2 Corinthians 7
LenskiCHAPTER VII
XXI. “Died Together and Living Together”
2 Corinthians 7:1
1 We attach v. 1 to the preceding chapter.
2 Corinthians 7:2
2 With the call: Make room for us! Paul repeats 6:13: “Do you also in reciprocity expand wide!” But “make room for us” connects also with 6:14, etc., not to be yoked up heterogeneously with people from whom they ought to keep entirely aloof. These go together as do positive and negative. Note the distinction which is so characteristic of Paul: in 6:14 the Corinthians are not to put their necks under the yoke of unbelievers; now, however, Paul does not add: “Put your necks under our yoke, come and join us!” No; he delicately states it the other way: “Make room for us—let us come to you, be received in your hearts!” Paul assumes that the Corinthians repudiate the foreign yoke, shun the stain of flesh and spirit which he has pointed out (v. 1). So the Corinthians will, indeed, make room, most expansive room in their hearts for him and for his fellow workers. “Make room” is not said with a doubt on Paul’s part but with the assurance that the Corinthians will answer: “We certainly will!”
With the same assurance Paul adds: To no one did we do injustice; no one did we damage; of no one did we take advantage. He knows the Corinthians will respond: “We know it—you did not.” Note the asyndeton, the object placed forward for emphasis; the aorists to express the simple facts (the English would prefer perfects: “no one have we done injustice,” etc.). These are not charges that had been made against Paul and his assistants in Corinth; Paul refers to feelings and thoughts that some of the Corinthians may have cherished during the recent past, while his opponents tried to undermine his influence in Corinth. In particular these statements refer also to the case of incest in Corinth (1 Cor. 5), to Paul’s orders regarding action in that case, and to what Timothy and Titus had done in Corinth in supporting those orders. As in this case, so in all that Paul had written in First Corinthians and in all that his messengers had done the Corinthians, Paul was convinced, now saw that Paul, Timothy, and Titus had done no injustice to anyone, had damaged no one, had taken advantage of no one. Paul again uses the rhetorical three.
The assurance with which Paul states this he has derived from the report that Titus has just brought to him. The first verb means that no one has suffered injustice or wrong at our hands; the second, that as a result no one has experienced damage at our hands, anything that corrupts or destroys him in his faith; the third, that Paul as an apostle, Timothy and Titus as Paul’s assistants, in no way took advantage of the congregation or of any person in it since these were only simple Christians and ordinary church members.
Alas, these things have often been done by preachers and by high church officials who have domineered, overriden, tyrannized congregations and church members like κύριοι instead of being συνεργοί (1:24). We get the full force of these three statements when we keep in mind all that Paul has already written about the way in which he and his assistants conduct their office and reveal all their inmost motives and purposes, how their one aim is always “you—you”: “all these things because of you” (4:15), your joy (1:24), abounding grace, a greater volume of thanks for God’s glory (4:15).
None of these three statements should be considered apart from the connection in which Paul utters them. They are not self-defense, not self-justification, and certainly not a touch of “joking self-irony.” Even to mention such a thing as taking financial advantage of any of the Corinthians is unfair to Paul.
2 Corinthians 7:3
3 When Paul adds: I am not saying (this) by way of condemnation, he guards against an assumption of a wrong implication as though he is now in a covert way condemning anyone for having thought evil things about him and his assistants. Nothing is farther from his mind. Why, he is right here asking the Corinthians to make room for them in their hearts, to make room because the Corinthians know that Paul and his assistants have been full of the purest devotion to their true spiritual interests.
So he adds: for I have just said that you are in our hearts so that (you and we) died together and are living together. Προείρηκα, “I have said before” = “I have just said,” namely in 4:10–15; and what I have said thus stands. Paul dictates for both himself and Timothy (1:1) and hence uses the singular. Paul lays stress on the strongest expression that he has thus far employed in order to indicate his feeling toward the Corinthians and to designate the bond that unites them. “You are in our hearts”—how could we ever think of doing any of you a wrong or damage or seek advantage of you? “In our hearts” = in the bosom of our love—how could we thus now utter covert accusation or condemnation? We see how penetrating Paul’s mind is, how he anticipates even unfair assumptions in regard to his meaning and removes them.
The εἰςτό with its two infinitives denotes result, the more so since one is an aorist and the other a present tense. When the subject of an infinitive is not written out, the subject is the same as that of the main clause: here: “so that you died and are living together with us,” i.e., you and we are having the same experience. The meaning is not that we are joined to you in this experience, but that you are joined to us, in whose hearts you are. By expressing this in regard to the Corinthians, Paul recalls all their blessed experience to them and thereby draws them into his heart. One marvels at Paul when one notes how he thus brings the strongest appeals to bear upon his readers. Censoriousness does not draw, love does.
And Paul’s love never strikes a wrong note. Having died and sharing the same life, this is union and fellowship indeed!
