2 Corinthians 2

CHAPTER II

Continuation: The Desire not to Come in Sorrow

2 Corinthians 2:1

1 In 1:23, 24 Paul writes regarding consideration for the Corinthians, now regarding a simultaneous consideration for himself; hence he uses δέ which adds, but adds something that is somewhat different. Moreover, I came to this judgment as regards myself, not to go back to you in grief. The ingressive aorist ἔκρινα is juridical: as a judge, after hearing a case, pronounces his verdict, so Paul, after thoroughly probing the situation, arrived at this verdict. He had decided what was best in the interest of the Corinthians, namely by delaying his visit to spare them (1:23); he found also, as far as he personally was concerned (dative of respect), that such a delay was by far best: he could not bring himself to the idea of going back to Corinth “in grief.” “In grief” certainly refers to grief in Paul’s own heart. Grief is, however, always caused by something. So here Paul’s grief was due to the deplorable conditions that were obtaining in Corinth.

Because of his grief-laden heart Paul, who felt that his ministry was to bring joy (1:24), did not want to appear in Corinth. He did not want to do this on his own account. But this is his second and thus his secondary motive; his first and primary one had to do with the Corinthians (1:23). If their interest had been best served by Paul’s promptly getting to them, heavy though his heart was, he would have gone. But this was not the case, and he could thus think also of himself. He would not need to say anything about himself here. He is, however, entirely honest and open. He had thought also about himself and not only about the interest of the Corinthians; and so he does not write as though their interest alone swayed him.

More than this. Paul is baring his heart. We shall see that he does this completely. Injury to the Corinthians grieved him, grieved him to tears (v. 4). He was neither womanish nor an emotionalist. So many regard him as an intellectualist and a dialectician. The real Paul had his whole heart and soul in his work. Personal suffering and insult were never his grief, but any injury to the church was. He was ready to suffer, to give up and sacrifice, to do any work to help save souls, to help the church onward to prosperity and joy. Things had gone wrong in Corinth, and this grieved him to the heart. His hope was that, given a few months of time, the Corinthians would right themselves.

Here is food for thought for all ministers. What grief do they experience over deplorable conditions in their congregations? How many grieve only over what they must personally suffer? How many just settle down to the bad conditions, heave a sigh, adjust themselves, and let it go at that? How many thus become a worse cause for grief than their congregations with their grievous conditions?

We are sure that Paul had been in Corinth on two previous occasions: the first time when he founded the congregation (Acts 18) and a second time during his long stay in Ephesus before he wrote First Corinthians (see the Introduction). On the strength of πάλιν Paul’s second visit to Corinth is dated after First Corinthians and is made a grief visit from which Paul, badly insulted and hurt, hurried back to Ephesus and wrote “the tear letter.” Thus on the basis of πάλιν the critics build up their hypotheses and remove Second Corinthians from its connection with First Corinthians.

The critics contend that πάλιν modifies only ἐνλύπῃ. If πάλιν modifies ἐλθεῖν or—what amounts to the same thing—ἐνλύπῃπρὸςὑμᾶςἐλθεῖν, a grief visit did not occur at any time. The word πάλιν means “back,” its modified meaning is “again” or “back again.” It is used with many verbs and notably also with ἔρχομαι, “to go back,” and here we have the aorist ἐλθεῖν. This is one of those adverbs that does not need to be placed next to the verb in order to modify that verb. According to the rhetorical emphasis it may be placed forward in the sentence. It is so placed here because the point is Paul’s going “back” to Corinth or, if we wish, his going “again” to Corinth.

He did not want to go back for his third visit “in grief.” In regard to this second visit to Corinth we know nothing but the simple fact gathered from 12:14 and 13:1. It occurred before First Corinthians was written and may well have taken place more than a year before, even as much as two years before that writing. It is of no importance for either of Paul’s canonical letters. Dating this second visit far ahead, after First Corinthians, and filling it with a terrible experience of grief because of insults by the Corinthians is not necessarily suggested by Paul’s πάλιν. For some reason the dictionaries and the grammars offer no information regarding the force of πάλιν in this passage.

2 Corinthians 2:2

2 Paul wanted to go back to Corinth, not with a grieved, but with a relieved heart. Hence he devised the plan of a time-consuming journey through Macedonia, which would delay his arrival at Corinth. His grief had been caused by the Corinthians. Hence how was he to go to Corinth with a relieved heart unless those who had caused his grief removed this cause and so gladdened him again? Paul was delaying his arrival while waiting for this happy outcome.

For if I on my part (emphatic ἐγώ) grieve you, who, then, is he that makes me glad save he who is receiving grief from me?

Paul touches the whole interaction. Paul’s grief was caused by the situation obtaining at Corinth. Because of his grief he had to grieve the Corinthians in turn, namely by correcting them in no uncertain terms. This correction constitutes a large portion of First Corinthians; and the mission of Titus, no doubt, also included a good deal of correction. The fact that he was compelled to grieve the Corinthians was also a part of Paul’s grief. How was he to be made happy again?

Who could remove this grief from him? Evidently only those who had caused it. Others might do what they could for Paul in order to bring him happiness, none but the Corinthians themselves could remove the grief which he felt at every thought of them. But if they changed, how happy they would then make Paul! In other words, Paul tells them that his whole happiness depends on them.

Both the thought and the expression are genuinely Pauline: this dwelling upon grieving, the grieving that he was doing and that which others were receiving from him, and the reference to his own happiness; this uniting of the Corinthians with himself so that his very happiness is entirely bound up with them and with what they do. It is the voice of true love.

Καί before the apodosis seems to be merely pleonastic although B.-D. 442, 8 and our versions regard it as “then”; R. 1182 as indicating an unexpressed thought. Instead of concluding with the plural: “save you who are being grieved by me,” Paul is considerate and uses a third person singular. This avoids all bluntness; it generalizes: in a case like this, where one has grieved Paul, and he must grieve him in turn, this man so grieved is the only one who can make Paul happy again. One should not miss these refined, considerate touches, for they reveal Paul’s character.

The singular does not refer to some special person. Paul could also have used the plural “who save they”; it is a matter of choice. Carefully, too, he does not write ὑπό, “by me,” but ἐξ with the passive participle. His grieving of the Corinthians came only “from” him; it was not a deliberate act in any way but one that was forced “from” or “out of” him. He had to make the correction although it would hurt those who received it and him while making it.

2 Corinthians 2:3

3 We now get the complementary thought, which is expressed as Paul’s conviction, that his own joy is also the joy of the Corinthians. We once more see how Paul’s mind takes in all of the angles whereas so many minds would go only halfway. And I wrote for this very purpose that on coming I should not get to have grief from them from whom I ought to be getting joy, still having confidence in you all that my own joy is that of you all.

We do not regard ἔγραψα as an epistolary aorist, either here, in v. 4 and 9, or in 7:12 (R. 846). Paul is not speaking about the letter which he is now in process of writing but about one that he wrote before this time. We think that he is referring to First Corinthians. It is possible that when Paul sent Titus to Corinth he gave Titus a letter that was addressed to the Corinthians, a letter that is now lost like the one mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:9; but this view is no gain, for it would deal with the same situation in Corinth which is revealed in First Corinthians, the very situation with which Paul is now again dealing. A letter that was sent along with Titus could not contain anything beyond what First Corinthians contains, nor is Paul now referring to anything that is of a different nature. On the hypotheses regarding this letter see v. 4.

The present connection leads us to regard τοῦτοαὑτό as an adverbial accusative: “for this very thing, i.e., purpose” (B.-D. 290, 4), and not as an accusative object: I write “this very thing.” In the preceding verses (1:23–2:2), as well as in the statement that follows in v. 3, Paul is not stating what he wrote in his previous letter but why he wrote as he did. He is now revealing his purpose and object for writing as he did; when he wrote as he did he had withheld this object. We have explained in connection with 1:23 why Paul could not have stated this purpose in First Corinthians (16:5–8) when he changed his plans of travel. His purpose was, if possible, not to return to Corinth in grief (v. 1). It is this purpose regarding which he now says still more. If we translate: “I wrote this very thing,” namely that I did not want to return in grief, this is the very thing he did not write; he is telling about this for the first time.

