2 Corinthians 13

2 Corinthians 13:1-14

CHAPTER 13

2 Corinthians 13:2. After νῦν Elz. has γράφω, in opposition to decisive evidence. A supplementary addition. Comp. 2 Corinthians 13:10.—2 Corinthians 13:4. εἰ] is wanting in B D* F G K à* min. Copt. Aeth. It. Eus. Dem. Theoph. Bracketed by Lachm. and Rck. Looking to the total inappropriateness of the sense of καὶεἰ, those authorities of considerable importance sufficiently warrant the condemnation of εἰ, although Tisch. (comp. Hofm.) holds the omission to be “manifesta correctio.” Offence was easily taken at the idea that Christ was crucified ἐξἀσθενείας, and it was made problematical by the addition of an εἰ, which in several cases also was assigned a position before καί (Or.: εἰγὰρκαί).

καὶγὰρἡμεῖς] Elz. has καὶγὰρκαὶἡμεῖς, in opposition to far preponderating evidence. The second καί is an addition, which arose out of καὶγάρ being taken as a mere for, namque.

ἐναὐτῷ] A F G à, Syr. Erp. Copt. Boern. have σὺναὐτῷ. So Lachm. on the margin. An explanation in accordance with what follow.

ζησόμεθα] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read ζήσομεν, in favour of which the evidence is decisiv.

εἰςὑμᾶς] is wanting only in B D*** E*** Arm. Clar. Germ. Chrys. Sedul., and is condemned by Mill, who derived it from 2 Corinthians 13:3. But how natural was the omission, seeing that the first half of the verse contains no parallel element! And the erroneous reference of ζήσομεν to eternal life might make εἰςὑμᾶς appear simply as irrelevant.—2 Corinthians 13:7. εὔχομαι] Lachm. Tisch. and Rück., following greatly preponderant evidence, have εὐχόμεθα, which Griesb. also approved. And rightly; the singular was introduced in accordance with the previous ἐλπίζω.—2 Corinthians 13:9. τοῦτοδέ] This δέ is omitted in preponderant witnesses, is suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. Addition for the sake of connection, instead of which 73 has δή and Chrys. γάρ.

In 2 Corinthians 13:10, the position of ὁκύριος before ἐδωκ. μοι is assured by decided attestation.

.

Continuation of the close of the section as begun at 2 Corinthians 12:19. At his impending third coming he will decide with judicial severity and not spare, seeing that they wished to have for once a proof of the Christ speaking in him (2 Corinthians 13:1-4). They ought to prove themselves; he hopes, however, that they will recognise his proved character, and asks God that he may not need to show them its verification (2 Corinthians 13:5-9). Therefore he writes this when absent, in order that he may not be under the necessity of being stern when present (2 Corinthians 13:10). Concluding exhortation with promise (2 Corinthians 13:11); concluding salutation (2 Corinthians 13:12); concluding benediction (2 Corinthians 13:13).

2 Corinthians 13:2

2 Corinthians 13:2. Ὡςπαρὼν … νῦν is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it is a definition to προλέγω, which interrupts neither the construction nor the sense. I have said before, and say beforehand, as at my second visit (“sicut feci, cum secundo vobiscum essem,” Er. Schmid), so also in my present absence, to those who have formerly sinned, and to all the rest, that, when I shall have come again, I will not spare. Accordingly ὡςπαρὼντὸδεύτερον leaves no doubt as to the temporal reference of προείρηκα. Moreover, from 2 Corinthians 13:2 alone the presence of the apostle, which had already twice taken place, could not be proved. For, if we knew that he had been only once, προείρηκα would certainly refer to the first epistle, and ὡςπαρὼνκ.τ.λ. would have to be explained: as if I were present for the second time, although I am now absent (comp.

Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Baur, and others).[393] But, as it is clear from other passages that Paul had already been twice in Corinth, and as here in particular ΤΡΊΤΟΝΤΟῦΤΟἜΡΧΟΜΑΙ immediately goes before, that view, in which also the ΝῦΝ would simply be superfluous and cumbrous, is impossible. Beza, who is followed by Zachariae and Märcker, connects awkwardly (seeing that ΤῸΔΕΎΤΕΡΟΝ and ΝῦΝ must correspond to each other) ΤῸΔΕΎΤΕΡΟΝ with ΠΡΟΛΈΓΩ. Hofmann also misses the correct view, when he makes Ὡς serve merely to annex the quality (“as one having been there a second time, and now absent”), in which the apostle has said and says beforehand. In this way ὡς would be the quippe qui from the conception of the speaker, as in 1 Corinthians 7:25, and παρών would be imperfect. The two clauses of the sentence, however, contain in fact not qualities subjectively conceived, but two objective relations of time; and hence ὡς, if it is to have the sense given above, would simply be irrelevant (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:3 a; 2 Corinthians 10:11; Philippians 1:27) and confusing. Paul would have simply written: προείρηκαπαρὼντὸδεύτερονκαὶπρολέγωἀπὼννῦν.

