2 Corinthians 12

CHAPTER XII

IV. The Ultimate Extreme of Paul’s Foolish Boasting

2 Corinthians 12:1

1 It is necessary to boast. While not a further some thing, yet I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. The reading thus translated has the best textual support. The δεῖ is assured. Moreover, the reading that has δέ would mar the sense by putting a false emphasis on καυχᾶσθαι as if Paul were now making a transition to boasting as a new subject when it has been the subject throughout and is mentioned as such even in 11:30. Our versions punctuate improperly.

The first two words are an independent sentence. “To proceed with boasting is necessary.” All of the rest is a second sentence that is tied together by the correlatives μέν and δέ. The μέν cannot be construed with what precedes but must be linked with what the following δέ brings. “While not a further some thing, yet I will come to visions,” etc.

This verse introduces a new boast. It is added only under compulsion just as all of the previous boasting was. When he proceeds to the ultimate extreme in this matter, namely to the most astonishing sample in the great class of experiences that we label “visions and revelations of the Lord,” Paul adds the preface with μέν: “while not a furthersome thing.” He means that he expects to confer no spiritual profit upon the Corinthians by telling about this phenomenal experience of his. He uses it only in defense of himself as a man who is forced to boast. This is more true with regard to this experience than with regard to any item that is mentioned in chapter 11. We must agree with Paul.

He is using a club to demolish the fake pretenses of the false apostles who play themselves up as “superlative or superfine apostles” (11:5; 12:11). The task of wielding this club is forced upon Paul. The Corinthians derive no profit from it. They are only to witness what Paul is doing to these fake apostles.

Robertson 1130 regards the neuter participle συμφέρον as an accusative absolute. We question that because of the μέν. We supply “is” and regard the participle as the predicate: “something furthering.” Paul does not say whether what follows is a vision or a revelation; it may be called either or both. When he says: “Yet I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord” (genitive of the subject: the Lord is revealing), he implies that he has received a number of them and might relate several. Paul gently wards off the idea that what he now tells is all that he has experienced in this direction (Acts 16:9; 18:9; 22:17; 23:11; 27:23; Gal. 1:12; 1 Cor. 11:23; Eph. 3:3). Ὀπτασία = vision: seeing miraculously; ὅραμα = spectacle: a result of seeing; ἀποκάλυψις = revelation: act of imparting something hidden. The latter is the wider and the more important term. Many visions served for the purpose of revelation, but revelation could occur without a vision.

2 Corinthians 12:2

2 To the single incident narrated in 11:32, 33 another single incident is now added although this one has a sequel (v. 7, etc.). In 11:32, 33 we have the outer life, a lone fugitive stealing along through the night, a poor figure indeed. Here we have nothing but an ἄνθρωπος to whom God allowed something most astounding to happen so that he can speak of it only as if it were not he to whom it happened.

I know a human being in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body I do not know, whether out of his body I do not know—God knows), such a one snatched up to the third heaven. And I knew such a human being (whether in the body, whether apart from his body I do not know—God knows), that he was snatched into Paradise and heard unspeakable utterances, which it is unlawful for a human being to utter. On behalf of such a one will I glory, but on behalf of myself I will not glory, except in the weaknesses.

Paul says that he knows the human being and what happened to him. Paul has not the remotest idea how this happened to this human being. The thing itself was unspeakably glorious. That this person was Paul we, of course, note at once. Paul shrinks from saying so, he can scarcely believe it. He tells about it as though it had happened to another man and not to himself. The idea of Paul’s boasting about himself is thus completely removed.

Another person might shout: “I, I have been in Paradise!” and exalt himself above all his fellow men. Another man might tell about it on every possible occasion. Paul kept it a secret for fourteen years; it is now forced from him only by utter necessity. Even under this compulsion he is able to tell about it only as though it had happened to another person. It seems incredible to Paul that it should have been he who had been in Paradise through such an act of the Lord’s. Paul’s humble character is here revealed. We have the rarest of all examples: a boastless boast. More than that, an extreme boast without a trace of common boasting.

“I know” and not “I knew” hints at the person to whom Paul refers. Ἄνθρωπος = a human being. The fact that a simple human being should have been in Paradise is so astounding. “In Christ” (see 5:17) is the one mark of this human being, for only his connection with Christ (ἐν) by faith would be essential in being transported into Paradise. The Greek says “before fourteen years,” i.e., over fourteen years ago. Paul at last breaks that long silence. Fourteen years ago places Paul in Tarsus near or at the time when Barnabas came to summon him to Antioch.

Paul at once removes a question that will occur to his readers: “Was this a bodily transfer into Paradise similar to that of Enoch and of Elijah although it endured only for a brief moment, or was it a transfer only of the soul like that of the other saints at death and temporary, of course, in Paul’s case?” The first phrase “in body” needs no article, the second “out of the body” has the article of previous reference; this is also the case in v. 3. Paul simply does not know. It was entirely miraculous. How could he, a mere human being, know? The thing is utterly beyond curious questions. “God knows,” that is enough. This is a different “God knows” from those used in 11:11, 31. It is not a confirmation or an assurance to the readers but only a statement that God alone knows so that no one must ever press Paul for answers.

“I know a human being” is followed by the participle, the only instance of this construction in the New Testament (R. 1041). “Such a one” is added; he was nothing but a human being in connection with Christ who was “snatched” or removed by a raptus “as far as the third heaven.” The first heaven is that of the clouds, the second that of the far firmament of the sky and the stars, the third is the actual abode of God, of the angels, and of departed saints in glory.

A mass of Jewish ideas about the seventh heaven is introduced by some interpreters, and they place Paul beyond the third heaven, viz. in the fourth. We consider all this Jewish material worthless for our interpretation. Are these Jews, who were never in heaven, able to shed any light on Paul’s experience?

Man’s mind is so constituted that it cannot function without the ideas of time and of space. Hence we always speak of heaven as a place, a ποῦ as the dogmaticians say. The Scriptures of necessity speak of heaven in the same way. Thus Jesus says: “Where I go” (ὅπου), John 8:21. Yet how little this is the space of our conception Rev. 21:16 shows, for it presents a city of equal length, breath, and height, the idea of space being carried to perfection in the cube. Here we have “till” the third heaven, distance, it is again our limited conception.

2 Corinthians 12:3

3 Paul repeats in solemn refrain, the words are almost identical until the last clause is reached. The old prophets often repeated with solemnity in the same way.