He could not have told this even in a letter which was sent along with Titus. On the other hand, if “this very thing” refers to something else that Paul wrote, nobody can guess what this was, we are left at sea. The objection that in v. 1 τοῦτο is the object, and that in v. 9 it is εἰςτοῦτο that states purpose, is invalid, for purpose can be indicated in various ways.

Ἵνα is subfinal and tells us what “this very purpose” was which Paul had in mind when he wrote as he did (1 Cor. 16:5–8) and arranged for a later date of arrival in Corinth. He did not, on his arrival, want to get to have (σχῶ, ingressive aorist) grief from those from whom he ought to be getting joy (χαίρειν, present, durative). In ἀφʼ ὧν the antecedent is absorbed: “from whom” = “from them from whom.” The Greek uses the imperfect, here ἔδει, to indicate an obligation that has remained unfulfilled (R. 887, 920). The Corinthians ought, indeed, always to have brought joy to Paul, the founder of their congregation, one of Christ’s own apostles. They had not been doing that and are gently reminded of the fact. Things had been so ill among them, as First Corinthians fully shows, that he could hitherto not have come back to them save with great grief.

Titus brought a better report after weeks of the greatest depression on the part of Paul, and we shall see how Paul is now greatly rejoiced (v. 14). His hopes and his prayers were now coming to fulfillment, namely that he could, after all, enter Corinth with joy.

Here we again see that Paul thinks about himself only in connection with the people whom he serves. He wants joy for himself from the Corinthians, but never merely for himself alone but only as it includes them, his joy being theirs. The perfect participle says that during all this time, despite all his grief, he has held even as he now holds this confidence, that his joy is at the same time theirs. It would not be joy to him, it would lose all of its sweetness if this were not the case. The thought becomes exceedingly beautiful as we are thus again permitted to look into Paul’s heart. The grief which the Corinthians had caused him was such grief to him because it robbed him of the joy that he should have had, that joy which should rejoice also the Corinthians and be their joy. They conducted themselves instead so that only grief resulted.

Paul says: “I have been holding fast to this confidence”; it is exactly the proper word. It does not say too much, but it does say a good deal. Best of all, by means even of the very tense used it invites the Corinthians to hasten to justify this confidence which Paul has been holding, justify it to the full. Ἐπί means that Paul rested his confidence “upon” them; yea, spreading his arms wide for an embrace, he says: “upon you all” and repeats “of you all” when he is referring to the joy. Note, too, how “joy” begins in 1:24: the whole office of the ministry is the work of dispensing joy. Can one spread joy when he has a heart that is steeped in grief? In v. 2 he therefore asks, who but he who took the joy from him and gave him grief instead can make him glad again by returning his joy to him.

2 Corinthians 2:4

4 The explanation offered by γάρ as to how and with what object Paul wrote his former letter, refers to all that he has said about his own grief and about his grieving the Corinthians. He describes the first flood of his grief and the motive that, nevertheless, moved him when he was writing First Corinthians. For out of much affliction and anxiety of heart I wrote to you through many tears, not (just) in order that you might be grieved, but that you might realize the love I have especially for you.

Paul himself tells under what conditions he wrote First Corinthians. Ἐκ has the idea of source. “Much affliction” = the grief out of which the letter flowed, Paul’s own pain which was caused him by the Corinthians. This is what he had instead of joy. Mingled with it was his “anxiety” about the Corinthians, namely as to the effect his letter would have on them, whether they would heed him, or whether they would just get angry at his sharp admonitions and perhaps turn completely against him. The word means “a holding together” and thus might mean “anguish” (our versions) and be only a synonym of the preceding “affliction”; but an advance in thought is better (compare v. 12), the pressure of worry regarding the effect of his letter. This is how his heart felt. Διά = “through” and is said often to denote accompanying circumstance. Paul’s tears flowed again and again, and through them he wrote.

Regarding his tears compare Acts 20:19, 31, and Phil. 3:18. We have already (v. 1) said that he was not womanish but was most deeply affected by his work, which filled his whole heart.

In v. 3 he states the purpose regarding his own person, which purpose reacted on the Corinthians; now he speaks about the purpose regarding them directly, first negatively: “not that you might be grieved,” then positively: “but that you might realize the love I have especially toward you.” It is pedantic to take “might not be grieved” in an absolute sense. The Greek regularly omits qualifiers when, as here, the opposites are not entirely exclusive. The plain sense is that when Paul wrote, although he himself was so deeply hurt, so anxious about the Corinthians, wrote even amid many tears, it was not, in fact, could not have been done just to hurt them. His was not a penal letter. To be sure, it hurt, it grieved. Is it pleasant to hear rebuke?

When we are confronted with grave wrong and serious moral conditions, our guilt pains us. Contrition without an inner pang has not yet been invented; the deeper the pang, the truer the contrition. But the grief is never inflicted for its own sake but for what it is to produce, namely amendment. The law is not used except in conjunction with the gospel. The thought is not that the hurt is to be made less by the gospel but is to be healed by the gospel.

The emphatic word in a ἵνα clause is frequently placed before the conjunction; it is so here in the case of τὴνἀγάπην (R. 423): “my love, that you might realize it,” etc. The very grief which Paul had to cause the Corinthians when he wrote to them was a manifestation of his love for them. Only a man who had great love in his heart could have written First Corinthians. Recall its imperishable chapter (the thirteenth) regarding love itself.

The verb means “to know” from actual contact and realization. It is the way in which the loved really know the love that is loving them. It was true that Paul loved the Corinthians “especially” (the comparative adverb is to be taken in this sense). One and one-half years Paul had labored in Corinth, and since his time and his labor as an apostle had to be distributed, this was a long time. His success had been great. The congregation was of vital importance for the whole of Achaia. Special love was rightly devoted to Corinth.

But this was not mere φιλία, the love of affection such as we have for people who are congenial to us, for friends. This was ἀγάπη, the love of understanding and comprehension coupled with corresponding purpose. So God “loved” the world. How could he affectionately embrace the foul, stinking world? He comprehended what the world was and purposed to cleanse it by sending his only-begotten Son. So we are “to love” our enemies. They would strike us in the face if we came to them with affection; but we are to see their state of hate and are to carry out the purpose of freeing them from that state. This, in brief, pictures the New Testament ἀγαπᾶν. It is sometimes conceived as seeing value in the loved object. But such a view is too limited.

The history of the word should also be studied, especially the fact that in the LXX it was still used to designate the lower forms of love, even erotic love. In the New Testament it appears in full glory, pure and high, even when it is used with reference to publicans’ and sinners’ loving their own kind, for its marks are always comprehending intelligence and corresponding purpose. See John 21:15, etc. This is the love that may hurt the beloved in order to bless and to benefit even as Jesus hurt Peter in that loving questioning regarding love.

We take the letter to which Paul refers to be First Corinthians. The critics disagree. They fail to find the tears about which Paul speaks. They catalog the passages where Paul may have and where he could not have shed tears when he was dictating First Corinthians. The view that the whole letter must be dripping with tears, that all of the emotion of the writer must lie revealed on the surface, in fact, that his tears ought to be mentioned in the proper places where he had shed them is unwarranted.

First Corinthians reflects conditions in Corinth that were sad enough to depress any Christian heart, to say nothing about the heart of the apostle who had founded that congregation and whose whole heart was wrapped up in its welfare. There were ugly party divisions that might tear the whole congregation to pieces; unholy pride that is the forerunner of a fall and boasts of wisdom that were sheer folly; the horrible case of incest, and the whole congregation sitting by indifferently, cases of fornication multiplying; litigations of members before heathen judges; a tangle of questions about marriage; eating idol meats no matter how this affected weak brethren. So much of this sort is found already in the first eight chapters. Need we repeat the rest? Even the Lord’s Supper had become well-nigh impossible at Corinth. How much more would need to occur before tears would be wrung from Paul’s eyes? If tears were ever justified, a situation like that prevailing in Corinth justified them.

