2 Corinthians 1

ΠαύλουπρὸςΚορινθίουςἐπιστολὴδευτέρα.

A B K à, min. have only πρὸςΚορινθίους B., the most simple, and doubtless the oldest superscription.

CHAPTER 1

2 Corinthians 1:6. εἴτεπαρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρτῆςὑμῶνπαρακλήσεως, τῆςἐνεργουμένηςἐνὑπομονῇτῶναὐτῶνπαθημάτων, ὧνκαὶἡμεῖςπάσχομενκαὶἡἐλπὶςἡμῶνβεβαίαὑπὲρὑμῶνεἰδότεςκ.τ.λ.] So Beza, ed. 3, 4, 5, Beng. and Griesb., following A C, min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm.

Flor. Harl. Vulg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast.

Pel. Beda. But Elz. (following Erasm. ed. 2[121]): ΤῆςἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗςἘΝὙΠΟΜΟΝῇΤῶΝΑὐΤῶΝΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝὯΝΚΑῚἩΜΕῖςΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝΕἼΤΕΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΎΜΕΘΑ, ὙΠῈΡΤῆςὙΜῶΝΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΩςΚΑῚΣΩΤΗΡΊΑςΚΑῚἩἘΛΠῚςἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠῈΡὙΜῶΝΕἸΔΌΤΕςΚ.Τ.Λ. Finally, Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, and Rück, read, with Matth., after Erasm. ed. 1 : ΚΑῚἩἘΛΠῚςἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠῈΡὙΜῶΝ immediately after ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ, but in other respects with Elz., and have the support of B D E F G K L à, min.

Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slav. It. Chrys.

Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. Theophyl. Oec. The Recepta must be rejected on account of the want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most thoroughly by Reiche, Comment, crit.

I. p. 318 ff. But the former, sufficiently attested, appears to be the original, in so far as from it the rise of the others is easily and naturally explained. An immediate transition was made from the first ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. to the second; the intermediate words were left out, and brought in again afterwards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded thus:—1. Original form of 2 Corinthians 1:6 as in Griesb. 2. First corruption: ΕἼΤΕΔῈΘΛΙΒΌΜΕΘΑ, ὙΠῈΡΤῆςὙΜῶΝΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΩς, ΤῆςἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗςἘΝὙΠΟΜ. ΤῶΝΑὐΤῶΝΠΑΘΗΜ. ὯΝΚ. ἩΜΕῖςΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝΚΑῚἩἘΛΠῚςἩΜῶΝΒΕΒΑΊΑὙΠῈΡὙΜῶΝ. 3. Erroneous restoration: εἴτεδὲθλιβόμεθα … ὑπὲρὑμῶνεἴτεπαρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρτῆςὑμῶνπαρακλ.

Anothe erroneous restoration (“ex judicio eclectico,” Beng. Appar.) is contained in the Received text. 4. The ΚΑῚΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς, still wanting, was finally added, in part rightly only after the first ΠΑΡΑΚΛ., in part wrongly only after the second ΠΑΡΑΚΛ. (B, 176), in part wrongly after both.—2 Corinthians 1:8. ὙΠῈΡΤῆςΘΛ.] A C D E F G à, min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch. have ΠΕΡῚΤ. ΘΛ.

So Lachm. Rück. But ΠΕΡΊ offered itself as more curren.

ἩΜῖΝ] is wanting in preponderant witnesses. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Lachm. Rück. A superfluous gloss on ΓΕΝΟΜ.—2 Corinthians 1:10. ΚΑῚῬΎΕΤΑΙ] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ.

Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. So Rück. But B C à, 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth.

Arm. Slav. ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have ΚΑῚῬΎΣΕΤΑΙ.

So Lachm., but in brackets. Thus the Recepta, reverted to even by Tisch., has certainly preponderating testimony against it; still it retains the considerable attestation of D*** E F G K L, and most min. Vulg. Syr. p. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oec. Or. int.

Jer., and the subsequent ῥύσεται might very easily be written at once after καί instead of ῥύεται, so that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration of what was left out, the spurious καὶῥύσεται in some cases remained, but in others was dropped without the genuine καὶῥύεται being put in its place.—2 Corinthians 1:11. εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρἡμῶν] The reading εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρὑμῶν, though preferred by Beng., recommended by Reiche, and adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and does not suit the sense.—2 Corinthians 1:12. ἁπλότητι] A B C K à* min. Copt. Arm. Clem. Or. Damasc. have ἁγίοτητι.

So Lachm. Rück. Rightly; ἁπλότητι, though defended by Reiche and Tisch., must be considered as a gloss of more precise definition; it was from our very Epistle well known and current, whereas ἁγίοτης was unfamiliar (only elsewhere in Hebrews 12:10).—2 Corinthians 1:13. The first ἤ is wanting in A, min. Bracketed by Rück. But appearing superfluous, and not being understood, it was omitted.—2 Corinthians 1:16. διελθεῖν] A D* F G, 80, Copt.

Chrys. Damasc.: ἀπελθεῖν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rück. Rightly; it was more natural to introduce the reminiscence of 1 Corinthians 16:5 than that of Rom 15:28.—2 Corinthians 1:17. βουλόμενος] Elz. and Tisch. have βουλεύομενος, against preponderant evidence. Gloss in accordance with what follows.—2 Corinthians 1:18. ἐγένετο] Lachm. Scholz, Rück.

Tisch. have ἔστιν, as Griesb. also recommended, in accordance with a great preponderance of testimony. ἐγένετο, which Reiche defends, came in from 2 Corinthians 1:19.—2 Corinthians 1:20. καὶἐναὐτῷ] A B C F G à, min. vss. and Fathers have διὸκαὶδιʼ αὐτοῦ. So Lachm. Rück. The Recepta arose in this way: ΔΙΌ fell out by an omission of the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then added to ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ after the previous ἘΝΑὐΤῷ as a gloss, which accordingly came into the text. This alteration was the more natural, as the two definitions ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ and ΔΙʼ ἩΜῶΝ might seem not to accord.

The liturgical reference of the ἈΜΉΝ does not appear a sufficient occasion for the insertion of ΔΙΌ, nor for the change from ἘΝΑὐΤῷ into ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ, particularly after the ἘΝΑὐΤῷ which went before and was left unglossed. This in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Reiche, Comment. crit. I. 331 ff.

[121] Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading.

2 Corinthians 1:1-2

2 Corinthians 1:1-2. Address and greetin.

διὰθελ. Θεοῦ] See on 1 Corinthians 1:1.

καὶΤιμόθ.] His relation to this Epistle is the same as that of Sosthenes to the first Epistle: he appears, not as amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender of it. See on 1 Corinthians 1:1.

ὁἀδελφ.] as at 1 Corinthians 1:1.

σὺντοῖςἁγίοιςπᾶσικ.τ.λ.] Grotius: “Voluit P. exempla hujus epistolae mitti ad alias in Achaia ecclesias.” So also Rosenmüller, Emmerling, and others. But, in that case, would not Paul have rather written σὺνταῖςἐκκλησίαιςπάσαις? Comp. Galatians 1:2. And are the contents of the Epistle suited for an encyclical destination? No; he means, in agreement with 1 Corinthians 1:2, the Christians living outside of Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached themselves to the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have been the sole seat of a church—the metropolis of the Christians in the province. The state of matters in Galatia was different.

Under Achaia we must, according to the sense then attached to it, understand Hellas and Peloponnesus. This province and that of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See on Acts 18:12.—2 Corinthians 1:2. See on Romans 1:7.

2 Corinthians 1:3-11

2 Corinthians 1:3-11. A conciliatory introduction,—an effusion of affectionate emotion (comp. Ephesians 1:3) out of the fulness of special and still recent experience. There is no hint of a set purpose in it; and it is an arbitrary supposition, whether the purpose be found in an excuse for the delay of his journey (Chrysostom, Theophylact), or in a confirmation of his apostolic standing (Beza, comp. Calovius, Mosheim), or in an attestation of the old love, which Paul presupposes also on the part of the readers (Billroth), and at the same time in a slight alienation which had been suggested by his sufferings (Osiander).

