## An Exposition of the

## Second Epistle to the Corinthians

## by Charles Hodge

The Salutation, vs. 1–2. Thanksgiving to God for the deliverance and conolation which the writer had experienced, vs. 3–11. Defence of himself gainst the charge of inconstancy and inconsistency, vs. 12– 24.

## Paul's gratitude for the deliverance and consolation which he had experienced. Vs. 1–11

AFTER the apostle had written his former letter to the Corinthians, and had sent Titus, either as the bearer of the letter or immediately after its having been sent by other hands, to ascertain the effect which it produced, he seems to have been in a state of unusual depression and anxiety. The persecutions to which he had been exposed in Asia placed him in continued danger of death, 1:8; and his solicitude about the church in Corinth allowed him no inward peace, 7:5. After leaving Ephesus he went to Troas; but although the most promising prospects of usefulness there presented themselves, he could not rest, but passed over into Macedonia in hopes of meeting Titus and obtaining from him intelligence from Corinth, 2:12–13. This letter is the outpouring of his heart occasioned by the information which he received. More than any other of Paul's epistles, it bears the impress of the strong feelings under the

influence of which it was written. That the Corinthians had received his former letter with a proper spirit, that it brought them to repentance, led them to ex-communicate the incestuous person, and called forth, on the part of the larger portion of the congregation, the manifestation of the warmest affection for the apostle, relieved his mind from a load of anxiety, and filled his heart with gratitude to God. On the other hand, the increased boldness and influence of the false teachers, the perverting errors which they inculcated, and the frivolous and calumnious charges which they brought against himself, filled him with indignation. This accounts for the abrupt transitions from one subject to another, the sudden changes of tone and manner which characterize this epistle. When writing to the Corinthians as a church obedient, affectionate, and penitent, there is no limit to his tenderness and love. His great desire seems to be to heal the temporary breach which had occurred between them, and to assure his readers that all was forgiven and forgotten, and that his heart was entirely theirs. But when he turns to the wicked, designing corrupters of the truth among them, there is a tone of severity to be found in no other of his writings, not even in his epistle to the Galatians. Erasmus compares this epistle to a river which sometimes flows in a gentle stream, sometimes rushes down as a torrent bearing all before it; sometimes spreading out like a placid lake; sometimes losing itself, as it were, in the sand, and breaking out in its fulness in some unexpected place. Though perhaps the least methodical of Paul's writings, it is among the most interesting of his letters as bringing out the man before the reader and revealing his intimate relations to the people for whom he laboured. The remark must be borne in mind (often made before), that the full play allowed to the peculiarities of mind and feeling of the sacred writers, is in no way inconsistent with their plenary inspiration. The grace of God in conversion does not change the natural character of its subjects, but accommodates itself to all their peculiarities of disposition and

temperament. And the same is true with regard to the influence of the Spirit in inspiration.

The salutation in this epistle is nearly in the same words as in the former letter, vs. 1–2. Here also as there, the introduction is a thanksgiving. As these expressions of gratitude are not mere forms, but genuine effusions of the heart, they vary according to the circumstances under which each epistle was written. Here the thanksgiving was for consolation. Paul blesses God as the God of all mercy for the consolation which he had experienced. He associates, or rather identifies himself with the Corinthians; representing his afflictions as theirs and his consolation also as belonging to them, vs. 3–7. He refers to the afflictions which came upon him in Asia, so that he despaired of life, but through their prayers God who had delivered, still delivered, and he was assured, would continue to deliver him, vs. 8–11.

1–2. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy (our) brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: Grace (be) to you, and peace, from God our Father, and (from) our Lord Jesus Christ.

The sense in which the word apostle is to be here taken, the force of the expression by the will of God, the scriptural meaning of the words church and saints, are all stated in the remarks on the first verse of the former epistle. In the first epistle Paul associates Sosthenes with himself in the salutation; here it is Timothy who is mentioned. In neither case is there any community of office or authority implied. On the contrary, a marked distinction is made between Paul the apostle and Sosthenes or Timothy the brother, i.e. the Christian companion of the apostle. From 1 Corinthians 4:17 it appears

that Timothy was in Macedonia, on his way to Corinth, when the first epistle was written. From the form of expression (if Timothy come) in 1 Corinthians 16:10, and from the absence of any intimation in this epistle that Paul had received from him the information from Corinth which he was so desirous to obtain, it is doubtful whether Timothy had been able to reach that city. At any rate he was now with the apostle at Nicopolis or some other city in Macedonia. With all the saints which are in all Achaia. This epistle was not intended exclusively for the Christians in Corinth, but also for all the believers scattered through the province who were connected with the church in Corinth. These believers were probably not collected into separate congregations, otherwise the apostle would have used the plural form, as when writing to the churches of Galatia, Galatians 1:3. Achaia was originally the name of the northern part of the Peloponnesus including Corinth and its isthmus. Augustus divided the whole country into the two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia; the former included Macedonia proper, Illyricum, Epirus and Thessaly; and the latter all the southern part of Greece. It is in this wide sense Achaia is always used in the New Testament. From this it appears that the converts to Christianity in Greece were at this time very few out of Corinth, as they were all members of the church in that city. Grace and peace, the favour of God and its fruits, comprehend all the benefits of redemption. The apostle's prayer is not only that believers may be the objects of the love of God our Father and of Jesus Christ our Lord, but that they may have the assurance of that love. He knew that the sense of the love of God would keep their hearts in perfect peace. God is our Father, Jesus Christ is our Lord. Every one feels the distinction in this relationship, whether he reduces it to clear conceptions in his own mind or not. God, as God, is our father because he is the father of all spirits, and because, if believers, we are born again by his Spirit, and adopted as his children, made the objects of his love and the heirs of his kingdom. Jesus Christ, the

eternal Son of God clothed in our nature, is our Lord, for two reasons: first, because as God he is our absolute sovereign; and secondly, because as Redeemer he has purchased us by his own most precious blood. To him, therefore, as God and Redeemer, our alle giance as Christians is specially due.

3. Blessed (be) God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all comfort.

This richness and variety of designations for the object of his reverence and gratitude, shows how full was the apostle's heart, and how it yearned after fellowship with God, to whom he places himself in every possible connection by thus multiplying the terms expressive of the relations which God bears to his redeemed people. Blessed. The word ε ὐ λογητός (blessed) is used in the New Testament only of God. (In Luke 1:28, where the Virgin Mary is spoken of, ε ὐ λογημένη is used.) It expresses at once gratitude and adoration. Adored be God! is the expression of the highest veneration and thankfulness. It is not God merely as God, but as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the object of the apostle's adoration and gratitude. The expression does not refer to the miraculous conception of our Lord, but the person addressed is he whose eternal Son assumed our nature, who, as invested with that nature, is our Lord Jesus Christ. It is he who so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoso believeth in him might not perish but have everlasting life. It is therefore the peculiar, characteristic Christian designation of God, as it presents him as the God of redemption. Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Colossians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. This God who has revealed himself as the God of love in Sending his Son for our redemption, the apostle still further designates as the Father of mercies, i.e. the most merciful Father; he whose characteristic is mercy. Comp. Psalms 86:5, 15; Daniel 9:9; Micah 7:18. The explanation

which makes the expression mean the author of mercies is inconsistent with the signification of the word ο ἰ κτιρμός, which always means mercy as a feeling. The God of all comfort. This most merciful Father is the God, i.e. the author of all, i.e. of all possible, consolation. God is the author of consolation not only by delivering us from evil, or by ordering our external circumstances, but also, and chiefly, by his inward influence on the mind itself, assuaging its tumults and filling it with joy and peace in believing. Romans 15:13.

4. Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

Us here refers to the apostle himself. Throughout this chapter he is speaking of his own personal trials and consolations. He blessed God as the author of comfort, because he had experienced his consolations. And the design, he adds, of God in afflicting and in consoling was to qualify him for the office of a consoler of the afflicted. In this design Paul acquiesced; he was willing to be thus afflicted in order to be the bearer of consolation to others. A life of ease is commonly stagnant. It is those who suffer much and who experience much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost, who live much. Their life is rich in experience and in resources. In all our tribulation, i.e. on account of ( ἐ πί). His tribulation was the ground or reason why God comforted him. The apostle was one of the most afflicted of men. He suffered from hunger, cold, nakedness, stripes, imprisonment, from perils by sea and land, from robbers, from the Jews, from the heathen, so that his life was a continued death, or, as he expressed it, he died daily. Besides these external afflictions he was overwhelmed with cares and anxiety for the churches. And as though all this were not enough, he had "a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan," to buffet him. See 11:24–30, and 12:7. In the

midst of all these trials God not only sustained him, but filled him with such a heroic spirit that he actually rejoiced in being thus afflicted. "I take pleasure," he says, "in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong," 12:10. This state of mind can be experienced only by those who are so filled with the love of Christ, that they rejoice in every thing, however painful to themselves, whereby his glory is promoted. And where this state of mind exists, no afflictions can equal the consolations by which they are attended, and therefore the apostle adds, that he was enabled to comfort those who were in any kind of affliction by the comfort wherewith he was comforted of God.

5. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation aboundeth by Christ.

This is a confirmation of what precedes. 'We are able to comfort others, for our consolations are equal to our sufferings.' The sufferings of Christ, do not mean 'sufferings on account of Christ,' which the force of the genitive case does not admit; nor sufferings which Christ endures in his own members; but such sufferings as Christ suffered, and which his people are called upon to endure in virtue of their union with him and in order to be like him. Our Lord said to his disciples, "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized with," Matthew 20:23. Paul speaks of his fellowship, or participation in the sufferings of Christ, Philippians 3:10; and the apostle Peter calls upon believers to rejoice, inasmuch as they are "partakers of Christ's sufferings," 1 Peter 4:13. Comp. Romans 8:17; Colossians 1:24; Galatians 6:17. In many other passages it is taught that believers must share in the sufferings, if they are to be partakers of the glory of Christ. So, i.e. in equal measure, our consolation aboundeth through Christ. As union with

Christ was the source of the afflictions which Paul endured, so it was the source of the abundant consolation which he enjoyed. This makes the great difference between the sorrows of believers and those of unbelievers. Alienation from Christ does not secure freedom from suffering, but it cuts us off from the only source of consolation. Therefore the sorrow of the world worketh death.

6–7. And whether we be afflicted, (it is) for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual to the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, (it is) for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you (is) stedfast, knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so (shall ye be) also of the consolation.

