Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 4:7 - 4:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_4:7 ff. The apostle now (on to 2Co_4:10) turns to the relation which the outward position, seemingly quite incongruous, bears to so glorious a calling. This pertained to the completeness of his Apologia, and to him—even without special attacks of opponents on this side—it thus most naturally suggested itself! We must put aside the supposition that his opponents had reproached him with his bodily weakness and persecutions (see, especially, Calvin, Estius, Mosheim, Flatt, Emmerling) as testimonies against genuine apostleship, since such a reproach, which must have affected not him only, but the apostolic teachers in general, is in itself quite improbable, and no trace of it is found in the whole of the following section. Still this section also is certainly not without indirect polemic bearing; for Paul, owing to the peculiarity of his apostolic character, had borne and suffered far more than the rival Judaistic teachers; and hence there was in the relation of his afflictions to his working quite a peculiar holy triumph for him over his foes. Compare the noble effusion in 2Co_12:21.
2Co_4:7. Δέ ] merely carrying on the train of thought: Now to compare our outward position with this high vocation, we have, et.
τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ] is referred either, in accordance with 2Co_4:6, to the light kindled by God in the heart (Grotius, Flatt, Rückert, and others), or to the ministerium evangelii (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, and others). According to 2Co_4:6, the inward divine enlightening ( πρὸς φωτισμὸν κ . τ . λ .) is meant, and this definition of aim ( πρὸς φωτ .) embraces in itself the ministerium evang.
ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν ] in vessels of clay. Contrast with θησαυρόν , because, for such a treasure, some more costly and lasting vessel seems suitable. Comp. the opposite in Arrian, Epict. iii. 9 : χρυσᾶ σκεύη , ὀστράκινον δὲ λόγον . We may add that Paul, who, in fact, speaks here not of himself alone (observe the plur. σκεύεσιν , and 2Co_4:6, κσρδίαις ), wishes not to affirm some special weakness of himself, but to say generally: Though we have so glorious a trust, yet is our body, the outward organ of our working, subject to the lot of being easily destructible. Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, most commentators have rightly found in σκεύεσιν a figurative designation of the body; while Billroth and Rückert, following Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, understand the whole personality. Against the latter view we may urge as well the characteristic ὀστρακίνοις , which can refer only to the corporeal part (comp. Gen_2:7; 1Co_15:47), as also 2Co_4:16; 2Co_5:1 ff. For examples of the use of ὀστράκινον σκεῦος [196] for the easily destructible corporeality (as Artemidorus, vi 25: θάνατον μὲν γὰρ εἰκότως ἐσήμαινε τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ εἶναι ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει ), see Wetstei.
ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ κ . τ . λ .] The design of God in this, namely, in order that the abundant fulness of power, which comes to be applied, namely, in our ministry working πρὸς φωτισμὸν κ . τ . λ ., 2Co_4:6, in spite of all sufferings and persecutions (see what follows), may appear as the property of God, and not as proceeding from us. The context furnishes that special reference of the ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμ . The opposite of the conception of ὑπερβολή is ἔλλειψις (Plato, Protag. 356 A, Def. p. 415 A, al.).
καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν ] καὶ μὴ ἡμεῖς νομιζώμεθα κατορθοῦν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τι , ἀλλὰ πάντες οἱ ὁρῶντες τοῦ θεοῦ λέγωσιν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν , Theophylact.
The ᾖ is to be taken logice of the being, which presents itself to cognition; as often with Paul (Rom_3:26; Rom_3:4; Rom_3:19; Rom_7:13). Rückert denies this, but comes back himself to the same view by giving the meaning thus: God wishes to be the One, and to be recognised as such, who alone, etc. The explanation of Tertullian, the Vulgate, Estius, according to which τῆς δυνάμ . is connected with τοῦ θεοῦ , is against the order of the word.
[196] To this category does not belong Plato, Phaedr. p. 250 C, which passage is compared by Osiander, but there the body is figuratively presented as mussel ( ὄστρεον ).