2 Corinthians 1:4

2 Corinthians 1:4. Ἡμᾶς] Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean himself exclusively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, according to the context), although often only as quite subordinate, he speaks in the plural. He does not express himself communicativè, but in the singular, where he gives utterance to his own personal conviction or, in general, to anything concerning himself individually (2 Corinthians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 2:1-10; 2 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Corinthians 7:4; 2 Corinthians 7:7 ff., al.). Hence the frequent interchange between the singular and plural forms of expression.[122]

Chrysostom already gives the force of the present παρακαλῶν correctly: ὍΤΙΟὐΧἍΠΑΞ, ΟὐΔῈΔῚς, ἈΛΛᾺΔΙΗΝΕΚῶςΤΟῦΤΟΠΟΙΕῖ … ΔΙῸΕἾΠΕΝὉΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶΝ, ΟὐΧὉΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΈΣΑς.

ἘΠῚΠΆΣῌΤῇΘΛΊΨΕΙ] concerning all our affliction. The collective sufferings are regarded as one whole. Afterwards, on the other hand, ἐνπάσῃθλ.: in every affliction. ἐπί marks the ethical foundation, i.e. here the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373. Comp. 2Ma 7:5 f.; Deuteronomy 32:36. According to Rück., παρακαλ. denotes the delivering, and hence he takes ἐπί of the circumstances: in. See Matthiae, p. 1370. But throughout the passage παρακ. means to comfort; and it is quite an open question, how the comforting takes place, whether by calming or by delivering. God did both in the apostle’s cas.

εἰςτὸδύνασθαικ.τ.λ.] in order that we may be able, etc. For he, who for himself received comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of being able to comfort others. And how important was this teleological view of his own sorrows for the apostolic calling! “Omnia sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae refert,” Grotiu.

τοὺςἐνπάσῃθλίψει] is erroneously and arbitrarily taken as equivalent to ΠΆΝΤΑςΤΟῪςἘΝΘΛΊΨΕΙ (see Emmerling, Flatt, Rückert). It means: those to be found in every trouble, the all-distressed; not: those to be found in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but ἐνπαντὶθλιβόμενοι, 2 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 7:5.

ΔΙᾺΤῆςΠΑΡΑΚΛ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] i.e. through communication of our own comfort, which we experience from God. This more precise determination of the sense is demanded both by the preceding mention of the purpose εἰςτὸδύνασθαικ.τ.λ., and by the ΑὐΤΟΊ. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives the comfort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may again be conveyed to others by the recei2Colossians 1 :But there is no analogy in the whole N. T. for this conception; for Matthew 10:13 is merely a concrete illustration of the efficacy or non-efficacy of the ΕἸΡΉΝΗὙΜῖΝ.

Ἧς] Attracted, as in Ephesians 1:6; Ephesians 4:1, because one can say ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙΝΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΕῖΝ. See Gieseler in Rosenmüller, Repert. II. p. 124; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5.

αὐτοί] ipsi, for our own selves, in contrast to the others to be comforted.

[122] Even in the plural mode of expression, however, he has always himself and his own relations primarily in view; and, owing to the versatility of his mode of conception, it is often quite a matter of accident whether he expresses himself singulariter or communicative. Hence the interchange of the two modes of expression in one sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 11:6 f.

2 Corinthians 1:5

2 Corinthians 1:5. Ground assigned for the ἧςπαρακαλούμεθααὐτοὶὑπὸτ. Θεοῦ.

περισσεύειεἰςἡμᾶς] is abundant in relation to us, i.e. it is imparted to us above measure, in a very high degree. Comp. Romans 5:15.

τὰπαθήματατοῦΧριστοῦ] are not the sufferings for Christ’s sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be expressed by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Billroth, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann), in so far as every one who suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as Christ suffered. Comp. Matthew 20:22; Philippians 3:10; Colossians 1:24; Hebrews 13:13; 1 Peter 4:13. See also on Romans 8:17. Hence Cornelius a Lapide, Leun, and Rückert render correctly in substance: “quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who render: “the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members;” comp. de Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ continuing to suffer in His members is nowhere found in the N.

T., not even in Acts 9:4, and is contrary to the idea of His exaltation. See on Colossians 1:24.

διὰτοῦΧ.] through His indwelling by means of the Spirit. See Romans 8:9-10; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:29, al.

2 Corinthians 1:6-7

2 Corinthians 1:6-7. Δέ] leading on to the gain, which the two, this affliction and this comforting, bring to the readers.

Be it that we are afflicted, we are afflicted for the sake of YOUR consolation and salvation; it redounds to this, that you are to be comforted and advanced in the attainment of Messianic salvation. In how far? According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein, and many, including Rosenmüller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche: through the example of the apostle in his confidence toward God, etc. But the context has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth and Olshausen: “in so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, through which comfort and salvation come to you;” so also Hofmann. Rückert, without ground, gives up all attempt at explanation. Paul himself has given the explanation in 2 Corinthians 1:4 by εἰςτὸδύνασθαιἡμᾶςπαρακαλεῖνκ.τ.λ. Hence the sense of the definition of the aim ὑπὲρτῆςὑμῶνπαρακλ. κ. σωτ.: “in order that we may be enabled to comfort you, when ye come into affliction, and to further your salvation.” For this end we are put in a position by experience of suffering, as well as by that, which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the school of suffering (εἵτεπαρακαλούμεθακ.τ.λ.).

ὑπὲρτῆςὑμ. παρακλ. τῆςἐνεργ. κ.τ.λ.] i.e. in order to be able to give you the comfort, which is efficacious, etc. Paul does not again add κ. σωτηρίας here, because he has still to append to παρακλήσεως a more precise and detailed explanation, after which it was impracticable to bring in καὶσωτηρίας; and it could be left out all the more readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representatio.

τῆςἐνεργουμ. ἐνὑπομ. κ.τ.λ.] which is efficacious in patient endurance of the same sufferings, which we also suffer. ἐνεργουμ., as in the whole N. T. (2 Corinthians 4:12; Romans 7:5; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 3:20; Colossians 1:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:7; James 5:16), is middle, not passive (3 Esdr. 2:20; Polyb. i. 13. 5, ix. 12. 3), as it is here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosenmüller, Emmerling, Billroth, Rückert, Ewald.[123] For the distinction between active (personal efficacy) and middle in Paul, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 273].

ἐνὑπομονῇ] denotes that by virtue of providing which the παράκλησις is efficacious. It is therefore the working of the Christian ΠΑΡΆΚΛΗΣΙς, which we experience when ἩΘΛΊΨΙςὙΠΟΜΟΝῊΝΚΑΤΕΡΓΆΖΕΤΑΙ, Romans 5:3.

ΤῶΝΑὐΤῶΝΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ, ὯΝΚ.Τ.Λ.] in so far, namely, as they are likewise sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed to the readers are meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of Paul (and Timothy) (ὧνκ. ἡμεῖςπάσχομεν). Billroth, Olshausen, Neander understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far as these were jointly felt by all believers as their own in virtue of their fellowship of love with him. Compare Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians 1:7, also de Wette, who refers it partly to the foreboding, partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then, Paul would have been utterly illogical in placing the καί before ἩΜΕῖς; for it would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered (with Paul through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this exposition is, is shown, besides, by 2 Corinthians 1:4.

It does not appear from this passage, we may add, that at that time the Corinthians had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s sake. Paul has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the future, as the following καὶἡἐλπὶςκ.τ.λ. proves. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 13:11.

ΚΑῚἩἘΛΠ. ἩΜ. ΒΕΒ. ὙΠ. ὙΜ.] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, with Griesbach and others, since ΕἸΔΌΤΕς is connected not with ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ, but with ἩἘΛΠῚςἩΜῶΝ. The contents of 2 Corinthians 1:6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the readers for the future, that what is said by εἴτεδὲθλιβόμεθα … πάσχομεν will be verified in their case in afflictions which would come on them for Christ’s sake, so that they would in that case obtain from the apostle, out of his experience of suffering and consolation, the comfort which through patience is efficacious in such sufferings. Therefore he continues: and our hope is firm on account of you. ὑπὲρὑμῶν does not belong either simply to ἩἘΛΠ. ὙΜ., or simply to ΒΕΒΑΊΑ (Billroth), but to the whole thought of ἩἘΛΠ. ὙΜ. ΒΕΒ. On ὙΠΈΡ, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and the contrary expression ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΑΙὙΠΈΡΤΙΝΟς, propter aliquem in metu esse.

