Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 9:4 - 9:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_9:4. Lest perhaps, etc.; this is to be guarded against by the παρεσκευασμένοι ἦτε .
ἐὰν ἔλθωσι κ . τ . λ .] if there shall have come, etc., namely, as giving escort after the fashion of the ancient church. See Act_17:14-15, al.; 2Co_1:16; 1Co_16:6; Rom_15:24.
Μακεδόνες ] Macedonians without the articl.
ἀπαρασκευάστους ] not in readiness (often in Xen., as Anab. i. 5. 9); ἀπαράσκευος is more frequent, and the two words are often interchanged in the MSS.; see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. 1:1. 6. Here it is equivalent to: so that you are not ready to hand over the money; the expression is purposely chosen in reference to 2Co_9:2.
ἡμεῖς ] see 2Co_9:3. But because this being put to shame in the case supposed would have involved the Corinthians as its originators, Paul with tender delicacy (not serene pleasantry, as Olshausen thinks), moving the sense of honour of the readers, adds parenthetically: ἵνα μὴ λέγωμεν ὑμεῖς .
ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ ] in respect of this confidence, according to which we have maintained that you were in readiness. Comp. 2Co_11:17; Heb_3:14; Heb_11:1; LXX. Psa_39:7; Eze_19:5; Rth_1:12; and passages in Wetstein; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1398. So Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Rosenmüller, and others, including de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. But others take it as quite equivalent to ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ , 2Co_9:3 : in hac materia, in hoc argumento (gloriationis). Comp. Vulgate: in hac substantia. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Kypke, Munthe, and others, including Schrader, Rückert, Olshausen, Ewald. Linguistically correct, no doubt (Polyb. iv. 2.1; Casaubon, ad Polyb. i. 5. 3, p. 111; Diodorus, i. 3; comp. also Heb_1:3, and Bleek, Heb. Br. II. 1, p. 61 f.), but here a point quite unnecessary to be mentioned. And why should we depart from the meaning: confidence, when this is certain in the usage of the N. T., and here, as at 2Co_11:17, is strikingly appropriate? The insertion of ἵνα μὴ λ . ὑμεῖς forms no objection (this in opposition to Rückert), since certainly the putting to shame of the apostle in regard to his confidence would have been laid to the blame of the Corinthians, because they would have frustrated this confidence; hence there is not even ground for referring that insertion merely to καταισχ . exclusive of ἐν τ . ὑποστ . τ . (Hofmann). Lastly, the explanation of Grotius: in hoc fundamento meae jactationis, has likewise, doubtless, some support in linguistic usage (Diodor. i. 66, xiii. 82, al.; LXX. Psa_69:2; Jer_23:22, al.), but falls to the ground, because τῆς καυχ . is not genuine.