Although the ancient manuscripts differ very much in the order in which the several clauses of these verses are arranged, yet the sense expressed in all is substantially the same. The text adopted by Beza, Griesbach, Knapp, Meyer, &c., on the authority of the manuscripts A, C, and several of the ancient versions, reads thus, "Whether we be afflicted, (it is) for your consolation and salvation; whether we are comforted, (it is) for your consolation, which is effectual in enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer; and our hope of you is stedfast, knowing that as ye are partakers of the suffering, so also (shall ye be) of the consolation." The reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rückert and others, differs from the common text in placing the clause our hope of you is stedfast, immediately after the first member of the sentence, and before the words, whether we are comforted. For this arrangement are the MSS. B, D, E, F, G, I. The reading of Beza gives the text in its simplest and most perspicuous form. In either way the main idea is, 'Whether we be afflicted, it is for your good; or whether we be comforted, it is for your good.' All the rest is subordinate. The relation in which the apostle stood to the

Corinthians was such that he felt assured that they would share both in his sufferings and in his consolation, and therefore experience the benefit of both. It was not that Paul's constancy in suffering set them a good example; nor simply that Paul suffered in behalf of the Gospel, and therefore for the benefit of others; nor does he mean merely that the experience of the Corinthians would correspond to his, if they were similarly afflicted, they would be similarly comforted; but the main idea is that such was the intimate bond between them and him that he had a firm hope they would be partakers both of his affliction and of his consolation. Though this appears to be the primary idea of the passage, the others are not to be excluded. Paul no doubt felt, and intended to intimate, that his diversified experience would redound to their advantage by qualifying him more abundantly for his work, and especially for the office of consoling them in the afflictions which they, as well as he, would be called to endure. Whether we be afflicted (it is) for your consolation and salvation; i.e. my afflictions will contribute to your consolation and salvation. To the former, because those whom God afflicts, or, who suffer for Christ's sake and with Christ's people, God never fails to console; to the latter, because suffering and salvation are so intimately connected. "If we suffer with him we shall also be glorified together," Romans 8:17. It is not of suffering as suffering that the apostle here speaks. There is no tendency in pain to produce holiness. It is only of Christian suffering and of the sufferings of Christians, that is, of suffering endured for Christ and in a Christian manner, that the apostle says it is connected with salvation, or that it tends to work out for those who suffer an eternal weight of glory. Or whether we be comforted it is for your consolation. That is, our consolation is also yours. If we are consoled, so are you. If we suffer together, we rejoice together. Or, if you suffer as I do, you will enjoy similar consolation. My being consoled enables me to console you. According to the common text the reading here is, "your consolation

and salvation." But the repetition of the words and salvation is not sustained by some of the oldest manuscripts, and they do not cohere so well with the following clause; as it can hardly be said that "salvation is effectual in enduring affliction." On these grounds, as before remarked, Beza and many other editors omit the words in question. Which is effectual; that is, which consolation is operative or efficacious, not to the enduring, as in our version, but in the enduring ( ἐ ν ὑ πομον ῇ ). This consolation shows its efficacy in the patient endurance of suffering. According to another interpretation ἐ νεργουμένης is taken passively, which is wrought out. The sense would then be good, 'This consolation is wrought out or experienced in patient endurance.' But as Paul always uses this word actively, the rendering adopted in our version is generally and properly preferred. The same sufferings which I also suffer. The sufferings of the Corinthians were the same with those of the apostle, because they sympathized in his afflictions, because they in a measure suffered as he did, and because their sufferings were "the sufferings of Christ," in the same sense that his were. They were not only such sufferings as Christ endured, but they were incurred because those who suffered were Christians. And our hope of you is stedfast. That is, 'we have a stedfast hope that you will be partakers of our consolation.' Knowing, i.e. because we know, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the consolation. The two go together. Those who share in our sorrows, share in our joys. There are two ideas apparently united here as in the preceding context. The one is that the sufferings of the apostle were also the sufferings of the Corinthians because of the union between them. The other is, that his readers were in their measure exposed to the same kind of sufferings. In this twofold sense they were the κοινωνοί, the communicants or joint-partakers of his joys and sorrows.

8. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble, which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life.

The apostle confirms from the facts of his recent history, what he had said of his afflictions. Asia is probably to be understood here in reference to proconsular Asia, which comprehended the western provinces of Asia Minor, viz., Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and part of Phrygia. What afflictions and dangers the apostle here refers to is uncertain. It is generally assumed that he alludes to the uproar in Ephesus, of which mention is made in Acts 19:23–41. But to this is objected that Paul does not appear to have been in personal danger during that tumult; that instead of saying in Asia he would probably have said in Ephesus, had he referred to that special event; and that the language used seems obviously to imply a succession and continuance of severe trials. Others think that the reference is to some severe illness. But there is nothing in the context to indicate that particular form of affliction. Neither could illness naturally be included under the "afflictions of Christ," under which head the apostle comprehends all the afflictions to which in this connection he refers. The probability is that he alludes to trials of different kinds, and especially to plots and attempts against his life. He was surrounded by enemies, Jews and heathen, who thirsted for his blood. And we know, as remarked above, that the Acts of the Apostles contains the record of only a small portion of his afflictions. That we were pressed, ἐ βαρήθημεν, we were burdened. The allusion is to a wearied animal that sinks in despair under a burden beyond its strength. Out of measure, above strength; if thus separated, the former of these phrases refers to the character of his afflictions in themselves, 'they were excessive;' and the latter, expresses their relation to his ability to bear them. Absolutely, they were too great, relatively, they were above his strength. Many commentators make

the former qualify the latter, "We were burdened far beyond our strength" (καθ ʼ ὑ περβολ ὴ ν ὑ π ὲ ρ δύναμιν). Insomuch that we despaired even of life. The expression is intensive, ἐ ξαπορηθ ῆ ναι, to be utterly at a loss, or, absolutely without a way (πόρος) of escape. It seemed impossible to the apostle that he could escape from the enemies who beset him on every side. These enemies were not only men, but perils and trials of all kinds.

9. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead.

So far from expecting to live, the apostle says, on the contrary ( ἀ λλά) he had in himself the sentence of death. This may mean that he was as one who was actually condemned to die. God appeared to have passed upon him the sentence of death, from which there could be no reprieve. This supposes ἀ πόκριμα to have the sense of κατάκριμα. This meaning of the word is very doubtful. It properly signifies response, answer. 'We had in ourselves the answer of death.' That is, when he put to himself the question, whether life or death was to be the issue of his conflicts, the answer was, Death! In other words, he did not expect to escape with his life. God brought him into these straits in order that he might not trust in himself, but in God who raiseth the dead. These two things are so connected that the former is the necessary condition of the latter. There is no such thing as implicit confidence or reliance on God, until we renounce all confidence in ourself. When Paul was convinced that no wisdom nor efforts of his own could deliver him from death, then he was forced to rely on the power of God. God is here described as he who raiseth the dead, because the apostle's deliverance was a deliverance from death. It was only that Being who could call the dead to life who could rescue him from the imminent peril in which he was placed. So when Abraham's faith was put to the severe trial of believing what

was apparently impossible, it is said, "He believed God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were," Romans 4:17. Comp. Hebrews 11:19. No man until he is tried knows how essential the omnipotence of God is as a ground of confidence to his people. They are often placed in circumstances where nothing short of an almighty helper can give them peace.

10. Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver (us).

Paul's trust in God was not disappointed. He did deliver him from such a death, i.e. one so fearful and apparently so inevitable. It is evident from the whole context that the apostle had not only been in imminent peril, but exposed to a more than ordinarily painful death. Whether this was from disease or from enemies is a matter of conjecture. The latter is the more probable. Though he had been delivered from the instant and fearful death with which he was threatened, the danger was not over. The machinations of his enemies followed him wherever he went. He therefore says that God had not only delivered, but that he continued to deliver him. He was still beset with danger. He was however confident for the future. For he adds, in whom we trust, ε ἰ ς ὃ ν ἠ λπίκαμεν, on whom we have placed our hope that he will also henceforth deliver. He did, he does, he will, deliver, ἐῤῥ ύσατο, ῥ ύεται, ῥ ύσεται. The experience of past deliverances and mercies is the ground of present peace and of confidence for the future. These words of Paul sound continually in the ears of the people of God in all times of emergency.

11. Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift (bestowed) upon us by the means of many persons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf.

Intercessory prayer has great power, otherwise Paul would not so often solicit it on his own behalf and enjoin the duty on his readers. His confidence in his safety for the future was not founded simply on the experience of God's past mercy, but also on the prayers of Christians in his behalf. God will yet deliver me, he says, you also helping together by prayer. That is, provided you join your prayers with those of others for my safety. Helping together probably refers to their co-operation in the work of intercession with other churches, rather than with the apostle himself. The design of God in thus uniting his people in praying for each other when in affliction or danger, is that the deliverance may be matter of common gratulation and praise. Thus all hearts are drawn out to God and Christian fellowship is promoted. This is expressed in the latter part of this verse; that, i.e. in order that the gift being bestowed on us by means of many (δι ὰ πολλ ῶ ν) thanks may be rendered by many ( ἐ κ πολλ ῶ ν). In the Greek it is ἐ κ πολλ ῶ ν προσώπων, which most commentators render as our translators do, by many persons. The word πρ ὸ σωπον, however, always elsewhere in the New Testament means face or presence, which sense many retain here. 'That thanks may be rendered from many (upturned) faces.' According to the interpretation given above, the words δι ὰ πολλ ῶ ν are connected with τ ὸ χάρισμα, "the favour to us by means of many;" and ἐ κ πολλ ῶ ν προσώπων with ε ὐ χαρεσθ ῇ, 'thanks may be rendered by many persons (or faces).' This gives a good sense, and is perhaps better suited to the force of the prepositions ἐ κ and διά. It is more correct to say that the 'favour was (διά) by means of many,' i.e. by means of their prayer, than that it 'was ( ἐ κ) out of, or by,' as expressing the efficient cause. The order of the clauses, however, favours the connection adopted by our translators. 'The favour was by many persons, and the thanks to be rendered by means of many.' This construction of the sentence is also sanctioned by the majority of commentators.

The apostle's defence against the charge of inconstancy Vs. 12– 24

Paul had informed the Corinthians that it was his purpose to go direct from Ephesus to Corinth, thence into Macedonia, and back again to Corinth, v. 16. This plan he had been induced to modify before the former epistle was sent, as in 1 Corinthians 16:5 he tells them he would not visit them until he bad passed through Macedonia. On this slight ground his enemies in Corinth represented him as saying one thing and meaning another. They seem also to have made this an occasion for charging him with like inconsistency in doctrine. If his word could not be depended on in small matters, what dependence could be placed on his preaching? Paul shows there was no levity or insincerity involved in this change of his plans, and no inconsistency in his preaching; but that to spare them he had deferred his visit to Corinth, vs. 12–24.

12. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

The connection between this verse and what precedes, as indicated by the particle for, is, 'I look for your sympathy in my afflictions, and for your prayers in my behalf, for my conscience bears testimony to the simplicity and sincerity of my conversation among you.' Unless we are conscious of integrity towards others, we cannot be assured of their confidence in us. Our rejoicing, says Paul, is this, the testimony of our conscience. This may mean that the testimony of conscience was the ground of his rejoicing. This assumes a metonymical sense of the καύχησις, a meaning which is often attributed to the word. But as the word may express the inward feeling of exultation as well as the

outward expression of it, which latter is its proper sense, the meaning may be (without assuming any metonomy), 'My joyful confidence consists in the consciousness of sincerity.' The testimony of the conscience is consciousness; and that of which Paul was conscious was integrity. And that consciousness sustained and elevated him. It was in its nature a joy. What follows is explanatory. His conscience testified that in simplicity and godly sincerity, &c. The word ἁ πλότης means singleness of mind, the opposite of duplicity. The ancient manuscripts A, B, C, read ἁ γιότης, purity or sanctity, which the recent editors generally adopt. The former word is much more common in Paul's writings, and is better suited to the following term, ε ἰ λικρίνεια, which means translucence, clearness, sincerity of mind. It is called the sincerity of God, which our translators explain as meaning godly sincerity, either in the sense of religious, as distinguished from mere natural sincerity as a moral virtue; or in the sense of divine, what comes from God. The latter is the true explanation. It is the sincerity which God gives. The Bible often uses such expressions as "the peace of God," "joy of the Spirit," &c., meaning the peace or joy of which God or the Spirit is the author. There is a specific difference between moral virtues and spiritual graces, although they are called by the same names. Simplicity, sincerity, meekness, long-suffering, when the fruits of the Spirit differ from the moral virtues designated by those terms, as many external things, though similar in appearance, often differ in their inward nature. A religious man and a moral man may be very much alike in the eyes of men, though the inward life of the latter is human, and that of the former is divine. What Paul means here to say is, that the virtues which distinguished his deportment in Corinth were not merely forms of his own excellence, but forms of the divine life; modes in which the Spirit of God which dwelt in him manifested itself. This is expressed more clearly in what follows. Not in fleshly wisdom, that is, not in that wisdom which has its origin in our own

nature. The familiar meaning of the word flesh in the New Testament, especially in the writings of St. Paul, is human nature as it now is, as listinguished from the Spirit of God. "Ye are not in the flesh," says this apostle, "but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you," Romans 8:9. As our nature is corrupt, natural or fleshly necessarily involves more or less the idea of corruption. The natural man, carnal mind, fleshly wisdom, all imply that idea more or less, according to the context. Fleshly wisdom, therefore, is that kind of wisdom which unrenewed men are wont to exhibit, wisdom guided by principles of self-interest or expediency. It stands opposed to the grace of God. Paul was not guided by the former, but by the latter. The grace of God controlled his conduct; and by grace is here meant, as so often elsewhere, the gracious influences of the Spirit. We have had our conversation; ἀ νεστράφημεν, we moved about, we conducted ourselves. The expression includes all the manifestations of his inward life. In the world, i.e. among men generally; and more especially to you-ward. That is, the evidence of my sincerity is much more abundant to you than to others. The Corinthians had enjoyed more opportunities of learning the character of the apostle, and of seeing his simplicity and integrity, than the world, or men outside of the church, had possessed. He could therefore the more confidently assume that they confided in him.

13–14. For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge. and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end; as also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also (are) ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The same sincerity and honesty marked his correspondence that characterized his life. He never wrote one thing and meant another. The connection with the preceding verse is, 'We are perfectly honest,

for we write none other things than what ye read.' The simple, obvious meaning of my letter, is the true meaning. I write, i.e. I mean none other things than what you understand me to intend when you read my letters, or know from other sources. The word ἐ πιγινώσκετε may be rendered as in our version, ye acknowledge. The sense would then be, 'I mean nothing else but what you read or acknowledge to be my meaning.' But this is not so clear. The design of the apostle is to show that his purposes really were what his letters indicated, or what the Corinthians, by other means, had been led to understand them to be. The words are, "Ye read, or also ( ἢ καί) know," and I trust ye shall acknowledge to the end. This clause may be connected with what precedes. 'I mean what you know, and I trust shall continue to acknowledge, to be my meaning.' That is, 'I have confidence that you will not misunderstand or misinterpret my intentions until we all come to the end;' ἕ ως τέλους, to the end, either of life, or of the world. A much better sense is obtained by connecting this clause with what follows, so that the clause ( ὅ τι καύχημα ὑ μ ῶ ν ἐ σμεν), that we are your rejoicing, is the object of the verb ( ἐ πιγνώσεσθε) ye shall acknowledge, 'I trust ye shall acknowledge unto the end (as ye have acknowledged us in part), that we are your rejoicing.' The verb ἐ πιγινώσκειν combines the ideas of recognition and of complete knowledge. The words in part are most naturally referred to the Corinthians, ye in part, i.e. a part of you. Paul knew that there were some in Corinth who did not rejoice in him. Others understand them to qualify the verb. It was only a partial recognition of him that the Corinthians had as yet manifested. Compare 1 Corinthians 13:12, "I know in part." This, however, would give a tone of reproach to the language which is foreign to the character of the passage. We are your rejoicing, i.e. the ground of your exultation and delight. As ye also ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus. Paul believed that in the day of the Lord Jesus the Corinthians would rejoice over him as he would rejoice over them. In that day they would appreciate the blessedness

of having had him for their teacher, as he would rejoice in having had them for his converts. The joy, however, which he anticipated in its fulness when Christ should come, was in a measure already theirs. 'We are, and shall be, your rejoicing, as ye are and shall be ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.' Instead of rendering ὃ τι in the above clause that many commentators render it because. This gives a different sense to the whole passage. 'We hope you will acknowledge —because we are your rejoicing, as ye are ours.' This, however, leaves the verb acknowledge without an object. What were they to acknowledge? We may indeed supply from the context the words our sincerity, but it is more natural so to construe the passage as to avoid the necessity of supplying any thing. The sense also is better according to the common interpretation. Paul does not design to prove that the Corinthians confided in him because he was their rejoicing, which would be to prove a thing by itself.

15–16 And in this confidence I was minded to come to you before that ye might have a second benefit; to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way to Judea.

And in this confidence, that is, in the confidence that we are your rejoicing, Paul was not afraid to go to Corinth. He did not doubt that the great majority of the church would receive him with confidence and affection. The change in the plan of his journey arose, as he afterwards states, from very different motives. Paul says he was minded, i.e. intended to come to them before, i.e. before going to Macedonia; that ye might have a second benefit, i.e. the benefit of seeing me twice, once before going to Macedonia, and again after my return. The other explanation of this passage is, that second here refers to his first visit to Corinth. The first benefit was their conversion, the second would be the good effects to be anticipated

from another visit. But it appears from 12:14, and other passages that Paul had already been twice in Corinth, and therefore he could not speak of his intended visit as the second; and the word second here evidently refers to the word before. He was to see them before and after going to Macedonia. Benefit, χαρίν, grace, a term generally in the New Testament used of religious blessings. The word sometimes signifies joy, so the sense here may be, 'That ye might have the pleasure of seeing me twice.' The former explanation is not only better suited to the common use of the word, but also gives a higher sense. And of you to be brought on my way to Judea. Προπεμθ ῆ ναι, to be brought on my way, i.e. to be aided in my journey. The word often, and perhaps most frequently, means to escort on a journey, or to furnish with the means of travelling. Acts 15:3, 20:38. &c. In ancient times when there were no established modes of travelling, it was customary for the friends of the traveller in one city to send him forward to the next, or at least to escort him on his way. This office of friendship Paul was willing and desirous to receive at the hands of the Corinthians. He was not alienated from them. And his purpose to seek this kindness from them was a proof of his confidence in their affection for him.

17. When therefore I was thus minded did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay?

Paul did not execute the plan of his journey above indicated. His having changed his purpose was made the ground of a twofold charge against him; first, of levity, and secondly of inconsistency; saying one thing, and doing another; or saying one thing at one time, and the opposite at another, so that he was utterly untrustworthy either as a man or as a teacher. This was indeed a slight foundation on which to rest such a charge. It is no wonder therefore that it

excited the apostle's indignation. The first charge is that he used lightness, i.e. that in purposing to visit Corinth and in announcing his purpose he had no serious intention of doing what he promised. It was a careless, inconsiderate avowal such as none but a man of levity would make. In the Greek the article is used (τ ῇ ἐ λαφρί ᾳ ) the lightness, which may mean, the lightness with which they charged him; or that which belongs to our nature; or it may have no more force than when used in other cases before abstract nouns. Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh? The first charge related to the past, did I use lightness? This relates to his general character. 'Am I habitually governed in my plans by the flesh,' i.e. am I influenced and controlled by those considerations which govern ordinary men, who have nothing to guide them but their own corrupt nature? The word flesh here, as in v. 12, stands for our whole nature, considered as distinguished from the Spirit of God. All who are not spiritual (governed by the Spirit) are, according to the Scripture, carnal (governed by the flesh). What Paul therefore intends to deny in these two questions, is that his original purpose of visiting Corinth was formed in levity, and secondly, that his plans in general were controlled by worldly or selfish considerations. That with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay. That ( ἵ να) here expresses the result, not the design. 'Do I so act after the flesh that the consequence is,' &c. The repetition of the particles yea, yea, and nay, nay, is simply intensive, as in Matthew 5:37, "Let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay." The meaning, therefore, is, 'Do I affirm and deny the same thing? Do I say both yes and no at the same time and in reference to the same subject? Is no dependence to be placed on my word?' This is the common interpretation and the one demanded by the context. Many commentators from Chrysostom downwards give a very different view of the passage. They understand the apostle to defend himself for his change of plan by saying that he was not like men of the world

who obstinately adhered to their purposes, without regard to the manifested will of God, so that with him a yea should be yea, and a nay, nay, let what would be the consequence. But in the 18th v. this interpretation is impossible, because it is there simply "yea and nay." That verse therefore determines the meaning of this. Besides, what he goes on to defend himself against is not a charge of obstinacy, but of saying first one thing and then another. Luther's translation assumes still another interpretation. "Are my purposes carnal? Not so, but my yea is yea, and my nay is nay." But this arbitrarily introduces into the text what is not expressed, and thus changes the whole sense.

