2 Corinthians 1

CHAPTER I

The Greeting, 1:1, 2

“Paul and Timothy … to the church, etc… grace and peace!” nominatives to indicate the writers—a dative to indicate the church to whom the letter is sent—nominatives to express the terms of the greeting. This arrangement is stereotyped. It varies only slightly from the common secular formula which has the infinitive χαίρειν to convey the word of greeting (James 1:1; Acts 15:23; 23:26). Each of the three terms may be amplified, and the amplification then becomes important because it is an indication of what the letter conveys. Paul’s amplifications are invariably significant, even his omissions are noteworthy (note the unmodified dative in Gal. 1:2).

2 Corinthians 1:1

1 Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, and Timothy, the brother, to the church of God which is in Corinth, with all the saints who are in whole Achaia: grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ!

In this greeting the addition to Paul’s name and that to Timothy’s form an intentional contrast. It is, of course, Paul who dictates the letter; he regularly dictated his letters to a scribe. He might have called Timothy “my fellow worker” or given him some other designation to indicate his assistantship in the work of the gospel. He is instead named only “the brother” who in this capacity alone is associated with Paul in the sending of this letter.

By calling Timothy “the brother” Paul does two things: he places into relief the addition of his own name “apostle of Christ Jesus,” etc., and fixes the exact measure of responsibility for all that follows. His own relation to the churches addressed is far more than fraternal as will appear throughout the letter, it is apostolic. Paul’s high and holy office is involved directly and completely in all that is contained in this letter. Timothy’s office of assistant to Paul is not so involved. As in the case of Sosthenes mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:1, whatever pertains to Timothy’s office as assistant Paul assumes as Timothy’s superior. Paul relieves him of all but his fraternal responsibility for this letter. Since brotherhood is the fundamental relation, this responsibility is by no means small; that it is greater than it was in the case of Sosthenes in 1 Cor. 1:1 appears from 1:19 and from Timothy’s personal relation to the Corinthians.

“Apostle” is “one sent from” a superior on a commission; he thus represents his superior, is his ambassador. The word is here used in its narrow sense as “through God’s will” also indicates. Associates of the apostles were called apostles in a wider sense but not “apostles of Christ Jesus through God’s will,” for this designation refers to their immediate call while those assistants had only a mediate call. The genitive “of Christ Jesus” is more than “belonging to Christ Jesus”; it indicates origin and agency: “called and sent by him.” “Through God’s will” = not accidentally by a set of fortuitous circumstances, or temporarily, or growing into this position. God’s θέλημα is his volitional act which placed Paul into his office. See 1 Cor. 1:1 regarding this phrase.

We note no contrast with false apostles although we shall see that men of this type had invaded Corinth, and that Paul takes issue with them. It is sufficient here that the Corinthians know that Christ’s own representative is writing to them.

An additional word needs to be said especially in regard to this epistle. It is often thought that Paul places his authority upon the scales, and that “apostle” intends to stress authority. This view is not borne out by the letter. At times preachers thus expect their mere authority to produce submission. “Apostle of Christ Jesus” is, first of all, written with regard to Paul himself and expresses his own consciousness of bearing a most heavy responsibility with regard to the Corinthians. He writes as one who feels this weight. It is his first concern to discharge his own apostolic obligation. He is accountable to Christ Jesus.

Moreover, the letter shows that his whole soul is in his office. We see his deep emotions throughout the letter, this is more evident than even in Galatians. These emotions, this deep concern for the Corinthians, this fervent reaching out for them—it is this that is truly apostolic. Place authority in this light and it will appear more truly how Paul expected it to affect the Corinthians. They were to respond, not by compulsion, but by a satisfied, even by an enthusiastic following, not to say submission.

As “brother” places “apostle” into relief, so it also does the reverse. Paul’s apostolic concern has Timothy’s brotherly concern at its side. The fact that Timothy is not called by an official name lets the Corinthians feel that not mere authority is dictating to them. While Paul necessarily cannot call himself merely “brother” lest that convey the suggestion of giving up apostolic authority, responsibility, and obligation, his making this “brother” the joint-writer of the letter brings out the full fraternal appeal that is intended by the letter. The apostle and the brother have talked over the contents, have agreed on all of them. The apostolic and the brotherly word blend into one.

In 1 Cor. 1:1 we read “Sosthenes, the brother,” exactly as here, it is like a title of honor. Brethren will heed a brother. We see that it is not the weight of authority that Paul urges but one that is even heavier and harder to resist.

With this corresponds the dative: “to the church of God which is in Corinth,” which is explained in 1 Cor. 1:1. The church of God, no matter in what locality it is found, will certainly heed the words of one who is Christ’s apostle by God’s will. Here we have Paul’s estimate of the Corinthians, and it indicates what their estimate of themselves ought always to be: no less than “the church of God.” It is well that we ponder the designation, both we who hold positions of responsibility in this church, and we who are brethren in the assembly. In 1 Cor. 1:2 Paul has further additions which define the membership of this church of God. Now he is more succinct and leaves the two nominatives and the dative focused fully upon each other.

Regarding Timothy’s presence with Paul and his recent visit in Corinth see the Introduction. The view that Timothy’s last commission to Corinth was a failure is unwarranted. If that were the case, Paul would not have invited him to join him in writing this letter. Neither here nor elsewhere does Paul try to vindicate or to re-establish Timothy. It has been well said that the naming of Timothy as the co-writer is neither a challenge to the Corinthians nor a satisfaction to him. He had helped to found the congregation, he was conversant with its present situation, for he had recently been there.

The fact that he is not personally involved in the troubles that are now subsiding is seen from the letter itself in which he is not named save in 1:19. Paul does not need to refer to Timothy’s recent commission since that is known to the Corinthians, and since Timothy is now joining Paul in this letter.

This letter is intended also for “all the saints who are in whole Achaia.” But Paul writes σύν and not καί; he does not address these saints in the same way in which he addresses the Corinthian church. There has been no trouble between Paul and these others, nor were they party to the trouble in Corinth. “With” means that some things such as the matter of the collection pertain to all the saints in the Roman province of which Corinth was the capital. All that pertains to the former difficulties in Corinth and to their settlement concerns these saints indirectly. They may have heard or may yet get to hear about them. The troublemakers who had invaded Corinth may also try to intrude themselves elsewhere. Then, too, Paul is not shunning publicity; the entire trouble in Corinth had been public from the very beginning, its conclusion should likewise be public.

“Saints” is in Acts 9:13 used already by Ananias of Damascus as a designation for the Christians, and this designation was current in the early days of the church. It means “separated unto God by faith in Christ.” It is the sainthood of true faith that indicates the cleansing of pardon through Christ’s blood, the beginning of a new life in Christ, the putting away sin more and more. This term never indicates total sanctification in the sense of perfectionism so that these “saints” never sin after becoming saints (Phil. 3:12, Paul; 1 John 1:8–10, John).

When Paul writes “all the saints in whole Achaia” he does not mean that only unorganized believers and no churches existed outside of Corinth. Scattered believers may have resided in some localities, but Cenchrea had a church which employed Phoebe as a deaconess (Rom. 16:1), Athens had a church, and although we cannot name others because the records are so sparse, it is only fair to believe that a good many existed. The very phrase “in whole Achaia” demands no less. Paul had worked on a large scale, with several assistants, and thus covered much territory. His first stay in Achaia was for a period of a year and one half. We have no right to exclude Athens from consideration. Achaia is the senatorial province which was under a proconsul with its capital at Corinth and included Epirus, Thessaly, Middle Greece, the Peloponnesus, and notably Eubœa among the islands.

But Paul’s letter is not intended, on the one hand, as an encyclical—“with all the saints” excludes that view; nor, on the other hand, is it the intention that only parts of the letter (say chapters 8 and 9) are to be communicated to the saints who live outside of Corinth. An encyclical would be addressed equally to all the churches; this letter is occasioned by conditions that existed at Corinth and is intended for Corinth and is only thus intended for the Achaians in general.

2 Corinthians 1:2

2 The words of greeting are the same as those found in other epistles: “grace to you and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Χάρις = the favor Dei as it is found in God’s heart together with all the gifts of this favor. “Grace to you” means: May God and the Lord give you an abundance of their undeserved gifts. Εἰρήνη, the Hebrew shalom, the German Heil, denotes the condition that prevails when God is our friend and all is well with us. The objective condition of “peace” is the essential, from this the subjective feeling and enjoyment of “peace” will flow. The former remains although the latter fluctuates and at times disappears. Paul desires both for the Corinthians and for the Achaians. The order is always “grace and peace,” the former is the source of the latter. Without grace there is no peace, but with grace peace is certain.

The grammarians supply εἴη with these nominatives, but why supply anything? The greeting is exclamatory.

The exalted value of these gifts is expressed by the phrase “from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ἀπό conveys the idea that these gifts are to flow down from God and thus involves also the thought of origin. Since only one preposition is used with the two objects “God, our Father,” and “the Lord Jesus Christ,” the two are made a unit source of grace and peace and are placed on an equality. The Greek is so plain that no scholar will deny these facts. How subordinationism seeks to destroy this equality of our Father and the Lord Jesus we have noted in 1 Cor. 1:3. Both names express the revelation which these persons have made of themselves in connection with the work of saving us. “Our Father” = we his children through faith in Christ Jesus; “the Lord Jesus Christ” = he who redeemed, purchased, and won us so that by faith we are now his own, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness (Luther). Both terms express deity, but deity in the blessed, soteriological sense, the sense in which grace and peace, too, are meant.

The greeting is brief, but the terms employed are in their combination so weighty that they constitute the basis of the entire Biblical and Christian theology. They were so understood when they were written and sent and when they were received and read.

The First Part of the Epistle

Seven Chapters

Greatly Comforted and Cheered, Paul Clears away the Last Difficulties and at the same Time Glorifies His Office with Its Work and Its Suffering

I. Comforted for Comforting

2 Corinthians 1:3

3 Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the compassions and God of all comforting, he who is comforting us in all our affliction so as to enable us to be comforting those in every affliction by means of the comforting-with which we ourselves are being comforted by God!

Meyer’s simple herzgewinnender Eingang (warmly affectionate introduction) is truer and worth more than all the cold grammatical and literary analyses of this opening exclamation. The fundamental emotion of Paul and of Timothy bares itself to the Corinthians. It underlies the entire epistle. Other emotions flow into this main stream; they only add to its volume and make it richer. To understand and to appreciate this letter, its spirit, its purpose, and its details, we must enter into the feelings of the two writers; the more we do so, the more we gain. In order to do this mere intellectuality is insufficient, and critical approach is fatal.

The fact that Paul felt more deeply than Timothy is certain, but the fact that Timothy shared Paul’s emotions is equally certain. They reach out to the hearts of their readers, and those hearts surely responded.

The very designation used with reference to God accords with the emotion expressed. God is thrice named in the greeting, and now he is at once again and again and more fully named. As the letter begins, Paul and Timothy raise their eyes and their hearts to God and to Christ. Benediction and praise move their pen. The readers’ hearts are carried upward. All that follows is dictated as being in the presence of the blessed God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassions and the God of comforting.