2 Corinthians 12:4

4 We now have a ὅτι clause instead of the mere participle, yet the same verb is retained: I know “that he was snatched,” etc. In place of “the third heaven” we have “into Paradise.” It is the word which Jesus used on the cross: “Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise!” Luke 23:43. Jesus himself tells us what place he referred to by that other word: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!” Luke 23:46. We meet ΙΙαπάδεισος once more in Rev. 2:7. In the Greek it has the meaning of a beautiful park, and it came to be used for “heaven” as a description that was taken from the Garden of Eden. The prophets at times pictured heaven in colors that were drawn from Eden and made heaven “Paradise Regained.” Chiliasts regard these lovely passages of the prophets as references to their millennium. The Edenic tree of life appears even in the last chapter of the Bible, v. 2.

In Paradise Paul “heard unspeakable utterances, which it is unlawful for a human being to utter.” Paul is indicating only a trifle of what he experienced in Paradise. Hence he says nothing about what he saw or what he felt but mentions only that he heard ἄρρηταῥήματα (an oxymoron), “unutterable utterances”; this adjective is used only here in Biblical Greek. Its first meaning is “unuttered” and its next “unutterable,” but the latter is defined by the relative clause “which it is unlawful for a human being to utter,” λαλῆσαι, to say aloud. The utterances heard in Paradise were uttered there; Paul could otherwise not have heard them; but they were intended only for him and not as a revelation to be communicated to men in general. For this reason Paul had never revealed this experience. We may say that what Paul heard was for his personal encouragement, to be kept for himself alone lest it be used in a fanatical way by those who were not satisfied with what the gospel reveals.

The secrets of the Greek mystery cults were at times also called ἄρρητα in the sense that they were intended only for the initiate, all others being considered “profane.” Paul’s use of the word is frequently attributed to these pagan cults. The word has been called “technical” in these pagan cults. C.-K. 449 accepts the idea that ἄρρητα are such because they are to be kept from the profane. Ordinarily C.-K.. repudiates this mass of paganism and all the Jewish apocalyptic ideas which have been drawn upon as shedding light on Paul’s language. Paul is not an initiate, all other Christians are not viewed as “profane” and thus excluded. Paradise is not a hall of mystery cults. The whole pagan imagery is an abomination, from which neither Paul as an apostle, nor the Spirit of God, who guided his language, would borrow terms and expressions, to say nothing about “technical terms” for the sacred things of God.

The whole Greek language was open to the sacred writers to be used by them at pleasure. When they did use a word for their purpose, that does not mean that they had to include this or that purpose, connotation, side meaning of some other men. Such an assumption is false in the case of these as of other writers in the Greek and in every other language. With ἐξόν as a nominative we supply ἐδτι (R. 881, 491). The negation would be οὑ whether it is construed with the copula or with the neuter participle (R. 1139).

2 Corinthians 12:5

5 When Paul adds that he will boast only “on behalf of such a one,” such a one as he has described, he emphasizes the fact that all that he is saying is not to be taken personally. He is not boasting on behalf of Paul, that I, Paul, have been in Paradise. Though he was “such a one,” no merit, no credit, no desert on his part were in any way involved. For when it comes to boasting (under compulsion, of course, v. 1), “on behalf of myself I will not boast except in connection with (ἐν) the weaknesses,” which repeats 11:30 and thus needs no further exposition.

It has been remarked that Paul speaks as though there were two Pauls. That is true if it is understood as it is intended by Paul. At one time he sees himself as being highly distinguished by the Lord, as being granted even a glimpse of Paradise. Remember all the pain and the distress mentioned in 11:23–33. As if to forearm him against all of it so that he might not break down in his spirit under this frightful, never-ending load, the Lord let him have a taste of Paradise. About that Paul cannot and will not boast.

He sees only the other Paul, the one depicted in 11:23–33, full of weaknesses, full of nothing that would ever be a boast for any man. That is the Paul of whom he will boast, and the boast will ever be “the weaknesses,” these themselves and as such and not the fact that he bore them, that he did so much in spite of them and thus after all boasts about himself. We admire a man who does much despite great handicaps. Paul is not such a man. He is one who is nothing, whose boast is this very nothing.

2 Corinthians 12:6

6 Yet the fact that Paul makes his entire boast concerning his weakness dare not be misunderstood. For if I shall ever want to boast I will not be a fool like so many are who actually make fools of themselves by exaggerating, by even outright lying just to aggrandize themselves, for in such a case I will tell nothing but simple truth. With ἐάν and the two aorists θελήσω and καυχήσαδθαι Paul merely supposes a single instance in which he might want to make a single boast. The condition of expectancy is, however, not an actual expectancy, for in the next statement he adds but I forbear. The ἐάν only vividly imagines a case in which Paul might make up his mind to boast concerning something that is to his personal credit and not a great weakness and emptiness in himself. He would then tell the full truth.

The Corinthians are to bear that in mind when they hear Paul making nothing but his weaknesses his boast. The trouble with the Corinthians might be that they suppose that Paul had nothing but weaknesses, and that he could not, except by lying like a fool, boast about anything else.

Even in his great humility Paul takes care to leave no false impressions. He was something by the grace of God (1 Cor. 15:10). It would be falsehood to deny it even by implication, an implication which one might falsely deduce from the emphasis which Paul puts on his weakness as being his only boast. But why, then, not boast in truth about what Paul actually was? Here is the other danger: lest anyone get to reckon in regard to me beyond what he sees me (to be) or hears from me. The aorist is ingressive: “arrive at an estimate regarding me beyond what his contact with me warrants,” i.e., admire me too highly. This Paul feared even more than to be despised because of his weaknesses. We know why: because it would rob the Lord of credit.

It is remarked that Paul here uses “fool” as indicating an actual fool and thus differently from “folly” in 11:1 and “fool” in 11:16 and 12:11. That is perfectly correct, and it is purposely done. It quietly makes plain how Paul might become a real fool, namely by boasting beyond the truth about his own person for such a man is a fool as everybody knows. What Paul actually does when he calls himself a fool for boasting in this unheard of way by bringing forward all his weaknesses which all other men would want to hide, is not real, is only assumed folly, call it a godly folly if you will. It is the Lord’s own will that, despite the fact that he once elevated Paul to Paradise, he not only wanted Paul to remain utterly humble but also wanted no man to think of Paul beyond what one could see of Paul and hear from him in actual contact with him. However highly the Lord favors and blesses his ministers, for his work among men he is able to use none unless they be lowly as he himself once was when he walked on earth.

Such alone are able to transmit his gospel as his, “that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God and not from us” (4:7). The vessels dare be earthen only.

2 Corinthians 12:7

7 For this reason Paul adds the following. The man to whom the Lord had granted an actual visit to Paradise is the man to whom God gave a messenger of Satan to fisticuff him again and again. We omit διό before ἵνα. No one knows what to do with it; the textual evidence for and against it is evenly divided. The canon that the harder reading should be retained cannot be applied to a reading that is devoid of sense. Efforts to connect the dative that precedes διό with something that precedes in v. 6 or v. 5 are futile, and these do not solve the presence of διό.