It is not difficult to see the difference between this and being yoked together with unbelievers, under a yoke that is alien to Christians (6:14). Yet we are told that 6:14–7:1 does not harmonize with 7:2–4. The harmony is perfect; the expressions used in each section shed light on each other. The wrong fellowship Paul can describe only as a being harnessed to an alien yoke like a clean beast (ox) with an unclean (ass), where the former does not belong. How can believers and unbelievers be in each other’s hearts as having died together and as now, on the basis of that death, living together?
By our unity with Christ and in the love which he has implanted in us we are, indeed, spiritually bound together (John 13:34, 35): we are in each other’s hearts. We died the same death to sin (aorist infinitive), and we are living the same spiritual life (present infinitive, durative). If Paul intended to reproduce 4:10, etc., exactly, both infinitives would have to be present: “so that we are dying together and living together.” It is enough for his purpose to speak of having died and thereby to express the one decisive severance of which he speaks in the preceding paragraph. In 4:11 οἱζῶντες, “those living,” expresses the same duration as συζῇν in the present connection.
The striking feature is the order: death first and then life. The meaning is not “so that we are together in life and death.” Even if the thought were considered ideally, this cannot be the sense. Confusion results when εἰςτό is regarded as expressing purpose: “in order to die together.” To think of a physical death which is followed by the heavenly life disjoints the terms. Because it is followed by a present, the aorist infinitive excludes the thought of a constant dying that is parallel to a constant living; this is a death that is followed by life and living. R. W.
P., makes the aorist infinitive ingressive: starting to die; he might as well make it constative. But the punctiliar idea of the aorist is emphasized by the contrast with the durative idea of the present. Moreover, the sense is plain: you died with us when you were severed from sin, the world, etc., in repentance and faith; you have ever since been living together with us in the true spiritual life. This is what makes you and us one. This should keep you from every alien yoke.
2 Corinthians 7:4
4 What Paul has said before excludes every idea that he is now writing to condemn them. And this adequately portrays his feeling in writing this letter. Great is my outspokenness toward you, great my glory about you! I have been filled with the consolation, I have been made to abound with the joy in all our tribulation! With these feelings Paul is writing this epistle. The Corinthians find great outspokenness in this letter, no reserve behind which this or that is concealed.
The copulas are wanting: “is for me” = I have; and here: I use. We see why Paul uses the singular; it reappears in v. 8, 9: these are personal statements that apply to him in particular. It is he who is dictating. On the one hand he is maintaining no reserve or reticence, on the other he is manifesting great glorying and boasting about the Corinthians. He is so happy about them. Πρὸςὑμᾶς indicates what he says to them, ὑπὲρὑμῶν what he says to others about them, “in your behalf,” zu Gunsten (B.-P. 1341), ὑπέρ is repeatedly used in this sense in this epistle.
“I have been filled with the consolation” and am thus still filled; the dative indicates means, a genitive would state what fills. Companion to this is: “I have been made to abound or superabound with the joy,” the same dative of means. Consolation results in joy. The passives imply that someone has so filled Paul and made him overflow. The Corinthians have done this, Titus has just brought a report regarding them. The articles “with the consolation, the joy” = the one you well know as caused by you.
The ἐπί phrase may be taken with both statements in the sense that the consolation and the joy have come “on top of all our tribulation,” all that has been afflicting us as worry about you. Paul includes his assistants who had shared this feeling. Now it is entirely erased by the consolation and the joy.
Whether it is retained in the little paragraph v. 2–4 or drawn to the following, v. 4 is transitional. Paul tells how Titus changed his worry into joy.
2 Corinthians 7:5
5 For even when we came to Macedonia, no relief has our flesh had but—in every way afflicted: from outside fightings, from inside fears. Paul is now indeed full of consolation and overflowing with joy in the midst of all tribulation. Both sensations are intensified because of the feelings that preceded them, which place them into bold relief because of the contrast. Already in 2:12, 13 Paul has stated that he had no rest in Troas, that his anxiety to meet Titus made him press forward from Troas past the open door for work in that city into Macedonia in order the sooner to meet Titus or to get some word from him.
Paul now states what his situation was when he got to Macedonia and there continued his wait for Titus. Things were even worse for him than they had been in Troas. There a door had been opened to him to found a congregation and to do some effective work and thus in a measure to take his mind off his worries about Corinth and what he would get to hear when Titus did arrive. But in Macedonia Paul and Timothy (1:1) and whoever else was with him encountered a mass of trouble in addition to all the worry about Corinth and the anxiety about the return of Titus.
Paul uses the same expression which he employed in 2:13: ἔσχηκαἄνεσιν, and retains the same perfect tense (see 2:13). In the former passage Paul writes, “I have had no relief for my spirit”; while here he says, “No relief has our flesh had.” In Troas only Paul’s own spirit was worried with anxious thoughts; here in Macedonia both he and Timothy and whoever else was with him had troubles that affected them bodily. “Our flesh” uses the word flesh in the neutral sense, the weak stuff of which our bodies are made (it is so used also in v. 1).