Tribulation and consolation are wound together. The ministry always meets the former yet always finds the latter, and the latter exceeds the former (v. 5). The church and the saints, together and individually, have the same experience. Yet here there is more than a parallel and a likeness, for the ministry is to be a channel to conduct God’s consolation to the membership of the church in its tribulation. The second person “you” is not at once employed, it does not occur until v. 6. 7. Paul and Timothy minister to many others besides those in Corinth and in Achaia, hence they at first write in general: “so as to enable us to comfort those in all affliction” whoever they may be.

But already here the saints and the ministry are drawn together. In a moment we see the arms of the writers embracing their readers in the divine consolation.

Here we have the ministerial and pastoral object of the affliction and the subsequent consolation that are experienced by the ministry of the church. God sends both for the personal sanctification of his ministers but also for the purpose of enabling them more truly, more richly, more effectively to minister unto others, for that is their very office. We indeed know it well: oratio, meditatio, tentatio faciunt theologum; but when the tentatio and its affliction come, many a minister is surprised and acts as though something untoward is happening to him. This is often true also with regard to the saints. Let us learn from Paul.

With heart lifted up he exclaims: “Blessed the God,” etc. The verbal εὑλογητός is regular in such ascriptions of praise. The grammarians feel that something should be supplied. They debate as to whether it should be ἐστί, declarative, or εἴη or ἔστω, optative (wish) or imperative, the LXX has the former (R. 396). Is anything needed in an exclamation? We bless, i.e., speak well of God when we truly say what he is and does in his attributes and his works, and no task should be more delightful to us. There is too little contemplation of God and too little praise of him. This entire ascription is choice in wording, the very beauty of the expressions is intended to match the excellence of praise here offered to God.

Thus we have the full liturgical name: “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It names God in connection with Christ in the fullest soteriological way: the God with whom our whole salvation in Christ is bound up. This name is really a concentrated confession; it puts into this glorious name all that the Scriptures reveal regarding our Savior-God. The discussions of the commentators regarding the point as to whether Paul intends to say that God is only the Father of our Lord Jesus or also his God generally lose the main import just expressed.

The A. V. translates here and in Rom. 15:6: “God, even the Father,” etc., and in 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3: “the God and Father,” etc.; the R. V. translates all these passages in the same way. The plea that we may translate in either way is a Gamaliel’s counsel of indecision; Paul had only one thought in mind. The remark that “Paul was not conscious of creating a peculiar Christological dictum” is misleading. This designation was standard in the church, Paul is not creating it. When it was first used, this was done consciously.

The Greek has one article: “the God and Father,” this is its regular way of joining two concepts into a unity; thus the genitive “of our Lord” naturally belongs to this unity, to God as much as to Father. Even when no unity is intended, when the article is used with each noun, a following genitive may belong to both nouns if the sense permits. The remark that “blessed be God” is a Semitic formula that is complete and needs no genitive, and that “Father” is incomplete and needs a genitive, is specious. Both may be used alone, both, too, with genitives; see both with one article and no addition in 1 Cor. 15:24. To assert that because in 1 Cor. 15:24, and in Eph. 5:20 no genitive follows, and that when a genitive is added it belongs only to the second noun, is unwarranted.

Jesus himself calls God his God in Matt. 27:46; John 20:17. Eph. 1:17 says in so many words: “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For Jesus in his human nature God is his God, and for Jesus in his deity God is his Father; his God since the incarnation, his Father from all eternity. But let us not fail to note “our Lord,” which connects us with Christ and through him with God. “Lord” is again wholly soteriological: he who purchased and won us, to whom we belong as our Savior-King.

“The God and Father” is repeated chiastically in the apposition: “the Father and God,” and again with a unifying article although each noun now has a genitive. He is first designated from the viewpoint of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; next from the viewpoint of his feeling and his action toward the saved. This God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of the compassions and God of all comforting.” We at once see that the genitives cannot be exclusive as though as Father and not as God the compassions belong to him, and as God and not as Father the comforting; for the compassions produce the comforting, neither is ever without the other. This shows still more that “our Lord” belongs to “the God and Father.” He is compassionate and active in comforting us through our Lord Jesus Christ. The two great designations are bound closely together.

“The Father of the compassions” (or “pities”) recalls Ps. 103:13: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.” Οἰκτιρμοί is an idiomatic plural and may be rendered with our singular “compassion,” the tender feeling of pity for those in distress. The article points to all of the pity in the Father. The word itself, although it is plural, does not refer to acts. The acts are expressed by the second genitive, “all comforting,” “all” expressing totality.

Παράκλησις and the verb παρακαλέω may mean admonition, encouragement, or consolation according to the context; here the last is referred to because the reference is to affliction. The genitives are sometimes thought to be identical, but one has the feeling of pity (genitive of possession) and puts forth an action like comforting (effective genitive). In “the Father of pity” we have tenderness; while in “God of comforting” we have effectiveness, the comfort is divine. It has been noted that Paul’s expressions are not so much doctrinal in describing God as due to actual recent experience (v. 7–11).

2 Corinthians 1:4

4 Still more must be said as the second apposition makes plain. This description of God pertains to the writers and to the readers of this epistle. God is praised on behalf of all of them. As Paul and Timothy are needing God’s pity and comfort, so also are the Corinthians. As the troubles in Corinth were an affliction for Paul and for Timothy, so those troubles are viewed by the writers as an affliction also for the Corinthians. For all concerned God is providing help and comfort.

Paul and Timothy are ministers, Paul is even an apostle; hence God is using also them and enabling them to transmit his comfort to the Corinthians and to any others in every kind of affliction. In a beautiful way, in order thereby to praise God the more, Paul weaves together παράκλησις and the verb forms of παρακαλέω and uses these words no less than ten times. The whole opening paragraph is thus made to ring with comfort—comfort—comfort, all in praise of God.

Ὁπαρακαλῶνκτλ., the substantivized present participle, is appositional and like another noun: “the One comforting,” etc., or “he who is comforting,” etc. The tense is durative: “engaged in comforting,” we may say, “always comforting.” And “us” refers to Paul and Timothy. Much of the discussion regarding “I” and “we” in this epistle is untenable as we shall find. “I” always designates Paul in distinction from Timothy, and “we” is never the editorial or majestic plural to designate Paul alone. It should be recognized that no competent writer would refer to himself with “I” and then with “we.”

Timothy shared the affliction with Paul. Here Paul uses ἐπί, the comforting comes “upon the affliction”; then he uses ἐν, “in the affliction.” The Greek word means “distress” that is caused by painful pressure, and the comforting consists in the help that removes that pressure so that one breathes again or so that one is able to bear the distress without fainting. The article is added: ἐπὶπάσῃτῇθλίψειἡμῶν, but not only because specific distress is referred to (R. 772), but also because ἡμῶν is added and makes the reference specific; ἐνπάσῃθλίψει = “in every distress” in general. “Our whole distress” that has come upon us; then “every distress” that may come upon those whom we are to comfort.

The two are tied together: Paul and Timothy are comforted in distress “so as to enable us to be comforting those in every affliction by means of the comforting with which we ourselves are being comforted by God.” Εἰςτό with the infinitive expresses purpose, intended result, or actual result. Any one of these three would serve here although some prefer purpose. “Those in affliction” is general and extends beyond the Corinthians, for Paul and Timothy had extensive fields of labor; yet the readers are included, and they will be mentioned presently.

God’s comforting of Paul and of Timothy did more than to help them; it enabled them to comfort others “by means of the comforting with which we ourselves are being comforted by God” (ἧς is attracted from the accusative of the cognate object, R. 716; some think of the dative). “By God” brings out the idea that all of the comforting is done only by him; Paul and Timothy are only God’s instruments through whom he comforts others who are in distress.

Some commentators refer to pagans and Jews in this connection. Seneca and Cicero are introduced who state that only he can help others who has experienced the same need, and Philo is cited to the same effect that when the first-born in Egypt were slain, none could comfort the others because everyone had the first-born dead in his house. But what comfort has a pagan or a Jew to offer, who has been in distress and speaks to another who is in similar distress? He had no true comfort; how can he then point another to true comfort?

We see the vast gulf between Paul and Timothy and all others. They have the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the compassion and God of all comforting, are comforted by him, and are enabled to comfort others by bringing them God and his comfort. What can a pagan or a Jew bring? Only what they had in their distress—nothing! This is a text for a funeral, it points to the full, open fountain of Christian comfort, Deus Consolator. Let the preacher contrast him with the emptiness of all other comforters and the sham comforts they offer. How this will draw poor sinners who seek comfort and find only husks elsewhere!

Some say that Paul here offers himself as the “mediator.” His suffering is made vicarious. He is said to stand for others “in Christ’s stead.” The comfort is mediated by him to others. He is the “apostolic-pneumatic” leader who superabounds in the experience of God and in possession of the Spirit. But these comments are farfetched. Διά expresses means, but this means is not the mediator Paul; it is the comforting act, the agent of which is carefully expressed by ὑπό, the regular preposition to indicate the agent, and he is “God.” God does all the comforting. As he did so in the case of Paul and Timothy, he also does in the case of the others in all their distress. He uses his ministers for this as he uses them for preaching, teaching, etc., and in no other way.

2 Corinthians 1:5

5 When ὅτι is translated “because” and v. 5 is regarded as the reason for v. 4, difficulty arises, and one can understand why v. 5 has been considered superfluous, a mere sidethought, and the like. We put the break in thought, not after v. 5, but after v. 4 and read together v. 5–7 so that ὅτι becomes the consecutivum (R. 1001): “seeing that.” Then the exclamation of praise voiced in v. 3, 4 will be “in view of” (ὅτι) v. 5–7, not as proving it by a reason (there really is none), but as pointing still further to the result of God’s blessed comforting, namely in particular the result for “you,” the readers of the epistle. Thus v. 3–7 become a unit, a closely knit paragraph.

We adopt the text followed by the R. V. in preference to that used by the A. V.: seeing that as the sufferings of Christ abound for us, so through Christ also our comforting abounds; besides (δέ) whether we are afflicted, (it is) for your comforting and salvation; whether we are comforted (it is) for your comforting, that which works in endurance of the same sufferings which we, too, are suffering. And this hope of ours is firm for you, we seeing that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the comforting.

The stress is on καί: as the sufferings, so also the comforting; secondly on “through Christ.” The fact that “the sufferings abound” has already been stated in v. 4 where the expression “all our affliction” was used; and the fact that “the comforting abounds” has likewise been indicated in the expression “God comforting us in all our affliction,” he, the “God of all comforting.” What is new is that in the very nature of our relation to Christ the comforting corresponds to the suffering. It is a case of “even as—so also”; and the connecting link which makes the two agree is Christ. We see why God who does this comforting is so effectively called “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 3). He comforts us “through Christ,” διά = he being the Mediator in all this comforting. “For us” and “our” = Paul and Timothy; in “our comforting” note that “our” is the objective genitive: the comforting that comforts “us.”

