea of the tables of the law.
The antitheses in our passage are intended to bring out that here an epistle is composed in quite another and higher sense than an ordinary letter (which one brings into existence μέλανι σπείρων διὰ καλάμου , Plato Phaedr. p. 276 C)—a writing, which is not to be compared even with the Mosaic tables of the law. But the purpose of a contrast with the legalism of his opponents (Klöpper) is not conveyed in the context.
That there is a special purpose in the use of σαρκίναις as opposed to λιθίναις , cannot be doubted after the previous antitheses. It must imply the notion of something better (comp. Eze_11:19; Eze_36:26), namely, the thought of the living receptivity and susceptibility: δεκτικὰς τοῦ λόγου (Theophylact, Calvin, Stolz, Flatt, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, and others). The distinctive sense of σαρκινός is correctly noted by Erasmus: “ut materiam intelligas, non qualitatem.” Comp. on 1Co_3:1. Καρδίας is also the genitive of material, and the contrast would have been sufficiently denoted by ἀλλʼ ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίας : it is, however, expressed more concretely and vividly by the added σαρκίναις : in fleshy tablets of the heart.