We get a glimpse and only a glimpse of what the trouble was when Paul adds “in every way afflicted: from outside fightings, from inside fears.” Here in Macedonia everything caused trouble. It grew to tremendous proportions outside and inside, there was pressure in both directions. In Troas at least the outside was favorable, there was an open door for work. Here in Macedonia they encountered nothing but μάχαι, “clashes,” “fightings,” and to the fears which they already had about Corinth and Titus there were added others that were connected with these Macedonian fightings—“in every way afflicted: outside fightings, inside fears,” no relief anywhere. As it often happens, it is darkest just before the dawn.
Paul’s feeling of distress is reflected in the way in which he writes about it. He intends merely to indicate the miserable situation and not to tell about it at length. He paints the picture with only three strokes: a participle and two nouns, just three nominatives: “but—in everything afflicted (pressed): outside clashes, inside fears.” These nominatives merely sketch, there are three flashes, that is all. One catches the feeling to be conveyed. Paul intends that we shall catch it and uses nominatives for that very reason, detached nominatives that are not included in the construction. Others have used such detailed nominatives for the same purpose.
R. 439 is right, this is not an anacoluthon; 415 he is again right: “one must not be a slavish martinet.” B.-D. 468 is wrong with his complaint of “harshness and lack of exact connection.” All is smooth and exact. These nominatives express Paul’s feeling perfectly so that the reader catches it.
2 Corinthians 7:6
6 Over against the dark background of what Paul, Timothy, etc., encountered in Macedonia there is set the glory of the coming of Titus and what he brought. But he who comforts the lowly did comfort us, (even) God, with the arrival of Titus; and not only with his arrival but also with the comfort with which he was comforted in regard to you, (he) reporting to us your longing, your lamentation, your zeal on my own behalf, so that I rejoiced even more.
This is one of God’s wonderful names: “he who comforts the lowly.” How could he comfort the proud, the self-satisfied? While they were in Macedonia, Paul and his assistants had certainly descended among the lowly. But, wenn die Not am groessten, ist Gott am naechsten. When the need of comfort was greatest, God brought the comfort: Titus arrived and was there (both ideas are contained in παρουσία). Παρακαλέω may mean to admonish, encourage, or comfort as the context indicates. The apposition ὁΘεός is effectively placed after the verb.
2 Corinthians 7:7
7 It is the arrival of Titus as such that is stressed as being a comfort for Paul and for those with him. Note that “with the arrival of Titus” is repeated: “not only with his arrival.” Paul had been worried about the safety of Titus. When he did not find Titus at Troas, when after waiting he then went on into Macedonia and still waited, the fear grew that perhaps something had happened to Titus. Things were either in a terrible condition in Corinth so that Titus dared not leave, or he had left and had been injured on the way (robbers, thieves, some accident) or had taken sick or had even lost his life. The last appeared the more probable, for surely, when Titus could not get back in proper time as had been agreed, he would, if he were alive, have sent some message, and he would have done this the more since he knew Paul’s great concern. The death of Titus would have been a calamity indeed.
And now he was at last here! Talk about being comforted? This was a vast load off Paul’s heart.
Titus brought a load of comfort with him. Paul calls it “the comfort with which he (Titus) was comforted in regard to you.” Note that the word is repeated four times: He who comforts—comforted us—with the comfort—with which he was comforted. Yes, this is Paul’s way of ringing the changes on a word; but it has its purpose. It conveys the thought that a flood of comfort poured in on those who so much needed it. As to Titus, he did not only bring comfort, he brought it out of a heart that had drunk in all the comfort right in Corinth. He conveyed all of it like a full vessel.
Note that the plurals “we” include all of Paul’s assistants. All these men are of one mind and one heart. These are not “literary plurals”; no writer says “we” and “I” in regard to himself in the same sentence. No literary plural occurs in this epistle; and none is found elsewhere in Paul’s epistles. By designating the comfort as he does Paul means this: You Corinthians saw how you had filled Titus with comfort when he left; well, that is exactly how we were comforted when he poured out this comfort on his arrival.
There is no issue as to the relation of the present participle ἀναγγέλλων with the aorist παρεκλήθη. Titus “was comforted” in Corinth, his “reporting” takes place later in Macedonia. The relative clause does not include the participial statement. Nor is this an anacoluthon. The force of this participle would not be altered if it were a genitive absolute. It is construed ad sensum and in the most natural way. How Titus had been comforted in Corinth became evident to Paul, Timothy, etc., when he began “reporting to us” on his arrival.
And now Paul states the three main points of this comforting report in detail. “Your longing” is the desire of the Corinthians to have Paul arrive in their midst and to hear his approval of the way in which their hearts had opened to him and to his assistants. “Your lamentation (mourning),” Luther: Weinen, is the sorrow of the Corinthians for ever having become disaffected and for having called forth Paul’s reproof. “Your zeal on my own behalf” is the zealous effort on the part of the Corinthians to meet the Christian requirements which Paul had laid upon them, had had to lay upon them. These three terms convey volumes. Note the three ὑμῶν (subjective genitives), all are emphatic. You—you—you are sending us all this comfort! The phrase “on my own behalf” is significant. Paul, the apostle, was the one for whom the Corinthians were now so zealous to defend him against any derogations, to obey him as their true leader and guide.