18. But as God is true, our word towards you was not yea and nay.

That is, 'My preaching, or the doctrine which I preached, was not inconsistent and contradictory. I did not preach first one thing and then another.' This sudden transition from the question as to his veracity as a man to his consistency as a preacher, shows two things; first, that his enemies had brought both charges against him, founding the latter on the former; and secondly, that Paul was much more concerned for the gospel than for his own reputation. They might accuse him, if they pleased, of breaking his word; but when they charged him with denying Christ, that was a very different affair. He therefore drops the first charge and turns abruptly to the second. 'Whatever you may think of my veracity as a man, as God is true, my preaching was not yea and nay,' i.e. unworthy of confidence. As God is true. The words are, God is faithful, that, &c. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:9, 10:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:24. They may be understood as an appeal to the fidelity of God as the ground and evidence of the truth and reliableness of his preaching. 'God is faithful, that our preaching is not yea and nay.' That is, his fidelity secures the trustworthiness of

the gospel. It is his word and therefore is unchangeably true. It abideth forever. 'If,' says the apostle, 'there is no dependence to be placed on my word, God is trustworthy. My preaching, which is his word, is to be relied upon. That is not yea and nay, but firm and true.' It must be admitted, however, that this interpretation is constrained; it is not the simple meaning of the words. The passage must be paraphrased to get this sense out of it. It is perhaps better with our translators, after Calvin, Beza, and many other commentators, ancient and modern, to take the words as an asseveration. So true as God is faithful, so true is it, that, &c. Comp. 11:10, ἔ στιν ἡ ἀ λήθεια Χριστο ῦ ἐ ν ἐ μοί, ὅ τι. Romans 14:11, ζ ῶ ἐ γώ— ὅ τι, as I live—every knee shall bow to me. Judith 12:4, ζ ῇ ἡ ψυχή σου— ὅ τι. It is therefore according to the usage of the language to understand πιστ ὸ ς ὁ θεός— ὅ τι as an oath, and the sense given is much more natural. An oath is an act of worship. To predict that men shall everywhere swear by the name of Jehovah, Isaiah 65:16, is to predict that Jehovah shall everywhere be worshipped. Men may, therefore, appeal to God for the truth of what they say on any solemn occasion, if they do it devoutly as an act of worship. It is a formal recognition of his being, of his omniscience, of his holiness and power, and of his moral government. Our Lord himself did not refuse to answer when put upon his oath, Matthew 27:63; and the apostles often call on God to witness the truth of their declarations. When, therefore, our Saviour commands us, "Swear not at all," he must be understood to forbid profane swearing, that is, calling on God in an irreverent manner and on trivial occasions. That our word towards you was not yea and nay; ὁ λόγος ἡ μ ῶ ν. This may mean our preaching, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 2:1, 4, and often; or, our word generally, i.e. what I said. The apostle may be understood to assert the truth and consistency of his instructions as a teacher, or the trustworthiness of his declarations and promises as a man. The decision depends on the context. In favour of the latter it is urged that the charge against him, as intimated in v. 17, was that of

breaking his promise, and therefore to make this verse refer to his preaching is to make him evade the point entirely. But the following verses, which are intimately connected with the one before us, clearly refer to matters of doctrine, and therefore this verse must have the same reference. The sudden transition from the charge of levity in v. 17, to that of false doctrine in v. 18, as before remarked, is sufficiently accounted for from the association of the two charges in the minds of his enemies. They said he was not to be depended upon as a preacher, because he had shown himself to be untrustworthy as a man. "As God is true, my preaching is true." The one is as true as the other. Hence in Galatians 1:8 he pronounces an angel accursed should he preach another gospel. Paul's confidence in the truth of the gospel as he preached it was one and the same with his confidence in God. To tell him that his preaching was not to be depended upon, was in his mind the same as to say that God was not to be believed; for he knew that he was the infallible organ of God in all his teaching. 1 John 5:10.

19. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, (even) by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

My preaching is true, for Christ is true. There is no contradiction, no yea and nay, in him, therefore there is no contradiction in my doctrine. There was no room in Paul's mind for doubt as to his preaching being a trustworthy exhibition of the person and work of Christ, and therefore if Christ be one and the same, i.e. self- consistent truth, so was his doctrine or teaching. With such self- evidencing light and irresistible conviction does the Spirit attend his communications to the human mind. Even in ordinary religious experience, the testimony of the Spirit becomes the testimony of consciousness. Much more was this the case when plenary

inspiration was combined with the sanctifying power of the truth. The Son of God, Jesus Christ; that is, Christ, who is the Son of God, the same in nature with the eternal Father, and because he is the Son, and, therefore, eternally and immutably true was not yea and nay. There was nothing in him contradictory or untrustworthy. This Christ was preached in Corinth by Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. These persons are mentioned because the apostle probably refers to his first visit to Corinth when they were his companions. Acts 18:5. His appeal is to the experience of his readers. They had found Christ to be the way, the truth and the life. He had been made unto them wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. 1 Corinthians 1:30. By Christ here the apostle does not mean the doctrine of Christ. He does not intend to assert simply that there was perfect consistency in his own preaching, and that it agreed with the preaching of his associates. The truth asserted is that Christ, the Son of God, had not been manifested among them, or experienced by them to be unsatisfying or uncertain, but in him was yea. That is, he was simple truth. In him, i.e. in Christ, was truth. He proved himself to be all that was affirmed of him. He was and continued to be (γέγονεν) all that they had been led to expect. Let, therefore, what will become of me and of my reputation for veracity, Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.

20. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen, unto the glory of God by us.

This verse is the confirmation of what precedes. Christ was, and is, not yea and nay, not uncertain and inconsistent, for in him all the promises of God were fulfilled. All that God had promised relative to the salvation of man met its full accomplishment in him. Instead of, all the promises, the Greek is, as many promises. That is, as many promises as had from the beginning been made as to what the

Messiah was to be and to do. In him were the yea. That is, in him they found their affirmation or accomplishment. The article (τ ὸ ναί), the yea, has reference to the promises. Christ, as regards the promises of God, was the yea, i.e. their affirmation and accomplishment. And in him the Amen. This is saying in Hebrew what had just been said in Greek; Amen being equivalent to yea. It is not unusual with the sacred writers to give solemn or impressive formulas in both languages. The promises of God are amen in Christ, because he is the sum and substance of them. He says in a sense which includes the idea here expressed, "I am the truth," John 14:6; and in Revelation 3:7 he is designated as "He that is true;" and in Revelation 3:14 he is called, "The Amen, the faithful and true witness." The common text, which is expressed in our version, has the support of the manuscripts D, E, I, K, which read κα ὶ ἐ ν α ὐ τ ῷ, and in him. A, B, C, F, G have δι ὸ κα ὶ δι ʼ α ὐ το ῦ, wherefore also through him the Amen. This reading, which most recent editions adopt, was preferred by Calvin, who renders the passage, quare et per ipsum sit Amen. The Vulgate has the same reading, ideo et per ipsum Amen. The sense thus expressed is certainly better and fuller. The verse then teaches not only that the promises of God receive their confirmation in Christ, but also that we experience and assent to their truth. We say Amen, it is even so, to all God had promised, when we come to know Christ. To the glory of God by us. As these words are commonly pointed the natural interpretation is, that by us, i.e. by the preaching of the apostles, men are brought thus to say Amen to the divine promises, to the glory of God. God is glorified by the faith in his promises thus expressed. The words, however, admit of a different construction. By us may be connected with the first part of the clause. 'The Amen is said by us to the glory of God.' This may mean, 'We Christians render a glad assent to the promises thus ratified in Christ.' But us in the immediate context refers to the apostles, and therefore cannot be naturally here made to refer to Christians

generally. Or, the meaning may be, 'By us apostles testimony is given to the truth of the promises, to the glory of God.' This last-mentioned interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the scriptural use of the expression "to say Amen," which means simply to assent to, or to sanction. 1 Corinthians 14:16. The apostles did not say Amen to the promises by preaching the gospel; but through their preaching men were brought to say Amen; that is, they were led to the joyful experience and avowal of faith in what God had promised. In Christ, therefore, the promises were fulfilled; and in him also men were brought, through the apostles, joyfully to assent to them. Bengel's pithy comment on this verse is: Nae respectu Dei promittentis, amen respectu credentium. "He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true." John 3:33; 1 John 5:9–10. To receive God's testimony concerning his Son, to say Amen, and to believe, all mean the same thing.

21–22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, (is) God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

In the preceding verse the apostle had spoken of Christ as the truth and substance of all the divine promises, and of the cordial assent which believers gave to those promises; he here brings into view God as the author and preserver of their faith, who would assuredly grant them the salvation of which he had already given them the foretaste and the pledge. Now he; or, but he who stablisheth us with you in Christ. The word is ὅ βεβαι ῶ ν, who renders firm or stedfast; i.e. who causes us with you to stand firm, ε ἰ ς Χριστόν, in reference to Christ, so that we adhere to him with unshaken constancy. As by the pronouns we and us, in what precedes, the apostle had meant himself and Silas and Timothy, here where he has reference to all believers he unites them with himself, us with you. The constancy in

faith which God gave was not a gift peculiar to teachers, but common to all true Christians. And hath anointed us. Kings, prophets, and priests were anointed when inaugurated in their several offices; to anoint may therefore mean to qualify by divine influence, and thereby to authorize any one to discharge the duties of any office. In Luke 4:18 our Lord applies to himself the language of Isaiah 61:1, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." Acts 4:27, 10:38. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." In like manner Christians are spoken of as anointed, because by the Spirit they are consecrated to God and qualified for his service. 1 John 2:20, 27. When Paul says here, hath anointed us, he means by us all Christians, and of course the anointing to which he refers is that which is common to all believers. This is plain, 1. Because the object of the two participles, βεβαι ῶ ν and χρίσας, here used, must be the same; 'who establisheth us, and hath anointed us.' But with the former Paul expressly associates the Corinthians. He says. us with you. They as well as he were the subjects of the confirmation, and therefore also of the anointing. 2. What follows of sealing and receiving the earnest of the Spirit, cannot with any propriety be restricted to ministers. 3. In the New Testament official anointing is spoken of only in relation to Christ, never of apostles or preachers; whereas believers are said to receive the unction of the Holy Spirit. The design of the apostle is not, as some of the later commentators say, to assert that God had given to him the assurance of the Spirit as to his fidelity in preaching the gospel; but to show that believers were indebted to God for their faith, and that he would certainly cause them to persevere. Is God; God it is who confirms and anoints his people. Comp. 5:5 for a similarly constructed passage. This is the common and natural explanation. Billroth and Olshausen render it thus: 'God, who establishes and anointed us, also sealed us.' But this makes the first part of the verse too subordinate; the sealing is not the dominant

idea. It is only one of the several benefits specified. It is God who establishes, anoints, seals and gives the earnest of the Spirit. Who also hath sealed us. A seal is used, 1. To indicate proprietorship. 2. To authenticate or prove to be genuine. 3. To preserve safe or inviolate. The Holy Spirit, which in one view is an unction, in another view is a seal. He marks those in whom he dwells as belonging to God. They bear the seal of God upon them. Revelation 7:2; 2 Timothy 2:19. Act. Thom. § 26, ὁ θε ὸ ς δι ὰ τ ῆ ς α ὐ το ῦ σφραγ ῖ δος ἐ πιγινώσκει τ ὰ ἴ δια πρόβατα, God knows by his seal his own sheep. He also bears witness in the hearts of believers that they are the children of God. He authenticates them to themselves and others as genuine believers. And he effectually secures them from apostasy and perdition. Ephesians 1:3, 4:30. This last idea is amplified in the next clause; and hath given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. The Holy Spirit is itself the earnest, i.e. at once the foretaste and pledge of redemption. The word ἀῤῥ αβών, pledge, is a Hebrew word, which passed as a mercantile term, probably from the Phenician, into the Greek and Latin. It is properly that part of the purchase money paid in advance, as a security for the remainder. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of his people, is that part of the blessings of redemption, which God gives them as a pledge of their full and final salvation. So certain, therefore, as the Spirit dwells in us, so certain is our final salvation. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his … But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you," Romans 8:9–11. The indwelling of the Spirit is therefore called the first-fruits of redemption. Romans 8:23. Comp. Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 5:5. There is but one thing stated in these verses, and that is that God establishes or renders his people firm and secure in their union with Christ, and in their participation of the benefits of redemption. How he does this, and the evidence that he does it, is expressed or presented by saying

he hath anointed, sealed, and given us the earnest of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit, therefore, renders the believer secure and steadfast; it is his anointing; it is the seal of God impressed upon the soul, and therefore the pledge of redemption. The fruits of the Spirit are the only evidence of his presence; so that while those who experience and manifest those fruits may rejoice in the certainty of salvation, those who are destitute of them have no right to appropriate to themselves the consolation of this and similar declarations of the word of God. The perseverance of the saints is a perseverance in holiness.