This correspondence of the sufferings that come “for us” and of the comforting extended to us is due to the fact that both the sufferings and the comforting are connected with Christ. “Of Christ” and “through Christ” are placed chiastically and match. As to the comforting, that is mediated (διά) by Christ, mediated by all that he has done as “Christ.” Our comfort and our passion hymns constantly dwell on this mediation; the church has produced no better commentary. M. Loy sings, American Lutheran Hymnal (277);

“The way of life is by the cross,

The glowing fires along,

Which serve to purge away the dross

And make the spirit strong.

“To me, O Lord, Thy grace impart

Each trial to abide.

And ever let my fainting heart

Find refuge at Thy side.”

Bernard of Clairvaux (417):

“Ah, let me grasp those hands,

That we may never part,

And let the power of their blood

Sustain my fainting heart.”

Add Paul Gerhardt, from whom many a line might be quoted (383):

“Be Thou my consolation

And, when I die, my shield;

Let me behold Thy passion

When I my breath must yield.

Mine eyes, to Thee uplifted,

Upon Thy cross shall dwell,

My heart by faith enfold Thee:

Who dieth thus dies well.”

But all our tribulation is also connected with Christ in such a manner that Paul calls it “the sufferings of Christ.” In what sense the genitive is to be understood Jesus himself explains in John 15:18–21, especially in the statement: “All these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake.” Παθήματα (generally plural) has a passive sense, Leiden, injuries inflicted upon us. The genitive may be regarded as subjective: the sufferings which Christ endured. These same sufferings, Paul says, now “abound for us” (Paul and Timothy). The thought is not that in glory Christ continues to suffer these sufferings, but that his original sufferings which, as far as his suffering is concerned, were completed at the time of his death continue after a fashion in those who are connected with him. The very same hatred that killed him on the cross now hurts his believers who are one with him by faith in his name. This thought explains such passages as Matt. 20:22, 23; Rom. 8:17; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; Heb. 13:13; 1 Pet. 4:13.

Deissmann mentions a “mystical genitive,” and others speak about Christ’s still suffering because of his mystical union with us by referring to some of the passages quoted and adding those which speak of us as his body, members of his body, (1 Cor. 12:12; 6:15; Acts 9:4, 5). In 1 Cor. 12:21 the head is not Christ but one of the members, and in v. 26 all the members suffer, and yet v. 27 does not intimate that Christ suffers. In the unio mystica Christ is never identified with us, his spiritual body; we are not = Christ, nor is Christ = we. There is only a unio. So the human nature of Christ does not = the divine, nor is the reverse true; yet there was a unio of the two. As to Acts 9:4, 5, it is plain that the glorified Christ was persecuted in the Christians, and that nothing is said to the effect that Christ was still undergoing pain.

Some also state that this mysticism follows the Hellenistic mystery cults, for instance, the expressions used by the Attis and the Osiris mystics. The suffering god is identified with his devotee mystics. More than this, what the god is to the mystic, the mystic is to his fellow. “As Christ bore our sins, we bear his diseases and sufferings; he has by no means taken them from us, on the contrary, he loads on us what he still has to bear and lets us suffer with him.” “Also he (Paul) is for his own a ‘preceder,’ an ‘Attis,’ a ‘Christ,’ at least the mediator of the saving operations of Christ.” Paul has borrowed from the pagans!

Some of these exegetes point to a Jewish apocalyptic source. But the Jewish apocalyptic “birth pains of the Messiah” do not match the θλίψεις and the παθήματα of Christ as Paul speaks about them. For the ungodly those “birth pains” were a penalty; these exegetes say they were this also for the godly, and the Messiah comes only after these pains have been completed. So it is said that Paul modified the idea but kept the main point: insofar as the παθήματα of Christ represent the sufferings of the last times and thus precede the Parousia and furnish assurance for the reception into the Messianic eon, the Jewish idea is preserved. But Paul was a Christian.

2 Corinthians 1:6

6 From the third person: “those in all affliction” (v. 4), Paul passes quietly to the second and to the direct address with the two genitives “your.” Δέ is not adversative but continuative: “besides,” “moreover”; and the addition to the abundance of the sufferings and of the comforting through Christ (v. 5) is that both are experienced by Paul and by Timothy ὑπέρ—ὑπέρ, “in behalf of” the Corinthians and the Achaians. Paul is faulted because he divides the affliction and the comforting: “whether—whether.” The fact is that the affliction and the comforting are purposely divided from the beginning (v. 4) and remain so, and each is spoken of with reference to the other. Both are made to stand out.

Conditions of reality are used; we do not translate with English subjunctives as our versions do. Paul and Timothy are afflicted, are comforted, and in these clauses they speak thus regarding both experiences. The idea of substitution should not be inserted into the two ὑπέρ phrases; yet this is done by some. Only in certain connections does this preposition convey the idea of substitution, namely when an act must be “instead of” in order to be “for.” In the apodosis we supply “it is,” which the Greek does not need. Already the fact that Paul and Timothy bear affliction is “for your comforting and salvation,” the two are regarded as a unit because of the one article (R. 782); compare the designations for God in v. 2, 3.

Salvation is here not to be taken in the restricted sense of deliverance from afflictions but in the regular sense of being saved from sin, death, and damnation. It is lacking in the next “for” phrase, for the first phrase is objective: the comforting and the salvation which God works; the second is subjective: the comforting which works in endurance, in perseverance in us so that we hold out amid afflictions and in this way reach the goal, final salvation. Both of these purposes and these effects start with the divine comforting hence both phrases begin: ὑπὲρτῆςὑμῶνπαρακλήσεως; then, however, they diverge, the one to the final effect “salvation,” the other to the means in us, our “endurance of the same sufferings which (ὧν attracted from ἅ) we, too, are suffering.”

What the readers see in Paul and in Timothy, how much they must bear in their work of spreading the gospel, is to benefit these readers, is to be “for your comforting and salvation” as showing them “that we must through much tribulation (διάπολλῶνθλίψεων, the noun that is derived from the very verb used here) enter into the kingdom of God,” i.e., final salvation, Acts 14:22. It is always so. If the leaders would have an easy life, one that is free from affliction, what would the general membership think when it finds itself in much affliction? But when it sees how the Lord burdens the leaders with the greatest affliction, that very fact is comforting to the members and aids their salvation when they, too, feel affliction. So Christ himself attained the crown through the cross. Again and again he marked out the same path for his apostles and also for all his true followers. It is unwarranted to fault Paul for dividing, for speaking first about the purpose of his afflictions in regard to his readers.

Naturally and necessarily the other side is now added. Paul and Timothy are comforted, in fact, this epistle starts with the strongest praise to God for this comforting (v. 3, 4) and is throughout written from the viewpoint of the full experience of God’s comforting. When it is witnessed by their readers it is and will be “for your comforting (namely that comforting) which works in endurance of the same sufferings which we, too, are suffering.” To see Paul and Timothy comforted will surely help their readers the better to endure the same kind of suffering. It is always so: the comfort seen in the leaders, the assurance, faith, and joy with which they endure are of great benefit to the members for making them hold out in the same kind of suffering.

Paul does not say that the comforting works endurance but works “in endurance.” That point is worth noting, for the phrase implies that the readers are already “in” this endurance, and that the divine comforting operates in it by strengthening and increasing it. Ὑπομονή = the remaining under, brave, steady holding out, perseverance. The sufferings must, of course, be such as can be called “the sufferings of Christ” (v. 5). Read 1 Pet. 2:19–23 and note that being buffeted for our faults is a quite different matter.

The thought and the wording are above criticism. As the double statement begins with “we are afflicted,” so it ends with “we are suffering,” and between the beginning and the end all the comforting and its benefit are mentioned. Still finer is the chiastic thought: suffering—salvation; then comforting—in endurance of suffering. Moreover, this chiasm is not artificial; it reproduces the facts as they are.

We need not ask about affliction and sufferings among the Corinthians and the Achaians. They were certainly no exception when they were compared with other Christians. The only question is whether Paul refers to griefs that were caused him by the Corinthians and then also to griefs of the Corinthians, both such as unruly and misled brethren caused the faithful brethren in Corinth and such as Paul had to cause by correcting them. We may remember how much Jesus had to endure from the Twelve. Think of the pain which Philip caused him (John 14:8, 9), of Peter’s frequent rashness which was so trying to Jesus, of Peter’s denial, of Judas. Many a rebuke had to be spoken by Jesus’ lips.

These things are in a way constantly repeated. The injuries inflicted by those who are outside are less painful than the injuries inflicted by those who are inside.

2 Corinthians 1:7

7 In typical Pauline fashion the two chiastic lines of thought are now brought to their unity in the hope of Paul and of Timothy for their readers. The advance is not from ὑπομονή to ἐλπίς. The article is practically demonstrative: “this hope of ours for you.” It is “firm” as it has ever been. Why so firm? Because back of it is “the Father of the compassions and God of all comforting.” It thus rests on the knowledge “that as you are partakers (the adjective used as a noun) of the sufferings, so also of the comforting.” These two merge into one. The duality unfolded in v. 4 and already there in a measure woven together, now comes to its unity.

We find no anacoluthon in εἰδότες since “our” precedes; even grammatically all is in smooth order, and no apology is in place. In order to be really firm hope must rest on knowledge. Some think that this knowledge is the information that was brought from Corinth by Titus. “This hope of ours” has a more solid basis. It was in the heart of Paul and of Timothy before Titus arrived; it was only confirmed by his good report. If Titus had brought bad news, he who wrote: “Love hopeth all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), would still have hoped on and in this hope have worked for Corinth. Paul and Timothy knew how the sufferings and the comforting go together, as in their case so also in the case of the Corinthians, in the experiences through which they were passing. The two genitives are objective.

II. Deliverance and Thanksgiving

2 Corinthians 1:8

8 A recent deliverance from mortal danger still fills the writers’ hearts with its effects, and these help to explain to the readers with what feelings this epistle is being written. This paragraph is thus still introductory and secondary to v. 3–7. “For” = that you may the more understand our feelings.

For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning the distress of ours which occurred in Asia, that we became weighted down exceedingly beyond ability so that we got to despair even of living on; yea, we ourselves have had the verdict of death within our own selves in order that we may not get to placing confidence on our own selves but on the God who raises up the dead: he who did deliver us out of so great a death and will deliver us, in whom we have been hoping (ever since) that he will also still deliver us: you also joining in help in our behalf with petition in order that, as (coming) from many persons, the gracious gift (obtained) for us by means of many may get to receive thanks on our behalf.

All of the key words are repeated: “death” twice, the verb “deliver” three times, “many” twice, “in our behalf” twice. The deliverance thus looms above all else. The story itself is not told, for not its details but the divine purpose apparent in it is the main point together with the cooperation of the readers in this purpose. Something that was almost fatal had recently happened to Paul and to Timothy while they were still in the Roman province of Asia; they had resigned themselves to death; God had practically raised them from the dead. His purpose in doing so is all too plain. Too many of the readers cannot join in fervent thanks on behalf of the two who were brought from the gates of death.