Paul was not like some preachers who attach their congregations mainly to their own persons. The restored devotion of the Corinthians to Paul rested altogether on the gospel of which Paul was the great exponent. They were faithful to him because they now fully recognized that he labored for Christ in the most disinterested way. Woe to the preacher who thrusts his person ahead of Christ and gets people to cling to him and not above all to Christ!
“So that I even more rejoiced,” ὥστε with the infinitive is used in the Koine to express actual result (R. 1000). Μᾶλλον = that Paul even had joy beyond all the comfort. The aorist infinitive has the force: I positively got to rejoice. Comfort was precious indeed; but to be able to rejoice was like comfort being crowned. Forget not that all this came just when Paul was deepest in worry and in other troubles.
XXII. “You Were Grieved unto Repentance”
2 Corinthians 7:8
8 In the R. V. the American Committee translates v. 8, 9a as one sentence by making βλέπωκτλ. a parenthesis. This is not a gain. Since γάρ is textually sound, especially when it is regarded as explanatory, no parenthesis is needed. Paul has come to a rejoicing although the news from Corinth reported the lamentation of the Corinthians (v. 7). Already in 2:2 Paul refers to the fact that he had grieved the Corinthians.
With ὅτι he now explains how he comes to rejoice although he had grieved the Corinthians. We now have a fuller exposition of 2:1–4 (which read). Paul did not want to come to Corinth in grief and delayed his coming for that very reason. Now he indeed rejoices and can go to Corinth in joy. What had so deeply grieved him was what compelled him to grieve the Corinthians, to grieve them in love. In 2:2 he says that only he who grieved him could remove that grief and rejoice him again.
That is what happened, he is now voicing that joy.
For though I grieved you in my letter I am not regretting it though (for a while, I confess) I was regretting it, for I see that that letter, though (only) for a time, did grieve you. Now I am rejoicing, not (indeed) that you were grieved, but that you were grieved unto repentance, for you were grieved according to God’s way so that you were made to suffer loss from us in no way.
The condition is one of reality. It is a fact, and Paul speaks of it as a fact that he, indeed, grieved the Corinthians in his letter. And he says: “I am not regretting it.” Yet he admits and confesses: “Though I was regretting it.” The imperfect tense states that this regret continued for a time, and that it then ceased, a different feeling took its place. This tense is open; it says that something lasted temporarily and then gave way to something else that closed the matter.
In this connection the question is raised: “If Paul wrote by inspiration as he did, under the very influence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how could such regrets later enter into his mind?” This is not the question of skeptics but the puzzling consideration of true believers in inspiration. They feel a difficulty here that other men do not feel. They then seek to explain away Paul’s regret. That is not right. Their difficulty is self-made, imagined, not real. Paul’s inspiration did not extend to his thoughts and anxieties in the trying situations in which he was placed. In these he felt distressed and perplexed and often greatly worried just as is the case with us.
We may say that Paul was in the position in which many a true pastor is today who has rebuked and chastised some member and has done this in perfect accord with God’s Word and Spirit and knows that he has, and yet, when the effect hangs long in the balance, when, as here in the case of Paul, he cannot even see the effect, his poor human nature asserts itself in the form of useless worries, misgivings, even regrets. Paul’s admission may serve as a great comfort to us. Neither revelation nor inspiration lifted the apostles above their poor σάρξ or human nature (here mentioned twice: 7:1, 5) which asserted itself in hours of weakness and depression in the form of even doubts and regrets.
The textual evidence against the reading with γάρ is so slight that the R. V. margin does not even note it. It is also not intended for proof, it merely explains: “for I see (by the report which Titus brings) that that letter (of mine) did grieve you although (as I am glad to hear from him, only) for a time” (ὥρα, “hour,” in the sense of a short time). Paul thus explains how he can say “though I grieved you in my letter”; he has the facts from Titus.
2 Corinthians 7:9
9 All of that temporary regret which was due to being so far away from Corinth, so completely in the dark until Titus came, so plagued with uncertainty in regard to the manner in which his letter would be received, has now entirely disappeared. The asyndeton makes the statement emphatic: “Now I am rejoicing.” It parallels the previous: “I am not regretting it.” Both are markedly durative, the one states negatively what the other puts positively. Paul, of course, rejoices, “not that you were grieved,” not that I merely hurt you deeply—how could he rejoice because of that?—“but that you were grieved unto repentance.” The fullest stress is on this phrase. A surgeon may cause severe pain; he rejoices when he sees the cure that this pain has produced. It is not the pain as such but the pain as being productive of the cure that rejoices him.
The way to true repentance even in the case of Christians who have sinned and erred is the way of deep grief and sorrow. The mistake made by many a preacher is the endeavor to induce a painless, griefless repentance. Such repentance does not exist. Peter had to weep bitterly. A broken and a contrite heart is not a pleasant sensation. The terrores conscientiae will always be “terrors.” Much repentance presses out tears. The peaceable fruit of righteousness grows from the pain of chastisement, Heb. 12:11.