First Corinthians seeks to bind up the wounds, bruises, and sores. The emotions are restrained in order to perform this difficult and trying task. To fill the letter with cries and exclamations of grief would not heal nor help. It is now, weeks and months afterward, that Paul can speak to the Corinthians about his own heart which was so distressfully bruised at that time and so anxious ever since that time regarding the results of his efforts to right things in Corinth. Do matters in First Corinthians and in Second Corinthians agree? They do.

What is the critics’ view? Sometime after First Corinthians had been written Paul hastened to Corinth in person. He was ill and incompetent, and after disgraceful scenes and personal insults to him hurried back, a defeated man. And when he got back to Ephesus he wrote the so-called Traenenbrief, “tear letter,” whose contents are unknown, but according to another hypothesis thought to consist of 2 Cor. 10 to 13, which was afterward somehow attached to 2 Cor. 1 to 9. We read 2 Cor. 10 to 13 and look for the tears that are thought to be there—and fail to find them.

VI. The Case of Incest Is Closed

2 Corinthians 2:5

5 The worst incident that had occurred in Corinth was the case of incest mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:1, etc. Its worst attending circumstance was the indifference of the congregation; no action whatever had been taken, and thereby the whole congregation showed its low moral tone and thus became partaker of this man’s most grievous sin. We see that Paul was compelled to write in 1 Cor. 5:1, etc.; it was necessary almost to force the congregation into action. He gave it even the formal wording of the resolution by which the guilty man was to be expelled from the congregation (1 Cor. 5:3–5). In order to understand what he now says regarding the case, one should understand just what that resolution contained as it was offered and formulated by Paul, etc. See the author’s exposition in the Interpretation of First Corinthians.

The erroneous ideas held in regard to this case begin with this resolution which was offered by Paul. Hence first of all clearness in this matter must be sought.

When Paul wrote First Corinthians and corrected so many of the gravest faults found in Corinth, the chief questions were: “Will the Corinthians respond? Will they change their evil ways, or will they resent Paul’s letter, repudiate him, cause a terrible division in the whole church, etc.?” The gravity of the situation is often not fully appreciated. In Corinth things were forced to a mighty decision by First Corinthians. It was an either—or; either heed Paul’s letter or repudiate Paul and his letter. Everything hung in the balance, and we can readily imagine Paul’s worry.

Prominent in the critical situation was this frightful case of incest. The real test would in a way be made in regard to this case. It was so prominent, it was also so vicious; it required formal action on the part of the congregation. Paul had written out even the formal resolution which the church should pass. If Paul had failed in this case, if the congregation had voted adversely on the resolution he had asked it to pass, the awful breach would have been made: Corinth would have been lost to the church.

Second Corinthians shows the happy turn which events took. Two facts are clear: the congregation had passed the resolution written out in 1 Cor. 5:3–5 and had expelled the incestuous member; this member had repented most thoroughly. Paul had received this report from Titus. It was vastly more than good news regarding this one case alone, and it should not be considered in this partial light. The acutest issue had yielded to the truth and the right of the gospel; that meant gospel victory as far as the rest of the errors and abuses noted in First Corinthians were concerned. Paul had the brightest prospect that his grief would be completely dissipated.

No wonder he writes as he does. The congregation had not, however, as yet reinstated the repentant member. The details are immaterial. Perhaps the vote of expulsion and the repentance were of recent date. Since this was the first case of so grave a nature, the congregation hesitated to effect too prompt a reinstatement. Whatever these details may have been, Paul now advises the congregation to reinstate the offending member and to do so wholeheartedly.

The treatment of this case under apostolic direction has become classic for the church of all time, the divine guide for all grave cases of church discipline. If the church is to derive guidance from this case, a correct exegesis of 1 Cor. 3:1–5 and of all that Paul says in Second Corinthians is necessary. Some commentators have failed the church although we are happy to say her teachers have stood her in good stead. Regarding the views of the commentators we shall have something to say at the end of our consideration of v. 11.

We now appreciate even the manner in which Paul speaks when he advises the congregation to bring this case to its proper Christian close. He no longer dwells on the grievous sin, does not even name it; he is through with it, thank God. He does not mention the man’s name but writes “such a one” and generalizes; for every such person, not merely just this one person, should be dealt with as Paul has directed and now further directs. Paul eliminates himself from the case; it is one that comes under the jurisdiction of the congregation. He regarded it so at the beginning (1 Cor. 5:3–5) and still regards it so. He guides the congregation, he is not lord of the church (1:24).

Tact and good sense are combined with refinement and considerateness, and these grace the true Christian principles along which the congregational action is directed. Let us appreciate this; all of it lies on the high plane on which the church and all her guides should ever remain.

But if one has been grieving (anybody), not me (alone) has he been grieving but more or less—in order that I may not burden him unduly—you all.

Δέ has its slight adversative sense, to indicate which our “but” serves inadequately. From all that has been said about grief and grieving Paul now turns to this most acute grievous case. The thought is that it alone had grieved Paul; by taking up this case he certainly does not imply that other things in Corinth had not grieved him.

The indefinite τίς has the meaning “one,” not “any” (our versions). “One” merely indicates, “any” generalizes, and a definite person is referred to here, and he is tactfully left unnamed. The perfect “has been grieving (sc. anybody)” or “has been doing any grieving” has no present connotation such as this tense often has but refers to the past, not to one act (aorist), but to an extended period in the past, a period that is now happily closed. The condition of reality regards the case as one that occurred in the past. And it is this person who was guilty of spreading grief.

This is another case in which the Greek οὐ—ἀλλά is not exclusive. Our idiom requires an addition: “not me (alone) has he been grieving.” It is plain that this man did, indeed, grieve also Paul, but primarily he grieved the congregation of which he was a member. This point is rather important. Paul does not occupy a position above the congregation, apostle though he was. All hierarchical notions are far from Paul’s thinking and acting. Throughout the case the primary position belonged to the congregation. It had to pass the resolution that expelled the man (1 Cor. 5:3–5), it had to pass the resolution to reinstate the man (v. 6, 7); Paul could and did only guide the congregation in the matter of these resolutions, he acted and acts only as their συνεργός or helper (1:24), or, we may say, as their διάκονος, “minister.” We at once see the pertinency of the statement which Paul makes regarding himself, for in v. 6, 7 he guides the congregation in what it is now to do since its members are the ones in whose hands the matter lies.

This man’s grieving concerned “you all” primarily so that taking action belonged to the congregation. It was the supreme court to judge the case (under the Lord, of course) and not the apostle or any other of the apostles, not the ministry whether this term be taken as referring to one or to all ministers.

We find much discussion regarding ἀπὸμέρους and regarding the ἵνα clause. There is no need to review all of it. The phrase does not mean that only a part of the congregation had been grieved, for the verb is not passive and thus does not indicate who felt grieved so that Paul implies that some in the congregation, being indifferent, felt no grief. At first, in fact, no one in the whole congregation felt grieved, and Paul had to arouse its members to an understanding of what had been done to all of its members (1 Cor. 5). Despite his efforts all of them were not immediately aroused. Perhaps even now some were still unmoved.

The verb states what the man had done: he has grieved “you all” whether “you all” realize it or not. The phrase “in part” means “more or less,” some felt the grief more, some less, each in some part or to some degree. It is always thus when someone sins against a whole congregation: some are deeply wounded, some less so, some feel scarcely anything. Yet the sinner’s grievous action nonetheless extends to every member, even to the little children. Paul speaks with exactness.

The parenthetical purpose clause obviously states why the phrase is added. By the use of this phrase Paul does not intend to fault a part of the congregation for not having felt the grief deeply enough; he is now not dealing with that feature of the case. He is speaking about what the sinner has done to the membership in Corinth. God knows it was terrible enough. When he now speaks about it Paul says, “I do not want in the least to exaggerate the effect which the sin has had on you Corinthians in regard to the grief now felt by you.”