εἰδότες] refers, according to a common anacolouthon, to ἩἘΛΠῚςἩΜ., in which ἩΜΕῖς is the logical subject.[124] See Stall-baum, ad Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81 A; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. on Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 2:2. It introduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed: for we know that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are sharers also of the consolation. To have a share in the sufferings, and also in the consolation, to be excepted neither from the one nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Christian. Paul knows this in regard to his readers, and he grounds on it the firm hope for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings, they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation; to impart which consolation he is himself qualified (2 Corinthians 1:4) and destined (2 Corinthians 1:6) by his own experience of suffering and consolation.

Accordingly, κοινωνοὶκ.τ.λ. is contextually not to be explained of an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that in the sufferings and consolation of Paul (ὥσπεργὰρτὰπαθήματατὰἡμέτεραὑμέτεραεἶναινομίζετε, οὕτωκαὶτὴνπαράκλησιντὴνἡμετέρανὑμετέραν, Chrysostom. Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and others), but τὰπαθήματα and ἡπαράκλησις are to be taken generically. In both kinds of experience the Christian has a share; he must suffer; but he is not excluded from the consolation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it.

[123] The passive interpretation would be necessary with the reading of Lachmann, since salvation is the goal of the state of grace, and hence is wrought (Philippians 2:12-13; Matthew 10:22; James 1:12); but nowhere is it conceived and represented as working in patience, and the like. This tells against that reading.

[124] With Lachmann’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald to the Corinthians (ὑμῶν); since you know, etc.

2 Corinthians 1:8-11

2 Corinthians 1:8-11. Out of his own (and Timothy’s) experience of suffering and comfort, Paul now informs his readers of something special which had lately befallen the two in Asia. The fact in itself he assumes as known to them, but he desires to bring to their knowledge the consoling help of God in it. There is nothing to indicate a reference to an utterance of the church (Hofmann) concerning the event.

2 Corinthians 1:9

2 Corinthians 1:9. Ἀλλά] is the simple but, the contrast of the negation contained in ἐξαπορηθῆναι, which contrast, nevertheless, no longer depends on ὥστε: the independent position makes it all the weightier. There is therefore the less ground for taking ἀλλά as nay indeed, with Hofmann, and making it point to the following clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause αὐτοὶκ.τ.λ. would be arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate—viz., “if we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to the end, that we,” et.

αὐτοὶἐνἑαυτοῖς] for our own selves in our own consciousness—i.e. apart from what might take place from without, through divine interference, to cause a change in our position. This certainty in their own heart, however, could not but exclude all self-confidence; hence ἵναμὴπεποιθότεςκ.τ.λ.

ἀπόκριμα] not equivalent to κατάκριμα (so most, following Hesychius), but to responsum (Vulgate, Billroth), the award, decision. Comp. ἀπόκρισις. So in Suidas (see Wetstein) and Josephus, Antt. xiv. 17 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well: τὴνψῆφον, τὴνκρίσιν, τὴνπροσδοκίαντοιαύτηνγὰρἠφίειτὰπράγματαφωνήντοιαύτηνἀπόκρισινἐδίδουτὰσυμβάντα, ὅτιἀ̓ποθανούμεθαπάντως.

As to ἐσχήκ., observe the perfect habuimus, which represents the situation as present. Comp. on Romans 5:2.

ἵναμὴκ.τ.λ.] divinely appointed aim of the αὐτοὶ … ἐσχήκαμεν. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:15.

τῷἐγείροντιτοὺςνεκρ.] is to be referred not only to the future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in general, as that which is exclusively God’s doing. This characteristic of God is the ground of the confidence. For the awaker of the dead must also be able to rescue from the danger of death (2 Corinthians 1:10). Comp. Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:19. See on Rom. l.c. “Mira natura fidei in summis difficultatibus nullum exitum habere visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human ἐξαπορηθῆναι, 2 Corinthians 1:8, could yet say of himself, 2 Corinthians 4:8: οὐκἐξαπορούμενοι.

2 Corinthians 1:10

2 Corinthians 1:10. Result of this confidence, as well as the hope grounded thereon for the futur.

ἐκτηλικ. θανάτου] out of so great death. Paul realizes to himself the special so mighty death-power which had threatened him (and Timothy), and by the expression ῥύεσθαιἐκθανάτου (see examples in Wetstein, p. 178) makes death appear as a hostile power by which he had been encompassed. Θάνατος does not signify peril of death (as most say, even Emmerling and Flatt), but it represents that sense. Comp. 2 Corinthians 11:23.

καὶῥύεται] The θλίψις, which had been survived in Asia, therefore still continued in its after-effects, which even extended over to Macedonia (perhaps by continued plots against their lives), and Paul and Timothy were still continuing[125] to experience the rescuing power of Go.

ἨΛΠΊΚΑΜΕΝ] have set our hope. See Herm. ad Viger. p. 748; Kühner, II. p. 71; comp. 1 Corinthians 15:19; 1 Timothy 5:5; 1 Timothy 6:17; John 6:45.

ὍΤΙΚ. ἜΤΙῬΎΣΕΤΑΙ] that he will rescue (us) even further, namely, ἘΚ. ΤΗΛΙΚΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ, in the continuing danger from the Asiatic enemies which was still to be apprehended in the future. In the fact that Paul speaks of a present, nay, of a future rescue, Rückert finds a support for his opinion regarding a dangerous illness (not yet fully overcome); see on 2 Corinthians 1:8. But could no machinations pass over from Asia to Macedonia? and could not these be recognised by Paul as the more dangerous, in so far as they were more secret? Comp. Acts 20:3.

[125] Hofmann reads the passage: καὶῥύσεται, εἰςὃνἠλπίκαμεν, καὶἔτιῥύσεται. Accordingly, he takes the first καί as an also, beginning an independent sentence. With this expressive reference to the future Paul looks forward to the wide voyages still before him. In opposition to this we have, from a critical point of view, the facts that ὅτι before καὶἔτι is wanting only in B D* 64, and that it is supported by preponderating witnesses, even by those which have the reading ῥύσεται for ῥύεται, as C and à; and, from an exegetical point of view, the fact that the repetition καὶἔτιῥύσεται amounts to a tautology without strengthening the thought in the least: for ἔτι follows as a matter of course from the ῥύσεται already said. Besides, against the whole reference to the shipwreck, see on ver. 8.

2 Corinthians 1:11

2 Corinthians 1:11. A trustful and conciliatory mention of the intercessions of the readers. This is regarded as not so much conditioning (Erasmus, Rosenmüller, Rückert, and others), as rather furthering the καὶἔτιῥύσεται: “he will also still save us, since ye also are helpful together for us,” etc. On the idea of the efficacy of intercession, comp. especially Philippians 1:19; Romans 15:30 f.

The reference of the συν in συνυπουργ. is to the apostle’s own work of prayer, with which that of the readers is joined by way of help: similar help on the part of other churches is just hinted by the καί before ὑμῶν.

ὑπὲρἡμῶν] on our behalf. A transposition for τῇδεήσειὑπὲρἡμ. would indeed be grammatically possible (Bernhardy, p. 461), but is in the highest degree superfluous (in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Schulz, Rosenmüller).

ἵναἐκπολλ. προσώπ. κ.τ.λ.] divinely-appointed aim of the συνυπουργ. κ.τ.λ. The correlations are to be noted: 1. ἐκπολλῶνπροσώπ. and τὸεἰςἡμᾶςχάρ.; 2. διὰπολλῶν and ὑπὲρἡμῶν; 3. χάρισμα and εὐχαριστηθῇ. Accordingly, there stand parallel to one another ἐκπολλ. προσώπ. and then διὰπολλῶν; as also τὸεἰςἡμᾶςχάρισμα and then ὑπὲρἡμῶν. Hence, it is to be connected and taken thus: that from many countenances for the gift of grace made to us thanks may be rendered by means of many on our behalf. Paul means that the thanksgiving for his (and Timothy’s) rescue (i.e. τὸεἰςἡμ. χάρ.[126]) is not to be offered to God by himself (and Timothy) alone, but that it is to be a rendering of thanks made for him by many through the mediation of many. The many are the same in ἐκπολλ. προσώπ. as in διὰπολλῶν; but there they are conceived of as those who give thanks, and in διὰπ. it. as those who have been the procuring means of the thanksgiving, in so far as through their prayer they have aided in obtaining the apostle’s rescue.[127] πρόσωπον, according to the use of the later Greek (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380; Schweigh., Lex.

Polyb. p. 540; Wahl, Clav. Apocr. p. 430), is taken as person by Luther and most others (already in codd. of the Italic version). But it is nowhere used thus in the N. T., not even in passages like Jude 1:16; and, if Paul had had person in mind, there would have been no motive for choosing ἐκ instead of ὙΠΌ. Hence we must abide by the literal signification, countenance (Billroth, Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann): the expression ἐκπολλ. προσώπ. is pictorial, for on the merry countenance the feeling of gratitude is displayed (Proverbs 15:30); it is mirrored therein, and goes out from it and upward to God in the utterance of thanksgiving. Fritzsche, ad Rom.

III. p. 53, in the same way rightly joins ἐκπολλ. προσώπ. as well as ΔΙᾺΠΟΛΛ. with ΕὐΧΑΡ., but he takes ἘΚΠΟΛΛ. ΠΡ. of those who have besought the rescue and have thereby become the causers of the thanksgiving, and ΔΙᾺΠΟΛΛῶΝ of the thanksgivers themselves. So also Neander. But by this view justice is not done to the mediating sense of διά, and the pictorial reference of προσώπων (see above) can, according to the text, be found only in the act of thanksgiving itself. It is obvious from what has already been said, that neither can ΔΙᾺΠΟΛΛ. be joined to ΤῸΕἸςἩΜ. ΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ (Theophylact and others, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Kling), nor can ἘΚΠΟΛΛ. ΠΡΟΣΏΠ. be connected with ΤῸΕἸςἩΜ. ΧΆΡ. as if it stood: ΤῸἘΚΠΟΛΛ. ΠΡΟΣΏΠ. ΕἸςἩΜᾶςΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ (Ambrosiaster, Valla, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including Flatt, Fritzsche, Diss., Rückert, de Wette). Only on our view does the simple construction, as given by the order of the words, remain without dislocation, and the meaning of the words themselves uninjured. Whether, further, in ἐκπολλ. προσώπ. the ΠΟΛΛῶΝ is masculine (Hofmann and Vulgate, “ex multorum facie”) or neuter, cannot be decide.

ὑπὲρἡμῶν] on our behalf, superfluous in itself, but suitable to the fulness of the representation.

The time in which the thanksgiving is to happen is after the beginning of the ῥύσεται, not on the last day (Ewald).

The passive expression ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤΕῖΣΘΑΙ (comp. Hipp. Ep. p. 1284, 31) is conceived like ἀχαριστεῖσθαι (Polyb. xxiii. 11. 8), to experience ingratitude, to be recompensed with ingratitude. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 130 [E. T. 148].

[126] Not the apostolic office (Ewald, Osiander), which here lies far from the context. So also Hofmann: the gift of God, to preach Christ to those who do not yet know Him. In the ordinary interpretation, there was not the least need of a demonstrative: the article and εἰςἡμᾶς is from the context demonstrative enough.

[127] It was quite unsuitable, and contrary to the construction purposely carried out by the correlate stated above, to take ἐκπολλ. προσώπ. προσώπ. or διὰπολλ. as neuter, and either to explain the former, ex multis respectibus (Bengel, comp. Melanchthon—not even justifiable in the usage of the language), or the latter, prolixe (Castalio: “ingentes gratiae,” Wolf, Clericus, Semler, Storr, Rosenmüller). Comp. Luther. So also Hofmann takes διὰπολλ. “abundant thanksgiving.” The Vulgate renders rightly: “per multos.”

2 Corinthians 1:12

2 Corinthians 1:12. The apostle now begins the vindication of himself, at first in reference to the purity of his walk in general (2 Corinthians 1:12), then in reference to his honesty in writing (2 Corinthians 1:13-14), and afterwards specially in reference to the changing of his plans for the journey (2 Corinthians 1:15-24).

γάρ] Ground assigned for the confidence uttered in 2 Corinthians 1:11, that the readers would help him by their intercession in the manner denoted: for we boast, according to the witness of our conscience, to have made ourselves worthy of your help.

καύχησις is not equivalent to καύχημα, materies gloriandi (so most, but in no passage rightly, see on Romans 4:2), but we should interpret: For this our boasting (which is contained in 2 Corinthians 1:11) is the testimony which our conscience furnishes that we, etc. In other words: This our boasting is nothing else than the expression of the testimony of our conscience, that, etc.; hence no αἰσχύνεσθαιἀπὸκαυχήσεως (Isaiah 12:1-3) can take place. The contents of this testimony (ὅτικ.τ.λ.) shows how very much the καύχησις of Paul is a καυχᾶσθαιἐνκυρίῳ (1 Corinthians 1:31). Accordingly, αὕτη is to be taken together with ἡκαύχησιςἡμῶν (comp. 1 Corinthians 8:9: ἡἐξουσίαὑμῶναὕτη); τὸμαρτύριονκ.τ.λ. is the predicate, which is introduced by ἐστί, and ὅτικ.τ.λ. is the contents of the testimony. By the plain simplicity of this explanation we obviously exclude the view that αὕτη is preparative, and that it is to be referred either to τὸμαρτύριον (Luther and most), or, more harshly, with Hofmann, to ὅτικ.τ.λ., because in that case τὸμαρτύριονκ.τ.λ. is made an interpolated appositio.

ἐνἁγιότητι (see the critical remarks) καὶεἰλικρ. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is not used superlatively, as Emmerling would still take it. Further, it neither denotes what is well-pleasing to God (Schulz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Rückert, Reiche), nor what avails before God (Calvin, Beza, Estius, Billroth, and others, following Theophylact), nor what is like God (Pelagius), nor the God-like (Osiander), which is God’s manner (Hofmann), but the moral holiness and purity established by God through the influence of the divine grace, as the following οὐκἐνσοφ. σαρκ., ἀλλʼ ἐνχάριτιΘεοῦ proves.[128] So also Olshausen, de Wette, Kling, Neander, Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 261]. Comp. δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ, Romans 1:17, εἰρήνηΘεοῦ, Philippians 4:7, and the like. The rare word ἁγιότης is found also in 2Ma 15:2; Hebrews 12:10; Schol. Arist.

Thesm. 301. Regarding εἰλικρ., see on 1 Corinthians 5:8. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 A.

οὐκἐνσοφ. σαρκ. ἀλλʼ ἐνχάρ. Θεοῦ] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, for it is parallel to the previous ἐνἁγιότ. κ. εἰλικρ. Θεοῦ, and gives negative and positive information about it. The σοφίασαρκ. is the merely human wisdom, the wisdom which is not the work of the divine influence (of the Holy Spirit), but of human nature itself unenlightened and unimproved, guided by the sinful lust in the σάρξ. See on 1 Corinthians 1:26.

ἐνχάριτιΘεοῦ] is not to be explained of miracles (Chrysostom), nor yet with Grotius: “cum multis donis spiritualibus,” but without any limitation of the influence of the divine grace, under which Paul lived and worked.

The thrice repeated use of ἐν denotes the spiritual element in which his course of life moved (Ephesians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:18).

ἐντῷκόσμῳ] i.e. among profane humanity. This serves by contrast to make the holiness of his walk and conversation more prominent. Comp. Philippians 2:15.

πρὸςὑμᾶς] denotes the direction of his association, in intercourse with you. See Bernhardy, p. 265. More than with others, he had established such a relation with the Corinthians (hence περισσοτ.).

[128] With this fall to the ground also the scruples of Rückert against the word ἁγιότητι, which he either wishes to take abusive, like the Latin sanctitas, integrity, or conjectures in its stead ἁγνότητι. Reiche’s difficulty regarding ἁγιότ., that Paul talks of his purity as teacher, is also untenable. He certainly speaks of his entire conduct, not merely of his teaching.

2 Corinthians 1:13

2 Corinthians 1:13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious (2 Corinthians 1:10) περισσ. δὲπρ. ὑμᾶς (2 Corinthians 1:12), in so far as it might be suspected as not honourably meant, he asserts his candour in writing, which must have been assailed by his opponents (comp. 2 Corinthians 10:10), who probably maintained, “His letters to us are not the expression of his genuine inmost opinion!”