Μετάνοια is one of the great concepts of Scripture. It means: “To change the mind afterward,” when it is too late. This is deepened in the New Testament beyond everything secular writers conceived, this word expresses the vital inner change that is wrought by the law in conjunction with the gospel when the heart turns from its sin and guilt to God and his pardon in Christ Jesus. When it is used alone as it is here it denotes the whole act (contrition plus faith); when it is used together with faith it denotes contrition alone. R., W. P., laments that we have no better word for it than “repentance.” A good preacher will always expound it.
Repentance = conversion. When it is predicated of Christians it signifies a renewal of the heart’s inner change: our daily contrition and repentance. In Corinth the congregation as a whole in a great change of heart turned back from the wrong and sinful course which it had followed.
Grieved “unto repentance,” with this as the outcome (εἰς), should be distinguished from being grieved otherwise. So Paul elucidates with γάρ: “you were grieved κατὰΘεόν,” gottgemaess, which it is difficult to reproduce in English. We have the suggestions: “after a godly manner (sort),” our versions; “according to God,” A. V. margin, which is literal; in a way that accords with God. This phrase explains “unto repentance.” But it is not enough. One usually grieves over some grave loss; this grief which led to a repentance that was in harmony with God is the very opposite: the Corinthians were not thereby made to suffer loss in any way.
We confess that the ἵνα of purpose does not fit here, not even the ἵνα of contemplated result; we therefore regard it as indicating actual result: “so that you were made to suffer loss from us in no way,” not the least loss. We may say: eine Busse ohne Einbusse. This was certainly the result in the case of the Corinthians. Why should Paul speak of it only as being God’s purpose when that purpose was already actually accomplished in the Corinthians?
The passive accords with the preceding passives: were grieved—were made to suffer loss; the agent is expressed by ἐξἡμῶν, “from us.” R. 997–9 regards this as the consecutive ἵνα; B.-D. 391, 5 still shrinks from making it actual result. Those who have not experienced true repentance might conceive of it as a great loss; it is always the very opposite, the greatest spiritual gain. The grief of repentance is never loss in any way; not to experience this grief, that is loss indeed.
2 Corinthians 7:10
10 For the grief according to God’s way works an unregrettable repentance for salvation; but the grief of the world works out death. The two kinds of grief are contrasted as to their results. This confirms us in the opinion that also the preceding ἵνα clause speaks about result. Here is the great gain beside the great loss. Over against the grief κατὰΘεόν, “according to God,” stands the grief τοῦκόσμου, “of the world.” It is not God who experiences the grief, but the world does experience the grief, and the fact that its grief is κατὰκόσμον, weltgemaess, “according to the world,” need certainly not be stated. Note the difference: the one grief bears a relation to God (κατά); the other bears a relation only to itself (simple genitive).
So the one “works repentance for salvation,” the other “works out death.” Every word is exact. Present tenses are used regularly in doctrinal statements; they state what is always true. Ἐργάζεταιεἰς = “works toward”; κατεργάζεται (with its perfective κατά) = “works out,” actually produces. Godly grief does not “work” and mush less “work out or produce” salvation. It “works” only repentance “toward” salvation. God alone works salvation, and by producing repentance this sorrow aids in working the subjective means, namely repentance. Salvation and death are to be understood in their ultimate form.
The world’s sorrow, however, “works out” and produces death. This sorrow is remorse, often despair, the direct forerunner of death. The world is full of it. How fearfully it “works out” we see in the suicide of Judas Iscariot. Where it does not end in open tragedy it is still of the same kind. The sins find the sinner out, judgment comes marching on inexorably, hope dies, i.e., all false hope, death waits. There is nothing “according to God” in this grief, nothing according to his good and gracious will, no outcome that in any way tends toward salvation; everything about this grief points directly to death. The world’s grief is already death’s shadow closing down.
The godly grief is wrought by God, by his law and his gospel. It is impossible without these. So the immediate outcome is repentance, and this leads to final salvation. The Bible furnishes many fine examples of such repentance: David, whose great sins Nathan reproved; Peter, who denied Christ and went out and wept bitterly; the malefactor on the cross, who was brought to his first repentance and received pardon. In the very first of his famous 95 Theses Luther declares that when our Lord and Master Jesus Christ says that we are to repent he desires that the entire life of believers should be a repentance. The grief of repentance may be painful, humiliating, crushing, and all that, but who will exchange it for the grief that brings on the pain and the terror of death? Who wants to exchange with impenitent Cain, King Saul, Judas, the impenitent malefactor, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, or any of their class?
The verbal adjective ἀμεταμέλητον is to be construed with μετάνοιαν and not with σωτηρίαν. It is inconceivable that one should regret final salvation; “unregrettable salvation” is an impossible combination. “Unregrettable repentance”—that is, indeed, a proper idea here where the grief of such repentance is discussed: no one can ever regret his true repentance because of any grief that went with its production. The adjective is placed last because it is to modify the whole of μετάνοιανεἰςσωτηρίαν and not merely the noun “repentance.” The repentance is so unregrettable because it is “unto salvation.”