In order that by the exceeding greatness of the revelations I may not be lifting myself up unduly there was given to me a thorn for the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to fisticuff me in order that I may not be lifting myself up unduly.

The dative is placed before ἵνα for the sake of emphasis. This is often done. It is a dative of means. Although the genitive is plural: “of the revelations,” it refers chiefly to the one revelation which Paul has just described, when the Lord granted him a visit to Paradise. No revelation received by Paul exceeded this. This alone was intended for his own person; all other revelations, including the first one on the road to Damascus, pertained to his office. Most of the revelations were for the purpose of information, some directed Paul where to go or where to remain.

This one revelation, being so wonderful and intended for Paul alone, might tend to make him lift himself up unduly. For what other apostle had until this time been in heaven? The revelation granted to John came later. R., W. P., makes the verb passive; it is middle in both clauses, for it would be Paul alone who would lift himself up unduly and no one else. “There was given to me” must mean “by the Lord,” and the aorist denotes a single act. “Was given to me” is surely to be understood as it stands: this fearful affliction was the Lord’s gift to Paul. Rom. 8:28 helps us here.

As far as σκόλοψ is concerned, the wavering between “thorn” and “stake” may now cease. What of it if in Homer and in a few classical passages we have the latter meaning, the plural, for instance, for “palisades,” even in the classics another word was usually employed to designate a “stake” (see Liddell and Scott). M.-M. 578, etc., shows that in the papyri the regular meaning of this word is “thorn” or sharply pointed sliver. So we should drop what Luther says regarding impalement, should drop any reference to crucifixion, to Gal. 2:20, and to likeness to Christ’s crucifixion. “For the flesh” is the ordinary dativus incommodi. “Flesh” denotes the physical substance of which the body is composed. The tertium comparationis in the metaphor “a thorn for the flesh” is the sharp, piercing pain that is produced when a thorn is driven deeply into the flesh.

A synonym elucidates: “a messenger of Satan to fisticuff me.” In “thorn” we have the idea of something sharp and painful sticking deeply in the flesh so that it remains there and cannot be drawn out. And the Lord intends that it shall remain so. In the present subjunctive we have the iterative idea of blows that are struck with the closed fist. This verb is rare, yet it is used three times in the New Testament, figuratively in 1 Cor. 4:11 and literally in Matt. 26:67 where the Sanhedrists beat Jesus after they had condemned him. Derived from the word for “knuckles,” it means to strike with the fist so that the hard knuckles make the blow sting and crush. “Slapping Paul in the face” (R., W. P.) is inadequate, for a slap is delivered with the flat of the hand.

These blows of the fist were delivered by “a messenger of Satan.” This undoubtedly refers to v. 4 and is in extreme contrast with it: the man whom the Lord at one time took to Paradise is by this same Lord turned over to Satan’s emissary to be beaten as a rowdy beats a helpless victim. “Is it possible!” one might exclaim. This thing occurs periodically. Every now and then there comes a frightful attack. Each is inhuman, is like an implacable demon who knocks a defenseless mortal to pieces with hellish glee.

We have Job 2:7 as an analogy. The Satanic agency should not be eliminated. The passage in Job is helpful in this that it shows us that God and Satan concur, but the motive of the two is opposite. God intends to try Job, to prove his faith victorious; Satan intends to destroy that faith. The solution as to how God can allow such attacks by Satan lies in the fact of Job’s and of Paul’s sinfulness in this sinful world. The fact that the devil’s glee lies in the infliction of pain needs no proof.

Paul twice states the Lord’s purpose: “in order that I might not be lifting myself up unduly,” i e., in order that I may ever be kept in deepest humility. The higher Paul’s work was, the more he needed humility. The more divine his work was, the more necessary for him was the constant realization of utter dependence on the Lord; for if he withdraws his hand, Satan would have him utterly in his power. As it is, Satan’s messenger can go only so far.

The question is constantly asked as to just what this figurative language means literally. Paul’s letters as well as the Acts are searched for clues. The result is that no man knows. The supposition is widely entertained that the Corinthians knew what Paul meant, that his figurative language was clear to them. The writer must dissent. Paul tells about this thorn for the flesh just as he tells about his raptus into Paradise for the first time. In both he bares intimate secrets of his personal life which were never bared to the Corinthians before and are now bared only under compulsion.

It is really a question of forming a diagnosis. The data on which to base it are wholly insufficient. Paul intended them to be so. We have only two expressions: “a thorn for the flesh”—“to fisticuff me.” Two symptoms or rather only one expressed by two words. Yet the theologians, who are mere laymen in the field of medicine and disease, proceed to diagnose the case like the most expert medics and insist on the correctness of their findings. These theologians are acting the part of quacks. To allow them to do so is to condone their quackery. To accept any diagnosis thus made is to honor quackery. If I had a common disease I should not call in one of these pretenders to diagnose my case, nor should I accept their diagnosis if it were gratuitously offered.

A few good medical men have examined our passage. Still fewer have ventured an opinion, and an opinion is about all that could be offered. Because the commentaries and other books about Paul so often dilate on this subject, we feel compelled to list the diagnoses that are on file, a mere look at which ought to be warning enough for any man. The first are Satanic suggestions: blasphemous thoughts—tortures of conscience—sexual temptations (after meeting the beautiful Thekla). The pathological filthy monkish imagination loves the latter down to the present day. Next, attacks on Paul by some persistent vicious opponent who made himself Satan’s tool.

Beside this we may place the generalization: all the afflictions and hardships that were incident to Paul’s work. Finally, a diseased condition. Here the list is long: eye misery, headaches, malaria, ear trouble, sciatica, rheumatism, Malta fever, leprosy, some nervous disorder, hysteria or melancholia, epilepsy. Some men select something that would disfigure Paul, a few some ailment at sight of which the ancients would spit in their superstition.

2 Corinthians 12:8

8 Paul continues: Concerning this I urged the Lord three times that it might (permanently, aorist) stand away from me. And he has told me: Sufficient for thee is my grace! For the power is brought to its finish in weakness. Paul does not say when this thorn was first inflicted on him. All that one may surmise is that it may well have happened a short time after the visit to Paradise because the two are such opposites, and Paul narrates them together. Then Paul made three efforts that urged the Lord to rid him of the plague.