“We do not want you to be ignorant” is a kind of litotes for “we want you to be informed.” “Brethren” reaches out to the readers and counts on their concern. Here they have a sample of what Paul and his assistants must at times undergo. Here was a θλῖψις, “pressure” indeed, actual mortal “distress.” The same word has been used three times before (once as a verb) together with its synonyms. Here, too, is a sample of deliverance and of the comfort and the sure hope which it yields. Some of the tenses show how vividly the memory of it remains in the writers. They had just recently come out of the province of Asia via Troas.

When Paul writes “Asia,” we are left without a clue as to the city. Some think of Ephesus and the tumult incited by Demetrius before Paul left. Aside from other features that fail to fit, this takes us back several months, and Paul is writing about something recent. Some mention Troas but do not note that it lay neither in the province of Asia nor in that of Mysia but was an independent city. Paul’s vagueness is also thought to be due to the fact that the readers, at least the Corinthians, knew; but this, too, is unsatisfactory, for “we do not want you to remain ignorant” (present infinitive) means that this is the first information which they are receiving. Titus had not known until he reached Paul and Timothy; Titus would give the details to the Corinthians.

Let us confess that all that we know is what is written here. Many guesses have been made; we shall not even list them. The ὅτι clause is appositional to “the distress of ours” and states in what this distress consisted. Θλῖψις = pressure, and this was so intense “that we became weighted down exceedingly beyond ability.” The aorist is ingressive, and this verb is always passive in the New Testament. The pressure got to be such a weight that Paul and Timothy crumbled under it. It was καθʼ ὑπερβολήν, hyperbolical, excessive, actually ὑπὲρδύναμιν, “beyond ability,” and we should remember that at least Paul’s ability was not small. When he gave up hope, his case was grave indeed.

The result clause states outright: “so that we got to despair (again ingressive) even of living on” (τοῦ with the infinitive after verbs that take the genitive, B.-D. 400, 3; R. 996 calls this an ablative). We venture only one assertion here: this was not a court trial, for “even of living on” suggests an entirely different kind of mortal danger. Paul and Timothy had resigned themselves to death.

The question has been raised regarding the force of “we” in this paragraph. Does Paul refer only to himself, only to himself and to Timothy, or are others included, his entire party? He generally traveled with several companions. The exegetical answer is that Paul and Timothy are speaking for themselves. If others were involved, these two speak only about themselves.

2 Corinthians 1:9

9 Ἀλλά is not “but” (A. V., commentators), it only carries the story on (R. 1186), it is the nonadversative or continuative use of this word: “yea” (R. V.). With vivid recollection the perfect tense states what happened and is still present to the mind. R. 896, etc., calls it the dramatic perfect; John loves it and uses it frequently. “We ourselves have had the verdict of death within our own selves” and still feel this dire experience. Some debate as to whether ἐσχήκαμεν may, perhaps, have the force of an aorist and be like the preceding aorists; there is no need for such a view when the use of the perfect is understood.

Τὸἀπόκριματοῦθανάτου is a technical juridical term: “the death sentence” (A. V.) and not “the answer of death” (R. V.); see B.-P. 146; M.-M. 64; C.-K. 633 is less good. Here again the wording, although it is juridical, points us away from a court trial. They themselves in their own selves have had the death sentence = they themselves pronounced it in their own hearts. In this way they despaired of living on. They were staring death in the face as men do on whom the death penalty has been pronounced, a penalty that is to be executed forthwith; for in those days it followed immediately as it did in Jesus’ case. They had come that close to death.

Paul is not telling how low they were brought in order to excite his readers with the tale or to arouse their sympathy but from this his recent experience to show them the great purpose which God had in letting him and Timothy despair of living on, in letting them tell themselves that their end had come. It was “in order that we may not get to placing confidence on our own selves but on the God who raises up the dead.” Or, putting it in the wording of the first paragraph, in order to go to the God of real comforting in distress. Paul and Timothy had been brought to the point “beyond ability,” to the point of despair, where all struggle, even mental struggle, was useless, where they waited only for the deathblow to fall. Not even the least confidence in themselves or in their own resources was left to them. If they had such confidence in anything which they might do, it had utterly deserted them. They were absolutely naked and stripped. That was the very purpose of God.

More than that. They had not only reached a point where only trust in God was left to them, but even God was able to save them by nothing less than a miracle, yea, the greatest miracle, his power to raise up the dead. So close to death were they that their deliverance was identical with raising them from the dead. They had the alternative of utter despair or this supreme trust. We have the periphrastic perfect subjunctive: πεποιθότεςὦμεν, which R. 908 lists as intensive. As a subjunctive it is future, as a perfect it is punctiliar-durative, the start is marked and then the continuance: ——>, which we try to convey by rendering: “get to placing confidence.”

This divine purpose is the high point of Paul’s narration. The readers feel that Paul and Timothy were taught this confidence providentially at this time, and not without reference to the work in Corinth. Trusting in God who raises up the dead, who so recently demonstrated in the case of Paul and of Timothy themselves that he is, indeed, such a God, they were to trust him in regard to all future difficulties at Corinth or elsewhere. When hope has left us and death is the only prospect, then God stands forth, the God who raises up the dead. Such situations are his opportunity, for he, and he alone, is able to meet them.

Wenn die Not am groessten, ist Gott am naechsten (When the need is greatest, God is nearest). One reason that distress must reach the extreme point where all human help is utterly gone and we ourselves realize that and give up completely is “that we get to placing confidence, not on our own selves, but (with finality) on the God who raises up the dead.” When that experience is needed, God provides it. Paul really confesses that he needed it, needed it at this time. That is comfort for us lesser men.

The view that the expression “who raises up the dead” is originally Jewish, that it is found in Jewish prayers, etc., and is derived from the Old Testament, is acceptable. But why call it a “formula,” and why deny that it is here Christianized when every Christian reader automatically thinks of the fact that Christ raised the dead and was himself raised on Easter morning? But when Babylonian paganism is brought in with its Marduk and its Ninib as raisers from the dead, the Christian must object, for this does not agree with 1 Cor. 2:13 (see the author’s exposition).

2 Corinthians 1:10

10 With a simple relative we are told about the deliverance: “who did deliver us out of so great a death,” the historical aorist indicates the fact; yet the relative has demonstrative force: “he who,” etc. In the New Testament the adjective always refers to size, R. 710. Nothing but the mighty deliverance itself as well as nothing but the mortal danger are recorded. We have only the essentials with no detail to divert our attention.

But the verb “to deliver” is now driven home; it is repeated two additional times. These writers who were delivered love the very sound of this word. Their wonderful deliverance, which is still so vivid in their minds, makes them see God’s deliverance in the days to come: “did deliver us and will deliver.” After such a supreme deliverance will God ever fail them? God, the Deliverer, is his name. When he then does let us die, when his work with us on earth is completed, he removes us with a final deliverance, the most blessed of all. Luther in regard to the Seventh Petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “Finally, when our last hour has come, grant us a blessed end and graciously take us from this vale of tears to himself in heaven.”

We pass by the changes in the text and in the punctuation that have been offered, none of which commend themselves. “And will deliver” is to be repeated and to be emphasized by the relative clause: “in whom we have been hoping that he will also still deliver us.” Ever since that great deliverance, when God so signally proved himself the Deliverer, Paul and Timothy achieved new strength of hope for deliverance from anything that might still come upon them. Hope grows in a twofold way: by means of the promises in the Word, by means of signal experiences of God’s deliverance, especially such as reveal the delivering hand of God in a manner not to be mistaken. Here the latter is meant. The perfect tense implies the present continuance of this hope.

2 Corinthians 1:11

11 In concluding Paul and Timothy reach out to their readers who will join them by means of petition and thanksgiving. The unspoken thought is the bond which connects the writers and their readers, which is significant in this epistle because in the case of the Corinthians this inner bond had been strained and was now again being brought to full strength. “You also joining in help in our behalf with petition” means adding their prayers to those of the writers for their deliverance in any future need. Δέησις is “petition” to have some need supplied, “supplication” as when a beggar asks alms; it is used with reference to asking from men as well as with reference to asking from God. The thought is that the readers can add help by means of their petition (dative of means).

One purpose which the readers and the writers will have in this joint appeal to God is to multiply the thanks to God for the gracious response which God will make to their petition. The subject is τὸεἰςἡμᾶςχάρισμαδιὰπολλῶν, “the gracious gift (obtained) for us by means of many,” i.e., by the petition of many. The verb is passive and is modified by the phrase which is placed forward for the sake of emphasis: ἐκπολλῶνπροσώπων—εὑχαριστηθῇὑπὲρἡμῶν, “from many persons—may get to receive thanks on our behalf,” i.e., get a multitude of thanks. R., W. P., finds the clause difficult to understand; it is also called schwulstig, overloaded, etc. We do not agree.

This difficulty is due to making wrong combinations of the expressions used and thus getting an irregular sense of the meaning. There is no need to take up these wrong constructions that create difficulties where none exist.

“The gracious gift (coming) to or for us by means of many,” when it is considered together, refers, not to the past deliverance of Paul and of Timothy, but to God’s future gracious help in response to the prayers of the many readers; the gift is future and not past, and διά is the proper word to refer to the many petitioners. The ἐκ phrase is to be construed with the passive verb: the thanks (certainly not the gift) are to come “out of” the hearts and the mouths of many persons. And it is this that Paul and Timothy and their readers should purpose.

The word χάρισμα does not refer to a charisma or endowment like those listed in 1 Cor. 12:8–10. Of linguistic interest only is the question whether πρόσωπα = “persons” or “countenances,” and whether πολλῶν is an adjective or a noun. Arguments are offered pro and con. The one that convinces some more than anything else is the idea that the thanks come from (out of) the faces that are upturned to God in prayer. “From many persons” is good Koine and fits the sentence exactly.

An unacceptable thought has been found in this verse, namely that God is ready to help out only when he is acknowledged as the Helper, and that the greater the number of those is who cry to him for help and then join in thanking and praising him for his help, the more readily will God help. So, we are told, the psalmist literally summoned all creation to join in a maximum chorus of praise and thanksgiving, cf., Ps. 103:20–22. This thought implies that God selfishly wants all the credit and all the glory and in reality is so mean that, unless he gets what he wants, he will let men perish miserably. The fact that God is infinite love and mercy, that he so reveals himself, that he saves to the uttermost those who deserve to perish in their sin and guilt, all of this truth passes unnoticed. The fact that God is the one Helper, and that he can help only when we give up the lie and the delusion that we can help ourselves, is also ignored.

Can anything be more blessed for us than fully to recognize who he is and what his love and his mercy are for us, and who and what we are in our mortal need? Can anything be more blessed than the knowledge that this recognition should extend to all believers, yea, to all creatures, so that with united voice they cry to God as their one true helper, give up the folly of seeking help where none is possible, and glorify God in praise and in thanksgiving for his grace and his mercy? Yea, can God give “the gracious gift” (χάρισμα) when men treat him as did the slave in Luke 19:20, 21 or as did the despicable guest in Matt. 22, 11, 12?

III. Conscience and Sincerity

2 Corinthians 1:12

12 Instead of calling this the real beginning of the body of the epistle, we take it that the two preceding paragraphs merge into all that the two writers desire to communicate in this epistle. So γάρ = let us explain why it is that we count on your prayers and your thanksgiving to God for us (v. 11). We, Paul and Timothy, are of value to you as you are to us.