Ἐπί in the verb intensifies: “to put pressure or a burden upon,” i.e., more than I have to, thus, “to burden unduly.” The Greek needs no object; but the object involved is not the following “you all,” nor can it be drawn from “you all,” which would result in a queer thought. The object implied is the subject of the two main verbs, namely this sinner, “him.” Paul says: “This man grieved you in varying degrees, and I say in varying degrees only in order not to put upon him more blame than is necessary, his guilt is serious enough as it is and as you all know.” Paul keeps a perfect balance in every word he says about this case. He does so although this man’s sin hurt him very much because of the shameful indifference with which the congregation at first treated this sin and this sinner. The more terrible a member’s sin is, the more viciously are some inclined to speak about the sinner and about his deed just as others act and speak with too little concern. Paul does neither.

2 Corinthians 2:6

6 After stating, “You he has grieved, you all!” and once again implying that it was their matter to take all action in the case, Paul states what this action should be and adds its purpose. Sufficient for such a one this penalty (inflicted) by the majority, so that contrariwise you (now) rather forgive him and comfort him lest by any means such a one be swallowed up with his excessive grief. Wherefore I urge you to ratify to him love.

“To such a one” = to the man in question, not because it is he, but as you would deal with any man in a similar case. When Paul worded the indictment against the man in 1 Cor. 5:3–5, he employed a legal form and phraseology. Now he again uses various legal terms. One of these seems to be ἐπιτιμία (found only here in the New Testament) in the sense of penalty. “This penalty by (inflicted by) the majority” (plural comparative) is the one stated in 1 Cor. 5:3–5. It amounted to expulsion from the Christian membership and entailed a loss of all rights of membership.

This resolution which had been formulated by Paul had finally been adopted by the congregation. The result had been of the very best: the sinner had thoroughly repented. Titus had just reported these things to Paul. These, it seems, were the recent developments in Corinth. First Corinthians had been written about Easter time, fall was now approaching. Thus, one may conclude, it had taken some time before this result had been obtained in Corinth. It seems also that the repentant sinner had not as yet been reinstated; Paul is asking that this be now duly done.

It is not amiss to assume that, since Titus was going from Corinth to Paul, the Corinthians had asked him to request Paul to advise them regarding reinstatement, and that Paul therefore instructs the Corinthians as to what to do. Ἱκανόν is neuter although the noun is feminine; this is due to the generalization expressed in “such a one,” the predicate adjective referring not merely to this one case of penalty but abstractly to every such case, B.-D. 131. In view of Acts 17:9, and Mark 15:15 ἱκανόν may also be juridical.

What arrests attention is the fact that Paul writes “by the majority.” The action had evidently not been unanimous. We should, however, note that Paul has nothing to say about the implied minority. Was their dissent innocent, due to absence from the meeting, to timidity in voting, or to hostility to Paul? We cannot say.

2 Corinthians 2:7

7 In what sense “sufficient” is to be understood is now apparent. The desired result of the expulsion has been attained, namely the sinner’s repentance. With ὥστε the result upon the congregation is now stated. There was no need for Paul to insert δεῖν, what “must” or “ought” to be done. Paul states what the normal and the right result is for the Corinthians, and there is no implication of reluctance on their part in regard to accepting this result. Compared with the expulsion, it is an opposite act: “contrariwise,” to which “rather” is added, in which we, however, find no reference to a tension in Corinth but only the preference which Paul thinks the Corinthians would show by taking this opposite action.

And this is: “that you grant him favor (or, as we may translate, ‘forgive’ him) and comfort him,” two effective aorists. They point to one act, namely to a congregational resolution to reinstate the repentant sinner into his forfeited membership. The vote to pardon him will also comfort him. It would, of course, include the discussion that would lead up to that vote and the resultant treatment of the sinner; all would be a mighty comfort.

In 1 Cor. 5:3–5 Paul formulates the resolution for the Corinthians. It was similar to offering a motion in a public meeting; but Paul transmits it in writing since he can be present only in spirit. As things stood in Corinth at that time, Paul had to follow this course. Since things are now more favorable, and the congregation is very willing, it is enough and also very tactful that Paul only state what the result of the repentance is for the church, and that he leave to it the formulation of the motion which it will naturally vote on and pass.

Paul adds what purpose will strongly prompt the Corinthians to take this action: “lest by any means (μήπως) such a one he swallowed up with his excessive grief.” Paul is concerned for this man’s soul. It is beyond the English idiom to reproduce the effect of ὁτοιοῦτος, “such a one,” which is placed at the very end in the Greek and thus voices Paul’s deep sympathy and concern for the repentant sinner.

Nor should we miss this final mention of “grief” in the present section. At one time this sinner was grieving so many with his sin, now he was grieving himself in deep contrition for that sin—a blessed change. And yet he could not be abandoned to this excessive grief lest with or by it “he be swallowed up.” There is no need to debate about the meaning of the figure as to whether it means suicide or this and that. It means to sink into despair no matter how the despair might manifest itself.

It has been asked why Paul says nothing about God’s forgiveness of this man’s sin. Again, it is assumed that Paul is dealing only with the congregation’s forgiveness, with pardon for the great wrong done to the congregation. Both need clarifying. By again receiving the repentant sinner through forgiving and comforting him the congregation did absolve him in God’s name and by that absolution brought and sealed God’s remission to him.

On the other hand, every Christian and thus also every congregation are to forgive a wrong done to them personally at once, the moment it is committed, no matter whether the wrongdoer repents or not, whether he be a church member or a bloody persecutor. Paul is not speaking about this forgiveness; he does so in v. 10 as far as his own person is concerned, which see. He is speaking about reinstating a fallen and repentant church member. This can be done only by formal congregational resolution. And this resolution is in every case equal to pronouncing God’s absolution in God’s own name to the sinner for his sin against God. The sin against the congregation alone was forthwith forgiven irrespective of repentance; but God held this sinner guilty also for wronging the congregation as he held him guilty for his sin in toto, and the congregational reinstatement was thus God’s full and complete absolution.

Who are you, sinner, to hold a sin that is done against you against any sinner? You yourself sin against others daily. Do not place yourself on a level with God! But when, especially as a congregation, we act in God’s name we convey God’s own absolution, but never to any save to the contrite and repentant.

2 Corinthians 2:8

8 Διό, “wherefore” = in order that this purpose may be attained and the repentant sinner preserved from despair Paul urges the Corinthians “to ratify” love to him, κυρῶσαι, a legal term: to ratify by formal decree or vote, M.-M. 366 B.-P. has the correct meaning of this word in the passage Gal. 3:15: a legally ratified will or testament, but in the case of this passage he gives the meaning beschliessen, entscheiden. The sense of the word is the same in both passages. Hence the aorist: the legal ratification of love is to be made “for him” by formal resolution and vote. “Love” is enough (see v. 4): as a man who is repentant, absolved, and reinstated in God’s name all that ἀγάπη includes is now once more his. This “love” is now no more only that with which we love even our enemies but that with which we are able to love our brethren as brethren, 1 Pet. 2:17. As God’s agape is able to bestow vastly more upon his children than it is able to bestow upon the ungodly, so it is in the case of our love to our brethren.

2 Corinthians 2:9

9 With γάρ Paul indicates why he is so free to urge the Corinthians to follow a certain course of conduct in this sinner’s case; Paul has tested them out when he wrote to them to expel the man (1 Cor. 5:3–5), which they also did—although after some delay. For this purpose I also wrote in order that I might get to know the (real) genuineness of you, whether you are (really) obedient in all regards.

Καί is to be construed with “wrote”: “also wrote” the former time as I am now again writing in regard to the same case. Then I wrote and made the test; you proved genuine; and knowing this, I now write again and urge you to take the reverse action toward the sinner. Εἰςτοῦτο = not “for this reason” but “for this purpose,” ἵνα stating what it is. The aorist γνῶ means “get to know, realize, experience,” namely by seeing how you would respond to my letter and to what I bade you to do about this case.

Paul frequently uses δοκιμή and its cognates. This word is derived from the testing of metals, coins, etc., in order to prove their genuineness. The translations try to convey as much of this as is possible, the difficulty being in finding one word which expresses both the facts that a test was made and that the test was successfully passed. Our versions offer “proof,” we venture to offer “genuineness” and to add parenthetically “real”; ὑμῶν is the objective genitive because the Corinthians were proved and found genuine.