The verbal adjective “unregrettable” is used because Paul has just said: “I am not regretting though (for a while) I was regretting.” Paul used both verbs in regard to the grief which he caused the Corinthians, which also shows how “unregrettable” is to be construed. The A. V. translates as though the word were ἀμετανόητον, and some say that this ought to be the word: “unrepentable repentance.” This view simply exchanges Paul’s thought for one it deems better. Paul retains the idea of regretting and not-regretting from v. 8. He wants no pun on repenting and not repenting; that would not only run off on a different track, it would run off where Paul does not want to go, for the world is unrepenting, and “unrepentable” is even stronger.
2 Corinthians 7:11
11 All the blessed results of the godly sorrow that works repentance for salvation have now been stated, all the results that show how this repentance is “for salvation” and thus in the highest degree “unregrettable.” These results have been actually accomplished in the Corinthians; κατειργάσατο is the same verb as κατεργάζεται but an aorist to designate the past fact. Paul exclaims because of these results and lists each one separately as though he would hold it up with great delight. His grieving the Corinthians has actually done this. He was foolish for regretting at all that he had done this grieving. The Corinthians do not need to wait until their heavenly salvation arrives; all these results are evidence of the most blessed kind as to what their grief really produces.
For lo, this very thing that you were grieved according to God’s way, what earnestness it worked out for you, yea defense, yea indignation, yea fear, yea longing, yea zeal, yea action of justice! In everything you did commend yourselves as being pure with regard to this case. All of these results have been actually produced by your having been grieved, nothing else could have produced them. All of them show your repentance to be genuine and truly “for salvation.” We may regard αὑτὸτοῦτο as modifying to τὸλυπηθῆναι which is then regarded as a noun or regard the substantivized infinitive as an apposition to αὑτὸτοῦτο (R. 1078).
Πόσος = “how much, how great” (R. 740), and should be construed with the entire seven nouns. Paul holds up each one in order to look at it separately, to admire it: “Lo, how great each one is!” Ἀλλά is not adversative. B.-D. 448, 6, and B.-P. 59 retain this idea: “not only this but also.” Read R. 1185, etc.; the sense is: “here is another thing,” and the repetition is climacteric. B.-P. 59 has this idea in “yea even” this, that, etc. The seven nouns are thus stated in progressive order. The πράγμα or “case” to which they refer is the case of incest (1 Cor. 5).
The Corinthians treated it with careless indifference, just let it pass and did nothing, considered neither the sin nor the sinner involved, disregarded what this sin did to his soul, and considered not themselves, and what this indifference and inaction did to them as a congregation. Then Paul took them to task in 1 Cor. 5. He even thought it necessary to send Titus. Finally there came the σπουδή, which means that the Corinthians dropped their indifference and got thoroughly busy and in earnest.
The first thing that resulted was ἀπολογία, “defense,” clearing themselves. That was certainly the main and the immediate thing to effect. They could not go on when such a smirch was resting on their whole church. The next thing was “indignation” in regard to the sin committed and the man who had committed it. They indignantly expelled him (see 2:6, etc.). These three belong together and followed in close succession.
Then came another thing, namely “fear” as to whether everything had been done that ought to be done; and another, namely “longing” to have Paul himself present in Corinth to direct everything; and still another, namely “zeal” to leave nothing undone that they might do ere Paul arrived. These three again belong together and are closely connected and properly follow the first three.
This makes six to which Paul adds a comprehensive seventh and thereby secures also for all these good results a group of (sacred) seven. This is ἐκδίκησις: “right or just action.” “Revenge” (A. V.), “vengeance” (R. V.) is not the meaning. Those who hold this opinion refer the word only to the sinner in this case; but the preceding nouns show that all the Corinthians were equally involved with him. Then, too, this is the final term, and it cannot be one-sided where two sides are involved. This “action of justice” which so delights Paul was one of justice and right in both directions, in regard to the sinner and in regard to the Corinthians who themselves were so guilty because of their past indifference and callousness in regard to a crime in their midst which was unheard of even among pagans (1 Cor. 5:1).
“In everything you did commend yourselves as being pure in regard to this case” (τῷ, the one concerned). “In everything” sums up the seven points. “You did commend yourselves” is aorist and contemporaneous with the aorist occurring in v. 11, “worked out for you.” The English would use the perfect: “you have commended.” The verb is significantly “commend yourselves,” and we should know what Paul has had to say in 3:1 and 5:11 about the slur that he simply commends and recommends himself and his assistants, and in 4:2 where he shows how he indeed and in the truest way does recommend himself and them. He must tell this about himself and his helpers to the Corinthians, but joyfully and most generously he calls what he now sees manifested in the Corinthians the finest self-recommendation they can offer. So he gladly accepts it although they have not done equally well with regard to him.
There is some difference of opinion in regard to the time indicated by εἶναι as though it might mean that in this case the Corinthians had never been pure and blameless. But the context does not support that thought; they had repented. The time of this infinitive is present with respect to the aorists of this verse and not prior to them. The Corinthians are now pure in this case since the grief “wrought out” these blessed results. The very tense says so. Little needs to be added in regard to what πράγμα, “affair” or “case,” Paul has in mind, and to what letter he twice refers in v. 8. See 2:9, 11. Every word fits the case mentioned in 1 Cor. 5.