23. Moreover, I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.

Paul here returns to the original charge. The complaint against him for not having executed his purpose of going at once from Ephesus to Corinth, he had left on one side to meet the more serious charge of inconsistency in his teaching. Having answered that accusation, he here says, But I sparing you, i.e. for the sake of avoiding giving you pain, came not again to Corinth. The obvious implication is, that such was the state of things in Corinth that had he gone there immediately ον leaving Ephesus, as he had originally intended, he would have been obliged to appear among them with a rod. 1 Corinthians 4:21. It was to avoid that necessity, and to give them the opportunity to correct abuses before he came, that he had deferred his visit. As there was no available testimony by which the apostle could prove that such was his motive, he confirms it by an oath. I invoke God as a witness, i.e. I call upon the omniscient God, who is the avenger of all perjury, to bear testimony to the truth of what I say. "An oath for confirmation is the end of all strife," Hebrews 6:16. All the bonds of society are loosened, and all security of life and property is lost, if men are not to be believed upon their oaths. This shows that human

society depends on the sanctity of an oath; and as the oath derives all its sacredness from faith in God, as the providential and moral governor of the world, it is obvious that society cannot exist without religion. Superstition and false religion, although great evils, are far better than atheism. The words ἐ π ὶ τ ὴ ν ἐ μ ὴ ν ψυχήν, rendered on my soul, may mean against my soul; or, I summon God to me as a witness. The latter idea includes the former, for, as Calvin says, "He who uses God as a witness, cites the punisher of falsehood."

24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

This is intended to moderate and explain what precedes. 'When I speak of sparing you, I do not wish to intimate that I consider myself the lord over your faith.' Not for that, ο ὐ χ ὅ τι, equivalent to, I do not say that we have dominion over your faith. Some say faith is here used for believers, (the abstract for the concrete,) we have not dominion over believers; or, as St. Peter says, are not lords over God's heritage. 1 Peter 5:3. Others say faith here means faith-life; we have not dominion over your Christian life. Both of these interpretations are unnatural and unnecessary. The word is to be taken in its ordinary sense. Paul disclaims all authority over their faith, either as a man or as an apostle. It was not for him, and if not for him, surely for no other man or set of men, to determine what they should believe. He called upon the Galatians to denounce him, or even an angel from heaven, as accursed, if he preached another gospel. Galatians 1:8. Faith rests not on the testimony of man, but on the testimony of God. When we believe the Scriptures, it is not man, but God whom we believe. Therefore faith is subject not to man but to God alone. This is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspiration of the apostles, and with our confidence in them as the infallible witnesses of the truth. When a man speaks through a trumpet, it is

the man and not the trumpet that we believe. Or when we read a printed page, we have confidence in the trustworthiness of the words as symbols of thought, but it is the mind expressed by those symbols with which we are in communion. So the apostles were but the organs of the Holy Ghost; what they spoke as such, they could not recall or modify. What they should communicate was not under their control; they were not the lords, so to speak, of the gospel, so that they could make it what they pleased. Not at all; they were as much subject to the communication which they received, and as much bound to believe what they were made the instruments of teaching, as other men. Paul therefore places himself alongside of his brethren, not over them as a lord, but as a joint-believer with them in the gospel which he preached, and a helper of their joy. That is, his office was to co-operate with them in the promotion of their spiritual welfare. It was not the end of the apostleship to give pain or to inflict punishment, but to promote the real happiness of the people. For by faith ye stand. The meaning of this clause is doubtful. Taken by themselves the words may mean, 'Ye stand firm or independently as to faith.' This would suit the connection as indicated by for. 'We are not lords over your faith, but merely helpers, for you stand independently as to faith.' Or the meaning may be what is expressed in our version, 'Ye stand by faith.' Then the connection, as explained by Calvin, is, 'Since it is the effect and nature of faith to sustain or cause you to stand, it is absurd that it should be subject to man, or that we should have dominion over your faith.' This, however, is rather an obscure argument. According to Meyer the connection is with the immediately preceding words, 'We are helpers of your joy, because ye are steadfast as to faith.' That is, steadfastness in faith is necessary to joy. The most natural interpretation probably is that given by Erasmus: fidei nomine nullum habemus in vos dominium, in qua perseveratis; sed est in vita quod in vobis correctum volebam. 'Over your faith I have no dominion, for in that ye stand; but, when I

speak of not sparing, I had reference to your conduct.' He had authority in matters of discipline, but not in matters of faith. As to the latter, he and they were equally under subjection to the revelation of God. He indeed, as the organ of the Spirit, could declare infallibly what that revelation was, but he could not go counter to it, and was to be judged by it. If the inspired apostles recognised not only their subjection to the word of God, but also the right of the people to judge whether their teachings were in accordance with the supreme standard, it is most evident that no church authority can make any thing contrary to Scripture obligatory on believers, and that the ultimate right to decide whether ecclesiastical decisions are in accordance with the word of God, rests with the people. In other words, Paul recognises, even in reference to himself, the right of private judgment. He allowed any man to pronounce him anathema, if he did not preach the gospel as it had been revealed and authenticated to the church. Quum eorum fidei dominari se negat, significat injustam hanc esse et minime tolerandam potestatem, imo tyrannidem in ecclesia. Fides enim prorsus ab hominum jugo soluta, liberrimaque esse debet. Notandum autem, quis loquatur: nam siquis omnino sit mortalium qui jus habeat tale dominium sibi vindicandi, Paulus certe dignus hac praerogativa fuit, fatetur autem sibi non competere. Itaque colligimus, fidem non aliam subjectionem agnoscere, quam verbi Dei: hominum imperio minime esse obnoxiam. CALVIN.

The first paragraph, vs. 1–4, relates to the change of his plan of going immediately to Corinth. In vs. 5–11 he refers to the case of discipline mentioned in his former letter. In vs. 12–14 he states why he did not remain in Troas. And in vs. 14–17 he pours out his heart in gratitude to God for the continued triumph of the gospel.

The true reason why the apostle did not go immediately to Corinth, and his views in reference to the offender whose excommunication he had insisted upon in his former letter.

THERE is no change of subject in this chapter. The apostle after defending himself from the charge of levity in conduct and inconsistency in doctrine, had said, in v. 23 of the preceding chapter, that he did not go to Corinth before giving the church time to comply with the injunctions contained in his former letter, because he did not wish to appear among them as a judge. He here says, in amplification, that he had determined not again to visit Corinth under circumstances which could only give pain to the Corinthians and to himself. He knew that he could not give them sorrow without being himself grieved, and he was assured that if he was happy they would share in his joy, vs. 1–4. The sorrow occasioned by the incestuous person was not confined to the apostle, but shared by the church. He was satisfied with the course which the church had pursued in reference to that case, and was willing the offender should be restored to their fellowship if they were, vs. 5–11. His anxiety about them was so great that not finding Titus, from whom he expected to receive intelligence, he was unable to remain at Troas, but passed over into Macedonia to meet him on his way, vs. 12–13. The intelligence which he received from Titus being favourable, the apostle expresses in strong terms his gratitude to God who always caused him to triumph, vs. 15–17.

1. But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness.

The connection is with what immediately precedes. 'I deferred my visit in order to spare you, not that I assume to be a lord over your faith, but a helper of your joy. But the true reason for my not coming was that I did not wish to come with heaviness.' The words ἔ κρινα ἑ μαυτ ῷ, rendered I determined with myself, may mean simply I determine as to myself. I had made up my mind; or, 'I determined for myself,' i.e. for my own sake. This perhaps is to be preferred. The apostle thus delicately intimates that it was not merely to spare them, but also himself, that he put off his visit. The word this refers to the purpose which the apostle had formed, and which is explained by the following infinitive, μ ὴ ἐ λθε ῖ ν, not to come. Two explanations are given of the following clause. According to the one, the meaning is, 'I determined that my second visit should not be with sorrow;' according to the other, 'I determined not a second time to visit you in sorrow.' In the one case the implication is that Paul had, at this time, been only once in Corinth; in the other, the passage implies that he had already (i.e. after his first visit) been to Corinth under circumstances painful to himself and to the church. There are two reasons for preferring this latter view. The first is, that according to the position of the words, as given in all the older manuscripts, (μ ὴ πάλιν ἐ ν λύπ ῃ πρ ὸ ς ὑ μ ᾶ ς ἐ λθε ῖ ν,) the πάλιν, again, belongs to the whole clause and not exclusively to ἐ λθε ῖ ν. The sense, therefore, is that he determined not a second time to come with sorrow, (he had done that once.) The other reason is, that there is evidence from other passages that Paul had been twice to Corinth before this letter was written. See 12:14, 21, 13:1. That there is no mention in the Acts of this intermediate journey, is no sufficient reason for denying it, as the passages referred to are so explicit. To make the second visit one by letter, as Calvin (venerat enim semel per epistolam) and others

have done, is evidently unnatural. Having gone once to correct abuses and to exercise severity, he was anxious not to have a second painful interview of the same kind, and therefore, instead of going to them, as he had intended, directly from Corinth, he waited to learn through Titus what had been the effect of his letter. With heaviness, ἐ ν λύπ ῃ, with sorrow, i.e. causing sorrow to you. This explanation is required by the following verse, otherwise the meaning would more naturally be in sorrow, i.e. in a sorrowful state of mind, as the word λύπη everywhere else with Paul means a state of grief.