Παρακαλέω = to call to one’s side, the context furnishes the special modification. Here it is prayer, the subfinal ἵνα clause states the substance of the prayer. Some think that we should translate: “concerning this one … that he stand away from me,” i.e., “Satan’s messenger.” The trouble with this is that “messenger” is only the elucidating apposition in v. 7 and not the main subject, which is “thorn.” We prefer the translation of our versions which have the neuter: “concerning this,” etc.

“Three times” means that Paul received his answer from the Lord the third time. Paul’s petition comes under the class to which we must add: “Lord, if it be thy will.” Hence it is incorrect to quote Paul’s three petitions as an example of requests denied. In fact, there was a denial in no sense whatever, for Paul’s petitions contained his readiness to submit to whatever the Lord might will. Paul does not need to record such details; they belong to the elementary essentials of prayer.

2 Corinthians 12:9

9 The perfect tense “he has told me” conveys more than the aorist “he told me”; it adds the continuous present effect to the past fact: once heard, the Lord’s answer is ever in Paul’s ears. Paul records exactly what the Lord told him, and we should not say that Paul uses his own language to convey what the Lord said to him. It is needless to inquire how the Lord spoke to Paul, seeing that many such direct communications appear in the Scriptures without specification as to how they were made. Those who received the communication always knew who spoke and understood the very words which he spoke.

The Lord’s answer to Paul is weighty, indeed, and of the highest significance for the boast which Paul has been making. “Sufficient for thee is my grace,” ἀρκεῖσοι, emphatically forward, “it suffices for thee,” for all thy life, all thy work, all thy suffering, also and especially for this distressing “thorn for the flesh.” By placing the subject last it is made equally emphatic: “my grace.” It is the blessed word χάρις (see 1:2) in the fulness of its meaning, the Lord’s undeserved favor toward one who as a sinner has deserved the very opposite, this boundless favor with all that it bestows, pardon and peace, support and deliverance, comfort, strength, assurance, hope, joy, and every gift. That grace knows why it “gave” Paul this dreadful “thorn”; Paul has already indicated why. It permits Paul to be tried, but only in order that what the Lord had indicated by letting Paul see Paradise during his earthly life may be most perfectly accomplished. This grace cannot be insufficient; it will attain its τέλος or goal in Paul’s experience. This grace cannot abandon Paul; it is mightier than “the thorn,” mightier than any “messenger of Satan.” It will support him in every ordeal and shine the brighter as pure, undeserved grace the more it is put to the test. What a sweeter reply from the Lord could Paul have desired?

This word of the Lord has been of untold comfort to countless saints of God, all of them sinners like Paul, many of them tried and tested as he was in the fires of affliction, all of them finding this same grace ever sufficient, yea, more than sufficient. If we are right in assuming that about fourteen years had passed since Paul made his prayers and heard this answer from the Lord we have these long years as evidence that the grace did prove sufficient for Paul. If the time was not that long it still covered a number of years.

That first sentence would have been enough; but the Lord added an explanation in regard to the very agony that had pressed the intense prayers from Paul’s lips: “For the power is brought to its finish in weakness.” The verb used is τελεῖται, the very verb that is employed in John 19:28, 30 where Jesus cried: τετέλεσται, which our versions properly translate: “It is finished!” literally, “it has been and is now finished.” But in the case of our passage our versions translate the same verb with the present tense “is made perfect.” This sounds like a translation of τελειοῦται, a different verb and an inferior variant reading.

One must distinguish between the two verbs. Jesus said: “It is finished!” the end has been reached, the last stroke has been done. The noun in the verb is τέλος, the end, the last point. He said nothing about his being τέλειος, having reached a certain maturity or perfection. The sense of our passage is not, as our versions have it, the power “is made perfect,” comes to perfection only in the midst of weakness. The Lord says that the divine power “is finished,” is brought to the end of its work in weakness. The present tense is not “linear” (R., W. P.) but gnomic (R. 866) as it is in all general propositions. We translate “the” and not “my” power although, as the next sentence shows, the Lord is speaking of his own power.

The Lord’s power is certainly always τέλειος, mature, complete, and it cannot be made perfect, for it is ever so. But this power works and does things in us. It has much to do. When it has brought us to the point where we are utter weakness, its task is finished. It has then shaped us into a perfect tool for itself. As long as we sinners imagine that we still have some power we are unfit instruments for the Lord’s hands; he still has to work on us before he can work properly through us. But when he has reduced us to utter nothingness, then the τέλος is reached; with such a tool the Lord can do great deeds. “The power” is generally identified with “my grace.” Strictly speaking, the Lord’s grace possesses power and works and operates in and through us with this its power.

This brief explanation showed Paul why the Lord gave him the thorn for the flesh. It was done lest he lift himself up unduly and thus become a tool that was unfit for the Lord. The verb ἐδόθη shows that the thorn was a gift to Paul, a blessing for him. It was the Lord’s way of reducing Paul to total weakness so that he no more lifted himself up but lay prostrate and weak. So Paul became the wonderful instrument that we see him to be during all these past years, and the Lord worked great things through him. Paul bares the deepest secret of his spiritual life as an apostle.

It was his weakness that made him so excellent a tool for the Lord. Nor is Paul an exception. The proposition is general. It is ever thus with the Lord’s instruments although he uses various means to produce this weakness and its constant realization.

Very gladly, then, I will boast the more in my weaknesses in order that the power of Christ may spread its tent over me. The superlative ἥδιστα is elative (R. 670; B.-D. 246): “very gladly,” “with exceeding gladness.” μᾶλλον is distinct (R. 664; B.-D. 246), “the more,” “rather,” since Paul had received this word from the Lord, which showed him the great value of all his weaknesses for the Lord’s purpose. Paul will now make all his weaknesses his one and only boast. He now uses the plural. It includes the weakness of the thorn, which brought him down to the lowest point, and all the other weaknesses of which he has already spoken. All that he has said in 11:30 and 12:5 about his making only the weaknesses his boast, all that at first sounds so paradoxical and incomprehensible in these statements, is now perfectly clear.

The Lord’s answer to Paul’s prayers brings the clarity. Paul’s boast had ever to be “in my weaknesses”; yours and mine likewise.

Paul’s purpose in boasting thus about his weaknesses is in perfect accord with that of Christ, “that the power of Christ (not: strength, R. V.) may spread its tent over me.” The figure is beautiful. The power of Christ spreads its tent over Paul and all his weaknesses, does so once for all and permanently (aorist). All Paul’s weaknesses are covered and hidden away under that tent. It cannot be spread over one whose boast is in his own strength. The purpose clause does not mean that this is yet to be done, that Paul is still waiting for it after all these years. Paul will ever boast as he does so that the tent that was once spread over him may definitely remain over him.

