Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 4:4 - 4:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_4:4. A statement to establish the ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ . ἐστι κεκαλ ., so that ἐν οἶς is equivalent to ὅτι ἐν τούτοις (comp. on 2Co_3:6): in whom the devil has made blind, i.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the unbelieving ( νοήματα , as in 2Co_3:14[189]). It is his work to make the unbelieving blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront the light of the gospel; and this his characteristic ἔργον he has carried out in the ἀπολλύμενοι ; in their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving. Observe, accordingly, that the conception of the ἀπολλύμενοι is a narrower one than that of the ἄπιστοι . Not with all ἄπιστοι does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel his object of blinding them and making them ἀπολλύμενοι ; many so comport themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and σωζόμενοι (1Co_14:24 f.; Act_13:48; Act_2:40; Act_2:47; Mat_13:8; Mat_13:23). Hence τῶν ἀπίστων is neither aimless (the objection of Hofmann), nor is it, with Rückert, to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly prominent, that the ἀπολλύμενοι are the ἄπιστοι , have appended the appositional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche, whom Billroth follows, takes τῶν ἀπίστ . proleptically: “hoc effectu ut nullam haberent fidem.” But the proleptic use of adjectives (see on 1Co_1:8) is nowhere found with the genitive of an adjective used substantively; it must have run ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα ἄπιστα .[190] Comp. 1Th_3:13; Php_3:21. Quite arbitrarily, most of the older expositors (also Grotius, Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt) explain it in such a way that ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ fills the place of an apposition to ἘΝ ΟἿς . In that case it must have run: ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΠΊΣΤΟΙς (see, especially, Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 173). According to Ewald, Paul has inserted the addition τῶν ἀπίστ ., as if he meant thereby merely to say: “the Gentile thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers. But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication, as the reader had to find in τοῖς ἀπολλυμ . Gentiles and Jews, consequently in τῶν ἀπίστ , no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hofmann, ἐν οἷς is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this domain is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbelieving. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever for limiting the ἀπολλύμενοι to the sphere of the Gentile world; they form, in general, a contrast to the σωζόμενοι , as also at 2Co_2:15, 2Co_1:18, and to the ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΝΤΕς , 2Co_3:18, who are just the σωζόμενοι . Finally, it is to be observed as a mere historical point, that Irenaeus (Haer. iv. 48), Origen, Tertullian (contra Marc. iv. 11), Chrysostom, Augustine (c. advers. leg. ii. 7. 8), Oecumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact (also Knatchbull), with a view to oppose the dualism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ (infidelium hujus saeculi).
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτ .] the God of this (running on till the Parousia) period. On the subject-matter, comp. Joh_8:44; Joh_12:31; Joh_14:30; Eph_2:2; Eph_6:12; 2Th_2:9 f. The devil, as ruling principle, is called god. Comp. Php_3:19. Among the Rabbins, also, it is said: “Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael,” Jalkut Rubeni, f. 10. 4, ad Gen_1:27. Comp. the passages in Eisenmenger, Entdecht. Judenth. I. p. 827, where he is called the strange god and the other god. There is not something ironical in the expression here (Olshausen), for that would be quite alien to the connection; on the contrary, with the utmost earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to be made palpably evident. Comp. Benge.
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ . τ . λ .] Purpose of the devil: in order that the illumination should not shine, etc. For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded.[191] Hence it is quite unnecessary to explain αὐγάσαι , to see, or to have an eye upon (Luther, Grotius, Emmerling, Rückert, Ewald, Hofmann), which signification (more exactly, to direct the light of the eyes to anything) undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets (Soph. Phil. 217; Eur. Rhes. 793; more frequently in the middle, as Iliad, xxii. 458; Elmsley, ad Bacch. 596; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 338), but is foreign even to the LXX. (Lev_13:25 f., Lev_13:28; Lev_13:39; Lev_14:56). Besides, the simple αὐγάζειν does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meaning fulgere (though the compounds καταυγάζειν and διαυγάζειν , which are the readings of several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense: irradiate, illumine, as e.g. Eur. Hcc. 637.
φωτισμός ] illumining, is found in Sextus Empiricus, 522. 9; Plut. Mor. 920 D; more often in the LXX., in Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. Without figure, the meaning is: in order that the enlightening truth of the gospel might not he known and appropriated by them.
τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ] The glory of the exalted Christ (comp. 2Co_3:18) is here denoted as the contents of the Messianic preaching; elsewhere (1Co_1:18) it is the word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement of the context, and both rightly (Rom_4:25; Rom_5:10, al.); for the δόξα is the consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned (Php_2:6 ff.; Rom_8:34, al.; Luk_24:26; often in John), and it conditions the future completion of the work of the cross (Php_2:10 f.; Rom_8:34; Heb_7:25; 1 Corinthians 15; Col_3:3 f.).
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τ . θεοῦ ] for Christ in the state of His exaltation[192] is again, as He was before His incarnation (comp. Joh_17:5), fully ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ and ἴσα θεῷ (Php_2:6), hence in His glorified corporeality (Php_3:21) the visible image of the invisible God. See on Col_1:15; comp. Heb_1:3. It is true that in the state of His humiliation He had likewise the divine δόξα , which He possessed κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (Rom_1:4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth (Joh_1:14), and through His miracles (Joh_2:11), He made known (Joh_14:9); but its working and revelation were limited by His humiliation to man’s estate, and He had divested Himself of the divine appearance (Php_2:7 f.) till in the end, furnished through His resurrection with the mighty attestation of His divine sonship (Rom_1:4), He entered, through His elevation to the right hand of God, into the full communion of the glory of the Father, in which He is now the God-man, the very image and reflection of God, and will one day come to execute judgment and to establish the kingdom.
Aim of the addition: “hinc satis intelligi potest, quanta sit gloria Christi,” Bengel; it is the highest and holiest of all, and of the knowledge of it Satan deprives those whom he blinds!
[189] Comp. Homer, Od. xx 346: μνησπῆρσι δὲ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη … παρέπλαγξε νόημα , Pind. Ol. vii. 133, xii. 13; Plat. Phaed. p. 96 C; Lucian, Nigr. 4.
[190] According to Fritzsehe, the unbelief appears as effect of the blinding, consequently as a refusal of belief, as ἀπείθεια . In our view, it appears as defectus fidei and the devil steps in with his blinding, and makes out of the ἄπιστοι the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (Eph_5:6; Col_3:6). As regards the contents of the thought, therefore, the two views are not contradictory.
[191] Hofmann very wrongly, since he himself recognises the lofty poetic turn of the words, objects that this explanation would require the (not genuine) αὐτοῖς .
[192] For it is the exalted One of whom Paul is thinking. Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, p. 212 f.