τοῖςπροηματηκόσι] See on 2 Corinthians 12:21. It is self-evident, we may add, that the ΠΡΟ in ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤ. has from the standpoint of the ΠΡΟΛΈΓΩ a greater period of the past behind it than from the standpoint of the ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΚΑ, and that the ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤΗΚΌΤΕς, whom the present ΠΡΟΛΈΓΩ threatens, were more, and in part other, than those to whom at the second visit the ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΚΑ had applied. The category, however, is the same; and hence it is not to be said, with Lücke, that from our passage it is clear: “quibus nunc, tanquam προημαρτηκόσι, severiorem castigationem minatur apostolus, eosdem jam tunc, quum olim (προείρηκα) minitatus esset, προημαρτηκότας fuisse.” Paul had at his second presence threatened the προημαρτηκότες, and he threatens them also now. On the two occasions the threat referred to the same genus hominum, to those who had sinned before the time at which Paul discoursed to the Corinthians, and were still sinners; but the individuals were not on the two occasions quite the same. Certainly at least there were now (προλέγω) not a few among them, who had not been included on the previous occasion (see 1 Corinthians 1:11; 1 Corinthians 5:1, comp. with 2 Corinthians 12:20-21).

καὶτοῖςλοιποῖςπᾶσιν] Thus ΤΟῖςΜῊΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤΗΚΌΣΙ. To these he then said it before, and he says it so now, by way of warning, of deterring. It is the whole other members of the church that are meant, and Paul mentions them, not as witnesses, but in order that they may make the threatening serve according to the respective requirements of their moral condition to stimulate reflection and discipline; hence τοῖςλοιποῖς, even according to our view of ΠΡΟΗΜΑΡΤ., is not without suitable meaning (in opposition to de Wette).

ΕἸςΤῸΠΆΛΙΝ] On the ΠΆΛΙΝ used substantially, see Bernhardy, p. 328, and on ΕἸς in the specification of a term of time, Matthiae, p. 1345. Comp. ΕἸςΑὖΘΙς, ΕἸςὈΨΈ, ἘςΤΛΟς, and the lik.

ΟὐΦΕΊΣΟΜΑΙ] The reasons why Paul spared them in his second, certainly but very short, visit, are as little known to us, as the reason why Luke, who has in fact passed over so much, has made no mention of this second visit in the Book of Acts.

[393] To this category belongs also the strange view of Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p 203: “This is the second time that I am present among you and yet absent at the same time.” Paul, namely, had, in Lange’s view, the spirit-like gift of transplanting himself with the full spiritual power of his authority during his absence into the midst of the distant church, which had doubtless felt the thunderclap of his spiritual appearing. In Corinth this had taken place the first time at the exclusion of the incestuous person, 1 Corinthians 5:3, and the second time now. Of such fancies and spiritualistic notions there is nowhere found any trace in the apostle. And what are we to make in that case of the νῦν?

The only correct view of this νῦν and its relation to τὸδεύτερον is already given by Chrysostom: παρεγενόμηνδεύτερονκαὶεἶπον, λέγωδὲκαὶνῦνδιὰτῆςἐπιστολῆς, ἀνάγκημεμοιπὸνἀληθεῦσαι. Comp. also ver. 10.

2 Corinthians 13:3

2 Corinthians 13:3. I will not spare you; for ye in fact will not have it otherwise! Ye challenge, in fact, by your demeanour, an experimental proof of the Christ that speaks in me. Thus ἐπεί, before which we are to conceive a pause, annexes the cause serving as motive of the οὐφείσομαι, that was under the prevailing circumstances at work. Emmerling begins a protasis with ἐπεί, parenthesizes ὃςεἰςὑμᾶςκ.τ.λ., and the whole fourth verse, and regards ἑαυτοὺςπειράζετε in 2 Corinthians 13:5 as apodosis. So, too, Lachmann, Olshausen, Ewald, who, however, treat as a parenthesis merely 2 Corinthians 13:4.

This division as a whole would not yield as its result any illogical connection, for, because the readers wish to put Christ to the proof, it was the more advisable for them to prove themselves. But the passage is rendered, quite unnecessarily, more complicated and cumbrou.

ἐπεὶδοκιλὴνζητεῖτεκ.τ.λ.] That is, since you make it your aim that the Christ speaking in me shall verify Himself, shall give you a proof of His judicial working. To take τοῦ … Χριστοῦ as genitive of the subject (comp. 2 Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 2:22) better suits the following ὃςκαὶὑμᾶςκ.τ.λ., than the objective rendering (Billroth and Rückert, following older expositors): a proof of the fact that Christ speaks in me.