We fail to see why this verb makes commentators think of the Shekinah or Khabod. This was not a tent or tabernacle at all but the cloud that rested on the ark between the cherubim that were on its lid. It never served as a cover. Other extravagant views have been added recently. This “power of Christ” is thought to be a hypostasis, an independent personification which subsists in itself. Paul desires to be “an incarnation of the power of Christ” just as Simon Magus was in Acts 8:10. The writer rejects all such views.

2 Corinthians 12:10

10 Reaching back into all that he has said and rounding it out in a final statement, Paul says: Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in mistreatments, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for whenever I am weak, then I am powerful.

When he was boasting Paul spoke to others about all his great weaknesses, but for himself he takes pleasure in them. They look beautiful and lovely to him. He adds a few phrases by letting his eye run over four groups of evidence that exhibit his weaknesses even to other people. Four of the five ἐν phrases are specifications of the first. Any man is weak who has to submit to “insulting, violent mistreatments” instead of violently denouncing and bringing to justice such enemies; who cannot rise above “necessities,” wants, and difficulties like the strong men whom the world admires; who flees from “persecutions” instead of turning against his pursuers with devastating power and wrath; who is ever in “distress,” tight places, where he can do nothing but suffer. What a statement to say that all such situations are one’s pleasure and delight!

But do not overlook “in behalf of Christ,” for his sake, Matt. 5:11, 12: “for my sake.” Paul thus enters the glorious company of the ancient prophets, to which none but such are admitted. This phrase puts a different aspect upon the whole statement. Blessed are they who are thus in utter weakness “for Christ’s sake”!

And so we come to the end: “For when I am weak” as thus indicated, “then, then indeed, I am powerful,” not with any power of my own but with “the power of Christ.” It reverses everything that the world knows of power in a man but by that reversal reveals the only power that is power in the kingdom.

V. The Conclusion of Paul’s Foolish Boasting

2 Corinthians 12:11

11 It is over with. I have become a fool! “I have gotten to that point by allowing myself to say what I have just said.” The perfect is to indicate the completed state. Paul looks back to the point where he has gotten and is ashamed. The folly announced in 11:1 is now perpetrated. In what sense it is folly we have seen in 11:1. You on your part compelled me! “Not that this excuses me but it does say that I did not become a fool wilfully; and since my folly is recorded in a letter to you Corinthians, you are jointly guilty, which remember when you read.” Μέν solitarium is either concessive or restrictive and has nothing to do with δέ (R. 1151).

For I on my part ought to be commended by you, for in no respect was I behind the superfine apostles even if I am nothing. At least the signs of the (real) apostle were completely wrought in your midst in all perseverance, both with signs and wonders and with power works.

Instead of forcing Paul to boast like a fool about himself and thus making him reveal all his weaknesses as his boast the Corinthians ought to be commending him. For this folly of Paul’s boasting the Corinthians are as much to blame as is Paul. Ἐγώ is emphatically in contrast with the preceding ὑμεῖς and with the following ὑφʼ ὑμῶν. The Greek uses the imperfect to indicate an obligation that was not met in the present. The obligation extends to the past and is still pending, for it has not as yet been met: “I ought to be commended” (συνίστασθαι, present passive infinitive). On this imperfect see R. 920; B.-D. 358.

For even if the Corinthians wanted to draw a comparison, in no respect does Paul fall behind the false apostles who had invaded Corinth, who boasted that they were “the superlative, the superfine apostles” in order to impress the Corinthians. The Corinthians should certainly know this, but they had forced Paul to act the fool by compelling him at this late date to show them how these superfine apostles were so far behind that they could not even be compared with Paul (see ὑπέρ in 11:23 plus what there follows). On “the superfine apostles” see 11:5.

It is a telling thrust when Paul adds “even if I am nothing.” For this fact that he is all weakness and thus literally “nothing” is the very boast which Paul has been making at length. He made it in literal truth (see the assurance in 11:31 and the final proof in 12:9, 10), but the false apostles tried to make Paul out to be nothing. Paul takes their very slander from their lips and wields it as a double-edged sword.

2 Corinthians 12:12

12 Solitary μέν is restrictive in this instance and = “at least,” although it has a lighter touch than our heavy English phrase (R. 1151). Paul points the Corinthians to what they could and certainly should use in commending him: At least, to mention nothing more, the signs of the (real) apostle were completely wrought among you during the one and one-half years that I was in your midst, wrought in all perseverance (see 6:4). Three datives of means specify: “both with signs and wonders and with power works.” They “were wrought” means by the Lord. “The signs of the apostle” = those that attest an apostle; “the apostle” is the representative singular (R. 408) and hence has the generic article (R. 757). Jesus himself tells us what the signs of the true apostle are by which he will be known anywhere: “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils,” Matt. 10:8 (his commissioning address to the Twelve). “Signs” = sure indications that men may see and read in their significance.

Among the outstanding signs which marked the presence and the work of a real apostle were what we summarize as “miracles,” for which the Scriptures have the double designation “signs and wonders” and then also δυνάμεις, “powers,” in the sense of “power deeds.” Both are here used without articles. Σημεῖα may be used alone but never τέρατα. The former is the nobler name that has ethical content since “signs” point beyond themselves to the grace, mercy, divine power, and help that are operative in them, all speak about what the Lord wants to do also for the souls of men and not only for their bodies.

Paul uses the word twice, first in its broader sense, in which it may include more than miracles, next in its narrower sense, in which it is used with reference to miracles, especially when, as here, it is combined with the term “wonders.” The latter term designates miracles as acts that make men wonder, fill them with amazement. But this is only its lower feature. Paganism, too, was proud of “wonders” or portents; and it seems that on this account the word is never employed alone in the Scriptures to designate miracles but is always combined with “signs.” The third term refers to miracles as deeds that are wrought by the Lord’s omnipotence. All three terms appear in Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:4. “Power works” are expressive here, where, in v. 9, 10, Paul has so significantly spoken of “the power of Christ.”

Luke has no account of the miracles that were wrought by Paul during his stay in Corinth. But that accords with the object with which Acts was written, namely to show how the gospel made its course from Jerusalem to Rome. Hundreds of miracles were omitted, only those that were pertinent to Luke’s object are mentioned, and a few are described. Now miracles were the most tangible evidence of the presence of an apostle. As μέν indicates, the least that the Corinthians could have done was to have pointed the false apostles to such miracles. But the Corinthians failed even in this.

Not until now does Paul refer to miracles, and even now he does so only incidentally and not as pointing to the chief evidence of his apostleship. What miracles attested the false apostles? Absolutely none. As far as the chief evidence goes, Paul has already presented that in the most effective manner in 3:2, etc. The great monument to his apostleship which Paul had erected in Corinth was the Corinthian church itself, which was so great that every inhabitant and every visitor could see it and read its inscription.

2 Corinthians 12:13

13 Despite the fact that miracles were wrought perseveringly in Corinth, Paul finally asks: What, then (γάρ), is it in regard to which you were treated worse than the rest of the churches except that I myself was not a dead weight on you? Forgive me this wrong.

Even down to miracles the Corinthians had received everything from Paul that attested his being a true apostle. What could they, then, complain about as a treatment that was inferior to or worse than that which the rest of the churches received, those that had been founded by the Twelve, Peter, John, etc.? Paul can think of only the one thing which he has discussed already in 11:7–10, compare 1 Cor. 9:15–18, namely that he for his own person had not made himself a dead weight on the Corinthians (the same verb that was used in 11:9), i.e., had taken no support from them. Paul never did this as we have already seen. If that was a wrong which Paul had committed he here and now asks the Corinthians graciously to forgive him. This is the keenest irony. ʼ′Ο is the common accusative with passives (R. 479); ὑπέρ occurs after a verb with the comparative idea: were treated worse “beyond the rest of the churches.”

It undoubtedly cost Paul a good deal to assume the role of a foolish boaster and to play it through to the end. No more stunning answer could he have given to the mean attempts to disparage him. He absolutely outdoes all his vilifiers. They made him out as amounting to nothing; Paul declares that exactly that is his boast—I am nothing! I say it in utter truth (11:31), yea, the Lord himself has reduced me to nothing (12:7, etc.), and this is my joy and my satisfaction. But what have you Corinthians lost thereby? In my nothingness I did not ask even a penny of support. Pardon me for the great loss which you thus suffered!

The Impending Arrival of Paul

I. He Will again Be of no Expense to the Corinthians

2 Corinthians 12:14

14 Lo, this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a dead weight. For I am not seeking yours but you. All that follows belongs under the caption of the first sentence that Paul is coming to Corinth and will soon be there. He announces that he will do as he has done before: be an expense to no one. On this matter see v. 13; 11:7–10, the verb “to be a dead weight” in 11:9. Whatever objection cavilers had raised against this practice of Paul’s, he will not alter his course. But what he now says on this subject is stated in view of his impending arrival. Paul wants it understood that he and his assistants will take nothing whatever from the Corinthians. The issue is to be considered as closed.

Ἔχω with an adverb = “to be.” Τρίτοντοῦτο is not “this third time” (which should have τό added) but “as a third time this,” and it amounts to the R. V.’s: “this is the third time.” We see very little difference between “I am ready to come to you” and 13:1, “I am coming to you,” since the present tense ἔρχομαι is constantly used with reference to a coming that will start presently. In fact, Paul was now on his way and had been for some time.

The question is not whether this is Paul’s third visit to Corinth or the second, whether he has been in Corinth twice before this or only once. The question is concerned with this feature, whether Paul made a second brief visit to Corinth after he wrote First Corinthians. All the “critical” hypotheses need this date for the second visit to Corinth; all of them are overthrown when this date is not assumed. In order to secure this date the time between First and Second Corinthians is lengthened from a few months to about a year and a half, for a few months are too short a time to permit this date for the second visit. A further hypothesis is a third letter that was sent after the second visit, and this visit occurred after First Corinthians. Then there follow the hypotheses about the disgraceful scenes that took place in Corinth on the visit that is thus dated; Paul left thoroughly defeated and wrote a violent letter after he got back to Ephesus.

The interest of those who contend that Paul had been in Corinth only once before is not the point of the number of visits to Corinth but a visit that is dated after First Corinthians. If Paul had been in Corinth only once, the question is, of course, settled by that fact alone. But it is equally settled if Paul did visit Corinth a second time (even several times) at a date prior to First Corinthians. It is this prior date which the critics must face. This date clears the atmosphere. No critic has been able to lodge a single valid objection against it.

We thus understand Paul to say that his impending visit is his third. His second occurred some time during the two years that he spent in Ephesus. That second visit is of no importance whatever for either First or Second Corinthians. We have shown in 2:1 that it was not made in grief as is so often thought on the strength of πάλιν. That second visit was followed by a letter that is lost to us, to which 1 Cor. 5:9 refers and about which we know no more. We do not think that “I am ready a third time” refers only to the times when Paul got ready and includes one time when he got ready but changed his plans and delayed; 13:1 says: “I am going a third time.” Τρίτοντοῦτο modifies “I am ready” or “I am ready to come to you.” Why refer the adverbial modifiers across to the infinitive and even into the next clause: “to come this third time, and I will not burden this third time”?

Paul has already explained most fully why he took no support from any of his congregations (1 Cor. 9:15–17; 2 Cor. 11:7–12). What he now says is a kindly addition after the sting administered in v. 13. He is not seeking τὰὑμῶν, “the things of you,” i.e., your goods, but ὑμᾶς, “you yourselves,” i.e., your souls. The false apostles, of course, did otherwise. They cared for the wool and not for the sheep.

For the children ought not to lay up treasure for the parents, but the parents for the children. Paul speaks to the Corinthians as a father to his children. His desire is to enrich them and to fill them with the spiritual treasures which he is able to provide for them and make their own. It is unfair to say that Paul should never have taken the present which the Macedonians sent him (11:9). Since when dare a parent not accept a little present from his grateful children? See that passage. It is also unwarranted to say that when a parent becomes unable to provide for himself, the children should provide for him. Paul was still fully able to provide for himself.

It is also stated that Paul is overthrowing the very law and principle which he lays down at length in 1 Cor. 9:6–12b, 14. But Paul himself distinguishes. 3 between the right that he had and his making use of that right. He did not make use of his right to support for a great and sufficient reason. Paul is here speaking about the spirit which animates him in foregoing that right, his readiness to act as parents do toward their children. Paul uses this relation of parents to their children as an illustration and as no more.

2 Corinthians 12:15

15 Moreover, I on my part will very gladly spend and be myself spent in behalf of your souls. The illustration of parents and children deals with ordinary obligation. Δέ goes beyond mere obligation. Paul is very glad on his part not only to spend of his energy and love but himself to be completely spent (ἐκ in the passive) for the benefit of the souls of the Corinthians. This is the spirit that animates him in his work: utter unselfishness and selflessness.

Both verbs go far beyond spending money. The second verb is so plain, for a person is himself utterly spent, not by paying money, but by using himself up. Here, too, Paul states for what he will spend and himself be spent, namely “for your souls.” The illustration of parents and the fact that they spend money for their children is not retained. That illustration does not deal with any kind of spending but with the reverse, namely treasuring up, saving something to leave to children.

