Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 8:18 - 8:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_8:18. Recommendation of the first companion of Titu.
συνεπέμψ . δὲ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ] The σύν refers, like μετʼ αὐτοῦ , to Titus: we have sent along with him. Comp. 2Co_8:22. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 354. Comp. Gal_2:12; Act_1:26; Act_25:12; Mat_17:3. Bengel takes it incorrectly: “una misimus ego et Timotheus,” which is contained in the plural, but not in the compoun.
τὸν ἀδελφὸν κ . τ . λ .] is understood by Heumann and Rückert of an actual brother, viz. a brother of Titus. But ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν in 2Co_8:23 shows that Paul has here and in 2Co_8:22 f. taken ἀδελφός in the sense of Christian brotherhood. It would not have been in keeping with the prudence of the apostle to send with Titus the very brother of the latter and even his own brother (according to Rückert’s view of τ . ἀδελφ . ἡμ ., 2Co_8:22). Who is meant, remains quite an open question. Some have conjectured Barnabas ( τινές in Chrysostom, and Chrysostom himself, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, and others) or Silas (Baronius, Estius); but the rank of these was not consistent with the position of a companion subordinate to Titus; nor is there anywhere a trace of Barnabas and Paul having ever united again for common work after their separation (Act_15:39). Others (comp. also the usual subscription of the Epistle) think that it was Luke. So Origen, τίνες in Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Cajetanus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Grotius, Emmerling, Schrader, Olshausen, Köhler (Abfassungszeit, p. 85), of whom those named before Grotius referred ἐν τῷ εὐαγγ . to the Gospel of Luke (at that time not yet even in existence). But from the very brief statement of Act_20:1 ff. there is no proof to be drawn either for (Olshausen) or against (Rückert); and Ignatius, ad Ephes. (interpol.) 15, to which Emmerling, after Salmeron and others, has again appealed, proves nothing further than that this unknown author either referred or merely applied our passage to Luke. The conjecture which points to Erastus (Ewald, following Act_19:22; 2Ti_4:20) cannot be made good. With just as little proof some have thought of Mark (Lightfoot, Chron. p. 118; Storr, Opusc. II. p. 339; Tobler, Evangelienfr. p. 12). The result remains: we do not know who it was. So much only in reference to the two persons indicated here and in 2Co_8:22, and in opposition to the conjectures adduced, is clear from 2Co_8:23, that they were not fellow-labourers in the apostolic work, like Titus, but other Christians of distinction.[279] See on 2Co_8:23. Against this non liquet Rückert indeed objects, that in that case the Corinthians would not have known which of the two was meant to be here designated, since in 2Co_8:23 both are called ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν , by which all distinction is precluded. But this first companion is in 2Co_8:19 so distinctively indicated as appointed by a special elective act of the churches concerned, and appointed just for this particular work, that he could not be unknown by name to the Corinthians, after Titus had already begun there the work of collection (2Co_8:6). Besides, Paul might leave all further information to Titu.
οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος κ . τ . λ .] i.e. who possesses his praise (that duly belonging to him) in the gospel (in the cause of the gospel, in confessing, furthering, preaching, defending it, and the like), spread through all the churches, throughout the whole Christian body. He was a Christian worthy of trust and praised by all.
[279] Hence also we can hardly think of Trophimus (de Wette, Wieseler), Act_20:4; Act_21:29 : nor, with Hofmann, of Aristarchus, Act_19:29; Act_20:4.