For our glorying is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in God’s holiness and sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in God’s grace, we have conducted ourselves in the world and especially toward you. For we write no other things to you, other than what you read, than also you understand, and I hope that to the end you will continue to understand even also as you did understand us (at least) in part that we are your subjects of glorying just as also you are ours, in connection with the day of our Lord Jesus.

We shall not speak of a disharmony of terms, that while καύχησις is the act of boasting or glorying, μαρτύριον and ὅτικτλ are the matter of the boasting, i.e., the boast. Nor shall we erase the distinction between καύχησις, the act, and καύχημα (v. 14), the matter, in order to remove the disharmony. To be sure, the act is here not described as being merely an act. But many acts automatically involve their subject matter; boasting always has something about which it boasts. Of such an act one may predicate the matter with which it deals. The advantage is that the act itself is mentioned and retained. That is the case here. The writers say that they do engage in boasting, and that when they do, it is the testimony of their conscience, etc., with which the act deals.

A certain type of pietism tells the Christian never to boast, at least not about anything in himself. Paul is free from this inhibition. He boasts of his good conscience and his good Christian conduct; in v. 14 he makes the readers of this letter his boast and himself and his assistants in the work the boast of his readers. It is one way of glorifying God for what he has produced in us and through us. Some people are so humble that their humility fails to acknowledge with joy what God has done. The boasting that is reprehensible glories in what we are and what we achieve of ourselves (Luke 18:11, 12). We shall find a great deal of genuine boasting in this epistle.

“The testimony of our conscience” (subjective genitive) is the predicate (not an apposition), and ὅτι states the substance of the testimony. Μαρτύριον = substance; μαρτυρία = quality; the one, what is testified, the other, the nature of what is testified. On “conscience” see the discussion in Rom. 2:15. Etymologically it means Mitwissen (a knowing with), and the very word implies a duality: I myself know, and conscience knows. It knows, and I cannot deceive it, and it at the same time judges me and is a judge that cannot be bribed. Conscience is that in us which holds us to a norm of right and damns us when we violate that norm. It is not itself this norm, but it always has its norm.

In the case of Paul and of Timothy it had the true and the perfect norm supplied by God in his Word. Their conscience was properly enlightened. “The testimony of our conscience” refers to the conscientia consequens, to what conscience testifies concerning an act or a course of conduct after it is finished; the antecedent conscience pronounces on acts or on conduct contemplated and proposed.

Now the conscience of the writers gave them this testimony: “that in God’s holiness and sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in God’s grace, we have conducted ourselves (the Greek aorist to indicate the past fact) in the world and especially toward you.” It approved of their entire past course, it condemned nothing in that course and that conduct. The second passive is used as a middle, the Koine prefers these passive forms and even creates new second passives.

The reading ἁγιότητι, “in holiness,” has better attestation than ἁπλότητι, “in simplicity,” (A. V.) or singleness of heart, although the latter would also be fitting. The former word is rare and for that reason, too, is more likely to be the correct reading. The genitive “of God” is overstrained when it makes this holiness and this sincerity the attributes of God, a possessive genitive; this is the genitive of origin or author: by his grace God works holiness and sincerity in us. Conscience testified that Paul and Timothy had confined their conduct within the sphere drawn by these qualities. Holiness is a broad term which covers the whole relation to God and the devotion to him. Sincerity signifies honesty and uprightness, without duplicity, and refers to the relation toward men.

“Not in fleshly wisdom” is the denial of the opposite. Σαρκικός = κατὰσάρκαὤν, what accords with flesh, with man’s sinful nature, here that which is still left in the believer. Such “fleshly wisdom” seeks its own selfish ends in its own cunning ways. In contrast with it is “but in God’s grace,” which is now a divine attribute, the one that is operative in all believers (see v. 2). All three ἐν = “in union and connection with”; the view that they signify place is incorrect. Fleshly wisdom and God’s grace are the sources, the former making holiness and sincerity in us impossible, the latter producing both. Paul might have used two genitives: “wisdom of the flesh”—“grace of God”; but that would parallel “flesh” and “God,” a procedure which the adjective “fleshly” purposedly avoids.

That debased wisdom is the evil source in us, God’s grace is the divine power from above. This wisdom fits means to an end and thus looks wise, looks attractive because it looks wise, and thus deceives us. It is the devil’s invention which deceived Eve. God’s grace, which is itself the pure favor of undeserved love, draws us upward into a life that is holy and sincere.

Thus Paul and his assistants had conducted themselves. That statement is here made only regarding Paul and Timothy, but we know that it applies to Paul’s assistants as well. “In the world” = among men generally. The comparative adverb “more abundantly” is our “especially.” Πρός, “toward you,” refers to relationship; in some instances this preposition conveys something that is almost intimate and personal (R. 624). Are Paul and Timothy boasting unduly? The testimony of their conscience is certainly fully supported by all that we know about them. In fact, when it comes to specifying under the term “holiness,” much more might be added besides “sincerity.”

2 Corinthians 1:13

13 “For” now specifies; γάρ = “for to mention one thing.” The reference is plainly to Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and to charges that were brought against Paul on the basis of these letters. His character had been attacked. He had been maligned as being a man who did not always mean what he wrote. From what he intimates we conclude that his opponents had not even carefully noted just what he did write, and that they went about and spread false reports regarding what he had written, misled others by their talk, and, when they were then corrected, blamed him.

We have an instance of this kind in 1 Cor. 5:9–11. Paul there refers to something he had written in an earlier letter, one that is lost; and we see that it was not read properly, and that Paul was compelled to correct the misunderstanding, one that was wholly unwarranted as his correction of the Corinthians shows. Whether other instances of a similar nature occurred we cannot say. But it is a common experience that opponents misread or are averse to understanding even plainly written statements and then begin making charges and spreading them. The hypothesis that reference is here made to what the critics call the Zwischenbrief or the Traenenbrief (2:4) is untenable.

“We write” includes the present letter and the two previous ones of which we know. It might include also any letter which Paul would write in the future. The “we” in the verb has the same force that all of the preceding “we” had. Paul and Timothy were the writers, Paul was the principal writer; in 1 Cor. 1:1 it was Sosthenes who joined Paul in writing that letter. What these letters say in writing is exactly what the readers read when reading the writing, and what those who hear the writing read to them understand; and for himself Paul says that they will also always so understand. Ἀλλʼ ἥ repeats ἀλλά pleonastically (R. 1187); we have imitated it in English: “no other things … other than,” etc. No covert meanings, no ambiguities, which permit the readers and the hearers to think that one thing is meant and allow Paul later to evade the issue by claiming that he meant another, and no tricks of language which allow all sorts of reservations, no such things are found in the letters but only what one actually reads or, if it be read to him, actually and naturally understands.

The latter is added because a letter to the congregation was read aloud so that all might hear it. This is still done today in the case of letters that are intended to be read in public.

With “I hope” Paul incidentally speaks for himself. Ἑωςτέλους is an adverbial phrase which, like many other such phrases, needs no article. “Moreover (δέ), I hope that to the end you will continue to understand” (the future tense is naturally durative here) is no mere pious or optimistic wish but a gentle reminder of past, unjustified misunderstanding that ought never to reoccur. “To the end” certainly does not mean “to the end of the world,” nor specifically “to the end of my life,” but “as long as any of you live,” for Paul is speaking about their understanding. The verb never means “to acknowledge” (our versions), but three times in this connection and thus pointedly it means “to understand” (C.-K. 252). We see no reason for making the καθώς clause parenthetical: “I hope that to the end you will continue to understand—even also as you have understood us in part—that we are your subject for glorying.” Verse 14 simply continues the thought; “will continue to understand” needs no object. Note the fine paronomasia: ἀναγινώσκετε—ἐπιγινώσκετε—ἐπιγινώσεσθε—ἐπέγνωτε.

2 Corinthians 1:14

14 The Greek simply marks the time as past and hence uses the aorist; we desire to indicate the relative time and hence use our perfect: “even also as you did know us in part, i.e., have known us at least in part.” Paul had worked in Corinth for eighteen months, founding and thoroughly establishing the congregation; Timothy and other assistants were with him. Then no cloud had arisen to darken the understanding by disaffecting the minds. When Paul and the others spoke, the Corinthians understood. Paul adds truthfully ἀπὸμέρους, which has the force, “at least in part.” This does not mean a part of the Corinthians so that at least a few understood. This phrase never means stueckweise as is still suggested, which implies that the Corinthians understood a fragment here and there. They understood “in part” means that the Corinthians did not penetrate completely into the profound truths which Paul and his assistants preached to them.

In 1 Cor. 3:1, 2 Paul says that they were then only babes and had to be fed milk. He is not blaming the Corinthians, for it is natural at the beginning to understand only “in part.” So to understand is not to misunderstand. What had happened recently was that a spirit of opposition had arisen which was intent on finding fault with Paul and his assistants and was putting meanings into his and into their words which were not there.

Second Peter 3:16 is sometimes referred to, especially the statement that some things in Paul’s letters are hard to understand, but Peter’s addition is omitted: “which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Note “unstable” and the fact that these people wrest the other Scriptures as they do Paul’s words. Peter commends “the wisdom given to Paul” in what he had written. This wisdom from God naturally contained some things that were profound and not immediately easily understood. Peter knew what ignorant and unstable men had done with these statements of Paul. Here, however, such more difficult things are not involved; the reference is to trusting that Paul and Timothy mean whatever they say and write. Both remind the Corinthians that they at one time had had no difficulty, that they had understood their teachers well; and these teachers have not changed a particle in that respect, something about the Corinthians had changed. The source of past misunderstanding lay in them.

The ὅτι clause does not state the reason that the Corinthians at one time understood Paul and Timothy. The tense disagrees with that sense; it ought then to be: “because we were your subject of glorying,” were really then considered so by you. The clause is epexegetical to the pronoun “us”; “did understand us … that we are your subject of glorying,” καύχημα is explained in v. 12. The tense is the same as the Greek would use in direct discourse. The thought is: you Corinthians once understood us well enough and thought: They are our pride and glory—as we indeed still are. They felt a sacred pride in Paul, Timothy, and the others because such gospel heralds had been sent to them by God.

These men are still unchanged today. It is no undue claim on the part of Paul to imply that the Corinthians should still boast about them, about their connection with them. The former estimate was, in fact, restored in good part, and this letter is to complete the restoration.

Paul’s great heart at once reverses the thought: “just as also you are ours”—to this very day you Corinthians and all believers in Achaia are our great pride and boast, of whom we are sacredly proud. The writers think about all that, by God’s grace, they have been privileged to accomplish in their readers, and this swells their hearts. This is not a mutual admiration society—you kiss me, and I kiss you. A true basis, an actual reason for glorying exists, one that was produced by God. Attention was fixed on that, for it is the best means of removing all still lingering misunderstanding and lack of appreciation on the part of the Corinthians. Note the force of the genitives and how they bind the writers and the readers together: we your subject of glorying—in the same way you also ours. Καθάπερ = κατὰἃπέρ, “according to what indeed” = “just as.”

