2Co_5:9. Therefore, because we
εὐδοκοῦμεν
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., 2Co_5:8, we exert ourselves also. Bengel: “ut assequamur quod optamus.”
φιλοτιμ
.] denotes the striving, in which the end aimed at is regarded as a matter of honour. See on Rom_15:20. Bengel well says: “haec una ambitio legitima.” But there is no hint of a contrast with the “honour-coveting courage of the heathen in dying” (Hofmann).
εἴτε
ἐνδημοῦντες
,
εἴτε
ἐκδημοῦντες
] is either connected with
φιλοτιμ
. (Calvin and others, including Billroth, Rückert, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander) or with
εὐάρεστοι
αὐτῷ
εἶναι
(so Chrysostom and many others, including Castalio, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Flatt, Hofmann). The decision must depend upon the explanation. Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, supply with
ἐνδημ
.:
πρὸς
τὸν
κύριον
, and with
ἐκδημ
.:
ἀπὸ
τοῦ
κυρίου
. In that case it must be connected with
εὐάρεστοι
αὐτῷ
εἶναι
(Chrysostom:
τὸ
γὰρ
ζητούμενον
τοῦτό
ἐστί
φησιν
·
ἄν
τε
ἐκεῖ
ὦμεν
,
ἄν
τε
ἐνταῦθα
,
κατὰ
γνώμην
αὐτοῦ
ζῆν
), not with
φιλοτιμούμεθα
(Calvin: Paul says, “tam mortuis quam vivis hoc inesse studium”); for they who are at home with Christ are well-pleasing to Him, and, according to Rom_6:7, Paul cannot say of them that they strive to be so. The striving refers merely to the earthly life, and one strives to be well-pleasing to the Lord as
ἐκδημῶν
ἀπʼ
αὐτοῦ
, not as
ἐνδημῶν
πρὸς
αὐτόν
. For in the case of those who
ἐνδημοῦσι
πρὸς
τὸν
κύριον
, the continuance of their being well-pleased is a self-evident moral fact. On this account, and because quite an illogical order of the two clauses would be the result (et tunc et nunc!), the whole of Chrysostom’s explanation, and even its mode of connection, is erroneous. The right explanation depends on our completing
ἐνδημοῦντες
by
ἐν
τῷ
σώματι
, and
ἐκδημοῦντες
by
ἐκ
τοῦ
σώματος
; for that
τὸ
σῶμα
is still the idea which continues operative from 2Co_5:6; 2Co_5:8, is shown by
τὰ
διὰ
τοῦ
σώματος
in 2Co_5:10, an expression occasioned by the very reference to the body, which is before the mind in 2Co_5:9. Further, we must clearly maintain that
ἐκδημοῦντες
, in contrast to
ἐνδημοῦντες
, does not mean: migrating, i.e. dying, but: peregre absentes, being from home (comp. Soph. Oed. R 114:
θεωρὸς
ἐκδημῶν
, a pilgrim from home), just as in 2Co_5:6
ἐκδημοῦμεν
was peregre absumus, and in 2Co_5:8
ἐκδημῆσαι
peregre abesse.[219] Hence we must reject all explanations which give the meaning: living or dying (Calovius, Bengel, Ewald, Osiander, who find the totality of life expressed with a bringing into prominence of the last moment of life), or even: “sive diutius corpori immanendum, sive eo exeundum sit” (Erasmus, Paraphr., Emmerling), to which Rückert ultimately comes, introducing Paul’s alleged illness; while de Wette thinks that Paul includes mention of the departure from life only to show that he is prepared for everything. We should rather keep strictly to the meaning of
ἐκδημ
., peregre absentes ex corpore (comp. Vulgate: absentes), and explain it: We exert ourselves to be well-pleasing to the Lord, whether we (at His Parousia) are still at-home in the body, or are already from-home out of it, consequently, according to the other figure used before, already
ἐκδυσάμενοι
, i.e. already dead, so that we come to be judged before Him (more precisely: before His judgment-seat, 2Co_5:10), not through the being changed, like the
ἐνδημοῦντες
, but through the being raised up. It is thus self-evident that
ΕἼΤΕ
ἘΝΔΗΜΟῦΝΤΕς
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
. must be attached not to
ΦΙΛΟΤΙΜΟΎΜΕΘΑ
, but to
ΕὐΆΡΕΣΤΟΙ
ΑὐΤῷ
ΕἾΝΑΙ
, as was done by Chrysostom, although with an erroneous explanation.
[219] In this case, however, there is not the contrast: et nunc et tunc, in this and in that life, as Beza, Grotius, and others suppose, connecting it with
εὐάρεστοι
εἶναι
. For with the present well-pleasing the future is obvious of itself. Grotius felt this, and hence, substituting another meaning in the second clause, he explains it: “nunc vitam nostram ipsi probando, tunc ab ipso praemium accipiendo.” See, against this, Calovius.