ὃςεἰςὑμᾶςοὐκἀσθενεῖκ.τ.λ.] who in reference to you is not impotent, but mighty among you. By this the readers are made to feel how critical and dangerous is their challenge of Christ practically implied in the evil circumstances of the church (2 Corinthians 12:20 f.), for the Christ speaking in the apostle is not weak towards them, but provided with power and authority among them, as they would feel, if He should give them a practical attestation of Himself. A special reference of δυνατεῖἐνὑμῖν to the miracles, spiritual gifts, and the like, such as Erasmus, Grotius,[394] Fritzsche,[395] de Wette, and others assume, is not implied in the connection (see especially 2 Corinthians 13:4); and just as little a retrospective reference to 2 Corinthians 10:10 (Hofmann).

Of the use of the verb ΔΥΝΑΤΕῖΝ no examples from other writers are found, common as was ἈΔΥΝΑΤΕῖΝ. Its use in this particular place by Paul was involuntarily suggested to him by the similar sound of the opposite ἀσθενεῖ. Yet he has it also in Romans 14:4; as regards 2 Corinthians 9:8, see the critical remarks on that passag.

ἘΝὙΜῖΝ] not of the internal indwelling and pervading (Hofmann), which is at variance with the context, since the latter has the penal retribution as its main point; but the Christ speaking in Paul has the power of asserting Himself de facto as the vindex of His word and work in the church, so far as it is disobedient to Him and impenitent.

[394] Grotius: “Non opus habetis ejus rei periculum facere, cum jampridem Christus per me apud vos ingentia dederit potentiae suae signa.”

[395] Fritzsche, Diss. II. p 141: “qui Christus χαρίσματα largiendo, miracula regundo, religionis impedimenta tollendo, ecclesiam moderando, ipse vobis se fortem ostendit.” This emphatic ipse is imported,—which arose out of Fritzsche’s regarding the apostle, not Christ, as the subject of δοκιμήν.

2 Corinthians 13:4

2 Corinthians 13:4. Καὶγὰρἐσταυρ. ἐξἀσθ., ἀλλὰζῇἐκδυνάμ. θεοῦ] Reason assigned for the previous ὃςεἰςὑμᾶςοὐκἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰδυνατεῖἐνὑμῖν. for even crucified was He from weakness, but He is living from the power of God.[396] Without μέν after ἐσταυρ. the contrast comes in with the more striking effect. ἐξἀσθενείας denotes the causal origin of the ἐσταυρώθη, and is not, with Chrysostom (who complains of the difficulty of this passage), to be interpreted of apparent weakness, but finds its explanation in 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:7 f. Jesus, namely, had, in the state of His exinanition and humiliation, obedient to the Father, entered in such wise into the condition of powerless endurance as man, that He yielded to the violence of the most ignominious execution, to which He had, according to the Father’s will, submitted Himself; and accordingly it came ἐξἀσθενείας, that He was crucified. But since His resurrection He lives (Romans 5:10; Romans 6:9; Romans 14:9, al.), and that from the power of God, for God has, by His power, raised Him up (see on Romans 6:4) and exalted Him to glory (Acts 2:33; Ephesians 1:20 ff.; Philippians 2:9). To make the θεοῦ refer to ἀσθενείας also (Hofmann, who inappropriately compares 1 Corinthians 1:25) would yield a thought quite abnormal and impossible for the apostle, which the very οὐκἀσθενεῖ, 2 Corinthians 13:3, ought to have preclude.

καὶγὰρἡμεῖςκ.τ.λ.] Confirmation of the immediately preceding καὶγὰρ … θεοῦ, and that in respect of the two points ἐξἀσθενείας and ζῇἐκδυνάμεωςθεοῦ. “That the case stands so with Christ as has just been said, is confirmed from the fact, that these two relations, on the one hand of weakness, and on the other of being alive ἐκδυνάμ. θεοῦ, are found also in us in virtue of our fellowship with Him.” It is an argumentum ab effectu ad causam issuing from the lofty sense of this fellowship, a bold experiential certainty, the argumentative stress of which, contained in ἐναὐτῷ and σὺναὐτῷ, bears the triumphant character of strength in weakness. Hofmann wrongly, in opposition to the clear and simple connection, desires to take καὶγὰρἡμεῖςἀσθ. ἐναὐτῷ, which he separates from the following ἀλλὰκ.τ.λ., as a proof for the clause ὃςεἰςὑμᾶςοὐκἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰδυνατεῖἐνὑμῖν, for which reason he imports into ἐναὐτῷ the contrast: not a weakness of the natural man. This contrast, although in substance of itself correct, is not here, any more than afterwards in σὺναὐτῷ, intentionally present to the mind of the apostl.

ἀσθενοῦμενἐναὐτῷ] Paul represents his sparing hitherto observed towards the Corinthians (for it is quite at variance with the context to refer ἀσθ, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Estius, and others, to sufferings and persecutions) as a powerlessness based on his fellowship with Christ, inasmuch as Christ also had been weak and ἐσταυρώθηἐξἀσθενείας.[397] But that is only a transient powerlessness; we shall be alive with Him through the power of God in reference to you. As he is conscious, namely, of that impotence as having its ground in Christ, he is conscious also of this being alive in union with Christ as fellowship with His life (σὺναὐτῷ), and hence proceeding ἘΚΔΥΝΆΜΕΩςΘΕΟῦ, as Christ’s being alive also flowed from this source, Romans 1:4; Romans 6:4, al.