For Znothing else do we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also understand; i.e. in our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our genuine opinion, but it agrees exactly with what the reading of the same, or your acquaintance with our mode of thinking and character, says to you. Comp. Theodoret. On γράφειν in its reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1 Corinthians 5:11. According to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought: “I cannot do otherwise, I must write thus.” But Paul is making an appeal to the readers.

ἀλλʼ ἤ] praeterquam, nisi. For examples in which the previous negative sentence has also ἄλλος, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 45; Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 354 B; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 36 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 5. The mode of expression depends on a blending of the two constructions

οὐκἄλλα … ἀλλά and οὐκἄλλα … ἤ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 81 B; Kühner, II. p. 438.

ἃἀναγινώσκετε, ἢκ. ἐπιν.] This latter ἤ is in no connection with the former, in which case it could not but have stood a ἃἢἀναγ., ἢκαὶἐπιγ. This in opposition to Fritzsche’s way of taking it: “neque enim alia ad vos perscribimus, quam aut ea … aut ea, quae,” etc. ἀναγινώσκειν is to read, as it is usually in the Attic authors, and always in the N. T., not to understand, as Calvin, Estius, Storr,[129] following the Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this meaning often in classical Greek (Hom. Il. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206; Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6; Pind. Isthm. ii. 35; Herodian, vii. 7; comp. also Prayer of Manass. 12).

ἢκαὶἐπιγιν.] or also (without communication by letter) understand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily: “vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam aut tertiam lectionem, attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Rückert: “and doubtless also understand.” Quite against ἢκαί, which stands also opposed to the view of Hofmann: Paul wishes to say that he does not write in such a way, that they might understand something else than he means in his words. In this case we should have had καί only, since ἢκαί points to something else than to the reading, with which what he has written agrees.

The assimilation of the expressions ἀναγιν. and ἐπιγιν. (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:2) cannot be imitated in German, but in Latin approximately: legitis aut etiam intelligitis. Comp. on Acts 8:30; Plat. Ep. II. p. 312 D.

ἐλπίζωδὲκ.τ.λ.] The object to ἐπιγνώσεσθε is ὅτικαύχημαὑμῶνἐσμενκ.τ.λ., and καθὼςκαὶἐπεγν. ἡμ. ἀπὸμέρ. is an inserted clause: “I hope, however, that you will understand even to the end,—as you have understood us in part,—that we are your boast,” etc. We might also consider on ὅτικαύχημακ.τ.λ. as a nearer object to ἐπέγνωτεὑμᾶς (Estius, Rosenmüller, Billroth, Rückert, de Wette); but, since in this way ἐπιγνώσεσθε remains without an object (Billroth supplies: “that I think the same as I write;” comp. Rückert; Osiander: “all my doing and suffering in its purity”), the above mode of connection is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, Luther, Grotius, and others, also Olshausen (Osiander doubtfully), take ὅτι as for, stating the ground for καθὼςκ. ἐπέγν. ἡμ. ἀπὸμέρ. But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still more wanting, since from the general καύχημαὑμῶνἐσμενκ.τ.λ. no inference to the ἐπέγνωτεἡμᾶς restricted by ἀπὸμέρους is warranted; the reason assigned would not be suitable to ἀπὸμέρους. The connection which runs on simply is unnecessarily broken up by Ewald holding 2 Corinthians 1:13 and 2 Corinthians 1:14 on to μέρους as a parenthesis, so that ὅτι, 2 Corinthians 1:14 (that), joins on again to 2 Corinthians 1:12.

ἕωςτέλους] does not mean till my death (Hofmann), but till the end, i.e. till the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:51 f.; Hebrews 3:6.—2 Corinthians 1:14. καθὼςκ. ἐπέγν. ἡμᾶς compares the future, regarding which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding which he knows. And therefore he adds a limitation in keeping with the truth, ἀπὸμέρους (comp. Romans 11:25); for not all the Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite against the usage of the language, takes ἀπὸμέρους of time, inasmuch as the apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present was only a part of what he had to live with them. In that case Paul would have written ἕωςἄρτι in contrast to ἕωςτέλους.

Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of knowledge, quodammodo (comp. 2 Corinthians 2:5), with which Paul reproaches the readers, ὡςμὴπαντελῶςἀπωσαμένουςτὰςκατʼ αὐτοῦγεγενημέναςδιαβολάς, Theodoret. But a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to the connection; and certainly the readers to whom ἐπέγνωτε applies had not only understood him quodammodo, but wholly and decidedly, that, etc. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. Comp. Chrysostom, according to whom ἀπὸμέρους is added from modesty; also Theophylact, according to whom Paul is thinking of the imperfect exhibition of his virtue. But how could the readers conjecture this!

ὅτικαύχημακ.τ.λ.] that we redound for glory (i.e. for the object of καυχᾶσθαι) to you, even as you to us on the day of the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day that you have had us as teachers, and it will be to our honour that we have had you as disciples. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:19 f.; Philippians 2:16. With how much winning tact the addition κάθαπερκ. ὑμεῖςἡμῶν suppresses all appearance of self-exaltation! ὡςμαθηταῖςὁμοτίμοιςδιαλεγόμενοςοὕτωςἐξισάζειτὸνλόγον, Chrysosto.

ἐντῇἡμέρᾳτ. κυρ. Ἰησοῦ] belongs to the whole ὅτικαύχημα … ὑμεῖςἡμῶν, not, as Rückert arbitrarily thinks, to καθάπερκ. ὑμ. ἡμῶν merely (so Grotius, Calovius, and others); nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to καύχ. ὑμῶνἐσμεν.

[129] Calvin thinks ἀναγιν. and ἐπιγιν. are distinguished as agnoscere and recognoscere. So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius makes the difference: “et recognoscitis antiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscitis recentia.

2 Corinthians 1:15-16

2 Corinthians 1:15-16. Καὶταύτῃτῇπεποιθ.] and by means of this confidence, viz. ὅτιἕωςτέλουςἐπιγν. κ.τ.λ. in 2 Corinthians 1:13-14. πεποίθησις (2 Corinthians 3:4, 2 Corinthians 8:22, 2 Corinthians 10:2; Ephesians 3:12; Philippians 3:4; Joseph. Bell. i. 3. 1) is later Greek. See Eustathius, ad Od. iii. p. 114, 41; Thom. Mag. p. 717; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 294 f.

ἐβουλόμην] Paul entertained the plan for his journey, set down in 2 Corinthians 1:16, before the composition of our first Epistle, and he had communicated it to the Corinthians (whether in the first now lost letter, or otherwise, we know not). But before or during the composition of our first Epistle he altered this plan (as we know from 1 Corinthians 16:5) to this extent, that he was not now to go first to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and from thence back to Corinth again (2 Corinthians 1:16), but through Macedonia to Corinth. The plan of travel, 1 Corinthians 16:5, was accordingly not the first (Baur; comp. Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.), but the one already altered, which alteration was ascribed to the apostle as indecision.

This is intelligible enough from the antagonistic irritation of their minds, and does not require us to presuppose an expression in the alleged intermediate Epistle (Klöpper, p. 21 f.). Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius make the apostle say: I had, when I wrote to you 1 Corinthians 16:5, the unexpressed intention to arrive still earlier than I promised, and to reach you even sooner (immediately on the journey towards Macedonia). Quite a mistaken view, since such a mere thought would not have been known to his opponents, and no excuse for his fickleness could therefore have been engrafted on i.

πρότερον] belongs to πρὸςὑμᾶςἐλθεῖν:[130] I intended to come to you first of all,—not, as I afterwards altered my plan, to the Macedonians first, and then from them to you. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rosenmüller and Rückert, connect πρότ. and ἐβουλ., which, however, on the one hand is opposed to the sense (for Paul cannot say, “I intended formerly to come to you,” since his intention is still the same), and on the other would not accord with ἵναδευτ. χάρ. ἔχ.; for not the προτερονἐβουλόμην, but the πρότερονπρὸςὑμᾶςἐλθεῖν, was to bring in its train a δευτέραχάρις.