Paul now advances to the real motive: If I love you more abundantly am I loved the less? That would be strange, indeed! Love usually kindles love. This is “love” in the sense of 2:4, which see. The comparative adverb refers to ever greater evidence of love. A case occurs occasionally in which the more love is shown, the less that love is appreciated, and the less love is returned. Do the Corinthians want to be such a case?

2 Corinthians 12:16

16 Is something else hindering the love of the Corinthians? Paul openly states the slander. But granted—I myself did not burden you; nevertheless, being a crafty fellow, I caught you with guile! Is that the direction in which your suspicions run? Does that slander make you hesitate? On ἔστωδέ in the sense of “granted” see R. 948. It is rather too plain that when Paul himself was in Corinth he burdened no one. This is granted as being true by all the Corinthians themselves. But was that not merely a piece of craftiness, just a bait by which to take the Corinthians? It is the way of vicious slander to do this very thing: to make a virtue appear as cunning pretense whereby to gain selfish ends under cover.

2 Corinthians 12:17

17 Paul answers this with questions. Two have the interrogative word μή which implies “no” as the answer, and a double one has the interrogative word οὑ (repeated) which implies “yes” as the answer. Anyone of those whom I have been sending to you, did I through him overreach you? All of the Corinthians will have to confess: “No, never!” The perfect tense “have been sending” is to indicate repeated sendings (R. 893, 896). It is the very tense that is required.

The accusative τινά which is followed by διʼ αὑτοῦ is called an anacoluthon (R. 488). It is a pendent accusative, it could also be a nominative. But the main point is the reason for thrusting this indefinite pronoun and its relative clause forward and then resuming it with διά: it places the emphasis exactly where Paul wants it. If Paul himself took nothing, is there anyone, anyone at all whom he has been sending to Corinth, whom he used as an underhanded means for getting something out of the Corinthians? In ὧν there lies τούτωνοὕς.

The question includes all of the men whom Paul had sent to Corinth since he left the congregation. Just how many there had been we do not know; that point is immaterial. Some commentators introduce the matter of the collection but do not indicate how Paul could have overreached the Corinthians in regard to this money when 1 Cor. 16:2 makes it plain that none of Paul’s assistants ever touched a penny with their own hands. Paul includes men whom he had sent before he asked that a collection be started. His question is this: Can any man in Corinth stand up and say that any person that had been sent by Paul in any way whatever asked for a single penny for Paul or, without asking, ever received a single penny? “Did I overreach you” means: take nothing when I was in Corinth but try to get something craftily later on.

2 Corinthians 12:18

18 The last two men whom Paul had sent were Titus and another brother. I urged Titus, and I sent along the brother. Did Titus overreach you in anything? Did we not walk in the same spirit? In the same tracks? The last mission of Titus’ was not a pleasant one; Titus had to be urged to undertake it.

Paul does not need to name the other man whom he sent along with Titus. He does not name the two to whom he referred in 8:18, 22; it is not necessary, the Corinthians know. “The brother” conveys only the fact that the man was not one of Paul’s regular assistants. Whether he was one of the two who are now being sent by Paul a second time (8:18, 22) we do not know. The view that “the brother” was to watch Titus is entirely unfair although it has been entertained. Titus was the main character, and hence Paul asks: “Did Titus overreach you in any respect?” Μή implies that the answer must be “no.”

But negative answers would not satisfy Paul. He would end his questioning with two οὑ that call for positive answers. He now includes also himself together with all his assistants and others whom he had sent to Corinth: “Do we not all walk in the same spirit? in the same steps?” The A. V. is correct in translating “spirit” over against the R. V. which translates “Spirit.” This is the dative of means or of norm. The Scriptures never speak of the Holy Spirit as a means or a norm that are used by us. By “spirit” Paul means the inner motivation, by “tracks” the outward, visible conduct. His double question is: “Are we not all alike inwardly and outwardly?” As I was when I was with you, taking absolutely nothing—have not all my messengers to you been just the same?

Objection is raised on the ground that Paul relies only on questions. In addition to that he is accused of arguing in a circle by proving himself by means of Titus and Titus by means of himself. Because he is honest and unselfish, his messengers must be the same; then vice versa. Paul does neither; either would be a farce. These questions are blanket questions that are addressed to the entire congregation and include every member. Their convincing power does not lie in argument, even as none is made; it lies in the fact that every Corinthian is challenged to point to a single instance where Paul or any messenger of his ever got a penny from any Corinthian member.

II. Paul Fears What He May Find when He Arrives in Corinth

2 Corinthians 12:19

19 All this time you are thinking that we are trying to defend ourselves to you. In God’s sight in connection with Christ we are speaking (instead of keeping silence). Moreover, beloved, everything is for the benefit of your edification. Paul corrects a wrong impression that is prevailing in the minds of the Corinthians. He surmises that they are thinking that Paul is merely defending himself and his assistants, that he is writing in his own interest. The verb is apparently to be taken in the lower sense of “whitewashing ourselves,” the present tense being conative, “trying to whitewash.” Two things are wrong about this assumption: 1) any self-interest on the part of Paul and his assistants; 2) that Paul and his assistants are pleading their case before the forum of the Corinthians. The Corinthians had better disabuse their minds on both points.

In the first place, the forum before which Paul and his assistants stand is that of God: “in the sight of God,” with him as the Judge “we speak.” Let the Corinthians not think that they are the judges; they face that Supreme Judge as well as Paul and his assistants face him. “In God’s sight in connection with Christ” makes plain the entire situation. Christ, his gospel, and his church are involved in all that Paul is writing. Hence, Paul says, “we speak,” the verb means, “we are not and cannot be silent.” The right way in which the Corinthians are to think about this epistle is that it is open speech before God himself and involves Christ who commissioned Paul and his assistants for their work. How could they dare to be silent unless they intended to abandon that work!

Δέ takes care of the other point. Paul and his assistants are not on trial, and the Corinthians are not the judges. The former are concerned about this matter in quite a different manner. Paul and his assistants are greatly concerned about the Corinthians, namely about their standing before God in Christ. “Everything” that Paul is writing is “in the interest of your edification,” of your upbuilding in Christ. This is “edification” in the Biblical sense, which includes rebuke, warning, castigation, etc., and not in the modern sense of pleasant religious emotions. The idea is not that Paul is placing an indictment against the Corinthians before God, that he is putting them on trial before the Supreme Judge.

The great Judge is looking down on all of them, on Paul and on his assistants and on all the Corinthians. Paul is speaking in his presence so that he may hear that all he is saying to the Corinthians is, indeed, for the benefit of building them up in Christ. He is not a dumb dog, he speaks and speaks plainly. As the Corinthians read this epistle they must realize that God’s eyes are looking down on them, that all these things are connected with Christ and are said to them in connection with him. They will then stop thinking that Paul is on trial before them in a kind of self-defense. They will read this epistle as they ought to read it.

Paul thus inserts the address “beloved” most effectively; it is expressive of his entire concern for the Corinthians.

See how simply Paul does this correcting of all foolish thoughts on the part of the Corinthians. Two little sentences are enough, but they go to the heart of the matter. But is Paul’s epistle not in part an ἀπολογία or self-defense before the Corinthians? Yes, he is setting himself right in their eyes; he has even refuted charges and slanders made against him. But he has never done so in his own interest but only in the true spiritual interest of the Corinthians themselves. He wrestles with them in order to make them what they ought to be “in the sight of God in connection with Christ.” There is no difficulty whatever on this score unless we ourselves read this epistle with the wrong thoughts which Paul removes from the minds of the Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 12:20

20 “For” explains Paul’s concern and does it in very plain language: For I fear lest perhaps, on coming, I shall find you not such as I want, and I myself shall be found for you such as you do not want; lest perhaps (there be) strife, jealousy, angers, self-assertions, backbitings, whisperings, puffings-up, disorders; lest on my coming back my God shall humble me before you, and I mourn many of those who have been hitherto sinning and did not repent of the uncleanness and fornication and excess which they committed.

The whole is one sentence: φοβοῦμαι followed by the three clauses with μή: “I fear lest—lest—lest”; the three heap up all that Paul fears. The first two are softened by πώς: “lest perhaps.” The aorist ἐλθών indicates the moment of arrival in Corinth.

Note the skillful reversal of the thought in chiastic form: “not such as I want shall I find you—and I myself shall be found for you such as you do not want.” If things were still awry when Paul got to Corinth or would get worse by the time Paul arrived, he would certainly not find the Corinthians such as he wanted. And that means that the Corinthians, too, would not find Paul such as they wanted. Congregations that are in a bad state seldom want a church official to arrive who intends to make thorough work in cleaning up their difficulties. Part of Paul’s skill is evident in the use of the passive form in the second statement. Note the little difference: “not such as I want”—“such as you do not want.” Even the placement of the negative is significant. Read R. 1161 and 1174 on οὑχ. The writer thinks that οὑχοἵους and likewise οὑθέλετε are each simply a single negated term; hence the negative is properly οὑ and needs no further explanation.

Paul states what he fears he may find in Corinth. We have four pairs. Four is used to designate ordinary rhetorical completeness, and the doubling of each of the four intensifies the completeness. Strife and jealousy—each sheds light on the other. In the Greek abstract plurals are used for concrete exhibitions or instances of what the abstract term signifies. This applies to the six plurals following.

B.-D. 142. Thus “angry outbursts—cases of self-assertion” (C.-K. 444). These two are well paired. So also “backbitings—whisperings.” Angry self-assertion bursts out publicly, but backbitings and whisperings circulate quietly. On the proud “puffings” note what Paul wrote already in 1 Cor. 4:6, 18, 19; 13:4, which show the relation between the two epistles. This was one of the failings that was prevalent in Corinth; it is here paired with “disorders.”

Those who separate chapters 10–13 from Second Corinthians and call this “the Four Chapter Letter” which was written earlier or later than Second Corinthians make much of the eight evils listed here on the plea that the first seven chapters show that things were so far improved in Corinth that Paul could not have harbored these fears when he wrote those seven chapters. They do not note that those seven chapters plainly show that enough trouble is still active in Corinth, and that Paul might well have his fears about a new flare-up. He is setting these things down in plain words in order to head off this very danger. He tells the Corinthians that, when he comes, he does not want to find any of these shameful conditions. It was one of the wisest things he could do.

2 Corinthians 12:21

21 The two μήπως clauses are a unit, the second states the specifications for the first. The clause that has simple μή is an addition. Hence Paul again inserts “on my coming back.” On πάλιν see 2:1. In the interest of the hypothesis of a disgraceful visit of Paul to Corinth between First and Second Corinthians efforts are made to refer πάλιν across the participle so that it modifies the main verb: “lest my God shall humble me again.” Paul puts it in a striking way: not that the Corinthians might suffer disgrace and humiliation, but that he, Paul, might be humbled by God before the Corinthians (πρὸςὑμᾶς) at the sight of their disgraceful condition, that he might be caused to mourn over many guilty ones. Ah, yes, the Corinthians should feel that way, but would they? Well, Paul would!

He does not use the plural and say that he and his assistants would be humbled and would mourn. His assistants would, of course, feel as he felt, but especially he would be affected.

“Lest my God shall humble me,” the God whom I serve so earnestly in Christ, brings out the full poignancy of what Paul would feel—his own God bowing his head in the dust. That would be a sad, sad dispensation of providence for Paul. Jesus had labored in vain for Judas, for many others who then turned from him; that sorrow Paul, too, had often enough experienced, it would then be his again in Corinth.

But he is thinking also of the other and the older dangers in Corinth, of those mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:9, etc.; 6:9–20, the old pagan vices into which some of the Corinthians had been drawn and were ever in danger of being drawn. This final fear of Paul’s so plainly reaches back into First Corinthians that it is useless to deny the fact. The fear is that Paul might have to mourn “many of those who have been hitherto (πρό in the participle) sinning and did not repent of their uncleanness,” etc. Not repenting, they would, of course, be lost. This is sufficient reason for mourning without thinking of excommunication and the like. Paul speaks of that in its proper place.

Paul uses first the perfect and then the aorist participle, each tense in its exact meaning. The sinning which started in the past is pictured as going on unchecked to the present (perfect), no decisive act of repentance at any time in the past causes a stop (aorist).

Paul uses the verb μετανοεῖν only here but uses it in the same sense as the noun is used in 7:9, 10, the inner change of heart by true contrition which turns to Christ for pardon. One article combines the three datives: did not repent over (ἐπί); we say: of “the uncleanness and fornication and excess which they committed.” The three terms describe sexual sins plus what goes with them. See the remarks on Rom. 13:13 for details.

“Uncleanness” refers to the stench; “fornication” to the common type of this sin; “excess” to the unbridled action, ἀσέλγεια, Zuegellosigkeit, Ausschweifung. The sinners described here have been identified with those mentioned in v. 20. And they would, indeed, dislike Paul and cause the disturbances noted in v. 20. They knew what Paul did in 1 Cor. 5 and what he wrote in 1 Cor. 6:12–20. They had no use for him and would claim that Paul never intended to come (1 Cor. 4:18). This identification seems to be correct.

“I fear, I fear!” is Paul’s solicitous warning.

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

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

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