Εἰςὑμᾶς, lastly, gives to the ΖΉΣΟΜΕΝ (which is not, with Theodoret, Anselm, and Grotius, to be referred to the future life) its concrete direction and special reference of its meaning:[398] we shall be alive (vigere, comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:8) in reference to you, namely, through the effective assertion of the power divinely conferred on us, especially through apostolic judging and punishing (see 2 Corinthians 13:1-2). “Non est vivere, sed valere vita,” Martial, vi. 70. Comp. for the pregnant reference of ζῶ, Xen. Mem. iii. 3. 11; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 809 D; Dio Cass. lxix. 19. Calvin well observes: “Vitam opponit infirmitati, ideoque hoc nomine florentem et plenum dignitatis statum intelligit.”

[396] The Recepta καὶγὰρεἰἐσταυρ. would yield the quite unsuitable sense: for even if, i.e. even in the event that, He has been crucified, etc. Καὶεἰ should not, with the Vulgate and the majority of expositors, be taken as although, for in that case it would be confounded with εἰκαί. Καὶεἰ means even if, so that the climactic καί applies to the conditional particle. See Hartung, I. p. 140 f.; Haack. ad Thuc. p. 562 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A, Gorg. p. 509 A. De Wette wrongly rejects my view of the Recepta, making καὶγάρ signify merely for. It always means for even.

See Hartung, I. p. 148; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B. So, too, immediately in the καὶγὰρἡμεῖς that follows. Hofmann quite erroneously takes the Recepta in such a way, that Paul with καὶεἰ merely expresses a real fact conditionally on account of his wishing to keep open the possibility of looking at it also otherwise. In that case ἐξἀσθενείας would really be the point of consequence in the protasis, and the apostle must at least have written καὶγὰρεἰἐξἀσθενείαςἐσταυρώθη. Besides, the leaving open a possible other way of regarding the matter would have no ground at all in the text.

A mistaken view is adopted also by Osiander, who has taken καί as the also of comparison, namely, of Christ with His servant (consequently, as if καὶγὰραὐτός had stood in the text).

[397] This impotence is not to be conceived as involuntary (de Wette, following Schwarz in Wolf), but as voluntary (comp. οὐφείσομαι, ver. 2), as Christ’s weakness also was voluntary, namely, the impotence of deepest resignation and self-surrender, and this was its very characteristic. Comp. Hebrews 12:2.

[398] Hence εἰςὑμᾶς is not, with Castalio and Rückert, to be joined to δυνάμ. θεοῦ.

2 Corinthians 13:5

2 Corinthians 13:5. Now he brings the readers to themselves. Instead of wishing to put to the proof Christ (in Paul), they should try themselves (πειράζειν, to put to the test, and that by comparison of their Christian state with what they ought to be), prove themselves (δοκιμάζειν). Oecumenius and Theophylact correctly estimate the force of the twice emphatically prefixed ἑαυτούς; δοκιμάζειν, however, is not, any more than in 1 Corinthians 11:8, equivalent to δόκιμονποιεῖν (Rückert); but what Paul had previously said by πειράζετε, εἰἐστὲἐντ. π., he once more sums up, and that with a glance back to 2 Corinthians 13:3, emphatically by the one word δοκιμάζετε.

εἰἐστὲἐντῇπίστει] dependent on πειράζετε, not on δοκιμάζετε: whether ye are in the faith, whether ye find yourselves in the fides salvifica (not to be taken of faith in miracles, as Chrysostom would have it), which is the fundamental condition of all Christian character and life. The εἶναιἐντῇπίστει stands opposed to mere nominal Christianit.

ἤοὐκἐπιγινώσκετεκ.τ.λ.] not ground of the obligation to prove themselves the more strictly (“si id sentitis, bene tractate tantum hospitem,” Grotius, comp. Osiander, Maier, and others); for the ἐπιγινώσκειν already presupposes the self-trial, not the converse (Hofmann). On the contrary, Paul lays hold of the readers by their Christian sense of honour, that they should not be afraid of this trial of themselves. Or does not this proving of yourselves lead you to the knowledge of yourselves, that Christ is in you? Are you then so totally devoid of the Christian character, that that self-trial has not the holy result of your discerning in yourselves what is withal the necessary consequence[399] of the εἶναιἐντῇπίστει: that Christ is in you (by means of the Holy Spirit) present and active? Comp.

Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:17. The construction ἙΑΥΤΟῪςὍΤΙἸ. Χ. ἘΝὙΜῖΝἘΣΤΙΝ is not a case of attraction, since in ὍΤΙΚ.Τ.Λ., is not the subject (see on Galatians 4:11), but ὍΤΙ defines more precisely (that, namely). And the full name ἸησοῦςΧριστός has solemn emphasi.

ΕἸΜΉΤΙἈΔΌΚΙΜΟΊἘΣΤΕ] After this a mark of interrogation is not to be repeated, but a period to be placed. That Christ is in you, you will perceive, if you are not perchance (ΕἸΜΉΤΙ, comp. 1 Corinthians 7:5) spurious Christians. In such, no doubt, Christ is not! Romans 8:9 f. To attach it merely to the predicated clause itself (Ἰ. Χ. ἘΝὙΜ. Ἐ.) as a limitation (Hofmann), is at variance with the very ΓΝΏΣΕΣΘΕ, ὍΤΙ that follows in 2 Corinthians 13:6, in keeping with which that exception ΕἸΜΉΤΙΚ.Τ.Λ. is to be included under the ὍΤΙΚ.Τ.Λ. attached to ἘΠΙΓΙΝΏΣΚ. ἙΑΥΤΟΎς. In ΕἸΜΉΤΙ the ΤΙ serves (like forte) “incertius pronuntiandae rei,” Ellendt, Lex.

Soph. I. p. 496. According to Ewald, εἰμήτιἀδ. ἐστε depends on ΔΟΚΙΜΆΖΕΤΕ, and ἪΟὐἘΠΙΓΙΝΏΣΚ.… ἘΝὙΜῖΝἘΣΤΙΝ is to be a parenthesis—a construction which is harsh and the less necessary, seeing that, according to the usual connection, the thoughtful glance in the ἈΔΌΚΙΜΟΊἘΣΤΕ back to ἙΑΥΤΟῪςΔΟΚΙΜΆΖΕΤΕ is retained.

[399] The εἶναιἐντ. πίστει and the Χριστὸςἐνὑμῖν are not equivalent, but are related to each other as cause and effect. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 348.

2 Corinthians 13:6

2 Corinthians 13:6. The case of the ἀδόκιμονεἶναι, however, which he has just laid down as possible perhaps in respect of the readers, shall not, he hopes, occur with him: you shall discern (in pursuance of experience) that we are not unattested, ungenuine, that is, “non deesse nobis experimenta et argumenta potestatis et virtutis, qua in refractarios uti possimus,” Wolf. Comp. 2 Corinthians 13:7; 2 Corinthians 13:9. Not without bitterness is this said. But the object of the hoping is not the desert of punishment on the part of the readers, but the δοκιμή of the apostolic authority in the event of their deserving punishment. Ἀπειλητικῶςτοῦτοτέθεικεν, ὡςμέλλωναὐτοῖςτῆςπνευματικῆςδυνάμεωςπαρέχεινἀπόδειξιν, Theodoret. According to others (Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Calovius, Bengel), Paul expresses the hope that they would amend themselves and thereby evince the power of his apostolic influence.

This, as well as the blending of the two views (Flatt, Osiander), is opposed to the context in w. 3 f., 7, 9. Not till 2 Corinthians 13:7 does Paul turn to the expression of gentle, pious love.

2 Corinthians 13:7

2 Corinthians 13:7. Yet we pray to God that this, my apostolic attestation, which I hope to give you means of discerning, may not be made necessary on your part. On εὐχόμεθα (see the critical remarks), compared with the ἐλπίζω used just before, observe that, as often in Paul and especially in this Epistle of vivid emotion, the interchange of the singular and the plural forms of expressing himself has by no means always special grounds by which it is determine.

μὴποιῆσαιὑμᾶςκακὸνμηδέν] that ye may do nothing evil, which, in fact, would only keep up and increase your guilt. Others incorrectly take it,[400] “that I be not compelled to do something evil to you,” How could Paul have so designated his chastisement? For that ποιεῖνκακόν stands here, not in the sense: to do something to one’s harm, but in the ethical sense, is shown by the contrast τὸκαλὸνποιῆτε in what follows. But even apart from this, in fact, because ΕὐΧΌΜΕΘΑ receives through ΠΡῸςΤῸΝΘΕΌΝ (comp. Xen. Mem. i. 3. 2; 2Ma 9:13; 2Ma 15:27; Numbers 21:8, al.) the meaning we pray, the words, in the event of ποιῆσαιὑμᾶς not being held to be accusative with infinitive, would have to be explained: we pray to God that He may do nothing evil to you—which would be absurd. But the accusative with the infinitive occurs as in Acts 26:19.