The test made in 1 Cor. 5:1, etc., was applied to the Corinthians in regard to this one case; but this was an eminent case that would bring out fully “whether you are (really) obedient in all regards.” Paul wrote about many matters in First Corinthians, any one and all of which were likewise tests. Because it was such an acute, definite case, the case of incest was one which probed and tested the obedience of the Corinthians most completely. If they passed this test—and they finally did—they proved that they would be equally obedient in other and lesser cases.

Let us note that Paul here acknowledges the genuineness of the Corinthian congregation in an unobtrusive way. We should remember how anxious he had been regarding the tests to which he had to put the Corinthians, in particular also regarding this most decisive test (v. 13). What a relief it was to find that they were genuine! So the implication is that in regard to what he now bids the Corinthians do he is fully assured that they will again respond. We feel that saying what he does, and saying it in this telling way, will surely move the Corinthians the more obediently to respond to Paul’s bidding, both in now absolving the repentant sinner and in carrying out whatever else Paul may ask.

Some have thought that this question is one regarding Paul’s personal apostolic authority and obedience to that. Others say that he held back his apostolic authority until this point of his letter was reached and did not assert it until this point; or that he advocated congregational autonomy in the present case only for diplomatic reasons while his aim in reality was unquestioning, blind obedience in every respect. Paul is also said to be klug (sagacious) for speaking about a “proof” when “conversion” would be the proper word.

But the only apostolic authority that existed was that which had been delegated by Christ. No apostle and no apostolic church knew of any other, obeyed any other. In 1 Cor. 5:4, where the formulation of the resolution which was submitted to the Corinthians by Paul is given after the preamble stated in v. 3, there follows: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” To that authority Paul bowed, to that he asked the Corinthians to bow. “Obedient in all respects” = to Christ in all things. An apostolic hierarchy never existed.

This shows that each congregation is autonomous but that it is ever under Christ when it is exercising its autonomy. Expulsion and reinstatement, the ban and absolution are powers conveyed to the congregation by Christ (Matt. 18:17). Paul treats the congregation accordingly. Matt. 18:18, and John 20:23 do not make apostles or ministers “lords” (1:24) of the church, they are given to the church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 3:11), their office is granted to the church in order to show what Christ’s authority is and conveys to the church so that the church may exercise it under Christ’s guidance through the holy office. Finally, to find fault with Paul for speaking about genuineness and its testing is to deny the facts of both epistles, which present an ἐκκλησία of God (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) that has faults, indeed, but proves itself a church nonetheless by allowing itself to be cleansed of its faults.

2 Corinthians 2:10

10 When Paul formulated the resolution regarding the expulsion of the sinner, which was submitted by him for adoption by the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:3–5), he wrote as being present with them in spirit and as thus voting with them, so now in the matter of voting the absolution of the repentant sinner Paul again joins the congregation and once more votes with it. He does not in this instance (as he did in 1 Cor. 5:3–5) formulate the motion, he only indicates its contents. Being absent in body, he, as it were, submits his vote for forgiveness in writing with the assurance that the vote of the congregation will be unanimous or practically so. Moreover, to whom you forgive anything, also I on my part (forgive).

Δέ adds this casting of Paul’s vote. “To whom” and “anything” are general as are the two “such a one” in v. 6, 7. These indefinite terms thus cover the case in question. But they cover far more, for they show that Paul now has such confidence in the congregation that he votes with it in the case of whomever it may absolve for whatever sin. The implication is that the congregation, which is now awake to its obligation under Christ, need not wait and first submit each case to the apostle before voting reinstatement. It seems to have done this in the case that was pending.

Let us note that the action is one of the congregation alone, of course under Christ; it is not that of an individual apart from the congregation, be he an apostle, a general officer of a church body, or a pastor. As being a part of the church these may advise and direct, but they can do no more. It is the church that acts. It expels, it forgives and reinstates under Christ.

In the present case Paul was, however, personally involved. This case had also caused him grief, not indeed directly, but indirectly, namely through the previous indifference of the Corinthian congregation which took action only after Paul had coerced it to do so. Note the explanation in regard to Paul’s grief in v. 5. Paul now adds (καί) what he has long ago done in regard to the grief which this sinner had caused him personally. Paul had at once forgiven the man. See the explanation of this point in connection with v. 7. For also I on my part, what I have forgiven (this long while, perfect tense), if (indeed) I have had anything to forgive, on account of you (have I forgiven it) in the presence of Christ in order that we may not be taken advantage of by Satan; for, etc.

Paul had done what every Christian should do. He had at once forgiven this sinner the hurt which he had caused him and now tells the congregation so. That injury done to Paul was forgiven by Paul from the very beginning. Paul, indeed, felt the injury throughout, but only as one that was wholly forgiven. Paul has not been withholding his personal forgiveness until the sinner who had offended him should repent. The Corinthians are not to think that, before they may reinstate the man, he must first beg Paul’s pardon. The man has always had Paul’s personal pardon. How the man stood in the sight of God is another matter, one between himself and God. Paul’s soul was innocent, he had never harbored resentment, he had prayed the Lord’s Prayer aright.

In this spirit Paul speaks about his hurt as he does: “what I have forgiven, if I have (really) forgiven anything,” i.e., if, indeed, I have had anything to forgive. The man’s sin was not committed against Paul directly; Paul had very likely not as yet met the man. We know how the grief had come to Paul, namely indirectly. Therefore Paul says: “In a way I had nothing to forgive him; he involved me only distantly and in that way hurt me; he probably never realized that I, too, would be hurt.” This is perfect fairness on the part of Paul in his personal feelings toward the man.

We need not discuss other views of the commentators who think that Paul’s forgiveness has been conditional; or that he is now willing to forgive provided the Corinthians are; and the like. Paul says “what we read” (1:13) and not something else.

“On your account in the presence of Christ” is to be construed with the purpose clause: “in order that we (namely you Corinthians and I) may not be taken advantage of by Satan.” If it were not for the fact of Paul’s connection with the Corinthians, sin and a crime committed by a member in the Corinthian church would have had no effect upon him, would probably not even have come to his ears, and, even if he had heard about it, would not have caused a grief and a hurt that called for personal forgiveness on the part of Paul. But since Paul was connected with and thus bound up with the Corinthians, this fact made his grief regarding this man’s sin what is was and thus also necessitated Paul’s personal forgiveness. It concerned the Corinthians, could not but concern them. Paul’s forgiveness of the man was automatically “on account of you” Corinthians. How it was this on account of them the ἵνα clause shows. “In the presence of Christ” neither marks the sincerity of Paul’s forgiveness nor names Christ as a witness of the forgiveness; nor is this phrase a sort of oath. It modifies “on account of you.” Paul’s relation to the Corinthians was “in the presence or in the sight of Christ.” Christ had made him the apostle who founded the Corinthian church, who had thus bound them and him together.

2 Corinthians 2:11

11 And now we see what this sinner’s sin might have done to this relation between the apostle and the congregation of his founding. Satan was seeking greater game than the soul of that one sinner. Satan’s schemes (his νοήματα or “devices,” the word is used in an evil sense) were to alienate the Corinthians from Paul. He intended to turn Paul against them by means of the injury that had been caused to Paul personally and to turn them against Paul by means of what Paul would be compelled to demand of the Corinthians, namely that they take proper congregational action against this sinner. Satan saw a double opportunity for making his schemes succeed, for “getting the advantage” of Paul and of the Corinthians. He hoped to frustrate the whole blessed work that had been done in Corinth and to deliver a stunning blow to Paul. These evil results would spread to even other congregations.

As far as his own person and the personal hurt he had suffered were concerned, Paul at once forgave the sinner. No wrong reaction came into Paul’s heart for even a moment. He wrote First Corinthians without so much as a trace of bitterness regarding this sinner. His main concern was for the Corinthians themselves, that as “in the presence of Christ” he might lead them, too, not to play into Satan’s hands, for they might have easily done so. Satan, no doubt, counted chiefly on them for the success of his “devices.” Would the Corinthians, too, as “in the presence of Christ” act properly as Paul bade them? This it was that brought such worry to Paul (v. 13) throughout those long weeks of waiting to learn what effect his epistle had had in Corinth.