Both subjects for glorying are now suddenly placed into the divine light: “in connection with the day of our Lord Jesus,” the last day, when our Lord Jesus shall appear for judgment, and when all of us shall stand before him. There is considerable confusion regarding ἐν. It is said to fix the date when this mutual glorying will occur. And then Paul’s eschatology, his viewing this glorying as a “dogma” and not as a present experience, and the like are referred to. Ἐν = “in connection with,” and the connection is in the hearts and in the minds of the writers and the readers. Everything of which they boast—and let us add of which they fail to boast—they put into the light of the last day. That clarifies the vision; that removes faultfinding, wrong motives, tainted purposes.

In all that Paul and Timothy think about the Corinthians, say to them, and do regarding them, they keep that day in mind; and the Corinthians should ever do the same in regard to Paul and Timothy. How many hostilities, misunderstandings, unbrotherly actions would never occur if we ever kept in mind our connection with that day? How much love, good-will, and graciousness would strew roses along the path of our brethren if each of us always saw that day as the goal of our mutual path?

IV. Yea Is Yea

15, 16) Paul refutes the charge that, as far as we can conclude, was bruited about in the past and not entirely silenced as yet, that one could not depend on his word, that his yea, yea and his nay, nay were confused so that one could not tell which he really intended when he used either. He had made a material change in his plans regarding his coming to Corinth; he had not adhered to his original plan. We at once see how flimsy a ground there was for challenging his veracity and his reliability; how only ill-will or something worse could prefer such a charge against any man on such grounds, to say nothing about one who was so proved as was Paul among the Corinthians. He had even informed them about his change of plans. He had not assigned reasons for the change, had not thought it necessary, he had expected enough good-will on the part of the Corinthians to suppose that he was acting on the basis of good reasons. But no; from the report of Titus he now learned that he was still being attacked on this score.

He takes up this point first. It is so easy to settle. Yet the charge is an odious one, especially when it is brought against an apostle. It belongs to that type which opponents love to make against ministers: He is not a man of his word, in fact, when it suits him, he lies. We now see why Paul writes as he does in v. 12–14 regarding the testimony of his conscience, regarding his conducting himself in holiness and sincerity and not in fleshly wisdom, about writing just what his readers read and understand him to say in his writing, etc. Here we have the first application of all of this.

And with this confidence I decided formerly to come to you in order that you might get to have a second grace, namely to go on through you into Macedonia and to come again from Macedonia to you and (then finally) to be sent on forward by you into Judea. Now in deciding on this was I then using fickleness? or was I deciding on what I was deciding in a fleshly way so that with me there is (at the same time) the yea, yea and the nay, nay?

The dative of manner “with this confidence” refers to v. 13, 14, the confidence that the Corinthians would understand and appreciate his motives for making the change. We now have the first person singular. In this connection the verb βούλομαι does not mean “to wish” but “to decide,” it is here used three times in the identical sense. The tense is the imperfect, and this is quite important, for it implies that the decision was not carried out. Paul was holding to this decision until he at last found reason for altering it. He wrote to the Corinthians about his altered plan in 1 Cor. 16:4–8 and told them that he intended to go through Macedonia to Corinth, hence not by sea directly from Ephesus to Corinth, that he would then visit Macedonia and return to Corinth.

The plan to go by sea was given up when First Corinthians was written. It seems that this plan had been made known to the Corinthians, this was in all probability done in the letter which preceded First Corinthians, the letter which is lost but is mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 5:9. The new plan, regarding which 1 Cor. 16 informed the Corinthians, was in process of execution as Paul writes Second Corinthians.

There is some difference of opinion as to whether πρότερον belongs to ἐβουλόμην or to the following infinitive ἐλθεῖν. But adverbs are commonly placed next to their verbs: “I decided formerly.” If this adverb were to be construed with the infinitive it would follow the infinitive: “to go to you formerly,” i.e., before this. The original plan was that the visit would bring “a second grace” to the Corinthians. The first grace was the stay of one and one half years when the congregation was founded (Acts 18), the visit that was now planned was to be long enough to be reckoned as a second blessing. Since Paul had to go to Macedonia also, his plan was to go by sea to Corinth, then to Macedonia, then back to Corinth, in order to make his stay at Corinth as extended as possible; for he could also sail from Macedonia (Philippi, its harbor town being Neapolis) to Judea. Some think that “a second grace” was this proposed return from Macedonia to Corinth; if “second” meant “double,” this would be satisfactory. As it is, “second grace” refers to the entire visit in Corinth, the clause that follows adds only that it would consist of two parts.

Χάριν has better attestation than χαράν, “joy.” “A second grace” should not be reduced to a Freundlichkeitserweis, a favor shown by Paul. He would come as an apostle whose office it was to dispense God’s grace wherever and whenever he came. When he plans to visit Rome he writes about getting some fruit there by gospel preaching (Rom. 1:13–15). He does not visit churches in order to dispense personal favors. We may note that according to both plans Macedonia had to be visited. We know one reason for this, the matter of the collection. “To be sent forward by you” (see 1 Cor. 16:6) refers to the custom of fitting out the traveler and of having men from the congregation accompany him at least a part of the way. In Acts 17:14, 15 the men of Berea conducted Paul the entire way to Athens.

Some have characterized these two verses as “belonging to the most difficult and most controverted in Corinthians.” Five possible alternatives are opened up, and these are increased beyond five if combinations are made. We refuse to enter upon a discussion of these.

These facts are well established: 1) that v. 15, 16 present the earlier decision of Paul which was made prior to First Corinthians; 2) that the imperfect tense ἐβουλόμην implies that this decision was altered; 3) that 1 Cor. 16:5–8 presents the new plan which Paul carried out. Add 1 Cor. 4:18, 19 to 1 Cor. 16:5–8. Some thought that Paul would not risk coming at all because he was afraid; in First Corinthians Paul tells them that he is coming shortly, that he will start at Pentecost (he wrote First Corinthians before Easter). He did start at Pentecost. He took the route that he said in 1 Cor. 16 he would take. He wrote Second Corinthians while he was traveling that route, while he was in Macedonia.

This cannot have occurred a year and a half after First Corinthians was written. The interval between First and Second Corinthians was six months.

2 Corinthians 1:17

17 Paul now asks the Corinthians, and not them alone but all of the Achaians (v. 1): When he made that first decision which he later altered, did he then use fickleness; did he decide what he then decided in a fleshly way so that no one could tell his yea from nay, could tell whether he meant what he said in one way or another, because he dropped his first decision and made another? The questions answer themselves even as the interrogative particle μή implies a negative answer. Only an evil-minded person would charge Paul with fickleness, with violating the word he had given.

We have a right to think of 1 Cor. 4:18, 19 where it is implied that in Corinth some had charged Paul with cowardice, with being afraid to come. After Paul actually started, after this charge could no longer be made, they turned to the equally odious one that he was not a man of his word—he had changed his route; he was not dividing his visit in Corinth; he was now intending to make just one stay in Corinth! What a crime! Note well 1 Cor. 16:6: “It may be that I will winter with you,” winter with you after leaving at Pentecost (v. 8). Can this be the second winter after that Pentecost? Never.

Μήτι (or μήτι) are to be taken together as the interrogative particle, and ἄρα “then,” refers to the participial clause: is the legitimate deduction this that Paul was using “lightness,” the opposite of serious “sincerity” (v. 12)? The article in τῇἐλαφρίᾳ does not mean “the fickleness” involved in this case, or the one charged against me, or the one you in general look for in me; the article is only the generic article with abstract nouns, and χράομαι governs the dative. Note the steps: fickleness of mind, a moral character defect—κατὰσάρκα, “in a fleshly way,” i.e., wrong motive and purpose with fleshly, selfish interest—“yea, yea, and nay, nay,” wrong act, yea turning out to be nay, which is lying. This is true analysis. We need not shrink from regarding ἵνα as expressing result, especially where the result is in the form of a mental deduction (R. 997–9). The article with “yea, yea” and “nay, nay” marks them as nouns, and the repetition indicates plurals: yea statements, nay statements, so that in regard to Paul (“with me”) no one can tell them apart. Paul’s opponents generalized from his change of decision and claimed that you could not rely upon anything that he said.

2 Corinthians 1:18

18 Instead of explaining at once why he changed his plans Paul scorns to do this, and rightly. To have explained thus would have been a mistaken defense. Paul has stronger artillery. Men of evil minds would seize upon the explanation, would call it a cunning invention that was made to evade the charge against him. Paul does later on explain why he changed his plans of travel, but these explanations are not intended for his friends who trust him. Explanations regarding motives and purposes only arouse opponents to new attacks. So Paul makes the following answer to friend and foe alike.

But (aside from questions about my decision that I changed) faithful (is) God in respect to this that (ὅτι) our word, the one to you, is not yea and nay. For God’s Son Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by means of us, by means of me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yea and nay but has been yea in him. For, however many promises of God (there are), in him (they are) the yea; wherefore also through him (they are) the amen to God for glory by means of us. Moreover, he who is making us firm with you for Christ and anointed us (is no less a one than) God, he who sealed us for himself and gave us the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts. It will, indeed, take more than changing a decision once made to destroy the good name and the character of people such as this!

Much comment does not observe the force of the great argument here made. It does not explain why Paul uses the plural and draws into the plural “we” also his readers, “you.” Nor does it explain why he says not a word about his own case, about the decision which he changed. Hence it is said that his rejoinder does not fit the case, or fits it only in the vaguest way. The only point made is that because the gospel is yea, Paul, too, must be so—which is no proof in regard to him.

What Paul says is this: Just stop and think a moment! Here is God, absolutely trustworthy; his Son Jesus Christ, ever yea and not yea and nay; all God’s promises in his Son forever yea and amen. And here are we, God’s own instruments (διά, three times) for conveying this very yea and amen. And here are we with you, established by no less a one than God himself and made firm in him and in his Son and in all this yea of his promises, anointed, sealed, pledged with his Spirit (the whole Trinity is thus involved), you as well as we. What a farce to fault any one of you and us for no better reason than that a plan was changed and forthwith to brand that one as not being held by all this yea, as being false and lying in spite of it all! What a monstrous charge to base on such evidence!

What a crime even to breathe such a thing, to say nothing of broadcasting it among the rest of us! Who are those that could conceive such a thing in their hearts?

“Faithful is God” is not an oath although it has been thought to be. Paul uses it too often and never as an oath. Ὅτι specifies in what respect the assertion is made: “in respect to this that our word to you is not yea and nay,” that when we say a thing we do not really mean it. “Our word to you” = all that we say in dealing with you. “Our word to you” is not limited to the gospel. This statement about God relative to “our word to you” is general and comprehensive. It is at once elucidated at length. Both “our word” and “to you” are important. Timothy is equally involved with Paul, and not Timothy alone but all of Paul’s associates, whom God employs. And all of Paul’s readers are involved, the Achaians in general (v. 1) as well as the Corinthians, for through these his ministers God has brought all of them into connection with himself.