2. For if I make you sorry, who is he that maketh me glad, but the same that is made sorry by me?

This is the reason why he did not wish to come bringing sorrow with him; 'For if,' says he, 'I make you sorry, who is there to make me glad? How can I be happy, if you are afflicted? Unless my visit cause you joy, it can bring no joy to me.' As inspiration leaves full play to all the characteristic peculiarities of its subject, in reading the writings of inspired men we learn not only the mind of the Spirit, but also the personal character of the writers. The urbanity of the apostle Paul, his refinement and courtesy, are just as plainly revealed in his epistles as his intellectual power and moral courage. The passage before us is one of many illustrations of the truth of this remark, furnished by this epistle. Who is he that maketh me glad, but the same that is made sorry by me. The singular is used, not because a particular individual, much less because the incestuous person, is specially referred to, but because the case is stated in the form of a general proposition. 'I cannot expect joy from one to whom I bring sorrow.' Such was the apostle's love for the Corinthians that unless they were happy he could not be happy. This is the natural and commonly received interpretation of the passage. Chrysostom, and many of the ancient commentators, and some also of the moderns,

give a different view of its meaning. 'Who gives me joy, but he who allows himself (λυπούμενος as middle and not passive) to be grieved by me.' That is, no one causes me so much joy as he who is brought to repentance by me. But this is obviously inconsistent with the context. The verse, as thus explained, gives no reason why Paul did not wish to go to Corinth bringing sorrow. On the contrary, the more of that kind of sorrow he brought with him, or was occasioned by his visit, the better. This interpretation would make the apostle say, 'I will not come with sorrow, for nothing gives me so much pleasure as to cause (godly) sorrow.' To avoid this incongruity Olshausen says the connection is to be thus understood: Paul determined that he would not come with sorrow, because he feared that few of the Corinthians would give him the happiness of seeing that they had been made sorry by his former reproofs. But this makes the passage itself a reproof, an insinuation that they had not profited by his first letter. This is contrary to the whole spirit of the passage, which is overflowing with confidence and affection.

3. And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all that my joy is (the joy) of you all.

Having said that his motive for not coming at once to Corinth was to avoid giving them sorrow, he here adds, 'And I wrote what I did in my former letter that, when I came, I might not have sorrow.' Instead of going in person to correct the evils which existed in the church of Corinth, he wrote to them that those evils might be corrected before he came, and thus his coming would be a source of joy to both parties. It is evident from the preceding context, and from vs. 4 and 9, that ἔ γραψα here refers not to this epistle, but to the former one. This same, το ῦ το α ὐ τό, that very thing, that is, the very thing which I did write respecting the incestuous person. The expression seems to

have special reference to that case, because that is evidently the case to which the following verses relate. It appears that the point about which the apostle was most anxious was, how the Corinthians would act in regard to his command, 1 Corinthians 5:13, to put away from among them "that wicked person." He seems to have feared that his enemies might have had influence enough with the church, to prevent their executing his command. He therefore waited in painful suspense to learn the issue. And when Titus, on his return from Corinth, informed him that they had not only promptly obeyed his directions, but that the offender himself and the whole church had been brought to deep and genuine repentance, his heart was filled with gratitude to God, and with love to the people who had manifested such a Christian spirit. All this is plain from what is said in ch. 7. Erasmus and several other commentators render το ῦ το α ὐ τό hac eadem de causa, for this very reason. The sense would then be, 'I determined I would not come to you with sorrow, and for that very reason I wrote to you that I might not.' This, although it suits the preceding context, is not so consistent with what follows as the common interpretation; for in the following verses the apostle states the reasons for his writing as he had done in his former letter.

Lest when I came I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice. That is, 'I wrote what I did that I might not have sorrow from those, who should be to me a source of joy.' He wished all painful questions settled before he came. Having confidence in you all that my joy is the joy of you all. Paul in saying that he wished all causes of painful collision might be removed out of the way before he went to Corinth, did not isolate himself from the people, as though concerned only for his own peace of mind, but was satisfied that what made him happy would make them happy. My joy will be the joy of you all. This does not mean merely that it would give them pleasure to see him happy, but also that obedience on their part, and

the consequent purity and prosperity of the church, were as necessary to their happiness as to his. Paul says he had this confidence in them all, although it is abundantly evident that there were men among them who were his bitter opponents. These latter he here leaves out of view, and speaks of the majority, probably the great body, of the church as though it were the whole.

4. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye may know the love which I have the more abundantly towards you.

The connection is either with the immediately preceding clause, 'I have confidence in you, for otherwise it would not have given me so much pain to write as I did;' or, what is more natural because more direct, the reference is to the motives which dictated his letter. 'I was influenced by the desire of promoting your happiness, for to me it was a most painful duty.' Out of ( ἐ κ) indicates the source. His letter flowed from a broken heart. Affliction and anguish refer to his inward feelings, not to his outward circumstances, for both are qualified by the word heart. It was out of an afflicted, an oppressed heart, that he wrote. With many tears, (διά,) through many tears. The union of fidelity and love which renders parental discipline peculiarly effective, gives also peculiar power to ecclesiastical censures. When the offender is made to feel that, while his sin is punished, he himself is loved; and that the end aimed at is not his suffering but his good, he is the more likely to be brought to repentance. Every pastor must see in the apostle's love for the Corinthians, and in the extreme sorrow with which he exercised discipline in the case of offenders, an instructive example for his imitation. Not that ye should be grieved, my object in writing was not to cause you sorrow, but that ye may know the love that I have the

more abundantly towards you. The ends which the apostle desired to accomplish by his former letter were numerous, and he therefore sometimes specifies one, and sometimes another. Here, he says, it was to manifest his love; in v. 9 he says it was to test their obedience; in ch. 7 he says it was to bring them to repentance. These are not incompatible ends, and therefore there is no inconsistency between these several statements. The love which I have the more abundantly towards you. This naturally means the special love which I have for you. His love for them was more abundant, or greater, than that which he had for any other church. This view is borne out by numerous other passages in these two epistles, which go to show that Paul's love for the Corinthian church was, for some reason, peculiarly strong. As vs. 5–11 have direct reference to the case of the incestuous person, it is the more probable that all that he says in the preceding verses as to his reasons for not coming sooner to Corinth, and as to the sorrow and anxiety which he felt about the state of the church there, had special reference to that case.

5. But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all.

The connection between this paragraph, vs. 5–11, and what precedes is natural and obvious. Paul had been speaking of his motives for writing his former letter. It was not intended to give them sorrow. If sorrow had been occasioned, it had not come from him. This led him to speak more particularly of the case which had occasioned so much distress. The proper interpretation of this particular verse is, however, a matter of great doubt. The translation is of necessity, in this case, an exposition, and therefore the grounds of doubt do not appear to the English reader. Our translators, after Luther, assume that ἀ π ὸ μέρους, in part, are to be connected with the preceding clause, and πάντας ὑ μ ᾶ ς, you all, with ἐ πιβαρ ῶ, overcharge. Thus

construed the sense can only be, 'If any one has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but in part, that is, I am not the only person aggrieved. I say this, lost I should bear hard upon you all. It would be a severe reflection on you to say that you did not feel any sorrow for the offence in question.' According to this view, the design of the passage is to guard against the impression that he meant to charge them with indifference. But to this it is objected that to express this sense ε ἰ μή, and not ἀ λλά, would be required. "He hath not grieved me except in part." And secondly, that the idea thus expressed is not suited to the context. The main idea evidently is, 'He hath not grieved me but you.' The subordinate words and clauses therefore must be accommodated to that idea. Hence ἀ λλ ʼ ἀ π ὸ μέρους must be connected with what follows, and πάντας ὑ μ ᾶ ς with λελύπηκεν. Then the sense will be, 'He hath not grieved me, but in part, or, to a certain extent, (lest I should bear too hard on him,) you all.' The design of the passage, according to this view, is to soften the charge against the penitent offender of having been the cause of sorrow. This the apostle does, first, by saying, "he did not grieve me," i.e. it was no personal offence against me that he committed; and second, that all the Corinthians were not afflicted, it was not a universal sorrow that he caused. This substantially is the interpretation given by Calvin after Chrysostom, and is the one adopted by the great majority of modern commentators. It has the advantage of being not only suited to the meaning of the words, but to the whole tone of the following context, which is eminently mild and conciliatory. The apostle's heart was overflowing with the tenderest feelings towards his Corinthian brethren, and he was evidently solicitous to heal the salutary wounds inflicted by his former letter. There is still another view of the passage which should be mentioned. It may be pointed so as to read thus: 'He hath not grieved me, but in part (that I may not overcharge all) you.' This, however, unnaturally separates the words πάντας ὑ μ ᾶ ς, you all.

6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which (was inflicted) of many.

I do not wish to be severe towards him, for the punishment which he has received is sufficient. The word ἡ ἐ πιτιμία, rendered punishment, occurs only in Wisdom 3:10 in this sense, and therefore many assume that it here does not mean punishment, but reproof. The word rendered sufficient, ἱ κανόν, is used substantively. "This punishment is a sufficiency, or a satisfaction." Comp. Matthew 6:34 for a similar construction. Paul says the punishment or reproof was administered ὑ π ὸ τ ῶ ν γλειόνων, by the majority, intimating that all did not concur in it. This, however, is not a necessary inference, because ο ἱ πλειόνες may mean the many, the whole body considered as many, because composed of many members. There are three views taken of this verse in connection with what follows. In his former letter the apostle had not only commanded the church to excommunicate the person here referred to, but declared his own determination to deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. 1 Corinthians 5:5. Grotius supposes that in consequence of that judgment he was seized with some bodily malady, for delivery from which Paul, in this connection, declares his willingness that the Corinthians should pray. Of this, however, the passage gives no intimation. A second view is that the sentence of excommunication had not been carried into effect, but as the reproof administered by many had had the effect of leading the offender to repentance, the apostle here intimates his satisfaction with what the church had done, although his injunctions had not been fully complied with. This is the view of Calvin, Beza, and of many others. In favour of this explanation it is urged that the expression "this punishment" naturally refers to that punishment or reproof which the Corinthians had administered as distinguished from that which he had enjoined; and his saying "this punishment," of which he had heard, was enough, implies that he did

not wish them to proceed any further, but rather that they Should console the penitent by the assurance of their love. On the other hand, however, v. 9 (as well as ch. 7) clearly intimates that the church had rendered a prompt obedience to the apostle's directions. The great majority of commentators, therefore, understand the passage to mean that Paul did not wish the excommunication to be continued any longer. As it had produced its desired effect, he was willing that the offender should be restored to the communion of the church. The whole passage indicates that Paul was more lenient than the church, for he exhorts his readers not to be too severe in their treatment of their offending brother. A passage, says Calvin, himself a severe disciplinarian, well to be observed, as it teaches with what equity and clemency the discipline of the church is to be attempered; qua aequitate et clementia temperanda sit disciplina ecclesiae. Paul, he adds, was satisfied with the repentance of the offender; whereas the ancient bishops gave forth their canons requiring a penance of three, or seven years, or even for a life-time, without regard to the contrition of the unhappy victims of their severity.

7. So that contrariwise ye (ought) rather to forgive (him) and comfort (him), lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

The consequence of what is expressed in v. 8 is indicated by the words so that. 'The punishment being sufficient, the consequence is that, instead of its being increased or continued, you should forgive and comfort the offender.' As the apostle seems to indicate what ought to be done, most commentators supply before the infinitives χαρίσασθαι κα ὶ παρακαλέσαι the word δε ῖ or δε ῖ ν, 'it is necessary to forgive and comfort.' The infinitive itself, however, often expresses, after verbs of saying, and the like, not what is, but what should be, e.g. λέγοντες περιτέμνεσθαι, saying you ought to be circumcised.