οὐχἵναἡμεῖςκ.τ.λ.] Statement of the object, for which he makes this entreaty to God, first negatively and then positively; not in a selfish design, not in order that we may appear through your moral conduct as attested (in so far, namely, as the excellence of the disciple is the attestation of the teacher, comp. 2 Corinthians 3:2 f., Philippians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:20, al.), but on your account, in order that ye may do what is good, and thus the attestation may be on your side and we may be as unattested, in so far, namely, as we cannot in that case show ourselves in our apostolic authority (by sternness and execution of punishment). That he should with δόκιμοι and ἈΔΌΚΙΜΟΙ refer to two different modes of his ΔΟΚΙΜΉ, is quite a Pauline trait. Through the moral walk of the readers he was manifested on the one hand as ΔΌΚΙΜΟς, on the other as ἈΔΌΚΙΜΟς; what he intended in his ΕὐΧΌΜΕΘΑΠΡῸςΤῸΝΘΕΌΝΚ.Τ.Λ. was not the former, for it was not about himself that he was concerned, but the latter, because it was simply the attestation of the readers by the ΠΟΙΕῖΝΤῸΚΑΛΌΝ that he had at heart. According to Olshausen, there is meant to be conveyed in ΟὐΧἽΝΑἩΜΕῖςΔΌΚ. ΦΑΝῶΜ.: not in order that the fulfilment of this prayer may appear as an effect of my powerful intercession. But Paul must have said this, if he had meant it. Others[401] hold that after οὐχ there is to be supplied ΕὔΧΟΜΑΙ, or the idea of wish implied in it, and ἽΝΑ expresses its contents; “I do not wish that I should show myself as standing the test (that is, stern), but rather that ye may do what is good and I be as not standing the test (that is, may appear not standing the test, and so not stern),” Billroth.

Certainly the contents of εὔχεσθαι might be conceived as its aim, and hence be expressed by ἽΝΑ (James 5:16; Colossians 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:11); but in this particular case the previous infinitive construction, expressing the contents of the prayer, teaches us that Paul has not so conceived it. Had he conceived it so, he would have simply led the readers astray by ἵνα. The explanation is forced, and simply for the reason that the fine point of a double aspect of the δοκιμή was not appreciated. From this point of view Paul might have said in a connection like 2 Corinthians 6:8 f.: ὩςἈΔΌΚΙΜΟΙΚΑῚΔΌΚΙΜΟΙ.

ἙςἈΔΌΚΙΜΟΙ] Beza aptly says: hominum videlicet judicio. By way of appearance. Comp. already Chrysostom.

[400] So Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann, and previously Flatt and Emmerling, as in the first instance Grotius, who says: “Ne cogar cuiquam poenam infligere, quae malum, dicitur, quia dura est toleratu.” On ποιεῖντινάτι, comp. Matthew 27:22; Mark 15:12. Elsewhere always in the N. T. ποιεῖντινίτι.

[401] So Billroth and Osiander and others, as well as previously Flatt, Zachariae, Estius, Menochius, al.

2 Corinthians 13:8

2 Corinthians 13:8. Reason assigned for the relation just expressed as aimed at by ἵναὑμεῖςτὸκαλὸνποιῆτε, ἡμεῖςδὲὡςἀδόκιμοιὦμεν. That we really have this design, is based on the fact that we are not in a position to do anything against the truth, but for the truth. The ἀλήθεια is to be taken in the habitual sense of the N. T.: the truth κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the divine truth, i.e. the gospel; comp. 2 Corinthians 4:2, 2 Corinthians 6:7. If Paul, forsooth, had not had the design that the readers should do what is good, and he himself appear without punitive power and consequently as unattested, he would have counteracted the gospel, in so far as it aims at establishing Christian morality, requires penitence, announces forgiveness to the penitent, etc.; but he is not in a position to do so.

To take ἀλήθεια, with Flatt and older expositors,[402] as moral truth (see on 1 Corinthians 5:8), uprightness, is a limitation of it, which the context all the less suggests, seeing that ἀλήθεια in the above sense embraces in it the moral element. The taking it in the judicial sense would be accordant with the context (ἵναἀληθῆφέρωμεντὴνψῆφον, Theophylact, so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius: “quod rectum justumque est;” Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, de Wette: “the true state in which the matter finds itself;” so, too, Räbiger); yet, in that case, there would result an inappropriate contrast, since ὑπὲρ. τ. ἀλ. can only mean “for the benefit of the truth,” which presupposes a more comprehensive idea of ἀλήθ. (de Wette: “to further the truth”).

ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρτ. ἀλ.] sc. δυνάμεθάτι, we are able to do something.

[402] So Photius in Oecumenius, p. 709 D: ἀλήσθειαντὴνεὐσέβειανκαλεῖὡςνόθουὄντοςτοῦδυσσεβοῦςβίου, and previously Pelagius: “Innocentiae enim nostra sententia obesse non poterit;” as also Erasmus, Mosheim, and others.

2 Corinthians 13:9

2 Corinthians 13:9. Not reason assigned for 2 Corinthians 13:7 (Hofmann), but confirmation of what is said in 2 Corinthians 13:8 from the subjective relation of the apostle to the readers, in which χαίρομεν has the emphasis. This joy is as the living seal of the heart to that axio.