2 Corinthians 1:19

19 Here are God’s faithfulness and his reliability: “for God’s Son Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by means of us, by means of me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not (at any time) yea and nay but has been (ever and always and now is) in him (in connection with God, his Father) yea (and nothing but yea).” When the God of truth conveyed to you readers the Christ of truth he used us as his instruments. Could he possibly have used instruments that were devoid of truth? Could they have served as channels for conveying God’s Son Jesus Christ who is himself Truth? The readers know God’s Son Jesus Christ, him “who was preached among them.” Because of their soul’s contact with him they know that he was never (ἐγένετο) yea and nay but has always been (γέγονεν) and thus now is yea, yea only. Nothing in him or in his Word was ever or is now even questionable.

We preached him, says Paul, preached him “among you,” and you believed, trusted him as what he is, absolute and blessed yea. We were the instruments (διά), Paul says, and you received our ministration. He even specifies: “by means of me and Silvanus and Timothy.” Three names are used as if three witnesses are referred to. These three started the work in Corinth (Acts 18:5). Silvanus = Silas, which is probably the same Semitic name Græcized and then Latinized, B.-D. 125, 3. If more men helped in Corinth, the mention of these three is enough here.

The point is that the Corinthians had trusted these instruments of God, had trusted their message and their character, for the two went together. No mighty yea-Christ could have been transmitted by yea-and-nay heralds. That certainly counts heavily for their leader Paul. But he was not alone. If he is a yea-and-nay man, what about Silvanus and Timothy? Did they know his character and still work with him? Were they yea-and-nay men too? For one and one-half years the work went on, the Great Yea and Amen was put into the hearts of the Corinthians by these instruments of God. Does that say anything about these instruments, the God who employed them, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for whom they were employed?

2 Corinthians 1:20

20 How God’s Son, Jesus Christ, is ever “yea” is now stated by adding all the promises of God and combining them with God, Christ, and the human instruments: “For however many promises of God (there are), in him (in Christ they are) the yea; wherefore also through him (they are) the amen to God for glory by means of us.” Compact, brief, including everything save “you.” Ὅσαι = as many as, all of God’s promises. God is faithful (v. 18), and he shows himself to be so in keeping all of his promises to the letter. In connection with (ἐν) Christ all of them are sealed with “the yea” of verity; wherefore we must also say that through him (διά added to ἐν), through his instrumentality or mediation, they are stamped with “the divine amen.” “Truth” is thus Christ’s very name (John 14:6). All of the promises center “in him” as their yea; wherefore they are fulfilled “through him” as their amen. “Amen” is the transliterated Hebrew word for “truth” and is used by Paul after doxologies and benedictions; it is used after prayers and in other ways to express the conviction of verity. Here it is made a noun by the article and is used as the predicate.

They are God’s promises, and Christ’s mediatorial fulfillment of them redounds “to God for glory” but does this “through us.” The two διά phrases match: through Christ—through us. Through him the promises are amen, verity, for he fulfills them; through Paul and his assistants they produce glory for God, for these are the men who preach Christ and this verity to all whom they can reach, and all such believers praise, honor, and glorify God. The two διά phrases are essential, and the last “through or by means of us” contains the point of the argument.

Some say that “us” “includes the congregation,” the supposition being a congregational service in which not only the liturgist but the whole congregation with him say: “Amen!” But Paul writes that he as an apostle and his helpers are God’s instruments to win “glory” for God by establishing Christ, “the Yea,” “the Amen,” in men’s hearts. Although he is glorious in himself, and there is no possibility of augmenting his glory, God receives glory from his creatures when they recognize who and what he is and when they think and speak of him accordingly. An apostle and the helpers of an apostle, whom God chose and employs for this work, who deal with the everlasting Yea and Verity itself in all God’s own promises—can they be charged with playing fast and loose with truth on grounds such as were used for the charge made in Corinth?

2 Corinthians 1:21

21 But the Corinthians themselves belong to this sacred circle. And it is not the apostolic work alone that fills Paul’s and his assistants’ heart with “God’s holiness and sincerity” (v. 12) beyond all playing in fleshly fashion with yea and nay (v. 17), God himself sanctifies their hearts together with the hearts of those who believe through their preaching. This last is added by δέ, “moreover.” The emphasis is on Θεός, the predicate, which is without the article, the copula is omitted to add to the emphasis. Now, however, the objects are: “us with you” (σύν associative), us, the preachers of Christ, the Yea and Amen, and associated with us you, the believers of this Christ, the Yea and Amen. This association (not μετά, accompaniment) is that we preach and you believe. Thus “through us” (v. 20) is explained.

As always, Paul sees the whole, here the whole relation to God, Christ, the gospel promises, and the whole number of those who are in this relation. To make Paul truthful involved making him much more; truthfulness is never alone. To make Paul truthful involved making also his assistants truthful and much more (hence the plural “we” since v. 18). And doing all this for these, his ministers of the gospel, involved still more, namely God’s doing the same for you, the membership of the church. For this reason “to you” and “among you” occur in v. 18, 19, and for this reason “with or in association with you” is made prominent at the end.

Many things are seen rightly only when they are viewed in connection with the whole. The whole office, yea the whole church, God’s work in both were attacked by these opponents who assailed the reliability of Paul’s word. Paul is making no mere doctrinal statement when he so emphatically says what God is doing and has done for “us in association with you” but is penning an eminently practical statement which goes straight to the point at issue. As God could not have employed a liar to convey Christ, the Yea and Amen of truth, in all the gospel promises, so, if God’s great apostle who is at the head of all this work of God were indeed a liar, God could not have done and now be doing what he does and has done in the Corinthians in association with Paul and Paul’s assistants. One would have to forget all this regarding God to credit the base slander against his chief instrument; one would likewise have to forget the very nature of what God was doing by means of this instrument, doing in his chosen instruments as well as in the Corinthians themselves.

The first substantivized participle is present and durative: “he who is engaged in making firm us in association with you for Christ.” We need not make εἰς = ἐν, “for Christ” is correct. And we must hold fast what has just been said about Christ as God’s Son, who was preached by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, God’s instruments, this Christ who is ever yea and not nay, the Yea and the Amen of all of God’s promises. In this light we see what God’s making us firm with you signifies, namely rooting and grounding us and you ever more solidly in the Yea and Amen Christ. “For Christ” is not general but specific: the Christ of Verity, and thus covers the very point at issue, veracity.

One article combines into one designation for God his continuous making firm and his past act of anointing, the two belonging together. From what God still does we think back to what he did. Note εἰςΧριστὸνκαὶχρίσαςἡμᾶς, Christ, the “Anointed,” and we also “anointed.” Because “us” is not again followed by “with you,” some suppose that “us” refers only to Paul and his assistants; but then the next “us” and “our” would be equally restricted. This cannot be correct, for all three divine acts apply to “you” as well as to “us” just as does the first act. We have also seen that there is an advance of the thought in this very inclusion of the Corinthians with Paul and his assistants. “Us,” which follows “us with you,” is only briefer; it would be pedantic to write “us with you” four times.

“Anointed us” means: made us like the Anointed One, Christ. We are being made firm for him because in the very first place God sanctified us as he sanctified Christ, by an anointing. Christ and we are anointed with the Spirit. After the act was once performed, the Spirit remains upon us. The act occurred in our baptism as it did immediately after Christ’s baptism. By means of his anointing Christ was placed into his high office and position; our anointing did the same for us.

He was made King and Priest in the supreme sense, hence the supreme way in which God anointed him. We were made kings and priests under him, hence the way in which our anointing took place by means of baptism. Those who conceive of baptism as a mere sign and symbol must place the anointing elsewhere than in baptism, a thing that it is most difficult to do.

Now there follows the predicate, the one word Θεός, “God,” which is highly emphatic: “is no less a one than God himself.” And because it is God, neither his act of anointing us nor his confirming us can be anything but truly effective.

2 Corinthians 1:22

22 Souter disappoints us in regard to the reading which is either ὁκαί or only καί; Westcott and Hort bracket ὁ, Tischendorf does not. If ὁ is omitted, the ὁ before βεβαιῶν would seem to govern also these last two participles and make them continuations of the subject. In other words, the long subject, which consists of four participles, would be divided by having the predicate “God” thrust into the middle. This strange construction is removed when the well-attested ὁ is retained, for this makes the last two participial designations appositions to the predicate “God”; “he who sealed us for himself (middle) and gave us the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.”

A seal is affixed for various purposes, for security, concealment, distinction, authentication, attestation, and confirmation. Several purposes are sometimes combined. The idea is here that of ownership: by the seal God marked us for his own (hence the middle voice). The next participle shows how God did this. Although it is added coordinately with καί, God’s giving the Spirit in our hearts is his sealing of us for himself. We know of no sealing except by the Spirit. Anointing, sealing, giving the Spirit all occurred in baptism, in a single act.

The ἀρραβών is the first down payment by which he who makes it assures the recipient of final payment in full. The genitive “of the Spirit” is appositional: the Spirit is the pledge. Christ—God—Spirit: the Trinity. From baptism onward, in holy anointing, sacred sealing, and gift of the Spirit, followed by constant confirming, God himself connects us with Christ, the divine Yea and Amen. When evil-minded men vilify us, this is the impregnable bulwark of our defense.

Confirming, sealing, down payment, but not anointing, have been referred to as legal and juridical terms that are technical or semitechnical. It is true that these terms sometimes appear in legal connections, but only sometimes, they occur far more often in altogether nonlegal connections. The terms have also been connected with the pagan mysteries, sealing also with Jewish circumcision. Yet Paul wrote 1 Cor. 2:13: πνευματικοῖςπνευματικά, and claimed that he spoke, not in words taught by human wisdom, but that he used “spiritual words for spiritual things.”

The force of Paul’s argument is misunderstood when he is thought to be proving that he did not play with the truth in the matter of his plans for travel because God had done in him all that he here records. That would be proof if it meant Paul’s total sanctification and his inability to sin after his baptism (Phil. 3:12, 13; 1 John 1:8, 9). Besides, why does he say “us,” “you,” “us in association with you,” and never “I, me, mine” in this section? No single charge of sin is refuted by pointing to what God has done for and in me and in all other Christians in baptism and since baptism.

Paul’s opponents were using the instance of his plans for travel as proof against his entire character. His change of plan was employed to brand him as one whose yea could never really be trusted in regard to anything. Against this, the worst part of the charge, Paul defends himself first of all. He was being discredited completely. Now the full pertinency of his reply appears, and we also see why it had to draw in all of his helpers, even all true believers in Corinth. Every one of them could be overthrown in the same way if Paul could be convicted on this plea. Every one of them knew that such a thing could not be done in his own case, and thus he was compelled to see that it could not be done, as these opponents desired, in the case of Paul, the very man who had brought them what made them God’s own.

The little charge is thus permitted to stand for the moment. The terrible implication insinuated into it is first annihilated. That was the big thing to be removed. It was big and vital for Paul’s own person, but with his heart of love he sees that all of the others are involved and thus defends all of them. This love, that at the very beginning of the letter embraced all and raised the mighty shield of “God” over them, had to win a strong response. From all doubt concerning Paul they should and surely also would turn in full love and confidence to him, they would revive the old love and confidence that bound them together during that first year and one half. Objectively and subjectively no bettter, no more effective defense could have been made. The Spirit guided Paul’s words.