Acts 15:24, 21:4, 21. Winer, p. 371, says that neither of these modes of explanation is necessary, as the infinitives may be connected immediately with ἱ κανόν, 'The reproof is sufficient—in order to your pardoning and comforting him.' The delicacy of the apostle towards this offender is indicated by his abstaining either from naming him, or designating him as he had before done, 1 Corinthians 5:13, as that wicked person. He refers to him simply as such an one, without any appellation which could wound his feelings. The apostle combined, therefore, the strictest fidelity with the greatest tenderness. As long as the offender was impenitent and persisted in his offence, Paul insisted upon the severest punishment. As soon as he acknowledged and forsook his sin, he became his earnest advocate. Lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow, that is, lest he should be driven to despair and thus destroyed. Undue severity is as much to be avoided as undue leniency. The character which Paul here exhibits reflects the image of our heavenly Father. His word is filled with denunciations against impenitent sinners, and at the same time with assurances of unbounded pity and tenderness towards the penitent. He never breaks the bruised reed or quenches the smoking flax.

8. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm (your) love towards him.

The connection is either with v. 6, 'His punishment is sufficient— wherefore confirm your love towards him;' or with what immediately precedes. 'There is danger of his being swallowed up with overmuch sorrow unless you forgive him, wherefore confirm your love to him.' The latter method is to be preferred, though the sense is substantially the same. I beseech you, παρακαλ ῶ, the same word which in the preceding verse is used in the sense of consoling. Paul not unfrequently uses the same word in the immediate connection in different senses. 1 Corinthians 3:17, 11:23. That ye would confirm, literally,

to confirm, κυρ ῶ σαι. The word properly means to ratify with authority by some public or formal act. Galatians 3:15. And this sense is generally adopted here. The apostle is understood to call upon them by a formal act to reinstate the offender in the communion of the church, to assure him of their love, so that he might not have to infer it merely from their treatment of him. The word, however, may mean nothing more than is expressed in our version. 'I exhort you to make your love towards him a matter of certainty.' But as the implication is that they had already begun to manifest their brotherly affection for him, the probability is that the apostle wished them to give their love a formal ratification.

9. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.

Verses 9 and 10 are sometimes regarded as a parenthesis, so as to connect the 11th verse with the 8th. 'Confirm your love towards him, lest Satan get an advantage over us.' But a parenthesis is never to be assumed where the grammatical construction continues unbroken, and the logical connection is uninterrupted. The 11th verse is naturally connected with the 10th, and the 9th with the 8th. 'Confirm your love to him, for the object of my writing to you to exclude him from your fellowship, has been accomplished.' To this end means the end specified in the latter part of the verse. I wrote, ἔ γραψα, a form of the verb which is often in the epistolary style used of the letter in the process of being written. Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 9:15; 1 Peter 5:12, &c. The whole context, however, shows that Paul refers to his former letter. See vs. 3–4. He did not write this letter to test their obedience, though that was one of the objects of his former epistle. Paul says, 'I also wrote.' This also may indicate that it was the object of his former letter as well as of the exhortation which he had just given them, to test their obedience. But such was not the object of that exhortation.

It is better therefore to understand the (καί) also, as simply intended to give prominence to the words I wrote, as something additional to other things which he had done with the same general object. 'To this end I also wrote, as well as did many other things,' &c. The end (although not the only one), which the apostle had in view in enjoining on the church the excommunication of the person here referred to, was, as he says, that I might know the proof of you. The word used is δοκιμή, which means trial, 8:2, "trial of affliction;" or, proof, test, 13:3, "As ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me;" or, the result of trial, what is approved, integrity that has been tested. Philippians 2:22, "Ye know his tried integrity." The last meaning is the best suited to this place. 'That I might know your integrity, i.e. your true Christian temper.' This is explained by saying he wished to see whether they would be obedient in all things, ε ἰ ς πάντα, in reference to all things. These latter words stand first, 'Whether as to all things ye are obedient,' which is more emphatic. Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits and evidences of Christian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed, disobedient spirit is a strong indication of an unsanctified heart. As the Corinthians had proved themselves obedient to the apostle's directions, and as the offender was truly penitent, the object of his letter, both as it related to them and to him, had been attained, and therefore there was no reason for the continuance of the punishment.

10. To whom ye forgive any thing, I (forgive) also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave (it), for your sakes (forgave I it) in the person of Christ.

The apostle having exhorted the Corinthians to forgive their repentant brother, says he was ready to join in that forgiveness. To whom ye forgive any thing, I also. Although this is stated generally, as though he meant to say that he would forgive any one whom they

were ready to forgive, yet it is obvious from the context that he intended to be understood as referring to that particular case. He was satisfied with their course, and also with the evidence of the repentance of the offender, and therefore he was ready to sanction his restoration to their communion. His reason for this is stated in what follows, he did it for their sake. His forgiving, however, was suspended upon theirs. He would not interfere to restore the person in question unless they were satisfied to receive him. He therefore says, If I have forgiven any thing, that is, if the forgiveness expressed in the foregoing clause is to take effect and to be considered as already done, I have done it for your sake. He was influenced by no personal consideration either in the censure originally pronounced, or in his present course, but solely by a desire to promote their best interests. In the person of Christ, or, in the presence of Christ. This latter interpretation is the more consistent with usage, and is generally adopted. The meaning is that he acted in this matter as in the presence of Christ, i.e. as though Christ were looking on. The other explanation, which is preferred by Luther and many others, is consistent with the meaning of the words, and gives a good sense. He acted in the person of Christ, i.e. as his representative and by his authority. This idea, however, is commonly expressed by the phrase in the name of Christ. 1 Corinthians 5:4. Calvin prefers the former view, and adds, Christ is to be placed before us, or we "are to act as in his presence, for nothing is better adapted to incline us to mercy." No man can be severe in his judgment who feels that the mild eyes of Christ are fixed upon him.

The word χαρίζομαι, rendered to forgive in this verse, is a deponent verb, but is, in several of its forms, used in a passive sense. It is so taken here by Rückert and Meyer, who give an entirely different explanation of the passage. They adopt the reading of Griesbach, given in the margin, and render it thus: 'I forgive—for what I have

been forgiven, if I have been forgiven anything, it is for your sake.' That is, if God has really pardoned my great sin in persecuting Christ, it was for your sake. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:16. But this interpretation is inconsistent with the common use of the word, with the whole context, and with Paul's manner of speaking. His humility manifested itself in deep remorse and repentance for his past conduct, but not in doubting whether he had been forgiven. Besides, this interpretation would require a very unnatural explanation of the following clause. 'If I have been forgiven for your sake in the presence of Christ,' that is, Christ is the witness of my being forgiven. This is contrary to all scriptural representations. God is said to forgive for Christ's sake; and Christ is said to forgive, but he is never represented as the mere witness or spectator of our forgiveness.

11. Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

This verse, as above remarked, is by some made to depend on v. 8, the vs. 9 and 10 being parenthetical. 'Confirm your love towards him —lest Satan should get an advantage of us.' Others make it depend on the preceding words, 'We should act (or, I was pardoned) in the presence of Christ, lest,' &c. The most natural connection is with the first clause of v. 10, which contains the main idea of the context. 'I will join you in pardoning the offender lest Satan get an advantage of us,' i.e. make a gain of us. The expression is μ ὴ πλεονεκτηθ ῶ μεν ὑ π ὸ το ῦ σαταν ᾶ, lest we should be made gain of, or defrauded, by Satan. It was a gain to Satan if either an individual soul could be driven to despair, or the peace of the church could be disturbed. Both of these evils were to be apprehended if discipline were carried too far. This dread of Satan was not chimerical or unreasonable, for he really does seek to turn every thing to the disadvantage of Christ and his kingdom. We are not ignorant, says the apostle, of his devices. This

and similar passages of the Word of God teach that Satan is a personal being; that he exerts great influence over the minds of men; that although finite, and, therefore, not ubiquitous, he is nevertheless represented as operating on the minds of men generally, and not merely on those in any one place. His powers of intelligence and agency therefore must be great beyond our conceptions. No individual and no community can ever be sure that he is not plotting their destruction. Paul might have said to the Romans or the Ephesians, as he did to the Corinthians, that they must take heed lest Satan make a gain of them, and in some way secure them as his own.

12–13. Furthermore, when I came to Troas to (preach) Christ's gospel, and a door was opened to me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit because I found not Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.

Furthermore, when I came; literally, But having come. The particle δέ (but) serves to resume the connection broken by the digression, vs. 5–11. In v. 4 he said he had written his former letter in great anguish and distress of heart, to manifest his love for them. And as a still further proof of the deep interest which he took in their welfare, he refers to the incident mentioned in these verses. In execution of his plan of going from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth, 1 Corinthians 16:5, Paul came to Troas, literally, to the Troad (ε ἰ ς τ ὴ ν Τρωάδα), a name given to the whole district around the site of ancient Troy. The city itself was on the coast of Mysia opposite to the island of Tenedos. It had been made a Roman colony by Augustus, and was a place of considerable importance, in constant commercial intercourse with the cities of Macedonia and Greece. Paul did not intend to make a rapid journey to Corinth, but a regular missionary tour; he therefore says he came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, i.e. the gospel of which Christ is the author. It is also called the gospel of God, and

Paul speaks of it as his gospel, i.e. the gospel which he preached. When spoken of as the gospel of the kingdom of God, Matthew 4:23, the gospel of salvation. Ephesians 1:13, of peace, Ephesians 6:15, the genitive expresses either the subject of which the gospel treats or the effects which it produces. And a door was opened to me, i.e. a way of access, an opening to labour with effect. Of the Lord, according to this interpretation the words, ἐ ν κυρί ῳ, are to be connected with the immediately preceding participle, "door opened by the Lord." See 1 Corinthians 15:58; Galatians 5:10; Ephesians 2:21. It is, however, more in accordance with Paul's style, who so frequently uses these words in such expressions as 'work in the Lord,' 'temple in the Lord,' 'fellow- labourer in the Lord,' to refer them to the whole clause. "There was an open door in the Lord." The kind of door is thus indicated, or the sphere of labour pointed out. It was an opportunity for labouring successfully in the Lord's service. Though the prospects were so favourable, Paul says, I had no rest in my spirit; τ ῷ πνεύματι μο ῦ, for my spirit. The word spirit is here used because it is the highest term to designate the soul, Romans 8:16, and the anxiety or distress which the apostle experienced concerned the highest feelings of his nature. Because I found not Titus my brother. He calls Titus his brother, both because of his relation to him as a fellow-Christian, and because he was a joint labourer with him in the gospel. He expected to meet Titus at Troas, and to learn from him the state of things in Corinth, and especially the effect produced by his former letter. It seems that he regarded this as a turning point in the history of that church. If they submitted to his authority and corrected the abuses which he had pointed out, and especially if they excommunicated the member guilty of the unheard-of offence so often referred to in this chapter, then he had hopes of their stability in faith and progress in holiness. But if they refused to regard his injunctions, and persisted in the course on which they had entered, then he foresaw their speedy destruction. So much was at stake that he could not endure the state

of suspense which he was in; and therefore, taking leave of them, that is, of the brethren in Troas, he passed over into Macedonia. On his first visit to this city, Paul was prevented from remaining by a vision, from which he gathered that the Lord called him to preach the gospel in Macedonia. Acts 16:8. And on his return from his present journey, it is said, he sailed from Philippi and came in five days to Troas, and abode there seven days. Acts 20:6. From the circumstances connected with this last visit it is evident that there was an established church at that time in Troas. The word ἀ ποτάσσομαι, to take leave of, means to separate oneself from, to bid farewell to. Luke 9:61; Acts 18:18, 21. I went from thence into Macedonia; εξ ῆ λθον, I went forth. He crossed over the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean sea to one of the ports of Macedonia; the same voyage which he made on his return, which then required five days. As Titus was to return from Corinth through Macedonia to Troas, Paul thus went to meet him on his journey.

