Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 7:12 - 7:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_7:12. Ἄρα ] therefore, for how natural was it for the readers to think that Paul had written on account of the ἀδικήσαντος and on account of the ἀδικηθέντος ! And yet the effect which that part of the Epistle had produced on themselves had showed them by experience that the apostle’s true purpose was quite different. So at least Paul represents the matter in a delicate and conciliatory wa.
εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ] if I have also written to you, i.e. have not kept silence, but have expressed myself by letter regarding the affair in question. Commonly a so, so sternly, or the like, is imported quite arbitrarily. Grotius indicates the right meaning: “si quid scripsi, nempe ea de re.” Comp. Osiander. Those who assume an Epistle now lost between our first and second (Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld) find it here alluded to. Comp. 2Co_2:3; 2Co_2:9. The apodosis already begins at οὐχ εἵνεκεν κ . τ . λ ., and does not follow only at διὰ τοῦτο (as Hofmann complicates it, without sufficient ground), the more especially as in this construction, according to Hofmann, διὰ τοῦτο does not apply to 2Co_7:12—to which it must apply (comp. 1Th_3:7)—but to 2Co_7:11.
οὐχ … ἀλλʼ ] is not non tam … quam (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, and many others), but non … sed. Paul denies absolutely that he has written that part of the Epistle on account of the two persons mentioned. In the nature of the case, no doubt, he had to write against the ἀδικήσας , and so indirectly in favour of the ἀδικηθείς ; but the destined purpose of this letter, as Paul from the true light of his apostolic standpoint is aware, lay not in this aim affecting the two persons primarily concerned, but in its higher significance as bearing on the church’s relation to the apostle: ἀλλʼ εἵνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι κ . τ . λ .
Regarding the form εἵνεκεν , see on Luk_4:18, and Kühner, I. p. 229, ed. 2. The ἀδικήσας is the incestuous person, and the ἀδικηθείς his father, as the party grievously injured by the son’s incestuous marriage with the step-mother. Theodoret, however, is quite arbitrary in supposing from this that he was already dead ( καὶ τεθνεὼς γὰρ ἠδίκητο , τῆς εὐνῆς ὑβρισθείσης ). See on 1Co_5:1. This explanation of the ἀδικηθείς seems from the relation of the two participles active and passive to be the only natural, and, in fact, necessary one. It is no objection that, in the first Epistle, nothing was said at length regarding the father and the wrong done to him (see only 2Co_5:1), since the censure and ordaining of chastisement to the transgressor of themselves practically contained the satisfaction to the injured father. Comp. on the passive ἀδικ . in the sense of infringing marriage-rights, Plut. Anton. 9; Eurip. Med. 267, 314; and see in general on ἀδικεῖν in reference to adultery, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 468; Abresch, ad Xen. Eph., ed. Locella, p. 222. Others (Wolf, Storr, Emmerling, Osiander, Neander, Maier) think that Paul means himself, in so far as he had been deeply injured in his office by that transgression. But this mode of designating himself, set down thus without any more precise indication, would be strangely enigmatical, as well as marked by want of delicate tact (as if the readers were not ἀδικηθέντες , like Paul!), and no longer suiting what was already said in 2Co_2:5. The reference of τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος to the apostle himself would only be right on the assumption that allusion is here made to the state of things discussed by Paul in an intermediate letter now lost.[263] Others (Bengel, comp. Wolf also) think that the Corinthians are meant, but the singular is decisive against this view, even apart from the unsuitable meaning. Others have even referred τοῦ ἀδικησ . and ΤΟῦ ἈΔΙΚΗΘ . to the adulterer and the adulteress (Theophylact: ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν ); others, again, have taken ΤΟῦ ἈΔΙΚΗΘ . as neuter (Heinsius, Billroth), equivalent to τοῦ ἀδικήματος . The last is at variance with linguistic usage; and what sort of delicate apostolic tact would it have been, to say that he had not written on account of the deed!
ἀλλʼ εἵνεκεν κ . τ . λ .] According to Lachmann’s correct reading, as translated also by Luther (see the critical remarks): but because your zeal for us was to become manifest among you before God, i.e. but because I unshed to bring it about that the zealous interest which you cherish for us should be brought to light among you before God (a religious expression of uprightness and sincerity, 2Co_4:2). Comp. on the thought, 2Co_2:9; πρὸς ὑμᾶς is the simple with you, among you, in the midst of you, in your church-life, not exactly in public meeting of the church (Ewald), which would have been indicated more precisely. Comp. 1Co_16:7. Rückert, without due ground, finds the meaning of πρὸς ὑμᾶς so ambiguous that he prefers the Recepta, according to which the meaning is: because our zealous interest for you was to become manifest upon you before God. Comp. 2Co_2:4. Hofmann, who rejects both the Recepta and the reading of Lachmann, and prefers that of à : Τ . ΣΠΟΥΔῊΝ ὙΜῶΝ ΤῊΝ ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς , takes this ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς even in a hostile sense: “You are to show yourselves diligent for yourselves and against yourselves;” the strict procedure of the church against its adherents is on the one hand an acting for themselves ( ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ ), and on the other hand an acting against themselves ( πρὸς ὑμᾶς ). This artificial interpretation is wrong, because, if πρὸς could mean contra here, Paul must have written at least ΤῊΝ ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς , and because ΠΡΌς with ΣΠΟΥΔΉ (Heb_6:11; Herod. iv. 11. 1; Diod. xvii. 114) and with ΣΠΟΥΔΆΖΕΙΝ (Dem. 515. 23, 617. 10) has not that arbitrarily assumed sense, but the sense of an interest for some one, though this is more commonly expressed by περί . If the reading of à were right, it would have to be explained simply: in order that your zeal, in which you aim at your own good, should become manifest among you before God. Had Paul wished to express the singular meaning which Hofmann imports, he would have known how to write: ΤῊΝ ΣΠΟΥΔῊΝ ὙΜῶΝ ΤῊΝ ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘʼ ὙΜῶΝ .
[263] On this assumption Bleek is of opinion that Paul, in that lost Epistle, had rebuked the wanton defiance of the incestuous person towards him (comp. also Neander). According to Ewald, Paul is the ἀδικηθείς over against the man of reputation in the church, who had been endeavouring to deprive him of his repute in it by public accusations. Comp. Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 169, 1865, p. 252, according to whom Paul is the ἀδικηθείς , because things had in the meanwhile come to a pronounced rejection of his apostolic repute. According to Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 254, Timothy is meant, who was personally insulted by a spokesman in the ranks of the opponents.