With the greater task done, he turns to the lesser, and he does it equally well. Why did he change his plan for travel?

V. The Desire not to Come in Sorrow

2 Corinthians 1:23

23 This is the reason that Paul changed his plans of travel. He presents it in such a manner that we see that it is intended, not for the opponents who tried to make him a prevaricator, speaking and acting “in fleshly fashion” (v. 17), fickle and following “fleshly wisdom” (v. 12), no apostle at all, but for the Corinthians as such who were still well-minded toward him. We see that his reason is of such a nature that he could scarcely have stated it at the time when he first changed his plan and informed the Corinthians of the change (1 Cor. 16:5–8). We see that he is now entirely free to speak, apart from the vilification which he has had to suffer. Much more that is of decisive value for understanding this epistle appears in this short section.

Δέ is merely transitional. Now I for my part appeal to God as witness on behalf of my soul that, as sparing you, I did not again come to Corinth. The A. V.’s translation “moreover” is more correct than that of the R. V. which translates as adversative “but.” Paul had originally planned to go by sea from Ephesus directly to Corinth, then to visit Macedonia, to return to Corinth, and to go to Judea (v. 15, 16). This would have brought him to Corinth soon after Pentecost.

Because of the case of incest (1 Cor. 5) and the generally untoward situation obtaining at Corinth when Paul wrote First Corinthians he had changed his plan, had decided to go to Macedonia, then to Corinth, and then to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:5–8). Since there was much to be done along the route overland, this plan would bring Paul to Corinth much later than he had at first announced. In fact, because he had carried out this plan Paul was now in Macedonia, and it was already autumn.

Charged by opponents with not being a man of his word (v. 17) after having before that been charged with being afraid to come (1 Cor. 4:18), he now tells the Corinthians why he changed his plan so as to arrive much later. It was chiefly for their sakes, because he wanted to spare them (φειδόμενοςὑμῶν, causal). In 1 Cor. 4:21 he had asked whether he should come with a rod. As things stood when he wrote First Corinthians, with the case of incest, the puffed-up pride of many, the party wranglings and all, if Paul had come by the direct route immediately after Pentecost, how could he have proceeded except with severity? He debated the matter, resolved to delay his arrival in order to allow the Corinthians by God’s help to remedy the evils, and then to arrive in their midst. This is the simple story.

We at once see why Paul could not have told his real reason in First Corinthians. We see the pureness of his motives for delaying his arrival. Things were now fairly righted in Corinth. Paul would even now not have revealed why he had planned on delaying his coming if it were not for the opponents who had attacked his veracity; so the congregation must now indeed be told. This was not an altogether simple matter because the opponents were still active. Paul’s motives and his purposes had been formed in his own soul.

He probably told his assistants about them at the time, but he does not want to involve his own helpers. Those opponents might seize on what he feels that he must now reveal regarding his reasons, they might call them inventions that were now made to save his veracity, and they might thus discredit him anew. For this reason Paul calls God to witness as he does. God is, indeed, his real and his only witness to what transpired in his soul when he resolved to change his plans of travel.

It is then not “the importance of the statement” that Paul is trying to emphasize by his appeal to God; he has said many things that were more important without such an appeal. It is because the thing is one that transpired in his own soul and was without human witness. We have the same case in Rom. 9:1–3: Paul’s grief for his nation and his readiness to save it at the cost of his own soul. Hence he uses the emphatic ἐγώ: “I for my part.” In v. 18–22 he used “we” throughout since Paul’s assistants were also involved, and even “you” (Corinthians) is added, they, too, were involved. Now, when it is a matter of his own thoughts and intents, he must say “I.” This “I” is not opposed to “God” in v. 22 or to Paul’s readers with their thoughts.

“I appeal to God as witness” is not an oath although some think that it is. Critics have regarded it as one of those oaths that are forbidden by Christ in Matt. 6:34–37 but have excused Paul because he was probably unacquainted with this prohibition of Jesus. Deissmann has some following when he has this supposed oath include an actual curse. But a glance at his pagan parallels in Light from the Ancient East 306 (compare 427) shows the reverse. Those pagans cursed, Paul calls a witness. On page 305 Deissmann points to another curse in Paul’s words as recorded in 1 Cor. 5:3–5, which are a legal verdict couched in strictly legal language (see the author on that passage). Anything that is cited from Deissmann must be tested before it is used; his ardor for pagan parallels takes him too far.

The curse is thought to rest on ἐπὶτὴνἐμὴνψυχήν, as if this means that Paul calls down the wrath of God “upon my own soul,” to damn his soul if he is lying. But such an ἐπί has never been found in an oath or a curse. This ἐπί merely repeats the ἐπί that is found in the verb. Instead of meaning “upon my soul” in the hostile sense, to damn it if I lie, it means the opposite: “upon my soul” to support its testimony. For this reason, too, Paul writes the strong adjective ἐμήν and not the slight enclitic μου.

His own soul stands alone when he is testifying. We find that Jesus and also Paul never offer only their own testimony; they always cite two or three witnesses, one or two besides themselves; take John 5:31–37 as a sample. It is a Scriptural principle; unsupported testimony does not stand. In v. 19 Paul names two witnesses besides himself. Who shall here testify along with his soul? He appeals to the only other witness he has, and that is God.

Much is said about the various uses of ἐπικαλοῦμαι (middle), “to call on someone in one’s own behalf.” In the Biblical Greek this word is almost a technical expression for calling on God and Christ so that this act (even when no object is named) marks the believer (C.-K. 569). It is here employed in a sort of legal way, “witness” also being legal: “I appeal,” the same use is found in Acts 25:11: “I appeal to Caesar.”

Οὑκέτι has also been weighed in the scales. It may be read as one concept with ἦλθον: “I forbore” (R. V.); but that is in effect as if we read: “I came not as yet” (A. V.). To be most exact, it would be: “not again, not still,” promising nothing in regard to the future; οὕπω would be: “not yet,” promising “but soon or eventually.” But οὑκέτι also gets to mean “not yet,” Augustine translates it nondum. The point is of minor importance, for Paul was now on his way to Corinth. He had wanted to spare the Corinthians for the time being.

2 Corinthians 1:24

24 Paul excludes every wrong implication that some opponent might attach to the word “sparing you,” as though Paul and his helpers were high lords over the Corinthians and as such exercised clemency when they pleased. All lordship is disavowed: Not that we are exercising lordship over your faith, but we are co-workers of your joy; for as regards the faith you are standing. It should be noted that Paul drops back into the plural “we” and includes his assistants with himself. This means that, as far as lordship over anybody’s faith is concerned if there were such a thing, it would not belong merely to an apostle but to all teachers and preachers. But no such thing exists. Everything hierarchical on the part of an office and on the part of all officers in the church is here disavowed.

The importance of this fact needs to be stressed in doctrine and in practice, Paul was practicing here. We may translate the verb as conative: “not that we are trying to exercise lordship,” etc.; verbs of ruling take the genitive.

Lordship over people’s faith is exercised when in any matter of faith whatever human authority demands obedience, whether it comes openly as human authority or disguises itself and pretends to be divine authority. We read, as we did in Rom. 1:5, “faith’s obedience”; trustful obedience is one definition of faith. It, however, obeys only one Lord, “our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 3), only his authority. It makes no difference who brings us our one Lord’s word and authority, apostle, minister, lay brother; faith obeys, not the bringer, but the divine authority brought.

Human lordship is exercised when faith is made to be or to do what some man demands; the Lord’s lordship is exercised when he by his Word and his ministers and his church tells us what our faith should be and do. The church still suffers from self-appointed lords and spurious authority. It is easy to detect, for these lords either presume to dispense our faith and its doing from some word of our Lord, or they presume to add some requirement to our faith and our practice that is contrary to or beyond the Word of our Lord. Here belong Deut. 4:2, and Rev. 22:18, 19.

The suspicion had been raised that Paul had hitherto acted the lord. Therefore some commentators seek to find out when and how this was done. So they suppose that this must have occurred on the occasion of a visit and in a letter that was written during the interval between First and Second Corinthians. Then the hypothesis is advanced that this letter Isaiah 2 Cor. 10–13, that these four chapters are appended to Second Corinthians but were really a separate prior letter, etc. The suspicion which this hypothesis supposes is unjust to Paul. So also is the further assumption that Paul is now not exercising lordship but that he certainly will if his sparing leniency gets no response. What a fleshly apostle Paul is thus made; he who knew no lord and no authority except the one Lord and his authority, to which he himself bowed and to which he asked all men to bow as he did!

No, he says, the word “sparing you” has no thought of an authority of ours back of it; back of it lies something that is vastly truer, namely that “we are co-workers of your joy” (objective genitive), men who in our divinely appointed office and work are associated (σύν) with you in working to produce spiritual joy and happiness for you by fostering everything in you that pleases our one Lord and removing everything that he must resent and that would thus end in grief for you. Such grief we wished to spare you. First Corinthians shows how the Corinthians had ruined some of this joy and were running into grief for themselves; take the case of incest (1 Cor. 5), the fornications, the abuses of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17, etc.), etc. First Corinthians was Paul’s effort to restore true joy in the Lord in Corinth.

Paul’s delay in going to Corinth was made in order to give the Corinthians time to right the evils that had crept in, to right them by heeding his first letter. If he had hastened to come in person he would have had to come with a rod (1 Cor. 4:21), with the Lord’s discipline. That would have been painful for both Paul and the Corinthians. That was what he wished to spare them by hoping that they would right themselves. Let us say that Paul’s wise and tactful plan was succeeding; he had excellent news from Titus. While all was not yet joy in Corinth, it eventually came to be. When he arrived in Corinth several months after he had written Second Corinthians he had an unmarred three months’ visit.

Συνεργοὶτῆςχαρᾶςὑμῶν is the true conception of the Christian ministry. Its great task is to dispense the Lord’s grace and the gifts of grace, all of which are productive of the purest and the highest joy, and by that grace to remove all that would decrease and mar that joy and bring grief. To do both effectively includes wisdom, care, and carefulness such as Paul exercised so that joy may ever be the result.

“For as regards the faith you are standing,” the perfect of this verb is always used in the present sense. Opinion is divided regarding the dative; as to whether it is instrumental or means: “by the faith”; place: “in the faith”; indirect object: “for the faith”; or our choice, dative of respect: “as regards the faith.” Since it is placed forward and thus made emphatic, this last type of dative seems correct.

It is stated that we must take this acknowledgment of the faith of the Corinthians with a grain of salt; v. 13 answers that, Paul writes what he truly means. The fact that the Corinthians are standing as regards the faith completes the thought that Paul and his assistants are co-workers with them in producing joy for them. Only with regard to those standing can they be co-workers in any sense, in particular also fellow producers of joy. To stand “as regards the faith” means “the faith” objective, quae creditur; the standing itself is believing, subjective faith, qua creditur.

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.