ἀσθενῶμεν] according to the connection, quite the same as ἀδόκιμοιὦμεν in 2 Corinthians 13:7, of the state in which the apostle is not in a position to exercise punitive authority on account of the Christian conduct of his readers. Comp. 2 Corinthians 13:4.

δυνατοί] correlative to the ἀσθενῶμεν, consequently: such as (on account of their Christian excellence) one can do nothing to with the power of punishment. The latter is powerless in presence of such a moral disposition. The context does not yield more than this contrast; even the thought, that the δυνατοί guard themselves against all that would call forth the punitive authority (Hofmann), is here foreign to i.

τοῦτοκαὶεὐχόμεθα] this, namely, that ye may be strong, we also pray; it is not merely the object of our joy, but also of our prayers. On the absolute εὔχεσθαι, used of praying (for after 2 Corinthians 13:7 it is not here merely wishing), comp. James 5:16; often in classic writers. There is no reason for taking the τοῦτο adverbially: thereupon, on that account (Ewald).

τὴνὑμῶνκατάρτισιν] epexegesis of τοῦτο: namely, your full preparation, complete furnishing, perfection in Christian morality. Comp. καταρτισμός, Ephesians 4:12. Beza and Bengel think of the readjustment of the members of the body of the church that had been dislocated by the disputes (see on 1 Corinthians 1:10, and Kypke, II. p. 290)—a special reference, which is not suggested in the context. See 2 Corinthians 13:7.

2 Corinthians 13:10

2 Corinthians 13:10. This, namely, that I wish to have you δυνατούς or κατηρτισμένους and pray accordingly, this is the reason why I write this when absent, in order not to proceed sharply when present, etc. He wishes that he may be spared from the οὐφείσομαι, threatened in 2 Corinthians 13:2, and that he may see the earnest anxiety, which he had already expressed at 2 Corinthians 12:20 f., dispelled. In virtue of this view of its practical bearing, ταῦτα is to be referred, not to the whole Epistle, but (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) to the current section from 2 Corinthians 12:20 onwar.

ἀποτόμως] literally, curtly,—that is, with thoroughgoing sternness,—the same figurative conception as in our schroff, scharf [English, sharply]. In the N. T. only recurring at Titus 1:13. Comp. Wis 5:22, and Grimm in loc.; ἀποτομία, Romans 11:22. More frequently in classical writers. See, in general, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 508; Hermann, ad Soph. O. R. 877.

On χράομαι without dative, with adverb, to deal with, comp. Esther 1:19; Esther 9:27; Esther 9:12; 2Ma 12:14; Polyb. xii. 7. 3.

ἣνὁΚύριοςἔδωκέμοιεἰςοἰκοδ. κ.τ.λ.] contains a reason why he might not proceed ἀποτόμως, as thereby he could not but act at variance with the destined purpose for which Christ had given to him his apostolic authority, or at least could serve it only indirectly (in the way of sharp chastening with a view to amendment). Comp. 2 Corinthians 10:8. If we connect the whole κατὰτἐξουσίανκ.τ.λ. with γράφω (Hofmann), the ἵναπαρὼνμὴἀποτόμχρήσωμαι is made merely a parenthetic thought, which is not in keeping with its importance according to the context (2 Corinthians 13:7 ff.), and is forbidden by the emphasized correspondence of ἀπών and παρών (comp. 2 Corinthians 13:2). This emphasis is all the stronger, seeing that ἀπών in itself would be quite superfluous.

2 Corinthians 13:11

2 Corinthians 13:11 Closing exhortation. Bengel aptly observes: “Severius scripserat Paulus in tractatione, nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa non dimissa.”

λοιπόν] See on Ephesians 6:10. What I otherwise have still to impress on you is, etc.: “Verbum est properantis sermonem absolvere,” Grotiu.

χαίρετε] not: valete (for the apostolic valete follows only at 2 Corinthians 13:13), as Valla, Erasmus, and Beza have it, but gaudete (Vulgate). Encouragement to Christian joy of soul, Philippians 3:1; Philippians 4:4. And the salvation in Christ is great enough to call upon even a church so much injured and reproached to rejoice. Comp. 2 Corinthians 1:24.

καταρτίζεσθε] let yourselves be brought right, put into the right Christian frame; τέλειοιγίνεσθε, ἀναπληροῦτετὰλειπόμενα, Chrysostom. Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:10; and see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 60.

παρακαλεῖσθε] is by most, including Billroth, Schrader, Osiander, correctly understood of consolation; become comforted over everything that assails and makes you to need comfort, consolationem admittite! ἐπεὶγὰρπολλοὶἦσανοἱπειρασμοὶκαὶμεγάλοιοἱκίνδυνοι, Chrysostom. Rückert no doubt thinks that there was nothing to be comforted; but the summons has, just like what was said at 2 Corinthians 1:7, its good warrant, since at that time every church was placed in circumstances needing comfort. Rückert’s own explanation: care for your spiritual elevation, is an arbitrary extension of the definite sense of the word to an indefinite domain. Others, following the Vulgate (exhortamini), such as Rosenmüller, Flatt, Ewald, Hofmann, render: accept exhortations to what is good, which, however, in the connection is too vague and insipid; while de Wette, following Pelagius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others (exhort ye one another), imports an essential element, which Paul would have expressed by παρακαλεῖτεἀλλήλους (1 Thessalonians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:11) or ἑαυτούς (Hebrews 3:13).