It had the right effect. Satan’s devices had been frustrated. Even the sinner had been snatched from him. The “we” of the verbs are perfectly plain; they refer to Paul and the Corinthians. And Paul can say: “We are not ignorant of his devices,” since the Corinthians, too, had seen through them and had helped to frustrate them.

Luther translated: Das vergebe ich um euretwillen an Christus statt, see also A. V., v. 10. This has led to a wrong application of our passage as though it proved that, when a minister pronounces absolution, he does so an Christus statt, in Christ’s place. This phrase does not have that meaning. Paul is not speaking about the absolution that is pronounced by a pastor in the name of Christ, in this clause and phrase he is speaking only about the personal forgiving that took place in his own heart. Let us add that v. 10, 11 have been misunderstood in various ways. Public absolution and Paul’s private, personal forgiving are often confused.

We are now ready for a word regarding the question as to whether Paul speaks about the case of incest that is known to us from 1 Cor. 5. Every detail of our paragraph (v. 5–11) not only corresponds with that case but cannot be understood if that case is not referred to. If 2 Cor. 2:5–11 does not speak about the case mentioned in 1 Cor. 5, we must invent a duplicate of that case (save only that it need not be a case of incest) which would otherwise have the same characteristics. The critics do that. They disregard 1 Cor. 5 and set up a hypothetical case that fits 2 Cor. 2:5–7 plus 7:12. The results have been confusing.

Paul himself has made it impossible to substitute a hypothetical case. He does it in the simplest way by writing in such a manner that, unless one is acquainted with the actual case (1 Cor. 5), one cannot understand a number of the expressions which he employs in v. 5–11. First Corinthians 5 is so completely the key to 2 Cor. 2:5–11 that, when this key is disregarded, the door remains locked.

VII. Thanks and Triumph

2 Corinthians 2:12

12 Verses 12–17 form a paragraph; we do not divide at v. 14. The success of First Corinthians and of the mission of Titus to Corinth found their climax in what the Corinthians did in regard to the case of incest and were now ready to do since the sinner had repented. Paul’s worry about the Corinthians after writing First Corinthians and dispatching Titus had centered in this case as being the real test for the Corinthians (v. 9). So now after the Corinthians are obedient in this gravest matter, after Paul has been able to tell them how to proceed to reinstate the sinner (v. 5–11), what is more natural than to tell the Corinthians how he had worried, how he had gone forward to Macedonia to hasten his meeting with Titus, how he thanked God when Titus came with the good news from Corinth, how he felt triumphant and yet attributed all the success and the triumph to God, he and his assistants ever holding to God’s word in Christ?

Δέ makes the natural transition. Now having: come to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door having been opened for me in the Lord, I have had no relief for my spirit because I did not find Titus, my brother, but after taking my leave of them I went forth into Macedonia.

The picture of what transpired in Paul’s spirit during the anxious wait for the return of Titus from Corinth is realistic in every way. According to the plan projected in 1 Cor. 16:5 Paul had come from Ephesus as far as Troas in order to go on from there to Macedonia and finally to Corinth. The tour was not rapid, work was to be done along the way. On arriving at Troas, Paul expected to find Titus there. We see that he had sent Titus to Corinth long enough before that so that Titus might have returned with a full report about conditions in Corinth. We see that Troas had been agreed upon as the place of meeting.

But when Paul arrived there, Titus had not come, and no news had been sent by him. One can imagine Paul’s feelings. Had the worst happened at Corinth? Was Titus detained in Corinth because nothing had as yet been achieved? We have seen, not only that Paul’s very soul was in his work, but also what the great troubles and dangers in Corinth meant to him and to his work. See v. 11 regarding Satan’s devices.

Paul found no rest in Troas, he resolved to wait there no longer but to go into Macedonia, hoping thus the sooner to be joined by Titus and to get the news that, whether good or bad, meant so much and would end his uncertainty.

As far as the history of these experiences is concerned, we need not raise questions such as that, in sailing from Troas to Neapolis, Paul might have passed Titus who was sailing in the other direction and such as failing to meet Titus in Macedonia. Give these men credit for as much sagacity as we should use under like circumstances. When Titus was sent, exact routes were planned, eventualities were provided for in advance so that, if Troas could not be the meeting place, the two would meet elsewhere. As far as sailing past each other is concerned, it was an easy matter to send a messenger ahead in time to detain Titus in Neapolis, Paul’s leaving Troas being timed accordingly. So it came about that Titus joined Paul in Macedonia (7:13); we do not know in what city they met. Here is our evidence that Second Corinthians was written in Macedonia.

Paul is describing only his great anxiety and is not dispensing general information. He intended to stop in Troas “for the gospel of Christ,” in its interest, εἰς denoting aim or purpose, R. 595. “Gospel” means “gospel,” the message; there is no need to introduce the idea of “gospeling.” The fact that the gospel is always preached is understood. The statement is made that Paul came to Troas for this purpose; then, after he arrived there, he found a door standing wide open for him (perfect tense) which invited him to enter, i.e., a favorable and a promising opportunity for success. “In the Lord,” a phrase that is used so often by Paul, has no mystical sense here. Since it is connected with the standing open of the door it conveys only the idea that this favorable opportunity was connected with the Lord without stating just what the connection was. It was thus not an accidental opportunity. “Lord” needs no article, Κύριος is used as a proper noun.

Combining Acts 16:8, etc., with what Paul now states, we cannot agree that a church had already been established in Troas but conclude that a good opportunity was now offering itself. This occurred in the fall. Acts 20:6, etc., shows that a church had been founded in Troas before the next spring. Did Paul return from his meeting with Titus in Macedonia and enter the open door and found the church at Troas? It seems that he did although we have no information beyond the data stated save the perfect participle “having been opened (and thus continuing to stand open) in the Lord.” Paul, too, was not the man to leave such an open door without entering it.

2 Corinthians 2:13

13 A good deal is implied in the fact that, after not finding Titus at Troas, Paul was so anxious that he passed that open door and hurried on into Macedonia. The dative infinitive (the only one in the New Testament that does not have a preposition) expresses cause (R. 966; B.-D. 401; 406, 3): “because I did not find,” etc. Ἔσχηκα is a perfect, yet not one that is used in place of an aorist (B.-D. 343, 2) but a true perfect that describes the past continuation of his anxiety to the point when he at last found Titus. The aorist would not have shown this continuation, and the imperfect would not have indicated that it ceased (R. 901). Ἄνεσις = relaxing, and “for my spirit” is the dativus commodi. The tension for Paul’s spirit was not relaxed. It is put negatively, but we may well say that the expression is like a litotes: the tension was increased. It soon grew so strong that Paul took leave of Troas and hurried into Macedonia.

Here we have the full revelation of Paul’s anxiety regarding the outcome of affairs in Corinth. It drove him past that inviting, open door in Troas; it speeded him on into Macedonia to meet Titus at the earliest possible moment. Are we disappointed in not meeting a cool, calm, self-assured apostle, a spirit that nothing could perturb? Do we think that this would be the ideal Christian spirit? We shall have to revise our ideal. Stoics are thus insensible.

Paul shed tears, felt grief, was in anxious tension, confesses it in v. 4 and here; let that comfort us. But all of this emotion concerned not his own person or his earthly welfare, it concerned the church. Ah, there is the point! Sad and dangerous conditions and situations in the church—do they draw tears, prayers, anxiety from our hearts?

Paul calls Titus, not “the brother,” but “my brother.” The connection leads us to think of Paul and Titus as two brothers who are deeply concerned about the same thing, and that one would not leave the other without information any longer than was absolutely necessary. We have another touch like this. Paul does not say only that he left Troas but that he left it “after taking my leave of them” (“them” is used ad sensum). This refers to the open door, to people who wanted Paul to stay, to work auspiciously begun in Troas. If we may read between the lines we think of Paul returning after his meeting with Titus, of his fully entering that open door, Timothy (1:1) at least, if not others, assisting him.

2 Corinthians 2:14

14 Now we see the relaxing that came at last. It is expressed in a jubilant way. But to God thanks, to him who always causes us to triumph in Christ and who makes manifest the odor of the knowledge of him by means of us in every place!

A new paragraph, some say section, does not begin here; nor is Paul introducing a digression which some make long, others longer. In v. 12, 13 Paul says: “So anxious have I been”; he now adds: “So grateful am I now,” and two such statements are not divided between two paragraphs. But he now changes to “we.” He and his assistants share this joy and this gratitude, and they do so because of their office and their work. This is apostolic jubilation. Therefore it means so much to the Corinthians even as Paul also writes to them about it.

More than this. The victory which is being celebrated is the one that was just secured in Corinth. Paul sees Titus returning, and he, Paul, and Timothy are in a triumphal procession. Still more—Paul’s view—which is always comprehensive—sees all of their victories: “always—in every place,” the latest which occurred in Corinth being ranged among them, others are still to come as note the one in immediate prospect in Troas. What a grand triumphal procession! No; this is not a digression. How could Paul digress regarding the office of the ministry when it is here impossible to celebrate anything else?

We see, too, why he was so anxious. Was the great line of victories now to be marred at Corinth when a new one was ready to fall to his lot in Troas? All of those many previous victories increased the anxiety about the outcome of the battle that was pending in Corinth. And so that anxiety about Corinth now increases the joy of the triumphal procession which is now in Paul’s mind since Titus has come with the great news of victory on the field at Corinth where Satan had staged a dangerous countercampaign.

The figure of a commander and his generals celebrating a grand triumphal procession is most apt. All that history tells us about these old Roman triumphs which were granted to a successful commander by the emperor is brought to mind by the first distinctive term employed by Paul: ὁθριαμβεύων. He extends the imagery when he adds the words about the odor, for in these triumphal processions flowers were strewn, vessels burning incense were carried. That was sweet odor for the victors, but for the vanquished, who marched as captives in the procession, it meant execution at the end of the march. The entire imagery is magnificent.

Regarding the meaning of θριαμβεύω in Col. 2:15 see that passage. There is some discussion as to whether this verb can here mean “cause us to triumph,” a meaning that has not as yet been found elsewhere although we have the analogy of other verbs in -εύω which mean “cause to” do or be something, viz., μαθητεύω, “cause to be a disciple.” Aside from its reference to emasculations, when this verb has a personal object, the meaning is “to lead the vanquished in a triumphal procession,” and some commentators introduce that meaning here: God leads Paul and his assistants as vanquished. But such captives were executed after the triumph was over. None of the softened meanings such as “to lead about publicly” are satisfactory. Criminals were thus made a spectacle. With the remark: “Picture here is of Paul as captive in God’s triumphal procession,” R’s W. P. contradicts his Grammar 474.

There is no need to hesitate and to think of an impossible figure. God is conceived as the great emperor who grants to Paul, the commander, and to his generals, Paul’s assistants, the high honor of a triumphal procession. And this one exceeds any that was ever granted by a human emperor, for the participle is present and durative and is modified by the adverb “always.” Paul pictures the apostolic success from beginning to end as such a triumphal passage.

The fact that it is ἐνΧριστῷ, “in union or in connection with Christ” (see Rom. 6:11), is added although this is self-evident because Paul and his assistants are triumphing only in union with Christ. It is a strange idea to think of God or of Christ as the triumpher. The picture presents Paul and his helpers bowing before God for according them the high honor of the triumph. We should not overlook: “To God thanks!” What captives in a Roman triumph ever thanked their captor for leading them on display and to execution?

The companion figure is also taken from a triumph: “and who makes manifest the odor of the knowledge of him (Christ, objective genitive) by means of us in every place.” The odor is the knowledge (appositional genitive, R. 498), and the genitive adds the reality to the figure in order to interpret it. Hence the participle is made to agree with both the figure and the reality: “making manifest,” again durative. In military triumphs garlands and flowers and much incense furnished the odor. Even the pagan temples were filled with it. Paul compared the knowledge of Christ to such an odor of triumph. “In every place” whither the preachers of this knowledge come its blessed odor is spread. Paul thus combines “in every place” with “everywhere,” and “by means of us” once more points to the high victors.

2 Corinthians 2:15

15 Boldly and in triumphant tone Paul advances the figure of the odor. Because Christ’s sweet odor are we for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an odor from death for death, to the other an oder from life for life.

The fact that the figure is changed is made very plain in two ways. In v. 14 the odor = the knowledge, and it spreads “through us,” the preachers being the media just as the victorious commander and his generals cause the garlands, the flowers, and the incense to waft an odor along their course. Now the preachers themselves are the “sweet or pleasant odor,” and this is Christ’s (genitive of possession or of source), offered to God by Christ as a sacrifice much as Paul speaks about Christ in Eph. 5:2. The difference is that in Eph. 5:2 the odor is due to the sacrifice upon the cross while it is here due to the gospel which Christ’s preachers preach among men. In Phil. 4:18 there is a different thought. The main thought is obscured by those who think of the Christian conduct and character of Paul and his assistants and then make the application that all Christians ought also to be Christ’s sweet odor for God. The thought concerns only preachers, their being genuine, never chaffering or bargaining with the Word of God (v. 17), and inserting a little malodor of error.

Such a sweet odor Paul and his helpers are “among those being saved” and also “among those perishing,” both are substantivized present participles: “those in process of being saved by Christ, grace, and the gospel; those in process of perishing in spite of Christ,” etc. The thought is important: one participle is passive, for the Savior saves them; the other is active, for they are perishing by their own action. Neither is complete (present): those being saved may turn from their Savior and perish; those in the way of perishing may be reached by the Savior whom they are spurning. But the preachers are the same among both, the same sweet odor of Christ and the gospel Word comes from their lips.

2 Corinthians 2:16

16 With οἷςμέν—οἷςδέ both the power and the effect of this odor in the case of each class is tersely stated. The evidence of the manuscripts is in favor of retaining the two ἐκ; nor is anything gained, as far as the meaning is concerned, by cancelling them, for the genitives that are then left would have practically the same sense, and one that would vary only according to the conception of the genitives as to whether they are genitives of source, of quality, or of possession. What some regard as a difficulty will always remain a difficulty, namely how Christ’s sweet odor for God can at one and the same time be for some “an odor from death for death,” and for others “an odor from life for life.

The view that the two nouns “death” and “life” are repeated merely for the sake of emphasis, and that the function of the prepositions is to make possible this repetition, is untenable. It is because Christ is Christ, grace is grace, true gospel preachers preach only Christ’s gospel, namely that we are saved by Christ alone, that this odor, which is so sweet for God, so full of life because of its very source, namely Christ, the Life, and so effective for life to all who believe, is and in its very nature must be the very opposite for all who do not believe. Since there is only one power and one source of life, when that is spurned it becomes for those who do spurn it a power and a source of death. This only appears to be an anomaly or a paradox; it is no more so than any positive and negative are.

Note the chiasm: those being saved and those perishing—the one (the latter), the other (the former). The analogy that certain odors destroy certain creatures while they delight other creatures, is really not an analogy, for in their original condition men are all alike. Nor is the thought correct that one class of men make Christ life for themselves while others make him death for themselves. He is what he is apart from all of us. So are his preachers through whom he operates. What is said regarding him and regarding them is also said by Paul concerning the law in Rom. 7:7, etc.

Always good and holy and divine in itself, the law, nevertheless, and because it is thus, slays. The law, however, never makes alive, and in this it differs from the good, holy, divine gospel, which does bestow life while it also kills. Mark 16:16 states how it does both. Beyond that statement no human mind has ever penetrated.

Although the mystery lies in the human will, we never penetrate to the bottom of it. It is not a question as to how some are saved; Christ is the plain answer to that; it is the fact that others reject him, draw death from him, refuse the life he brings them. Determinism is as incorrect an answer as are Pelagianism and synergism, neither of which exists in actuality. No explanation is possible because the rejection is an unreasonable, we might even say insane, act, and no reasonable explanation can be given for what is unreasonable, not even by those who do the unreasonable act.