ἵναδευτέρανχάρινἔχητε] δευτέραυ corresponds ingeniously to the πρότερον: in order that you might have a second benefit of grace. By χάριν is meant a divine bestowal of grace, with which Paul knew his coming to be connected for the church; for to whatever place he came in his official capacity, he came as the imparter of divine χάρις, Romans 1:11; comp. Romans 15:29. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, including Kypke, Emmerling, Flatt, and Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 622), hold that χάρις is equivalent to χάρα (and hence this is actually the reading of B L, some min., and Theodoret). Certainly χάρις also means pleasure, joy, and is, as in Tob 7:16, the opposite of λύπη (Eur.

Hel. 661, and more frequently in Pindar; see Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 1191; also in Plato, Ast, Lex. III. p. 538), but never in the N. T. This sense, besides, would be unsuitable to the apostle’s delicate and modest style of expression elsewhere. Nor, again, is a benefit on the part of the apostle meant (Grotius, Rosenmüller, Schrader, Billroth, comp. also Hofmann), because the expression is only in keeping with his affection and humility (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:10) if a divine display of grace is meant.

The comparison with 1 Corinthians 16:3 is therefore not to the point, because there a χάρις is named, of which the readers were givers. But what does he mean by δευτέρανχάριν? Many answer with Estius: “ut ex secundo meo adventu secundam acciperetis gratiam, qui dudum accepistis primam, quando primum istuc veniens ad fidem vos converti.” Comp. Pelagius, Calvin, Wolf, Mosheim, Bengel, Emmerling. But against this it may be urged: (1) historically, that Paul certainly had been already twice in Corinth before our two Epistles (see Introd. § 2); and (2) from the connection, that the δευτέραχάρις in this sense can by no means appear as an aim conditioned by the πρότερον; for even a later coming would have had a δευτέραχάρις in this sense as its result. This second reason is decisive, even if, with Schott, Erörterung, etc., p. 58 ff., and Anger, rat. temp. p. 72 f., we were to set aside the former by the supposition: “apostolum intra annum illum cum dimidio, quem, quum primum Corinthi esset, ibi transegit, per breve aliquod temporis spatium in regiones vicinas discessisse; sic enim si res se habuit, Paulus, etsi bis ad Corinthios venerat, ita ut in secunda, quam iis misit, epistola adventum tertium polliceri posset: tamen, quoniam per totum illud intervallum Corinthi potissimum docuerat, simile beneficium, quod in itinere seriore in eos collocaturus erat, jure secundum appellavit,” Anger, l.c. p. 73.

The right solution results from 2 Corinthians 1:16, which is appended by the epexegetical καί, viz., that the δευτέραχάρις appears as setting in through the πάλινἀπὸΜακεδ. ἐλθεῖνπρὸςὑμᾶς. Paul had intended on his projected journey to visit Corinth twice, and had therefore proposed to himself to come to the Corinthians first of all (not first to the Macedonians), in order that they in this event might have a second χάρις on his return from Macedonia (the first χάρις they were to have on his journey thither). From this it is at once obvious: (1) how superfluous is the linguistically incorrect supposition that δευτέραν is here equivalent to διπλῆν, as Bleek and Neander, following Chrysostom and Theodoret,[131] take it; (2) how erroneous is the opinion of Rückert, that ἵναδευτ. χάρινἔχητε is put in a wrong place, and should properly only come behind ἐλθεῖνπρὸςὑμᾶς, 2 Corinthians 1:16. No; according to the epexegetical ͅκαί, 2 Corinthians 1:16, διʼ ὑμῶνἀπελθεῖνεἰςΜακεδ. serves to give exact and clear information as parallel to the πρότερονπρὸςὑμᾶςἐλθεῖν, and then καὶπάλινἀπὸΜακ. ἐλθεῖνπρὸςὑμᾶς as parallel to the ἵναδευτέρ. χάρινἔχητε. Comp. Baur, I. p. 338, ed. 2.

[130] The position of πρότερον, immediately after ἐβουλ. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rückert), which has preponderating evidence, and is therefore to be preferred, makes no difference in this respect.

[131] In other respects Theodoret, Bleek, and Neander, as also Billroth, Olshausen, and Rückert, agree in thinking that δευτέραν refers to the repeated visit to Corinth which had been intended after returning from Macedonia. But Chrys., quite against the context, explains the double joy as καὶτὴνδιὰτῶνγραμμάτωνκαὶτὴνδιὰτῆςπαρουσίας. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, and others.

2 Corinthians 1:17

2 Corinthians 1:17. Wishing this therefore (according to what has just been said), did I then behave thoughtlessly? Was this proposal of mine made without duly taking thought for its execution? μήτι supposes a negative answer, as always, in which case ἄρα (meaning: as the matter stands) makes no alteration, such as the suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Such a sense, as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, which is foreign here, could only be suggested by the context, and would have nothing to do with ἄρα (in opposition to Hartung, whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176 f.

τῇἐλαφρίᾳ] The article marks the thoughtlessness not as that with which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth, Olshausen, Rückert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more precisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtlessness as such in general, in abstracto: have I then made myself guilty of thoughtlessness? ἐλαφρία belongs to the substantives in -ρια formed late from adjectives in -ρος. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 343. For the ethical sense (wantonness), comp. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 195, and ἐλαφρός in Polyb. vi. 56. 11; ἐλαφρόνοος, Phocylides in Stob. Flor. app. iii. 7.

ἢἃβουλεύομαι, κατὰσάρκαβουλεύομαι] ἤ is not aut (Billroth, Rückert, Osiander, Hofmann, after the Vulgate and most expositors), but an; for without any interrogation the relation of the two sentences is: My proposal was not thoughtless, unless it should be the case that I form my resolves κατὰσάρκα. See Hartung, II. p. 61.

Mark the difference between ἐχρησάμην as aorist (historical event) and βουλεύομαι as present (behaviour generally).

κατὰσάρκα] according to the flesh, after the standard of the σάρξ, i.e. so that I let myself be guided by the impulses of human nature sinfully determined, Galatians 5:16 ff.

ἵναᾖπαρʼ ἐμοὶτὸναὶναὶκαὶτὸοὒοὔ] By ἵνα is expressed simply the immoral purpose, which would be connected with the βουλεύεσθαικατὰσάρκα; in order that with me there may be the Yea, yea, and Nay, nay, i.e. in order that with me affirmation and denial may exist together; that I, according as the case stands, may assent to the fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it; to-day yea, and to-morrow nay, or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Billroth errs in thinking that in this explanation καί must be taken as also. That it means and, is proved by 2 Corinthians 1:18-19. The duplication of the ναί and οὔ strengthens the picture of the untrustworthy man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies. Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the reading of the Vulgate, τὸναὶκαὶτὸοὔ, which has very weak attestation. The article marks the ναὶναί and the οὒοὔ as well-known and solemn formulae of affirmative and negative asseveration (as they were also in Jewish usage; see Wetstein, ad Matthew 5:37).

Comp. on ναὶναί, Soph. O. C. 1743. As to the main point, namely, that the ναὶναί and the οὒοὔ are taken as the subject of ᾖ, this explanation has the support of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius (though conjecturing ἵναμή instead of ἵνα), Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others; also of Rosenmüller, Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, and others; even Olshausen, who, however, sets up for ναί and οὔ the “peculiar” signification (assumed without any instance of its being so used) of “truth” and “falsehood.” The diplasiasmus ναὶναί and οὒοὔ is not without reason (as Billroth and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excitement of the moral consciousness; whereas afterwards, in 2 Corinthians 1:18, where his words go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful God, the bare ναὶκαὶοὔ is quite in its place. Note, further, that the simple expression of the coexistence of the yea and nay (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking, than if Paul had given a more precise explanation of the maxims of yea and nay. The readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could not but know that he was no yea-and-nay man.

Others consider the second ναί and the second οὔ as predicates, so that a wholly opposite sense is made out of the words: in order that with me the Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, i.e. in order that I may stubbornly carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp. James 5:12. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth; Winer, p. 429 [E. T. 481], gives no decision. The context, however, before (“levitatis et inconstantiae, non autem pertinaciae crimen hic a se depellere studet,” Estius) and after (2 Corinthians 1:18-19), is decisive against this view.