2 Corinthians 7:12
12 So, though I wrote to you, (it was) not (just) on account of him who did the injustice, nor (just) on account of him who suffered the injustice, but on account of this that your earnestness in behalf of us should be publicly manifested to yourselves in the sight of God.
Paul is speaking about the letter referred to in v. 8 and in 2:3. In the latter passage he mentions one purpose for writing that letter, the personal one of not wanting to have grief from those who ought to furnish him joy. What he now says about the primary reason for writing that letter agrees with that. The letter is First Corinthians, and the chapter to which reference is made is the fifth. That was not written on account of the ἀδικήσας or on account of the ἀδικηθείς, the man who committed the crime (incest) or the man against whom it was committed, who suffered as a result of the crime (the criminal’s father). The Greek “not—nor” is not exclusive in the sense of “not at all—nor at all,” but is equivalent to our English “not just—nor just.” Paul was only in a minor way concerned about these two persons, his main concern was a far greater one, namely the whole congregation, that its earnestness “in behalf of us” (Paul and his assistants, two of whom he had sent to Corinth, Timothy and Titus, representatives of Paul) should be made publicly manifest to the Corinthians themselves in the sight of God by the way in which they applied Christian discipline to this criminal man as they had learned it from Paul and as his letter to them once more urged them.
This is the same σπουδή, “earnestness,” that was mentioned in v. 11, where six other terms followed it. Φανεροῦν again (2:14; 3:3; 4:2) has the idea of being publicly displayed. The case was such as to require such a display, not simply in order that Paul might see it and be impressed by it but also in order that the Corinthians themselves might behold it. By way of their earnest action they were to become fully conscious of their earnestness in behalf of their former teachers. Yet this was to be done as “in the sight of God,” under God’s eyes, who even more than Paul and his assistants expected no less of them.
Paul uses ἀδικήσας and ἀδικηθείς in order to match the preceding ἐκδίκησις. This is merely verbal. In both words there is the idea of ἀδικία, that which runs counter to the δίκη or norm of right and has the divine judgment against it. It is unwarranted to say that these participles are mild, too mild for the case of incest. This idea is fostered by the dictionaries. C.-K. 39 mentions a social, mild meaning: “to do wrong,” and says nothing more but lists our passage; then he lists a religious meaning, a severe one: incurring the divine judgment.
In nonreligious connections the only mildness is that human verdicts condemn the act. But the word always has a forensic basis: ἀδικεῖν, “to do what justice (divine or human) condemns.” In our passage it is certainly more than social justice that is involved. This case of incest was under the condemnation of the divine Judge himself. See Lev. 18:8.
Who is this ἀδικηθείς? Objections are offered to the supposition that he is the father of the incestuous son. But all suggestions as to who this man might otherwise be are open to challenge. The opinion that this ἀδικηθείς is the congregation itself is unsatisfactory because of the singular whereas Paul writes “you” to the congregation. The widespread critical opinion that this is Paul himself who was insulted by some Corinthian member while on his flying visit to Corinth, insulted in the public congregational meeting is unacceptable on several counts: the words Paul uses should then be ὑβρίσας and ὑβρισθείς, the insulter and the insulted; ἀδικεῖν does not mean “to insult.” Paul uses “we” and not “I,” and he cannot refer to himself by an unmodified singular participle. More may be added, but we let this suffice.
The father is not considered because he is mentioned only incidentally in 1 Cor. 5. But when Paul formulates the resolution which the Corinthians are to pass on the case (1 Cor. 5:3–5, see the exegesis), the Corinthians are to do all that is in their power in the father’s interest. Is the father not mentioned only incidentally also here in 7:12? Both he and his son are treated as side issues.
Some think that the passive participle refers to the woman; but the participle is masculine. Nor was she wronged, she did as much wrong as her paramour. It is urged that, if this is a reference to the case of incest, the woman ought to be mentioned. We agree, but only if she was not a pagan, only if she was a Christian; and then she should be named as a fellow criminal and not as a woman who was criminally treated.
2 Corinthians 7:13
13 For this reason we have been comforted because this earnestness on the part of the Corinthians became publicly manifest to themselves in God’s sight. It meant so exceedingly much to Paul and to his helpers. The action expressed by the perfect tense started when the news reached Paul through Titus and still continues.
Titus has just come from Corinth, and he is to bear this letter back to the Corinthians. Paul very fittingly speaks of the part he had in bringing the comfort and the joy. Moreover, in addition to (ἐπί) this comfort of ours we rejoiced the more exceedingly at the joy of Titus, that his spirit has received rest from you all.
The two ἐπί are alike. Titus made a joyful report. What the content of his joy was the epexegetical ὅτι clause states: “that his spirit (we should say his soul) has been given rest,” this joy of his came “from you all.” Ἀπό is not exactly “by you all” (agent with the passive) but “from” (derivation). All of the uncertainty and the uneasiness with which Titus had gone to Corinth changed to rest for his spirit because of what he experienced “from” the Corinthians. No wonder Titus came to Paul with joy! And this joy of his caused Paul and Timothy (1:1) and any others who may have been with Paul to rejoice beyond the comfort and the satisfaction which were contained in the report of Titus. We take it that Paul is practically quoting Titus as to how his uneasiness was put to rest (perfect, to stay so) and how glad he was in consequence.
2 Corinthians 7:14
14 But the Corinthians are not to harbor the suspicion that Paul had perhaps filled the mind of Titus with uncertainty and grave misgivings when he had dispatched Titus to them. For that reason we now have the singular. For if I have gloried somewhat to him concerning you I was (certainly) not put to shame; but as we (in the past) spoke to you all things in truth, so also this our glorying before Titus turned out to be truth.
The condition is one of reality: Paul had boasted somewhat (τι) to Titus concerning the Corinthians, yes, he had boasted, net, indeed, extravagantly, but only “somewhat.” Paul had encouraged Titus. Paul would have been foolish to discourage him when he was to go on Paul’s own mission.
The perfect “I have gloried” says more than an aorist would; it brings out the fact that Paul kept up this boasting about the Corinthians when he was speaking to Titus. The implication is that it was necessary for Paul to do so because Titus had his serious doubts as to whether Paul was right. Now Paul is very happy to register the great fact: in all that I boasted about you to Titus “I was not put to shame.” That is really a litotes, stating negatively what is intended positively: you Corinthians more than verified my words to Titus.
It is a reflection on the honesty of the apostle to comment in regard to Paul: In order to bolster up the courage of Titus, Paul in all likelihood said more than his knowledge of the situation in Corinth warranted; and this reflection is repeated when it is said in regard to Titus that he did not trust the truth of Paul’s praise of the Corinthians. Paul says plainly “somewhat.” He told Titus what was true, and Titus believed and knew that what was thus said was true. Some good things may still be most true in a bad situation. It would be folly not to note them well and to count on them.
Paul also says: “I was not put to shame.” When he spoke to Titus about the good that he could count on in the Corinthians, Paul reckoned with the possibility of being put to shame; he did not send Titus away with the assurance that the Corinthians would and could not put him to shame. That would have been folly in the opposite direction.
Note that when Paul refers to himself alone he uses the singular “I” endings of the verb; yet some think that the “we”s used here and there are the literary “I.” What “I was not put to shame” states negatively is now also joyfully repeated in positive form, but with amplifications: “this glorying of ours before Titus turned out to be truth.” So others besides Paul had gloried about the Corinthians. Ἐπί with the genitive = “before” (Acts 23:30; 1 Cor. 6:1; and often). And this praise of the Corinthians proved to be the truth because the Corinthians more than lived up to the expectations entertained regarding them.
Nor was this so very strange as the ὡς clause emphasizes. The Corinthians know from their own past experience with Paul and his assistants that they are most careful to keep within the bounds of truth when they speak about any matter: “as we spoke to you all things in truth,” i.e., in the past in all our dealings with you. We never tried to make or to leave a false impression. The supposition that Paul is proving his truthfulness by the truth of what he said to Titus about the Corinthians misunderstands what Paul does say, namely that the past, proven truthfulness received another item: as true in the past, so now in this case too. The Corinthians might have proved hostile and thus have given the lie to what was said of them in praise and put Paul to shame because of his praise. And this would have proved only that the Corinthians had become baser than their best friends thought possible.
2 Corinthians 7:15
15 Paul adds the effect which the action of the Corinthians has had on Titus: And his feelings are (now) more intensely toward you when he remembers the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling you received him. On σπλάγχνα see 6:12. The predicate is εἰςὑμᾶς, “toward you.” Our versions translate interpretatively “his affection.” The sense is: Titus now loves you more than ever. We construe the participle as a genitive absolute: “he remembering” (αὑτοῦ understood) and not as modifying the αὑτοῦ which is used with σπλάγχνα as R., W. P., suggests. Already the first reception impressed Titus.
He had evidently not expected to be received “with fear and trembling” on the part of the Corinthians, i.e., with such readiness to obey the Word of God which he brought from Paul. There is a good deal back of this “fear and trembling,” namely the fact that the Corinthians had returned to their allegiance to Paul, that they felt deeply that they had deserved the severest rebuke, and that they expected to receive chastisement when Titus came from Paul. How this change had come about we are unable to state; it is idle to speculate.
2 Corinthians 7:16
16 And now, in closing the first main part of his letter, Paul says regarding himself personally: I rejoiced that in everything I am of good cheer in regard to you. Paul is happy that he can be of good courage in regard to Corinth. The dark clouds have been dispersed. To be of good cheer implies that some things still need adjustment, but also that all misgivings have disappeared in regard to such adjustments as are yet to be made.
This conclusion of the first part of the epistle is said to be incompatible with what follows in the third part (chapters 10–13). We are told that these two cannot be parts of one and the same letter. Hence we have the hypotheses about the last four chapters, namely that they constitute a separate earlier letter, etc. We shall see what foundation such an assertion has when we consider those chapters. No text is extant in which Second Corinthians is without the last chapters. This alone is most decisive; but we shall see much more besides.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.