With a sudden turn Paul asks: And for these things who (is) sufficient? “Who” is placed after the phrase. The mind is to dwell on “these things,” so mighty, saving many from death for life, sending many to death by death, making this tremendous division among men. Then two incisive words bring the startling question: “Who (is) sufficient?” The answer is not: “Christ.” Paul is speaking about God’s preachers. While “who” is singular it refers to preachers. The question calls on the Corinthians most closely to examine all who come to them as preachers and to weigh them as to their sufficiency. Paul demands that he and his helpers be thus weighed.

Others had broken into the church at Corinth, and Paul will reckon fully with them. Here is his first crushing blow. If it were not for them, the present question would not be needed. The test which is to be applied to Paul and to his helpers must be applied equally to these false preachers.

2 Corinthians 2:17

17 “For” = I ask this vital question for the following reason. For we are not as the many, haggling over the Word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, in the presence of God in Christ we do speak.

The answer to the question asked in v. 16 is not to be negative: “No one is sufficient.” In that case the question would have been worded: “Who is sufficient of himself?” and the answer would be: “God supplies the sufficiency.” All this is presupposed. We see that God has supplied his sufficiency to Paul and to his helpers. False men, who deny it, have entered Corinth. They claim this sufficiency for themselves and intend to oust Paul, to destroy his work, to capture the Corinthians for themselves. Paul places himself and his helpers beside these false apostles and shows the Corinthians the glaring contrast: “Not are we like the many,” etc., a gulf lies between them and us. “The many” includes the whole class. We do not think that Paul intended to indicate that all of them were busy in Corinth, but that quite a number were running around in the churches, some of whom had come also to Corinth.

Compared with Paul and his few assistants, they were a crowd. When did the devil ever lack tools?

“The many” is significant. So many Christians are still impressed by numbers. “All these other preachers say so, teach so, do so, etc.!” That convinces the superficial, they look no farther. The true preachers are so often rejected simply because they are few in number. In this world of sin truth is often in the minority. Paul lifts out the distinguishing mark of the many and contrasts it strongly by using two ἀλλάὡς with the distinguishing marks of the true preachers.

He certainly chose a telling word when he describes the many as καπηλεύοντεςτὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ. A κάπηλος is a huckster, which is suggestive in a number of directions. He peddles cheap wares, he haggles about the price, he is known to cheat because he does not expect to return, he is out for his own personal gain. The ancient hucksters, for instance, peddled wine and adulterated it so that the verb that is derived from this noun came to mean adulterating wine, food, and the like. Philosophers used it a few times in characterizing the sophists as spurious philosophers; Paul is thought to adopt this use here. “Huckstering” is too common for such a restriction; Paul is not speaking philosophically to philosophers. He is using a word which everybody understands, a homely figure. Nor does οἱπολλοί refer to the common herd, the uneducated crowd upon whom the educated look with disdain.

We now see how we get the various translations: “which corrupt the Word of God” (A. V.), and “deal deceitfully with” (margin); “making merchandise of the Word of God” (R. V. margin). The Germans use verschachern, which is more apt because of its reminder of the Jew peddler. Probably, since the object is “the Word of God,” “haggling over” is the idea, “chaffering with.” They try to get what price they can and shape the Word of God accordingly. The genuine Word calls for contrition, faith, obedience.

These hucksters take far less and, of course, make the Word less so as to match the price they take. They dicker and offer “something just as good,” yea, “something far superior” and at a far lower price. How attractive to the buyer! They turn from the real Word, scorn it, are happy with the far better substitute; it costs so much less. So they sell the Word minus inspiration or say that it was inspired only as Shakespeare was inspired under the plea that “now the Bible is understood far better, and means ever so much more to us.”

Who has not heard this huckster line of talk? They sell a Bible that has only the human Christ, a great “personality” but minus deity, not the bloody Christ who died as our substitute; a Christ whose righteousness is not imputed to us, who only inspires us to live more righteously by emulating his example. It is a far better Bible, for it is emptied of hell and the devil and damnation, of total human depravity and all such low views, and it is embellished with the universal Fatherhood of God and universal sonship, and that is all that one needs to believe. And certainly the price is so very cheap! Others huckster about this or that doctrine or group of doctrines, and they, too, sell, oh, so reasonably! But in the end the cheap diamonds turn out to be—glass!

When we are interpreting we should let what Paul says about himself and his assistants shed light on what he says about “the many” as hucksters. It has been well said that we should read slowly and pause for each item, each being so weighty. Both ἐκ phrases state the source, the one subjective, the other objective. Each has ὡς, not in the sense of “as it were,” but in the sense of “as indeed.”

“But as from sincerity” recalls 1:12 and states one opposite of huckstering and dickering about the Word. It surely requires complete sincerity and honesty to preach the real Word, which is not only life for some but also death for others. Could one chaffer about that? Could one be satisfied with less than true contrition, faith, obedience?

But are not false teachers just as sincere in their wrong dealings and doctrines? One answer is that godly sincerity is coupled with what follows. And that uncovers the other answer. The two sincerities may look alike, yet their sources differ. God never makes sincere in any wrong act, course, or dealing; all such sincerity is self-made. Often, too, it is only sincerity on the surface, for not a few of these many are ready to shift to another view when they see that it is advantageous to do so, when the public seems to want something else.

When a true preacher makes a shift like that he demonstrates that he has lost his former true sincerity. This happens too often. Temptation is great and constant. Why not follow “the many”? To hold out in the old sincerity and to suffer accordingly do not seem to pay. No wonder that a book appeared with the title: Kann auch ein Pastor selig werden?

Claim not Paul’s sincerity of soul too hastily for yourself!

The repetition of ἀλλʼ ὡς is impressive. Although each ἐκ is made to stand out separately, the two are never separate. No man can speak “as from God” without sincerity; and no man speaks “as from sincerity” unless he speaks also from God. To speak from God = as actually sent and commissioned by him and thus also as his mouthpiece. For this reason we have λαλοῦμεν, which means only “we make utterance” as one who lends mouth, lips, tongue, voice wholly to God so that he may use them. No man ever spoke “as indeed from God” unless he uttered God’s own Word in truth and verity. Acts 20:20, 21, 27.

Even to this Paul adds: “in the presence of God in (in connection with) Christ,” with his eyes resting upon us, he hearing our every utterance. The phrase recalls the pronouncement of Christ that we shall at last stand (Matt. 12:36) before God’s judgment seat to give an account of every word we have spoken. In 12:19 as well as here we must combine “in the presence of God in Christ” and not, as is often done: “we speak (for one thing) in the presence of God and (for another) in connection with Christ” (we and our speaking being joined to him). If this were the intention, “in Christ” should follow the verb. Paul conceives his standing in God’s presence as itself being connected with Christ. As he looks up and sees the witness to his speaking, namely God, it is “in Christ” that he sees him, i.e., as his gracious God.

This is the God who commissioned him with his Word even as the center and the circumference of that Word are Christ. Here is the source of the sincerity that fills his soul, the impossibility of his dealing with that Word like a haggling, dickering huckster.

So little is all this a digression that its pertinency lies on the surface. Paul tells the Corinthians how he has dealt with them in regard to the Word. Many of them had not liked it, and other teachers had come in who were only too ready to deal otherwise, we might say, tried to undersell him. Now was the time to say these things. It was the hour of victory after what had threatened to be a serious defeat (v. 12–14). Thanks to God who had bestowed the triumph!

The hucksters had not succeeded, the true ministers of God had won. And the Corinthians were to see that as such true ministers God had helped them to win in Corinth, and what a calamity it would have been, nothing less than defeating God’s true servants, if because of folly on the part of the Corinthians they had not won. For when these ministers spoke to the Corinthians, these Corinthians, too, were “in the presence of God in Christ.” We need not add the strong applications that offer themselves in regard to ministers and congregations of today, such as huckster and such as are true, such as heed the spurious sales talk and such as spurn it.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

W. P Word Pictures in the New Testament, by Archibald Thomas Robertson. Vol. IV.