Hofmann imports into παρʼ ἐμοί a contrast to παρὰτῷΘεῷ, so that the idea would be: to assent to or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s own self, without reservation, because purely as an expression of self-will, with which James 4:13 is compared.[132] Such a contrast could not but be based upon what went before, in itself as well as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis on παρʼ ἐμοί the order ἵναπαρʼ ἐμοὶᾖ would have been suitable; and the idea of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have demanded not καί but ἤ between the ναί and the οὔ. And was Paul, then, the man in whose resolves “the yea is always meant with the reservation of a nay”? Luther’s translation (comp. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the mark of interrogation is placed after κατὰσ. βουλ., and in that case there is supplied nequaquam, of which negation ἵνακ.τ.λ. specifies the purpose. This is intolerably arbitrary.

Regarding the erroneous translation of the Peshito (Grotius agrees with it), which distorts the meaning from misconception, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 2.

[132] Similarly Ewald, but he takes παρʼ ἐμοί (with Camerarius) as penes me (“merely after my own pleasure to say and to do the one or the other”), as if, therefore, it were ἐνἐμοί. Ewald compares Psalms 12:5.

2 Corinthians 1:18

2 Corinthians 1:18. But according to His faithfulness, God causes our speech to you to be not yea and nay, not untrustworthy.[133] The δέ introduces the contrast (yea rather) to the state of things denied in the preceding question (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 95); and ὅτι is equivalent to εἰςἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, like John 2:18; John 9:17; John 11:51; 1 Corinthians 1:26, al.: Faithful is God in reference to this, that our speech, etc., i.e. God shows Himself faithful by this, that, etc. Beza, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann, take πιστὸςὁΘεός as an asseveration: proh Dei fidem! Against all linguistic usage, for the ζῶἐγὼ … ὅτι (see on Romans 14:11), which is compared, is a habitual formula of swearing, which the πιστὸςὁΘεός, very frequent with the apostle (1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 1 John 1:9), is not. Nor can we compare 2 Corinthians 11:10, where a subjective state of things is asserted as a guarantee of what is uttere.

ὁλόγοςἡμῶν] is by most understood of the preaching of the gospel, according to which Paul thus, against the suspicion of untruthfulness in his resolves and assurances, puts forward the truthfulness of his preaching,—in which there lies a moral argument a majori ad minus; for the opinion of Hofmann, that Paul means to say that his preaching stands in a different position from the conditioned quality of his yea and nay, falls with his view of 2 Corinthians 1:17. From 2 Corinthians 1:19, however, it appears to be beyond doubt that the usual explanation of λόγος, of the preaching, not in general of the apostle’s speech (Rückert), or of that unfulfilled promise (Erasmus in the Annot.), is the right one. Olshausen mixes up the two explanations.

[133] Erasmus says aptly, Paraphr.: “Sed non fallit Deus, cujus praesidio factum est, ut sermo noster, quo vobis illius evangelium praedicavimus, non vacillarit, sed semper sui similis fuerit.”

2 Corinthians 1:19-22

2 Corinthians 1:19-22. Paul furnishes grounds in 2 Corinthians 1:19 f. for the assurance he had given in 2 Corinthians 1:18; then refers his veracity to the stedfastness bestowed on him by God, 2 Corinthians 1:21 f.; and finally, 2 Corinthians 1:23, makes protestations as to the reason why he had not yet come to Corinth.

2 Corinthians 1:20

2 Corinthians 1:20. A more precise explanation and confirmation of ναὶἐναὐτῷγέγονεν, running on to the end of the verse. Hence ὅσαι … ἀμήν is not to be put in a parenthesis, as Griesbach, Scholz, and Ewal.

τὸναί and τὸἀμήν cannot be synonymous, as most of the older commentators take them (“repetit, ut ipsa repetitione rem magis confirmet,” Estius), for this is rendered impossible by the correct reading διὸκ. διʼ αὐτοῦτὸἀμήν (see the critical remarks). Rather must the former be the cause (διό) of the latter. And here the expression τὸἀμήν is without doubt to be explained from the custom in worship, that in public prayer a general Amen was said as certifying the general assurance of faith as to its being heard (see on 1 Corinthians 14:16). Accordingly τὸναί and τὸἀμήν are here to be distinguished in this way; τὸναί, as in the whole context, denotes the certainty objectively given (comp. on that point, Romans 15:8), and τὸἀμήν, the certainty subjectively existing, the certainty of faith. Consequently: for, as many promises of God as there are (in the O. T.), in Him is the yea (in Christ is given the objective guarantee of their fulfilment); therefore through Him also the Amen takes place, therefore it comes to pass through Christ, that the Amen is said to God’s promises; i.e. therefore also to Christ, to His work and merit, without which we should want this certainty, is due the subjective certainty of the divine promises, the faith in their fulfilment.

Billroth, indeed (and in the main, de Wette), thinks the conception to be this: that the preachers of the gospel say the Amen through their preaching, so that τὸναί refers to the living working of God in Christ, in whom He fulfils His promises, and τὸἀμήν to the faithful and stedfast preaching of these deeds of God. But the saying of Amen expressed the assurance of faith, and was done by all; hence τὸἀμήν would be in the highest degree unsuitable for denoting the praedicatio. Finally, Rückert is quite arbitrary when he says that τὸναί relates to the fulfilment of the prophecies wrought by the appearing of Christ Himself, and τὸἀμήν to the erection of the church, which had grown out of that appearing.

The article before ναί and ἀμήν denotes the definite Yea and Amen, which relate to the ἐπαγγελίαιΘεοῦ and belong to them. The article was not used before in 2 Corinthians 1:19, because no definite reference of the yea was yet specifie.

τῷΘεῷπρὸςδόξανδιʼ ἡμῶν] a teleological definition to διʼ αὐτοῦτὸἀμήν with the emphatic prefixing of τῷΘεῷ: to God’s honour through us, i.e. what redounds to the glorifying of God (2 Corinthians 8:19) through us.

διʼ ἡμῶν] nostro ministerio (Grotius), in so far, namely, as the ministry of the gospel-preachers brings about the Amen, the assurance of faith in God’s promises, Romans 10:14.

2 Corinthians 1:21

2 Corinthians 1:21 f. Δέ] not specifying the ground of τῷΘεῷπρὸςδόξαν (Grotius), nor confirming the assurance that he had preached without wavering (Billroth), but continuative. Paul has just, with διʼ ἡμῶν, pointed to the blessed result which his working (and that of his companions) is bringing about, namely, that the Amen of faith is said to all God’s promises to the glory of God. But now he wishes to indicate also the inner divine life-principle, on which this working and its result are based, namely, the Christian stedfastness, which is due to no other than to God Himself.

On the construction, comp. 2 Corinthians 5:5; hence Billroth (whom Olshausen follows) has incorrectly taken ὁδὲβεβαιῶν … Θεός as subject, and ὁκαὶσφραγ. κ.τ.λ. as predicate. It is to be translated: “And He who makes us stedfast with you toward Christ, after He has also anointed us, is God; who also,” etc. Since the anointing precedes the βεβαιοῦν, and is its foundation, and Paul has not written ὁδὲχρίσαςἡμᾶςκαὶβεβαιῶνκ.τ.λ., it is not to be regarded with the expositors as qui autem confirmat et unxit, but καὶχρίσαςἡμᾶς is to be taken as a definition subordinate to the βεβαιῶν, and καί as the also of the corresponding relation; otherwise, there would be a hysteron-proteron, which there is no ground for supposin.

εἰςΧριστόν] in relation to Christ, so that we remain unshakenly faithful to Christ. Chrysostom well says: ὁμὴἐῶνἡμᾶςπαρασαλεύεσθαιἐκτῆςπίστεωςτῆςεἰςτ. Χριστόν. The explanation: into Christ (Billroth, Olshausen) has against it the present participle. For the believers are already in Christ; their continued confirmation (βεβ., see on 1 Corinthians 1:6) therefore could not but take place in Christo, Colossians 2:7, not in Christum.

σὺνὑμῖν] Paul adds, in order not to appear as if he were denying to the readers the βεβαίωσιςεἰςΧριστόν. Estius says aptly: “ut eos in hac sua defensione benevolos habeat.” This agrees with the whole tone of the context; but there is not, as Rückert conjectures, a side-glance at those who had held the apostle to be a wavering ree.

χρίσαςἡμᾶς] here, without σὺνὑμῖν, is a figurative way of denoting the consecration to office (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 1:9), i.e. to the office of teacher of the gospel, without, however, pressing the expression so far as Chrysostom and Theophylact: ὁμοῦπροφήταςκαὶἱερεῖςκ. βασιλέαςἐργασάμενος. Whether, however, did Paul conceive the consecration as effected by the call (Billroth, Olshausen, Rückert) or by the communication of the Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Osiander, and many others, following the ancient expositors)? 2 Corinthians 1:22 is not opposed to the latter view (see below); and since the call to the office is, in point of fact, something quite different from the consecration, χρίσας is certainly to be referred to the holy consecration of the Spirit (comp. Acts 10:38). Comp., further, 1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27, and Düsterdieck on 1 John 1. p. 355. An allusion to Χριστόν (Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann, and others) would not be certain, even if there stood καὶχρίσαςκαὶἡμᾶς, because Χριστόν is not used appellatively, but purely as a proper name. An anointing of Christ (as at Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 1:9) is as little mentioned by Paul as by John. If, however, it had been here in his mind, in order to compare with it the consecration of the ἡμεῖς, he could not but have added σὺναὐτῷ, or some similar more precise definition of the relation intended, to make himself intelligible; comp. the idea of the συζωοποιεῖνσὺνΧριστῷ, and the lik.

ὁκαὶσφραγισ. ὑμᾶςκ.τ.λ.] is argumentative. How could He leave us in the lurch unconfirmed, He, who has also sealed us, etc.! How would He come into contradiction with Himself! This σφραγισ. ὑμᾶς does not present the same thing, as was just expressed by χρίσαςἡμ., in another figurative form; but by means of καί it adds an accessory new element,[134] namely, the Messianic sealing conferred, although likewise through the Holy Spirit (see the sequel), apart from the anointing, i.e. the inner confirmation of the Messianic σωτηρία. Comp. on Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30. It is not added to what the sealing objectively relates (to the Messianic salvation), because it is regarded as a familiar notion, well known in its referenc.

καὶδοὺςκ.τ.λ.] is epexegetical of ὁσφραγισάμ. ἡμᾶς, Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545].

τὸνἀῤῥαβῶνατοῦπνεύματος] Comp. 2 Corinthians 5:5. The genitive is the genitive of apposition, as 1 Corinthians 5:8: the earnest-money, which consists in the Spirit, ἀῤῥαβών (also with the Romans arrhabo or arrha) is properly ἡἐπὶταῖςὠναῖςπαρᾶτῶνὠνουμένωνδιδομένηπροκαταβολὴὑπὲρἀσφαλείας, Etym. M.; Aristot. Pol. i. 4. 5; Lucian, Rhet. praec. 17, 18. Then it is a figurative expression for the notion guarantee. See in general Wetstein, and especially Kypke, Obss.

II. p. 239 f. For what the Holy Spirit is guarantee, Paul does not say, but he presupposes it as an obvious fact in the consciousness of the readers, just as he did with σφραγισάμ. The Holy Spirit is in the heart as an earnest-money given for a guarantee of a future possession, the pledge of the future Messianic salvation. Comp. 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:14. How? see Romans 8:2; Romans 8:10 f., 2 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 8:15 ff.; Galatians 4:6 f.; Ephesians 5:19. In ἀῤῥαβ., therefore, the climax τῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν (Theodoret) is characteristi.

ἐνταῖςκαρδιαῖςἡμ.] The direction is blended with the result, as 2 Corinthians 8:1: He gave the Spirit, so that this Spirit is now in our hearts. Comp. 2 Corinthians 8:16, and on John 3:35.

[134] Hence καί is to be taken as also, not with the following καί, as well … as also; especially as καὶσφραγ. and καὶδούς are not two acts essentially different.

2 Corinthians 1:23

2 Corinthians 1:23. After Paul has vindicated himself (2 Corinthians 1:16-22) from the suspicion of fickleness and negligence raised against him on account of his changing the plan of his journey, he proceeds in an elevated tone to give, with the assurance of an oath (2 Corinthians 11:31; Romans 1:9; Galatians 1:20), the reason why he had not come to Corint.

ἐγὼδέ] Hitherto he has spoken communicativè, not talking of himself exclusively. Now, however, to express his own self-determination, he continues: but I for my own part, etc.

For examples of ἐπικαλεῖσθαιτὸνΘεὸνμάρτυρα, see Wetstein. Comp. Hom. Il. xxii. 254. Θεοὺςἐπιδώμεθατοὶγὰρἄριστοιμάρτυροιἔσσονται, Plat. Legg. ii p. 664 C.

ἐπὶτ. ἐμ. ψυχ.] not: against my soul, in which case it would be necessary arbitrarily to supply si fallo (Grotius; comp. Osiander and others, also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 102), but, in reference to (for) my soul, “in qua rerum mearum mihi conscius sum, quam perimi nolim,” Bengel. It expresses the moral reference of the invocation, and belongs to ἐπικαλ., in which act Paul has in view that he thereby stakes the salvation (Hebrews 10:39; 1 Peter 1:9; James 1:21) or ruin of his soul (Romans 2:9). Comp. the second commandmen.

φειδόμενοςὑμ.] exercising forbearance towards you. This was implied in the very fact of his not coming. Had he come, it must have been ἐνῥαβδῷ, 1 Corinthians 4:21. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:1.

οὐκέτι not again, as would have accorded with my former plan, 2 Corinthians 1:16. But since this former plan is altered already in 1 Corinthians 16:5 f., the ἔτι in οὐκέτι must refer to a visit preceding our first Epistl.

εἰςΚόρινθον] “eleganter pro ad vos in sermone potestatem ostendente,” Bengel.

2 Corinthians 1:24

2 Corinthians 1:24. Guarding against a possible misunderstanding of φειδόμενος. Theodoret says aptly: τοῦτοδὲὡςὑφορμοῦντέθεικεν; for the expression φειδόμενος might be interpreted as a pretension to lordship over fait.

οὐχὅτι] is equivalent to οὐκἐρῶ, ὅτι. See on John 6:46, and Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet. p. 128.

κυριεύομενκ.τ.λ.] The apostle knows that no lordship over faith belongs to him; how the faith in Christ is to be shaped among the churches as respects contents, vital activity, etc., he has not to command, as if he were lord over it, but only to teach, to rouse, and entreat (2 Corinthians 5:20) thereto, to promote it by praise or blame, etc. The order κυρ. ὑμῶντ. πίστ. depends on the form of conception: we do not lord it over you as to faith. Comp. on John 11:32, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 117 A, Rep. p. 518 C. This prefixing of the pronoun occurs very often in the N. T.; hence it was the more preposterous to supply a ἕνεκα before τῆςπίστ. (Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Flatt, and others).

ἀλλὰσυνεργοί] but (it is implied in my φειδόμενοςὑμῶν) that we are joint helpers of your joy, that it is our business to be helpful to you, so that you rejoice. To this destined aim an earlier coming would have been opposed, because it would have caused grief (2 Corinthians 2:1). The συν in συνεργοί refers to the union of the helping efficacy with the working of the Corinthians themselves. Contrary to the context, Grotius suggests: “cum Deo et Christo,” which Osiander also imports. The χαρά is not to be taken of the joy of blessedness (Grotius and others), but of the joy of the church over the improvement and the success of the Christian life amongst them. Only this agrees with the context, for the want of this success had been the cause of Paul’s formerly coming ἐνλύπῃ to the Corinthians, and of the necessity for his coming again ἐνῥάβδῳ (1 Corinthians 4:21).

τῇγὰρπίστειἑστήκατε] for in respect to faith ye stand; the point of faith, in respect to which you are firm and stedfast, is not now under discussion. Note the emphatic placing of τῇπίστ. first. Theophylact well says: οὐκοὖνἐντούτοις (τοῖςκατὰπίστιν) εἶχοντιμέμψασθαιὑμᾶςἐνἄλλοιςδὲἐσαλεύεσθε. On the dative of more precise definition, comp. Polyb. xxi. 9. 3; Romans 4:19-20; Galatians 5:1 (Elzevir). It does not mean per fidem, Romans 11:20, as Bengel and Hofmann hold (through faith you have an independent and firm bearing), in which case we should have for ἑστήκ. a very vague and indefinite conception; but it is, in substance, not different from ἐντῇπίστει, 1 Corinthians 16:13.