14. Now thanks (be) unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

Agreeably to the impulsive character of this epistle, in stead of stating what was the intelligence which he received from Titus, the apostle breaks out into a thanksgiving to God, which assumes a form which might be taken for self-commendation, which he, however, disclaims, and humbly acknowledges that all his qualifications for his work, and all his success in it, are to be attributed to God. This leads him to speak of the ministry of the gospel, which he contrasts with that of the law, and himself with Moses, so that it is not until the seventh chapter that he pauses, as it were, to take breath, and resumes the narrative here broken off. The thing for which the apostle gives thanks is his success; which includes both his triumph

over obstacles and enemies, and his efficiency in spreading abroad the knowledge of the truth. The word θριαμβεύειν, rendered here to cause to triumph, means to triumph over, to lead in triumph. This is its uniform sense in the classics, and it is so used by Paul in Colossians 2:5. Meyer and others so render the word here. 'Thanks be to God who triumphs over us,' i.e. who disappoints our fears and puts our anxieties to shame. But this is evidently incongruous. Paul does not represent himself as humbled and conquered, but just the reverse. Calvin and others retain the literal meaning of the word, and say the sense is, 'Thanks be to God who leads us in triumph, not as captives, but as sharers of his victory.' This gives a suitable meaning, but is not so consistent with the use of the word, which means to triumph over, not, to make one a sharer in our triumph. The great majority of commentators therefore modify the sense of the word as is done by our translators. This they justify by referring to the fact that many verbs which in ordinary Greek are neuter, in the Hellenistic dialect are used in a causative sense (Winer, p. 304), as μαθητεύειν, to be a disciple, in Matthew 28:19 and elsewhere, means to make disciples; βασιλεύειν, to reign, in 1 Samuel 8:22, and often in the Septuagint, means to cause to reign; and thus θριαμβεύειν, to triumph, may in obedience to the context be fairly rendered, to cause to triumph. In Christ, in virtue of union with Christ, or, as united to him. These words determine the nature of the triumph of which the apostle speaks. It was the triumph of a Christian minister in the service of Christ.

And maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge, i.e. diffuses or spreads abroad his knowledge, which is compared to the savour of a sacrifice (Genesis 8:21; Ephesians 5:2; Philippians 4:18), or to incense. His knowledge; the pronoun his is commonly referred to God, but as this clause is explanatory of the former, or an amplification of the idea therein expressed, it is perhaps better to refer it to Christ. 'He causes

us to triumph in Christ, and to spread abroad the savour of his knowledge,' i.e. the knowledge of Christ. That Christ should be known was the great end of Paul's mission, and is of all things the most acceptable to God. Knowledge here, as so often elsewhere in Scripture, means not merely intellectual cognition, but spiritual apprehension and recognition. That men should know the Lord Jesus Christ in the sense of recognizing, loving and worshipping him as God manifest in the flesh, is the consummation of redemption; the sum of all blessedness and excellence. In every place. Wherever Paul went, there the knowledge of Christ was spread abroad. Comp. Romans 15:19. Can this be said of us?

15. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.

We as ministers, and our work of preaching Christ, are acceptable to God, whatever may be the result of our labours. This idea is connected with the preceding as an amplification and confirmation. 'God by us diffuses the knowledge of Christ everywhere as a savour; for ( ὅ τι, because) it is well pleasing to God whatever be the effect which it produces.' There is, as is so common in Paul's epistles, a slight change in the figure. In v. 15 the knowledge of Christ is declared to be a savour as of incense, here the apostle is the sweet savour. But it is the apostle not as a man, not the purity or devotion of his life; but the apostle as a preacher of the gospel, and therefore the gospel which he preached; so that the thought remains the same. In both verses the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ is said to be well pleasing to God. Savour of Christ, does not mean a savour of which Christ is the author. The idea is not that Christ rendered Paul or his life acceptable to God. That indeed is true, but it is not what is intended. When we speak of the perfume of the rose, or of the violet, we mean that perfume which the rose or the violet emits and which is

characteristic of it. When Paul says, "We are a sweet smelling savour of Christ," he means we are the means of diffusing the knowledge of Christ. When a man's garments are perfumed with myrrh or frankincense, he fills with the fragrance every place he enters. So Paul, wherever he went, diffused abroad the fragrance of the name of Christ, and that was acceptable to God. In them, i.e. among them, that are saved; and in (among) them that perish. This does not mean among them predestined to be saved, and those predestined to perish. The idea of predestination is not included. The two classes are designated ab eventu. The gospel and those who preach it are well pleasing to God, whether men receive it and are saved, or reject it and are lost. The light is inestimably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it, or through disease is destroyed by it. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:10.

16. To the one (we are) the savour of death unto death; to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

The words we are are not in the text, but are necessarily implied. The apostle and all faithful ministers are to God an ε ὐ ωδία, a sweet savour, to men an ὀ σμή, a savour, salutary or destructive according to circumstances. We are, i.e. we as preachers. The idea is the same whether we say that preachers of the gospel, or the gospel itself, or Christ, are the cause of life to some, and of death to others. As Christ is to some a tried corner stone, elect and precious, the rock of their salvation, to others he is a stone of offence. 1 Peter 2:7–8. So the gospel and its ministers are the cause of life to some, and of death to others, and to all they are either the one or the other. The word of God is quick and powerful either to save or to destroy. It cannot be neutral. If it does not save, it destroys. "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than

light," John 3:19. "If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin," John 15:22. If a man rejects the gospel, it had been far better for him never to have heard it. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for him. This, which is the doctrine of the Bible, is plainly the doctrine of this passage. The gospel and those who preach it, are either a savour of life or a savour of death. If not the one, they must be the other. In the phrase "a savour of death unto death," of death expresses the quality, unto death, the effect. It is a deadly savour, and it produces death. And so of the corresponding clause, "a savour of life unto life," is a salutary savour producing life. The Rabbins often use a similar expression in reference to the Law, which they say is either an odour of life or of death.

On the authority of two of the older MSS. (A and C), and several of the more modern ones, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Meyer read ἐ κ θανάτου and ἐ κ ζω ῆ ς instead of the simple genitive. It is then not a savour of death or of life, but a savour arising from death, and a savour arising from life. To the one class Christ is dead and yields only a savour of death; to the other, he is alive, and yields a savour of life. According to either reading the main idea is the same. Christ and his gospel, and therefore his ministers, are to believers the source of life, and to unbelievers the source of death. See Matthew 21:44; Luke 2:34; John 9:39. The common text has more external authority, and certainly gives a simpler sense, and is therefore preferred by the majority of editors.

And who is sufficient for these things? Καί (and) before a question often indicates a consequence of what precedes. It is frequently in our version in such cases rendered then. "Who then can be saved?" Mark 10:26. "How is he then David's son?" Luke 20:44. So here, Who then is sufficient for these things? If the work is so great, if

eternal life or eternal death must follow the preaching of the gospel, who then is sufficient ( ἱ κανός) for so responsible a calling? The most natural answer to this question would seem to be, 'No one in himself.' The following verse, however, which begins with (γάρ) for, and is designed to confirm the implied answer, requires that answer to be, "I am." 'I am sufficient for this work, for I do not handle the word of God deceitfully.' "My sufficiency," however, the apostle immediately adds, 3:5, "is of God." Of himself he was not fit or able to do any thing. There is, as Calvin remarks, an implied antithesis. 'The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of Christ; the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to others. Who then is competent to this work? Not your false teachers who corrupt the word of God, but I and others who preach the pure gospel from pure motives.' This view is sustained by what follows, for the apostle immediately proceeds to vindicate his claim to this sufficiency or fitness, which he denies to the false teachers.

17. For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, as in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.

The connection indicated by for is obvious. 'We are competent to this work, for we are not like the false teachers, but are sincere.' We are not as many, ο ἱ πολλοί, the many. This some understand to mean the mass or majority of those who preach the gospel. The apostle would thus be made to condemn, as corrupters of the faith, the great body of the ministers of the apostolic church. This, however, is unnecessary. The many, means the definite many known to the Corinthians as false teachers, to whom in the course of this epistle the apostle so often refers. Which corrupt the word of God. The word used is καπηλεύω, to be a huckster, and then to act as one. Paul says, We do not act as hucksters in reference to the word of God. The word

is frequently used in the Greek writers in a figurative sense, to express the ideas of adulterating, and of making merchandise of any thing for the sake of gain. Both ideas may be united, for both are included in the disclaimer of the apostle. He neither adulterated the word of God, by mixing it with Judaism or false philosophy (i.e. with his own speculations), nor did he use it for any selfish or mercenary purpose. But as of sincerity. The ( ὡ ς) as, is not redundant. The meaning is, 'We speak as those who are sincere,' i.e. those whose characteristic is ε ἱ λικρίνεια, transparent purity, or integrity; who can bear being looked through and through; all whose motives will sustain inspection. As of God, not merely sent of God, but godly, influenced by God, and belonging to God, and therefore like him. Our Lord said to the Jews, "He which is of God, heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God," John 8:47. As in the sight of God, i.e. as in his presence and conscious of his inspection. We speak in Christ; not of Christ, nor, according to Christ, but in communion with him, as a member of his body and actuated by his Spirit. We have here then Paul's description of a faithful minister, of one who is ( ἱ κανός) sufficient, or qualified for the fearful responsibility of being a savour of life or of death. He does not corrupt the word of God by any foreign admixtures, nor use it as a means of his own advancement by dispensing it so as to please men; but he is governed by pure motives, is of God, and speaks as in the presence of God, and as a true Christian man.

The apostle shows that he does not need to commend himself or to be commended by the Corinthians; that God had qualified him for the work of a minister of the new, and not of the old covenant, vs. 1– 11. He exercised his ministry in accordance with the peculiar character of the new dispensation, vs. 12–18.