τὸαὐτὸφρονεῖτε] demands the being harmonious as identity of sentiment. See on Philippians 2:2.

εἰρηνεύετε] have peace (one with another), Romans 12:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:13; Mark 9:50; Plat. Theaet. p. 180 A; Polyb. v. 8. 7; Sir 28:9; Sir 28:13. It is the happy consequence of the τὸαὐτὸφρονεῖν; with the δίχαφρονεῖν it could not take plac.

καὶὁθεὸςκ.τ.λ.] This encouraging promise refers, as is clear from τῆςἀγάπηςκαὶεἰρήνης, merely to the two last points especially needful in Corinth—to the harmony and the keeping of peace; hence a colon is to be put after παρακαλεῖσθε. And then, if ye do that (καί, with future after imperatives, see Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 392]), will God, who works the love and the peace (Romans 15:13; Romans 16:20; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 13:20), help you with His presence of grace. The characteristic genitival definition of God is argumentative, exhibiting the certainty of the promise as based on the moral nature of God.

2 Corinthians 13:12

2 Corinthians 13:12. As to the saluting by the holy kiss, see on 1 Corinthians 16:20.

οἱἅγιοιπάντες] namely, at the place and in the vicinity, where Paul was writing, in Macedonia. It was obvious of itself to the readers that they were not saluted by all Christians generally (Theodoret). It by no means follows from this salutation that the Epistle had been publicly read at the place of its composition (possibly Philippi) in the church (Calovius, Osiander), but simply that they knew of the composition of the Epistle. Nor is any special set purpose to be sought as underlying the current designation of Christian ἅγιοι (“utpote sanguine Christi lotos et Dei Spiritu regenitos et sanctificatos,” Calovius). According to Osiander, the higher value and blessing of the brotherly greeting is meant to be indicated; but comp. 1 Corinthians 15:20, οἱἀδελφοὶπάντες.

Paul does not add salutations to individuals by name; these Titus might orally convey, and the apostle himself came, in fact, soon after (Acts 20:2).

2 Corinthians 13:13

2 Corinthians 13:13. Concluding wish of blessing—whether written by his own hand (Hofmann) is an open question—full and solemn as in no other Epistle, tripartite in accordance with the divine Trinity,[403] from which the three highest blessings of eternal salvation come to believers.

The grace of Christ (comp. Romans 5:15; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; Philemon 1:25), which is continuously active in favour of His own (Romans 8:34; 2 Corinthians 12:8), is first adduced, because it is the medians, Romans 5:1; Romans 8:34, between believers and the love of God, that causa principalis of the grace of Christ (Romans 5:8), as it also forms the presupposition of the efficacy of the Spirit, Romans 8:1-2. The fellowship of the Holy Spirit—that is, the participation in the gracious efficacy of the Holy Spirit[404]—is named last, because it is the consequence of the two former (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6), and continues (Romans 7:6; Romans 8:4 ff., Romans 8:26 f.) and brings to perfection (Romans 8:11; Galatians 6:8) their work in me.

μετὰπάντωνὑμῶν] sc. εἴη. Seal of holy apostolic love after so much severe censure, one thing for all.

[403] On the old liturgical use of this formula of blessing, see Constit. apost. viii. 5. 5, viii. 12. 3.

[404] Estius, Calovius, and Hammond understand κοινωνία. of the communicatio activa of the Holy Spirit, which, doubtless, as τοῦπνευμ. ἁγ. would be genitivus subjecti, is in accordance with the preceding clauses, and not at variance with the linguistic usage of κοινωνία in itself (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. pp. 81, 287), but is in opposition to the usage throughout in the N. T. (see on Romans 15:26; 1 Corinthians 10:16), and not in keeping with passages like Philippians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Peter 1:4,—passages which have as their basis the habitually employed conception of the participation in the divine, which takes place in the case of the Christian. Hence also not: familiaris consuetudo with the Holy Spirit (Ch. F. Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 276). Theophylact well remarks: τὴνκοινωνίαντοῦἁγίουπνεύματος, τουτέστιτὴνμετοχὴναὐτοῦκαὶτὴνμετάληψιν, καθʼ ἣνἁγιαζόμεθα, τῇἐφʼ ἡμᾶςἐπιφοιτήσειτοῦπαρακλήτουκοινωνοὶαὐτοῦγενόμενοικαὶαὐτοὶ, οὐκοὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰμεθέξειὄντες.