ως φιν - ὩΣ oe - 
 ~<a ee 
 ee = 
 
 ea eow mf eeu 
 
 a 
 2 ee 
 
 oe ere et 
 Lo eae mone ee τ το λοσ ὉΟῚΣ 
 re es 
 
 ee i a 
 age tomer 
 
 i} Reread 
 
 } { ; 
 tattans 
 7 ' 
 
 > ? 
 ΤῊ 
 
 t 
 ‘rhe 
 
 ἘΝ} ἐὺ roa 
 ἘΠΕ 
 
 _ ltt ἂν. ας 
 τ γα . μον 
 τς...» ν 
 
 ee zs a! ὭΣ « 7 = —— οἷν 
 ἘΝ κεφ ν 1) δ φῳ οι νοι. πων - So ἄρον 
 ST eine Ree ef Se Pe eet e 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic72meye 
 
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 BRR So FN 
 
 ESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the 
 24 Second Issue of Third Year of Dr. MEYER’s COMMENTARY 
 (being the r1th and 12th volumes of the Series), viz. :— 
 
 ST. MATTHEW, Volume II. 
 CORINTHIANS, Volume II. 
 
 These volumes are translated from the latest Editions dy special 
 arrangement with the German Publishers. 
 
 The extreme care which has been given to the editing of these 
 volumes will appear, the Publishers trust, in their great accuracy, 
 and this is true of the whole Series. It is evident that the value of 
 the Commentary very much depends on minute accuracy. 
 
 The Series will be continued by the publication of Mark and 
 LUKE in two volumes, and EPHESIANS with PHILEMON in one, thus 
 completing the New TESTAMENT COMMENTARY so far as written 
 by Dr. Meyer himself. But to this the Publishers propose to 
 add THESSALONIANS by Dr. LUNEMANN, in one volume. 
 
 The whole Series will therefore be completed in sixteen volumes. 
 It will be for the Subscribers to say if they desire the publication of 
 the remaining portions of the COMMENTARY ON THE New ΤΈΒΤΑ- 
 MENT by the scholars whose co-operation Dr. MEYER invited. The 
 Publishers could only do so on a very generally expressed desire. 
 
 May the Publishers request a remittance of the fourth and last 
 Subscription—2zts. ἢ 
 
 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH, 
 March 1879. 
 
ν.} 
 i¢ G ck ὮΝ 
 
 i wan 
 
 χων Wit V6: a ἀν PROTA) ay ἴὼ σὴς 
 ὙΠ δὴν Aas ict ἐδ τί fe) sale baat sila uh τὴν τὰ 
 γ 
 
 Ht Na Sitios. tildes sa p fe) ies ane iain 
 
 
 
te abe 
 
 {MAY 11 196] by 
 ATi aL seu” 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 “op 
 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGE 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY W/ 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, ΤῊ}, 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 From the German, With the Sanction of the Author. 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 
 ΝΠ ΑΜ Po DITOR S ΟΝ 10. 
 AND 
 
 WILLIAM STEWART, D.D. 
 
 PARTS VY. AND- V1, 
 Pee EPISTLE S TO THE CORINTHIANS 
 ViOuL.: Tk. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 tees CLARK, 38 GEORGE ΚΤ ΒΕ 
 
 MDCCCLXXIX. 
 

 
 
 
 
 PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 T. & Τ᾿ CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON,. . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND Co. 
 
 DUBLIN, . . ᾿ . +» ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
 
 
 NEW YORK, . . . - SCRIBNER AND WELFORD, 
 
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 HANDBOOK 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 BY / 
 ν 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 Von. if. 
 First EpistLe, CH. XIV.—XVI. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 REV. ἢ. DOUGLAS BANNERMAN, M.A. 
 
 SECOND EPISTLE. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 REV. DAVID HUNTER, B.D. 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Poe CLARK 38 GEORGE ΒΤ ΕΗ 
 
 MDCCCLXXIX, 
 
* ΓῚ 
 ba L . Ὁ ὍΝ 
 ' "- af : vA 
 ᾿ . ’ ᾿ δ" 
 ; ᾽ ᾿ 
 ῃ ΜᾺ | ᾿ i 
 ‘ i” 
 2 Ἱ ᾿Ὶ J “ ay 
 5 ν ἃ 
 ͵ 
 + ’ Ἵ + 
 i 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 ‘ 
 . Γ 4 f 
 ee 
 i 
 . ΓΙ 
 ‘ 
 i Ὁ 
 4 
 ͵ 
 fe 
 . y 
 ΄ ; ᾿ 
 ‘ 
 ᾿ ᾽ 
 1 
 . 
 ' 
 . 
 ‘ 
 i ‘ 
 t 7 { 
 ͵ 
 ‘ Le 
 ' 
 ἐφ 1 
 “ - 
 f ’ 
 “ 
 ‘pals ΄ { Pa DS { 
 - 4 “ r 
 . 4 “ 
 Π Dey ‘eT ae 
 ΓᾺ - - ἅ 
 
 ᾿ » 
 
 Lane ae 
 
 τὺ % SH ' 
 
 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 I REGRET that the issue of the present volume has been 
 
 somewhat delayed, partly by unlooked - for hindrances to 
 the progress of the translators, partly by an illness which made 
 it necessary for me to suspend for a time the work of revision. 
 Mr. Bannerman has here completed his excellent version of the 
 Commentary on the First Epistle; and the Commentary on the 
 Second has been translated with skill and care by my young 
 friend and former pupil, the Rev. David Hunter, of Kelso. I 
 have revised both throughout in the interest of uniformity on 
 
 the same principles as heretofore. 
 Wi oly 
 
 GLasGow COLLEGE, February 1879. 
 
5 = 
 7 4 ὁ .ῳ 
 ἊΣ Ὁ ἌΡ 
 
 ἘΣ ry a a" i" 
 7 = » > 
 if a Prgbat, Ux 4 
 
 ‘" ; tat) 
 4 
 
 
 
PREFACE 
 TO THE COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE. 
 
 ———<— 
 
 INCE the year 1862, in which the fourth edition of this 
 
 Commentary was issued, the only exegetical work calling 
 for mention on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (except 
 a Roman Catholic one) is that of von Hofmann. My relation 
 to this work has already been indicated in the preface to the 
 Commentary on the First Epistle; it could not be different in 
 the exposition of the Second, and it will doubtless remain un- 
 altered as regards the Pauline writings that are still to follow, as 
 is apparent already in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 my exposition of which I likewise am now issuing in a new 
 edition. 
 
 The much - discussed questions of Introduction — whether 
 between our two Epistles to the Corinthians there intervened 
 a letter which has been lost, and whether the adversaries so 
 sharply portrayed and severely censured by the apostle in the 
 Second Epistle belonged to the Christ-party—have recently been 
 handled afresh in special treatises with critical skill and acumen ; 
 and the general result, although with diversities in detail, points 
 to an affirmative answer. After careful investigation I have 
 found myself constrained to abide by the negative view; and I 
 must still, as regards the second question, hold the Christine 
 party to be the most innocent of the four, so that they are 
 wrongly, in my judgment, made responsible for all the evil which 
 Paul asserts of his opponents in the Second Epistle. I am ata 
 loss to know, how so much that is bad can be brought into inward 
 
 7 
 
vill PREFACE. 
 
 ethical connection with the simple confession ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, 
 without calling in the aid of hypotheses incapable of being 
 proved; or how, moreover, Paul should not already in his First 
 Epistle, which was followed up by the Second in the very same 
 year, have discovered the thoroughly dangerous springs and 
 movements of this party-tendency; or lastly, and most of 
 all, how Clement of Rome, while recalling to the recollection 
 of his readers the three other factions, should not even in a 
 single word have mentioned the Christ-party, although in looking 
 back on the past he could not but have had before his eyes 
 the whole historical development of the fourfold division, and in 
 particular the mischief for which the Christians were to blame, 
 if there were in truth anything of the sort. I have not met 
 with any real elucidation of these points among the acute 
 supporters of the opposite view. 
 
 In wishing for this new edition a kindly circle of readers, not 
 led astray either by the presupposition of the dogmatist or by 
 the tendency to import and educe subjective ideas,—as I may 
 be allowed to do all the more earnestly on account of the special 
 difficulties that mark the present letter of the apostle,—I commit 
 all work done for the science which applies itself soberly, faith- 
 fully, and devotedly to the service of the divine word—desiring 
 and seeking nothing else than a sure historical understanding of. 
 that word—to the protection and the blessing of Him, who can 
 do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask and understand. 
 Under this protection we can do nothing against the truth, 
 everything for the truth. 
 
 HANNOVER, 21st June 1870. 
 
THE 
 
 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 
 
 CHAPTER ΧΙ͵ΙΥ. 
 
 VER. 7. Τοῖς φθόγγοις] Lachm. reads rot φθόγγου, with B, Clar. Germ. 
 Tol. Ambrosiast. Too weakly attested; and after the preceding 
 φωνὴν διδόντα (giving from itself) the change of the dative into the 
 genitive (Vulgate, sonitwwm), and of the plural into the singular, 
 was very natural. Neither ought we to read, instead of ζῷ (Elz. 
 Lachm. Tisch.), the more weakly attested διδῷ (recommended by 
 Griesb.), which is a repetition from the preceding διδόντα. ---- Ver. 10. 
 ἐστίν] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read εἰσίν, following A Β Ὁ EFGRs, 
 min. Clem. Dam. Theophyl. The singular is an emendation, in 
 accordance with the neuter plural. — αὐτῶν] should be deleted, with 
 Lachm. Riick. Tisch., according to preponderating testimony. A 
 defining addition. — Ver. 13. Instead of διόπερ read διό, upon decisive 
 evidence. — Ver. 15. 6] is wanting both times in F G, min. Vule. 
 It. Sahid. Syr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers; the first time also in K, 
 the second time also in B; hence Lachm. deletes only the second δέ. 
 Probably Paul did not write either at all, and B contains merely 
 the insertion which was first made in the first half of the verse. — 
 Ver. 18. Elz. has μου after Θεῶ, which Reiche defends, in opposition 
 to decisive evidence. Addition from i. 4; Rom.1i. 8, al. There is 
 preponderating testimony for γλώσσῃ (Lachm. Riick. Tisch.) in place 
 of γλώσσαις, as, indeed, in this chapter generally the authorities vary 
 greatly in respect of the singular and plural designation of this 
 charisma. In this passage the plural was inserted because they 
 ascribed the knowledge of ever so many languages to the apostle. 
 -- λαλῶν] BDEFG 8, 17, 67** Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. Occ. 
 and Latin Fathers have λαλῶ (so Lachm. and Tisch.); of these, 
 however, F G, Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have ὅτι 
 before πάντων. L omits λαλῶν altogether (which Riick. prefers, as 
 also D. Schulz and de Wette). The preponderance of attestation 
 1 COR. I. jn 
 
2 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 is manifestly in favour of λαλῶ, which is also to be regarded as the 
 original. For the omission (A) is explained by the fact that the 
 words from εὐχαριστῶ to γλώσσαις were viewed (in accordance with 
 vv. 14-16) as belonging to each other. Other transcribers, who 
 rightly saw in πάντων ὑμῶν w.A. the ground of the εὐχαριστῶ, sought 
 to help the construction, some of them by ὅτι, some by changing 
 λαλῶ into λαλῶν. The latter was welcome also to those who saw 
 In πάντων... λαλῶν, ποῦ the ground, but the mode of the εὐχαριστῶ, 
 such as Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 271, who accordingly defends the 
 Recepia.— Ver. 19. Elz. Tisch. read διὰ τοῦ νούς, running counter, 
 it is true, to AB DEF GS, vss. and Fathers, which have σῷ νοΐ 
 (so Lachm. and Riick.), but still to be defended, because σῷ νοΐ has 
 manifestly come in from ver. 15. The very old transcriber’s error 
 διὰ τὸν νόμον (without μου), which Marcion followed, tells likewise 
 on the side of the Recepta.— Ver. 21. ἑτέροις] Lachm. Riick. read 
 ἑτέρων, following A ΒΒ δὲ, τη. Rightly; the dative was written me- 
 chanically after ἑτερογλώσσοις and yeircow.— Ver. 25. Elz. has καὶ οὕτω 
 before τὼ xpurré, in opposition to greatly preponderating evidence. 
 The result seemed to begin at this point, hence the subsequent καὶ 
 οὕτω was taken in here and the οὕτω following was left out (so still 
 Chrysostom). Afterwards this second οὕτω was restored again with- 
 out deleting the first χαὶ οὕτω. --- Ver. 32. πνεύματα] D EF G and 
 some min. vss. and Fathers have πνεῦμα. But πνεύματα seemed out 
 of place, seeing that it is the Holy Spirit that impels the prophets. 
 — Ver. 34. ὑμῶν, which is defended by Reiche and Tisch., is wanting 
 in A B &, min. vss. and Fathers (deleted by Lachm. and Riick.), but 
 was very liable to be omitted from its being non-essential, and from 
 the generality of the precept, and is to be retained on the ground 
 of its old (as early as Syr.) and sufficient attestation. — ἐπιτέτραπται 
 ἐπιτρέπεται has greatly preponderant authorities in its favour. Re- 
 commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Rightly; 
 the sense of the perfect (pernvisswm est) came more readily to the 
 mind of the transcribers, both of itself and because of the prevalent 
 reference to the law. — ὑποτάσσεσθαι] Lachm. Riick. read ὑποσασσέσθωσαν, 
 following A B δὲ, and some min, Copt. Bashm. Marcion, Damase. ; 
 an interpretation. — Ver. 35. γυναικί] Elz. Scholz read γυναιξί, in 
 opposition to A B δὰ" min. and several vss. and Fathers. The 
 plural was introduced mechanically after the foregoing. — Ver. 37. 
 εἰσὶν évrokas | Many various readings. Among the best attested (by A 
 Β s** Copt. Aeth. Aug.) is ἐστὶν ἐντολή. So Lachm. But D* E* F 
 6, codd. of It. Or. Hil. Ambrosiast. have simply ἐστίν ; and this is 
 the original (so Tisch.), to which ἐντολή was added, sometimes before 
 and sometimes after, by way of supplement. The Recepta εἰσὶν 
 ἐντολαί (defended by Reiche) arose out of the plural expression 
 ἃ γράφω in the way of a similar gloss,— Ver. 38. dyvoeirw] ἀγνοεῖται 
 
 
 
CHAP. XIV. 3 
 
 occurs in A* (apparently) D* F G s* Copt. Clar. Germ. Or. So 
 Lachm. and Riick.; Rinck also defends it. Other vss. and Fathers 
 have ignorabitur. But in the scriptio continua an 2 might easily 
 be left out from éyvoerOQore, and then it would be all the more 
 natural to supplement wrongly the defective ἄγνοειτ by making it 
 ἀγνοεῖται, aS it Was well known that Paul is fond of a striking inter- 
 change between the active and passive of the same verb (viii. 2, 3, 
 xiii, 12). One can hardly conceive any ground for ἀγνοεῖσαι being 
 changed into the imperative, especially as the imperative gives a 
 sense which seems not to be in keeping with apostolic strictness 
 and authority. Offence taken at this might be the very occasion of 
 ayvoeirw being purposely altered into ἀγνοεῖται. 
 
 
 
 CoNTENTS.—(1) Regarding the higher value of prophecy in com- 
 parison with the gift of tongues, vv. 1-25. (2) Precepts regarding 
 the application of the gifts of the Spirit in general, and of the two 
 named in particular, vv. 26-33, with an appended remark on the 
 silence of women, vv. 34, 35. (9) Corroboration of the precepts 
 given, vv. 36-38, and reiteration of the main practical points, vv. 
 39, 40. 
 
 Ver. 1. ΖΔιώκετε τ. ἀγάπην] pursue after love; asyndetic, but 
 following with all the greater emphasis upon the praise of love, 
 chap. xiii.; while the figurative Sie«. (sectamint) corresponds to the 
 conception of the way, xi. 31. Comp. Phil. iii, 12. And after 
 Paul has thus established this normative principle as to seeking 
 after the better gifts of the Spirit, he can now enter upon the 
 latter themselves more in detail. — ζηλοῦτε δὲ κτλ. With this he 
 joins on again to xii. 31, yet not so as to make the δέ reswmptive,— 
 in which case διώκ. τ. ἀγώπ. would be left standing in an isolated 
 position,—but in such a way that he sets over against the latter 
 the ζηλοῦν τὰ wv. as what is to take place along with it. “ Let 
 the end which you pursue be love; in connection with which, 
 however,—and upon that I will now enter more particularly,—you 
 are not to omit your zealous seeking after the gifts of the Spirit, 
 but to direct it especially to prophecy.” Comp. Chrysostom, Theo- 
 doret, and Theophylact. — τὰ πνευματικά] as in xii. 1, the gifts of 
 the Spirit generally, not merely the glossolalia (Billroth, Ewald, 
 comp. also Riickert), which first comes in at ver. 2, and that with 
 a definite designation. Μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα mpod., which is not to be 
 read as a subordinate clause (Hofmann), represents and defines 
 more closely the phrase τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ κρείττονα, xii, 31. 
 
4 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Μᾶλλον does not simply compare the longing for prophetic gifts 
 with that for the glossolalia——which is only done in the following 
 verses (in opposition to Hofmann),—but is to be explained: “in a 
 higher degree, however, than for the other gifts of the Spirit, be 
 zealous that ye may speak prophetically.” The ἵνα thus states 
 the design of the ζηλοῦτε, which we must again mentally supply 
 (comp. ver. 5). 
 
 Vv. 2, 3 give the ground of the μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα mpod. by com- 
 paring prophecy with the glossolalia in particular, which was in 
 such high repute among the Corinthians. — For he who speaks 
 with the tongue (see on xil. 10) speaks not to men (does not with 
 his discourse stand in the relation of communicating to men), but 
 to God, who understands the Holy Spirit’s deepest and most 
 fervent movements in prayer (Rom. vii. 26 f.). Comp. ver. 28. 
 — ovdels yap axover] for no one hears it, has an ear for it. So 
 too Porphyr. de Abst. 111. 22; Athen. ix. p. 383 A. What is 
 not understood is as if it were not heard. Comp. Mark iv. 33; 
 Gen. xi. 7, xlii. 43, and see ver.16: τέ λέγεις οὐκ οἶδε. Wieseler, 
 in 1838, took advantage of ἀκούει in support of his theory of the 
 soft and inaudible character of the speaking with tongues, against 
 which the very expression λαλεῖν, the whole context (see especially 
 ver. 7 f.) and the analogy of the event of Pentecost, as well as 
 Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, are conclusive. See also on xii. 10, xiii. 1. 
 The emphatic οὐκ ἀνθρ. λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τ. Θεῷ militates against 
 Fritzsche, Nov. opusc. pp. 327, 333, who takes οὐδεὶς y. ἀκούει in 
 a hyperbolic sense (“nam paucissimi intelligunt, cf. Joh, i. 10, 11”). 
 No one understands it,—that is the rule, the exceptional case 
 being only, of course, that some one gifted with the χάρισμα of 
 interpretation is present; but in and of itself the speaking with 
 tongues is of such a nature that no one understands it. Had 
 Paul meant the speaking in foreign languages, he could all the 
 less have laid down that rule, since, according to ver. 23,it was a 
 possible case that a// the members of the church should speak 
 γλώσσαις, and consequently there would always be some present 
 who would have understood the foreign language of an address. 
 — πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστ.] 5€é—not the German “ sondern” 
 (Riickert)—is the however or on the other hand frequent after a 
 negative statement (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172; Baeumlein, 
 
 1 Comp. also Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 382. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 4. 5 
 
 Ῥ. 95). We are not to understand πνεύματι of the objective 
 Holy Spirit, ver. 14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual 
 nature of the man (different from the ψυχή). This, the seat of 
 his self-consciousness, is filled in the inspired man by the Holy 
 Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), which, according to the different degrees of 
 inspiration, may either leave the reflective activity of the under- 
 standing (νοῦς, ver. 14) at work, or suspend it for the time during 
 which this degree of inspiration continues. The latter is what is 
 meant here, and πνεύματι λαλεῖν signifies, therefore, to speak 
 through an activity of the higher organ of the inner life, which 
 directly (without the medium of the νοῦς) apprehends and con- 
 templates the divine; so that in πνεύματι is implied the exclu- 
 sion of that discursive activity, which could, as in the case of 
 prophecy, present clearly to itself in thought the movements 
 and suggestions of the Holy Spirit, could work these out, connect 
 them with things present, and communicate them to others in 
 an intelligible way. — μυστήρια] secrets, namely, for the hearers, 
 hence what was unintelligible, the sense of which was shut up 
 from the audience. The mysterious character of the speaking 
 with tongues did not consist in the things themselves (for the 
 same subjects might be treated of by other speakers also), but in 
 the mode of expression, which, as not being brought about and 
 determined by the intellectual activity of the νοῦς, thereby lacked 
 the condition connecting it with the intellectual activity of the 
 hearer, for which it was only made ready by the interpretation. 
 Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362.— oixod. κ. παρακλ. kK. παραμ. 
 The first is the genus, the second and third are species of it:* 
 edification (Christian perfection generally) and (and in particular) 
 exhortation (comp. on Phil. ii. 1) and consolation. — παραμυθία, only 
 here in the N. T., means address in general (Heindorf, Stallbaum, 
 ad Plat. Phaed. p. 70 B), then comfort in particular; Plato, Az. 
 p- 365 A; Aeschin. Dial. Socr. i. 3; Lucian, Mort. D. xv. 3; 
 de Dea Syr. 22; Ael. V. H. xii. 1; Wisd. xix. 12. Comp. on 
 παραμύθιον, Phil. ii. 1. 
 
 Ver. 4. Difference between the relations of the two in respect 
 
 1 Ver. 4, where the οἰκοδομή is named alone, testifies to this relation of the three 
 words (in opposition to Riickert). Comp. Bengel, who has noted well the edifying 
 significance of the two latter points: ““παράκλησις tollit tarditatem, παραμυθία tristi- 
 tiam.” 
 
6 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 of the just mentioned οἰκοδομή. ---- ἑαυτόν] in so far, namely, as he 
 not merely believes that he feels (Wetstein), but really does feel 
 in himself the edifying influence of what he utters. This does not 
 presuppose such an understanding of what he utters as could be 
 communicated to others, but it does assume an impression on the 
 whole of a devout and elevating, although mystical kind, expe- 
 rienced in his own spirit. — ἐκκλησ.] a church, without the article, 
 an assembly. 
 
 Ver. 5. Aé] ἐπειδὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐλάλουν γλώσσαις πολλοὶ, ἵνα 
 μὴ δόξῃ διὰ φθόνον κατασμικρίνειν τὰς γλώσσας, θέλω, φησὶ, 
 πάντας κιτιλ., Theophylact. Comp. the δέ, xii. 31.— μᾶχλον δὲ 
 K.7.r.| rather, however, I wish that ye should speak prophetically. 
 Note here the distinction between the accusative with the imfin- 
 tive and iva after θέλω (see on Luke vi. 31). The former puts 
 the thing absolutely as object; the latter, as the design of the 
 θέλω to be fulfilled by the readers (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 
 62, ed. 3); so that it approaches the imperative force (Fritzsche, 
 ad Matth. p. 839).— μείζων] preferable, of more worth, xiii. 13, 
 because more useful for edification, vv. 6, 26.— ἑκτὸς εἰ μὴ 
 διερμ.1 the case being excepted, if he interpret (what has been spoken 
 with tongues). ἑκτὸς εἰ μή is a mixing up of two modes of expres- 
 sion, so that μή now seems pleonastic. Comp. xv. 2; 1 Tim. 
 v.19. Not a Hebraism (Grotius), but found also in the later 
 Greek writers (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 1; Soloec. 7). See Wetstein ; 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459.— Regarding εὖ with the subjunctive, 
 see on ix. 11. The subject to δίερμ. is not a τίς to be supplied 
 (Flatt, comp. Ewald), but ὁ λαλῶν yA. The passage shows (comp. 
 ver. 13) that one and the same person might be endowed with 
 glossolalia and interpretation. 
 
 Ver. 6. Nuvi δέ] But so, ie. but in this condition of things, 
 since, namely, prophecy is greater than the speaking with tongues 
 when left without edifying interpretation, I, if I came to you as 
 a speaker with tongues, would only then be useful to you when 
 I united with it prophetical or doctrinal discourse. Hofmann is 
 wrong in wishing to refer vuvi δέ to the main thought of ver. 5 ; in 
 that case the second part of ver. 5 is all the more arbitrarily over- 
 looked, seeing that the ἐὰν μη in ver. 6 is manifestly correlative to 
 the ἑκτὸς εἰ μή in ver. 5. Others take it otherwise. But the key 
 to the interpretation which is in accordance with the context and 
 
CHAP. XIV. 7. 7 
 
 logically correct lies in this, that the two uses of ἐάν are ‘not 
 co-ordinate (which was my own former view), so as in that way 
 to give to the principal clause, τί ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω, two parallel 
 subordinate clauses (comp. on Matt. v. 18); but, on the contrary, 
 that ἐὰν μή, corresponding to the ἑκτὸς εἰ μή, ver. 5, is subor- 
 dinated to the first ἐάν. Paul might, forsooth, instead of ἐὰν μὴ 
 .. διδαχῇ have written simply : ἐὰν μὴ ὑμῖν διερμηνεύσω. Instead 
 of doing so, however, he specifies the two kinds of discourse in 
 which he might give an interpretation of his speech in tongues, 
 and says: If I shall have come to you speaking with tongues, 
 what shall I profit you, if I shall not have spoken to you (for the 
 sake, namely, of expounding my speech in tongues, ver. 5), either 
 in revelation, etc. The apostle possessed the gift of glossolalia 
 (ver. 18), but might also be his own διερμηνευτής, and might 
 apply to the διερμηνεύειν the other apostolic charismata which 
 belonged to him for teaching, prophecy, and διδαχή (xiii. 9; Acts 
 xiii. 1).-- ἢ ἐν ἀποκαλ. «.7.r.] not four, but two charismatic 
 modes of teaching are here designated — prophecy and didas- 
 calia. For the former, the condition is ἀποκάλυψις ; for the 
 latter, γνῶσις. See Estius in loc. The prophet spoke in an 
 extempore way what was unfolded and furnished to him by reve- 
 lation of the Spirit; the teacher (if he did not simply deliver a 
 λόγος σοφίας, xii. 8) developed the deep knowledge which he 
 had acquired by investigation, in which he was himself active, 
 but yet was empowered and guided by the Spirit. This twofold 
 division is not at variance with xiii. 2, from which passage, on 
 the contrary, it is plain that there belonged to prophecy γνῶσις 
 and ἀποκάλυψις, the latter of which was not included as a con- 
 dition of the didascalia ; so that the characteristic mark of dis- 
 tinction in prophecy is thus the ἀποκάλυψις. Comp. ver. 30. — 
 ἐν denotes the inward (ἀποκαλ., yvwo.) and outward (προφ., 6:6.) 
 form in which the λαλεῖν takes place. Comp. Matt. xiii. 3.— 
 Note further the use of the jirst person, in which Paul comes for- 
 ward himself with all the more convincing force in support of 
 what he says. 
 
 Ver. 7. The wselessness of a discourse remaining in this way 
 unintelligible is now shown by the analogy of musical instru- 
 ments. — ὅμως] is paroxytone, and means nothing else than tamen 
 (Vulgate), but is put first here and in Gal. iii, 15, although 
 
ὃ PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 logically it ought to come in only before ἐὰν διαστολήν x.7.X. ; 
 hence it is to be explained as if the order was: Ta ἄψυχα, καίπερ 
 gov. διδόντα, εἴτε αὐλός, εἴτε κιθάρα, ὅμως, ἐὰν διαστολὴν τ. PO. μὴ 
 δῷ, πώς γνωσθήσεται κιτιλ. It is rightly taken by Chr. F. Fritzsche, 
 Nov. Opuse. p. 329. Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 52: 
 “instrumenta vitae expertia, etiamst sonwm edunt, tamen, nisi dis- 
 tincte sonent, qui dignoscas,” etc. So Winer, also, at last (ed. 6; 
 ed. 7, p. 515 [E. T. 6957), and, in like manner, Buttmann, nevt. 
 Gr. p. 264 [E. T. 308]. To analyse it into τὰ ἄψυχα, καίπερ 
 ἄψυχα, ὅμως φωνὴν διδόντα κ.τ.λ. (Winer formerly, comp. Riickert), 
 brings out an antithetic relation which could not be calculated on 
 from the context. For what is to be expressed is not that the 
 instruments, although lifeless, nevertheless sound ; but this, that the 
 lifeless instruments, although they sound, nevertheless give out no 
 intelligible melody, unless, etc. As regards the hyperbaton, common 
 with classical writers also, by which ὅμως, instead of following 
 the participle, goes before it,’ see Matthiae, ὃ 566, 3; Kvriiger, 
 δ lvi. 13. 3; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 D; Ast, Lew. Plat. 
 II. p. 447; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 232. That ὅμως stands for 
 ὁμοίως, and should be accented (comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. p. 
 480, ed. 2) ὁμῶς (Faber, Alberti, Wetstein, Hoogeveen, and others), 
 is as erroneous (ὅμως means: equally, together) as Kypke’s assertion 
 that the paroxytone ὅμως means similiter. — διδόντα) giving forth, 
 as Pind. Nem. v. 93; Judith xiv. 9. Φωνή is used of the voice 
 of musical instruments in Ecclus. 1. 16; Esdr. v. 64; 1 Mace. v. 
 31, al. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 47 C; μουσικὴ φωνή, Pol. iii. p. 
 397 A; Plut. Mor. p. 713 C; Eur. Tro. 127. — ἐὰν διαστολὴν 
 κτλ ] If they (the ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα) shall not have given a 
 distinction to the sounds, if they shall have sounded without bring- 
 ing out the sounds in definite, distinctive modulation. “ Har- 
 moniam autem ex intervallis sonorum nosse possumus,” Cic. 7180. 
 1. 18. 41. Comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 7 Ο D, and Stallbaum in loc. 
 — πῶς γνωσθήσ. τὸ adr. K.7.r.|] how shall that be recognised 
 which is played upon the flute or wpon the cithern ? 1.06. how can it 
 then possibly happen that one should recognise a definite piece, of 
 music (a melody) from the sounds of the flute or the cithern ? 
 
 1 Not always immediately before, as Hofmann opines that Paul must have written: 
 
 σὰ ἄψυχα ὅμως φων. διδόντα. See Jacobs, lc. ; also Reisig, Hnarr. Oed. Col. p. xlvi. 
 Comp., too, 4 Macc. xiii, 26, ; 
 
CHAP. XIV. 8, 9. 9 
 
 One is none the wiser from them as to what is being played. The 
 repetition of the article is quite correct: what is being played on 
 the flute, or again, in the other supposed case, what is played upon 
 the cithern. Riickert takes it as meaning, How is it possible to 
 distinguish between flute and cithern? Inappropriate, in view of 
 the essentially different character of the two instruments, and 
 seeing that the question in the context (comp. ver. 9) is not as to 
 distinguishing between the instruments, but as to understanding 
 the melody.—It may be observed, further, that the analogy in 
 ver. 7 would be unsuitable, if Paul had been thinking of foreign 
 languages, since these would not have lacked the διαστολή of the 
 sounds. This holds also in opposition to the view of the matter 
 which makes it an utterance of glosses, as likewise in opposition 
 to Wieseler’s conception of a soft γένος γλωσσῶν, seeing that in 
 ver. 7 it is not the strength of the sound, but its distinctness 
 (comp. Wieseler himself in 1860, p. 114), in virtue of which it 
 expresses a melody, which is the point of comparison. 
 
 Ver. 8. Confirmation of the negative implied in πῶς γνωσθή- 
 oeTat k.T.r., by another yet stronger example: for also in the case 
 of, etc. The emphasis is upon σάλπυγξ, a trumpet, the simple 
 sounds of which are assuredly far more easily intelligible as regards 
 their meaning and design than those of flute and cithern. — ἄδη- 
 λον unclear, uncertain, gui dignoscr nequeat, Beza. “ Unius tubae 
 cantus alius ad alia vocat milites,” Bengel. Comp. φωνάς τινας 
 ἀσήμους, Lucian, Alex. 18. ---- φωνήν] comp. Ll. xviii. 219. — εἰς 
 πόλεμον] to battle, Hom. Jl. i. 177, iv. 891; Pind. Ol. xii. 5; 
 Plato, Phaed. p. 66 C; Ecclus. xxxvii. 5, xl. 6; 1 Mace. ii. 41. 
 The signal of attack was given with the trumpet. See Wetstein 
 and Valckenaer in loc.; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 110. 
 
 Ver. 9. Inference from ver. 7 f.: accordingly, if you also, etc. 
 — διὰ τῆς γλώσσης) for it was by means of the tongue that his 
 readers brought forth so much unintelligible matter through their 
 glossolalia. The ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς γλώσσης speaking unintelligibly 
 correspond to those instruments in vv. 7, 8; hence διὰ τ. yA. is 
 put immediately after ὑμεῖς, and before ἐάν (comp. vi. 4). — εὔσημον 
 λόγον] an easily distinguishable discourse, the meaning of which 
 comes plainly out by clear and distinct words and connection. 
 Comp. Soph. Ant. 1008; Polyb. x. 44. 3; Men. ap. Athen. xiii. 
 p. 571 E. — ἔσεσθε yap κιτ.λ.] expressing the unsuitable relation 
 
10 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 of state, hence not the mere future (comp. Kiihner, IT. p. 40): for 
 ye shall be people, who, etc. — εἰς ἀέρα] palpably illustrates the wse- 
 lessness (what does not remain with the hearer). Comp. ix. 26; 
 Lucretius, iv. 929; Pfluek,ad Hur. Hee, 334. Philo: ἀέἐρομυθεῖν, 
 to speak to the wind, and ἀερόμυθος. 
 
 Vy. 10, 11. Another example still to induce them to lay aside 
 this way of speaking. — εἰ τύχοι] if it so happens, if it is really the 
 case, i.e. perhaps, just as the mere absolute τυχόν also is employed 
 (Isoer. Archid. 38 ; De pace, 60; Xen. Mem. vi. 1. 20, and Kihner 
 in loc.). So in all the passages in Wetstein, Loesner, p. 293; 
 Viger. ed. Herm. p. 301, which are usually adduced in support of 
 what is assumed (by Riickert also) to be the meaning here: for 
 example. The phrase has never this meaning, and merely its 
 approximate sense can be so expressed,’ and that always but very 
 unexactly, in several passages (such as xv. 37; Lucian, Amor. 
 27). And in the present case this sense does not suit at all, 
 partly because it would be very strange if Paul, after having 
 already adduced flutes, citherns, and trumpets as examples, 
 should now for the first time come out with a “for example,” 
 partly and chiefly because εἰ τύχοι is a defining addition, not to 
 the thing itself (γένη φωνῶν), but to its quantity (to τοσαῦτα). 
 Comp. Lucian, Icarom. 6: καὶ πολλάκις, εἰ τύχοι, μηδὲ ὁπόσοι 
 στάδιοι Μεγαρόθεν ᾿Αθήναζέ εἶσιν, ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενοι. Paul, 
 namely, had conceived to himself under τοσαῦτα a number in- 
 definite, indeed, but very great ;* and he now takes away from 
 this conception its demonstrative certainty by εἰ τύχοι: in so great 
 multitude, perhaps, there are different languages in the world. Bill- 
 roth, too, followed by Olshausen, takes εἰ τύχοι in itself rightly, but 
 introduces an element of irony, inasmuch as he quite arbitrarily 
 takes τοσαῦτα... καὶ οὐδέν for dca... τοσαῦτα, and, in doing 
 so, makes εἰ τύχοι even reach over to the second clause: “as many 
 languages as there are, probably just so many have sense and 
 significance.” — On εἰ with the optative, expressing the mere con- 
 jecture, 1 may suffice to refer to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 902.— 
 γένη φωνῶν] ‘ie. all sorts of different languages, each individual 
 unit of which ‘is a separate γένος φωνῶν. The opposite is φωνὴ 
 
 1 This also in opposition to Hilgenfald, Glossol. p. 24. 
 
 * For this reason he could limit even the indefinite expression by εἰ σύχοι (in oppo- 
 sition to Hilgenfeld), 
 
CHAP. XIV. 12. ἘΠ 
 
 μία πᾶσι, Gen. xi. 1. — οὐδέν] namely, γένος φωνῶν. Bleek renders 
 it, contrary to the context: no rational being. Similarly Grotius 
 and others, so that αὐτῶν in the Textus receptus would apply to men. 
 Comp. van Hengel, Annot. p. 194 ἔ, who supplies ἔθνος with 
 οὐδέν. ----- ἄφωνον] speechless, 1.6. no language is without the essence 
 of a language (comp. βίος aBiwros, and the like, in Lobeck, 
 Paralip. p. 229 f.; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 612; Jacobs, Del. epigr. 
 1. 33), te. unintelligible, and that absolutely, not merely for him, to 
 whom it is a foreign tongue (ver. 11).— odv] therefore, draws its 
 argument, not from the great multitude of the languages (Hof- 
 mann), which, in truth, is not at all implied in what is contained 
 in ver. 11, but from οὐδέν ἄφωνον. For were the language spoken 
 to me (τῆς φων.) ἄφωνος, and so unintelligible in itsel/, I could 
 not in that case appear even as a barbarian to the speaker, because, 
 in fact, what he spoke would be understood by no man. The bar- 
 barian (βαρβαρόφωνος, Herod. vii. 20, ix. 43) speaks only a foreign 
 language, not one altogether devoid of meaning for others. — τὴν 
 δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς] the signification, the sense of the language 
 (which is being spoken). Polyb. xx. 9. 11; Lucian, Migr. 1, al. 
 Comp. Herod. ii. 30; Plat. Zuthyd. p. 286 C.— ἐν ἐμοί] with me, 
 1.9. in my judgment. See Valckenaer, ad Eur. Hipp. 324; Pflugk, 
 ad Eur. Hel. 996; Winer, pp. 362, 204 [E. T. 483, 2'73]. 
 
 REMARK.—Paul has chosen φωνή to denote langwage, because in 
 the whole section he has only the meaning tongue in his mind for 
 γλῶσσα. To instruct his readers regarding the speaking with tongues, 
 he uses the analogy of speaking languages. Hofmann resorts to 
 the suggestion that Paul must have used φωνή here, because he 
 would not have expressed what xa οὐδὲν ἄφωνον was designed to con- 
 vey by x. οὐδὲν ἄγλωσσον. That is incorrect; for ἄγλωσσον would have 
 conveyed the very same thing (speechless, Poll. 11. 108; Soph. Z’rach. 
 1060; Pind. Nem. vii. 41) with the very same point (οέ nullum 
 elingue), if he had used γλῶσσα instead of φωνή. 
 
 Ver. 12. Inference, which the readers have to draw from ver. 
 10 f. “Therefore (itaque), seeing, namely, that the unintelligible 
 speaking is, according to ver. 10 f, something so absurd, seek ye 
 also, since ye are indeed zealous after spirits, with a view to the edifi- 
 cation of the church therein, that ye may have abundance.” The 
 οὕτω K. ὑμεῖς, Which is repeated here, must be related to ver. 10 f., 
 just as the οὕτω «. ὑμεῖς in ver. 9 is to ver. 7 f, and may not 
 
12 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 therefore be made to refer to all that precedes it back as far as 
 ver. 6 (Hofmann). As the former οὕτω κ. ὑμεῖς set forth an 
 inference for warning, so the present one infers the requisite 
 precept, and for both what in each case immediately precedes 
 serves as the premiss. — Πρὸς τ. οἰκοδ. τ. ἐκκλησ. has the emphasis 
 (in opposition to Hofmann). The absurdity referred to is meant 
 to point the readers, with their zealous striving after gifts of 
 the Spirit, to the right way, namely, that with a view to the edifi- 
 cation of the church* they should seek after ever richer endow- 
 ments. Consequently it is just as superfluous to isolate οὕτω x. 
 ὑμεῖς as a sentence by itself (τινές in Theophylact, Mosheim, Flatt, 
 Heydenreich), which, moreover, would be quite unsuitable in 
 respect of sense, as it is to assume a suppressed inference after 
 ver. 11 (Estius, Riickert). — Kat ὑμεῖς] you too ; for the Corinthians 
 were in fact to form no exception from this general maxim, as in their 
 striving after higher charismata, and especially after the gift of 
 speaking with tongues, seemed, alas, to be the case ---- ἐπεὶ ζηλωταί 
 ἐστε πνευμ.] on which account you have all the more need of the 
 right regulative! A pointed hint for the readers, the force of which 
 they could doubtless feel for themselves. ---- πνευμάτων] the genitive 
 of the object, to which the zealous striving relates. The plural ex- 
 _ pression is purposely chosen κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον (comp. Hofmann) 
 in keeping with the emulous doings at Corinth. For the spe- 
 cifically different manifestations,in which the manifold working of 
 the One Spirit displayed itself, assumed indeed, in presence of such 
 jealous seeking and striving, such an appearance to the eyes of 
 the observer of this unseemly state of things, as though not one 
 Spirit, but a plurality of spirits, differing in kind and importance, 
 were the object of the rivalry. What were διαιρέσεις χαρισμάτων, 
 and hence only different φανερώσεις τοῦ πνευμάτος, presented them- 
 
 1 πρὸς x. ox. +. exxa. belongs to Cxeeire, not to πέρισσ. (Grotius and many others), 
 because Paul has not written : ζησεῖτε, πρὸς r. οἷκ 7, txxa. ἵνα περισσ, That would be the 
 correct way of putting it first with the emphasis, if it were meant to belong to πΈρισσ., 
 2 Cor. ii. 4; Gal. ii. 10; Acts xix. 4. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who 
 takes ap. 7. oix. 7. ἐκκλ. as only a subordinate thought (‘‘ which then comes to be 
 profitable for the edification of the church”) belonging to rspice. The edification of 
 the church is in truth just the normative test for the appreciation and right pur- 
 suit of the charismata (vv. 8, 4, 17, 26; Eph. iv. 12,16). The article before oixod. 
 does not denote the edification already otherwise taking place, but is simply= πρὸς τὸ 
 
 οἰκοδομεῖσθαι «. ἐκκλησίαν. Paul might either put it or leave it out (ver. 26; Rom, 
 xv. 2; Eph. iv. 29). 
 
CHAP. XIV. 13. 135 
 
 selves, as matters stood at Corinth, to the eye and pen of the apostle 
 as διαιρέσεις πνευμάτων. Πνευμάτων, therefore, is just as far from 
 standing for πνευματικῶν (Beza, Piscator, Storr, Flatt, and others) 
 as it is from denoting the glossolalia (Heydenreich, Billroth).’ 
 To suppose a veal plurality of spirits, after the analogy of the 
 persons possessed by a number of evil spirits (see Hilgenfeld, p. 
 52 f.), so that a number of divine spirits would be meant, is at 
 variance with the N. T. generally, and at variance with xii. 4, 7 ff. 
 — ἵνα περισσ.] Οὐκ εἶπεν" ἵνα κτήσησθε τὰ χαρίσματα, GAN ἵνα 
 περισσεύητε, τουτέστιν ἵνα καὶ μετὰ δαψιλείας πολλῆς αὐτὰ ἔχητε: 
 τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἀπέχω τοῦ μὴ βούλεσθαι ἔχειν ὑμᾶς αὐτὰ, ὅτι καὶ 
 περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν αὐτοὶς βούλομαι, μόνον ἂν εἰς τὸ κοινῇ συμφέ- 
 ρον αὐτὰ μεταχειρίζητε, Chrysostom. — ἵνα] sets before us the 
 object of the striving as its design, as at ver. 1, iv. 2. What we 
 are to conceive as the contents of the περισσεύειν (to have to the 
 full, vi. 8; Phil. i. 9, iv. 12, αἰ.) is self-evident, namely, what 
 was previously meant by πνευμάτων, spiritual gifts. 
 
 Ver. 13. Προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμ.] is taken by Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, 
 Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bleek, 
 Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, Hofmann, in the sense of: let him 
 pray for the gift of interpretation. But against this ver. 14 is 
 decisive, where the προσεύχεσθαι, linked by γάρ to what precedes, 
 must have the same reference with our προσεύχεσθαι in ver. 13. 
 Bleek’s objection, that we find εὐχαριστῶ in ver. 18 standing in a 
 different reference than previously, does not hold good, since vv. 
 17 and 18 do not stand in direct logical connection (as vv. 12 
 and 14 do), but, on the contrary, with ver. 18 there begins a 
 section of the discourse distinct from the preceding. Without 
 taking ἵνα, with Luther, Vorstius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller (comp. already 
 Photius in Oecumenius), as meaning so that, the right translation 
 is: let him pray in the design, in order to interpret (afterwards 
 what has been prayed γλώσσῃ). Comp. Billroth, David Schulz, 
 Winer, de Wette, Osiander, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Ewald, Maier. The 
 previous general λαλεῖν is thus represented here by προσεύχεσθαι, 
 1.06. more precisely described as what it was, as address in prayer, 
 
 1 The endeavour to be a speaker with tongues was rather only a particular mode, 
 
 in which the πνεύματα ζηλοῦν, this general tendency, came into manifestation espe- 
 cially in Corinth. 
 
14 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 see vv. 14-17. It is objected that ver. 27 militates against this 
 view (see Riickert); that the person praying γλώσσῃ could not 
 have had that design, because he did not know whether the 
 interpretation would be given to him (Hofmann). But our ex- 
 planation does not in fact assume that every man who spoke with 
 tongues was capable of interpreting; but, on the contrary, that 
 Paul, in ver. 13, was thinking only of such speakers with tongues 
 as possessed also the gift of interpretation (ver. 5). The apostle 
 still leaves out of view the case in which the speaker was not also 
 interpreter (ver. 28); hence we are not to take it with Ewald: 
 “that people may interpret it.” The subject is the speaker himself 
 (ver. 14 ff), as in ver. 5. 
 
 Ver. 14. Justification of the precept mpocevy. ἵνα διερμ. ---- 
 Por of I pray with my tongue, my spirit prays, but my understand- 
 ing is unfruitful. It is a thoroughly arbitrary and mistaken 
 procedure to take the genitive relation in τὸ πνεῦμά μου otherwise 
 than in ὁ νοῦς μου, and to explain the former, with Bleek, Billroth, 
 Olshausen, Maier, and Chr. F. Fritzsche, following Chrysostom (76 
 χάρισμα τὸ δοθέν μοι Kat κινοῦν τὴν γλῶσσαν), Of the Spirit of God, 
 in so far as He has laid hold of the man and speaks out of him. 
 The Holy Spirit, although in the man, is never called the spirit of 
 the man, and cannot be so called, just because He is different from 
 the spirit of the man. See ii. 11; Rom. viii. 16,ix.1. No; τὸ 
 πνεῦμά μου is my spirit, 1.6. my individual principle of higher life 
 (comp. on ver. 2). If I pray with the tongue, this higher life- 
 power in me, which plunges immediately (1. without the interven- 
 tion of the discursive reflective faculty) into the feelings and 
 intuitions of the divine, is called into activity, because it is filled 
 and moved by the Holy Spirit as His receptive organ; but my 
 understanding, my thinking faculty, furnishes nothing, ἄκαρπός 
 ἐστι. --- νοῦς in contrast to πνεῦμα, which is the deeper basis of 
 life, the “ penetrale” (Bengel) of the νοῦς, is the reflective discursive 
 power through which the making oneself intelligible to those 
 without is effected, and without the co-operative action of which 
 the human πνεῦμα cannot with such onesided development of its 
 energy express the contents of its converse with the Divine Spirit 
 
 1 Namely, to edify the church by the praying; see ver. 12. Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, Calvin, Estius, and others erroneously hold it to apply to one’s own profit. 
 Theodoret rightly remarks: καρπὸς τοῦ λέγοντος ἡ ὠφέλεια τῶν ἀκουόντων, 
 
CHAP, XIV, 13, 16. iD 
 
 in such a way as to be intelligible for others who are not specially 
 gifted for this end. Comp. Krumm, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 
 64 ff.; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 184; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, II. 
 p. 87 f. Note how definitely Paul here distinguishes the specific 
 activities of the mind, and excludes the νοῦς from the glossolalia. 
 And he speaks thus from experience. But were we to think of 
 foreign languages, that distinction and exclusion would not be 
 appropriate, or would resolve themselves into a mere self- 
 deception. 
 
 Ver. 15. Τί οὖν ἐστι; what then takes place? How then does 
 the matter stand? namely, in consistency with the foregoing, 1.6. 
 what follows then? Comp. ver. 26 and Acts xxi. 22, and the 
 classical and N. T. phrases: τί οὖν ; τί yap ; by which we are pre- 
 pared in a vivid way for what is to follow. See generally, Dissen, 
 ad Dem. de Cor. p. 346 ἢ .----- προσεύξομαι] the future denotes 
 what in consistency will be done by me. The adhortative subjwnc- , 
 tive in both clauses (προσεύξωμαι, A D E F G) is a bad emenda- 
 tion, which in δὲ is carried out only in the first clause. — προσεύξ. 
 κ. τῷ νοΐ] (datwe of instrument) is to be understood, in accordance 
 with ver. 14, of the interpretation following, which the person 
 speaking with tongues gives of his tongue-prayer (προσευχ. τῷ Tv.) 
 in a way suited to the understanding, and by consequence intel- 
 ligible.— ψαλῶ] applies to improvised psalms, which in the 
 glossolalia were sung with the spirit, and after an intelligible 
 manner in the way of interpretation. Comp. generally on Eph. 
 ν 0: 
 
 Ver. 16. ᾿Επεί] for, without this ψάλλειν καὶ τῷ voi, 1.0. otherwise 
 (xv. 29; Rom. 111. 6, ai.), the layman, in fact, when thou praisest 
 with the spirit, cannot say the Amen, etc. — εὐλογεῖν and evya- 
 ριστεῖν denote substantially one and the same thing, the thanks- 
 giwing prayer, the former word referring more to the form of praise 
 to God (352), the latter more to its contents, Comp. on x. 16; 
 Matt. xiv. 19.— ἀναπληροῦν τ. τόπον τινός, to fill the place of 
 any one, is not a Hebraism (8 δρῶ NPD), in the sense of in statu 
 et conditione alicujus esse (see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2001), but cor- 
 responds to the Greek expressions: πληροῦν τὴν χώραν, to occupy 
 the place, ἀναπληροῦν thy ἕδραν (Plat “Pim. p. 79 B), and the 
 like, so that τόπος is not to be taken in the abstract sense of 
 position (in opposition to de Wette, Hofmann), but applies quite 
 
10 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 literally to the place’ in the assembly. With this is improperly 
 compared Josephus, Bell. v. 2.5, where we have not τόπον, but τάξιν. 
 And he who occupies the place of the layman is, according to the 
 connection, every one in the assembly who is not endowed with glosso- 
 lalia or its interpretation. Where he sits is, in this particular 
 relation (be he himself even a prophet or teacher), the place of the 
 layman. Paul speaks vividly, as if he saw the assembly before 
 his mind’s eye. Regarding ἰδιώτης (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6), which, 
 like our layman, obtains its definition from the context in each 
 case, see on Acts iv. 13.— πῶς ἐρεῖ] how is it (reasonably) pos- 
 sible that he shall say——The custom, arising out of the time- 
 hallowed usage in connection with oaths, imprecations, vows, 
 prayers, etc. (Num. v. 22; Deut. xxvii. 15 ff.; Neh. vu 6, αἰ.), 
 that the audience at the close of a public prayer should express their 
 assent, and their faith in its being heard, by amen, was introduced 
 among the Christians from the synagogues (Buxt. Lew. Talm., sub 
 voce ON; Vitringa, de Synag. p. 1093; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 654 ff. ; 
 Wetstein), and has in this passage apostolic confirmation.? — τὸ 
 ἀμήν] the amen to be pronounced by him. — ἐπί] to thy prayer, 
 to which the amen is added. Observe the σῇ bringing the matter 
 into prominence. 
 
 Ver. 17. For thow indeed (by thyself considered) wtterest an 
 excellent thanksgiving-prayer. This Paul admits, and with reason, 
 since the speaker prayed ὑπὸ τῆς θείας ἐνεργούμενος χάριτος 
 (Theodoret).— ὁ ἕτερος] ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, 
 ver. 16. 
 
 Vy. 18,19. Confirmation by the apostle’s own example of what 
 has been said against the public speaking with tongues. — I 
 thank God, more than you all speak I with the tongue, in a higher 
 degree than you all I have this charisma. Such direct modes of 
 expression, instead of a connecting ὅτι, occur likewise in Greek 
 writers; see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 460 A; Hartung, Partikell. 
 II. p. 134; Kiihner, ὃ 760 a. Even the Recepta λαλῶν would 
 have to be taken as stating the ground of the evyap. τῷ Θεῷ (comp. 
 
 1 Even in passages like Clem. ad Cor. I. 40. 44, τόπος is not the abstract ‘‘ post- 
 tion,” but the post, the place which a man has in the hierarchy or polity of the 
 church, 
 
 2° Vult Deus consensum esse ecclesiae in doctrina, fide, invocatione et petitione,” 
 etc, -—Melanchthon. 
 
CHAP. ΧΙΥ͂. 20, 21. 17 
 
 xi. 29; Acts iv. 21, αἷ.), not, with Reiche (whom Hofmann fol- 
 lows in his explanation of this reading, which, however, he rightly 
 rejects), as referring to the manner of it (I make more frequently 
 and more fervently than any of you thanksgiving-prayers in 
 glossolalia to God). There would thus result a declaration, the 
 tenor of which hardly suits the character of the apostle, as indeed 
 such an unconditionally expressed assertion could not be wpheld 
 by him. [Μᾶλλον can only denote the greater measure of the en- 
 dowment ; see already in Chrysostom. — ἐν éx«n.] in the assembled 
 church, opposite of private devotion. — θέλω 4] The preferential 
 will (malle) is implied in the logical relation of the relative verbal 
 notion to the particle, without there being any need of supplying 
 μᾶλλον. See Hartung, IL p. 72; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 589 f.; 
 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 136. 
 
 Ver. 20. Up to this point Paul has been contending against 
 speaking with tongues in public and without interpretation, on 
 the ground of its uselessness. He now adds an animated and 
 winning admonition, well calculated to meet the conceit of the 
 Corinthians on this point. — ἀδελφοί] “ suavem vim habet ” 
 (Bengel). — Become not children as respects your power of judgment. 
 His readers were becoming so, inasmuch as, through their increas- 
 ing craving after glossolalia, they lacked more and more the power 
 of distinguishing and judging between the useful and the useless ; 
 their speaking with tongues assumed the character of childishness. 
 As regards malice (v. 8), on the other hand be children; have a 
 child-nature in quite another respect, namely, by being free from 
 all malicious thoughts and actions (Matt. xviii. 3). Comp. Rom. 
 xvi. 19 ; Gal. vi. 3 ; Tit.i.10 ; Lucian, Hale. 2 : νηπιότης dpevov.— 
 Regarding νηπιάζειν, to be a child (in Greek writers also νηπιάχειν 
 and νηπιαχεύειν), comp. Hipp. Ep. p. 1281. 52. --τέλειοι] of full 
 age, adultus. See Plat. Legg. xi. p. 929 C. Comp. on Eph. iv. 13. 
 
 Ver. 21. You go against Scripture with your foolish doings ! 
 This is the theological side of the judgment, which Paul now 
 further brings forward, before he imparts in ver. 26 ff. the final 
 precepts for the right procedure. — νόμος] of the O. T. generally. 
 See on Rom. iii. 19; John x. 34.— The passage is Isa. xxviii. 
 11, 12 in a very free’ variation from the LXX.— ὅτι] 707, "3, 
 
 1 Hence (and on account of the quite general ἐν +. vow) Ewald derives the words 
 
 from a source now unknown to us, Still, for a typical reference to the speaking with 
 1 COR. II, L 
 
18 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 belongs, with the rest, to the Scriptural quotation (LXX.: ὅτι 
 λαλήσουσι τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ), and has here therefore no reference 
 in the context. — The historical sense of the original text (in 
 which Jehovah threatens to send foreign-speaking men, 1.8. bar- 
 barians, upon the kingdom of Judah, etc.) is taken up typically by 
 Paul in such a way that he, looking back from the phenomenon 
 of the present upon that prophetic utterance, recognises in it the 
 Christian glossolalia divinely foreshadowed, as regards its substance, 
 namely, in the characteristic ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις . . . ἑτέροις, and, as 
 regards its destination, in καὶ οὐδ᾽ otras εἰσακ. ---- ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις 
 κ.τ.λ.7 in peoples of another tongue (conceived of as organs of the 
 visiting God, who speaks in their persons; hence ἐν, comp. 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 3; Heb. i. 2) and in lips of others (ἑτέρων, see the critical 
 remarks) will I speak to this nation. According to the original 
 text, the reference is to people who speak a foreign language (the 
 Assyrian, comp. xxxiii. 19), and to lips of foreigners (other than 
 Israelites) ; but the similarity of the relation, which presents itself 
 in the type and antitype, consists in the extraordinary phenomenon 
 of the strange divine speaking, which becomes perceptible in the 
 case of the type in the foreign language, in that of the antitype 
 in the character of the glossolalia, so wholly different from ordinary 
 intelligible speech. In virtue of this unintelligibility, the speaking 
 in tongues also was for the hearers a speaking in strange tongues, 
 and he who spoke was not one like-tongued, 1.6. using the like 
 language (ὁμόγλωσσος, Xen. Cyrop. i. 1. 5; Herod. i. 17, viii. 
 144; Lucian, Seyth. 3, de Salt. 64), but a strange-speaking man 
 (érepoyAwooos, Polyb. xxiv. 9, 5; Strabo, viii. p. 333; Aq. Ps. 
 exiii. 1), and his lips a stranger’s lips.. What is in the original 
 text: Mons jiv’3, Paul renders more freely than the LXX. (διὰ 
 γλώσσης ἑτέρας), and making it personal, by ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις ;* 
 the Hebrew ΠΕΡ sayoa, again (through stammerers of the lip, 1.6. 
 through men speaking unintelligibly, because in a strange tongue), 
 
 tongues, Isa, xxviii. 11 f. is characteristic enough. But if Paul had this passage in 
 his eye, he must have understood it of men speaking foreignly, not, as Ewald explains 
 the prophetic words, of the language of the thunder and of terrible punishment. 
 
 1 Wieseler in the Stud. ει. Krit. 1838, p. 734 ff., infers from our passage that Paul 
 recognises a double formula for the gift of tongues, a shorter one, ya. a., and a longer, 
 irép. yA. a. Certainly too wide an inference, since in no other place does the apostle 
 bring forward the characteristic element of ἑσέραις. He was using the quotation in 
 order to prove the destination of the glossolalia for unbelievers, but could not use διὰ 
 
CHAP. XIV. 22. 19 
 
 he renders more correctly as regards the general sense than the 
 LXX. (who have erroneously διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, on account of 
 mockery of the lips, comp. Hos. vii. 16) by ἐν χείλ. érép., putting it, 
 however, impersonally, and reversing the order of the two clauses. 
 It may be added that it is clear from the parallel χείλεσιν that 
 Paul conceived of γλῶσσα in ἑτερογλώσσοις as “ tongue,’ as tiv also 
 is conceived of in the original text,—both as instrument of the 
 λαλεῖν. The tongue is ἄγγελος λόγων, Eur. Suppl. 205.— τῷ 
 λαῷ τούτῳ] applying in its historical meaning to the disobe- 
 dient people of Israel, which, however, is a type of those who 
 reject the Christian faith, represents therefore the latter in the 
 view of the apostle. — Kai οὐδ᾽ οὕτως] and not even so, dealt with 
 by such a measure, will they hearken to me (obey me, Ecclus. iii. 6, 
 xxxix. 3; and in classical writers). This second half of the 
 passage is, for the demonstration, the main point. See ver. 22. 
 Ver. 22. Ὥστε] Accordingly, namely, in accordance with this 
 οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσ. μου. ---- εἰς σημεῖον κιτ.λ.] The phenomenon 
 of the speaking with tongues is destined for a (divine) sign, not 
 for the believers, but for the unbelievers, i.e. to make those to whom 
 the glossolalia goes forth be recognised as unbelievers. This view 
 alone corresponds to the express οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσ. μου from 
 which the inference is drawn, as well as to what is further 
 inferred in ver. 23. At variance, on the other hand, with both 
 stands the interpretation which has been the ordinary one since 
 Chrysostom (and which has hitherto been my own), that the 
 speaking with tongues is called a sign for the unbelievers, because 
 it was intended to arrest and move them so that they should reflect 
 and become believers. Equally unsuitable is it that Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and others, including Hofmann, only half carry out 
 this traditional interpretation, and stop short at the impression of 
 something astounding and amazing, whereby the γλῶσσαι are to 
 be a σημεῖον to the unbelievers, which, moreover, in presence of 
 
 φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, Which besides the LXX. has incorrectly, and therefore altered it 
 in accordance with the parallel in the passage, διὰ ya. ἑσπέρας. We may infer conse- 
 quently from our passage only thus much, that the glossolalia as regards its nature 
 could be described in the way of application by ἐν ἑσερογλώσσοις ἃ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων 
 λαλεῖν, but not that ya. awa. and ἑτέρ. ya. λαλ. were two current formulae for denoting 
 the speaking with tongues. Hence also we are not, with Hirzel in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1840, p. 121 ff., to infer from this passage the originality of the designation irépass 
 
 γλώσσαις λαλεῖν. 
 
[Δ] 
 
 20 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 the notion of a divine σημεῖον, could only appear as a means to an 
 ulterior end. We must keep the οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσακούσ. μου sharply 
 before us in order to determine accurately the notion of the 
 σημεῖον κιτιλ. Billroth, moreover (comp. Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, and others), is in error in holding that σημεῖον 
 is a penal sign, or a sign of divine judgment ; comp. also Hilgen- 
 teld, p. 21,5; Rossteuscher, p. 77. This, in fact, is not at all 
 implied in ver. 21, where, on the contrary, the glossolalia appears 
 as a last extraordinary measure remaining likewise without result, 
 which will at length make full exposure of the disobedience of 
 the persons in question, but not as a sign of wrath. And had 
 Paul thought of zrae signum, he must have expressed the zrae too, 
 and, in fact, brought it emphatically forward.’ Again Storr, Flatt, 
 Baur, and Dav. Schulz (@eistesg. pp. 78, 176) are wrong in saying 
 that the prevalence of the glossolalia in the church was a sign of 
 their unbelief. This is unsuitable for this reason, that according 
 to vv. 21, 23 we are to conceive as the ἄπιστοι not those who 
 speak γλώσσαις, but those who are spoken to in yA. — τοῖς ἀπίσ- 
 τοις] Dative of the reference in view, as is also τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 
 The conception of the ἄπιστοι, however, is, by virtue of this 
 very antithesis (and see also vv. 23, 24), simply the non- 
 believing, the wnbelievers,—a conception which is neither to be 
 softened down to that of non-genuine Christians or the lke 
 (Flatt, David Schulz), nor intensified to that of obstinate unbe- 
 lievers, those wholly wnsusceptible of faith, infideles privative 
 (Neander, Billroth, Riickert). Hirzel in the Stud. εν. Krit. 1840, 
 p. 120 ff. (who is followed in substance by de Wette, Osiander, 
 Maier, Engelmann, and see Bengel’s hints of earlier date), under- 
 stands by the ἀπίστοις those who do not wish to believe, and by 
 the πιστεύουσιν those who wish to believe.” Comp. de Wette: 
 “They are not heard by such as let themselves be moved thereby to 
 believe, but by such as remain unbelieving.’ This is conclusively 
 negatived by the prevailing use of of πιστεύοντες and οἱ ἄπιστοι, 
 
 1 According to Billroth’s view, namely, Paul warns the Corinthians that they 
 should not thoughtlessly foster among themselves a thing which is called in the 
 O. T. a sign of punishment. Comp. Beza and Cornelius a Lapide, also Calovius, 
 Upon this view, Paul must have absolutely disapproved of the glossolalia. It would 
 have been a tempting of God by the abuse of a divine sign of curse. 
 
 2 Hofmann also understands by τοῖς ἀπίστοις those indisposed to believe. As if Paul 
 would not have known how to express this conception! Hofmann even conceives 
 
CHAP. XIV. 23. pl 
 
 to which any such artificial pregnancy of meaning is quite alien 
 (see immediately, vv. 23, 24). — ἡ δὲ προφητεία κ.τ.λ.1 a contrast, 
 which is not intended to be inferred from that passage of Scrip- 
 ture—which in truth says nothing whatever about the προφητεύειν, 
 —but the truth of which was self-evident to the readers in virtue 
 of an argumentum e contrario. We are not, however, to supply 
 the simple ἐστί, so that the meaning would be: not to the 
 unbelievers, but to the believers, is the prophetic address to be 
 directed (my own view hitherto), but rather εἰς σημεῖόν ἐστιν, for 
 Paul has not written ἐστιν at all, and therefore leaves the predi- 
 cate of the first half of the verse to operate still in virtue of the 
 antithesis. Consequently : prophecy is designed to be a sign not for 
 the unbelievers, but for the believers, 1.6. in order to make those to 
 whom the prophetic address is directed known as belrevers ; see ver. 
 24, where this statement of the apostle is verified by the fact that 
 such as come into the Christian assembly as unbelievers, being 
 won over by the overpowering impression of the prophetic 
 addresses, submit themselves to Christianity and declare them- 
 selves believers. Erasmus, Grotius, and Bleek are wrong in 
 holding that οὐ means non tantum. The negation is absolute, as 
 in the preceding clause. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 784. 
 According to Hirzel (de Wette and Osiander), the meaning here 
 also is alleged to be: prophecy is given not for such as do not 
 wish to believe, but for such as wish to believe. 
 
 Ver. 23. What, then, will be the effect of the speaking with 
 tongues, which you all so much desire, upon ungifted persons or 
 unbelievers ? If such come into your church when you are assembled 
 together, and get nothing else there to hear from any of you but 
 glossolalia, so far will they be from declaring themselves as believers 
 upon your speaking with tongues, that, on the contrary, they will declare 
 you to be mad. — οὖν) draws an inference from ver. 22 in such a 
 way that ver. 23 corresponds to the first, and ver. 24 f. to the second 
 half of ver. 22.— πάντες] Paul does not suppose that all those 
 two classes to be comprehended under τοῖς πισσεύουσιν, namely, those already standing 
 in faith and those who are becoming believers, and holds that on this account Paul did 
 not write σοῖς πισσοῖς. ΑΒ if of πιστεύοντες were not with the apostle quite the usual 
 expression for the believers (i. 21; Rom. i. 16, iii. 22, x. 4; Gal. iii. 22; Eph. i. 19, 
 al.), who are such, but not for those, or so as to include those, who are only becoming 
 
 such. The σισσεύοντες are not at all different from the σιστοῖς (2 Cor. vi. 15; Eph. 
 1 15 Col. 1 2) 
 
22 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 assembled speak together in a confused, tumultuous way (Cornelius 
 a Lapide and others ; comp. also Maier), but that all in succession 
 hold glossolaliae, and only such,—not addresses of any other kind. 
 For, if all spoke together and confusedly, even in the case of pro- 
 phecy it could make no impression (ver. 24). — ἰδιῶται] is not to 
 be understood otherwise than in ver. 16: Christians who are not 
 endowed with glossolalia, or with the gift of understanding it. The 
 context, however, shows by the foregoing ἐὰν... αὐτό that those 
 meant are ungifted persons from any extraneous church, who come 
 into the church at Corinth when in full assembly. Were the 
 stranger who entered not an ungifted person, but one who himself 
 spoke with tongues or interpreted, his judgment respecting the 
 gift which he himself possessed or understood would, of course, 
 not take the same form. All explanations which deviate from the 
 meaning of the word in ver. 16 are on that very account to be 
 rejected, such as not only that of most of the old interpreters, with 
 Billroth and Chr. F. Fritzsche: “ such as do not understand foreign 
 languages,” but also that of Theodoret, David Schulz, Flatt, 
 Olshausen (also Riickert, although with hesitation): “ beginners 
 in Christianity ;” comp. Pelagius, Thomas, Estius : “ nuper cre- 
 dentes, neophyti;” Melanchthon: “rudis qui primum coepit 
 catechismi doctrinam audire,” comp. Neander. Riickert suggests 
 that Paul is supposing the case that the glossolalia should break 
 out somewhere suddenly and for the first time, and there should 
 then come in Christians who knew nothing of it and, not being 
 present, had not been affected by the paroxysm, and non-Christians. 
 But the suggestion is to be dismissed, because there is no mention 
 of the “ suddenly and for the first time,’ which would in that case 
 be the main thing. Hirzel and de Wette hold erroneously, 
 because in opposition to ver. 16,’ and not to be established even 
 by 2 Cor. xi. 6, that the ἰδιῶται are non-Christians (so, too, Ulrich 
 in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1843, p. 420, and Hofmann), in which case 
 they are in various arbitrary ways distinguished from the amicrou, 
 namely, by Hirzel? asserting that the ἄπ. are heathen, the ἐδ, 
 
 1 For in ver. 23 and ver. 16 the conception of ἰδιῶσαι is determined by a like con- 
 text—namely, by the same contrast to those gifted with the glossolalia. This we 
 remark in opposition to Hirzel, Ulrich, Hofmann, who assume that ver. 16 cannot 
 regulate the explanation of ἰδιώτης in ver. 23 f, 
 
 * Comp. van Hengel, Gave d. talen, p. 94. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 38. 23 
 
 Jews ; by de Wette, that the former were still more aloof from 
 believing than the latter; by Ulrich, that the ἐδ. were persons 
 unacquainted with Christianity, the az. those acquainted with it 
 indeed, but unbelieving and (Hofmann) hostile towards it. Not 
 the ἐδιῶται, but the ἄπιστοι, are the non-Christians (who are 
 never called ἐδ.), as inver. 22. We may add that Grotius remarks 
 rightly: “Solebant enim pagani” (and Jews also) “ adire Christia- 
 norum ecclesias ad videnda quae ibi agebantur.” Their admission 
 (certainly not to the Agapae, however) was the less a matter for 
 hesitation, since it might become a means of their conversion. 
 Comp. generally, Harnack, Gemeindegottesd. Ὁ. 143 ff.— ὅτε pai- 
 νεσθε] that you (Christians in Corinth) are foolish, and out of 
 your senses, because, namely, you collectively and without excep- 
 tion carry on a kind of converse so unintelligible and meaningless 
 for the hearers. Olshausen strangely holds that the verdict 
 expressed is: “ We see, doubtless, that you are possessed by a 
 god; but there is no prophet here; we do not understand what 
 the god says to us!” An unwarranted explaining away of the 
 clear import of the word: μαίνεσθαι means insanire, just as in 
 Acts xxvi. 24. The verdict of drunkenness passed by the 
 unbelievers in Acts ii. 13 presents ἃ remarkable analogy. — 
 Observe, further: (1) Here ἐδιῶται is put first, and ἄπιστοι 
 follows, because the ἰδιῶται, as Christians, and therefore acquainted 
 with the uselessness and absurdity of the glossolalia without 
 interpretation and to the exclusion of all other (intelligible) 
 discourse, come here into the foreground,’ and may and will be 
 the first to pass the judgment ὅτι μαίνεσθε ; in ver. 24, on the 
 contrary, ἄπιστος stands first, because conversion is spoken of, and 
 hence “praecipue agitur de infideli; idiota obiter additur ob 
 rationem ejus non plane disparem” (Bengel). (2) In ver. 23, 
 since Paul designs to cite the judgment in the form of an wtter- 
 ance (ἐροῦσιν), which is most naturally conceived of by him as a 
 mutual communication, the plural εἰσέλθωσι x.7.d. presented itself 
 with as much appropriateness as the singular εἰσέλθῃ x.7.d. does 
 in ver. 24, where the apostle wishes to depict specially the con- 
 verting work, vv. 24, 25, in its course, which, from the nature of 
 
 1 ἢ ἄπιστοι is omitted in B, because it might appear unsuitable. Buttmann in 
 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 370, believes that it has crept in from ver. 24. But in 
 that case ἄπιστοι would have been prefixed (so only Aimbrosiaster). 
 
24. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the case, is done most befittingly in an individualizing represen- 
 tation. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. How wholly different, on the other hand, will the 
 effect of general prophetic speaking be upon such persons! 
 Arrested and humbled before God, they will declare themselves 
 believers. — ἐὰν δὲ πάντες mpod.] is to be completed in accord- 
 ance with ver. 23: ἐὰν δὲ συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκὰ. GAN ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κ. 
 πάντες προφ. ---- ἰδιώτης) according to the context: one not pro- 
 phetically gifted, and, indeed, coming likewise from an extraneous 
 church. Comp. on ver. 23.— Prophecy, from its nature, was 
 generally intelligible ; but whoever had not its χάρισμα could 
 not speak prophetically, and such a one was in presence of this 
 gift an idiotes. — ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντ.] The characteristic power of 
 prophecy (ver. 22), by which you all mutually edify yourselves, 
 thus exercises such an overmastering influence upon his mind, 
 that he is convinced by all, i.e. brought to a consciousness of the 
 suilt of his sins. Comp. John xvi. 9. All produce this impres- 
 sion upon him, because each speaks prophetically, and the funda- 
 mental character of prophetic address—the penetrating into the 
 depths of the human heart for wholesome admonition (comp. 
 ver. 3)—is alike in all. — After the first aggregate impression of 
 the ἔλεγξις, he experiences and is conscious of the moral sifting 
 and wnveiling of his innermost life. A striking climax. — ἀνακρί- 
 νεται] for in the judgment of the human heart, which the prophets 
 deliver, he hears a judgment upon his own heart and his own 
 moral condition. — τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας x.7.r.] ὁ... the moving 
 springs, inclinations, plans, etc., of his whole inner active life, which 
 had been hitherto known to no other, are brought to light, inasmuch 
 as the prophets depict the hidden thoughts and strivings of the 
 human spirit, with apocalyptically enlightened depth of insight, so 
 truly and strikingly, that the listener sees the secrets of his own 
 heart laid bare before all who are there present. — καὶ οὕτω] 
 result: and in such form, namely, convinced, judged, and made 
 manifest, as has been just said. — ἀπαγγέλλων} announcing, ie. 
 declaring aloud, and not first at home (Beza).— ὄντως] really, 
 opposite of what is merely pretended or semblance. Comp. Mark 
 xi. 32; Gal. 111. 21, al. — ἐν ὑμῖν] in animis vestris, in which He 
 works this enlightenment and spiritual power. “Argumentum 
 pro veritate religionis ex operationibus divinis efficacissimum” 
 
CHAP. XIV. 26. 25 
 
 (Bengel), Through this presence of God in the individuals (by 
 means of the Spirit) He dwells in the church, which thereby is 
 His temple (iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. 11. 20 ἢ). 
 
 Ver. 26 ff. The theoretical part regarding the charismata is 
 closed (vv. 1-25). There is now added as its sequel the regula- 
 tive part regarding the proper application of the charismata, and 
 (1) of the charismata in general (ver. 26); then, in particular, 
 (2) of the glossolalia (vv. 27, 28); and (3) of the gift of pro- 
 phecy (vv. 29-33). Upon this follows, as an appendix, (4) the 
 prohibition of public speaking on the part of women (vv. 34—36). 
 And by way of conclusion, (5) the assertion of apostolic authority 
 for the whole teaching now given (vv. 37, 38); and (6) a sum- 
 mary repetition of the chief points (vv. 39, 40). 
 
 Ver. 26. Τί οὖν ἐστιν ;] as in ver. 15.—The apodosis begins 
 with ἕκαστος, and πάντα on to γινέσθω is a sentence by itself. 
 As often as you come together, every one (every one gifted with 
 charismatic speech among you) has a psalm ready, we. he feels 
 himself qualified and constrained to sing aloud such a spirit-given 
 song. It is not, however, the glossolalic ψάλλειν which is meant, 
 since afterwards γλῶσσαν ἔχει is specially mentioned in addition, 
 but the intelligible singing of praise, which takes place with the 
 νοῦς (comp. ver. 15). Comp. generally on Eph. v.19. Grotius 
 compares the improvised hymns of Deborah, Simeon, etc. — ἔχει 
 is neither interrogative (Grotius) nor: he may have (David Schulz), 
 nor are we to supply in thought with Locke, “ut moram ferre 
 non possit;” but it simply expresses the state of the case: im 
 promptu habet. Bengel rightly judges of the repetition of the ἔχει: 
 “eleganter exprimit divisam donorwm copiam.” — διδαχήν) a doc- 
 trinal address. See on xii. 10, 28. ---- γλῶσσαν] a tongue, 1.6. a 
 spirit-tongue, which seeks utterance. The matter is so conceived 
 and described as that not every one has the use of a tongue in 
 the sense of the glossolalia, but only the man gifted with this 
 charisma, in whom there is present for this purpose a tongue as 
 the organ of the Spirit.—amoxcaduw] a revelation, which he 
 wishes to utter by a prophetic address, comp. ver. 29 f. — ἑρμηνείαν 
 an interpretation, which he wishes to give of an address in a 
 tongue already delivered. — The words ψάλμον to ἑρμ. ἔχει are 
 the separate divisions of the ἕκαστος, as ini. 12. Then follows 
 the general rule for all these charismata: all must be done for the 
 
20 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 furtherance of Christian perfection (of the church)! Observe how, 
 according to this passage, public teaching was not restricted to 
 one definite office. See Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 350. 
 
 Ver. 27. After this general rule come now particular precepts : 
 suppose that one wishes to speak with a tongue; comp. γλῶσσαν ἔχει, 
 ver. 26. There is no other εἴτε to correspond to this etre (sive, 
 Vulgate) ; but the plan of sentence first thought of and begun is 
 so disturbed by the apodosis and ver. 28, that it is quite aban- 
 doned, and ver. 29, instead of commencing with a new εἴτε, is 
 not even continued in hypothetic form at all. See Maetzner, ad 
 Antiph. p. 194. Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 538. According to 
 Hofmann (who writes εἴ te separately), τέ is annexive, namely, to 
 πάντα π. ox. y. In that case εἴ τε would be: in like manner if 
 (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 106 f.), which, however, would be logi- 
 cally suitable only on the supposition that γλῶσσα did not already 
 occur also in ver. 26.—xata δύο «.7.r.] sc. λαλεύτωσαν (comp. 
 1 Pet. iv. 11), and this is to be taken declaratively (as in xi. 16): 
 let him know that they should speak by two, or at most by three ; in 
 each assembly not more than two, or at most three, speakers with 
 tongues should come forward. As to the supplying of λαλείτ., 
 see Kiihner, II. p. 603; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 65. — τὸ 
 πλεῖστον] adverbially. See Matthiae, p. 1000. --- Kal ἀνὰ μέρος, 
 and that according to order, one after the other, not several 
 together. See Valck. ad Phoen. 481; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 
 380. Doubtless—and this seems to have given occasion for this 
 addition—the case had often occurred in Corinth, that those who 
 spoke with tongues had so little controlled their impulse that 
 several came to speak together. — Καὶ εἷς dvepy.] and let one (not 
 several) give the interpretation, of that, namely, which the said two 
 or three speakers with tongues have spoken in succession. Grotius 
 puts it rightly: “unus aliquis, qui id donum habet;” and it is 
 plain from vy. 5, 13 (in opposition to Ewald) that the speaker 
 with tongues himself might also be the interpreter. Paul will 
 not allow several interpreters to speak, because that would have 
 been unnecessary, and would only have shortened the time for 
 the more useful prophetic and other addresses. 
 
 Ver. 28. Should it be the case, however, that there 1s no interpreter 
 present, let him be silent in the assembly. This comprises the 
 double possibility that the speaker with tongues cannot himself 
 
CHAP. XIV. 29. aT 
 
 interpret, and also that no other, who possesses the donum inter- 
 pretandi, is present. Regarding εἶναι as equivalent to παρεῖναι, 
 comp. on Mark viii. 1; Luke ii. 36. David Schulz understands 
 ἢ as the simple copula: “if, however, he does not know how to 
 make himself intelligible.” But the interpretation might in fact 
 be given also by another, who had the charisma of the ἑρμηνεία 
 γλωσσῶν, xii. 10, 30. — uy. ἐν éxxr.] Paul takes for granted here 
 —and how easily one can understand it, considering the intimate 
 union subsisting among the Christians of those days !—that the 
 members of the community mutually /now each other as regards 
 their special endowments. — ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλ. κ. τ. θ.] in contrast to 
 addresses given ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, and hence a characteristic designa- 
 tion of the private devotion carried on by means of glossolalic prayer, 
 where his glossolalia avails for himself and God (ver. 2), not for 
 others also as listeners. Comp. Epict. Diss. iv. 8.17, and the 
 similar passages in Wetstein. Others take it to mean: quietly in his 
 thoughts (Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom, also Chr. F. Fritzsche), 
 so that it remains on the footing of an inward intercourse between 
 him and his God (Hofmann); which, however, is not in keeping 
 with the essential mark of the λαλεῖν, this being uttered aloud, 
 which belonged to the matter in hand.’ Observe, further, how, 
 even in this highest degree of inspired impulse to speak, a man 
 could control his own will. Comp. ver. 32. 
 
 Ver. 29. 4é] marks the transition to the rule regarding the 
 prophets. —The ἀνὰ μέρος (ver. 27) is emphasized in a special 
 way, ver. 30; yet Paul does not add a τὸ πλεῖστον here, thereby 
 limiting the gift of prophecy less sharply, and tacitly also con- 
 ceding a plurality of speakers, when the circumstances might per- 
 haps involve an exception from the rule. Still we are not (with 
 Hofmann) to read δύο ἢ τρεῖς as meaning “ rather three than two.” 
 — Kai οἱ ἄλλοι διακρ.] and the other prophets, who do not take 
 part in speaking, are to judge: whether, namely, what has been 
 said proceeds really from the Spirit or not. We see from this 
 that the charisma of judging the spirits was joined with that of 
 prophecy, so that whoever could himself speak prophetically was 
 qualified also for the διάκρισις ; for of ἄλλοι (comp. ἄλλῳ, ver. 30) 
 cannot be taken (with Hofmann) universally, without restriction 
 
 1 Besides, it was self-evident that, where silence was enjoined, a man did not need 
 to be in the first instance remitted to quiet inward fellowship with God. 
 
28 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 to the category of prophets, seeing that in fact the διάκρισις was 
 no universal χάρισμα. The article is retrospective, so that it is 
 defined by προφήται. At the same time, however, it must not 
 be overlooked that even such persons as were not themselves 
 prophets might still be endowed with the διάκρισις (xii. 10), 
 although not all were so. 
 
 Ver. 30. But two prophets were never to speak together. The 
 order ought, on the contrary, to be this, that if a revelation shall 
 have been imparted to another prophet (ἄλλῳ) while he sits 
 listening, the first shall be silent (not simply soon cease, as Neander, 
 Maier, and others would take it; comp., too, Hofinann) and let 
 the second speak. Paul thus does not enjoin that the second 
 shall wait until the first is finished, to which meaning Grotius, 
 Storr, and Flatt twist the words (comp. vv. 28, 34); on the con- 
 trary, he attaches more importance to the fresh undelayed outburst 
 of prophetic inspiration, than to the further continuance of the 
 address after the first outburst. — καθημ.} for the prophets spoke 
 standing, Luke iv. 17. See Grotius zn loc. 
 
 Ver. 31 f. Establishment of this precept by setting forth the 
 possibility of its observance. The principal emphasis is laid upon 
 δύνασθε, which is for this reason placed first (not upon πάντες, as 
 Riickert holds), for in it lies the pith of the proof. Neat to it 
 πάντες has the emphasis. The sense is: “ Yor in my ὁ πρῶτος 
 συγ. I am enjoining nothing which rs impossible for you ; on the 
 contrary, i stands in your power that, one after another, you may 
 all come to give a prophetic address,’ etc. — καθ᾽ ἕνα always one 
 at once, singulatim. Acts xxi. 19; see Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 639 f.; 
 Bernhardy, p. 240. The swbyect addressed in. δύνασθε is the 
 prophets in the church, not the members of the church generally 
 (Hofmann), seeing that prophecy was a special χάρισμα which 
 did not belong to all (see xii. 29; Acts xiii. 1; Eph. iv. 11). 
 The inspiration of the prophets does not compel them to speak on 
 without a break, so as not to allow another to take speech at all 
 or to speak alone, but it is in their power to cease when another 
 
 1 ΤΆ is not correct to say, ‘‘ on the contrary, whoever receives a revelation becomes 
 a prophet” (Hofmann) ; for the prophetic endowment is habitual, belonging to one 
 and not to another. Whoever has it receives revelations to be communicated for the 
 edification of others; he is the vessel divinely prepared for this reception and 
 communication. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 32. 29 
 
 begins, so that by degrees all may come to speak—not, of course, 
 in the same assembly (ver. 29), but in successive meetings. — 
 And this circumstance, that καθ᾽ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύουσι, has for 
 its design (ἵνα), that all the members of the church (which 
 includes also other prophets along with the rest) may learn, etc., 
 that none may remain without instruction and encouragement. 
 For modes of prophetic inspiration, very different from each 
 other in substance and form, will then find expression, whereby 
 satisfaction will be given to the most different wants. — μαν- 
 θάνωσι] what God has revealed to those speaking prophetically. 
 —Tapaknr.| be encouraged, aroused. Comp. παράκλησιν, ver. ὃ. 
 Paul describes here the effects of prophecy from the theoretical 
 (μανθ.) and practical (παρακαλ.) sides. The latter he had already 
 stated more specially in ver. 3. 
 
 Ver. 32. The second part of the establishment of the precept 
 (γάρ, ver. 31). And prophets’ spirits are obedient to prophets. The 
 indicative presents the normal relationship as τέ is, not as it ought 
 to be (Olshausen and others).— πνεύματα mpod.] cannot be 
 workings of the Divine Spirit in the prophets (Chrysostom, 
 Erasmus, Estius, and others, including Flatt, comp. de Wette), 
 nor does it mean the spirits which the prophets have received, so 
 that the one πνεῦμα appears as if divided among them (Riickert), 
 or created angelic spirits in the service of the Holy Spirit (Hahn, 
 Theol. d. N. T. p. 307), or even actually several Holy Spirits 
 (Hilgenfeld ; see, however, on ver. 12); but (comp. the genitival 
 relation, ver. 14) it is the prophets’ own spirits, filled, however, by 
 the Holy Spirit. Persons prophetically inspired are, as such, 
 raised to a higher spiritual potency, and have prophets’ spirits. 
 Comp. Rev. xxi. 6, and Diisterdieck in loc. But their free-will 
 is not thereby taken away, nor does the prophetic address become 
 something involuntary, like a Bacchantic enthusiasm ; no, prophets’ 
 spirits stand in obedience to prophets ; he who is a prophet has 
 the power of will over his spirit, which makes the ὁ πρῶτος 
 συγάτω in ver. 30’ possible ; ἐπὶ τοῖς προφήταις ἐστὶ τὸ σιγᾶν ἢ 
 λαλεῖν, Theophylact. Comp. Hofmann in loc., and Schrifibew. I. 
 p- 312. Others, again (Theophylact gives both interpretations 
 
 1 Comp. Luther in the gloss: ‘* They should and may well give place, since the 
 
 gifts of the Spirit stand under their control, not to use them in opposition to unity, 
 so that they may not say that the Spirit drives and compels them,” 
 
30 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 alongside of each other), refer προφήταις to other prophets: τὸ ἔν 
 σοι χάρισμα... ὑποτάσσεται τᾷ χαρίσματι TOD ἑτέρου TOD κινη- 
 θέντος εἰς τὸ προφητεύειν, Theophylact. So Theodoret, Calvin, 
 Calovius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Heydenreich, 
 Bleek, Riickert, and Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 473. But if Paul had 
 conceived of the prophet’s becoming silent as conditioned by the 
 will of another, and so objectively,—which the expression, taken 
 simply in itself, might imply,—then plainly his admonition 6 
 πρῶτος συγάτω would be entirely superfluous. He must, on the 
 contrary, have conceived of it as conditioned subjectively by the will 
 of the subjects themselves who spoke; and with this our view 
 alone accords, which is found in as early expositors as Origen, 
 Jerome, and Oecumenius. — The absence of the article in the case 
 of all the three words depends upon the fact that the relation is 
 conceived not in conereto, but generically. — Observe, further, the 
 strict, measured form of expression, πνεύματα προφητῶν προ- 
 φήταις, which is designed not simply for rhetorical emphasis, but 
 for definiteness and clearness of meaning, separating the prophets’ 
 spirits from the subjects who have them. Avrois would not have 
 marked this so strongly. 
 
 Ver. 33. Establishment of ver. 32 on religious grounds. “ For 
 how could God have appointed it otherwise, seeing that by Him 
 is produced not confusion (as would be the case if every prophet 
 had to speak on involuntarily), but peace!” Comp. Rom. xv. 33, 
 xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9; 1 Thess. v. 23. The antithesis is correct, 
 for the ἀκαταστασία would bring with it a jealous and unyielding 
 disposition. 
 
 Ver. 34. Appendix to the regulative section regarding the gifts 
 of the Spirit (vv. 26-33): directed against the public speaking of 
 women. Corinthian women, with their freer mood inclined towards 
 emancipation (comp. xi. 2 ff.), must have presumed on this. — ὡς ἐν 
 πάσ. τ. €KKA. τ. ay.| is referred by the Fathers and most of the 
 older expositors, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, to what pre- 
 cedes (comp. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi 16). But since the preceding 
 ov yap... εἰρήνης is quite general, and hence contains no special 
 point of reference for ὡς (for which reason this ὡς has been got 
 rid of in various ways, and even διδάσκω has been added in some 
 codd. and versions); since, on the other hand, the passage which 
 follows offers this point of reference in the fact of its being a 
 
CHAP. XIV. 35, 36. 9. 
 
 command for the Corinthians; and since ver. 36 manifestly 
 glances back at the argument implied in ἐν 7. τ. ἐκκὰ. τ. ay.— 
 therefore it is preferable to connect the clause with what follows, 
 as is done by Cajetanus and most modern expositors: As in all 
 church assemblies of the saints, your women ought to be silent in the 
 church assemblies. To place a comma, with Lachmann, before τῶν 
 ἁγίων, puts an incongruous emphasis upon τῶν ay. — Regarding 
 the matter itself (1 Tim. 11. 11), comp. the parallels from Greek, 
 Roman, and Rabbinical writers in Wetstein zm Jloc.; Vitringa, 
 Synag. p. 724; Schoettgen, Horace, Ὁ. 658.— οὐ yap ἐπιτρέπεται] 
 for wz is (permanently) not allowed. To take ἐπιτρέπεσθαι as 
 mandart (Reiche) would be linguistically correct in itself, but 
 against the usage of the whole N. T. (comp. xvi. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 12). 
 - ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθαι] namely, is incumbent upon them, in accord- 
 ance with a current Greek brevity of expression. Comp. 1 Tim. 
 iv. 3; see Kiihner, IL p. 604 ἢ ; Dissen, ad Demosth. de Cor. 
 p. 222f The ὑποτάσσεσθαι excludes, in Paul’s view, the speak- 
 ing in the assemblies, inasmuch as the latter appears to him as 
 an act of uncomplying independence. — ὁ νόμος] Gen. iii. 16. 
 
 Ver. 35. Even questions for their instruction should not be 
 brought forward by the women in the assemblies. — ἐν οὔκῳ] has 
 the emphasis. At home, not in the assembly, they are to obtain 
 for themselves by inquiry the desired instruction, and that from 
 those to whom they, as women, are naturally referred, from their 
 own husbands. 
 
 Ver. 36. The ἤ joins on to what is immediately before pre- 
 scribed, not to the previous directions in general (de Wette, 
 Osiander, e¢ al.). “It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in 
 public, unless, perhaps, you were the first or the only Christian 
 church, in which cases then, doubtless, your custom would show 
 that disgracefulness to be a mistake, and would authorize as 
 becoming the speaking of women by way of an example for other 
 churches!” μὴ τοίνυν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀρκείσθε, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν 
 ἐκκλησιῶν νομοθεσίαις ἀκολουθεῖτε, Theodoret; but the point of 
 the expression, as against the Corinthian haughtiness, is very 
 palpable. — αἰσχρόν] ἐπειδὴ καλλωπίζεσθαι ἐντεῦθεν ἐνόμιζον 
 ἐκ τοῦ φθέγγεσθαι δημοσίᾳ, πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον περιάγει τὸν 
 λόγον, Chrysostom. Comp. xi. 5f. Paul is decided against all 
 undue exaltation and assumption on the part of women in 
 
92 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 religious things, and it has been the occasion of much evil in 
 the church. 
 
 Ver. 37. He now, after the digression regarding the women, 
 adds the authority of Christ to the section upon the charismata, 
 which has been already previously brought to a conclusion, but 
 to which he looks back once more. — δοκεῖ) If any one bethinks 
 himself (iii. 18, vill. 2, x. 12) to be a prophet, or spiritually 
 cifted in any way, then let him also prove himself to be such 
 by his recognising, etc. Not to acknowledge this would show 
 him to be not a prophet or not inspired. — πνευματικός] quite 
 general : “ dotibus Sp. St. instructus;” not, as Billroth, David Schulz, 
 Baur, and Wieseler would have it, equivalent to yA. λαλῶν (comp. 
 on xii. 1, xiv. 1). “His: or generally. Hofmann is wrong in 
 saying that the # is not suited for thus linking on a general 
 statement. Why not? Comp. iv. ὃ; Luke xu. 11; Matt. 
 xvi. 14. There is all the less reason for assuming, with Hofmann, 
 that Paul uses the expression in the vaguer sense of one going 
 even beyond the prophet, because he had found it so used in the 
 letter from Corinth.—a& γράφω ὑμ.] refers to the whole section 
 regarding the πνευματικοῖς. To refer it, as Billroth and Olshausen 
 do, to the command that the women should keep silence, does 
 not harmonize with the introduction εἴ tis... πνευματικός, and 
 involves the awkwardness of only this intervening matter being 
 thus confirmed with such solemnity, and the principal and far 
 more important section not at all. —— κυρίου ἐστίν (see the critical 
 remarks): proceed from the Lord. In his communion of spirit 
 with Christ, Paul was conscious that what he had been writing, 
 from chap. x. onwards, regarding spiritual gifts and the right use 
 of them, was the result not of his own meditation and desire, but 
 of the working of Christ upon him—that he wrote as an interpres 
 Christt. There is thus no reason for making κυρίου refer to God 
 (Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen), seeing that Christ had in fact given 
 no rules regarding the charismata. Paul is affixing here the seal 
 of apostolic authority, and upon that seal we must read Christ. 
 
 Ver. 38. ’Ayvoci] namely, ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅτι κιτιλ., ver. 37. 
 His not being willing to know, or the attitude of wrongly knowing 
 (Hofmann), is not conveyed in the word, but is presupposed. — 
 ἀγνοείτω] permissive, denotes the renunciation of all endeavours 
 to instruct such an one who lets himself be puffed up. It is the 
 
[ΑἹ 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 39, 40. 33 
 
 opposite of the ἐπιγινώσκειν, ver. 37. Estius puts it well: 
 “Sibi suaeque ignorantiae relinquendos esse censeo.” Comp. 
 at 16. 
 
 Vy. 39, 40. Gathering up (ὥστε, “itaqgue, summa,” Bengel) 
 the main points of the whole discussion, and that (1) of its 
 theoretical (ver. 39), and (2) of its regulative part (ver. 40).— 
 Paul has aptly indicated the value of the glossolalia relatively to 
 the prophetical gift by ζηλοῦτε (comp. ver. 12, xii. 31) and μὴ 
 κωλύετε, Without there being any ground, however, for inferring 
 from this an attitude of hostility on the side of the Pauline party 
 towards those who spoke with tongues (Baur, Ribiger, comp. at 
 an earlier date Storr).— εὐσχημόνως] in a seemly way (Rom. 
 xii. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 12), denoting ecclesiastical decorwm.— 
 κατὰ τάξιν] in accordance with order (see Wetstein), so that it is 
 done at the right time, and in the right measure and limits. 
 Comp. Clem. ad Cor. I. 40, also what Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 
 8. 5, says of the Essenes: οὔτε κραυγή ποτε τὸν οἶκον, οὔτε 
 θόρυβος μολύνει, τὰς δὲ λαλίας ἐν τάξει παραχωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις. 
 
 1 COR. IL. σ 
 
94 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 VER. 10. ἡ σὺν ἐμοί] Lachm. has merely σὺν ἐμοί, following Β D* FG δ 
 Vulg. It. Or. Ambrosiast. Aug. Rightly; the article was inserted, 
 doubtless, in some cases in a mere mechanical way after ἡ εἰς ἐμέ, but 
 in others purposely, in order to have a thoroughly complete contrast 
 to οὐκ ἐγώ, at the suggestion of dogmatic interest, which also pro- 
 duced the weakly attested reading ἡ ἐν ἐμοί. The ἡ is wanting also 
 before εἰς ἐμέ in D* F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. But here 
 there was nothing in the context to occasion the insertion, and 
 the article could be dispensed with, and was thus overlooked. — 
 Ver. 14. κενὴ καί] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. read χενὴ δὲ καί, against 
 greatly preponderating testimony. — Ver. 19. ἐν Χριστῷ] stands be- 
 fore ἠλπικότες In A B D* E F GX, min. Vulg. It. Goth. and several 
 Fathers. So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. and rightly, for this position is 
 not easier than that of the Recepta, and hence the great preponder- 
 ance of the evidence is all the more decisive.— Ver. 20. After 
 xexou. Elz. has ἐγένετο, against decisive evidence; a supplementary 
 addition. — Ver. 21. ὁ θάνατος] The article is wanting in A B D* K 
 δὲ, Or. Dial. c. Mare. Cyr. Dam. a/. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and 
 Riick. From Rom. v. 12.— Ver. 24. Instead of the Recepta παραδῷ, 
 which Reiche defends, B F G have παραδιδοῖ, and A D Es, min. 
 Fathers παραδιδῷ ; the former preferred by Lachm. and Tisch., the 
 latter by Riick. παραδιδῷ, or the παραδιδοῖ, which is likewise to be 
 taken as a subjunctive form (there is no means of deciding between 
 the two), is correct (see the exegetical remarks); ὅταν καταργήσῃ, 
 however, made the aorist come very naturally to the transcribers, 
 who did not apprehend the different relations of the two clauses. — 
 Ver. 25.— ἄν before θῇ (in Elz. and Scholz) is omitted in pre- 
 ponderant authorities, and has come in from the LXX. Ps. cx. 1. 
 — Ver. 29. αὐτῶν] Elz. reads τῶν νεκρῶν, against decisive evidence ; 
 a correct gloss: — Ver. 31. ὑμετέραν] A, min. Or. have ἡμετέραν. So 
 Riick. But the former not being understood, the latter appeared 
 to be required by ἣν ?yw.— After καύχησιν Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 ἀδελφοί, On the testimony of A B K x, min. vss. and Latin Fathers. 
 Rightly; it is in keeping with the impassioned address, but was 
 easily overlooked by the transcribers, since no new section of the 
 address begins here (comp. on xi. 2).— Ver. 36. ἄφρον] Lachm. 
 
CHAP, XV. 35 
 
 Riick. Tisch. read ἄφρων, following ABD EGRs, min. The former 
 is a correction. — Ver. 39. Before ἀνθρώπων Elz. has σάρξ again, 
 which is deleted by Griesb. and the later editors, in accordance 
 with decisive evidence. — ixdiav, ἄλλη δὲ πτηνῶν] A preponderance 
 of authority—and this alone can decide here—has it in the inverse 
 order πτηνῶν... ἰχθύων. So Riick., also Lachm. and Tisch., who, 
 however, read σάρξ again before στῆν., which has, it is true, im- 
 portant attestation, but is a mechanical addition. Paul repeated 
 σάρξ in connection with the jirst kind of animals only, and so 
 arranged his enumeration. — Ver. 44. ἔστι σῶμα κ.τ.λ.1 εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα 
 Ψ,, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματ. occurs in A BC D* 6 καὶ, min., and several 
 vss. and Fathers. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 Riick. Tisch. And how easily the form of the preceding clauses 
 might occasion the passing over of the εἰ, which, besides, was so ex- 
 posed to omission from the way in which the following word begins 
 (E:Eorw).—Ver. 47. After ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ. Elz. and Scholz have ὁ κύριος, 
 in opposition to B Ο D* EF Gs* 17, 67** and several vss. and 
 Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. A 
 gloss. See Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 294 ff.— Ver. 49. φορέσομεν] 
 Lachm. reads φορέσωμεν, following AC DEFGK LS, and many 
 min. Copt. Slav. Vulg. It. Goth. Theodot. Or. (ed. de la Rue) 
 Method. Bas. Chrys. Cyr. Macar. Epiph. Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr. 
 Hilar. Zeno, Ambrosiast. Jer. Pel. al. A great preponderance of 
 testimony! Nevertheless, the very ancient Recepta still retains 
 the important attestation of B and many min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. 
 Arm. Or. ed. Theodoret ; Oec. and Theophyl. give and explain both 
 readings. The Recepta is to be retained, because it is necessary in 
 the connection (see the exegetical remarks) ; the subjunctive is wn- 
 suitable, but was easily brought into the text from the fact that 
 σὰρξ x, αἷμα in ver. 50 was taken in the ethical sense (see especially 
 Chrys.); as in the physical sense, indeed, it would have stood in 
 opposition to the doctrine of the “resurrectio carnis.” Φορέσομεν 
 was first of all interpreted as hortative (which interpretation Theo- 
 doret felt it necessary expressly to reject), and then the hortative 
 form of the verb was inserted in the text.— Ver. 50. χληρονομεῖ] 
 ‘Lachm, reads κληρονομήσει, following C* D* F G, Vulg. It. and Latin 
 Fathers. Occasioned by the similarity of sound of the preceding 
 κληρονομῆσαι. ---- Ver. 51.1 πάντες wiv... ἀλλαγ.] Lachm, reads πάντες 
 [μὲν] κοιμηθ., ob πάντες δὲ ἄλλαγ. Altogether there are many varia- 
 tions, but all of them arose from the offence which was taken, in 
 connection with the reading of the text, at the idea of Paul and his 
 readers having all of them undergone death. The Recepta occurs in 
 
 1 See on the passage Reiche, Commené. crit. I. p. 297 ff., who defends the Recepia 
 with thoroughness and triumphant success. Tischendorf also has retained it, deleting 
 only the μέν (which is certainly open to the suspicion of being an addition). 
 
36 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 B (which merely omits μέν) D** E K L and almost all min. codd. 
 in Jer. al. Goth. Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers, an 
 attestation which, considering how the readings otherwise vary, is 
 a very strong one, although among the uncials C G & support” 
 Lachm.— Ver. 54. Both the omission of the first part of the 
 protasis (in 8* also) and the transposition of the two clauses are 
 insufficiently attested, and are to be explained from the homoeote- 
 leuta. — Ver. 55. vixos is put first and κέντρον last by Β C J καὶ, 17, 
 64, 71, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. and several Fathers. So 
 Lachm. Riick. But they are evidently transposed, after the LXX. 
 in Hos. xiii. 14.— Instead of ᾧδη, BC DEF G J x* 39, 67** 
 and several vss. and Fathers have θάνατε again. So Lachm. Riick. 
 Tisch.; and rightly, for ἅδη has come in from the LXX. 
 
 Contents.’ — Disquisition on the resurrection of the dead, 
 occasioned by the deniers of it in Corinth (ver. 12). That. 
 these deniers had been formerly Sadducees, and had brought for- 
 ward again their Sadducean views in connection with Christi- 
 anity (so recently Flatt, following Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, 
 Knapp; and comp. earlier, Calvin, and Lightfoot, Chron. p. 110) 
 is not to be assumed, partly because, in general, Sadduceism and 
 Christianity are too much antagonistic in their nature to mingle 
 with each other, and also because in that case Paul could not 
 have based his refutation upon the resurrection of Christ (Acts 
 iv. 2). Nor is it more probable that the opponents had been 
 Epicureans, for it is plain from vv. 32-34 that the Epicurean 
 turn which they had taken was not the grownd, but the conse- 
 quence of their denial of the resurrection; as, indeed, Epicureanism 
 in general is such an antichristian element that, supposing it 
 had been the source of the denial, Paul would certainly have 
 entered upon a discussion of its principles, in so far as they were 
 opposed to faith in the resurrection. It is certain at the same 
 time that the deniers were not Jewish Christians; for with them 
 the belief in the Messiah stood in the most necessary connection 
 with the belief in the resurrection; comp. Acts xxiii. 6. On the 
 contrary, it must have been Gentile Christians (Baur, de Wette, 
 
 1 See regarding the whole chapter, W. A. van Hengel, Commentar. perpet. in 1 Cor. 
 xv. cum epistola ad Winerum, Sylvae ducis, 1851; Krauss, theol. Kommentar 2. 
 1 Kor. XV., Frauenfeld 1864 (who stands, however, in express antagonism to 
 grammatico - historical exegesis), Comp. also Klopper, zur paulin. Lehre v. d. 
 Aufersteh. in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 1 ff. 
 
CHAP. XV. an 
 
 van Hengel, Ewald, and many others) to whom the resurrection 
 seemed impossible, and who therefore (vv. 35, 36) denied it. 
 And it is probable, at all events, that they were persons of 
 philosophical training (Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including 
 Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 35 f., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander ; 
 Riickert is undecided), because they must in asserting their 
 thesis, ὅτε ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, have caused some sensa- 
 tion, which, in such a place as Corinth, is hardly conceivable on 
 the part of men strangers to any degree of philosophical educa- 
 tion and practice in dialectics; and because the anti-materialistic 
 explanation of the matter, which Paul gives to combat the doubts 
 of his opponents (ver. 35 ff), makes it probable that the antago- 
 nism on the part of the sceptics was a spiritualistic one, 1.6. an 
 antagonism resting on the philosophic ground that the restora- 
 tion of the matter of the body was impossible. That the 
 apostle does not contend at the same time against the world’s 
 wisdom in general (a doubt expressed by de Wette) is the less 
 strange, as he has to do now with a special subject, and has also 
 already delivered a general polemic of this nature, chap. 11. 3. 
 The small number, however, of men philosophically trained 
 (i. 26) permits of no further inference than that the sceptics in 
 question also were not numerous (τινές, ver. 12). In Athens, 
 too (Acts xvil. 32), the resurrection of the dead was the stone of 
 stumbling for philosophic culture ; and how often has it been so 
 since, and even to the present day !—But to which of the four 
 parties in Corinth did these deniers belong? That they were not of 
 the Petrine or Judaistic party is self-evident. Neither were they 
 of the Christ-party (as Neander, Olshausen, Jager, and Goldhorn 
 hold them to have been), for Christ has so often and so distinctly 
 taught the doctrine of resurrection of the body, that the denial of 
 it would have been at the most palpable variance with the ἐγὼ 
 Χριστοῦ εἶμι. Nor yet were they of the party of Paul, seeing 
 that the doctrine of the resurrection was a most essential article 
 of the Pauline Gospel. There remains, therefore, only the party 
 of Apollos (so also Ribiger and Maier), some of whom having 
 been converted, doubtless, only after the apostle had ceased to 
 labour in Corinth, or having come thither subsequently from 
 other quarters, may have found what he had taught in Corinth 
 regarding the resurrection of the dead not compatible with their 
 
38 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 philosophical standpoint, and hence—being the more incited to 
 it, perhaps, through party variance—altogether denied that there 
 was a resurrection of the dead." Only we must not take this to 
 mean that the adherents of Apollos as swch—their party as such— 
 had denied the resurrection, and that accordingly this denial formed 
 part of their party principles, but only that the “some” (ver. 12) 
 were preponderantly from the number of those who had attached 
 themselves to Apollos and to the party named after him. Of the 
 idea that the denial was a party matter, there is not only no trace 
 whatever in the treatment of the subject, but it would also conflict 
 with what is a necessary presupposition, namely, that the Christi- 
 anity of the Apollos-party as such cannot have stood in such an 
 essential and real contradiction in point of doctrine to that of 
 Paul. We may add that the denial in question is not to be re- 
 garded as a theory, such as we find in 2 Tim. 11. 17 ἢ, in the 
 case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who understood the doctrine 
 allegorically, and maintained that the resurrection had already 
 taken place. So, following Chrysostom, Grotius, Usteri, Lehrbegr. 
 p- 362, Billroth, and Olshausen. The whole elaborate treatment 
 of the subject does not show the slightest trace of this (see, on 
 the contrary, especially ver. 12), although the main aim in that 
 case would have been to prove that the resurrection was not a 
 thing past, but something future. 
 
 Vv. 1-11. Foundation for the following argument. The latter 
 enlarges upon the resurrection itself as far as ver. 34, and then 
 upon the manner of it from ver. 35 to ver. 54, after which 
 triumph and exhortation, vv. 55-58, form the conclusion. — The 
 
 1 That they denied also the continued life of the spirit after death, which Calvin 
 expressly leaves undecided, cannot be maintained, with Flatt and others, from 
 passages such as vv. 19, 29, 30-32, 58. On the contrary, these passages show 
 merely this, that Paul attached no value to the continued life of the souls in Hades, 
 regarded in itself, and not ended by the resurrection. It was to him a vita non 
 vitalis (comp. Kling in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1839, p. 502), and the true everlasting 
 ζωή was conditioned for him by the near Parousia and resurrection. This, at the 
 same time, serves to correct what is asserted by Riickert and others, that in Paul’s 
 mind, as in that of the Jews and Pharisees, the ideas of continued existence and of 
 resurrection were so blended into each other, that whoever denied the one seemed 
 not to be capable of holding fast the other. According to Phil. i. 21, 23 (comp. also 
 2 Cor. v. 8; Acts vii. 59), Paul has the conviction that if he should die as a martyr, 
 he would pass, not into Hades, but to Christ in heaven, into a blessed intermediate 
 
 state until the resurrection of the body. See on Phil. Le. 
 * Comp. also Krauss, Ρ. 12. 
 
CHAP. XV. 1, 2. 39 
 
 certainty of the resurrection of Jesus was not doubted even by his 
 opponents, who must otherwise have given up the whole historic 
 basis of Christianity, and must have been treated by the apostle 
 as apostates (comp. Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 93; Knapp, Ser. 
 var. arg. p. 316; Rabiger, p. 154 1); for only in this way was 
 that fact capable of serving him for a firm starting-point for his 
 argument with the view of reducing the deniers ad absurdum. 
 For this reason he sets forth the resurrection of Jesus in its cer- 
 tainty not polemically, but as a purely positive proposition. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. 4é] forming the transition to a new subject. There 
 is no trace, however, of a question on the part of the Corinthians, 
 to which Paul is giving the answer. — γνωρίζω] not, as is com- 
 monly held, equivalent to ὑπομιμνήσκω (Oecumenius), nor yet, as 
 Riickert weakens the force of the word: I call your attention to ; 
 but: Z make known to you (xii. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. i. 2; Eph. 
 i. 9; Col. iv. 7, al.). It is, no doubt, ὧν substance a reminding 
 them of something already known, but the expression is more 
 emphatic, more arousing, putting to shame a part of the readers, 
 and accordant with the fundamental importance of what is now 
 to be discussed. — τὸ evayy.] is not simply the tidings of the 
 ᾿ death and resurrection of Jesus (Heydenreich, Riickert, and others), 
 but the Christian tidings of salvation generally, because there is 
 here no limiting definition, and as is further in particular clear from 
 ἐν πρώτοις in ver. 3.—6 καὶ taper. x.7.r.] which you have also 
 received. The thrice used καί denotes with ever increasing emphasis 
 the element to be added* to the preceding one. — Regarding 
 maper., comp. John i. 11; Phil. iv. 9; and regarding ἑστήκ., you 
 stand, are firm, x. 12; Rom. v. 2; 2 Cor.i. 24; Eph. vi. 18 ; 1 Pet. 
 v. 12; John viii. 44. — σώξζεσθε] pictures as present the future, 
 quite certain Messianic salvation. Comp. on i, 18.— tiv λόγῳ 
 ... κατέχετε] condition to σώξεσθε, in which Ti λόγῳ εὐηγγ. 
 vy. is put first for the sake of emphasis. Comp. vi. 4, xi. 14, 
 xiv. 7, 9. Comp. also Plato, Pol. i p. 847 Ὁ : πόλις ἀνδρῶν 
 ἀγαθῶν εἰ γένοιτο, Parm. p. 136A; Baruch iii. 13, as indeed 
 in general it is common in the classics (Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Phaedr. p. 238 A) and in the N. T. (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 334 
 
 1 Calovius says rightly: “‘Sequuntur haec se invicem : evangelii annuntiatio, an- 
 nuntiati per fidem susceptio, suscepti in fide perseveranti conservatio, perque illud 
 fide susceptum et conservatum aeterna salvatio.” 
 
40 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 [E. T. 5907) for such words as ought to follow the conjunctions 
 to precede them for the sake of emphasis. Hence: through 
 which (by means of faith in its contents) you also obtain salvation, 
 af you hold fast with what word I preached rt to you. Not without 
 design does he add this condition to the σώζεσθε : for his readers 
 were threatened with the danger of being led by the deniers of 
 the resurrection to become untrue to the specific contents of his 
 preaching. Others (including Bengel, Heydenreich, Billroth, van 
 Hengel, Ewald) regard rit λόγῳ εὐηγγ. du. as a more precise 
 definition to τὸ εὐαγγ. ὁ εὐηγγ. vu. in accordance with the common 
 form of attraction οἶδά σε τίς εἶ (Winer, p. 581 [E. Τ. 7817). 
 Against this, however, it may be urged: (1) that the meaning: 
 “I make known to you... tf you stil hold it fast,” contains in 
 the latter half (which is not to be transmuted, with van Hengel, 
 into the sense: “st curae nobis cordique est quod nune dico”) a 
 condition which stands in no logical relation to the first half; 
 (2) that εἰ κατέχετε would be at variance with ἐν @ καὶ ἑστήκατε; 
 (3) that we should then have to assume for ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ 
 ἐπιστ. the inadmissible (see below) reference to κατέχετε. All 
 these difficulties fall away with the above interpretation, accord- 
 ing to which παρελάβετε expresses the historical act of reception ; 
 ἑστήκατε, the present faithfulness; σώξεσθε, the certain blessed 
 future; and εἰ κατέχετε, the abiding condition to the attainment 
 of this end; while ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστ. in turn denotes the 
 exaltation above every doubt in respect of the Messianic salva- 
 tion really to be attained under this condition. — τίνι λόγῳ] not as 
 in Acts x. 29, with what ground (Wetstein, Kypke, Heydenreich, 
 and others, following Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Pelagius), 
 which Osiander takes of scriptural ground ; for παρέδωκα yap dp. 
 K.T.A., Ver. 3, gives, in fact, not a ground, but the contents of the 
 preaching. Hence also it does not refer to the “manner and 
 method of the proclamation” (Neander), but means: through what 
 word, 1.6. preaching what. As regards tim, instead of a relative, 
 see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251]. How different 
 from the seductive discourses of the deniers had this λόγος of 
 the apostle been! According to Hofmann, rive λόγῳ is meant to 
 be interrogative, and that in the sense of “ with what presupposition,” 
 while εἰ κατέχετε and εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστ. are the answer to it. 
 Against this it may be urged: (1) that, since εἰ μὴ ex. ἐπιστ. would 
 
CHAP. XV. 3, 4. 41 
 
 be a second condition, Paul would have marked the connection 
 in an intelligible way by καί (putting therefore either καὶ εἰ or 
 καί by itself, but not simply ed); (2) that λόγος, in the sense of 
 condition or presupposition, is foreign to the N. T. and peculiar 
 to Herodotus, who, however, always expresses sub conditione by 
 ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ ; see Schweighiuser, Lew. Herod. II. p. 79 f.— εἰ 
 κατέχετε] This implies not merely the not having forgotten ; it is 
 the believing firm retention, which dces not let go the doctrine 
 received—the continuance of the ἑστήκατε. Comp. Luke viu. 15; 
 1 Cor. xi. 2. And there is not so much an “aculeus ad pun- 
 gendum” (Calvin) in this as an admonition of the danger. — ἐκτὸς 
 εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστ.] through which you are also saved, if you hold 
 fast my word,—uwnless that ye have become believing in vain, without 
 any result. Only in this case, inconceivable to the Christian con- 
 sciousness (Beza aptly says: “argumentatur ab absurdo”), would 
 ye, in spite of that holding fast, lose the σωτηρία. The words 
 therefore imply the certainty of the σώζεσθαι to be expected 
 under the condition of the κατέχειν. On εἰκῆ, comp. Gal. iii. 4, 
 iv.11; and regarding ἐκτὸς εἰ μή, except if, see on xiv. 5; on 
 émiot., comp. ili. 5; Rom. xiii. 11. To refer εἰκῆ to κατέχετε 
 (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Estius, and 
 others, including Billroth and de Wette) is impracticable for this 
 reason, that εἰ κατέχετε itself is a conditional clause, while to 
 supply such an idea as κατέχετε δὲ πάντως (Theophylact) would 
 be quite an arbitrary course. 
 
 Ver. 3 f. More precise explanation of the tim λόγῳ εὐηγγ. dp. 
 εἰ κατέχετε, by adducing those main points of that λόγος, which 
 are of decisive importance for the further discussion which Paul 
 now has in view. Hofmann’s interpretation of it as specifying 
 the ground of the alleged condition and reservation in ver. 2, 
 falls with his incorrect exposition of εἰ κατέχετε K.7.A. — ἐν 
 πρώτοις) neuter: in primis, chiefly, ie. as doctrinal points of 
 the first rank. Comp. Plato, Pol. p. 522 C: ὃ καὶ παντὶ ἐν 
 πρώτοις ἀνάγκη μανθάνειν. To take it, with Chrysostom,’ of the 
 time (ἐξ ἀρχῆς), comp. Ecclus. iv. 17, Prov. xx. 21, runs counter 
 
 1 Who is followed by van Hengel : ‘‘ Recenset partem eorum, a quibus proponendis 
 Corinthios docere incepit.” So Hofmann also in substance. According to Chry- 
 sostom, Paul adduces the time as witness xa} ὅτι ἐσχάτης ἦν αἰσχύνης, τοσοῦτον χρόνον 
 πεισθέντας νῦν μετατίθεσθαι. 
 
42 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 to the connection, according to which it is rather the fundamental 
 significance of the following doctrines that is concerned. This in 
 opposition also to Riickert’s view of it as masculine: to you 
 among the first (comp. 1 Mace. vi. 6; Ecclus. xlv. 20; Thue. vii. 
 19. 4; Lucian, Paras. 49 ; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 220), which 
 is, moreover, historically untrue, unless with Riickert we arbi- 
 trarily supply “in Achaia.’ —6 καὶ παρέλαβον] This conveys 
 the idea: which had been likewise communicated to me-—nothing 
 therefore new or self-invented. From whom Paul had received 
 the contents of vv. 3-5, he does not say; but for the very reason 
 that he does not add an ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, as in xi. 23, or words to 
 like effect, and on account of the correlation in which παρέλα- 
 Bov stands to παρέδωκα (comp. also ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ver. 1), 
 as well as on account of the reference extending to the simple 
 historical statements in ver. 5 ff., we are not to supply: from 
 Christ, through revelation (the common view since Chrysostom), but 
 rather: through historical tradition, as it was living in the church 
 (comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann). It is true, indeed, that he 
 has that, which forms the inner relation of the ἀπέθανεν «.7.X. 
 and belongs to the inner substance of the gospel, from revelation . 
 (Gal. i. 12); but here it is the historical element which is pre- 
 dominantly present to his mind. —dimép τῶν dpapt. ἡμ.] on 
 account of our sins, i.e. in order to expiate them, Rom. 111. 23—26 ; 
 Gal. iii. 13 ff., αἱ, The connection of the preposition with the 
 abstract noun proves that Paul, in saying elsewhere ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 
 (comp. also Eph. v. 25: ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας), has not used the 
 preposition in the sense of Joco, not even in 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. 
 iii, 13. The idea of the satisfactio vicaria lies in the thing 
 itself, not in the preposition. See on Rom. v. 6; Gal. i 4; 
 Eph. v. 2. It may be added that, except in this passage, the 
 expression ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν Hu. occurs nowhere in the writings 
 of Paul (not even in Gal. i. 4), although it does in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, v. 1, 3(2), ix. 7, x. 12. Regarding the distinction 
 between ὑπέρ and περί the remark holds true: “id unum 
 interest, quod περί usu frequentissimo teritur, multo rarius 
 usurpatur ὑπέρ, quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. praep. de et 
 
 1This holds in the N. T., where the death of Christ is spoken of, only of those 
 
 passages in which the preposition is not joined with persons: of persons Paul con- 
 stantly uses dafp, Comp. oni. 13, Remark. 
 
CHAR χὰ δε} 43 
 
 super locum obtinet,’ Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188. --- κατὰ 
 τ. γραφ.] according to the Scriptures of the Ο. T. (“quae non im- 
 pleri non potuere,’ Bengel), in so far as these (as eg. especially 
 Isa. liii.) contain prophecies regarding the atoning death of Christ. 
 Comp. Luke xxiv. 25 ff; John xx. 9, ii, 22; Acts xvii. 3, xxvi. 
 22 f., viii. 35; 1 Pet. 1. 11.—The second x. τ. yp. does not refer 
 to the burial (Isa. liii. 9) also, as de Wette and most interpreters 
 assume, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, but, as is to be 
 deduced from the repetition of the ὅτι before éyny., only to the 
 resurrection,» See on John ii. 22. Christ’s death and resurrec- 
 tion are the great facts of the redemptive work, borne witness to 
 by the Scriptures; the burial (comp. Rom. vi. 4; Col. 11. 12; Acts 
 xiii. 29), being the consequence of the one and the presupposition 
 of the other, lies between as historical correlate of the corporeal 
 reality of the resurrection, but not as a factor of the work of 
 redemption, which as such would require to have been based 
 upon Scripture testimony. — ἐγήγερται] not the aorist again; the 
 being risen is the abiding state, which commenced with the 
 ἐγερθῆναι. Comp. 2 Tim. 11. 8; Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 339]. 
 Ver. 5. “ Res tanti momenti neque facilis creditu multis egebat 
 testibus,” Grotius. — Κηφᾷ] Comp. Luke xxiv. 342-— εἶτα τοῖς 
 δώδεκα] John xx. 19 ff.; Luke xxiv. 36 ff. After the death of 
 the traitor, there were indeed only eleven (hence several witnesses 
 read ἕνδεκα, comp. Acts i. 26), nay, according to John ἀμ, 
 Thomas also was absent at that time; but comp. the official desig- 
 nations decemviri, centunwirt, al., where the proper number also was 
 often not complete. To reckon in Matthias (Chrysostom, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Bengel, and others) would make a needless 
 prothysteron of the expression. It may be added that under the 
 ὠφθη we are always to conceive of but one act of appearing, as 
 is especially clear from ver. 8; hence we are not in connection 
 with τοῖς δώδεκα to think of a combination of John xx. 19 ff. and 
 26 ff. (Osiander, van Hengel, and others), to which some have 
 even added John xxi. That Paul narrates the series of appear- 
 
 ? And that on the third day, which κατὰ +. γραῷ. must be held to include in its 
 reference. Comp. Matt. xii. 40 ; Luke xxiv. 46. 
 
 * According to Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 115 ff., the appearance made to 
 Peter also (like all the following ones) was a vision, the determining occasion of 
 which was the perplexing contradiction between the once living and the now dead 
 Messiah. 
 
41 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. : 
 ances chronologically, should not have been questioned by Wieseler 
 (Synopse der Evang. p. 420 f.), who assumes only an enumeration 
 of the individual cases without order of time. It is implied 
 necessarily in the words of historical continuation themselves 
 (ἔπειτα ὥφθη), as well as in their relation to ἔσχατον πάντων, 
 ver. 8. Comp. also vv. 23, 24, 46. 
 
 Ver. 6 exhibits a change in the construction—which does 
 not continue further with é7——but still belongs to the contents 
 of the παρέδωκα and παρέλαβον down to ἀποστ. πᾶσιν (in opposi- 
 tion to Hofmann); for the point of view of the ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον 
 reaches thus far, and it is only at ver. 8 that personal experience 
 comes in instead of it. Nor is it to be inferred from the 
 transition from the dependent to the independent construction 
 (so frequent also, as we know, in Greek writers), which naturally 
 corresponds with the concrete vividness of the representation, 
 that Paul had not included this appearance and those which 
 follow in his preaching at Corinth, but, on the contrary, was 
 now communicating them to his readers as something new (van 
 Hengel). Ver. 8 is especially opposed to this view, since Paul, 
 in referring to the appearances of the Risen One, had certainly 
 not been silent upon that made to himself (comp. ix. 1).— 
 ἐπάνω] adverbial, not prepositional, Mark xiv. 5. Comp. ὑπέρ. 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410. Τινές, referred to by Chrysostom, 
 were mistaken in holding it to mean: above, over their heads. — 
 πεντακοσ.] Consequently the number of the believers in general 
 was already much greater than that of those who were assembled, 
 Acts i. 15. The remarks to the contrary by Baur and Zeller, 
 according to whom the small number 120 is plainly shown by our 
 passage to be incorrect, are not conclusive, since the appearance 
 here mentioned may, without any arbitrariness, be placed at so 
 early a stage that many pilgrims to the Passover may be con- 
 ceived as still present in Jerusalem when it took place, and among 
 these many extraneous disciples of Jesus, especially Galileans. 
 The 120 who assembled afterwards were the stock of the con- 
 gregation of Jerusalem itself. Comp. on Acts i. 15. On the 
 other hand, it is possible that the Lord appeared to the 500 
 brethren also in Galilee in an assembly of so many of His disciples 
 there (Schleiermacher, Ewald). More precise evidence is wanting. 
 Matt. xxviii. 16 ff. has nothing to do with our passage (in 
 
CHAP. XV. 7. 45 
 
 opposition to Lightfoot and Flatt), but applies only to the eleven. 
 --ἕ ἐφάπαξ] not: once for all (Bretschneider, comp. Rom. vi. 10; 
 Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10), but, as it is wswally understood: at 
 once, simul (Luc. Dem. enc. 24). The former sense would need to 
 be given by the context, which, however, from the largeness of the 
 number, naturally suggests the latter. Van Hengel, too, wrongly 
 insists upon the meaning semel, holding that this appearance took 
 place only once, whereas ver. 5 applies to several appearances. The 
 peculiar importance of this appearance les precisely in the simul 
 (Vulgate), ἀνύποπτος δὲ τῶν τοσούτων ἡ μαρτυρίά, Theodoret. 
 This ἐφάπαξ and the multitude of the spectators exclude all the 
 more decidedly the idea of a visionary or ecstatic seeing, although 
 some have ascribed all the appearances of the Risen One to this 
 source (see especially, Holsten, zwm Ev. des Paul. u. Petr. p. 65 ff.). 
 Here we should have upwards of 500 visions occurring at the 
 same time and place, the same in substance and form, and that, 
 too, as psychological acts of the individual minds. — οὗ πλείους] 
 the majority, x. 5. Luther gives it wrongly: “ many still.” — 
 μένουσιν superstites sunt. Comp. on John xxi. 22; Phil. i. 25. 
 "Exo μάρτυρας ἔτι ζῶντας, Chrysostom. It may be added that 
 the definite affirmation, of πλείους μένουσιν, shows how earnestly 
 the apostolic church concerned itself about the still surviving 
 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, and how well it knew 
 them. 
 
 Ver. 7. Both of these appearances also are otherwise unknown. 
 — Ιακώβῳ] The non-addition of any distinguishing epithet makes 
 it more than probable that the person meant is he who was then 
 the James κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, James the Just,’ not one of the Twelve, 
 but universally known as the brother of the Lord (see on ix. 4). 
 Perhaps it was this appearance which made him become decided 
 for the cause and service of his divine brother. Comp. Michaelis 
 on our passage. The apocryphal narrative of the LZvang. sec. Hebr. 
 in Jerome, de vir. ill. 2, is, even as regards time, here irrelevant 
 (in opposition to Grotius). — τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν] ἀπόστολοι, 
 since it takes in James also (comp. Gal. i. 19), must stand here 
 in a wider sense than τοῖς δώδεκα, but includes them along with 
 others. In the Book of Acts, Barnabas, for instance, is called an 
 apostle (xiv. 4, 14); and in 1 Thess. ii. 7, Timothy and Silvanus 
 
 * Comp. Plitt in the Zeitschrift f; Luth. Theol. 1864, p. 28 ff. 
 
40 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 are comprehended under the conception ἀπόστολοι, of whom, of 
 course, Timothy at least cannot be as yet included here. Chry- 
 sostom supposes the Seventy to be included. Comp. on xii. 28. 
 In no case is it simply the 7welve again who are meant, whom 
 Hofmann conceives to be designated here in their relation to the 
 church. How arbitrary that is, and how superfluous such a 
 designation would be! But πᾶσι stands decidedly opposed to it; 
 Paul would have required to write εἶτα πάλιν τοῖς atroat. Notice 
 also the strict marking off of the original apostles by οἱ δώδεκα, 
 an expression which Paul uses im no other place. 
 
 Ver. 8. Appearance at Damascus. Comp. ix. 1.— Regarding 
 the adverbial ἔσχατον, comp. Plato, Gorg. p. 473 C; Soph. Oed. 
 Col. 1547; Mark xii. 22 (Lachm.). It concludes the series of 
 bodily appearances, and thereby separates these from later appear- 
 ances in visions (Acts xviii. 9), or some other apocalyptic way. — 
 πάντων] is not to be understood, as has been usually done, of all 
 those in general to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection, 
 but of all apostles, as is the most natural interpretation from the 
 very foregoing τοῖς ἀποστ. πᾶσι, and is rendered certain by the 
 τῷ ἐκτρώμ. with the article, which, according to ver. 9, denotes 
 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν the apostolic “abortion.” '—The apostle’s sense of the 
 high privilege of being counted worthy to see the Risen One 
 awakens in him his deep humility, which was always fostered 
 by the painful consciousness of having once persecuted the 
 church ; he therefore expresses his strong sense of unworthiness 
 by saying that he is, as it were (ὡσπερεί, quasi, only here in 
 the N. T., often in classic writers), τὸ ἔκτρωμα, the untimely 
 foetus, Arist. Gener. An. iv. 5; LXX. Num. xii. 12; Job i. 16; 
 Eccles. vi. 3; Aq. Ps. lvii. 9. See the passages in Wetstein, 
 Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 60 f.; and as regards the standing of the 
 
 1 The ‘‘abortion” in the series of the apostles. Hofmann is wrong in making révewy 
 extend to the whole of the cases previously adduced. That would surely be a thing 
 quite self-evident, namely, that in a series of cases following after each other, the 
 last mentioned is just the last of all. No, πάντων is correlative to the preceding 
 πᾶσιν, and the progress of thought is: ‘‘to the apostles all, last of all, however, 
 to me also.”. Thereby Paul gives adequate expression to the deep humility with 
 which he sees himself added to the circle of the apostles. Comp. ver. 9: ἀποσσόλων, 
 ἀπόστολος, and then the retrospective σῶν πάντων, ver. 10, also the ἐκεῖνοι, ver. 11.— 
 Hofmann seems to take the ὥσσερεί in the sense of ut decet ; for he cites Klausen, ad 
 Aesch. Agam. 1140, who treats specially of this meaning of the word, p. 244. 
 
CHAP. XV. 8. 47 
 
 word as Greek (for which the older Attic writers have ἄμβλωμα), 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 209. In opposition to Heydenreich and 
 Schulthess (most recently in Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal. I. 4, 
 p. 212 f.), who interpret in a way which is linguistically erroneous 
 (adopted, however, as early as by τινές in Theophylact), late- 
 born, born afterwards in old age, see Fritzsche, lc. The idea of 
 being Jate-born, 1.6. late in becoming an apostle, is conveyed in 
 ἔσχατον πάντων, not in ἔκτρωμα. What Paul meant to indicate 
 in a figurative way by τ. ἐκτρ. is clearly manifest from ver. 9, 
 namely, that he was inferior to, and less worthy than, the rest of the 
 apostles, in the proportion in which the abortive child stands behind 
 that born mature. Comp. Bengel: “ Ut abortus non est dignus 
 humano nomine, sic apostolus negat se dignum apostoli appel- 
 latione.” See also Ignatius, ad Rom. 9. The distinct explanation 
 which he gives himself in ver. 9 excludes all the other—some of 
 them very odd—interpretations which have been given,’ along with 
 that of Hofmann: Paul designates himself so in contrast to those 
 who, when Jesus appeared to them, were brethren (James too?) or 
 apostles, and consequently had been “ born as children of God into 
 the life of the faith of Christ ;” whereas with him the matter had 
 not yet come toa full formation of Christ (Gal. iv. 19), as was the 
 case with the rest. This artificial interpretation is all the more 
 erroneous, seeing that Paul, when Christ appeared to him, had 
 not yet made even the first approach to being a Christian embryo, 
 but was the most determined opponent of the Lord, and was closely 
 engaged in persecuting Him (Acts ix. 4); oz. τ. ἐκτρ. does not 
 describe what Paul was then, when Christ appeared to him, but 
 what he zs since that time.— κἀμοί] at the end, with the un- 
 affected stamp of humility after the expressions of self-abasement 
 put before. — Observe, further, that Paul places the appearance 
 of the Risen One made to himself in the same series with the 
 others, without mentioning the ascension which lay between. 
 
 1 The whole passage is entirely misunderstood by Kienlen in the Jahrb. f. d. 
 Theol. 1868, p. 316 ff. » "σα. 
 
 2 Among these must be placed Calvin’s opinion (comp. Osiander): ‘‘Se com- 
 parat abortivo. . . suditae suae conversionis respectu,” shared by Grotius and others, 
 including Schrader. So, too, with the view of Baronius, Estius, Cornelius a 
 Lapide, and others, that Paul describes himself as a supernumerary. And Wetstein 
 even suggests: ‘* Pseudapostoli videntur Paulo statwram exiguam objecisse, 2 Cor. 
 re tO.: 
 
48 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Certainly, therefore, he did not regard the latter as the striking, 
 epoch-making event, which it first appears in the narrative of 
 the Book of Acts, forty days after the resurrection. See generally 
 on Luke xxiv. 51, Remark. But observe also what stress Paul 
 lays here and ix. 1 upon the outwardly manifested bodily appear- 
 ance of the Lord, with which Gal. 1. 15 does not in any way 
 conflict. 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff. is of a different tenor. 
 
 Ver. 9. Justification of the expression ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι. 
 Vv. 9 and 10 are not a grammatical, though they may be a 
 logical parenthesis. — ἐγώ] has emphasis: just J, no other. 
 Comp. on this confession, Eph. iii. 8; 1 Tim. 1. 15.—0ds οὐκ 
 εἰμὶ κιτιλ.] argumentative: quippe qui, etc. Comp. Od. 11. 41, 
 al.; Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 13; Matthiae, p. 1067, note 1.— ἱκανός] 
 sufficiently fitted, Matt. 111. 11; Luke i. 16; 2 Cor. i. 5.— 
 καλεῖσθαι] to bear the name of apostle, this high, honourable name. 
 
 Ver. 10. The other side of this humility, looking to God. Yet 
 has God's grace made me what Tam. Comp. Gal. i. 15. — χάριτι] 
 has the principal emphasis, hence again ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ ---- 6 εἰμι) 
 In this is comprehended the whole sum of his present being 
 and character, so different from his pre-Christian condition. — 
 ἡ εἰς ἐμέ] Comp. 1 Pet. i. 10: towards me. Plato, Pol. v. 
 p. 729 D.—ovd κενή] not void of result. Comp. ver. 58; 
 Phil. ii. 16; 1 Thess. iii, 5.— ἐγεν.] not: has been, but: has 
 practically become. — ἀλλά] introduces the great contrast to od κενὴ 
 eyev., valued highly by Paul, even in the depth of his humility, 
 as against the impugners of his apostolic position ; and introduces 
 it with logical correctness, for περισσότερον... ἐκοπίασα is the 
 result of the grace.—  περισσ.] accusative neuter. It is the plus 
 of the result. Regarding éxo7. of apostolic labowr, comp. Phil. 
 ii. 16; Gal. iv. 11, al.-- αὐτῶν πάντων] than they all, which 
 may either mean: than any of them, or: than they all put 
 together. Since the latter corresponds to the τοῖς ἀποστ. πᾶσιν, 
 ver. 7, and suits best the design of bringing out the fruitful 
 efficacy of the divine grace, and also agrees with history so 
 far as known to us, it is accordingly to be preferred (Osiander 
 and van Hengel) in opposition to the former interpretation, 
 which is the common one.—ov« ἐγὼ δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ κιτλ Cor- 
 
 1 See Paret in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 248 ff. ; Beyschlag in the 
 Stud. ει. Krit. 1864, p. 219 f. 
 
CHAP, XV. 11, 12. 49 
 
 rection regarding the subject of ἐκοπίασα, not I however, but. 
 Chrysostom says well: τῇ συνήθει κεχρημένος ταπεινοφροσύνῃ 
 καὶ τοῦτο (that he laboured more, etc.) ταχέως παρέδραμε, καὶ τὸ 
 πᾶν ἀνέθηκε τῷ θεῷ: Paul is conscious in himself that the 
 relation of the efficacy of God’s grace to his own personal agency 
 is of such a kind, that what has just been stated belongs not to 
 the latter, dut to the former.'\— ἡ χάρις τ. θεοῦ σὺν ἐμοί] se. 
 ἐκοπίασε περισσ. αὐτ. πάντ. Not I have laboured more, but the 
 grace of God has done tt with me (in efficient fellowship with me, 
 comp. Mark xvi. 20). It is to be observed that the article before 
 σὺν ἐμοί is not genuine (see the critical remarks), and so Paul 
 does not disclaim for himself his own self-active share in bringing 
 about the result, but knows that the intervention of the divine 
 grace so outweighs his own activity, that to the alternative, 
 whether he or grace has wrought such great things, he can only 
 answer, as he has done: not J, but the grace of God with me. 
 Were the article before σὺν ἐμοί genuine, the thought would not 
 be: the grace has wrought it with me, but: the grace, which is with 
 me, has wrought it. But Beza’s remark holds true for the case also 
 of the article being omitted: “ Paulum ita se ipsum facere gratiae 
 administrum, ut ili omnia tribuat.” There is no ground for 
 thinking even remotely of a “not alone, but also,” or the like 
 (see Grotius, Flatt, and others). 
 
 Ver. 11. Οὖν] takes up again the thread of the discourse which 
 had been interrupted by vv. 9,10, as in viii. 4, but yet with 
 reference to ver. 9 f. — ἐκεῖνοι] 1.6. the rest of the apostles, vv. 7, 
 8, 91 --- οὕτω] so as was stated above, namely, that Christ is 
 risen, ver. 4 ff, and see ver. 12. — καὶ οὕτως] and in this way, in 
 consequence, namely, of this, that the resurrection of Jesus was 
 proclaimed to you, ye have become believers (émver. as in ver. 2). 
 —Observe, further, in εἴτε οὖν ἐγὼ, εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι, the apologetic 
 glance of apostolic self-assertion, which he turns upon those who 
 questioned his rank as an apostle. 
 
 Ver. 12. In what a contrast, however, with this preaching 
 
 1 Augustine, De Grat. et lib. arb. 3, says: ‘‘ Non ego autem, i.e. non solus, sed 
 gratia Dei mecum ; ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum 
 illo.” Therewith, however, the relation of the grace to the individuality, as Paul 
 has expressed it by οὐκ ἐγὼ, ἀλλά, is entirely overlooked. 
 
 + That is, which stands in helping fellowship with me. See Kiihner, II. p. 276. 
 
 1 COR. I, D 
 
δ0 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 stands the assertion of certain persons among you that, οἷο. 
 Χριστός has the main emphasis in the protasis ; hence its position. 
 — πῶς] expression of astonishment ; how is yet possible, that ; xiv. 
 7,16; Rom. ii. 6, vi 2, viii, 32, x. 14; Gal. 1. ΒΝ. 
 logical justice of the astonishment rests on this, that the assertion, 
 “there is no resurrection of dead persons,” denies also per conse- 
 quentiam the resurrection of Christ. Ver. 13. — τινές] quidam, 
 quos nominare nolo. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731, also 
 Schoemann, ad Js. p. 250. See, besides, introduction to the 
 chapter. “Ev ὑμῖν is simply in your church, without any emphasis 
 of contradistinction to non-Christians (Krauss). — οὐκ ἔστιν] does 
 not take place, there is not. Comp. Eph. vi. 9; Matt. xxii. 23; 
 Acts xxiii. 8. Comp. also Plato, Phaed. p. 71 E: εἴπερ ἔστι τὸ 
 ἀναβιώσκεσθαι, Aesch. Eum. 639: ἅπαξ θανόντος οὔτις ἐστ᾽ 
 ἀνάστασις. 
 
 Ver. 13. 4é] carrying onward, in order by a chain of inferences 
 to reduce the τινές with their assertion ad absurdum. — οὐδέ] even 
 not. The inference rests upon the principle: “ sublato genere tollitur 
 et species” (Grotius). For Christ had also become a νεκρός, and 
 was, as respects His human nature, not different from other men 
 (ver. 21). Comp. Theodoret: σῶμα yap καὶ ὁ δεσπότης εἶχε 
 Χριστός. This in opposition to the fault which Riickert finds 
 with the conclusion, that, if Christ be a being of higher nature, 
 the Logos of God, etc., the laws of created men do not hold for 
 Him. It is plain that the resurrection, as well as the death, 
 related only to the human form of existence. The σῶμα of 
 Christ (xi. 24; Rom. vii. 4), the σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (Col. 1. 
 22; comp. Eph. ii. 15), was put to death and rose again, which 
 would have been impossible, if ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (bodily revivifica- 
 tion of those bodily dead) in general were a chimera. Comp. Knapp, 
 Ser. var. arg. Ὁ. 316; Usteri, p. 364 ἢ; van Hengel, p. 68 f. 
 Calvin, following Chrysostom and Theodoret, grounds the apostle’s 
 conclusion thus: “quia enim non nisi nostra causa resurgere 
 debuit: nulla ejus resurrectio foret, si nobis nihil prodesset.” 
 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. But according to this it would not 
 follow from the ἀνάστασις vexp. οὐκ ἔστιν that Christ had not 
 risen, but only that His resurrection had not fulfilled its aim. 
 The idea, that Christ is ἀπαρχή of the resurrection, is not yet 
 taken for granted here (as an axiom), but comes in for the first 
 
CHAP. XV. 14, 15. 51 
 
 time at ver. 20 (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
 others, including de Wette and Osiander), after the argument has 
 already reached the result, that Christ cannot have remained in 
 the grave, as would yet follow with logical certainty from the 
 proposition : ἀνάστασις vexp. οὐκ ἔστιν. It is only when it comes 
 to bring forward the ἀπαρχή, that the series of inferences celebrates 
 its victory. 
 
 Ver. 14. 4é] continues the series of inferences. Without the 
 resurrection of Jesus, what are we with our preaching! what you 
 with your faith! The former is then dealt with in ver. 15 f, the 
 latter in vv. 17-19. — ἄρα] is the simple therefore, thus (rebus ita 
 comparatis). See against Hartung’s view, that it introduces the 
 unexpected (this may be implied in the connection, but not in the 
 particle), Klotz, ad Devar. p. 160 ff. — κενόν and κενή are put first 
 with lively emphasis. — οὐκ ἐγήγ.] ie. has remained in the grave. 
 — κενόν] empty, i.e. without reality (Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 8), without 
 really existing contents, inasmuch, namely, as the redemption 
 in Christ and its completion through the Messianic σωτηρία are 
 the contents of the preaching; but this redemption has not taken 
 place and the Messianic salvation is a chimera, if Christ has not 
 risen. Comp. ver. 17; Rom. i. 4, iv. 25, viii. 34. — καί] also. If 
 it holds of Christ that He is not risen, then it holds also of our 
 preaching that it is empty. — ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] your faith in Jesus 
 as the Messiah, ver. 11. Christ would, in fact, not be the 
 Redeemer and Atoner, as which, however, He is the contents of 
 your faith.? Comp. Simonides in Plato, Prot. p. 345 C: κενεὰν.... 
 ἐλπίδα, Soph. Ant. 749: κενὰς γνώμας, Eur. Iph. Aul. 987, 
 Hel. 36. 
 
 Ver. 15. We should not, with Lachmann, place only a comma 
 after ver. 14; for ver. 15 carries independently its full confirma- 
 tion with it, and its awful thought comes out all the more im- 
 pressively, when taken independently of what precedes it. The 
 emphasis of the verse lies in the God-dishonouring ψευδομάρτ. 
 tov θεοῦ. In this phrase τοῦ θεοῦ must, in conformity with what 
 follows, be genitivus objecti (not subjecti, as Billroth would make 
 
 1 The reading ἡμῶν, which Olshausen prefers from a total misapprehension of the 
 connection, has only the weak attestation of D* min. and some vss. and Fathers, 
 and is a mechanical repetition of the preceding ἡμῶν. 
 
 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 74 ff. 
 
52 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 it: “false witnesses, whom God has,” comp. Osiander, et al.): persons 
 who have testified what is false against God.— κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ] is 
 not to be taken, with Erasmus, Beza, Wolf, Raphel, de Wette, 
 and others, as im respect to God, of God (Schaefer, ad Dem. I. p. 
 412 f.; Valck. ad Phoen. 821; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 272); for 
 the context requires the reference to be as much in opposition 
 to God as possible, and hence requires the sense : against, adversus 
 (Vulgate). Comp. Matt. xxvi. 59, 62, xxvii. 13; Mark xiv. 56, 
 60, xv. 4, al. ; Xen. Apol. 13: od ψεύδομαι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, Plato, 
 Gorg. p. 472 B. Every consciously false giving of testimony that 
 God has done something, is testimony against God, because an 
 abuse of His name and injury to His holiness. — ὃν οὐκ ἤγειρεν, 
 εἴπερ apa K.T.r.] whom He has not raised, if really thus (as is 
 asserted) dead persons are not raised. Regarding εἰ ἄρα and εἴπερ 
 ἄρα, see Klotz, l.c. pp. 178, 528. Observe here (1) the identity of 
 the category, in which Paul places the resurrection of Christ and 
 the bodily resurrection of the dead; (2) the sacredness of the 
 apostolic testimony for the former; (3) the fanatical self-deception, 
 to which he would have been a victim, if the appearances of the 
 Risen One had been psychological hallucinations, so that the whole 
 transformation of Saul into Paul—nay, his whole Gospel—would 
 rest upon this self-deception, and this self-deception upon a 
 mental weakness which would be totally irreconcilable with his 
 otherwise well-known strength and acuteness of intellect. 
 
 Ver. 16. Proof of the ὃν οὐκ ἤγειρεν, εἴπερ x.7.r. by solemn 
 repetition of ver. 13 entirely as to purport, and almost entirely 
 as to the words also. 
 
 Vy. 17, 18. Solemnly now also the other conclusion from the 
 οὐδὲ Χριστὸς éyny., already expressed in ver. 14, is once more 
 exhibited, but in such a way that its tragical form stands out 
 still more awfully (ματαία and ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν τ. ἅμ. ὑμ.), and has 
 a new startling feature added to it by reference to the lot of 
 the departed. — ματαία] vain, fruitless, put first with emphasis, 
 as ἔτι is afterwards. Comp. ver. 14. The meaning of the word 
 may be the same as κενή in ver. 14 (comp. μάταιος λόγος, Plato, 
 Legg. ii. p. 654 E; Herod. iii. 56 ; μάταιος δοξοσοφία, Plato, Soph. 
 p. 231 B; μάταιος εὐχή, Eur. Iph. 7. 628, and the like, Isa. lix, 4 ; 
 Eccles. xxxi. 5; Acts xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 20), to which Hofmann, 
 too, ultimately comes in substance, explaining the πίστις ματαία 
 
CHAP. XV. 17, 18. 53 
 
 of their having comforted themselves groundlessly with that 
 which has no truth. But what follows shows that reswltlessness, 
 the missing of the aim, is denoted here (comp. Tit. iii. 9; Plato, 
 Tim. p. 40 D, Legg. v. p. 735 B; Polyb. vi. 25.6; 4 Mace. vi. 
 10). This, namely, has its character brought out in an awful 
 manner by ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν τ. ap. ὑμ.: then ye are still in your sins— 
 ie. then ye are not yet set free from your (pre-Christian) sins, not 
 yet delivered from the obligation of their guilt. For if Christ is not 
 risen, then also the reconciliation with God and justification have 
 not taken place; without His resurrection His death would not 
 be a redemptive death.’ Rom. iv. 25, and see on ver. 14. Re- 
 garding the expression, comp. 3 Esdr. viii. 76; Thuc.i. 78. See also 
 John viii. 21, 24, ix. 41. — dpa καὶ οἱ κοιμηθ. x.7.r.| a new con- 
 sequence of εἰ δὲ X. οὐκ ἐγήγ., but further inferred by dpa from 
 the immediately preceding ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἅμαρτ. ὑμ. : then those 
 also who have fallen asleep are accordingly (since they, too, can have 
 obtained no propitiation), ete. — οὗ κοιμηθ.] Observe the aorist : 
 who fell asleep, which expresses the death of the individuals as it 
 took place at different times. It is otherwise at ver. 20; comp. 
 1 Thess. iv. 14 f. — ἐν Χριστῷ] for they died? so, that they during 
 their dying were not out of Christ, but through faith in Him were 
 in living fellowship with Him. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xiv. 
 13. We are neither, with Grotius (comp. as early interpreters as 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret), to think simply of the martyrs (v= 
 propter), nor, with Calovius, widening the historical meaning on 
 dogmatic grounds, to include the believers of the Old Testament 
 (even Adam), for both are without support in the context ; but to 
 think of the Christians deceased. — ἀπώλοντο] they are destroyed, 
 because in their death they have become liable to the state of 
 punishment in Hades (see on Luke xvi. 23), seeing that they have, 
 
 1 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 329. 
 
 * Κοιμᾶσθαι is the habitually used New Testament euphemism for dying (comp. vv. 6, 
 11, 30), and in no way justifies the unscriptural assumption of a sleep of the soul, in 
 which Paul is held to have believed. See against this, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 419 ff. 
 In the euphemistie character of that expression, however, which classic writers also 
 have (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. viii. 2), lies the reason why he never uses it of the death 
 of Christ. This was recognised as early as by Photius, who aptly remarks, Quaest. 
 Amphiloch. 187 : tai μὲν οὖν τοῦ Χριστοῦ θάνατον καλεῖ, ἵνα τὸ πάθος πισφτώσηται" ἐπὶ δὲ 
 ἡμῶν κοίΐίμησιν, ἵνα ony ὀδύνην παραμυθήσηται. "Ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ παρεχώρησεν ἡ ἀνάστασις, 
 θαῤῥῶν καλεῖ θάνατον" ἔνθα δὲ iv ἐλπίσιν ἔτι μένει, κοίμησιν καλεῖ κι τ.}. 
 
54 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 in fact, died without expiation of their sins. That this does 
 not mean: they have become annihilated (Menochius, Bengel, 
 Heydenreich, and others), is clear from ἔτε ἐστὲ ἐν τ. ὧμ. ὑμ., 
 of which, in respect of the dead, the ἀπώλεια in Hades is the 
 consequence. 
 
 Ver. 19. Sad lot of the Christians (not simply of the apostles, 
 as Grotius and Rosenmiiller would have it), if this οὗ κοιμηθέντες 
 ἐν X. ἀπώλοντο turn out to be true! “If we are nothing more 
 than such, as in this life have their hope in Christ,—not at the 
 same time such, as even when κοιμηθέντες will hope in Christ, — 
 then are we more wretched,” etc. In other words: “If the hope 
 of the future glory (this object of the Christian hope is obvious 
 of itself, xiii 13; Rom. v. 2), which the Christian during his 
 temporal life places in Christ, comes to nought with this life, 
 inasmuch as death transports him into a condition through which 
 the Christian hope proves itself to be a delusion,—namely, into 
 the condition of ἀπώλεια, :---- 6 ἢ are we Christians more wretched,” 
 etc.—The correct reading is εἰ ἐν τῇ €. ταύτῃ ἐν X. HAT. ἐσμ. 
 μόνον. See the critical remarks. In ἐν τ. ζωῇ ταύτῃ the main 
 emphasis falls upon τῇ ζωῇ, as the opposite of κοιμηθέντες (comp. 
 Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. iii. 22; Phil. i. 20; Luke xvi. 25), not 
 upon ταύτῃ (so commonly); and μόνον belongs to the whole ἐν 
 τ. €. τ. ἐν X. ἠλπικότες ἐσμέν, so that the adverb is put last for 
 emphasis (Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 14, 1. 6. 1), not simply 
 to ἐν τ. €. ταύτῃ, as it is usually explained: “If we are such as 
 only for this life (dum hie vivimus, Piscator) have placed their 
 hope in Christ,” Billroth. This trajection of μόνον would be in 
 the highest degree violent and irrational. The perfect ἠλπικότες 
 indicates the continued subsistence during this life of the hope 
 cherished ; 2 Cor. i. 10; 1 Tim. iv. 10, ai. See Bernhardy, p. 378 ; 
 Ast, ad Plat. Legg. p. 408. Comp. the ἔολπα so frequent in 
 Homer; Duncan, Lew, ed. Rost, p. 368. That the hope has 
 an end with the present life, is not implied in the perfect 
 (Hofmann), but in the whole statement from εἰ on to μόνον. 
 The participle again with ἐσμέν does not stand for the tempus 
 finitum, but the predicate is brought into peculiar relief (Kiihner, 
 II. p. 40), so that it is not said what we do, but what we are 
 
 1 The conception of the ἐλπίς does not so coincide here with that of the πίστεις, as 
 Lipsius assumes, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 209. 
 
CHAP. XV. 20. 55 
 
 (Hoffer). Comp. as early as Erasmus, Annot. As regards’ ἐν 
 Χριστῷ, comp. Eph. 1. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 17; the hope is im Christo 
 reposita, rests in Christ. Comp. πιστεύειν ἐν ; see on Gal. 111. 26. 
 Riickert is wrong in connecting ἐν X. with μόνον (equivalent to 
 ἐν μόνῳ τῷ X.): “If we in the course of this life have placed our 
 whole confidence on Christ alone, have (at the end of our life) dis- 
 dained every other ground of hope and despised every other 
 source of happiness, and yet Christ is not risen ... is able to 
 perform nothing of what was promised; then are we the most 
 unhappy,” etc. Against this may be decisively urged both the 
 position of μόνον and the wholly arbitrary way in which the 
 conditioning main idea is supplied (“and if yet Christ is not 
 risen”). According to Baur, what is meant to be said is: “if the 
 whole contents of our life were the mere hoping,” which, namely, 
 never passes into fulfilment. But in that way a pregnancy of 
 meaning is made to underlie the ἠλπικότες, which must have 
 been at least indicated by the arrangement: εὖ ἠλπικότες μόνον 
 ἐσμὲν K.T.r. — ἐλεεινότεροι TavT.| more worthy of compassion than 
 all men, namely, who are in existence besides us Christians. 
 Comp. the passages in Wetstein. Regarding the form ἐλεεινός, 
 which is current with Plato also (in opposition to Ast) and others, 
 instead of ἐλεινός, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 87; Bornemann, 
 ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4.11, Lips. In how far the Christians—suppos- 
 ing them to be nothing more than persons who build their hope 
 upon Christ so long as they live, who therefore after their death 
 will see the hope of their life concerning the future δόξα vanish 
 away—are the most wretched of all men, is clear of itself from 
 their distinctive position, inasmuch, namely, as for the sake of 
 what is hoped for they take upon themselves privation, self- 
 denial, suffering, and distresses (Rom. viii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 17 f.; 
 Col. iii. 3), and then in death notwithstanding fall a prey to the 
 ἀπώλεια. In this connection of the condition until death with 
 the disappointment after death would lie the ἐλεεινόν, the tragic 
 nothingness of the Christian moral eudaemonism, which sees in 
 Christ its historical basis and divine warrant. The unbelieving, 
 on the contrary, live on carelessly and in the enjoyment of the 
 moment. Comp. ver. 32, and see Calvin’s exposition. 
 
 Ver. 20. No, we Christians are not in this unhappy condition ; 
 Christ is risen, καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἡμετέρου σωτῆρος ἀνάστασιν ἐχέγγυον 
 
56 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (guarantee) τῆς ἡμετέρας ἔχομεν ἀναστάσεως, Theodoret. Several 
 interpreters (Flatt, comp. Calvin on ver. 29) have wrongly regarded 
 vv. 20-28 as anepisode. See on ver. 29. — vuvi δέ] jam vero, but 
 now, as the case really stands. Comp. xiii. 18, xiv. 6, al. — ἀπαρχὴ 
 τῶν Kexouw.] as first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, pre- 
 dicative more precise definition to Χριστός, inasmuch as He is 
 risen from the dead. Comp. as regards ἀπαρχή used of persons, 
 avi, 15; Bom, xvi. 5; 985..1. 18; Plutarch; -Zhes. 16. ee 
 meaning is: “ Christ is risen, so that thereby He has made the 
 holy beginning of the general resurrection of those who have 
 fallen asleep” (comp. ver. 23; Col. 1 18; Rev. i. 5; Clement, 
 Cor. I. 24). Whether in connection with ἀπαρχή Paul was 
 thinking precisely of a definite offering of first-fruits as the con- 
 erete foil to his conception (comp. Rom. xi. 16), in particular 
 of the sheaves of the Paschal feast, Lev. xxii. 10 (Bengel, 
 Osiander, and others), must, since he indicates nothing more 
 minutely, remain undecided. The genitive is partitive. See on 
 Rom. viii. 23.— That by τῶν κεκοιμ. we are to understand 
 believers, is to be inferred both from the word itself, which in the 
 New Testament is always used only of the death of the saints, 
 and also from the fellowship with Christ denoted by ἀπαρχή. 
 And in truth what is conceived of is the totality of departed 
 believers, including, therefore, those too who shall still fall asleep 
 up to the Parousia, and then belong also to the κεκοιμήμενοι (the 
 sleeping) ; see ver. 23. This does not exclude the fact that 
 Christ is the raiser of the dead also for the unbelieving ; He 
 is not, however, their ἀπαρχή; but see on ver. 22. That those, 
 moreover, who were raised before Christ and by Christ Himself 
 (as Lazarus), also those raised by apostles, do not make the 
 ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμ. untrue, is clear from the consideration that 
 no one previously was raised to immortal life (to ἀφθαρσία) ; while 
 Enoch and Elias (Gen. v. 24; 2 Kings ii. 11) did not die at all. 
 Christ thus remains πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Acts xxvi. 23. 
 But the ἀπαρχή allows us to look from the dawn of the eschato- 
 logical order of salvation, as having taken place already, to the 
 certainty of its future completion. Luthardt says well: “The 
 risen Christ is the beginning of the history of the end.” 
 
 Ver. 21. Assigning the ground for the characteristic ἀπαρχὴ 
 τῶν κεκοιμ. “For since (seeing that indeed, 1. 21 f., xiv. 16 ; Phil 
 
CHAP. XY. 22. 57 
 
 ii. 26) through a man death is brought about, so also through a man 
 is resurrection of the dead brought about.” Wemust supply simply 
 ἐστί; but the conclusion is not (Calvin and many others) 6 con- 
 trariis causis ad contrarios effectus, but, as is shown by the δι᾽ 
 ἀνθρώπου twice prefixed with emphasis: a causa mali effectus ad 
 similem causam contrari effectus. The evil which arose through a 
 human author is by divine arrangement removed also through a 
 human author. How these different effects are each brought about 
 by a man, Paul assumes to be known to his readers from the 
 instructions which he must have given them orally, but reminds 
 them thereof by ver. 22.— θάνατος] of physical death, Rom. 
 v. 12.— ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν] resurrection of dead persons, abstractly 
 expressed, designates the matter ideally and in general. So also 
 θάνατος without the article ; see the critical remarks. 
 
 Ver. 22. More precise explanation confirmatory of ver. 21, so 
 that the first δι’ ἀνθρώπου is defined in concreto by ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδάμ, 
 likewise θάνατος by πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν K.T... — ἐν TO Addu | 
 In Adum τέ is causally established that all die, inasmuch as, 
 namely, through Adam’s sin death has penetrated to all, Rom. 
 v. 12 ; to which statement only Christ Himself, who, as the sinless 
 One, submitted Himself to death in free obedience toward the 
 Father (Phil. 11. 8; Rom. v. 19), forms a self-evident exception. 
 —év τῷ X.| for in Christ lies the ground and cause, why at the 
 final historical completion of His redemptive work the death 
 which has come through Adam upon all shall be removed again, 
 and all shall be made alive through the resurrection of the dead. 
 In this way, therefore, certainly no one shall be made alive 
 except in Christ,’ but this will happen to all. Since πάντες, 
 namely, is not to be restricted to the totality of believers, but to 
 be taken quite generally (see below), there thus results more 
 specially as the idea of the apostle: Christ, when He appears in 
 His glory, is not simply the giver of life for His believing people ; 
 He makes them (through the resurrection, and relatively through 
 the transformation, ver. 51) alive unto the eternal Messianic ζωή 
 (Rom. viii. 11); but His life-giving power extends also to the 
 other side, that is, to the unbelievers who must experience the 
 necessary opposite of the completed redemption ; these He awakes 
 
 ' Von Zezschwitz in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 1863, Apr. p. 197. Comp. also 
 Luthardt, v. d. letzten Dingen, p. 125. 
 
ὃ PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 to the resurrection of condemnation. Paul thus agrees with John 
 ν. 28f.; Matt. x. 28; and thus his declaration recorded in Acts 
 xxiv. 15 finds its confirmation in our text (comp. on Phil. iii. 11). 
 -- πάντες fwor.| which is to be understood not of the new 
 principle of life introduced into the consciousness of humanity 
 (Baur, newt. Theol. p. 198), but, according to the context and on 
 account of the future, in the eschatological sense, is by most inter- 
 preters (including Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, van Hengel, 
 Maier, Ewald, Hofmann, Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 145 ; Lutterbeck, 
 II. p. 232 ff.) held to refer only to believers. But ἕκαστος, ver. 
 23, requires us to think of the resurrection of all (so also 
 Olshausen, de Wette) ; for otherwise we should have to seek the 
 πάντες collectively in the second class ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, so 
 that of τοῦ Χριστοῦ and the πάντες would cover each other, and 
 there could be no mention at all of an ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι 
 in reference to the πάντες. Accordingly we must not restrict 
 ζωοπ. to blessed life, and perhaps explain (so de Wette, comp. 
 also Neander in Joc.; Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 291 f.; Stroh, 
 Christus d. Erstl. d. Entschlaf. 1866) its universality (πάντες) from 
 the (not sanctioned by the N. 1.) ἀποκατάστασις πάντων (comp, 
 Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit, 1836, p. 978; Kern in the Zid. 
 Zeitschr. 1840, 3, p. 24). Neither must we so change the 
 literal meaning, as to understand it only of the destination* of all 
 to the blessed resurrection (J. Miiller in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, 
 Ῥ. 751), or as even to add mentally the condition which holds 
 universally for the partaking in salvation (Hofmann)—which altera- 
 tion of what is said categorically into a hypothetical statement is 
 sheer arbitrariness. On the contrary, ζωοποιηθ. (see also ver. 36), 
 confronted with the quite universal assertion of the opponents 
 that a resurrection of the dead is a non ens (vv. 12-16), is in and 
 by itself indifferent (comp. Rom. iv. 17; 2 Kings v. 7; Neh. 
 ix. 6; Theod. Isa. xxvi. 14; Lucian, V. H. i. 22), the abstract 
 opposite of θάνατος (comp. ver. 36), in connection with which 
 the conerete difference as regards the different subjects is left for 
 the reader himself to infer. As early interpreters as Chrysostom, 
 Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret have rightly understood πάντες wor. 
 not simply of the blessed resurrection, but generally of bodily 
 
 1 Compt Krauss, p. 107 ff., who finds in the whole chain of thought the ἀποκα- 
 
 σάστασις τῶν πάντων. 
 
CHAP. XV. 23. 59 
 
 revivification, and without limiting or attaching conditions to the 
 πάντες. It denotes all without exception, as is necessary from 
 ver. 23, and in keeping with the quite universal πάντες of the 
 first half of the verse. See, too, on ver. 24. In opposition to 
 the error regarding the Apokatastasis, see generally Philippi, 
 Glaubenslehre, 111. p. 372 ff.; Martensen, Dogmat. ὃ 286. 
 
 Ver. 23. Hach, however, in his own division, sc. ζωοποιη θήσεται. 
 -- τάγμα] does not mean order of succession, but is a military 
 word (division of the army, legion, Xen. Mem. 111. 1. 11, and see 
 the passages in Wetstein and Schweighiuser, Lex. Polyb. Ὁ. 610 f.), 
 so that Paul presents the different divisions of those that rise 
 under the image of different troops of an army. In Clement also, 
 Cor. i. 37, 41, this meaning should be retained. — ἀπαρχὴ 
 Χριστός] as first-fruits Christ, namely, vivificatus est. What will 
 ensue in connection with the ἀπαρχή, after the lapse of the 
 period between it and the Parousia, belongs to the future. It 
 would appear, therefore, as though ἀπαρχὴ X. were not pertinent 
 here, where the design is to exhibit the order of the future 
 resurrection (ver. 22). But Paul regards the resurrection of all, 
 including Christ Himself, as one great connected process, only 
 taking place in several acts, so that thus by far the greater part 
 indeed belongs to the future, but, in order not simply to the com- 
 pleteness of the whole, but at the same time for the sure guarantee of 
 what was to come, the ἀπαρχή also may not be left unmentioned. 
 There is no ground for importing any further special design ; 
 in particular, Paul cannot have intended to counteract such 
 conceptions, as that the whole τάγμα must forthwith be made 
 alive along with its leader (von Zezschwitz), or to explain why 
 those who have fallen asleep in Christ continue in death and 
 do not arise immediately (Hofmann). For no reader could 
 expect the actual resurrection of the dead before the Parousia ; 
 that was the postulate of the Christian hope.'—We may note that, 
 in using ἀπαρχή, Paul departs again from his military mode of con- 
 ception as expressed in τάγμα; otherwise he would have written 
 apxos, ἀρχηγός, ἔπαρχος, κορυφαῖος, or something similar. — οὗ 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ] the Christians, Gal. v. 24; 1 Thess. iv. 16.— ἐν τῇ 
 
 1 This applies also against the view of Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 429, that Paul 
 
 wishes to anticipate the question, Why, then, has no other of them that sleep 
 arisen, seeing that Christ has truly arisen already ἢ 
 
00 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ] at His coming to set up the Messianic kingdom, 
 Matt. xxiv. 3; 1 Thess. ii, 19, iii. 13, iv. 15 ; Jas. v. ΠΕ Bonn 
 ii, 28 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4. Paul accordingly describes the τάγμα which 
 rises first after Christ Himself (as the ἀπαρχή) thus: thereafter 
 shall the confessors of Christ be raised up at His Parousia. It is 
 opposed to this—the only correct—meaning of the words to restrict 
 οἱ tod Χριστοῦ to the true Christians (οἱ πιστοὶ καὶ οἱ εὐδοκιμη- 
 κότες, Chrysostom), and thereby to anticipate the judgment (2 Cor. 
 v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10), or to include along with them the godly 
 of the Old Testament, as Theodoret, and of late Maier, have done. 
 Not less contrary to the words is it to explain away the Parousia, 
 as van Hengel does: “qui sectatores Christi fuerunt, guwm ille 
 hac in terra erat.” This is grammatically incorrect, for the artzecle 
 would have needed to be repeated ;* inappropriate as regards ex- 
 pression, for ἡ παρουσία τοῦ X. is in the whole New Testament 
 the habitual technical designation of the Jast coming of Christ ; 
 and lastly, missing the mark as to meaning, since it would yield 
 only a non-essential, accidental difference as to the time of disciple- 
 ship as the criterion of distinction (Matt. xx. 16).— ἔπειτα is 
 simply thereafter, therewpon, looking back to the ἀπαρχή, not 
 following next, as Hofmann would have it. The intervening 
 period is the time running on to the Parousia. Hofmann 
 inappropriately compares the use of the word in Soph. Ané. 611, 
 where τὸ ἔπειτα occurs and denotes what follows immediately 
 next ; see Schneidewiin on Soph. lc. ; also Hermann ὅν loc.: “a 
 quo proximum est cum eoque cohaeret.” 
 
 Ver. 24. Εἶτα τὸ τέλος] sc. ἔσται. Then shall the end be, 
 namely, as is clear from the whole context, the end of the 
 resurrection. Bengel puts it aptly: “correlatum primitiarum” 
 (comp. Matt. xxiv. 14, where τὸ τέλος is correlative with ἀρχή 
 in ver. 8, also Mark xiii. 7, 9); although Christ is only the jirst- 
 fruits of the believers, He is nevertheless at the same time the 
 beginning of ali. According to Paul, therefore, the order of the 
 resurrection is this: (1) it has begun already with Christ Him- 
 self ; (2) at Christ’s return to establish His kingdom the Christians 
 shall be raised up; (3) thereafter—how soon, however, or how 
 
 1 Because ἐν τῇ rapove, αὐτοῦ does not blend together with of τοῦ X. into a unity of 
 
 conception ; as, for example, σοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν σῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, 1 Tim. vi. 17, where σοῖς 
 σπλουσ. receives an essential modification of the conception by the note of time added. 
 
CHAP. XV. 24. 61 
 
 long after the Parousia, is not said’—sets in the last act of the 
 resurrection, its close, which, as is now self-evident after what has 
 gone before, applies to the non-Christians.” These too shall, it is 
 plain, be judged (vi. 2, xi. 32), of which their resurrection is the 
 necessary premiss (in opposition to Weiss, bzb/. Theol. p. 450 f.). 
 Paul has thus conjoined the doctrine of Judaism regarding a two- 
 fold resurrection (Bertholdt, Christol. pp. 176 ff., 203 ff.) with the 
 Christian faith, in accordance with the example of Christ Himself 
 (see on Luke xiv. 14; John v. 29). The majority of interpreters 
 after Chrysostom (including Reiche, Ewald, Maier) understand 
 τὸ τέλος of the end of the present age of the world,’ the final con- 
 summation (Weiss), the closing issue of things (Luthardt, v. d. 
 letzten Dingen, p. 127), which includes also the resurrection of all 
 men. In connection with this Rickert thinks (comp. Kling, p. 
 505) that era indicates the tmmediate following, one upon the 
 other, of the ἀνάστασις and the τέλος : Olshausen, again, that 
 Paul conceived the thousand years of the Messianic kingdom to 
 come in between the Parousia and the τέλος, and the resur- 
 rection of the non-Christians to be joined together with the τέλος. 
 But against the latter view it may be urged that, according to the 
 constant doctrine of the New Testament (apart from Rev. xx.), 
 with the Parousia there sets in the jinis hujus saeculi, so that the 
 Parousia itself is the terminal point of the pre-Messianic, and the 
 commencing-point of the future, world-period (Matt. xxiv. 3, al. ; 
 Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 344). Against the former view it may be 
 decisively urged, that εἶτα τὸ τέλος in the asswmed sense would 
 be inappropriate here, where the order of the resurrection is 
 stated and is begun with ἀπαρχή; further, that Paul would not 
 have given, in any proper sense at all, the promised order of 
 
 1 Within this intermediate time falls the continued conquest of Christ over all 
 hostile powers, vv. 24, 25, whose subjugation will not yet be completed at the 
 Parousia. This also in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 427. To import into this 
 period a process of redemption for the non-Christians and the wicked (Weizel, Stroh), 
 is neither in accord with Paul nor with the New Testament generally. 
 
 * Van Hengel, too, takes it rightly of the closing act of the resurrection, but 
 explains this in consequence of his incorrect understanding of οἱ τοῦ Χ, ἐν τῇ παρουσ. 
 aveod : ** tum ceteri Christi sectatores, qui mortem subierant, in vitam restituentur.” 
 
 3 Comp. Calvin: ‘‘finis, i.e. meta cursus nostri, quietus portus, conditio nullis 
 amplius mutationibus obnoxia.” Erasmus, Paraphr.: “‘finis humanarum vicissi- 
 tudinum.” 
 
62 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 succession, whether we take πάντες, ver. 22, simply of believers 
 or correctly of all in general. For in the former case there 
 could be no mention at all of several τάγματα (see on ver. 22) ; 
 and in the latter case Paul would have passed over in silence 
 the very greatest τάγμα of all, that of those who died non- 
 Christians. But how complete and self-consistent everything 
 is, if ἀπαρχή is the beginning, ἔπειτα of τοῦ Χριστοῦ the second 
 act, and εἶτα τὸ τέλος the last act of the same transaction! So 
 in substance among the old interpreters, Theodoret and Oecu- 
 menius, later Cajetanus, Bengel, Jehne, de reswrrect. carn. Alton. 
 1788, p. 19; Heydenreich, Osiander, Grimm in the Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1850, p. 784. In accordance with what has been said, 
 we must reject also the view of Grotius and Billroth, that τὸ 
 τέλος is the end of the kingdom of Christ (comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. 
 p. 575); im connection with which Billroth leaves it undecided 
 whether Paul conceived that there would be a thousand years’ 
 reion, but finds rightly that his conception is different from 
 that of Rev. xx. 1 ff The same considerations militate against 
 this view as against that of Riickert; moreover, τέλος requires 
 its explanation not from what follows, but from what precedes 
 it, with which it stands in the closest relation. This also in 
 opposition to de Wette (so, too, Lechler, apost. ει. nachapost. 
 Zeitalter, p. 140; Neander zm loc.), who understands the com- 
 pletion of the eschatological events (comp. Beza), so that the 
 general resurrection would be included in the conception (comp. 
 Theophylact : τὸ τέλος τῶν πάντων Kal αὐτῆς τῆς ἀναστάσεως); 
 similarly, therefore, as regards the latter point, with Luthardt and 
 Olshausen. Theodoret is right, in accordance with the Pauline 
 
 1 According to the Apocalypse, between the first and second resurrection there 
 is the thousand years’ reign, which ends with Satan’s being again let loose and 
 again overcome and cast into hell. Olshausen, who does not admit the variation 
 of the Pauline doctrine from the Apocalyptic, holds that the Revelation, which 
 handles the doctrine ex professo, is only more detailed. But this plea would only 
 avail if Paul had shown himself to be a Chiliast somewhere else. This, however, he 
 has never done, often as he had opportunity for doing so. In substance like 
 Olshausen’s is the view of de Wette and of Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 14, 
 who, however, puts this difference between Paul and the author of the Apocalypse, 
 that the former leaves the duration of the reign indefinite, and places the Messiah’s 
 conflict not at the end of this regnal period, but throughout the whole time of its 
 duration. But these differences are so essential, that they would do away with the 
 agreement of the two. 
 
CHAP. XV. 24. 63 
 
 type of doctrine (comp. Matt. xiii. 39 f.), in remarking already at 
 the preceding class (of rot X.): κατὰ τὸν τῆς συντελείας καιρόν. 
 For the intervening period between the ἔπειτα and the εἶτα is 
 by no means to be reckoned to the αἰὼν οὗτος, but to the 
 αἰὼν μέλλων, of which it is the first stage in time and develop- 
 ment; the absolute consummation is then the giving over of the 
 kingdom, which is immediately preceded by the last act of the 
 resurrection (τὸ τέλος). Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 
 2, p. 657) takes τὸ τέλος adverbially, and then the two clauses 
 commencing with ὅταν as protases to ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργ. 
 ὁ θάνατος, ver. 26, so that in this way δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν x.7.X., ver. 
 25, falls to the second of those two protases as a reason 
 assigned, inserted between it and the apodosis; consequently: 
 then shall finally, when .. ., when .. ., the last enemy be brought 
 to nought. This bringing to nought of death, he holds, in- 
 eludes the raising to life of such as, being ordained to life, did 
 not belong to Christ during their bodily existence, and thus there 
 is formed of these a second τάγμα, for the possibility of which 
 Hofmann adduces Rom. ii 15 f. But in what an involved and 
 violent way are the simple, clear, and logically flowing sentences 
 of the apostle thus folded and fenced in, and all for the purpose 
 of getting out of them at last a second τάγμα, which, however, 
 does not stand there at all, but is only inserted between the 
 lines ; and that, too, such a τάγμα as is entirely alien to the New 
 Testament eschatology, and least of all can be established by 
 Rom. ii. 15 f. (see im loc.) as even barely possible! And how 
 unsuitable it is to treat ver. 25, although introduced with solemn 
 words of Scripture, as a subordinate sentence of confirmation, 
 making the chain of protases on to the final short principal 
 sentence only the longer and clumsier! In this whole section 
 withal Paul employs only sentences of short and simple con- 
 struction, without any involved periods. It may be added 
 that, from a linguistic point of view, there would be nothing 
 to object against the adverbial interpretation of τὸ τέλος, con- 
 sidered solely in itself (comp. 1 Pet. iii, 8); but, after the 
 two elements which have gone before, the substantive explana- 
 tion is the only one which presents itself as accordant with the 
 context; nay, the adverbial use would have here, as the whole 
 exegetical history of the passage shows, only led the understand- 
 
64 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ing astray.— ὅταν παραδιδῷ x.7.A.] states with what τὸ τέλος 
 will be contemporaneous: when he gives over the (Messianic) 
 kingdom, etc. The church, or the fellowship of believers (van 
 Hengel), is never designated by ἡ βασιλ., not even vi. 9 f.; Eph. 
 v. 5; Col. 1. 13, iv. 11; neither is it so here. The conception, 
 on the contrary, is: the last act of Christ’s Messianic rule con- 
 sists in the close of the resurrection, namely, the raising up of 
 the non-Christians;*+ this He performs when He is about to 
 hand over the rule to God, after which the last-named wields the 
 government Himself and immediately, and Christ’s Messianic, 
 and in particular His kingly office—the regency which had been 
 entrusted to Him by God (Phil. 11. 9 f.)—is accomplished. It was 
 a purely dogmatic (anti- Arian) explaining away of the clear 
 meaning of the word to take παραδιδόναι as equivalent to 
 κατορθοῦν (Chrysostom) or τελειοῦν (Theophylact) ; such, too, was 
 the interpretation of Theodoret, Ambrosiaster, Cajetanus, Estius, 
 and others, including Storr and Flatt, according to which the giving 
 over of the kingdom to the Father denotes the producing the result, 
 that God shall be universally acknowledged as the supreme Ruler, 
 even by those who did not wish to acknowledge Him as such. 
 Hilary and Augustine (de Trin. 1. 8) have another mode of ex- 
 plaining it away: what is meant is the bringing of the elect to 
 the vision of God; similarly van Hengel (comp. Neander): Paul 
 means to say, “Christum sectatores 8105 facturum peculium Dei, 
 ut el vivant ;” and in like manner Beza, Heydenreich: we are to 
 understand it of the presentation of the citizens of the kingdom, raised 
 From the dead, before God. Another mode is that of Calovius, Bengel, 
 Osiander, Reiche, a/. (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 280): it is only 
 the form of the rule of Christ (namely, as the reconciler) that ceases 
 then; the regnum gratiae ceases, and the regnum gloriae follows, 
 which is what Luther’s and Melanchthon’s exposition? also comes 
 to in substance. No; Christ, although by His exaltation to the 
 
 1 With which their judgment is necessarily bound up ; but an express mention of 
 the latter as included was not called for by the connection of the passage. 
 
 2 Luther: Christ is now ruling through the word, not in visible public fashion, as 
 we see the sun through a cloud. ‘‘ There we see indeed the light, but not the sun 
 itself ; but when the clouds are gone, then we see both light and sun together in one 
 and the same subsistence.” Melanchthon: ‘‘ Offeret regnum patri, i.e. ostendet has 
 actiones (namely, of the mediatorial office), completas esse, et deinde simul regnabit 
 ut Deus, immediate divinitatem nobis ostendens.” 
 
CHAP. XV. 94. 65 
 
 right hand of the Father He has become the σύνθρονος of God, 
 is still only He who is invested with the sovereignty by the 
 Father until all hostile powers are overcome (comp. Phil. it 9 ff; 
 Eph. i. 21; Acts ii. 33 ff.; Heb. 1. 3, 13), so that the absolute 
 supreme sovereignty, which remains with the Father, is again 
 immediately exercised after that end has been attained ; the work 
 of Christ is then completed; He gives up to the Father the 
 Messianic administration of the kingdom, which has continued 
 since His ascension.” The thought is similar in Pirke Elies. 11. 
 “ Nonus rex est Messias, qui reget ab extremitate una mundi ad 
 alteram. Decimus Deus S. B.; tune redibit regnum ad auctorem 
 suum.” We must not mix up the spiritual βασιλεία, John xviii. 
 37, here, where the subject is the exalted Lord.—7T@ θεῷ «x. 
 πατρί] God, who is at the same time Father, namely, of Jesus 
 Christ. Comp. Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31; Gal.i 3; Eph. 
 meee 20: °Col. i. 35 1 Pet. 1.3; Jas. 27, ii. 92. Estius 
 says rightly: .“unus articulus utrumque complectens.” See 
 Matthiae, p. 714 ἢ, and on Rom. xv. 6. That Paul, however, 
 means by πατὴρ Χριστοῦ, not the supernatural bodily genera- 
 tion, but the metaphysical spiritual derivation, according to 
 which Christ is κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης the Son of God, see 
 on Rom. i. 4.—But this giving over of the kingdom will not 
 take place sooner than: ὅταν καταργήσῃ x.7.r., when He shall 
 have done away, etc. Observe the difference of meaning between 
 ὅταν with the present (παραδιδῷ) and with the aorist (futur. exact.). 
 See Matthiae, p. 1195. And this difference of tense shows 
 of itself that of the two clauses introduced with ὅταν, this 
 second one is subordinated to the first, and not co-ordinated with 
 it (Hofmann). Hence, too, we have no καί or τέ with the second 
 ὅταν. It is the familiar phenomenon of the double protasis, 
 the one being dependent on the other (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 
 2.35; Anab. iii. 2. 51).--- πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν... dSdvap.] every dominion 
 and every power and might, is to be understood, as ver. 25 proves 
 clearly, of all hostile powers, of all influences opposed to God, 
 whose might Christ will bring to nought (katapy., comp. 11. 6); 
 consequently we may not explain it simply of demoniac powers 
 
 1 Comp. upon the relation of the dominion of Christ, as conferred by the 
 supreme Sovereign, the parable in Luke xix. 12 ff. 
 
 * Comp. von Zezschwitz, l.c. p. 208 ; Luthardt, U.c. p. 128. 
 
 1 COR. II. E 
 
00 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others, including Heydenreich, Bill- 
 roth, Usteri, Neander, Luthardt), nor refer it to worldly political 
 powers as such (Grotius). In opposition to the context on account 
 of τοὺς ἐχθρούς, ver. 25, Calvin interprets it (comp. Cajetanus) : 
 “potestates lJegitimas a Deo ordinatas;” and Olshausen under- 
 stands al! rule, good as well as bad, and even that of the Son also, 
 to be meant. The subject of καταργ. must, it may be added, be 
 the same with that of παραδιδῷ, consequently not God (Beza, 
 Grotius, Bengel, Heydenreich, van Hengel, and others). 
 
 Vv. 25-28. Establishment of the fact that Christ will not 
 deliver up the kingdom until after the doing away of every 
 dominion, etc. (vv. 25-27, down to πόδας αὐτοῦ), but that then 
 this abdication will assuredly follow (vv. 27, 28)— For He must 
 (it is necessary in accordance with the divine counsel) reign 
 (wield the Messianic government) wntzl, ete. The emphasis of the 
 sentence as it advances falls on this wntil, ete. — ἄχρις οὗ «.7.A.] 
 words taken from Ps. cx. 1.—a Messianic psalm, according to 
 Christ Himself (Matt. xxii. 43 f.)—-which Paul does not quote, 
 but appropriates for himself. The subject to 67 is not God (so 
 even Hofmann), but Christ (so Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Neander, Ewald, Maier, comp. already Chrysostom), which is 
 necessarily required by the preceding αὐτόν, and by καταργήσῃ 
 in ver. 24, to which θῇ κτλ. corresponds.’ Not till ver. 27 
 does God come in as the subject without violence and in harmony 
 with the context. — ἄχρις οὗ indicates the terminus ad quem of 
 the dominion of Christ, after which epoch this dominion will have 
 ceased; see on ver. 24. The strange shifts which have been 
 resorted to in order to maintain here the subsequent continuance 
 of the rule of Christ (οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος was added 
 to the Nicene Creed in opposition to Marcellus in the second 
 Oecumenical Council), may be seen in Estius and Flatt. His 
 ᾿ kingdom continues, but not His regency, ver. 24. The seeming 
 contradiction to Luke i. 33 (Dan. vii. 14) is got rid of by the. 
 consideration that the government of Christ lasts on into the αἰὼν 
 μέλλων, and that after its being given over to the Father, the 
 kingdom itself will have its highest and eternal completion (ver. 
 28); thus that prophecy receives its eschatological fulfilment. 
 
 
 
 1 We are not, however, on this account to write πόδας αὑτοῦ instead of +. αὐτοῦ ; 
 the pronoun has proceeded from the standpoint of the writer. 
 
CHAP. XV. 26, 27. 67 
 
 Ver. 26. More precise definition of the ἄχρις οὗ. by specifica- 
 tion of the enemy who is last of all to be brought to nought. 
 As last enemy (whose removal is dealt with after all the others, 
 so that. then none is left remaining) is death done away (by 
 Christ), inasmuch, namely, as after completion of the raising of 
 the dead (of the non-Christians also, see on ver. 22) the might 
 of death shall be taken away, and now there occurs no more any 
 state of death, or any dying. The present sets it before us as 
 realized. Olshausen imports arbitrarily the idea that in ἔσχατος 
 there lies a reference not simply to the time of the victory, but 
 also to the greatness of the resistance. To understand Satan (Heb. 
 ii, 14) to be meant by θάνατος, with Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 373, 
 and others, following Pelagius, is without warrant from linguistic 
 usage, and without ground from the context. As regards the 
 personification of the death, which is done away, comp. Rev. 
 gee tA Isa. xxv. §&. 
 
 Ver. 27. Πάντα γὰρ. .. αὐτοῦ] Proof that death also must 
 be done away. This enemy cannot remain in subsistence, for 
 otherwise God would not have all things, etc. The point of the 
 proof lies in πάντα, as in Heb. ii. 8.—The words are those of 
 Ps. viii. 7, which, as familiar to the reader (comp. on Rom. ix. 7; 
 Gal. iii. 11), Paul makes his own, and in which he, laying out of 
 account their historical sense, which refers to the rule of man 
 over the earth, recognises, as is clear from ὅταν δὲ εἴπη κ.τ.λ., 
 a typical declaration of God, which has its antitypical fulfilment 
 in the completed rule of the Messiah (the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, 
 ver. 47). Comp. Eph. i. 22; Heb. ii. 8—The subject of ὑπέταξε 
 (which expresses the subjection ordained by God in the word of 
 God) is God, as was obvious of itself to the reader from the 
 familiar passage of the psalm. If God has in that passage of 
 Ps. viii. subjected all to the might of Christ, then death also 
 must be subdued by Him; otherwise it is plain that one power 
 would be excepted from that divine subjection of all things to 
 Christ, and the πάντα would not be warranted. — ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ 
 «.7.d.] δέ leading on, namely, to the confirmation of the giving 
 over of the kingdom to God, for which proof is still to be adduced : 
 “but, when He shall have said that the whole is subjected, then 
 without doubt He will be excepted from this state of subjection, 
 who has subjected the whole to Him.” The subject of εἴπῃ is 
 
68 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 not ἡ γραφή (de Wette, a/.), but neither is it Christ (Hofmann), 
 but the same as with ὑπέταξεν, therefore God, whose word that 
 passage of the psalm adduced is not as regards its historical 
 connection, but is so simply as a word of Scripture. Comp. on 
 vi. 16. The aorist εἴπῃ is to be taken regularly, not, with Luther 
 and the majority of interpreters: when He says, but, like vv..24, 
 28, as futurum exactum: diaerit (Irenaeus, Hilary). So, too, 
 Hofmann rightly." Comp. Luke vi. 26. Plato, Parm. p. 143 C; 
 Ion. p. 535 B; also ἐὰν εἴπῃ, x. 28, xii. 15. The point of time 
 of the quando, ὅταν, is that at which the now still unexecuted 
 πάντα ὑπέταξεν shall be executed and completed ; hence, also, not 
 again the aorist, but the perfect ὑποτέτακται. The progress of 
 the thought is therefore : “ But when God, who in Ps. viii. 7 has 
 ordained the ὑπόταξις, shall have once uttered the declaration, 
 that it be accomplished—this ὑπόταξις." This form of presenting 
 it was laid to the apostle’s hand by the fact that he had just 
 expressed himself in the words of a saying of Scripture (a saying 
 of God). In Heb. i. 6 also the aorist is not to be understood as 
 a present, but (πάλιν) as a futurum exactum. See Liinemann in 
 loc. — δῆλον ὅτι] Adverbial, in the sense of manifestly, assuredly ; 
 therefore: it (namely, the πάντα ὑποτέτακται) will clearly take 
 place with the exception of Him, who, etc. See regarding this use 
 of δῆλον ὅτε, which has to be analysed by means of supplying the 
 preceding predicate, Matthiae, p. 1494; Sturz, Lew Xen. 1. p. 
 661 ἢ; Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 53 A (p. 106). According to 
 Hofmann, δῆλον ὅτι is meant as, namely, as it is used likewise in 
 Greek writers, and especially often in grammarians (not Gal. iii, 
 11); from δῆλον to πάντα is only an explanation interposed, after 
 which the former ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ κιτιλ. is shortly resumed by ὅταν 
 δὲ ὑποταγῇ K.7.r., ver. 28. See regarding δέ after parentheses or 
 interruptions, Hartung, Partik. I. p.172 f. But, in the first place, 
 δῆλον ὅτι x.T.r. is a very essential point, no mere parenthetic 
 thought in the course of the argument; and, secondly, the re- 
 
 1 Who, however, with his reference of εἴπῃ to Christ as its subject gains the con- 
 ception: ‘‘ As Christ at the end of His obedience on earth said: rertAcoras, so shall 
 He at the end of His reign within the world say: πάντα ὑποτέτακται." But with 
 what difficulty could a reader light upon the analogy of that τετέλεσται ! How 
 naturally, on the contrary, would he be led to think of the subject of ὑπέταξεν, 
 
 consequently God, as the speaker also in εἴσῃ! This applies also in opposition to 
 Luthardt, lc. p. 131. 
 
CHAP. XV. 98. 69 
 
 sumption after so short and plain an intercalation would be alike 
 uncalled for, and, through the change in the mode of expression 
 (not again with εἴπῃ), obscure. — ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξ.] 1... with the 
 exception of God; but Paul designates God as the subjecting sub- 
 ject: “quo clarius in oculos incurreret, rem loqui ipsam,” van 
 Hengel. 
 
 Ver. 28. What Paul had just presented in the, as it were, 
 poetically elevated form ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ «.7.d., he now sums up in 
 the way of simple statement by ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ x.7.X., in order to 
 make the further element in his demonstration follow in accord- 
 ance with the δῆλον ὅτι x.7.A.— καὶ αὐτός] the Son Himself also 
 shall be subjected,’ not of course against His will, but as will- 
 ingly yielding compliance to the expiry of His government. 
 The Son wills what the Father wills; His undertaking is 
 now completed—the becoming subject is His “ last duty” (Ewald). 
 Here, too, especially by the older interpreters, a great deal of 
 dogmatic theology has been imported, in order to make the apostle 
 not teach—what, in truth, he does teach with the greatest dis- 
 tinctness—that there is a cessation of the rule of Christ. The 
 commonest expedient (so Augustine, de Trin. 1. 8, and Jerome, 
 adv. Pelag. i. 6, and the majority of the older expositors) is that 
 Christ according to His human nature is meant, in connection with 
 which Estius and Flatt take ὑποταγ. as: it will become right mani- 
 fest that, etc. Ambrosiaster, Athanasius, and Theodoret even 
 explained it, like Χριστός in xii. 12, of the corpus Christi mysticum, 
 the church. Chrysostom also imports the idea (comp. Theophylact 
 and Photius in Oecumenius) that Paul is describing τὴν πολλὴν 
 πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁμόνοιαν. -- iva ἢ ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν] 
 aim not of ὑποτάξαντι ait. τ. π. (Hofmann), but of αὐτὸς ὁ 
 υἱὸς ὑποταγήσ. «.7.X., which is indeed the main point in the 
 progress of the argument, the addition of its final aim now 
 placing the reader at the great copestone of the whole develop- 
 ment of the history of salvation. The object aimed at in the 
 Son’s becoming subject under God is the absolute sovereignty of 
 God: “in order that God may be the all in them all,’ i.e. in order 
 that God may be the only and the immediate all-determining 
 principle in the inner life of all the members of the kingdom 
 
 1 ὑποσαγήσεται is to be left passive (in opposition to Hofmann). God is the 
 ὑποτάσσων. Comp. Rom. viii. 20. But Christ is subject ἕχων. Comp. ver. 24. 
 
70 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 hitherto reigned over by Christ.’ Not as though the hitherto con- 
 tinued rule of Christ had hindered the attainment of this end (as 
 Hofmann objects), but it has served this end as its final destina- 
 tion, the complete fulfilment of which is the complete “glory of 
 God the Father” (Phil. ii. 11) to’ eternity. “Significatur hic 
 novum quiddam, sed idem summum ac perenne ...; hic finis et 
 apex; ultra ne apostolus quidem quo eat habet,” Bengel. Ac- 
 cording to Billroth, this expresses the realization of the identity 
 of the finite and the infinite spirit, which, however, is unbiblical.? 
 See in opposition to the pantheistic misunderstanding of the 
 passage, J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 158 ἢ Olshausen (following 
 older interpreters in Wolf) and de Wette (comp. Weizel and 
 Kern, also Scholten in the Τὰ. Jahrb. 1840, 3, p. 24) find here 
 the doctrine of restoration favoured also by Neander, so that 
 ev πᾶσι would apply to all creatures, in whom God shall be the 
 all-determining One. But that would involve the conversion 
 even of the demons and of Satan, as well as the cessation of the 
 pains of hell, which is quite contrary to the doctrine of the New 
 Testament, and in particular to Paul’s doctrine of predestination. 
 The fact was overlooked that ἐν πᾶσι refers to the members of the 
 kingdom hitherto ruled over by Christ, to whom the condemned, 
 who on the contrary are outside of this kingdom, do not belong, 
 and that the continuance of the condemnation is not done away 
 even with the subjugation of Satan, since, on the contrary, the 
 latter himself by his subjugation falls under condemnation. See, 
 moreover, against the interpretation of restoration, on ver. 22, and 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 431; Georgii in the Jib. Jahrb. 1845, 1, 
 p- 24; van Hengel in loc.— ἐν πᾶσιν] is just as necessarily 
 masculine as in Col. 11. 11. The context demands this by the 
 correlation with αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς «.7.r., for up to this last consum- 
 mation the Son is the regulating governing principle in all, 
 but now gives over His kingdom to the Father, and becomes Him- 
 self subject to the Father, so that then the Jatter is the all-ruling 
 One in all, and no one apart from Him in any. This in opposi- 
 
 1 Melanchthon: *‘ Deus ... immediate se ostendens, vivificans et effundens in 
 beatos suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam, justitiam et laetitiam.” 
 
 2 Equally unbiblical are the similar interpretations of the perishing (ἀπώλεια) of 
 the personal self-life and regeneration of the universe to form an immediate absolute 
 theocracy (Beck, comp. Rothe). 
 
- CHAP. XV. 29. 71 
 
 tion to Hofmann, who takes ἐν πᾶσιν as neuter, of the world, 
 namely, with regard to which God will constitute the entire con- 
 tents of its being in such a way as to make it wholly the created 
 manifestation of His nature; the new heaven and the new earth, 
 2 Pet. iii. 13, is only another expression, he holds, for the same 
 thing. This introduction of the palingenesis of the universe, 
 which is quite remote from the point here, is a consequence of 
 the incorrect reference of ἵνα (see above). Moreover, if the 
 meaning was to be: “All in the all,” πᾶσι would require the 
 retrospective article, which πάντα has in ver. 27 and ver. 28a. 
 See a number of examples of πάντα and τὰ πάντα ἔστι in the 
 specified sense in Wetstein, Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 209. Comp. 
 on Col. iii. 11, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727. 
 
 Ver. 29.’ ᾽Επεί] for, if there is nothing in this eschatological 
 development onward to the end, when God will be all in all, what 
 shall those do, 1.6. how absurdly in that case will those act, who have 
 themselves baptized for the dead? Then plainly the result, which 
 they aim at, is a chimera! Usually interpreters have referred 
 ἐπεί back to ver. 20, and regarded what lies between as a digres- 
 sion; Olshausen is more moderate, considering only vv. 25-28 
 in that light, so also de Wette; Riickert, again, holds that 
 Paul had perhaps rested from writing for a little after ver. 28, 
 and had had the sentence “ the dead arise” in his mind, but had 
 not expressed it. Pure and superfluous arbitrariness ; as always, 
 so here too, ἐπεί points to what has immediately preceded. 
 But, of course, in this connection the final absolute sovereignty 
 of God is conceived as conditioned by the resurrection of the 
 dead, which, after all that had been previously said from ver. 
 20 onwards, presented itself to every reader as a thing self- 
 evident. Hofmann makes ἐπεί refer to the whole paragraph 
 beginning with ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, as that is construed by him, down 
 to ver. 26, to which vv. 27, 28 have attached themselves as con- 
 firming the final abolition of death. But see on vy. 24, 27.— 
 
 1 See on the passage, Riickert, Expos. loci P. 1 Cor, xv. 29, Jena, 1847; Otto in 
 his dekalog. Unters. 1857 ; Diestelmann in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1861, p. 522 ff. ; 
 Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 571 f., and in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 
 627 ff.; Isenberg in the Meklenb. Zeitschr. 1864-65, p. 779 ff.; Koster in the Luther. 
 Zcitschr. 1866, p. 15 ff. Comp. also Elwert, Quaest. et obss. ad philol. sacram., Tiib. 
 
 1860, p. 12 ff. The various interpretations of older expositors may be seen especially 
 in Woif. 
 
72 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Upon the words which follow all possible acuteness has been 
 brought into play, in order just to make the apostle not say that 
 which he says. — τί ποιήσουσιν) makes palpable the senselessness, 
 which would characterize the procedure in the case assumed by 
 ἐπεί. The future is that of the general proposition,’ and applies 
 to every baptism of this kind which should occur. Every such 
 baptism will be without all meaning, if the deniers of the 
 resurrection are in the right. Grotius: “quid efficient” (comp. 
 Flatt). But that a baptism of such a kind effected anything, was 
 assuredly a thought foreign to the apostle. He wished to point 
 out the subjective absurdity of the procedure in the case assumed. 
 The interpretation: “ nescient quid agendum sit” (van Hengel) 
 does not suit the connection, into which Ewald also imports too 
 much: “are they to think, that they have cherished faith and 
 hope in vain ?” — ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν] The article is generic. Every 
 baptism which, as the case occurs, is undertaken for a dead 
 person, is a baptism for the dead, namely, as regards the category. 
 It must have been something not wholly unusual in the apostolic 
 church, familiarity with which on the part of the readers is here 
 taken for granted, that persons had themselves baptized once 
 more for the benefit of (ὑπέρ) people who had died unbaptized but 
 already believing, in the persuasion that this would be counted to 
 them as their own baptism, and thus as the supplement of their 
 conversion to Christ which had already taken place inwardly, and 
 that they would on this account all the more certainly be raised 
 up with the Christians at the Parousia, and made partakers of the 
 eternal Messianic salvation.” This custom propagated and main- 
 tained itself afterwards only among heretical sects, in particular 
 among the Cerinthians (Epiphanius, Haer. xxviii. 7) and among 
 the Marcionites (Chrysostom ; comp., moreover, generally Ter- 
 tullian, de resurr, 48, adv. Mare. v. 10).2 Among the great 
 
 1 Comp. Kriiger, § 1111, 7. 1; Elwert, p. 17; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 457; ad 
 Rom. 11. p. 9. 
 
 * It is to be noted that Paul does not speak at all in a self-inclusive way, as if of 
 something common to all, but as of third persons, τί ποιήσουσιν x.7.2. He desig- 
 nates only those who did it. Comp. already Scaliger. 
 
 3 Chrysostom says that among the Marcionites, when a catechumen died unbap- 
 tized, some one hid himself under the bed; then they asked the dead man if he 
 wished to be baptized, and on the living one answering affirmatively, they baptized 
 the latter ἀντὶ σοῦ ἀπελέόντοςς. Of the Cerinthians, again, Epiphanius says, l.c. : καὶ 
 
CHAP. XV. 29. 73 
 
 multitude of interpretations (Calovius, even in his time, counts 
 up twenty-three), this is the only one which is presented to us 
 by the words. Ambrosiaster first took them so ;' among the later 
 interpreters, Anselm, Erasmus, Zeger, Cameron, Calixtus, Grotius, 
 al.; and recently, Augusti, Denkwiirdigk. IV. p. 119 ; Winer, p. 
 165 [E. T. 219]; Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, Maier, Neander, 
 Grimm, Holtzmann (Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 741), also Kling 
 and Paret (in Ewald’s Jahrb. IX. p. 247 f.), both of which latter 
 writers call to their aid, on the ground, it is true, of x1. 30, the 
 assumption of a pestilence having then prevailed in Corinth. The 
 usual objection, that Paul would not have employed for his pur- 
 pose at all, or at least not without adding some censure, such 
 an abuse founded on the belief in a magical power of baptism 
 (see especially, Calvin im Joc.), is not conclusive, for Paul may 
 be arguing ex concesso, and hence may allow the relation of the 
 matter to evangelical truth to remain undetermined in the 
 meantime, seeing that it does not belong to the proper subject 
 of his present discourse. The abuse in question must afterwards 
 have been condemned by apostolic teachers (hence it maintained 
 itself only among heretics), and no doubt Paul too aided in 
 the work of its removal. For to assume, with Baumgarten- 
 Crusius (Dogmengesch. 11. p. 313), that he himself had never at 
 all disapproved of the βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, or to place, 
 with Riickert, the vicarious baptism in the same line with the 
 vicarious death of Christ, is to stand in the very teeth of the 
 fundamental doctrine of the Pauline gospel—that of faith as the 
 subjective ethical “ causa medians” of salvation. or the rest, 
 Riickert says well: “ Usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui dis- 
 pliceret, ad errorem, in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus 
 evellendum, ipsius autem reprehendendi aliud tempus expectari.” 
 
 7 παραδόσεως πρᾶγμα ηλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, ὡς τινῶν μὲν rap αὐτοῖς προφθανόντων σελευτῆσαι ἄνευ 
 βαστίσματος, ἄλλους δὲ ἀντ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς ὄνομα ἐκείνων βαπείζεσθαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει 
 ἀναστάσαντας αὐσοὺς δικὴν δοῦναι τιμωρίας, βάπεισμα μὴ εἰληφότας. Tertullian does not 
 name the Marcionites, but quotes the explanation of our text as applying to the 
 vicarious baptism, without approving of it. 
 
 1 «Tn tantum stabilem et ratam vult ostendere resurrectionem mortuorum, ut ex- 
 emplum det eorum, qui tam securi erant de futura resurrectione, ut etiam pro mortuis 
 baptizarentur, si quem mors praevenisset, timentes ne aut male aut non resurgeret, 
 
 qui baptizatus non fuerat. . . . Exemplo hoc non factum illorum probat, sed fidem 
 Jjixam in resurrectione ostendit.” 
 
74 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 The silent disapproval of the apostle is brought in by Erasmus 
 in his Paraphrase: “Fidem probo, factum non probo; nam ut 
 ridiculum est, existimare mortuo succurri baptismo alieno, ita 
 recte credunt resurrectionem futuram.” Epiphanius, Haer. 28, 
 explains it of the baptism of the clinici, of the catechumens on 
 their deathbed, who πρὸ τῆς τελευτῆς λουτροῦ καταξιοῦνται. So 
 Calvin, although giving it along with another interpretation 
 equally opposed to the meaning of the words; also Flacius, 
 Estius, al. But how can ὑπὲρ τ. νεκρ. mean jamjam moriturt 
 (Kstius) ! or how can the rendering “ wt mortuis, non vivis prosit” 
 (Calvin) lead any one to guess that the “ baptismus clinicorum ” 
 was intended, even supposing that it had been already customary 
 at that time!’ Chrysostom, too, runs counter to the words: 
 ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, τουτέστι TOV σωμάτων, Kal yap ἐπὶ τοῦτο 
 βαπτίζῃ, τοῦ νεκροῦ σώματος ἀνάστασιν πιστεύων. Paul, he 
 holds, has in view the article in the baptismal creed (which, 
 however, certainly belongs only to a later time): “1 believe in a 
 resurrection of the dead.” So, too, on the whole, Pelagius, 
 Oecumenius, Photius, Theophylact, Melanchthon (“ profitentes de 
 mortuis”’), Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, and others ; and some- 
 what to the same effect also Wetstein. Comp. yet earlier, 
 Tertullian : “ pro mortwis tingi pro corporibus est tingi.” Theodoret 
 gives it a different turn, but likewise imports a meaning, making 
 the reference to be to the dead body: ὁ βαπτιζόμενος, φησι, τῷ 
 δεσπότῃ συνθάπτεται, ἵνα τοῦ θανάτου κοινωνήσας Kal τῆς avac- 
 τάσεως γένηται κοινωνός" εἰ δὲ νεκρόν ἐστι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ οὐκ 
 ἀνίσταται, τί δήποτε καὶ βαπτίζεται. Luther’s explanation, 
 adopted again recently by Ewald and others, that “ to confirm the 
 resurrection, the Christians had themselves baptized over the graves 
 of the dead” (so Glass and many of the older Lutherans ; Calovius 
 leaves us to choose between this view and that of Ambrosiaster), 
 has against it, apart even from the fact that ὑπέρ with the genitive 
 in the local sense of over is foreign to the New Testament, the fol- 
 lowing considerations : (1) that there is a lack of any historical trace 
 
 1 Bengel also understands it of those who receive baptism, “‘ quum mortem ante 
 oculos positam habent” (through age, sickness, or martyrdom). Osiander agrees 
 with him. But how can ὑπὲρ ¢. vexp. mean that? Equally little warrant is there for 
 inserting what Krauss, p. 130, imports into it, taking it of baptism in the face of 
 death : ‘‘ Who caused themselves to receive a consecration to life, while, notwith- 
 standing, they were coming not to the living, but to the dead.” 
 
CHAP. XV. 29. 15 
 
 in the apostolic period of the custom of baptizing over graves, such 
 as of martyrs (for Eusebius, H. #. iv. 15, is not speaking of baptism), 
 often as churches were built, as is well known, in later times 
 over the graves of saints; (2) that we can see no reason why 
 just the baptism at such places should be brought forward, and 
 not the regarding of these spots as consecrated generally ; (3) that 
 to mark out the burial-places of pious persons who had fallen 
 asleep, would have been in no way anything absurd even without 
 the belief in a resurrection. And lastly, baptism took place 
 at that time not in fonts or vessels of that kind, which could be 
 set over graves, but in rivers and other natural supplies of water. 
 Other interpreters, following Pelagius, refer ὑπὲρ τ. vexp. to Christ, 
 taking βαπτ. in some cases of the baptism with water (Olearius, 
 Schrader, Lange, Elwert); in others, of the baptism with blood 
 (Al. Morus, Lightfoot). τῶν vexp. would thus be the plural of the 
 category (see on Matt. 11. 20). But, putting aside the considera- 
 tion that Christ cannot be designated as νεκρός (not even according 
 to the view of the opponents), the baptism with water did not 
 take place ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, but εἰς Χριστόν; and the baptism 
 with blood would have required to be forcibly indicated by the 
 preceding context, or by the addition of some defining clause. 
 “ For the benefit of the dead” remains the right interpretation. 
 Olshausen holds this aiso, but expounds it to this effect, that the 
 baptism took place for the good of the dead, inasmuch as a certain 
 number, a πλήρωμα of believers, is requisite, which must first be 
 fully made up before the Parousia and the resurrection can follow. 
 But this idea must be implied in the connection; what reader 
 could divine it? Olshausen himself feels this, and therefore 
 proposes to render, “ who have themselves baptized instead of the 
 members removed from the church by death.” So, too, in sub- 
 stance Isenberg (whose idea, however, is that of a militia Christi 
 which has to be recruited), and among the older interpreters 
 Clericus on Hammond, Deyling, Obss. II. p. 519, ed. 3, and Doder- 
 lein, Jnstit. I. p. 409. But in that case ὑπὲρ τ. vexp. would 
 
 1 Elwert, p. 15, defines the conception of the βαπείζεσθα, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ: “ eo fine et 
 consilio, ut per baptismum Christo addictus quaecunque suis promisit, tibi propria 
 facias.” But that is plainly included in the contents of the fare. εἰς X. or ἐν 
 ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου, and one does not sce from this why Paul should have chosen the 
 peculiar expression with ὑσέρ, 
 
76 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 be something not at all essential and probative for the con- 
 nection, since it is plain that every entrance of new believers 
 into the church makes up for the departure of Christians who 
 have died, but in this relation has nothing to do with the resur- 
 rection of the latter. This at the same time in opposition to van 
 Hengel’s interpretation, about which he himself, however, has 
 doubts: jor the honour of deceased Christians, “ quos exteri vitu- 
 perare vel despicere soleant.” According to Diestelmann, ὑπὲρ 
 τ. v.18 for the sake of the dead, and means: in order hereafter wnited 
 with them in the resurrection to enter into the kingdom of Christ ; 
 while the νεκροί are Christ and those fallen asleep in Him* But 
 it is decisive against this view, first, that there is thus comprised in 
 the simple preposition, an extent of meaning which the reader could 
 not discover in it without more precise in lication; secondly, that 
 every baptism whatsoever would be also in this assumed sense a 
 βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, whereby therefore nothing dis- 
 tinctive would be said here, such as one could not but expect 
 after the quite singular expression; thirdly, that Christ cannot 
 be taken as included among the vexpot, seeing that the resurrec- 
 tion of the Lord which had taken place was not the subject of 
 the denial of resurrection here combated, but its denial is attri- 
 buted by Paul to his opponents only per consequentiam, ver. 13. 
 According to Késter, those are meant who have themselves baptized 
 for the sake of their Christian friends who have fallen asleep, 1.6. 
 out of yearning after them, in order to remain in connection with 
 them, and to become partakers with them of the resurrection and 
 eternal life. But in this way also a significance is imported into 
 the simple ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, which there is nothing whatever to 
 suggest, and which would have been easily conveyed, at least 
 by some such addition as συγγενῶν καὶ φίλων. According to 
 Linder, the βαπτιζόμενοι and the νεκροί are held to be even the 
 same persons, so that the meaning would be: 7 they do not rise 
 (in gratiam cinerum), which, however, the article of itself forbids ; 
 merely ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν (vexp. would be in fact qualitative) must have 
 been made use of, and even in that case it would be a poetical 
 mode of expression, which no reader would have had any clue to 
 help him to unriddle. Similarly, but with a still more arbitrary 
 importing of meaning, Otto holds that οἱ βαπτιζόμ. are the deniers 
 1 Comp., too, Breitschwert in the Wértemb. Stud, X. 1, p. 129 ff 
 
CHAP. XY. 99. 77 
 
 of the resurrection, who had themselves baptized in order (which 
 is said, according to him, ironically) to become dead instead of living 
 men. Most of all does Hofmann twist and misinterpret the whole 
 passage (comp. also his Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 199 f.), punctuating it 
 thus: ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσ. of Bart. ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, εἰ ὅλως νεκρ. 
 οὐκ ἐγείρονται ; τί καὶ βαπτίξονται ; ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τί καὶ ἡμεῖς 
 κινδυνεύομεν ; the thought being: “170 those, who by means of sin 
 lie in death, become subject in their sins to an utter death from 
 which there is no rising, then will those, who have themselves baptized, 
 find no reason in their Christian status to do anything for them, 
 that-may help them out of the death in which they lie ;” nay, why 
 do they then have themselves baptized? and why do we risk our 
 lives for them? “Ὑπὲρ τῶν vexp. thus belongs to τί ποιήσ. : the 
 ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, placed for emphasis at the head of the last question, 
 applies to the βαπτιζόμενοι. Every point in this interpretation 
 is incorrect ; for (1) to do something for others, 1.6. for their good, 
 is an absolute duty, independent of the question whether there be 
 a resurrection or not. (2) But to do something which will help 
 them out of death, is not in the passage at all, but is imported 
 into it. (3) Those who can and should do something for others 
 are the Christians ; these, however, cannot have been designated 
 so strangely as by of βαπτιζόμενοι, but must have been called 
 in an intelligible way οἱ πιστεύσαντες perhaps, or at least 
 ot βαπτισθέντες. (4) The νεκροί can only, in accordance with 
 the context, be simply the dead, ie. those who have died, as 
 through the whole chapter from ver. 12 to ver. 52. (5) To 
 give to ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν another reference than ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, is 
 just as violent a shift as the severance of either of the two 
 from βαπτίζεσθαι, in connection with which they are symmetri- 
 cally requisite for more precise definition, and are so placed. 
 And when (6) ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν is actually made to mean “ in order to 
 induce them to receive baptism,” this just crowns the arbitrariness 
 of inserting between the lines what the apostle, according to the 
 connection, could neither say nor think. Moreover, ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν 
 could not have the emphasis, but only the ἡμεῖς introduced with 
 kai, like the βαπτίζ. previously introduced with καί --- εἰ ὅχως 
 νεκροὶ οὐκ éyeip.] Paraliel to the conditional clause to be supplied 
 in connection with ἐπεί. For Paul conceives of the resurrection 
 of the dead as being so necessarily connected with the completion 
 
78 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 of the Messianic kingdom that the denial of the one is also the 
 denial of the other. Jf universally (as v. 1) dead persons cannot 
 be raised up, why do they have themselves baptized also for them ? 
 since plainly, in that case, they would have nothing at all to do 
 for the dead. See, generally, on Rom. viii. 24; Pflugk, ad 
 Hee. 515; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152. This “also” betokens the 
 (entirely useless) swperinduced character of the proceeding. To 
 refer εἰ éyedp. still to what precedes (Luther and many others, the 
 texts of Elzevir, Griesbach, Scholz; not Beza) mars the parallelism ; 
 the addition of the conditional clause to ἐπεί would have nothing 
 objectionable in itself (in opposition to van Hengel), Plato, Prot. 
 p. 818 B; Xen. Anabd. vi. 1. 30, vii. 6. 22; 4 Mace. viii. ὃ. 
 Ver. 30. How preposterously we also are acting in that sup- 
 posed case ! — κα] does not, as some fancy, determine the meaning 
 of the preceding βαπτ. to be that of a baptism of suffering, but it 
 adds a new subject, whose conduct would likewise be aimless. — 
 ἡμεῖς] I and my compeers, we apostolic preachers of the gospel, we 
 apostles and our companions. Paul then, in ver. 31 f., adduces 
 himself, his own fortunes, in an individualizing way as a proof. 
 The argument is, indeed, only for the continuance of the spirit 
 (comp. Cicero, Zuse. 1.15); but this, when hoped for as blessed- 
 ness, has with Paul the resurrection as its necessary condition. 
 Ver. 31. "AmoOvyckw] I am occupied with dying, am a mori- 
 bundus. See Bernhardy, p. 370, and van Hengel. Strong way 
 of denoting the deadly peril with which he sees himself encom- 
 passed daily. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 11, xii 23; Rom. vill. 36, and 
 the parallel passages in Wetstein. The perfect, as in Eur. Hee. 
 431, would have been still stronger. — v7] a very frequent term 
 of asseveration in classical writers (in the New Testament only 
 here), always with the accusative of the person or thing by which 
 the asseveration is made (Kiihner, II. p. 396). By your boasting, 
 which I have in Christ, i.e. as truly as I boast myself of you in 
 my fellowship with Christ, in the service of Christ. Comp. Rom, 
 xv. 17. The boasting, which takes place on the part of the apostle, 
 is conceived of by him as a moral activity, which belongs to him. 
 Comp. the opposite μομφὴν ἔχειν, μέμψιν ἔχειν, and the like, 
 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. '732.— ὑμετέραν] is to be understood 
 objectively (Matthiae, p. 1032; Mitzner, ad Antiph. p. 221; Kihner, 
 IL. § 627, A. 6). Comp. xi 24; Rom. xi. 81. The expression 
 
CHAP. XV. 32. 79 
 
 brings out more strongly the reference to the person (as truly as 
 ye are the subject of my boasting). The Corinthians, whose sub- 
 sistence as a church is an apostolic boast for Paul, can testify to 
 himself what deadly perils are connected with his apostolic work. 
 He thus guards himself against every suspicion of exaggeration and 
 bragging. The asseveration does not serve to introduce what 
 follows (Hofmann), since that does not come in again as an asser- 
 tive declaration, but in a conditional form. 
 
 Ver. 32. Something of a special nature after the general 
 statement in ver. 31.— Jf J after the manner of men have fought 
 with beasts in Ephesus, what is the profit (arising therefrom) to me ? 
 — κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] has the principal emphasis, so that it contains 
 the element, from which follows the negative involved in the 
 question of the apodosis: “then it is profitless for me.” And the 
 connection yields from this apodosis as the meaning of κατὰ 
 ἄνθρωπον: after the manner of ordinary men, 1.6. not in divine 
 striving and hoping, but only in the interest of temporal reward, 
 gain, glory, and the like, whereby the common, unenlightened 
 man is wont to be moved to undertake great risks. If Paul 
 has fought in such a spirit, then he has reaped nothing from it, 
 for he καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκει. The many varying explanations’ 
 may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis. Against Rickert, who explains 
 it: “according to human ability, with the exertion of the 
 highest power,” it may be decisively urged that κατὰ ἄνθρ. in 
 all passages does not denote what is human per excellentiam. If, 
 therefore, the context here required that. κατὰ ἄνθρ. should express 
 the measure of power (which reference, however, lies quite remote), 
 then we must explain it as: with ordinary human power, without 
 divine power. According to Riickert’s view, moreover, κατὰ avOp. 
 would not be at all the principal element of the protasis, 
 which, however, from its position it must necessarily be. Inter- 
 pretations such as exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmiiller, Heyden- 
 reich), or ut hominwm more loqguar (Estius), are impossible, since 
 λέγω or λαλῶ does not stand along with it. The conjectwre was 
 hazarded: κατὰ ἀνθρώπων (Scaliger). — ἐθηριομάχησα) θηριομα- 
 χεῖν, to fight with wild beasts (Diod. 111. 42 ; Artem. ii. 54, v. 49), is 
 here a significant figurative description of the fight with strong and 
 
 1 Chrysostom and Theophylact : “cov τὸ εἰς ἀνθρώπους, as far as a beast-fight can take 
 place in reference to men. Theodoret: κατὰ ἀνθρώπινον λογισμὸν θηρίων ἐγενόμην βορά. 
 
80 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 exasperated enemies. So Tertullian (De resurr. 48: “ depugnavit 
 ad bestias Ephesi, illas sc. bestias Asiaticae pressurae”), Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Sedulius, Beza, Gro- 
 tius, Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Valckenaer, Stolz, 
 Rosenmiiller, as well as Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, 
 Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Krauss. Comp. 
 Appian. B. C. p. 763 (in Wetstein), where Pompeius says: 
 οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα. Ignatius, ad Rom. 5: ἀπὸ Συρίας μέχρι 
 “Ρώμης θηριομαχῶ διὰ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης, ad Tars. 1, ad Smyrn. 4. 
 Comp. Tit. 1..12.; 2 Tim. iv. 17; Ignatius, ad Eph. 7, as also 
 in classical writers brutal men are called θηρία (Plato, Phaed. p. 
 240 B; Aristophanes, Nub. 184; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 114). 
 See also Valckenaer, p. 332. Paul takes for granted that his 
 readers were acquainted with what he describes in such strong 
 language, as he might assume, moreover, that they would of them- 
 selves understand his expression figuratively, since they knew, 
 in fact, his privilege of Roman citizenship, which excluded a con- 
 demnation ad bestias, ad leonem. His lost letter also may have 
 already given them more detailed information. Notwithstanding, 
 many interpreters, such as Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, Cajetanus, Eras- 
 mus, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Lightfoot, Wolf, and 
 others, including Flatt and Billroth, have explained this of an actual 
 fight with beasts, out of which he had been wonderfully delivered." 
 It is objected as regards the privilege of a Roman citizen (see in 
 particular Flatt), that Paul was in point of fact scourged, etc., 
 Acts xvi. 22 f. But in Acts, lc, Paul did not appeal to his 
 right of citizenship, but made it known only after he had suffered 
 scourging and imprisonment, whereupon he was forthwith set 
 free, ver. 37 ff. Before he was thrown to the beasts, however, 
 he would, in accordance with his duty, have appealed to his right 
 of citizenship, and thereby have been protected. And would 
 
 1 From this literal interpretation arose the legend in the apocryphal Acta Pauli in 
 Nicephorus, H. £. ii. 25 (p. 175, ed. Paris, 1630), that he was thrown first of all to 
 a lion, then to other beasts, but was left untouched by them all.—Van Hengel (comp. 
 previously his Annot. p. 208), while likewise holding fast the literai view, has ex- 
 plained it only of a supposed case : ‘‘ Sumamus, me Ephesi depugnasse cum feris,” 
 etc. But this would not at all fit into the connection with the actual dangers and 
 sufferings which Paul has mentioned before. Observe, on the contrary, the climax : 
 κινδυνεύομεν, ἀποθνήσκω, ἐθηριομάχησα, Which latter word brings forward a particular 
 incident, which has occurred, as proof of the general ἀ ποθνήτκω. 
 
CHAP. XV. 39, 81 
 
 Luke in the Acts of the Apostles have left unmentioned an inci- 
 dent so entirely unique, which, among all the wonderful deliver- 
 ances of the apostle, would have been the most wonderful ? 
 Would not Paul himself have named it with the rest in 2 Cor. 
 xi, 23 ff, and Clement in 1 Cor. 5 ?—— Upon the non - literal 
 interpretation,’ however, it cannot be proved whether a single event, 
 and if so, which, is meant. Many of the older expositors think, 
 with Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, of the uproar of 
 Demetrius in Acts xix. But in connection with that Paul him- 
 self was not at all in danger ; moreover, we must assume, in accord- 
 ance with Acts xx. 1, that he wrote before the uproar. Perhaps 
 he means no single event at all, but the whole heavy conflict which 
 he had had to wage in Ephesus up to that time with exasperated 
 Jewish antagonists, and of which he speaks in Acts xx. 19: peta 
 ... δακρύων κ. πειρασμῶν K.T.A.— τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος;] what docs 
 it profit me? The article denotes the definite profit, conceived as 
 vesult, The self-evident answer is: nothing! Comp. ix. 17. As 
 the gain, however, which he gets from his fight waged not κατὰ 
 ἄνθρωπον, he has in view not temporal results, founding of churches 
 and the like, but the future glory, which is conditioned by the 
 resurrection of the dead (comp. Phil. ii. 10, 11); hence he con- 
 tinues: εἰ νεκροὶ «.T.’.— εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ eyelp.] is referred by the 
 majority of the old interpreters (not Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
 but from Pelagius and Theodoret onwards) to the preceding. It 
 would then be a second eonditional clause to τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος 
 (see on xiv. 6); but it is far more suitable to the symmetry in 
 the relation of the clauses (comp. ver. 29) to, connect it with what 
 follows (Beza, Bengel, Griesbach, and later expositors). For the 
 rest, it is to be observed that εἰ vexp. οὐκ ἐγείρ. corresponds to the 
 thought indicated by κατὰ ἄνθρ. as being in correlative objective 
 relation to it; further, that Paul has not put an ody or even a 
 yap after εἰ, but has written asyndetically, and so in all the more 
 vivid and telling a manner; likewise, that for the apostle moral 
 life is necessarily based on the belief in eternal redemption, with- 
 out which belief—and thus as resting simply on the abstract postu- 
 late of duty—it cannot in truth subsist at all; lastly, that the form 
 
 1 Which Krenkel also follows in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 368 ff., assuming 
 in connection with it a use of language among the primitive Christians based upon 
 Mark i. 13, which resolves itself into a hypothesis incapable of proof. 
 
 1 COR. Il. ¥ 
 
82 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 of a challenge is precisely fitted to display the moral absurdity of 
 the premiss in a very glaring light, which is further intensified by 
 the fact that Paul states the dangerous consequence of the earthly 
 eudaemonism, which τῇ γαστρὶ μετρεῖ καὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις τὴν 
 εὐδαιμονίαν (Dem. 324, 24) in set words of Scripture (comp. 
 Chrysostom), LXX. Isa. xxii. 13. Analogies to this Epicurean 
 maxim from profane writers, such as Euripides, Alcest. 798, may 
 be seen in Wetstein ; Jacobs, Del. epigr. vil. 28 ; Dissen, ad Pindar. 
 p. 500; comp. Nicostr. in Stob. Flor. lxxiv. 64: τὸ ζῆν οὐδὲν ἄλλο 
 ἐστὶν ἢ ὅστις av φάγῃ. See also Wisd. ii. 1 ff. — αὔριον] light- 
 minded concrete expression for what is to be very soon. Comp. 
 Theocr. xiii, 4.—It is not implied, however, in αὔριον yap 
 ἀποθνήσκ. that εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγ. includes the denial of life after 
 death absolutely (Flatt, Riickert, a/.), but Paul conceives of death 
 as the translation of the soul into Hades (comp., however, on 
 Phil. i. 25 ἢ, Remark), from which the translation of the right- 
 eous (to be found in Paradise) into the eternal Messianic life is 
 only possible through the resurrection. 
 
 Ver. 33 f. The immoral consequence of the denial of the 
 resurrection (ver. 32) gives occasion to the apostle now in con- 
 clusion to place over against that Epicurean maxim yet a word 
 of moral warning, in order thereby to express that the church 
 should not be led astray, 1.6. be seduced into immorality (πλα- 
 νᾶσθε, passive, see on vi. 9), by its intercourse with those deniers 
 who were in its bosom (τινὲς ἐν ὑμῖν, ver. 12; comp. ver. 34). 
 — φθείρουσιν x.7.d.] justification of the admonition μὴ πλανᾶσθε. 
 The words (forming an Jambic trimeter acatalectic*) are from the 
 Thais of the comic poet Menander (see his Mragmenta, ed. 
 Meineke, p. 75); although it still remains a question whether 
 Paul really recognised them as an utterance of this comic 
 poet (as a Mevavépevos φωνή, Lucian, Am. 43), or only gene- 
 rally as a common Hellenic saying, which, just as such, may 
 have been taken up by that poet also. The latter is probable 
 from the proverbial character of the words, and in the absence of 
 any indication whatsoever that they are the words of another. 
 
 1 The reading xpicf (Lachmann ; Elzevir, with wrong accent: χρῆσθ᾽), which is, 
 however, almost without support, suits the metre. According to the correct reading 
 χρηστά, Paul has left the metrical form out of account, perhaps was not aware of it 
 at all. 
 
CHAP. XY. 33, 84. 83 
 
 Similar classical passages may be seen in Alberti, Obss. Ὁ. 356 ff, 
 and Wetstein. Comp. especially, Theognis 35 f.— ἤθη χρηστά) 
 good morals, the opposite being κακά, Soph. 0. R. 610, Antig. 516, 
 and πονηρά, Plato, Gorg. p. 499 E, Phil. p. 40 E; Plat. Def. 
 Ρ. 412 E: χρηστότης ἤθους ἀπλαστία μετ᾽ εὐλογιστίας. --- 
 ὁμιλίαι κακαί] Vulgate: οοἰϊοψιυΐα mala. So Luther, Erasmus, 
 and many, including van Hengel and Krauss. Comp. Dem. 
 1468, 27, 1466, 2; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 6. But the context does 
 not justify this restriction of the conception. Comp. Beza. 
 Hence it is rather: good-for-nothing intercourse, bad company. 
 Regarding the plural, comp. Plato, Pol. p. 550 B: ὁμιλίαις... 
 κακαῖς κεχρῆσθαι, Soph. Ο. R. 1489; Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 5, 
 Hier. iv. 1. In the application the readers were meant to 
 think of intercourse with the deniers of the resurrection, to be on 
 their guard against moral contagion through them. — ἐκνήψατε 
 δικαίως, K. μὴ ἁμαρτ.] Parallel to μὴ πλανᾶσθε, but representing 
 the readers as already disturbed in the moral clearness and sound- 
 ness of their judgment, already transferred by the influence of 
 those τινές, ver. 34, into a certain degree of moral bondage 
 (intoxication) ; for the idea of being completely sobered from the 
 condition in which they were before their conversion (Hofmann) is 
 remote from the text, as, in particular, the very ground assigned, 
 which immediately follows, points to the hurtful influence of the 
 τινές. He separates the church from these individuals among 
 her members; the former is not to let herself be injured through 
 the latter (v. 6), but to become sober, in so far as she has already 
 through them experienced loss of moral soberness. Become 
 sober after the right fashion, properly as it behoves. Comp. Livy, 
 i. 41: eapergiscere vere; Homer, Od. xiv. 90: οὐκ ἐθέλουσι δικαίως 
 pvacOa, Dem. 1180, 25. Comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 547. 
 As regards ἐκνήφειν, to become sober in a non-literal respect, comp. 
 Plutarch, Dem. 20; Aret. iv. 3; Joel i. 5. Bengel, we may add, 
 says well: “ἐκνήψατε exclamatio plena majestatis apostolicae.” 
 The aorist imperative denotes the swift, instant realization of 
 the becoming sober; μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, on the contrary, requires 
 the continuous abstinence from sinning. — ἀγνωσίαν yap x.7.d.] 
 
 1 The context gives no warrant for lending (comp. on Eph. iv. 26) to the impera- 
 
 tive vim futuri (Bengel, Krauss). As regards the general μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν, comp. the 
 ποιῆσαι κακὸν μηδίν, 2 Cor. xiii. 7, 
 
84 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Sor some persons have ignorance of God; how carefully should you 
 guard yourselves from being befooled by such! ᾿Αγνωσία (1 Pet. 
 il. 15) is the opposite of γνῶσις, see Plato, Pol. v. p. 477 A, 
 Soph. p. 267 B. The τινές are those spoken of in ver. 12, not, as 
 Billroth arbitrarily assumes, only a small portion of them. The 
 nature of their unbelief in the resurrection is apprehended as in 
 Matt. xxii. 29. The expression ἀγν. ἔχειν, “gravior est phrasis 
 quam ignorare,’ Bengel. They are affected with it. Comp. 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 574 E.— πρὸς ἐντρ. ip. eyo] For 
 it disgraced the church, that such tevés were within it ; all the more 
 alert should it be. Comp. vi. 5, v. 6. Ὑμῖν belongs to λέγω. 
 
 tEMARK on vv. 32—34.—Billroth, followed by Olshausen, is too 
 hasty in inferring from ver. 32 that the opponents of a resurrection 
 would themselves have abhorred the maxim φάγωμεν xr.A. Paul 
 assumes of his readers generally that they abhorred that maxim as 
 anti-Christian ; but the τινὲς among them, who denied the resurrec- 
 tion, must, according to the warning and exhortation vv. 33, 34, 
 have been already carried away in consequence of this denial to 
 « frivolous tendency of life ; otherwise Paul could not warn against 
 being led away by their immoral companionship (ver. 33). Nay, 
 several others even must already have become shaken in their moral 
 principles through the evil influence of the τινές ; else Paul could 
 not give the exhortations which he does in ver. 984. For that, in 
 ver. 99 ἢ, he is not warning against mistaking and neglecting of saving 
 truths, as Hofmann thinks, but against corruption of wholesome 
 habits, consequently against immorality, is certain from ἤθη in the 
 words of Menander, and from μὴ azapr.; hence, also, the danger of 
 going astray is not to be conceived of as having arisen through 
 intercourse with heathen fellow-countrymen (Hofmann), but through 
 association with those τινές in the church, who had become morally 
 careless by reason of the denial of the resurrection. This is 
 demanded by the whole connection. The τινές were sick members 
 of the church-body, whom Paul desires to keep from further dif- 
 fusion of the evil, alike in faith and in ///e. 
 
 Ver. 35. The discussion on the point, that the dead arise, is 
 now closed. But now begins the discussion regarding the nature 
 of the future bodies. ‘This is the second, the special part of the 
 apology, directed, namely, against the grownds upon which they dis- 
 puted the resurrection. — ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις] but, notwithstanding of my 
 arguments hitherto adduced, some one will say. Comp. Jas. 1]. 18. 
 “ Ohbjicit in adversa persona quod doctrinae resurrectionis contra- 
 
CHAP. XV. 36-41. 85 
 
 rium prima facie videtur; neque enim interrogatio ἰδία quaerentis 
 est modum cum dubitatione, sed ab impossibili arguentis,” Calvin. 
 - πῶς] This general and not yet concretely defined expression 
 is afterwards fixed more precisely by ποίῳ δὲ σώματι. The δέ 
 places πῶς and ποίῳ δὲ σώματι in such a parallel relation (see 
 Hartung, Partik. I. p. 168 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 362) that it 
 does not, indeed, mean or again (Hofmann), but sets over against 
 the πῶς that which is intended to be properly the scope of the 
 question: but (1 mean) with what kind of a body do they come ? 
 Then from ver. 36 onward there follows the answer to the 
 question, which has been thus more precisely formulated. — 
 épxovrat] namely, to those still alive at the Parousia, 1 Thess. 
 iv. 16 ἢ The presents éyecp. and épy. bring what is in itself future 
 vividly before us as a present object of contemplation. Comp. Dissen, 
 ad Pind. Nem. iv. 39. So the same tense may bring the past also 
 before us as present (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 253). Erasmus puts 
 it happily: “actio rei declaratur absque significatione temporis.” 
 Vv. 36-41. In the first place, analogies from the experience 
 of nature,’ by way of preparation for the instruction, which then 
 follows at ver. 42 ff., regarding the ποιότης of the resurrection- 
 body inquired about.— d¢pwv] The deniers have thus, on the 
 assumption of the identity of the resurrection-body with the body 
 which is buried, found the ποιότης of the former to be inconceiv- 
 able; but how foolish is this assumption! The nominative is not 
 address, because without the article, but exclamation; so that to 
 explain it grammatically we must supply εἶ. Comp. Luke xii. 20 
 (Lachmann, Tischendorf), and see, generally, Bernhardy, p. 67 ; 
 Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228]; Kiihner, II. ὃ 507 c, remark. — 
 σὺ ὃ σπείρεις] What thou sowest, is not made alive, et~ The 
 σύ has the emphasis of the subsequent contrast with the divine 
 agency in ver. 38: Thou on thy part; hence we must not take 
 ἄφρων σύ together. — ζωοποιεῖται] description (suggested by the 
 thing typified) of the springing up of the seed, which must first of 
 all die ; inasmuch, namely, as the living principle in it, the germ, 
 grows out thereof, and the grain containing it becomes subject to 
 decomposition. Comp. John xii. 24. The ἀποθανεῖν is therefore, in 
 the case of the seed sown, the analogue of the decay of the body 
 buried. As the seed-corn in the earth must die by decomposition, 
 1 Comp. Clement, 1 Cor. 24. 
 
86 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 in order to become alive in the springing germ, so must the body 
 decay in the earth in order to become alive in the resurrection- 
 body arising out of it at the resurrection of the dead. That it is not 
 simply the necessity of dying to attain the resurrection-life (van 
 Hengel; comp. Riickert and Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 374) 
 which is depicted, is clear from this, that in the explanation of the 
 resurrection the being sown necessarily represents the burial, and 
 consequently the ἀποθανεῖν of the seed -corn, because it follows 
 after the being sown, must correspond to the decay of the body. 
 
 Ver. 37. Kal ὃ σπείρεις) And what thow sowest,—not the body, 
 which is to be, sowest thou. “O σπείρευς makes the attention rest 
 upon itself first in general, independently of what follows, which 
 forms a complete sentence by itself. See on Matt. vii. 24,x. 14; 
 Luke xxi. 6. What shall spring out of the grain, the plant, Paul calls 
 TO σῶμα TO yevnoop., because he has it before his mind as the 
 analogue of the resurrection-body. The emphasis, however, lies 
 upon τὸ yevno. — γυμνὸν κόκκον] a naked grain, which is not yet 
 clothed, as it were, with a plant-body (see what follows). Comp. 
 2 Cor. ν. ὃ. To this future plant-body corresponds the future 
 resurrection-body with which that, which is buried and decays, is 
 clothed. That it is not the soul or the πνεῦμα of the departed 
 which corresponds to the γυμνὸς κόκκος (Holsten), is shown by ὃ 
 omre(pers ; comp. with ver. 42 ff.— εἰ τύχοι σίτου] it may be of 
 wheat. Here, too, εἰ tvyot does not mean, for example, but, if it 
 so happens (that thou art just sowing wheat). See on xiv. 10.—% 
 τινος τῶν λοιπῶν] neuter. We are to supply from the connection 
 σπερμάτων. Comp. Nagelsbach on the Jliad, p. 304, ed. 3. 
 
 Ver. 38. Ὃ δὲ θεός] setting over against the σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, 
 ver. 36, what is done on God's part with the seed which on man’s 
 part is sowed.—70ér.] has willed. It denotes the (already 
 at the creation) completed act of the divine volition as em- 
 bodied in the laws of nature. — καί] and indeed, as iii. 5. — 
 The diversity of the (peculiar, ἴδιον) organisms, which God bestows 
 upon—zi.e. causes to spring forth out of—the different seeds 
 sown, while preserving the identity of the kinds, exposes all the 
 more the folly of the question: ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται, in 80 
 far as it was meant to support the denial of the resurrection. As 
 if God, who gives such varied plant-bodies to the sown grains, 
 each according to its kind, could not also give new resurrection- 
 
CHAP. XV. 39--41. 87 
 
 bodies to the buried dead! How foolish to think that the same 
 body which is buried (as eg. the Pharisees conceived of the 
 matter) must come forth again, if there is a resurrection! Every 
 stalk of wheat, etc., refutes thee! 
 
 Vv. 39-41. In order to make it conceivable that the same 
 body need not come forth again, further reference is now made to 
 the manifold diversity of organic forms in nature; so also faith 
 in the resurrection cannot be bound up with the assumption of 
 the sameness of the present and the future bodily organism. 
 Very diverse are, namely: (1) the kinds of animal flesh (ver. 39) ; 
 (2) the heavenly and earthly bodies (ver. 40); and (3) the 
 lustre of the sun, of the moon, and of the stars (ver. 41).— 
 σὰρξ κτηνῶν] flesh of cattle, 1.6. not guadrupedum generally (so de 
 Wette and Osiander, following older interpreters), but also not 
 simply jumentorum (van Hengel), but pecorum (Vulgate), which 
 are kept for household use and for burden-bearing; Plato, Crit. 
 p- 109 B; Herod. ii. 41; Xen. Anab. πὶ 1. 19, iv. 7.17; Luke 
 x. 34; Acts xxiii. 24. — σώματα ἐπουράνια] heavenly bodies, ie. 
 bodies to be found in heaven. Comp. on John iii. 12; Phil. 11, 10. 
 The bodies of the angels are meant by this (Matt. xxii. 30; Luke 
 xx. 36; Phil. 14). So, too, de Wette." Were we to understand 
 by these words, as is usually done (so, among others, Hofmann ; 
 Hahn, Theol. d. N. Test. I. p. 265; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 66; 
 Philippi, Glaubensl. IL. p. 292 f.), the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, 
 and stars), we should be attributing to the apostle either our 
 modern use of language, or the non-biblical mode of regarding the 
 stars as living beings (see Galen, de wsw part. 17 in Wetstein”), 
 which is not to be proved even from Job xxxviii. 7. The same 
 holds in opposition to Billroth, who understands the words as mean- 
 ing heavenly organisms generally and indefinitely, from which sun, 
 moon, and stars are then named by way of example. Sun, moon, 
 and stars are not comprehended at all under σώματα ἐπουρ., and 
 are first adduced in ver. 41 as a third analogue, and that simply 
 in reference to their manifold δόξα. The whole connection 
 
 1 Comp. also Kurtz, Bibel ει. Astron. p. 157; Holsten, 5. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
 p. 72f. 
 
 3 Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Theodoret) go entirely astray, sup- 
 posing that cw, troup. denotes the pious, and σώμ. ἐπίγεια the godless, in spite of the 
 δόξα which is attributed to both. 
 
83 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 requires that σώματα should be bodies as actual organs of life, not 
 inorganic things aud materials; as, for instance, stones (Lucian, 
 vutt. auct. 25), water (Stob. fl. app. 11. 3), and material things 
 generally (Plato, Polit. p. 288 D) are designated in Greek writers 
 —not, however, in the New Testament—by σῶμα. Had’ Paul 
 meant heavenly bodies in the modern sense, he would in that 
 case, by describing them as bodies, have committed a μετάβασις 
 εἰς ἄλλο γένος ; whereas, on the contrary, the bodies of the angels, 
 especially when we consider the similarity of those who are raised 
 up to the angels, which was taught by Jesus Himself, were 
 essentially included as relevant to the subject in the list of the 
 diversities of bodily organization here enumerated (in opposition 
 to Hofmann’s objection). He then, ver. 41, brings forward in 
 addition the heavenly bodies only in respect of the diversity— 
 not of their bodies, but—of the lustre of their light. — σώματα 
 ἐπίγεια) bodies to be found on earth, that is, the bodies of men 
 and beasts. — Both kinds of bodies, the heavenly and earthly, are 
 of different sorts of peculiar glory,—the former encompassed with 
 a heavenly radiancy (Matt. xxviii. 3; Acts xii. 7, al.), the latter 
 manifesting strength, grace, beauty, skilful construction, and the 
 like in their outward appearance. Notice that in ver. 40 ἑτέρα 
 is used, because the subjects are of specifically different kinds 
 and qualities. It is otherwise in ver. 41, comp. ver. 39.— Ver. 
 41. Sun-lustre is one thing, and moon-lustre another, and lustre 
 of stars another (i.e. another than solar and lunar lustre). Paul 
 uses, however, ἀστέρων, not ἀστέρος, because the stars too among 
 themselves have not one and the same lustre; hence he adds 
 by way of explanation: for star differs from star in lustre. 
 Διαφέρει is thus simply difert (Vulgate), not excellit (Matt. vi. 26, 
 x. 31, xii. 12), which the context does not suggest. Regarding 
 ἐν with διαφέρει, comp. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 568A; Dem. 291, 
 17; Bremi, ad Jsocr. I. p. 169. The accusative or dative of 
 more precise definition is more usual (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394). 
 The design of ver. 4 is not to allude to the different degrees 
 of glory of the bodies of the saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theodoret, Calovius, Estius, al.), which is neither indicated in 
 what precedes nor adverted to in the application ver. 42 ff., and 
 hence has no foundation in the context; but Calvin rightly 
 remarks: “ Non disputat, qualis futura sit conditionis differentia 
 
CHAP. XV. 42-44. 89 
 
 inter sanctos post resurrectionem, sed quid nune differant corpora, 
 nostra ab iis, quae olim recipiemus ... ac si diceret: nihil in 
 resurrectione futurum doceo, quod non subjectum sit jam omnium 
 oculis.” Comp. also Krauss——Generally, let us beware of forcing 
 upon the individual points in vv. 39-41 different individual 
 references also,’ contrary to the application which the apostle 
 himself makes in vv. 42-44. 
 
 Vv. 42—44, Application of the passage from ver. 36 (σπείρεται) 
 on to ver. 41.— οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τ. νεκρ.] sc. ἐστι. So does 
 it hold also with the resurrection of the dead, in so far, namely, as 
 the resurrection-body will be quite otherwise constituted than the 
 present body.—ZJt is sown in corruption, etc. What is sown and 
 raised up, is self-evident, and is also distinctly said in ver. 44, 
 on occasion being given by the adjectival form of expression, into 
 which the discourse there passes. — On σπείρεται, the remark of 
 Grotius is sufficient: “cum posset dicere sepelztur, maluit dicere 
 seritur, ub magis insisteret similitudini supra sumtae de grano.” 
 The apostle falls back on the image of the matter already familiar 
 to the readers, because it must have by this time become clear to 
 them in general from this image, that a reproduction of the pre- 
 sent body at the resurrection was not to be thought of. The 
 fact, again, that the image of sowing had already gone before in 
 this sense,—in the sense of interment,—excludes as contrary to 
 the text, not only van Hengel’s interpretation, according to which 
 σπείρεται is held to apply to generation and man is to be con- 
 ceived as the subject, but also Hofmann’s view, that the sowing is 
 the giving up of the body to death, without reference to the point 
 whether it be laid in the earth or not. The sowing is man’s act, 
 but the ἐγείρεται God’s act, quite corresponding to the antithesis 
 ef σύ, ver. 36, and ὁ δὲ θεός, ver. 38. — ἐν φθορᾷ] in corruption, 
 
 1 Tertullian, de resurr. 52, may serve as a warning ; hesays on ver. 39: ““ Alia caro 
 hominis, i.e. servi Dei; alia jumenti, i.e. ethnici; alia volucrum, i.e. martyrum ; 
 alia piscium, i.e. quibus aqua baptismatis sufficit.” On ver. 41, again: ‘alia solis 
 gloria, i.e. Christi; alia lunae, i.e. ecclesiae; et alia stellarum, i.e. seminis Abrahae.” 
 
 * It is to be observed that Paul, in his whole discussion regarding the nature of 
 the future bodies, has in view only those of the first resurrection (see on ver. 23), 
 leaving quite out of account the bodies of those who shall belong to the second 
 resurrection, and consequently to the «τέλος, ver. 24. He has in fact to do with 
 believers, with future sharers in the resurrection of the righteous (comp. on Phil. iii. 
 11), whose resurrection-hope was being assailed, 
 
90 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ie. in the condition of decay, is the body when it is buried.’ Of 
 a wholly different nature, however, will be the new body which 
 raises itself at the resurrection-summons (ver. 52 f.) out of the 
 buried one (as the plant out of the seed-corn) ; τέ is raised in the 
 condition of incorruptibility. Comp. vv. 50, 52. --- ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ] in 
 the condition of dishonowr. Chrysostom (τί yap εἰδεχθέστερον 
 νεκροῦ διαῤῥυέντος ;), Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, 
 Grotius, a/., including Billroth, have rightly understood this of 
 the foeditas cadaveris ; for σπείρεται represents the act of burial. 
 Erasmus, Calvin, Vorstius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, a/., including 
 Flatt (comp. Riickert), hold that it refers to the “ante mortem 
 miseriis et foeditatibus obnoxium esse,” Estius. So also de Wette 
 (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) in reference to all the three points, — 
 which, according to these expositors, are meant to designate the 
 nature of the living body as regards its organization, or at least 
 to include it (comp. Maier) in their scope. But this mode of 
 conception, according to which the definition of state charac- 
 terizes the earthly body generally according to its nature, not 
 specially according to the condition in which it is at as inter- 
 ment, comes in only at the fourth point with σῶμα ψυχικόν in 
 virtue of the change in the form of expression which is adopted 
 on that very account. From the way in which Paul has expressed 
 the first three points, he desires to state in what condition that 
 which is being sown is at its sowing; in what condition, there- 
 fore, the body to be buried is, when it is being buried. This, too, 
 in opposition to Ewald’s view: “even the best Christians move 
 now in corruption, in outward dishonour before the world,” ete. — 
 ἐν δόξη] refers to the state of outward glory, which will be peculiar 
 to the resurrection-bodies; ver. 40. It is the σύμμορφον εἶναι 
 τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης Χριστοῦ, Phil. iii, 21.— ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ] not: 
 “-variis morbis et periculis obnoxium,” Rosenmiiller and others, 
 comp. Riickert (weakliness) ; for it refers to the already dead body 
 (σπείρεται), but: in the condition of powerlessness, inasmuch as all 
 ability, all ἰσχύς (Soph. Oed. Col. 616), all σθένος of the limbs 
 (Pindar, Nem. v. 72, x. 90) has vanished from the dead body. 
 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact, a/., narrow the 
 reference too much in an arbitrary way, applying it simply to the 
 
 1 Not as Hofmann would have it, in connection with his inappropriate ni 
 tion of σπείρεσαι: up to the point, when it is given over to death. 
 
CHAP. XV. 42-44. 91 
 
 inability to withstand corruption, ᾿Εν ἀσθ. is not a super- 
 fluous (de Wette), but a characteristic mark which specifically 
 distinguishes the dead from the living body. — ἐν δυνάμει) in the 
 condition of strength: the resurrection body will be endowed with 
 fulness of strength for life and activity. What Grotius adds: 
 “eum sensibus multis, quos nunc non intelligimus,” is perhaps 
 true in itself, but is not conveyed in ἐν dvvdpyer.—tlnstead of 
 adducing one by one further qualities of the body as buried, with 
 their opposites in the resurrection-body, Paul sums up by naming 
 in addition that which conditions those other qualities, the specific 
 fundamental nature of the present body which is buried, and of 
 the future one which is raised: σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικὸν, ἐγείρ. 
 o. πνευματικόν, 1.6. there is sown a psychical body, etc. This is not 
 opposed to the identity of the body, but the one which rises is 
 quite differently qualified ; there is buried a ψυχικόν, there rises 
 a πνευματικόν. That is the new ποιότης τοῦ σώματος in which 
 the risen man comes (ver. 35); but the expression, which sets 
 forth the difference as two subjects, is stronger and more signi- 
 ficant than if we should take it with Hofmann: 7 15 sown as 
 a psychical body, etc.—The body which is buried is ψυχικόν, 
 inasmuch as the ψυχή, this power of the sensuous and perish- 
 able life (comp. on ii. 14), was its life-principle and the deter- 
 mining element of its whole nature (consisting of flesh and blood, 
 ver. 50). The ψυχή had in it, as Oecumenius and Theophylact 
 say, TO κῦρος K. τὴν ἡγεμονίαν. The resurrection-body, however, 
 will be πνευματικόν, 1.6. not an ethereal body (Origen, comp. Chry- 
 sostom),’ which the antithesis of ψυχικόν forbids ; but a spiritual 
 body, inasmuch as the πνεῦμα, the power of the supersensuous, 
 eternal life (the true, imperishable ζωή), in which the Holy Spirit 
 carries on the work of regeneration and sanctification (Rom. viil. 
 16, 17), will be its life-principle and the determining element 
 of its whole nature. In the earthly body the ψυχή, not the 
 πνεῦμα, is that which conditions its constitution and its qualities, 
 so that it is framed as the organ of the ψυχή ;" in the resurrec- 
 
 1 Or as Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 297, would have it: ‘‘ a body composed 
 of spirit,” the πνεῦμα being conceived as material. Comp. Holsten, zum Hv. d. Paul. 
 τ. Petr. p. 72: *‘ out of heavenly light-material.” 
 
 2 Luther’s gloss is: ‘‘ which eats, drinks, sleeps, digests, grows larger and smaller, 
 
 begets children, ete. Spiritual, which may do none of these things, and never- 
 theless is a true body alive from the spirit.” 
 
92 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 tion-body the reverse is the case; the πνεῦμα, for whose life- 
 activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature, and the 
 Wux7 has ceased to be, as formerly, the ruling and determining 
 element. -We are not, however, on this account to assume, with 
 Rickert, that Paul conceived the soul as not continuing to subsist 
 for ever,—a conception which would do away with the essential 
 completeness and thereby with the identity of the human being. 
 On the contrary, he has conceived of the πνεῦμα in the risen 
 bodies as the absolutely dominant element, to which the psychical 
 powers and activities shall be completely subordinated. The 
 whole predicates of the resurrection-body, contrasted with the 
 properties of the present body, are united in the likeness to the 
 angels, which Jesus affirms of the risen, Matt. xxii. 30, Luke xx. 
 36, and in their being fashioned like unto the glorified body of 
 Christ, as is promised by Paul, vv. 48, 49; Phil. ii. 21. How 
 far the doctrine of Paul is exalted above the assertion by the 
 Rabbins of the (quite crass) identity of the resurrection-body with 
 the present one, may be seen from the citations in Wetstein on 
 ver. 36, and in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 938 f.— 
 εἰ ἔστι σῶμα ψυχ., ἔστι καὶ «.7.r.] logical confirmation of the 
 σῶμα πνευματ. just mentioned. It is to be shown, namely, 
 that it is not an air-drawn fancy to speak of the future 
 existence of a σῶμα πνευματικόν: If it is true that there is 
 a psychical body, then there is also a spiritual body, then such 
 a body cannot be a non-ens— according to the mutually con- 
 ditioning relations of the antitheses. The emphasis lies on 
 the twice - prefixed ἔστι, ewxistit (comp. the Rabbinical nN in’ 
 Schoettgen, Hor. p. 670). The logical correctness of the sentence, 
 again, depends upon the presupposition (ver. 42 f.) that the 
 present and the future body stand in the relation of counterparts 
 to each other. If, therefore, there exists a psychical body (and 
 that is the present one), then a pneumatic body also must be 
 no mere idea, but really existent (and that is the resurrection- 
 body). 
 Ver. 45. Scriptural confirmation for the εἰ ἔστε σῶμα YW. κ.τ.λ. 
 — οὕτω] 80, i.e. in this sense, corresponding to what has been said 
 above, it stands written also, etc. The passage is from Gen. ii. 7 
 according to the LXX. (x. ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρ. eis x. €.), but with the 
 addition of the more precisely explanatory words πρῶτος and 
 
CHAP. XV. 45. 93 
 
 "Ada. The citation extends only to ζῶσαν ; the ὁ ἔσχατος κτλ. 
 that follow are words of the apostle, in which he gives an explana- 
 tion of his οὕτω by calling attention, namely, to the opposite 
 nature of the dast Adam, as that to which the Scripture likewise 
 pomted by its description of the jist Adam, in virtue of the 
 typical relation of Adam to Christ. He joins on these words of 
 his own, however, immediately to the passage of Scripture, in order 
 to indicate that the ὁ ἔσχατος... ζωοποιοῦν follows as necessarily 
 from it according to its typical reference, as if the words had 
 been expressed along with it.' He thus gives expression to the 
 inference which is ¢acz/y contamed in the statement, by adding 
 forthwith this self-evident conclusion as if belonging also to the 
 passage of Scripture, because posited for it by the inner necessity 
 of the antithesis. When others, such as Billroth and Riickert, 
 assume that ὁ ἔσχατος «.7.A. is meant really to be a part of the 
 Seripture-quotation, they in that case charge the apostle with 
 having made the half of the citation himself and given it out 
 as being Bible words; but assuredly no instance is to be found 
 of such an arbitrary procedure, however freely he handles pas- 
 sages from the Old Testament elsewhere. And would the readers, 
 seeing that ἐγένετο... ζῶσαν is such a universally known state- 
 ment, have been able to recognise in ὁ ἔσχατος «.7.A, Bible 
 words? According to Hofmann, οὕτω καὶ yéyp. is a completed 
 sentence, which only states that the distinction between two 
 kinds of human body is scriptural. Jn order to demonstrate this 
 scripturalness the apostle then applies the passage Gen. ii. 7. 
 But against this it may be urged, first, that Paul is wont in 
 general to use the γέγραπται for citing passages of Scripture ; 
 secondly, that the reader could all the less think here of another 
 use of the word, since ὧν veality at the moment a passage of 
 Scripture, and that a universally familiar one, is joined on directly 
 and without a particle (such as ydp) to lead the thoughts aright 
 in another direction. — ἐγένετο] by his creation, by means of 
 the animation through God’s breath. — εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν] WEI? 
 mn, comp. Gen. 1. 30, unto a living soul-nature, so that thus the 
 body of Adam must be formed as the receptacle and organ of 
 
 To make the relation of the two halves discernible in reading, let ἐγένετο. . . 
 
 ζῶσαν be read slowly and loud, pause markedly at ζῶσαν, and let then ὁ ἔσχατος 
 x.7.a. follow a little less slowly and loudly. 
 
94 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 the ψυχή, must be a σῶμα ψυχικόν Therewith sin itself is 
 not assumed as yet, nor even the necessity of its future entrance 
 (comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 133), but the susceptibility 
 for it, which, however, did not fall within the scope of the apostle 
 here. — ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ] is Christ. Comp. ver. 22; Rom. v.14; 
 Neve Schalom, ix. 9: “ Adamus postremus (jinn) est Messias.” 
 He is called, however, and is the last Adam in reference to the jirst 
 Adam, whose antitype He is as the head and the beginner of the 
 new humanity justified and redeemed through Him; but at the 
 same time in reference also to the fact, that after Him no other 
 is to follow with an Adamite vocation. Apart from this latter 
 reference, He may be called also the second Adam. Comp. 
 ver. 47.— εἰς πνεῦμα ξωοποι.] unto a life-giving spirit-being, 50. 
 ἐγένετο. It is thereby expressed that the body of Christ became 
 a σῶμα πνευματικόν. But what is the point of time, at which 
 Christ εἰς πνεῦμα Swor. éyévero? Not as a created being, as one 
 of the heavenly forms in the divine retinue before His mission 
 (Holsten), nor yet in His incarnation, whether we may supply 
 mentally @ Deitate (Beza, comp. too Rabiger, Christol. Paul. 
 p. 85; Baur, Delitzsch, al.), or take refuge in the communi- 
 catio hypostatica (Calovius and others); for during his earthly 
 life Christ had a ψυχικὸν σῶμα (only without sin, Rom. viii. 3), 
 which ate, drank, slept, consisted of flesh and blood, suffered, 
 died, etc. The one correct answer in accordance with the context, 
 since the point in hand has regard to the resurrection (and see 
 especially ver. 44), can only be: after His death (comp. Hellwag 
 in the Tiibing. theol. Jahrb. 1848, 2, p. 240; Ernesti, Urspr. d. 
 Stinde, II. p. 122 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 314), and indeed 
 through His resurrection, Christ became εἰς πνεῦμα fwor. The 
 body, doubtless, of the Risen One before His ascension (hence the 
 Socinians think here of the latter event; so, too, J. Miiller and 
 Maier) consisted still of flesh and blood, still ate, drank, ete.; but 
 it was immortal, and so changed (see Remark appended to Luke 
 xxiv. 51) that it already appears as πνευματικόν, although it was 
 only at the ascension that it entered upon its completion in 
 that respect, and consequently into its δόξα as the σῶμα τῆς 
 1 Not as if he had lacked the higher life-principle (the πνεῦμα) ; but the ψυχή was 
 
 that which determined the nature of the body. 
 2 So, too, Sellin in the Luther. Zeiischr. 1867, p. 231. 
 
CHAP. XV. 46, 47. 95 
 
 δόξης (Phil. iii. 21). The event producing the change, therefore, 
 is the resurrection ; in virtue of this, the last Adam, who shall 
 appear only at the Parousia in the whole efficiency of His life-power 
 (ver. 47), became (ἐγένετο) εἰς πνεῦμα Sword,’ and that through 
 God, who raised Him up. — ζωοποιοῦν] οὐκ εἶπεν" εἰς πνεῦμα ζῶν, 
 ἀλλὰ ζξωοποιοῦν τὸ μεῖζον εἰπών, Theophylact. The connection 
 shows what ζωή is meant in ζωοποιοῦν, namely, the reswrrection-life, 
 which Christ, who has become πνεῦμα ζωοπ., works at His Parousia. 
 Comp. ver. 22; Phil. ii. 21; Col. iii.4; 1 Thess. iv.16; John v. 
 21 ff. This limitation of the reference of ζωοποιοῦν, made in 
 accordance with the context, shows that we have not here an argu- 
 ment proving too much (in opposition to Baur, newt. Theol. p. 197). 
 
 Ver. 46. After it has been stated and confirmed from Scripture 
 in vv. 44, 45 that there exists not simply a psychical, but also a 
 spiritual body, it is now further shown that the latter cannot 
 precede the former, but that the reverse must be the case. “ Never- 
 theless the pneumatic is not first, but the psychical ; afterwards the 
 pneumatic.” We are not, with the majority of the older commen- 
 tators (also Flatt, Osiander, Hofmann), to supply σῶμα (which 
 the context does not even suggest) ; but Paul states quite generally 
 the law of development,” that the pneumatic appears later than 
 the psychical, a gradation from lower to higher forms, which goes 
 through the whole creation. This general statement he then proves: 
 
 Ver. 47, by the concrete phenomena of the two heads of the 
 race of mankind, Adam and Christ. — The principal emphasis is 
 upon πρῶτος and δεύτερος, so that the former corresponds to the 
 πρῶτον, and the latter to the ἔπειτα of ver. 46; hence, too, 
 ἔσχατος is not used here again. “The first man (not the 
 second) is of earthly origin, earthy (consisting of earth-material) ; 
 the second man (not the first) is of heavenly origin.” — ἐκ γῆς 
 xoixds] Origin and material nature. Comp. Gen. ii. 7, χοῦν 
 
 1 There exists no ground for assuming a different conception of the corporeity of 
 the risen Christ before His resurrection on the part of Paul than on the part of the 
 evangelists. It is true that Paul mentions the appearances of the Risen One, ver. 5ff., 
 in such a way that he speaks of the appearance after the ascension, ver. 8, no other- 
 wise than of those which preceded it. But he had there no ground for drawing any 
 such distinction, since it only concerned him generally to enumerate the appearances 
 of the Risen One, while for his purpose it was all the same which of them had taken 
 place before and which after the ascension. 
 
 2 See also Ernesti, loc. cit, p. 126. 
 
ite) 
 σὺ 
 
 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ; Eccles. 111, 20, xii. 7; 1 Mace. ii. 63. That the 
 article (John 111. 31) was not required with γῆς (ἢ opposition to 
 van Hengel, who, on account of the lacking article, explains it, 
 terrenus sc. terram sapiens ; and then yotxos; humilia spirans) is 
 clear not only in general (see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 149]), but also 
 from passages such as Wisd. xv. 8, xvil. 1; Ecclus. xxxvi. 10, xl. 
 11. It may be added, that since, by the words ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, 
 Adam’s body is characterized as ψυχικὸν σῶμα, as in ver. 45, and 
 the psychical corporeity, again, taken purely in itself (without the 
 intervention of a modifying relation), includes mortality (ver. 44), 
 it is clear that Paul regards Adam as created mortal, but so 
 that he would have become immortal, and would have continued free 
 from death, if he had not sinned. The protoplasts are accordingly 
 in his eyes such as under an assumed condition potwerunt non 
 mori, Which, however, through the non-fulfilment of this condition, 
 i.e. through the Fall, came to nothing; so that now death, and that 
 as a penalty, came to be a reality—a view which agrees alike 
 with his. own doctrinal statement, Rom. v. 12) and also with 
 Genesis. For had the protoplasts not sinned, they would, ac- 
 cording to Genesis, have remained in Paradise, and would have 
 become immortal (Gen. ili. 22) through the enjoyment of the tree 
 of life (Gen. ii. 9), which God had not forbidden to them (Gen. 
 ii. 16,17). But they were driven out of Paradise, before they 
 had yet eaten of this tree (Gen. 111. 22); and so, certainly, 
 according to Genesis also, through sin came death into the world 
 as the penalty appointed for them by God (ii. 17). Comp. 
 Augustin, De pece. meritis et remiss. 1. 5: “ipsum mortale non est 
 factum mortuum nisi propter peccatum ;” see, too, Ernesti, 1.6. 
 p. 248 f.; Ewald, Jahrb. 11. p. 153 ἢ — ἐξ οὐρανοῦ] of heavenly 
 derivation. This applies to the glorification of the body of Christ,’ 
 
 1Tn connection with this, no difficulty whatever is occasioned by the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες 
 ἥμαρτον, Rom. v. 12, according to its correct interpretation, which does not make 
 it refer to the individual sins of the posterity; see on Rom. d.c. The Pelagian 
 view, that Adam, even if he had not sinned, would have died, is decidedly against 
 the Pauline doctrinal conception. ‘This in opposition to Schleiermacher, Neander, 
 and others; especially, also, against Mau, v. Z'ode, d. Solde der Siinde, 1841. 
 
 2 Hence Gess (v. d. Person Chi. p. 75) very irrelevantly objects to the reference to 
 the body of Christ, that that body was not from heaven, but from the seed of David. 
 Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 834 ff.), by referring ἐξ οὐρανοῦ back to the incarnation, which 
 is contrary to the context, mixes up things that differ. Beyschlag (comp. also his 
 
CHAP. XV. 48. 97 
 
 originating from heaven, 1.6. wrought by God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 2), 
 in which glorified body He is in heaven, and will appear at His 
 Parousia (comp. Phil. iii. 20). Comp. on ver. 45. According to 
 de Wette (comp. also Beyschlag in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1860, 
 p. 437 ἔ, and Christol. pp. 228, 242), it applies to the whole 
 personality of Jesus, “which, through its preponderating spiri- 
 tuality, has also a spiritual body,” or to the heavenly origin 
 characterizing the nature of the whole person (Beyschlag). But 
 the above-given definite reference is the only one which cor- 
 responds, in accordance with the text, to the contrast of ἐκ γῆς 
 xoixos, which applies to the formation of Adam’s body, as well as 
 to the whole point of the development (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Van 
 Hengel is wrong in seeking to conclude from the absence of the 
 article here also, that the heavenly dignity of Jesus is meant. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. v.2; 61]. 1. 8. Paul has the article before οὐρανός 
 or οὐρανοΐ, after é« or ἀπό, only in 1 Thess. i. 10.—No predicate 
 in the second clause corresponds to the yoixds of the first half of 
 the verse, because the material of the glorified body of Christ 
 transcends alike conception and expression. 
 
 Ver. 48. Application to our present and future bodily nature. 
 We are to supply simply ἐστί and εἰσί. --- ὁ χοϊκός] Adam. — 
 οἱ χοϊκοί] all Adam’s posterity, as such, in so far as they have the 
 same material nature with their first father. This common nature 
 is the psychical corporeity. — ὁ ἐπουράνιος] He who is in heaven — 
 (comp. the frequent ἐπουράνιοι θεοί in Homer; Matt. xviii. 35 ; 
 Phil. ii. 10; 2 Mace. iii. 39 ; see also on ver. 40), ae. Christ; not, 
 however, as the heavenly archetype of humanity, as which He was 
 pre-existent in God (Beyschlag), but as the exalted to heaven, 
 Phil. ii. 9; Eph. iv. 8 ff.— οἱ ἐπουράνιοι] These are the risen 
 Christians, inasmuch as they shall be citizens of the heavenly 
 commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20; Heb. xii. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 18. The 
 common nature of the ἐπουράνιος and the ἐπουράνιον is the pneu- 
 matic body. Comp. Phil. ii, 21. Instead of referring the two- 
 Christol. p. 226) finds in our text a heavenly humanity of Christ (human pre- 
 existence) ; but the connection and the contrast lead us only to the heaven-derived 
 body of the risen and exalted One. Comp., too, Hofmann and J. Miiller, v. d, 
 Siinde, p. 412, ed. 5; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 315 f. 
 
 1 Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 336, prefers the Marcionitic reading: ὁ δεύτερος κύρ. ἐξ οὐρ., 
 
 i.e. the second is Lord from heaven. According to the critical evidence, this reading 
 deserves no consideration. Offence was taken at ἄνθρωπος. 
 
 1 COR. IL G 
 
98 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 fold resemblance in kind to the nature of the body, Hofmann 
 makes it refer to the nature of the /i/e,—on the one side, sinful- 
 ness and nothingness; on the other side, holiness and glory. But 
 the matter is thus turned to its ethical side, which Paul cannot 
 have in view here in accordance with the whole connection, which 
 has to do only with the twofold bodily condition—that belonging 
 to the first, and that to the last Adam. This also in opposition 
 to van Hengel. 
 
 Ver. 49. The Recepta φορέσομεν is to be retained (see the 
 critical remarks), for which van Hengel. too, decides, although 
 taking τ. εἰκόνα in the moral sense An exhortation (φορέσωμεν, 
 defended by Hofmann) lies all the more remote from the connec- 
 tion, seeing that Paul proceeds in his development of the subject 
 with καί, and it is certainly not the ethical, but the physical con- 
 ception of εἰκών which is prepared for by what precedes (see 
 still τοιοῦτοι, ver. 48); also in what follows, ver. 50, it is not an 
 ethical, but a physiological relation which is expressed. Beza says 
 well, in opposition to the reading φορέσωμεν and its interpreta- 
 tion: “ Hoc plane est detortum, quum res ipsa clamet, Paulum in 
 proposito argumento pergere.” What, namely, was already con- 
 tained in ver. 48, he now expresses in a yet more definite and con- 
 crete way (hence, too, passing over into the first person), bringing 
 out with much emphasis the full meaning of the weighty state- 
 ment, thus: And as we have borne (before the Parousia) the image 
 of the earthly (of Adam),—z.e. the psychical body which makes us 
 appear as like in kind to Adam,—-so shall we (after the Parousia) 
 bear also the image of the heavenly (of Christ), ze. the pneumatic 
 body. Paul transfers himself and his readers to the turning-point 
 of the Parousia, from which the aorist dates backward in the αἰὼν 
 οὗτος, and the futwre forward in the αἰὼν μέλλων. ---- To extend 
 the “we” to all men (Krauss) is forbidden by the whole context, 
 and would presuppose the idea of the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων. 
 — Regarding φορεῖν, the continuous φέρειν, see on Rom. xiii. 4. 
 
 RemMark.—Adopting the reading φορέσωμεν, we should not, with 
 Bengel, import the idea of a promise, but take it as hortative, with 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, a/., including Hofmann, so that 
 εἰκών would fall to be understood ethically. Eixéva δὲ χοϊκοῦ τὼς 
 φαύλας πράξεις λέγει" εἰκόνα δὲ τοῦ ἐπουρανίου τὰς ἀγαθάς, Theophy- 
 lact. In connection with this Hofmann takes καθώς argumentatively 
 
CHAP. XV. 50. 99 
 
 (comp. on Phil. i. 7, ii. 12): “ seeing that we have borne... so must 
 we now also be willing to bear...” But that καθώς is the ordinary 
 as of comparison, is shown by the two comparative clauses in ver. 48, 
 and by the annexing of the καθώς to them by the simple x«/, which 
 continues the comparison in the way of assertion. Moreover, 
 φορέσωμεν Would, in fact, not mean, “we must be willing to bear,” but, 
 “let us bear.” 
 
 Ver. 50. The discussion regarding the nature of the resurrec- 
 tion body is now closed with a negative axiom, which serves to 
 confirm the φορέσομεν τ. etx. τ. ἐπουρ But this (in order to add 
 yet this general statement in confirmation of what has just been 
 said) J assure you of. Comp. vii. 29. The sense of a concession 
 (for the spiritualistic opponents, so Usteri, Billroth, Olshausen) is 
 imported into the context and the simple φημί. According to van 
 Hengel, Paul writes ¢o obviate a misapprehension ; his readers 
 were not to think that the φορέσομεν κ. τ. εἰκόνα Tod ἐπουρανίου 
 consisted in the fellowship of the flesh and blood, which Christ 
 had before and after His resurrection. But there was no occa- 
 sion presented for such an opinion, since the Christian belief 
 was assured that the heavenly Christ has a glorified body (Phil. 11]. 
 21). Hofmann (following Beza) refers τοῦτο to what precedes, and 
 takes ὅτι as introducing the ground, why the apostle has uttered 
 vv. 46-49. But this ground is of a positive nature, and does 
 not lie in the merely negative thought ver. 50, but much deeper, 
 namely, in the Scriptural (ver. 45) relation of the bodily condi- 
 tion of the earthly and of the heavenly Adam. — σὰρξ x. αἷμα] 
 i.e. the bodily nature which we have in this temporal life, the 
 chief constituents of which are flesh and blood,’ the latter as the 
 seat of life. Τὴν θνητὴν φύσιν καλεῖ: ἀδύνατον δὲ ταύτην ἐτι 
 θνητὴν οὖσαν τῆς ἐπουρανίου βωσιλείας τυχεῖν, Theodoret. Comp. 
 vi. 13. Σ΄ «. αἷμα is just as little to be taken in the ethical 
 
 1 According to Tischendorf and Ewald, ver. 50 begins already the new section, and 
 would thus be the introduction to it. Likewise suitable; still at vii. 29 also τοῦτο δὲ 
 φημί serves to confirm what has preceded it. 
 
 2 It is not to the body as such that participation in the Messianic kingdom is 
 denied, but to the present body consisting of flesh and blood. Jerome says well : 
 ‘*alia carnis, alia corporis definitio est; omnis caro est corpus, non omne corpus est 
 earo.” In harmony with our passage we should have to read in the third article [of 
 the ‘* Apostles’ Creed "7 ‘‘ resurrection of the body,” instead of ‘‘ resurrection of the 
 Jlesh.” The conception ‘‘ glorified flesh” is for the apostle a contradictio in adjecto, 
 which cannot even be justified from his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
100 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 sense, which σάρξ by itself elsewhere has, as is φθορά afterwards 
 (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theophylact, al.).— οὐδέ] and not, 
 still dependent upon 67s. This second half of the verse forms 
 with the first a parallelism, in which the first clause names the 
 concrete matters, and the second one the general class (the cate- 
 gories in question), to which the former belong. The φθορά, 1... 
 according to the context (comp. ver. 42), the corruption (and to this 
 category flesh and blood belong, which fall a prey to corruption), 
 inherits not the incorruptibility, to the realm of which belong the 
 relations of the Messianic kingdom, and in particular the glorified 
 body of the sharers in the kingdom. The abstract nouns instead 
 of τὸ φθαρτόν and τὸ ἄφθαρτον have a certain solemnity. Comp. 
 Dissen, ad Pind. p. 476: “Sublimitatem et πάθος adjuvant 
 abstracta sic posita pro concretis.” Regarding «Anpovoy. of the 
 entrance upon the Messianic possession, comp. vi. 9; Gal. ii. 29. 
 The present sets what is sure and certain before us as present. 
 Ver. 51. After Paul has with the weighty axiom in ver. 50 
 disposed of the question ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται, which he has 
 been discussing since ver. 35, a new point, which has likewise 
 a right withal not to be left untouched in this connection, how- 
 ever mysterious it is, now presents itself for elucidation, namely, 
 what shall happen in the case of those who shall be yet alive at the 
 Parousia. This last, as it were, appended part of his discussion 
 begins without transition in a direct and lively way (ἰδού), 
 designated too as μυστήριον, as dogma reconditum, the know- 
 ledge of which Paul is conscious that he possesses by ἀποκά-. 
 λυψις. See on Rom. xi. 25.— πάντες μὲν od κοιμ. K.7.r.] is held 
 by the commentators to mean: we shall indeed not all die, but all 
 shall be changed. They either assume a transposition of the nega- 
 tion (so the majority of the older expositors, following Chrysostom, 
 also Heydenreich, Flatt, Osiander, Reiche, and van Hengel) ; or 
 they hold that Paul had @Aday., upon which all the emphasis 
 lies, already in his mind in connection with the first πάντες : 
 “We all—shall not indeed die until then, but notwithstanding— 
 all shall be changed,” Billroth, whom Olshausen, de Wette, Maier, 
 follow ; or (so Riickert) the meaning is: die indeed we shall not 
 1 Not “ἃ half confession that now there comes a private opinion” (Krauss, p. 169), 
 
 which he only with reluctance gives to the public. Comp. also, as against this view, 
 1 Thess. iv. 15: ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου. 
 
CHAP. XV. 61. 101 
 
 all, etc., so that, according to this view, in pure Greek it would 
 be said: κοιμηθησόμεθα πάντες μὲν ov.' Three makeshifts, con- 
 trary to the construction, and without proof or precedent, in 
 order to bring out a meaning assumed beforehand to be neces- 
 sary, but which is incorrect, for Paul after ver. 52 can only 
 have applied ἀλλαγησόμεθα to those still living at the Parousia, 
 and not, as according to that assumed meaning must be the case, 
 to those already dead. The result of this is, at the same time, 
 that the subject of οὐ κοιμ. and ἀλλαγ. must be Paul himself, 
 and the whole of those who, like him, shall yet witness the Parousia 
 (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 17: ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες), as could not but be clear 
 to the reader from ἄλλαγ. Hence we must interpret strictly 
 according to the order of the words: we shall indeed all not sleep 
 (i.e. shall not have to go through the experience of dying at the 
 Parousia, in order to become sharers in the resurrection body, but 
 shall remain alive then), but shall, doubtless, all be changed? Re- 
 garding the subject-matter, comp. ver. 53; 1 Thess, iv. 15, 17. 
 This interpretation alone, according to which ov, in conformity 
 with the quite ordinary use of it (comp. immediately od δύναται, 
 ver. 50), changes the conception of the word before which it 
 stands into its opposite (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), is not 
 merely verbally correct, but also in keeping with the character of 
 a μυστήριον ; while, according to the usual way of taking it, the 
 first half at least contains nothing at all mysterious, but some- 
 thing superfluous and self-evident. Our interpretation is adopted 
 and defended by Winer since his fifth edition (p. 517, ed. 7 
 [E. T. 6957), comp. Ewald and Kling;* but it is contested by 
 Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 38; Reiche, Commentar. crit.; de 
 
 1 Comp. Hofmann’s earlier interpretation (in the Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 654): ‘*Col- 
 leetively we shall not sleep, but we shall be changed e¢ollectively.” Now (heil. Schr. 
 d. N. T.) the same writer follows Lachmann’s reading, which, however, he punctu- 
 ates thus: πάντες μὲν κοιμηθησόμεθα ov, πάντες δὲ @AAwy., Whereby, on the one hand, 
 the universality of the dying is denied, whereas on the other the universality of the 
 change is affirmed. Against this interpretation, apart from the eritical objections, 
 it may be urged, as regards the sense, that ἄλλαγ. cannot be predicated of the 
 dead along with the rest (see ver. 52), and as regards linguistic usage again, that to 
 place the od after the conceptions negatived by it (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 307 f.) 
 is foreign throughout to the New Testament, often as there was opportunity for 
 placing it so. 
 
 2 εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν μεταπεσεῖν, Chrysostom. 
 
 3 Comp. also Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 565. 
 
102 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Wette, van Hengel, Hofmann, Hoelemann, neue Bibelstud. p. 276 ff., 
 who, it may be added, looks upon the passage as regards text and 
 interpretation as a “still uncertain” one, but decidedly denies that 
 there is here or in 1 Thess. iv. an expectation of the Parousia as 
 nigh at hand. The objections raised against our view are in- 
 sufficient ; for (2) something absurd would result from it only on 
 the supposition of the subject being all Christians or Paul and all 
 his readers ; (Ὁ) to make πάντες refer to the whole category of 
 those among whom Paul reckoned himself, that is, to all who 
 should still live to see the Parousia, of whom the apostle says that 
 they shall not attain to the new body by the path of death, is 
 not only not inadmissible, but is established in accordance with 
 the context by the predicate adAayno., which does not include 
 the process of the resurrection (ver. 52); (c) the LXX. Num. 
 xxiii. 13 cannot be used to support the reference of ov to πάντες, 
 for in the words of that passage: πάντας δὲ οὐ μὴ ἴδῃς, the well- 
 known use of od μή testifies irrefragably in favour of the connec- 
 tion of the negation, not with πάντας, but directly with the verb. 
 Equally unavailable is the LXX. Josh. xi. 13, where by πάσας τὰς 
 πόλεις TAS κεχωματισμένας οὐκ ἐνέπρησεν it is declared of the 
 whole of the hill-cities that Israel left them unburnt, so that the 
 negation thus belongs to the verb alongside of which it stands. 
 In Ecclus. xvii. 30 also the words οὐ δύναται (it is impossible) 
 belong to each other; in John iii. 16, vi. 29, again, the mode of 
 expression is quite of another kind (in oppositicn to Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 106 [E. T. 121]). In our text the repetition of 
 πάντες ought to have sufficed of itself to prevent misapprehension 
 of the plain meaning: all we shall at the return of the Lord, in 
 order to our entering glorified into His kingdom, not need first to 
 fall asleep, but shall all be changed living (ver. 52), so that our 
 ψυχικὸν σῶμα shall become a πνευματικόν. 
 
 Ver. 52. "Ev ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ of0.] A double, because a 
 thoroughly designed and extremely exact description of the 
 suddenness of the ἀλλωγησ., which is meant wholly to exclude 
 even the possibility of those still alive having first, perhaps, to 
 die at the Parousia, in order to come into the resurrection-life. — 
 ἄτομον, what is indivisible, an atom (Plato, Soph. p. 229 D), is 
 here a little indivisible point of time. ἐν ἀτόμῳ" ἐν ῥιπήματι, 
 Hesychius. Comp. the phrase, current in Greek writers, ἐν 
 
CHAP. XV. 52. 103 
 
 ἀκαρεῖ (Lucian, As. 37; Alciphron. iii, 25).—év τῇ ἐσχ. 
 σάλπιγγι] at the last trumpet, while it is sounded (by an arch- 
 angel). See Winer, p. 361 [ἘΞ T. 482]. Comp. ἐν αὐλοῖς, 
 Pindar, Ol. v. 45. Paul might also have written: ἀπὸ... 
 
 σάλπιγγος, Polyb. iv. 13. 1. Regarding the subject-matter, 
 comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16, and Liinemann and Ewald on that 
 passage. The dast trumpet is that sounding at the final moment 
 of this age of the world. It does not conflict with this statement, 
 if we suppose that Paul conceived the second resurrection also 
 (ver. 24) to take place with trumpet-sound, for ἐσχ. has its 
 temporal reference in αἰὼν οὗτος. De Wette (so, too, in the 
 form of a suggestion, Vatablus; and comp. previously, Theodoret 
 of Mopsuestia) thinks of the last among several trumpet-signals, 
 against which, however, is the simple, not more precisely defined 
 σαλπίσει yap which follows. This, too, in opposition to Osiander, 
 van Hengel, Maier, and Hofmann. To understand, with Olshausen, 
 who follows older expositors (twés even already in Theophylact), 
 the seventh trumpet, Rev. vill. 9, with which, along with the 
 trumpets of Jericho, Hofmann also compares it, is to place it on 
 the same level with the visions of the Revelation, for doing 
 which we have no ground, since in 1 Thess. too, /.c., only one 
 trumpet is mentioned, and that one taken for granted as well 
 known. It is true that the Rabbins also taught that God will 
 sound the trumpet seven times, and that in such a way that the 
 resurrection will develope itself in seven acts;* but this con- 
 ception, too, was foreign to the apostle, seeing that he represents 
 the rising as an instantaneous event without breaks of develop- 
 ment. It may be added, that the trumpet of the Parousia (see, 
 already, Matt. xxiv. 31) is not to be explained away, either with 
 Wolf and others: “cum signa apparebunt judicii jam celebrandi,” 
 or, with Olshausen (comp. Maier), of a startling work of the Spirit, 
 arousing mankind for a great end. Comp., too, Theophylact, who 
 understands by the σάλπιγξ the κέλευσμα and νεῦμα of God τὸ 
 διὰ πάντων φθάνον; as in substance also Usteri, p. 356, Billroth, 
 Neander, Hofmann.? As regards the phrase in itself, we might 
 
 1 ἐς Primo sono totus mundus commovebitur; secundo pulvis separabitur ; tertio 
 ossa colligentur ..- tuba septima vivi stabunt pedibus suis.” See Eisenmenger, 
 entdeckt. Judenth. Il. p. 929. 
 
 ° Tonge in the Stud. ὦ. Krit. 1836, p. 708, thinks of a revolution of the earth. 
 
104 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 compare the Homeric audi δὲ σάλπυγξεν μέγας οὐρανός, II. 
 xxl. 388, where the thunder (as signal for the onset) is meant. 
 But the connection gives us no right whatever to assume a non- 
 literal, imaginative representation. On the contrary, Paul has 
 in fact carried with him the conception of the resurrection- 
 trumpet (resting upon Ex. xix. 16) from the popular sphere of 
 conception, attested also in Matt. /.c. (comp. 4 Esdr. vi. 24), into 
 his Christian sphere,’ as he then himself adds forthwith by way of 
 confirmation and with solemn emphasis: σαλπίέίσει yap «.7.r.| for 
 the trumpet shall sound, and the dead (the Christians who have 
 already died up to that time) shall be raised incorruptible, and we 
 (who are still alive then) shall be changed. The paratactic ex- 
 pression (instead of ὅτε γάρ, or some other such form of sub- 
 ordination) should of itself have been sufficient to prevent the 
 divesting the oad. γάρ. of its emphasis by regarding it simply 
 as an introduction to what follows in connection with ἐν τ. ἐσχ. 
 σάλπ. (Hofmann); comp. Kiihner, ὃ 720, 4; Winer, p. 585 
 [E. T. 785]. A special attention is to be given to the σαλπίσ. 
 Instead of ἡμεῖς ἄλλαγ., Paul might have written οἱ ζῶντες 
 ἀλλαγήσονται; but from his persuasion that he should live to 
 see the Parousia, he includes himself with the rest.2> Comp. on 
 ver. 51. Van Hengel is wrong in referring οἱ νεκροί to those 
 now (when Paul wrote) already dead, and ἡμεῖς to those now still 
 alive, of whom a part will then be also dead; adXay. can apply 
 only to the change of the living. — σαλπίσει (sc. ὁ σαλπυγκτής) 
 has become in its use just as impersonal as ὕει, vider, al. See 
 Elmsl. ad Heracl. 830; Kiihner, 11. p. 36, and ad Xen. Anab. 
 1. 2.17. The form σαλπέσω instead of σαλπέγξω is later Greek. 
 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 191. 
 
 which will be the signal of the advent of Christ. Osiander holds that the victory 
 over the last enemy (vv. 25, 27) is pointed at. According to de Wette, it is 
 generally the apocalyptic figure for solemn, divinely-effected catastrophes. 
 
 1 The recognition of this form ef conception by no means implies that a dogma 
 is to be made out of it. 
 
 2 Asin 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff., to which passage, however, this one does not stand in 
 the relation of a further advance of development, or more thorough liberation from 
 Rabbinical reminiscences (Krauss, p. 172) ; for the two passages agree in substance, 
 and they supplement each other. The incapacity, too, of the flesh for inheriting 
 the kingdom forms the necessary presupposition for 1 Thess. iv. 17. And the 
 restoration of all is not taught even in our passage, ver. 54 f., where the final shout 
 of triumph of the redeemed (ver. 26 f.) is heard. 
 
CHAP. XV. 53, 54. 105 
 
 Ver. 53. Confirmation of what has last been said, x. ἡμεῖς 
 ἄλλαγ., by the necessity of this change. — δεῖ} denotes, in accord- 
 ance with ver. 50, the ebsolute necessity. — τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο] 
 pointing to it; Paul looks, as he writes, at his own body. — 
 ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσ.] figurative description (2 Cor. v. 4) of the 
 process of change to an incorruptible condition of existence; aBava- 
 σίας καὶ ἀφθαρσίας ἐπιούσης αὐτῷ, Chrysostom. The infinitives 
 aorist are purposely chosen to denote the instantaneous completion. 
 
 Ver. 54. Then, however, when this our change has taken place, 
 shall the dominion of death cease; no one shall die any more. 
 ὅταν δὲ... aPavac.] an, as it were, triumphant repetition of the 
 same weighty words. Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. XXxix. 
 Theodoret calls the passage a song of victory. All the less is the 
 first clause to be rejected, with Hofmann, on critical grounds. 
 The first corrector of δὲ has rightly restored it. — γενήσεται] shall 
 come to pass (in respect of its contents) the word, ze, it shall 
 become actual,—the written word shall become fact. Hofmann 
 wrongly takes it: Men shall then say so, as it stands written. 
 Where a λόγος or ῥῆμα goes forth, 1.6. is spoken, there stands along 
 with it the preposition of direction (as John x. 35, Luke 111. 2, and 
 frequently ; comp. Gen. xv. 1, al.), or whence the word comes (as 
 Jer. xxvi. 1), or through whom it goes forth (from God; as Hagg. 
 1. 8). It may be added, that they are not things simultaneous 
 which are announced in the protasis and apodosis (as Hofmann 
 objects) ; but when that which is spoken of in the protasis shall 
 have taken place, then, because from this time forward no one 
 shall fall any more under the power of death, shall that be 
 realized, etc. This is the happy consequence of that,—the complete 
 victory of the life, which will link itself to that change which shall 
 thus take place in the twinkling of an eye, as to its signal and 
 prelude. — ὁ λόγος] effatum, oraculum, 1 Mace. vii. 16; Plato, 
 Phaedr. p. 275 B; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 105. Comp. Rom. ix. 9; 
 John xii. 38, xv. 25. — κατεπόθη x.7.r.] Isa. xxv. 8, not according 
 to the LXX.,’ but according to the original text ; in quoting which, 
 however, )?3 is rendered as passive, and ny39 is expressed in the way 
 in which it is often rendered in other passages, e.g. 2 Sam. ii. 26, 
 Job xxxvi. 7, Jer. iii. 5 (but not here), by the LXX.: eis vixos. 
 
 1 Who here translate the words of the prophet incorrectly: κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος 
 ἰσχύσας. 
 
 
 
106 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 The meaning is: Death has been completely done away. Comp. 
 2 Cor. v. 4. This being brought to nought is represented under 
 the image of being swallowed up (namely, by God; see the original 
 text). As regards the event itself, comp. Rev. xxi. 4.— εἰς 
 νῖκος] unto victory, 1.6. so that thereby victory—namely, of the 
 opposing power of eternal life in the future Aeon—+s established ; 
 eis, in the sense of the result.' Comp. Matt. xii. 20. Νῖκος is a 
 later form, in place of the old νίκη. See Hermann, Diss. de Orph. 
 Ῥ. 821. — Since the personified θάνατος is, according to the con- 
 text, bodily death and nothing more, this passage also (comp. 
 ver. 26) is of no avail for the establishment of the doctrine of 
 restoration (in opposition to Olshausen). Comp. on vv. 22, 28. 
 The passages from the Rabbins, who likewise, upon the ground 
 of Isa. 1.6.,ϑ teach: “tn diebus ejus (Messiae) Deus S. B. deglutret 
 mortem,’ may be seen in Wetstein. 
 
 Ver. 55. Exulting exclamation of joy from the apostle (comp. 
 as to ποῦ, Rom. iii. 27; 1 Cor. 1. 20), who transfers himself into 
 that blessed future of the γενήσεται x.7.r., ver. 54,’ and breaks 
 out, as it were, into an ἐπινίκιον. In doing so, he makes words 
 from the LXX. Hos. xiii. 14 his own, with free alteration. This 
 great freedom in availing himself of the passage almost solely in 
 respect of the assonance of the words, and the whole lyrical cast 
 of the outburst, make it less likely that ver. 55 is still part of the 
 quotation (the common view; but see, in opposition to it, van 
 Hengel). — τὸ κέντρον] Paul images to himself death as a beast 
 with a deadly sting (a scorpion, or the like). Billroth, following 
 Schoettgen, thinks of a goad, which death uses in order to cultivate 
 its field. But this conception is not in the least recalled by the 
 context. Olshausen, too, is wrong in holding that τὸ κέντρον 
 denotes that which elicits the forthputting of strength: “ sin 
 
 1 According to Osiander, εἰς is local; so that νῖκος is presented under the image 
 of a wild beast, which swallows up its prey. Against this view there is, first, the 
 absence of the article; secondly, εἰς (we should have expected éxé, comp. Polyb. 
 ii. 41. 7); lastly, the σὸ νῖκος which follows vv. 55, 57. — Luther’s gloss puts it 
 happily and graphically : ‘‘ Death lies undermost, and has now no strength left; but 
 life lies uppermost, and says, Victory !” 
 
 2 So, rightly, Chrysostom and Theophylact. According to van Hengel, Paul is 
 speaking of the present life, namely, of the joy of hope. But it is just the boldness 
 of the flight of thought which is the most Pauline feature in our passage. The 
 
 xévrpov also is taken in too weak a sense by van Hengel, namely, in that of only a 
 hurting, not a deadly sting, by which, in his view, the terrors of death are meant. 
 
CHAP. XV. 56-58. 107 
 
 awakens the sleeping strength of death, and the law, again, that of 
 sin.” Then, plainly, τὸ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου, ver. 56, would be 
 that which stings death, which is impossible according to ver. 55 ! 
 — In the second question, according to the Recepta ποῦ cov, ἅδη 
 «.7.X., the (personified) Hades is looked upon as having lost the 
 victory ; for it has not only had, in virtue of the resurrection of 
 the bodies, to render up the souls of the departed which lay under 
 its power, but it receives no other souls into its power any more. 
 According to the reading: ποῦ cov, θάνατε x.7.n. (see the critical 
 remarks), the new element, which comes as a climax, is brought 
 forward in τὸ νῖκος by way of addition, after a bold repetition of 
 the same address; so that, putting aside the interrogative form, 
 the meaning of the triumphant outburst is: Zhow death stingest 
 no more, for no one dies henceforth ; thow death hast lost the victory, 
 for the power of eternal life has won it over thee. 
 
 Ver. 56 ἢ, still retaining the conception of the κέντρον and the 
 νῖκος, points, by way of happy conclusion (not as introduction to 
 the admonition which follows, as Hofmann would have it), to 
 the firm dogmatic ground upon which this certainty of future 
 victory rests in a connected view of the gospel. “Seeing that 
 death slays through sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin, again, is powerful 
 through the Jaw (Rom. vii. 7 ff.), it is thus certain that God gives 
 us the victory over death through Jesus Christ.” Christ, that is 
 to say, has indeed blotted out sin through His ἱλαστήριον, has 
 risen for our righteousness’ sake ; and has thus withdrawn us from 
 the curse of the law, and withdrawn us by His Spirit from its 
 power to stir up and promote sin (Rom. viii. 1 ff.). In this proof 
 set forth by the apostle, the swmmary of his whole gospel is con- 
 tained. The form, however, is not argumentative, but, in corre- 
 spondence with the elevated and emotional tone of the passage, 
 such that shadow and light are placed beside each other, but with 
 the light breaking forth after the darkness, as in Rom. vii. 25, in 
 the shape of a cry of thanksgiving. —7@ S.iddvre].present; for this 
 future victory of life over death is for us sure and certain. 
 
 Ver. 58. Closing admonition, drawn in the way of inference 
 by ὥστε from τῷ διδόντι ἡμῖν τὸ νῖκος διὰ κτλ. “ Therefore— 
 because you are sure of the victory — be stedfast,” etc. The 
 εἰδότες x.T.X., Which glances back upon that sure νῖκος, testifies in 
 favour of this reference of ὥστε: hence we have no adequate 
 
108 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 eround for referring ὥστε to the whole section (de Wette, van 
 Hengel, αἰ.), nay, even for making it extend to the whole Epistle 
 (Hofmann). — ἑδραῖοι, ἀμετακίν.] Comp. Col. i. 23. To conceive 
 of the readers as ethical athletes (Beza), is not suggested by the 
 context. What is expressed is Christian perseverance in general, 
 under the figure of standing firm, comp. vii. 37 (opposite : σαλεύεσ- 
 θαι, comp. Theodoret), in connection with which, again, ἀμετακίν. 
 presents the perseverance more precisely as wnseduceableness, both 
 being in opposition to the possible seductions through the deniers 
 of the resurrection. Comp. on ἀμετακίν., Plato, Ep. vii. p. 343 A; 
 Dion. Hal. i. p. 520; and on both words, Arist. Eth. 11. 4. 3. — 
 περισσεύοντες ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ τ. K. πάντ.] abounding in the work of the 
 Lord, i.e. exceedingly active and energetic therein, always. This 
 more precise definition of περίσσ. is confirmed by the correlative 
 ὁ κόπος ὑμῶν (your pains and labour); ἐν, again, denotes the 
 definite sphere, wherein, etc. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 7; Phil. 1. 26; 
 Col. ii. 7; Rom. xv. 18. The ἔργον τοῦ κυρίου is the work which 
 is carried on in the service of Christ. Comp. xvi. 10. His is the 
 work, in which His people labour. And they labour therein, 
 each according to his different calling, by the active fulfilment 
 of His will as servants of the Lord (xii. 5). The three points, 
 ἑδραῖοι, ἀμετακ., περισσ. x.T.r., form a climax. — εἰδότες] since ye 
 know (comp. Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. 1. 7, iv. 14); it introduces the 
 motive, so significant in this connection, to follow the περίσσ. ἐν τ. 
 é.T. K.3 0 κόπος ὑμῶν, your painstaking labour, which is devoted to 
 the ἔργον τ. κυρίου. ---- κενός] in vain, i.e. without result. Comp. 
 ver. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 5. So would the labour be, if there were 
 no resurrection and no victorious consummation of eternal life, 
 because then the blessed reward of the labour would remain 
 unattained, namely, the salvation of the Messianic kingdom which 
 is destined for the labourer. Rom. ii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Jas. 
 i. 12, al. — ἐν κυρίῳ] is not to be connected with ὁ κόπος ὑμι,, 
 but with οὐκ ἔστι κενός. It depends wpon Christ, that your 
 labour is not fruitless ; for in Him the resurrection (ver. 22) and 
 the Messianic σωτηρία have their causal basis, vv. 17-19 ; Acts 
 iv. 12; Rom. v. 9 f, vi 22, 23, x. 9, al. 
 
CHAP, XVI. 1. 109 
 
 CHAPLTERIRVL 
 
 Ver. 2. σαββάτου] recommended by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. 
 Kiiick. Tisch., folowing A BC DEF GJ ΝΕ 17, Syr. Vulg. 
 Chrys., al. Elz. and Scholz, however, have σαββάτων, an alteration 
 in accordance with passages such as Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; 
 Luke xxiv. 1.— Ver. 7. Instead of the second γάρ, Elzevir has δέ, 
 against decisive evidence. An alteration to express the antithesis. 
 — ἐπιτρέπῃ} Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read, as approved previously by 
 Griesb. : ἐπιτρέψῃ, following A Β C J 8, min. Chrys. Theoph. ms. 
 Rightly; comp. Heb. vi. 3.— Ver. 17. ὑμῶν] ὑμέτερον should be 
 adopted, according to preponderant evidence; and comp. Phil. ii. 30. 
 — Instead of οὗτοι, A Ὁ E F G, 64, Vulg. Chrys. Oec. Ambrosiast. 
 have αὐτοί, which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by 
 Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Rightly; the external evidence is consider- 
 able enough, and οὗτοι might easily be written on the margin by 
 way of gloss. — Ver. 19. In place of πρίσκιλλα we should write 
 Πρίσκα, with Tisch., following B δὲ, 17, and several vss. Pel. The 
 former name was taken from the Acts. — Ver. 22. ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν in 
 ‘Elz. after χύριον (against A B C* s* and several min. Aeth. Copt.) 
 is an old, readily-occurring addition. 
 
 Vv. 1-9. Regarding the collection for Jerusalem; doubtless 
 (comp. vu. 1, viii. 1, xii. 1) occasioned by a question in the 
 Corinthian letter. 
 
 Ver. 1. The construction may be: ὥσπερ περὶ τῆς Noy. διέτ. 
 rats ἐκκλ. τῆς Γαλ., οὕτω κιτλ. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 1 ; also 1 Cor. 
 xii. 1. Still περὶ... ἁγίους may also be taken by itself (de Wette 
 and others), comp. ver. 12, vii. 1, viii. 1. We cannot, indeed, 
 decide, but the latter is more in harmony with the inartificial 
 movement of the epistolary style. — λογία: συλλογῇ, Suidas, comp. 
 Hesychius. Without example elsewhere save in the Fathers. 
 —eis τοὺς ἁγίους] ic. εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν 
 “Ιερουσαλήμ, Rom. xv. 206. This detail, however, was obvious of 
 itself to the readers; the assumption that οἱ ἅγιοι by itself 
 
110 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 denoted the mother church (Hofmann)' is neither necessary nor 
 capable of proof; they are the ἅγιοι who are known; the readers 
 were acquainted with the fact, for whom the apostle made the 
 collection. — The poverty of the church at Jerusalem explains 
 itself in part from the community of goods which had formerly?” 
 subsisted there (see on Acts 11. 44 f.). This poverty itself, along 
 with the high interest excited by what was in truth the mother 
 church of the whole of Christendom, as well as Gal. 11. 10, and 
 generally Paul’s love for his people (Rom. ix. 3), which made 
 sacrifices with joy, form a sufficient explanation of his great zeal 
 in their support, and of his delivering over the sums raised in 
 person, notwithstanding of the dangers which he saw before him. 
 Riickert’s view (comp. also Olshausen), that Paul desired to appease 
 the minds of the Jewish Christians there which were embittered 
 against him, before he journeyed into the west, has no trace 
 whatever of its existence either in the Acts or the Epistles. See, 
 on the contrary, Acts xxi. 17-24. Riickert even asserts that 
 such a reason alone could justify him in undertaking so perilous 
 a journey. But see Acts xx. 22-24.— τῆς Γαλατ.] whether 
 from Ephesus by messengers, or in person on the journey men- 
 tioned in Acts xviii, 23 (Osiander, Neander, Wieseler), or by 
 letter (so Ewald), must be left undecided. In the Epistle to the 
 Galatians preserved to us there is no mention of this collection ; 
 for Gal. ii. 10 is of general import, although it is the basis of the 
 apostolic διατάσσειν, as well as the special warrant for it. For 
 the rest, Bengel aptly says: “ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, 
 Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus, et Macedonum Romanis 
 proponit, 2 Cor. ix. 2; Rom. xv. 26. Magna exemplorum vis.” 
 But a proof, too, how Paul sought to foster the community of life 
 and effort in his churches (comp. Lechler, p. 364 1), and how the 
 appointed mode of doing so had already approved itself. 
 
 Ver. 2. Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου] on each first day of the week. 
 A Hebraism very common in the New Testament, in accordance 
 with the Jewish custom of designating the days of the week by 
 
 1 See in opposition to this explanation of οἱ ἅγιοι, which was previously proposed 
 by Wiescler also, Riehm, Lehkrbegr. d. Hebr. Br. p. xviii. ed. 2. 
 
 2 The community of goods cannot by this time have subsisted any longer ; 
 otherwise it could not have been said, Rom. lc¢., rods πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων. See Acts 
 iv, 34. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 3. 111 
 
 naw any, naw wy, ete. Lightfoot, Hor. ad Matth. xxviii.1. The 
 singular of caBP. also means week, as in Mark xvi. 9; Luke 
 xvili. 12. — It does not, indeed, follow from this passage in itself 
 that the Sunday was already observed at that time by assemblies 
 for the worship of God, although this is to be assumed from other 
 indications (see regarding this on Acts xx. 7); for wap’ ἑαυτῷ 
 τιθέτω cannot refer to the laying down of money in the assembly 
 (Estius, Bengel, Mosheim, a/.); but no doubt it does show that to 
 the Christian consciousness it was a holy day in whose conse- 
 eration the appropriateness of such works of love was felt, τὰ yap 
 ἀπόῤῥητα ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἡ ῥίζα καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ζωῆς ἡμετέρας ev 
 ταύτῃ γέγονεν, Chrysostom. — παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω κ.τ.λ.7 let him 
 lay up in store at home whatever (quodcunque) he succeeds in, 1.6. 
 if he has success in anything, let him lay it up (ie. what has 
 been gained thereby), comp. expressions such as in John xii. 5; 
 Matt. xix. 21, ete. Comp. Herod. vi. 73: Κλεομένεϊ εὐωδώθη 
 τὸ πρῆγμα. Kcclus. xi. 16, xxxviii. 14, Χ] 1; Tobit iv. 19; 
 3 John 2. To supply θησαυρίζειν after evod. (Hofmann) is 
 superfluous. Explanations such as quod et placuerit (Vulgate,' 
 Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, a/.), and that of Billroth and Riickert, 
 following older interpreters: what is possible for him without 
 burdening himself, are not in accordance with the literal sense of 
 evodow (see on Rom, i. 10). παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ : at home, chez lui, 
 see on Luke xxiv. 12. Loesner, Obss. p. 297. θησαυρίζων : 
 “ paulatim cumulum aliquem faciens,” Grotius.— ἵνα μὴ «.7.r.] 
 in order that gatherings be not made, when I shall have come. The 
 collection was to be then so far already made, that every one 
 would only have to produce what he had already gathered 
 together week by week out of his profits in trade. By this whole 
 injunction Paul doubtless had in view both the enlargement and 
 the acceleration in due season of the collection. 
 
 Ver. 3. Ods ἐὰν Soxip.|] whomsoever you shall consider fit. Paul 
 thus makes the appointment of the persons who were to bring 
 the money dependent upon the choice of his readers ; hence 
 Grotius observes: “ Vide, quomodo vir tantus nullam suwspiciont 
 rimam aperire voluerit.” It is possible, however, that he had 
 never thought of that; for it was quite natural for him, with his 
 
 1 The Vulgate, perhaps, may have read εὐδοκῇ. Comp. the Gothic: “ thatei vili” 
 (what he will). 
 
112 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 fine practical tact, not to anticipate the givers as respects the 
 transmission of their gifts. — δι᾿ ἐπιστολῶν] by means of letters, 
 by my giving them letters along with them to express their 
 mission. Comp. Winer, p. 356 [E. T. 476]. The plural might 
 denote the category (by way of letter), and thus only one letter be 
 meant (Heumann); but there is nothing to compel us to depart 
 from the plural sense, for Paul very reasonably might design to 
 write different letters to several persons at Jerusalem.’ Au’ 
 ἐπιστ. is to be connected with what follows (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and the majority of modern expositors), and it is put 
 Jirst, because Paul has already in his mind the other possible 
 alternative, that he himself may make the journey. The majority 
 of the older editors (except Er. Schmid), also Beza, Calvin, Estius, 
 al., connect it with doxiu.: “quos Hierosolymitanis per epistolas 
 commendaveritis,’ Wetstein. But in that case the πέμψω would 
 surely be somewhat meaningless! No; the bearers of the 
 collection are to be chosen by the givers; but it is Paul, as the 
 originator and apostolically commissioned steward (Gal. ii. 10) of 
 the collection, who sends the money. — τὴν χάριν ὑμ.] your love- 
 gift, benefictum. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 4, 6, 7, 19. “ Gratiosa 
 appellatio,” Bengel; comp. Oecumenius; Xen. Ag. iv. 4 f., Hier. 
 vili. 4; Ecclus. ili. 29, xxx. 6, xxix. 15; 4 Mace. v. 8. 
 
 Ver. 4. In case, however, of it (what is being spoken of, 1.6. the 
 result of the collection) being worthy that I too should journey (to 
 Jerusalem),? then they shall journey with me. The genitive τοῦ 
 πορεύεσθαι depends upon ἄξιον. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
 845 ; Winer, p. 304 [E. T. 408]. — Paul makes his own journey- 
 ing thither dependent upon the issue of the collection, not, of 
 course, for the sake of safety in its conveyance, nor yet because, in 
 
 1 We see, too, from this passage how common it was for the apostle, in the course 
 of his work, to indite letters even to individuals. Who knows how many of such 
 writings of his have been lost! The only letter of the kind which we still have 
 (setting aside the pastoral Epistles), that to Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps 
 solely to the circumstance that it was addressed at the same time to the church in 
 the house (Philem. 2). 
 
 2 It is clear from x¢ut wop. that he will not make the journey at any rate (Hof- 
 mann), but that he makes it dependent on the above-named circumstance whether 
 he also shall journey thither. What a strange state of things, too, would be the 
 result, if he were resolved to journey at any vate, but the messengers, in the event of 
 the collection proving a small one, were to make the journey not in his company, 
 but alone / Paul assuredly did not contemplate anything so paltry. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 5, 6. big 
 
 the event of a considerable sum being realized, he desired to be 
 independent in connection with the application of it, but—which 
 alone results from d&ov without arbitrariness—because a scanty 
 sum would have been disproportionate to an extraordinary mission. 
 Consideration for the decorum attaching to the apostolic rank under- 
 lies his procedure, not the prudential motive: “in order, on this 
 opportunity, to fulfil his purpose of going to Jerusalem (Acts 
 xix. 21), and to prepare for himself there a good reception” 
 (de Wette), or in order by this journey to heal the breach 
 between the Jewish and Gentile Christians (Baur). Bengel 
 says well: “Justa aestimatio sui non est superbia.” At the 
 same time, he will not undertake this charge alone ; see 2 Cor. 
 vill. 20. 
 
 Ver. 5 f. His arrival, which had not hitherto been specifically 
 determined, is now defined by him as respects its time. — ὅταν 
 Maxed. διέλθω] According to 2 Cor. 1. 15, it had previously been 
 his plan to proceed from Ephesus by Corinth to Macedonia, from 
 Macedonia again back to Corinth, and then onward to Jerusalem. 
 This plan, however, he has altered (see 2 Cor. 1. 15, 23 ff.), and 
 he now intends to journey first through Macedonia, and then to 
 Corinth, where he thinks perhaps (τυχόν) to spend some time, or 
 even to winter. In the second Epistle, too, we see him actually 
 engaged on this journey in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13, vill. 1, ix. 
 2, 4), and upon the way to Corinth (ii. 1, xii. 14, xiii. 1, αἰ... 
 Acts xx. 1, 2, agrees with this.— Maxed. yap διέρχ.] is not a 
 parenthesis, but the Maxed. put first corresponds to the πρὸς 
 ὑμᾶς δέ which follows, and the διέρχομαι to the παραμενῶ: for 
 Macedonia I journey through (without halting), but with you will 
 I perhaps remain. The present διέρχ. designates the future as 
 present in conception, 1.6. conceived as quite certain. From the 
 erroneous rendering: £ am on my journey through Macedonia, 
 arose the erroneous statement in the subscription, that the letter 
 was written from Philippi.— παραμενῶ] he remained three 
 months, Acts xx. 2.— ἵνα ὑμεῖς x.7.d.] ὑμεῖς has the emphasis. 
 Were Paul to remain in another church, others would give him 
 the escort; there is something kindly both in ἵνα and in ὑμεῖς, 
 the unprompted thoughtfulness of love. — τυχόν] forsan, only 
 here in the New Testament, very common in Greek writers. — 
 ov] As Luke x. 1. Bornemann, Schol. in loc.; Kiihner, II. p. 318. 
 
 1 COR. I. 1 
 
114 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Whither his thoughts, however, were generally turned at that 
 time, see Acts xix. 21. 
 
 Ver. 7. For it is not my will to see you now in passing. Since 
 he does not say πάλιν ἐν παρ., but ἄρτι ἐν παρ., no inference can 
 be drawn from this passage to decide the question (see Introduc- 
 tion to 2 Cor. ὃ 2) whether Paul had been already ¢wice in Corinth 
 before writing our Epistle to the Corinthians (in opposition to 
 Schrader, Neander, Wieseler, Otto); but he says simply: 7 ds not 
 his will now to visit the Corinthians only as a passing traveller, 
 which leaves it quite undecided whether he has already 
 previously visited them once ἐν παρόδῳ (so, too, Hofmann) or 
 not. In order rightly to understand the passage, observe tliat 
 the ὑμᾶς, which is put first on that account, has the emphasis, in 
 contrast to the Macedonians. The Corinthians, in the journey 
 which he is now about to make, are to have the advantage over 
 the Macedonians, whom he will only see in journeying through, 
 ver. 5. According to Billroth and others, the thought is meant to 
 be, that he will not now see them, as he had formerly intended, on 
 his journey through (to Macedonia). But in that case he would 
 have written: ἄρτι yap οὐ θέλω κιτλ. Regarding ἐν παρόδῳ, 
 comp. Thue. i. 126. 7, v. 4. 5, vii. 2. 3; Polyb. v. 68. 8; Lucian, 
 D. Deor. xxiv. 2.— ἐλππίζω yap x.7.r.] ground of the od θέλω 
 «.t.r.; for he hopes that the Lord will enable him to make a 
 longer visit to the church than merely ἐν παρόδῳ, and upon the 
 ground of this hope it is not his will, etc.—o κύριος] Christ, in 
 whose service the apostle journeys and works (Acts xvi. 7, 10). 
 --- ἐπιτρέψῃ) shall have allowed, 1.6. shall have given signs of 
 His approval. “Pia conditio,” Bengel. Comp. iv. 19. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. Paul now mentions the duration of his present stay in 
 Ephesus, and the reason of it. — τῆς πεντήηκ.] is the immediately 
 impending festival of Pentecost. See Introduction, ὃ 3. Nothing 
 can be inferred from our text, which contains simply a statement 
 of:time, in support of a Christian celebration of this festival as 
 already by this time subsisting. —O@vpa yap μοι «.7.r.] The 
 figurative expression (comp. Wetstein) denotes the opportunity 
 opened before him for working (otherwise Acts xiv. 27). Comp. 
 2 Cor. ii. 12, and see on Col. iv. 3. Meyady applies to the ex- 
 tent, évepy. to the influence of the sphere of action offered; the 
 
 1 This also against Otto, Pastorald. p. 356 f. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 10, 11. its 
 
 latter epithet, however, powerful, corresponds not to the figure 
 but to the matter, and even to that only in so far as it is con- 
 ceived of as immediately connected with the opened Ovpa,—a 
 want of congruity in the animated and versatile mode of represen- 
 tation (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 245 A: Μουσῶν ἐπὶ ποιητικὰς 
 θύρας ἀφίκηται) which occasioned the reading ἐναργής, evidens 
 (Vulgate, Itala,-Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Beda), which occurs in 
 Philem. 6, and is approved by Beza, Grotius, Bos, and Clericus. 
 As regards the later Greek of ἀνέῳγεν (instead of ἀνέῳκται, as 
 46, Theophylact and Oecumenius actually read), see Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 157 f.— x. ἀντικείμ. πολλοί] “ quibus resistam. Saepe 
 bonum et contra ea malum simul valde vigent,” Bengel. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11. Recommendation of Timothy (iv. 17) to be well 
 received and escorted back. He is not the bearer of our Epistle 
 (Bleek), but journeyed through Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and 
 must arrive in Corinth later than the Epistle. — éav δὲ ἔλθῃ] τ, 
 indeed, he shall have come. Riickert holds that ὅταν would have 
 been more correct. Either one or other was correct, just accord- 
 ing to the conception of the writer. He conceives of the arrival of 
 Timothy as conditioned by the circumstances, and therefore places 
 it under the hypothetical, not under the temporal (ὅταν), point of 
 view. — ἵνα x.7.d.] design of the βλέπετε : be careful, in order that 
 he, etc. Paul might also have written negatively: βλέπετε, μὴ 
 ἐν φόβῳ (ii. 3), or Wa μὴ ἐ. φ. (2 John 8), etc. The positive 
 expression, however, demands more; his going owt and in among 
 the readers is to be free from fear. Comp. on γίνεσθαι with the 
 adverb of the mode of the going out and in, Herod. i. 8, ix. 109; 
 Plut. Alex. 69, Demetr. 11, Mor. p. 127 A; also Plato, Prot. 
 325 B; Tobit vii. 9, 11; 1 Macc. viii 29. They are so to 
 conduct themselves towards him that he shall not be intimidated 
 among them. This peculiar ἀφόβως, as well as the reason assigned 
 which follows τὸ yap ἔργον x.7.., and the conclusion again drawn 
 from it: μή τις οὖν αὐτ. ἐξουθενήσῃ, make it probable that Paul 
 has in view not the «l-will of his own opponents, which his 
 friend might encounter (Osiander, Neander), with which the τὸ 
 yap... ὡς καὶ ἐγώ does not well agree, but the youth of 
 Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 12), on account of which, in a church to 
 some extent of a high-minded tendency, he might easily be 
 not held in full respect, slighted and intimidated. So already 
 
116 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Chrysostom and the majority of interpreters. The conjecture 
 that Timothy was of a timid nature (de Wette) is without a 
 trace of historical support, and is superfluous. Regarding τὸ ἔργ. 
 τοῦ Kup., see on xv. 58.--— ἐν εἰρήνῃ] is not to be explained from 
 the formula: πορεύεσθαι ἐν εἰρήνῃ (so Calvin: “salvum ab omni 
 noxa,’ comp. Beza, Flatt, Maier), since, on the contrary, the con- 
 text would lead us to think, in accordance with ἀφόβως and 
 μή τις ἐξουθ., of a peaceful escort, a προπέμπειν in peace and 
 concord, χωρὶς μάχης κ. φιλονεικίας (Chrysostom, Theophylact). 
 Flatt and Hofmann refer ἐν εἰρ. to what follows (that he may 
 come to me safely and without danger). But the subsequent reason 
 assigned contains nothing referable to ἐν εἰρήνῃ, which must 
 have been the case, had it been so emphatically put first. Besides, 
 the escort to be given was not for protection, but in testimony 
 of love and reverence. — ἵνα ἔλθη πρός με] There is implied, 
 namely, in προπέμψραατε x.7.r., with its aim as here defined: “in 
 order that he may come (back) to me,” the admonition not to 
 detain ham too long in Corinth—for Paul is eapecting him. — μετὰ 
 τῶν ἀδελφῶν) Several others, therefore, besides Erastus (Acts 
 xix. 22), had journeyed with Timothy." 
 
 Ver. 12. 4é] marks the transition trom Timothy to Apollos. 
 -- περὶ δὲ ᾿άπ. τοῦ ἀδ.] stands independently: quod attinet ad 
 Apoll., as ver. 1, vii. 1. --- να ἔλθῃ κιτιλ.] design of the πολλὰ 
 πωρεκάλεσα αὐτόν: I have advised him much, in order that he 
 should come, etc. Paul makes this remark: “ne Corinthii sus- 
 picentur, ab eo fuisse impeditum,” Calvin. Perhaps they had 
 expressly besought that Apollos might be sent to them. — πολλά 
 is intensive, as in ver. 19, and often in Greek writers. — μετὰ 
 τῶν ἀδελφῶν] These are the Corinthian Christians, who journeyed 
 back from Ephesus to Corinth with this Epistle. See ver. 17. 
 Here also the words are not to be joined with παρεκάλεσα 
 (Hofmann), but with ἵνα ἔλθη «.7.X., beside which they stand. — 
 καὶ πάντως «.7.r.] And the will was wholly (out and out) lacking 
 (“sermo quasi impersonalis,” Bengel) in order to come now, comp. 
 Matt. xviii. 14. The context compels us to understand θέλημα 
 
 1To refer it to 2xdiz.: I with the brethren who ave here (Bengel and de Wette 
 andecidedly, older interpreters in Calovins, and again Hofmann), has the analogy 
 of ver. 12 against it. It was usual that several should be sent together on such 
 missions. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 13, 14. 117 
 
 of the will of Apollos, not of God’s will (Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Bengel, Riickert). καί does not stand for ἀλλά 
 (Beza and others), comp. Rom. 1, 18. --- ὅταν evxaip.] So soon as 
 he shall have found a convenient time for it. Regarding the late- 
 ness of the word in Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125. 
 
 Remark.—It follows from this passage that Apollos, who by 
 this time must have been again (Acts xviii. 24 ff.) in Ephesus,‘ 
 was neither a faction-maker nor at variance with Paul, for Paul 
 himself plainly regarded his going to Corinth as a thing ad- 
 vantageous and to be desired. Hence, too, the refusal of Apollos 
 is not to be explained from fear of adding new fuel to the party 
 heats, but simply from the contents of the ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ. He must 
 have found hindrances for the present in the relations of his work, 
 by which he saw himself detained from the desired journey until 
 ἃ more convenient time, so that he did not yield even to the 
 advice of the apostle. The text tells us nothing further; but the 
 Corinthians themselves might learn more details from the bearers 
 of the Epistle. Van Hengel (Gave d. talen. p. 111 f.) brings the 
 refusal into a too arbitrarily assumed connection with the Corin- 
 thian misuse of the glossolalia. 
 
 Ver. 13 f. In conclusion of the whole Epistle, and without con- 
 nection or reference to what has immediately preceded, there is 
 now added a concise exhortation which compresses closely together, 
 in five imperatives following each other asyndetically, the whole 
 sum of the Christian calling, upon which are then to follow 
 some personal commendations and greetings, as well as, lastly, the 
 proper closing greeting and the benediction. — The γρηγορεῖτε 
 summons to Christian foresight and soberness, without which sted- 
 fastness in the faith (στήκ. ἐν τ. riot.) is not possible ; ἀνδρίζεσθε 
 and κραταιοῦσθε, again, to the manly (“muliebris enim omnis 
 inconstantia,’ Pelagius) and vigorous resistance against all 
 dangers, without which that stedfastness cannot continue. — 
 ἀνδρίζεσθαι] to bear oneself manfully, to be manly in bearing and 
 action; only here in the New Testament, but often in classic 
 writers, see Wetstein, and in the LXX. Comp. the Homeric 
 ἀνέρες ἐστε, Il. v. 529; and see, also, Valckenaer, ad Herod. 
 vil. 210; Heind. ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 B. Comp. ἀνδρικῶς 
 ὑπομεῖναι μάχεσθαι «.7.d., Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 165. — xpa- 
 
 1 He seems, however, just when this letter was written to have been absent for a 
 time, since no special greeting is sent from him, 
 
118 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ταιοῦσθε] be strong. Comp. Eph. iii. 16: δυνάμει κραταιωθῆναι 
 διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ eis τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. The verbal 
 form occurs in the LXX. and Apocrypha; not in Greek writers, 
 who say κρατύνεσθαι. -- ἐν ἀγάπῃ] as in the life-sphere of the 
 whole Christian dispositions and action, chap. xiil., and, in par- 
 ticular, of mutual edification, vii. 1. 
 
 Vv. 15-18. Commendation of the three Corinthian delegates 
 who had brought to the apostle the letter of the church; first of 
 all (ver. 15 f.) and chiefly, of Stephanas (1.16) and his house. The 
 special expression which Paul gives (ver. 16) tothe commendation of 
 Stephanas must have been grounded in some antagonism unknown 
 to us, which the man had to lament in his work for the church. 
 — - παρακαλῶ] The question is, Whether the exhortation itself 
 begins at once with οἴδατε (so that the latter would be imperative), 
 or only with ἵνα, so that οἴδατε would be indicative, and the pas- 
 sage ending with ἑαυτούς would put forward the motive in the first 
 place? The latter is the ordinary view and the only correct one, for 
 οἴδατε as an imperative form (instead of ἔστε) cannot be pointed 
 out (in opposition to Erasmus, Wolf, Heydenreich); on the supposi- 
 tion of its being imperative, εἰδέναι would require to be taken as 
 in 1 Thess. v. 12 (“ut jubeat agnosci bene meritos,” Erasmus) ; 
 on the view of its being indicative, it is the simple know. The 
 construction is the ordinary attraction οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, and οἴδατε 
 
 . ἑαυτούς is an auxiliary thought which interrupts the con- 
 struction (comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 34 b).— ἀπαρχὴ τῆς 
 *Ay.] we. the first family which had accepted Christianity in 
 Achaia; the holy jirst-fruits of the land, in so far as it was 
 destined to become, and was in process of becoming, Christian. 
 Comp. Rom. xv. 6.— ἔταξαν] The plural, on account of the 
 collective οἰκί. They have set themselves (voluntarily devoted 
 themselves and placed themselves at the post) for the service of 
 the saints. Instances of τάσσειν ἑαυτόν in this sense may be 
 seen in Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 234. Comp. Plato, Rep. 
 p. 371 C: ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν διακονίαν τάττουσι ταύτην, Xen. 
 Ages. ii. 25, Mem. ii. 1.11. Beza denies the emphasis of ἑαυτούς, 
 unwarrantably, but in the interest of the “ vocatio legitima.”* We 
 have no more precise knowledge of the historical circumstances 
 
 1 Which does not fall to be considered here, since there is no mention of entrance 
 upon an ecclesiastical office. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 17, 18. 119 
 
 here pointed to. Perhaps Stephanas devoted himself also especially 
 to journeys, embassies, execution of special commissions, and the 
 like; his wife, to the care of the poor and sick. — τοῖς ἁγίοις is 
 an appropriating dative to dvax. See, already, Raphel, Xenoph. 
 in loc.; Bernhardy, p. 88. By οἱ ἅγιοι are meant the Christians, 
 as in ver. 1; not, however, the mother church at Jerusalem (Hof- 
 mann). <A reference to prosecuting the collection (in connection 
 with which people had, it is supposed, been refractory towards 
 Stephanas) lies wholly remote from the words. — καὶ ὑμεῖς] You 
 too. The καί finds its reference, according to the context, in what 
 goes before: εἰς dvax. τ. ay. ἔταξ. ἑαυτ. Wetstein is right, there- 
 fore, in saying: “illi vobis ministrant ; aequum est, ut vos <llis 
 vicissim honorem exhibeatis” (rather: obsequamint). — brrotacc. | 
 namely, to their proposals, exhortations, etc. Ewald and Ritschl 
 regard Stephanas as one of the overseers of the church; a relation 
 which, however, would have required a more precise and detinite 
 designation than the general and qualitative τοῖς τοιούτοις. See, 
 besides, on 1. 17.— τοῖς τοιούτοις] to those who are so affected, 
 indicates, in a generalizing way, the category to which Stephanas 
 and his house belong. This generalization, by which the injunc- 
 tion of obedience towards the concrete persons comes out in a 
 less strict and immediate form, but in which it is still implied, is 
 a delicacy of expression. — τῷ ovvepy.| The reference of the συν 
 is given by the context from τοῖς τοιούτοις ; hence: who works 
 with them, 1.6. in fellowship uith them, which presupposes harmony 
 in the spirit and purport of the work. Comp. Chrysostom. While 
 Riickert leaves us our choice between three supplements con- 
 trary to the context: τῷ θεῷ (iv. 9), ἐμοί (so Erasmus), and 
 ὑμῖν (2 Cor: i. 24), Hofmann adds a fourth arbitrary supplement : 
 helpful to increase the kingdom of God. This design is of course 
 taken for granted of itself, but does not explain the συν. --- καὶ 
 κοπιεῶντι] and takes pains (therein), gives himself trouble about it. 
 Comp..xv- 10; 1v. 12+ Gal. iv. 11; Rom. xvi. Ὁ. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. Regarding Fortunatus (probably not different from 
 the person named in Clem. 1 Cor. 59) and Achaicus no 
 particulars are known. They are not to be included (as de 
 Wette would have it) in the family of Stephanas, which has been 
 spoken of already. Grotius holds them to be Chloe’s people ; but 
 see on 1. 11. — ὅτε τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ averr.] because 
 
120 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 they for their part have supplied your lack (your absence). Comp. 
 on Phil. ii. 30. ‘“Yuér. is thus taken objectively (comp. xv. 31): 
 the lack of your presence; and ὑμέτ. and αὐτοί (see the critical 
 remarks) have the emphasis. Observe how courteously the 
 expression: the want of you (of your presence), is chosen. Hof- 
 mann, on the contrary, misses this delicate touch by taking it as: 
 what was lacking 7 you, in this respect, namely, that you could 
 not appear with me in person. With still less delicacy Grotius, 
 who adduces in his support 2 Cor. ix. 12: “quod vos omnes 
 facere oportuit, id illi fecerunt; certiorem me fecere de vestris 
 morbis.” He is followed by Riickert, who founds wrongly upon 
 Phil. 1. 30: “what should have been done by you, that have they 
 done,’ inasmuch, namely, as they had given him joy, which had 
 not been done by the Corinthians. But we must not decide here 
 by passages from other Epistles, since linguistically both render- 
 ings alike may be correct, but simply by the connection, according 
 to which the men as ambassadors from the Corinthians were the 
 compensation to the apostle for the lack of the presence of the latter. 
 Comp. Chrysostom. — ἀνέπαυσαν yap «.7.d.] reason assigned for the 
 preceding τὸ ὑστέρημα αὐτ. averr.' Legarding the phrase, comp. 
 2 Cor. vii, 13; Philem. 7, 20.— καὶ τὸ ὑμῶν] for they have 
 refreshed (by their arrival here, and the communications and 
 assurances connected therewith, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13) my spirit and 
 yours. The latter, inasmuch as they had come not in their own name, 
 but as representatives of the whole church; their meeting therefore 
 - with Paul could not but be refreshing to the consciousness of the 
 whole church. As they by their presence provided for Pawl the 
 joy of ἀνάπαυσις, so they provided it also for the church, which 
 through them had entered into this fellowship with the apostle, 
 and thus owed to them the refreshment which it could not but ex- 
 perience in the consciousness of this living intercourse of love with 
 Paul brought about through these men. Comp. Chrysostom: οὐ 
 Παύλῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kai ἐκείνοις αὐτοὺς χαρισαμένους δείκνυσι τῷ 
 τὴν πόλιν ἅπασαν ἐν αὐτοῖς περιφέρειν. Paul thus expresses not 
 simply reciprocity in general,—that which is presupposed where 
 there is good-will (de Wette),—but the relation implied in the 
 
 1 Had Paul and his readers met together in person, this would have been refreshing 
 
 for both parties (comp. Rom. i. 12); and this refreshment of both parties had now 
 taken place through those delegates, 
 
CHAP. XVI. 19, 20. 121 
 
 representation of the church by their delegates,—a relation, there- 
 fore, which for the latter, in virtue of their acceptance of the 
 embassage, was one of merit. There lies here, also, in the addi- 
 tion of this second pronoun, a tender delicacy (comp. on i. 2), 
 which the readers acquainted with the manner of the apostle 
 could well appreciate. Grotius makes the reference to be to the 
 assurances of Paul’s love which those men had brought with them 
 to the Corinthians. But τὸ ὑμῶν also, like τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα, must 
 refer to the time of the presence of the delegates with Paul. — 
 ἐπιυγινώσκετε] Attention to the compound verb: recognise them 
 rightly (comp. on xili. 12), should of itself have sufficed to prevent 
 alterations of the sense of the word (such as: prize them highly, 
 so Theophylact, Grotius, Flatt, Neander, and others). The high 
 esteem is the consequence of the ἐπύγιν. --- τοὺς τοιούτους] as 
 in ver. 16. 
 
 Ver. 19 f. Τῆς ᾿Ασίας] in the narrower sense, comprehending 
 the western coastlands of Asia Minor (see on Acts ii. 9), where 
 Ephesus also lay. From the latter, at least, Paul was charged 
 with a greeting, but in the assurance of a like loving fellowship 
 on the part also of the other Asiatic churches, with which he was 
 in intercourse from Ephesus, he widens it.— ἐν κυρίῳ] marks 
 the Christian character of the greeting, inasmuch as it was given 
 with the feeling of living and moving in Christ. Comp. on Rom. 
 xvi. 22, The ἐν κυρ., which is here added, is taken for granted 
 by the reader in the case of the other greetings also. But here 
 precisely it is expressed, because this greeting is a specially fervent 
 one; hence also πολλώ (much, comp. ver. 12).— σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ 
 οἶκον avr. éxxr.] Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), who had gone from 
 Corinth (see on Acts xviii. 2) to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 26), had 
 therefore given their dwelling here too, as afterwards at Rome 
 (Rom. xvi. 3 f.), for the assembly of a portion of the Christians 
 in the place. Comp. on Rom. 1.0. Probably Paul also lodged . 
 with them, so that the old addition: παρ᾽ οἷς καὶ ἕξενίζομαι 
 (Ὁ E F G, Vulg., etc.), contains a true statement. — οἱ ἀδελφοὶ 
 πάντες] the whole of the members of the Ephesian church—these, 
 still, separately and personally, although already included collec- 
 tively in the first greeting. — ἐν gir. ay.] by means of a holy kiss. 
 See on Rom. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. xiii 12; 1 Thess. v. 26. It is the 
 kiss which was the token of Christian, brotherly love (1 Pet. v. 14), 
 
122 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE ‘TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 and thus had the specific character of Christian consecration. 
 Comp. Constit. apost. ii. 57. 12, viii. 5. 5: τὸ ἐν κυρίῳ φίλημα. 
 More special considerations, such as that of the absence of hypocrisy 
 (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), are «mported. They are to 
 greet each other, mutually (not from Paul), with the holy kiss after 
 the reading of the Epistle in the assembly, and thereby manifest 
 their brotherly love to each other respectively." Comp. on 
 Rom. xvi. 16. 
 
 Vv. 21-24. Conclusion added with his own hand in token, 
 according to 2 Thess. iii. 17, comp. ii. 2, that the Epistle, though 
 not written with his own hand, was his Epistle. Comp. Col. iv. 18. 
 —0 ἀσπασμός] is the greeting κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the final salutation 
 to the church. Nothing is to be supplied; on the contrary, Paul 
 writes these words, and there is the greeting. — Παύλου] in appo- 
 sition to ἐμῇ. See Kiihner, 11. p. 145.—In ver. 22, looking 
 back once more, as it were involuntarily, upon the many degenerate 
 forms of Christian life, and the discords at Corinth, he adds an 
 apostolic utterance of judgment, full of terrible solemnity, against 
 all those who could not but feel that it struck at them. — οὐ φιλεῖ 
 τ. κύρ.] is without love to Christ. So he designates those Christians, 
 who, like so many at Corinth, by factiousness, self-seeking, strife, 
 a carnal life, etc., practically denied their love to Christ (John 
 xiv. 29). That the curse applied to them, as long as they were 
 impenitent, is self-evident. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 10.— Observe that 
 the more sensuous word φιλεῖν is nowhere used by Paul in those 
 Epistles which are undoubtedly his (comp., however, Tit. 11. 15), 
 except in this passage so full of emotion; elsewhere he uses 
 ἀγαπᾶν (Eph. vi. 24). — ἤτω ἀνάθ.] 1.6. then let him be one devoted 
 to destruction (to the eternal ἀπώλεια)η. See on Rom. ix. 3; 
 Gal. i. 8.— μαραναθά] energetic reference to the Parousia, at 
 which that ἤτω ἀνάθ. shall be realized. The word is the 
 Aramaic SNS NID, ze. our Lord is come, by which, however, not 
 the coming in the flesh is meant, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, Jerome, Erasmus, Castalio, a/., assume,’ but, in 
 
 1 We are to conceive of this ἀσπάζεσθαι ἀλληλούς as a Silent one, in which the kiss 
 is the medium instead of words. Comp. Consé. ap. viii. 11. 4. 
 
 2 Paul, they hold, means thereby to say: ‘‘Quod superfluum sit adversus eum 
 (Christum) odiis pertinacibus contendere, quem venisse jam constet,” Jerome, Hp. 137 
 
 ad Marcell. ; or: he means thereby to put them to shame, because they still con- 
 tinued in their sins after the Lord had shown such condescension, Chrysostom ; or, 
 
CHAP. XVI. 21-24. 129 
 
 accordance with the context (see previously ἤτω dvaé.), the 
 eschatological coming to judgment. Paul sees the near and certain 
 Parousia as if already begun (see on this use of the Hebrew 
 praeterite, Ewald, Zehrb. 135. 3), and exclaims, like a prophet 
 beholding it in vision: Our Lord is here! But it is not a form 
 of putting under ban (see Lightfoot, Hor. p. 260), as indeed it 
 does not occur in the Rabbinical writings ; Luther (comp. Calvin) 
 has without any warrant made it into Maharam Motha (which 
 would be xn ὉΠ, maledictus ad mortem). According to Hof- 
 mann, μαραναθά is meant to be equivalent to 728 1D, Thow art 
 the Lord, whereby the thought is expressed: “ He will prove Him- 
 self in them to be Lord.” But how needless is this wholly novel 
 and far less characteristic interpretation! The traditional inter- 
 pretation,’ on the other hand, places the punishment of the judg- 
 ment directly before our eyes. Why, we may ask further, did 
 Paul use the Aramaean expression? We do not know. Per- 
 haps there was implied in it some reminiscence from the time of 
 the apostle’s presence among them, unknown to us, but carry- 
 ing weight for his readers; perhaps it was only the prompting 
 of momentary indignation, that, after the sentence of judgment 
 already pronounced (ἤτω ἀνάθεμα), “rei gravitate commotus, quasi 
 sibi non satisfecisset” (Calvin), he desired to clothe in truly 
 solemn language the threatening reference to the Parousia yet to 
 be added by μαραναθά, instead of saying ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἥκει. 
 That there was a reference, however, in the Aramaean expression 
 to the Petrine party who understood Hebrew, is not to be assumed 
 (in opposition to Hofmann), as the general εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τ. κύριον 
 shows of itself. The two Aramaean words were doubtless enough 
 intelligible generally in the mixed church, which contained so much 
 of the Jewish element. Had the Maranatha, however, been as it were 
 the mysterious watchword in the world of that time (Ewald), there 
 
 “ὁ quandoquidem aversatur eum, a quo solo poterat consequi salutem, et venisse negat 
 quem constat venisse magno bono credentium, sed magno malo incredulorum,” 
 Erasmus, Paraphr. ; or, ‘‘ quod si quis eum non amat, frustra alium expectat,” 
 Castalio. 
 
 ? Even those codd. which have written the word in a divided way, have the 
 division not pap avaba, but μαραν aba. So already B**. And the versions, too 
 (those which do not with the Vulgate retain it untranslated), translate according 
 to this division ; so already the Peshito: Dominus noster venit. Cod. It. g.: in 
 adveniu Domini. 
 
124 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 would be in all probability more traces of it to be found in the New 
 Testament. This also in opposition to Bengel. The view of Chry- 
 sostom and Theophylact is singularly absurd: Paul wished by the 
 Aramaean to cross the conceit of the Corinthians in the Hellenic 
 language and wisdom. Billroth, followed by Riickert, holds that 
 he had added something in Aramaic also, in order to accredit yet 
 more strongly the authenticity of the Epistle, but that this had 
 afterwards been written by the transcribers in Greek letters. 
 But the assumption that he had not written μαραναθά in Greek 
 letters, although it has passed over so into all Greek mss. of 
 the text, is equally arbitrary with the presupposition that he 
 had thought such an extraordinary and peculiar mode of attestation 
 to be needful precisely in the case of this Epistle, which was 
 already sufficiently accredited without it by the bearers. — 
 Ver. 23. The grace of the Lord, etc., sc. εἴη, the apostle’s most 
 common closing wish in an epistle, Rom. xvi. 20, 24; Gal. vi. 18 ; 
 Phil. iv. 23; 1 Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. 1, 18; Philem. 25,;— 
 Ver. 24. My love, ete., sc. ἐστι : his heart impels him still to add 
 this assurance at the very end, all the more because the divisions, 
 immoralities, and disorders in the church had forced from him 
 such severe rebukes and, even now, such corrective appeals. He 
 loves them, and loves them al/. If taken as optative (Luther, 
 Kstius, Ewald), it would be less suitably an indirect admonition, 
 namely, that they might so conduct themselves that, etc. — ἐν 
 Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] Christ is his whole life-sphere ; in it he loves also. 
 His love has thus the distinctively Christian character, in contrast 
 to all κοσμικὴ ἀγάπη (Theophylact). 
 
THE 
 
 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 iN TR Ort eC LLON: 
 
 § 1.—OCCASION, AIM, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.) 
 
 Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17); he assumed, in 
 regard to him, that he would arrive there later than the 
 Epistle (1 Cor. xvi. 10 f.), and he might therefore expect 
 from him accounts of the impression which it made, and its result. 
 Certainly Timothy is again with Paul, while he is composing the 
 second Epistle (2 Cor. i. 1); but there is no mention of news 
 brought by him. Hence Eichhorn was of opinion (also Riibiger and 
 Hofmann) that he had again left Corinth even before the arrival of 
 our first Epistle in that city ; others, however (Ziegler, Bertholdt, 
 Neander, Credner, Riickert, de Wette, Reuss, Maier), assumed that 
 he had not come to Corinth at a//, but had returned from Macedonia, 
 where he had made too long a stay, to Ephesus (Acts xix. 22) 
 But against the latter view may be urged the fact that, according 
 to 1 Cor. iv. 17, Timothy was quite distinctly delegated to Corinth, 
 7.6, Was commissioned to visit Corinth from Macedonia (comp. 
 
 
 
 1 See Klopper, δε. krit. Unters. iib. d. zweiten Brief d. Paulus an εἰ. Gemeinde 
 zu Kor., Gott. 1869. 
 
 * Chap. xii. 17, 18 is also quoted in confirmation of this view ; for, it is said, if 
 Timothy had come to Corinth, Paul could not but have mentioned him here. See 
 especially, Riickert, p. 409. But Paul may, during the time when he was not at 
 Corinth himself, have sent to the church there many a one whom he does not here 
 
 name. He names only the last, Z'itus. Besides, Timothy was in fact joint-writer 
 of our Epistle. 
 
 125 
 
190 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Acts xix. 22); hence we are not justified in believing that he 
 left this apostolic mission unfulfilled, or that Paul himself had 
 cancelled it, otherwise we should necessarily expect the apostle 
 in this second Epistle to have explained to his readers why 
 Timothy did not come, especially as the anti-Pauline party would 
 not have failed to turn the non-appearance of Timothy to account 
 for their hostile ends (comp. 1. 17). Eichhorn’s opinion pre- 
 supposes that the bearers of the first letter lingered on the 
 journey (1 Cor. xvi. 17), which there is the less ground to assume 
 as these men presumably had no other aim than to return from 
 Ephesus to Corinth. In opposition to the opinions that Timothy 
 did not get so far as Corinth, or that he left it again prematurely, 
 compare, in general, Klépper, p. 4 ff. It must therefore be held 
 that Paul had received from Timothy news of the impression which 
 the former Epistle had made. The fact that he makes no mention 
 of this is explained from the circumstance that, in i. 1, Timothy 
 himself appears as joint-sender of the Epistle; whence not only 
 was it obvious to the reader that Timothy on his return had 
 made communications to the apostle, but it would have been 
 unbecoming and awkward if Paul had said that he had received 
 from Timothy accounts of the result of his Epistle. For these 
 accounts, viz. those of the jirst impression made by the letter, 
 must have been by no means tranquillizing for Paul (ii. 12, 
 vii. 5 ff.). It is true that in Phil. ii. 19 the joint-sender of the 
 letter is named as a third person, but there the state of the case 
 is quite different (in opposition to Hofmann), namely, a special 
 recommendation of Timothy, just as the relation of the apostle 
 himself to the church in Philippi with which he was so affection- 
 ately intimate was very diverse from that in which he stood to the 
 Corinthians. 
 
 But besides Timothy, Zitus also at a later period brought to 
 the apostle, who meanwhile had travelled by way of Troas to 
 Macedonia, intelligence of the result of his letter (ii. 12, vii. 5 ff.). 
 Paul had delegated the latter to Corinth after our first Epistle,’ 
 
 1 Schrader, indeed (I. pp. 137, 262), and Billroth, to whose view Riickert also 
 inclines, have assumed that Titus was sent to Corinth before our first Epistle, perhaps 
 with the one now lost, and on account of the matter of the collection, and that he 
 was therefore in that city when our first Epistle arrived there. But in that case Paul 
 would have mentioned Titus in his first Epistle (especially xvi. 1 ff.), just as he 
 
INTRODUCTION. 197 
 
 and after Timothy had again arrived in Ephesus from the journey 
 mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 f., comp. iv. 17; and it is natural 
 that from Titus he should have received further (as also more 
 tranquillizing) intelligence than from Timothy, because the former 
 came later to Corinth. 
 
 The occasion of our Epistle, which Titus was to bear (viii. 6), 
 was therefore given by the accounts which first of all Timothy, but 
 mainly Titus, had brought regarding the effect produced by the 
 previous letter on the dispositions and relations of the Corinthian 
 church. 
 
 ReMARK.—The special object that Paul had in sending Titus to 
 Corinth we do not know ; for viii. 6 does not refer to this journey 
 (see vv. 23, 24), but to the later, second journey, in which this 
 Epistle itself was entrusted to him. The supposition of Eichhorn, 
 Bertholdt, Neander, de Wette, and some others, that the apostle 
 had despatched Titus out of anxiety about the impression which 
 his first Epistle might make on the Corinthians, is a conjecture 
 which receives some probability from ii. 12, vii. 5 ff., especially if 
 we suppose that, before Titus was sent off, Timothy had returned 
 with very disquieting news. Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
 p. 625 ff, and in his Introduction) supposes, and Credner (Hinlett. 
 I. 2, p. 371), Olshausen, Neander, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 1864, 
 p. 167), Beyschlag (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 253), and 
 Klopper (lc. p. 3 ff.) agree with him, that Paul, after Timothy’s 
 return, sent to the Corinthians by Titus a letter of very strong 
 reproof (which is now lost). But our first Epistle contained enough 
 —especially after Timothy had already brought with him disquiet- 
 ing news—to excite in Paul apprehensions regarding the severity 
 of his letter (i. 15 ff, iii. 2, 3, iv. 8, 18-21, v. 1 ff, vi. 8, xi. 17 ff, al.), 
 enough to be used by the evil-disposed in bringing a charge of 
 boastfulness (ii. 16, iv. 1 ff, ix. xiv. 18, xv. 8, 10, al.); while 
 the second Epistle contains nothing which required Bleek’s sup- 
 position to explain it, as will appear at such passages as ii. 3, 4 ff, 
 vil. 8, 11, 14, αἴ. ; see in general, in opposition to Bleek’s hypothesis, 
 Miiller, de tribus Pauli itineribus, p. 34 ff.; Wurm, in the Zid. 
 
 mentions Timothy ; and at least a greeting to him would not have been forgotten. 
 Billroth thinks that Paul had probably already in the lost Epistle said enough in 
 recommendation of Titus. But does this make a greeting in the Epistle that follows 
 superfluous? Riickert says that the bearers of our first Epistle had perhaps brought 
 with them a special letter to Titus, or instructions by word of mouth, which, how- 
 ever, is a mere conjecture to which he is constrained to resort. Miiller also, De 
 trib. Pauli itineribus Corinth. susceptis, Bas. 1831, agrees with Schrader, without, 
 however, admitting the loss of an Epistle, at 1 Cor. ν. 9, 
 
198 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Zeiischy. 1833, 1, p. 66 ff; Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 
 366 ff.; Baur, Hofmann, and others. According to Ewald, as he 
 has more precisely defined and modified (Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, 
 p. 224 ff’) his earlier hypothetical arrangement (Jahrb. II. p. 
 227 f.), the position of things in Corinth after our first Epistle had 
 in part been aggravated, especially by a Petrine opponent of Paul 
 from Jerusalem ; Paul had got information of this from Timothy on 
 his return and otherwise, and had himself made a short journey 
 from Ephesus to Corinth in order to restore harmony to the church ; 
 after his departure, being calumniated and slandered anew (espe- 
 cially by a member of very high repute), he then sent from Ephesus 
 a very severe letter by Titus to Corinth ; and this letter, which 
 has not been preserved to us, brought the church to bethink itself, 
 as he learned from Titus, who joined him in Macedonia. On this 
 account, and also because there still remained various evils to be 
 rectified, he at last wrote our second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 and had it sent likewise by means of Titus. A supposition of this 
 kind is necessary, if the person mentioned in ii. 5 ff. cannot be the 
 one guilty of incest in 1 Cor. v. But see on 11. 5-11; and for the 
 supposed intermediate journey to Corinth, see § 2, remark. 
 
 The wim of the Epistle is stated by Paul himself at xin. 10, 
 viz. to put the church before his arrival in person into that 
 frame of mind, which it was necessary that he should find, in 
 order that he might thereupon set to work among them, not with 
 stern corrective authority, but for their edification. But in order 
 to attain this aim, he had to make it his ehief task to elucidate, 
 confirm, and vindicate his apostolic authority, which, in con- 
 sequence of his former letter, had been assailed still more vehe- 
 mently, openly, and influentially by opponents. For, if that were 
 regained, his whole influence would be regained; if the church 
 were again confirmed on this point, and the opposition defeated, 
 every hindrance to his successful personal labour amongst them 
 would be removed. With the establishment of his apostolic 
 character and reputation he is therefore chiefly occupied in the 
 whole Epistle ; everything else is only subordinate, including 8, 
 detailed appeal respecting the collection. 
 
 As to contents, the whole falls, after the salutation and intro- 
 duction, into three parts: I. Paul sets forth his apostolie cha- 
 racter and course of life, and interweaves with it affectionate 
 outpourings of his heart over the impression produced by his 
 
 1 Comp. also his Gesch. εἰ. apost. Zeit. p. 52010, ed. ὃ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 129 
 
 former letter—an ingenious apology, closing with expressions of 
 praise and confidence,’ chap. i—vii. II. Regarding the collection, 
 chap. viii. ix. III. Polemical assertion of his apostolic dignity 
 against its opponents, with some irritation, and even not without 
 sarcasm and bitterness, but forcible and triumphant. Conclusion. 
 
 ReMARK 1.—The excitement and varied play of emotion with 
 which Paul wrote this letter, probably also in haste, certainly make 
 the expression not seldom obscure and the sentences less flexible, 
 but only heighten our admiration of the great delicacy, skill, 
 and power with which this outpouring of Paul’s spirit and heart, 
 possessing as a defence of himself a high and peculiar interest, 
 flows and gushes on, till finally, in the last part, wave on wave over- 
 whelms the hostile resistance. In reference to this, Erasmus aptly 
 says, in the dedication of his Paraphr.: “Sudatur ab eruditissimis 
 viris in explicandis poetarum ac rhetorum consiliis, at in hoc rhe- 
 tore longe plus sudoris est, ut deprehendas quid agat, quo tendat, 
 quid vetet; adeo stropharum plenus est undique, absit invidia 
 verbis. Tanta vafricies est, non credas eundem hominem loqui. 
 Nune ut limpidus quidam fons sensim ebullit, mox torrentis in 
 morem ingenti fragore devolvitur, multa obiter secum rapiens, nunc 
 placide leniterque fluit, nunc late, velut in lacum diffusus, exspa- 
 tiatur. Rursum alicubi se condit, ac diverso loco subitus emicat, 
 cum visum est, miris Maeandris nunc has nunc illas lambit ripas, 
 aliquoties procul digressus, reciprocato flexu in sese redit.” ? 
 
 REMARK 2.—The opponents specially combated from chap. x. 
 onwards, were at any rate Judaists (xi. 22; Rabiger, p. 191 ff; 
 Neander), and therefore, from a party point of view, to be reckoned 
 as belonging to the Petrine section. It is only the Petrine, and not 
 the Christine party (Schenkel, Goldhorn, Kniewel, Baur, de Wette, 
 Thiersch, Osiander, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld, Klopper), that suits the 
 character of disputing, directly and specially, the apostolic authority 
 of Paul, whether we regard the Christines as a party by them- 
 selves, or, with Baur (see on 1 Cor. i. 12), as part of the Petrines. 
 
 REMARK 3.—The division of the Epistle into two halves, separate 
 in point of time, so that the part up to vil. 1 was written before the 
 
 1 Luther, Preface: ‘‘In the first Epistle, St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians 
 severely on many points, and poured sharp wine into their wounds, and alarmed 
 them. But now an apostle should be a comforting preacher, . . . therefore he 
 praises them anew in this Epistle, and pours oil into the wounds,” etc. 
 
 2 We may confidently apply to our Epistle what Dionysius, De adiir. vi dic. in 
 
 Dem. 8, says of Demosthenes’ mode of speaking, which he calls : μεγαλοπρεπῆ, λιτὴν" 
 περιττὴν, ἀπέριττον" ἐξηλλαγμένην, συνήθη" πανηγυρικὴν, ἀληθινὴν᾽ αὐστηρὰν, ἱλαρὰν" 
 σύνχονον, ἀνειμένην" ἥδείαν, πικρὰν" ἠθικὴν, σ'αϑητικήν, 
 
 1 COR. IL I 
 
130 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 arrival of Titus, and the part from vii. 2 onwards after it (Wieseler, 
 p. 356 ff.), cannot be justified either exegetically or psychologically 
 on the ground of vii. 6; while, on the ground of ii. 12-14, it can 
 only be regarded as exegetically inadmissible. 
 
 § 2.—PLACE, TIME, GENUINENESS AND UNITY. 
 
 When Paul wrote this letter, he was no longer in Ephesus 
 (i. 8), but had already arrived by way of Troas in Macedonia 
 (ii. 13, vii. 5, vii. 1, ix. 2, comp. Acts xx. 1), where Titus, whom 
 he had already expected with longing in Troas (ii. 12), returned 
 to him. A more precise specification of the place (the subscrip- 
 tions in B and in many later codd., also in the Peshito, name 
 Philippi) cannot be made good. The date of composition appears 
 to be the same year, 58 (yet not before the month Tisri, see on 
 viii. 10), in which, shortly before Easter, he had written our First 
 Epistle, and after Pentecost had left Ephesus (see Introd. to 
 1 Cor. ὃ 3). Paul at that time intended to come to Corinth for 
 the third time, as he actually did soon after his letter to his 
 readers (Acts xx. 2). 
 
 REMARK.—From ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2, it follows of necessity 
 that Paul, before he wrote his Epistles to the Corinthians, had been 
 in Corinth, not once only, on the occasion when he founded the 
 church (as Reiche in his Comment. crit. seeks again to establish), 
 but ¢wice. For in xiii. 1, τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι cannot mean, “I am 
 now on the point of coming for the third time :” hence also xiii. 2 
 must be understood of a second visit which had already taken 
 place ; in 11. 1 and ΧΙ]. 21, ἐν λύπη and ταπεινώσῃ (which latter is to 
 be connected with πάλιν) cannot refer to the first visit ; and finally, 
 in ΧΙ], 14, τρίτον must belong to ἐλθεῖν, not to ἑτοίμως ἔχω, as is made 
 certain by the context (see the commentary on these passages). 
 With justice, therefore, has this view been maintained, after Chry- 
 sostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by Erasmus, Baronius, Mill, 
 Michaelis, and others, and recently by Schrader, Bleek (in the 
 Stud, u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff.), Miiller (Diss. de trib. Pauli itineribus 
 Corinthum, etc., Basil. 1831), Schott (Lrért. einiger wicht. chronol. 
 Punkte, p. 51 ff.), Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 166), Wurm, Anger 
 (rat. temp. p. 70 ff.), Billroth, Credner, Olshausen, Riickert, Wieseler, 
 Reuss, Osiander, Hofmann, and others. See the commentary in 
 opposition to the explaining away of these passages, according to 
 which “ the third journey of Paul to Corinth is a fiction” (Lange, 
 apost, Zeitalt, 1. p. 199; comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 121 
 
 Ῥ. 139 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 339 ff., ed. 2). But it cannot be 
 definitely decided whether the second journey to Corinth is to be 
 placed in the time of the three years’ stay at Ephesus (Schrader, 
 Billroth, Olshausen, Riickert, Wieseler, Reuss, and Hofmann ; Bleek 
 is also inclined to this), or whether it is to be considered only as the 
 return from a longer excursion during the eighteen months’ stay in 
 Corinth (Baronius, Michaelis, Schmidt, Schott, Anger ; favoured by 
 Bleek; comp. Neander on ii. 1); for ἵνα δευτέραν χάριν ἔχητε, ini. 15, 
 testifies neither for nor against either of these views (see on this 
 passage). Still by that very circumstance the latter view loses 
 its support, and has, besides, against it the point that, as the first 
 and third journeys were special journeys to Corinth, so also his 
 second journey, to which he refers by τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι, and the like, 
 is most naturally to be regarded as a special journey, and not as a 
 mere return from a wider excursion. See, moreover, Wieseler, p.239. 
 The proposal to place the second journey to Corinth between our 
 first and a lost Epistle which preceded our second (Ewald, see ὃ 1), 
 finds, apart altogether from the lost letter being an hypothesis, no 
 sufficient confirmation in the passages concerned, 11. 1, xii. 14, 
 xiii. 1 ἢ, and has 1. 23 (οὐκέτι) against it; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ff. and 
 2 Cor. i. 15 f. 
 
 The genuineness of our Epistle (see, after less certain indications 
 in the apostolic Fathers and Justin, Irenaeus, Haer. ii. 7.1, iv. 28.3; 
 Athenagoras, de resurr. p. 61, ed. Col. ; Clement, Strom. iv. p. 514, 
 ed. Sylb. ; Tertullian, de pudic. 13) is as internally certain and as 
 unanimously attested and undisputed as that of the first; in fact, 
 we need hardly notice, even historically, the strange theory invented 
 by Bolten and Bertholdt, that it was translated (by Timothy) from 
 the Aramaic. 
 
 The unity of the Epistle has been contested by Semler and 
 Weber; while it has been most arbitrarily cut up into three letters 
 by Weisse (see his Beitr. ει. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 9). 
 Semler (see Keggemann, praes. Semler, de duplici ep. ad Rom. 
 append., Hal.1767, and Semler, Paraphr. 1776) cuts it up into the 
 following three letters: (1) chap. i. viii, Rom. xvi, and 2 Cor. 
 ΧΙ], 11-13; (2) x. 1—-xiii. 10; (3) chap. ix.,as a special leaf which 
 was intended, not for Corinth, but for the Christians in Achaia. 
 In opposition to this, see Gabler, de capp. ult. ix—xiii. poster. ep.. 
 P. ad Cor. ab eadem haud separand., Gott. 1782. Weber (de 
 numero epp. P. ad Cor. rectius constituendo, 1798) was of opinion 
 that there were originally two letters:—(1) chap. i-ix. and xiii. 
 
132 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 11-13; (2) chap. x. 1-xiii, 10. Similarly, also, von Greeve (in 
 Royaards de aliera P. ad Cor. ep., Traj. ad Rhen. 1818), who, how- 
 ever, considers as the first letter only chap. i—vui. In opposition 
 to these attempts at dismemberment may be urged not only the 
 whole body of the critical witnesses, but also the certainty that 
 the abruptness of chap. ix. is only apparent, and that the contrast- 
 ing tone of chap. x.—xiii. is easily explained’ by the altered mood 
 of the apostle-—With regard to the originality of vi. 14—vii. 1, see 
 on vi. 12, remark. 
 
 1 Hug, Hinl. 11. § 108, says very pertinently: ‘‘ Who would on that account 
 break up the speech of Demosthenes pro Corona into two parts, because in the 
 more general vindication calm and caution prevail ; whereas, in heaping shame and 
 castigation on the informer, in the parallel between him and Aeschines, words of 
 bitter mockery gush forth impetuously like a thunder-shower.” 
 
CHAP. 1. A 
 
 we 
 oo 
 
 \ 
 Παύλου πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ δευτέρα. 
 
 A BK ¥, min. have only πρὸς Κορινθίους B., the most simple, and 
 doubtless the oldest superscription. 
 
 CHAP T Ki. L, 
 
 Ver. 6. εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρωκλήσεως, τῆς ἐνεργου- 
 μένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων, ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν" καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς 
 ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: εἰδότες u.7.A.] So Beza, ed. 8, 4, 5, Beng. and 
 Griesb., following A C, min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Flor. Harl. 
 Vulg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast. Pel. Beda. But Elz. (following 
 Erasm. ed. 2'): τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ 
 ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν" εἴτε παρωκωλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτη- 
 ρίας" καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς nu. βεβ. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν" εἰδότες κιτιλ. Finally, Lachm. 
 Tisch. Scholz, and Riick. read, with Matth., after Erasm. δα. 1: xai ἡ 
 ἐλπὶς nw. βεβ. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν immediately after πάσχομεν, but in other 
 respects with Elz.,and have the support of Β Ὁ E F G K LX, min. 
 Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slav. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. 
 Theophyl. Oec. The Recepta must be rejected on account of the 
 want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between 
 Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most 
 thoroughly by Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 318 ff. But the former, 
 sufficiently attested, appears to be the original, in so far as from it 
 the rise of the others is easily and naturally explained. An im- 
 mediate transition was made from the first παρακλ. to the second; 
 the intermediate words were left out, and brought in again after- 
 wards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded 
 thus :—1. Original form of ver. 6 as in Griesb. 2. First corruption: 
 εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθω, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομ. 
 τῶν αὐτῶν πάθημ. ὧν κ. ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν" καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. 
 3. Erroneous restoration: εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθω. .. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: εἴτε πωρακαλ- 
 οὐμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. Another erroneous restoration (“ ex 
 judicio eclectico,” Beng. Appar.) is contained in the Received text. 
 4, The zai σωτηρίας, still wanting, was finally added, in part rightly 
 
 1 Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading. 
 
134 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 only after the first σαραλλ., in part wrongly only after the second 
 παρακλ. (B, 176), in part wrongly after both. — Ver. 8. ὑπὲρ τῆς θλ.]} 
 ACDEFGxs, min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch. have περὶ s. 
 θλ. So Lachm. Riick. But περί offered itself as more current. — 
 ἡμῖν] is wanting in preponderant witnesses. Suspected by Griesb., 
 rejected by Lachm. Riick. A superfluous gloss on yevow.— Ver. 10. 
 καὶ ῥύεται] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Chrys. 
 Ambrosiast. So Riick. But B CR, 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth. Arm. 
 Slav. ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have zai ῥύσεται. So Lachm., 
 but in brackets. Thus the Recepta, reverted to even by Tisch., has 
 certainly preponderating testimony against it; still it retains the 
 considerable attestation of D*** EK F G K L, and most min. Vulg. 
 Syr. p. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oec. Or. int. Jer., and the subse- 
 quent ῥύσεται might very easily be written at once after καί instead 
 of ῥύεται, So that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration 
 of what was left out, the spurious καὶ ῥύσεται IN Some Cases remained, 
 but in others was dropped without the genuine καὶ ῥύεται being put 
 in its place. — Ver. 11. εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] The reading εὐχαρ. ὑπὲρ 
 ὑμῶν, though preferred by Beng., recommended by Reiche, and 
 adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and does not suit the 
 sense. — Ver. 12. ἁπλότητ] A B C Καὶ 8* min. Copt. Arm. Clem. 
 Or. Damasc. have ἁγίοτητι. So Lachm. Riick. Rightly; ἁπλότητι, 
 though defended by Reiche and Tisch., must be considered as a 
 gloss of more precise definition; it was from our very Epistle 
 well known and current, whereas ἁγήοτης was unfamiliar (only else- 
 where in Heb. xii. 10). — Ver. 13. The first 7 is wanting in A, min. 
 Bracketed by Riick. But appearing superfluous, and not being 
 understood, it was omitted. — Ver. 16. die] A D* F G, 80, Copt. 
 Chrys. Damasc.: ἀπελθεῦ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by 
 Lachm. and Riick. Rightly ; it was more natural to introduce the 
 reminiscence of 1 Cor. xvi. 5 than that of Rom. xv. 28. — Ver. 17. 
 βουλόμενος] Elz. and Tisch. have βουλεύομενος, against preponderant 
 evidence. Gloss in accordance with what follows. — Ver. 18. ἐγένετο} 
 Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch. have ἔστιν, as Griesb. also recommended, 
 in accordance with a great preponderance of testimony. ἐγένετο, 
 which Reiche defends, came in from ver. 19. — Ver. 20. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ] 
 ABCFGWNS, min. vss. and Fathers have διὸ xa? δ΄ αὐτοῦ. So 
 Lachm. Riick. The Recepta arose in this way: διό fell out by an 
 omission of the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then 
 added to δι᾽ αὐτοῦ after the previous ἐν αὐτῷ as a gloss, which accord- 
 ingly came into the text. This alteration was the more natural, 
 as the two definitions δι᾿ αὐτοῦ and δι᾿ ἡμῶν might seem not to 
 accord. The liturgical reference of the ἀμήν does not appear a 
 sufficient occasion for the insertion of διό, nor for the change from 
 ἐν αὐτῷ into δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, particularly after the ἐν αὐτῷ which went 
 
CHAP. I. 1-3. 135 
 
 before and was left unglossed. This in opposition to Fritzsche, 
 de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Reiche, Comment. ert. I. 331 ff. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Address and greeting. — διὰ θέλ. Θεοῦ] See on 
 1 Cor. i. 1. — καὶ Τιμόθ. His relation to this Epistle is the same 
 as that of Sosthenes to the first Epistle: he appears, not as 
 amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender of it. See on 1 Cor. 
 i. 1.— ὁ ἀδελφ.] as at 1 Cor. 1. 1. — σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι K.7.r.] 
 Grotius: “Voluit P. exempla hujus epistolae mitti ad alias in 
 Achaia ecclesias.” So also Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, and others. 
 But, in that case, would not Paul have rather written σὺν ταῖς 
 ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις 2 Comp. Gal. i. 2. And are the contents of 
 the Epistle suited for an encyclical destination? No; he means, 
 in agreement with 1 Cor. i. 2, the Christians living outside of 
 Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached themselves to 
 the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have 
 been the sole seat of a church—the metropolis of the Christians 
 in the province. The state of matters in Galatia was different. — 
 Under Achaia we must, according to the sense then attached to 
 it, understand Hellas and Peloponnesus. This province and that 
 of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See on Acts xviii. 12. 
 — Ver. 2. See on Rom. i. 7. 
 
 Vv. 3-11. A conciliatory introduction,—an effusion of affec- 
 tionate emotion (comp. Eph. i. 3) out of the fulness of special and 
 still recent experience. There is no hint of a set purpose in it; 
 and it is an arbitrary supposition, whether the purpose be found 
 in an excuse for the delay of his journey (Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact), or in a confirmation of his apostolic standing (Beza, comp. 
 Calovius, Mosheim), or in an attestation of the old love, which 
 Paul presupposes also on the part of the readers (Billroth), and at 
 the same time in a slight alienation which had been suggested 
 by his sufferings (Osiander). 
 
 Ver. 3. Ὃ Θεὸς x. wat. x.7.r.] God, who is at the same time 
 father of Jesus Christ. See on 1 Cor. xv. 24; Rom. xv. 6. 
 Against the connection of τοῦ κυρίου x.7.d. also with ὁ Θεός (Hof- 
 mann), see on Eph. i. 3.— 0 πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν] DYN "38, 1.6. 
 the Father, whose fatherly frame of mind and disposition is com- 
 passionateness,—the compassionate Father (μάλιστα ἴδιον Θεοῦ καὶ 
 ἐξαίρετον καὶ τῇ φύσει συγκεκληρωμένον, Chrysostom). Comp. on 
 1 Cor. ii. 8 and Eph. 1. 17. It is the qualitative genitive, such 
 
136 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 as we find in the language of the Greek poets (Seidl. ad Electr. 
 651; Herm. ad Viger. p. 890 f.). Riickert (comp. before him 
 Theodoret) takes it as the genitivus effecti: “The Father from 
 whom all compassion comes” (comp. xiii. 11; Rom. xv. 5, 13, ai.). 
 But, since οἰκτιρμοί (comp. Plato, Polit. p. 305 B) is the subjective 
 compassion (Tittm. Synon. 69 f.), it would have to be explained : 
 “The Father who works in us compassion, sympathy,” and this 
 sense would be altogether unsuitable to the connection. On the 
 contrary, τῶν οἰκτιρμ. is the specific quality of the Father, which 
 dwells in Him just as the Father of Christ, and in consequence of 
 which He is also Θεὸς πάσης παρακλ.; and this genitive is that 
 of the effect which issues from the Merciful One: “The com- 
 passionate Father and God who worketh every consolation.” This 
 rendering, differing from that of the first genitive, is demanded by 
 ver. 4 (in opposition to Hofmann) ; comp. vii. 6 ; Rom. xv. 5. As to 
 οἰκτιρμοί, see on Rom. xii. 1. Observe that the characteristic appel- 
 lation of God in this passage is an artless outflow of the experience, 
 which was still fresh in the pious heart of the apostle, vv. 8--10. 
 
 Ver. 4. ‘Hyuds] Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean him- 
 self exclusively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, 
 according to the context), although often only as quite subordinate, 
 he speaks in the plural. He does not express himself communicative, 
 but in the singular, where he gives utterance to his own personal 
 conviction or, in general, to anything concerning himself individu- 
 ally (vv. 13, 15, 17, 23, ii. 1-10, 12, 13, vii. 4, 7 ff, al.). Hence 
 the frequent interchange between the singular and plural forms of 
 expression..—Chrysostom already gives the force of the present 
 παρακαλῶν correctly: ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ Sis, ἀλλὰ διηνεκῶς τοῦτο 
 ποιεῖ... διὸ εἶπεν ὁ παρακαλῶν, οὐχ ὁ παρακαλέσας. ---- ἐπὶ πάσῃ 
 τῇ θλίψει) concerning all our affliction. The collective sufferings 
 are regarded as one whole. Afterwards, on the other hand, ἐν πάσῃ 
 Onr.: in every affliction. ἐπί marks the ethical foundation, 7c. here 
 the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373. Comp. 
 2 Mace. vii. 5 f.; Deut. xxxil. 36. According to Riick., tapaxan. 
 
 1 Even in the plural mode of expression, however, he has always himself and his 
 own relations primarily in view; and, owing to the versatility of his mode of con- 
 ception, it is often quite a matter of accident whether he expresses himself singu- 
 lariter or communicative. Hence the interchange of the two modes of expression in 
 one sentence, e.g. xi. 6f. 
 
CHAP. I. 5. 137 
 
 denotes the delivering, and hence he takes ἐπί of the circum- 
 stances: in. See Matthiae,p.1370. But throughout the passage 
 mapax. means to comfort; and it is quite an open question, how 
 the comforting takes place, whether by calming or by delivering. 
 God did both in the apostle’s case. — εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι x.7.r.] in 
 order that we may be able, etc. For he, who for himself received 
 comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of 
 being able to comfort others. And how important was this teleo- 
 logical view of his own sorrows for the apostolic calling! “ Omnia 
 sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae refert,” Grotius. — τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ 
 θλίψει] is erroneously and arbitrarily taken as equivalent to 
 πάντας τοὺς ἐν θλίψει (see Emmerling, Flatt, Riickert). It means: 
 those to be found in every trouble, the all-distressed; not: those to 
 be found in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but ἐν παντὶ θλιβό- 
 μενοι, iv. 8, vil. 5. — διὰ τῆς παρακλ. «.7.r.] 1.6. through communt- 
 cation of our own comfort, which we experience from God. This more 
 precise determination of the sense is demanded both by the pre- 
 ceding mention of the purpose eis τὸ δύνασθαι κιτ.λ., and by the 
 αὐτοί. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives the com- 
 fort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may again be conveyed 
 to others by the receiver. But there is no analogy in the whole 
 N. T. for this conception; for Matt. x. 13 is merely a concrete 
 - illustration of the efficacy or non-efficacy of the εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. --- 
 ἧς) Attracted, as in Eph. i. 6, iv. 1, because one can say παρά- 
 κλησιν παρακαλεῖν. See Gieseler in Rosenmiiller, Repert. II. 
 p. 124; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted 
 genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5. — αὐτοί] psi, for our own selves, 
 in contrast to the others to be comforted. 
 
 Ver. 5. Ground assigned for the’ ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ 
 τ. Θεοῦ. --- περισσεύει εἰς ἡμᾶς] is abundant in relation to us, Le. 
 it is imparted to us above measure, in a very high degree. Comp. 
 Rom. v. 15.— τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ) are not the sufferings 
 for Christ's sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be expressed 
 by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Bill- 
 roth, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann), in so far as every 
 one who suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as 
 Christ suffered. Comp. Matt. xx. 22; Phil. ii. 10; Col.1. 24; 
 Heb. xiii. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 13. See also on Rom. viii. 17. Hence 
 
138 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Leun, and Riickert render correctly in 
 substance : “ quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who 
 render: “ the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members ;” 
 comp. de Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ 
 continuing to suffer in His members is nowhere found in the 
 N. T., not even in Acts ix. 4, and is contrary to the idea of His 
 exaltation. See on Col. 1. 24.— διὰ τοῦ X.] through His in- 
 dwelling by means of the Spirit. See Rom. viii. 9, 10; Eph. 
 i 17 3)Col. 1.-29;.ai. 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. 4é] leading on to the gain, which the two, this 
 affliction and this comforting, bring to the readers—FBe it that 
 we are afflicted, we are afflicted for the sake of YOUR consolation and 
 salvation ; it redounds to this, that you are to be comforted and 
 advanced in the attainment of Messianic salvation. In how far ? 
 According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein, and 
 many, including Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche: through 
 the example of the apostle in his confidence toward God, ete. But 
 the context has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth 
 and Olshausen: “in so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, 
 through which comfort and salvation come to you;” so also 
 Hofmann. Riickert, without ground, gives up all attempt at 
 explanation. Paul himself has given the explanation in ver. 4 
 by εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν κατλ. Hence the sense of 
 the definition of the aim ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ. κ. σωτ. : “in 
 order that we may be enabled to comfort you, when ye come into 
 affliction, and to further your salvation.” For this end we are 
 put in a position by experience of suffering, as well as by that, 
 which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the school 
 of suffering (εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα k.7.r.).— ὑπὲρ τῆς by. Tapaknr. 
 τῆς ἐνεργ. K.T.r.] 6. im order to be able to give you the comfort, 
 which is efficacious, etc. Paul does not again add κ. σωτηρίας 
 here, because he has still to append to παρακλήσεως a more 
 precise and detailed explanation, after which it was impracticable 
 to bring in καὶ σωτηρίας; and it could be left out all the more 
 readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representation. — 
 τῆς ἐνεργουμ. ἐν ὕὑπομ. K.T.r.] which rs efficacious in patient endur- 
 ance of the same sufferings, which we also suffer. ἐνεργουμ., as in 
 the whole N. T. (iv. 12; Rom. vii. 5; Gal. v. 6; Eph. i. 20; 
 
ΟΥΑΡῚ ν giv. 199 
 
 Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. 11. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 7; Jas. ν. 16), is middle, 
 not passive (3 Esdr. ii. 20; Polyb. 1. 13. 5, ix. 12. 3), as it is 
 here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, 
 Piscator, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosen- 
 miiller, Emmerling, Billroth, Riickert, Ewald.’ For the distinction 
 between active (personal efficacy) and middle in Paul, see Winer, 
 p- 242 [E. T. 273].—év ὑπομονῇ} denotes that ὅν virtue of 
 providing which the παράκλησις is efficacious. It is therefore 
 the working of the Christian παράκλησις, which we experience 
 when ἡ θλέψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, Rom. v. 3. — τῶν αὐτῶν 
 παθημάτων, ὧν κ,τ.λ.] in so far, namely, as they are likewise 
 sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed to the readers are 
 meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of Paul 
 (and Timothy) (ὧν «. ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν). Billroth, Olshausen, 
 Neander understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far 
 as these were jointly felt by all believers as their own in virtue 
 of their fellowship of love with him. Compare Chrysostom on 
 ver. 7, also de Wette, who refers it partly to the foreboding, 
 partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then, Paul would 
 have been utterly illogical in placing the καί before ἡμεῖς ; for it 
 would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered 
 (with Paul through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this 
 exposition is, is shown, besides, by ver. 4.. It does not appear 
 from this passage, we may add, that at that time the Corinthians 
 had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s sake. Paul 
 has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the 
 future, as the following καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς κιτιλ. proves. Comp. on 
 xiii. 11.— καὶ ἡ ἔλπ. ἡμ. βεβ. ὑπ. ὑμ.} is not to be placed in a 
 parenthesis, with Griesbach and others, since εἰδότες is connected 
 not with πάσχομεν, but with ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν. The contents of 
 ver. 6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience 
 undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the 
 readers for the futwre, that what is said by εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα. .. 
 πάσχομεν Will be verified in their case in afflictions which would 
 come on them for Christ’s sake, so that they would in that case 
 
 1 The passive interpretation would be necessary with the reading of Lachmann, 
 since salvation is the goal of the state of grace, and hence is wrought (Phil. ii. 
 12,13; Matt. x. 22; Jas. 1. 12); but nowhere is it conceived and represented as 
 working in patience, and the like. This tells against that reading. 
 
140 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 obtain from the apostle, out of his experience of suffering and 
 consolation, the comfort which through patience is efficacious in 
 such sufferings. Therefore he continues: and our hope is firm on 
 account of you. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν does not belong either simply to ἡ 
 ἔλπ. ὑμ., or simply to βεβαία (Billroth), but to the whole thought 
 of ἡ ἐλπ. ty. BeB. On ὑπέρ, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and 
 the contrary expression φοβεῖσθαι ὑπέρ twos, propter aliquem in 
 metu esse. — εἰδότες] refers, according to a common anacolouthon, 
 to ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμ., in which ἡμεῖς is the logical subject.’ See Stall- 
 baum, ad, Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81 A; 
 Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. on Eph. iv. 2; Col. 11, 2. 
 It introduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed : 
 for we know that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are 
 sharers also of the consolation. To have a share in the sufferings, 
 and also in the consolation, to be excepted neither from the one 
 nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Christian. Paul 
 knows this in regard to his readers,and he grounds on it the firm hope 
 for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings, 
 they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation ; to impart 
 which consolation he is himself qualified (ver. 4) and destined 
 (ver. 6) by his own experience of suffering and consolation. 
 Accordingly, κοινωνοὶ «.7.d. is contextually not to be explained of 
 an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that in the sufferings and 
 consolation of Paul (ὥσπερ yap τὰ παθήματα τὰ ἡμέτερα ὑμέτερα 
 εἶναι νομίζετε, οὕτω καὶ τὴν παράκλησιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑμετέραν, 
 Chrysostom. Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and 
 others), but τὰ παθήματα and ἡ παράκλησις are to be taken 
 generically. In both kinds of experience the Christian has a 
 share; he must suffer; but he is not excluded from the con- 
 solation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it. 
 
 Vv. 8-11. Out of his own (and Timothy’s) experience of 
 suffering and comfort, Paul now informs his readers of something 
 special which had lately befallen the two in Asia. The fact in 
 itself he assumes as known to them, but he desires to bring to 
 their knowledge the consoling help of God in it. There is nothing 
 to indicate a reference to an utterance of the church (Hofmann) 
 concerning the event. 
 
 1 With Lachmann’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald to the Corinthians 
 (ὑμῶν) : since you know, ete. 
 
CHAP. I. 8. 141 
 
 Ver. 8. Οὐ γ. θέλ. dy. ayv.] See on Rom. i. 13, xi. 25; 
 1 Cor. xii. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 13. — ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψ.] regarding (de) the 
 affliction, concerning the same. See Bernhardy, p. 244; Kihner, 
 ΤΙ. ὃ 547, 2. — ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ] as in 1 Cor. xvi. 19. What particular 
 affiction is meant, and at what place it happened, we do not 
 know. The readers, who must have known it, may have learnt 
 it from Titus or otherwise. Perhaps it was the ἀντικείμενοι 
 πολλοί, 1 Cor. xvi. 9, who had prepared for him the extra- 
 ordinary trial. The tumult of Demetrius in Ephesus, Acts 
 xix. 23 ff. (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Michaelis, Vater, Schrader, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, and 
 others), is not to be thought of, since Paul was not in personal 
 danger there, Acts xix. 30, and immediately after the tumult set 
 out on his journey to Greece, Acts xx. 1. Heumann, Emmerling, 
 Riickert, Bisping, suggest a severe ilness. Against this it may 
 be urged that, according to ver. 5, it must have been a πάθημα 
 tod Χριστοῦ (for the special experience must be held as included 
 under the general one previously spoken of), as well as that Paul 
 speaks in the plural. Both grounds tell at the same time against 
 Hofmann, who thinks of the shipwreck, xi. 25, to which, in fact, 
 ἐν τ. ᾿Ασίᾳ, ver. 8, is not suitable, even if we ventured to make a 
 mere stranding on the coast out of the incident. Besides, the 
 reading ῥύεται, ver. 10, militates against this. — ὅτε καθ᾽ ὑπερβ. 
 K.T.r.| that we were burdened to the uttermost beyond strength, a 
 statement of that which, in regard to the affliction mentioned, is 
 not to be withheld from the readers. καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν defines the 
 degree of ἐβαρ. ὑπὲρ δύναμ. See Fritzsche, Diss. 1. p. 1 f. (“ut 
 calamitates vires meas egregie superarent”). The view which 
 regards the two expressions as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Luther, 
 Calvin, Estius, and many, including Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, 
 Hofmann): so heavy that it went beyond our ability, would place 
 alongside of each other the objective greatness of the suffering 
 and its disproportion to the subjectivity (see de Wette): still the 
 position of éBap., as well as the want of a καί before ὑπέρ, is 
 more favourable to the view which takes ἐβαρ. ὑπ. δύν. together ; 
 and this is also confirmed by the subjectivity of the following 
 ὥστε ἐξαπορ. «.7.. The suffering made itself palpable to him as 
 a πειρασμὸς οὐκ ἀνθρώπινος (1 Cor. x. 13). Riickert, moreover, 
 has no ground for thinking that ἐβαρήθ. is inappropriately used 
 
143 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 of persecutions, attempts to murder, and the like, and that ὑπὲρ. 
 δύναμιν is also opposed to it. βαρύς, Bapéw, and Bapivw are 
 used of all troubles by which we feel ourselves burdened. See 
 the passages from Homer in Duncan, Lez, ed. Rost, p. 202; 
 comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 C; Soph. Zrach. 151; Theocr. xvii. 61, 
 and expressions like βαρύμοχθος, βαρύποτμος, βαρυπενθῆής, 
 βαρυδαίμων, and the like. — ὥστε ἐξαπορ. x.7.r.] so that we became 
 quite perplexed even (kai) in regard to life, placed in the highest 
 perplexity even with regard to the preservation of our life. ἐκ 
 strengthens the simple verb, iv. 8. Polyb. 1. 62. 1, i. 47. 9, 
 48.4. The genitive (τοῦ ζῆν) is the usual case in Greek with 
 ἀπορεῖν, in the sense of having lack of something; seldom is it 
 found in the sense of being perplexed about something (Dem. 
 1380, 4; Plat. Conv. p. 193 E). 
 
 Ver. 9. ᾿Αλλά] is the simple but, the contrast of the negation 
 contained in ἐξαπορηθῆναι, which contrast, nevertheless, no longer 
 depends on ὥστε: the independent position makes it all the 
 weightier. There is therefore the less ground for taking ἀλλά 
 as nay indeed, with Hofmann, and making it point to the following 
 clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause αὐτοὶ «.7.. would be 
 arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate—viz., “ if 
 we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to the end, that we,’ etc. — 
 αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς} for our own selves in our own consciousness— 
 ae. apart from what might take place from without, through 
 divine interference, to cause a change in our position. This 
 certainty in their own heart, however, could not but exclude all 
 self-confidence ; hence ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες x.7.X. — ἀπόκριμα] not 
 equivalent to κατάκριμα (so most, following Hesychius), but to 
 responsum (Vulgate, Billroth), the award, decision. Comp. ἀπό- 
 Kpiots. So in Suidas (see Wetstein) and Josephus, Antt. xiv. 17 
 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well: τὴν ψῆφον, τὴν κρίσιν, τὴν 
 προσδοκίαν τοιαύτην yap ἠφίει. TA πράγματα φωνήν" τοιαύτην 
 ἀπόκρισιν ἐδίδου τὰ συμβάντα, ὅτι ἀποθανούμεθα πάντως .----Α5 
 to ἐσχήκ., observe the perfect habwimus, which represents the 
 situation as present. Comp. on Rom. v. 2.— ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ.] 
 divinely appointed aim of the αὐτοὶ... ἐσχήκαμεν. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 i. 15.— τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς vexp.] is to be referred not only to the 
 future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in 
 general, as that which is exclusively God’s doing. This charac- 
 
CHAP. I. 10, 11. 143 
 
 teristic of God is the yround of the confidence. For the awaker 
 of the dead must also be able to rescue from the danger of death 
 (ver. 10). Comp. Rom. iv. 17; Heb. xi.19. See on Rom. de. 
 “ Mira natura fidei in summis difficultatibus nullum exitum habere 
 visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human ἐξαπορηθῆναι, 
 ver. 8, could yet say of himself, iv. 8: οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι. 
 Ver. 10. Result of this confidence, as well as the hope 
 erounded thereon for the future. — ἐκ τηλικ. θανάτου] out of so 
 great death. Paul realizes to himself the special so mighty death- 
 power which had threatened him (and Timothy), and by the 
 expression ῥύεσθαι ἐκ θανάτου (see examples in Wetstein, p. 178) 
 makes death appear as a hostile power by which he had been 
 encompassed. Θάνατος does not signify peril of death (as most 
 say, even Emmerling and Flatt), but it represents that sense. 
 Comp. xi. 23.— καὶ ῥύεται] The @rAfis, which had been survived 
 in Asia, therefore still continued in its after-effects, which even 
 extended over to Macedonia (perhaps by continued plots against 
 their lives), and Paul and Timothy were still continuing’ to 
 experience the rescuing power of God. — ἠλπίκαμεν] have set our 
 hope. See Herm. ad Viger. p. 748; Kiihner, 11. p. 71; comp. 
 1 Cor. xv. 19; 1 Tim. v. 5, vi. 17; John vi. 45.— ὅτε «x. ἔτι 
 ῥύσεται] that he will rescue (us) even further, namely, ἐκ τηλικ. 
 θανάτου, in the continuing danger from the Asiatic enemies which 
 was still to be apprehended in the future. In the fact that Paul 
 speaks of a present, nay, of a future rescue, Riickert finds a sup- 
 port for his opinion regarding a dangerous illness (not yet fully 
 overcome) ; see on ver. 8. But could no machinations pass over 
 from Asia to Macedonia? and could not these be recognised by 
 Paul as the more dangerous, in so far as they were more secret ? 
 Comp. Acts xx. 3. 
 Ver. 11. A trustful and conciliatory mention of the inter- 
 
 1 Hofmann reads the passage: καὶ ῥύσεται, εἰς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν, καὶ ἔσι ῥύσεται. Accord- 
 ingly, he takes the first καί ἃ5 an also, beginning an independent sentence. With this 
 expressive reference to the future Paul looks forward to the wide voyages still before 
 him. In opposition to this we have, from a critical point of view, the facts that ὅτι 
 before καὶ ἔσι is wanting only in B D* 64, and that it is supported by preponderat- 
 ing witnesses, even by those which have the reading ῥύσεται for ῥύεται, as C and §; 
 and, from an exegetical point of view, the fact that the repetition καὶ ἔστι ῥύσεται 
 amounts to a tautology without strengthening the thought in the least: for ἔτι 
 follows as a matter of course from the ῥύσεται already said. Besides, against the 
 whole reference to the shipwreck, see on ver. 8. 
 
144 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 cessions of the readers. This is regarded as not so much con- 
 ditioning (Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, and others), as rather 
 furthering the καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται: “he will also still save us, since ye 
 also are helpful together for us,’ etc. On the idea of the efficacy 
 of intercession, comp. especially Phil. i. 19; Rom. xv. 30 £—The 
 reference of the σὺν in συνυπουργ. is to the aposile’s own work 
 of prayer, with which that of the readers is joimed by way of 
 help: similar help on the part of other churches is just hinted by 
 the καί before ὑμῶν. ---- ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] on our behalf. A transposition 
 for τῇ δεήσει ὑπὲρ ἡμ. would indeed be grammatically possible 
 (Bernhardy, p. 461), but is in the highest degree superfluous (in 
 opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Schulz, Rosenmiiller).— ἵνα ἐκ 
 πολλ. προσώπ. K.T.r.] divinely-appointed aim of the συνυπουργ. 
 κτλ. The correlations are to be noted: 1. ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπ. 
 and τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρ.; 2. διὰ πολλῶν and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; ὃ. χάρισμα 
 and εὐχαριστηθῇ. Accordingly, there stand parallel to one 
 another ἐκ πολλὰ. προσώπ. and then διὰ πολλῶν ; as also TO εἰς 
 ἡμᾶς χάρισμα and then ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Hence, it is to be connected 
 and taken thus: that from many couwntenances for the gift of grace 
 made to us thanks may be rendered by means of many on our behalf. 
 Paul means that the thanksgiving for Ais (and Timothy’s) resewe 
 (i.e. TO εἰς ἡμ. yap.') is not to be offered to God by himself (and 
 Timothy) alone, but that it is to be a rendering of thanks made 
 for him by many through the mediation of many. The many 
 are the same in ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. as in διὰ πολλῶν ; but there 
 they are conceived of as those who give thanks, and in διὰ 7. as 
 those who have been the procuring means of the thanksgiving, in 
 so far as through their prayer they have aided in obtaining the 
 apostle’s rescue.” πρόσωπον, according to the use of the later Greek 
 (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380; Schweigh., Lew. Polyb. p. 540; 
 
 1 Not the apostolic office (Ewald, Osiander), which here lies far from the context. 
 So also Hofmann: the gift of God, to preach Christ to those who do not yet know 
 Him. In the ordinary interpretation, there was not the least need of a demonstra- 
 tive: the article and εἰς ἡμᾶς is from the context demonstrative enough. 
 
 2 It was quite unsuitable, and contrary to the construction purposely carried out 
 by the correlata stated above, to take ἐκ σολλ. προσώπ΄. or διὰ πολλ. as neuter, and 
 either to explain the former, ex multis respectibus (Bengel, comp. Melanchthon— 
 not even justifiable in the usage of the language), or the latter, prolixe (Castalio: 
 ‘‘ingentes gratiae,”. Wolf, Clericus, Semler, Storr, Rosenmiiller). Comp. Luther. 
 
 So also Hofmann takes διὰ roa. “abundant thanksgiving.” The Vulgate renders 
 rightly: ‘‘per multos.” 
 
CHAP. I. 12. 145 
 
 Wahl, Clav. Apocr. p. 450), is taken as person by Luther and 
 most others (already in codd. of the Italic version). But it is 
 nowhere used thus in the N. T., not even in passages like Jude 
 16; and, if Paul had had person in mind, there would have been 
 no motive for choosing ἐκ instead of ὑπό. Hence we must abide 
 by the literal signification, cowntenance (Billroth, Ewald, Osiander, 
 Hofmann): the expression ἐκ 7roAX, προσώπ΄ is pictorial, for on the 
 merry countenance the feeling of gratitude is displayed (Prov. xv. 
 30); it is mirrored therein, and goes out from it and upward to 
 God in the utterance of thanksgiving. Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. 
 p. 53, in the same way rightly joins ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ΄. as well as 
 διὰ πολλ. with evyap., but he takes ἐκ πολλ. mp. of those who 
 have besought the rescue and have thereby become the causers of 
 the thanksgiving, and διὰ πολλῶν of the thanksgivers themselves. 
 So also Neander. But by this view justice is not done to the 
 mediating sense of διά, and the pictorial reference of προσώπων 
 (see above) can, according to the text, be found only in the act of 
 thanksgiving itself. It is obvious from what has already been 
 said, that neither can διὰ πολλὰ. be joined to τὸ εἰς nu. χάρισμα 
 (Theophylact and ‘others, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Kling), 
 nor can ἐκ πολλὰ. προσώπ΄. be connected with τὸ εἰς ἡμ. yap. as if 
 it stood: τὸ ἐκ πολλ. προσώπ. εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα (Ambrosiaster, 
 Valla, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including 
 Flatt, Fritzsche, Dzss., Riickert, de Wette). Only on our view 
 does the simple construction, as given by the order of the words, 
 remain without dislocation, and the meaning of the words them- 
 selves uninjured. Whether, further, in ἐκ odd. προσώπ. the 
 πολλῶν is masculine (Hofmann and Vulgate, “ex multorwm 
 facie”) or neuter, cannot be decided. — ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] on our behalf, 
 superfluous in itself, but suitable to the fulness of the representa- 
 tion.—The time in which the thanksgiving is to happen is after 
 the beginning of the ῥύσεται, not on the last day (Ewald).—The 
 passive expression εὐχαριστεῖσθαι (comp. Hipp. Ep. p. 1284, 31) 
 is conceived like ἀχαριστεῖσθαι (Polyb. xxiii. 11. 8), to experience 
 ingratitude, to be recompensed with ingratitude. Comp. Butt- 
 mann, newt. Gr. p. 130 [E. T. 148]. 
 
 Ver. 12. The apostle now begins the vindication of himself, 
 at first in reference to the purity of his walk in general (ver. 12), 
 then in reference to his honesty in writing (vv. 13, 14), and 
 
 1 COR. II. K 
 
146 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 afterwards specially in reference to the changing of his plans for 
 the journey (vv. 15-24).—ydp] Ground assigned for the con- 
 fidence uttered in ver. 11, that the readers would help him by 
 their intercession in the manner denoted: for we boast, according 
 to the witness of owr conscience, to have made ourselves worthy 
 of your Ποῖ. ---- καύχησις is not equivalent to καύχημα, materies 
 gloriandi (so most, but in no passage rightly, see on Rom. iv. 2), 
 but we should interpret: For this our boasting (which is con- 
 tained in ver. 11) 2s the testimony which our conscience furnishes 
 that we, etc. In other words: This our boasting is nothing else 
 than the expression of the testimony of our conscience, that, ete. ; 
 hence no αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπὸ καυχήσεως (Isa. xii. 13) can take place. 
 The contents of this testimony (ὅτι «.7.X.) shows how very much 
 the καύχησις of Paul is a καυχᾶσθαι ἐν κυρίῳ (1 Cor. i. 31). 
 Accordingly, αὕτη is to be taken together with ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν 
 (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9: ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη); τὸ μαρτύριον K.7.2. 
 is the predicate, which is introduced by ἐστί, and ὅτι x.7.X, is the 
 contents of the testimony. By the plain simplicity of this expla- 
 nation we obviously exclude the view that αὕτη is preparative, and 
 that it is to be referred either to τὸ μαρτύριον (Luther and most), 
 or, more harshly, with Hofmann, to ὅτι «.7.r., because in that 
 case TO μαρτύριον «.7.A. is made an interpolated apposition. — ἐν 
 ἁγιότητι (see the critical remarks) καὶ eiduxp. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is not 
 used superlatively, as Emmerling would still take it. Further, it 
 neither denotes what is well-pleasing to God (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, 
 Flatt, Riickert, Reiche), nor what avails before God (Calvin, Beza, 
 Estius, Billroth, and others, following Theophylact), nor what is 
 like God (Pelagius), nor the God-like (Osiander), which is God’s 
 manner (Hofmann), but the moral holiness and purity established 
 by God through the influence of the divine grace, as the following’ 
 οὐκ ἐν aod. σαρκ., ἀλλ᾽ ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ proves.’ So also Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Kling, Neander, Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 261]. Comp. 
 δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 17, εἰρήνη Θεοῦ, Phil. iv. 7, and the like. 
 The rare word ἁγιότης is found also in 2 Mace. xv. 2; Heb. 
 
 ‘ With this fall to the ground also the scruples of Riickert against the word 
 ἁγιότητι, which he either wishes to take abusive, like the Latin sanctitas, integrity, 
 or conjectures in its stead ἁγνότησι. Reiche’s difficulty regarding ἁγιόσ., that Paul 
 talks of his purity as teacher, is also untenable. He certainly speaks of his entire 
 conduct, not merely of his teaching. 
 
CHAP. I. 18, 14. 147 
 
 xii. 10; Schol. Arist. Thesm. 301. Regarding εἰλικρ., see on 
 1 Cor. v. 8. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 A. — οὐκ ἐν cod. 
 σαρκ. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν χάρ. Θεοῦ] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, for 
 it is parallel to the previous ἐν ἁγιότ. x. εἴλικρ. Θεοῦ, and gives 
 negative and positive information about it. The σοφία σαρκ. is 
 the merely human wisdom, the wisdom which is not the work of 
 the divine influence (of the Holy Spirit), but of human nature 
 itself unenlightened and unimproved, guided by the sinful lust in 
 the σάρξ. See on 1 Cor. i. 26.— ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ] is not to be 
 explained of mzracles (Chrysostom), nor yet with Grotius: “cum 
 raultis donis spiritualibus,” but without any limitation of the 
 influence of the divine grace, under which Paul lived and worked. 
 —tThe thrice repeated use of ἐν denotes the spiritual element in 
 which his course of life moved (Eph. 1.3; 2 Pet. ii 18). ---- ἐν 
 τῷ κόσμῳ] 1... among profane humanity. This serves by contrast 
 to make the holiness of his walk and conversation more prominent. 
 Comp. Phil. ii. 15.— πρὸς ὑμᾶς] denotes the direction of his 
 association, im intercourse with you. See Bernhardy, p. 265, 
 More than with others, he had established such a relation with 
 the Corinthians (hence 7repiccor.). 
 
 Ver. 13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious 
 (ver. 10) περισσ. δὲ mp. ὑμᾶς (ver. 12), in so far as it might be 
 suspected as not honourably meant, he asserts his candour in 
 writing, which must have been assailed by his opponents (comp. 
 x. 10), who probably maintained, “ His letters to us are not the 
 expression of his genuine inmost opinion !”— For nothing else do 
 we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also under- 
 stand ; 1.6. in our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our 
 genuine opinion, but it agrees exactly with what the reading of 
 the same, or your acquaintance with our mode of thinking and 
 character, says to you. Comp. Theodoret. On γράφειν in its 
 reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1 Cor. v. 11. 
 According to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought: “17 
 cannot do otherwise, I must write thus.’ But Paul is making an 
 appeal to the readers. -— ἀλλ᾽ 4] practerquam, nisi. For examples 
 in which the previous negative sentence has also ἄλλος, see 
 Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 45; Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 354 B; 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 36 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 5. The mode of 
 expression depends on a Llending of the two constructions—ovd« 
 
148 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ἄλλα... ἀλλά and οὐκ ἄλλα... ἤ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. 
 p. 81 B; Kiihner, 11. p. 438. — ἃᾧ ἀναγινώσκετε, ἢ κ. ἐπιγ.] This 
 latter ἤ is in no connection with the former, in which case it 
 could not but have stood ἃ ἢ ἀναγ., ἢ καὶ ἐπιγ. This in opposi- 
 tion to Fritzsche’s way of taking it: “neque enim alia ad vos 
 perscribimus, guam aut ea... aut ea, quae, ete. ἀναγινώσκειν is 
 to vead, as it is usually in the Attic authors, and always in the 
 N. T., not to wnderstand, as Calvin, Estius, Storr,’ following the 
 Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this meaning often im 
 classical Greek (Hom. J/. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206; Xen. 
 Anab. v. 8. 6; Pind. Jsthm. ii. 35; Herodian, vii. 7; comp. also 
 Prayer of Manass, 12). ---- ἢ καὶ ἐπυγιν.] or also (without com- 
 munication by letter) wnderstand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily : 
 “vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam aut tertiam lectionem, 
 attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Riickert: “and doubt- 
 less also understand.” Quite against ἢ «at, which stands also 
 opposed to the view of Hofmann: Paul wishes to say that he does 
 not write in such a way, that they might understand something 
 else than he means in his words. In this case we should have 
 had «at only, since ἢ καί points to something e/se than to the 
 reading, with which what he has written agrees——The assimilation 
 of the expressions ἀναγιν. and ἐπύγεν. (comp. 111. 2) cannot be 
 imitated in German, but in Latin approximately : /egitis aut etiam 
 intelligitis. Comp. on Acts vii. 30; Plat. Zp. IL. p. 312 D.— 
 ἐλπίζω δὲ «.7.d.] The object to ἐπιγνώσεσθε is ὅτε καύχημα ὑμῶν 
 ἐσμεν K.T.r., and καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγν. nw. ἀπὸ μέρ. is an inserted 
 clause: “ I hope, however, that you will understand even to the 
 end,—as you have understood us in part,—that we are your boast,” 
 etc. We might also consider ὅτε καύχημα «7X. as a nearer object 
 to ἐπέγνωτε ὑμᾶς (Estius, Rosenmiiller, Billroth, Riickert, de 
 Wette) ; but, since in this way ἐπιγνώσεσθε remains without an 
 object (Billroth supplies: “ that I think the same as I write;” comp. 
 tiickert ; Osiander: “ all my doing and suffering in its purity ”), 
 the above mode of connection is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, 
 Luther, Grotius, and others, also Olshausen (Osiander doubtfully), 
 take ὅτε as for, stating the eround for καθὼς x. ἐπέγν. ἡμ. ἀπὸ μέρ. 
 
 ' Calvin thinks ἀνάγιν. and try. are distinguished as agnoscere and recognoscere. 
 
 So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius makes the difference: ‘‘ et secognoscitis 
 antiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscilis recentia. 
 
CHAP. I. 13, 14. 140 
 
 But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still more 
 wanting, since from the general καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν K.7.r. NO in- 
 ference to the ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς restricted by ἀπὸ μέρους is warranted ; 
 the reason assigned would not be suitable to ἀπὸ μέρους. The 
 connection which runs on simply is unnecessarily broken up by 
 Ewald holding ver. 13 and ver. 14 on to μέρους as a parenthesis, 
 so that ὅτι, ver. 14 (that), joins on again to ver. 12. — ἕως τέλους] 
 does not mean {τ my death (Hofmann), but di/] the end, 1.6. till 
 the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1 Cor. 1. 8, 
 xv. 51 £; Heb. iii. 6. — Ver. 14. καθὼς x. ἐπέγν. ἡμᾶς compares 
 the future, regarding which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding 
 which he knows. And therefore he adds a limitation in keep- 
 ing with the truth, ἀπὸ μέρους (comp. Rom. xi. 25); for not 
 all the Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite 
 against the usage of the language, takes ἀπὸ μέρους of time, 
 inasmuch as the apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present 
 was only a part of what he had to live with them. In that case 
 Paul would have written ἕως ἄρτι in contrast to ἕως τέλους. 
 Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of knowledge, 
 guodammodo (comp. 11. 5), with which Paul reproaches the readers, 
 ὡς μὴ παντελῶς ἀπωσαμένους Tas κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένας δια- 
 Boras, Theodoret. But a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to 
 the connection; and certainly the readers to whom ἐπέγνωτε 
 applies had not Ἔα} understood him guodammodo, but wholly and 
 decidedly, that, ete. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his 
 cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. 
 Comp. Chrysostom, according to whom ἀπὸ μέρους is added from 
 modesty ; also Theophylact, according to whom Paul is thinking of 
 the imperfect exhibition of his virtwe. But how could the readers 
 conjecture this !—6re καύχημα «.t.d.] that we redound for glory 
 (i.e. for the object of καυχᾶσθαι) to you, even as you to us on 
 the day of the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day 
 that you have had us as teachers, and it will be to our honour that 
 we have had you as disciples. Comp. 1 Thess. 11. 19 ἢ; Phil. 
 1. 16. With how much winning tact the addition κάθαπερ «x. 
 ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν suppresses all appearance of self - exaltation! ὡς 
 μαθηταῖς ὁμοτίμοις διαλεγόμενος οὕτως ἐξισάζει τὸν λόγον, Chry- 
 sostom. — ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τ. κυρ. ᾿Ιησοῦ)] belongs to the whole ὅτι 
 καύχημα... ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν, not, as Riickert arbitrarily thinks, te 
 
150 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 καθάπερ κ. ὑμ. ἡμῶν merely (so Grotius, Calovius, and others) ; 
 nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to καύχ. ὑμῶν 
 ἐσμεν. 
 
 Vv. 15,16. Καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πεποιθ.] and by means of this con- 
 fidence, viz. ὅτι ἕως τέλους ἐπιγν. K.T.r. In VV. 13, 14. πεποίθη- 
 ous (iii. 4, vili. 22, x. 2; Eph. iii. 12; Phil. m1.4; Joseph. Bell. 
 i. 3. 1) is later Greek. See Eustathius, ad Od. 111. p. 114, 41; 
 Thom. Mag. p. 717; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 294 £.— ἐβουλόμην] 
 Paul entertained the plan for his journey, set down in ver. 16, 
 before the composition of our first Epistle, and he had com- 
 municated it to the Corinthians (whether in the first now lost 
 letter, or otherwise, we know not). But before or during the 
 composition of our first Epistle he altered this plan (as we know 
 from 1 Cor. xvi. 5) to this extent, that he was not now to go 
 first to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and from thence back to 
 Corinth again (ver. 16), but through Macedonia to Corinth. The 
 plan of travel, 1 Cor. xvi. 5, was accordingly not the first (Baur ; 
 comp. Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.), but the one already 
 altered, which alteration was ascribed to the apostle as indecision. 
 This is intelligible enough from the antagonistic irritation of their 
 minds, and does not require us to presuppose an expression in 
 the alleged intermediate Epistle (Klopper, p. 21 f.). Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius make the apostle say: I had, 
 when I wrote to you 1 Cor. xvi. 5, the unexpressed intention to 
 arrive still earlier than I promised, and to reach you even sooner 
 (immediately on the journey towards Macedonia). Quite a mis- 
 taken view, since such a mere thought would not have been known 
 to his opponents, and no excuse for his fickleness could therefore 
 have been engrafted on it.— πρότερον] belongs to πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
 edOeciv:' I intended to come to you first of all,—not, as I after- 
 wards altered my plan, to the Macedonians first, and then from 
 them to you. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rosen- 
 miiller and Riickert, connect πρότ. and ἐβουλ., which, however, on 
 the one hand is opposed to the sense (for Paul cannot say, “ I in- 
 tended formerly to come to you,” since his intention is still the 
 same), and on the other would not accord with ἵνα deur. yap. ἔχ. ; 
 
 1 The position of σρότερον, immediately after ἐβουλ. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 
 Riickert), which has preponderating evidence, and is therefore to be preferred, makes 
 no difference in this respect, 
 
CHAP. I. 15, 16. 151 
 
 for not the προτερον ἐβουλόμην, but the πρότερον πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
 ἐλθεῖν, was to bring in its train a δευτέρα χάρις. --- ἵνα δευτέραν 
 χάριν ἔχητε] δευτέραν corresponds ingeniously to the πρότερον: in 
 order that you might have a second benefit of grace. By χάριν is 
 meant a divine bestowal of grace, with which Paul knew his coming 
 to be connected for the church; for to whatever place he came 
 in his official capacity, he came as the imparter of divine χάρις, 
 Rom. i. 11; comp. xv. 29. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, 
 including Kypke, Emmerling, Flatt, and Bleek (in the Stud. wu. 
 Krit. 1830, p. 622), hold that χάρις is equivalent to yapa (and 
 hence this is actually the reading of B L, some min., and Theodoret). 
 Certainly yapis also means pleasure, joy, and is, as in Tob. vii. 18, 
 the opposite of λύπη (Eur. Hel. 661, and more frequently in 
 Pindar; see Duncan, Lew, ed. Rost, p. 1191; also in Plato, Ast, 
 Lex. 111. p. 538), but never in the N. T. This sense, besides, 
 would be unsuitable to the apostle’s delicate and modest style of 
 expression elsewhere. Nor, again, is a benefit on the part of the 
 apostle meant (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Schrader, Billroth, comp. also 
 Hofmann), because the expression is only in keeping with his 
 affection and humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10) if a divine display of 
 grace is meant. The comparison with 1 Cor. xvi. 3 is therefore 
 not to the point, because there a χάρις is named, of which the 
 readers were givers. But what does he mean by δευτέραν χάριν ? 
 Many answer with Estius : “ ut ex secundo meo adventu secundam 
 acciperetis gratiam, qui dudum accepistis primam, quando primum 
 istuc veniens ad fidem vos converti.” Comp. Pelagius, Calvin, 
 Wolf, Mosheim, Bengel, Emmerling. But against this it may be 
 urged: (1) historically, that Paul certainly had been already twice 
 in Corinth before our two Epistles (see Introd. § 2) ; and (2) from 
 the connection, that the δευτέρα χάρις in this sense can by no 
 means appear as an aim conditioned by the πρότερον ; for even a 
 later coming would have had a δευτέρα χάρις in this sense as its 
 result. This second reason is decisive, even if, with Schott, 
 Erérierung, etc., p. 58 ff., and Anger, rat. temp. p. 72 f., we 
 were to set aside the former by the supposition: “ apostolum 
 intra annum illum cum dimidio, quem, quum primum Corinthi 
 esset, ibi transegit, per breve aliquod temporis spatium in regiones 
 vicinas discessisse ; sic enim si res se habuit, Paulus, etsi bis ad 
 Corinthios venerat, ita ut in secunda, quam iis misit, epistola 
 
17 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 adventum tertiwm polliceri posset: tamen, quoniam per totum 
 illud intervallum Corinthi potissimum docuerat, simile beneficium, 
 quod in itinere seriore in eos collocaturus erat, jure secundwin 
 appellavit,’ Anger, lc. p. 73. The right solution results from 
 ver. 16, which is appended by the epexegetical καί, viz., that 
 the δευτέρα χάρις appears as setting in through the πάλιν ἀπὸ 
 Maxed. ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Paul had intended on his projected 
 journey to visit Corinth ¢wice, and had therefore proposed to him- 
 self to come to the Corinthians jirst of all (not first to the Mace- 
 donians), in order that they in this event might have a second 
 χάρις on his return from Macedonia (the first χάρις they were to 
 have on his journey thither). From this it is at once obvious: 
 (1) how superfluous is the linguistically incorrect supposition 
 that δευτέραν is here equivalent to διπλῆν, as Bleek and Neander, 
 following Chrysostom and Theodoret,' take it; (2) how erroneous 
 is the opinion of Riickert, that ἵνα deur. χάριν ἔχητε is put in a 
 wrong place, and should properly only come behind ἐλθεῖν πρὸς 
 ὑμᾶς, ver. 16. No; according to the epexegetical καί, ver. 16, 
 δι ὑμῶν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Maxed. serves to give exact and clear 
 information as parallel to the πρότερον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, and 
 then καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ Mak. ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς as parallel to the 
 iva δευτέρ. χάριν ἔχητε. Comp. Baur, I. p. 338, ed. 2. 
 
 Ver. 17. Wishing this therefore (according to what has just 
 been said), did I then behave thoughtlessly 5 Was this proposal 
 of mine made without duly taking thought for its execution ? 
 μήτι supposes a negative answer, as always, in which case apa 
 (meaning: as the matter stands) makes no alteration, such as the 
 suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Such a 
 sense, as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, 
 which is foreign here, could only be suggested by the context, and 
 would have nothing to do with dpa (in opposition to Hartung, 
 whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176 £.— τῇ 
 ἐλαφρίᾳ] The article marks the thoughtlessness not as that with 
 which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth, 
 
 1 In other respects Theodoret, Bleek, and Neander, as alsu Billroth, Olshausen, 
 and Riickert, agree in thinking that δευτέραν refers to the repeated visit to Corinth 
 which had been intended after returning from Macedonia. But Chrys., quite 
 against the context, explains the double joy as καὶ ray διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ τὴν διὰ 
 τῆ; παρουσίας. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, and others. 
 
CHAP. I. 17. 155 
 
 Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more 
 precisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtless- 
 ness as such in general, in abstracto: have I then made myself guilty 
 of thouvyhtlessness 2 ἐλαφρία belongs to the substantives in -pva 
 formed late from adjectives in -pos. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 Ῥ. 343. For the ethical sense (wantonness), comp. Schol. Aristoph. 
 Av, 195, and ἐλαφρός in Polyb. vi. 56. 11; ἐλαφρόνοος, Phocy- 
 lides in Stob. Flor. app. 111. 7.—7% ἃ βουλεύομαι, κατὰ σάρκα 
 βουλεύομαι] ἤ is not aut (Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann, 
 after the Vulgate and most expositors), but an; for without any 
 interrogation the relation of the two sentences is: My proposal was 
 not thoughtless, unless it should be the case that I form my resolves 
 κατὰ σάρκα. See Hartung, II. p. 61.— Mark the difference 
 between ἐχρησάμην as aorist (historical event) and βουλεύομαι as 
 present (behaviour generally). — κατὰ σάρκα] according to the flesh, 
 after the standard of the σάρξ, 1.6. so that I let myself be guided 
 by the impulses of human nature sinfully determined, Gal. v. 16 ff. 
 — va ἢ παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ τὸ ναὶ val καὶ τὸ ov οὔ] By ἵνα is expressed 
 simply the immoral purpose, which would be connected with the 
 βουλεύεσθαι κατὰ σάρκα ; in order that with me there may be the 
 Yea, yea, and Nay, nay, 1.6. in order that with me affirmation and 
 denial may exist together; that I, according as the case stands, may 
 assent to the fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it ; to-day yea, 
 and to-morrow nay, or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Bill- 
 roth errs in thinking that in this explanation καί must be taken as 
 also. That it means and, is proved by vv. 18,19. The duplication 
 of the ναί and οὔ strengthens the picture of the untrustworthy 
 man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies. 
 Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the 
 reading of the Vulgate, τὸ val καὶ τὸ οὔ, which has very weak 
 attestation. The article marks the vai vai and the od οὔ as 
 well-known and solemn formulae of affirmative and negative 
 asseveration (as they were also in Jewish usage; see Wetstein, 
 ad Matth. ν. 37). Comp. on ναὶ vai, Soph. 0. C. 1743. As to 
 the main point, namely, that the ναὶ vai and the od ov are taken 
 as the subject of 7, this explanation has the support of Erasmus, 
 Beza, Calvin, Estius (though conjecturing ἵνα μή instead of ἵνα), 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others ; also of Rosen- 
 miiller, Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
 
154 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Neander, Maier, and others; even Olshausen, who, however, sets up 
 for vai and οὔ the “ peculiar” signification (assumed without any 
 instance of its being so used) of “truth” and “falsehood.” The 
 diplasiasmus ναὶ vai and od οὔ is not without reason (as Billroth 
 and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excite- 
 ment of the moral consciousness ; whereas afterwards, in ver. 18, 
 where his words go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful 
 God, the bare vai καὶ ov is quite in its place. Note, further, 
 that the simple expression of the coexistence of the yea and nay 
 (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking, than if Paul had 
 given a more precise explanation of the maxims of yea and 
 nay. The readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could 
 not but know that he was no yea-and-nay man. Others consider 
 the second ναί and the second οὔ as predicates, so that a wholly 
 opposite sense is made out of the words: in order that with me the 
 Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, 1.6. in order that I may stub- 
 bornly carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp. 
 Jas. v. 12. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
 Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth ; 
 Winer, p. 429 [E. T. 481], gives no decision. The context, 
 however, before (“levitatis et inconstantiae, non autem perti- 
 naciae crimen hic a se depellere studet,’ Estius) and after 
 (vv. 18, 19), is decisive against this view. Hofmann imports 
 into παρ᾽ ἐμοί a contrast to παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, so that the idea would 
 be: to assent to or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s 
 own self, without reservation, because purely as an expression of 
 self-will, with which Jas. iv. 13 is compared.’ Such a contrast 
 could not but be based upon what went before, in itself as well 
 as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis 
 on παρ᾽ ἐμοί the order ἵνα παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ ἢ would have been suitable ; 
 and the idea of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have de- 
 manded not καί but ἤ between the vai and the ov. And was Paul, 
 then, the man in whose resolves “the yea is always meant with 
 the reservation of a nay”? Luther’s translation (comp. Ambro- 
 siaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the mark of 
 interrogation is placed after κατὰ o. βουλ., and in that case there 
 
 1 Similarly Ewald, but he takes wap’ tuoi (with Camerarius) as penes me (‘ merely 
 
 after my own pleasure to say and to do the one or the other”), as if, therefore, it 
 were ἐν ἐμοί, Ewald compares Ps. xii. 5. 
 
CHAP. I. 18, 19. 155 
 
 is supplied nequaquam, of which negation ἵνα «.7.A. specifies the 
 purpose. This is intolerably arbitrary. Regarding the erroneous 
 translation of the Peshito (Grotius agrees with it), which distorts 
 the meaning from misconception, see F ritzsche, Diss. II. p. 2. 
 Ver. 18. But according to His faithfulness, God causes our 
 speech to you to be not yea and nay, not untrustworthy. ὙΠῸ δέ 
 introduces the contrast (yea rather) to the state of things denied 
 in the preceding question (Baeumlein, Partik. Ὁ. 95) ; and ὅτι 
 is equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, like John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51; 
 1 Cor. i. 26, αἰ. : Faithful is God in reference to this, that our speech, 
 ete., ae. God shows Himself faithful by this, that, etc. Beza, 
 Calvin, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Neander, Ewald, Hofmann, take πιστὸς ὁ Θεός as an asseveration : 
 prok Dei fidem! Against all linguistic usage, for the ζῶ ἐγὼ... 
 ὅτι (see on Rom. xiv. 11), which is compared, is a habitual formula 
 of swearing, which the πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, very frequent with the apostle 
 (1 Cor. i. 9,x. 13; 1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Johni. 9), is 
 not. Nor can we compare xi. 10, where a subjective state of things 
 is asserted as a guarantee of what is uttered. — ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν] is 
 by most understood of the preaching of the gospel, according to 
 which Paul thus, against the suspicion of untruthfulness in his 
 resolves and assurances, puts forward the truthfulness of his 
 preaching,—in which there lies a moral argument ὦ majort ad 
 minus ; for the opinion of Hofmann, that Paul means to say that 
 his preaching stands in a different position from the conditioned 
 quality of his yea and nay, falls with his view of ver. 17. From 
 ver. 19, however, it appears to be beyond doubt that the usual ex- 
 planation of λόγος, of the preaching, not in general of the apostle’s 
 speech (Riickert), or of that unfulfilled promise (Erasmus in the 
 Annot.), is the right one. Olshausen mixes up the two explanations. 
 Vv. 19-22. Paul furnishes grounds in ver. 19 f. for the 
 assurance he had given in ver. 18; then refers his veracity to 
 the stedfastness bestowed on him by God, ver. 21 f.; and finally, 
 ver. 23, makes protestations as to the reason why he had not yet 
 come to Corinth. 
 Ver. 19. Ὃ γὰρ tod Θεοῦ vids] or, as Lachmann, Riickert, 
 1 Erasmus says aptly, Paraphr.: ‘‘Sed non fallit Deus, cujus praesidio factum 
 
 est, ut sermo noster, quo vobis illius evangelium praedicavyimus, non vacillarit, sed 
 semper sui similis fuerit.” 
 
156 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 and Tischendorf, following preponderating testimony, have it 
 rightly: ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ γὰρ υἱός (yap in the fourth place; see 
 Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 100; Ellendt, Lex. Soph, I. p. 339; 
 Hermann, ad Philoct. 1437), marks the τοῦ Θεοῦ as emphatic, in 
 order to make what is to be said of Christ, οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ κ. οὔ, 
 felt at once in its divine certainty. To be God’s Son and yet vai 
 x. ov would be a contradiction. In the whole ὁ... I. X. there 
 lies a solemn, sacred emphasis.—o ἐν ὑμῖν ov ἡμῶν κηρυχθείς] 
 reminds the readers of the first preaching of Christ among them, 
 of which Paul could not but remind them, if they were to become 
 perfectly conscious, from their experience from the beginning, 
 that Christ had not become vai «. ov. But in order to make 
 this first preaching come home to them with the whole personal 
 weight of the preachers, he adds, in just consciousness of the 
 services rendered by himself and his companions as compared with 
 the later workers, a more precise definition of the δι’ ἡμῶν, with 
 more weighty circumstantiality : δι᾿ ἐμοῦ κ. Σιλουανοῦ x. Τιμοθέου. 
 For the two latter had been his helpers in his first labours in 
 Corinth. See Acts xviii. 5. From this it is obvious why he 
 has not named others, as Apollos, but simply these (Calvin thinks, 
 that these had been most calwminiated); hence also there is no 
 need to suppose any intention of making his assurance more 
 credible (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many others). A side 
 glance at the Christ preached by Judaistic opponents (xi. 4) is 
 here quite foreign to the connection (in opposition to Klopper, p. 
 86 f.).— XcAovavod] Universally so with Paul (1 Thess. 1. 1; 
 2 Thess. 1. 1); alsoin 1 Pet. v.12. In the Acts of the Apostles 
 only the shortened name Σίλας appears. Silvanus is here placed 
 before Timothy, because he was an older apostolic helper than 
 the latter. See Acts xv. 22 ff.—ov« ἐγένετο vai κ. οὔ] He has 
 not become affirmation and negation, has not showed Himself as 
 untrustworthy, as one who affirms and also denies (the fulfil- 
 ment of the divine promises, ver. 20), as one who had exhibited 
 such contradiction in himself. This Paul says of Christ Himself, 
 in so far as in the personal objective Christ, by means of His 
 appearance and His whole work, the va/ in reference to the 
 divine promises, the affirmation of their fulfilment, is given as a 
 matter of fact. Wrongly most expositors (comp. Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact) understand Χριστός as doctrina de 
 
CHAP. I. 20. hig 
 
 Christo (“ our gospel of Christ is not chargeable, sometimes one 
 thing, sometimes another, but it remains ever the same”), an 
 interpretation here specially precluded by verses 20 and 21. 
 This may be urged also against the similar interpretation of Hof- 
 mann, that, with the very fact that Christ has come to the readers 
 through preaching, there has gone forth a Yea (the affirmation of 
 all divine promises), without any intervention of Nay. Olshausen 
 and Riickert take it rightly of Christ Himself; but the former 
 puts in place of the simple meaning of the word the thought not 
 quite in keeping: “ Christ is the absolute truth, affirmation pure 
 and simple ; in Him is the real fulfilment of the divine promises ; 
 in Him negation is entirely wanting ;” and the latter arbitrarily 
 limits éyévero merely to the experience of the Corinthians 
 (“ among you He has not shown Himself untrustworthy”), Paul, 
 however, uses the words οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ x. ov of Christ in general, 
 and by ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν... Τιμοθ. directs the attention of the Corin- 
 thians to the recognition of the truth on their part and out of 
 their own experience. — ἀλλὰ val ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν] of the two 
 only the former, 1.6. affirmation (that the divine promises are 
 fulfilled and shall be fulfilled) zs established in Him: in Christ is 
 actually given the yea, that, etc. In the perfect γέγονεν (different 
 from the previous aorist ἐγένετο) is implied the continuance οἵ 
 what has happened. Comp. on Col. i.16; Johni. ὃ. Grotius, 
 in opposition to the context (see ver. 20), referred vai ἐν αὐτῷ 
 yéy. to the miracles, by which Christ confirmed the apostolic 
 preaching. And Beza awkwardly, and, on account of ver. 20, 
 erroneously, took ἐν αὐτῷ of Ged, whose Son is “ constantissima 
 Patris veritas.” 
 
 Ver. 20. A more precise explanation and confirmation of vat 
 ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν, running on to the end of the verse. Hence 
 ὅσαι... ἀμήν is not to be put in a parenthesis, as Griesbach, 
 Scholz, and Ewald.—zvo vai and τὸ ἀμήν cannot be synonymous, 
 as most of the older commentators take them (“ repetit, ut ipsa 
 repetitione rem magis confirmet,’ Estius), for this is rendered 
 impossible by the correct reading διὸ x. δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμήν (see 
 the critical remarks). Rather must the former be the cause (διό) 
 of the latter. And here the expression τὸ ἀμήν is without 
 doubt to be explained from the custom in worship, that in public 
 prayer a general Amen was said as certifying the general 
 
158 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 assurance of faith as to its being heard (see on 1 Cor. xiv. 16). 
 Accordingly τὸ vai and τὸ ἀμήν are here to be distinguished in 
 this way; τὸ vai, as in the whole context, denotes the certainty 
 objectively given (comp. on that point, Rom. xv. 8), and τὸ ἀμήν, 
 the certainty subjectively existing, the certainty of faith. Conse- 
 quently: for, as many pronvises of God as there are (in the Ο, T.), in 
 Him is the yea (in Christ is given the objective guarantee of their 
 fulfilment) ; therefore through Him also the Amen takes place, there- 
 fore it comes to pass through Christ, that the Amen is said to 
 _ God’s promises ; 1.6. therefore also to Christ, to His work and merit, 
 _ without which we should want this certainty, is due the subjective 
 certainty of the divine promises, the faith in their fulfilment. 
 Billroth, indeed (and in the main, de Wette), thinks the concep- 
 tion to be this : that the preachers of the gospel say the Amen through 
 their preaching, so that τὸ ναί refers to the living working of God 
 in Christ, in whom He fulfils His promises, and τὸ ἀμήν to the 
 faithful and stedfast preaching of these deeds of God. But the 
 saying of Amen expressed the assurance of faith, and was done 
 by all; hence τὸ ἀμήν would be in the highest degree unsuitable 
 for denoting the praedicatio. Finally, Riickert is quite arbitrary 
 when he says that τὸ vai relates to the fulfilment of the pro- 
 phecies wrought by the appearing of Christ Himself, and τὸ ἀμήν 
 to the erection of the church, which had grown out of that appear- 
 ing.—The article before vat and ἀμήν denotes the definite Yea 
 and Amen, which relate to the ἐπωγγελίαι Θεοῦ and belong to 
 them. The article was not used before in ver. 19, because no defi- 
 nite reference of the yea was yet specified. — τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν 
 δι’ ἡμῶν] a teleological definition to δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμήν with the. 
 emphatic prefixing of τῷ Θεῷ: to God's honour through us, ie. 
 what redounds to the glorifying of God (viii. 19) through us. — dv 
 ἡμῶν] nostro ministerio (Grotius), in so far, namely, as the ministry 
 of the gospel-preachers brings about the Amen, the assurance of 
 faith in God’s promises, Rom. x. 14. 
 
 Ver. 21 f. dé] not specifying the ground of τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς 
 δόξαν (Grotius), nor confirming the assurance that he had preached 
 without wavering (Billroth), but continwative. Paul has just, with 
 δι’ ἡμῶν, pointed to the blessed result which his working (and 
 that of his companions) is bringing about, namely, that the Amen 
 of faith is said to all God’s promises to the glory of God. But 
 
CHAP. I. 21, 22. 159 
 
 now he wishes to indicate also the inner divine life-principle, on 
 which this working and its result are based, namely, the Christian 
 stedfastness, which is due to no other than to God Himself. — On 
 the construction, comp. v. 5; hence Billroth (whom Olshausen 
 follows) has incorrectly taken ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν... Θεός as subject, 
 and ὁ καὶ σφραγ. «.7.. as predicate. It isto be translated: “ And 
 He who makes us stedfast with you toward Christ, after He has 
 also anointed us, is God ; who also,’ etc. Since the anointing pre- 
 cedes the βεβαιοῦν, and is its foundation, and Paul has not written 
 ὁ δὲ χρίσας ἡμᾶς καὶ βεβαιῶν x.7.X., it is not to be regarded with 
 the expositors as gui autem confirmat et unait, but καὶ χρίσας ἡμᾶς 
 is to be taken as a definition subordinate to the βεβαιῶν, and καί 
 as the also of the corresponding relation; otherwise, there would 
 be a hysteron-proteron, which there is no ground for supposing. 
 — εἰς Χριστόν] in relation to Christ, so that we remain unshakenly 
 faithful to Christ. Chrysostom well says: ὁ μὴ ἐῶν ἡμᾶς παρα- 
 σαλεύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς πίστεως THs εἰς τ. Χριστόν. The explanation : 
 into Christ (Billroth, Olshausen) has against it the present parti- 
 ciple. or the believers are already in Christ ; their continued 
 ‘ confirmation (βεββ., see on 1 Cor. i. 6) therefore could not but take 
 place in Christo, Col. ii. 7, not in Christum.—odvv ὑμῖν] Paul 
 adds, in order not to appear as if he were denying to the readers 
 the βεβαίωσις εἰς Χριστόν. Estius says aptly : “ ut eos in hac sua 
 defensione benevolos habeat.” This agrees with the whole tone 
 of the context; but there is not, as Riickert conjectures, a side- 
 glance at those who had held the apostle to be a wavering reed. 
 — χρίσας ἡμᾶς) here, without σὺν ὑμῖν, is a figurative way of 
 denoting the consecration to office (Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27, 
 x. 38; Heb. 1. 9), we. to the office of teacher of the gospel, with- 
 out, however, pressing the expression so far as Chrysostom and 
 Theophylact : ὁμοῦ προφήτας καὶ ἱερεῖς x. βασιλέας ἐργασάμενος. 
 Whether, however, did Paul conceive the consecration as effected 
 by the call (Billroth, Olshausen, Riickert) or by the communication 
 of the Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Osiander, and many others, 
 following the ancient expositors)? Ver. 22 is not opposed to 
 the latter view (see below) ; and since the call to the office is, in 
 point of fact, something quite different from the consecration, 
 χρίσας is certainly to be referred to the holy consecration of the 
 Spirit (comp. Acts x. 38). Comp., further, 1 John ii. 20, 27, and 
 
.100 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Diisterdieck on 1 Johni. p. 355. Anallusion to Χριστόν (Bengel, 
 Osiander, Hofmann, and others) would not be certain, even if there 
 stood καὶ χρίσας καὶ ἡμᾶς, because Χριστόν is not used appella- 
 tively, but purely as a proper name. An anointing of Christ (as 
 at Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27, x. 38; Heb. i. 9) is as little men- 
 tioned by Paul as by John. If, however, it had been here in his 
 mind, in order to compare with it the consecration of the ἡμεῖς, 
 he could not but have added σὺν αὐτῷ, or some similar more 
 precise definition of the relation intended, to make himself intel- 
 ligible; comp. the idea of the συζωοποιεῖν σὺν Χριστῷ, and the 
 like. — 06 καὶ σφραγισ. ὑμᾶς x.7.r.] is argumentative. How could 
 He leave us in the lurch unconfirmed, He, who has also sealed us, 
 ete.! How would He come into contradiction with Himself! This 
 ofpayic. ὑμᾶς does not present the same thing, as was just ex- 
 pressed by χρίσας ἡμ., in another figurative form ; but by means 
 of καί it adds an accessory new element,’ namely, the Messianic 
 sealing conferred, although likewise through the Holy Spirit (see 
 the sequel), apart from the anointing, 1.6. the inner confirmation of 
 the Messianic σωτηρία. Comp. on Eph. i. 13, iv. 580. It is not 
 added to what the sealing objectively relates (to the Messianic 
 salvation), because it is regarded as a familiar notion, well 
 known in its reference. — καὶ δοὺς x.7.r.] is epexegetical of ὁ 
 σφραγισάμ. ἡμᾶς, Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545]. — τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ 
 πνεύματος] Comp. v. 5. The genitive is the genitive of apposition, 
 as 1 Cor. v. 8: the earnest-money, which consists in the Spirit. 
 ἀῤῥαβών (also with the Romans arrhabo or arrha) is properly ἡ 
 ἐπὶ ταῖς ὠναῖς Tapa τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη προκαταβολὴ ὑπὲρ 
 ἀσφαλείας, Etym. M.; Aristot. Pol. i. 4. 5; Lucian, Rhet. praec. 
 17,18. Then it is a figurative expression for the notion guarantee. 
 See in general Wetstein, and especially Kypke, Obss. 11. p. 259 ἢ 
 For what the Holy Spirit is guarantee, Paul does not say, but he 
 presupposes it as an obvious fact in the consciousness of the 
 readers, just as he did with σφραγισάμ. The Holy Spirit is in 
 the heart as an earnest-money given for a guarantee of a future 
 possession, the pledge of the future Messianic salvation. Comp. 
 ν. 5; Eph.i 14. How? see Rom. viii. 2,101, v. 5, viii. 15 fff. ; 
 Gal. iv. 6 f.; Eph. v.19. In ἀῤῥαβ., therefore, the climax τῶν 
 
 1 Hence καί is to be taken as also, not with the following καί, as well... as also ; 
 especially as καὶ cPpuy. and καὶ δούς are not two acts essentially different. 
 
CHAP. I. 23, 24. 161 
 
 μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (Theodoret) is characteristic. — ἐν ταῖς καρ- 
 διαῖς ἡμ. The direction is blended with the result, as viii. 1 : He 
 gave the Spirit, so that this Spirit is now in our hearts. Comp. 
 vili. 16, and on John iii. 35. 
 
 Ver. 23. After Paul has vindicated himself (vv. 16—22) from 
 the suspicion of fickleness and negligence raised against him on 
 account of his changing the plan of his journey, he proceeds in 
 an elevated tone to give, with the assurance of an oath (xi. 31; 
 Rom. i. 9 ; Gal. i. 20), the reason why he had not come to Corinth.— 
 ἐγὼ δέ] Hitherto he has spoken communicative, not talking of him- 
 self exclusively. Now, however, to express his own self-deter- 
 mination, he continues: but J for my own part, etc.—For examples 
 of ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν μάρτυρα, see Wetstein. Comp. Hom. 
 Tl. xxii. 254. Θεοὺς ἐπιδώμεθα" τοὶ yap ἄριστοι μάρτυροι ἔσσον- 
 tat, Plat. Legg. ii. p. 664 Ο. ---- ἐπὶ τ. ἐμ. ψυχ.] not: against my 
 soul, in which case it would be necessary arbitrarily to supply si 
 fallo (Grotius ; comp. Osiander and others, also Ernesti, Urspr. 
 d. Stinde, II. p. 102), but, in reference to (for) my soul, “in qua 
 rerum mearum mihi conscius sum, quam perimi nolim,” Bengel. 
 It expresses the moral reference of the invocation, and belongs to 
 ἐπικαλ., in which act Paul has in view that he thereby stakes 
 the salvation (Heb. x. 39; 1 Pet. 1. 9; Jas. i. 21) or ruin of his 
 soul (Rom. ii. 9). Comp. the second commandment. — φειδόμε- 
 vos vp.| exercising forbearance towards you. This was implied in 
 the very fact of his not coming. Had he come, it must have been 
 ἐν ῥαβδῷ, 1 Cor. iv. 21. Comp. ii. 1.— οὐκέτι] not again, as 
 would have accorded with my former plan, ver. 16. But since 
 this former plan is altered already in 1 Cor. xvi. 5 f,, the ἔτι 
 in οὐκέτι must refer to a visit preceding our first Epistle. — εἰς 
 Κόρινθον] “ eleganter pro ad vos in sermone potestatem osten- 
 dente,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 24. Guarding against a possible misunderstanding of φει- 
 Sopevos. Theodoret says aptly: τοῦτο δὲ ὡς ὑφορμοῦν τέθεικεν ; 
 for the expression φειδόμενος might be interpreted as a pretension 
 to lordship over faith. — ody ὅτι] is equivalent to οὐκ ἐρῶ, ὅτι. 
 See on John vi. 46, and Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet. p. 128.— 
 κυριεύομεν κιτιλ.] The apostle knows that no lordship over 
 faith belongs to him; how the faith in Christ is to be shaped 
 among the churches as respects contents, vital activity, etc., he 
 
 2 COR. IL L 
 
102 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 has not to command, as if he were lord over it, but only to teach, 
 to rouse, and entreat (v. 20) thereto, to promote it by praise or 
 blame, etc. The order κυρ. ὑμῶν τ. πίστ. depends on the form 
 of conception: we do not lord it over you as to faith. Comp. on 
 John xi. 32, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 117 A, Rep. 
 p. 518 C. This prefixing of the pronoun occurs very often in 
 the N. T.; hence it was the more preposterous to supply a ἕνεκα 
 before τῆς πίστ. (Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Flatt, and others). — 
 ἀλλὰ συνεργοί] but (it is implied in my φειδόμενος ὑμῶν) that we 
 are joint helpers of your joy, that it is our business to be helpful 
 to you, so that you rejoice. To this destined aim an earlier 
 coming would have been opposed, because it would have caused 
 grief (ii. 1). The συν in συνεργοί refers to the union of the helping 
 efficacy with the working of the Corinthians themselves. Con- 
 trary to the context, Grotius suggests: “cum Deo et Christo,” 
 which Osiander also imports. The χαρά is not to be taken of 
 the joy of blessedness (Grotius and others), but of the joy of the 
 church over the improvement and the success of the Christian life 
 amongst them. Only this agrees with the context, for the want of 
 this success had been the cause of Paul’s formerly coming ἐν 
 λύπῃ to the Corinthians, and of the necessity for his coming again 
 ἐν ῥάβδῳ (1 Cor. iv. 21).— τῇ yap πίστει ἑστήκατε] for in respect 
 to faith ye stand; the point of faith, in respect to which you 
 are firm and stedfast, is not now under discussion. Note the 
 emphatic placing of τῇ πίστ. first. Theophylact well says: οὐκ 
 οὖν ἐν τούτοις (τοῖς κατὰ πίστιν) εἶχον τι μέμψασθαι ὑμᾶς" ἐν 
 ἄλλοις δὲ ἐσαλεύεσθε. On the dative of more precise definition, 
 comp. Polyb. xxi. 9. 3; Rom. iv. 19, 20; Gal. v. 1 (Elzevir). 
 It does not mean per fidem, Rom. xi. 20, as Bengel and Hofmann 
 hold (through faith you have an independent and firm bearing), 
 in which case we should have for ἑστήκ. a very vague and inde- 
 finite conception ; but it is, in substance, not different from ἐν τῇ 
 πίστει, 1 Cor. xvi. 13. 
 
CHAP. 11. 163 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 VER. 1. πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔλθεν} Elz.: πάλιν ἐλθεῖν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς 
 ὑμᾶς, in opposition to A Β C K L¥, min. Theodoret, Damasc., also 
 in opposition to D E F G, 14, 120, al., Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. 
 Theophyl. and the Latin Fathers, who have πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ ἐλθεῖν πρὸς 
 ὑμᾶς (So Tisch.). The Recepta' is evidently a transposition to con- 
 nect πάλιν with ἐλθεῖν, because it was supposed that Paul had been 
 only once in Corinth. — Ver. 2. ἐστιν after ris is wanting in A BC 
 &, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Dam. Lachm. Tisch. Supplemental addition. — 
 Ver. 3. iui] after zyp. is to be struck out as an explanatory addi- 
 tion. So Lachm. and Tisch., who follow A Β ΟὟ s* 17, Copt. Arm. 
 Damasc. Ambrosiast. — Ver. 3. λύπην] D EF G, min. Vulg. It. Syr. 
 p- Pel. Beda: λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην. Amplification, in accordance with 
 ver. 1.— Ver. 7. μᾶλλον] is wanting in A B, Syr. Aug. (deleted by 
 Rickert). In D E F G, Theodoret, it stands only after ὑμᾶς. As 
 it was superfluous, it was sometimes passed over, sometimes trans- 
 posed. — Ver. 9. Instead of εἰ, A and B have 7. But how easily 
 might εὐ be dropped before εἰς (so in 80), and then be variously re- 
 placed (109: ws) !— Ver. 10. ὃ κεχάρισμαι, εἰ τι κεχάρισμα] SoA BC 
 F Gx, min. Vulg. It. Damasc. Jer. Ambrosiast. Pacian. Pel. Griesb. 
 Scholz, Lachm. Riick. Tisch, But Elz. has εἰ τι κεχάρισμαι, ᾧ κεχά- 
 piowos, defended by Reiche. This reading arose from the Codd., 
 which read (evidently in accordance with the previous @) @ χεχά- 
 ρισμαι, εἴ τι κεχάρισμωαι (SO still D*** E, 31, 37). The repetition of 
 κεχάρισμαι caused the εἴ τι xex. to be left out;” afterwards it was 
 restored at a wrong place. — Ver. 16. Before θανάτου and before ζωῆς 
 there stands ἐκ in A BC 8, min. Copt. Aeth, Clem. Or. and other 
 Fathers. Rightly; the ἐκ seemed contrary to the sense, and was 
 therefore omitted. Accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., rejected by 
 Reiche. — Ver. 17. οἱ πολλοῇ D EF G L, min. and some versions 
 and Fathers have οἱ λοιποί, which Mill favoured, Griesbach recom- 
 mended, and Reiche defended. But οἱ πολλοί has preponderating 
 evidence; λοιποί was a modifying gloss, and displaced the other. — 
 xarevwriov] κατέναντι, aS Well as the omission of the following article, 
 
 1 Which, perhaps, has no authorities at all; see Reiche, Comm. Crit. I. p. 355 f. 
 ? Also with the reading ¢ this omission of the copyist took place, as still 39, 73, 
 Aeth. Ambr. have merely ὃ xsydpouas, 
 
104 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 has preponderating attestation, and hence, with Lachm. and Riick., 
 it is to be preferred. 
 
 Vv. 1—4. Continuation of what was begun in i. 23. 
 
 Ver. 1. "Expwa δὲ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο] δέ is the usual μεταβατικόν, 
 which leads on from the assurance given by Paul in i. 23, to the 
 thought that he in his own interest (ἐμαυτῷ, dativus commods ; 
 for see ver. 2) was not willing to come again to them ἐν λύπῃ. --- 
 The interpretation apud me (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many 
 others) would require wap’ ἐμαυτῷ or ἐν ἐμ. (1 Cor. vii. 37, 
 xi. 13). Paul, by means of ἐμαυτῷ, gives to the matter an 
 ingenious, affectionate turn, regarding the truth of which, how- 
 ever, there is no doubt. — ἔκρινα] I determined, as 1 Cor. 11. 2, 
 vil. 27. As to the emphatically preparatory τοῦτο with following 
 infinitive accompanied by the article, comp. on Rom. xiv. 13, and 
 Kriiger, ὃ li. 7. 4. — πάλιν] belongs to ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμ. ἐλθεῖν, 
 taken together, so that Paul had once already (namely, on his second 
 arrival) come to the Corinthians ἐν λύπῃ. The connection with 
 ἐλθεῖν merely (Pelagius, Primasius, Theodoret, and the most; also 
 Flatt, Baur, Reiche), a consequence of the error that Paul before 
 our Epistles had been only once in Corinth, is improbable even 
 with the Recepta (the more suitable order of the words would be: 
 TO μὴ ἐν λύπῃ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς), but is impossible both 
 with our reading and with that of Tischendorf (see the critical 
 remarks), unless we quite arbitrarily suppose, with Grotius (comp. 
 also Reiche), a trajectio, or, with Baur, I. p. 342, an inaccuracy of 
 epistolary style. — ἐν λύπῃ] provided with affliction (Bernhardy, 
 p. 109; comp. Rom. xv. 29), bringing affliction with me, 1.6. afflict- 
 ing you. This explanation (Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius, and others, 
 including Ewald) is, indeed, held by Hofmann to be impossible in 
 itself, but is required by the following εἰ yap ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς. 
 Hence Billroth and Hofmann, following Chrysostom and many 
 others, are wrong in thinking that the apostles own sadness is 
 meant; and so also Bengel, Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette, Reiche, 
 
 1 This error has compelled many to get out of the difficulty by conceiving our 
 first Epistle as the first coming ἐν λύπῃ. So Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and 
 others. Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 204, believes that he has found another way : 
 that Paul had the very first time come to Corinth in affliction (1 Cor. ii. 1ff.), which 
 affliction he had brought with him from Athens. Asif in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. he is speak- 
 
 ing of a λύπη! and as if a λύπη brought with him from Athens, though nowhere 
 proved, would have had anything to do with the Corinthians ! 
 
CHAP, II. 2. 165 
 
 Neander, following Ambrosiaster, and others, who think that it is 
 also included. That it is not meant at all, is shown by φειδόμενος, 
 i. 23, and by the coupling of what follows with yap. Comp. ἐν 
 ῥάβδῳ, 1 Cor. iv. 21. The apparent difficulty, that Paul in our 
 first Epistle makes no mention whatever of the fact and manner of 
 his former visit to Corinth when he caused affliction, is obviated by 
 the consideration that only after our first Epistle was the change of 
 plan used to the apostle’s disadvantage, and that only now was he 
 thereby compelled to mention the earlier arrival which had been 
 made ἐν λύπῃ. Hence this passage is not a proof for the assumption 
 of a journey to Corinth between our two Epistles (see the Introd.). 
 
 Ver. 2. As reason for his undertaking not to come to his 
 readers again ἐν λύπῃ, Paul states that he on his own part could 
 not in this case hope to find any joy among them. Comp. ver. 3. 
 For if I afflict you, who is there also to give me joy, except him who 
 is afflicted by me ?—ie., if I on my part (ἐγώ is emphatic’) make 
 you afflicted, then results the contradiction that the very one who 
 is afflicted by me is the one who should give me joy. Against this 
 view Billroth and Riickert object that εἰ wa... ἐμοῦ is super- 
 fluous, and even in the way. No; it discloses the absurdity of the 
 case conditioned by εἰ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς. Pelagius, Bengel, and 
 others, including Billroth, render: who yet so much gladdens me as 
 he who lets himself be afflicted by me (which is a sign of amend- 
 ment)? Comp. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Erasmus, and others. 
 So also Olshausen, who sees here an indirect warning to take the 
 former censure more to heart. But against this perversion of ὁ 
 λυπούμενος in a middle sense, we may decisively urge :—(1) that 
 the sense of ver. 2 would not stand in any relation to ver. 1 as 
 furnishing a reason for it; and (2) the οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε in Ver. 4. 
 Riickert sees in εἰ... ὑμᾶς an aposiopesis; then begins a new 
 question, which contains the reason why he may not afflict them, 
 because it would be unloving, nay, ungrateful, to afflict those who 
 cause him so much joy. Hence the meaning, touchingly expressed, 
 is: “I might not come to you afflicting you ; for if I had done so, 
 I should have afflicted those very ones who give me joy: this would 
 have been unloving on my part.” This is all the more arbitrary, 
 
 1 This emphasis is usually not recognised. But in the ἐγώ there lies a contrast 
 
 to others who do not stand in such an intimate relation to the readers as Paul. 
 Comp. Osiander, 
 
1606 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 since, logically at least, it must have stood in the converse order: 
 καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰ μὴ ὁ εὐφραίνων με. Hofmann 
 holds still more arbitrarily and oddly that εἰ γάρ is elliptical pro- 
 tasis, and ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς apodosis: if Icome to you again in affliction, 
 LI make you afflicted, and who is there then who gladdens me, except 
 him whom affliction coming from me befalls? The well-known 
 omission of the verb in the protasis after εἰ is, in fact, a usage of 
 quite another nature (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 213 ; Stallbaum, 
 ad Plot. Rep. p. 497 ; Kriiger, § xv. 5. 11). Besides, this subtlety 
 falls with Hofmann’s view of ver. 1.— καί] also, expresses after 
 the conditional clause the simultaneousness of what is contained in 
 the apodosis, consequently without the interrogative form: there 
 is also no one, etc. See Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 130 f.; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gramm. p. 311 [E. T. 362].— ὁ λυπούμενος] does not mean 
 the incestuous person (so, against the entire connection, Beza, Calo- 
 vius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heumann) ; but the singular of the par- 
 ticiple with the article denotes the one who gives joy, as such, in 
 abstracto. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 13, al. ; Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.20,al. Paul 
 might have written τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ x.7.X., but he was not wnder neces- 
 sity of doing so. — ἐξ ἐμοῦ] source of the λυπεῖσθαι. See Bern- 
 hardy, p. 227; Schoem. ad Is. p. 348 ; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 385]. 
 Comp. ἀφ᾽ ὧν, ver. 3; but ἐξ is “quiddam penitius,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 3 appends what Paul had done in consequence of the 
 state of things mentioned in ver. 1f.: And I have written (not 
 reserved till I could communicate orally) this very thing, 1.0. 
 exactly what I have written, in order not, when I shall have come, 
 to have affliction, ete. — ἔγραψα] placed first with emphasis, corre- 
 sponds to the following ἐλθών, and does not at all refer to the 
 present Epistle (Chrysostom and his followers, Grotius, and others, 
 including Olshausen), against which opinion vv. 4, 9 are decisive, 
 but to our first Epistle, the contents of which in reference to this 
 point are rendered present by τοῦτο αὐτό ; as indeed οὗτος is used 
 often of what is well known, which is pointed to as if it were 
 lying before one (Kiihner, II. p. 325). That Paul is thinking of 
 the passages of censwre and rebuke in the first Epistle (especially of 
 chap. v.’), results from the context, and suffices for its explana- 
 tion, so that the reference to a Jost letter sent along with Titus 
 
 ? Not merely iv. 21, wherein the μὴ iv λύπῃ ἐλθεῖν is held to be contained (Calovius, 
 Osiander), iv. 21 was only a casual threat, 
 
CHAP. IL. 3. 167 
 
 (Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Klépper ; see Introd. ὃ 1) is not required. 
 With Theodoret, Erasmus, Morus, Flatt, Riickert, Hofmann; to 
 take τοῦτο αὐτό as in 2 Pet. i. 5, for this very reason, cannot in 
 itself be objected to (Bernhardy, p. 130; Kiihner, § 549, A. 2; 
 Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 214; and see on Gal. ii. 10 and on Phil. 
 i. 6); but here, where Paul has just written in ver. 1 τοῦτο as 
 the accusative of the object, and afterwards in ver. 9 expresses 
 the sense for this reason by εἰς τοῦτο, there is no ground for it in 
 the context. — ἵνα μὴ «.7.A.] Since his arrival was at that time 
 still impending, and Paul consequently denotes by ἵνα... ἔχω a 
 purpose still continuing in the present, the subjunctive ἔχω (or 
 σχῶ, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf read, following 
 A B κ᾿", Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius) after the 
 preterite ἔγραψα is quite accurate (Matthiae, p. 1180); and 
 Riickert is wrong when he takes ἐλθών hypothetically (4f I had 
 come), and refers σχῶ to the past. In that case, Paul could not 
 but have used the optative.—ad’ ὧν] ἀπὸ τούτων, ἀφ᾽ dv. See 
 Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. 2. ----- ἀπό, on the part of. Χαίρειν does 
 not elsewhere occur with ἀπό, but εὐφραίνεσθαι is similarly joined 
 with ἀπό, Xen. Hier. iv. 6; Judith xii. 20. ---- ἔδει] The imper- 
 fect indicates what properly (in the nature of the relation) ought 
 to be, but what, in the case contemplated of the λύπην ἔχω, 
 is not. See Matthiae, p. 1138 ἢ --- πεποιθὼς x«.7.d.] subjective 
 reason assigned for the specified purpose of the ἔγραψα : since I 
 cherish the confidence towards you all, etc. Paul therefore says 
 that, in order that he might find no affliction when present among 
 them, he has communicated the matter by letter, because he is 
 convinced that they would find their own joy in his joy (which, 
 in the present instance, could not but be produced by the doing 
 away of the existing evils according to the instructions of his 
 letter). — ἐπί] of the direction of the confidence towards the 
 readers. Comp. 2 Thess. iii. 4; Matt. xxvii. 43; Ps. exxiv.1. In 
 classical authors usually with the dative, as i. 9.— πάντας ὑμᾶς] 
 This, in spite of the anti-Pauline part of the church, is the 
 
 1 Hofmann, in accordance with his interpretation of τοῦτο αὐτό, “for this very 
 reason,” which serves to point to the following ἵνα μὴ x.7.a., thus defines the 
 relation of vv. 1 and 3: This is what I resolved for myself, that I would not again 
 come to you in sorrow of heart. And this is the very reason why I wrote to you: I 
 
 did not wish to have sorrow of heart on my arrival, etc. This is what Paul by the 
 composition of his Epistle had wished to obtain for his sojourn, when he should come. 
 
168 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 language of the love which πάντα πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 7. “Quodsi Pauli opinioni judicioque non respondeant 
 Corinthii, indigne eum frustrantur,” Calvin. 
 
 Ver. 4. Reason assigned for the πεποιθὼς κατὰ. For if I in 
 writing the Epistle had not had that confidence, the Epistle would not 
 have caused me so much grief and so many tears. In the very 
 contrast of this confidence with the necessity of having to write in 
 such a manner lay the great pain—é« and διά vividly represent 
 the origin of the letter as a going forth and a pressing through: 
 out of much affliction and anxiety of heart I wrote to you through 
 gany tears. And this Paul might say, even if he had not him- 
 self held the pen. — θλίψις and συνοχή (anxiety, Luke xxi. 25: 
 not so among the Greeks, but see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 212) do 
 not refer to outward, but to inward suffering, as both are defined 
 by καρδίας. Riickert concludes from the calm tone of the first 
 Epistle that Paul “had from prudent consideration known how to 
 impose such restraint on his state of feeling, that the Epistle might 
 not reflect any faithful picture of it.” But this would have been 
 cunning dissimulation, not in keeping with the apostle’s character. 
 No; it was just his specially tender care for the Corinthians which 
 on the one hand increased his pain that he needed to write such 
 rebukes, and on the other hand did not allow his vehement emotion 
 to emerge in that Epistle; hence we must not say that the quiet 
 character of our first Epistle is not psychologically in keeping with 
 the utterance of this passage. In particular, 1 Cor. v. might have 
 caused the apostle anxiety and tears enough, without our needing 
 to suppose an intermediate letter (see on ver. 3).—édaxptwv] Comp. 
 Acts xx. 19, 31. Calvin aptly says: “mollitiem testantur, sed 
 magis heroicam, quam fuerit illa ferrea Stoicorum durities.” — ovy 
 iva λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ K.T.r.] This added explanation regarding the 
 purpose of his letter, to him so painful, is intended also to corro- 
 borate the πεποιθὼς x.7.r., of which he has given assurance. — 
 τὴν ἀγάπην] placed first for emphasis. — περίσσοτ.] ἢ (εἰς) τοὺς 
 ἄλλους μαθητάς, Theophylact, who, following Chrysostom, also 
 directs attention to the winning tenderness of the words (xata- 
 γλυκαίνει δὲ τὸν λόγον βουλόμενος ἐπισπάσασθαι αὐτούς). Comp. 
 1.12. The love of the apostle for his churches has along with its 
 universality its various degrees, just as the love of a father for his 
 children. The Philippians also were specially dear to him. 
 
CHAP. II. 5. 169 
 
 Vv. 5-11. Digression regarding the pardon to be granted to 
 the incestuous person.—That the incestuous person is meant, as 
 even Klopper maintains in spite of his assumption of a lost inter- 
 mediate letter, is denied by Tertullian (de Pudicitid, 13) simply 
 for dogmatic-ascetic reasons. The exclusion, which Paul de- 
 manded in the first Epistle, v. 13, left open the possibility of a 
 return to the communion of the church by the path of suitable 
 penitence and expiation ; as may be gathered also from 1 Cor. v. 5, 
 where the apostle’s threat of the higher excommunication, of the 
 giving over to Satan, contemplates in this punishment the conver- 
 sion and saving of the offender, and consequently shows clearly 
 that in the apostle’s eyes the penal procedure of the church, even 
 in the case of so grave a sin, was of a paedagogic nature in 
 reference to the person of the evil-doer. The penance of the” 
 latter, however, as well as that of the whole church on his account 
 (vii. 7 ff.), may have really been so deeply and keenly manifested, 
 that Paul, in accordance with the now changed state of things, 
 might express himself in such a mild, conciliatory way as he does 
 here. And there is no sufficient ground in the passage for the 
 assumption of an intermediate letter, or that there is here meant, 
 not the unchaste person, but a slanderer rebuked by Paul in this 
 intermediate letter (see Introd. ὃ 1). Besides, the mild, soft tone 
 of the present passage, if it referred to such a personal opponent, 
 would not be in keeping with the quite different way in which, 
 from chap. x. onwards, he pours forth his apostolic zeal against 
 his personal opponents and slanderers. 
 
 Ver. 5. “To cause grief among you was not my intention (ver. 
 4); he, however, who has (really) caused grief has not grieved 
 me.” In other words: “I did not wish to grieve you; one of 
 you, however, has with his afflicting influence, not affected me, 
 but,” ete. Olshausen connects ver. 5 with ver. 3: “if, however, 
 any one formerly has awakened grief.” But how arbitrary it is 
 to leap over the natural reference to the immediately preceding 
 λυπηθῆτε! And if the “ formerly” made the contrast, it must 
 have been somehow expressed.—In the hypothetical ec, as in the 
 indefinite tus, there lies a delicate, tender forbearance. — οὐκ ἐμὲ 
 λελύπηκεν, ἀλλ᾽] Paul does not say οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καί, because as 
 concerns the relation of the matter to himself he wishes absolutely 
 to deny that he is the injured party. He could do this, because 
 
170 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 he did not belong to the church, and he wishes to leave wholly 
 out of view his position as apostle and founder of the church in 
 the interest of love and pardon. Olshausen thinks that he wishes 
 indirectly to refute the erroneous position of some (impenitent) 
 Corinthians towards the incident with the incestuous person; that 
 many, namely, had lamented much to the apostle about the solici- 
 tude which that unhappy person had caused to him; and that, in 
 order to make these turn from him to themselves, he says that 
 the question is not about him, but about them, that they should 
 look to their own pain. But of this alleged direction to occupy 
 themselves with their own pain, there is nothing whatever in what 
 follows; and the apostle would have set forth in mcre precise 
 terms a rebuke so weighty; it was not at all fitting here, where 
 the touched heart beats only with mildness and forgiveness. — 
 λελύπηκεν)] Bengel says aptly: “contristatum habet.” — ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἀπὸ μέρους «.7.r.] but in part, that I may not burden him (with 
 greater guilt), you all. ἀπὸ μέρους, which Paul adds φειδόμενος 
 «αὐτοῦ (Chrysostom), softens the thought in λελύπηκεν πάντας 
 ὑμᾶς, while it expresses that the grief is only in a partial degree, 
 not wholly and fully (as on the one immediately concerned), in- 
 flicted on all, 1.6. on the whole church by means of moral sympathy ; 
 only guodammodo (see Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 16 ff.), therefore, are 
 the readers all affected by that grief as sharers in it. The ἵνα μὴ 
 ἐπιβαρῶ (sc. αὐτόν) contains the purpose, for which he had added 
 the softening limitation ἀπὸ μέρους. Beza, Calvin (in the Com- 
 mentary), Calovius, Hammond, Homberg, Wolf, Estius, and 
 others, following Chrysostom, agree with this punctuation and 
 explanation; also Emmerling, Fritzsche, Riickert, de Wette, 
 Osiander, Neander, Ewald. Yet Ribiger explains it asif Paul had 
 written σχεδόν instead of ἀπὸ μέρους. But others read ἵνα μὴ 
 ἐπιβ. πάντας wu. together: he has not grieved me (alone and truly), 
 but only in part (consequently you also) ; in order that I may not 
 lay something to the charge of you all ; for, if he had grieved me 
 alone, you would all have been indifferent towards the crime. So 
 Thomas, Lyra, Luther, Castalio, Zeger, Bengel, Wetstein, and 
 others, including Flatt. Incorrectly, because οὐκ ἐμέ and ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἀπὸ μέρους cannot be antitheses. Mosheim and Billroth separate 
 πάντας and ὑμᾶς: he has not grieved me, but in pari, that I may 
 not accuse all, you; for I will not be unjust, and give you all the 
 
CHAP. II. 5. 171 
 
 blame of having been indifferent towards that crime. At variance 
 with the words ; for, according to these, with this punctuation those 
 whom Paul accuses (ἐπιβαρεῖ) must appear to be not those in- 
 different, but those grieved by the incest. Olshausen also follows 
 this punctuation, but finds in ἀπὸ μέρους, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβ. πάντας a 
 delicate irony (comp. also Michaelis, who, however, follows our 
 punctuation), in so far as Paul would have held it as the highest 
 praise of the Corinthians, if he could have said : he has grieved you 
 without exception. Since he could not have said this, he wittily 
 turns his words in this way: he has not grieved me, but, as regards 
 a part, you, in order that I may not burden you all with this care. 
 But this very wit and irony are quite foreign to the mild tone and 
 the conciliatory disposition of this part of the Epistle. Hofmann 
 takes οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπ΄. as a question, after which there comes in with 
 ἀλλά the contrast (nevertheless) which continues over ver. 5 and 
 includes ver. 6; in this case ἀπὸ μέρους is temporal in meaning 
 (yet “firstly is enough”); and ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς, 
 which is to be taken together, is meant to say that the apostle, if 
 he expressed himself dissatisfied with what had been done by the 
 majority, would burden the whole church with the pain of knowing 
 that one of their members was under the ban of sin which remained 
 unforgiven on the part of the apostle; lastly, the ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων 
 stands in opposition to a minority, which had wished to go beyond 
 the punishment decreed, a minority which is included in πάντας. 
 But all this involved explanation is inadmissible, partly because 
 the blunt question οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπ'΄, bringing forward so nakedly a 
 sense of personal injury, would be sadly out of unison with the 
 shrewdly conciliatory tone of the whole context; partly because 
 ἀπὸ μέρους, taken of time, is as linguistically incorrect as at i. 14, 
 and would also furnish the indelicate thought of a ixavorns with 
 reservation,and till something further ; partly because the complexity 
 of thought, which is said to lie in ἐπιβαρῶ, is just imported into 
 it ; partly because the supposition that the minority of the church 
 would have gone still further in the punishment than the resolu- 
 tion of the majority went, is without all ground, nay, is in the 
 highest degree improbable after the reproach of too great indul- 
 gence, 1 Cor. v.—On ἐπιβαρεῖν, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. 
 iii. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 9, viii. 73; Appian, B. C. iv. 31. Comp. 
 βάρος of the burden of a feeling of guilt, Gal. vi. 2. 
 
Ἴ7 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 6. ‘Ixavov] something sufficient is, etc. Regarding this 
 substantive use of the neuter of the predicate adjective, see 
 Matthiae, p. 982; Kiihner, II. p. 45. Comp. Matt. vi. 34.— 
 τῷ τοιούτῳ] for one of such a nature; how forbearing it is here 
 that no more definite designation is given !— ἡ ἐπιτίμια αὕτη] this 
 punishment. What it was, every reader knew. Comp. on ver. 3. 
 ἡ ἐπιτιμία (which in classic writers denotes the franchise of a 
 citizen, Demosthenes, 230, 10, al.), in the signification poena, 
 like the Greek τὸ ἐπιτίμιον (Dem. 915, 1; 939, 27, al), ἡ 
 ἐπιτίμησις (Wisd. xii. 26), and τὸ ἐπιτίμημα (Inscript.), occurs 
 only here in the N. T., but elsewhere also in Wisd. 11. 10, 
 in ecclesiastical writers, and in acts of councils (not in Philo). 
 It is not merely oljurgatio (Vulgate; comp. Beza, Calvin, and 
 others). — ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων] which by the majority (of the 
 church) has been assigned to him. That the presbyteriwm is not 
 meant (Augustine, Beza, Grotius, Valesius, and others), is shown 
 by the article. There is a further question here, whether the 
 excommunication enjoined by Paul, 1 Cor. v., was carried out or 
 not (Beza, Calvin, Morus, Riickert, Hofmann). Most assume 
 the former, so that they refer ἱκανόν to the sufficient duration of 
 the excommunication.’ But an accomplished full excommunica- 
 tion is not to be assumed on account of the very ὑπὸ τῶν 
 πλειόνων; but it is probable that the majority of the church 
 members, in consequence of the ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρόν (1 Cor. v. 13 ; 
 comp. ver. 2), had considered the sinner as one excommunicated, 
 and had given up all fellowship with him. By this the majority 
 had for the present sufficiently complied with the expressed will 
 of the apostle. To the minority there may have belonged partly 
 the most lax in morals, and partly also opponents of the apostle, 
 the latter resisting him on principle-—Riickert, however, sup- 
 ported by Baur and Ribiger, regards Paul's judgment ἱκανὸν 
 K.T.r., as a prudent turn given to the matter, by which, in order to 
 avoid an open rupture, he represents what would have happened 
 even without his will to be his own wish. But what justifies 
 any one in attributing to him conduct so untruthful? The real 
 
 1 Most strange is the judgment of Grotius, that the apostle is here speaking not 
 de restituenda communione, but de auferendo morbo, quem ei Satanas ad preces 
 piorum Corinthiorum immiserat. Paul had, in fact, not really ordained the giving 
 over to Satan at all. See on 1 Cor. τ. 5. 
 
CHAP. II. 7. 173 
 
 and great repentance of the sinner (ver. 7) induced the apostle 
 to overlook the incompleteness in carrying out his orders for 
 excommunication, and now from real sincere conviction to pro- 
 nounce the ἱκανόν and desire his pardon. Comp. above on vv. 
 5-11. Had Paul not been really convinced that the repentance 
 of the evil-doer had already begun (as even Lipsius, Rechtferti- 
 gungsl. p. 183, is inclined to suppose), he would here have pur- 
 sued a policy of church-discipline quite at variance with his 
 character. Calvin judges very rightly of this passage: “ Locus 
 diligenter observandus; docet enim, qua aequitate et clementia 
 temperanda sit disciplina ecclesiae, ne rigor modum excedat. 
 Severitate opus est, ne impunitate (quae peccandi illecebra merito 
 vocatur) mali reddantur audaciores ; sed rursus, quia periculum 
 est, ne is qui castigatur animum despondeat, hic adhibenda est 
 moderatio, nempe ut ecclesia, simulatque resipiscentiam illius certo 
 cognoverit, ad dandam veniam sit parata.” 
 
 Ver. 7. So that you, on the contrary, rather (potius) pardon and 
 comfort. This is the consequence which ensued, connected with 
 the utterance of ἱκανὸν κατ. Hence the notion of δεῖν (Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 754; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1) is not here to 
 be supplied, as Billroth and Olshausen wish, following the older 
 commentators. It is not said what ought to happen, but what, 
 according to the apostle’s conception, ensued as a necessary and 
 essential consequence of the ἱκανὸν κιτιλ. (Kiihner, II. p. 564). 
 The χαρίσασθαι, however, is not at variance with the reference 
 to the adulterer (because forgiveness belongs to God — Bleek, 
 Neander), for what is here spoken of in a general way is only the 
 pardon, which the church imparts in reference to the offence pro- 
 duced in it, the pardon of Christian brethren (Eph. iv. 32; Col. 
 lil, 20).— τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ] through the higher degree of 
 affliction, which, namely, would be the consequence of the refusal 
 of pardon, and certainly of the eventual complete excommunica- 
 tion. — καταπ θῇ} Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54; 1 Pet.v. 8. This being 
 swallowed wp is explained by some, of dying (Grotius, according 
 to his view of an illness of the sinner), by others, of swicide, or 
 of apostasy from Christianity (the latter is held by Theodoret, 
 Pelagius, and others, also Flatt; Kypke and Stolz, following 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, leave a choice between the 
 two); or as conveying a hiut that the λύπη bordering on despair 
 
174 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 might drive him into the world, and he might be devoured by 
 its prince (Olshausen). The latter point: “by the prince of the 
 world,” is quite arbitrarily imported. The sadness (conceived as 
 a hostile animal) is what swallows up. The context gives 
 nothing more precise than the notion: to be brought by the 
 sadness to despair, to the abandoning of all hope and of all 
 striving after the Christian salvation." Comp. on καταπίνειν in 
 the sense of destroying, Jacobs, Animadv. in Athen. p. 315. 
 
 Ver. 8. Κυρῶσαι εἰς abt. ἀγάπ.] to resolve in reference to him 
 love—i.e. through a resolution of the church to determine re- 
 garding him, that he be regarded and treated as an object of 
 Christian brotherly love. On κυροῦν, of a resolution valid in law, 
 comp. Herodotus, vi. 86,126; Thue. viii, 69; Polyb. 1. 11. 3, 
 1.17.1; Diod. Sic. i. 9; Gal. ii, 15; Gen. xxii. 20; 4 Mace. 
 vii. 9. See Blomfield, ad Aesch. Prom. Gloss. 70, and Pers. 232. 
 Here also (comp. on ver. 6) Riickert again finds a prudent measure ~ 
 of the apostle, whereby the form, if not also the thing (the 
 apostolic approval), is saved. A diplomacy, which would be the 
 opposite of i. 13. 
 
 Ver. 9. Vv. 9 and 10 are not to be placed in a parenthesis, 
 nor ver. 9 alone (Flatt) ; but the discourse proceeds without inter- 
 ruption. Ver. 9, namely, begins to furnish grounds for the 
 κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην, and, first of all, from the aim of the 
 former Epistle, which aim (in reference to the relation to the 
 incestuous person in the case of most of them at least) was 
 attained, so that now nothing on this point stood in the way of 
 the κυρῶσαι κιτιλ. “Correcta enim eorum segnitie nihil jam 
 obstabat, quominus hominem prostratum et jacentem sua man- 
 suetudine erigerent,” Calvin. — εἰς τοῦτο] points to the following 
 ἵνα «.7.X., comp. ver. 1. It is: for ἐλ end in order that, ete. — 
 καὶ ἔγραψα is not to be translated as if it stood: καὶ yap εἰς 
 τοῦτο ἔγραψα (Flatt, following the older commentators), but as, 
 rightly, in the Vulgate: “ ddeo enim et scripsi.” The καί, however, 
 cannot be intended to mark the agreement with the present 
 admonition (Hofmann), because Paul does not quote what he had 
 written ; but it opposes the written to the oral communication 
 (comp. vii. 12), and rests on the conception: I have not confined 
 
 1 The ὁ φοιοῦτος repeated at the end, in itself superfluous, has the tone of com- 
 passion. 
 
CHAP. II. 10. 175. 
 
 myself merely to oral directions (through your returning dele- 
 gates), but—what should bind you all the more to observance— 
 I have also written. This ἔγραψα, however, does not apply to the 
 present Epistle (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, 
 Menochius, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann, Schulz, Morus, Olshausen, | 
 and others), but, as the whole context shows (comp. vv. 3, 4), to 
 our first Epistle’— τὴν δοκιμὴν ὑμ.} your tried quality (viii. 2, 
 ix. 13, xiii. 3; Rom. v. 4; Phil. 11. 22),—~z. here, according to 
 the following epexegesis, εἰ εἰς πάντα ὑπήκ. ἐστε: your assured 
 submissiveness to me. The aim here stated of the first Epistle 
 was, among its several aims (comp. vv. 3, 4), the very one, which 
 presented itself here from the point of view of the connection. — 
 eis πάντα] in reference to everything, in every respect, therefore 
 also in regard to my punitive measure against the incestuous man. 
 Comp. phrases such as εἰς πάντα πρῶτον εἶναι (Plato, Charm. p. 
 158 A), and the like; εἰς πάντα is here emphatic. 
 
 Ver. 10. A second motive for the κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπ. 
 And to whomsoever (in order to hold before you yet another 
 motive) you give pardon as to anything, to him I also give pardon. 
 4é, accordingly, is the simple μεταβατικόν. Riickert wishes 
 to supply a μέν before γάρ in ver. 9, so that ver. 9 and ver. 10 
 together may give the sense: “J¢ was, indeed, my wish to find 
 perfect obedience among you; but since you are willing to pardon 
 him, I too am willing.” But here, too, this supplement is altogether 
 groundless; nay, in this very case, where ver. 9 is referred by 
 yap to what goes before, the express marking of the mutual 
 relation of the two clauses would have been logically necessary, 
 and hence μέν must have been used. Further, the meaning con- 
 tained in Riickert’s explanation would express an indifference 
 and accommodation so strangely at variance with the apostolic 
 authority, that the apostle would only have been thereby lowered 
 in the eyes of his readers.— ᾧ δέ te yapiferde, καὶ ἐγώ] general 
 assurance (and this general expression remains also in the reason 
 assigned that follows), to which the present special case is sub- 
 ordinated. The reader knew to whom the és and to what the τί 
 were to be applied.— καὶ yap ἐγὼ x.7.X.] Reason assigned for 
 what was just said. “ For this circumstance, that I also pardon 
 
 1 On the supposition of a lost intermediate Epistle, this must have been the one 
 meant ; see Ewald. Comp. on ver. 8, vii. 12. 
 
176 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 him to whom you pardon anything, rests on reciprocity: what 
 also I on my part have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, I 
 have pardoned with a regard to you”—i.e. in order that my for- 
 giveness may be followed by yours. This definite meaning of δι᾽ 
 ὑμᾶς (not the general: for your benefit, as Flatt, de Wette, 
 Osiander, and many others have it) is, according to the context, 
 demanded by ᾧ τι yap., καὶ ἐγώ, in virtue of the logical relation 
 of the clause containing the reason to this assurance. Paul, 
 however, has not again written the present χαρίζομαι, but κεχά- 
 ρίσμαι, because he wishes to hold before his readers his own 
 example, consequently his own precedent already set in the pardon 
 in question. Between this κεχάρισμαι, however, and the χαρί- 
 ζομαι to be supplied after καὶ ἐγώ, there is no logical contra- 
 diction. For in ᾧ δέ tu χαρίζεσθε the act of the sinner is 
 considered as an offence to the church ; as such, the church 1s to 
 forgive it, and then the apostle will also forgive it: but in καὶ 
 yap ἐγὼ ὁ κεχάρισμαι it is conceived as a vexation to the apostle ; 
 as such, Paul has forgiven it, and that δι ὑμᾶς, for the sake of 
 the church, in order that it too may now give free course to the 
 pardon which the offence produced in it needed. To this thought- 
 ful combination of the various references of the act, and to the 
 placable spirit by which the representation is pervaded, the inter- 
 vening clause εἴ τὸ κεχάρισμαι corresponds, which is by no means 
 intended to make the act of pardon problematical (de Wette), or 
 to designate it only as eventual, turning on the supposition of the 
 church granting forgiveness (Billroth), but contains a delicate 
 reference back to ver. 5, in this sense, namely : 7f—seeing that 
 the sinner, according to ver. 5, has not properly grieved me, but 
 you—that which I designate as κεχάρισμαι is really this ; for the 
 having pardoned presupposes the pardoner to be the injured party, 
 which Paul, however, ver. 5, denied himself to be—Against all 
 versions, Fathers and expositors, Riickert has taken κεχάρισμαι 
 passively” of the pardoning grace which Paul experienced through 
 his conversion. The sense would thus be: “for whatever I have 
 
 1 Not: to get rid of the painful relation in which they stood to that sinner, as 
 Hofmann infers, from his incorrect interpretation of ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς, ver. 5. 
 
 2 This passive use would in itself be correct as to language. See Kiihner, ad Xen. 
 Mem. i. 2. 10. The transitive use, however, is the more usual one, as at Gal. 
 iii. 18; Acts xxvii. 24, 
 
CHAP, II. 11. 177 
 
 got pardoned, if I have got anything pardoned, I have got it 
 pardoned for your sakes (in order as apostle of the Gentiles to lead 
 you to salvation).” See my ‘third edition. This exposition 15 
 incorrect, partly because there is nothing in the text to suggest 
 an allusion to the apostle’s conversion ; partly because this pardon- 
 ing grace was to him so firm and certain, and, in fact, the whole 
 psychological basis of his working, that he could not, even in the 
 most humble reminiscence of his pre-Christian conduct (comp. 
 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10), have presented it as problematical by εἴ τι 
 κεχάρισμαι ; partly because with this problematical inserted clause 
 the very ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ (explained by Riickert: “on the 
 countenance of Christ beaming with God’s grace”) would be at 
 variance. — ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ) 1.6. in conspectu Christi, comp. 
 Proy. vill. 30, Ecclus. xxxii. 4, denotes the having pardoned, in 
 so far as it has taken place δι᾽ duds, in its fullest purity and 
 truth. It has taken place in presence of Christ, so that He was 
 witness of it. Interpretations at variance with the words are: in 
 Christ's stead (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Calovius, Wetstein, 
 and others): by Christ, as an oath (Emmerling), and others. 
 Hofmann, who without reason maintains that according to our 
 view it must have run ὡς ἐν προσώπῳ X., attaches the words to 
 what follows, so that they would precede the ἵνα by way of 
 emphasis, like τ. ἀγάπην, ver. 4 (see on Rom. xi. 31), and the 
 meaning would be: Christ should not be obliged to be a spectator of 
 how Satan deprives His church of one of its members. This 
 interpretation could only be justified if we were in any way by 
 the context prepared for the ἐν προσώπῳ X., thus taken as a 
 specially tragic featwre of the devil’s guile. Besides, the thought 
 that the devil injures the church wnder the eyes of Christ, would 
 be nowhere else expressed. — Observe, further, how, according to 
 this passage, the penitence of the sinner, just as much as the 
 removal of the offence to the church, is the aim of church- 
 discipline, and hence its initiation and cessation are to be 
 measured accordingly; but the Roman Catholic doctrine of in- 
 dulgence’ is at variance with this. : 
 
 Ver. 11. Aim of this pardon imparted δι’ ὑμᾶς : that we might 
 not be overreached, etc. A being overreached by Satan, the enemy 
 of Christ and of Christianity, would be the result if that pardon 
 
 1 Still Bisping finds its principles clearly traced out in this passage. 
 
 2 COR. II. M 
 
178 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 were refused to the sinner, and thereby his καταποθῆναι τῇ 
 περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ were brought about; for thereby Satan would 
 get a member of the church into his power, and thus derive 
 advantage to owr loss. On the passive πλεονεκτεῖσθαι, comp. Dem. 
 1035, 26. The subject is Paul and the Corinthian church.— 
 ov yap αὐτοῦ «.7..] “By Satan, I say, for his thoughts (what 
 he puts forward as product of his νοῦς ; comp. on 11]. 14, iv. 4, 
 x. 5, xi. 3) are not unknown to us.” νοήματα ἀγνοοῦμεν forms a 
 paronomasia. These thoughts: 1 Pet. v.8; Eph. vi 11. The 
 discerning of them in the individual case is spiritual prudence, 
 which we have in the possession of the νοῦς of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 16). 
 
 Vv. 12,13. Since Paul, by mentioning the mood in which he 
 had written his former Epistle (ver. 4), was led on to discuss 
 the case of the conscious sinner and the pardon to be bestowed 
 on him (vv. 5-11), he has only now to carry on the historical 
 thread which he had begun in vv. 4 and 5 There he had said 
 with what great grief he wrote our first Epistle. Now, he tells 
 how, even after his departure from Ephesus, this disquieting 
 anxiety about his readers did not leave him, but urged him on 
 from Troas to Macedonia without halting. This he introduces 
 by δέ, which after the end of the section, vv. 5-11, joins on 
 again to ver. 4 (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 173; Fritzsche, Diss. II. 
 p. 21). Billroth attempts to connect it with what immediately 
 precedes: “His designs are not unknown to us; all the more 1 
 had no rest.” Against this may be urged, not that ἀλλά must 
 have stood instead of δέ, as Riickert thinks (see Hartung, lc. I. 
 p. 171 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 95); but rather that between 
 the emphatically prefixed od yap αὐτοῦ, ver. 11, and ἐλθὼν δέ, no 
 logical relation of contrast exists.— εἰς τὴν Τρωάδα] from 
 Ephesus on the journey which was to take him through Mace- 
 donia to Corinth, 1 Cor. xvi. 5--9. --- εἰς τὸ evayy. τοῦ ΧΙ 
 Aim of the ἐλθ. εἰς τ. Τρωάδα : for the sake of the gospel of 
 Christ—ze. in order to proclaim this message of salvation (hence 
 τοῦ X. is genitivus oljecti, see generally on Mark i. 1). He 
 might, indeed, have come to Troas without wishing to preach, 
 perhaps only as a traveller passing through it. All the more 
 groundless is the involved connection of the εἰς τ. evayy. with 
 
 1 Laurent regards vv. 12 and 13 as a marginal remark made by the apostle at i. 16, 
 and wrongly inserted here. 
 
CHAP. II. 14. 179 
 
 the far remote ἄνεσιν (Hofmann). — καὶ θύρας «.7.d.] when also 
 (i.e. although, see Bornem. ad Xen. Symp.iv. 13 ; Kiithner, ad Mem. 
 ii. 3. 19) a favourable opportunity for apostolic work was given to 
 me. Comp. on 1 Cor. xvi. 9.—€v κυρίῳ] That is the sphere in 
 which a door was opened to him: ὧν Christ, in so far as the work 
 opened up to him was not out of Christ (one outside of Chris- 
 tianity), but Christ was the element of it: ἐν κυρ. gives the specific 
 quality of Christian to what is said by Ovp. μ. av. — ἔσχηκα] The 
 perfect vividly realizes the past event, as often in the Greek 
 orators. Comp.i. 9, vii. 5; Rom. v. 2. See Bernhardy, p. 379. 
 -- τῷ πνεύματί μου] Dativus commodi. Paul has not put τῇ 
 ψυχῇ μου, because here (it is different at vii. 5) he wishes to 
 express that his very higher life-activity, which has its psycho- 
 logical ground and centre in the πνεῦμα as the organ of the moral 
 self-consciousness (comp. on Luke i. 46 f.), was occupied by 
 anxious care as to the state of the Corinthians, so that he felt 
 himself thereby, for the present, incapable of pursuing other 
 official interests, or of turning his thoughts away from Corinthian 
 concerns. Comp. vii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 18. ---- τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν] on 
 account of not finding, because I did not find. Comp. Xenophon, 
 Cyr. iv. 5. 9; often in Greek. See Winer, p. 308 [E. T. 344]. 
 ---- Τίτον] whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he 
 impatiently expected, in order to receive from him news of the 
 effect of the former Epistle. — τὸν ἀδελῴ. μου] By μου the 
 closer relation of fellowship in office is suggested for ἀδελφ. ---- 
 αὐτοῖς] the Christians in Troas. As to ἀποταξ. see on Mark vi. 46. 
 — ἐξῆλθον] from Troas.— εἰς Maxed.] Titus was therefore in- 
 structed by Paul to travel from Corinth back to Troas through 
 Macedonia, and to meet with him again either there or here. 
 
 Ver. 14. In Macedonia, however, he had met Titus, and, 
 through him, received good news of the impression made by his 
 former Epistle. See vii. 6. Therefore he continues: But thanks 
 be to God, etc., placing first not χάρις, as in most cases (vill. 16, 
 ix. 15), but τῷ Θεῷ, because, in very contrast to his own weakness, 
 the helping God, whom he has to thank, comes into his mind. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 57. Others here make a digression go on as 
 far as vii. 5, and refer the thanks to the spread of the gospel in 
 Troas (Emmerling!) or Macedonia (Flatt, Osiander). Comp. 
 Calvin and Bengel. Against the context ; for, after the description 
 
180 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 of the anxiety and disquiet, the utterance of thanks must relate to 
 the release from this state (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.). The apostle, 
 however, in the fulness of his gratitude to God, includes (and 
 thereby makes known) his special experience of the guidance 
 of divine grace at that time in the general thanksgiving for the 
 latter, as he experiences it always in his calling. This also in 
 opposition to Hofmann, who abides by the general nature of the 
 thanksgiving, and that in contrast to the declaration that the 
 apostle did not preach in Troas in spite of the good oppor- 
 tunity found there.—7@ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς) given 
 rightly by the Vulgate: “qui semper ¢riwmphat nos,’ is taken 
 by many older expositors (Luther, Beza, Estius, Grotius, and 
 others), and by some more recent (Emmerling, Flatt, Riickert, 
 Olshausen, Osiander): who makes us always triumph.’ It is 
 certainly a cwrent Greek custom to give to neuter verbs a 
 factitive construction and meaning. See in general, Matthiae, 
 p. 1104, 944; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 250; Bahr, ad Ctes. 
 p. 132; Lobeck, ad 47. 40, 869. Comp. from the N. T.,, 
 ἀνατέλλειν τὸν ἥλιον, Matt. v. 45; καίειν τι, Matt. v. 15; 
 μαθητεύειν τινά, Matt. xxviii. 19; from the LXX., βασιλεύειν 
 twa,.1.Sam. viii. 22; Isa. vii. 6, ad. Comp. 1 Mace. viii, 13. 
 θριαμβεύειν τινά is thus taken: to make any one a triumpher. 
 Comp. χορεύειν τινά, to make any one dance—i.. to celebrate by” 
 means of dancing (Brunck, ad Soph. Ant. 1151; comp. Jacobs, ad 
 Del epigr. x. 55,90). The suitableness of the sense cannot be 
 denied, but the actual usage is against it ; for θριαμβεύειν τινά has 
 never that assumed factitive sense, but always means ¢riwmphare 
 de aliquo, to conduct, to present any one in triumph; so that the 
 accusative is never the triumphing subject, but always the object 
 of the triumph, as Plut. 7165. et Rom. 4: βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε 
 καὶ ἡγεμόνας, also Plut. Mor. p. 318 B, θριαμβ. νίκην. Quite 
 sinilar is the Latin trivmphare aliquem. See in general, Wet- 
 stein; Kypke, II. p. 243. Comp. also Hofmann on the passage. 
 Paul himself follows this usage, see Col. ii. 15. We are thus 
 the less authorized to depart from it. Hence it is to be trans- 
 lated: who always triumphs over us (apostolic teachers) — ie. 
 
 1 To this also the expositions of Chrysostom and Theophylact ultimately amount. 
 
 The latter says: ἡμᾶς οὖν ὁ Θεὸς μετὰ τῶν κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου τροπαίων περιφανεῖς Teitin 
 So in substance Chrys. Comp.'Ambrosiaster, Anselm, and others. 
 
CHAP. II. 14. 181 
 
 who does not cease to represent us as his vanquished before all the 
 world, as a triumpher celebrates his victories. In this figurative 
 aspect Paul considers himself and his like as conquered by God 
 through their conversion to Christ. And after this victory of God 
 his ¢viwmph now consists in all that those conquered by their con- 
 version effect as servants and instruments of God for the Messianic 
 kingdom in the world; it is by the results of apostolic activity 
 that God continually, as if in triumph, shows Himself to the eyes 
 of all as the victor, to whom His conquered are subject and 
 serviceable. For the concrete instance before us, this perpetual 
 triumph of God exhibited itself in the happy result which He 
 wrought in Corinth through the apostle’s letter (as Paul learned 
 in Macedonia through Titus, vii. 6). Note further, how naturally 
 with Paul this very conception of his working, as a continual 
 triumph of God over him, might proceed from the painful re- 
 membrance of his earlier persecution of the church of God, and 
 how at the same time this whole conception is an expression of 
 the same humility, in which he, 1 Cor. xv. 10, gives to God 
 alone the glory of his working. Jerome, ad Hedib. 11, translates 
 rightly : triwmphat nos or de nobis, but quite alters the sense of the 
 word again by the interpretation: “triumphum suum agit per 
 nos.’ Theodoret does not do justice to the notion of the triwmph, 
 when he merely explains it: ὃς σοφῶς τὰ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς πρυτανεύων 
 τῇδε κἀκεῖσε περιάγει δήλους ἡμᾶς ἅπασιν ἀποφαίνων. 
 Wetstein is more exact, but also takes the element of leading 
 about, and not that of celebrating the victory, as the point of 
 comparison: “Deus nos tanquam in triumpho circumducit, ut 
 non maneamus in loco, aut in alium proficiscamur pro lubito 
 nostro, sed ut placet sapientissimo moderatori Quem Damasci 
 vicit, non Romae et semel, sed per totum terrarum orbem, 
 quamdiu vivit, in triumpho ducit.” Comp. Krause, Opusce. 
 p.125f. The conception of antiquity, according to which the 
 θριαμβευόμενος is necessarily the conquered, is quite abandoned 
 by Calvin,’ Elsner, Bengel: “gui triwmpho nos ostendit, non ut 
 victos, sed ut victoriae swae ministros.’ So also de Wette, and 
 
 ‘In the translation he has triwmphare nos facit : and in the Commentary it is said; 
 ‘* Paulus autem intelligit, se quoque triumphi, quem Deus agebat, fuisse participem, 
 quod esset opera sua acquisitus ; qualiter Jegati currum primarii ducis equis insi- 
 dentes comitabantur tanquam honoris socii.”’ 
 
182 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 substantially Ewald: comp. Erasmus, Annot. — ἐν Χριστῷ] Christ 
 is the element in which that constant triumph of God takes 
 place: no fact in which that consists has its sphere out of Christ: 
 each is of specifically Christian quality.— The following καὶ τ. 
 ὀσμὴν x.t.r. declares what God effects through this His triwmphing. 
 That αὐτοῦ refers not to God (so usually, as also Hofmann, follow- 
 ing the Vulgate), but to Christ (Bengel, Osiander), is shown by 
 ver. 15. The genitive τῆς yoo. avr. is the genitive of apposition 
 (comp. i. 22), so that the knowledge of Christ is symbolized as an 
 odour which God everywhere makes manifest through the apostolic 
 working, inasmuch as He by that means brings it to pass that the 
 knowledge of Christ everywhere exhibits and communicates its 
 nature and its efficacy. How does Paul come upon this image ? 
 Through the conception of the triwmph; for such an event took 
 place amid perfumes of incense: hence to assume no connection 
 between the two images (Osiander) is arbitrary. To think of 
 ointments (Oecumenius, Grotius), or of these as included (Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact, Beza*), is alien to the first image; and it 
 is as alien to suppose that a closed vessel, filled with perfume, is 
 meant, and that the φανεροῦντι points to the opening of the same 
 (Hofmann). Observe, moreover, that by δι᾿ ἡμῶν (since the ἡμεῖς 
 are those conducted in the triumph, οἱ θριαμβευόμενοι) the thing 
 itself finds its way into the image, and by this the latter loses in 
 congruity. 
 
 Ver. 15f. Further confirmatory development of the previous 
 καὶ τ. ὀσμὴν x.T.r., in which, however, Paul does not keep to 
 the continuity of the figure, but, with his versatility of view, now 
 represents the apostolic teachers themselves as odour. — Χριστοῦ 
 εὐωδία may mean a perfume produced by Christ, or one filled with 
 Christ, breathing of Christ. The latter (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, 
 Riickert, Osiander, and most expositors; comp. also Hofmann) 
 corresponds better with the previous ὀσμὴ τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ, 
 and is more in keeping with the emphasis which the prefixed 
 Χριστοῦ has, because otherwise the εὐωδία would remain quite 
 undefined as regards its essential quality. The sense of the 
 figurative expression is: for our working stands in the specific 
 relation to God, as a perfume breathing of Christ. The wage 
 
 1 Beza, Grotius, and also L, Cappellus, contrary to the context, find an allusion to 
 the anointing of the priests. 
 
CHAP. II. 15, 16. 183 
 
 itself is considered by most (comp. Ritschl in the Jahrb. fir d. 
 Th. 1863, p. 258) as borrowed from the sacrificial fragrance (so 
 also Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald), on 
 which account appeal is made to the well-known ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας 
 of the LXX., nh’) ΠΛ, Lev. i. 9,13, 17, al. But as Paul, wherever 
 else he uses the image of sacrifice, marks it distinctly, as Eph. 
 v. 2, Phil. iv. 18, and in the present passage the statedly used 
 ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας does not stand at all, it is more probable that he 
 was not thinking of an odour of sacrifice (which several, like 
 Billroth; Ewald, Ritschl, find already in ὀσμή, ver. 14), but of 
 the odours of incense that accompanied the triumphal procession ; 
 these are to God a fragrance, redolent to Him of Christ. That 
 in this is symbolized the relation of the acceptableness to God of 
 the apostolic working, is seen from the very word chosen, εὐωδία, 
 which Hofmann misconstrues by explaining τῷ θεῷ to God's 
 service. — καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλ.] and among those, who are incurring 
 eternal death; comp. iv. 3. See on 1 Cor. i. 18. Grotius 
 strangely wishes to supply here κακωδία ex vi contrariorum. It 
 is, in fact, the relation to God that is spoken of, according to 
 which the working of the apostle is to Him εὐωδία, whether 
 the odour be exhaled among σωζομένοι or ἀπολλυμένοι. Comp. 
 Chrysostom. To take ἐν in the sense of operative on (Osiander) 
 anticipates what follows. Comp. iv. 3.— Ver. 16 specifies now 
 the different relation of this odour to the two classes. Paul, 
 however, does not again use εὐωδία, but the in itself indifferent 
 ὀσμή, because the former would be unsuitable for the first half, 
 while the latter suits both halves. — ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον] an 
 odour, which arises from death and produces death. The source, 
 namely, of the odour is Christ, and He, according to the idea of 
 the λίθος τοῦ προσκόμματος (Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii, 8; Acts 
 iv. 11), is for those who refuse the faith the author of eternal 
 death. For them, therefore, in accordance with their inward 
 attitude towards Him, Christ, the source of the odour, 1.6. of the 
 apostolic activity, is death, and also the effect is death, though 
 
 1 Θάνατος and ζωή are to be understood both times of eternal lite and death. The 
 contrast of σωζομένοι and ἀπολλυμένοι permits no other interpretation: comp, vii. 10. 
 Ewald takes ix θανάτου of temporal death and ix ζωῆς of temporal life: from the 
 former we fall into eternal death, and from the temporal life we come into the 
 eternal. 
 
184 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Christ in Himself is and works eternal life. Comp. Matt. xxi. 44; 
 Luke ii. 34. Hence Christ, by means of the κρίσις which He 
 brings with Him, is the source respectively of death and life, 
 according as His preaching is accepted by one to salvation, is 
 rejected by another to destruction. In the latter case the blame 
 of Christ’s being θάνατος, although he is, as respects His nature 
 and destination, ζωή, lies on the side of man in his resistance 
 and stubbornness. Comp. 1 Cor. 1. 23, also John ix. 39, iil 
 18 ἢ, xii, 48. “Semper ergo distinguendum est proprium 
 evangelii officium ab accidentali (ut ita loquar), quod hominum 
 pravitati imputandum est, qua fit, ut vita illis vertatur in 
 mortem,” Calvin. Comp. Diisterdieck on 1 John, I. p. 166. 
 This, at the same time, in opposition to Riickert, who objects 
 that the apostolic activity and preaching can in no way be 
 regarded as proceeding from θάνατος, and who therefore prefers 
 the Recepta,' in which Reiche and Neander agree. Gregory of 
 Nyssa remarks aptly in Oecumenius: κατὰ τὴν προσοῦσαν ἑκάστῳ 
 διάθεσιν ἢ ζωοποιὸς ἐγένετο, ἢ θανατηφόρος ἡ εὔπνοια. Quite 
 similar forms of expression are found in the Rabbins, who often 
 speak of an aroma (8D, see Buxt. Lex. Talm. p. 1494; L. Cappellus 
 on the passage), or odor vitae and mortis, see in Wetstein and 
 Schoettgen.— καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα tis ἱκανός ;) This no longer de- 
 pends on the ὅτι of ver. 15 (Hofmann), a connection to which 
 the interrogatory form would be so thoroughly unsuitable that no 
 reader could have lighted on it; but after Paul has expressed the 
 great, decisive efficacy of his calling, there comes into his mind 
 the crowd of disingenuous teachers as a contrast to that exalted 
 destination of the office, and with the quickly interjected καί he 
 hence asks with emotion: And who is for this (1.6. for the work 
 symbolized in vv. 15 and 16) fit? Who is qualified for this? 
 The tis is intentionally pushed towards the end of the question, in 
 order to arrest reflection at the important πρὸς ταῦτα, and then to 
 bring in the question itself by surprise. Comp. Herod. v. 33: σοὺ 
 δὲ καὶ τούτοισι τοῖσι πράγμασι Ti ἔστι; Plat. Conv. p. 204 1): 
 
 1 According to the Recepta, which Hofmann also follows, ὀσμὴ ζωῆς is life-giving 
 odour, and ὀσμὴ θανάτου is deadly odour ; sis éévar. and sis . would then be solemn 
 additions of the final result, which actually ensues from the life-giving deadly power 
 of the odour. According to Hofmann, the genitives are intended to mean: in which 
 
 they get to smell of death and of life respectively. But comp. expressions like ἄρτος 
 7. ζωῆ:, φῶς «. ζωῆς, λόγο; ζωῆς, ῥήματα Cwis. 
 
CHAP. II. 17. 185 
 
 ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν καλῶν τί ἐρᾷ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 6, 8; Rom. viii. 24; 
 Eph. iv. 9; Acts xi. 17. 
 
 Ver. 17. The answer to the foregoing question is not to be sup- 
 plied, so that it should be conceived as negative (εἰ δὲ μὴ ἱκανοὶ, 
 χάριτος τὸ γινόμενον, Chrysostom, Neander, Hofmann, and others), 
 but it is given, though indirectly, in ver. 17 itself, inasmuch as the 
 expression introduced by yap readily suggests to the reader the 
 conclusion, that the subjects of ἐσμεν, 1.6. Paul and his like, are the 
 ἱκανοί, and that the πολλοί are not so. See Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 240; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 83. If Paul had wished to convey 
 in his question the negative statement, “ Vo one is capable of this,” 
 he could not but have added a limiting ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ or the like 
 (comp. 111. 5), in order to place the reader in the right point of 
 view. — οὗ πολλοί] the known many, the anti-Pauline teachers.' 
 Comp. xi. 13; Phil. ii, 18. See on οἱ πολλοί “ de certis quibus- 
 dam et definitis multis,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 603; comp. also 
 Rom. xi. 5. To understand by it the majority of the Christian 
 teachers in general, is to throw a shadow on the apostolic church, 
 which its history as known to us at least does not justify. — 
 καπηλεύοντες] belongs to ἐσμέν. The verb means (1) to carry 
 on the business of a κάπηλος, a retailer, particularly a vintner ; 
 (2) to negotiate; (3) to practise usury with anything (τὶ), in par- 
 ticular, by adulteration, since the κάπηλοι adulterated the wine 
 (LXX. Isa. 1. 22), and in general, had an evil reputation for 
 cheating (Kanda τεχνήματα, Aesch. Fragm. 328 D). In this 
 sense the word is also used by the Greeks of intellectual objects, as 
 Plato, Protag. p. 313 D: οἱ τὰ wabywata ... καπηλεύοντες. Comp. 
 Lucian, Hermot. 59: φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα ὥσπερ 
 οἱ κάπηλοι, κερασάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ δολώσαντες καὶ κακο- 
 μετροῦντες. Philostr. 16: τὴν σοφίαν καπηλεύειν. So also here: 
 comp. the opposite ἐξ εἰλικρ. and iv. 2. Hence: we practise no 
 deceitful usury with the word of God, as those do, who, with 
 selfish intention, dress up what they preach as the word of God 
 palatably and as people wish to hear it, and for that end τὰ 
 αὐτῶν ἀναμιγνύουσι τοῖς θείοις, Chrysostom. Comp. 2 Pet. 
 
 1 Not merely the anti- Pauline Gentile - teachers, as Hofmann with the reading 
 οἱ λοιποί arbitrarily limits it. It was among the Jewish-Christians that the most of 
 those were found whom Paul had to regard as falsifiers of the word, and who every- 
 where pushed themselves into the sphere of his labours. 
 
180 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ii. 3. Such are named in Ignat. 7rall. (interpol.) 6, comp. 10, 
 χριστέμποροι, and are described as τὸν ἰὸν προσπλέκοντες τῆς 
 πλάνης τῇ γλυκείᾳ προσηγορίᾳ. ---- ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρ but we 
 speak (λαλοῦμεν) as one speaks from sincerity of mind (which 
 has no dealings with adulteration), so that what we speak pro- 
 ceeds from an honest heart and thought. Comp. 1. 12. ὡς is 
 as in John i. 14. On ἐκ, compare John iii. 31, vill. 44; 1 John 
 iv. 5. — ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ] but as one speaks from God (who is in 
 the speaker), as θεόπνευστος. Comp. Matt. x. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 25; 
 2 Cor. v. 20. The ἀλλά is repeated in the lively climax of the 
 thought. Comp. vii. 11, and see on 1 Cor. vi 11. Riickert 
 strangely wishes to connect it with τὸν λόγον, and to supply 
 ὄντα. So also Estius (“tanquam profectum et acceptum a Deo”), 
 Emmerling, and others. That is, in fact, impossible after ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὡς ἐξ εἴλικρ. ---- Katévavtt θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ) Since neither ἀλλά 
 nor ὡς is repeated before κατέναντι, Paul himself indicates the 
 connection and division: “but as from sincerity, but as from God, 
 we speak before God in Christ,” so that the commas after the twice- 
 occurring θεοῦ are, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be deleted. 
 This in opposition to the opinion cherished also by Hofmann, 
 that κατέναντι θεοῦ and ἐν Χριστῷ are two modal definitions of 
 λαλοῦμεν, running parallel with the foregoing points. — κατέναντι 
 θεοῦ] before God, with the consciousness of having Him present as 
 witness. Comp. Rom. iv. 17.— ἐν Χριστῷ] can neither mean 
 Christi nomine (Grotius, comp. Luther, Estius, Calovius, Zachariae, 
 Heumann, Schulz, Rosenmiiller), nor de Christo (Beza, Cornelius a 
 Lapide, Morus, Flatt), nor secundum Christwm (Calvin), but it is 
 the habitually employed expression im Christo. We speak in 
 Christo, in so far as Christ is the sphere in which our speaking 
 moves. Comp. xii. 19; Rom. ix. 1. In Him we live and move 
 with our speaking, οὐδὲν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σοφίᾳ ἀλλὰ τῇ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου 
 δυνάμει ἐνηχούμενοι, Chrysostom. 
 
CHAP. III. 187 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 1. 4 μή] So also Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following 
 BCDEFGx, min. Vulg. It. Syr. Arr. Copt. Slav. Theodoret, and 
 Latin Fathers. But εἰ μή (Elz. Reiche) has also considerable attes- 
 tation (A K L, min. Chrys. Damasc. a/.), and since after the inter- 
 rogation the 7 continuing it occurred to the copyists more readily 
 than the conditional εἰ, the latter, whose explanation is also more 
 difficult, is to be preferred—The second συστατικῶν (after ὑμῶν) is 
 wanting in A B C 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Theodoret, and 
 several Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Riick. An addition by 
 way of gloss, which in F Gis further increased by ἐσιστολῶν. --- 
 Ver. 3. xapdias] So Iren. Orig. Vulg. But ABC DEG LR& and 
 many min. have καρδίαις. SoLachm. An error of the copyist after 
 ver. 2.— Ver. 5. ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν] has its correct position after λογίσ. τι, as 
 is abundantly attested by A DEF 6, It. Vulg. Goth. and Latin 
 Fathers (so also Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.).’ The Recepta after 
 ἱκανοί ἐσμεν, and the position before ἱκανοί in B C δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. 
 Bas, Antioch. are to be regarded as superfluous transpositions to 
 connect the ag ἑαυτῶν with ἱκανοί ἐσμεν. ---- Ver. 7. ἐν γράμμασιν) 
 Lachm.: ἐν γράμματι, following B D* F G. A mechanical repeti- 
 tion of the singular from ver. 6. — Before λήθοις, Elz. Scholz have 
 ἐν. An explanatory addition against decisive evidence. — Ver. 9. 
 4 διακονία] A C D* F G8, min. Syr. utr. Clar. Germ. Or. Cyr. Ruf. : 
 τῇ diaxovig. So Lachm. and Riick. An interpretation instead of 
 which Sedul. and Ambrosiast. have ex or in ministerio, while others 
 applied the interpreting at δόξα, as still Vulg. Sixtin. Pel. read ἐν 
 6&4. — ἐν δόξῃ] ἐν is wanting in A BC δὰ" (δόξα), 17, 39, 80, Tol. 
 Vulg. ms. Deleted by Lachm., bracketed by Riick. The ἐν slipped 
 in easily from ver. 8; comp. ver. 11.— Ver. 10. οὐ] Elz.: οὐδέ, 
 against decisive evidence. Originated by the first syllable of the 
 δεδοξ. that follows. — Ver. 13. Instead of ἑαυτοῦ, αὐτοῦ is, according 
 to decisive testimony, to be read with Lachm. and Tisch.— 
 Ver. 14. ἡμέρας] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation, 
 and was passed over as superfluous (comp. ver. 15).— Ver. 15. 
 ἀναγινώσκεται] Lachm. and Riick.: ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται, in accordance 
 with A B C 8, while Ὁ E have the subjunctive, but not ἄν. Since 
 the ἄν before ἀναγ. might be introduced through a mistake of the 
 
188 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 copyist just as easily as it might be left out, we have merely to 
 decide according to the preponderance of the evidence, which proves 
 to be all the more in favour of Lachmann’s reading, because this 
 is supported also by D E with their retention of the subjunctive 
 (without ἄν), while they betray the copyist’s omission of the ἄν. --- 
 Ver. 17. ἐκεῖ] is wanting in A B C Ὁ s* 17, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Nyss. 
 Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. An 
 addition of the copyists, who had in mind the current use elsewhere 
 of éxe7 after οὗ (Matt. xviii. 20, 24, 28; Jas. ili, 16, a/.), an usage 
 not found in Paul. See Rom. iv. 15, v. 20. 
 
 ConTENts.'—This, again, is no recommendation of self; for we 
 need no letters of recommendation, since you yourselves are our 
 letter of recommendation in the higher sense (vv. 1-3). But 
 with this confidence we wish to ascribe our ability not to our- 
 selves, but to God, who has made us able as servants of the new 
 covenant, far exalted over the old covenant (vv. 4-6). How 
 glorious is this service compared with the service of Moses 
 (vv. 7-11)! Hence we discharge it boldly, not like Moses with 
 his veil over his face (vv. 12,13). By this veil the Jews were 
 hardened ; for up to the present time they do not discern that 
 the old covenant has ceased (vv. 14,15). But when they are 
 converted to Christ, they will come to unhindered discernment ; 
 we Christians, in fact, all behold without hindrance the glory of 
 Christ, and become ourselves partakers of it (vv. 16-18). 
 
 Ver. 1. ᾿Αρχόμεθα] namely, through what was said in ii, 17, 
 regarding which Paul foresaw that his opponents would describe 
 it as the beginning of another recommendation of himself. It is 
 interrogative, not to be taken, with Hofmann, who then reads ἢ 
 py, as an affirmation, in which case a logical relation to the 
 question that follows could only be brought out by importing 
 something.” — πάλιν) belongs to ἑαυτ. συνιστ., and refers to 
 experiences, through which Paul must have passed already 
 before, certainly also in respect to his last Epistle (1 Cor. 
 i—iv., v., ix., xiv. 17, al.), when the charge was made: ἑαυτὸν 
 
 1 See on chap. iii., Krummel in the Stud. und Krit. 1859, p. 39 ff. 
 
 2 The question that follows with ἢ μή would mean : ‘or do we not withal need ?” 
 ete., which does not fit in with ἀρχόμεθα when taken as an affirmation. Hofmann, 
 however, imports the thoughts : whoever is offended at this, that Paul has no scruple 
 
 in recommending himself, to him he offers to answer on his part the question, whether 
 he and his official associates have any need of letters of recommendation. 
 
CHAP. III. 2. 189 
 
 συνιστάνει! As to the reason why he regards the ἑαυτὸν συνισ- 
 tavew to be such a reproach, see x. 18.—JIn the plural he in 
 this chapter includes also Timothy, as is clear from expressions 
 such as immediately occur in ver. 2, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμ., and 
 ver. 6, ἡμᾶς διακόνους. ---- συνιστάνειν] as at Rom. xvi. 1. Hence 
 ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί OY γράμματα συστατικά (Arrian. Epict. ii. 
 3. 1; Diog. L. v. 18, viii. 87), letters of recommendation. Regard- 
 ing their use in the ancient Christian church, see Suicer, 7168. 11. 
 p. 1194; Dought. Anal. 11. p. 120.— εἰ μὴ «.7.r.] nisi, i.e. unless 
 it possibly be, that, etc. Only if this exigency takes place with us, 
 can that ἄρχονται πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνειν be asserted of us. 
 Such epistolary recommendations, indeed, we should not have, and 
 hence we should have to resort to se/f-praise! The expression 
 is ironical in character, and contains an answer to that question, 
 which reveals its absurdity. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 2.8. Hence 
 εἰ is not to be taken, with Reiche, as siqguidem or quia, and μή as 
 negativing the χρήζομεν (as if it were εἰ οὐ ypyt.). — ὥς τινες] as 
 some people (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 18, xv. 12; Gal. i. 7), certainly a 
 side-glance at anti-Pauline teachers, who had brought to the 
 Corinthians letters of recommendation, either from teachers of 
 repute, or from churches, and had obtained similar letters from 
 Corinth at their departure thence. — πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν] In 
 the former case, it might be thought that we wished to supply this 
 need by recommendation of ourselves; in the latter case (ἢ ἐξ 
 ὑμῶν), that we, by our self-recommendation, wished to corrupt your 
 judgment, and to induce you to recommend us to others. Both 
 would be absurd, but this is just in keeping with the crony. 
 
 Ver. 2 f. This ironical excitement, ver. 1, is succeeded by earnest- 
 ness and pathos. Paul, as conscious of his deserts in regard to 
 the Corinthians as he is faithful to his Christian humility (see 
 ver. 3), gives a skilful explanation of the thought contained in 
 ver. 1: we need no letters of introduction either to you or from you. 
 — ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν] 1.6. the letter (the letter of recommendation) 
 which we have, have to show, namely, as well to you as from you. 
 
 1 According to Gal. ii. 7-9, but hardly from the original apostles or from the church 
 of Jerusalem under their guidance as such. This, however, does not exclude the 
 possibility that individual members of the mother-church may have given such 
 letters. We do not know anything more precise on the point: even from τινὲς ἀπὸ 
 ᾿Ιακώβον, Gal. 11. 12 ff., nothing is to be inferred. 
 
~ 190 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 That we should understand both, is required by ver. 1, and to this 
 vv. 2 and 3 are admirably suited, since what is said in them 
 represents every letter of recommendation as well ¢o the Corin- 
 thians as from them as superfluous. This in opposition to Flatt, 
 Riickert, Osiander, and others, who are of opinion that Paul has 
 reference merely to his previous ἐξ ὑμῶν, and (Riickert) that the 
 πρὸς ὑμᾶς has been said only to hit his opponents. — ὑμεῖς 
 ἐστε] in so far, namely, as your conversion, and your whole Chris- 
 tian being and life,is our work, redounding to our commendation. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 2.— éyyeypayp. ἐν ταῖς καρδ. ἡμ. A more 
 precise definition of the manner of the ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν : inscribed in 
 our hearts. This is the mode—adapted to the image—of convey- 
 ing the thought: since we have in our own consciousness the certainty 
 of being recommended to you by yourselves and to others by you. 
 That you yourselves are our recommendation (to yourselves and 
 to others) our own hearts tell us, and it is known by all. Paul did 
 not write ὑμῶν, as 8 and a few cursives, also the Ethiopic, have 
 the reading, which Olearius, Emmerling, Flatt, and especially 
 Rinck (Lucubr. crit. p. 160), recommend to our adoptien: for in 
 that case there would result an incongruity in the figurative con- 
 ception, since the Corinthians themselves are the letter. Besides, 
 there were so many malevolents in the church. But the apostle’s 
 own good consciousness was, as it were, the tablet on which this 
 living Epistle of the Corinthians stood, and that had to be left 
 unassailed even by the most malevolent. Of the love (comp. vii. 3; 
 Phil. i. 7) of which Chrysostom and others explain ἐν τ. καρ. ἡμ. 
 (comp. Wetstein: “quam tenero vos amore prosequar, omnes 
 norunt ἢ), there is no mention in the whole context. Emmerling 
 is wrong, however, also in saying that éyyeyp. ἐν τ. καρδ. ἡμ. is 
 equivalent to the mere nobis inscriptaec, 1.6. quas ubique nobiscum 
 gestamus, ut cognosci et legi ab omnibus possint. Just because what 
 is written stands within in the consciousness, ἐν ταῖς καρδ. ἡμ. is 
 used, — The plural is neither to be explained, with Billroth, from 
 
 1 Olshausen thinks strangely that Paul refers to the official badge which the high 
 priest wore on his heart, and on whose twelve precious stones stood engraven the 
 twelve names of the children of Israel. This arrangement, he holds, Paul takes in a 
 spiritual sense, and applies it to the relation of himself and other teachers to their 
 spiritual children ; they bore the names of these engraven on their hearts, and 
 
 brought them always in prayer before God. — Sheer fancifulness, since the context 
 has nothing pointing to a reference so entirely peculiar. 
 
CHAP. III. 3. 191 
 
 the analogy of σπλάγχνα (without such usage existing), nor to be 
 considered with Riickert and de Wette as occasioned by the plural 
 of the speaking person (to whom, however, the plural hearts would 
 not be suitable), but Paul writes in name of himself and of Timothy. 
 Comp. also iv. 6, vii. 3, and see Calvin, who, however, in an 
 arbitrary’ way (see i. 1) includes Silvanus also (i. 19).— γινωσ- 
 κομένη κιτ.λ.] This appears to contradict the previous words, 
 according to which the Epistle is written ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ; 
 hence Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 19 f. (Billroth follows him), says that 
 Paul “nonnulla adjicere, in quibus Corinthiorwm potius, quam 
 epistolae, cum qua eos comparat, memor esse videatur.” But he 
 rather presents the thing as it 7s, and hence cannot otherwise 
 delineate the image of the Epistle in which he presents it, than as 
 at corresponds to the thing. In so far, namely, as Paul and Timothy 
 have in their hearts the certainty of being recommended by the 
 Corinthians themselves, these are a letter of recommendation which 
 stands inscribed in the hearts of those teachers ; and yet, since from 
 the whole phenomenon of the Christian life of the church it can- 
 not remain unknown to any one ¢hat the Corinthians redound to 
 the commendation of Paul and Timothy, and how they do so, this 
 letter is known as what it is, and read’ by all men. The Epistle 
 has therefore in fact the two qualities, which in a letter proper 
 would be contradictory, and the image is not confounded with the 
 thing, but is adapted to the thing. Riickert, who likewise (see 
 above) finds for ἐν τ. xapd. the reference to the apostle’s love, 
 explains it: “In his heart they stand written...and where he 
 himself arrives, there he, as it were, reads out this writing, when 
 From a loving heart gives forth tidings everywhere, what a prosperous 
 church the Lord has gathered to Himself in Corinth.” Comp. Chry- 
 sostom. But in that case the πάντες would not in fact be the 
 readers—as yet they ought to be according to ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρ----- 
 but Paul; and the thing would resolve itself into a self-recom- 
 mendation, which is yet held to be disclaimed in ver. 1. 
 
 Ver. 3. Φανερούμενοι] attaches itself in construction to ὑμεῖς 
 ἐστε, to which it furnishes a more precise definition, and that in 
 elucidative reference to what has just been said γινωσκομένη.... 
 ἀνθρώπων : since you are being manifested to be an epistle of Christ, 
 
 1Grotius: ‘“‘prius agnoscitur manus, deinde legitur epistola,.” Here γινωσκ, 
 precedes; it is different in i. 13. 
 
192 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ze. since it does not remain hid, but becomes (continually) clear to 
 every one that you, ete. Comp. on the construction, 1 John 11. 19. 
 — ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ] genitivus auctoris (not of the contents—in 
 opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact): a letter com- 
 posed (dictated) by Christ. Fritzsche, 1.6. p. 23, takes the genitive 
 as possessive, so that the sense without figure would be: homines 
 Christiani estis. But in what follows the whole origin of the 
 Epistle is very accurately set forth, and should the author not be 
 mentioned—not in that case be placed in front? Theodoret already 
 vives the right view.—émic7ond is here not again specially letter 
 of recommendation (ver. 2), but letter in general; for through the 
 characteristic : “ you are an epistle of Christ, drawn up by us,” 
 etc., the statement above. “you are our letter of recommendation,’ 
 is to be elucidated and made good.—In the following διακονηθεῖσα 
 
 . capkivats Paul presents himself and Timothy as the writers of 
 the epistle of Christ (Ssaxov. ὑφ᾽ ἡμ.), the Holy Spirit as the means 
 of writing in lieu of ink, and human hearts, 1.6, according to the 
 context, the hearts of the Corinthians, as the material which is 
 written upon. For Christ was the author of their Christian condi- 
 tion; Paul and Timothy were His instruments for their conversion, 
 and by their ministry the Holy Spirit became operative in the hearts 
 of the readers. In so far the Corinthians, in their Christian cha- 
 racter, are as it were a letter which Christ has caused to be written, 
 through Paul and Timothy, by means of the Holy Spirit in their 
 hearts. On the passive expression διακονηθ. ὑφ᾽ ἡμ., comp. 
 viii, 19f.; Mark x. 45; note also the change of the tenses: 
 διακονηθ. and éyyeypapp. (the epistle is there ready); likewise 
 the designation of the Holy Spirit as πνεῦμα θεοῦ ζῶντος, comp. 
 ver. 6. We may add that Paul has not mixed up heterogeneous 
 traits of the figure of a letter begun in ver. 2 (Riickert and others), 
 but here, too, he carries out this figure, as it corresponds to the thing 
 to be figured thereby. The single incongruity is οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶ 
 λιθίναις, in which he has not retained the conception of a Jeiter 
 (which is written on tablets of paper), but has thought generally 
 of a writing to be read. Since, however, he has conceived of 
 such writing as divinely composed (see above, πνεύματι θεοῦ 
 ζῶντος), of which nature was the law oi Sinai, the usual sup- 
 position is right, that he has been induced to express himself 
 thus by the remembrance of the tables of the law (Heb. ix. 4; 
 
CHAP, III. 4. 193 
 
 comp. Jer. xxxi. 31-33); for we have no reason to deny 
 that the subsequent mention of them (ver. 7) was even now 
 floating before his mind. Fritzsche, indeed, thinks that “ accom- 
 modate ad nonnulla V. T. loca (Prov. 111. 3, vil. 3) cordis notionem 
 per tabulas cordis expressurus erat, quibus tabulis carneis nihil 
 tam commode quam tabulas lapideas opponere potuerit.” But he 
 might quite as suitably have chosen an antithesis corresponding 
 to the figure of a letter (2 John 12; 2 Tim. iv. 13); hence it is 
 rather to be supposed that he came to use the expression tabulae 
 cordis, just because he had before his mind the idea of the tables of 
 the law. — The antitheses in our passage are intended to bring out 
 that here an epistle is composed in quite another and higher sense 
 than an ordinary letter (which one brings into existence μέλανι 
 σπείρων διὰ καλάμου, Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 C)—a writing, which 
 is not to be compared even with the Mosaic tables of the law. 
 But the purpose of a contrast with the legalism of his opponents 
 (Klépper) is not conveyed in the context. — That there is a special 
 purpose in the use of capxivais as opposed to λιθίναις, cannot be 
 doubted after the previous antitheses. It must imply the notion 
 of something better (comp. Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26), namely, the 
 thought of the living receptivity and susceptibility: δεκτικὰς τοῦ 
 λόγου (Theophylact, Calvin, Stolz, Flatt, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Ewald, and others). The distinctive sense of σαρκινός is correctly 
 noted by Erasmus: “ut materiam intelligas, non qualitatem.” 
 Comp. on 1 Cor. iii. 1. Καρδίας is also the genitive of material, 
 and the contrast would have been sufficiently denoted by ἀλλ᾿ ἐν 
 πλαξὶ καρδίας : it is, however, expressed more concretely and 
 vividly by the added capkivais: in fleshy tablets of the heart. 
 
 Ver. 4. Πεποίθησιν is emphatic, and therefore precedes (other- 
 wise in i. 15); confidence, however, of such a kind as is 
 indicated in vv. 2, 3; for there Paul has expressed a lofty self- 
 consciousness. Hence there is no reason for seeking a reference 
 to something earlier instead of to what immediately precedes, 
 and for connecting it with ii. 17 (Grotius and others, including 
 de Wette; comp. Riickert), or with 11. 14-17, as Hofmann has 
 done in consequence of his taking ἀρχόμεθα in ver. 1 as not 
 interrogative. Brief and apt is Luther’s gloss: “ Confidence, that 
 we have prepared you to form the epistle.” --- διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] through 
 Christ, who brings it about in us: for in his official capacity Paul 
 
 2 COR. II. N 
 
194 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 knows himself to be under the constant influence of Christ, without 
 which he would not have that confidence. Theodoret says well: 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦτο ἡμῖν δεδώκοτος τὸ θάρσος. --- πρὸς τὸν θεόν] 
 in relation to God, as bringing about the successful results of the 
 apostolic activity. It denotes the religious direction, in which he 
 has such confidence (comp. Rom. iv. 2, v. 1), not the validity 
 before God (de Wette). 
 
 Ver. 5. Now comes the caveat, for which ver. 4 has prepared 
 the way,—the guarding against the possible objection, that Paul 
 considered himself (and Timothy) as originator of the ability for 
 apostolic working. οὐχ ὅτι is therefore not to be taken as equiva- 
 lent to ὅτε οὐχ (Mosheim, Schulz, Emmerling), nor is πέποιθα to be 
 supplied again after οὐχ (Emmerling) ; but we have here the quite 
 common use of οὐχ ὅτε for οὐκ ἐρῶ, ὅτι. See oni. 24. Riickert 
 finds in οὐχ ὅτι, κιτίλ. a reason assigned for the πρὸς τὸν θεόν, or 
 an explanation of it: “In thus speaking, I would not have it 
 thought that,” ete. But if in πρὸς τ. θεόν there was meant to be 
 conveyed the same idea as was further explained in ver. 5, Paul 
 would have expressed himself quite illogically, and in explaining 
 or assigning a reason for it he must have written ὅτε οὐχ. No; 
 the course of thought is: “ With this πεποίθησις, however, I do 
 not wish to be misunderstood or misconstrued: I do not mean by 
 it, that we are of ourselves sufficient,” etc. With this connection 
 πρὸς Tov θεόν is not at variance ; for by it God was not yet meant 
 as author of the adequate ability (ver. 5 shows this very point), 
 but as producer of the result. — λογίσασθαί τι] to judge anything 
 (censere). The context furnishes the more precise definition which 
 Paul had in view. Vv. 2—4,6. He denies, namely, that of him- 
 self he possesses the ability to settle in his judgment the means and 
 ways, and, in general, the mode of dischurging his apostolic duties. 
 If he has just been speaking in vv. 2-4 with so much confidence 
 of his prosperous and successful labour in Corinth, yet it is by no 
 means his own ability, but the divine empowering, which enables 
 him to determine by his own judgment anything regarding the 
 discharge of his vocation. Accordingly, we can neither approve 
 the meaning arbitrarily given to τί, aliquid pracclart (Emmerling ; 
 van Hengel, Annot. p. 219), nor agree with Hofmann, who, in con- 
 sistency with his reference of πεποίθησις to ii. 14-17, makes the 
 apostle guard against the misconstruction that this, his πεποί- 
 
CHAD. III. 5. 195 
 
 θησις, rests on ideas which he forms for himself—on an estimate 
 of his official working, according to a standard elaborated by his 
 own mind. Even apart from that erroneous reference of the 
 πεποίθησις, the very expression ἱκανοί would be unsuitable to the 
 meaning adopted by Hofmann, and instead of it a notion of pre- 
 sumption would rather have been in place; the prominence given 
 to ἱκανοτής by its being used thrice can only concern the ability 
 which regulates the official labour itself. The dogmatic exposition, 
 disregarding the context, finds here the entire inability of the 
 natural man for all good. See Augustine, de dono persev. 13, 
 contra Pelag. 8; Calvin: “non poterat magis hominem nudare omni 
 bono.” Comp. Beza, Calovius, and others, including Olshausen. 
 The reference also of the words to the doctrinal contents of the 
 preaching, which was not derived from his own reflection (Theo- 
 doret, Grotius, de Wette, Neander, and others), is not suggested 
 by the connection, and is forbidden by the fact that ad’ ἑαυτῶν 
 does not belong to λογίσασθε at all (see below). This also in 
 opposition to Osiander, who finds the meaning: “not human, but 
 divine thoughts lie at the root of the whole of my official work.” 
 — ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν] has its assured place after λογίσ. te (see the 
 critical remarks). The contrast that follows (ἐκ tod θεοῦ) decides 
 what it belongs to in sense,—namely, not to λογίσασθαί τι, but 
 to ἱκανοί éopev,—so that ἱκανοί ἐσμεν λογίσασθαί τι is to be 
 considered as going together, as one idea. Mistaking this, Riickert 
 thinks that either Paul has placed the words wrongly, or the 
 order given by Β C 8 (see the critical remarks) must be preferred. 
 — On ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, from one’s own means, nemine suppeditante, see 
 Wetstein. — ὡς ἐξ ἑαυτῶν] sc. ἱκανοὶ ὄντες λογίσ. τι, a More 
 precise definition of the ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτ. inserted on purpose (making 
 the notice thoroughly exhaustive). The proceeding from (ἀπό) is 
 still more definitely marked as causal procession (ἐκ): as from our- 
 selves, Le. as if our ability to gudge anything had its origin from 
 ourselves. Wolf arbitrarily refers ἀπό to the will, and ἐξ to the 
 power; and Riickert wrongly connects ἐξ ἑαυτ. with λογίσ. τί; 
 it is in fact parallel to ἀφ᾽ éavr. Paul is conscious of the ἱκανὸν 
 εἶναι λογίσασθαί τι, and ascribes it to himself; but he denies 
 that he has this ἱκανότης of himself, or from himself. — ἡ 
 ἱκανότης ἡμῶν] 80. λογίσασθαί τι. --- Riickert finds in our passage, 
 especially in ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, au allusion to some utterances, unknown 
 
196 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 to us, of opponents, which, however, cannot be proved from x. 7, 
 and is quite a superfluous hypothesis. 
 
 Ver. 6. Ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς] ὅς, he who, in the sense of οὗτος 
 yap. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2.64; van Hengel, Annot. 
 220. And καί is the also of the corresponding relation (Baeumlein, 
 Partik. p. 152), so that there is expressed the agreement between 
 what is contained in the relative clause and what was said before : 
 who also (qui idem, comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636) has made us 
 capable (ἀρκοῦσαν ἐχωρήγησε δύναμιν, Theodoret) as ministers, 
 etc. According to Bengel, Riickert (comp. also de Wette, Osian- 
 der, Hofmann), the sense is: “that God has bestowed on him not 
 only the ability mentioned in ver. 5, but also the more comprehen- 
 sive one of a διάκονος «.T.r.” But in that case the words must have 
 stood thus: ὃς καὶ διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς. The 
 notion οἵ ἱκανότης is thrice put in front with the same emphasis. 
 Of ἱκανόω (Col. i. 12) only the passive, in the sense of to have enough, 
 occurs in the (later) Greek writers, such as Dion. Hal. 11. 74, and 
 in the LXX.— διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκ.] as ministers of a new 
 covenant (comp. Eph. iii. 7; Col. 1. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 15; Luke i. 2), 
 i.e. to be such as serve a new covenant, as devote to it their 
 activity. Kav. διαθ., without the article, is conceived qualita- 
 tively. The new covenant (Heb. xii. 24) of God with men, which is 
 meant, is—in contrast to the one founded by Moses—that estab- 
 lished by Christ, in which the fulfilling of the law is no longer 
 defined as the condition of salvation, but faith on the atonement 
 in Christ, 1 Cor: xi.).25;. Rom. x..5 ff.7 Gal iv. 2442 ae 
 XXvi. 28. — οὐ γράμματος, ἀλλὰ πνεύμ.] is since Heumann usually 
 (also by Billroth, Riickert, Ewald) regarded as governed by καινῆς 
 διαθήκης (Riickert, “ of a covenant, which offers not γράμμα, but 
 πνεῦμα"), but without reason, since the sequel, by ἡ διακονία τοῦ 
 θανάτου and ἡ διακ. τοῦ πνεύματος (vv. 7, 8), rather points to the 
 fact that Paul has conceived οὐ yp. ἀλλὰ mv. as dependent on 
 διακόνους (so also de Wette, Neander, Osiander, Hofmann), as an 
 appositional more precise definition to the καινῆς διαθήκης: 
 to be ministers not of letter (which we would be as ministers of the 
 old covenant), but of spirit. Ipdupa characterizes the Mosaic 
 covenant according to the specific manner in which it occurs and 
 subsists, for it is established and fixed in writing (by means of the 
 written letter), and thereby—although it is divine, yet without 
 
CHAP. UI. 6. 197 
 
 bringing with it and communicating any principle of inward 
 vital efficacy—settled as obligatory. On the other hand, πνεῦμα 
 characterizes the Christian covenant, in so far as its distinctive 
 and essential mode of existence consists in this, that the divine 
 living power of the Holy Spirit is at work in it; through this, 
 and not through a written instrument, it subsists and fulfils itself. 
 Comp. Rom. ii. 29, vii. 6; Heb. x. 29, viii 7 ff. Not letter 
 therefore, but spirit, is that to which the teachers of the gospel 
 minister, the power, whose influence is advanced by their labours ; 
 ov yap τὰ παλαιὰ τοῦ νόμου προσφέρομεν γράμματα, ἀλλὰ τὴν. 
 καινὴν τοῦ πνεύματος δωρεάν, Theodoret. It is true that the law 
 also is in its nature mvevpatixos (see on Rom. vii. 14), and its 
 λόγια are ζῶντα (see on Acts vii. 38), but it is misused by the 
 power of sin in man to his destruction, because it does not furnish 
 the spirit which breaks this power. — τὸ yap γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, 
 τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζἕζωοποιεῖ) specifies quite simply the reason, why 
 God has made them capable of ministering not to the Jetter, but 
 to the spirit. It is therefore quite unnecessary to presuppose, 
 with Fritzsche, Billroth, and Riickert, a suppressed intermediate 
 thought (namely, that the new covenant is far more excellent). 
 We may add that the γάρ does not extend also to what follows 
 (vv. 7, 8), so as to make the sentence τὸ γράμμα x.7.r. merely 
 introductory to the sequel, and the whole a vindication of the 
 apostle’s referring his capacity of judgment to God. This view 
 of Hofmann is connected with his interpretation of Noyic. τι, ver. 5, 
 and has besides against it the fact, that the weighty antithesis τὸ γ. 
 χράμμα «.T.r. is neither adapted to be a mere introductory thought, 
 nor betokened as being such, the more especially as it contains 
 completely in itself the ground establishing what immediately 
 precedes, and with ver. 7 a new discussion begins, which runs on 
 to the end of the chapter without a break. — ἀποκτείνει) does not 
 refer to the physical death (Kiiuffer, ζωὴ αἰών. p. 75), in so far as 
 that is the consequence of sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin is occasioned 
 and furthered by the law (Rom. vii. 9ff., vi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56, a.). 
 Against this interpretation it is decisive that according to Rom. 
 v. 12 ff. (see ὧν loc.) bodily death is the consequence, extend- 
 
 1 Bengel acutely and justly remarks: ‘‘ Paulus etiam dum haec scripsit, non literae, 
 
 sed spiritus ministrum egit. Moses in proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum haud 
 scripsit, tamen in litera versatus est.” 
 
198 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ing to all, of Adam’s sin, and has, since Adam, reigned over all 
 even before the law. Nor yet are we to understand spiritual 
 (Billroth), ethical (de Wette, Krummel), or spiritual and bodily 
 death (Riickert), or the mere sensus mortis (Bengel, comp. Neander), 
 but according to Rom. vi. 21, 23, vii. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, 
 eternal death, the opposite of the eternal life, which, by means of 
 the Holy Spirit becoming operative in the heart through the gospel, 
 is brought about for man who is liable to eternal death (Rom. 
 viii. 2, 6, 10, 11)—which here (comp. John vi. 63) is expressed 
 by τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ, comp. on ii. 16. How far the law 
 works eternal death, is shown from Rom. vii. 5, 7 ff.; comp. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 56. Through its prohibitions, namely, it becomes for the 
 power of sin in man the occasion of awakening evil desire, and 
 therewith transgression sets in and the imputing of it for con- 
 demnation, whereby man is liable to eternal death, and that by 
 means of the curse of the law which heaps up sin and produces 
 the divine anger, see on ver. 9; Gal. 11. 10. Comp. Rom. iv. 15, 
 v. 20. After Chrysostom and his followers (also Ambrosiaster), 
 Grotius explains it as: “morte violenta punit peccatores,” and 
 Fritzsche: “lex supplicia sumit.” This is to be rejected, because 
 in this way the law would not be the very thing that kills, but only 
 that which determines death as a punishment; and consequently 
 no corresponding contrast to ζωοποιεῖ would result. Finally, we 
 can only consider as historically remarkable the interpretation of 
 Origen regarding the literal and mystical sense of Scripture, the 
 former of which is injurious, the latter conducive, to salvation. 
 Something similar is still to be found in Krause and Royaards. 
 Against the visionaries, who referred γράμμα to the outward and 
 πνεῦμα to the inward word, see Calovius. 
 
 Ver. 7. 4é] leads on to a setting forth of the great glory of 
 
 1 With this is connected certainly moral death (the negation of the moral life), 
 but only the eternal death is here meant, which is the consequence of the κασάκρισις, 
 ver. 9. This in opposition to Osiander. Nor is the ἀποκτείνει meant of the letter 
 conditionally (‘‘so soon as we abide by it alone and deify it”), but the killing is the 
 specific operation of the law; how? see Rom. vii. 9f.; 1 Cor. xv. 56. This in opposi- 
 tion to Ewald.— Hofmann unites the various meanings of the death to which the 
 sinner is liable, inasmuch as he defines the notion as ‘‘ the existence of the whole man 
 shut out from the life of God and for ever.” This collective definition of the notion, 
 however, does not relieve us from the labour of showing from the various contexts 
 in what special sense death and dying are conceived of in the several passages. 
 
CHAP, III. 7. 199 
 
 the Christian ministry, which is proved from the splendour of the 
 ministry of Moses by a conclusion ὦ minori ad majus.’—1 δια- 
 κονία Tov θανάτου] 1.6. the ministry conducing to the rule of death ; 
 for TO γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, ver. 6. It is not the law itself that 
 is meant, but the ministry of Moses, which he accomplished by 
 bringing down to the people the tables of the law from Sinai. 
 Riickert erroneously thinks that the whole ministry of the Levitical 
 priesthood is meant, against which what follows is clearly decisive. 
 The reason assigned by Riickert, that Moses as μεσίτης τῆς παλ. 
 διαθήκης can only be treated as on a parallel with Christ, and not 
 with the apostles, is not valid, since in the context the prevailing 
 conception is not that of μεσίτης but that of διάκονος, and as such 
 Moses is certainly parallel to the ministers of the new covenant. 
 — ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπ. λίθοις) A comma is not to be put after 
 γράμμ. (Luther, Beza, Piscator, Estius, and others, including 
 Schrader and Ewald), which would require the repetition of the 
 article before ἐν yp., and would make the sentence drag; but 
 it is: which was imprinted on stones by means of letters. The 
 death-promoting ministry of Moses was really graven on stones, in 
 so far as the Decalogue engraven on the two tables was actually 
 the ministerial document of Moses, as it were the registration of 
 his office. In this case ἐν γράμμασιν is not something of an 
 idle addition (in opposition to de Wette, who defends the reading 
 ἐν γράμματι, and attaches it to τοῦ θανάτου), but in fact an 
 element emphatically prefixed, in keeping with the process of 
 argument @ minori, and depicting the inferior unspiritual charac- 
 ter. Riickert (forced by his reference to the service of the Levi- 
 tical priesthood) erroneously thinks that Paul means not only the 
 tables of the law, but the whole Pentateuch, and that he has been 
 not quite so exact in his use of the expression (ἐντετυπ. λίθοις !). 
 — ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ] took place in splendour, was surrounded by 
 splendour, full of splendour, see Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 284 
 [E. T. 330]. Bengel says rightly: “nacta est gloriam; γίψομαι 
 Jio, et εἰμὶ swm, ver. 8. differunt.” Comp. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. 
 
 1 Without doubt this whole comparison of the ministry of the New Testament with 
 that of Moses (vv. 7-11), as well as the subsequent shadow which is thrown on the 
 conduct of Moses (ver. 13), and the digression on the obstinacy of the Jews (vv. 14-18), 
 is not put forward without a special purpose, but is an indirect polemic against the 
 Judaists. Comp. Chrysostom: ὅρα σῶς πάλιν ὑποτέμνεφαι +o φρόνημα τὸ lovdaixer, 
 
200 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Opuse. p. 284. It relates to the external radiance, which in the 
 intercourse with God on Sinai passed from the divine glory (Ex. 
 xxlv. 16) to the countenance of Moses, so that he descended 
 from the niountain with his face shining (Ex. xxxiv. 29 ff). 
 For a Rabbinical fiction that this splendour was from the light 
 created at the beginning of things, see Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. 
 Judenth. I. p. 369 f. Others (Vatablus, and more recently, 
 Flatt, Billroth, Riickert) take ἐν δόξῃ, not of that glorious radi- 
 ance, but of grandeur, glory in general. So also de Wette and 
 Hofmann. But this is opposed to the context, for in what follows 
 it is not merely a visible proof of the δόξα which is adduced (as 
 Riickert thinks), or a concrete representation of it (Hofmann), but 
 the high degree (ὥστε) of the very δόξα which is meant by ἐγενήθη 
 ev δόξη. It is said, indeed, that ver. 8, where the glory spoken 
 of is no external one, does not admit of our reference. But 
 even in ver. 8 the δόξα is an external glory (see on ver. 8); and 
 further, we have here an argument a minort ad majus, in which 
 every reader was historically aware that the minus, the δόξα of 
 Moses, was an external one, while as to the majus, the δόξα of the 
 ministry of the N. T., it was self-evident that it is before the 
 Parousia merely something ideal, a spiritual possession, and only 
 becomes also an external reality after the Parousia (and to 
 this ver. 8 applies). — ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι x.7.r.] Philo gives the 
 same account, Vit. Mos. p. 665 A; Ex. xxxiv. has only: ἐφοβή- 
 θησαν ἐγγίσαι αὐτῷ, which was more precisely explained by that 
 statement. — διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ rp. αὐτ.] would have been in itself 
 superfluous, but with the addition τὴν xatapy. strengthening the 
 conclusion it has a solemn emphasis. Philo, /.c., calls this δόξα: 
 ἡλιοειδὲς φέγγος. -- τὴν καταργουμένην] “ Claritas illa vultus 
 Mosis transitoria erat et modici temporis,” Estius. Ex. /.c. gives 
 us no express information of this; but ver. 13 clearly shows that 
 Paul regarded the radiance which Moses brought down from his 
 converse with God as only temporary and gradually ceasing, 
 which, indeed, is self-evident and correctly inferred from the 
 renewal of the radiance on each occasion. In this passing away 
 of that lustre——which even during its passing away was yet so 
 creat that the Israelites could not gaze fixedly on him,—Paul 
 undoubtedly (in opposition to Hofmann) found a type of the 
 ceasing of the Mosaic ministry (ver. 13); but in our present 
 
CHAP. III. 8, 9. 201 
 
 passage this is only hinted at in a preliminary way by the historical 
 addition τ. catapy., without the latter ceasing to belong to the 
 historical narration. Hence the participle is not to be taken, with 
 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others, including Riickert, in a purely 
 present sense: “which yet ceases,’ nor in the sense of transient 
 (Ewald), but as the imperfect participle; the transitory, which 
 was in the act of passing away. 
 
 Ver. 8. The ministry dedicated to the Holy Spirit, 1.6. forming 
 the medium of His operation (the teaching ministry of the gospel), 
 is as such the specific opposite of the διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν 
 γράμμασιν ἐντετυπ. λίθοις, ver. 7. In τοῦ πνεύματος are con- 
 tained the elements of contrast. See ver. 6. — ἔσται] is not the 
 future of the inference (Billroth, Hofmann, and the older commenta- 
 tors); nor does it refer to the advancing steady development (Osian- 
 der), but rather to the gloria futurt seculi. Comp. on ver. 12, where 
 the 60£a—which is therefore not to be understood, as it usually is, 
 of inner elevation and dignity—appears as the object of the ἐλπίς. 
 We cannot therefore say with Bengel: “ loquitur ex prospectu V. Τὶ 
 in Novum,” but: loquitur ex prospectu praesentis seculi in futurum. 
 
 Ver. 9. Grounding, simply by a characteristic change of the 
 predicates (κατακρ. and δικαιοσύν.), of what was said in vv. 7, 8. 
 Comp. Rom. v. 18, 19.— ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσ.] the mini- 
 stry, which is the medium of condemnation. For the ministry of 
 Moses, which communicated the Decalogue, promoted through the 
 law sin (Rom. vii. 9 ff.), whose power it became (1 Cor. xv. 56), 
 and thus realized the divine curse against the transgressors of the 
 law (Gal. iii. 20). Comp. on ver. 6. The article denoted the 
 well-known, solemn condemnation, Deut. xxvii. 26. — δόξα] sc. 
 ἐστί, for the former ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξη is realised as present, regarded 
 as present. Comp., subsequently, the present περισσεύει. The 
 substantive δόξα (it refers, as in ver. 7, to that external glory) 
 stands as predicate in the sense of ἔνδοξος, denoting the notion of 
 the adjective more strongly, according to a current usage in Greek. 
 Rom. viii. 10; John vi. 63; 1 John iv. 8, al. See Abresch, 
 Auctar. Diluc. Ὁ. 2'75 f.; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 11. p. 120. — περισ- 
 cevet] The tense realizes as present what is future; for the future 
 glory of the teacher is already now an ideal possession. Note the 
 accumulated strength of the expression: is in much higher degree 
 superabundant in glory. On the dative of more precise definition 
 
202 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 with περισσεύειν, comp. 1 Thess. 111. 12; Acts xvi. 5; Polyb. 
 xviii, 18.5; Plut. Mor. p. 708 F. Usually in the N. T. with ἐν, 
 as also here in Elzevir. — ἡ διακονία τῆς Stxarocvy.] the ministry, 
 which is the medium of righteousness’ (comp. xi. 15); for it is the 
 office of gospel teaching to preach the faith in Jesus Christ, by 
 which we have righteousness before God. See Rom. i. 17, 
 iii, 22 ff, 30, x. 4; Gal. iii, 13. Comp. especially, v. 21. 
 
 Ver. 10. A more precise grounding of the previous πολλῷ 
 μᾶλλον περισσεύει K.T.r. by the highest climax of this relation. 
 For even (καὶ γάρ) that which 15 glorious is without glory in this 
 point by reason of the superabundant glory. — οὐ δεδόξασται] The 
 chief element is prefixed, and combined into one idea (Hartung, 
 Partikell. I. p. 122; Baeuml. p. 278): gloria destitutum est. 
 The perfect denotes the continuance of what had taken place; 
 Kihner, II. p. 70. — τὸ δεδοξασμένον) is referred to the Mosaic 
 religious economy by Emmerling and Olshausen, following older 
 expositors, quite against the context. Most refer it to the 
 ministry of Moses, which had been made glorious through the 
 radiance on his countenance, vv. 7-9. But see below. — ἐν 
 τούτῳ τῷ μέρει] in this respect (ix. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 16; Col. ii. 16; 
 often in Greek authors), is joined with τὸ δεδοξασμένον by 
 Fritzsche, 1.6. p. 31 (also de Wette and Ewald) : “ quod collustratum 
 fuit hac parte ἢ. 6. ita, ut per splendorem, qui in Mosis facie conspicie- 
 batur, illustre redderetur.” But on the one hand—supposing that 
 τὸ δεδοξασμ. denotes the ministry of Moses—the ἐν τούτῳ τῷ 
 μέρει so taken would be an utterly superfluous addition, since the 
 reader would already have had full information in accordance 
 with the context through τὸ δεδοξασμ. having the article; on the 
 other hand, we should expect τούτῳ to point to something said 
 just before, which, however, is not the case, since we must go 
 back as far as ver. 7. If, again, with Ewald, we take ἐν τούτῳ τῷ 
 μέρει as “in all that is Jewish, apart from what is Christian,” and 
 refer it to the then still subsisting state of the temple, synagogue, 
 etc., how enigmatically Paul would have expressed himself, without 
 any hint of his meaning in the context! Following Chrysostom 
 
 1 Note the contrast of κασάκρισις and δικαιοσύνη. The former is an actus forensis ; 
 so also the latter, constituted by the divine act of the d:xaiwois (Rom. iv. 25, v. 18), 
 rests on imputation. Comp. v. 21. This in opposition to Hofmann, Schrifibew. 1. 
 p. 627 ἢ, 
 
CHAP. III. 10. 203 
 
 (κατὰ τὸν τῆς συγκρίσεως λόγον) and Theodoret (ἀποβλέπων εἰς 
 τούτους, namely, to the ministers of the N. T.), most commentators 
 (including Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann) join it with ov 
 Sed0€., so that it would indicate the reference in which the sen- 
 tence ov δεδόξ. τὸ δεδοΐξ. holds good (see Hofmann), and conse- 
 quently would have the meaning: “ over against the office of Moses.” 
 But how utterly superfluous, and in fact cumbrous, would this ἐν 
 τούτῳ τῷ pep. be if so taken, especially seeing that there still 
 follows ἕνεκεν τ. ὑπερβ. δοξ., which serves to throw light upon 
 the relation asserted! How surprising would this amplification 
 be at this very point, where the comparison is carried to the 
 highest pitch, and the representation is so forcibly and pithily 
 begun by the oxymoron ov δεδόξ. τὸ Sed0€.! Riickert (following 
 Flatt) connects also with οὐ δεδόξασται, but explains it: in this 
 respect, that is, in so far as the first διακονία was the διακονία τῆς 
 κατακρίσεως. At variance with the connection. For not in so 
 far as the Mosaic διακονία ministered to condemnation and death, 
 is its splendour darkened, but in so far as its splendour is out- 
 shone by a far greater splendour,—that of the διακονία of the 
 N.T. Besides, if the assumed reference of ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει 
 were to be held correct, the κατάκρισις would necessarily be the 
 principal element (predicate) in what precedes, not merely an 
 attributive definition of the subject. On the whole, the following 
 explanation, against which none but quite irrelevant objections * 
 are made, seems to be the right one: ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει is cer- 
 tainly to be connected with οὐ δεδόξασται; τὸ δεδοξασμένον, 
 however, is not to be taken as a designation of the Mosaic δια- 
 κονία in conereto, but signifies that which is glorified generally, in 
 abstracto; so that, in addition to the οὐ δεδόξασται said of it, there 
 is also given with ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει the reference to the particular 
 concrete thing of which the apostle is speaking, the reference to 
 the ministry of Moses, namely, thus: “for in this respect, 1.6. in 
 respect of the relation of glory in which the Mosaic διακονία 
 stands to the Christian (ver. 9), ὑ 18 even the case that what is 
 glorified is unglorified.” Analogously, the δόξα of the moon, 
 
 1 The objection made by Osiander is a dilemma logically incorrect. Hofmann 
 urges that ἐν τούτῳ τῷ wipes cannot mean: in this case. But itis not at all alleged 
 to have that meaning, but rather: in this point, i.e. hoc respectu, in the relation under 
 discussion, See on this adverbial usage, C. Fr. Herm. ad Lucian. hist. conezr. p. 8. 
 
204 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 for instance, is no dca, when the δόξα of the sun beams forth 
 (1 Cor. xv. 14).— ἕνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβαλλ. δόξης} by reason of 
 (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 329 B) the superabundant glory, which 
 obscures the δεδοξασμένον, exhibits its δόξα as relatively no δόξα. 
 This applies to the future glory of the N. T. διακονία, setting in 
 at the αἰὼν μέλλων, but already conceived as present. 
 
 Ver. 11. A justification of the foregoing expression τῆς bmep- 
 βαλλ. δόξης by a general proposition, the application of which in 
 conformity with the connection is left to the reader, and the 
 truth of which in this connection lies in the idea of the comple- 
 tion, which the facts of salvation in the O. T. have to find in the 
 kingdom of God. “ For if that which ceases is glorious, much more 
 is that which abides glorious.” — τὸ katapyovpevov| that which ts 
 in the act of passing away. This the reader was to apply to the 
 διακονία of Moses’ spoken of in vv. 7-10, in so far, namely, as 
 this ministry is in the course of its abolition through the preaching 
 of the gospel by means of the διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης. Moses 
 ceases to be lawgiver, when the gospel is preached; for see 
 Rom. x. 4. That this is the application intended by Paul, is con- 
 firmed by the contrast τὸ μένον, which the reader was to apply to 
 the teaching ministration of the N. T. (not to the Christian religion, 
 as Emmerling and Flatt, following older commentators, think), in 
 so far, namely, as that ministration is not abolished, but continues 
 on to the Parousia (whereupon its glory sets in). Fritzsche 
 is of opinion that the διακονία of Moses is τὸ καταργούμενον 
 for the reason: “quod ejus fulgor muneris Christiani gloria 
 superatur, et ita sane καταργεῖται, nullus redditur.” But in that 
 case the subject of καταργεῖται would in fact be the splendour, 
 not the διακονία itself. This applies at the same time in opposi- 
 tion to Billroth, who refers τὸ καταργ. to the lustre of Moses’ 
 office on each occasion soon disappearing, which is impossible on 
 account of διὰ δόξης. ---- διὰ δόξης] sc. ἐστι. διά expresses the 
 situation, condition, and so is ἃ circumlocution for the adjective. 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phileb. p. 192; Bernhardy, p. 235; Fritzsche, 
 ad Rom. 1. p. 138. ἐν δόξῃ (ver. 7) is not different in sense ; 
 but the supposition of LEstius, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, 
 
 1 Not to the Mosaic religion in general, which ceases through Christ (Theodoret, 
 
 Theophylact, and many others, including Emmerling and Flatt),—which is quite at 
 variance with the context. See vv. 7-10. 
 
CHAP. III. 12, 18. 205 
 
 Neander, Hofmann, that διά indicates only what is transient, and 
 ἐν what is abiding, is mere fancy. Paul is fond of varying the 
 prepositions in designating the same relation. Comp. Rom. iii. 30, 
 v. 10, xv. 2; Gal. ii, 16; Philem. 5. Comp. also Kiihner, II. 
 Do LY. 
 
 Ver. 12. "Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτ. ἐλπ.] οὖν, accordingly, namely, 
 after what has just been said πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ μένον ἐν δόξῃ, sc. 
 ἐστι. Since the ἐλπίς has its object necessarily in the future, 
 and not yet in the present (Rom. viii. 24), τοιαύτη ἐλπίς cannot 
 denote the consciousness of the abiding glory of his office, which 
 Paul possesses (Hofmann; comp. Erasmus and others), but it 
 must be the apostle’s great hope——a hope based on the future 
 of the Messiah’s kingdom—that the ministry of the gospel would 
 not fail at the Parousia of its glory far surpassing the δόξα of the 
 ministry of Moses. This will be the glorious, superabundant 
 reward of the labour of Christ’s δοῦλοι, as promised by their 
 Master (Luke xxii. 29 ff.; John xiv. 3; Matt. xxv. 14 ff, αἱ). 
 Comp. 1 Cor; ai. 14, iv..5; 2 Cor: 1 14; Phil. i 16; 1 Thess. 
 i. 19 It is the ἄφθαρτος στέφανος of the faithful labour in 
 mopening,, 1. Cor ix. 25 ff.; .2) Tim. ive 8; 1~Petsv.; 4-2 The 
 reference to the contents of the teaching (Emmerling : “ tale munus 
 quum habeam tantorum honorum spem ostendens”), to which 
 tiickert is also inclined, is opposed to the words used and to the 
 context. As little are we to assume, with Neander, an equaliza- 
 tion of the ἐλπίς with the πεποίθησις, ver. 4, and a linking on of 
 the thought to ver. 4.— πολλῇ παῤῥησίᾳ χρώμ.] denotes the frank 
 unreservedness and openness towards those with whom the teacher 
 has to do: μετ᾽ ἐλευθερίας πανταχοῦ φθεγγόμεθα, οὐδὲν ἀποκρυπ- 
 τόμενοι, οὐδὲν ὑποστελλόμενοι, οὐδὲν ὑφορώμενοι, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς 
 λέγοντες, Chrysostom. The evidentia (Beza, comp. Mosheim) or 
 perspicuitas (Castalio) belongs to this, but does not exhaust the 
 idea. On χρώμ. παῤῥησ., comp. Plato, Hp. 8, p. 354 A; Phaedr. 
 p. 240 E; χρῶμ. is utimur, not wtamur (Erasmus). 
 
 Ver. 13. A negative amplification of the πολλῇ παῤῥησίᾳ 
 χρώμεθα by comparison with the opposite conduct of Moses. — 
 καὶ οὐ] sc. τίθεμεν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ TO πρόσωπον ἡμῶν, according to 
 the Greek way of putting the verb, which is common to the 
 principal and subordinate clause, in the subordinate clause, and 
 adapting it to the subject of that clause. See Heindorf, ad Gory. 
 
200 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 p. 592 A; Winer, p. 542 [E. T. 728]; Kiihner, IT. p.609. The 
 meaning of the allegorical language is: “and we do not go to work 
 veiling ourselves (dissembling), as Moses did, veiling his countenance, 
 that the Israelites might not,’ ete. See Ex. xxxiv. 33-35. — πρὸς 
 TO μὴ ἀτενίσαι K.T.r.] the purpose, which Moses had in veiling 
 his radiant face while he spoke to the people: the people were 
 not (as they would otherwise have done) to fix their gaze on the 
 τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου (see below). In order to free Moses 
 . from a dissimulation, Wolf explained it: “ut indicaretur eos non 
 posse intueri,” which, however, is not conveyed in the words, and 
 is not to be supported by Luke xviii. 1; and Schulz and Flatt, 
 following older commentators, explain that πρὸς «.7.A. means so 
 that, etc., which, however, is wrong both as to the usage of the 
 words (comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. v. 28, p. 231) and as to the 
 connection of ideas, since the πολλῇ παῤῥ. yp. of ver. 12 pre- 
 supposes the dntentional character of the opposite procedure. 
 The latter remark applies also in opposition to de Wette (comp. 
 before him, Beza and Calvin), who takes πρὸς «.7.A. not of the 
 intention, but of the divine aim, according to the well-known 
 Biblical teleolory, in which the result is regarded as aimed at 
 by God, Isa. vi. 9; Matt. xiii. 11 ff.; Luke viii.10. In this way 
 a conscious concealment on the part of Moses is removed; but 
 without sufficient ground, since that concealment must not have 
 been regarded by Paul as immoral (“ fraudulenter,’ Fritzsche), 
 and with his reverence for the holy lawgiver and prophet cannot 
 have been so regarded, but rather, in keeping with the preparatory 
 destination of the Mosaic system, as a pacdagogic measure which 
 Moses adopted according to God’s command, but the purpose 
 of which falls away with the emergence of that which is abiding, 
 Δ.6. of the ministry of the gospel (Gal. iv. 1ff.). Finally, the 
 argument of usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. 
 by the telic πρὸς τό and infinitive there is never expressed the 
 objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is denoted by wa and 
 ὅπως), but always the subjective purpose, which one has in an 
 action (Matt. v. 28, vi. 1, xiii. 30, xxiii. 5; Mark xiii. 22; Eph. 
 vi. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. 111. 8; Jas. iii. 3, Elzevir; also 
 Matt. xxvi. 12). The point of comparison is the “ tecte agere” 
 (Fritzsche), which was done by Moses with the purpose specified 
 through the veiling of his face (not through the figures in which 
 
CITAP. IIL 13. 207 
 
 he veiled the truth, as de Wette, following Mosheim, imports), but 
 is not done by the teachers of the gospel, since they go to work 
 in their ministry freely and frankly (ver. 12). The context 
 furnishes nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds 
 in the «. οὐ καθαπ. M. κι As little are we to suppose arbi- 
 trarily, with Klopper, that Paul had in mind not so much Moses 
 himself as his successors (7), the Judaists.— eis τὸ τέλος τοῦ 
 Katapy.] τὸ τέλος, by its very connection with τοῦ καταργ., is 
 fixed to the meaning end, and not final aim (Osiander) or com- 
 pletion ; and τοῦ καταργ. must be the same as was meant by 
 TO καταργούμενον in the application intended by Paul of the 
 general proposition in ver. 11. Consequently it cannot be mas- 
 culine (Luther, Vatablus; even Riickert is not disinclined to this 
 view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion, the end of which is 
 Christ (Rom. x. 4), as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 Theophylact, most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, 
 against which, however, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deut. xviii. 
 15), according to the Messianic interpretation then universal, 
 would militate; but it must be the ministry of Moses, which is 
 passing away, see on ver. 11. The Israelites were not intended, 
 in Paul’s opinion, at that time to contemplate the end of this 
 ministry, which was to cease through the ministry of the gospel ; 
 therefore Moses veiled his face.? By what means (according to 
 the apostle’s view), if Moses had not veiled himself, they would 
 have seen the end of his office, is apparent from ver. 7, namely, by 
 the disappearance of the splendour, the departure of which would 
 
 1 “ΤΡ the apostle had found his calling only in publishing to others traditional 
 doctrines, he would have thought, like Moses, that he must carefully distinguish 
 between what he was and what he had to teach, that he must keep his person in 
 subordination to his task, in order not. . . to injure the effect of what he taught.” 
 
 ? So Isenberg in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 240 ff., who, regarding σοῦ xarapy. 
 as the genitive of apposition, brings out the sense: “ the transitory office of the 
 O. T. as the completion, after which no other institution could be expected.” Thus 
 there is ascribed to Moses exactly the opposite of what the simple words say ; Paul 
 would have written something like εἰς 7d καταργούμενον ὡς τὸ τέλειον. The genitive 
 of apposition would here give the meaningless thought: ‘‘ the end, which is the 
 transitory.” 
 
 3 Paul deviates, therefore, from the representation of Ex. xxxiv. in not abiding 
 simply by the statement, that Moses veiled his face because the eyes of the Israelites 
 could not endure the radiance—but, in connection with his typological way of 
 regarding the fact, apprehends it in the sense that Moses was induced to veil himself by 
 the subjective motive of keeping out of the people’s sight the end of his ministry of law. 
 
208 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE ΟΟΕΙΝΤΗΙΑΝΞ. 
 
 have typically presented to them the termination of the διακονία 
 of Moses.' But not on this account are we to explain (with 
 the scholiast in Matthaei and others, including Stolz, Billroth, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann) τὸ xatapy. of the 
 transient splendour itself (ver. 7), which is forbidden by ver. 11, 
 and would be a confusion of the type and antitype. 
 
 Vy. 14-18. Sad contrast which the procedure of the preachers 
 of the gospel indicated in vv. 12, 13—-so wholly different from 
 the procedure of Moses—meets with in the hardening of Israel. 
 How far off are they to this day from divine freedom! how 
 altogether different, however (ver. 18), it is with us Christians! 
 
 Ver. 14. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπωρώθη x«.7.r.] This ἀλλά does not refer to 
 the thought implied in the previous πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι κ.τ.λ., 
 that the Jews did not contemplate the end of the Mosaic ministry, 
 for this was made impossible to them, in fact, by Moses himself 
 and according to his own intention. What Billroth imports into 
 ἀλλά is therefore also unsuitable: “but instead there were hardened,” 
 ete. Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Hofmann (comp. also Olshausen) 
 take the connection rightly, that over against the utterance treating 
 of the holders of the apostolic office, ver. 12 f., stands that which 
 speaks of Israel. Accordingly ἀλλά is at, nevertheless. — émapaOn} 
 Paul does not here say by whom this certainly passive (in oppo- 
 sition to Theodoret) hardness of heart® has been caused. It may 
 be conceived as produced by God (Rom. xi. ff, comp. John xii. 39 f. ; 
 Acts xxviii. 26) just as well as by the devil (iv. 4, comp. Matt. 
 xiii. 19), these two ways of regarding it not being contradictory 
 
 1 Τὸ might be objected to our whole explanation, that, if Moses had not veiled 
 himself, the people would still not have read the end of the Mosaic ministry from 
 the departing splendour (Billroth), nay, that Moses himself did not find anything 
 of the kind in it. But we have not here a supplement of the account in Ex. xxxiv. 
 (Krummel), but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition (W717) of the circumstances, which 
 as such is withdrawn from historical criticism, but nevertheless is in accordance 
 with the striking aim which the apostle has in view. This aim was to make the 
 παῤῥησία of the stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspicuous by contrast, like the 
 light by shadow. 
 
 * Who explains it as if not εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργ., but simply εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον, 
 were used. Ewald conceives the disappearance of the splendour as ensuing gradually 
 during the age, and finally at the death of Moses, as Grotius also on ver. 7 repre- 
 sents It. 
 
 3 πωροῦσθαι means to be made hard (from the substantive rapes), not to be blinded, 
 as Schleusner (Z'hes. IV. p. 541) and others, following the Fathers, and also Hofmann 
 would take it, since there is no trace at all of the use among the Greeks of an adjective 
 
CHAP. III. 14. 209 
 
 to each other. The aorist denotes the hardness of heart which 
 set in later after their intercourse with Moses, but in connection 
 with the insight then rendered impossible to them. Πεπώρωται 
 would have meant something else. On νοήματα, thoughts, the 
 products of the νοῦς, of the exercise of the theoretic and practical 
 reason, which, through the hardness of heart, become inaccessible 
 to, and insusceptible of, the perception of the divine, comp. on 
 Phil. iv. 7.— ἄχρι yap «.7..] A proof, in accordance with expe- 
 rience, for what was just said ἐπωρώθη «.7... — τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα 
 ἐπὶ «.7.r.] The same veil is, of course, to be understood, not of 
 material identity, but symbolically of the likeness of the spiritual 
 hindrance. Without figure the meaning is: the same incapacity 
 Sor recognising the end of the Mosaic ministry, which was produced 
 among them then by the veil of Moses, remains with them to this 
 day when the Old Covenant is read.—éri τῇ ἀναγνώσει] Paul 
 conceives the public reading of the O. T. every Sabbath (Acts 
 xv. 21) as overlaid with the veil hindering knowledge ; still we 
 need not assume, with Wolf, Michaelis, Semler, and others, a 
 reference to the ΓΟ (see Lakemacher, Odss. III. p. 209 ff.) with 
 which the Jews veiled themselves at the reading of the law and 
 at prayer, because otherwise Paul must have made the veil fall 
 on the countenances of the Jews, and not on the public reading. 
 But he has conceived to himself the matter so, that the public read- 
 ing takes place under the veil enwrapping this act, so that in this 
 reading the Jews remain shut out from insight into the new 
 covenant. Vv. 13 and 15 preclude us from abandoning the local 
 signification of ἐπί, on. The explanation, “when there is public 
 reading” (Hofmann), confuses the meaning with the sensuous, 
 but in relation to the context appropriate, form of presenting it. 
 - τῆς Tar. διαθήκης] For when the law of Moses is publicly read, 
 
 σωρός, blind, which the Etymol. Gud. and Suidas quote. The Greeks have sijpos, 
 blindness, and σπήρος, blind, but not rapes. Andif the LXX. translate 75, Job 
 
 vii. 7, by πωροῦσθαι, and Zech. xi. 17 by ἐκτυφλοῦσθαι (to which Hofmann makes 
 appeal), this proves nothing in favour of that explanation of rwpotcéa:, since the 
 LXX. very often, with exegetical freedom, render the same word differently according 
 to the context. We may add that Hofmann irrelevantly compares Lucian, Amor. 
 46, where xzpoi does not mean blind at all, but has its fundamental meaning maimed. 
 The passage in Lucian means: “ 7'o whom are the glances of the eyes so blind (τυφλοί), 
 and the thoughts of the understanding so lame (xnpoi)?” Here πηροί is a figurative 
 expression for weakness. 
 
 2 COR, 11, 0 
 
210 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 there is read the old covenant (comp. on ver. 6) therein set forth. 
 This is the contents of the public reading. Comp. ver. 15: ἀναγινώ- 
 oxetat Μωῦσῆς. Ἣ tad. διαθ. does not mean the books of the 
 O. T., as is here usually supposed. — μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, ὅτι ἐν X. 
 καταργεῖται] These words in themselves admit of two explana- 
 tions; the first refers the participle and καταργεῖται to τὸ κάλυμμα, 
 and takes ὅτε in the sense of because, as specifying the ground of 
 the μὴ ἀνακαλ. (so most of the older expositors, and recently 
 Fritzsche, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, 
 Hofmann, comp. Ewald): without being uncovered, because wt is 
 annihilated in Christ (the veil), but Christ is not preached 
 to them. On ἀνακαλύπτειν κάλυμμα, to uncover a veil, comp. 
 LXX. Deut. xxii. 30: οὐκ ἀνακαλύψαι συγκάλυμμα τοῦ πατρός. 
 But against this view (a) καταργεῖται seems decisive, which, 
 according to the context (see vv. 11, 13), cannot apply to the 
 taking away of the veil, but only to the abolition of the Mosaic 
 ministry, or according to the connection of ver. 14, to the abolition 
 of the old covenant, which is the object of the Mosaic ministry 
 (comp. also Rom. 111. 31; Eph. 1. 15); and hence Paul, ver. 16, 
 does not use καταργεῖται of the removal of the veil, but περιαυ- 
 ρεῖται, which signifies the same thing as ἀνακαλύπτεται. (Ὁ) If 
 μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον were to refer to τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα, then 
 κάλυμμα in the contrast introduced by ἀλλά in ver. 15 would 
 necessarily be the same veil, of which μὴ ἀνακαλύπε. would be 
 here said, and Paul must therefore at ver. 15 have written to 
 κάλυμμα with the article. Hence the second method of explana- 
 tion’ is to be preferred, according to which the participle is taken 
 absolutely, and ὅτε as that, while καταργεῖται is referred to the 
 mar. διαθήκη, thus: while it is not disclosed (unveiled), it remains 
 hidden from the Jews, that in Christ the old covenant ts done away, 
 that in Christ—in His appearance and in His work—the abolition 
 
 1 So among the older commentators Castalio, and recently Kypke, Flatt, Osiander, 
 Maier; comp. also Krummel, who, however, mentally supplies ‘‘ by all teachers of 
 the law.” 
 
 ? Very naturally and suitably Paul chose the word ἀνακαλ., not ἀποκαλ. (in oppo- 
 sition to de Wette’s objection), since he has to do with the conception of a xaaAdupa 
 that remains. The veil remains, since it is not unveiled that, etc. In this way 
 the explanatory expression is quite in keeping with the figure itself. Besides, ἐνα- 
 καλύπτειν Was common enough in the sense of to make manifest, to make known 
 (Tob. xii. 7, 11; Polyb. iv. 85. 6). 
 
CHAP. III. 15. 211 
 
 of the Old Covenant takes place (Rom. x. 4; Col. ii. 14), The 
 whole is thus a more precise practical definition of the previous 
 TO αὐτὸ κάλυμμα... μένει. This absolute appositional use of the 
 neuter participle (to be regarded as accusative, though viewed by 
 Hermann and others as nominative) is a current Greek idiom in 
 impersonal phrases. See Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 769 ; Bernhardy, 
 p- 471; Kriiger, ὃ lvi. 9. 5; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 176. 
 Hence Riickert is without reason in referring μὴ ἀνακαλύπτ. to 
 τὸ κάλυμμα, and yet understanding ὅτι as that and καταργεῖται of 
 the Old Covenant, whereby the unwarranted importation of a 
 thought becomes necessary, namely, to this effect: “the same 
 veil rests on the reading of the O. T. and is not uplifted, so 
 that it (the people) might perceive that it (the O. T.) has its end 
 in Christ.” Luther's translation (comp. Erasmus, Beza, and 
 Heumann) follows the reading 6,7 (Elzevir), which Scholz also 
 has again taken up. This 6,71 would have to be explained as 
 guippe quod (velamen), and would give from the natwre of the 
 veil (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 11. 1. 30) the information why it 
 remains unlifted,—an interpretation, however, which would only 
 be compatible with the first view given above, and even with that 
 would be unnecessary. — καταργεῖται] present ; for the fact, that 
 in Christ the Old Covenant is abolished, is laid down in theoretical 
 form as an article of faith, as a truth which remains veiled from 
 the Jews so long as they are not converted to Christ (ver. 16). 
 Ver. 15. >AXAX’] opposite of the μὴ dvaxanr., ὅτι ἐν X. καταργ., 
 but no longer connected with γάρ, ver. 14 (Hofmann), since the 
 apostle does not again mean the particular veil (that of Moses) 
 to which the confirmatory clause introduced with γάρ, ver. 14, 
 referred. It is not disclosed, that, ete. ; till to-day, on the contrary, 
 there lies a veil, etc.; till to-day, whenever (ἄν, in whatsoever case) 
 Moses is publicly read, their insight (comp. previously ἐπω- 
 ρώθη, etc.) is hindered and prevented. The figurative expression 
 does not again represent the veil of Moses, for otherwise τὸ κάλυμμα 
 must necessarily (in opposition to Hofmann) have been used, but 
 generally a veil, and that one placed over (ἐπί with acc.) the heart 
 (here regarded as the centre of the practical intelligence, comp. 
 iv. 6 ; Rom.i. 21; and see on Eph. i. 18; Krumm, de not. psych. P. 
 p. 50; Delitzsch, Psychol. Ὁ. 248 f.; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 460) 
 of the hearers. The impersonal μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμ. of ver. 14 in- 
 
212 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 duced the apostle very naturally and with logical suitableness, not 
 to use again in the contrast of ver. 15, with its emphatic stress 
 laid on the point ἕως σήμερον, that historical image of the veil of 
 Moses, but to express the conception generally of a veil hinder- 
 ing perception (lying on the heart). The same thing, therefore, 
 is expressed in two forms of one figure; the first form gives the 
 figure historically (the veil of Moses on the ἀνάγνωσις τ. Tan. 
 61a8.) ; the second form, apart from that historical reference, gives 
 it as moulded by the apostle’s own vivid imagination (a veil 
 upon the heart at the public reading). Fritzsche (comp. Al. Morus 
 in Wolf) assumes that Paul imagines to himself ¢wo veils, one on 
 the public reading of the Old Covenant, the other on the hearers’ 
 own hearts, by which he wishes to mark the high degree of their 
 inaptitude for perceiving. But, in order to be understood, and 
 in keeping with a state of things so peculiar, he must have brought 
 this out definitely and emphatically, and have at least written in 
 ver. 15: "AAN ... Μωὺῦσῆς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κάλυμμα 
 κεῖται. ---- ἡνίκα] at the hour when, quando, after Hom. Od. xxii. 198 
 frequent in the classic writers, but in the N. T. only here and at 
 ver. 16. Often used in the Apocrypha and the LXX. also at Ex. 
 xxxiv. 34; and perhaps the word was suggested by the recollec- 
 tion of this passage.—On ἀναγινώσκ. Moic. comp. Acts xy. 21. 
 Ver. 16. When, however, it shall have turned to the Lord, shall 
 have come to believe on Christ, the veil, which lies on their heart 
 (ver. 15), is taken away ; 1.0., when Moses is read before them, it 
 will no longer remain unperceived by them that the Old Covenant 
 ceases in Christ. The subject to ἐπιστρέψῃ is ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν, 
 ver. 15 (Luther in the gloss, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and several 
 others, including Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann), not ὁ 
 ᾿Ισραήλ (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, 
 and many others, including Osiander), nor Mwtojs (Calvin, 
 Estius’), nor the general ris (Origen, Storr, Flatt)——The common 
 supposition, that in ver. 16 there is an allegorical reference to 
 Moses, who, returning from the people to God, conversed unveiled 
 
 1 Calvin thinks that Moses is here tantamount in meaning to the law, and that the 
 sense is: When the law is referred to Christ, when Christ is sought in the law by the 
 Jews, then will the truth dawn upon them. Estius, who refers κύριον to God, says: 
 ** Moses conversus ad Dominum atque retectam habens faciem, typum gessit populi 
 Christiani ad Deum conversi et revelata cordis facie salutis mysteria contemplantis.” 
 
ώ 
 
 CHAP. III. 17. PA lS: 
 
 with God (Ex. xxxiv. 34), is in itself probable from the context, and 
 is confirmed even by the choice of the words (Ex. l.c.: ἡνίκα δ᾽ 
 ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο M. ἔναντι κυρίου... περιῃρεῖτο TO κάλυμμα), 
 though the same veil with which Moses was veiled (τὸ αὐτὸ Kan, 
 ver. 14) is no longer spoken of, but a veil on the hearts of the Jews. 
 —jvixa with ἄν and the subjunctive aorist' denotes: then, when it 
 shall have turned (Luther wrongly : when it twrned itself), and that 
 as something conceived, thought of, not as an unconditioned fact. 
 The πρὸς κύριον, however, does not affirm: to God, who is now 
 revealed in the Lord (Hofmann), but, in simple accordance with 
 ἐν Χριστῷ of ver. 15: to Christ. The conversion of Israel which 
 Paul has in view is, now that it is wholly relegated to the expe- 
 rience of the future, the conversion as a whole, Rom. xi. 25. It 
 was, however, obvious of itself that what is affirmed finds its 
 application to all individual cases which had already occurred 
 and were still to be expected. — περίαιρ. has the emphasis, both 
 of its important position at the head of the clause (removed is the 
 veil) and of the future realized as present. The passive is all 
 the more to be retained, seeing that the subject of ἐπέστρ. is the 
 heart ; the sense of self-liberation (Hofmann) may not be imported 
 on account of Ex. xxxiv. 34. The conversion and deliverance of 
 Israel is God’s work. See ver. 17 and Rom. xi. 26 ἢ The com- 
 pound corresponds to the conception of the veil covering the heart 
 round about. Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 288 E: δέρματα σωμάτων 
 mepsaipovoa, Dem. 125, 26: περιεῖλε τὰ τείχη, 802, 5: περιῃ- 
 ρηται τοὺς στεφάνους, Judith x. 3: τὸν σάκκον, Bay. iv. 34, vi. 
 58; Acts xxvii. 40. 
 
 Ver, 17. Remark giving information regarding what is asserted 
 in ver. 16.— δέ, [the German] aber, appends not something of con- 
 trast, 1.6. to Moses, who is the letter (Hofmann), but a clause eluci- 
 dating what was just said, περίαιρ. τὸ κάλ.,2 equivalent to namely. 
 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 845; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 167. 
 Riickert (comp. de Wette) is of a different opinion, holding that 
 there is here a continued chain of reasoning, so that Paul in wv. 
 
 1 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 773. 
 
 3 Bengel aptly says: ‘‘ Particula autem ostendit, hoc versn declarari praecedentem. 
 Conversio fit ad Dominum ut spiritum.” Theodoret rightly furnishes the definition 
 of the δέ as making the transition to an explanation by the intermediate question : is 
 δὲ οὗτος 7 pos ὃν δὲῖ ἀποβλέψαι; 
 
214 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 16,17 means to say: “ When the people of Israel shall have 
 turned to the Lord, then will the κάλυμμα be taken from it; and 
 when this shall have happened, it will also attain the freedom 
 (from the yoke of the law) which is at present wanting to it.” 
 But, because in that case the ἐλευθερία would be a more important 
 point than the taking away of the veil, ver. 18 must have referred 
 back not to the latter, but to the former. Seeing, however, that 
 ver. 18 refers back to the taking away of the veil, it is clear that 
 ver. 17 is only an accessory sentence, which is intended to remove 
 every doubt regarding the περιαιρεῖται TO κάλυμμα. Besides, if 
 Riickert were right, Paul would have continued his discourse 
 illogically ; the logical continuation would have been, ver. 17: 
 οὗ δὲ περιαιρεῖται TO κάλυμμα, TO πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐστίν" οὗ δὲ TO TY. 
 κυρ. κ.τ.Δ. --- ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν] ὁ κύριος is subject, not 
 (as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, 
 Schulz held, partly in the interest of opposition to Arianism.) 
 predicate, which would be possible in itself, but cannot be from 
 the connection with ver. 16.2 The words, however, cannot mean: 
 Dominus significat Spiritum (Wetstein), because previously the 
 conversion to Christ, to the actual personal Christ, was spoken οἵ; 
 they can only mean: the Lord, however, is the Spirit, 1.6. the Lord, 
 however, to whom the heart is converted (note the article) is not 
 different from the (Holy) Spirit, who is received, namely, in con- 
 version, and (see what follows) is the divine life-power that 
 makes free. That this was meant not of hypostatical identity, but 
 according to the dynamical oeconomic point of view, that the fel- 
 lowship of Christ, into which we enter through conversion, is the 
 fellowship of the Holy Spirit, was obvious of itself to the believ- 
 ing consciousness of the readers, and is also put beyond doubt by 
 the following τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου. And Christ is the Spirit in so 
 far as at conversion, and generally in the whole arrangements of 
 salvation, He communicates Himself in the Holy Spirit, and this 
 Spirit is His Spirtt, the living principle of the influence and indwell- 
 
 1 There is implied, namely, in ver. 17 a syllogism, of which the major premiss is : 
 οὗ δὲ πὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία, ‘‘ where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ;” 
 the minor premiss is: ‘this Spirit he who is converted to the Lord has, because the 
 Lord is the Spirit ;” the conclusion : “ consequently that κάλυμμα can no longer have 
 a place with the converted, but only freedom.” 
 
 2 For the most complete, historical, and critical conspectus of the many different 
 interpretations of this passage, see Krummel, p. 58 ff. 
 
CHAP. III. 17. 215 
 
 ing of Christ,—certainly the living ground of life in the church, 
 and the spirit of its life (Hofmann), but as such just the Holy 
 Spirit, in whom the Lord reveals Himself as present and savingly 
 active. The same thought is contained in Rom. viii. 9-11, as is 
 clear especially from vv. 10, 11, where Χριστός and τὸ πνεῦμα 
 τοῦ ἐγείραντος ᾿Ιησοῦν and πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (ver. 9) appear to be 
 identical as the indwelling principle of the Christian being and 
 life, so that there must necessarily lie at the bottom of it the idea: 
 Χριστὸς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστι. Comp. Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6, Phil. i 19, 
 Acts xx. 28, along with Eph. iv. 11. As respects His im- 
 manence, therefore, in His people, Christ is the Spirit. Comp. 
 also Krummel, 1.6. p. 97, who rightly remarks that, if Christ calls 
 Himself the light, the way, the truth, etc., all this is included 
 in the proposition: “the Lord is the Spirit.” Fritzsche, Déssert. 
 I. p. 42, takes it: Dominus est ita Sp. St. perfusus, ut totus quasi 
 τὸ πνεῦμα sit. So also Riickert, who nevertheless (following 
 Erasmus and Beza) believes it necessary to explain the article 
 before πνεῦμα by retrospective reference to vv. 6, 8." But in 
 that case the whole expression would be reduced to a mere quasi, 
 with which the further inference οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου would 
 not be logically in accord ; besides, according to analogy of Scrip- 
 ture elsewhere, it cannot be said of the exalted Christ (and yet τέ 
 is He that is meant), “Spiritu sancto perfusus est,’ or “ Spiritu 
 gaudet divino,’ an expression which can only belong to Christ in 
 His earthly state (Luke i 35; Mark i. 10; Actsi 2, x. 38); 
 whereas the glorified Christ is the sender of the Spirit, the pos- 
 sessor and disposer (comp. also Rev. 111, 1, iv. 5, v. 6), and there- 
 with Lord of the Spirit, ver. 18. The weakened interpretation : 
 “ Christ, however, imparts the Spirit” (Piscator, L. Cappellus, Scul- 
 tetus, and others, including Emmerling and Flatt), is at variance 
 
 1 Quite erroneously, since no reader could hit on this retrospective reference, and 
 also the following τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου is said without any such reference. Paul, if he 
 wished to express himself so as to be surely intelligible, could not do otherwise than put 
 the article ; for, if he had written ὁ δὲ κύριος πνεῦμα ἔστι, he might have given rise to 
 quite another understanding than he wished to express, namely: the Lord is spirit, a 
 spiritual being, as John iv. 24, πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός,---ἃ possible misinterpretation, which is 
 rejected already by Chrysostom. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 45. We may add that τὸ πνεῦμα 
 is to be explained simply according to hallowed usage of the Holy Spirit, not, as 
 Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. p. 167) unreasonably presses the article, ‘‘ the whole full 
 πνεῦμα. So also Ernesti, Uspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 222. 
 
216 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 with the words, and is not to be supported by passages like John 
 xiv. 6, since in these the predicates are not concretes but abstracts. 
 In keeping with the view and the expression in the present pas- 
 sage are those Johannine passages in which Christ promises the com- 
 munication of the Spirit to the disciples as His own return (John 
 xiv. 18, a/.). Others have departed from the simple sense of the 
 words “Christ is the Spirit,” either by importing into τὸ πνεῦμα 
 another meaning than that of the Holy Spirit, or by not taking 
 ὁ κύριος to signify the personal Christ. The former course is 
 inadmissible, partly on account of the following οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα 
 κυρίου, partly because the absolute τὸ πνεῦμα admits of no other 
 meaning whatever than the habitual one; the Jatter is made im- 
 possible by ver. 16. Among those adhering to the former view 
 are Morus: “Quum Dominum dico, intelligo lam divinitus datam 
 religionis scientiam;” Erasmus and Calvin: “that τὸ πνεῦμα 
 is the spirit of the law, which only becomes viva et vivifica, si a 
 Christo inspiretur, whereby the spirit comes to the body ; also 
 Olshausen: “ the Lord now is just the Spirit, of which there was 
 mention above” (ver. 6); by this is to be understood the spiritual 
 institute, the economy of the Spirit; Christ, namely, fills His 
 church with Himself; hence it is itself Christ. Comp. Ewald, 
 according to whom Christ is designated, in contrast to the letter 
 and compulsion of law, as the Spirit absolutely (just as God is, 
 John iv. 24). Similarly Neander. To this class belongs also the 
 interpretation of Baur, which, in spite of the article in τὸ πνεῦμα, 
 amounts to this, that Christ in His substantial existence is spirit, 
 ie. an immaterial substance composed of light ;* comp. his neut. 
 Theol. p. 187 f. See, on the contrary, Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 
 36 f.; Krummel, 16. p. 79 ff. Among the adherents of the 
 second mode of interpretation are Vorstius, Mosheim, Bolten: 
 “ 6 κύριος is the doctrine of Jesus ;” also Billroth, who recognises as 
 its meaning: “in the kingdom of the Lord the Spirit rules; the 
 essence of Christianity is the Spirit of the Lord, which He confers 
 on His own.” For many other erroneous interpretations (among 
 which is included that of Estius, Calovius, and others, who refer 
 
 1 Weiss also, bibl. Theol. p. 308, explains it to the effect, that Christ in His resur- 
 rection received a pneumatic body composed of light, and therefore became entirely 
 “πνεῦμα (1 Cor. xv. 45). But the article is against thisalso. Besides, the body of Christ 
 in His resurrection was not yet the body of light, which it is in heaven (Phil. 111, 21), 
 
CHAP. III. 18. 217 
 
 ὁ κύριος to God, and so explain the words of the divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit), see Pole and Wolf. — ἐλευθερία] spiritual freedom 
 in general, without special limitation. To have a veil on the heart 
 (see ver. 15), and to be spiritually free, are opposite; hence the state- 
 ment περιαιρεῖται TO κάλυμμα, ver. 16, obtains elucidation by our 
 ἐλευθερία. The veil on the heart hinders the spiritual activity, 
 and makes it fettered; where, therefore, there is freedom, the veil 
 must be away; but freedom must have its seat, where the Spirit 
 of the Lord is, which Spirit carries on and governs all the thinking 
 and willing, and removes all barriers external to its sway. 
 That Paul has regard (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche) 
 to the conception that the veil is an outward sign of subjection 
 (1 Cor. xi. 10), is to be denied all the more, seeing that here 
 what is spoken of is not a covering of the head (which would be 
 the sign of a foreign ἐξουσία), as 1 Cor. 1.6.,ϑὄ but a veiling of the 
 heart, ver. 15. 
 
 Ver. 18. The ἐλευθερία just mentioned is now further con- 
 Jirmed on an appeal to experience as in triumph, by setting forth 
 the (free, unrestricted) relation of all Christians to the glory of 
 Christ. The δέ is the simple μεταβατικόν, and forms the transi- 
 tion from the thing (ἐλευθερία) to the persons, in whom the thing 
 presents itself in definite form. For the freedom of him who 
 has the Spirit of the Lord forms the contents of ver. 18, and not 
 simply the thought: “ we, however, bear this Spirit of the Lord 
 in us.”? Flatt and Riickert are quite arbitrary in attaching it 
 to ver. 14.— ἡμεῖς] refers to the Christians in general, as the 
 connection, the added πάντες, and what is affirmed of ἡμεῖς, 
 clearly prove. Erasmus, Cajetanus, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, 
 Nosselt, Stolz, Rosenmiiller are wrong in thinking that it refers 
 merely to the apostles and teachers.— The emphasis is not on 
 πάντες (in which Theodoret, Theophylact, Bengel find a contrast 
 to the one Moses), but on ἡμεῖς, in contrast to the Jews, “ qui 
 fidei carent oculis,” Erasmus. — ἀνάκεκαλ. προσώπῳ] with unveiled 
 countenance; for through our conversion to Christ our formerly 
 confined and fettered spiritual intuition (knowledge) became free 
 
 1 Grotius understands it as Libertas a vitiis ; while Riickert, de Wette, and others, 
 after Chrysostom, make it the freedom from the law of Moses. According to Eras- 
 mus, Paraphr., it is free virtue and love, 
 
 2 So Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 124 f. 
 
218 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 and unconfined, ver. 16. After vv. 15, 16 we should expect dvaxe- 
 καλυμμένῃ καρδίᾳ ; but Paul changes the figure, because he wishes 
 here to represent the persons not as heaving (as in ver. 15) but 
 as seeing, and therewith his conception has manifestly returned 
 to the history of Moses, who appeared before God with the veil 
 removed, Ex. xxxiv. 34. Next to the subject ἡμεῖς, moreover, 
 the emphasis lies on ἀνακεκαλ. προσώπῳ: “ But we all, with 
 unveiled countenance beholding the glory of the Lord in the mirror, 
 become transformed to the same glory.” For if the beholding of 
 the glory presented in the mirror should take place with covered 
 face, the reflection of this glory (“ speculi autem est lumen reper- 
 cutere,” Emmerling) could not operate on the beholders to render 
 them glorious, as, indeed, also in the case of Moses it was the 
 unveiled countenance that received the radiation of the divine glory. 
 — τὴν δόξαν κυρίου] said quite without limit of the whole glory 
 of the exalted Christ. It is the divine, in so far as Christ is the 
 bearer and reflection of the divine glory (Col. i. 15, ii, 9; John 
 xvi. 5; Heb.i. 3); but κυρίου does not (in opposition to Calvin 
 and Estius) apply to God, on account of vv. 16, 17.----κατοπτριζό- 
 μενοι] beholding in the mirror. For we behold the glory of 
 Christ in the mirror, inasmuch as we see not immediately its 
 objective reality, which will only be the case in the future king- 
 dom of God (John xvii. 24; 1 John iii. 2; Col. in. 3 ἢ; Rom. 
 viii. 17 f.), but only {5 representation in the gospel ; for the gospel 
 is TO evaryy. τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, iv. 4, consequently, as it were, 
 the mirror, in which the glory of Christ gives itself to be seen 
 and shines in its very image to the eye of faith; hence the 
 believing heart (Osiander), which is rather the organ of beholding, 
 cannot be conceived as the mirror. Hunnius aptly remarks that 
 Paul is saying, “nos non ad modum Judaeorum caecutire, sed 
 retecta facie gloriam Domini in evangelii speculo relucentem intueri.” 
 
 1 They see Him therefore as the σύνθρονος of the Father (Acts viii. 56), as the head 
 of the church, as the possessor and bestower of the whole divine fulness of grace, as 
 the future judge of the world, as the conqueror of all hostile powers, as the interces- 
 sor for His own, in short, as the wearer of the whole majesty which belongs to His 
 kingly office. Usually +. δόξαν κυρ. is taken as including in its reference the state of 
 humiliation (see especially Calovius, de Wette, Osiander), the moral elevation, the 
 grace and truth (John i. 14), the lifting up on the cross, ete. This, however, is 
 contrary to the parallel with the history of Moses, who saw the supernatural glory 
 of God that might not otherwise be beheld. Grotius indicates the right view. 
 
CHAP. III. 18. 219 
 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, where likewise the gospel is conceived of 
 as a mirror, as respects, however, the still imperfect vision which 
 it brings about. κατοπτρίξζω in the active means to mirror, i.e. to 
 show in the mirror (Plut. Mor. p. 894 D); but in the middle it 
 means among the Greeks to look into, to behold oneself in a mirror. 
 To this head belong Athen. xv. p. 687 C, and all the passages 
 in Wetstein, also Artemidorus, ii. 7, which passage is erroneously 
 adduced by Wolf and others for the meaning: “to see in the 
 mirror.” But this latter signification, which is that occurring 
 in the passage now before us, is unquestionably found in Philo 
 (Loesner, Obss. p. 304). See especially Alleg. p. 79 E: μηδὲ 
 κατοπτρισαίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ θεῷ. 
 Pelagius (“ contemplamur”), Grotius,’ Riickert, and others quite 
 give up the conception of a mirror, and retain only the notion of 
 beholding ; but this is mere caprice, which quite overlooks as well 
 the correct position of the case to which the word aptly corre- 
 sponds, as also the reference which the following εἰκόνα has to 
 the conception of the mirror. Chrysostom and his successors, 
 Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth and 
 Olshausen, think that κατοπτρίζεσθαι means to reflect, to beam 
 back the lustre, so that, in parallel with Moses, the glory of Christ 
 is beaming; ἡ καθαρὰ κωρδία τῆς θείας δόξης οἷόν τι ἐκμαγεῖον 
 καὶ κάτοπτρον γίνεται, Theodoret. Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr., and 
 Luther's gloss: “as the mirror catches an image, so our heart 
 catches the knowledge of Christ.” But at variance with the 
 usage of the language, for the middle never has this meaning ; 
 and at variance with the context, for dvaxexaX. προσώπῳ must, 
 according to vv. 14-17, refer to the conception of free and 
 unhindered seeing.—thv αὐτὴν εἰκόνα petapopd.| we become trans- 
 formed to the same image, i.e. become so transformed that the same 
 image which we see in the mirror—the image of the glory of 
 Christ—presents itself on us, 1.6. ἃ8. regards the substantial mean- 
 ing: we are so transformed that we become like to the glorified Christ. 
 Now, seeing that this transformation appears as caused by and 
 contemporaneous with dvaxex. προσ. τ. δόξ. x. κατοπτρ., con- 
 sequently not as a future sudden act (like the transfiguration at 
 
 1“ yarorrpit., 1.€. attente spectantes, quomodo et Latini dicunt speculari, nimirum 
 quia qui speculum consulunt omnia singulatim intuentur. Sic Christiani attente 
 meditantur, quanta sit Christi in coelis regnantis gloria.” 
 
220 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 51 ἢ; comp. Phil. ili. 21), but as some- 
 thing at present in the course of development, it can only be the 
 spiritual transformation to the very likeness of the glorified 
 Christ! that is meant (comp. 2 Pet. i. 4; Gal. iv. 19, 11, 20), and 
 not the future δόξα (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olshausen would have it 
 included). Against this latter may be urged also the subsequent 
 καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος, which has its reference precisely 
 to the spiritual transformation, that takes place in the present 
 αἰών, and the seguel of which is the future Messianic glory to 
 which we are called (1 Thess. 11. 12; Rom. vii. 30); so that the 
 present spiritual process, the καινότης ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4) and 
 πνεύματος (Rom. vii. 6)—the spiritual being risen with and living 
 with Christ (Rom. vi. 5 ff.)—experiences at the Parousia also the 
 corresponding outward ovvdofacOjvar with Christ, and is thus 
 completed, Col. 111. 4.— τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα] is not to be explained 
 either by supplying κατά or εἰς, or by quoting the analogy of 
 παρακαλεῖσθαι παράκλησιν and the like (Hofmann), but the con- 
 struction of μεταμορφοῦν with the accusative is formed quite like 
 the commonly occurring combination of μεταβάλλειν with the 
 accusative in the sense: to assume a shape through alteration or 
 transmutation undergone. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 424 C. 
 The passive turn given to it, in which the accusative remains 
 unaltered (Kriiger, ὃ 11. 4. 6; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 164 [E. T. 
 1907), yields therefore the sense: we are so transformed, that we 
 get thereby the same image. — ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν] 1.6. so that this 
 transformation issues from glory (viz. from the glory of Christ 
 beheld in the mirror and reflected on us), and has glory as its 
 result (namely, owr glory, see above). Comp. ii. 16, also Rom. 
 i. 17. So in the main the Greek Fathers (yet referring ἀπὸ δόξης, 
 according to their view of ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος, to the glory of 
 the Holy Spirit), Vatablus, Bengel, Fritzsche, Billroth, and others, 
 also Hofmann. But most expositors (including Flatt, Rickert, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald) explain it of ascending to 
 ever higher (and at length highest, 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.) glory. Comp. 
 ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν, Ps. lxxxiv. 7, also Jer. ix. 2. In this 
 
 1 Comp. Calovius: ‘‘ Illa autem μεταμόρφωσις neutiquam essentialis est, ut fanatici 
 volunt, quum in substantiam Christi transformari nequeamus, sed mystica et spiri- 
 tualis., . . quum ejusdem et justitiae per fidem, et gloriae per gratiosam communica- 
 tionem adeoque et divinae ejus naturae participes reddimur.” 
 
CHAP. III. 18. 227 
 
 way, however, the correlation of this dé with the following (ἀπὸ 
 kup. Tv.) is neglected, although for amo... εἰς expressions like 
 ἀπὸ θαλάσσης εἰς θάλασσαν (Xen. Hell. i. 3. 4) might be com- 
 pared. — καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος] so as from the Lord of 
 the Spirit, people, namely, are transformed, μεταμόρφωσις γίνεται. 
 In this there lies a confirmation of the asserted τὴ αὐτὴν... 
 δόξαν. Erasmus rightly observes: “ ὡς hic non sonat similitu- 
 dinem sed congruentiam.” Comp. ii. 17; John 1. 14, al. Lord 
 of the Spirit (the words are rightly so connected by “ neoterice 
 qguidam” in Estius, Emmerling, Vater, Fritzsche, Billroth, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Kling, Krummel; comp. 
 however, also at an earlier date, Erasmus, Annot.) is Christ, in so 
 far as the operation of the Holy Spirit depends on Christ; for 
 the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (ver. 17; Rom. vii. 9 ἢ; 
 Gal. iv. 6), in so far as Christ Himself rules through the Spirit 
 in the hearts (Rom. viii. 10; Gal. ii, 20; Eph. ii 16 ἢ); the 
 sending of the Spirit’ is browght about through Christ (Tit. 111. 6), 
 and by His operations service 18 done to Christ (1 Cor. xii. 5). 
 Here, too, the relation of subordination in the divine Trinity is 
 most distinctly expressed.” Why, however, is Christ here named 
 κύριος Tvevuatos? Because that spiritual metamorphosis, which 
 proceeds from Christ, cannot take place otherwise than by the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit on us. The explanations: a Domini 
 spiritu (Syriac, Vulgate, Augustine, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, 
 Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Schrader 
 and Hofmann) and a Domino spiritu, i.e. a Domino qui est spiritus 
 (Chrysostom: ὅρα πῶς καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸ πνεῦμα κύριον καλεῖ, 
 Theodoret, Valla, Luther, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Estius, and several 
 others, including Flatt and Neander’), agree, indeed, with the 
 
 1 The sender himself is, according to Paul, not Christ, but G’od, 1 Cor. ii. 12, vi. 19 ; 
 2 Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 8; Tit. iii. 6. According to John (xv. 26, 
 xvi. 7), Christ also sends the Spirit, though not independently, but in the way of 
 interceding with the Father (xiv. 16) ; comp. also Acts ii. 23. Hence there is no 
 contradiction between Paul and John. 
 
 2 The qualitative interpretation of the genitive, like πατὴρ oixripy., i. 3 (de Wette, 
 ‘* whose whole character or whole efficacy is spirit’’), is inadmissible, because πνεῦμα, 
 in accordance with the context, must be the Holy Spirit as respects the notion of 
 subsistence (the person of the Spirit). 
 
 3 Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 125, according to whom Christ is 
 here designated as κύριος πνεῦμα. But he is precisely not so designated, but as κύριος 
 ανεύματος. 
 
222 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the church, but deviate 
 without reason or warrant from the normal order of the words 
 (comp. ver. 17, and see Buttmann, newt. Gramm. Ὁ. 295 [E. T. 
 343]), in particular, from the genitive -relation which quite 
 obviously suggests itself. Riickert hesitatingly allows a choice 
 between the two erroneous views. 
 
Oo 
 
 CHAP. IV. 228 
 
 CHAPTER LY, 
 
 Ver. 4. adydéou:] A, 10, 17, 23, 31, and several Fathers have διαυ- 
 γάσαι; C D E, 73, Or. (once) Eus. al. have καταυγάσαι. So Lachm. 
 on the margin. Two more precise definitions to accord with 
 the context. The αὐτοῖς that follows (in Elz.) has decisive evidence 
 against it, and is an addition. — Ver. 6. λάμψαι] Lachm. reads 
 λάμψει, following A Β D* s* 67** Aeth. But the evidence of 
 almost all the Versions and all the Fathers is against it; and how 
 easily λάμψει might occur to the copyists through remembrance of 
 the direct address in Gen. 1. ! --- The omission of the following ὅς 
 (D* F G 36, It. Chrys. and several Fathers), as well as the weakly- 
 supported readings ὡς, οὗτος, and zpse, are corrections arising from not 
 understanding the sense. — τοῦ θεοῦ] Lachm. reads αὐτοῦ, on no pre- 
 ponderating evidence. A change for the sake of the style; for if 
 it had been αὐτοῦ originally, there would have been no uncertainty 
 whatever about the reference, and so no reason for glossing it by 
 σοῦ θεοῦ. ---- Ἰησοῦ] is to be deleted, according to A B 17, Or. (once) 
 al., with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. — Ver. 10. τοῦ ᾿᾽Τησοῦ] Elz. has 
 τοῦ κυρίου ‘Inood, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 12. ὁ θάν.] Elz. 
 has ὁ μὲν θάν., against decisive testimony. — Ver. 14. διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ] 
 Lachm. Tisch. Riick. and also Reiche (Comm. crit. I. Ὁ. 351 1) 
 have σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ, following B Ο Ὁ E F G δ ἢ 6, 17, 31, Copt. Slav. 
 Vulg. It. Tert. Ambros. Pel. Rightly; the σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ appeared un- 
 suitable in point of time to the resurrection of the dead. — Ver. 16. 
 ὁ ἔσωθεν] Lachm. and Riick. read ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν, following preponderating 
 evidence, indeed ; but it is evidently a change in accordance with 
 what goes before. — Ver. 17. After παραυτίκα, D* E F G 31, Syr. 
 Arr. Arm. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have πρόσκαιρον καί. A gloss, 
 which has crept in, of παραυτίκα. Comp. Theodoret: διὰ τοῦ παραυ- 
 τίκα ἔδειξε τὸ βρωχύ re καὶ πρόσκαιρον. 
 
 REMARK.—In the Codex Alexandrinus all from iv. 13, ἐπίστευσα, 
 to xii. 6 inclusive, is wanting through mutilation. 
 
 
 
 ConTENTS.—Continuation of the theme begun in 111. 12 f. (vv. 
 1—6); relation of the external state, so full of suffering, to the 
 glory of the office (vv. 7-18). 
 
22. PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Ver. 1. Διὰ τοῦτο] Paul now reverts, it is true, to what had 
 been begun in iii. 12 ἢ, but had, owing to the comparison with 
 Moses and the discussion thence arising about the hardening of 
 the Jews and the freedom contrasted with it (iii. 14-18), remained 
 without further elucidation, but reverts in such a way that he 
 attaches it to what immediately precedes by διὰ τοῦτο. There- 
 fore, since the Christians are so highly privileged as was specified 
 in iil. 17, 18, we become, in the possession of the office, which 
 ministers to this Christian freedom and glorification ... not 
 dejected. — καθὼς ἠλεήθ.] a modal definition, full of humility 
 (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10, vii. 25), to ἔχοντες τ. διακ. ταύτ. : “having 
 this ministry in accordance with the (divine) mercy imparted to us.” 
 The important practical bearing of this addition is aptly indicated 
 by Bengel: “ Misericordia Dei, per quam ministerium accipitur, 
 facit strenuos et sinceros.” — οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν) Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf, and Riickert, following A Β D* F G x, read ἐγκακοῦμεν 
 (comp. ver. 16; Luke xviii. 1; Gal. vi. 9; Eph. iii. 13; 2 Thess. 
 iii. 13). But this appears to be a correction, since only ἐγκακεῖν, 
 and not ἐκκακεῖν (which is here the reading of C D*** E K IL), 
 occurs for certain out of the N. T. and the Fathers and ancient 
 lexicographers. Polyb. iv. 19. 10; Theodotion, Prov. 111. 11; 
 Symmachus, Gen. xxvii. 46; Num. xxi. 5; Isa. vii, 16. Comp. 
 ἐγκάκησις, Symmachus, Ps. exix. 143. Probably ἐκκακεῖν was at 
 that time only in oral use, and came first through Paul and Luke 
 into the language of ecclesiastical writings. It means, however, 
 to become cowardly, to lose cowrage. Hesychius, ἠδημόνησεν᾽ ἐξεκά- 
 κησεν ; Suidas, é€exaxnoa’ amnyopevoa. The contrast in ver. 2 
 is not adverse to this signification; for the becoming dejected 
 ‘through any kind of difficulties (with Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Beza, and others, to think only of sufferings is arbitrary) 
 leads easily to κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης, while bold, brave, unweakened 
 courage disdains such things. Comp. the demeanour of Luther. 
 Hence Riickert is mistaken in holding that, for the sake of the 
 contrast, we must assume the general signification: to abandon 
 oneself to badness, a signification which cannot elsewhere be made 
 good for ἐγκακ. or for ἐκκακ. (in Polybius, iv. 19. 10, ἐνεκάκησαν 
 means, “they were lazy”). Chrysostom is in substance correct: 
 οὐ καταπίπτομεν, ἀλλὰ Kal χαίρομεν καὶ παῤῥησιαζόμεθα. The 
 opposite is the preservation of the holy ἀνδρία (1 Cor. xvi. 18). 
 
CHAP. IV. 2. 225 
 
 Ver. 2. Contrast to οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν in reference to antagonistic 
 teachers. — ἀπειπάμεθα] we have renounced, we have put away from 
 us. Comp. Homer, Ji. xix. 35, 75; Plato, Legg. xi. p. 928 D; 
 Polyb. xiv. 9. 6; and in the middle, in this sense, Herod. i. 205, 
 iv. 120, vii. 14; often in Polyb. ; also Callim. Hymn. in Dian. 174: 
 ἀπὸ δ᾽ εἴπατο τέθμια Ταύρων, Aelian, H. N. vi. 1: τὴν ἀκόλαστον 
 κοίτην ἀπείπατο παντελῶς πᾶσαν. Regarding the aorist middle, 
 ἀπειπάμην, see Thomas M. p. 57; Moeris, p. 29; Kiihner, I. 
 p. 817, ed. 2.—7a κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης] as in 1 Cor. iv. 5, τὰ 
 Kp. τοῦ σκότους, the hidden things of shame, 1.6. what shame (the 
 sense of honour, verecundia) hides,’ does not allow to come to the 
 light. This is to be left quite general: “ All that one, because 
 he is ashamed of it, does not permit to become manifest,” but, on 
 the contrary, κρυφῇ καλύπτει καρδίᾳ (Soph. Antig. 1239); ἃ 
 κρύπτειν δεῖ καὶ συσκιάζειν αἰσχυνομένους καὶ ἐρυθριῶντας, 
 Chrysostom. All special limitations, such as to secret plans and 
 intrigues (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Emmerling and 
 Billroth), or to the disfiguring (Calvin) or hiding (de Wette) of the 
 truth, or to secret fear of men (Ewald), or to hidden, disgraceful 
 arts of fleshly wisdom (Neander), or to secret means and ways to 
 which the preacher of Christianity, who is ashamed of Christianity, 
 has recourse (Hofmann), or even to circumcision (Theodoret), or to 
 promises not made good (Chrysostom), or to a hypocritical habit 
 (Theophylact), or even to obscoenas voluptates (Estius, Krebs), are 
 without warrant; for Paul proceeds from the general to the 
 particular, so that it is only in what follows, when referring mere 
 pointedly to his opponents, that he adduces particular forms of 
 the κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης. ---- μὴ περύπ. K.7.d.] so that we walk not, 
 etc. The apostle means his demeanour én the ministry. — δολοῦντες 
 τ. λόγον τ. θεοῦ] adulterating the word of God. Lucian, Herm. 59 ; 
 LXX. Ps. xv. 3. It is done by alterations and foreign admixtures. 
 Comp. 11. 17,1, 12. — τῇ φανερώσεϊ»τῆς adnO.] through the mant- 
 Sestation of the truth (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 7), i.e. by making the truth 
 contained in the gospel (the truth κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν) public, or, in other 
 
 1 αἰσχύνη im the subjective sense (Plato, Def. p. 416: φόβος ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ ἀδοξίας). 
 See, especially, Ecclus. iv. 21, xx. 20f., xli. 16. Comp. Dem. 48, 6: τοῖς ἐλευθέροις 
 μεγίστην ἀνάγκην εἶναι Thy ὑπὶρ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰσχύνην. The objective interpretation, 
 disgrace, Phil. iii. 19 (‘‘which brings disgrace,” de Wette; Osiander, ‘‘ shameful 
 secrecy’), would make it necessary to import the thought: ‘‘if it becomes manifest.” 
 Zeger: ‘‘quae manifestata probro sunt perpetranti.” 
 
 2 COR. Il. P 
 
220 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 words, a clearly presented object of knowledge. The contrast 
 gives a special occasion here for designating the contents of the 
 gospel by ἡ ἀλήθεια. On the subject-matter, comp. Rom. i. 16. 
 — συνιστώντες ἑαυτούς) The emphasis of the contrast lay in τῇ 
 davep. τ. ad.; but, on the contrary, through nothing else than 
 through the proclamation of the truth commending ourselves. But 
 even in this “commending ourselves” there clearly lies a con- 
 trasting reference to the antagonistic teachers, who accused the 
 apostle of self-praise (iii. 1), but on their part not merely by 
 letters of recommendation, but even by intrigues (ἐν πανουργίᾳ, 
 xi. 3, xii. 16; Eph. iv. 14; Luke xx. 23) and by adulteration of 
 the gospel (δολοῦντες τὸν Ady. τ. θεοῦ) sought to make themselves 
 honoured and beloved among others. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 3, 4. 
 Overlooking this, Riickert recommends for cumor. the general 
 meaning of laying down, setting forth, proving (Rom. v. 8). — 
 πρὸς πᾶσαν ovveld. ἀνθρώπ.] πρός used of the ethical direction. 
 The essential meaning is, indeed, not different from πρὸς τὴν 
 συνείδησιν πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων (for which it is often taken, 
 even by Riickert), but it is otherwise conceived, namely: “to every 
 human conscience.’ Comp. Rom. ii. 9. Note how Paul here 
 ascribes to every man the capacity of moral judgment, and thus 
 also the knowledge of the moral law as the propositio major of 
 the inference of conscience. If now, however, refractory minds, 
 through perverted moral judgment or moral stubbornness, were 
 unwilling to recognise this de facto self-recommendation made 
 uniformly and without προσωποληψία, the matter remained the 
 same on the part of the apostle; hence it is not, with Grotius, to 
 be explained only of the “bonae conscientiae,” against the mean- 
 ing of the words. — ἐνώπ. τοῦ θεοῦ] applies to συνιστῶντες.... 
 ἀνθρώπων : so that this our self-recommendation is made in God's 
 presence. This denotes the highest sincerity and honesty in the 
 subjectivity of the person acting, who knows that God (τὸν τοῦ 
 συνειδότος ἐπόπτην, Theodoret) is present as eye-witness. Comp. 
 1: 17 reel Ὁ Gala 20. 
 
 Ver. 3. Against the assertion just made, ἀλλὰ τῇ φανερώσει 
 τῆς ἀληθείας... θεοῦ, it might be objected: “and yet your 
 gospel is κεκαλυμμένον ! is by so many not at all known as the 
 ἀλήθεια" Wherefore Paul continues, “even if that were the 
 case, still it is so only with regard to the ἀπολλύμενον whom the 
 
CHAP. IV. 4. 227 
 
 devil has blinded, and hence cannot be urged against the former 
 assertion.” — εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι κεκαλ. In this admission the placing 
 of ἔστι before xexad. conveys the meaning: but if even it is the 
 case that, etc. The figurative κεκαλ. was suggested by the still 
 fresh remembrance of iii. 14. — τὸ εὐαγγ. ἡμῶν] the gospel preached 
 by us, the Pauline gospel.— ἐν tots ἀπολλυμ.} 1.6. among those 
 who (for certain) are liable to eternal amwreva. See on ii. 15; 
 1 Cor.i 18. ἐν is not nota dativi (Flatt), nor yet quod attinet 
 ad (Bengel), but tnter, im their circle. Riickert takes it: in their 
 hearts, on account of 111. 15. So also Osiander. But against the 
 analogy of ii. 15; besides, according to iii. 15, it is the heart of 
 the ἀπολλύμενοι, and not the gospel, which must be represented 
 as the veiled subject. It has not at all reached the hearts of the 
 persons concerned. 
 
 Ver. 4. A statement to establish the ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. ἐστι 
 Kexan., 80 that ἐν οἷς is equivalent to ὅτε ἐν τούτοις (comp. on 
 iii. 6): im whom the devil has made blind, 1.96. incapable of the 
 perception of the truth, the thoughts of the unbelieving (νοήματα, 
 as in iii. 14"). It is his work to make the unbelieving blind, as 
 respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront 
 the light of the gospel; and this his characteristic ἔργον he has 
 carried out in the ἀπολλύμενοι; in their souls he has succeeded 
 in his devilish work of blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving. 
 Observe, accordingly, that the conception of the ἀπολλύμενοι is a 
 narrower one than that of the ἄπιστοι. Not with all ἄπιστοι 
 does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel his 
 object of blinding them and making them ἀπολλύμενοι ; many so 
 comport themselves towards this preaching that they become 
 believing and σωζόμενοι (1 Cor. xiv. 24 f.; Acts xiii. 48, ii. 40, 
 47; Matt. xiii. 8, 23). Hence τῶν ἀπίστων is neither aimless 
 (the objection of Hofmann), nor is it, with Riickert, to be referred 
 to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, in order to round 
 off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly prominent, 
 that the ἀπολλύμενοι are the ἄπιστοι, have appended the apposi- 
 tional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche, whom 
 Billroth follows, takes τῶν ἀπίστ. proleptically: “hoc effectu ut 
 nullam haberent fidem.” But the proleptic use of adjectives (see 
 
 ‘Comp. Homer, Od. xx. 346: μνησπῆρσι δὲ Παλλὰς Adin... παρέπλαγξε νόημα, 
 Pind. Ol. vii. 133, xii. 13; Plat. Phaed. p. 96 Ο ; Lucian, Nigr. 4. 
 
228 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 on 1 Cor. i. 8) is nowhere found with the genitive of an adjective 
 used substantively ; it must have run ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα 
 ἄπιστα Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13; Phil. iii, 21. Quite arbi- 
 trarily, most of the older expositors (also Grotius, Wolf, Emmer- 
 ling, Flatt) explain it in such a way that τῶν ἀπίστων fills the 
 place of an apposition to ἐν οἷς. In that case it must have run: 
 ἐν τοῖς ἀπίστοις (see, especially, Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 173). 
 According to Ewald, Paul has inserted the addition τῶν arrict., 
 as if he meant thereby merely to say: “the Gentile thoughts,” 
 because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers. 
 But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise 
 indication, as the reader had to find in τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. Gentiles 
 and Jews, consequently in τῶν ἀπίστ. no special reference to the 
 Gentile character. According to Hofmann, ἐν οἷς is intended to be 
 the domain within which, etc., and this domain is in view of the 
 preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which there has taken 
 place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbelieving. ΤῸ 
 this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever 
 for limiting the ἀπολλύμενοι to the sphere of the Gentile world ; 
 they form, in general, a contrast to the σωζόμενοι, as also at 
 ii. 15, i. 18, and to the ἡμεῖς πάντες, 111. 18, who ave just the 
 σωζόμενοι. Finally, it is to be observed as a mere historical 
 point, that Irenaeus (Haer. iv. 48), Origen, Tertullian (contra 
 Mare. iv. 11), Chrysostom, Augustine (6. advers. leg. 11. 7. 8), 
 Oecumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact (also Knatchbull), with a 
 view to oppose the dualism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, 
 joined τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with τῶν ἀπίστων (infidelium hujus 
 saeculi). —0o θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτ.] the God of this (running on 
 till the Parousia) period. On the subject-matter, comp. John 
 yu 44. xii; 31, xiv. 30; Eph. i. 2; vi 12; 2. Thess. i) Oem 
 ‘The devil, as ruling principle, is called god. Comp. Phil. iii. 19. 
 Among the Rabbins, also, it is said: “ Deus primus est Deus verus, 
 sed Deus secundus est Samael,” Jalkut Rubeni, ἢ 10. 4, ad Gen. 
 i. 27. Comp. the passages in Eisenmenger, Lntdecht. Judenth. I. 
 
 1 According to Fritzsche, the unbelief appears as effect of the blinding, consequently 
 as a refusal of belief, as ἀπείθειακ. In our view, it appears as defectus fidet and the 
 devil steps in with his blinding, and makes out of the driere the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας 
 (Eph. v. 6; Col. iii. 6). As regards the contents of the thought, therefore, the two 
 views are not contradictory. 
 
CHAP. IV. 4. 229 
 
 p. 827, where he is called the strange god and the other god. 
 There is not something ironical in the expression here (Olshausen), 
 for that would be quite alien to the connection; on the contrary, 
 with the utmost earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the 
 devil is intended to be made palpably evident. Comp. Bengel. 
 — εἰς TO μὴ αὐγάσαι x.T..] Purpose of the devil: ὧν order that 
 the tllumination should not shine, etc. For that which illumines 
 does not shine for the blinded." Hence it is quite unnecessary 
 to explain αὐγάσαι, to see, or to have an eye upon (Luther, Grotius, 
 Emmerling, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann), which signification (more 
 exactly, to direct the light of the eyes to anything) undoubtedly 
 oceurs in Greek poets (Soph. Phil. 217; Eur. Rhes. 793; more 
 frequently in the middle, as J/iad, xxii. 458; Elmsley, ad Bacch. 
 596; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 338), but is foreign even to 
 the LXX. (Lev. xiii. 25 f., 28, 39, xiv. 56). Besides, the simple 
 avyate does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter 
 meaning fulgere (though the compounds καταυγάζειν and διαυγά- 
 fev, which are the readings of several uncials, do so occur), but 
 only in the active sense: irradiate, illwmine, as e.g. Eur. Hee. 637. 
 — φωτισμός] illumining, is found in Sextus Empiricus, 522. 9; 
 Plut. Mor. 920 D; more often in the LXX., in Aquila, Theodotion, 
 and Symmachus. Without figure, the meaning is: in order that 
 the enlightening truth of the gospel might not be known and appro- 
 priated by them. — τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ] The glory of the exalted 
 Christ (comp. 111. 18) is here denoted as the contents of the 
 Messianic preaching; elsewhere (1 Cor. i. 18) it is the word of 
 the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement 
 of the context, and both rightly (Rom. iv. 25, v. 10, αἰ.) ; for the 
 δόξα is the consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was 
 conditioned (Phil. ii. 6 ff; Rom. viii. 34, al.; Luke xxiv. 26; 
 often in John), and it conditions the future completion of the 
 work of the cross (Phil. ii. 10 f.; Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25; 
 1 Cor. xv.; Col. iii. 3 f.).— ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τ. θεοῦ) for Christ in 
 the state of His exaltation” is again, as He was before His incar- 
 nation (comp. John xvii. 5), fully ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ and ica θεῷ 
 
 1 Hofmann very wrongly, since he himself recognises the lofty poetic turn of the 
 words, objects that this explanation would require the (not genuine) αὐτοῖς. 
 
 * For it is the ewalted One of whom Paul is thinking. Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. ὦ, 
 Siinde, p. 212 f, 
 
230 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (Phil. ii, 6), hence in His glorified corporeality (Phil. iii, 21) 
 the visible image of the invisible God. See on Col. 1. 15; comp. 
 Heb. i. 3. It is true that in the state of His humiliation He had 
 likewise the divine δόξα, which He possessed κατὰ πνεῦμα 
 ἁγιωσύνης (Rom. i. 4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace 
 and truth (John i. 14), and through His miracles (John 11. 11), He 
 made known (John xiv. 9); but its working and revelation were 
 limited by His humiliation to man’s estate, and He had divested 
 Himself of the divine appearance (Phil. ii. 7 f.) till in the end, 
 furnished through His resurrection with the mighty attestation of 
 His divine sonship (Rom. i. 4), He entered, through His elevation 
 to the right hand of God, into the full communion of the glory of' 
 the Father, in which He is now the God-man, the very image 
 and reflection of God, and will one day come to execute judgment 
 and to establish the kingdom.—Aim of the addition: “ hine satis 
 intelligi potest, guanta sit gloria Christi,” Bengel; it is the highest 
 and holiest of all, and of the knowledge of zt Satan deprives those 
 whom he blinds! 
 
 Ver. 5. What his gospel (τὸ edayy. ἡμῶν) proclaimed, he has 
 just described as that which is most glorious and sublime, namely, 
 the δόξα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν κατλ. And that nothing else 
 than this is the lofty contents of his preaching, he now establishes, 
 and that under an antithetic point of view, which (comp. 111. 1) 
 takes into account hostile calumny. This antithetic aim so 
 fully justifies the reference of the γάρ to what immediately pre- 
 cedes, and the emphasis laid on Χριστ. "Inc. as κύριον, as well as 
 the contents of ver. 6, so obviously confirms it, that we have no 
 warrant for going back with yap to iii. 1, even if we include 
 vv. 3—5 (Hofmann). — ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσ.] In virtue of the contrast 
 that follows (Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 25), κυρίους might be 
 supplied (de Wette and others, also my own view hitherto), and 
 with this i. 24 might be compared. But since it was self-evident 
 that he did not preach himself as Lord, and this could not be 
 attributed to him even by his opponents, however much they 
 may have accused him of selfish conduct, it is better (comp. 
 Hofmann) to let the expression retain its quite general character : 
 not owrselves, not our own persons, their insight, standing, repute, 
 and other interests, do we make the contents and aim of our 
 preaching. — κύριον] as Lord. In this lies the whole great con- 
 
CHAP. IV.-6. Zou 
 
 fessional contents of his preaching, which absolutely excludes 
 all desire for self-assertion; comp. Phil. ii, 11; 1 Cor. xii. 3. 
 This κύριον also is to be left quite in its generality,’ so that the 
 following ὑμῶν has no joint reference to it (Hofmann). — διὰ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν] This it is by which the relation of service to the readers 
 (δούλους ὑμῶν) is conditioned. For on His account, not irrespec- 
 tively of Him, we are your servants. Comp.1Cor.iv.1. To do 
 the will of Jesus, and to carry on His work—this it is which 
 determines us to be your servants, 1.6. to do our labour for your 
 service ; only in this respect, in this relation of service to you, do 
 we preach ourselves, which, therefore, is something quite different 
 from the ἑαυτ. κηρυσσ. before denied. 
 
 Ver. 6. Confirmation of the above, and not simply of the 
 concluding words of ver. 5 (ἑαυτοὺς δὲ δούλους κ.τ.λ.), but of the 
 entire ver. 5. For it is God who has bestowed on us such 
 enlightenment, and for swch behoof as is declared in ver. 6; how 
 should we not be far exalted above the preaching of owrselves 
 instead of Christ as the Lord, and how could we proclaim ourselves 
 otherwise than simply in the relation of serviceableness to you, ser- 
 viceableness for Christ's sake !—“ For God, who bade light shine out 
 of darkness, ἐξ is who caused ut to shine in our hearts, in order that 
 we should make the knowledge of the divine glory give light in the 
 presence of Christ.” Apart from this figurative clothing, the sense 
 is: For τέ is God, the creator of light, who bestowed on us the 
 spiritual light communicated to us, not that we might retain it for 
 ourselves without further communication, but that we should convey 
 the knowledge of the divine glory to others in making this knowledge 
 manifest to them in Christ, whom we teach them to know. As to 
 the construction, ὅς is not to be taken as equivalent to οὗτος (Vor- 
 stius, Mosheim, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Schrader; comp. Theodoret 
 and Luther), nor is és to be deleted (Riickert hesitates between 
 the two), but ἐστί is to be supplied, and supplied before ὃς 
 ἔλαμψεν (so, rightly, most of the commentators”), not immediately 
 after ὁ θεός (Valla, Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Bengel, Vater, 
 Ewald), because it is only with ὃς ἔλαμψεν that the important 
 idea is introduced, and because Paul has written ὅς and not ὃς 
 καί, On account of the ὃς κιτιλ. that follows it is impossible, 
 
 1 The whole majesty of Christ (ver. 4) lies in this one predicate. 
 2 Comp. also Buttman, neutest. Gramm. p. 838 [E. T. 395]. 
 
2a2 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 with Hofmann, to regard the sentence ὅτι ὁ θεός as far as λάμψαι 
 (“ for it is God who... has bidden to shine”) as a complete and 
 perfect sentence. —o εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι] qui jussit, 
 etc. Reminiscence of Gen. i. 3,' in order to prepare for the 
 following ὃς ἔλαμψεν x«.7.r., Which is meant to appear as analogous 
 to the physical working of God in the creation. “Saepe com- 
 parantur beneficia creationis veteris et novae,’ Grotius. The 
 emergence of the light of the holy truth in Christ from amid the 
 sinful darkness of untruth (Hofmann) is not as yet spoken of; 
 this spiritual fact only finds its expression in what follows, and has 
 here merely the way prepared for it by the corresponding physi- 
 cal creation of light. — ἐκ may doubtless mean immediately after 
 (Emmerling), see Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 463; Jacobs, ad Ael. 
 p. 464; but in the N. T. it does not so occur, and here “ forth 
 out of darkness” is far more in keeping with graphic vividness, 
 for such is the position of the matter when what is dark becomes 
 lighted up; comp. LXX. Job xxxvii. 15.—ds ἔλαμψεν ἐν τ. 
 caps. ἡμ.} This ὅς cannot be referred to Christ, with Hofmann, 
 who compares irrelevantly Heb. v. 7 (where Christ is in fact the 
 chief subject of what immediately precedes), but it applies to 
 God. Whether ἔλαμψεν is intransitive (Chrysostom and most 
 expositors) : he shone, which would have to be explained from the 
 idea of the indwelling of God by means of the Holy Spirit (John 
 xiv. 23; 1 Cor. ili. 16, xiv. 25), or whether it is factitive: who 
 made it (namely, φῶς) shine (Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Fritzsche), 
 as ἀνατέλλειν is used in Matt. v. 45, and even λάμπειν in the poets 
 (Eur. Phoen. 226, and the passages in Matthiae, p. 944; Jacobs, 
 ad Anthol. VI. p. 58, VIL p. 378, VIII. p. 199; ad Del. Epigr. 
 p. 62; Lobeck, ad Adj. p. 94, ed. 2), is decided from the context 
 by the preceding physical analogy, which makes the fuctitive sense 
 in keeping with the εὐπὼν λάμψαι most probable. If the progress 
 of thought had been: “who himself shone” (Chrysostom, Theodoret), 
 the text must have run, ὃς αὐτὸς ἔλαμψεν. God has wrought 
 in the hearts of the apostolic teachers, spiritually creating light, 
 just as physically as at the creation He called light out of the 
 darkness. Hofmann, in consequence of his referring ὅς to Christ, 
 wrongly explains it: “within them has been repeated that which 
 
 1 Ewald, following the reading λάμψει, supposes an allusion to Isa, lx. 1, Job 
 xii. 22, or to some lost passage. 
 
CHAP. IV. 6. 23a 
 
 took place in the world when Christ appeared ὧν i.” On the 
 point itself in reference to Paul, see Gal. 1. 16.— πρὸς φωτισμὸν 
 κτλ] for the purpose of lighting (ver. 4), etc., equivalent to πρὸς 
 τὸ φωτίζειν τὴν γνῶσιν K.7.X., in order that there may lighten, etc., 
 by which is set forth the thought: “in order that the knowledge 
 of the divine glory may be conveyed and diffused from us to 
 others through the preaching of Christ.” For if the knowledge 
 remains undiffused, it has not the nature of a thing that lightens, 
 whose light is received by the eyes of men.— ἐν προσώπῳ 
 Χριστοῦ] belongs to πρὸς φωτισμόν, but cannot be explained 7 
 persona Christi, ie. in nomine Christi, as Estius explains it after 
 the Latin Fathers, but it specifies where the knowledge of the 
 divine glory is to lighten: in the presence of Christ. For Christ is 
 εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, and Christians see unveiled the glory of Christ, 
 iii. 18. He, therefore, who converts others to Christ makes the 
 knowledge of the divine glory become clear-shining to them, and 
 that im the countenance of the Lord, which is beheld in the gospel 
 as the reflection of the divine glory, so that in this seen counten- 
 ance that clear-shining knowledge has the sowrce of its light (as it 
 were, its focus). Probably there is in ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ a 
 reminiscence of ili. 7. The connection of ἐν προσώπῳ Xp. with 
 πρὸς φωτισμόν has been justly recognised by Estius, and estab- 
 lished as the only right one by Fritzsche (Dissert. 11. p. 170, and 
 ad Rom. I. p. 188), whom Billroth follows, for the wswal way of 
 connecting it with τῆς δόξης τ. θεοῦ (comp. also Hofmann: “ the 
 elory of God visible in Christ”) would of necessity require τῆς 
 repeated after θεοῦ, since δόξα is not a verbal substantive like 
 φωτισμός, and consequently, without repeating the article, Paul 
 would necessarily have written τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης ἐν προσωπ. 
 Xp. (see Kriiger, δὲ 50,9, 9, and 8). The objection of de Wette 
 against our view—an objection raised substantially by Hofmann 
 also—that the γνῶσις is the subjective possession of the apostle, 
 and cannot therefore become light-giving in the face of Christ, 
 leaves out of consideration the fact that the γνῶσις is objectivised. 
 Conveyed through preaching, the γνῶσις of the divine glory gives 
 light (it would not give light otherwise), and its light-giving has 
 its seat and source of issue on the countenance of Christ, because it 
 is this, the glory of which is brought to view in the mirror of 
 preaching (ii. 18).—Note, further, how there is something clumsy 
 
234 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 but majestic in the entire mode of expression, πρὸς... Χριστοῦ, 
 especially in the accumulation of the-four genitives, as in ver. 4. 
 
 Ver. 7 ff. The apostle now (on to ver. 10) turns to the relation 
 which the outward position, seemingly quite incongruous, bears to 
 so glorious a calling. This pertained to the completeness of his 
 Apologia, and to him—even without special attacks of opponents 
 on this side—it thus most naturally suggested itself! We must 
 put aside the supposition that his opponents had reproached him 
 with his bodily weakness and persecutions (see, especially, Calvin, 
 Estius, Mosheim, Flatt, Emmerling) as testimonies against genuine 
 apostleship, since such a reproach, which must have affected not 
 him only, but the apostolic teachers in general, is in itself quite 
 improbable, and no trace of it is found in the whole of the fol- 
 lowing section. Still this section also is certainly not without 
 indirect polemic bearing; for Paul, owing to the peculiarity of 
 his apostolic character, had borne and suffered far more than the 
 rival Judaistic teachers; and hence there was in the relation of 
 his afflictions to his working quite a peculiar holy triwmph for 
 him over his foes. Compare the noble effusion in xii. 23 ff. 
 
 Ver. 7. 4é] merely carrying on the train of thought: Now to 
 compare our outward position with this high vocation, we have, 
 etc. — τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον] is referred either, in accordance with 
 ver. 6, to the light kindled by God in the heart (Grotius, Flatt, 
 Riickert, and others), or to the ministeriwm evangelii (Calvin, 
 Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, and others). According to ver. 6, the 
 inward divine enlightening (πρὸς φωτισμὸν x.T.r.) is meant, and 
 this definition of aim (πρὸς φωτ.) embraces in itself the mini- 
 sterium evang. — ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν] in vessels of clay. Con- 
 trast with θησαυρόν, because, for such a treasure, some more costly 
 and lasting vessel seems suitable. Comp. the opposite in Arrian, 
 Epict. iii. 9: χρυσᾶ σκεύη, ὀστράκινον δὲ λόγον. We may add 
 that Paul, who, in fact, speaks here not of himself alone (observe 
 the plur. σκεύεσιν, and ver. 6, καρδίαις), wishes not to affirm 
 some special weakness of himself, but to say generally: Though 
 we have so glorious a trust, yet is our body, the outward organ of 
 our working, subject to the lot of being easily destructible. Following 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, most commentators have 
 rightly found in σκεύεσιν a figurative designation of the body ; 
 while Billroth and Riickert, following Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and 
 
CHAP. IV. 8--10. 23'5 
 
 others, understand the whole personality. Against the latter view 
 we may urge as well the characteristic ὀστρακίνοις, which can 
 refer only to the corporeal part (comp. Gen. ii. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 47), 
 as also ver. 16 and v.1ff. For examples of the use of ὀστράκινον 
 σκεῦος for the easily destructible corporeality (as Artemidorus, 
 vi. 25: θάνατον μὲν yap εἰκότως ἐσήμαινε τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ εἶναι ἐν 
 ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει), see Wetstein.—iva ἡ ὑπερβολὴ x.7.r.] The 
 design of God in this, namely, in order that the abundant fulness 
 of power, which comes to be applied, namely, in our ministry 
 working πρὸς φωτισμὸν x.7.r., ver. 6, in spite of all sufferings 
 and persecutions (see what follows), may appear as the property 
 of God, and not as proceeding from us. The context furnishes 
 that special reference of the ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμ. The opposite 
 of the conception of ὑπερβολή is ἔλλειψις (Plato, Protag. 356 A, 
 Def. p. 415 A, al.).— καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν] καὶ μὴ ἡμεῖς νομιζώμεθα 
 κατορθοῦν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τι, ἀλλὰ πάντες οἱ ὁρῶντες τοῦ θεοῦ λέγωσιν 
 εἶναι TO πᾶν, Theophylact.—The 77. is to be taken Jlogice of the 
 being, which presents itself to cognition; as often with Paul 
 (Rom. iii. 26, 4, 19, vii. 13). Riickert denies this, but comes 
 back himself to the same view by giving the meaning thus: God 
 wishes to be the One, and to be recognised as such, who alone, ete. 
 The explanation of Tertullian, the Vulgate, Estius, according to 
 which τῆς δυνάμ. is connected with τοῦ θεοῦ, is against the order 
 of the word. 
 
 Vy. 8-10. A proof, based on experience, how this abundant 
 power makes itself known as the power of God in the sufferings of 
 the apostolic calling; so that, in spite of the earthen vessels, ver. 7, 
 the apostolic working advances steadily and successfully. — ἐν 
 παντί] having reference to all the first clauses of vv. 8 and 9, is 
 neither to be supplemented by loco (Beza, Rosenmiiller), nor is it: 
 in all that I do (Hofmann), but is to be left general: in every 
 way. Comp. vii. 5; 1 Cor.i.5; and see on 2 Cor. xi. 6. Comp. 
 the classic ἐν παντὶ κακοῦ εἶναι, Plat. Rep. p. 579 B; εἰς πᾶν 
 κακοῦ ἀφικνεῖσθαι, Herod. vii. 118, and the like. — θλιβόμενοι 
 «.T..] hard pressed, but not becoming driven into straits. Matters 
 do not come so far as that, in virtue of the abundance of the 
 
 1To this category does not belong Plato, Phaedr. p. 250 C, which passage is 
 compared by Osiander, but there the body is figuratively presented as mussel 
 (corpeoy). 
 
236 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 power of God! Kypke rightly says: “ στενοχωρία angustias hoc 
 loco denotat tales, e quibus non detur exitus.” For see vi. 4, 
 xii. 10. Comp. Bengel. The reference of otevoy. to inward 
 oppression and anaiety (Erasmus, Luther, and many others) an- 
 ticipates what follows. — ἀπορούμενοι «.7.r.] being brought into 
 doubt (perplexity, where we cannot help ourselves), but not into 
 despair. Comp. i. 8." 
 
 Ver. 9. Being persecuted, but not left (by God) in the lurch 
 (Plato, Conv. p. 179 A: ἐγκαταλιπεῖν καὶ μὴ βοηθῆσαι). Comp. 
 2 Tim. iv. 16; Heb. xiii. 5. Paul here varies the mode of pre- 
 sentation, since the contrast does not again negative an action 
 of enemies. Lydius (Agonistic. sacr, 24, p. 84 ff), Hammond, and 
 Olshausen think that we have here the figure of a foot-race, in 
 which the runner overtaken ἐγκαταλείπεται (see the passages 
 in Lydius); but the figure would be unsuitable, since the runners 
 have a common goal (1 Cor. ix. 24). Hostile persecution in 
 general is meant. Comp. διωγμός, xii. 10; Rom. viii. 35; 2 Thess. 
 i. 4, αἱ. ----καταβαλλόμ. κ.τ.λ.1 Figure of those seized in the act of 
 flight, who are thrown to the ground (Hom. Odyss. iv. 344, vil. 508 ; 
 Herod. ix. 63), but not deprived of life. This: part thus appears 
 in a most suitable relation of climax to what precedes ; hence we 
 should not think, as many do, of wrestlers in the games (comp. 
 Plato, Hipp. min. p. 374 A). 
 
 Ver. 10. Extreme concentration of all suffering, as of all 
 victory through the power of God. In this πάντοτε, correspond- 
 ing to the ἐν παντί of ver. 8 and the ἀεί of ver. 11, is with great 
 emphasis placed first. The νέκρωσις is the putting to death, like 
 the classic θανάτωσις (Thucyd. v. 9. 7). In this case the context 
 decides whether it is to be taken in a literal or, as in Rom. iv. 19, 
 in a figurative sense. Comp. Astrampsychus in Suidas: vexpods 
 ὁρῶν νέκρωσιν ἕξεις πραγμάτων, Porphyry. de Abstin. iv. p. 418 ; 
 Aret. pp. 23,48; also ἀπονέκρωσις in Arrian, Zpict.i. 5. Here 
 it stands, as ver. 11 proves, in a literal sense: Aé all times we 
 bear about the putting to death of Jesus in our body, i.e. at all times, 
 in our apostolic movements, our body is exposed to the same putting 
 to death which Jesus suffered, i.e. to violent deprivation of life for 
 
 1 There is no contradiction between this passage and i. 8, where an actual iZaao- 
 
 ρεῖσθαι is affirmed only of a single case, and in a definite relation. Here, however, 
 the mental attitude as a whole is portrayed in single, grand strokes, 
 
CHAP. IV. 10. 237 
 
 the gospel’s sake. The constant supreme danger of this death, and 
 the constant actual persecutions and maltreatments, make the 
 νέκρωσις τοῦ Incod, in the conception of the sufferer as of the 
 observer, appear as something clinging to the body of the person 
 concerned, which he carries about with it, although, till the final 
 actual martyrdom, it remains incomplete and, in so far, resting on 
 a prolepsis of the conception. On the subject-matter, comp. Rom. 
 viii. 35 ἢ; 1 Cor. xv. 31; Phil. 11. 10. The gen. τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 however, is not to be taken as propter Jeswm (Vatablus and 
 others, including Emmerling), nor ad exemplum Christi (Grotius, 
 Flatt), but quite as in τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, i. 5; and it is 
 altogether arbitrary to understand anything more special than the 
 great danger to life generally involved in the continual persecutions 
 and afflictions (xi. 23 ff.),—as eg. Eichhorn takes it to refer to 
 wounds received in the apostolic ministry (Gal. vi. 17), and 
 Riickert. here again (see on i. 8), to the alleged sickness, from 
 which Paul had not yet fully recovered. The right view is 
 already given in Chrysostom: of θάνατοι οἱ καθημερινοὶ, dv ὧν 
 καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐδείκνυτο. Comp. Pelagius. But τ. νέκρωσιν is 
 chosen (not τ. θάνατον), because Paul has in mind the course of 
 events leading to the death suffered by Jesus, which is mirrored 
 in his own sufferings for Christ’s sake. — ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ κιτ.λ.] 
 in order that also the life of Jesus, etc. This is the blessed relation 
 supervening according to God’s purpose. Just as, namely, the 
 continual sufferings and peril of death appear as the νέκρωσις of 
 Jesus in the body of those persecuted, so, in keeping with that 
 view, their rescued life appears as the same ζωή, which, in the 
 ease of Jesus, followed after His dying, through the resurrection 
 from death (Rom. v. 10). The victorious surmounting of the 
 sufferings and perils of death, from which one emerges saved as 
 regards the body, is, according to the analogy of the conception oi 
 the νέκρωσις τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, resurrection; and thus there becomes 
 manifest, in the body of him that is rescued, the same /ife which 
 Jesus entered on at His bodily resurrection. If, with Chrysostom, 
 Cajetanus, Estius, Mosheim, and others (comp. Flatt and also 
 Hofmann), we should regard the preservation and rescuing as 
 evincing the effectual operation of the bodily glorified Jesus, there 
 would be unnecessarily introduced a different position of matters 
 in the two parts of the verse; as the νέκρωσις itself is thoucht of 
 
208 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 in the one case, we must in the other also understand the ζωή 
 itself (not an effect of it). According to de Wette and Osiander, 
 the thought of the apostle is, that in is ineradicable energy of spirit 
 in suffering there is revealed Christ’s power of suffering, in virtue 
 of which He has risen and lives for ever; comp. Bea In that 
 case a moral revelation of life would be meant, and to this ἐν τῷ 
 σώματι ἡμῶν (comp. ver. 11) would not be suitable. — Notice, 
 further, how, in ver. 10 ἢ, Paul names only the name ᾿Ιησοῦς, and 
 how repeatedly he uses it. “ Singulariter sensit dulcedinem ejus,” 
 Bengel. As bearer of the dying and living of the Lord in his 
 body, he has before his eyes and in his heart, with the deepest 
 feeling of fellowship, the concrete human manifestation, Jesus. 
 Even the exalted One is, and remains to him, Jesus. A contrast 
 between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ, for whom the 
 former is again deprived of life (Holsten), is, as the clause of 
 purpose shows, not to be thought of. 
 
 Ver. 11. An elucidation, and therewith a confirmation of 
 ver. 10.— ἀεί (comp. vi. 10) is distinguished from πάντοτε as 
 respects the form of the conception, just as always or continually 
 from at all times. Comp. the classical det διὰ βίου, Heindorf, ad 
 Plat. Phaed. p. 75D; also the Homeric of ἀεὶ θεοί. ---- ἡμεῖς οἱ 
 ζῶντες] brings out, by way of contrast, the det εἰς θάνατον παρα- 
 διδόμεθα : we who live, so that in this way the constant devotion 
 to death looks all the more tragic, since the living appear as 
 liable to constant dying. We are continuously the living prey of 
 death! The reference of Grotius, “qui nondum ex hac vita 
 excessimus, ut multi jam Christianorum,” is alien to the context. 
 Further, it can neither mean: as long as we live (Calvin, Beza by 
 way of suggestion, Mosheim, Zachariae, Flatt, de Wette), nor: 
 who still, in spite of perils of death, remain ever in life (Estius, 
 Bengel, Riickert), which latter would anticipate the clause of aim, 
 ἵνα κατ. In accordance with his view of ver. 10, Osiander 
 (comp. Bisping) takes it of the spiritual life in the power of faith. 
 — παραδιδομ.] by the persecutors, ver. 88 - ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ 
 ἡμ.] designation of the σῶμα (ver. 10) as respects its material 
 weakness and transitoriness, whereby the φανερωθῆναι of the ζωὴ 
 τοῦ Incod is meant to be rendered palpable by means of the con- 
 trast. In ἐν τῷ σώματι, ver. 10, and ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκί, ver. 11, 
 there is a climaw of the terms used. Miickert thinks, wrongly, that 
 
CHAP. IV. 13. 239 
 
 the expression would be highly unsuitable, if in what precedes 
 he were speaking of nothing but persecutions. It was in fact 
 the mortal σάρξ, which might so easily have succumbed to such 
 afflictions as are described, ¢.g., in xi. 23 ff. — wa καὶ «7.r.] an 
 emphatic repetition of the clause of aim contained in ver. 10, 
 with a still stronger prominence given to the element there 
 denoted by ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν, on account of which ἐν τ. Ov. 
 σαρκὶ ἡμῶν is here placed at the end. There is implied in it 
 a triumph. Comp. on the thought of vv. 10, 11, Ignatius, 
 Magnes. 6: ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτως ἔχωμεν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ 
 (Christ’s) πάθος, τὸ ζῆν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 
 Ver. 12. An inference from ver. 11; hence the meaning can 
 be no other than: Accordingly, since we are continually exposed 
 to death, ἐξ is death whose working clings to us; but since the 
 revelation of the life of Jesus in us goes to benefit you through 
 our work in our vocation, the power opposed to death, life, is 
 that which exercises its working on you. ὁ θάνατος and ἡ ζωή 
 ean, according to vv. 10 and 11, be nothing else than the bodily 
 death and the bodily life, both conceived of as personal powers, and 
 consequently the life not as existent in Jesus (Hofmann). It was 
 death to which Paul and those like him were ever given up, and 
 it was life which, in spite of all deadly perils, retained the victory 
 and remained preserved. And this victorious power of life, pre- 
 senting in His servants the life of the risen Lord, was active 
 (comp. Phil. i. 22, 24) through the continuance thereby rendered 
 possible of the apostolic working among the Christians, and espe- 
 cially among the Corinthians (ἐν ὑμῖν), although they were not 
 affected in like manner by that working of death. Estius (following 
 Lombard) and Grotius (comp. Olshausen) take évepy. passively: “ in 
 nobis ... mors agitur et exercetur... ut vicissim... per nostra 
 pericula nostramque quotidianam mortem vobis gignitur, augetur, 
 perficitur vita spiritualis” (Estius). But in the N. T. évepy. never 
 occurs in ἃ passive sense (see oni, 6), and according to vv. 10,11, 
 ἡ ζωή cannot be vita spiritualis, as even Osiander (comp. Ewald) 
 here again interprets it. Calvin, Menochius, and Michaelis find 
 in it something ironical: we are in continual deadly peril, while 
 you are im comfort. Comp. Chrysostom, who, however, does not 
 expressly signalize the ironical character of the passage. On ζῆν, 
 vita fru, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 70; comp. ζῆν καὶ εἶναι, 
 
240 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 239. But the context gives no sug- 
 gestion whatever of irony or of any such reference of ἡ ζωή (ὑμεῖς 
 δὲ ἐν ἀνέσει, τὴν ἐκ τούτων τῶν κινδύνων καρπούμενοι ζωήν, Chry- 
 sostom). As foreign to it is Riickert’s view, which refers the first 
 half of the verse to Paul’s alleged sickness, and the second half 
 to the state of health of the Corinthians, which, as Paul had recently 
 learned through Titus, had considerably improved after a sickness 
 that had been prevalent (1 Cor. xi. 30)——-We may add that the 
 first clause is set down without μέν, because Paul purposely avoids 
 paving the way for the contrast, in order thereupon to bring it 
 forward by way of surprise. “Infert particula δέ novam rem 
 eum aliqua oppositione,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 356. 
 
 Ver. 13. A remark giving information (δέ, see on iii. 17) on 
 ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν. For through the πιστεύομεν, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν, 
 is that very ἡ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐνεργεῖται rendered possible and brought 
 about. The connection of ideas is frequently taken thus : “ Though 
 death works in us and life in you, we have yet the certain con- 
 fidence that we too will partake of the life.’ Comp. Estius, Flatt, 
 Ruckert. But in that case the relation of the two verses, 13 and 
 14, would be logically inverted, and the participial clause in ver. 
 14 would be made the principal clause ; Paul must logically have 
 written: “ Because, however, we have the same spirit of faith, which 
 David expresses in the words, etc., we know,” ete. According to 
 Olshausen, Paul wishes to represent the thought that his career, 
 so full of suffering, is a source of life to the Corinthians, as a living 
 certainty wrought in him from above. But apart from the 
 erroneous explanation of ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν, on which this is based 
 (see on ver. 12), the very fact—the ἡ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐνεργεῖται----- 
 was something consonant to experience, and hence Paul in ver. 
 13 gives nothing else than an elucidation consonant to experience. 
 According to de Wette (comp. before him, Erasmus, Paraphr., who 
 inserts the intermediate thought: nec tamen ob id nos poenitet 
 evangelii), the course of thought is: “ But this working of death 
 hinders us not from preaching the gospel boldly, since the hope of 
 the resurrection strengthens us.” In this way, however, he arbi- 
 trarily passes over the immediately preceding thought, ἡ δὲ ζωὴ 
 ἐν ὑμῖν, to which, nevertheless, ver. 13 supplies an appropriate 
 elucidation. According to Hofmann, Paul brings in a modification 
 ef the contrast contained in ver. 12, when he says that he has, 
 
CHAP. IV. 13. 241 
 
 while death works in him, still the same spirit as exists in those 
 in whom life works. But there is no hint of this retrospective 
 reference of τὸ αὐτό (which would have required a σὺν ὑμῖν or 
 something similar); and not even the thought in itself would be 
 suitable, since his being in possession of the same spirit which his 
 disciples, in whom his life was in fact at work, possessed, would 
 be self-evident, and not a special point to be brought into pro- 
 minence and asserted by the apostle. This also in opposition to 
 Erasmus, Estius, Bengel, Schrader, and others, who explain τὸ 
 αὐτό: the same spirit, which you have. — τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίσ- 
 Tews] 1.6. the same Holy Spirit working faith, not: the believing 
 Jrame of mind (de Wette, comp. also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 
 176), which is not the meaning of πνεῦμα in Rom. viii. 15, xi. 8 ; 
 1 Cor. iv. 21; Gal. vi. 1; Eph.i.17. τὸ αὐτό is the same which 
 is made known in the following saying of Scripture, consequently 
 the same as the Psalmist had. With this hero of faith the apostle 
 knows himself to be on an equality in faith." The πίστις which 
 the Spirit works was with the Psalmist trust in God, with Paul 
 juith ὧν the salvation in Christ ; with both, therefore, the same 
 fundamental disposition of pious confidence on God’s promise 
 (Heb. 1. 11).— κατὰ τὸ yeyp.] in conformity, in agreement with 
 what is written. This belongs to καὶ ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, for if it 
 belonged to ἔχοντες (Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Ewald, and many 
 others), αὐτό would be superfluous. — ἐπίστευσα, διὸ ἐλάλησα] I 
 have become a believer, therefore have I let myself be heard, Ps. exvi. 
 10, after the LXX., in which the translation of 7378 3 ‘M2287 is 
 incorrect, but might be retained by Paul, all the more seeing that 
 in the original is contained the idea that the speaking proceeded 
 from faith’ (I trusted, for I spoke). — καὶ ἡμεῖς] we too, like the 
 Psalmist. Hofmann, on the other hand, in accordance with his 
 inappropriate view of τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τ. π., understands it: “in 
 common with those, who have the same spirit.” — διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν] 
 on which account we also let ourselves be heard, are not silent, but 
 preach the gospel. Through this it happens that ἡ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν 
 
 1 There is ground for assuming that Paul looked on David as the author of Ps. 
 exvi., which no doubt belongs to a far later time; it was customary, in fact, to 
 ascribe to David the anonymous psalms generally. 
 
 * For the very different meanings given to the text of the original (Hupfeld, Ewald, 
 I have faith, when I speak), see Hupfeld on Ps. cxvi., and Hofmann on this passage, 
 
 2 COR. IL. Q 
 
242 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ἐνεργεῖται. See on ver. 12. The καί before dad. is the also of 
 the relation corresponding (to the πιστεύομεν). 
 
 Ver. 14. Encouraging assurance accompanying this λαλοῦμεν 
 (not its contents); since we are certain that, etc. Comp. Rom. v. 3; 
 1 Cor. xv. 58.— ὁ ἐγείρας τ. κ. Ino.] Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14; 
 Rom. viii. 11. This designation of God contains the ground of 
 faith for the conviction about to be expressed. — καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐγερεῖ «x. παραστ. σὺν ὑμῖν] This is usually understood of 
 the actual resurrection from the dead, and of the presenting before 
 the judgment-seat of Christ. And this view is the right one, 
 partly because it alone is in keeping with the definite expressions, 
 partly because it is in the highest degree suitable to the connec- 
 tion, when Paul here at the close of what he says regarding his 
 sufferings and perils of death expresses the certainty of the last 
 and supreme consummation as the deepest ground of his all-defy- 
 ing courage of faith. This amid all afflictions is his καυχᾶσθαι 
 ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom. v. 2. Paul, indeed, expected 
 that he himself and most of his readers would live to see the 
 Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 51 f, i. 8, xi. 26; 2 Cor. i. 13 f.); but the 
 possibility of meeting death in the deadly persecutions was always 
 and even now before his mind (1 Cor. xv. 31 f.; 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 
 18; Phil. i 20 f, ii, 17; Acts xx. 25,38); and out of this case 
 conceived as possible, which subsequently he for the time being 
 even posits as a certainty (see on Acts xx. 25), he expresses here 
 in presence of his eventual death his triumphant consciousness 
 ὅτι ὁ ἐγείρας κιτλ. Hence there is no ground for explaining it, 
 with Beza (who, however, again abandoned this view), Calixtus 
 (“ suscitabit a morte sc. illa guotidiana”), Schulz, Riickert, Neander, 
 of the resurrection i a figurative sense, viz. of the overcoming 
 the constant perils of death (vv. 10-12), which, it is held, isa 
 resurrection with Jesus, in so far as through it there arises a fellow- 
 ship of destiny with the risen Christ. This interpretation is not 
 demanded by the correct reading σὺν ᾿Ιησοῦ, as if this σύν (comp. 
 Rom. vi. 4, 8; Eph. 11. 5 f.) presupposed the spiritual meaning. 
 It is true that the raising of the dead takes place διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 and has its basis ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22); but Christians 
 may be also conceived and designated as one day becoming raised 
 with Jesus, since they are members of Christ, and Christ is the 
 ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv. 23) of all who rise from the dead. The 
 
CHAP. IV. 15. 243 
 
 believer, in virtue of his connection with the Lord, knows himself 
 already in his temporal life as risen with Christ (see on Col. ii. 12, 
 iii. 1), and what he thus knows in faith emerges at the last day 
 into objective completion and outward reality. — καὶ παραστήσει 
 σὺν ὑμῖν] and will present us together with you. This is taken, 
 according to the previously rejected figurative sense of ἐγερεῖ, to 
 refer to the presentation of the conquerors over deadly perils, or 
 even in the sense: “and will bring us together again with you” 
 (Neander, Riickert). But, according to the context, after the 
 mention of the resurrection, it obviously denotes the presentation 
 before the judgment-seat of Christ (v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10; Col. i. 22 ; 
 Eph. v. 27; Luke xxi. 36), where the righteous receive the eter- 
 nal δόξα (2 Tim. iv. 8). With Christ they have suffered; with 
 Him they have risen; and now before the throne of the Lord 
 their συνδοξασθῆναι (Rom. viii. 15) sets in, which must be the 
 blessed result of their presentation before the Judge. Hence 
 Hofmann is wrong in thinking that there is no allusion to the 
 judgment-seat of Christ in παρᾶστ. Comp. on Col. i, 22. In 
 the certainty of this last consummation Paul has the deepest 
 ground of encouragement for his undaunted working, and the 
 presentiment of such a glorious consummation is made still sweeter 
 to him by the glance at the fellowship of love with his Corinthians, 
 together with whom he will reach the blessed goal unto eternal 
 union, Comp. 1 Thess. ii, 19. Hence: σὺν ὑμῖν, which is an 
 essential part of the inward certainty expressed by εἰδότες x.7.X., 
 which gives him high encouragement. We may add that the 
 ὑμεῖς will be partly those risen, partly those changed alive (1 Cor. 
 xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 14 ff). 
 
 Ver. 15. Σὺν ὑμῖν, which he has just used, is now made good 
 in such a way as to win their hearts. “ With you,I say, for all of 
 at is for your sake ;” there is nothing of all that we have to suffer 
 and that we do, which is not related to your advantage. Comp. 
 2 Tim. 1.10. ἐστί simply is to be supplied; but πάντα sums 
 up what is contained in vv. 7-13 (not merely ver. 12f.). Christ’s _ 
 death and resurrection, to which Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 Grotius make reference, did not form the subject-matter of the 
 preceding context. — ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσασα x.7.r.] in order that 
 the grace, 1.6. not only the divine grace consisting in the reception 
 of the spirit of faith (Hofmann), but that which is at work in 
 
244 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 all our victorious suffering and labouring, increased by the increasing 
 number, 1.0. after it has grown in extent and influence through the 
 increasing number of those who beyond ourselves have become 
 partakers in it, may make the thanksgiving, which pertains to it, 
 abundant (may produce it in an exceedingly high degree) to the 
 honour of God. ‘There is a similar thought in i. 11; but in the 
 present passage the thanksgiving is, in accordance with ver. 14, 
 conceived as on the day of judgment. Note the correlation of χάρις 
 and εὐχαριστίαν, as well as the climax: πλεονάσασα διὰ τῶν 
 πλειόνων and περισσεύσῃ (1 Thess, iii, 12). On περισσεύειν 
 τί, comp. ix. 8; Eph. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii, 12.—This is the con- 
 struction adopted by Chrysostom (?), the Vulgate, Ewald, and 
 others, including Riickert and Olshausen, who, however, refer διὰ 
 τῶν πλειόνων to the intercession of the Corinthians, which is not 
 at all suggested by the context. Divergent constructions are: 
 (1) “in order that the grace, since tt has become so exceeding rich, 
 may contribute richly to the glory of God on account of the thanks- 
 giving of the inereasing number,” Billroth, following Erasmus, 
 Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosen- 
 miiller, Krause, Flatt, Osiander, and others. So, in the main, 
 Hofmann also: (2) in order that the grace, since it has shown itself 
 so richly, may, through the increasing number, make the thanksgiving 
 abundant to the honour of God. So Emmerling, de Wette, Neander. 
 Both are possible; but since διά with the accusative would 
 express the conception, for the sake of, here unsuitable, the former 
 construction would lead us to expect διά with the genitive instead 
 of διὰ τ. πλ. τὴν evyap.' (comp. i. 11, ix. 12); and with both we fail 
 to find in πλεονάσασα a more precise definition of that by which 
 the grace has become more abundant, a thing not directly involved 
 in the connection (as in Rom. vi. 1). Besides, both are less in 
 keeping with the symmetry of the discourse, which, in structure 
 and expression, is carefully chosen and terse—features seen also 
 in the collocation: “increased through the increasing number.” 
 These πλείονες are those who have been converted by the apostolic 
 
 1The position of the genitive, inverted for the sake of emphasis, would have 
 occasioned no difficulty according to classical usage. Thus, e.g. Plato, Rep. p. 523 D, 
 and Stallbaum in Joc., also, generally, Kiihner, 11. p. 624. But Paul would hardly 
 have forsaken the usual order, διὰ τὴν τῶν πλειόνων edxap., Which would at any rate 
 
 have likewise made the τῶν 7a. emphatic. He would have had no reason for resort- 
 ing to that assumed hyperbaton. 
 
CIIAP. IV. 16. 245 
 
 ministry, and in particular those advanced in the Christian life, 
 who were just individualized by δι᾿ ὑμᾶς. 
 
 Ver. 16. 40] namely, on account of the certainty expressed 
 in ver. 14 (partly elucidated in ver. 15), in significant keeping 
 with εἰδότες, and hence not to be referred back to the faith of 
 the preachers, ver. 13 (Hofmann). — οὐκ éxxax.] as ver. 1. The 
 opposite of ἐκκακ. is: our inward man, 1.6. our morally self- 
 conscious personality, with the thinking and willing νοῦς and the 
 life-principle of the πνεῦμα (see on Rom. vii. 22; Eph. iii. 16; 
 - comp. 1 Pet. 111. 4), 2s renewed from day to day, 1.0. it receives 
 through the gracious efficacy of the divine Spirit continually new 
 vigour and elevation, τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἐλπίδι, TH προθυμίᾳ, Chry- 
 sostom. But with this there is also the admission: even if our 
 outward man, our phenomenal existence, our visible bodily nature, 
 whose immediate condition of life is the ψυχή, is destroyed, 1.6. is 
 in process of being wasted away, of being swept off, namely, 
 through the continual sufferings and persecutions, μαστιζόμενος, 
 ἐλαυνόμενος, μυρία πάσχων δεινά, Chrysostom. For though the 
 continual life-rescues reveal the life of Jesus in the body of the 
 apostle (ver. 11), yet there cannot thereby be done away the 
 gradually destructive physical influence of suffering on the bodily 
 nature. There is here a noble testimony to the consciousness of 
 a continuous independence of the development of spiritual life on 
 the passivity of the body; but the view of Billroth, who finds in 
 avaxaw. the growth of the infinite, the true resurrection, is just as 
 un-Pauline as is the opinion of an inward invisible body (Menken), 
 or even of a corporeality of the soul (Tertullian). On the point 
 whether the inward man includes in itself the germ of the resur- 
 rection of the body (Osiander), the N. T. says nothing. Riickert 
 diverges wholly from the usual interpretation, and thinks that 
 διὸ οὐκ ἐκκακ. is only an accessory, half parenthetical inference 
 from what precedes, and that a new train of thought does not 
 begin till ἀλλ᾽: “1 have that hope, and hence do not become 
 despondent. But even if I did not possess it, supposing even 
 that my outward man is actually dissolved,” etc. Against this 
 it may be urged that οὐκ ἐκκακοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾽ x.7.d. could not but 
 present itself obviously to every reader as closely connected (we 
 Faint not, but), and that the whole interpretation is a consequence 
 of Riickert’s erroneous exposition of ver. 14. Hence Neander 
 
246 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 also gives a similar interpretation, but hesitatingly—On δια- 
 φθείρεται, comp. Plato, Ale. 1. p. 135 A: διαφθαρῆναι τὸ σῶμα. --- 
 The ἀλλ᾽ (at, on the contrary) in the apodosis, after a concessive 
 conditional sentence, introduces with emphasis the opposite com- 
 pensating relation; see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 374; Nigelsbach 
 on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 2; Baeumlein, Partth. p. 11. — ὁ ἔσωθεν 
 the inward, inner man. Regarding adverbs in θεν with the same 
 meaning as their primitives, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 128; 
 Hartung, Kasus, p. 179. ---- ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ] day by day; καθ᾽ 
 ἡμέραν, TO ἐφ᾽ ἡμέραν (Eur. Cycl. 336), in point of sense, for ever 
 and ever, without interruption or standing still. A pure Hebraism, 
 not found once in the LXX., formed after 51 01; comp. Di? oi, 
 Esth. iii. 4; Gen, xxxix. 10; Ps. Ixviii. 20. See Vorst, Hebr. 
 p. 307 £.— ἀνακαινοῦται] Winer aptly remarks (Progr. de verbor, 
 cum praepos. compos. in N. T. usu, 111. p. 10), that in ἀνακαινοῦν, 
 to renew, to refresh, the question does not arise, “ wtrwm ea ipsa 
 novitas, quae alicui ret conciliatur, jam olim adfuerit necne;” see 
 on Col, iii. 10. Instead of ἀνακαινοῦν, the Greeks have only 
 ἀνακαινίζειν (Heb. iv. 6), but the simple form is also classical—— 
 The confession εἰ καὶ ὁ ἔξω «.7.X. became a watchword of the 
 martyrs. Comp. Cornelius a Lapide. 
 
 Ver. 17. Ground for the furtherance of this ὁ ἔσωθεν avaxat- 
 νοῦται ἡμέρᾳ x. ἡμ. from the glorious eternal result of temporal 
 suffering. — τὸ yap παραυτίκα «.7.r.] for the present lightness of 
 our affliction, 1.6. our momentary affliction weighing light, not 
 heavy to be borne. τὸ νῦν ἐλαφρ. τῆς OXAp. and τὸ παρὸν ἐλαφρ. 
 τῆς OX. would each give a different meaning; see Hermann, ad 
 Viger. p. 783. For examples of the very frequent adjectival use 
 of παραυτίκα, see Wetstein, Heindorf, ad Plat. Protag. ὃ 106, 
 p. 620; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 558 A; from Xenophon in 
 Raphel. Bengel aptly remarks: “notatur praesens breve.” The 
 near Parousia is conceived as terminus ad quem; comp. 1 Pet. 
 i. 6.— τὸ ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θχίψ.] like τὸ δεινὸν τοῦ πολέμου, the 
 horrors of war (Plato, Menex. p. 248 Β), χαλεπὸν τοῦ βίου (Rep. 
 p- 328E). Regarding the substantival use of the neuter adjec- 
 tive, whereby the idea of the adjective is brought into prominence 
 as the chief idea, see Matthiae, p. 994; Kiihner, 11. p. 122. — 
 καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν eis ὑπερβολήν] is definition of manner and degree 
 to Katepydterar; it works in an abundant way even to abundance 
 
CHAP. IV. 17. 247 
 
 an eternal weight (growth) of glory. In this—and how exuber- 
 ant is the deeply emotional form of expression itself !—lies the 
 measureless force and the measureless success of the κατεργάζεται. 
 If, with Riickert, we sought to find in this an adverbial definition 
 to αἰώνιον βάρος (Rom. vii. 13), it could only refer to αἰώνιον, 
 and the notion of αἰώνιος would make this appear as unsuitable. 
 Riickert is further wrong in thinking that the expression does 
 not seem to admit of a precise verbal explanation. But on καθ᾽ 
 ὕπερβ. seei. 8; Rom. vii.13; 1 Cor. xii 31; Gal.i.13; 4 Mace. 
 iii. 18; Bernhardy, p. 241; and on εἰς ὑὕπερβ. comp. passages 
 like x. 15; Luke xiii. 11; Eur. Hipp. 939; Lucian, D. M. 27.9; 
 Gymnas. 28; Tox. 12; on both expressions Valckenaer, ad Eur. 
 Hipp. 1.0. -- αἰώνιον ingeniously corresponds to the previous 
 παραυτίκα, and βάρος to the ἐλαφρόν (comp. Plato, Timacus, 
 p.63C). There is contained, however, in βάρος ἢ the quantitative 
 greatness of the δόξα ; comp. βάρος πλούτου, Plut. Alex. 48; Eur. 
 Iph. 419 ; Soph. Ajax. 130, and Lobeck thereon. It is similar 
 to the German phrase “eine schwere Menge.” — xcatepyaferas 
 ἡμῖν] brings about for us. The δόξα is conceived as requital for 
 the θλίψις (Matt. v.12; Luke xvi. 25; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. 
 11. 12, 13), and in so far as its effect, the production of which is 
 developed in the present suffering. It is not merely a spiritual 
 and moral δόξα that is meant (Riickert, who irrelevantly appeals 
 to Rom. iii. 23), but the whole glory, the aggregate glorious con- 
 dition in the Messiah’s kingdom, Rom. viii. 17, 18 ff.; Matt. 
 xiii. 43. — μὴ σκοπούντ. ἡμ. K.7.r.| since we do not direct our aim 
 to that which is seen, i.e. since we have not in view, as the goal 
 of our striving (Phil. ii. 4), the visible goods, enjoyments, etc., 
 which belong to the pre- Messianic period (τὰ ἐπέγεια, Phil. 
 iii, 19); comp. Rom. viii. 25. Billroth wrongly understands the 
 resurrection-bodies to be meant, which must have been derived 
 from what precedes, and may not be inferred from ν. 1. The 
 participle is taken as conditioning by Calvin, Riickert, Ewald, 
 Hofmann: τ being presupposed that we, etc.; comp. Chrysostom : 
 
 1 βάρος is not distinguished from ὄγκος by the latter having always the idea of 
 burden (Tittmann, Synon. p. 158). The notion of weight is always contained in 
 βάρος, and in ὄγκος that of bulk. The idea of burdensomeness is in both words given 
 solely by the context. Comp. on ὄγκος, used of abundant fulness ; Jacobs, ad Anthol, 
 IX. p. 126. 
 
248 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ἂν τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀπαγώγωμεν ἑαυτούς. The μή would accord 
 with this interpretation, but does not require it; see Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 301 f. [E. T. 351]. The former sense, specifying 
 the reason, is not only more appropriate in general to the ideal 
 apostolic way of regarding the Christian life (Rom. v. 3-5, viii. 
 1, 9, 25; 2 Cor. iv. 18), but it is also recommended by the fact 
 that Paul himself is meant first of all in ἡμῶν. On the more 
 strongly emphatic genitive absolute (instead of μὴ σκοποῦσι τὰ 
 βλεπ.), even after the governing clause, comp. Xenophon, Anab. 
 v. 8. 13, i. 4. 12, and Kiihner thereon; see also Kriiger, ὃ xlvii. 
 4, 2; Stalibaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 183 B; Winer, p. 195 [πὰ T. 
 260]. With the Greeks, however, the repetition of the subject 
 (ἡμῶν) is rare; comp. Thue. iii. 22. 1.— τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα] Paul 
 did not write τὰ od βλεπόμενα, because the goods and enjoyments 
 of the Messianic kingdom are to appear from the subjective 
 standpoint of the ἡμεῖς as something not seen.’ See Hermann, ad 
 Viger. p. 807; Kiihner, II. ὃ 715. 3. Comp. Heb. xi. 7.— τὰ 
 yap βλεπόμενα x.7.r.] Reason, why we do not aim, ete. — πρόσ- 
 katpa| temporary (Matt. xiii, 21; Mark iv. 17; Heb. xi. 25), 
 namely, lasting only to the near Parousia, 1 Cor. vii. 31; 1 John 
 ii, 17.—On the whole expression, comp. Seneca, Ep. 59. 
 
 1 Bengel aptly observes : ‘‘ Alind significat ἀόρατα ; nam multa, quae non cernuntur, 
 erunt visibilia, confecto itinere fidei?¢” 
 
CHAP. Υ͂. 249 
 
 CHA PT ER.. V. 
 
 Ver. 3. εἴγε] Lachm. reads εἴπερ, following B Ὁ E F G 17, 80, and 
 σινές in Chrys. One of the two is hardly a grammatical correction, 
 but simply an involuntary alteration of the copyists. Hence the 
 preponderance of testimony is decisive, and that in favour of εὔγε, 
 which has the support of C Καὶ L®& among the uncials, and of almost 
 all the cursives, as well as the strong weight of all the Greek Fathers. 
 (The testimony of the vss.and Latin Fathers is not available here.) 
 — ἐνδυσάμενοι] ἐκδυσάμενοι is found in D* F G, Ar. pol. It. codd. 
 in Chrys. and Oec. Ambrosiast. Tert. Paulin. Primas. Ambros. 
 Marcion. Preferred by Mill,’ Seml. Michael. Ernesti, Schott, 
 Schneckenb. Reiche, Osiander, and others. Recommended by 
 Griesb.; not adopted, but declared decidedly as correct, by Riick., 
 comp. also Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511; adopted by 
 Tisch. But ἐκδυσ. 15 an old alteration, arising from the fact that 
 ἐνδυσ., οὐ γυμνοί were not regarded as contrasts, and hence the former 
 was found inappropriate and unintelligible. Lachm. and Ewald 
 also defend the Recepta évive.— Ver. 4. After σκήνει Riick. reads 
 τούτῳ, following D E F G min. and several vss. and Fathers. A 
 defining addition. — Ver. 5. ὁ δούς] ὁ καὶ δούς is read by Elz. Scholz, 
 Tisch. against B C D* F Gs* min. and several vss. and Fathers. 
 But comp. i. 22.— Ver. 10. κακόν] φαῦλον, favoured by Griesb., adopted 
 by Tisch., is here (it is otherwise in Rom. ix. 11) too weakly attested 
 (only by C and& among the uncials).— Ver. 12. οὐ] Elz. Scholz, 
 Tisch. have οὐ γάρ, but against preponderating evidence. Addition 
 for the sake of connection. — καὶ οὐ] Lachm. reads καὶ μὴ ἐν. But 
 μή is only in B® and some cursives, Theodoret; while ἐν is found 
 in B D* F Gs and some cursives, Copt. Syr. Vulg. It. Clem. 
 Ambrosiast. Pel., so that μή and ἐν have not equal attestation. μή 
 is an emendation, and ἐν supplementary. — Ver. 15. εἰ εἷς] Lachm. 
 Riick. read εἷς, following far preponderating testimony. εὐ was 
 inserted for the sake of a connection assumed to be wanting. — 
 Ver. 16. εἰ δὲ καί] Β D* 8* 17,39 have only εἰ καί. So Lachm. 
 
 1 According to whom the attempts to explain iv3uczu. are alleged to be ‘‘ pleraque 
 absurda, omnia dura, coacta et incongrua.” Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 362, quite agrees 
 with him in this judgment, 
 
250 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Riick. δέ is only added by way of connection, just as the change 
 of order καὶ «iin F G, Vulg., It. and Latin Fathers has been made 
 for the sake of the connection, but likewise testifies to the non- 
 genuineness of δέ. ---- Ver. 17. τὰ πάντα] is wanting in important 
 authorities. Deleted by Lachm. and Riick. But how easily it 
 may have been passed over on account of the following τὰ δὲ πάντα ! 
 Some versions omit the latter. — Ver. 21. γάρ] is, according to pre- 
 ponderating testimony, to be deleted, with Lachm. Riick. and 
 Tisch. Instead of γινώμ., γενώμ. should be read, with Lachm. and 
 Tisch., following B Ο Ὁ E K Lx, min. Or. Chrys. al, These wit- 
 nesses are decisive; F and G also suggest the aor. 
 
 Vv. 1-10. Still a continuation of what precedes (see on iv. 7). 
 
 Ver. 1. Tap] gives a reason for iv. 17. For if we were not 
 certain that, etc., ver. 1, we could not maintain that our temporal 
 tribulation works for us an eternal weight of glory. — οἴδαμεν] is 
 here not the general ἐξ 7s known (Rom. 11. 2, iii. 19, vii. 14, 
 viii. 28), but Paul is speaking (with the inclusion also of Timothy) 
 of himself, as in the whole context. He is certain of this. Comp. 
 Job xix. 25.—éav ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν x.7.r.| in case our earthly house 
 of the tent (our present body) shall have been broken up (comp. 
 Polyb. vi. 40; 2 Esdr. v.12). Paul here supposes the case, the 
 actual occurrence of which, however, is left quite indefinite by ἐάν, 
 of his not living to sce the Parousia. It is true that he was 
 convinced for himself that he would live to see it (1 Cor. xv. 51), 
 but the opposite still remained to him a possible case, and he 
 posits it here (comp. on iv. 14) as dependent on emergent 
 circumstances and with an eye to the future decision. This 
 correct view of the use of ἐάν (see Hermann, ad Viger. pp. 822, 
 834f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 453) -is sufficient to set aside the 
 supposition that it is here equivalent to κἄν, etiamsi (Grotius, 
 Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, also Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 125), 
 which is not the case even in passages such as Mark viii. 36; 
 1 Cor. iv. 15, xiii. 1-3; 2 Cor. xii. 6.— ἐπίγειος] earthly, ie. 
 to be found on earth. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40; Phil. ii, 10, iii. 19; 
 Jas. iii. 15; John iii. 12. But the special notion of transitoriness 
 only comes to be added through the characteristic τοῦ σκήνους, 
 and is not specially implied in ἐπέγειος (in opposition to Flatt 
 and many others), for the present body is as ἐπίγειος, in contrast 
 to the heavenly things, in a general sense temporal. — ἡ οἰκία τοῦ 
 σκήνους is to be taken as one conception: the house, which consists 
 
CHAP. V. 1. 251 
 
 in the (known) tent, the tent-house. It is wrongly translated 
 domum corporis by Mosheim and Kypke (Riickert also hesitates 
 as to this). For frequently as the profane authors, especially the 
 Pythagoreans and Platonists, designate the body by σκῆνος 
 (Grotius in loc.; Alberti, Obss. p. 360; Dougtaeus, Anal. 11. 
 p. 122f.; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 30), and seem withal to 
 have quite abandoned the conception of the tent (see the pas- 
 sages in Wetstein, and Kypke, II. p. 250), still that conception 
 always lies at the root of the usage, and remains the significant 
 element of the expression. Comp. Etym. M.: σκῆνος καὶ τὸ σῶμα 
 Tapa τὸ σκήνωμα Kal σκηνὴν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς, οἷον οἰκητήριον. 
 And since Paul nowhere else uses σκῆνος of the body, and was 
 led in quite a special way by the figure of οἰκία to do so here, 
 we must keep by the literal meaning of σκῆνος, tent, by which is 
 set forth the merely temporary destiny of the earthly body. Comp. 
 2 Pet. i. 13,14; Isa. xxxviiii 12; Wisd. ix. 15, and Grimm 
 in loc. Chrysostom: εἰπὼν οἰκίαν σκήνους καὶ τὸ εὐδιάλυτον 
 καὶ πρόσκαιρον δείξας ἐκτεῦθεν, ἀντέθηκε τὴν αἰωνίαν. There 
 is nothing to indicate a particular allusion, such as to the dwell- 
 ings of the Israelites in the wilderness (Schneckenburger, comp. 
 Riickert), or even to the tabernacle (Olshausen).—On the two 
 genitives of different reference dependent on one noun, see Winer, 
 p. 180 [E. T. 239]; and in Latin, Kiihner, ad Cie. Tuse. 11. 15. 
 35. — οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ] a building proceeding from God, furnished 
 to us by God, by which is meant the reswrrection-body. The 
 earthly body also is from God (1 Cor. xii. 18, 24), but the 
 resurrection-body will be in a special creative sense (1 Cor. xv. 
 38) one, not indeed that has proceeded from God,’ but that is 
 given by God. Note also the contrast of the transient (ἡ οἰκία 
 Tov σκήν.) and the abiding (οἰκοδομή) in the two bodies. ἐκ θεοῦ 
 is to be attached to ofxod., not to be connected with ἔχομεν, by 
 which a heterogeneous contrast would be introduced (according to 
 Hofmann, with the earthly body, “ which is made each individual’s 
 own within the self-propagation of the human race”). The present 
 tense, ἔχομεν, is the present of the point of time in which that 
 καταλυθῆ shall have taken place. Then he who has died has, 
 from the moment of the state of death having set in, instead of 
 the destroyed body, the body proceeding from God, not yet indeed 
 
 1 Klopper in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 8f. 
 
252 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 as a real possession, but as an ideal possession, undoubtedly to 
 be realized at the (near) Parousia. Before this realization he has 
 it in heaven (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς belongs to ἔχομεν), just because the 
 possession is still ideal and proleptic; at the Parousia the resur- 
 rection-body will be given to him from heaven (comp. ver. 2) by 
 God, and till then it appears as a possession which 7s preserved 
 for him for a time in heaven with a view to being imparted in 
 future—like an estate belonging to him (comp. the idea ἔχειν 
 θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, Matt. xix. 21; Mark x. 21; Luke xviii. 22) 
 which God, the future giver, keeps for him in heaven. For a 
 like conception of the eternal ζωή in general, see Col. iii. 3f.; 
 comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p.375. The whole of this interpretation 
 is confirmed by τὸ οἰκητήρ. ju. τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ver. 2, which is 
 correlative to the ἔχομεν... ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ver. 1, in which, 
 however, ἐν does not again occur, but ἐκ, because in ver. 2 τὸ 
 οἰκητήριον ... ἐπενδύσασθαι expresses the time of the realization 
 of that possession described in ver. 1. As accordingly ἔχομεν 
 expresses more than the mere expectancy (“in the event of our 
 death we do not wholly perish, but have at the resurrection a 
 spiritual body to expect,’ Billroth), it is not to be transformed into 
 accipiemus (Pelagius: “sumemus”), with Emmerling, Flatt, and 
 many of the older expositors, nor is it to be said, with de Wette 
 (comp. Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 967; also Baur, 
 IT. p. 292 f, ed. 2; and Delitzsch, Psychol. Ὁ. 435 f.), that Paul 
 has overleaped the middle state between death and resurrection, 
 or has let it fall into the background on account of its shortness 
 (Osiander). The ἔχειν takes place already from the moment of 
 death and during the continuance of the intervening state, not 
 simply from the resurrection. Photius, Anselm, Thomas, Lyra, 
 and others,’ including Calovius, Wolf, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Hof- 
 mann, compare John xiv. 2, and on account of the present tense 
 refer this οἰκοδομή to the glorious place of abode of the blessed 
 
 1 Calvin hesitates between the right explanation and this one ; he says: ‘‘ Jncertum 
 est, an significet statum beatae immortalitatis, qui post mortem fideles manet, an vero 
 corpus incorruptibile et gloriosum, quale post resurrectionem erit.” Then he wishes 
 to unite the two views: ‘‘ Malo ita accipere, ut initium hujus aedificii sit beatus 
 animi status post mortem, consummatio autem sit gloria ultimae resurrectionis.” 
 Billroth misunderstands this, as if Calvin were thinking of two different sorts of 
 bodies, one of which we have till the resurrection, the other by means of the 
 resurrection, 
 
CHAP VIL: 253 
 
 spirits with God after death on to the resurrection. So also 
 Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 359 (comp. Schneckenburger, /.c.), explains it 
 of a life in heaven immediately after death. But against such a 
 view it may be decisively urged that οἰκία in the two parts of 
 the verse must necessarily have the same reference (namely, to 
 the body); hence also we cannot, with Ewald and Hofmann, think 
 of the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv. 25 f., Heb. xii. 22, and of 
 the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20. See, on the other hand, 
 τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ver. 2, on which Bengel rightly remarks: “ itaque 
 hoc domicilium non est coelum ipsum.”* But because the οἰκία 
 is ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, we can as little think of a pneumatic bodily organ 
 of the intermediate state (Flatt, Auberlen in the Stud. τ. Krit. 
 1852, p. 709, Neander), of which the N. T. gives no teaching or 
 even hint whatever. Miickert explains it, yet with much vacil- 
 lation, of the immediate sequence of the exit out of the old and 
 entrance on the new body; but this is against 1 Cor. xv. 51-53, 
 according to which the transfiguration of those who live to see 
 the Parousia appears not as investiture with a new body after a 
 previous κατάλυσις of the old, but as a sudden transformation 
 without destruction. This also in opposition to Olshausen, who 
 likewise seems to understand it of the transfiguration of the 
 living. — ἀχειροποίητον] This epithet, denoting the supernatural 
 origin, suits indeed only the figure (Mark xiv. 58; Acts vii. 48), 
 and not the thing in itself ;” yet it occurred to the apostle the 
 more naturally, and he could use it with the less scruple and 
 without impropriety, seeing that he had just before represented 
 the earthly body under the figure of a σκῆνος, consequently of an 
 οἰκία χειροποίητος, so that now, by virtue of contrast, the heavenly 
 body stood before his eyes as an οἰκία ayetporrointos. Conversely, 
 an adjective may, without incongruity, correspond to the thing 
 itself and not to the figure, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] 
 belongs to ἔχομεν ; see above.—Lastly, it is to be observed that in 
 the two halves of the verse (1) ἐκ θεοῦ and ἐν τοῖς odpav. correspond 
 with ἐπίγειος, and (2) ἀχειροπ. and αἰώνιον with τοῦ σκήνους. 
 
 1On the way of regarding heaven as domiciliwm, comp. Cic. de Senect. 23. 84; 
 Tuse. i. 11, 24: ‘‘animos, quum e corporibus excesserint, in coelum quasi in domi- 
 cilium suum, pervenire ;” also i. 22, 51. 
 
 * **Metaphoricus sensus in talibus spectetur, non primarius,” Dissen, ad Pind. 
 Pyth. iv. 158. 
 
254 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Ver. 2. Confirmation of the certainty expressed in ver. 1, not 
 an explanation why he should precisely mention the fact that he 
 has such comfort in the prospect of death (Hofmann)—as if, 
 instead of οἴδαμεν, λέγομεν or some similar verbum declarandi had 
 preceded. — καὶ yap] does not here any more than elsewhere mean 
 merely for (see, on the other hand, Hartung, Partzkell. I. Ὁ. 138), 
 but it means 707 also, so that καί is connected with ἐν τούτῳ. 
 Previously, namely, the case was supposed: ἐὰν... καταλυθῇ ; to 
 which this καὶ yap ἐν τούτῳ now corresponds, so that the train 
 of thought is: “we know that, in case our present body shall 
 have one day been destroyed, we have a body in heaven; for if 
 this were not so, we should not already zm the present body be 
 sighing after the being clothed upon with the heavenly.”* This 
 longing is an inward assurance of the fact that, if our earthly 
 house, etc. — καὶ yap ἐν τούτῳ] The emphasis is on ἐν: for also 
 in this. Not merely perhaps after the κατάλυσις supposed as 
 possible (ver. 1) shall we long for the heavenly body, but already 
 now, while we are not yet out of the earthly body but are still in 
 it, we are sighing to be clothed upon with the heavenly. This 
 is proved to be the right interpretation by the parallel in ver. 4, 
 where our ἐν is represented by οἱ ὄντες ἐν. On καί, also, in the 
 sense of already or already also, see Hartung, lc. p. 195 ; Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Gorg. p.467B; Fritzsche, ad Lucian. p. 5 ff. With 
 τούτῳ, according to the supposition of Grotius and others, includ- 
 ing Fritzsche and Schrader, σώματι is to be mentally supplied, 
 so that, as is often the case in the classic writers, the pronoun is 
 referred to a word which was contained only as regards the sense 
 in what preceded. See Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 47; Hermann, ad 
 Viger. Ὁ. 714; Seidler, ad Hur. Εἰ. 5823. Riickert wrongly thinks 
 that Paul in that case must have written ἐν αὐτῷς This prevalent 
 phenomenon of language applies, in fact, equally in the case of 
 all demonstrative and relative pronouns; see the passages in 
 Matthiae, p. 978f Seeing, however, that the following τὸ οἰκη- 
 τήριον ἡμ. τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ proves that Paul also, in ἐν τούτῳ, was 
 regarding the body wander the figure of a dwelling, and seeing that 
 
 1 ΤῸ that οἰκοδομὴν tx θεοῦ ἔχομεν were not correct, it would be absurd, instead of 
 being contented with the earthly habitation, to be longing already in it after being 
 clothed upon with the heavenly habitation. Quite similar is the argument in Rom, 
 viii. 22, 
 
CHAP, V. 2. 255 
 
 he himself in ver. 4 has expressly written τῷ σκήνει instead of 
 τούτῳ, the supplying of τῷ σκήνει is to be preferred (so Beza and 
 others, including Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Ewald’). Others 
 take ἐν τούτῳ as propterca (see on John xvi. 20; Acts xxiv. 16), 
 and refer it partly to what was said in ver. 1, as Hofmann: “ on 
 account of the death in prospect” (comp. Estius, Flatt, Lechler, 
 p. 138), or Delitzsch, p. 436: “in such position of the case;” 
 partly to what follows, which would be the epexegesis of it 
 (Erasmus, Usteri, Billroth, the latter with hesitation). So also 
 Riickert: in this respect. But the parallel of ver. 4 is decidedly 
 against all these views, even apart from the fact that that over 
 which we sigh is in Greek given by ἐπί with the dative or by 
 the accusative, and hence Hofmann’s view in particular would 
 have required ἐπὶ τούτῳ or τοῦτο. -- τὸ οἰκητήριον... ἐπυπο- 
 θοῦντες contains the reason of the sighing: because we long for, 
 etc. Paul himself gives further particulars in ver. 4. Hofmann 
 wrongly thinks that Paul explains his sighing from the fact, that 
 his longing applies to that clothing upon, instead of which death 
 sets in. The latter point is purely imported in consequence of his 
 erroneous explanation of ἐν τούτῳ. It is the sighing of the 
 longing to.experience the last change by means of a feng clothed | 
 upon with the future body ody. This Pete to be clothed upon with 
 the heavenly body (not, as Bengel pan many of the older expositors 
 would have it: with the glory of the transfigured soul, to which 
 view Hofmann also comes in the end, since he thinks of the 
 eternal light in which God dwells and Christ with Him lives) 
 extorts the sighs. Against the reference of ἐπενδύσ. to an organ 
 of the intermediate state, see on ver. 3, Remark. According 
 to Fritzsche, the participle is only a continuation of the dis- 
 course by attaching another thought: “in hoc corpore male nos 
 habentes suspiramus et coeleste superinduere gestimus.” But in 
 that case no logical reference would be furnished for καί; besides, 
 it seems unwarrantable to supply male nos habentes, since Paul 
 himself has added quite another participle; and in general, 
 wherever the participle seems only to continue the discourse, 
 there exists such a relation of the participle to the verb, as forms 
 logically a basis for the participial connection. Comp. Eph. v. 16. 
 According to Schneckenburger, στενάζομεν ἐπιποθοῦντες stands 
 1 See also Klopper in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 18. 
 
 
 
256 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 for ἐπιποθοῦμεν στενάζοντες, so that the chief fact is expressed 
 by the participle (Nigelsbach on the Jliad, pp. 234, 280, ed. 3; 
 Seidler, ad Hur. Iph. 1. 1411; Matthiae, p. 1295 f.). An arbi- 
 trary suggestion, against the usage of the N.T., which is different 
 even in the passages quoted by Buttmann, neut, Gr. p. 275 (ET, 
 320], and to be rejected also on account of ver. 4, στενάξομεν 
 Bapovp. —The distinction between οἰκία and οἰκητήριον is rightly 
 noted by Bengel: “ οἰκία est quiddam magis absolutum, οἰκη- 
 τήριον respicit incolam,” house—habitation (Jude 6 ; Eur. Or. 1114; 
 Plut. Mor. p. 602 D; 2 Mace. xi. 2, ὃ, 11. 15).— τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) 
 that which proceeds from heaven ; for it is ἐκ θεοῦ, ver. 1. God 
 furnishes from heaven the resurrection - body (1 Cor. xv. 38) 
 through Christ (Phil. 11. 21), in the case of the dead, by means 
 of raising, in the case of the living, by means of transforming 
 (1 Cor. xv. 51). The latter is what is thought of in the present 
 passage. — ἐπενδύσασθαι] With this Paul passes to another but 
 kindred figure, namely, that of a robe, as also among the Rabbins 
 (Schoettgen, Hor. p. 693) and the Neo-Platonists (Gataker, ad 
 Anton. p. 351; Bos, Zxercit. p.60; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 127) 
 the body is frequently represented as the robe of the soul. See 
 also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 239. But he does not simply say 
 ἐνδύσασθαι, but ἐπενδύσασθαι, to _put on over (which is not to be 
 taken with Schneckenburger of the succession ; see, on the contrary, 
 Plots Pelopcil 1: scbacas ἐπενδεδυμένοι ets ἐα τοῖς θώραξι, 
 Herod. i, 195: ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα ἐπενδύνει), 
 because the longing under discussion is directed to the living to 
 see the Parousia and the becoming transformed alive. This trans- 
 formation in the living body, oe is in so far an ἐπενδύ- 
 σασθαι, as this denotes the acquisition of a new body with negation 
 of the previous death (the ἐκδύσασθαι). This is not at variance 
 with 1 Cor. xv. 53, where the simple ἐνδύσασθαι is used of the 
 same transformation; for in that passage τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο is 
 the subject which puts on, and, consequently, τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο 
 ἐνδύεται is quite equivalent to ἐπενδυόμεθα, because in the latter 
 case, as at the present passage, the self-conscious Ego' is the sub- 
 ject. — Regarding ἐπιποθεῖν, in which ἐπί does not make the 
 meaning stronger (ardenter cupere), as it is usually taken, but 
 
 1Theinward man. He is put on with the earthly body, and sighs full of longing 
 to put on over it the heavenly body. 
 
CHAP, V. 3. 257 
 
 only indicates the direction of the longing (πόθον ἔχειν ἐπί τι), 
 see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 30 f. 
 
 Ver. 3. After ver. 2 a comma only is to be placed, for ver. 3 
 contains a supplementary definition to what precedes (comp. 
 Hartung, Partikell. I. pp. 391, 395 f.), inasmuch as the presuppo- 
 sition is stated under which the ἐπενδύσασθαι ἐπιποθοῦμεν takes 
 place: in the presupposition, namely, that we_shall_be found also \ 
 clothed, ΕΞ τες ae RT shall be met with at the Parousia | 
 really clothed with a body, and not bodiless. The apostle’s view is 
 that, while Christ at the Parousia descends from heaven, the | 
 Christians already dead first rise, then those still alive are trans- | 
 formed, whereupon both are then caught away into the pee 
 region of the air (εἰς ἀέρα) to meet the Lord, so that they thus | 
 at their meeting with the Lord shall be found not bodiless (od | 
 γυμνοί). but clothed with a corporeal covering’ (ἐνδυσάμενοι). See 
 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17, and Liinemann’s note thereon. This belief 
 is here laid down as certainty by εἴγε «.7.X., and as such it con- 
 ditions and j justifies the longing desire exnesabai in ver. 2, which, 
 on the contrary, would be vain and empty dreaming, if that belief 
 were erroneous, 1.6. if we at the Parousia should be found as mere 
 spirits without corporeality ; so that thus those still living, instead 
 of being transformed, would have to die, in order to appear as 
 spirits before the descending Christ. We cannot fail to see in 
 the words an incidental reference to those of the Corinthians who 
 denied the resurrection, and without the thought of them Paul 
 would have had no occasion for adding ver. 3; but the reference 
 is such, as takes for granted that the deniers are set aside and 
 the denied fact is certain. As the whole of this explanation is 
 quite in keeping with the context and the conceptions of the 
 apostle, so is it with the words, regarding which, however, it is 
 to be observed that the certainty of what is posited by eye, if 
 namely, is not implied in this particle by itself (in opposition to 
 Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834), but in the connection of the 
 conception and discourse. Comp. on Eph. iii. 2, Gal. 111. 4, and 
 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 64 f. Ο καί, also, in the sense of really, see 
 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132; and on εἴ γε καί, comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 
 6.13. The participle ἐνδυσάμενοι refers, however, to the act of 
 
 1 That is, with the new body, no longer with the old. ae in opposition to 
 Klépper, Hofmann, p. 130, 
 
 2 COR, II. R 
 
258 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 clothing previous to the εὑρεθησόμεθα, so that the aorist is quite 
 in its right place (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection, that the 
 perfect is required); and finally, the asyndeton ἐνδυσάμ., od γυμνοί 
 makes the contrasts come into more vivid prominence, like γάλα, 
 ov βρῶμα, 1 Cor. iii. 2; Rom. ii. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 17, and often; 
 comp. ver. 7. See Kiihner, II. p. 461; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 31; 
 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. — The most current exposition on the 
 part of others is: “Si nos iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non 
 exutos a corpore, st erimus inter mutandos, non inter mortuos,” 
 Grotius. So, following Tertullian (de Resurr. 41, though he reads 
 ἐκδυσ.), Cajetanus, Castalio, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Mosheim, Em- 
 merling, Schrader, Rinck, and others, and, in the main, Billroth 
 also, who, however, decides in favour of the reading εἴπερ, and 
 deletes the comma after ἐνδυσάμ.: “which (ze. the being clothed 
 upon) takes place, if we shall be fownd (on the day of the Lord) 
 otherwise than already once clothed (with the earthly body), not 
 naked (like the souls of the dead),” so that ἐνδυσάμ. od γυμνοὶ 
 evp. together would be: wipote jam semel induti non nudi in- 
 veniemur. Against that common explanation, which J. Miiller, 
 von der Siinde, II. p. 422 f., ed. 5, also follows with the reading 
 εἴπερ, the aorist participle is decisive (it must have been ἐνδεδυ- 
 μένοι). Billroth, however, quite arbitrarily imports the already 
 once, and, what could be more unnecessary, nay, vapid, than to 
 give a reason for od γυμνοί by means of ἐνδυσάμ. in the assumed 
 sense: since we indeed have already once received a body! which 
 would mean nothing else than: since we indeed are not born 
 bodiless. Against Billroth, besides, see Reiche, p. 357 f. Accord- 
 ing to Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 55 ff, ἐνδυσάμ. is held to be in essen- 
 tial meaning equivalent to ἐπενδυσάμ. : “ Superinduere (immortale 
 corpus vivi ad nos recipere) volumus, quandoquidem (quod certo 
 scimus et satis constat, εἴγε) etiam superinduti (immortali corpore) 
 non nudi sc. hoc immortali corpore, swmus futuri h. e. gquandoquidem 
 vel sic ad regni Mess. ἀφθαρσίαν perveniemus.” But while the 
 ἐπενδυσάμενοι may be included as a species among the ἐνδυσά- 
 μενοι, as opposed to the γυμνοί, they cannot be meant exclusively. 
 Besides, the thought: “ since we too clothed upon will not be without 
 
 1 Even Miiller acknowledges that the aorist is anomalous, but makes an irrelevant 
 
 appeal to Eph. vi. 14; 1 Thess. v. 8. In both passages, in fact, the having put on 
 is longed for, and the aorist is therefore quite in order. 
 
CHAP. V. 3. 259 
 
 the immortal body,’ would be without logical import, because the 
 superinduere is just the assumption of the future body, with which 
 we attain to the ἀφθαρσία of the Messianic kingdom. According 
 to de Wette, Paul says: “if, namely, also (in reality) clothed, we 
 shall be found not naked (bodiless), 2.6. as we then certainly pre- 
 suppose that that heavenly habitation will be also a body.’ So, in 
 the main, Lechler, Apost. uv. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 138 f., Ernesti, 
 Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 118, the latter taking εἴγε καί as although 
 indeed. But the whole explanation is absurd, since the ἔνδυσες 
 could not at all be conceived as at the same time its opposite, as 
 γυμνότης ; and had Paul wished to lay emphasis on the fact that 
 the clothing would be none other than with a body (which, how- 
 ever, was quite obvious of itself), he must have used not the 
 simple γυμνοί (not the simple opposite of ἐνδυσάμ.), but along 
 with it the more precise definition with which he was concerned, 
 something, therefore, like οὐ σώματος γυμνοί (Plato, Crat. p. 
 403 B, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner). According to 
 Delitzsch, 1.6. p. 436, εἰ καί is taken as although, and ἐνδυσάμ. as 
 contrast of ἐπενδυσάμ., so that there results as the meaning: 
 though, indeed, we too, having acquired the heavenly body by 
 means of clothing (not clothing over), shall be found not naked. 
 As if this were not quite obvious of itself! When clothed, one 
 certainly is not naked! no matter whether we have drawn the 
 robe on or over. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecu- 
 menius take ἐνδυσάμ. as equivalent to σῶμα ἄφθαρτον λαβόντες, 
 but γυμνοί as equivalent to γυμνοὶ δόξης, for the resurrection is 
 common to all, but not the δόξα. So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 
 392 ἢ: “ We long after being clothed upon, which event, however, 
 is desirable for us only under the condition or presupposition that 
 we, though clothed, shall not be found naked in another sense,” 
 namely, denuded of the garland which we should have gained. 
 Here also we may place Olshausen (comp. Pelagius, Anselm, 
 Calvin, Calovius, and others), who takes οὐ γυμνοί as epexegetical 
 of ἐνδυσάμ., and interprets the two thus: if we, namely, are found 
 also clothed with the robe of righteousness, not denuded of it. Comp. 
 also Osiander, who thinks of the spiritual ornament of justifica- 
 tion and sanctification ; further, Hofmann on the passage and in 
 his Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 473, who, putting a comma after εἴγε 
 (“if we, namely, i consequence of the fact that we also have put on, 
 
200 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 shall be found not naked”), understands ἐνδυσάμενοι as a desig- 
 nation of the Christian status (the having put on Christ), which 
 one must have in order not to stand forth naked and, therefore, 
 unfitted for being clothed over. But where in the text is there 
 any suggestion of a garland, a robe, an ornament of righteousness, 
 a putting on of Christ (Gal. iii. 27; Rom. xiii. 14), or of the 
 Christian status (1 Thess. v. 8 ; Eph. vi. 14, iv. 24; Col. i. 10), or 
 anything else, which does not mean simply the clothing with the 
 future body? Olshausen, indeed, is of opinion that there lies in 
 xat a hint of a transition to another figure; but without reason, 
 as is at once shown by what follows; and with equal justice any 
 change in the figure at our pleasure might be admitted! This 
 also in opposition to Ewald’s interpretation : “ {7} we at least being 
 also clothed (after we have had ourselves clothed, 1.6. raised again) 
 be found not naked, namely, guilty, like Adam and Eve, Gen. iii. 
 11. This would point to the resurrection of the wicked, Rev. 
 xx. 12-15; if we belonged to these, we should certainly not 
 have the putting on of glorification to hope for. But such a 
 reference was just as remote from the mind of the apostle, who is 
 speaking of himself and those like him, as the idea of Adam 
 and Eve, of whom Beza also thinks in γυμνοί, must, in the 
 absence of more precise indication, have remained utterly remote 
 from the mind of the reader. 
 
 REMARK.—Whether the reading ἐκδυσ. or ἐνδυσ. be adopted, it is not 
 to be explained of an interim body between death and resurrec- 
 tion (Flatt, p.69; Schneckenburger, /.c. p. 130; Schott ; Auberlen in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p.'709; Martensen, ὃ 276 ; Nitzsch, Goschel, 
 Rinck, and others, including Reiche,} /.c.), of which conception there 
 
 1 Reiche, p. 364: ‘‘ Quo certior nobis est gloriosae immortalitatis spes (γάρ, ο. 2), 60 
 impensiore quidem desiderio, ut morte non intercedente propediem ad summum 
 beatitudinis fastigium evehamur, flagramus ; attamen vero etiam corpore hoc per 
 mortem exuti sentiendi agendique instrumento non carebimus.” εἴγε καί is, in his 
 view, concessive, moderating the desire to assume the heavenly body without pre- 
 viously dying (ἐπενδύσασθαι, ver. 2): ‘Si igitur Deus votis (ver. 2) non annuerit, 
 animum haud despondemus anxiive futura anhelamus, persuasi scilicet, et post 
 mortem illico mentem nostram immortalem in statum beatissimum evectum iri,” ete. 
 It is true that Reiche himself declares against the view that Paul here speaks of a 
 body intermediate between death and resurrection ; but his own view amounts to 
 much the same thing, since Paul, according to it, is supposed to grant that we, un- 
 clothed of the earthly body by death, will yet ‘‘ post mortem illico” be found not 
 naked, 
 
CHAP. V. 4 261 
 
 is no trace in the New Testament ;! but rather, since γυμνοί can 
 only refer to the lack of a body: ἐγ we, namely, even in the case that 
 we shall be unclothed (shall have died before the Parousia), shall be 
 found not naked (bodiless), in which the idea would be implied: 
 assuming, namely, that we in every case, even in the event of our 
 having died before the Parousia, will not appear before Christ without 
 a body; hence the wish of attaining the new body without previous 
 death is all the better founded (ἐπενδύσασθαι). Similarly Riickert. 
 Kling (in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1839, p. 511) takes it inaccurately : 
 “although we, even if an unclothing has ensued, will not be found 
 bare,” by which Paul is held to say: “even if the severing process 
 of death has ensued, yet the believers will not appear bodiless on 
 the day of the Lord, since God gives them the resurrection-body.” ἢ 
 The error of this view lies in although. No doubt Kling, with 
 Lachmann, reads εἴπερ But even this never means guamvis (not 
 even in 1 Cor. viii. 5); and the Homeric use of εἴπερ in the sense: 
 1} also nevertheless, if even ever so much (Odyss. i. 167; 71. i. 81, and 
 Nagelsbach’s note thereon, p. 43, ed. 3), especially with a negative 
 apodosis (see Hartung, I. p. 339 ; Kiihner, II. p. 562), passed neither 
 into the Attic writers nor into the N. T. 
 
 Ver. 4. An explanation defining more precisely, and therewith 
 giving a reason for (γάρ), ver. 3, after a frequent practice of the 
 
 1 The manner also in which the origin of this corporeality has been conceived, 
 namely, as the soul’s self-eembodiment by putting on the elements of the higher 
 world (see, especially, Giider, Ersch. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 336, also West. in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 280), has nowhere in Scripture any basis whatever. See, in 
 opposition to it, Delitzsch, p. 438; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, 111. 2, p. 436, 
 who, however (p. 74 f.), for his part, answers in the affirmative the question, whether 
 we are to think of ‘‘ a change of clothing and clothing over of the new man out of the 
 transfigured corporeality of the Lord, whose communion is the blessed bread and the 
 blessed cup.” In any case, γυμνοί is the negation of corporeality. But the question | 
 remains untouched (comp. the cautious remarks of J. Miiller, p. 425), what organ of 
 its activity the soul retains in death, when it is divested of the body. On this point 
 we have no instruction in Scripture, and conjectures (like Weisse’s conception of the 
 nerve-spirit) lead to nothing. The opinion that the Lord’s Supper has a trans- 
 figuring power over the body goes partly against Scripture (because it presupposes 
 the participation of the transfigured body of Christ) and partly beyond Scripture 
 (because the latter contains nothing regarding any power of the Lord’s Supper over 
 the body). Ultra quod scriptum est is also the conception in Delitzsch of the body- 
 like appearance of the bodiless soul itself, or of an outline of the same resembling in 
 form its true inward state. Such theories bring us into the realm of phantasma- 
 goric hypotheses. 
 
 2 So in the main did Chrysostom interpret the reading ἐκδυσάμενοι (for so we are 
 to read in the explanation first quoted by him, comp. Matthaei in loc.): κἂν ἀποθώ- 
 μεθα τὸ σῶμα, ov χωρὶς σώματος ἐκεῖ παραστησόωεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀφθάρτου 
 γενομένου. 
 
262 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 apostle. Comp.iv. 10,11. In this καί, even, serves to emphasize 
 the οἱ ὄντες ἐν τ. σκ., just as with ἐν τούτῳ in ver. 2.— The ἐν 
 τούτῳ of ver. 2 is here more precisely defined by οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ 
 σκήνει, in which οἱ ὄντες is prefixed with emphasis: for even as 
 those who are still in the tent, 1.6. for even as those whose sojourn 
 in the tent is not yet at an end; already while we are still in 
 possession of the bodily life, which duration of time is opposed to 
 the moment of the possible κατάλυσις τοῦ σκήνους, when the 
 tent is left, and when the longing and sighing after the new body 
 would be still stronger; comp. on ver. 2. From the very position of 
 the καί Hofmann is wrong in making its emphasis fall on Bapov- 
 pevot, which extorts sighs from us, and then taking οἱ ὄντες ἐν τ. 
 ox. in antithetic reference to what is afterwards affirmed of these 
 subjects, since they prefer to remain in the earthly life (comp. ot 
 ζῶντες, iv. 11). The οἱ ὄντες ἐν τ. ox. can only, in fact, be the 
 same as the ἐν τούτῳ of ver. 2, which, however, Hofmann has 
 already wrongly understood in another way; the two expressions 
 explain one another. —76 σκήνει)] The article expresses the tent 
 which is defined by the connection (the body). — Bapovpevor] 
 definition assigning a reason for orevat.: inasmuch as we are de- 
 pressed ; not, however, propter calamitates (i. 8), as Piscator, Emmer- 
 ling, Schneckenburger, Fritzsche suppose without any ground in the 
 context, but the cause of the pressure which extorts the sighs is 
 expressed by the following ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν x.7.X., so that βαρού- 
 μενοι, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ov θέλομεν x.7.r. is a more precise explanation of the 
 TO οἰκητήριον... ἐπιποθοῦντες of ver. 2. --- ἐφ᾿ ᾧ] te. ἐπὶ τούτῳ 
 ὅτι, propterea quod, as Rom. v. 12; see on that passage. Comp. here 
 particularly θυμὸν βαρύνειν ἐπί τινι, Pind. Pyth. i. 162 f.; στενά- 
 few ἐπί τινι, Soph. Hl. 1291; Xen. Cyr. iv. 3. 3: δακνόμενος ἐπὶ 
 τούτοις. We feel ourselves as oppressed by a burden, because we 
 are not willing, i.e. have an antipathy, to unclothe, ete. The oppres- 
 sive part of this οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπενδύσασθαι lies in 
 the ever present possibility of the ἐκδύσασθαι. Emmerling and 
 Fritzsche take ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as quare (see Elsner, ad Rom. v. 12; 
 Matthiae, p. 1373): “Nam in hoc corpore ad calamitates valde 
 ingemisco (kal... . γὰρ βαρυν.) et propter hanc ipsam malorum 
 molem (ἐφ᾽ 6) nolo quidem, wt haec propulsetur, mortem oppetere 
 (ἐκδυσ.), etc. But there is nothing of the malorwm moles in the 
 context: and if we should wish, as the context allowed, with 
 
CIIAP. ν 4. 263 
 
 Osiander and older commentators, to refer Bapovp. to the pressure 
 which the body as such (the σκῆνος) causes to us by its onus 
 peccati et crucis (comp. Wisd. ix. 15), and then to explain ἐφ᾽ ¢: 
 and in order to get rid of this pressure ; this would be at variance 
 with the parallel in ver. 2, according to which the sighing must 
 appear to be caused by the special longing (which in ver. 4 is, by 
 way of more precise definition, designated as an oppressing one), 
 not by another pressure.’ This, at the same time, in opposition 
 to Usteri and Schneckenburger, who take it as whereupon (comp. 
 Kiihner, II. p. 298). According to Beza, it means in quo, sc. 
 tabernaculo, and, according to Flatt, even although. At variance 
 with linguistic usage. Ewald, taking βαρούμ. of the burden of 
 the whole earthly existence, explains it: “in so far as we wish not 
 to be unclothed, and so set forth as naked and guilty and cast into 
 hell, but to be clothed over.” Against this it may be urged that 
 ep’ ᾧ does not mean quatenus (ἐφ᾽ ὅσον), and that the interpretation 
 of “being unclothed” in the sense of vewm fiert is not grounded 
 in the text; see on ver. 3.— θέλομεν] Out of this we are not, 
 with Grotius, Emmerling, and others, to make malumus ; otherwise 
 ἢ must have stood instead of ἀλλά, 1 Cor. xiv. 19. The οὐ 
 θέλειν is the nolle, the not being willing (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
 278; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274), of the disinclination of 
 natural feeling. — ἀλλ᾽] sc. θέλομεν. ---- ἵνα καταποθῇ κ.τ.λ.] 
 We wish to be clothed over, in order that, in this desired case, } 
 what is mortal in us may be swallowed wp (may be annihilated, / 
 comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 54) by life, ie. by the new, immortal τ τὶ 
 of life which is imparted to us in the moment of the change (of | 
 the ἐπενδύσασθαι). “Ὥσπερ avicxov τὸ φῶς φροῦδον τὸ σκότος 
 ποιεῖ, οὕτως ἡ ἀνώλεθρος ζωὴ τὴν φθορὰν ἀφανίζει, Theodoret. 
 
 REMARK.—There is not fear of death in this utterance of the 
 apostle, but rather the shrinking from death, that pertains to human 
 nature—the shrinking from the process of death as a painful one. 
 His wish was not to die first before the Parousia and then to be 
 raised up, but to be transformed alive ; and what man, to whom the 
 
 1 Osiander: ‘* wherefore we long to have ourselves not unclothed, but clothed over, 
 because in the very act of dying the pressure of the tabernacle becomes heaviest, when 
 it, as it were, collapses over its inhabitant.” It is self-evident that of this explication 
 of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ there is nothing in the text : even apart from the fact, that Osiander explains 
 as if the words were ig’ ᾧ θέλομεν οὐκ ἐκδύσασθαι a7.A- 
 
<< 
 
 ~———— es 
 Sea ----..ος 
 
 264 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 nearness of the Parousia was so certain, could have wished other- 
 wise? His courage in confronting death, which was no Stoical Ὁ 
 contempt of death, remained untouched by it. 
 
 Ver. 5. 4é] not antithetic (Hofmann), but continuative ; this 
 wish is no groundless longing, but we are placed by God in a posi- 
 tion for the longed-for change which swallows up death. Now 
 He who has made us ready for this very thing is God. — εἰς αὐτὸ 
 τοῦτο] for this very behalf, for this very thing, Rom. ix. 17, xiii. 6; 
 Eph. vi. 18, 22; Col. iv. 8. According to the context, it cannot 
 apply to anything else than to the ἐπενδύσασθαι, whereby the 
 mortal will be swallowed up of life. or this precisely Paul knew 
 his individuality to be disposed by God, namely (see what follows) 
 through the Holy Spirit, in the possession of which he had the 
 divine euarantee that at the Parousia he should see his mortal 
 part swallowed up of life, and consequently should not be 
 amongst those liable to eternal destruction. In this way the 
 usual "reference of αὐτὸ τοῦτο to the eternal glory is to be limited 
 more exactly in accordance with the context; comp. also Maier. 
 Bengel wrongly refers it to the sighing, pointing to Rom. viii. 23.1 
 But how inappropriate this is to the context! And how unsuit- 
 able in that case would be the description of the Holy Spirit 
 as ἀῤῥαβών, since, according to Bengel, He is to be conceived as 
 “suspiria operans”! Quite as unsuitable is the reference of xatepy. 
 to the ereation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, and 
 others, also Schneckenburger), which has no place here even as the 
 
 1 This reference has been in substance repeated by Hofmann (comp. also his 
 Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 475 f.). In place of his former misinterpretation, according to 
 which he took κασεργάζεσθαι as to work down, break the spirit (see, in opposition to 
 this, my third edition, p. 115, Remark), he has substituted the other erroneous 
 explanation, that κατεργάζεσθαι is to be held as ‘‘to bring one to the point of doing 
 something,” that tis αὐπὸ rodro applies to the disinclination to being unclothed, and 
 that the means by which God brings us to the point of not wishing to be unclothed 
 is obviously the terribleness of death. ‘The last point is purely imported, and the 
 whole explanation is excluded by its very inconsistency with the language used in 
 the passage. For κατεργάζεσθαι means, with Greek writers, to bring one to some- 
 thing, but always only in the sense to prevail on one for something for which we wish 
 to get him, to win him for one’s ends, whether this be effected by persuasion or by 
 other influence directed to theend. So also Judg. xvi. 16; Xen. Mem. ii. 3.11. Our 
 expression to work on a person is similar. Comp. also Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 16 ; Herod. 
 vii. 6 (κατεργάσατο καὶ ἀνέπεισε), ix. 108; Strabo, x. 5, p. 483 (πειθαῖ κατεργάζονται). 
 In the N. T. the word never means anything else than to set at work, bring about, 
 and in this sense it occurs frequently in Paul. Nor is it otherwise used here. 
 
CHAP. V. 6. 265 
 
 beginning of the preparation indicated (in opposition to Ewald) ; 
 Riickert remains undecided. — ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν «.7.r.] predicative more 
 precise definition of the previous ὁ δὲ κατεργ. ἡμᾶς... θεός; He 
 who (quippe qui) has given to us the Spirit as earnest; see oni. 22. 
 As carnest, namely, of the fact that we shall not fail to be clothed 
 upon with the heavenly - body ‘at the Parousia (which Paul was 
 
 — 
 
 convinced he would live to see). Comp. Rom. viii. 11, and the | 
 Remark thereon. The usual reference of 7. appaB.: ar ies futurae | 
 
 gloriae, is here too general for the context. The view of Hofmann 
 regarding ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν «.7.r., that the possession of the Spirit, etc., 
 cancels the distinction between being unclothed and being clothed 
 over, and takes away the natural shrinking from death, falls with 
 his explanation of xatepyac. 7p. eis αὐτὸ τοῦτο ; see the Remark. 
 
 Ver. 6. The resulting effect of ver. 5 on the apostle’s tone of 
 mind.— Estius (comp. Erasmus, Annot.) rightly saw that the 
 participle does not stand for the finite verb (as Flatt still holds, 
 with most of the older commentators), but that ver. 6 is an 
 anacoluthon, as the construction is quite broken off by ver. 7, 
 but the thought is taken up again with θαῤῥοῦμεν δέ in ver. 8. 
 See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 43 ff.; Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 717 11; 
 Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 252 [E. T. 292]. We must there- 
 fore not treat ver. 7 (Beza and others), nor even vv. 7 and 8 
 (Olshausen, Ewald), as a parenthesis. Paul intended to write: 
 θαῤῥοῦντες οὖν πάντοτε Kal εἰδότες... κυρίου, εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον 
 κιτιλ,, but was carried away from this by the intervening thought 
 of ver. 7, and accordingly wrote as he has done. Comp. on ver. 8. 
 Hofmann’s opinion, that θαῤῥοῦμεν δὲ «.7.d. is apodosis to the 
 participial protasis θαῤῥοῦντες οὖν x.7.r., would only be gramma- 
 tically tenable (comp. on Acts xiii. 45) if there were no δέ in 
 ver. 8. This δέ, as is always the case with δέ of the apodosis, 
 even in the examples in Hartung, I. p. 186, would be adversative 
 (on the contrary), which is not suitable here, and is not to be 
 logically supported by the added x. eddox. μᾶλλον (see on ver. 8). 
 — θαῤῥοῦντες] in all afflictions, iv. 17. — πάντοτε] In no time of 
 trouble does Paul know himself deserted by this confident courage, 
 iv. 8 ff, vi. 4 ff. — καὶ εἰδότες x.7.0.] This likewise follows from 
 ver, 5, and likewise serves as ground for the εὐδοκοῦμεν κ.τ.λ.. of 
 ver. 8; hence it is not, with Calvin, to be explained: guia scimus 
 (as giving a reason for the θαῤῥοῦντες), nor with Estius, Rosen- 
 
266 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 miiller, Emmerling, Flatt, Olshausen, in a limiting sense: while 
 we yet, or although we know. — ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώμ.] being at 
 home in_the body, 1.6. while the body 4 is the place of our home. 
 \rne body is here also conceived as οἰκία (ποὺ civitas, as Rickert, 
 de Wette, Osiander, and others hold), and that an οἰκία out of 
 which we have not yet migrated, Erasmus: “quamdiu domi sumus 
 in hoe corporis habitaculo.” Comp. Plato, Legg. xii. p. 594 B: 
 ἐὰν δὲ ἀποδημῶν οἰκίας δεσπότης τυγχάνῃ, Aesch. Choeph. 569. 
 — ἐκδημοῦμεν ἀπὸ τ. κυρ. peregre absumus a Domino. For in 
 respect to the future eternal home with Christ (1 Thess. iv. 17 ; 
 Phi) 23-01. 20; Heb. xi. 13, xi. 14), the temporary home in 
 the earthly body is a sojourn abroad, an ἐκδημία, which ‘Keeps us 
 at a distance from Christ. On ἀπὸ τ. κυρ., comp. Rom. ix. 3; 
 Ameis on Hom. Od. xiv. 525, appendix. 
 Ver. 7. Reason assigned for the évdnuodvtes ... κυρίου. For 
 | through faith we walk, etc.; faith is the sphere through which we 
 | walk, 46. farth is the denen through which our ἘΠῚ y life moves, 
 If we walked διὰ εἴδους, seeing that this presupposes the being 
 together with Christ, we ἘΞ not be ἐκδημοῦντες ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 κυρίου. The object of faith we must from the whole connection 
 ‘conceive to be the Lord in His glory, whose real form (τὸ εἶδος) 
 we shall hall only have before us when we are with Him. Comp. 
 Rom. viii. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 17; John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i 8) ah 
 yr artes] quite in ἘΠῚ. with the Grosk phrase διὰ 
 δικαιοσύνης ἰέναι. Comp. περιπατεῖν διὰ τοῦ φῶτος, Rev. xxi. 
 24, and the classical expressions πορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν ἡδονῶν and 
 the like; see, in general, Valckenaer, ad Phoeniss. 402 ; Heindorf, 
 ad Protag. p. 323 A; Hermann, ad Oed. Col. 905; Bernhardy, 
 p. 235.— οὐ διὰ εἴδους] 1.6. not so, that we are surrounded by the 
 \ | appearance, not 80, that we have before us Christ, the Exalted One, 
 in His real appearance and form, i.e. in His visible δόξα, and ¢ that 
 ‘this clorious εἶδος shines round us in our r walk. Comp. John xvii. 
 [ 24, anata? πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. εἶδος 
 never means, as it is mostly explained, vision (not even in 
 Num. xii. 8), but always species. The Vulgate renders rightly: 
 per speciem. See Luke 111. 22, ix. 29; John v. 37; 1 Thess. v. 
 22; Duncan, Lez., ed. Rost, p. 333; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 607 Κι; 
 Tittmann, Synon. p. 119, who, however, with the assent of Lipsius 
 (Recht fertigungsl. p. 100), wrongly takes it: externa rerum specie 
 
CHAP. V. 8. 267 
 
 captum vivere, so that the meaning would be: “ Vita nostra 
 immortali illa spe, non harum rerum vana specie regitur.” 
 According to this view, different objects would quite arbitrarily 
 be assumed for πίστις and εἶδος ; and further, where Paul specifies 
 with περιπατεῖν that by which it is defined, he uses as a preposi- 
 tional expression not διά, but «ard (Rom. vii. 4, xiv. 15, αἰ.), 
 or renders palpable the manner of the walking by ἐν (iv. 2; Rom. 
 vi. 4, al.), or characterizes it by the dative, as xii.18; Gal.v. 16. 
 These reasons tell also in opposition to Hofmann, who explains 
 διά of the walk, which has its quality from faith, etc., and εἶδος of 
 an outward form of the walker himself, in which the latter presents 
 himself as visible—Regarding the relation of the διὰ πίστεως to 
 the διὰ εἴδους, observe that in the temporal life we have the 
 πίστις, and not the efdos, while in the future world through the 
 Parousia there is added to the πίστις also the εἶδος, but the former 
 does not thereby ceasé, it father remains eternal (1 Cor. xiii. 13). 
 
 Ver. 8. But we have good courage and are well pleased, ete. 
 With this Paul resumes the thought of ver. 6, and carries it on, 
 yet without keeping to the construction there begun. The idea 
 of the θαῤῥοῦμεν must in this resumption be the same as that of 
 the θαῤῥοῦντες in ver. 6, namely, the idea of confident courage in 
 suffering. This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes θαῤῥοῦντες 
 rightly of courage in suffering, but θαῤῥοῦμεν of courage in death, 
 making the infinitive ἐκδημῆσαι depend also on θαῤῥοῦμεν (see 
 below). — δέ, no doubt, links on again the discourse interrupted by 
 the parenthesis (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 847; Pflugk, ad δι». 
 Hee. 1211; Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 21), which may also happen, 
 where no δέ has preceded (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 377); since, 
 however, θαῤῥοῦντες is not repeated here, we must suppose that 
 Paul has quite dropped the plan of the discourse begun in ver. 6 
 and broken off by ver. 7, and returns by the way of contrast to 
 what was said in ver. 6. Accordingly there occurs an adversative 
 reference to the previous διὰ πίστ. περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδους, in 
 so far as this state of things as to the course of his temporal 
 life does not make the apostle at all discontented and discouraged, 
 but, on the contrary, leaves his θαῤῥεῖν, already expressed in 
 ver. 6, quite untouched, and makes his desire tend rather towards 
 being from home, etc. Comp. Hartung, I. p. 173. 2; Klotz, le. 
 Thus there is a logical reason why Paul has not written οὖν. Comp. 
 
—_— 
 
 ur κ΄“ An A, κ- ae CS Dae 
 
 Ana—h 
 Fee ἜΑ hshy , ov L LQ ot Asi. unvck Chae τύ 
 kK Ao ᾿ { y 
 
 ει" 
 
 * 
 
 268 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 on Eph. ii. 4. — On εὐδοκεῖν in the sense of being pleased, of placet 
 mihi, comp. 1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i.15; Col. 1 19; 1 Thess, i. 8; 
 Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 370. — ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος] to be- 
 from-home out of the body, is not to be understood of the change at 
 the Parousia (Kaeuffer, ζωὴ αἰών., p. 80 f.), but, in accordance with 
 the context, must be the opposite of ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν TO σώματι, 
 ver. 6; consequently in substance not different from ἐκδύσασθαι, 
 ver. 4. Hence the only right interpretation is the usual one of 
 dying, in consequence of which we are-from-home out of the body. 
 “Comp. Phil. 1. 23; Plato, Phaed. p. 67, B, C. The infinitive is 
 dependent only on εὐδοκοῦμεν, not also on θαῤῥοῦμεν (Hofmann), 
 since θαῤῥεῖν with the infinitive means to venture something, to 
 undertake to do something, which would not suit here (comp. Xen. 
 Cyr. vil. 8. 6; Herodian, ii. 10, 13),—even apart from the fact 
 that this use of θαῤῥεῖν (equivalent to τολμᾶν) is foreien to the 
 N. T. and rare even among Greek writers. The εὐδοκοῦμεν x.7.r. 
 
 ἡ is something greater than the θαῤῥοῦμεν This passage stands to 
 
 ver. 4, where Paul has expressed the desire not to die but to be 
 | transformed alive, in the relation not of contradiction, but of 
 \ climas ; the shrinking from the process of ‘dying is is, through 
 the consideration contained in ver. 5 and in the feeling of the 
 
 courage which it gives (ver. 6), now overcome, and in place of it 
 
 ᾿ there has now come the inclination rather (μᾶλλον) to see the present 
 ᾿ relation of ἐνδημεῖν ἐν τῷ σώματι and ἐκδημεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου 
 
 (ver. 6) reversed, rather, therefore, ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος 
 καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον, which will take place through 
 death, if this should be appointed to him in his apostolic conflicts 
 and sufferings (iv. 7 ff.) , for in that case his spirit, having migrated 
 from his body, will not, separated from Christ, come into Hades, 
 but will be at home with the Lord in heaven—a state the blessed- 
 ness of which will later, at the day of the Parousia, receive the 
 consummation of glory. The certainty of coming by martyrdom 
 
 1 μᾶλλον therefore belongs neither to εὐδοκοῦμεν nor to éapp. x. εὐδοκ., as if Paul 
 would say that he has this courage stil’ more than that meant in ver. 6 (Hofmann), 
 but to ἐκδημῇσαι. .. κύριον, We wish that, instead of the present home in the body, 
 etc., there may rather (potius) set in the being-from-home out of the body and the 
 being-at-home with the Lord. This “‘ rather” no more yields an awkward idea here 
 (as Hofmann objects) than it does in all other passages where it is said that one wills, 
 ought to do, or does, instead of one thing rather the other. Comp. e.g. 1 Cor. v. 2, 
 vi. 7; Rom, xiv. 18; John iii. 19. 
 
CHAP. V. 9. 269 
 
 into heaven to Christ is consequently not to be regarded as ἃ. 
 certainty only apprehended subsequently by Paul. See Phil. i. 26, 
 Remark. 
 
 Ver. 9. Therefore, because we εὐδοκοῦμεν x.7.r., ver. 8, we 
 exert ourselves also. Bengel: “ut assequamur quod optamus.” — 
 φιλοτιμ.] denotes the striving, in which the end aimed at is 
 regarded as a matter of honour. See on Rom. xv. 20. Bengel 
 well says: “haec una ambitio legitima.” But there is no hint 
 of a contrast with the “honowr-coveting courage of the heathen in 
 dying” (Hofmann). — εἴτε ἐνδημοῦντες, εἴτε ἐκδημοῦντες] is either 
 connected with φιλοτιυμ. (Calvin and others, including Billroth, 
 Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander) or with εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ 
 εἶναι (so Chrysostom and many others, including Castalio, Beza, 
 Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Flatt, Hofmann). The decision 
 must depend upon the explanation. Chrysostom, Calvin, and 
 others, including Flatt and Billroth, supply with ἐνδημ.: πρὸς τὸν 
 κύριον, and with ἐκδημ.: ἀπὸ τοῦ Kupiov. In that case it must be 
 connected with εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι (Chrysostom: τὸ yap ζητού- 
 μενον τοῦτό ἐστί φησιν ἄν τε ἐκεῖ ὦμεν, ἄν τε ἐνταῦθα, κατὰ 
 γνώμην αὐτοῦ ζῆν), not with φιλοτιμούμεθα (Calvin: Paul says, 
 “tam mortuis quam vivis hoc inesse studium”); for they who are 
 at home with Christ are well-pleasing to Him, and, according to 
 Rom. vi. 7, Paul cannot say of them that they strive to be so. 
 The striving refers merely to the earthly life, and one strives to be 
 well-pleasing to the Lord as ἐκδημῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, not as ἐνδημῶν 
 πρὸς αὐτόν. For in the case of those who ἐνδημοῦσι πρὸς τὸν 
 κύριον, the continuance of their being well-pleased is a self-evident 
 moral fact. On this account, and because quite an illogical order 
 of the two clauses would be the result (οὐ tune et nunc 1), the whole 
 of Chrysostom’s explanation, and even its mode of connection, is 
 erroneous. The right explanation depends on our completing 
 ἐνδημοῦντες by ἐν TO σώματι, and ἐκδημοῦντες by ἐκ Tod σώματος ; 
 for that τὸ σῶμα is still the idea which continues operative from 
 vv. 6, 8, is shown by τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος in ver. 10, an expression 
 occasioned by the very reference to the body, which is before the 
 mind in ver. 9. Further, we must clearly maintain that ἐκδη- 
 μοῦντες, in contrast to ἐνδημοῦντες, does not mean: migrating, i.e. 
 dying, but: peregre absentes, being from home (comp. Soph. Oed. R. 
 114: θεωρὸς ἐκδημῶν, a pilgrim from home), just as in ver. 6 
 
270 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ἐκδημοῦμεν was peregre absumus, and in ver. 8 ἐκδημῆσαι peregre 
 abesse.. Hence we must reject all explanations which give the 
 meaning: living or dying (Calovius, Bengel, Ewald, Osiander, who 
 find the totality of life expressed with a bringing into prominence of 
 the last moment of life), or even: “ sive diutius corport inmmanendum, 
 sive eo exeundum sit” (Erasmus, Paraphr., Emmerling), to which 
 Riickert ultimately comes, introducing Paul’s alleged illness ; while 
 de Wette thinks that Paul includes mention of the departure from 
 life only to show that he is prepared for everything. We should 
 rather keep strictly to the meaning of ἐκδημ., peregre absentes ex 
 corpore (comp. Vulgate: absentes), and explain it: We_exert our- 
 selves to be well-pleasing to the Lord, whether we (at E His Parousia) are 
 still at-home in the body, or are already from-home out of it, conse- 
 quently, according to the other figure used before, already ἐκδυσά- 
 μενοι, 1.6. already dead, so that we come to be judged before Him 
 (more precisely: before His judgment-seat, ver. 10), not through 
 the being changed, like the ἐνδημοῦντες, but through the being 
 raised up. It is thus self-evident that εἴτε ἐνδημοῦντες «.7.2. 
 must be attached not to φιλοτιμούμεθα, but to εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ 
 εἶναι, as was done by Chrysostom, although with an erroneous 
 explanation. 
 
 Ver. 10. Objective motive of this striving. — τοὺς yap πάντας 
 ἡμᾶς} no one excepted. It applies to all Christians ; comp. Rom. 
 xiv. 10.— δεῖ] a divine appointment, which is not to be evaded. 
 — φανερωθῆναι) This does not imply “the concealment hitherto of 
 the dead” (de Wette), for the living also are judged, but means: 
 mantfestos fiert cum occultis nostris (Bengel, comp. Beza). Comp. 
 1 Cor. iv. 5; Rom. u. 16. Thus it is distinguished from the 
 mere παραστῆναι, iv. 14, Rom. xiv. 10, for which Grotius takes 
 it; and it is arbitrary to declare this distinction unnecessary 
 (Riickert), since that conception corresponds alike with the word 
 (comp. ver. 11) and the fact. Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. 
 — κομίσηται] Moral actions are, according to the idea of adequate 
 requital, conceived as something deposited, which at the last judg- 
 
 1 Jn this case, however, there is not the contrast: ef nunc et tunc, in this and in 
 that life, as Beza, Grotius, and others suppose, connecting it with ebdpeoro: εἶναι, ἢ 
 For with the present well-pleasing the futwre is obvious of itself. Grotius felt this, 
 and hence, substituting another meaning in the second clause, he explains it: ‘‘ nwie 
 
 vitam nostram ipsi probando, tunc ab ipso pracmium accipiendo,” See, against this, 
 Calovius. 
 
-- 
 
 CIIAP. V. 10. 9.11 
 
 ment is carried away, received, and taken with us, namely, in the 
 equivalent reward and punishment. Comp. Eph. vi. 8; Col. ii. 
 25; Gal. vi 7; Matt. vi. 20; Rev. xiv. 18. --- τὰ διὰ τοῦ 
 σώματος] sc. ὄντα, that which is brought about through the body, 
 that which has been done by means of the activity of the bodily 
 life (τὸ σῶμα as organic instrument of the Ego in its moral 
 activity generally; hence not: τῆς σαρκός). Comp., on δεὰ τοῦ 
 σώματος, expressions like τῶν ἡδονῶν αἱ διὰ τοῦ σώματός εἰσιν, 
 Plat. Phaed. p. 65 A; αἰσθήσεις ai διὰ τοῦ σώματος, Phaedr. p. 
 250 D, al. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 5. 3.1 Instead of Luther’s: 
 in the life of the body (so also de Wette and many others), through 
 the life of the body would be better. There is no reason for taking 
 the διά merely of the state (111. 11). The thought of the resur- 
 rection-body, with which the recompense is to be received (to 
 which view Osiander, following the Fathers and some older com- 
 mentators, is inclined), is alien to the context (vv. 6, 8, 9); besides, 
 merely διὰ τοῦ cop. would be used without τά. --- The πρὸς ἃ 
 ἔπραξεν contains the standard of righteousness, in accordance with 
 which every one κομίσεται τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος : corresponding to 
 what he has done.—elte ἀγαθὸν, εἴτε κακόν] sc. ἔπραξε. The 
 recompense of the wicked may take place as well by the assign- 
 ing of a lower degree of the Messianic salvation (1 Cor. iii. 15; 
 2 Cor. ix. 6) as by exclusion from the Messianic kingdom (1 Cor. 
 vi. 9 f.; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 5). 
 
 REMARK.—Our passage does not, as Flatt thought, refer to a 
 special judgment which awaits every man immediately after death 
 (a conception quite foreign to the apostle), but to the ast judgment 
 conceived as near; and it results from it that, according to Paul, 
 the atonement made through the death of Jesus, in virtue of which 
 the pre-Christian guilt of those who had become believers was 
 blotted out, does not do away with the requital of the moral relation 
 established in the Christian state. Comp. Rom. xiv. 10, 12; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 5. They come in reality not simply before the judgment (to 
 receive their graduated reward of grace, as Osiander thinks), but 
 
 1 The reading τὰ ἴδια τοῦ σώματος (Arm. Vulg. It. Goth. Or. twice, and many 
 Fathers), which Grotius and Mill approved, is to be regarded as a gloss, in which τὰ 
 διά was meant to be defined more precisely by τὰ ἴδια. In the Pelagian controversy 
 the ἴδια acquired importance for combating the doctrine of original sin, because 
 children could not have done any ἴδια peccata, and hence could not be liable to 
 judgment. On the other hand, Augustine, Zp. 107, laid stress on the imputation of 
 Adam’s sin, according to which it was the moral property even of children. 
 
2S PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 into the judgment ; in John iii. 18, the last judgment is not spoken 
 of, and as to 1 Cor. vi. 2 f., see on that passage. Paul, however, 
 does not thereby say that, if the Christian has fallen and turns 
 back again to faith, the atonement through Christ does not benefit 
 him ; on the contrary, the μετάνοια of the Christian is a repetition 
 of his passing over to faith, and the effect of the atonement (of the 
 ἱλαστήριον) is repeated, or rather continues for the Christian indi- 
 vidual, so that even the Christian sins are blotted out, when one 
 returns from the life of sin into that of faith. But the immoral 
 conduct of Christians, continuing without this werdvom, is liable 
 to the punishment of the judgment, because they in such an event 
 have frustrated as to themselves the aim of the plan of redemption. 
 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 379. This in opposition to Riickert’s 
 opinion, that Paul knows nothing of a continuing effect of the merit 
 of Christ. This continuing effect is implied not only in the general 
 Pauline doctrine that eternal life is God’s gift of grace (Rom. vi. 
 23), and in the idea of Christ’s intercession (Rom. vill. 34; comp. 
 Heb. vii. 25, ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1, 2), but also in passages like 2 Cor. 
 vii. 10, compared with Rom. v. 9, 10,17. We may add the apt 
 remark of Liicke on 1 John, p. 147: “As a single past and con- 
 cluded fact, it (Christ’s atoning work) would be just a mere 
 symbol; it has full truth only in its continuing efficacy.” 
 
 _Vy,.11—21. Since we thus fear Christ, we persuade men, but 
 we are manifest to God, and, it is to be hoped, also to you (ver. 
 11), by which we nevertheless do not wish to praise ourselves, 
 but to give you occasion to boast of us against our opponents 
 (ver. 12). For for this you have cause, whether we may be now 
 mad (as our opponents say) or in possession of reason (ver. 13). 
 Proof of the latter (vv. 14, 15), from which Paul then infers that 
 he no longer knows any one after the flesh, as formerly, when he 
 had so known Christ, and that hence the Christian is a new 
 creature (vv. 16, 17). And this new creation is the work of God 
 (vv. 18, 19), whence results the exalted standpoint of the apos- 
 tolic preaching, which proclaims reconciliation (vv. 20, 21): 
 
 Ver. 11. ὉΠ in pursuance of what has just been said, that 
 we all before the judgment-seat of Christ, etc, ver. 10.— 
 τ. φόβον τ. κυρίου] The genitive is not genitivus subjecti 
 (equivalent to τὸ φοβερὸν τ. κυρ.), as Emmerling, Flatt, Billroth, 
 Osiander, and others hold, following Chrysostom and most of the 
 older commentators (comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 513; Klausen, ad 
 Aesch. Choeph. 31); for the use of the expression with the genitive 
 
CHAP, V. 11. 273 
 
 taken objectively is the standing and habitual one in the LXX., 
 the Apocrypha, and the N. T., according to the analogy of M8 
 mim (vii 1; Eph. v.21; comp. Acts ix. 31; Rom. iii. 18); and 
 the context does not warrant us in departing from this. Hence: 
 since we know accordingly the fear of Christ (as judge); since holy 
 awe before Him is by no means to us a strange and unknown 
 feeling, but, on the contrary, we know how much and in what 
 way He is to be feared. The Vulgate renders rightly: ¢imorem 
 Domini; Beza wrongly: “ terrorem illum Domini, 1.6. formidabile, 
 illud judicium.” — ἀνθρώπους πείθομεν] we persuade men, but God | 
 we do not need to persuade, like men; to Him we are manifest. 
 The ἀνθρ. πειθ. has been interpreted ᾿ the gaining over to Christi- 
 anity (Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Emmerling, and others); 
 or of the apostolic working in general (Ewald); or of the correction 
 of erroneous and offensive opinions regarding Paul (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact); or of the striving to make themselves 
 pleasing to men (Erasmus, Luther, Elsner, Wolf, Hammond, Flatt, 
 and others); or of the persuadere hominibus nostram integritatem 
 (Estius, Bengel, Semler, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander),. 
 Billroth also, with quite arbitrary importation of the idea, thinks 
 that πείθομεν is meant of illegitimate, deceitful persuasion: “1 
 can indeed deceive men, but to God withal I am manifest.” 
 Raphel takes it similarly, but with an interrogative turn. But 
 this assumed meaning of πείθω must of necessity have been given 
 by the context (which is not the case even in Gal. iv. 10); and 
 the idea of being able would in this view of the meaning be so 
 essential, that it could not be conveyed in the mere indicative, 
 which, on the contrary, expresses the actually existing state of 
 things, as well as the following wedavep. Olshausen erroneously 
 attempts to correct this explanation to the effect of our under- 
 standing ‘the expression in reference to the accusations of the 
 opponents : “ As our opponents say, we deceitfully persuade men, 
 but before God we are manifest in our purity.” The “as our 
 opponents say” is as arbitrarily invented,’ as is the conception of 
 
 1 Luther: ‘‘ We deal softly with the people, i.e. we do not tyrannize over nor drive 
 the people with excommunications and other wanton injunctions, for we fear God ; 
 but we teach them gently, so that we disgust no one.’ 
 
 2 It is different with iécrnuev, ver. 13, where the literal sense in itself points to 
 an accusation of the opponents; but this is not the case with πείθομεν, 
 
 2 COR. IL 5 
 
21: PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 deceit in πείθομεν. In defining the object of πείθομεν, the only 
 course warranted_by- the context is t0 go back to-the immediately 
 preceding self-witness in ver. 9, φιλοτιμ. εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι. Of 
 this we bring men to the conviction through our teaching and 
 working, not: of the fact, that we fear the Lord (Zachariae, Riickert), 
 since εἰδότες τ. φόβ. τ. κυρ. is only of the nature of a motive and 
 a subsidiary thought; hence also not: “eundem hune timorem 
 hominibus suademus” (Cornelius a Lapide, Clericus, and others). 
 Comp. Pelagius: “ut caveant ;” and again Hofmann: we convince 
 others of the duty and the right mode of fearing the Lord. After 
 ἀνθρώπους there is no omission of μέν (Riickert) ; but the putting 
 of the clause ἀνθρ. πείθ. without indicating its relation makes the 
 following contrast appear surprising and thereby rhetorically more 
 emphatic. — ἐν ταῖς συνειδ. ὑμῶν] Calvin aptly says : “ Conscientia 
 enim longius penetrat, quam carnis judicium.” In the syllogism of 
 the conscience (law of God—act of man—moral judgment on the 
 same) the action of a third party is here the minor premiss. The 
 individualizing plural of συνείδ. is not elsewhere found ; yet comp. 
 iv. 2.— πεφανερῶσθαι) The perfect infinitive after ἐλπίζω, which 
 elsewhere in the N. T. has only the aorist infinitive coupled with it, 
 is here logically necessary in the connection. For Paul hopes, 1.6. 
 holds the opinion under the hope of its being contirmed, that he 
 has become and is manifest in the conscience of the readers (present 
 of the completed action). Comp. Homo JI xv. 110% ἤδη yap νῦν 
 ἔλπομ᾽ “Apni ye πῆμα τετύχθαι, Od. vi. 297; Eurip. Suppl. 790. 
 Ver. 12. Οὐ πάλιν éavt. συνιστ. See on iii. 1. The ἑαυτούς 
 (not again self-praise do we practise) does not stand in contrast 
 with the ὑμῖν following after 6:6. (Fritzsche, Osiander), because 
 otherwise ὑμῖν must have stood immediately after ἀλλά. ---- ἀλλὰ 
 ἀφορμ. διδόντες «.7.A.]| We should not, with Beza and Flatt, supply 
 ἐσμέν, but λέγομεν ταῦτα, which flows from the previous ἕαυτ. 
 συνιστ. See Matthiae, p. 1534; Kiihner, 11. p. 604; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 5991. ---- καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμ.} Here 
 also καύχημα is not (comp. Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 16 ἢ; 
 2 Cor. i. 14) equivalent to καύχησις (de Wette and many others), 
 
 , but is materies gloriandi. The thought of the apostle is, that he 
 
 Ι 
 | 
 
 gives the readers_occasion for finding matter to make their boast 
 
 in ars aie as eal ae tae x, eB 
 to his advantage (ὑπέρ, comp. ix. 3, vil. 4, vill. 24, vii. 17, ix. 2, 
 xii. 5). The whole phrase ἀλλὰ ἀφορμὴν x.7.d. combines with 
 
CHAP. V. 12. 275 
 
 all the strength of apostolic self-confidence a tender delicacy, in 
 which, nevertheless, we cannot help seeing a touch of irony (for 
 
 Paul presents the cold and adverse disposition towards him, into | 
 which a part of the church had allowed itself to be brought by 
 the hostile teachers, as lack of occasion to make their boast on — 
 
 his account !).— After ἔχητε there is supplied either τί (Acts 
 xxiv. 19): in order that you may have somewhat to oppose to 
 those who, etc. (so Calvin and the most), or τὶ λέγειν (Theodoret, 
 de Wette, Osiander), or καύχημα (rather καύχ. ὑπὲρ ju., for these 
 words go together). So Camerarius, Zeger, and others, including 
 Riickert and Ewald. But since give and have are evidently 
 correlative, the context leads us (comp. Hofmann also) to supply 
 ἀφορμὴν καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμ.: in order that ye may have this 
 occasion, have it in readiness (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 26) to make use 
 of it, against those who, ete. πρός, according to the context, 
 denotes the direction contra, Matthiae, p. 1390.— πρὸς τοὺς ἐν 
 προσώπῳ Kavy., K. ov καρδίᾳ] against those, who make their boast 
 for the sake of countenance and not of heart. A very striking 
 description of the opponents as hypocritical boasters, not of the 
 making a parade of their being immediate disciples of Christ 
 (Hilgenfeld). The object of their self-boasting is the cowntenance, 
 the holiness, the zeal, the love, etc., which present themselves on 
 their countenance, but of the heart they make no boast; for of 
 that of which they boast, their heart is empty.1 “Ubi autem 
 inanis est ostentatio, illic nulla sinceritas, nulla animi rectitudo,” 
 Calvin. It is self-evident withal to the reader that this whole 
 description is expressed according to the true state of the case, and 
 not according to the design of the persons described themselves ; 
 for these wished, of course, to pass at all events for persons who 
 with their self-boasting exhibited the virtues of their hearts, and 
 not the semblance of their faces. Comp. Theophylact (following 
 Chrysostom): τοιοῦτοι yap ἦσαν εὐλαβείας μὲν ἔχοντες προσω- 
 πεῖον (mask), ἐν δὲ καρδίᾳ οὐδὲν φέροντες ἀγαθόν. Usually (also 
 
 1 προσώπῳ, like καρδίᾳ, must refer to the persons concerned, and mean their counte- 
 nance (as even Beyschlag grants). Hence it may not be taken, in accordance with 
 Luke xiii. 26, of their having boasted that they had often seen, heard, perhaps even 
 spoken with, Jesus, while yet they had gained no relation of the heart to him. This 
 in opposition to Beyschlag in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1865, p. 266. For in that case it 
 
 would, in fact, be the countenance of Jesus, which they would make it the contents 
 of their boast that they had seen, etc. 
 
276 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 by Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Rabiger, Neander) ἐν 
 προσώπῳ is taken in the wider sense: de rebus externis, to which 
 is then opposed in καρδίᾳ the purity of the disposition. Learn- 
 ing, eloquence, Jewish lineage, acquaintance with the older 
 apostles, and the like, are held to be included in ἐν προσώπῳ ; 
 comp. Holsten, who recalls the ᾿Εβραῖοί εἰσιν x.7.X. in xi. 22. But 
 with what warrant from linguistic usage? Even in passages like 
 1 Sam. xvi. 17, Matt. xxii. 16, πρόσωπον means nothing else 
 than countenance. Paul must have chosen some such contrast as 
 ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ov πνεύματι, in order to be understood. Ewald 
 explains it: “who doubtless boast me before the face, when they 
 see myself present, but not in the heart.” But cavywpévovs cannot 
 mean: who boast me, but only: who boast themselves. In the 
 N. T., too, ἐν with καυχᾶσθαι always denotes the object, of which 
 one makes boast, even in Jas. iv. 16. Comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 
 1 20. This, at the same time, in opposition to Hofmann’s view: 
 “they make their boast only in presence of others, and not inwardly 
 before themselves.” Neither προσώπῳ (see Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 
 152]) nor καρδίᾳ (1 Thess. ii. 17; Rom. vi. 17, x. 10; 2 Cor. 
 ii. 4, al.) needed the article; and there was just as little need for 
 the self-evident αὐτῶν to be inserted (1 Thess. /.c.). Indeed, if Paul 
 had meant what Hofmann thinks, he could not but, in order to be 
 intelligible, have added the different genitival definitions (ἄλλων 
 —éav7Tav). Bengel subtly and aptly remarks on καρδίᾳ: “ Haec 
 Pauli vena erat: ab ejus corde fulgebat veritas ad conscientias 
 Corinthiorum.” 
 
 Ver. 13. And_you have reason for making your boast on our 
 behalf over against the adversaries '—That Paul is here dealing, 
 and that not without irony, with an odious accusation of his 
 opponents (perhaps of an overseer of the church, according to 
 Ewald), is evident, since otherwise the peculiar mode of expression 
 used by him would appear quite uncalled for. It must have 
 been asserted that he had gone out of his senses, that he had become 
 mad (observe the aorist),—an assertion for which narrow-minded- 
 
 1 In x. 16 the object is denoted by εἰς, whereby the reference to the locality is given 
 for ἐν ἀλλοσρίῳ κανόνι, SO that in this passage the construction is not καυχᾶσθαι iv, but 
 καυχᾶσθαι cis, On καυχᾶσθαι tv, comp. the Latin gloriari in; Cic. N. D. iii. 36. 87 ; 
 Tusc. i. 21. 49; Catil. ii. 9. 20. The object is conceived as that, in which the 
 
 καυχᾶσθαι is causally based. In the classics it is joined with iwi, εἰς, and with the 
 simple accusative. 
 
CHAP, V. 13, 277 
 
 ness as well as malice might find cause enough, or seize pretext, 
 in the extraordinary heroism and divine zeal of his working in 
 general, and especially in his sudden and wonderful conversion, 
 in the ecstasies and visions’ which he had had, in his anti- 
 Judaism at times unsparing, in his ideal demands on the Christian 
 life, in the prominence given to his consciousness of apostleship, 
 to his sufferings, and the like. In reference to this accusation 
 
 he now says: “ For be it, that we have become mad (as our enemies | 
 
 venture to assert), it 7s a madness standing at the service of God (a 
 
 holy mania, which deserves | respect, not blame ἢ; ; or be it, that we | 
 
 are of sound understandin ing, We Are 80 jor your service (which can 
 only be found | by you uu praiseworthy).” Comp. Aretius, Riickert, 
 de Wette, Osiander, Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 170), 
 who, however, abides uly by the apostle’s assertion, that he had 
 seen Christ and was a full apostle, as the ground for this opinion 
 of his opponents. As early as the time of Chrysostom (he quotes 
 an explanation: εἰ μὲν μαίνεσθαί τις ἡμᾶς νομίζει x.7.d.) it was 
 recognised that a glance at a hostile accusation was contained in 
 ἐξέστημεν, and this is remarked by most of the older and the 
 modern commentators ; but there should have been the less hesita- 
 tion at taking the word in its full sense (see on Mark iii. 21; 
 comp. Acts xxvi. 24), whereas it was often weakened into: wltra 
 modum agere, or into: to be foolish (Chrysostom, Morus, Billroth), 
 to seem to act foolishly (Flatt), and the like, in spite of the follow- 
 ing σωφρονοῦμεν, which is the exact opposite of having become 
 mad (Plato, Phaedr. p. 244 A). Comp. Acts xxvi. 25. As re- 
 gards the subject-matter, ἐξέστ. was mostly (as by Chrysostom and 
 Theodoret) referred to the self-praise,? in which case θεῷ was 
 taken as: to the honour of God, and then ὑμῖν was referred either 
 to the salutary example (wa μάθητε ταπεινοφρονεῖν, Chrysostom, 
 Flatt) or to the salutary condescension. So Erasmus,‘ Vatablus, 
 
 1 Grotius limits the reference of éZéer. to the trances alone ; but the word in itself 
 does not justify this. 
 
 * So Bengel ; and earlier Luther, who gives as gloss: ‘‘If we do too much, i.e. if 
 we deal at once sharply with the people, we still serve God by it; but if we act 
 gently and moderately with them, we do so for the people’s good, so that in every 
 way we do rightly and well.” 
 
 3 Comp. Pindar, Ol. ix. 58: στὸ καυχᾶσέαι παρὰ καιρὸν μανίαισιν ὑποκρέκει, Plato, 
 Protag. p. 323 B: ὃ ἐκεῖ σωφροσύνην ἡγοῦντο εἶναι, τἀληδῇ λέγειν, ἐνταῦθα μανίαν. 
 
 4 “Si quid gloriatur P., id non ad ipsius, sed ad Dei gloriam pertinet ; si mediocria 
 
 reser 
 
278 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Menochius, Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, Olshausen. Billroth takes 
 it differently: “If, however, you put a rational construction on 
 it (this boasting), in my case, I wish to have myself boasted of 
 only for your advantage; I do it only in order that you may not 
 be deceived by my opponents regarding me.” But the whole 
 reference to the self-praise is after ver. 12, where Paul has ab- 
 solutely negatived the ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν, contrary to the 
 context ; and those references of ὑμῖν to the example shown, or to 
 the apostolic condescension, or to a deception of the readers to be 
 prevented, are not in keeping with the parallel θεῷ; and there is 
 no reason in the context for sacrificing the uniformity in compass 
 of meaning of the two datives, so that ὑμῖν is not to be taken 
 otherwise than with Grotius in the comprehensive sense of i 
 vestros usus. According to Hofmann, ἐξέστ. is to be referred to 
 the self-testimony expressed lofti/y and in the most exalted tone 
 at ii, 14 ff: “If it might there be said that he had gone out of 
 himself, on the other hand, the succeeding explanation (begun in 
 111. 1) could only produce the impression of sober rationality.” 
 But in this way there is in fact assumed a retrospective reference 
 for ἐξέστ., which no reader and, excepting Hofmann, no expositor 
 could have conjectured, and this all the less that from iii. 1 to 
 the present passage Paul has been speaking of himself in a 
 tone to a great extent lofty and exalted (eg. 111. 2 f,12 ff, the 
 whole of chap. iv., particularly after ver. 7; also v. 1 ff); so that 
 we do not see on what so great a difference of judgment is to be 
 based, as would be yielded by ἐξέστ. and cwdpov. It remains 
 far from clear, we may add, what more precise conception Hof- 
 mann has of “gone out of himself” (whether as insanity or 
 merely as extravagance of emotion). — εἴτε... εἴτε] does not here 
 mark off two different conditions (Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, 
 p. 182 ff.) and times, nor the actual change of moods and modes 
 of behaviour (Osiander) which Paul would scarcely have designated 
 according to different references of aim (comp. rather τὰ πάντα δι᾽ 
 ὑμᾶς, iv. 15), but two different modes of appearance of the same 
 state, which are both asswmed as possibly right, but the latter of 
 which is in ver. 14 proved to be right and the former excluded. 
 loquitur, id tribuit infirmioribus, quorum affectibus et capacitati se accommodat.” 
 
 Kiickert also, who in other respects takes ἐξέσσ, and σωφρ. rightly in their pure and 
 full sense, refers ὑμῖν to accommodation. 
 
CHAP, V. 14 279 
 
 Ver. 14 f Paul now proves what was implied in ver. 13, that ὦ 
 
 his whole working was done not in his own interest t (comp. μηκέτι 
 ἑαυτοῖς, ver. IF but for God and the brethren ; the love of 
 Christ holds him in bounds, so™that™le~cainot “proceed. or do 
 otherwise. According” to acer Paul wishes to give a reason 
 for the εἰ ἐξέστημεν θεῷ. But he thus arbitrarily ἐπ the 
 second half of ver. 13, though this expresses the same thing as 
 the first half.— ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ] not: the love to Christ 
 (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, Mosheim, Heumann, Hofmann, Maier), 
 but: the love of Christ to men (so Chrysostom and most others) ; 
 for the death, of Christ floating before the apostle’s mind is to 
 him the ‘highest act of love Chon: v. 6,7; Gal. i. 20; Eph. iii. 
 19; Rom. vii. 35, 37); and with Paul generally Gast so with 
 J ohn) the genitive of a person with oe is always the genitivus 
 subjectt. (Rom. oye by 6, WML OD), 2 Cor. vu. 24, xi. 18 ; 
 ‘Eph. τι 4; Phil. i 9; also 2 Te ie δ. Phess. ἢ dis) not 
 here relevant), while, when the person is the object of love, he 
 expresses this by εἰς (Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. iii. 12), and denotes by 
 the genitive only an abstract as object (2 Thess. 1]. 10); in Rom. 
 xv. 30, τοῦ πνεύμ. is the genitivus originis. — συνέχει ἡμᾶς] 
 cohibet nos, holds us in bounds, so as not to go beyénd the limits 
 marked by θεῷ and ὑμῖν, and to follow, possibly, affections 
 and interests of our Own. Comp. Calvin (constringere affectus 
 nostros), Loesner, Billroth, Hofmann, Castalio : “tenet nos.” Most, 
 however, follow the Vulgate (wrget nos): it urges and drives 
 us. So Emmerling, Vater, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, 
 Osiander, Neander, and others; also Chrysostom (οὐκ ἀφίησι 
 ἡσυχάζειν pe) and Theodoret (πυρπολούμεθα). But contrary to 
 the usage of the word, for συνέχειν always expresses that which 
 holds together, confines, and the like, and so may mean press hard, 
 but not urge and drive (Luke xix. 43, vill. 37, al. ; Phil. i 23 ; 
 also “Acts xviii. . 5), Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 311 C; Pind. Pyth. 
 i. 37, al.; Philo, Leg. ad Caj. p. 1016 E; also LXX. in Biel and 
 gahidusndk, Thes. Ewald: it harasses us, “so that we have no 
 rest except we do everything in 10. Thus συνέχει would revert 
 to the notion of pressing hard, which may be a harassing (Luke 
 xii, 50 ; Wisd. xvii. 11, and Grimm’s Handb. in loc.). But-this 
 is not given here by the context, as, indeed, that further develop- 
 
 1 Beza: ‘‘ totos possidet ac regit, ut ejus afflatu quasi correpti agamus omnia.” 
 
—. 
 ss 
 
 280 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ment of the meaning does not flow from the connection. — 
 κρίναντας τοῦτο] after we have come to be of the judgment, namely, 
 after our conversion,’ Gal. i. 16. This judgment contains that, in 
 consequence of which that restraining influence of the love of 
 Christ takes place—the subjective condition of this influence. — 
 ὅτι εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων κατ᾿. that one for all, etc. Who is meant 
 by els, is clear from ἡ ἀγάπη T. Χριστοῦ, and was known to all 
 the hearts of the readers; hence there is the less ground for 
 breaking up the simple sentence, and taking εἷς ὑπὲρ τον as 
 in apposition: “ because He, one for all, died” (Hofmann). As 
 for ὅτι, it is simplest, although εἰ after ὅτι is not genuine (see 
 the critical remarks), to take it, not as because, but as that, 
 corresponding, according to the usage elsewhere, to the prepara- 
 tory τοῦτο (Rom. ii. ὃ, vi. 6; 2 Cor. x. 7, 11; Eph. v. 5, al.); 
 in such a way, however, that dpa x.7.X. is likewise included in 
 the dependence on ὅτι, and does not form an independent clause 
 (in opposition to Riickert). For the contents of the judgment as 
 such must lie in dpa οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον, of which the historical 
 fact, εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντ. ἀπέθ., is only the actual presupposition 
 serving as its ground. The way in which the two clauses are 
 marshalled side by side (without εἰ or because) makes the expres- 
 sion more lively, comp. 1 Cor. x. 17. Hence it is to be translated : 
 
 that one died for all, consequently they all died, 1.6. consequently 
 in this death of the one the death of all was accomplished, the 
 ethical death, namely, in so far as in the case of all the ceasing 
 of the fleshly life, of the life in sin (which ethical dying sets in 
 subjectively through fellowship of faith with the death of Christ), 
 is objectively, as a matter of fact, contained in the death of the 
 Lord. When Christ died the redeeming death for all (comp. v. 
 21), all died, in respect of their fleshly life, with Him (Χριστῷ 
 
 ᾿συνεσταύρωμαι, Gal. ii. 19; ἀπεθάνετε, Col. iii. 3); this objective 
 
 matter of fact which Paul here affirms has its subjective realization 
 in the faith of the individuals, through which they have entered 
 into that death-fellowship with Christ given through His death 
 
 1 Not at, but after conversion. His conversion took place through Christ séizing 
 on him and overmastering him, and not by way of argument ; but subsequently in 
 him who had become a believer there necessarily set in the discursive exercise of 
 reflection, guiding the further judgment regarding the new life which he had 
 acquired. This in opposition to Hofmann’s misconception of my explanation, as if 
 
 I took κρίναντας as identical with the conversion of the apostle, 
 
CHAP. V. 14. 281 
 
 for all, so that they have now, by means of baptism, become 
 συνταφέντες αὐτῷ (Col. ii. 12). Comp. Rom. vi. 4. Here ' also, 
 as in all passages where ὑπέρ is used of the atoning death (see 
 on Rom. v. 6; Gal. iii. 13), it is not equivalent to ἀντί (comp. 
 on ver. 21), for which it is taken by most commentators, including 
 Flatt, Emmerling, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Usteri, Osiander, 
 Gess, Baur, Maier, but: for the.sake..of all, for their benefit, to 
 expiate their sins (ver. 19; Rom. iii. 25). Since One has died 
 
 the redeeming death for the good of all, so that the death of this’ 
 
 One as ἱλαστήριον has come to benefit all, all are dead, because 
 otherwise the εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων would not be correctly put. The 
 dying of Christ for the reconciliation of al? necessarily presupposes 
 
 that death -fellowship of all, for Christ could not have died 
 effectively for one who would not have died with Christ ; unbe- | 
 
 lieving, such a one, in spite of the sacrificial death made for all, 
 would still be in his sins? That ὑπέρ here cannot be equivalent 
 to ἀντί is shown particularly by ver. 15: τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθα- 
 
 vovtt καὶ ἐγερθέντι; for according to this the resurrection οὗ, 
 Jesus also (since it would be quite arbitrary to refer ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν᾽ 
 
 merely to ἀποθανόντι) must have been substitutionary, which is 
 
 ---ὦοὕ0ὕθ..-.. 
 
 nowhere taught, since it is rather the actual proof and confirma- | 
 
 tion of the atonement (see 1 Cor. xv. 17; Rom. iv. 25, ix. 34; 
 Acts xiii. 37 f.; 1 Pet. i. ὃ f).— ὑπὲρ πάντων] for all men in 
 general, 80 that no one is excluded from the effect of his ἱλασ- 
 THpLov, and every one, so soon as he becomes a, believer, attains 
 
 subjectively to the enjoyment ‘of this effect. This subjective 
 ee Se . . . 
 realization, although in the case of those who refuse belief it is 
 
 1 Comp. Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 462 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, p. 324f. What Baur remarks, on the other hand, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 
 f. wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 241 (comp. his neut. Theol. p. 158 f.), that ὑπέρ denotes the 
 ideal substitution, i.e. the most intimate, immediate entering into the other and 
 putting oneself in his place, is not the contents of the idea of the preposition, but 
 that of the idea of sacrifice, under which the death of Jesus is ranked, in the con- 
 sciousness of the apostle and his readers, as an ἱλαστήριον, offered for the salvation 
 of all (ὑσὲρ σἀντων). 
 
 2 Certainly the dying of Christ was the “close of the previous sin-tainted life of 
 mankind” (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 55 f.), but in so far 
 as this dying blotted out the guilt of mankind. This expiation becomes appro- 
 priated by individuals through faith, and out of faith there grows the new life of 
 sanctification, in which he who has died ethically with Christ in faith is ethically 
 risen with Him and lives to God, 
 
 pers ea an, 
 
282 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 frustrated by their guilt, is, in the divine plan of salvation, 
 destined for all, and has already taken place in the case of 
 believers ; hence Paul, who himself belonged to the latter, might 
 justly from this his own standpoint in the οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον, 
 without meaning by πάντες only believers (in opposition to my 
 previous explanation), prove the restraining influence of the love 
 of Christ, which he had himself experienced. — οἱ πάντες] with 
 the article ; for it applies to all those of whom ὑπὲρ π. ἀπέθ. 
 was just said. — ἀπέθανον] not: they are to die (Thomas, Grotius, 
 Estius, Nosselt, and others); not: they were subjected to death 
 (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and others; Vatablus : 
 “morte digni”); nor: they must have died (Ewald); nor: “it is 
 just as good as if they had died” (Calovius, Flatt, and others) ; 
 but: “mors facta in morte Christi” (Bengel), they died, which is 
 to be considered as a real fact, objectively contained in the fact 
 of the death of Jesus, and subjectively accomplished in the con- 
 sciousness of individuals through faith. 
 
 Ver. 15. Continuation or second part of the judgment, in 
 consequence of which the love of Christ συνέχει ἡμᾶς. ---- ὑπέρ 
 has the emphasis, whereas in ver. 14 the stress lay on εἷς and 
 πάντων. “And (that) He died for the benefit of all (with the 
 purpose) that (because otherwise this ὑπέρ would be frustrated) 
 the living should no more (as before the death they had died with 
 Christ) live to themselves, 1.6. dedicate their life to selfish ends, 
 Ι but,” ete. Comp. Rom. xiv. 7 ff ol tavres] Paul might also 
 have said of πάντες : but of ζῶντες is purposely chiesedt with 
 ᾿ yetrospective reference to of πάντες ἀπέθανον, and that as subject 
 (the living), not as apposition (as the living, Hofmann), 
 which view the life meant is held to be the earthly one, which 
 Jesus left when He died; but this would only furnish a super- 
 fluous and unmeaning addition (it is otherwise at iv. 11), and so 
 also with de Wette’s interpretation: so long as we live. No; it 
 is the life, which has followed on the ἀπέθανον. He, namely, 
 who has died with Christ is alwe from death, as Christ Himself 
 has died and become alive (Rom. xiv. 9); He who has bééome 
 σύμφυτος with His death, is so also with His reswrrection (Rom. 
 vi. 5). Thus the dead are necessarily the ζῶντες, by sharing 
 ethically the same fate with Christ, Gal. ii. 19 f. Their ζωή is, con- 
 sequently, doubtless in substance the life of regeneration (Erasmus, 
 
 al τὍΡΝΝ 
 
CHAP. V. 16. 283 
 
 Beza, Flatt, and others) ; it is not, however, regarded under this , 
 
 form of conception, but as καινότης ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4), out of death. 
 Comp. Rom. vi. 8-11. Riickert, in accordance with his incorrect 
 taking of ὑπέρ in the sense of ἀντί (see on ver. 14), explains: 
 “those, for whom He has died, on whom, therefore, death has no 
 more claims.” — καὶ ἐγερθέντι] is correlative to the of ζῶντες, in 
 so far as these are just the living out of death, whose life is to 
 belong to the Living One ; and ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν belongs also to ᾿ἐγερθ., 
 since ΠΕ Τ is os IT “πὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν (am: iv. 25). 
 Comp. on Phil. 111. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17.—Note, further, that Paul 
 in ver. 15 writes in the ¢hird person (he does not say we), because 
 he lays down the whole judgment beginning with ὅτε as the 
 great, universally valid and fundamental doctrine for the collective 
 Christian life, that he may then in ver. 16 let himself emerge in 
 the ἡμεῖς. He would not have written differently even if he had 
 meant by ἀγάπη τ. Χριστοῦ his love to the Lord (in opposition 
 to Hofmann). Much that is significant is implied in this doctrinal, 
 objective form of confession. 
 
 Ver. 16. Inference from vv. 14 and 15 opposed to the hostile 
 way_of judging of his opponents (comp. ver. 13). Hence it is 
 
 with us quite otherwise than with our opponents, who judge | 
 regarding others κατὰ σάρκα : we know henceforth no one according | 
 
 to flesh-standard. Since all, namely, have (ethically) died, and 
 every one is destined to live only to Christ, not to himself, our 
 knowing of others must be wholly independent of what they are 
 κατὰ σάρκα. Accordingly, the connection of thought between 
 ver. 16 and vv. 14 and 15 demands that we take κατὰ σάρκα 
 here not as subjective standard of the οἴδαμεν, so that we should 
 have to explain it: according to merely human knowledge, 
 without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit (comp. i. 17; 
 1 Cor. i. 26): “as one might know Him in a way natural to 
 man” (Hofmann, Osiander, and, earlier, Lyra, Calovius, and 
 others ; comp. also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 69), but as 
 objective standard (comp. xi. 18; John viii. 15; Phil. iii. 4), so 
 that εἰδέναι τινὰ κατὰ σάρκα means: to know any one according to 
 merely human appearance, to know him in such a way, that he is 
 
 judged by what_he is in_virtue of his natural, material form of 
 
 axed 
 
 existence, and not by what he is cata πνεῦμα, as a Christian, as © 
 
 καινὴ κτίσις (ver. 17). He who knows no one κατὰ σάρκα has 
 
284 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 entirely left out of account, eg. in the Jew, his Jewish origin ; in 
 the rich man, his riches; in the scholar, his learning; in the slave, his 
 bondage; and so forth (comp. Gal. iii. 28). Comp. Bengel: “secun- 
 dum carnem: secundum statum veterem ex nobilitate, divitiis, 
 opibus, sapientia.” It is inaccurate to say that this interpretation 
 requires the article before σάρκα (Osiander). It might be used, but 
 was not necessary, any more than at Phil. ii. 3 ff, Rom. 1. 3,ix. 5, al, 
 where σάρξ everywhere, without the article, denotes the objective 
 relation. — ἡμεῖς} ie. we on our part, as opposed to the adver- 
 saries who judge κατὰ σάρκα. The taking the plural as general 
 embracing others (Billroth, by way of suggestion, Schenkel, de 
 Wette), has against it the evidently antithetic emphasis of the 
 pronoun ; it is only with the further inference in ver. 17 that the 
 discourse becomes general. — ἀπὸ τοῦ viv] after the present time, 
 ie. after our present (Christian) relation, and with it also the 
 κρίναντας «.7.-., has begun. Paul has ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν only here. 
 Beyond this Luke alone in the N. T. has it.— οἴδαμεν] not 
 aestimamus (Grotius, Estius, and others, including Emmerling and 
 Flatt), but novimus; no one is to us known κατὰ σάρκα; we 
 know nothing of him according to such a standard. Comp. on 
 εἰδέναι οὐδένα or οὐδέν in the sense of complete separation, 1 Cor. 
 ii 2. οἶδα is related to ἔγνωκα, cognovi, as its lasting sequel: 
 scio, quis et qualis sit.— εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κ. σ. Χριστὸν «.7.d.] 
 apologetic application of the assertion just made, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν 
 οὐδένα οἴδαμεν x. σ. This remark is added without δέ (see the 
 critical remarks), which is accounted for by the impetuous liveli- 
 ness of the representation. Jf even (as I herewith grant to my 
 opponents, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832) the case has occurred 
 that we have known Christ according to flesh-standard, this know- 
 ing of Him now exists with us no longer. The emphasis of this 
 concessive clause lies on the practerite ἐγνώκαμεν, which opposes 
 the past to the present relation (οἴδαμεν, and see the following 
 γινώσκομεν). Therefore Χριστόν is not placed immediately after 
 εἰ καί, for Paul wishes to express that in the past it has been 
 otherwise than now; that formerly the γινώσκειν κ. σάρκα had 
 certainly occurred in his case, and that in reference to Christ. 
 This in opposition to the usual interpretation, according to which 
 Χριστόν is invested with the chief emphasis. So eg. Billroth: 
 “ if we once regarded even Christ Himself in a fleshly manner, if 
 
CHAP. V. 16. 285 
 
 we quite misjudged Him and His kingdom ;” Beyschlag similarly : 
 “even with Christ I make no exception,” etc. Riickert, without 
 any reason whatever, conjectures that Paul erroneously inserted 
 Χριστόν, or perhaps did not write it at all. The right inter- 
 pretation is found in Osiander, Ewald, Kling, also substantially in 
 Hofmann, who, however, would attach εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν x.7.X. to 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ viv... σάρκα, and thus separate it only by a comma,— 
 a course by which, owing to the following contrast ἀλλὰ «72, 
 the sentence is without sufficient ground made more disjointed. 
 — Paul had known Christ κατὰ σάρκα, so long as the merely 
 human individuality of Christ, His lower, earthly appearance 
 (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret), was the limit of his knowledge 
 of Him At the time when he himself was still a zealot against 
 Christ, and His persecutoer, he knew Him as a mere man, as a 
 common Jew, not as Messiah, not as the Son of God; as one αὶ 
 justly persecuted and crucified, not as the sinless Reconciler and | 
 the transfigured Lord of glory, etc. It was quite different, how-f 
 ‘ ever, since God had revealed His Son in Paul (Gal. i 16), 
 whereby he had learned to know Christ according to His true, 
 higher, spiritual nature (κατὰ πνεῦμα, Rom. i. 4). Comp. also 
 Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. und Petr. p. 429, who, however, refers 
 the Χριστόν, which denotes the entire historical person of the 
 God-man, only to the heavenly, purely pneumatic personality 
 of the Lord, which had been pre-existent and in this sense 
 was re-established by the resurrection. Klépper, p. 66, has 
 substantially the right view: the earthly, human appearance of 
 Christ according to its national, legal, and particular limita- 
 tion. The Judaistic conception of the Messianic idea was the 
 subjective ground of the former erroneous knowledge of Christ, but 
 it is not on that account to be explained with many (Luther, see 
 
 4 According to Estius, the meaning is taken to be: ‘‘If we once held it as some- 
 thing great to be fellow-countrymen and kinsmen of Christ.” But the words do not 
 convey this. Similarly also Wetstein, who makes the apostle, in opposition to the 
 (alleged) boasting of the false apostles that they were kinsmen and hearers of Christ, 
 maintain, “‘ cognationem solam nihil prodesse ;” et Christum non humilem esse, as on 
 earth, sed eraltatum super omnes. Comp. Hammond, and also Storr, Opusc. 11. 
 p. 252, according to whom Paul refers to such, ‘‘ qui praeter externa ornamenta et 
 Judaicam originem et pristinam illam suam cum apostolis Christo familiaribus con- 
 junctionem nihil haberent, quo magnifice gloriari possent.” An allusion to the 
 alleged spiritualism of the Christine party, who had reproached the apostle with a 
 fleshly conception of Christ (Schenkel, Goldhorn), is arbitrarily assumed, 
 
286 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 his gloss, Bengel, Riickert, and others): according to Jewish ideas 
 of the Messiah ; for, according to what precedes, x. σ. must be the 
 objective standard of the ἐγνώκαμεν. In that case Χριστόν cannot 
 be appellative, the Messiah (especially Baur, I. p. 304, ed. 2, and 
 Neander, I. p. 142 1), but only nomen propriwm, as the following 
 εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ shows. Olshausen, who rightly, as to substance, 
 refers x. o. to the life of Christ before His resurrection, deduces, 
 however, from εὐ καὶ ἐγνώκ. that Paul even before his conversion 
 had seen Christ in his visits to Jerusalem, which Beyschlag also, 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 248, and 1865, p. 266, gathers 
 from our passage and explains it accordingly, and Ewald, Gesch. 
 εἰ. apost. Zeitalt. p. 368, ed. 3, thinks credible. This is in itself 
 possible (though nowhere testified), but does not follow from our 
 passage ; for ἐγνώκ., in fact, by no means presupposes the having 
 seen, but refers to the knowledge of Christ obtained by colloquial 
 intercourse, and determined by the Pharisaic fundamental point of 
 view,—a knowledge which Paul before his conversion had derived 
 from his historical acquaintance with Christ’s earthly station, 
 influence as a teacher, and fate, as known to all! Besides, the 
 interpretation of a personal acquaintance with Christ would 
 be quite unsuitable to the following ἀλλὰ viv κατ, It would 
 be at variance with the context. See also Klédpper, p. 55. ff. 
 According to de Wette, the sense is: “ not yet to have so known 
 Christ as, with a renouncing of one’s own fleshly selfishness, to 
 live to Him alone,” ver. 15. But in this way there would result 
 for κατὰ σάρκα the sense of the subjective standard (against which 
 see above); further, the signification of κατὰ σ. would not be the 
 same for the two parts of the verse, since in the second part it 
 would affirm more (namely, according to fleshly selfishness, without 
 living to Him alone) ; lastly, this having known Christ would not 
 suit the time before the conversion of the apostle, to which it 
 nevertheless applies, because at this time he was even persecutor 
 of Christ. And this he was, just because he knew him κατὰ 
 σάρκα (taken in our sense), which erroneous form of having 
 known ceased only when God ἀπεκάλυψε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν 
 αὐτῷ (Gal. i. 16). While various expositors fail to give to ita 
 
 1 Certainly to him also had the cross been a stumbling-block, since, according to 
 the Jewish conception, the Messiah was not to die at all (John xii. 34) ; but we must 
 not, with Theodoret, limit xara σώρκα to the παῤητὸν σῶμα of Christ, 
 
 > 
 
CHAP. Υ. 17 287 
 
 clear and definite interpretation,’ others have explained it in the 
 
 linguistically erroneous sense of a merely hypothetical possibility. 
 Thus Erasmus : “ Nec est, quod nos posteriores apostolos quisquam 
 hoc nomine minoris faciat, quod Christum mortali corpore in terris 
 versantem non novimus, quando etiam, si contigisset novisse, 
 nune eam notitiam, quae obstabat spiritui, deposuissemus, et 
 spiritualem factum spiritualiter amaremus ;” so in the main also 
 Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt. For a synopsis of the various old 
 explanations, from Faustus the Manichaean (who proved from 
 our passage that Christ had no fleshly body) downward, see 
 Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 463 ff.— ἀλλά] in the apodosis, see on 
 iv. 16.— γινώσκομεν sc. κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν. 
 
 Ver. 17. Inference from ver. 106. If, namely, the state of 
 matters is such as is stated in ver. 16, that now we no longer 
 know any one as respects his human appearance, and even a 
 knowledge of Christ of that nature, once cherished, no longer 
 exists with us, ἐξ follows that the adherents of Christ, who are 
 raised above such a knowledge of Christ after a mere sensuous 
 standard, ave quite other than they were before ; the Christian is ὦ 
 new creature, to whom the standard κατὰ σάρκα is no longer 
 suitable. The apostle might have continued with γάρ instead of 
 ὥστε; in which case he would have assigned as ground of the 
 changed knowledge the changed quality of the objects of know- 
 ledge. He might also, with just as much logical accuracy, infer, 
 from the fact of the knowledge being no longer κατὰ σάρκα, that 
 the objects of knowiedge could no longer be the old ones, to which 
 the old way of knowing them would still be applicable, but that 
 they must be found in a quality wholly new. He argues not 
 ex causa, but ad causam. The former he would have done with 
 yap, the latter he does with ὥστε (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
 objection). — ἐν Χριστῷ] a Christian ; for through faith Christ is 
 the element in which we live and move. — καινὴ κτίσις] for the 
 pre-Christian condition, spiritual and moral, is abolished and done 
 away by God through the union of man with Christ (ver. 18; 
 Eph. ii. 10, iv. 21; Col. iii. 9, 10; Rom. vi. 6), and the spiritual 
 nature and life of the believer are constituted quite anew (comp. 
 
 1 Hofmann, e.g., describes the knowing of Christ κατὰ σάρκα as of such a nature, 
 
 that it accommodated itself to the habit of the natural man, and therefore knew 
 Christ only in so far as He was the object af such knowledge, 
 
288 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 
 
 vv. 14, 15), so that Christ Himself lives in him (Gal. ii. 20) 
 through His Spirit (Rom. vil. 9 1). See on Gal. vi. 15. The 
 form of the expression (its idea is not different from the 
 παλυγγενεσία, Tit. 111. 5; John iii. 3; Jas. 1. 18) is Rabbinical ; 
 for the Rabbins also regarded the man converted to Judaism as 
 mytn ana. See Schoettgen, Hor. I. pp. 328, 704 f., and Wetstein. 
 —Ta ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν x.7.d.] Epexegesis of καινὴ κτίσις ; the 
 old, the pre-Christian nature and life, the pre-Christian spiritual 
 constitution of man, is passed away; behold the whole-_the whole 
 state of man’s personal life—has become new." There is too slight 
 a resemblance for us to assume for certain a reminiscence of Isa. 
 xliii. 18 ἢ, or Isa. lxv. 17; as even Chrysostom and his followers 
 give no hint of such an echo. By the ἐδού of vivid realization, and 
 introduced without connecting particle (“ demonstrativum rei pre- 
 sentis,” Bengel ; comp. vi. 9), as well as by the emphatically prefixed 
 γέγονε (comp. ΧΙ]. 11), a certain element of ¢riwmph is brought into 
 the representation. — The division, according to which the protasis 
 is made to go on to κτίσις (Vulgate: “si qua ergo in Christo nova 
 creatura;” or τίς is taken as masculine: “si quis ergo mecum 
 est in Christo regeneratus,” Cornelius a Lapide), has against it the 
 fact, that in that case the apodosis would contain nothing else 
 than was in the protasis; besides, the prefixing of ἐν X. would 
 not be adequately accounted for. 
 
 Ver. 18. On vv. 18-21, see appropriate remarks in Fritzsche, 
 ad Rom. I. p. 279 f.— τὰ δὲ πάντα] leading on from the γέγονε 
 καινὰ τὰ 7. to the supreme source of this change; hence, con- 
 textually, τὰ πάντα is nothing else than: the whole that has become 
 new. Everything, in which the new state of the Christian con- 
 sists, proceeds from God; and now by τοῦ καταλλάξαντος. .. 
 καταλλαγῆς is specified the mode in which God has set it into 
 operation, namely, by His having reconciled us with Himself 
 through “Christ, and entrusted to the apostle and his fellow- 
 
 1 Not only in reference to sin is the old passed away and everything become new 
 (Theodoret : σὸ τῆς ἁμαραίας ἀπεκδυσάμεθα γῆρας), but also—certainly, however, in 
 consequence of the reconciliation appropriated in faith—in relation to the knowledge 
 and consciousness of salvation, as well as to the whole tendency of disposition and 
 will. Chrysostom and Theophylact unsuitably mix up objective Judaism as also 
 included, and in doing so the latter arbitrarily specializes τὰ πάντα : ἀντὶ τοῦ νόμου 
 εὐαγγέλιον" ἀνεὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ οὐρανός" ἀντὶ ναοῦ τὸ ἰσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος ἐν ᾧ ἡ τρίας" 
 ἐντὶ περιτομῆς βάπτισμα κ. τ. Ae 
 
CHAP. Υ͂. 18. 289 
 
 labourers the ministry of reconciliation. The reconciliation has 
 taken place with reference to all humanity (hence κόσμον, ver. 19) ; 
 but Paul uses ἡμᾶς in the person of believers, as those who have 
 experienced the reconciliation of the world in its subjective realiza- 
 tion. This in opposition to Leun, Ewald, Riickert, Hofmann, 
 who refer it to the apostle and his fellow-workers, Hofmann, 
 indeed, finding nothing else affirmed than the conversion, in so far 
 as it was “a change of his relation, and not of his conduct, towards 
 God.” And that ἡμῖν does not apply to men in general 
 (Olshausen), but to Paul and the rest of the apostolic teachers, is 
 clear from ἐν ἡμῖν, ver. 19, which is evidently (seeing that Paul 
 has not written ἐν αὐτοῖς) distinguished by a special reference 
 from κόσμος; besides, the inference, ver. 20, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν 
 πρεσβ., manifestly presupposes the special reference of ἡμῖν and 
 ἐν ἡμῖν in vv. 18,19. This also in opposition to Hofling. 
 Kirchenverf. p. 225, ed. 3.— τοῦ καταλλάξαντος x.7.r.] who has 
 reconciled us with Himself through Christ. For men were, by 
 means of their uneffaced sin, burdened with God’s holy wrath, 
 ἐχθροὶ θεοῦ (Rom v. 10, xi. 28; Eph. ii. 16; comp. Col. 1. 20 1), 
 Deo invisi; but through God’s causing Christ to die as 
 ἱλαστήριον, He accomplished the effacing of their sins, and by 
 this, therefore, God’s wrath ceased. The same thought is con- 
 tained in Rom v.10, only expressed in a passive form. Titt- 
 mann’s distinction between διαλλ. and καταλλ. (Synon. p. 102) 
 is of no value; see on Rom. v. 10, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
 p- 276 ff.— τὴν διακον. τῆς καταλλ the ministry, which %s 
 devoted to reconciliation, which is the means of reconciliation for 
 men, inasmuch as through this ministry reconciliation is preached 
 to them, and they ὃ are brought unto faith on the ἱλαστήριον Jesus, 
 which faith is the causa apprehendens of the reconciliation, Rom. 
 iii, 25; comp. διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης, 111. 9. The opposite : 
 διακ. we κατακρίσεως, 111. 9. 
 
 REMARK.—Riickert erroneously explains the reconciliation from 
 the active enmity of men against God. God, according to his view, 
 caused Christ to die for men, that He might, no doubt, on the one 
 hand, be able to accomplish the μὴ λογίζεσθαι of their sins; but 
 through this manifest proof of His love He filled men with thank- 
 
 1 2,6, διὰ Xp, Comp. ver. 21. Pelagius erroneously adds: ‘‘per Christi doctrinam 
 pariter et exemplum,.” 
 
 2 COR. IL. μυ 
 
290 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 fulness, and gave them encouragement to accomplish the recon- 
 ciliation on their side also, and so (as was Baur’s opinion also) to give 
 up their enmity towards God. And thus strictly regarded, the death 
 of Jesus, according to Paul, has not so much reconciled humanity 
 with God, as it has removed the obstacles to the reconciliation, and 
 given a stimulus to the heart to enter into the only right and 
 friendly relation with God—No, the death of Jesus operated as 
 ἱλαστήριον (Rom. 111. 25; Gal. 111. 13), consequently as effacing God's 
 holy enmity (Rom. xi. 28), the ὀργὴ θεοῦ, so that He now did not 
 impute to men their sins (ver. 19), and in this way, actu forensi, 
 reconciled them with Himself (ver. 21), while simple faith is the 
 subjective condition of appropriation on the part of men. Comp. 
 on Οὐ]. 1. 21. The thankfulness, the new courage, the holy life, 
 etc., are only a consequence of the reconciliation appropriated in 
 faith, not a part of it. Comp. Rom v. 1 ff, vi. 1 ff, vill. 3, 4} al. 
 This, at the same time, in opposition to the doctrine of reconciliation 
 set forth by Hofmann (see on Rom. ii. 25), who at our passage 
 calls in question the view that τοῦ καταλλάξαντος x.7.A. expresses an 
 act of God, which takes place once for all in and with the history 
 of Christ, and defines the notion of καταλλ. (in which ἡμᾶς is held 
 to apply to Paul, in whom God had wrought faith), as amounting 
 to this, that God through Christ, “whom He Himself gives and 
 ordains for the purpose, makes sin cease for Him to be the cause of 
 wrath against the sinner.” Comp. on the clear and correct notion 
 of reconciliation, according to our passage, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 325. 
 
 Ver. 19. Confirmatory elucidation of the previous ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, 
 τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ... καταλλαγῆς. “I have reason for saying, 
 from God, who has reconciled us, etc., because, indeed, God in 
 Christ reconciled the world with Himself,’ etc. The recurrence of 
 the same leading expressions, which were used in ver. 18, gives to 
 this elucidation a solemn emphasis. The θεός emphatically pre- 
 fixed, however, looking back to ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ in ver. 18, shows that 
 the point is not a description of the καταλλαγή (Camerarius, 
 Wolf, Estius, Billroth, and others), or of the διακονία τῆς καταλ- 
 λαγῆς (Grotius, Riickert), but the divine self-activity in Christ’s 
 reconciling work and in the bestowal of the office of reconciliation. 
 The two participial clauses, μὴ λογιζόμενος x«.7.r. and Kal θέμενος 
 «.T.r., stand related to θεὸς ἣν ἐν X. Koop. KaTAAN. ἑαυτ. argumen- 
 tatively, so that the words καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν «.7.r., Which serve 
 to elucidate καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν «.7.d., ver. 18, are not co-ordinated 
 to the καταλλάσσων (as one might expect from ver. 18), but are 
 subordinated to it,—a change in the form of connecting the con- 
 
CHAP. V. 19. 291 
 
 ceptions, which cannot. surprise us in the case of Paul when we 
 consider his free and lively variety in the mode of linking together 
 his thoughts. — ὡς ὅτε θεὸς ἦν ἐν X. Koop. καταλλ. ἑαυτῷ] because, 
 indeed, eee in Christ was reconciling the world with Himself. On 
 ὡς ὅτι,' utpote quod Ϊ (to be analyzed : as it is the case, because), see 
 Winer, p. 574 [ΕΒ 1. 771]. The ἦν καταλλάσσων should go 
 together (see already Chrysostom), and is more emphatic than 
 the simple imperfect. Paul wishes, namely, to affirm of God, 
 not simply what He did (κατήλλασσε), but in what activity He 
 was; in the person and work of Christ (ἐν -«Χριστῷ) God was in 
 world-reconciling activity. The imperfect receives from the context 
 the definite temporal reference: when Christ died the death of 
 reconciliation, with which took place that very καταλλάξαντος, 
 ver. 18. See, especially, Rom. iii. 24 f., v.10. Ambrosiaster, 
 Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and 
 many others, including Riickert, Osiander, Neander, connect ἦν 
 ἐν Χριστῷ together: God was in Christ, while reconciling the 
 world with Himself. This would only be possible in the event 
 of the two following participial clauses expressing the mode of 
 reconciliation, which, however, on account of the second clause 
 (καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν x.7.r.), cannot be the case; they must, on the 
 contrary, contain the confirmation of θεὸς ἣν ἐν X. κόσμ. καταλλ. 
 ἑαυτῷ. According to their contents, however, they do not at 
 all confirm the fact that.God was in Christ, but the fact that 
 God was in Christ reconciling the world; hence it is at vari- 
 ance with the context to make the connection ἣν ἐν Χριστῷ. 
 Theodoret was right in denying expressly this connection. Hof- 
 mann, after abandoning his earlier (in the Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 326) 
 misinterpretation (see in opposition to it my fourth edition, p. 147), 
 now explains it by referring ὡς ὅτι «.7.A. merely to «. δόντος ἡμῖν 
 K.T.r.: because He was a God, who in Christ was reconciling to 
 Himself a world in its sinful condition without imputation of its 
 sins, and who had laid the word of reconciliation on him the 
 aposile.’ A new misinterpretation. For, first, the qualitative 
 
 1 In xi. 21, the ὅτι in ὡς ὅτι does not specify a reason, but introduces the contents of 
 λέγω. In 2 Thess. ii. 2, also, ὡς ὅτι is like that. At our passage it is: in measure 
 of the fact, that God was, etc.,—a more circwmstantial and consequently more 
 emphatic introduction of the ground than a simple ὅτι or γάρ would have been. It 
 makes us dinger more over the confirmatory ground assigned. 
 
202 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 expression “a God,” which is held to be predicative, would not 
 only have been quite superfluous (Paul would have had to write 
 merely ὡς ὅτι ἣν κ.τ.λ.), but also quite unsuitable, since there is 
 no contrast with other gods; secondly, the relative tense ἦν must 
 apply to the time in which what is said in δόντος ἡμῖν «.7.d. took 
 place (in the sense, therefore: because he was αὐ that time a God, 
 who was reconciling), which would furnish an absurd thought, 
 because, when Paul became an apostle, the reconciliation of the 
 world had been long accomplished ; thirdly, θέμενος would be a 
 participle logically incorrect, because what it affirms followed on 
 the καταλλάσσων ; lastly, μὴ λογιζόμ. cannot be taken in the 
 sense of “ without imputation,” since a reconciliation with imputa- 
 tion of sins is unthinkable. — κόσμον] not a world, but the world, 
 even without the article (Winer, p. 117 [E. Τὶ 153]), as Gal. 
 vi. 14; Rom. iv. 13. It applies to the whole human race, not 
 possibly (in opposition to Augustine, Lyra, Beza, Cajetanus, 
 Estius) merely to those predestinated. The reconciliation of all 
 men took place objectively through Christ’s death, although the 
 subjective appropriation of it is conditioned by the faith of the 
 individual.'— μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς x.7.d.] since He does not reckon 
 (present) to them their sins, and has deposited (aorist) in us the word 
 of reconciliation. The former is the altered judicial relation, into 
 which God has entered and in which He stands to the sins of 
 men; the latter is the measure adopted by God, by means of which 
 the former is made known to men. From both it is evident 
 that God in Christ reconciled the world with Himself; otherwise 
 
 _ He would neither have left the sins of men without imputation, 
 ΠΟΥ have imparted to the apostolic teachers the word of recon- 
 
 ‘ ciliation that they might preach it. If, as is wsually done, the 
 
 participial definition μὴ λογιζόμενος is taken in the imperfect 
 sense (Ewald takes it rightly in a present sense) as a more precise 
 explanation of the modus of the reconciliation, there arises the 
 insoluble difficulty that θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν also would have to be so 
 viewed, and to be taken consequently as an element of the recon- 
 
 1 The question whether and how Paul regarded the reconciliation of those who died 
 before the ἱλασσήριον of Christ, and were not justified like Abraham, remains un- 
 answered, since he nowhere explains himself on the point, and since the dead are not 
 included in the notion of κόσμος. Still, Rom. x. 7, Phil. ii. 10 presuppose the descent 
 
 of Christ into Hades, which is the necessary correlative of the resurrection ἐκ νεκρῶν, 
 and it is expressly taught by Paul in Eph. iv. 9, 
 
CHAP. V. 20. 293 
 
 ciliation, which is impossible, since it expresses what God has 
 done after the work of reconciliation, in order to appropriate it to 
 men. θέμενος, namely, cannot be connected with θεὸς ἦν, against 
 which the aorist participle is itself decisive; and it is quite 
 arbitrary to assume (with Billroth and Olshausen) a deviation 
 from the construction, so that Paul should have written ἔθετο 
 instead of θέμενος (comp. Vulgate, Calvin, and many others, 
 who translate it without ceremony: οὐ posuit).— ἐν ἡμῖν) The 
 doctrine of reconciliation (comp. on the genitive, 1 Cor. 1.18; 
 Acts xx. 32) which is to be preached, is regarded as something 
 deposited in the souls of the preachers for further communication : 
 “sicut interpreti committitur quid loqui debeat,’ Bengel. Comp. 
 on ἐν ἡμῖν, which is not to be taken as among us, the θεῖναι ἐν 
 φρεσί, ἐν θυμῷ, ἐν στήθεσσι. 
 
 Ver. 20. For Christ, therefore, we administer the office of ambas- 
 sador, just as if God exhorted through us. This double element of 
 the dignity of the high calling follows from the previous θέμενος 
 ἐν ἡμῖν τ. Noy. τῆς καταλλ. If, namely, it is the word of recon- 
 ciliation which is committed to us, then in our embassy we conduct 
 Christ's cause (ὑπὲρ X. πρεσβ.), seeing that the reconciliation has 
 taken place through Christ; and because God has entrusted to us 
 this work, our exhortation is to be regarded as taking place by 
 God through us (ὡς τ. θ. παρακαλ. δι’ ἡμ.). On ὑπέρ with πρεσβ. 
 in the sense specified, comp. Eph. vi. 20 and the passages in Wet- 
 stein and Kypke. The opposite: πρεσβ. κατά τινος, Dem. 400, 
 12. The usual interpretation, vice et loco Christi, which is rightly 
 abandoned even by Hofmann, and is defended on the part of Baur 
 by mere subtlety, runs counter to the context ; for this sense must 
 have followed (οὖν) from what precedes, which, however, is not the 
 case. If the notion of representation were to be inferred from 
 what precedes, it could only furnish us with a ὑπὲρ θεοῦ. --- 
 Observe the parallel correlation of Christ and God in the two 
 parts of the verse. The connecting of ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακ. δι’ ἡμ. 
 with δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ X. (Hofmann) would only disturb this sym- 
 metry without due ground. — δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ κ.τ.λ.] specifi- 
 cation of the contents of the πρεσβεία, and that in the form of 
 apostolic humility and love: we pray for Christ, in His interest, in 
 order that we may not, in your case, miss the aim of His divine 
 work of reconciliation: be ye reconciled to God; do not, by refus- 
 
294 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ing faith, frustrate the work of reconciliation in your case, but 
 through your faith bring about that the objectively accom- 
 | plished reconciliation may be accomplished subjectively in you. 
 ' Riickert wrongly holds! that the second aorist passive cannot have 
 a passive meaning and signifies only to reconcile oneself (see, on 
 the contrary, Rom. v. 10; Col. 1. 21); that Paul demands the 
 putting away of the φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός, and the putting on of 
 the φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ; and that so man reconciles himself 
 with God. In this view, the moral immediate consequence of the 
 appropriation of the reconciliation through faith is confounded 
 with this appropriation itself. The reconciliation is necessarily 
 | passive ; ran cannot reconcile himself, but is able only to become 
 --- by means of faith a partaker of the reconciliation which has been 
 _ effected on the divine side; he can only become reconciled, which 
 ~ on his πὸ πππι ππἶ without faith, but zs experienced in 
 faith. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who says that they 
 are to make their peace with God, in which case what the person so 
 summoned has to do is made to consist in this, that he complies 
 with the summons and prays God to extend to him also the effect, 
 which the mediation constituted by God Himself exercises on the 
 relation of sinful man toward Him. — The subject of καταλλώγητε 
 is all those, to whom the loving summons of the gospel goes 
 forth ; consequently those not yet reconciled, ἐ6. the unbelieving, 
 who, however, are to be brought, through Christ’s ambassadors, to 
 appropriate the reconciliation. The quotidiana. remissio which is 
 promised to Christians (Calvin) is not meant, but the καταλ- 
 λάγητε is fulfilled by those who, hitherto still standing aloof from 
 the reconciliation, believingly accept the λόγος τ. καταλλαγῆς 
 sent to them.’ 
 
 Ver. 21. This is not the other side of the apostolic preaching (one 
 side of it being the previous prayer), for this must logically have 
 preceded the prayer (in opposition to Hofmann) ; but the inducing 
 motive, belonging to the δεόμεθα «.7.r., for complying with the 
 καταλλ. TO Beth} aay holding forth what ne been done on God’s side 
 in order to ‘justify men. This evenghivy motive emerges without γάρ, 
 and is all the more urgent. — τὸν μὴ γνόντα aati description of 
 
 1 See against this, also Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 302 f. 
 ? Thereby is completed in their case the task of the apostolic ministry, which is 
 contained in the μαθητεύσατε, Matt, xxviii. 19, 
 
CHAP, V. 21. 295 
 
 sinlessness (τὸν αὐτοδικαιοσύνην ὄντα, Chrysostom) ; for sin had not 
 become known experimentally to the moral consciousness of Jesus ; 
 it was to Him, because non-existent in Him, a thing unknown 
 from His own experience. This was the necessary postulate for 
 His accomplishing the work of reconciliation. — The μή with 
 the participle gives at all events a subjective negation; yet it 
 may be doubtful whether it means the judgment of God (Billroth, 
 Osiander, Hofmann, Winer) or that of the Christian consciousness 
 (so Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 279: “quem talem virum mente con- 
 cipimus, qui sceleris notitiam non habuerit”). The former is to 
 be preferred, because it makes the motive, which is given in ver. 
 21, appear stronger. The sinlessness of Jesus was present to the 
 consciousness of God, when He made Him to be sin.’ Riickert, 
 quite without ground, gives up any explanation of the force of μή 
 by erroneously remarking that between the article and the par- 
 ticiple μή always appears, never ov. See eg. from the N. Τὶ, 
 fom. ix.. 25; Gals iv. 27;) 1 Pet. ii,.10; Eph: v4; and from 
 profane authors, Plat. Rep. p. 427 E: τὸ οὐχ εὑρημένον, Plut. de 
 garrul. p. 98, ed. Hutt.: πρὸς τοὺς οὐκ ἀκούοντας, Arist. Eccl. 
 187: ὁ δ᾽ ov λαβών, Lucian, Charid. 14: διηγούμενοι τὰ οὐκ 
 ὄντα, adv. Ind. 5, and many other passages. — ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] for owr 
 benefit (more precise explanation: ἵνα ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ.), is emphatically 
 prefixed as that, in which lies mainly the motive for fulfilling 
 the prayer in ver. 20; hence also ἡμεῖς is afterwards pene. 
 
 Regarding ὑπέρ, Ὁ ἴδ. no more means instead here than it does 
 in Gal. iii. 13 (in opposition to Osiander, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. 
 
 p. 134, and older commentators), see on Rom. v. 6. The thought 
 of substitution is only intreduced by what follows. — ἁμαρτίαν 
 ἐποίησε) abstractum pro concreto (comp. λῆρος, ὄλεθρος, and the 
 like in the classic writers, Kiihner, II. p. 26), denoting more 
 strongly that which God made Him to be (Dissen, ad Pind. pp. 
 
 145, 476), and ἐποίησε expresses the setting wp of the state, εἴα 
 which Christ was actually exhibited by God as the coneretwm | 
 of ἁμαρτία, as ἁμαρτωλός, in being subjected by Him to suffer 
 the punishment of death ;? comp. κατάρα, Gal. iii. 13. Holsten, 
 
 1 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 100. 
 
 2 It is to be noted, however, that ἁμαρτίαν, just like κατάρα, Gal. 111, 13, necessarily 
 includes in itself the notion of guilt ; further, that the guilt of which Christ, made to be 
 sin and a curse by God, appears as bearer, was not His own (un γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν), and 
 
296 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 2. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 437, thinks of Christ’s having with 
 His incarnation received also the principle of sin, although He 
 remained without παράβασις. But this is not contained even in 
 Rom. viii. 3; in the present passage it can only be imported at 
 variance with the words (dap. ἐποίησεν), and the distinction between 
 ἑμαρτία and παράβασις is quite foreign to the passage. Even 
 the view, that the death of Jesus has its significance essentially 
 in the fact that it is a doing away of the definite fleshly quality 
 (Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 83 ff.), does not fully meet the 
 sacrificial conception of the apostle, which is not to be explained 
 away. For, taking ἁμαρτίαν as sin-offering (OU, NNDN), with 
 Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vatablus, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Hammond, Wolf, Michaelis, Rosen- 
 miiller, Ewald, and others,’ there is no_sure basis laid even in 
 the language of the LXX. (Lev. vi. 25, 80, v. 9; Num. vii. 8); 
 it is at variance with the constant usage of the N. T., and here, 
 moreover, especially at variance with the previous duapt. — 
 γενώμεθα) aorist (see the critical remarks), without reference to 
 the relation of time. The present of the Recepta would denote 
 that the coming of the ἡμεῖς to be δικαιοσύνη (to be δώκαιοι) still 
 continues with the progress of the conversions to Christ. Comp. 
 Stallbaum, ad Crit. p. 43 B: “id, quod propositum fuit, nondum 
 perfectum et transactum est, sed adhue durare cogitatur;” see 
 
 that hence the guilt of men, who through His death were to be justified by God, was 
 transferred to Him ; consequently the justification of men is imputative. This at 
 the same time in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 329, according to 
 whom (comp. his explanation at our passage) Paul is held merely to express that 
 God has allowed sin to realize itself in Christ, as befalling Him, while it was not 
 in Him as conduct. Certainly it was not in Him as conduct, but it lay upon Him 
 as the guilt of men to be atoned for through His sacrifice, Rom. iii. 25; Col. ii. 14; 
 Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 24; John i. 29, al. ; for which reason His suffering finds 
 itself scripturally regarded not under the point of view of experience befalling Him, 
 evil, or the like, but only under that of guilt-atoning and penal suffering. Comp. 
 1 John ii. 2. 
 
 1 This interpretation is preferred by Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1863, p. 249, 
 for the special reason that, according to the ordinary interpretation, there is an in- 
 congruity between the end aimed at (actual righteousness of God) and the means 
 (appearing asa sinner). But this difficulty is obviated by observing that Christ is 
 conceived by the apostle as in reality bearer of the divine χκασάρα, and His death as 
 mors vicaria for the benefit (ὑπέρ) of the sinful men, to be whose ἱλασσήριον He was 
 accordingly made by Goda sinner. As the yivectas δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ took place for men 
 imputatively, so also did the ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν αὐτόν take place for Christ imputatively. 
 In this lies the congruity. 
 
CHAP. VY. 91. 297 
 
 also Hermann, ad Viger. Ρ. 850. — δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ] 1.6. justified ᾿ 
 
 ο See on Rom. 1, 17. Not thank-offering (Michaelis, | 
 rots ; not an offering just before God, well-pleasing to Him, but 
 as δωρεὰ θεοῦ (Rom. v. 17), the opposite of all ἰδία δικαιοσύνη 
 (Rom. x. 3). They who withstand that apostolic prayer of ver. 
 20 are then those, who τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν, 
 Rom. x. ὃ. --- ἐν αὐτῷ] for in Christ, namely, in His death of 
 reconciliation (Rom. iii. 25), as causa meritoria, our being made 
 righteous has its originating ground, 
 
298 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Ver. 14. ἢ τίς] Elz.: τίς δέ, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 15. 
 Instead of Χριστῷ, Lachm. and Tisch. have Χριστοῦ, following BCR, 
 min. Vulg. Copt. Fathers. Rightly; the dative came in from the 
 adjoining words. — Ver. 16. imei... ἐστε] Lachm.: ἡμεῖς... ἐσμεν, 
 following Β D* L &* min. Copt. Clar. Germ. Clem. Didym. Aug, 
 (once). To be preferred, since the Recepta was very naturally sug- 
 gested as well by the remembrance of 1 Cor. iii. 16 as by the con- 
 nection (vv. 14,17), while there was no ground for putting ἡμεῖς 
 ... ἐσμεν in its stead.— μοι] Lachm.: wov. Attested, no doubt, by 
 BC x, 17, 37, but easily brought in after adrév.1— Ver. 17. ἔτος 
 θετε] The form ἐξέλθατε 18 to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. and 
 Riick., following B C F Gk, 71, al. Damasc. See Fritzsche, ad 
 Mare. p. 639. 
 
 After Paul has, in vv. 20, 21, expressed by δεόμεθα x.7.r. the 
 first and most immediate duty of his ministry as ambassador, he 
 now expresses also his further working as a teacher, and that in 
 reference to the readers, vv. 1, 2. And in order to show how 
 important and sacred is this second part of his working as a joint- 
 labourer with Christ, and certainly at the same time by way of 
 an example putting his opponents to shame, he thereupon sets 
 forth (vv. 3-10), in a stream of diction swelling onward with ever 
 increasing grandeur, his own conduct in his hortatory activity. 
 “Maxima est innocentiae contumacia,” Quintil. ii, 4. “ Verba 
 innocenti reperire facile est,” Curtius, vi. 10. 37. 
 
 Ver. 1. Connection and meaning: “ We do not, however, let 
 the matter rest merely with that entreaty on Christ’s behalf: be 
 ye reconciled to God, but, since we are His fellow-workers, and there 
 is thus more laid on us to do than that entreaty on Christ’s behalf, 
 we also exhort that ye lose not again the grace of God which you have 
 received (v. 21), that ye do not frustrate it in your case by an 
 
 ‘In the LXX. also, Lev. xxvi. 22, there occurs for ws: the variation μου. 
 
CHAP. VI. 1. 299 
 
 unchristian life.’ — συνεργοῦντες] The cur finds its contextual re- 
 ference not in the subject of v. 21, where there is only an auxiliary 
 clause assigning a reason, nor yet in ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλ. δι᾽ 
 ἡμῶν, ver. 20, in which there was given only a modal definition 
 of the πρεσβεύειν ὑπὲρ X., but in ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, ver. 20: as 
 working together with Christ. It cannot, therefore, apply to God 
 (Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Calvin, Cajetanus, Vorstius, Estius, Grotius, 
 Calovius, and others, including Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Hof- 
 mann, in accordance with 1 Cor. ii. 9), or to the fellow-apostles 
 (Heumann, Leun), or to the Corinthian teachers (Schulz, Bolten), 
 or to the Corinthians in general (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pelagius, 
 Bengel, Billroth, Olshausen*), or to the exhortations, with which 
 his own example co-operates (Michaelis, Emmerling, Flatt). The 
 apostles are Fellow. -workers with Christ just in this, that they are 
 ambassadors ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, and as such have to” Tepresent His 
 cause and prosecute’ffis work. — μὴ εἰς κενὸν K-TX.] ἐπάγει ταῦτα 
 τὴν περὶ Tov βίον σπουδὴν ἀπαιτῶν, Chrysostom. For if he that 
 is reconciled through faith leads an unchristian life, the recon- 
 ciliation is in his case frustrated. See Rom. Vi; VIL 12, 1.9. δ. 
 — εἰς κενόν tncasswm, of no effect, Gal. 11. 2. Pail: τ LG; 
 1 Thess. iii. 5; Diod. xix. 9; Heliod. x. 30; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
 VIL. p. 328. — δέξασθαι] is to be explained as recipiatis. So 
 Vulgate, Luther, and others, including Riickert, Ewald, Osiander, 
 Hofmann. Those, namely, who, like the readers (ὑμᾶς), have 
 become partakers of the reconciliation through compliance with 
 the entreaty in v. 20, are placed now under the divine grace 
 (comp. Rom. vi. 14 f.). And this they are not to reject, but to 
 receive and accept (δέξασθαι), and that not εἰς κενόν, 1.6. not without 
 the corresponding moral results, which would be wanting if one 
 recon neiled and justified by, faith were not to follow the draw- 
 ing of grace and the will of the Spirit™and to walk in the 
 καινότης τῆς ζωῆς (Rom. vi. 4) as a new creature, etc. Comp. 
 Theodoret. Pelagius also is right : “in vacuum gratiam Dei recipit, 
 
 } Billroth says: ‘‘ he does not simply preach the gospel and leave the Corinthians 
 then to stand alone, but he at the same time busies himself with them for their 
 salvation, inasmuch as he stands by their side with his exhortations as their in- 
 structor.” Olshausen : ‘“eondescendingly Paul does not place himself over the Corin- 
 thians; he wishes only to be their fellow-labourer, to exhort them in such wise as 
 they ought to exhort one another.” In that case Paul ought to have written cuvep- 
 γοῦντες δὲ ὑμῖν, in order to be understood. 
 
ca) 
 
 300 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 qui in novo testamento non novus est.” Hence it is not (not 
 even in Rom. xv. 9) to be taken in the sense of the praeterite, as 
 many of the more recent commentators (even de Wette) take it, 
 contrary to usage, following Erasmus: “ne committatis, ut, semel 
 gratis a peccatis exemti, in pristinam vitam relabentes in vanum 
 receperitis gratiam Dei.” — ὑμᾶς] is now, after the apostolic calling 
 has been expressed at iv. 20 in its general bearing, added and placed 
 at the end for emphasis, because now the discourse passes into 
 the direct exhortation to the readers, that they receive not without 
 effect, etc. If in thezr case that apostolic entreaty for reconciliation 
 had not passed without compliance, they are now also to accept 
 and act on the grace under which they have been placed. 
 
 Ver. 2 does not assign the reason why Paul is concerned about 
 his official action, because, namely, now is the time in which God 
 would have the world helped (Hofmann), but gives, as the context 
 requires by the exhortation brought in at ver. 1, a parenthetic 
 urgent iducement for complying with this exhortation without 
 delay. — λέγει γάρ] sc. ὁ θεός, from what precedes. The passage is 
 Isa. xlix. 8, exactly according to the LXX. The person addressed 
 is the mn Jay, whose idea is realized in Christ. He is regarded 
 as the head of the true people of God; He is listened to, and He is 
 helped, when the grace of God conveyed through Him is not received 
 without result. Such is the Messianic fulfilment of that, which in 
 Isaiah is promised to the servant of God regarding the deliverance 
 and salvation of the unfortunate people. — καιρῷ Sexr@] Thus 
 the LXX. translate fis) N¥2, at a time of favour. Paul was able 
 to retain the expression of the LXX. all the more, that in the 
 fulfilment of the prophetic word the acceptableness (δεκτῷ) of the 
 καιρός for the people of God consists in this, that it is the point 
 of time_for the display of divine favour and grace. Chrysostom 
 well says: καιρὸς... ὁ τῆς δωρεᾶς, ὁ τῆς χάριτος, ὅτε οὐκ ἔστιν 
 εὐθύνας ἀπαυτηθῆναι τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, οὔτε δίκην δοῦναι, ἀλλὰ 
 μετὰ τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς καὶ μυρίων ἀπολαῦσαι ἀγαθῶν, δικαιο- 
 σύνης, ἁγιασμοῦ, τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων. In substance the same 
 thing is indicated by ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας, on the day of de- 
 liverance. If καιρὸς δεκτός is taken as the time pleasing to God 
 (Hofmann),' it is Τοῖς ὙΠ Keeping with the parallel “day of sal- 
 vation.” The aorists are neither of a futwre (Menochius) nor of a 
 
 1 Comp. Calvin, who understands by it the ‘“‘ tempus plenitudinis” of Gal. iv. 4, 
 
 
 
CHAP. VI. 3. 301 
 
 present character (Flatt), but the Deity speaking sees the future 
 as having already happened. See on Luke 1. 51.—In the com- 
 mentary which Paul adds: ἰδοὺ, νῦν «.7.r., he discloses the element 
 of that utterance of God, which moves to the use of this welcome 
 salvation-bringing time. Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, 
 now is the day of deliverance, which the prophet has foretold ; 
 now or never may you be successful in obtaining salvation 
 
 through a fruitful acceptance and apprehension of the divine 
 
 perceen —— διε Ὁ 
 grace! If the νῦν is past, and you have frustrated in your case 
 
 the grace received, then the hearing and help promised by the 
 prophet are no longer possible ! The duration of this νῦν was in 
 Paul’s view the brief interval before the near-approaching Parousia. 
 The stronger πο ποτε τι ayy τὰ, ιν Pint 
 Mor. p. 801 C), which-he has used instead of the simple form, 
 has proceeded involuntarily from his deep and earnest feeling on 
 the subject. 
 
 Ver. 3. The participle is not connected with ver. 11, but (in 
 opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 11) with παρακαλ. in ver. 1, 
 as a qualitative definition of the subject. Grotius aptly says: 
 “ostendit enim, quam serio moneat qui ut aliquid proficiat nullis 
 terreatur incommodis, nulla non commoda negligat.” Luther finds 
 here an exhortation (let us give no one any kind of offence), which, 
 however, is not allowed either by the construction (διδόντας must 
 have been used) or by the contents of what follows. — ἐν μηδενί] 
 not masculine (Luther) but neuter: in_no respect. Comp. ἐν παντί, 
 ver. 4. The μή is here used, neither unsuitably to the connection 
 with ver. 1 (Hofmann), nor instead of od (Riickert), but from a 
 subjective point of view: “we exhort... as those, who,” etc. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 33, and see Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]. — προσ- 
 κοπή, only here in the N. T., not found in the LXX. and Apocr. 
 (Polyb. vi 6. 8, al.), is equivalent to πρόσκομμα, σκάνδαλον, 1.6. 
 an occasion for unbelief and unchristian conduct. This is given 
 by a conduct of the teachers at variance with the doctrine tangbth 
 --- aia AD τ Πτττις τιν, Paul is, conscious: that he 
 represents the honour of the ministry entrusted to him. It cannot 
 be proved that pay. denotes only light blame (Chrysostom and 
 others, Osiander). See even in Homer, Ji. iii, 412. It depends 
 on the context, as in Pindar, Pyth.i. 160; Lucian, Quom. hist. 33: 
 ὃ οὐδεὶς ἂν, GAN οὐδ᾽ ὁ Μῶμος μωμήσασθαι δύναιτο. 
 
 
 
302 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 4 1. Συνιστῶντες éavt.] Here éavt. is not, as in iii. 1, 
 iv. 12, prefixed, because συνίστ. is the leading idea. —@s θεοῦ 
 διάκονοι] different in sense from ὡς 0. διακόνους (Vulg.: ministros). 
 This would mean: we commend ourselves as those (accusative), 
 who appear as God’s servants. The former means: we commend 
 ourselves, as God's servants commend_themselves. Comp. Kihner, 
 § 830, 5. The emphasis is on θεοῦ.---ἐν ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ} This is 
 the first thing, the passive bearing, through which that συνιστ. ἑαυτ. 
 ὡς θ. διάκ, takes place, through much patience ; the further, active 
 side of the bearing follows in ver. 6, ἐν ayvornte x.7.d., So that ἐν 
 θλίψεσιν... νηστείαις is that, in which (ἐν) the much patience, 
 the much endurance is shown.—Bengel aptly classifies ἐν θλίψεσιν 
 ... νηστείαις : “ Primus ternarius continet genera, secundus species 
 adversorum, tertius spontanca.” Comp. Theodoret.—OrWy., ἀνάγκ., 
 atevoy.: climactic designation. On otevoy., comp. iv. 8. It is 
 impracticable, and leads to arbitrariness, to find a climax also 
 in the three points that follow, the more especially as the very 
 first point is worse and more disgraceful than the second. — 
 ἐν πληγαῖς] Comp. xi. 23-25; Acts xvi. 23. — ἐν adxatactaciats| 
 an twmults. Comp. eg. Acts xii. 50, xiv. 19, xvi. 19 ff, xix. 
 28 ff The explanation: instabilities, 1.6. banishments from one 
 place to another (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, 
 Schulz, Flatt, Olshausen), is in itself possible (comp. ἀστατοῦ- 
 μεν, 1 Cor. iv. 11); but in the whole of the N. T. ἀκαταστ. 
 only means either confusion, disorder (1 Cor. xiv. 32; 2 Cor. xii, 
 20; Jas. 111. 16), or in a special sense ¢twmult (Luke xxi. 9; 
 comp. Ecclus. xxvi. 27). See, regarding the latter signification, 
 the profane passages in Wetstein, Schweighiuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 
 17.— ἐν ἀγρυπν.} in sleeplessnesses, for the sake of working with 
 his hands, teaching, travelling, meditating, praying, through 
 cares, etc. Comp. xi. 27; Acts xx. 31. On the plural, comp. 
 Herod. iii. 129. — ἐν κόποις] is not, with Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, and others, to be understood only of labour with the hands 
 (1 Cor. iv. 11; 1 Thess. i. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8), which limitation 
 is not suggested by the context, but of toilsome labours in general, 
 which the conduct of the apostolic ministry entailed. Comp. xi. 
 23, 2'7.— ἐν νηστείαις) is gencrally explained of the endurance 
 of hunger and want (1 Cor. iv. 11; Phil. iv. 12). But since 
 
 νηστεία is never used of compulsory fasting, and since Paul him- 
 
CHAP. VI. 6, 7 303 
 
 self (xi. 27) distinguishes ἐν νηστείαις from ἐν λιμῷ κ. δίψει, 
 we must, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Calvin (comp. sae 
 Osiander, Hofmann), explain it of voluntary fasting, which I Paul,| 
 using with free spirit the time-honoured asceticism, imposed on 
 himself The objections, that this is at variance with the apostle’s 
 spirit, or is here irrelevant, are arbitrary. See Matt. vi. 16, ix. 
 15, xvii. 21; Acts xiv. 23; comp. xiii. 2, 3,ix. 9; also 1 Cor. 
 vil. 5. 
 
 In ver. 6, the series begun with ἐν ὑμομονῇ πολλῇ goes further. 
 — ἐν ἁγνότητι] through purity, moral sincerity in general. Comp. 
 ayvos, Phil. iv. 8; 1 Tim. v. 22; 1 John iii. 3. To understand 
 this as meaning abstinentia a venere (Grotius and others), or con- 
 tempt for money (Theodoret), is a limitation without ground in the 
 context, and presents too low a moral standard for a servant of 
 God. — év_yvwcet] Of the high degree of his evangelical know- 
 ledge, 1 in particular of the moral will ἢ God in the e gospel, t there 
 is evidence in every one of his Epistles and in every one of his 
 speeches in the Book of Acts. Calvin and Morus arbitrarily 
 think that what is meant is recte et scienter agendr peritia, or 
 (comp. also Riickert and Osiander) true practical prudence, — ἐν 
 μακροθυμίᾳ] amid offences. — ἐν χρηστότητι) through kindness 
 (Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.). The two are likewise associated in 
 1 Cor. xiii. 4; Gal. v. 22. — ἐν πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ] is not to be limited 
 arbitrarily to the charismata (Grotius and others), but: through the 
 Holy Spirit, of whom testimony is given by our whole working 
 and conduct just as πὸ εὐ τ] 
 walk according to the Spirit (Gal. v. 25). The position of this 
 and the following point is determined by the circumstance, that 
 Paul, in addition to the points adduced (ἐν ὑπομονῇ... ἐν ἁγνό- 
 τητι κιτὶλ.), now further mentions their objective divine source, 
 which he bears in himself (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ), as well as the 
 fundamental virtue of the Christian (ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἀἄνυποκρ., comp. 
 Rom. xii. 9; 1 Pet. 1. 22 f,, iv. 8), which springs from this source, 
 and without which even those elements already named would fail 
 him (1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 1 ff, xiv. 1). In this way he brings to 
 completion that portion of his self-attestation which reaches to 
 this point. Ei, Vee 
 
 Ver. 7. The enumerations hitherto made related generally to 
 the conduct and character of God’s servants; now the stream, 
 
 
 
9041 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 swelling ever more boldly, passes over to the province of the 
 teacher's work, and pours itself forth from ver. 8 in a succession of 
 contrasts between seeming and being, which are so many triumphs 
 of the apostle’s clear self-assurance. — ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθ.] through 
 discourse of truth, i.e. through doctrine, the character of which is 
 truth. Comp. ii 17, iv. 2. It will not do to take, with Riickert, 
 Noy. ἀληθ. objectively, as equivalent to εὐαγγέλιον, because, as at 
 Eph. i. 13, Col. 1. 5, the article could not have been omitted. — 
 ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ] rough power of Hod, which shows itself efficacious 
 in our work of teaching, iv. 7. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20. The 
 limitation to the méracles is arbitrary (Theophylact, comp. Emmer- 
 ling and Flatt). — διὰ τῶν ὁπλῶν τῆς δικαιοσ. x.7.r.] is by Grotius 
 connected with what precedes (Det virtute nobis arma submini- 
 strante, etc.) ; but seeing that other independent points are after- 
 wards introduced by Ova, we must suppose that Paul, who 
 elsewhere without any special purpose varies in his use of 
 equivalent prepositions, passes from the instrumental év to the 
 instrumental διά, so that we have here also a special point: through 
 the weapons, which righteousness furnishes, The δικαιοσύνη is to 
 be taken in the usual dogmatic sense. Comp. τὴν θώρακα τῆς 
 δικαιοσ., Eph. vi. 15. It is the righteousness of faith which 
 makes us strong and victorious in the way of assault or defence 
 against all opposing powers. See the noble commentary of tlre 
 apostle himselfin-Rom. viii. 31-39. It has been explained of 
 moral integrity (comp. Rom. vi. 13, 19; Eph. v. 9, vi. 14), the 
 genitive being taken either as ad justitiam implendam (Grotius), or 
 as weapons, which the consciousness of integrity gives (Erasmus, Beza, 
 Calvin, Billroth), or which are allowed to a moral man and are 
 at his command (Riickert), or which minister to that which is of 
 right (Hofmann), and the like; but the explanation has this 
 against it, that the context contains absolutely nothing which 
 leads us away from the habitual Pauline conception of δικαιοσύνη, 
 as it was most definitely expressed even at v. 21, whereas the 
 idea of δύναμις θεοῦ stands in quite a Pauline connection with 
 that of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. See Rom. i. 16, 17. Hence there is no 
 ground for uniting the two conceptions of δικαιοσύνη (Osiander), or 
 for explaining it of righteousness as a quality of God which works 
 through Paul (Kling). The explanation: arma justa, legitimate 
 weapons (Flatt, following Heumann and Morus), is out of the 
 
 
 
CHAP. VI. 8. 305 
 
 question. — τῶν δεξιῶν καὶ dpiot.] right-hand and_left-hand 
 arms, an apportioning specification of the whole armamen specification of the whole armament. The 
 former are the weapons of attack ‘weapons of attack wielded with the right hand, the 
 latter are the weapons of defence (shield) ; the warrior needs both 
 
 together. Hence it was unsuitable to refer the former specially 
 to res prosperas, the latter to res adversas (Erasmus, Estius, 
 Grotius, Bengel, and others, following the Fathers) : “ ne prosperis 
 elevemur, nec frangamur adversis,’ Pelagius. Comp. rather, on 
 the subject-matter, x. 4 f. 
 
 Ver. 8. It is usually supposed that διά here is not again 
 instrumental, but local: (going) through honour and shame, or 
 in the sense of the accompanying circumstances (Hofmann): amid 
 honour and shame, we commend ourselves, namely, as God’s 
 servants, ver. 4. This is arbitrary on the very face of it; besides, 
 in this way of taking it there is no mode of the apostolic self- 
 commendation at all expressed. Hence Billroth was right in 
 trying to keep to the instrumental sense: “as well honour as 
 shame (the latter, in so far as he bears it with courage and 
 patience) must contribute to the apostles commendation.” But, on 
 the other hand, it may be urged that, according to the words, it 
 must be the shame itself (as also the δόξα itself), and not the 
 manner of Dearing it, which commends. Hence it is rather to 
 be taken: through glory, which we earn for ourselves among the 
 friends of God, and through dishonour, which we draw on ourselves 
 among opponents ; through both we commend ourselves as God’s 
 servants. On the latter idea (καὶ ἀτιμίας), comp. Matt. v.11; 
 Luke vi. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 14; also Gal. 1. 10. In a corresponding 
 way also what follows is to be taken: through evil report and 
 good report.— ὡς πλάνοι κ. ἀληθεῖς] With this there begins a 
 series of modal definitions, which furnish a triumphant commentary 
 on the two previous statements, διὰ δόξης κ. ἀτιμίας, διὰ δυσφημ. 
 x, εὐφημ. In this case the order of the clauses (the injurious 
 aspect being always put first) corresponds to the order of δυσφ. 
 x. εὐφημ. The first clause always gives the tenor of the 
 ἀτιμία and dvodnpia; the second clause, on the other hand, 
 gives the actual state of the case, and consequently also the 
 tenor of the δόξα and εὐφημία. Hence: as deceivers and true, 
 1.06. a8 people who are both, the former in the opinion and in the 
 mouth of enemies, the latter in point of fact. Accordingly, καί 
 
 2 COR. IL U 
 
 
 
306 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 is not “and yet” (Luther and many others), but the simple and. 
 —On the seven times repeated ws, Valla rightly remarks: 
 “ Paulina oratio sublimis atque urgens.” Comp. Augustine, de 
 doctr. Christ. iv. 20. — On πλάνοι, which does not mean “ erring” 
 (Ewald), comp. Matt. xxvii. 63; 1 Tim. iv. 1; John vii. 12; 
 and Wetstein. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. ’Ayvootpevor] not: mistaken or misjudged (Flatt, 
 Hofmann, and others), nor yet: people, for whom nobody cares 
 (Grotius), but: people, whom no one is acquainted with (Gal. 1. 22) ; 
 obscure men, of whom no one knows anything. Comp. ἀγνώς and 
 the contrasted γνώριμος, Plato, Pol. 11. p. 375 E; also Demosth. 
 851. 27. — émiywwor.] becoming well _ known; comp. on 1 Cor. 
 xiii, 12; Matt. xi 27. By whom? Riickert thinks: by God, 
 But without ground in the text, which rather demands the refer- 
 ence to men, as Chrysostom rightly saw: ὡς ayv. κ. émuywwook., 
 τοῦτο ἔστι διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀτιμίας, τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἦσαν γνώριμοι 
 καὶ περισπούδαστοι, οἱ δὲ οὐδὲ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς ἠξίουν. Hence: 
 as people who are unknown (viz. according to the contemptuous 
 judgment of opponents), and well known (in reality among all true 
 believers).—arovjcKxovtes] The continual sufferings a deadly 
 perils of the apostle gave to his opponents occasion to say: he is 
 on the point of death, he is at his last! Paul considered himself 
 as moribundus (1 Cor. xv. 31), but from what an entirely different 
 point of view! See 2 Cor. iv. 7-15.— καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν] and, 
 behold, we are in life! We find a commentary on this in iy. 
 7 ff. Comp.1.10. The construction often varies so, that after 
 the use of the participle the discourse passes over to the finite 
 verb (Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 327 f. [E. T. 382 f.]) ; but here, in 
 the variation introduced with a lively surprise by ἐδού. (comp. 
 v. 17), there is implied a joyful feeling of victory. “ Vides non 
 per negligentiam veteres hoc genere uti, sed consulto, ubi quae 
 conjuncta sunt ad vim sententiae simul tamen distinguere volunt 
 paulo expressius,” Dissen, ad Pind. Isthm. p. 527. -- ὡς παιδευό- 
 μενοι κ. μὴ θανατ.] a reminiscence, perhaps, of Ps. cxviii. 18 ; 
 mato. is not, however, to be understood of actual chastisements by 
 scourging and the like (Cajetanus, Menochius, Estius, Flatt). 
 This, judged by the analogy of the other clauses, would be too 
 much a matter of detail, and it would be specially inappropriate, 
 because in all the clauses the view of His opponents is placed 
 
CHAP, VI. 11. 9507 
 
 side by side with the true state of the case. We must rather 
 think of God as the παιδεύων. The sorrowful condition of the 
 apostle gave his opponents occasion for concluding: he_is a 
 chastened man ! a man who is under the divine chastening rod ! 
 — καὶ μὴ θανατ.] In his humble piety he does not deny that he 
 stands under God’s discipline (hence there is here no opposite of 
 
 the first clause); but he knows that God’s discipline will not pro- 
 
 ceed to extremity, as His opponents thought ; therefore he adds: 
 and not becoming killed ! not sinking under this chastening. ——Ver. 
 10. In the opinion and judgment of our enemies we are people 
 
 Sull of sorrow, poor, and having nothing (starving and penniless 
 wretches !); and in reality we are at all times rejoicing (through 
 our Christian frame of mind, comp. Rom. v. 3, and the χαρὰ ἐν 
 πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 6), enriching many 
 (with spiritual benefits, 1 Cor.i.5; 2 Cor. viii. 9), and having in 
 possession everything (because entrusted with the store of all divine 
 benefits in order to impart them to others). This πάντα κατέχ., 
 like the previous πολλοὺς πλουτίζ., is by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Grotius, Estius, explained in this way, that Paul could have dis- 
 posed of the property of the Christians, and have enriched many 
 by instituting collections. But such an inferior reference is alto- 
 gether out of keeping with the lofty tone of the passage, more espe- 
 cially at its close, where it reaches its acme. Comp. also Gemara 
 Nedarim f. 40. 2 : “ Recipimus non esse pauperem nisi in scientia. 
 In Occidente seu terra Israel dixerunt: in quo scientia est, is est 
 ut 1116, in quo omnia sunt; in quo illa deest, quid est in eo?” 
 Riickert’s opinion, that in those twe clauses Paul was thinking of 
 nothing definite at all, is unjust towards the apostle. Olshausen, 
 followed by Neander, wishes to find the explanation of πάντα 
 κατέχ. in 1 Cor. iii. 22. But this is less suitable to the πολλοὺς 
 πλουτίζ., evidently referring to the spiritual gifts, to which it is 
 related by way‘of climax. “~~ —~S 
 
 Ver. 11—vii. 1. After the episode in vv. 3-10,’ Paul turns with 
 a conciliatory transition (vv. 11-13) to a special, and for 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1The supposition that there is an abnormal, and in this respect certainly un- 
 exampled construction, under which ver. 11 should be taken as concluding the main 
 clause along with ‘‘ the preceding long-winded participial clause” (Hofmann), ought 
 to have been precluded by the very consideration that that ‘‘ long-winded ” accumu- 
 lation of participles, in which, however, Paul paints his whole life active and passive 
 with so much enthusiasm, and, as it were, triumphant heroism, would stand utterly 
 
908 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the Corinthians necessary, form of the exhortation expressed 
 in ver. 1 (vv. 14-18). This is followed up in vil. 1 by a 
 general appeal, which embraces the whole moral duty of the 
 Christian. 
 
 Ver. 11. Our mouth stands open towards you, Corinthians ; our 
 heart is enlarged. — τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν avéwye] This expression is in 
 itself nothing further than a picturesque representation of the 
 thought: to begin to speak, or to speak. See, especially, Fritzsche, 
 Dissert. 11. p. 97, and the remark on Matt. v. 2. <A qualitative 
 definition may be added simply through the context, as is the case 
 also here partly through the general character of the previous 
 passage, vv. 83-10, which is a very open, unreserved utterance, 
 partly by means of the parallel ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται. 
 Thus in accordance with the context the opposite of reserve is here 
 expressed. Comp. Chrysostom 1. Had Paul merely written λελα- 
 λήκαμεν ὑμῖν, the same thought would, in virtue of the context, have 
 been implied in it (we have not been reserved, but have let ourselves 
 be openly heard towards you) ; but the picturesque τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν 
 avéwye is better fitted to convey this meaning, and is therefore 
 purposely chosen. Comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 22; Eeclus. xxii. 22; Eph. vi. 
 19; Aeschylus, Prometh.612. This at the same time in opposition. 
 to Fritzsche, who adheres to the simple haec ad vos locutus sum, 
 as to which, we may remark, the haec is imported. Riickert (comp. 
 Chrysostom 2) finds the sense to be: “see, I have begun to speak 
 with you once, I have not concealed ... from you my apostolic senti- 
 ments ; I cannot yet close my mouth, I must speak with you yet 
 further.” But the thought: J must speak with you yet further, is 
 imported; how could the reader conjecture it from the simple 
 perfect? Just as little is it to be assumed, with Hofmann, that 
 Paul wishes only to state that he had not been reserved with 
 what he had to say, so that this expression is only a resumption 
 of the παρακαλοῦμεν μὴ εἰς κενὸν «.7.d. in ver. 1. Only in an 
 arbitrary and violent manner can we reject the reference to 
 vv. 3-10, where such a luxuriance of holy grandiloquentia has 
 disproportioned to that which he says in ver. 11, and which is only a brief, gentle, 
 kindly remark. What a magnificent preparation for such a little quiet sentence 
 without substantial contents! The examples cited by Hofmann from Greek 
 writers and the N. T. (Acts xx. 3; Mark ix. 20) are too weak analogies. See 
 
 regarding similar real anacolutha, Winer, p. 527f. [E. T. 709 1.1. Comp. on Mark 
 ix. 20, 
 
CHAP, VI. 11. 309 
 
 issued from his mouth. — dvéwya, in the sense of ἀνέῳγμαι, is 
 frequent in later Greek (in J/. xvi. 221, ἀνέῳγεν is imperfect), 
 and is rejected by Phrynichus as a solecism. See Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 151 £. — Κορίνθιοι] Regarding this particular form of 
 address without article or adjective (it is otherwise in Gal. iii. 1) 
 Chrysostom judges rightly: καὶ ἡ προσθήκη δὲ τοῦ ὀνόματος 
 φιλίας πολλῆς καὶ διαθέσεως καὶ θερμότητος, καὶ γὰρ εἰώθαμεν 
 TOV ἀγαπωμένων συνεχῶς γυμνὰ τὰ ὀνόματα περιστρέφειν. Comp. 
 Phil. iv. 15. Bengel: “rara et praesentissima appellatio.” — ἡ 
 καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται) cannot here mean either: J feel myself 
 cheered and comforted (comp. Ps. cxix. 32; Isa. lx. 5), as Luther, 
 Estius, Kypke, Michaelis, Schleusner, Flatt, Bretschneider, Schrader, 
 and others hold, οὐ" Z have expressed myself frankly, made a clean 
 breast (Semler, Schulz, Morus, Rosenmiiller, de Wette, comp. Beza), 
 because vv. 12 and 13 are against both ways of taking it; but, 
 with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and the majority, it is 
 to be taken as an expression of the love which, by being stirred 
 up and felt, makes the heart wide, while by the want of love and 
 by hate the heart is narrowed and contracted. The figurative 
 expression needed no elucidation from the Hebrew, and least 
 suitable of all is the comparison with Deut. xi. 16 (Hofmann), 
 where the figurative meaning of ans’ is of quite another kind. 
 See, however, the passages in Wetstein on ver. 12.— The two 
 parts of the verse stand side by side as parallels without a con- 
 nective particle (καί), in order that thus the second thought, 
 which outweighs the first, might come into more prominent relief, 
 —a relation which is indicated by the emphatic prefixing of τὸ 
 στόμα and ἡ καρδία. The meaning accordingly is: We have 
 (vv. 3-10) spoken openly to you, Corinthians ; our heart has therein 
 become right wide in love towards you—which, however, may not be 
 interpreted of readiness to receive the readers (Hofmann), for they 
 are already in his heart (vii. 3; comp. Phil. i. 7). The relation 
 of the two clauses is taken differently by Emmerling, who inserts 
 a because between them, and by Fritzsche, who says: “ quod vobis 
 dixi ejusmodi est, wt inde me vos amare appareat.” But it may 
 be urged against both that we are not justified in taking the two 
 perfects as different in temporal import, the one as a real praeterite, 
 and the other with the force of a present. In πεπλάτυνταν it is 
 rather implied that Paul has felt his love to the Corinthians 
 
910 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 strengthened, his heart towards them widened, during his writing 
 of the passage vv. 3-10 (by its contents)—a result, after such an 
 outpouring, intelligible enough, psychologically true, and turned 
 to account in order to move his readers. 
 
 Ver. 12. A negative confirmation of the ἡ καρδία ἡμ. πεπλάτ. 
 just said, and opposite state of matters on the part of the Corin- 
 thians. — Not straitened are ye in us, but straitened in your inner- 
 most part (o7d., the seat of love, like καρδία, ver. 11, to which the 
 expression stands related under the increasing emotion by way 
 of climax). The meaning of it is: “valde vos amo, non item vos 
 me.” It is impossible, on account of the ov, to take it as an 
 imperative (Aretius, Luther, Heumann, Morus, Schleusner).— οὐ 
 στενοχ. ἐν ἡμῖν] non angusto spatio premimini in animis nostris : 
 in this Paul retains the figure of the previous ἡ καρδ. ἡμ. πεπλάτ. 
 Chrysostom aptly says: ὁ yap φιλούμενος μετὰ πολλῆς ἔνδον ἐν 
 τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ φιλοῦντος βαδίζει τῆς ἀδείας. Comp. vii. 3; Phil. 
 1. 7. The negative expression is an affectionate, pathetic litotes, 
 to be followed by an equally affectionate paternal reproof. This 
 is explanation enough, and dispenses with the hypothesis that 
 Paul is referring to the opinion of the church, that it had too 
 narrow a space—a smaller place than it wished—in his heart 
 (Hofmann). Those who interpret πλᾶτ., ver. 11, as to cheer, take 
 the meaning to be: not through us do ye become troubled, but 
 through yourselves (Kypke, Flatt; comp. Elsner, Estius, Wolf, 
 Zachariae, Schrader; comp. also Luther) —a thought, however, 
 which is foreign to the whole connection; hence Flatt also 
 assumes that Paul has vii. 2 ff already in his thoughts; and 
 Schrader explains ver. 14—vii. 1 as an interpolation.’ — στενοχ. 
 δὲ ἐν τ. σπλ. ὑμ.] so that there is in them no right place for us 
 (comp. 1 John iii. 17). Chrysostom: οὐκ εἶπεν. od φιλεῖτε 
 
 1 Emmerling explains this section vi. 14-vii. 1 to be, not an interpolation, but a 
 disturbing addition, only inserted by Paul on reading over the Epistle again, ‘* sen- 
 tentiis subito in animo exortis.” And recently Ewald has explained it as an inserted 
 fragment from another Epistle, proceeding probably only from some apostolic man, 
 to a Gentile Christian church. But (1) the apparent want of fitting in to the con- 
 nection, even if it did exist (but see on ver. 14), would least of all warrant this 
 view in the case of an Epistle written under so lively emotion. (2) The contents 
 are quite Pauline, and sufficiently ingenious. (3) The name βελίαρ, which does not 
 occur elsewhere in Scripture, is not evidence against Paul, since in his Epistles (the 
 Pastoral ones excepted) even the name 2020s, so current elsewhere, occurs only 
 
CHAP. VI. 13. old 
 
 ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ov μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μέτρου. Paul did not write 
 στενοχωρούμεθα δὲ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς oT. ἡμ., because by this the 
 contrast would have passed from the thing to the persons (for 
 he had not, in fact, written οὐχ ὑμεῖς στενοχωρ. ἐν ἡμῖν), and so 
 the passage would have lost in fitting concert and sharp force. 
 Riickert thinks that Paul refers in ver. 12 to an utterance of the 
 Corinthians, who had said: στενωχορούμεθα ἐν αὐτῷ ! meaning, 
 we are perplexed ct him, and that now he explains to them how 
 the matter stood with this στενοχωρεῖσθαι, but takes the word 
 in another sense than they themselves had done. A strangely 
 arbitrary view, since the use of the στενοχωρεῖσθαι in our passage 
 was occasioned very naturally and completely by the previous 
 πεπλάτ. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret. 
 
 Ver. 13. A demand for the opposite of the said στενοχωρεῖσθε 
 ἐν τοῖς ond. tu. just said. —The accusative τὴν αὐτὴν ἀντι- 
 μισθίαν is not to be supplemented either by habentes (Vulgate), 
 nor by εἰσενέγκατε (Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor to be con- 
 nected with λέγω (Chrysostom, Beza, and others) ; it is anacoluthic 
 (accusative absolute), so that it emphatically sets forth an object 
 of discourse, without grammatically attaching to it the further 
 construction. It is otherwise in 11.18. There is not an aterrup- 
 tion, but a rhetorical breaking off of the construction. These accu- 
 satives, otherwise explained by xara, are therefore the beginning 
 of a construction which is not continued. See Schaefer, ad Dem. 
 V. pp. 314, 482 f.; Matthiae, p. 955. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 132 f.; 
 Dissen, ad Pind. p. 329, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 407; Winer, p. 576 
 [E. T. 7141. ---- αὐτήν] Paul has blended by way of attraction 
 the two conceptions τὸ αὐτό and τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν. See Fritzsche, 
 Dissert. 11. p. 114 ff. Riickert arbitrarily says: Paul wished to 
 write ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς πλατύνθητε, THY ἐμὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, but, 
 
 at two passages of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Besides, the συμφών. Χριστῷ πρὸς 
 βελίαρ may be an echo of some apocryphal utterance known to the readers (comp. 
 Eph. v. 14). (4) The expressions μετοχή (comp. μετέχειν, 1 Cor. ix. 10, al.), μερίς 
 (comp. Col. i. 12), συμφώνησις (comp. σύμφωνος, 1 Cor. vii. 5), καθαρίζω (comp. Eph. 
 v. 26), cannot, any more than συγκατάθεσις which he does not use elsewhere, excite 
 well-grounded suspicion in the case of one so rich in handling the language. (5) The 
 critical evidence gives not the slightest trace of ground for assuming that the section 
 did not originally stand in all the manuscripts. How different it is with passages 
 really interpolated, such as Mark xvi. 9 ff. ; John vii. 33 ff.! Yet Holsten has also, 
 cur Lvang. d. Paul. τι. Petr. p. 387, assented to the condemnation of the section, 
 
312 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 by prefixing the latter, he brought the idea of ὡσαύτως also into the 
 first clause, where it necessarily had now to appear as an adjective, 
 He certainly has not only placed, but also thought τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν 
 first, but at the same time τὸ αὐτό was also in his mind. — The 
 parenthetic ὡς τέκνοις λέγω justifies the expression τὴν αὖτ. 
 ἀντιμισθίαν ; for it is the duty of children to recompense a father’s 
 love by love in return. Comp. 1 Tim.v. 4. Chrysostom: οὐδὲν 
 μέγα αἰτῶ, εἰ πατὴρ ὧν βούλομαι φιλεῖσθαι παρ᾽ ὑμῶν. The 
 notion of children yet untrained (Ewald) would be indicated by 
 something like νηπίοις (1 Cor. 111, 1). 
 | Ver, 14. As a contrast to the desired πλατύν., Paul now forbids 
 their making common cause with the heathen, ἘΠ so has come 
 to the point of stating what was said generally at ver. 1 (μὴ εἰς 
 κενὸν τ. χ. T. θεοῦ ΠΤ ΡῸ more precisely, i in a form needful for 
 the special circumstances of the Corinthians, in order to warn 
 | them more urgently and effectually of the danger of losing their 
 salvation. — μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγ.] Bengel: “ ne fiatis, τ pro: 
 ne sitis.” He does not forbid all intercourse with the heathen 
 whatever (see 1 Cor. v. 10, x. 27, vii 12), but the making 
 common cause with heathen efforts and aims, the entering into the 
 heathen element of life. There is no ground for aacnmi cae 
 sively special references (such as to sacrificial banquets or to mixed 
 marriages), any more than for excluding such references. — ἕτερο- 
 ζυγοῦντες] see, in general, Wetstein, It means here: bearing 
 another (a different kind of) yoke. Comp. ἑτερόξυγος, Lev. 
 xix. 19; Schleusner, Zhesaur. 11. p. 557. Paul undoubtedly 
 has in mind the figurative conception of two different animals 
 (as ox and ass) which are yoked together in violation of the law 
 (Deut. xxii. 9),—a conception, in which the heterogeneous fellow- 
 ship of Christians with heathen is aptly portrayed: drawing a 
 yoke strange to you. In this verse the dative ἀπίστοις denotes a 
 fellowship, in which the unbelieving partner forms the standard 
 which determines the mode of thought and action of the Christian 
 partner. For this dative cannot mean “with unbelievers” (the 
 usual explanation), as if συζυγοῦντες had been used; but it is not 
 so much dativus commodi (Hofmann: for the pleaswre of unbelievers), 
 a thought which Paul would have doubtless expressed with more 
 precision, as the dativus ethicus (Kriiger, § 48. 6); so that the 
 words mean: do not draw for unbelievers a strange yoke. The 
 
CHAP. VI. 14, 313 
 
 yoke meant is that drawn by unbelievers, one of a kind strange 
 to Christians (érepotov), and the latter are not to put_ themselves 
 at the disposal of unbelievers by sharing “the drawing it. The 
 great ‘danger of the relation against, ainst “which Paul warns them, lies 
 in this dative expression. According to Theophylact (comp. 
 Chrysostom), the sense is: μὴ ἀδικεῖτε τὸ δίκαιον ἐπικλινόμενοι 
 καὶ προσκείμενοι οἷς οὐ θέμις, so that the figurative expression is 
 taken from the unequal balance (Phocylides, 13: σταθμὸν μὴ 
 κρούειν ἑτερόζυγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσον ἕλκειν). But apart from the cir- 
 cumstance that Paul would in that case have expressed himself 
 at least very strangely, the reminiscence from the O. T., which the 
 common view assumes, must still be considered as the most natural 
 for the apostle.\— τίς yap μετοχὴ x.7.r.] for how utterly incom- 
 patible is the Christian with the heathen character! Observe the 
 impressiveness of the accumulated questions, and of the accumu- 
 lated contrasts in these questions. The first four questions are 
 joined in two pairs ; the fifth, mounting to the highest designation of 
 Christian holiness, τοι πε τὸ to it are ‘attached, ‘as a forcible 
 conclusion of the discourse, the testimony and injunction of God 
 which confirm it.2— δικαιοσύνῃ κ. ἀνομίᾳ] For the Christian is 
 justified by faith (v. 21, vi. 7), and this condition excludes 
 immoral conduct (ἀνομία, 1 John iii. 4), which is the element of 
 heathen life (Rom. vi. 19). The two life-elements have nothing 
 in common with each other, Rom. vii. 1 ff; Gal. ii. 15 ff.—In 
 the second question the Christian life-element appears as φῶς, 
 and the heathen as σκότος. Comp. Eph. v. 8, 11 f.; Col. i. 12 ἢ 
 In the latter is implied ἡ ἄγνοια καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία, and in das: ἡ 
 γνῶσις καὶ ὁ βίος ὁ ἔνθεος (in both, the intellectual and the ethical 
 element are to be thought of together), Gregory Naz. Or. 36.—Regard- 
 ing the two datives, of which the second is expressed in Latin by 
 cum, see Matthiae, p. 883; and the πρός, in the second clause, is 
 
 1 Hence our view (comp. Vulgate) is to be preferred also to that of Theodoret : μὴ 
 μιμήσησθε cous ἑτέρως ἐννεύοντας βόας καὶ τὸν ζυγὸν κλίνοντας, τὴν τῶν ἀπίστων ἀπάτην 
 Tis ἡμετέρας προτιμῶντες διδασκαλίας. 
 
 5 Hofmann brings the second and third questions, as well as the fourth and fifth, 
 into closer relation. Neither the particles ἤ and δέ, nor the prepositions πρός and 
 μετά, nor yet the contents of the questions, are decisive. But it is in favour of our 
 division, which Lachmann has also, that only to the fifth question is there specially 
 added the great and important scriptural testimony, vv. 16-18, which is quite in 
 keeping with its isolated and distinctive position. 
 
314 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the expression of social relation, like our with. See Bernhardy, 
 p- 265. Comp. Plato, Conv. p. 209 C: κοινωνίαν... πρὸς 
 ἀλλήλους, Stobaeus, S. 28: ef δέ τις ἔστι κοινωνία πρὸς θεοὺς 
 ἡμῖν, Philo, Leg. ad Cat. p. 1007 Ο: τίς οὖν κοινωνία πρὸς 
 ᾿Απόλλωνα τῷ μηδὲν οἰκεῖον ἐπιτετηδευκότι, Ecclus, xiii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 15. The five different shades given to the notion of 
 fellowship vouch for the command which the apostle had over 
 the Greek language. — Regarding the use of δέ before a new 
 question with the same word of interrogation, see Hartung, 
 Partikell. I. p. 169. — Βελίαρ] Name of the devil (the Peshito 
 has Satan), properly 32 (wickedness, a8 concrete equivalent to 
 ITovnpos) ; hence the reading Βελίαλ (Elzevir, Lachmann) is most 
 probably a correction, The form βελίαρ, which also occurs 
 frequently in the Test. XII. Patr. (see Fabricius, Psewdepigr. V. 
 T. I. pp. 5389, 587, 619, αἰ.), in Ignatius as interpolated, in the 
 Canon. Ap., and in the Fathers (see Wetstein, critical remarks), 
 is to be explained from the not unfrequent interchange of » and 
 p in the common speech of the Greek Jews. In the O. T. the 
 word does not occur as a name. See, generally, Gesenius, 
 Thesaurus, I. p. 210. — συμφώνησις, harmony, accord, only here 
 in the N. T., not in the LXX. The Greeks say συμφωνία and 
 σύμφωνον (with πρός, Polyb. vi. 36.5; Plat. Zach. p. 188 D); 
 the simple form φώνησις in Pollux ii, 111.— On μερίς, share, 
 comp. Acts vill. 21. The two have no partnership with one 
 another, possess nothing in common with one another. The 
 believer has, in Christ, righteousness, peace, etc., all of which the 
 unbeliever has not, and one day will have μερὶς τοῦ κλήρου τῶν 
 ἁγίων, Col. 1. 12. In strict logic ἢ τίς μερὶς... ἀπίστου did not 
 belong to this series of elements of proof, since it contains the 
 proposition itself to be proved, but it has come in amidst the 
 lively, sweeping flow of the discourse. 
 
 Ver. 16. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. What agreement (Polyb. ii 
 58. 11, iv. 17. 8) has the temple of God with idols? how can it 
 reconcile itself with them ? Comp. on συγκατάθ. : also Ex. xxiii. 1; 
 Luke xxii. 51. The two are contraries, which stand negatively 
 related to one another; if the temple of God should come into 
 contact with idols (as was the case, ¢g., under Ahaz), it would be 
 desecrated. — ἡμεῖς yap «.7.A.] With this Paul proves that he was 
 not without reason in using the words tis δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ 
 
CHAP, VI. 17: 815 
 
 θεοῦ x.7.r. of the contradiction between the Christian and the 
 heathen character. The emphasis is on ἡμεῖς : for we Christians 
 are (sensu mystico) the temple of the living God.'— ζῶντος] in 
 contrast with the dead idols in the heathen temples. — καθὼς 
 εἶπεν ὁ θεός] in accordance with the utterance of God: Lev. 
 xxvi. 12, freely after the LXX., the summary of the divine 
 covenant of promise.—¢v αὐτοῖς] among them; see below, 
 ἐμπεριπατήσω, walk about in (Lucian, adv. Ind. 6; Ach. Tat. 
 1,6; LXX.). The indwelling of God in the body of Christians 
 as in His temple, and the intercourse of His gracious rule in it 
 (ἐμπερύπ.), take place through the medium of the Spirit. See on 
 1 Cor. iii. 16; John xiv. 23. 
 
 Ver. 17. With the foregoing quotation Paul now combines 
 another in keeping with his aim (ver. 14), containing the appli- 
 cation which God has made of His previous promise. But this 
 quotation is still freer than the one before, after the LXX. Isa. 
 lii. 11, and the last words, κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς, are perhaps 
 joined with it through a reminiscence of Ezek. xx. 34 (comp. 
 Ezek. xi. 17; Zech. x. 8). Osiander and most expositors find in 
 Kayo εἰσδέξ. by. a reproduction approximately as to sense of the 
 words in Isa. li, 12: καὶ ὁ ἐπισυνάγων ὑμᾶς κύριος ὁ θεὸς 
 ᾿Ισραήλ ; but this is, at any rate, far-fetched, and, considering 
 Paul’s usual freedom in joining different passages of the O. T., 
 unnecessarily harsh. — αὐτῶν] applies to the heathen. — axa@dp- 
 του μὴ ἅπτεσθε] Just as ἐξέλθετε «.7.d. had referred (aorist) to 
 the separation to be accomplished from the fellowship of heathen 
 life, so this refers, in the sense of the prophetic fulfilment, to the 
 continuing (present) abstinence from all heathen habits (not 
 simply from offerings to idols), and κἀγὼ εἰσδέξ. ty. to their 
 reception into sonship, see ver. 18. It is correlative to ἐξέλθατε ; 
 God wishes to receive those who have gone forth into His paternal 
 house, 1.0. into the fellowship of the true theocracy (ver. 18). 
 
 1 So according to the reading ἡμεῖς. . . ἔσωεν. See the critical temarks. Accord- 
 ing to the Recepta ὑμεῖς. . . tore (so also Tisch., defended by Riickert, Osiander, 
 Hofmann) it would apply to the Corinthian church, which in the spiritual sense is 
 the temple of God, as 1 Cor. iii. 16. Ewald has rightly upheld the reading ἡμεῖς. .. 
 ἐσμεν, but has wrongly used it against the genuineness of the section (Jahrb. IX. 
 p- 216). How often in a connection, where Paul is speaking of himself in the first 
 person plural, has he thereupon expressed also in the same person the consciousness 
 of Christians generally, as e.g. just at v. 21. 
 
316 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Ver. 18. Continuation of the promise begun with κἀγὼ εἰσδέξ. 
 ὑμ., and holding forth the holy compensation for the enjoined 
 severance from an unholy intercourse with the heathen. The 
 passage is most probably a free and enlarged quotation from 
 2 Sam. vii. 14. It bears less resemblance to Jer. xxxi. 9, or 
 even to Isa. xliii. 6, And Jer, xxxi. 33, xxxii. 38, are quite out of 
 the question, because there the sonship is not mentioned. Caje- 
 tanus conjectured as to a writing now lost, just as Ewald finds, 
 from κἀγώ onwards, a passage now unknown to us; according 
 to Grotius, the words are ex hymno aliquo celebri apud Hebracos. 
 The freedom of the N. T. writers in using probative passages 
 from the O. T. renders both hypotheses unnecessary ; of the 
 latter no instance can be shown in Paul, and in itself it is arbi- 
 trary. — κύριος παντοκράτωρ] “ex hac appellatione perspicitur 
 magnitudo promissionum,” Bengel; rather, on account of the 
 specific contents of vavtox.: the unquestionable certainty of the 
 fulfilment (Rom. iv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 8, al.), which no power can 
 hinder. Used only here by Paul (often in the Apocal.), who has, 
 however, taken it from 2 Sam. vii. 8, LXX., where λέγει Kup. 
 παντοκρ. introduces the divine utterance, 
 
“τ 
 
 CHAP, VIL 
 
 ©> 
 μοὶ 
 
 CHAPTER. Υ{Ὶ, 
 
 Ver. 3. For the order πρὸς xardxp. οὗ λέγω (Lachm.) even the testi- 
 mony of B C x is not suflicient as against all the vss. and most 
 of the Fathers. — Ver. 8. Instead of the second εἰ καί, B has εἰ δὲ 
 xai, and the γάρ after βλέπω is omitted by B D* Clar. Germ. (put 
 in brackets by Lachm.); the Vulgate has read βλέπων (without 
 γάρ), and Riickert wishes to restore the text accordingly : εἰ δὲ καὶ 
 μετεμελόμην βλέπων ὅτι... ὑμᾶς, νῦν χαίρω. But the Recepta has far 
 preponderant attestation, and the variations are easily explained 
 from it. It was rightly seen that with εἰ καὶ μετεμ. there starts a 
 new portion of the discourse (whence in B δέ was inserted as an 
 adversative conjunction), and either the apodosis was already begun 
 at βλέπω, whence followed the omission of γάρ, or it was rightly 
 perceived that the apodosis only began with νῦν χαίρω, and so βλέπων 
 was substituted as a gloss for βλέπω yap. — Ver. 10. Instead of the 
 first κατεργάζεται, Lachm. Riick. Tisch. have only ἐργάζεται, following 
 BC D Ex* 37, Justin. Clem. Or. (thrice), Chrys. Dam. Rightly ; 
 the compound has crept in on account of the one following (comp. 
 also ver. 11); it is (in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. 
 p. 48) too rash to conclude from ver. 11 that Paul wrote zarepy., 
 for there, after the previous xurepy., the compound might present 
 itself, naturally and unsought, to the apostle, even if he had used 
 the simple form in the first half of ver. 10.— Ver. 11. ὑμᾶς] is to 
 be deleted as a supplementary insertion, with Lachm. and Niick., 
 following BC F G 8* 17, Boern. Ambrosiast. Aug. — ἐν τῷ πράγματι] 
 The ἐν is wanting in witnesses of importance ; bracketed by Lachm. 
 and Riick.; deleted by Tisch. An explanatory addition to the 
 dative. — Ver. 12. οὐδέ] B x** 37, '73 have ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ, av error of the 
 copyist. — σὴν σπουδὴν ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] BC D** EK L and many 
 min., also Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Germ. Damasc. Oec. have τὴν oz, 
 ὑμῶν τ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. 
 Lachm, and Tisch, Rejected on account of the sense by Riick. and 
 Hofm. But it is precisely the apparent impropriety in the sense 
 of this reading which has given rise to the Recepta, just as πρὸς 
 
 1 So also &, which, however, has ὑμῶν again instead of ἡμῶν, obviously through a 
 copyist’s error, which is also found in D* F, 
 
318 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO |THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ὑμᾶς seemed also unsuitable, and is therefore wanting in Syr. 
 Erp. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Ambrosiast. Pel. Lachmann’s reading 
 appears, therefore, to be the correct one; it is defended also by 
 Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 367.— Ver. 13. παρακεκλήμεθα ἐπὶ τῇ 
 παρακλήσει ὑμῶν" περισσοτέρως 6: μᾶλλον] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick, 
 read: πσαρωκεκλήμεθα᾽ ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ παρακλήσει ἡμῶν περισσ. μᾶλλον, accord- 
 ing to considerably preponderating attestation. Rightly ; the ἐπί, 
 twice taken in the same sense, caused ἐπὶ τῇ παρακχλ. ἡμῶν to be 
 attached to παρακεκλήμεθα, and hence the position of δέ to be 
 changed ; and now the sense further demanded the change of ἡμῶν 
 into ὑμῶν. The Recepta is defended by Reiche. — Ver. 14. ἡ καύχησις 
 ἡμῶν ἡ ἐπὶ 1.1 ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν (Lachm.) is supported only by B F, with 
 some vss. and Theoph. A mechanical repetition of ὑμῶν from what 
 precedes. — Ver. 16. The ow (Elz.) after xafpw is deleted, as a 
 connective addition, by Griesb. and the later editors on decisive 
 evidence. 
 
 Ver. 1 closes the previous section. — Since we accordingly 
 (according to vi. 16-18) have these promises (namely, that God 
 will dwell among us, receive us, be our Father, etc.), we wish not to 
 make them null in our case by an immoral life. — ταύτας] placed 
 at the head, bears the emphasis of the cmportance of the promises, 
 — καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτούς] denotes the morally purifying activity, 
 which the Christian has to exert on himself, not simply the keeping 
 himself pure (Olshausen). He who has become a Christian has 
 by his faith doubtless attained forgiveness of his previous sins 
 (Rom. iii, 23-25), is reconciled with God and sanctified (comp. 
 v. 19 ff, and see on Acts xv. 9); but Paul refers here to the 
 moral stains incurred in the Christian condition, which the’state 
 of grace of the regenerate (1 Pet. 1. 22 f.) as much obliges him to 
 do away with again in reference to himself (Rom, vi. 1 ff., viii. 
 12 ff.), as by the power of God (Phil. 11. 12, 13) it makes him 
 capable of doing so (Rom. vi. 14, viii. 9). And_no one forms an 
 exception in th this respect ; hence Paul includes himself, with true 
 
 —— 
 moral feeling ς of this need ‘placing himself on an equality with his 
 readers. — σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος] The Christian is in the flesh, 
 ée, in the material-psychical part of his nature, stained by fornica- 
 tion, intemperance, and such transgressions and vices as directly 
 pollute the body (which ought to be holy, 1 Cor. vi. 13 ff, vii. 
 34); and his spirit, 1.6. the substratum of his rational and moral 
 consciousness, the seat of the operation of the Divine Spirit in 
 
 
 
CHAP. VII. 1. 319 
 
 him and therewith the bearer of his higher and eternal life 
 (1 Cor. iit 11, v. 3; Rom. viii. 16), is stained by immoral 
 thoughts, desires, etc., which are suggested to him by means of 
 the power of sin in the flesh, and through which the spirit along 
 with the vods is sinfully affected, becomes weak and bound, and 
 enslaved to sin (comp. on Rom. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 23). The two 
 do not exclude, but include each other. Observe, further, that 
 Paul might have used σώματος instead of σαρκός ; but he puts 
 σαρκός, because the flesh, in which the principle of sin has its 
 seat and hence the jfomes peccati lies, serves as the element to 
 which every bodily defilement ethically attaches itself. This is 
 based on the natural relation of the σάρξ to the power of sin, 
 for which reason it is never demanded that the σάρξ shall be 
 or become holy, but that the body (1 Cor. vii. 34) shall be holy 
 through the crucifixion of the flesh, through putting off the old 
 man, ete. (Col. ii. 11). By these means the Christian no longer 
 lives ἐν σαρκί (Rom. viii. 8 f.) and κατὰ σάρκα, and is purified 
 from everything wherewith the flesh is sozded; comp. 1 Thess. 
 v. 23; Rom. viii. 13, xii. 1. The surprising character of the 
 expression, to which Holsten especially takes objection (see 2. 
 Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387), is disposed of by the very con- 
 sideration that Paul is speaking of the regenerate ; in their case 
 the lusts of the σάρξ in fact remain, and the σάρξ is defiled, it 
 their lusts are actually gratified. Calovius, we may add, rightly 
 observes: “ ex illatione etiam apostolica a promissionibus gratiae 
 ad studium novae obedientiae manifestum est, doctrinam aposto- 
 licam de gratuita nostri justificatione et in filios adoptione non 
 labefactare pietatis et sanctitatis studium, sed ad illud excitare 
 atque ad obedientiam Deo praestandam calcar addere.” — On 
 μολυσμός, comp. Jer. xxiii, 15 ; 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ; 2 Mace. v. 27; 
 Plut. Mor. p. 779 C.— ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην] This is the 
 positive activity of the καθαρίζειν ἑαυτούς : while we bring holiness 
 to perfection (viii. 6) in the fear of God. To establish complete 
 holiness in himself is the continual moral endeavour‘ and work of 
 
 ? Although with this the moral perfection itself, which the ideal injunction of it 
 requires, is never fully reached. It is ‘‘ non viae, sed metae et patriae” (Calovius) ; 
 but the Christian labours constantly at it, striving towards the goal at which ‘‘ finis 
 coronat opus.” Comp. Bengel. The success is of God (Phil. i. 6), the fear of whom 
 guides the Christian. 
 
320 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the Christian purifying himself. Comp. Rom. vi. 22.— ἐν φόβῳ 
 θεοῦ] is the ethical, holy sphere (Eph. v. 21) in which the 
 ἐπιτελεῖν ἁγιωσ. Must move and proceed. Comp. Rom. xi. 19-22, 
 and already Gen. xvii. 1. Thus the apostle closes the whole 
 section with the same ethical fundamental idea, with which he 
 had begun it at v. 11, where, however, it was specifically limited 
 to the executor of the divine judgment. 
 
 Vv. 2-16. Regarding the impression made by the former 
 Epistle and its result. A conciliatory outpouring of love and 
 confidence serves as introduction, vv. 2—4. Then an account 
 how Paul received through Titus the comforting and cheering 
 news of the impression made by his Epistle, vv. 5—7. True, he 
 had saddened the readers by his Epistle, but he regrets it no 
 longer, but rejoices now on account of the nature and effect of this 
 saddening, vv. 8-12. Therefore he is calmed, and his joy is still 
 more heightened by the joy of Titus, who has returned so much 
 cheered that Paul saw all his boasts to Titus regarding them 
 justified. He is glad to be of good courage in everything through 
 them, vv. 13-16. 
 
 Ver. 2. Having finished his exhortation, vi. 14—vii. 1, he now 
 repeats the same request with which in vi. 13 he had introduced 
 that exhortation (πλατύνθητε ὑμεῖς), using the corresponding 
 expression χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς : take us, 1.06. receive us, give Us room 
 in your heart (comp. Mark ii. 2; John ii. 6, xxi. 25; 4 Mace. 
 vii. 6; Herod. iv. 61; Thue. ii. 17. 3; Eurip. Hipp. 941), and 
 then adds at once (without the medium of a γάρ) in lively 
 emotion the reason why they had no cause whatever to refuse 
 him this request (στενοχωρεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, comp. Vi. 
 12). Chrysostom rightly as to substance explains the figurative 
 χωρήσατε by φιλήσατε; and Theophylact: δέξασθε ἡμᾶς πλατέως, 
 καὶ μὴ στενοχωρώμεθα ἐν ὑμῖν. Comp. Theodoret. So also 
 most of the later commentators, though the meaning was often 
 limited in an arbitrary way (comp. Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, and 
 Pelagius), ¢.g.: give ear to us, and the like. Others take it: wnder- 
 stand us rightly (Bengel, Storr, Bretschneider, Riickert, de Wette). 
 Unobjectionable from a linguistic point of view (see Wetstein, 
 ad Matt. xix. 11); but in the exhortation of ver. 1 there was 
 nothing to be misunderstood, just as little as for the readers in 
 the disclosure that follows (to which de Wette refers it); and if 
 
CHAP. VII. 2. Spal: 
 
 Paul, as Riickert thinks, had had it in his mind that the measures 
 of his first Epistle had been judged unfavourably, he could not 
 have expected any reader to gather this from the simple χωρήσατε 
 ἡμᾶς, especially as in what follows the idea of the effects of the 
 first Epistle is quite kept at a distance by οὐδένα ἐπλεονεκτή- 
 cayuev.— οὐδένα ἠδικήσαμεν x.T.r.] This is no doubt aimed at 
 hostile calumniations of the apostle and his companions. Some 
 one must have said: They act wrongly towards the people! they 
 ruin them, they enrich themselves from them! It is impossible to 
 prove that ἐφθείραμεν applies exactly to the corruptela quae fit 
 per falsam doctrinam (Calvin and most, following the Fathers ; 
 just as Hofmann also refers it to the inward injuring of the persons 
 themselves, 1 Cor. iii. 17); the way in which the word is asso- 
 ciated with ἠδικήσ. and ἐπλεονεκτ. is rather in favour of a refer- 
 ence to the outward position. In how many ways not known to us 
 more precisely may the apostle and his fellow-labourers have been 
 accused of such a ruining of others! How easily might such 
 slanders be based on the strictness of his moral requirements, his 
 sternness in punishing, his zeal for collections, his lodging with 
 members of the church, the readiness to make sacrifices which he 
 demanded, and the like! Probably his prosecution and adminis- 
 tration of the collections would be especially blackened by this 
 reproach of πλεονεκτεῖν. Comp. xii. 17,18. Riickert refers all 
 three words to the contents of the former Epistle: “with what I 
 wrote you, I have done no one wrong,’ etc. ; so that 7du«. would refer 
 to the severe punishment of the incestuous person, ἐφθείρ. to his 
 delivery over to Satan, and ἐπλεορεκτ. to the control which Paul 
 by this discipline seemed desirous to exercise over the trans- 
 gressor and over the church. But if his readers were to know of 
 this reference to his former Epistle, he must have expressed it (the 
 reader could not guess it). Besides, the word ἐπλεονεκτ. is 
 against this view, for in the N. T. it denotes overreaching for 
 one’s own benefit as an act of covetousness properly so called, pro- 
 vided the context (as in ii. 11, by ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ) does not 
 furnish a more general reference. And, moreover, those acts of 
 discipline, to which Paul is supposed to refer, were acts so com- 
 
 1 This also in opposition to de Wette’s way of completing the thought : ‘‘ Impute 
 no evil designs to me in writing the first Epistle. For such imputation I have given 
 you no occasion in my apostolic conduct. I have wronged no one,” etc. 
 
 2 COR. IL x 
 
Ὁ. Ὁ PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 pletely personal on the part of the apostle, that the plural ex- 
 pression in our passage would be quite unsuitable. — οὐδένα) in 
 the consciousness of innocence is with great emphasis prefixed 
 three times ; but we cannot, with Riickert, infer from this that the 
 incestuous person is concealed under it. Comp. πάντες and πάντα, 
 1 Cor. xii. 29, xiii. 7; Buttm. newt. Gram. p. 341 πὰ T. 398}. 
 Ver. 3. Not for the sake of condemning do I say it, namely, 
 what was said in ver. 2. I do not wish thereby to express any 
 condemnatory judgment, as if, although we have done wrong to 
 no one, etc., you failed in that love to which χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς 
 lays claim. Κατάκρισιν was taken of the reproach of covetous- 
 ness (so Theodoret, and comp. Emmerling and Neander), but this 
 is an arbitrary importation into the word. According to 
 Riickert, πρὸς κατάκρισιν is not to be supplemented by ὑμῶν, 
 but Paul wishes here to remove the unpleasant impression of 
 ver. 2, in which he confirms the severity of his former Epistle, so 
 that there is to be regarded as object of κατάκρισις primarily the 
 incestuous person, and secondarily the whole church, in so far as it 
 has acted towards this man with unchristian leniency. This ex- 
 planation falls to the ground with Riickert’s view of ver. 2; the 
 ἐστέ that follows puts it beyond doubt that ὑμῶν is really to be 
 supplied with πρὸς xataxp. for its explanation. According to 
 de Wette, οὐ 7. κατάκρ. X. applies in form, no doubt, to ver. 2, 
 but in substance more to the censure, of which the expostulatory 
 tone of ver. 2 had created an expectation; in other words, it 
 apples to something not really said, which is arbitrary, since 
 what was said was fitted sufficiently to appear as κατάκρισις. ---- 
 προείρηκα γάρ] for I have said before (vi. 11 f.), antea dizi, as 
 3 Mace. vi. 35, 2 Mace. xiv. 8, and often in classical writers. 
 Comp. Eph. iii. 3. This contains the proof that he οὐ πρὸς κατά- 
 κρίσιν λέγει; for, if he spoke now wnto condemnation, he would 
 contradict his former words. —6te ἐν ταῖς καρδ. x.7.r.] Comp. 
 Phil. 1. 7. In vi, 11 ἢ he has expressed not these words, but their 
 sense. By his adding the definition of degree, εἰς τὸ συναποθ. 
 «.T.r., Paul becomes his own interpreter.— εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν 
 καὶ συζῆν] is usually taken (see still Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, 
 also Osiander, who, however, mixes up much that is heterogeneous) 
 as: so that I would die and live with you, and this as “vehementis- 
 simum amoris indicium, nolle nec in vita nec in morte ab eo quem 
 
CHAP. VII. 4. 323 
 
 ames separari,” Estius, on which Grotius finely remarks: “egregius 
 χαρακτὴρ boni pastoris, Joh. x. 12.” Comparison is made with 
 the Horatian tecwm vivere amem, tecwm obeam lubens (Od. 111. 9. 24), 
 and similar passages in Wetstein. But against this may be urged 
 not only the position of the two words, of which the συναποθανεῖν 
 must logically have been put last, but also the perfectly plain con- 
 struction, according to which the subject of ἐστε must also be the 
 subject of συναπ. and συζῆν: you are in our hearts in order to 
 die and to live with (us), 1.0. in order not to depart from our 
 hearts (from our love) in death, if it is appointed to us to die, and 
 in life, if it is appoimted to us to remain in life. For he, whom 
 we love, dies and lives with us, when regarded, namely, from the 
 idea of our heartfelt love to him, and from our sympathetic point 
 of view feeling this consciousness of love which has him always 
 present to our heart—a consciousness according to which we, 
 dying and living, know him in our hearts as sharing death and 
 life with us. And how natural that Paul, beset with continual 
 deadly perils (vi. 9), should have put the συναποθανεῖν first ! in 
 which case συζῆν is to be referred to eternal life just as little 
 as ζῶμεν in vi. 9 (Ambrosiaster, comp. Osiander). Hence the 
 thought can as little surprise us, and as little appear “tolerably 
 meaningless” (de Wette), as the conception of alter ego. Hofmann, 
 too, with his objection (“ since they, nevertheless, in fact do not die 
 with him,” etc.) mistakes the psychological delicacy and thought- 
 fulness of the expression; and wishes to interpret it — which 
 no reader could have hit on (expressly as mpoeip. does not point 
 back further than to vi. 11)—from vi. 9 and iv. 11 to the effect 
 that the life of the apostle is a continual dying, in which he 
 yet remains always in life, and that consequently it is his life 
 so constituted which the readers. share, when they are in his 
 heart. 
 
 Ver. 4. A further, and that a psychological, proof for the οὐ 
 Tp. κατάκρ. Neyo. — παῤῥησίᾳ is the internal frame of mind, the 
 good joyous confidence (see on Eph. 11. 12), without which no 
 καύχησις, no self-boasting for the sake of the readers, would 
 outwardly take place (ὑπέρ, as in v. 12, viii. 24). To take it of 
 the libertas loquendi (Pelagius, Beza, Luther, Vatablus, Cornelius 
 
 1 There is no justification for departing in any passage from the telic reference of 
 εἰς with the infinitive. Comp, on viii. 6. 
 
πα 
 
 924 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 a Lapide, and many others, including Schrader and Ewald) is 
 inappropriate, because by the παῤῥησία in this sense there would 
 be no negation of πρὸς κατάκρ. λέγειν. And the taking the 
 καύχησις of inward boasting before God (Osiander), ought to 
 have been precluded by ver. 14, comp. ix. 3.— πεπληρ. «.7.d.] 
 The two clauses form a climax, so that eX. is correlative with 
 ὑπερπερ. and παρακλ. with χαρᾷ. In the use of the article with 
 mapaknr. and χαρᾷ Paul already looks to the special comfort and 
 joy, of which he intends to speak further (ver. 7). The dative of 
 the instrument (as at 2 Mace. vi. 5, vil. 21; 3 Mace. iv. 10) is 
 used with mAnp. in the N. T. also at Rom. i. 29, and in classic 
 Greek, though seldom. See Elmsley, ad Soph. Oed. Col. 16; 
 Blomfield, Gloss. Aesch. Agam. 163; Bernhardy, p. 168. Comp. 
 also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 209. — ὑπερπερισσεύομαι] I am 
 exceeding richly provided with, Mosch. vi. 13; comp. the passive 
 in Matt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29. The present sets forth the thing as 
 still continuously taking place. — ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμ.] does 
 not belong to τῇ χαρᾷ, but to the two whole affirmations πεπληρ. 
 τῇ Tapaknr. and ὑπερπερισσ. TH χαρᾷ; and ἐπί is not, as Grotius 
 thought, post, as in Herod. i 45: ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνῃ τῇ συμφορῇ (see, 
 generally, Wurm, ad Dinarch. Ὁ. 39 f.), since (comp. 1. 8-11) the 
 tribulation still continues, but in, at. See Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 
 490]. 
 
 Ver. 5. In all our tribulation, I say, for even after we had 
 
 / come to Macedonia we had no rest.—JIn this καί, even, Paul 
 | refers back to what was stated in 11. 12, 13; but it does not 
 
 follow that with Flatt we should regard what les between as a 
 
 | digression. — ἔσχηκεν] as in ii, 13. Still BF G K (not 8), Lach- 
 
 mann, have the reading ἔσχεν, which appears to be original and 
 altered into accordance with ii, 18. --- ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν] our flesh, 
 denotes here, according to the connection, the purely human 
 essence as determined by its corporeo-psychical nature, in its moral 
 impotence and sensuous excitability, apart from the divine πνεῦμα, 
 without whose influence even the moral nature of man (the 
 human πνεῦμα with the νοῦς) lacks the capacity for determining 
 and governing the ethical life. Comp.on Rom. iv.1; John iii. 6. 
 The σάρξ with its life-principle the ψυχή is by itself morally 
 incapable even in the regenerate man, and stands too much in 
 antagonism to the divine πνεῦμα (see on Gal. v. 17), not to have 
 
CHAP, VII. 5. 325 
 
 unrest, despondency, ete., occurring even in him when he confronts 
 the impressions of struggle and suffering. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 41. 
 No doubt the expression in this passage seems not to agree with 
 the τῷ πνεύματί μου in 11. 12; but there, where, besides, Paul is 
 speaking simply of himself, he speaks only of imward unrest, of 
 anxious thoughts in the moral consciousness ; whereas here (where 
 he includes also Timothy) he speaks of outward (ἔξωθεν μάχαι) 
 and inward (ἔσωθεν φόβοι) assaults, so that that which lies, as it 
 were, in the middle and is affected on both sides is the odpé.’ 
 Riickert brings in here also his groundless hypothesis regarding 
 an illness of the apostle. — ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι] Paul con- 
 tinues as if he had written previously: οὐκ ἤμεθα ἄνεσιν ἔχοντες, 
 or οὐκ ἐν ἀνέσει ἤμεθα, or οὐχ ἥσυχοι ἤμεθα, or the like. Quite 
 similar departures from the construction are found also in the 
 classics. See Matthiae, p. 1293; Fritzsche, Dvussert. II. p. 49. 
 Comp. i. 7, εἰδότες, and the remark on it. It arises from vivid- 
 ness of excitement as the thought proceeds. Comp. Kiihner, IT. 
 p. 617. Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 256 [E. T. 298]. — ἔξωθεν 
 μάχαι, ἔσωθεν φόβοι] The omission of ἦσαν gives greater pro- 
 minence to the short, concise representation. Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, and 
 others, also Schrader, explain ἔξωθεν and ἔσωθεν as extra and 
 intra ecclesiam; and of this various interpretations are given; 
 Chrysostom holding that the former applies to unbelievers, the 
 latter to the weak brethren; Theodoret: that the former applies 
 to the false teachers, the latter to the weak brethren; and 
 Grotius: that the former applies to the Jews and heathen, the 
 latter to the false teachers. But after ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν (see above), 
 and on account of φόβοι, it is more in keeping with the context 
 to refer it to the subject: from without struggles (with opponents, 
 who may have been Christian or non-Christian), from within 
 (from our own minds) fears. The latter are not defined more 
 precisely ; but it is in keeping with the contrast of χαρῆναι 
 afterwards in ver. 7 to think of fears regarding the circumstances 
 of the Corinthians, and in particular regarding the effect of his 
 
 1 Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 56, has wrongly objected to this interpretation 
 that Paul would have said ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν. He might have done so, but there was no 
 need for it; the σάρξ rather corresponds with the ἔξωθεν most naturally as that which 
 is first affected from without. 
 
920 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 former Epistle on them (comp. also 11. 12). Hofmann holds, 
 without any basis in the text, that Paul was apprehensive lest 
 the conflicts to be undergone by him (probably with the Jews) 
 might degenerate into persecutions. 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. Τοὺς ταπεινούς] the lowly, 1.6. the bowed down. 
 This ὁ παρακαλῶν τοὺς ταπεινούς is a general designation of God, 
 significant in its practical bearing (comp. 1. 3), so that the suffering 
 ἡμεῖς (in παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς) belong to the category of the ταπεινοί. 
 —o θεός] is brought in later by way of attraction, because 
 ὁ παρακαλῶν... . παρεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς were the chief conceptions. 
 Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 1.--- ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ) 
 through the arrival.— Τίτου] See Introd. ὃ 1.—od μόνον 
 δὲ κτλ] A delicate form of transition. Not merely through 
 his arrival, not only through the reunion with him did God 
 comfort us, but also through the comfort, wherewith he was com- 
 forted tn regard to you (1 Thess. il. 7) while he announced to us, 
 etc. When Titus informed us of your desire, etc., this information 
 had so soothing an effect on himself that we too were soothed. 
 Comp. Ewald. The usual view, that Paul meant to say: through 
 the comfort which he brought to me, for he related to me, ete., and 
 thus wrote with logical inaccuracy, is as arbitrary as Hofmann’s 
 way of escaping the difficulty—for which he adduces erroneously 
 1 Thess. 111. 10—that it must have run properly (?) in the form of 
 παρακληθεὶς ἀνήγγειλεν. Certainly Titus had himself been com- 
 forted by what he saw in Corinth; but psychologically it was most 
 natural that this “ being comforted” on the part of Titus should 
 be repeated and renewed by his communicating to Paul and 
 Timothy his cheering observations and experiences, and so 
 they too were comforted with the comfort which was afforded 
 to Titus himself by the report which he was able to give. This 
 interpretation—in which there is thus not to be assumed any 
 blending of the comfort which Titus had felt in perceiving the 
 improved state of matters at Corinth, and then in communicating 
 it (Osiander)—is neither unnatural (Hofmann) nor turning on 
 punctilious reflection (de Wette), but founded necessarily on the 
 words, which Paul has not written otherwise, just because he has 
 not conceived them otherwise. — ἐπιπόθησιν] longing, namely, to 
 see me again among you.— ddupudr] lamentation, for having 
 saddened me so by the disorders tolerated in your church, 
 
CHAP. VIL. 8. 327 
 
 especially in reference to the incestuous person. Comp. vv. 11, 
 12.— τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] your eager interest for me, 
 to soothe me, to obey me, etc. There was no need to repeat thie 
 article here after ζῆλον, since we may say ζηλοῦν or ζῆλον ἔχειν 
 ὑπέρ τινος (Col. iv. 13), in which case ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is blended 
 so as to form one idea with ζῆλον. Comp. on Gal. iii. 26 and 
 Fritzschior. Opuse. p. 24ῦ. ---ὥστε με μᾶλλον χαρῆναι] so that 
 I was all the more glad. The emphasis is on μᾶλλον (magis in 
 Vulgate); on its meaning, a// the more, comp. Nagelsbach on the 
 iliad, p. 227, ed. ὃ. The apostle’s joy was made all the greater 
 by the information longed for and received, since from it he 
 learned how, in consequence of his letter, the Corinthians had on 
 their part now met him with so much longing, pain, and zeal. 
 Observe in this the emphatic prefixing, thrice repeated, of the 
 ὑμῶν, Which gives the key to this μᾶλλον χαρῆναι. The former 
 Epistle had had its effect. He had previously had for them 
 longing, pain, zeal; now, on their part, such longing, etc., had set 
 in for him. Thus the position of things had happily changed on 
 the part of the church, which before was so indifferent, and in part 
 even worse, in its mood towards Paul. Buillroth, following Bengel, 
 takes it: so that I rather rejoiced, 1.6. so that my former pain was 
 not merely taken away, but was changed into joy. Comp. also 
 Hofmann.’ In this case μᾶλλον would be potius. But the very 
 prefixing of the μᾶλλον, and still more the similarity of ver. 13, 
 are against this. -— Theophylact, we may add, has rightly remarked 
 that Paul could with truth write as he does in this passage, 
 inasmuch as he wisely leaves to the readers the distingue 
 personas. 
 
 Ver. 8 ἢ Information regarding this μᾶλλον χαρῆναι, ex- 
 plaining the ground of it. With εἰ καὶ μετεμελόμην there begins 
 a new protasis, the apodosis of which is νῦν χαίρω «.7.X., so that 
 the βλέπω yap x.T.r., which stands between, assigns parentheti- 
 cally the ground of the protasis. For if I have even saddened you 
 in my Epistle, I do not regret it; if I did regret (which I have 
 
 1 Who finds the meaning to be: ‘‘ that with the apostle for his own person the 
 comfort, which he shared with Timothy, rose into joy.” In that case ἐμέ at least 
 must have been used instead of the enclitic με. The transition to the first person 
 singular is caused simply by the fact, that Paul now has in view the rebuke and 
 injunction of the former Epistle, chap. νυ. 
 
928 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 no wish to deny) formerly (and as I now perceive, not without 
 ground, for I learn from the accounts of Titus that that Zpistle, 
 af even for a short time, has saddened you), now I am glad, ete. 
 Comp. Luther; Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 162, and the punctuation 
 of Lachmann and Tischendorf; also Kling, Only in this way of 
 dividing and interpreting this passage does the explanatory state- 
 ment advance in a simple logical way (1, I do not regret; 2, if 
 I did previously regret, now I am glad), and the imperfect 
 μετεμελ. stand in right correlation with the present νῦν χαίρω, 
 so that μετεμελόμην applies to the time before the present joyful 
 mood was reached. The common punctuation, adopted also by 
 Osiander and Hofmann, which connects εἰ καὶ μετεμελ. with the 
 previous words, and begins a new sentence with νῦν χαίρω, 
 breaks asunder the logical connection and the correlation of the 
 parts, and leaves βλέπω yap x«.7.r. (which must be the reason 
 assigned for ov μεταμέλομαι, as Hofmann also correctly holds, and 
 not for ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, as Olshausen, de Wette, and others would 
 make it) without any proper reference. Bengel, indeed, wishes 
 to take εἰ καί before mp. dp. elliptically: “Contristavit vos, 
 inquit, epistola tantummodo ad tempus vel potius ne ad tempus 
 quidem.” But it is not the bare εἰ καί which is thus used 
 elliptically, but εἰ καὶ dpa, or more often εἴπερ dpa, even εἰ dpa 
 (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 514; comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. 
 p. 440; Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 521); further, πρὸς ὥραν must 
 have logically stood before εἰ καί; lastly, the thought itself would 
 be in the highest degree unsuitable, since Paul could not cast 
 doubt on the genuine sadness of the readers (comp. ὀδυρμόν, 
 ver, 7, and see ver. 9 ff.). The meaning would not be, as Bengel 
 thinks, ἤθους apostolict plenissimum, but in contradiction with 
 the context. Billroth would (and Chrysostom in a similar way) 
 bring out a logical grounding of οὐ μεταμέλομαι by taking 
 βλέπω as meaning: I take into consideration; “I take into 
 consideration that it has saddened you, though only for a short 
 time, as I had intended; by allowing yourselves to be saddened, 
 you have shown that you are susceptible to amendment” (ii. 2), 
 But in this way everything, in which the probative force is sup- 
 posed to lie, is «imported. This is the case also with Hofmann, 
 
 1 Camerarius already took it as hoc intueor et considero. It is simply animad- 
 verto, cognosco (Rom. vii. 23). Comp. Jacobs, ad Anthol. II. 3, p. 208, 
 
CHAP. VII. 8. 329 
 
 who makes (comp. Bengel above) εἰ καί form by itself alone a 
 parenthetic elliptic sentence, but in a concessive sense, so that 
 the import of the whole is held to be: “ Although the Epistle has 
 saddened them, it is a temporary, not a permanent, sadness with 
 which it has filled them. This the apostle sees, and he therefore 
 does not regret that he has saddened them by it.” Paul does 
 not write in this enigmatical fashion; he would have said in- 
 telligibly: ἡ ἐπίιστ. ἐκείνη, εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς, πρὸς ὥραν 
 ἐλύπησεν, or, at any rate, have added to εἰ καί the appropriate 
 verb (comp. ver. 12), Such an elliptic εἰ καί is as unexampled 
 as that which is assumed by Bengel, and both serve only to mis- 
 construe and distort the meaning of the words. Riickert comes 
 nearest to our view; he proposes to read βλέπων (as also Lach- 
 mann, Praef. p. xii, would), and to make the meaning: “ That I 
 have thus saddened you I do not regret, but although I regretted it 
 (εἰ δὲ καὶ μετεμελόμην) when I saw that that Epistle had caused you 
 ... sadness, still Iam glad now,” etc. But apart from the very 
 weak attestation for the reading βλέπων, and apart also from the 
 fact that εἰ δὲ καί would be although, however, not but although, 
 βλέπων... ἐλύπησεν ὑμᾶς Would only contain a very superfluous 
 and cumbrous repetition of the thought already expressed in the 
 acknowledgement εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς, since βλέπων would not 
 apply to the insight gained from the news brought by Titus. 
 Ewald has the peculiar view, which is simply an uncalled for 
 and arbitrary invention, that Paul intended to write: for I see 
 that that Epistle, though it saddened you for a short time, has yet 
 brought you to a right repentance; but feeling this to be unsuit- 
 able, he suddenly changed the train of thought and went on: 7 
 am now glad, etc. Neander has a view quite similar—On πρὸς 
 ὥραν, comp. Philem. 15; Gal. ii. 5. The clause “although for a 
 short time” is here a delicately thoughtful addition of sympathetic 
 love, which has in view the fact that the sadness caused by it 
 will only last up to the receipt of the present Epistle, which is 
 intended to assure the readers of the apostle’s pardon and joy 
 (comp. 11. 4 ff). 
 
 REMARK.—Some make an alteration in the meaning of εἰ καὶ 
 μετεμελόμην : etiamsr poenituisset (Erasmus, Castalio, Vatablus, and 
 others, including Flatt); or hold that poenitere is here equi- 
 valent to dolorem capere (Calvin, comp. Grotius); or suggest 
 
330 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 explanations such as: “Non autem dolere potuit de eo quod 
 scripserit cum severitate propter schismata . . .; hoc enim omne 
 factum instinctu divino per θεοπνευστίαν; sed quod contristati 
 fuerint epistola sua et illi, quos illa increpatio adeo non tetigit,” 
 Calovius (comp. Grotius); or the more ingenious device of Beza: 
 “ut significet apostolus, se ex epistola illa acerbius scripta non- 
 nullum dolorem cepisse, non quasi quod fecerat optaret esse 
 infectum, sed quod clementis patris exemplo se ad hance severitatem 
 coactum esse secum gemens, eventum rei expectaret.” But these 
 are forced shifts of the conception of mechanical inspiration. The 
 Theopneustia does not put an end to the spontaneity of the indi- 
 vidual with his varying play of human emotions; hence Wetstein 
 is so far right in remarking: “ Jnterpretes, qui putant, et consilium 
 sertbendi epistolam (rather of writing in so hard a vein of chastise- 
 ment), ef ejus consilia poenitentiam, et poenitentiae poenitentiam ab 
 aflatu Spir. sancti fuisse profectam, parum consentanea dicere 
 videntur.” Not as if such alternation of moods testified against 
 the existence of inspiration; but it attests its dependence on the 
 natural conditions of the individual in the mode of its working, 
 which was not only different in different subjects, but was not 
 alike even in individuals where these were differently determined 
 by outer and inner influences; so that the divine side of the 
 Scripture does not annul the human, or make it a mere phantom, 
 nor can it be separated from it mechanically. It is indissolubly 
 blended with it. 
 
 Ver. 9. Νῦν χαίρω] see on ver. 8. To take the viv not in a 
 temporal, but in a causal sense (proinde, gam vero, with Emmer- 
 ling and Billroth), is quite at variance with the context, because 
 the thought is implied in the previous clause: I no longer regret 
 it. —ovy ὅτι ἔλυπ.] not regarding the sadness caused to you in 
 itself. — κατὰ θεόν] according to God, 1.0. in a way in keeping with 
 the divine will. See on Rom. viii. 27. Bengel aptly remarks : 
 “ Secundum hic significat sensum animi Deum spectantis et 
 sequentis.” Not: by God’s operation, which (in opposition to ᾿ 
 Hofmann) Paul never expresses by κατά (nor yet is it so even in 
 1 Pet. iv. 6); with the Greeks, however, κατὰ θεόν means accord- 
 ing to divine disposal. — ἵνα ἐν μηδενὶ ζημιωθ. ἐξ ἡμῶν] not: ita 
 ut, ete. (so Riickert), but the divinely-ordained aim of the previous 
 ἐλυπήθητε κατὰ θεόν : in order that ye in no point (comp. vi. 3 ; 
 Phil. i. 28 ; Jas. 1, 4), in no sort of way (not even in the way of 
 severe, saddening reproof), should have hurt (injury as to the 
 Messianic salvation) from us, from whom, in fact, only the 
 
CHAP. VII. 10. ook 
 
 furtherance of your true welfare ought to proceed. See ver. 10. 
 According to Osiander, ἐν μηδενί means: in no part of the 
 Christian life (neither in the joyfulness of faith nor in purity of 
 morals), At variance with the context: for to the matters 
 negatived by ἐν μηδενί must belong the λύπη itself caused by 
 him, which, had it not occurred κατὰ θεόν, would have injured 
 the σωτηρία of the readers (ver. 10).— The clause of purpose is 
 to be connected with the ἐλυπ. y. κατὰ θεόν immediately pre- 
 ceding, which is no parenthetic remark, but is the regulative 
 thought controlling what follows (in vv. 10, 11); wherefore ἵνα 
 «.T.r. is not, with Hofmann, to be attached to ἐλυπ. εἰς μετάνοιαν. 
 
 Ver. 10. Ground assigned for ἵνα ἐν μηδ. ζημιωθ. ἐξ ἡμῶν : 
 for godly sadness works repentance unto salvation wnregretied, 
 ze. unto the Messianic salvation, the attainment of which is not 
 regretted. The connection of ἀμεταμέλ. with σωτηρίαν is held 
 by Augustine and other Latin Fathers, following the Vulgate, 
 which has stabilem,| and among modern expositors by Fritzsche, 
 Billroth (yet doubtfully), Schrader, de Wette, Ewald; decidedly 
 by Castalio also, but undecidedly by Erasmus, Annot. The 
 more common connection is with μετάνοιαν, so as to give the 
 antanaclasis poenitentiam non poenitendam (for similar collocations 
 see Wetstein, comp. Pliny, Zp. vii. 10); οὐδεὶς yap ἑαυτοῦ 
 καταγνώσεται, ἐὰν λυπηθῇ ἐφ᾽ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἐὰν πενθήσῃ καὶ ἑαυτὸν 
 συντρίψῃ, Chrysostom. But for such an antanaclasis Paul would 
 not have chosen an adjective from quite a different root, but 
 ἀμετανόητον (Lucian, Abd. 11, comp. also Rom. ii. 5), which is 
 also the reading” of some minor authorities. And if ἀμεταμέλ. 
 were to belong to μετάνοιαν, it would stand immediately by its 
 side, so as to make εἰς σωτηρίαν appear as the result throwing 
 light upon ἀμεταμέλ. When placed after εἰς σωτηρίαν, ἀμεταμέλ. 
 is an epithet of μετάνοιαν no longer suitable, insipid, and halting. 
 Olshausen and Hofmann wrongly object that the epithet is not 
 suitable to the idea of salvation, the absolute good. It expresses 
 by way of litotes the eternal satisfaction of the σωτηρία, and is 
 selected with a glance back to what was said in ver. 8. If the 
 
 1 According to the reading ἀμετάβλητον, which Origen has (once), but before εἰς 
 σωτηῤ. 
 
 2 And which (in opposition to Osiander) would have expressed the idea of some- 
 thing painful quite as well as ἀμεταρέλ, 
 
oon PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 apostle, namely, has caused a sadness which works a contrition 
 unto a salvation exposed to no regret, it is,obvious how this step 
 of his can no longer give rise to any regret in his case, but can 
 only make him joyful. Comp. on the expression itself, Rom. xi. 
 29, and especially Plato, Zim. p. 59 D: ἀμεταμέλητον ἡδονὴν 
 κτῶται, Legg. ix. p. 866 E; Polyb. xxi. 9. 11; Plutarch, Mor. 
 p- 1387 B; Socrates in Stob. 101, p. 552; Clem. Cor, I. 2. — 
 ἡ δὲ TOD κόσμου λύπη] ie. the sadness, however, which is felt by 
 the world, by the ungodly-minded unbelievers. This is certainly 
 λύπη διὰ χρήματα, διὰ δόξαν, διὰ τὸν ἀπελθόντα x.t.d. (Chry- 
 sostom), in so far, namely, as the loss of outward advantage in 
 and for itself determines the sadness,’ but the genitive τοῦ κόσμου 
 is the genitivus subjecti, and we must retain as the characteristic 
 of this λύπη that it is not κατὰ θεόν (because it cannot be deter- 
 mined by the knowledge of God and of His will) ; hence, instead 
 of working repentance unto salvation, it works despondency, 
 despair, exasperation, obduracy, etc, unto death. Even διὰ 
 χρήματα K.7.A. there may be a sadness κατὰ θεόν. ---- θάνατον] 
 ie. not generally : “all that is embraced in a state of things not 
 founded on God” (Hofmann), but, as the opposite of that un- 
 reoretted σωτηρία, eternal death, the Messianic ἀπώλεια ; comp. 
 ii. 16. Calovius says aptly : “ quia mundus dolet, cum affligitur, 
 solatii ex verbo Dei expers ac fide destitutus.” The exposition 
 of vexing oneself to death (Theodoret), or the reference made by 
 Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others to fatal diseases and suicide, is 
 quite at variance with the context; and Ecclus. xxxviii. 18 has 
 no bearing here. Even the ethical view (moral ruin through 
 despair or new sins, de Wette, comp. Neander) is not in keeping 
 with the contrast to σωτηρία; besides, Paul never uses θάνατος 
 of ethical death. See on Rom. v. 12.— Regarding the difference 
 between ἐργάζεται and κατεργάξ. (bring to pass), see on Rom, 
 1, 27; van Hengel, ad Rom. 11. 10. 
 
 Ver. 11. What has just been said of the godly sorrow is now 
 proved by experience from the instance of the readers themselves. 
 For see, this very thing (nothing else), the having been afflicted with 
 godly sorrow, etc. The emphatic use of the preparatory τοῦτο 
 
 1 As this would have been the case also with the Corinthians, if they had grieved 
 
 over the reproof only, and not over the sin, Comp. Elwert in the Wartemberg. Stud. 
 IX. 1 p. 135 ff. 
 
CHAP, VII. 11. 3o0 
 
 before infinitives is very common in classic writers. See Kiihner, 
 II. p. 330; Breitenb. ad Xen. Occ. 14. 10.— ὑμῖν] not: among 
 you, but: vobis, — σπουδήν] activity, namely, to efface and make 
 amends for the offence, as opposed to their previous negligence 
 in regard to the incestuous person. — ἀλλά] yea rather, imo, cor- 
 rective, and thereby advancing beyond the last idea (comp. 1 Cor. 
 iii. 2; John xvi. 2). Paul feels that he has said too little by 
 using σπουδήν. The co-ordinate repetition of ἀλλά before each 
 point lays on each a special emphasis. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 11. 
 — ἀπολογίαν] πρὸς ἐμέ, Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly say; 
 but we must at the same time observe that they have answered 
 for themselves in the first instance to Titus, and through him to 
 Paul (that they were not partakers in the guilt of the incestuous 
 person). Billroth understands the de facto exculpation by the 
 adjudging of punishment to the transgressor. An arbitrary view, 
 and opposed to the context (ἐκδίκησιν). Ewald, in accordance 
 with his assumption of a letter in reply now lost, refers it to the 
 latter. — ἀγανάκτησιν) displeasure, vexation, that such a disgrace- 
 ful thing had been carried on in the church. — φόβον] “ ne cum 
 virga venirem” (Bengel), namely, in the event of the state of 
 things not being amended (1 Cor. iv. 21), or even of new trans- 
 eressions. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. The explanation : 
 fear of God’s punishments (Pelagius, Calvin, Flatt, Olshausen), is 
 at variance with the context (ἐπιπόθησ.. ---- ἐπυπόθ.] as in ver. 7, 
 longing after the apostle’s coming.— ζῆλον] not as in ver. 7, 
 where ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is associated with it, but, as is suggested by the 
 following ἐκδίκησιν (punishment of the transgressor) : disciplinary 
 zeal against the incestuous person, not zeal in general for the 
 honour of Christ, of the church, and of the apostle (Osiander). 
 The six objects introduced by ἀλλά go logically in pairs, so that 
 ἀπολογ. and ἀγανάκτ. relate to the disgrace of the church, φόβον 
 and ἐπιπόθ. to the apostle, and ζῆλον and ἐκδίκησιν to the 
 incestuous person, the latter, however, without the arbitrary 
 distinction drawn by Bengel, that ζῆλον refers to the good of 
 his soul, and é«écx. only to his punishment for his transgression. 
 ζῆλος is the zeal for both.—év παντὶ συνεστήσατε K.T.r.] a 
 judgment on the whole matter added asyndetically, and so with 
 the more weight (Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. 11. p. 278): in every 
 respect you have proved that you yourselves are innocent as regards 
 
901 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ihe matter in question. By this the Corinthians are acquitted 
 from positive participation in the offence; they could not be 
 acquitted (comp. 1 Cor. v. 6) of a negative participation (through 
 toleration aud connivance), but this is not further touched on 
 in accordance with his purpose, which is here throughout con- 
 ciliatory. — ἑαυτούς) you for your own person, as opposed to the 
 evil-doer.— On συνίστημι, with the accusative and infinitive, 
 comp. Diod. Sic. i. 96, xiv. 45. Without εἶναι (comp. Gal. ii. 18) 
 the attribute would appear as purely objective, as the proved fact ; 
 with εἶναι the expression is subjective, denoting the relation from 
 the standpoint of the readers. Comp. in general, Kriiger, ὃ 65, 
 1. 4.—The dative τῷ πράγματι is that of ethical reference, 
 expressing the matter with respect to which what is affirmed takes 
 place. See Matthiae, p. 876; Bernhardy, p. 84. Comp. ἐλεύθεροι 
 ... τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, Rom. vi. 20; Matt. v. 8. This, at the same 
 time, in opposition to Riickert’s assertion that ἐν (see the critical 
 remarks) cannot be dispensed with. On the term itself, Bengel 
 rightly remarks: “indefinite loquitur de re odiosa.” Comp. 
 iL 5 ff. / 
 
 Ver. 12. "Apa] therefore, for how natural was it for the readers 
 to think that Paul had written on account of the ἀδικήσαντος 
 and on account of the ἀδικηθέντος ' And yet the effect which 
 that part of the Epistle had produced on themselves had showed 
 them by experience that the apostle’s ¢rue purpose was quite 
 different. So at least Paul represents the matter in a delicate 
 and conciliatory way.— εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν] if I have also 
 written to you, ae. have not kept silence, but have expressed 
 myself by letter regarding the affair in question. Commonly a 
 so, so sternly, or the like, is imported quite arbitrarily. Grotius 
 indicates the right meaning: “si quid scripsi, nempe ea de re.” 
 Comp. Osiander. ‘Those who assume an Epistle now lost between 
 our first and second (Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Beyschlag, Hilgen- 
 feld) find it here alluded to. Comp. ii. 3, 9. The apodosis 
 already begins at οὐχ εἵνεκεν x.7.d., and does not follow only at διὰ 
 τοῦτο (as Hofmann complicates it, without sufficient ground), the 
 more especially as in this construction, according to Hofmann, 
 διὰ τοῦτο does not apply to ver. 12—to which it must apply 
 (comp. 1 Thess. iii. 7)—but to ver. 11.— οὐχ... ἀλλ᾽ is not 
 non tam... quam (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, and many others), but 
 
CHAP. VII. 12. Ba 
 
 non... sed. Paul denies absolutely that he has written that 
 part of the Epistle on account of the two persons mentioned. In 
 the nature of the case, no doubt, he had to write against the 
 ἀδικήσας, and so indirectly in favour of the ἀδικηθείς - but the 
 destined purpose of this letter, as Paul from the true light of his 
 apostolic standpoint is aware, lay not in this aim affecting the 
 two persons primarily concerned, but in its higher significance as 
 bearing on the church’s relation to the apostle: ἀλλ᾽ εἵνεκεν τοῦ 
 φανερωθῆναι x.7...— Regarding the form εἵνεκεν, see on Luke 
 iv. 18, and Kiihner, I. p. 229, ed. 2. The ἀδικήσας is the 
 incestuous person, and the ἀδικηθείς his father, as the party 
 grievously injured by the son’s incestuous marriage with the 
 step-mother. Theodoret, however, is quite arbitrary in supposing 
 from this that he was already dead (καὶ τεθνεὼς yap ἠδίκητο, τῆς 
 εὐνῆς ὑβρισθείσης). See on 1 Cor. v. 1. This explanation of 
 the ἀδικηθείς, seems from the relation of the two participles active 
 and passive to be the only natural, and, in fact, necessary one. 
 It is no objection that, in the first Epistle, nothing was said at 
 length regarding the father and the wrong done to him (see only 
 v. 1), since the censure and ordaining of chastisement to the 
 transeressor of themselves practically contained the satisfaction to 
 the injured father. Comp. on the passive décx. in the sense of 
 infringing marriage-rights, Plut. Anton. 9; Eurip. Med. 267, 314; 
 and see in general on ἀδικεῖν in reference to adultery, Dorvill. 
 ad Charit. p. 468; Abresch, ad Xen. Hph., ed. Locella, p. 222. 
 Others (Wolf, Storr, Emmerling, Osiander, Neander, Maier) think 
 that Paul means /imse/f, in so far as he had been deeply injured 
 in his office by that transgression. But this mode of designating 
 himself, set down thus without any more precise indication, would 
 be strangely enigmatical, as well as marked by want of delicate 
 tact (as if the readers were not ἀδικηθέντες, like Paul!), and no 
 longer suiting what was already said in ii. 5. The reference of 
 τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος to the apostle himself would only be right on 
 the assumption that allusion is here made to the state of things 
 discussed by Paul in an intermediate letter now lost.’ Others 
 
 1 On this assumption Bleek is of opinion that Paul, in that lost Epistle, had 
 rebuked the wanton defiance of the incestuous person towards him (comp. also 
 Neander). According to Ewald, Paul is the ἀδικηθείς over against the man of 
 reputation in the church, who had been endeavouring to deprive him of his repute 
 
990 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (Bengel, comp. Wolf also) think that the Corinthians are meant, 
 but the singular is decisive against this view, even apart from 
 the unsuitable meaning. Others have even referred τοῦ ἀδικησ. 
 and tod ἀδικηθ. to the adulterer and the adulteress (Theophylact : 
 ἀμφότεροι, yap ἀλλήλους ἠδίκησαν) ; others, again, have taken τοῦ 
 ἀδικηθ. as neuter (Heinsius, Billroth), equivalent to τοῦ ἀδική- 
 patos. The last is at variance with linguistic usage; and what 
 sort of delicate apostolic tact would it have been, to say that he 
 had not written on account of the deed!—andN εἵνεκεν x.7.A.] 
 According to Lachmann’s correct reading, as translated also by 
 Luther (see the critical remarks): but because your zeal for us was 
 to become manifest among you before God, i.e. but because I wished 
 to bring it about that the zealous interest which you cherish for us 
 should be brought to light among you before God (a religious 
 expression of uprightness and sincerity, iv. 2). Comp. on the 
 thought, ii. 9; πρὸς ὑμᾶς is the simple with you, among you, in 
 the midst of you, in your church-life, not exactly in public meeting 
 of the church (Ewald), which would have been indicated more 
 precisely. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. Riickert, without due ground, 
 finds the meaning of πρὸς ὑμᾶς so ambiguous that he prefers the 
 Recepta, according to which the meaning is: because our zealous 
 interest for you was to become manifest upon you before God. 
 Comp. ii. 4. Hofmann, who rejects both the Recepta and the 
 reading of Lachmann, and prefers that of δὲ: τ. σπουδὴν ὑμῶν 
 τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, takes this πρὸς ὑμᾶς even in a hostile 
 sense: “ You are to show yourselves diligent for yourselves and 
 against yourselves ;” the strict procedure of the church against 
 its adherents is on the one hand an acting for themselves (ὑπὲρ 
 ὑμῶν), and on the other hand an acting against themselves (πρὸς 
 ὑμᾶς). This artificial interpretation is wrong, because, if πρὸς 
 could mean contra here, Paul must have written at least τὴν 
 ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τε καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and because πρός with σπουδή (Heb. 
 vi. 11; Herod. iv. 11. 1; Diod. xvii. 114) and with σπουδάζξειν 
 (Dem. 515. 23, 617. 10) has not that arbitrarily assumed sense, 
 
 in it by public accusations. Comp. Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 169, 1865, 
 p. 252, according to whom Paul is the ἀδικηθείς, because things had in the meanwhile 
 come to a pronounced rejection of his apostolic repute. According to Beyschlag in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 254, Timothy is meant, who was personally insulted by 
 a spokesman in the ranks of the opponents, 
 
ΠΑΡ. VII. 12. 337 
 
 but the sense of an interest for some one, though this is more 
 commonly expressed by περί, If the reading of & were right, 
 it would have to be explained simply: in order that your zeal, 
 in which you aim at your own good, should become manifest among 
 you before God. Had Paul wished to express the singular 
 meaning which Hofmann imports, he would have known how to 
 write: τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τε Kal καθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 
 
 Ver. 13. Wherefore, because I had no other purpose than this 
 (which is now attained), we are comforted ; and, to our consolation 
 there was further added a very great increase in joy over the joy of 
 Titus, etc. —éml δὲ τῇ παρακλ. ἡμ.] ἐπί used of supervening on 
 something already in existence." See Matthiae, p. 1371; Winer, 
 p. 368 [E. T. 490] --- περισσοτ. μᾶλλον ἐχάρημεν) the joy of 
 our consolation became still more increased. Comp. on ver. 7. 
 Regarding the strengthening of the comparative by μᾶλλον, see 
 Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 377; Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 679 E; 
 Boissonade, ad Aristaen. p. 430.— ὅτε ἀναπέπαυται x.7.d.] does 
 not specify the reason of Paul’s joy (Riickert, although with 
 hesitation), for that is contained in ἐπὶ τ. χαρᾷ Titov, but is a 
 more precise definition confirmatory of τῇ χαρᾷ Τίτου; since 
 indeed his spirit (ii. 13) ts refreshed by you all. ἀναπέπαυται 
 (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 18; Philem. 7, 20) is placed first as the pith 
 of the thought; ἀπό denotes the procecding from, the origin: 
 forth from, from the side of. See Bernhardy, p. 222; Kihner, 
 ad Xen. Anab. vi. 5. 18. | 
 
 ReEMARK.—According to the Recepta διὰ τοῦτο παρακεκλήμεθα ἐπὶ 
 τῇ παρακλήσει ὑμῶν" περισσοτέρως δὲ μᾶλλον x.5.A., the first ἐπί is through, 
 properly on account of, just as in ἐπὶ τῇ χαρᾷ Τίτου, so that the 
 παράκλησις ὑμῶν is that which causes the παραχεκλήμεθα (Winer, 
 p- 368 [E. T.491]) ; but ὑμῶν is not, with Flatt, de Wette, and many 
 others, to be explained: by the consolation, which you have afforded 
 to me, but: “ consolatione vestri” (Luther, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Bengel, and most), 7.2. by your being comforted over the pain, which 
 my Epistle caused to you, now by means of the happy change 
 which it has produced among you (ver. 11). The two genitives, 
 namely ὑμῶν and Tirov, must be taken wniformly. On the state 
 of the case delicately denoted by παρακλ. ὑμῶν Calvin aptly remarks: 
 “Nam correctionis acerbitas facile dulcescit, simulatque gustare 
 
 1 Yet it may also be taken simply of the state: in our consolation. But the explana- 
 tion above is more in keeping with the climactic character of the discourse. 
 
 2 COR. II. ms 
 
338 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 incipimus, quam nobis fuerit utilis.” Michaelis, on the other hand, 
 objects that what follows will then be discowrteous ; but the seem- 
 ing discourtesy disappears before the reason for Titus’ joy, and is 
 amply outweighed by ver. 14. According to Reiche, Comm. erit. 
 I. p.370, the παράκλησις ὑμῶν means the admonitio et castigatio given 
 in the first Epistle, for the sharpness and severity of which Paul 
 is now consoled by the happy result. But after παρακεκλήμεθω, 
 according to the analogy, moreover, of ἐχάρημεν ἐπὶ τῇ χαρῇ, as Well as 
 in accordance with vv. 4 and 6, παράκλησις cannot be otherwise 
 taken than as solatwwm. 
 
 Ver. 14 f. Polite statement of the reason why the joy of Titus 
 had rejoiced him so greatly. — εἴ te αὐτῷ ὑπὲρ bp. Kexavy.| Comp. 
 ix. 2. Who could deny that Paul, both alone, of which he is 
 thinking here, and in company with Timothy (at which ἡ 
 καύχησις ἡμῶν then glances), had justly boasted before Titus (coram 
 Tito) to the advantage of the Corinthians (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, comp. 
 ix. 2)? See 1 Cor.i.4 ff He had, in fact, founded the church 
 and laboured so long in it, and they were in his heart, vu. 3. — 
 ov κατῃσχύνθην] This κατῃσχ. would have taken place, if Titus 
 had experienced among you an opposite state of things, contra- 
 dicting the truth of my καύχησις. But when he came to you: 
 διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐδείξατέ μου τὰ ῥήματα, Chrysostom. — ἀλλ᾽ ws 
 πάντα κιτ.λ.] Opposite of οὐ κατῃσχ.: “as we have spoken 
 everything truly to you, our boasting before Titus has also become 
 truth.” No doubt Paul is here making a passing allusion to the 
 attack on his veracity (comp. i. 17 ff.), and that in such a way as 
 emphatically to confront it with, first, what was said by him 
 (ravta ...% καύχησις ἡμῶν), and then the persons to whom he 
 spoke (ὑμῖν... ἡ ἐπὶ Titov). Thus the first, and next to it the 
 last, place in the arrangement of the sentence has the emphasis 
 (Kiihner, 11. p. 625).— πάντα] quite general: we have lied to 
 you in nothing. Chrysostom and Billroth think that it applies 
 to all the good, which Paul had said of Titus to the Corinthians,—a 
 purely arbitrary view, not to be guessed by any reader. — ἐν 
 ἀληθείᾳ] 1.06. truthfully. Comp. Col. i. 6; John xvii. 19; Pind. 
 Ol. vii. 127, The adverbial use is genuine Greek (Matthiae, 
 Ῥ. 1342; Bernhardy, p. 211), not a Hebraism (Riickert). See 
 on John xvii. 19. — ἐλαλήσαμεν] locuti swumus, quite general, and 
 not to be limited, at variance with the context, to doctrine (Em- 
 merling, Flatt, Hofmann, and others, following Theodoret). — ézt 
 
CUAP. VII. 15, 16. 339 
 
 Τίτου] coram Tito. See Schaefer, Melef. p. 105; Fritzsche, 
 Quaest. Luc. p. 139. — ἐγενήθη] se praestitit ; it has shown itself 
 as truth by experience. Comp.i1.19; Rom.iii 4,vii.13. Often 
 so also in classic writers. 
 
 Ver. 15. Kai τὰ σπλάγχνα «.7.r.] joyful result of ἡ καύχησις 
 nav... ἐγενήθη. A comma only is to be put after ver. 14: 
 and thus, therefore, his inmost heart (comp. vi. 12) is attached to 
 you wn ὦ still higher degree (than before his presence there) since 
 he remembers, ete. — εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐστίν] is for you. Comp. εἰς αὐτόν; 
 1 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. xi. 36.— ὑπακοήν] namely, towards him, 
 Titus ; for what follows is epexegetical. — μετὰ φόβου x. τρόμου] 
 ζ.6. With a zeal, which fears lest it should not do enough for its 
 duty. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 16. Concluding result of the whole section, introduced 
 vividly (without οὖν, comp. ver. 12): 7 am glad that in every 
 respect I have confidence on you. — ἐν ὑμῖν] not as to you, which 
 would have been expressed prepositionally by περί, ὑπέρ, ἐπί, 
 πρός, ἕνεκα (eis, x. 1, is in an adverse sense), but Paul knows 
 his consolation as closely resting on the readers; that is the causal 
 nexus, in which his joyous frame of mind depends on them. 
 Comp. Winer, p. 218 [E. T. 291 f.]; Soph. 47, 1294: ἐν ἐμοὶ 
 θρασύς, 1071: ἐν θανοῦσιν ὑβριστὴς γένῃ, Eurip. Or. 754: ἐν 
 γυναιξὶν ἄλκιμος, Kcclus. xxxviii. 23; Matt. iii, 17. 
 
340 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 CHAP TERA Wit 
 
 VER. 3. ὑπὲρ δύναμιν] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read παρὰ δύναμ., on 
 decisive evidence; ὑπέρ is a gloss. — Ver. 4. After ἁγίους Elz. has 
 δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς, which, on decisive evidence, is rightly struck out by 
 Griesb. and the later editors as a supplementary insertion, though 
 defended by Rinck.— Ver. 5. ἠλπίσαμεν] Only B and 80 have 
 ἠλπίκαμεν, just as in ver. 6 only B has ἐνήρξατο. ---- Ver. 7. ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν 
 ὑμῖν is attested only by min. and Syr. Arm. Slav. ms. Comp. Orig. : 
 nostra im vos. Error of transcription, or correction through mis- 
 understanding. — Ver. 12. After ἔχῃ Elz. and Scholz have τις. An 
 addition in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 13. δὲ] is 
 wanting in B C &* min. and Aeth. Clar. Germ. ; deleted by Lachm., 
 and rightly, since it betrays itself as inserted to mark the contrast. 
 — Ver. 16. διδόντι] D EF G L 8** and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. 
 have δόντι. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Riick. But 
 the aorist has crept in obviously on account of the aorists that 
 follow. — Ver. 19, σύν] BC and many min., also several vss. and 
 Fathers, have ἐν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; σύν, though defended by Reiche, is an 
 erroneous gloss. — αὐτοῦ] is wanting in B Ο D* F G L and many 
 min., also in several vss. and Latin Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., 
 deleted by Lachm. Riick. Considering the great preponderance of 
 the adverse evidence, it is more probable that it has crept in by 
 writing τοῦ twice, than that it has been left out on account of its 
 being unnecessary and seemingly unsuitable (Reiche).— Instead 
 of the last ἡμῶν Elz. has ὑμῶν, against decisive testimony. Altera- 
 tion, because ἡμῶν was held to be unsuitable. — Ver. 21. προνοοῦμεν 
 γάρ] Elz.: προνοούμενοι, only supported by later codd. and some 
 Fathers. The participle appears to be a mere copyist’s error 
 occasioned by στελλόμενοι, SO that at first even the γάρ remained 
 beside it, as is the case still in C, min., and some vss. and Fathers, 
 whom Tisch. follows. But afterwards this yép had to be dropped 
 on account of the retention of the participle. — Ver. 24. ἐνδείξωσθε] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. read ἐνδεικνύμενοι, following Β D* E* F G 17, It. 
 Goth. The imperative is a gloss. — Elz., against decisive testimony, 
 has καί before εἰς πρόσωπον. Added for the sake of connection. 
 
 ~ 
 
CHAP. VIII. 1, 2. 341 
 
 Chap. viii. and ix. The second chief division of the Epistle : 
 regarding the collection for the poor im Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi.), 
 coming very fitly after the praise contained in chap. vii., and having 
 the way appropriately paved for it in particular by the closing 
 words, vii. 16. 
 
 Vv. 1-6. The beneficence of the Macedonians has been shown 
 beyond all expectation; hence we have exhorted Titus to com- 
 plete among you the work already begun. 
 
 Ver. 1. The δέ is the mere μεταβατικόν, leading over to a new 
 topic in the Epistle. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xv. 1. 
 — τὴν χάριν τ. θεοῦ τὴν δεδομ. x.7.r.] the grace of God, which is 
 given in the churches of Macedonia, i.e. how graciously God has 
 wrought in the churches of Macedonia, inasmuch as He (see ver. 2) 
 called forth in them so great liberality. Comp. ix. 14. The 
 expression rests on the idea, that such excellent dispositions and 
 resolves are produced and nourished, not by independent spon- 
 taneity, but by the grace of God working on us (operationes 
 gratiae). Comp. Phil. ii, 13. Paul, therefore, does not think 
 of the grace of God as shown to himself (Origen, Erasmus, who 
 paraphrases it: “quemadmodum adfuerit mihi Deus in ecclesiis 
 Maced. ;” comp. Zachariae, Emmerling, Billroth, Wieseler, Chronol. 
 p. 357 ff.; also Riickert, yet with hesitation),—in which case he 
 could not but have added ἐμοί or ἡμῖν, in order to make himself 
 understood, — but, on the contrary, as granted to the liberal 
 churches, working in them the communicative zeal of love, so that 
 the construction with ἐν is quite as in ver. 16 and 1. 22. 
 
 Ver. 2. A more precise explanation of τὴν χάριν «.7.X., so that 
 ὅτι (that, namely) is dependent on γνωρίζομεν. This exposition 
 consists, as was seen by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, 
 Grotius, and many others, of two statements, so that after τῆς 
 χαρᾶς αὐτῶν we must mentally supply the simple ἐστί, This 
 scheme of the passage, which Osiander and Hofmann also follow, 
 is indicated by ἡ περισσεία in the one half, and ἐπερίσσευσεν in 
 the other, whereby two parallel predicative relations are expressed, 
 as well as by the fact that, if the whole be taken as one sentence, 
 and consequently ἡ περίσσ. τ. χαρᾶς αὐτῶν be taken along with 
 
 1 Not ἦν ; for the present corresponds to the perfect δεδομ., and that, which took 
 place in the happy state,of things thus subsisting, is then subjoined by the aorist 
 
 ἐπερίσσευσεν, 
 
942 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the following καὶ ἡ κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία αὐτῶν as the subject 
 of ἐπερίσσευσεν (so by most expositors since Beza), this subject 
 would embrace two very diverse elements, and, besides, there 
 would result the combination not elsewhere occurring: ἡ περισ- 
 σεία ἐπερίσσευσεν. Hence it is to be explained: that, namely, 
 in much attestation of affliction the abundance of their joyfulness 18, 
 1.0. that, while they are much put to the test by sufferings, their joy 
 is plentifully present, and (that) their deep poverty became abundant 
 unto the riches of their single-hzartedness, 1.6. that they, in their 
 deep poverty, plentifully showed how rich their single-hearted- 
 ness was. — ἐν πολλῇ δοκιμῇ θλίψεως] Instead of writing simply 
 ἐν πολλῇ θλίψει, Paul designates this situation according to the 
 wholesome moral aspect, in which it showed itself amongst the 
 Macedonians to their praise. Ζοκιμή, namely, is here also not: 
 trial, but, as Paul always uses it, verification (Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. 
 li. 9, ix. 13, xui. 3; Phil. 1. 22). Chrysostom aptly says: 
 οὐδὲ yap ἁπλῶς ἐθλίβησαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὡς Kal δόκιμοι γενέσθαι 
 διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς. The verification of their Christian character, 
 which the θλίψεις effected in them, was just the moral element, in 
 which the joyfulness πολλὴ καὶ ἄφατος ἐβλάστησεν ἐν αὐτοῖς 
 (Chrysostom), and existed among them in spite of the θλέψες 
 itself, which, moreover, would have been calculated to produce 
 the opposite of χαρά. Regarding the θλίψις of the Macedonians, 
 see 1 Thess. i. 6, 1. 14 ff; Acts xvi. 20 ff, xvii. 5. The yapa, 
 the virtue of Christian gladness of soul, rising above all afflictions 
 (Gal. v.22; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Rom. xiv. 17; comp. on John xv. 
 11), is not yet defined here more precisely as regards its special 
 expression, but is already brought into prominence with a view 
 to the second part of the verse, consequently to the liberality 
 which gladly distributes (ix. 7; Acts xx. 58). ---- ἡ κατὰ βάθους 
 πτωχεία] the deep poverty, literally, that which has gone down to 
 the depth (Winer, p. 357 [E. T. 477]); comp. βάθος κακῶν, Aesch. 
 Pers. 718, Hel. 303; és κίνδυνον βαθύν, Pind. Pyth. iv. 368, 
 and the like; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 471. The opposite 
 
 1 As a grammatical supplement the simple οὖσα is sufficient ; hence it is not to be 
 taken, with Hofmann, as the poverty sinking deeper and ever deeper, but as the 
 deep-sunk poverty. On xaré with genitive, comp. the Homeric xara χϑονός, Il. 111. 
 Q17 ; καστὰ γαίης, Il. xiii. 504 ; κατὰ σσείους, Od. ix. 880 (down into the cave), xii. 93. 
 See in general, Spitzner, De vi εὐ usu pracpios. ἀνά εἰ κατά ap. Homer. 1881, p 20 ff 
 
CITAP. VIII 8--Ὁ. 343 
 
 is βαθύπλουτος, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 286. — ἐπερίσσευσεν 
 became abundant, 1.6. developed an exceedingly great activity, and 
 this εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον K.7.X.,' unto the riches of their singleness of heart. 
 This is the result (Rom. 111. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 8) of the ἐπερίσσ. ; so) 
 that their simple, upright spirit showed itself as. vich, in spite οὗ. 
 their poverty, through the abundance-of kind gifts which they dis- | 
 tributed. Note the skill and point of the antithetic correlation 
 purposely marking the expressions in the two parts of the verse. — 
 The δ τεὴν is the upright simplicity of heart (Eph. vi. ὅ ; Col. 
 
 iii, 22); honestly and straightforwardly it contributes a it 
 can to the work of love without any selfish design or arridre pensée 
 (as e.g. the widow with her mite). Comp. om xii. 8. And so it is 
 rich, even with deep poverty on the part of the givers. The geni- 
 tive is, as in περισσεία τῆς yap., the genitivus subjecti, not objects 
 (rich in simplicity), as Hofmann, following older commentators, 
 holds. The αὐτῶν is against this latter view, for either it would 
 have been wanting, or it would have been added to πλοῦτον, 
 because it would belong to that word. 
 
 Vy. 3—5. Ὅτι is not dependent on γνωρίζομεν (Hofmann), 
 but gives the proof of what was just said: εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς 
 ann. avt. — The construction is plain; for there is no need to 
 supply an ἦσαν, as many wish, after αὐθαίρετοι or after δεόμενου, 
 but, as Bengel aptly remarks: “ ἔδωκαν. .. totum periochae strac- 
 turam sustinet.’ Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. Il. p. 49; Billroth, 
 Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann. There are, namely (and in accord- 
 ance therewith the punctuation is to be fixed), four modal 
 definitions attached to this ἔδωκαν: They gave (1) according to 
 and beyond their means; (2) of their own impulse; (3) urgently 
 entreating us for the χάρις and κοινωνία x.7.r.; and (4) not as we 
 hoped, but themselves, etc. This last modal definition is naturally 
 and quite logically attached by καί (hence καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσ.) ; 
 
 1 The neuter form, τὸ πλοῦτος (Lachm. Tisch. Riick.), is attested here by B C δὰ" 
 17, 31, but more decidedly in Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, iii. 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. i. 27, 
 il, Ze 
 
 3 Hofmann conjectures that the prominence given to the ἁπλότης was called forth 
 by the want of it among the Achaean Christians. In this case there would be in it 
 a side-allusion, which is not justified in what follows. But the ἁπλότης, which had 
 shown itself among the Macedonians in a specially high degree, was to serve them 
 as an example, by way of stimulating emulation, not exactly of putting them to 
 shame. 
 
9 
 
 944 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 and Riickert (comp. de Wette and Neander) is arbitrary in holding 
 this καί to prove that Paul allowed the sentence he had begun to 
 drop, and appended a new one, so that after ἠλπίσαμεν we should 
 have to supply an ἐγένετο or ἐποίησαν. ---- μαρτυρῶ] 1 testify it, a 
 parenthetic assurance. Comp. the Greek use of οἶμαι and the 
 like (Bornem. ad Xen. Conv. p. 71, 179; Stallb. ad Plat. Gorg. 
 p. 460 A). — παρὰ δύναμιν) 1.6. more amply than was accordant 
 with their resources. See Homer, 11. xiii. 787; Thucyd.i.70. 2; 
 Lucian. Wigr. 28, de Dom. 10. The same, in substantial mean- 
 ing, is ὑπὲρ δύναμιν, i. 8; Dem. 292. 25. It forms, with κατὰ 
 δύναμ., a climactic definition of ἔδωκαν, not of αὐθαίρ., to which 
 it is not suitable. — av@aiperou] excludes human persuasion ot 
 compulsion, not the divine influence (see ver. 5, διὰ θελήματος 
 θεοῦ); we must not, with Riickert, hold it, on account of the 
 remark ix. 2, to be an exaggeration, since the latter notice does 
 not deny the self-determination of the Macedonians, but, when 
 compared with our passage, exhibits as the real state of the case this, 
 that Paul had boasted of the readiness of the Achaeans before the 
 Macedonians, but without exhortation to the latter, and that these 
 thereupon, of their own accord, without urging, had resolved on 
 making a contribution, and had given very amply. Comp. Chry- 
 sostom on ix. 2. αὐθαίρετος, free-willed, self-determined, only here 
 and at ver. 17 in the N. T., often in the classic writers; seldom 
 of persons (Xen. Anad. v. 7. 29; Lucian. Catapl. 4). Comp. the 
 adverb in 2 Mace. vi. 19; 3 Mace. vi. 6. --- μετὰ πολλῆς... εἰς 
 τ. ἁγίους] to be taken together: with much exhortation entreating us 
 for the kindness and the participation of the service being rendered for 
 the saints, 1.6. urgently entreating us that the kindness might be shown 
 \them of permitting them to take active part in the... work of 
 collections. Οὐχ ἡμεῖς αὐτῶν ἐδεήθημεν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἡμῶν, Chry- 
 ‘sostom; and in the κοινωνία sought they saw a kindness to be 
 shown to themselves: they knew how to value the work of love 
 thus highly. The χάρις, namely, here is not grace from God 
 (Hofmann and the older commentators), since it was requested 
 from the apostle, but τὴν χάριν x. τ. κοίνων. is a true ὃν διὰ 
 δυοῖν (the favour, and indeed the partaking, 1.6. the favour of par- 
 taking). See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 854, and generally, Nigels- 
 bach on 71. iii, 100, p. 461, ed. 3. Bengel, who likewise rejects 
 the δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς of the Recepta, connects τὴν χάριν κ. τὴν 
 
CHAP, VIII. 3-35. 345 
 
 κοινωνίαν K.7.r. With ἔδωκαν ; but what a prolix designation of the 
 withal quite self-evident object of ἔδωκαν would that be, while 
 δεόμενοι ἡμῶν would remain quite open and void of definition ! 
 On δεῖσθαι, with accusative of the thing and genitive of the 
 person, comp. Plato, Apol. p. 18 A, p.41 E; Xen. Cyrop. 1. 4.12; 
 Anab. vii. 3.5; 3 Esd. viii. 53. Yet in the classics the accusative 
 of the object A the neuter of a pronoun, like τοῦτο ὑμῶν δέομαι; 
 ὅπερ ὑμῶν δέομαι, and the like, or of an adjective (Kriiger on 
 Thue. i. 32. 1). — τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους] In this addition (comp. 
 1 Cor. xvi. 1), which would in itself be superfluous, there lies a 
 motive of the δεόμενοι. ---- καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν] for but a little 
 could be expected from the oppressed and poor Macedonians! 
 Οὐ περὶ τῆς γνώμης λέγει, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν χρημάτων, 
 Theodoret. According to Hofmann, the words are meant only to 
 affirm that the Macedonians had joined in the contribution quite 
 of their own resolution, which had not been expected by the apostle. 
 But in this case the remark, which on this interpretation would 
 be no independent element, but only the negative expression 
 of what was already said in αὐθαίρετοι, would have had its logical 
 position immediately behind αὐθαίρετοι; and it must have run 
 not as it is written by Paul, but: καθὼς οὐκ ἠλπίσαμεν. No, the 
 apostle says: and their giving did not remain within the limits of 
 the hope which we had fo acs regarding them, but far surpassed 
 these (ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς K.T.N.). — ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς K.7.d.] but themselves 
 they gave, etc. An expression of the highest Christian readiness 
 of sacrifice and liberality, which, by giving up all individual 
 interests, is not only a contribution of money, “but a self-surrender, 
 in the first instance, to the Lord, since in fact Christ is hereby. 
 served, and also to him who conducts the work of collection, 
 since he is to the giver the organ of Christ. Flatt and Billroth, 
 following Mosheim and Heumann, are wrong in making πρῶτον 
 before in the sense: before I asked them. This reference is not in 
 the least implied in the immediate context (οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσ.) ; 
 and if it were, πρῶτον must have had the first place :' ἀλλὰ 
 πρῶτον ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν κιτλ. As the words stand, ἑαυτούς has 
 
 
 
 1 This also in opposition to Hofmann, who, in consistency with his inappropriate 
 interpretation of x. οὐ καθ. ἠλσπίσ., takes πρῶτον : without such a thought (such a hope) 
 having occurred to me. Besides, πρῶσον would not mean ‘‘without,” but ‘‘ before 
 that,” ete. 
 
—— 
 
 2 
 
 346 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the emphasis of the contrast with od καθὼς ἠλπίσ. Bengel also 
 (comp. Schrader) is wrong in thinking that in πρῶτον there is 
 implied prae munere: the Macedonians, before they made col- 
 lection, had first given themselves to the Lord, and then left it to 
 the apostle to determine how large their contribution should be. 
 In that case there must have been inserted καὶ τὰ χρήματα 
 ἡμῖν, or something similar, as a correlative to ἑαυτοὺς πρῶτον 
 τῷ κυρίῳ. It is wrong to find in ἑαυτούς the idea merely of 
 voluntarily, without any summons, because it is object of the 
 having given. It must have run: αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοὺς κιτ.λ. (comp. 
 i. 9), or without stress on the self-object, ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν. --- καὶ ἡμῖν] 
 Paul does not say ἔπειτα ἡμῖν (in opposition to the usual opinion 
 that καί stands for ἔπειτα ; so also Riickert), because the surrender 
 to the Lord is not a prius in time, but in degree: to the Lord before 
 all, und_to us. So Rom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10. — διὰ θελήμ. θεοῦ] not 
 exactly an expression of modesty (Billroth),—for it is only arbitrary 
 to limit it merely to καὶ ἡμῖν (so also Bengel, Ewald),—but added 
 quite according to the requirement of religious feeling: for God 
 has, according to His will, so wrought on their dispositions, that 
 they, etc. Comp. vv. 1,16. 
 
 Ver. 6. In order that we should exhort Titus, etc. Comp. 
 ver. 17. εἰς τό with the infinitive is here, as in all passages (see 
 on Rom. 1. 20), to be taken, not as so that (so usually, and by 
 Winer), but as ¢elic: in order that. Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. 
 vil. 8. 20. Certainly the παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Titov x... was a 
 consequence of the beyond expectation successful course of the 
 matter in Macedonia, in accordance with which Paul might promise 
 himself no less a success among the Corinthians; but delicately 
 and piously he presents the state of the case, as if this further 
 prosecution of the work of collection, amidst the self - sacrificing 
 liberality of the Macedonians effected by the divine will, had 
 lain in God’s purpose, and was therefore a consequence that 
 had been aimed at by God. This flows from the διὰ θελήμ. θεοῦ 
 immediately preceding. Comp. Hofmann also. Paul sees in the 
 fact, that the divinely - willed success of the collecting work in 
 Macedonia has encouraged him to the continuance of it expressed 
 in ver. 6, the fulfilment of the divine counsel and will, which he 
 
 1S0 Hofmann; whence there would result even a threefold expression of the 
 voluntary act, namely: (1) in aiéaiperos; (2) in x. οὐ καθ, ἠλπίσ.; and (3) in ἑαυτούς. 
 
CHAP, VIIL 7—15. 347 
 
 is thereby serving. — ἵνα] Design in the παρακαλέσαι, ani con- 
 sequently its contents. — καθὼς προενήρξατο)] as he formerly has 
 begun, without doubt during his sojourn in Corinth after our 
 first Epistle; see Introd. ὃ 1. The word is indeed: without 
 example elsewhere, but it is formed from ἐνάρχομαι, after the 
 analogy of mpodpyw and others. — οὕτω καὶ ἐπιτελέσῃ εἰς ὑμᾶς] 
 so also might complete it among you. The emphasis lies, as before 
 on προενήρξατο, so here on ἐπιτελέσῃ. With the verb of rest 
 els associates the thought of the previous arrival, so that ἐλθών 
 may for clearness be supplied. See Kiihner, ὃ 6220; Jacobs, 
 ad Anthol. XIII. p. 71; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 537. The 
 correlation of ἐνάρχεσθαι and ἐπιτελεῖν is simply as in Phil. 1. 6, 
 Gal. iii. 3; we should anticipate (ix. 12) by importing the idea 
 of sacrifice (Osiander). — καὶ τὴν χάριν ταύτην] not hane quoque 
 gratiam (Beza, Calvin, comp. Castalio), but: etiam gratiam istam 
 (Vulgate). For also belongs to τὴν χάριν, not to ταύτην. He 
 shall complete among you——in addition to whatever else he has 
 already begun and has still to complete—also this benefit. This 
 better suits the context, namely, the connection of the οὕτω καὶ 
 ἐπιτελ. with καθὼς προενήρξατο, than the interpretation of 
 Estius: “dicit etiam, ut innuat Titum alia quaedam apud ipsos 
 jam perfecisse.” So also Flatt. It is quite superfluous to 
 invoke, with Hofmann, an involution of two sentences in order to 
 explain the double καί. And since καί refers to the activity 
 of Titus, Billroth is wrong in explaining it: “they are to dis- 
 tinguish themselves in this good deed, as in all things.” — The 
 work of collection is designated as χάρις, for on the side of the 
 givers it was a showing of kindness, a work of love, an opus 
 charitativum. . Observe that here and in vv. 4, 19, θεοῦ is not 
 added, as in ver. 1, ix. 14, according to which Hofmann and 
 older commentators explain it here also of the divine grace, of 
 which they are made worthy through the service rendered. 
 
 Vv. 7-15. Encouragement to associate with their other 
 Christian excellences distinction also in this work of love, 
 which he says not in the form of a command, but to test their 
 love —for they knew indeed the pattern of love in Christ — 
 and by way of advice (vv. 7-9). For this is serviceable for 
 them, inasmuch as they had already made the beginning. Now, 
 however, they were not to fail of completing their work, namely, 
 
948 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 according to their means; for it was not intended that others 
 should be at ease while they were in want, but that a relation 
 of equality should be established (vv. 10-15). 
 
 Ver. 7. ᾿4λλ is not equivalent to οὖν (Beza and others, also 
 Flatt), nor to agedwm (Emmerling), but is the Latin at, breaking 
 off the preceding statement, like the German doch. Hermann, 
 ad Viger. p. 812, aptly says: “Saepe indicat, satis argu- 
 mentorum allatum esse.” Comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15. 
 Olshausen has a more far-fetched idea, that it is corrective: yea 
 rather. And Billroth imports quite arbitrarily: “When I en- 
 treated Titus, I knew beforehand that this time also you would 
 not deceive me, but that, as you are distinguished in all that is 
 good, so also you would zealously further this collection ;” and 
 Riickert also (similarly Calvin): “I have entreated Titus, etc. ; 
 yet let it not happen that he should need first to encourage you (?), 
 yea rather, ete.” According to Hofmann, ἀλλά forms the transi- 
 tion to the οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω which follows in ver. 8; but 
 this supposes a very involved construction (comp. afterwards on 
 ἵνα κ.τ.λ.). --- ὥσπερ ἐν παντὶ K.T.r.] as you in every relation are 
 abundant (excellitis) through faith (strength, fervour, and efficacy 
 of faith), and discourse (aptitude in speaking), and knowledge 
 (see regarding both on 1 Cor. i 5), and every diligence 
 (“ studium ad agendas res bonas,” Grotius), and your love to us, 
 so should you abound in showing this kindness. If πίστει x.7.D. 
 be taken as a specification of ἐν παντί (Luther, Grotius, and 
 most), the meaning is more uncertain, since ἐν is not repeated. 
 Comp. vi. 4; 1 Cor. i. 5; it comes in again only before ταύτῃ τ. 
 yap. Grotius aptly remarks: “non ignoravit P. artem rhetorum, 
 movere laudando.” Amidst the general praise, however, he wisely 
 here also leaves the distingue personas to the feeling of the 
 readers. —7H ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ] Paul here conceives the 
 active love as something issuing from the disposition of the person 
 loving, and adhering to the person loved. Thus he /elé the 
 love of the Corinthians to him in his heart; comp. vil. 3. This 
 view alone suits the context, inasmuch as the other points 
 mentioned are points purely subjective, belonging to the readers, 
 and serving to recommend them; hence we are not to understand 
 it as the love dwelling in the apostle, but owing its origin to the 
 readers (Hofmann). Calvin aptly remarks: “ Caritatem erga se 
 
CHAP, VIII. 8, 9. 349 
 
 commemorat, ut personae quoque suae respectu illis addat 
 animos.” On the form of the expression, comp. Winer, p. 181 f. 
 ΓΕ. T. 241].— ἵνα καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι Tepicc.| A periphrasis 
 for the imperative, to be explained by supplying a verb of sum- 
 moning, on which iva depends in the conception of the speakers. 
 See Buttmann, p. 208 [E. T. 241]; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 840, 
 ad Mare. p.179. In the old Greek ὅπως is used in the very 
 same way (iva late and seldom, as in Epictetus, Dissert. iv. 
 1. 142). See Matthiae, p. 1187; Viger. ed. Herm. pp. 435, 
 791 ἢ; Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 148. According to Grotius 
 and Bengel, whom Hofmann follows, the connecting of ἵνα x.7.X. 
 with the following οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω would yield no un- 
 suitable sense (in opposition to Riickert); but the construction 
 of the passage in vv. 7 and 8, so as to form one period, would 
 be a construction assumed without sufficient ground, ill-arranged 
 and ambiguous, and would not accord with the apostle’s way of 
 beginning a new sentence by οὐ. ,. λέγω in order to guard 
 against an incorrect judgment of the previous one (vii. 3; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 14. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 12).—In καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι, 
 ταύτῃ has the emphasis (it was otherwise in ver. 6); also in 
 this showing of kindness, as in other works of beneficence,—which 
 was embraced in ἐν παντί, 
 
 Ver. 8. Prudent and yet deeply stirring caveat in reference to 
 what was said in ver. 7. Not by way of command do I say tt, but 
 as, through the diligence of others, testing also the genwine nature 
 of your love.— διά] “aliorum studio vobis commemorato,” 
 Bengel. — ἑτέρων] of members of extraneous churches. — τὸ 
 γνήσιον] the genuineness. See Kihner, II. p. 122; Dissen, 
 ad Pind. Nem. p. 452. --- δοκιμάζειν] is here, too (comp. on 
 1 Cor. xi. 28), not probatum reddere (Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Estius), but explorare ; for by the result, which the setting forth 
 of the Macedonian example would have on the Corinthians, it 
 had to be shown whether, and how far, their brotherly love was 
 genuine or not. The participle does not depend on ver. 10 
 (Bengel), but on λέγω, which is to be supplied again after ἀλλά. 
 λέγω with the participle: I say it, inasmuch as I thereby, ete. 
 Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 14. 
 
 Ver. 9. Parenthesis which states what holy reason he has for 
 speaking to them, not κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, but in the way just 
 
350 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 mentioned, that of testing their love. For you know, indeed 
 (γινώσκετε not imperative, as Chrysostom and others think), 
 what a high pattern of gracious kindness you have experienced in 
 yourselves from Jesus Christ. So the testing, which I have in 
 view among you, will only be wmitation of Christ. Olshausen 
 rejects here the conception of pattern, and finds the proof of 
 possibility: “Since Christ by His becoming poor has made you 
 rich, you also may communicate of your riches ; He has placed you 
 in a position to do so.” The outward giving, namely, presupposes 
 the disposition to give as an internal motive, without which it 
 would not take place. But in this view πλουτήσητε would of 
 necessity apply to riches in loving dispositions, which, however, is 
 not suggested at all in the context, since in point of fact the 
 consciousness of every believing reader led him to think of the 
 whole fulness of the Messianic blessings as the aim of Christ's 
 humiliation, and to place in that the riches meant by πλου- 
 Thonte.— ὅτι δι’ ὑμᾶς «7.r.] that He for your sakes, ete., 
 epexegetical of τὴν χάριν τ. κυρ. Hu. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The 
 emphatic δι’ ὑμᾶς brings home to the believing consciousness of 
 the readers individually the aim, which in itself was universal. 
 — ἐπτώχευσε] inasmuch as He by His humiliation to become 
 incarnate emptied Himself of the participation, which He had in 
 His pre-existent state, of God’s glory, dominion, and blessedness 
 (πλούσιος dv), Phil. ii. 6. On the meaning of the word, comp. 
 ἙΝ Judg. vi, 6, xiv. 15); Ps. xxxiv. 10, ‘xxix. 18 nae 
 xxiii, 21; Tob. iv. 21; Antiphanes in Becker’s Anecd. 112. 24. 
 The aorist denotes the once-occurring entrance into the condition 
 of being poor, and therefore certainly the having become poor 
 (although πτωχεύειν, as also the classical πενέσθαι, does not 
 mean to become poor, but to be’ poor), and not the whole life led 
 by Christ in poverty and lowliness, during which He was never- 
 theless rich in grace, rich in inward blessings; so Baur” and 
 Késtlin, Lehrbegr. d. Joh. p. 310, also Beyschlag, Christol. p. 237. 
 On the other hand, see Raebiger, Christol. Paul. p. 38 ἵν; Neander, 
 
 1As 6.0. βασιλεύειν, to be-king, but ἐβασίλευσα : I have become king. Comp. 
 1 Cor. iv. 8; and see in general, Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i, 1. 18; also Ernesti, 
 Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 245. 
 
 2 Comp. his new. Zheol. p. 198: ‘though in Himself as respects His right rich, 
 He lived poor.” 
 
CHAP. VIII. 10. 351 
 
 ed. 4, p. 801 f.; Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 50 f.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. 
 pp. 312, 318.— ὦν] is the imperfect participle: when He was 
 rich, and does not denote the abiding possession (Estius, 
 Riickert); for, according to the context, the apostle is not 
 speaking of what Christ is, but of what He was,’ before He be- 
 came man, and ceased to be on His self-exinanition in becoming 
 man (Gal. iv. 4; this also in opposition to Philippi, Glaubensl. 
 IV. p. 447). So also ὑπάρχων, Phil. 11. 6.— ἵνα ὑμεῖς... 
 πλουτήσητε] in order that you through His poverty might 
 become rich. ‘These riches are the reconciliation, justification, 
 illumination, sanctification, peace, joy, certainty of eternal life, 
 aud thereafter this life itself, in short, the whole sum of spiritual 
 and heavenly blessings (comp. Chrysostom) which Christ has ob- 
 tained for believers by His humiliation even to the death of the 
 cross. «Πλουτεῖν means with the Greek writers, and in the N. T. 
 (Rom. x. 12; Luke xii. 21), to be rich; but the aorist (1 Cor. 
 iv. 8) is to be taken as with ἐπτώχευσε.ς ᾿Εἰκείνου, instead 
 of the simple αὐτοῦ (Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 30; Dissen, 
 ad Dem. de cor. p. 276, 148), has great emphasis: “mag- 
 nitudinem Domini innuit,” Bengel.—In opposition to the 
 interpretation of our passage, by which ἐπτώχ. falls into the 
 historical life, so that πλούσιος wy is taken potentialiter as 
 denoting the power to take to Himself riches and dominion, 
 which, however, Jesus has renounced and has subjected Him- 
 self to poverty and self-denial (so Grotius and de Wette), see 
 on Phil. ii. 6. 
 
 Ver. 10 After the parenthesis in ver. 9, a continuation of the 
 ἀλλὰ... δοκιμάξων, ver. 8: and an opinion I give in this affair. 
 Τνώμην, opinion, has the emphasis, as contrasting with ἐπιταγήν 
 in ver. 8. Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 26, ---- τοῦτο yap ὑμῖν συμφέρει] 
 συμφέρει does not mean decet (Vorstius, Emmerling, who appeals 
 to LXX. Prov. xix. 10, where, however, the translation is 
 inaccurate), but: i profits. And τοῦτο is not, with most, includ- 
 ing Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Neander, to be referred to the 
 supplying of charitable gifts, in which case συμφέρει is either left 
 without more precise definition (Riickert: “lke every good deed, 
 bringing advantage”), oris interpreted as pointing to the advantage 
 of good repute (Grotius, comp. also Hofmann), of the divine 
 
 1 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 144. 
 
gue PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 recompense (Calovius) and the moral advantage (Flatt), or as 
 useful for salvation (Bisping), and so on. Τοῦτο γὰρ by. cupd. 
 contains, in fact, the ground why Paul proceeds in this matter 
 merely by way of advising; hence, with Billroth, Osiander, and 
 Kling, τοῦτο is to be referred to the previous γνώμην .. . δίδωμι. 
 It is no objection to this, that in ἐν τούτῳ immediately before 
 the pronoun referred to the distribution. For in the previous 
 clause γνώμην δίδωμι contained the whole thought, and ἐν τούτῳ 
 had no stress laid on it, not even needing to be inserted. Accord- 
 ingly: for this—that I do not command you, but only give my 
 opinion in the matter—+s serviceable to you, is fitted to operate in 
 the way of moral improvement on you, as being persons who 
 have already shown yourselves to be such as need not command, 
 but only counsel. The emphasis lies primarily on τοῦτο and 
 next on ὑμῖν. According to Hofmann, who does not take ver. 9 
 parenthetically, in καὶ γνώμην x.7.r. there is meant to follow 
 something new and further, so that both ἐν τούτῳ and subse- 
 quently τοῦτο point to the advice, which Paul intends to give 
 (with the following ... what follows), and this advice is expressed 
 in the imperative clause ver. 11, to which οἵτινες «.7.r. belongs 
 as a protasis. Against this confusion it may be decisively urged, 
 first, that the ἐν τούτῳ emphatically pointing forward must 
 have been placed first; secondly, that after δίδωμι there would 
 come not at all the announced γνώμη, but in the first instance 
 an argumentative parenthetic clause, which would again begin 
 with “what follows,’—a course which could only lead the 
 reader astray; thirdly, that if τοῦτο γ. ὑμῖν συμφέρει does not 
 go with οἵτινες «.7.X., and find its more precise explanation 
 therein, it would interpolate a thought altogether indefinite and 
 isolated; fourthly, that δέ after νυνί in ver. 11 most naturally 
 introduces a new sentence; lastly, that ver. 11 has not in the 
 least the form of a γνώμη, of an expression of opinion, but a form 
 purely pracceptive, as, indeed, that which the apostle has put 
 under the considerate point of view of a testing and a γνώμη in 
 contrast to an ἐπιταγή, was already contained in ver. 7 and has 
 nothing more to do with the direct precept of ver. 11. — οἵτινες] 
 ut gut, includes the specifying of the reason. See on Eph. 111. 13. 
 ov μόνον TO ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ Kal τὸ θέλειν] Grotius, following the 
 Peshito and Arabic of Erpenius, assumes here a loquendi genus 
 
CIIAP. VIII. 10. Boe 
 
 dnversum ; but this is an irrational violence,’ to which also the 
 view of Emmerling (comp. Castalio in the Adnot.) ultimately 
 comes: “vos haud mora, uno momento facere et velle coepistis.” 
 The explanation of others (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Gregory, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Clericus, 
 Heumann, Bauer, Log. Paul. p. 334; Zachariae, Storr, Rosen- 
 miiller, Flatt, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, Riickert, Osiander, 
 Ewald, and several others) is at least rational : not only the doing, 
 but also the being willing, 1.6. the doing willingly. But that θέλειν 
 is not used in the sense of θέλοντας ποιεῖν (see regarding this use 
 of θέλων, Markl. ad Lys. Reisk. p. 616), or even θέλειν ποιῆσαι 
 (Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. i. 13, p. 121), is plain from ver. 11, where 
 Paul, if that meaning had been in his mind, must have con- 
 tinued : νυνὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπιτελέσατε TO 7. But, in the form in which 
 he has written ver. 11, the emphasis lies not on ἐπιτελέσατε, but 
 on τὸ ποιῆσαι, Which is thereby shown to be something not con- 
 temporaneous with the θέλειν, but following upon it, something 
 which is still to happen after that θέλειν is already present, so that 
 we have an advance (1) from the ποιῆσαι to the θέλειν in ver. 10 ; 
 and (2) from the θέλειν to the further ποιῆσαν in ver. 11. More- 
 over, in opposition to the former interpretation, we may urge the 
 change of tenses in ver. 10; for, if the θέλειν in ver. 10 were to 
 be something inherent in the previous ποιῆσαι (willingness), the 
 aorist infinitive must likewise have been used. Lastly, there is 
 opposed to this interpretation the ὅπως καθάπερ x.7.X. in ver. 11, 
 where evidently the (future) actual accomplishment is compared 
 with the inclination of the (present) willing ; hence, in ver. 10 
 also θέλειν must be conceived of as something which subsists for 
 itself, and not simply as a willingly doing. Others conceive 
 that τὸ ποιῆσαι denotes the collection-gathering which had already 
 actually taken place, and τὸ θέλειν the continuing wish to do 
 still more. This is in the main the view of Hunnius, Hammond, 
 Wetstein,” Mosheim, Bengel, Michaelis, Fritzsche. The latter 
 says (Dissert. IL. p. 9): “hoe modo non solum τὸ θέλειν tanquam 
 gravius τῷ ποιεῖν oppositum est (nam qui nova beneficia veteribus 
 addere vult, plus illo agit, qui in eo quod praestitit, subsistit) sed 
 
 1 This inversion is followed also by Luther, not in the translation, but in the 
 gloss: ‘‘ You have been the first, who willed it and also did it.” 
 2 Who says: “ποιῆσαι ost dare ; θέλειν ποιῆσαι, i.e. ποιήσειν Vel δώσειν, daturum esse.” 
 
 2 COR, 11. Z 
 
354 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 etiam v. mpoevapEacbai utrique bene congruit, uli (τῷ ποιῆσαι), 
 quoniam nondum tantum pecuniae erogaverant, quantum ad justam 
 λογίαν sufficere videretur, huic (τῷ θέλειν) quoniam in hae nova 
 voluntate huc usque acquieverant.” In this way the change of 
 tenses in ποιῆσαι and θέλειν would be quite appropriate ; both 
 would apply (this in opposition to Billroth’s objection) to the 
 same fact, to the work of collecting begun in pursuance of 1 Cor. 
 xvi., which, however, would be viewed not according to two 
 different sides (Billroth), objective (ποιῆσαι!) and _ subjective 
 (θέλειν), but according to two different stages, in respect of the 
 first activity and of the further willing, so that now also the third 
 stage, the execution of this further willing, must be added to 
 complete the whole matter, ver. 11. But since there is no indi- 
 cation whatever of the reference of τὸ θέλειν to a further willing 
 (following on the ποιῆσαι), and that a willing arrested as to 
 its realization ; and since, on the other hand, the προ in προενήρξ. 
 permits for the climactic relation οὐ μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ TO 
 θέλειν only the temporal reference, that the θέλειν must have been 
 earlier than the ποιῆσαι, and consequently od μόνον... ἀλλὰ Kai 
 is a climax of time pointing not forward, but backward : the view 
 of Fritzsche is to be given up as not accordant with the context. 
 There remains as the only correct view, that of Cajetanus and 
 Estius, which de Wette (and after hin Winer, p. 521 [Εἰ T. 701 f.], 
 also Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364) has defended, that 
 mpoevnpé. places the readers in comparison as to time with the 
 Macedonians (ver. 1 ff.) : not only the doing (the carrying out of the 
 action of collecting), but also already the willing has begun earlier 
 among you than among the Macedonians ; you have anticipated 
 them in both respects. With this view it is obvious that Paul could 
 not but logically place ποιῆσαι before θέλειν. The offence, which 
 this arrangement would otherwise occasion, cannot be got over by 
 the pregnant meaning, which Hofmann puts into the present θέλειν, 
 viz. that it denotes the steady attitude of mind sustained up to the 
 execution (comp. Billroth). This would, in fact, be a modal defini- 
 tion of the willing, which Paul would doubtless have known how 
 to designate, but could not put into the bare present. And such an 
 
 1 The present denotes simply the being disposed as the habitus of readiness pre- 
 
 vailing in the case, by way of distinction from the historical doing (ποιῆσαι), through 
 which the θέλειν became active. 
 
CHAP, VIII. 11. 355 
 
 attitude of mind would withal have already existed before the 
 ποιῆσαι, and would not simply have come afterwards. — ἀπὸ 
 πέρυσι] More precise definition of the προ in προενήρξ. : since the 
 previous year. On πέρυσι, superiore anno, see Plato, Protag. 
 p. 327 C; Gorg. p. 473 E; Aristoph. Vesp. 1044; Acharn. 348 ; 
 Lucian, Tim. 59; Soloec. 7, al. Comp. ix. 2. Whether did 
 Paul date the beginning of the year after the Greek (rather Attic 
 and Olympic) reckoning (so Credner, Hinl. I. 2, p. 372), .6. about 
 the time of the summer solstice, or after the Macedonian fashion 
 (so, on account of ix. 2, Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. 
 p. 364), we. at the autumnal equinox, or from the month Nisan 
 (Hofmann ; see Grimm on 1 Macc. x. 21), or from the usual 
 national standpoint of the Jewish reckoning, according to which 
 the beginning of the civil year was the month Tisri (in Sept.) ? 
 The last is in itself the most natural, and also the most probable, 
 considering the great variety as to the times of beginning the 
 year, to which he would have had to accommodate himself in the 
 various provinces, and considering not less the acquaintance with 
 the Jewish calendar which he could take for granted in all his 
 churches. Consequently there lies between the composition of 
 our first and second Epistles the time from Easter till at least 
 after the beginning of the new year in Tisri. 
 
 Ver. 11. The «ai before τὸ ποιῆσαι can only belong to it, and 
 not to ἐπίτελ. also (de Wette, Hofmann). It is the simple 
 accessory also; as in ver. 10 the thought proceeded backwards 
 from doing to willing, now it proceeds forwards from willing to 
 doing, so that at the bottom of καὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι there lies the 
 conception: Now, however, bring not merely the willing, but also 
 the doing to completion. This is an analysis of the elements, 
 which in reality coincide (for the ἐπιτελέσαι of the willing is the 
 actual execution), occasioned, however, very naturally by the 
 juxtaposition in ver. 10, and giving rise to no misconception here. 
 -- ὅπως καθάπερ «.7.r.] in order that as the inclination of the 
 willing, so also the completion (of that, which ye will) may be 
 according to means, 1.6. in order that the actual execution of that, 
 which you will, may not remain out of proportion to the inclina- 
 tion of your will, but, like the latter, may be accordant with 
 your means. As it is the inclination of your will to contribute 
 according to the standard of your possessing, the execution of this 
 
356 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 willingness should take place according to the same standard. — 
 οὕτω Kal TO ἐπιτελέσαι] sc. 7. The supplying the subjunctive 
 of εἰμι is not linguistically inadmissible (Riickert), and is found 
 already in Homer (Jl. 1. 547, and Nagelsb. ὧν Joc.), but it is 
 certainly rare in Greek writers. Comp. ver. 13. See Bernhardy, 
 p. 330 f.; Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 120 [ἘΦ T. 137].— ἐκ 
 τοῦ ἔχειν] belongs to both subjects of the clause of purpose: im 
 pursuance of the having, according to your means. See Fritzsche, 
 Quaest. Luc. p. 179 f. Comp. expressions like ἐκ τῶν παρόντων, 
 ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, and the like. “Ex is not to be taken in the 
 sense of the origin, as Hofmann wishes ; for it would, in fact, be 
 an indelicate and bad compliment to the inclination of the readers, 
 that it had “originated” from their possession. Paul himself 
 indicates afterwards by καθό in what meaning he uses ἐκ. 
 
 Ver. 12. Confirmation of the ἐκ tod ἔχειν by a general pro- 
 position. There is nothing to be supplied except the simple 
 ἐστί after εὐπρόσδεκτος, so that ἡ προθυμία remains the subject 
 (Vulg., Erasmus, and others, including Riickert, Osiander, Ewald). 
 It is quite superfluous mentally to supply the non-genuine tes after 
 ἔχῃ, and to refer εὐπρόσδ. to it (Billroth), all the more that Paul is 
 fond of personifying abstractions (ἡ προθυμία). The correct trans- 
 lation is: For, if the inclination exists (presents itself as existing), 
 it is well-pleasing in proportion to that which it has, not im propor- 
 tion to that which it has not, 1... God measures His good pleasure 
 according to that which the πρόθυμος (who is ready to contribute) 
 possesses, not according to that which he does not possess.’ If, 
 for example, the poor man who is ready to give little, because he 
 has not much, were less pleasing to God than the rich man, who 
 is willing to give much, God would then determine His good 
 pleasure according to what the πρόθυμος does not possess. Such 
 an unjust standard God does not apply to good will! οὐ γὰρ τὴν 
 ποσότητα, ἀλλὰ τῆς γνώμης ὁρᾷ τὴν ποιότητα, Theodoret. On 
 πρόκειται in the sense specified, see Kypke, I. p. 259, and from 
 Philo, Loesner, p. 312. Comp. παράκειται, Rom. vii, 18. The 
 interpretation prius adest, namely, tanquam boni operis funda- 
 mentum (Erasmus, Beza, Estius, and others), is not supported by 
 linguistic usage, and there is no hint in the context of a refer- 
 
 1 An evangelical commentary on this sentence is the story of the widow’s mite, 
 Mark xii, 42 ff.; Luke xxi. 2 ff, 
 
CHAP. VIII. 13. cays 
 
 ence to time. Flatt imports “ wnpleasing” into the negative half 
 of the sentence ; and Hofmann goes still further, since he finds in 
 πρόκειται the realization of the good will, and attaches to this (not 
 to εὐπρόσδ.) the καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ, while he thereupon adds the supple- 
 mentary words οὐ καθὸ ov« ἔχει so as to form the sentence: “ that 
 is not the condition of the acceptableness of the good will, that tt is 
 present as realized according to the measure of what it has not.” 
 In this way we should have mentally to add εἰ πρόκειται after 
 ov; and Paul would not only have made use of a fragmentary 
 mode of expression as unintelligibly as possible, but wouid withal 
 have posited an inconceivable case, namely, that the good will is 
 realized according to the measure of non-possession, which is 
 tantamount to saying that the good will gives what it has not. 
 And the assumption that πρόκειται denotes already the realization 
 of the προθυμία by the act, is the more erroneous, that the one 
 before whom the προθυμία is laid is here God, as is shown by 
 εὐπρόσδεκτος. God, however, looks on the heart, and the frame 
 of mind itself lies open before Him. — Note further the difference 
 between the conditioned καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ, in proportion to what he, 
 under the respective circumstances of each case (ἐάν = ἄν), may 
 have, and the unconditioned καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει. Comp. Hartung, 
 Partikell. 11. p. 293 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 143. 
 
 Ver. 13. Confirmation of the previous οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει from 
 the aim of the present collection. — The words usually supplied 
 after od γάρ (Beza, Flatt, and others: hoc dico; Erasmus and 
 Grotius: sic dandum est; Rosenmiiller and Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
 Ῥ. 48: volo; comp. Osiander; Riickert has γίνεται τοῦτο, comp. 
 Ewald, and previously Luther) are superfluous, and therefore to 
 be rejected. There is nothing to be supplied but 7 after θλίψις 
 and γίνεται (see ver. 14) at the end of the verse: for not in order 
 that there may be to others refreshing, to you distress, but on a footing 
 of equality at the present time your superflwity reaches to the lack 
 of those, is applied to remedy their lack. The punctuation is to be 
 corrected accordingly. Since the sentence in this way flows 
 logically and grammatically without any obstacle, there is not to 
 be placed after θλίψις (Beza, Elzevir, Flatt, and many others), 
 or yet even after ἰσότητος (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, and others), any colon, by which, 
 moreover, ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ would receive an emphasis not justified 
 
 
 
958 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 by any contrast, and would come in very abruptly, having no 
 connecting particle. — ἄλλοις] means the Christians in Jerusalem. 
 The same are afterwards meant by ἐκείνων. Probably opponents 
 in Corinth had said: “he wishes to fleece us and bring us to 
 want, that others may have good times or the like.” — On the con- 
 trast of ἄνεσις and Oris, comp. 2 Thess. i. 6 f. The asyndeton : 
 ἄλλοις ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν (δέ is not genuine) θλίψεις presents the contrast 
 more vividly. Paul, however, uses ἄλλοις, not ἑτέροις (as in ver. 
 8), because he has been thinking of others generally, other persons 
 than the readers. — ἐξ ἰσότητος) ἐκ, as in ver. 11, used of the 
 standard. The establishment of equality (between you and others) 
 is the norm, according to which, etc. — ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρᾷ] awakens 
 the thought of a future, where the state of the case might be 
 reversed. See ver. 14. Hofmann thinks that Paul had here in 
 view the definite inversion of the situation in such wise, that after 
 Israel’s conversion (111. 16) there would be in the Holy Land a 
 Christian church under more prosperous fortunes than the body of 
 Gentile Christians then sorely tried. But this is not to be made 
 good by 2 Thess. 11. 3, and it has against it Rom. xi. 25, according 
 to which, before the conversion of Israel will ensue, the whole 
 Gentile world must first be converted, and accordingly Paul could 
 hardly have thought of casual collections from Judaea as then 
 either necessary or effectual for the Gentiles (apart altogether from 
 the expected nearness of the Parousia). — On γίνεσθαι εἰς, to come 
 unto, reach towards, be apportioned to (Plato, Zim. p. 57 A; Luc. 
 Caucas, 19, al.), comp. on Gal. iii. 14. 
 
 Ver. 14 f. Jn order that (divine purpose), if the circumstances 
 change, the converse case may also set in, and the superfluity 
 of those be imparted to your lack. On account of ver. 13 we 
 must, in accordance with the context, think also here of something 
 earthly, not (as Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Anselm, the Catholics,’ Bengel, Michaelis, Schrader wish) of 
 spiritual blessings—which would be unhistorical, and quite opposed 
 to the standpoint of the apostle to the Gentiles. According to 
 
 1 These misused the passage against Protestants in this way: ‘‘ Locus hic apostoli 
 contra nostrae aetatis haereticos ostendit, posse Christianos minus sanctos meritis sanc- 
 torum adjuvari etiam in futuro saeculo,” Estius. See, on the contrary, Calovius. 
 Bisping also thinks of prayers, merits of good works, and the like, which love may 
 give for temporal gifts received. 
 
CIIAP. VIII. 16. 959 
 
 Paul, the participation of the Gentiles in the spiritual blessings 
 of the Jewish Christians had already taken place through the 
 conversion of the former, Rom. xv. 27.— ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης] in 
 order that (according to the divine purpose) equality might set in, 
 since, namely, then they will not have too much and you too 
 little, if their superfluity shall come to the help of your lack. 
 According to Hofmann, icorns amounts here to the idea of the 
 inversion of the relation, which, however, does not agree with ver. 
 15, and has against it the clear reference of the meaning of ἐξ 
 ἐσότ. in ver. 13. The idea of brotherly equalization, which Paul 
 had expressed by ἐξ ἐσότ. as regulative for the present case in 
 ver. 13, he repeats also for the eventual future case in ver. 14: 
 it is to him of so much importance. And so important was it to 
 the primitive church generally, that it even produced at first in 
 Jerusalem the community of goods. — καθὼς γέγραπται] A con- 
 firmation from Scripture of this idea, which is to realize itself in the 
 two cases, ver. 19 and ver. 14. It is already typically presented 
 in the gathering of the manna, Ex. xvi. 18 (freely quoted after 
 the LXX.). The quotation refers therefore not simply to ver. 14, 
 but to vv. 15 and 14, since in both there prevails the same 
 fundamental thought.— ὁ τὸ πολύ] he who much, namely, had 
 gathered, as in Ex. l.c., we must supply from the context (ver. 177). 
 Paul presupposes that his readers are aware of the reference and 
 of the connection of the passage. — οὐκ ἐπλεόνασε] had not too 
 much, not more than was appointed by God for his needs; τὸ yap 
 μέτρον ὁ μεγαλόδωρος τῷ δώρῳ συνέζευξε, Theodoret. See Ex. 
 xvi. 16f. In the same way: οὐκ ἠλαττόνησε, he had not too little. 
 The word, frequent in the LXX., is foreign to Greek writers. — 
 The articles denote the two definite and well-known cases which 
 occurred in the gathering. 
 
 Vv. 16-24. Regarding Titus, already mentioned in ver. 6, and 
 the two others, who were sent with Titus as delegates to Corinth 
 about the collection. 
 
 Ver. 16. 4é] continuative. — χάρις τῷ θεῷ, τῷ διδόντι K.7.A.] 
 language of the deeply religious consciousness (1 Cor. xv. 10; 
 Rom. vi. 17; Phil. ii, 13). Comp. ver. 1. The present participle ; 
 for the continuing zeal is continually given by God. — τὴν αὐτὴν 
 σπουδ.] namely, as in me. This reference is made necessary by 
 ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, by which Billroth’s explanation: “the same zeal, 
 
9500 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 which you have for the good cause,’ is excluded. — ἐν τῇ καρδ.] 
 See on ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησ., ver. 1. 
 
 Ver. 17. Proof of this σπουδή of Titus. — For the summons 
 indeed he received ; but, secing that he was more zealous, of his own 
 accord he set out to you. Paul has not expressed himself in- 
 correctly, seeing that he can only have had in his mind a climax 
 (Riickert) ; nor has he used péev... δέ in the sense of the climactic 
 ov μόνον... ἀλλά (Billroth, also Flatt); but the concessive 
 clause τὴν μὲν παράκλ. ἐδέξ. expresses the delicate modesty and 
 subordination of Titus, according to which he would not have it 
 appear that he set out on the journey αὐθαίρετος ; the second 
 clause, on the other hand, sets forth the actual state of the case. 
 The summons (ver. 6) indeed he received; he did not say as it 
 were : there is no need of thy summons, I go of my own impulse ; 
 but in the actual state of the case he was too zealous to have needed 
 a summons, and set out to you of his own self-determination. — 
 ἐξῆλθε] The practerite does not denote what was resolved on 
 (Billroth), but is that of the epistolary style (comp. συνεπέμψ., 
 vv. 18, 22; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25), used to represent the point of 
 time at which the letter is read by those receiving it. Comp. 
 Acts xv. 27, xxiii. 30, also on Gal. vi. 11. | 
 
 Ver. 18. Recommendation of the first companion of Titus. — 
 συνεπέμψ. δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ] The σύν refers, like μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, to 
 Titus: we have sent along with him. Comp. ver. 22. See Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 354. Comp. Gal. i, 12; Acts i 26, xxv. 12; 
 Matt. xvii. ὃ. Bengel takes it incorrectly : “ una misimus ego et 
 Timotheus,’ which is contained in the plural, but not in the 
 compound. — τὸν ἀδελφὸν κ-τ.λ.1 is understood by Heumann and 
 Riickert of an actual brother, viz. a brother of Z%tus. But 
 ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν in ver. 23 shows that Paul has here and in 
 ver. 22 f. taken ἀδελφός in the sense of Christian brotherhood. 
 It would not have been in keeping with the prudence of the 
 apostle to send with Titus the very brother of the latter and 
 even his own brother (according to Riickert’s view of τ. ἀδελφ. 
 ἡμ., ver. 22). Who is meant, remains quite an open question. 
 Some have conjectured Barnabas (τινές in Chrysostom, and 
 Chrysostcm himself, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, and 
 others) or Si/as (Baronius, Estius) ; but the rank of these was not 
 consistent with the position of a companion subordinate to Titus ; 
 
CHAP. VIII. 18. S61 
 
 nor is there anywhere a trace of Barnabas and Paul having ever 
 united again for common work after their separation (Acts xv. 39). 
 Others (comp. also the usual subscription of the Epistle) think 
 that it was Zuke. So Origen, tives in Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Cajetanus, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, and others, including Grotius, Emmerling, Schrader, 
 Olshausen, Kohler (Abfassungszeit, p. 85), of whom those named 
 before Grotius referred ἐν τῷ evayy. to the Gospel of Luke (at 
 that time not yet even in existence). But from the very brief 
 statement of Acts xx. 1 ff. there is no proof to be drawn either 
 for (Olshausen) or against (Riickert); and Ignatius, ad Ephes. 
 (interpol.) 15, to which Emmerling, after Salmeron and others, 
 has again appealed, proves nothing further than that this un- 
 known author either referred or merely applied our passage to 
 Luke. The conjecture which points to Zrastus (Ewald, following 
 Acts xix. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 20) cannot be made good. With just 
 as little proof some have thought of Mark (Lightfoot, Chron. 
 p. 118; Storr, Opuse. 11. p. 339; Tobler, Hvangelienfr. Ὁ. 12). 
 The result remains: we do not know who it was. So much only 
 in reference to the two persons indicated here and in ver. 22, and 
 in opposition to the conjectures adduced, is clear from ver. 23, that 
 they were not fellow-labourers in the apostolic work, like Titus, 
 but other Christians of distinction." See on ver. 23. Against 
 this non liquet Riickert indeed objects, that in that case the 
 Corinthians would not have known which of the two was meant 
 to be here designated, since in ver. 23 both are called ἀπόστολοι 
 ἐκκλησιῶν, by which all distinction is precluded. But this first 
 companion is in ver. 19 so distinctively indicated as appointed 
 by a special elective act of the churches concerned, and appointed 
 just for this particular work, that he could not be unknown by 
 name to the Corinthians, after Titus had already begun there the 
 work of collection (ver. 6). Besides, Paul might leave all further 
 information to Titus.— οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος x.t.r.] 1.6. who possesses his 
 praise (that duly belonging to him) a the gospel (in the cause of the 
 gospel, in confessing, furthering, preaching, defending it, and the 
 like), spread through all the churches, throughout the whole Christian 
 body. He was a Christian worthy of trust and praised by all. 
 
 1 Hence also we can hardly think of Trophimus (de Wette, Wieseler), Acts xx. 4, 
 xxi. 29: nor, with Hofmann, of Aristarchus, Acts xix. 29, xx. 4. 
 
Oo 
 
 62 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 19. As στελλόμενοι in ver. 20 is connected with συνε- 
 πέμψαμεν in ver. 18, ver. 19 is a parenthesis (Beza, Lachmann) in 
 which Paul “ generali testimonio subjungit speciale, quod praesenti 
 negotio congruit,” Calvin. — ov μόνον δέ] sc. ἐπαινούμενος (or 
 ἐπαινός, praised, or ἔνδοξος, or the like) ἐστι ἐν τῷ evayy. διὰ 
 mac. τῶν. ἐκκλησὶ Comp. Rom. ix. 10, v. 3, 11, viii. 23.— 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθεὶς x.7.r.] but also having been chosen by 
 the (collecting) churches as our travelling companion, etc. The 
 χείροτ. ὑπὸ τ. ἐκκλ. contains a point so important in its bearing 
 that we may not take it parenthetically, thereby breaking up the 
 flow of the discourse. So Hofmann, assigning the incorrect reason, 
 moreover, that the gerfect participle must have been used. The 
 perfect might be used; but the aorist expresses the act done, 
 whereby the person concerned became ἀπόστολος of the churches 
 in this case (ver. 23), and so Paul has conceived of it here. — The 
 ἐκκλησίαι here meant are, according to ver. 1 ff., the Macedonian. 
 —yetpotov.] suffragiis designatus. How this election was con- 
 ducted, we do not know. Perhaps ‘by the presbyters as repre- 
 sentatives of the churches, and on the proposal of the apostle. 
 Comp. on Acts xiv. 23.— ἐν τῇ χάριτι «.7.d.] a more precise 
 definition of the συνέκδ, ἡμῶν. It does not, however, simply mean : 
 in the bringing over (Billroth ; this arbitrary limitation was pro- 
 duced by the reading σύν), but in general: im matters of this 
 χάρις, 1.6. in the prosecution, in the whole bringing about, of this 
 kindness (this work of love), which is ministered by us, is effected 
 through our ministry (comp. iii. 3). — πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου δόξαν 
 x.T.r.] is connected by most (including Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, 
 Estius, Billroth, de Wette, Ewald, Neander) with τῇ διακον. ὑφ. 
 7. But since in this way πρός (which is not, with Ewald, to 
 be taken as according to, comp. i. 20) would have to combine 
 two quite different relations: “in order to promote Christ’s 
 honour and to prove cur good-will ;” and since, moreover, the 
 
 1 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 292], takes it differently: ‘‘ who stands in 
 repute, not only on this account (ἐν σῷ sdeyy., 1.6. asa preacher of the gospel), but 
 also as one elected by the churches.” But from the general ἐν σῷ εὐαγγ. to χιειροσονηθ, 
 there is no logical climax, as respects the specifying of a reason for the ¢rasvos ; whereas 
 the predication ascends from the universal praise of the man to his being elected by 
 the churches—so as to assign a ground for the cvveriz pane, Besides, his being 
 elected was not the ground, but a consequence of his general repute, although it was 
 the special ground for Paul’s sending him to Corinth. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 20. 363 
 
 latter element would be self-evident, tame, and superfluous,—we 
 ought rather, with Chrysostom (who, however, reads ὑμῶν instead 
 of ἡμῶν), to construe with χειροτονηθεὶς «.7.d.: elected, etc., in 
 order to further Christ's honour and our good-will. The election 
 of this brother had as its object, that by his co-operation in this 
 matter Christ should be honoured’ and our desire and love for 
 the work should not be lessened “ οὗ metum reprehensionis illius, 
 de qua mox loquitur” (Bengel), but should be maintained and 
 advanced by freedom from such hindering anxiety, and by a 
 fellow-worker thus authorized. The connection with χειροτονηθεὶς 
 «.7.r., Which Hofmann, attaching it also to cuvexsd. ἡμῶν, declares 
 to be impossible (why 2), places the election, which had primarily 
 a business motive, under the higher ethical point of view. 
 
 Ver. 20. Στελλόμενοι τοῦτο] goes along with συνεπέμψαμεν 
 in ver. 18. We have sent also the brother, who is honoured by 
 all, and in addition has been chosen by the churches as our 
 associate in this matter, inasmuch as we thereby avoid this, that no 
 one, etc. Riickert (comp. de Wette) arbitrarily, because with 
 unnecessary harshness, holds that Paul has abandoned the construc- 
 tion, and instead of writing στελλόμεθα γάρ, has put the parti- 
 ciple, because he had had in his mind the thought: “ I have caused 
 him to be elected.” Hofmann connects it in an abnormal con- 
 struction with προθυμ. ἡμῶν, which in itself would be admissible 
 (see on i. 7), but cannot suit here, because πρὸς τ. προθυμ. ἡμ. 
 was a definition of the aim contemplated not by Paul, but by the 
 χειροτονήσαντες ; the connection would be illogical—According to 
 linguistic usage, στελλόμενοι τοῦτο (see Kypke, Obss. II. p. 259 ἔ, 
 344; Schott on 2 Thess. p. 271) may mean: (1) making this 
 arrangement” (so, in the main, Kypke, Riickert, Hofmann), in 
 which case there is not brought out any significant bearing of the 
 
 1 Riickert, though following likewise our mode of connection, holds that to the 
 δόξα κυρίου this companionship could only have contributed negatively, in so far as it 
 was a precaution against any suspicion falling on the apostle, which suspicion— 
 according to a mode of view also Pauline—would have been transferred to Christ. 
 Why, then, not positively also? The brother had in fact been chosen as a travelling 
 associate co-operating in the work of collection, so that by his election the work might 
 be prosecuted more extensively and more successfully. And thus the choice of this 
 brother served positively to glorify Christ ; hence also xpi; . . . δόξαν is not to be held, 
 with de Wette, as ‘‘ rather unsuitable.” 
 
 2 In this case rovro would not have to be taken as equivalent to ial σοῦτο (pre- 
 paring ourselves for this), but as simple accusative of the object, asin Polyb. ix. 24. 4: 
 
364 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 words, and besides, the aorist participle could not but be ex- 
 pected; or (2) inasmuch as we draw back from this, shrink from 
 and avoid this (Hesychius: στέλλεσθαι: φοβεῖσθαι); so Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact, Luther, and most, following the Itala and 
 Vulgate: “ devitantes,’ Gothic: “ bivandjandans.” Comp. LXX. 
 Mal. 11. 5. The latter is to be preferred as most appropriate in 
 the connection, and agreeing with 2 Thess. i. 6. The reading 
 ὑποστελλόμενοι in F G is a correct gloss. Paul in his humility 
 and practical wisdom did not deem it beneath his dignity to 
 obviate calumnies. — τοῦτο] would in itself be superfluous, but it 
 serves as an emphatic preparation for the following μή tis κτιλι 
 See Winer, p. 152 [E. T. 200].— μή τις ἡμᾶς μωμήσ.] μή 
 after the notion of anxiety (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 288), which 
 lies in στελλόμ.: that no one may reproach us (as if we were 
 embezzling, not dealing conscientiously with the distribution, and 
 the like) in this abundanee.— ἐν] in puncto of this abundance. 
 Comp. ἐν τῷ evayy., ver. 18 ; ἐν τῇ χάρ., ver. 19. — ἁδρότης, from 
 ἁδρός, dense, thick, means in Homer (JJ. xxii. 263, xvi. 857, 
 xxlv. 6): “habitudo corporis firma et succulenta,” Duncan, Lem., 
 ed. Rost, p. 20. Afterwards it occurs in all relations of the 
 adjective, as in reference to plants and fruits (Theophr., Herod. 
 i. 17), to speech (Diog. Laert. x. 83), to tone (Athen. x. p. 415 A), 
 to snow (Herod. iv. 31), ete. Hence what abundance is meant, 
 is determined solely by the context. Here: abundance of chari- 
 table gifts. According to Wetstein, Zosimus has it also four 
 times “pro ingenti largitione.” iickert’s proposal to under- 
 stand it of the great zeal of the contributors, which was produced 
 through the apostle’s ministry (τῇ διακ. ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν), would only 
 be admissible in the event of there being anything in the context 
 about such zeal. As it is, however, ἐν τῇ ἁδρ. ταύτῃ is in 
 substance the same as ἐν τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ in ver. 19. Comp. 
 ver.: ὃ. 
 
 Ver. 21. Ground of this precautionary measure. Jor our 
 anxiety is directed to what is good, not merely before the Lord, not’ 
 merely so that we set before us God in this way (Prov. 111. 4), but 
 also before men. Comp. on Rom. xii. 17. Were it merely the 
 former, we should not need such precautionary measures, since to 
 
 πορείαν ἐπενόει στέλλεσθαι, Arrian, An. v.17. 4; Wisd. xiv. 1; 2 Mace. v. 1. Comp. 
 Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 157 ἔ, 
 
CHAP. VIII. 22, 23. 365 
 
 God we πεφανερώμεθα, v.11; but “ propter alios fama neces- 
 saria est,’ Augustine. The misuse of the latter consideration is 
 guarded against by ἐνώπ. κυρίου. ---- προνοεῖν, prospicere, also in the 
 active ; comp. Plato, Clit.p. 408 E; Xen. Mem. 11. 10.3; Aelian, 
 V. H. ii. 21; Wisd. vi. 7; Hesych.: προνοεῖ: ἐπιμελεῖται.---- ῸΥ 
 analogous Rabbinical sayings, see Wetstein. 
 
 Ver. 22. Commendatory mention of the second companion. — 
 αὐτοῖς] with Titus and the brother already spoken of. — τὸν ἀδελφ. 
 ἡμ.] This one, too, we do not know by name. ‘Hyay does not 
 point to him as in official relation to the apostle and Timothy, but 
 denotes him as a Christian brother (see ver. 23), so that the 
 ἡμῶν embraces also the readers. Conjecture has lighted (but 
 see previously on ver. 18) on Hpaenetus, Rom. xvi. 5 (Grotius), 
 on Apollos (Thomas, Lyra, and mentioned already in Theodoret), 
 on Luke (Calvin and also Estius, who, however, does not dis- 
 countenance the conjecture of Zenas, Tit. 111. 15, and Sosthenes), 
 and even on Timothy (Cajetanus) and others. Wieseler (comp. 
 on ver. 18) understands it of Tychicus, and to this Hofmann 
 also is inclined. The very plural ἡμῶν should have precluded 
 Riickert from thinking of an actual brother of the apostle; 
 see also on ver. 18.— ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις} goes with édox.: 
 in many things many times. See on this collocation, Lobeck, 
 Paral. p. 56.—vuvi δὲ πολὺ σπουδαιότερον πεποιθ. κιτ.λ.] νυνί 
 stands in contrast with the previous ἐδοκιμ. ἐν πολλοῖς πολ- 
 λάκις : now, however, as much more zealous (than in the earlier 
 cases) through the great confidence which he reposes in you. A 
 high degree of good confidence in you has now increased very 
 much his zeal. Others understand πεποιθήσε; «.7.X. of Paul’s 
 confidence, connecting it either with πολὺ σπουδαιότ. (Erasmus, 
 Beza, Piscator, and others) or with συνεπέμψαμεν (Estius, Emmer- 
 ling: “sperans ut bene a vobis excipiantur”), The latter is an 
 inappropriate departure from the order of the words, depriving 
 πολὺ σπουδαιότερον of the ground assigned for it (and how 
 delicately is its ground assigned by this very πεέποιθ. «.7.r.!); and 
 the former must necessarily have been denoted by a personal 
 pronoun added to πεποιθ. 
 
 Ver. 23 f. Summary closing recommendation of all the three 
 delegates, — εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτου] sc. λέγω or γράφω. Be it that I speak 
 on behalf of Titus, he is my associate and (especially) in regard to you 
 
366 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 my fellow-worker, and my intercession is thus made with good 
 reason. — εἴτε ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν] be it that they are brothers of owrs, 
 namely, for whom I speak, they are delegates of churches, an honour 
 to Christ, people, whose personal character and working redound 
 to Christ’s honour. The words to be supplied with etre in both 
 cases would occur of themselves to the reader of the incomplete 
 passage. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 47f. Observe, how- 
 ever, that ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν is predicative, and therewith qualitative ; 
 hence the absence of the article appears to be strictly regular, 
 denoting the category to which the subjects meant in this second 
 half of the verse belong, and therefore neither unsuitable (Riickert) 
 nor yet erroneous (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 76 [E. T. 87]; comp. 
 Hofmann). — ἡμῶν) as in ver. 22. The distinguishing of the 
 two others from Titus, who holds a higher position, by the qualita- 
 tive ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν, shows that ἀδελφοί are not official associates. 
 Such a one Titus was; the two others, however, were only dis- 
 tinguished church-members—as it were, /ay-brothers commissioned 
 ad hoc, the one by the churches, the other by Paul. 
 
 Ver. 24. According to the Recepta, ἐνδείξασθε is here a direct 
 exhortation, in conformity with the points adduced in ver. 23 
 (οὖν), to furnish towards those three (εἰς αὐτούς) the demonstra- 
 tion (τὴν évd.) of their love, etc., which demonstration of love 
 is shown to the churches that were represented by them (εἰς 
 πρόσωπ.). Since, however, the Jecepta is a gloss (see the 
 critical remarks), and ἐνδεικνύμενοι is the correct reading, we 
 have here an indirect exhortation, which puts the matter as a 
 point of honour, and so touches the readers the more effec- 
 tively, without directly making a demand on them. “ When you 
 
 1 Jn so faras they did not come as private persons, but as agents in the business of 
 the church, as which they were appointed partly by destination of the apostle 
 (namely, the second of the brethren), partly by the choice of the Macedonian 
 churches (the first of the brethren, ver. 18 f.). 
 
 2 This absence of the article has led Hofmann wrongly to take all the nominatives 
 in ver. 23 as subjects, but ὑπὲρ Ticov as a parenthesis (‘‘ which holds true of Titus”’), 
 and then οὖν in ver. 24 as the οὖν of the apodosis. A groundless artificial construc- 
 tion, in which the awkward and unprecedented parenthesis (Paul would have said 
 something like Tiroy δὲ λέγω, and that after συνεργός, comp. 1 Cor. x. 29 ; John vi. 71) 
 would be simply superfluous in the highest degree, since, if κοινωνὸς x. 7. a. is the subject, 
 the person thereby indicated would be self-evident. Just as uncalled for here after 
 the short alleged protasis would be the epanaleptic oi of the apodosis. Comp. on 
 Rom, ii. 17-24. 
 
CHAP, VIII. 94. 367 
 
 accordinely show towards them the demonstration of your love 
 and of what we have boasted regarding you, you do it in presence 
 of the churches.” In this way εἰς αὐτούς and eis πρόσωπον τῶν 
 ἐκκὰ. emphatically correspond with each other, and after the 
 participle ἐνδείκν. the second person of the present indicative of the 
 same verb is to be supplied. Comp. Soph. 0.C. 520; Hi. 1428 
 (1434): τὰ πρὶν εὖ θέμενοι τάδ᾽ ws πάλιν, sc. εὖ θῆσθε. See 
 Schneidewin ὧν Joc., and, in general, Doederl. de brachyl. 1831, 
 p- 10 f.; also Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. 190, p. 359. We might 
 also simply supply the imperative ἐστέ with évdecxv. (see on Rom. 
 xii. 9), so that also with this reading there would be a direct, 
 stern summons. But with the former interpretation the con- 
 textually appropriate emphasis of εἰς πρόσωπον τῶν ἐκκδ. comes 
 out more strongly and more independently. — On points of detail 
 we may further observe—(1) The οὖν does not draw the inference 
 simply from the second half of ver. 23, but from both halves, since 
 the exclusion of reference to Titus is not warranted by εἰς πρόσωπ. 
 τ. ἐκκλ., which, in fact, suits all three together, and ἡμῶν καυ- 
 χησέως x.T.r. includes specially a glance at the apostle’s relation to 
 Titus; comp. ver. 6, vii. 14. (2) Πρόσωπον is here also not (see 
 on 1. 11) person, which would be against the usage of the N. T., 
 and, besides, in the singular would be unsuitable here; but eis 
 πρόσωπον means to the face, i.e. coram in the sense of the direction. 
 The conception, namely, which Paul wishes to excite in the minds 
 of his readers, is this, that in those three men they have to think 
 of the churches themselves, whose instruments these men are in 
 the matter of the collection, as present and as witnesses of the 
 demonstrations of love that fall to the share of the representa- 
 tives, and to measure their demeanour towards them accordingly. 
 According to this view, every evidence of love, which is shown to 
 these men, comes, when it takes place, before the eyes of the churches 
 (ideally present in the case). The churches stand by and look 
 on. (3) τῆς ἀγάπης dp. is not the love to Paul (Grotius, Bill- 
 roth, de Wette, Ewald, and others, following Chrysostom and 
 Theophylact), but the Christian brotherly love, which thereupon 
 has its definite object marked out by εἰς αὐτούς. -- On τὴν 
 ἔνδειξιν ἐνδείκνυσθαι, comp. Plat. Legg. 12, p. 966 B. The 
 demonstration of the boasting: namely, how true it was. Comp. 
 vii. 14. 
 
PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 a) 
 So: 
 oo 
 
 OH PTE Ris 
 
 Ver. 2. ἐξ ὑμῶν] BC 8, min. Ambrosiast. Pelag. and several vss. have 
 only ὑμῶν. So also Lachm. and Riick. But ἐξ was not understood 
 and was found superfluous. Why should it be added ?— Ver. 4. 
 After ταύτῃ Elz. has τῆς καυχήσεως, in opposition to BC D* F G x* 
 min. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition by way of gloss 
 from xi. 17.— Ver. 5. The readings πρὸς ὑμᾶς and προεπηγγελμένην 
 (Lachm. Riick. ; Tisch. has adopted only the latter) have preponder- 
 ant, and the latter through the accession of C δὲ decisive, attestation; 
 xpoetnyy. is also to be preferred on this account, that rpoxarnyy. might 
 very easily arise through alliteration after the previous σροκαταρτισ. 
 Reiche has unsatisfactorily defended the Recepta εἰς (which crept 
 in easily from viii. 6) and spoxarnyy. — Ver. 7. προαιρεῖται) Lachm. 
 Riick. read σπροήρηται, following B C F G¥® 31, Chrys. ms. Cypr. 
 Aug. Pel. and several vss. But the sense: prout destinavit, pre- 
 sented itself to the not further reflecting copyists as so natural, that 
 with the similarity of the two forms the present might drop out far 
 more easily than come in. — Ver. 8. δυνατός] Lach. and Riick. read 
 δυνατεῖ It has, indeed, the attestation of Β Οὗ D* F G (ὃ 8; but 
 if duva7e7 were the original reading, the gloss would not have been 
 δυνατός simply, but δυνατός ἐστι, as in Rom. xiv. 4, or δύνωται. ---- Ver, 10. 
 σπέρμα] Β 1) FG 80, have σπόρον. So Lachm. and Riick, Occasioned 
 by the thought of the σπόρον following. — χορηγήσει... πληθυνεῖ... 
 αὐξήσει] Elz. has yopnyjou... πληθύναι.. .. αὐξήσαι, in opposition to 
 BC E* F Gx, min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Cypr. 
 Ambrosiast. Aug. The futwre was wrongly taken in the sense of 
 uish, and accordingly, aided perhaps by the recollection of such 
 passages as 1 Thess. 111. 11, 12, 2 Thess. 11. 17, 111, 5, was changed 
 into the optative So also in Rom. xvi. 20, instead of συντρίψει, 
 συντρίψαι crept into A, vss. and Fathers. — Ver. 15. δέ after χάρις 
 is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted on preponderating evidence. 
 
 
 
 ConTENTS.—By a delicate turn in vv. 1 and 2, Paul begins 
 once more from the work of collection, and impresses on his 
 
 1 For that these forms are not infinitives, is abundantly shown in Fritzsche, 
 Diss. Il. p. 82 ff. 
 
CHAP. IX. 1: ; 369 
 
 readers: (1) that they should make ready the bounty soon, before 
 his arrival, vv. 3-5; further, (2) that they should give amply, 
 vv. 5 and 6; and (3) that they should give with all willingness, 
 ver. 7; whereupon (4) he points them to the blessing of God, 
 vv. 8-11, and, finally, brings into prominence the religious 
 consequence of the thanksgivings towards God, which their benefi- 
 cence will call forth, vv. 12-14. An utterance of thanks to 
 God forms the conclusion, ver. 15. 
 
 Ver. 1. Since the yép connects the verse with what precedes, 
 not only does the opinion of Semler, that chap. ix. contains a 
 separate Epistle, fall to the ground, but also the hypothesis, that 
 Paul writes as if he were beginning a new topic,—on the basis 
 of which, e.g. Emmerling (comp. Neander) thinks that between the 
 composition of chap. viii. and that of chap. ix. a considerable time 
 hadelapsed. Against this may be urged also the fact that in new 
 sections he does not begin with περὶ μέν, but with περὶ dé (1 Cor. 
 vii. 1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xvi. 1). Estius is right in saying that the 
 apostle specifies with γάρ the reason why he, in what goes before 
 (viii. 24), had exhorted them not to collecting, but to affectionate 
 receiving of the brethren. Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 21: 
 “ Laute excipite fratres, id monco (vil. 24); nam praeter rem ad 
 liberalitatem denuo quidem prorocarem ad eam jam propensos 
 homines,’ ver. 2. So also Schott, Jsag. p. 240; Billroth, Riickert, 
 Olshausen, Osiander; but there is no indication of a contrast 
 with the Gentile-Christian churches (as if the ἅγιον were the 
 ἐκκλησία κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν), although Hofmann imports it.— μέν] To 
 this the δέ in ver. 3 corresponds. See on that passage. The 
 counter-remark of de Wette (who, with Osiander and Neander, 
 takes the μέν as solitariwm), that δέ in ver. 3 makes a contrast 
 with ver. 2, does not hold good, since the contrast is quite as 
 suitable to ver. 1 (though having respect to what is said in 
 ver. 2). Even in elassic writers (often in Thucyd.) the clauses 
 corresponding to each other with μέν and δέ are found separated 
 by intervening clauses. See Kiihner, II. p. 428. — τῆς διακονίας 
 τῆς εἰς τ. ἀγ.] as in viii. 4. Beza is incorrect (see ver. 2) in 
 saying that the bringing over only is meant. The word itself 
 corresponds to the idea of Christian fellowship in love, in which 
 the mutual activity of love is a constant debitum ministeriwm 
 (Rom. xiii. 8; Heb. vi. 10; 1 Pet. iv. 10), after the example of’ 
 
 2 COR. IL 2A 
 
370 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Christ (Matt. xx. 28; Luke xxi. 26 ἢ). Comp. Gal. v. 13. — 
 περισσὸν μοί ἐστι] i.e. I do not need writing, namely, to effect my 
 object. — τὸ γράφειν] with article, because the writing is regarded 
 as actual subject. 
 
 tpMARK.— Certainly Paul has written of the collection both in 
 chap. viii. and again in what follows ; and he meant it so, otherwise 
 he would have ended the section with chap. viii. But he delicately 
 inakes a rhetorical turn, so that, in order to spare the readers’ 
 sense of honour, he seems not to take up the subject again, but to 
 speak only of the sending of the brethren ; and he annexes to that 
 what he intends still to insert regarding the matter itself. Σοφῶς 
 δὲ TOUTO ποιεῖ ὦ ὥστε μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἐπισπ Ppa Theophylact and Chry- 
 sostom. Probably, when he wrote viii. 24, he meant to close the 
 section with it, but—perhaps after reading over chap. vill. again— 
 was induced to add something, which he did in this polite fashion 
 (τῇ τοιαύτῃ τῶν λόγων μεθόδῳ ‘Theodoret). Hofmann’s idea—that recom- 
 mendation of the collection itself was superfluous, but that there had 
 been delay in carrying it out, ete.—is quite in accordance certainly 
 with vv. 1-5, but from ver. 5 to the end of the chapter there again 
 follow instructions and promises, which belong essentially to the 
 recommendation of the collection itself. 
 
 Ver. 2. Τὴν προθυμ. ὑμῶν] Riickert infers from the whole 
 contents of the two chapters that the inclination is only asswmed 
 as still existing, and no longer existed in reality ; but his inference 
 is unjust, and at variance with the apostle’s character. Already, 
 ἀπὸ πέρυσι (vill. 10) have the readers begun to collect, and the 
 work of love, in fact, needed only the carrying out, which Paul 
 intends by chap. viii. and ix. to procure. —4v ὑπὲρ tw. καυχ. Maxed. | 
 of which I make my boast in your favour (ia your recommenda- 
 tion) to the Macedonians ; for the Corinthians were made by Paul 
 to favour the collection. On καυχάομαι, with the accusative of 
 the object, comp. vu. 14, x. 8, x1 30; LXX. Prov. xxvii. 1; 
 Lucian, Ocyp. 120; Athen. xiv. p. 627 ©. On the present 
 Bengel rightly remarks: “ Adhuc erat P. in Macedonia.” — ὅτι 
 ᾿Αχαΐα παρεσκ. ἀπὸ πέρυσι] 80 ran the καυχῶμαι: that Achaia 
 has been tin readiness (to give pecuniary aid to promote it) since 
 the previous year. Paul says ’Ayaia, not ὑμεῖς (comp. ver. 3), 
 because he repeats words actually used by him. These concerned 
 not only Corinth, but the whole vrovince, in which, however, the 
 Corinthian was the central church. Comp. on i. 1.— καὶ ὁ ἐξ 
 
CHAP. IX. 8. ie ga 
 
 ὑμῶν ζῆλος K.7.A.] is, by way of attraction, an expression of the 
 thought: your zeal wrought forth from you as stimulating to them. 
 Comp. from the N. T. Matt. xxiv. 17; Luke xi.13. See on Matt. 
 ἰ.6., and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 893 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab.i. 1. δ. 
 -- τοὺς πλείονας] the majority of the Macedonians, so that only 
 the minority remained uninfluenced. 
 
 REMARK.—Paul might with perfect truth stimulate (1) the Mace- 
 donians by the zeal of the Corinthians, because the latter had 
 begun the work earlier than the former, and were already azi 
 πέρυσι in readiness; and then (2) the Corinthians, again, by the 
 example of the Macedonians (viii. 1 ff.), since the latter, after 
 having followed the Corinthians in the prosecution of the work, 
 had shown such extraordinary activity as in turn to serve the 
 Corinthians a model and a stimulus to further beneficence. Is it 
 not possible that in the very same affair first A should be held up 
 as a model to B, and then, according to the measure of the success, 
 conversely B to A? Hence Theodoret and many (comp. also 
 Chrysostom) have rightly remarked on the wisdom in the apostle’s 
 conduct ; whereas Riickert declares this conduct of his to be wnwise 
 (of its morality he prefers to be silent), unjustly taking it for 
 granted that his χαυχᾶσθαι regarding the Corinthians was wntrue. 
 See vil. 14. De Wette also thinks that the apostle is not free from 
 human error here.—That in αὐθαίρετοι, at vill. 3, there is no contra- 
 diction with ix. 2, see on viii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 3. Connection: Although in regard to the collection I do 
 not need to write to you, and that for the reason stated in ver. 2, 
 I have yet not been able to omit the sending of the brethren for 
 this purpose, in order that, etc. Paul by this would direct 
 attention not to the general object of this mission, but to the 
 special one of having all things ready before his arrival. See 
 what follows. On μὲν... δέ, which may often be translated οὐδὲ 
 ... tamen, comp. Xen. Anab. i. 3. 10, and Kiihner ὧν loc. The 
 same is more strongly expressed by μὲν... ὅμως δέ, Ellendt, Lew. 
 Soph. Il. p. 76, or wév... μέντοι, Viger. p. 536. — τοὺς ἀδελφούς] 
 Titus and the two others, viii. 17 ff. — τὸ καύχημα ἡμῶν τὸ ὑπὲρ 
 
 1 The form τὸ ζῆλος is found here in B 8 (Lachm. ed. min.) ; it has much stronger 
 attestation in Phil. iii, 6. Running counter to the usage of the whole N. T., it must 
 be considered as an error of the copyists, though it really occurs in Clem. Cor, i. 4 
 (thrice) and 6, and Ignatius, Tral/. 4 (Dressel), and hence was doubtless known to 
 the copyists. 
 
372 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 vu.] on account of the following ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, which first 
 adds the special reference to the general, is not to be understood of 
 the special καυχᾶσθαι described in ver. 2, but is to be taken gene- 
 rally : in order that that, of which we boast on your behalf (καύχημα 
 is here materics gloriandi, and not equivalent to καύχησις), might 
 not become empty (1 Cor. ix. 15), ae. might not be found without 
 reality in this point, in the matter of the collection,—if, namely, 
 on our arrival it should be found that your benevolent activity 
 had come to a standstill or become retrograde. See ver. 4. In 
 the addition ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ (comp. iii. 10) there lies an “ aeris 
 cum tacita laude exhortatio” (Estius); for Paul has not a similar 
 anxiety in respect to other sides of the καύχημα (comp. vii. 4). 
 Billroth considers ἐν τ. μέρει τ. as pointing to ver. 4, and takes 
 τὸ καύχημα «.7.. of the special boast in ver. 2: “ in this respect, 
 namely, inasmuch as, if Macedonians come with me... we... are 
 put to shame.” Involved, because iva καθὼς... ἦτε lies between ; 
 and at variance with the parallel ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ of ver. 4. 
 — va καθὼς «.7.r.] forms, with the following μήπως K.7.r., a 
 positive parallel to the previous negative ἵνα μὴ TO καύχημα... 
 τούτῳ. Comp. on ἵνα repeated in parallel clauses, Rom. vii. 13 ; 
 Gal. 11. 14, iv. 5. | 
 Ver. 4. Lest perhaps, etc.; this is to be guarded against by the 
 παρεσκευασμένοι TE. — ἐὰν ἔλθωσι κ.τ.λ.] Uf there shall have come, 
 etc., namely, as giving escort after the fashion of the ancient church. 
 See Acts xvil. 14, 15, al.; 2 Cor. i. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Rom. 
 xv. 24.— Μακεδόνες] Macedonians without the article. — ἀπα- 
 ρασκευάστους) not in readiness (often in Xen., as Anab. i. 5. 9); 
 ἀπαράσκευος is more frequent, and the two words are often 
 interchanged in the mss.; see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anad. 1. 1. 6. 
 Here it is equivalent to: so that you are not ready to hand over 
 the money; the expression is purposely chosen in reference to 
 ver. 2. — ἡμεῖς] see ver. 3. But because this being put to shame 
 in the case supposed would have involved the Corinthians as its 
 originators, Paul with tender delicacy (not serene pleasantry, as 
 Olshausen thinks), moving the sense of honour of the readers, adds 
 parenthetically : ἵνα μὴ λέγωμεν ὑ μεῖς. ---- ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ] 
 in respect of this confidence, according to which we have maintained 
 that you were in readiness. Comp. xi. 17; Heb. iii. 14, xi. 1; 
 LXX. Ps, xxxix. 7; Ezek. xix. 5; Ruth i. 12; and passages in 
 
CHAP. ΙΧ. ὅ. aia 
 
 Wetstein ; Suicer, Zhes. II. p.1398. So Calvin, Beza, Erasmus 
 Schmid, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and others, includ- 
 ing de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. But others take it as quite 
 equivalent to ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, ver. 3: ὧν hac materia, in 
 hoc argumento (gloriationis). Comp. Vulgate: in hac substantia. 
 So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Kypke, 
 Munthe, and others, including Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald. 
 Linguistically correct, no doubt (Polyb. iv. 2.1; Casaubon, ad Polyb. 
 i. 5. 3, p. 111; Diodorus, i. 3; comp. also Heb. i. 3, and Bleek, 
 Heb. Br. 11. 1, p. 61 f.), but here a point quite unnecessary to be 
 mentioned. And why should we depart from the meaning: con- 
 jidence, when this is certain in the usage of the N. T., and here, 
 as at xi. 17,is strikingly appropriate ? The insertion of ἵνα μὴ 2. 
 ὑμεῖς forms no objection (this in opposition to Riickert), since 
 certainly the putting to shame of the apostle in regard to his 
 confidence would have been laid to the blame of the Corinthians, 
 because they would have frustrated this confidence; hence there 
 is not even ground for referring that insertion merely to καταισχ. 
 exclusive of ἐν τ. ὑποστ. τ. (Hofmann). Lastly, the explanation of 
 Grotius : 7 hoc Sundamento mene jactationis, has likewise, doubtless, 
 some support in linguistic usage (Diodor. 1. 66, “xiii, 82 pales 
 LXX. Ps. lxix. 2; Jer. xxiii 22, al.), but falls to the al 
 because τῆς Kavy. is not genuine. 
 
 Ver. 5. Odv] in pursuance of what was said in ver. 4.— ἵνα] 
 comp. viii. 6. — mpoéd@.] namely, before my arrival and that of 
 the Macedonians possibly accompanying me. The thrice-repeated 
 mpo- is not used by accident, but adds point to the instigation 
 to have everything ready before the apostle’s arrival. — προ- 
 καταρτίσ.] adjusted beforehand, put into complete order beforehand, 
 Hippocr. p. 24, 10. 18. — τὴν προεπηγγελμένην εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν] 
 your blessing promised beforehand (by me). See vv. 2-4. On 
 προεπ., comp. Rom. i, 2, Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, and some 
 others at variance with the context, take it: the blessing formerly 
 promised by you.—evrAoyia is a characteristically conciliatory 
 (καὶ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ αὐτοὺς ἐπεσπάσατο, Chrysostom) designation 
 of the collection, inasmuch as it is for the receivers ἃ practical 
 blessing proceeding from the givers (46. πληθυσμὸς ἀγαθῶν ἐξ 
 ἑκουσιότητος διδόμενος, Phavor.). Comp. on εὐλογία in the sense 
 of good deed, LX X. Gen. xxxili. 11; Judg.i.15; Ezek. xxxiv. 26; 
 
874 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ecclus. xxxix. 22; Wisd. xv. 19; Eph. 1. 8. --- ταύτην ἑτοίμην 
 εἶναι οὕτως ws «.T.d.] the intended consequence of προκαταρτ. T. 
 προεπ. εὐλ. ὑμῶν, so that the infinitive in the sense of ὥστε 
 (Kiihner, 11. p. 565, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 3) and ταύτην, which 
 attaches itself more emphatically to what has to come than to 
 what goes before (Hofmann), are used anaphorically (Bernhardy, 
 p- 283): that this may be in readiness thus like blessing and not 
 like covetousness, in such manner that it may have the quality of 
 blessing, not of covetousness; in other words, that it may be 
 liberal, which is the character of εὐλογία, and not sparing, as 
 covetousness shows itself in giving. Πλεονεξία does not mean 
 here or anywhere else parsimony (Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, and 
 many others) ; but Paul conceives of the sparing giver as covetous, 
 in so far as such a man desires himself to have that which he 
 contributes, in order to increase his own, and therefore gives but 
 very scantily. Following Chrysostom (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr., 
 and Beza), Billroth refers πλεονεξία to Paul and his colleagues : 
 “Your gift is to be a free, and not an extorted, one.” Against 
 this may be urged as well the analogy of ὡς εὐλογίαν, as also 
 ver. 6, where the meaning of ὡς πλεονεξ. is represented by 
 φειδομένως ; hence also we must not, with Riickert and others, 
 combine the ideas of willingly and unwillingly (which are not men- 
 tioned till ver. 7) with those of giving liberally and sparingly. — 
 On οὕτως after its adjective, see Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 500 A. 
 Ver. 6. Allusion to the Messianic recompense. Chrysostom 
 aptly remarks: καὶ σπόρον τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐκάλεσεν, ἵνα εὐθέως πρὸς 
 τὴν ἀντίδοσιν ἴδῃς καὶ τὸν ἀμητὸν ἐννοήσας μάθῃς ὅτι πλείονα 
 λαμβάνεις ἢ Sidws.— The δέ is continwative, not restrictive, as 
 Billroth thinks (“ but so much know”), since the subsequent ἐπ᾽ 
 εὐλογίαις proves that in ver. 6 éxactly the same two kinds of 
 giving are expressed as in ver. 5.— τοῦτο δέ] after Chrysostom 
 and the Vulgate, is explained by the expositors supplying a λέγω 
 er ἰστέον. But with what warrant from the context? Beza already 
 made the admission: “ quamvis haec ellipsis Graeco sermoni sit 
 inusitata.” Comp. Gal. iii 17; 1 Thess, iv. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 29, 
 al., where Paul adds the verb of saying. Even the comparison 
 of Phil. iii, 14, where, in fact, to the ὃν δέ its verb is brought from 
 the context, does not settle the question of the asyndetic τοῦτο 
 (in opposition to Hofmann). Τοῦτο might be regarded as the 
 
CHAP, IX. 6. old 
 
 object of σπείρων ; but in that case there would result for τοῦτο an 
 inappropriate emphasis (this kind of seed), seeing that a σπείρειν 
 was not mentioned before, and the figure here comes in as new. 
 Hence τοῦτο may be regarded as accusative absolute (see on 
 vi. 13), taking up again with special weight what was just said, 
 in order to attach to it something further: Now as concerns this, 
 namely, this ὡς εὐλογίαν, κ. μὴ ὡς πλεονεξίαν, it is the case that, 
 ete. Lachmann placed ὁ omelpwy ... ἐπ᾽ εὐλογ. κ. θερίσει in a 
 parenthesis. This would require us to supply faciat after ἕκαστος, 
 or even the more definite det (from δότην in ver. 7). But it 
 would be unsuitable to assign to the important thought of ver. 6 
 merely the place of a parenthetic idea. — φειδομένως] in a spar- 
 ing way (Plut. Al. 25), so that he scatters only parsimoniously, 
 narrowly, and scantily. But in φειδομένως κ. θερίσει the one 
 who spares and holds back is the giver of the harvest, 1.6. apart 
 from figure: Christ the bestower of the Messianic salvation, who 
 cives to the man in question only the corresponding lesser 
 degree of blessedness. Comp. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10; Gal. vi. 7. 
 - ἐπ᾿ εὐλογίαις] denotes the relation occurring in the case 
 (Matthiae, p. 1370 f. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 315) : with blessings, 
 which, namely, he, when sowing, ¢mparts, and in turn receives when 
 reaping, 1.6. according to the context, richly. Comp. ver. 5. In 
 the reaping Christ is likewise the distributor of blessings, bestow- 
 ing on him, who has blissfully sowed, the appropriate great reward 
 in Messianic blessedness. On the whole figure, comp. Prov. xi. 24, 
 xxii, 8; Ps. exiil. 9; Gal. vi. 8,9. The plural strengthens the idea 
 of richness, denoting its manifold kinds and shapes, etc. (Maetzner, 
 ad Lycurg. p.144f.). The juxtaposition also serves as strengthen- 
 ing: ἐπ᾽ evAoy., ἐπ᾿ evAoy. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 4. The fact that the 
 measure of well-doing is conditioned by one’s own means, is guarded 
 already at viii. 12. Comp. in general, Matt. xxv. 20 ff See Calo- 
 vius on this passage, in opposition to the misuse of it by Roman 
 Catholics as regards the merit of good works—the moral measure 
 of which, however, will, according to the divine saving decree, have 
 as its consequence merely different degrees of the blessedness won 
 for believers through Christ. The very nature of good works, which 
 subjectively are the fruits of faith and objectively the fruits of the 
 divine preparation of grace (Eph. ii. 10), excludes the idea of merit. 
 1 Comp, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 378 f. 
 
376 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 7. But Paul does not desire them to give richly against 
 their will ; hence the new exhortation : Let every one give freely and 
 willingly | — ἕκαστος καθὼς x.7.r.] as each one purposes it to him- 
 self in his heart, namely, let him give,—a supplement, which readily 
 flows from the previous ὁ σπείρων ; comp. the subsequent δότην. 
 Let him give according to cordial, free, self-determination. On τῇ 
 Kapo., comp. TH ψυχῇ, Gen. xxxiv. 8. The present is used, because 
 the προαιρεῖσθαι is conceived as only now emerging after the fore- 
 going teaching.’ In προαιρέομαι (only here in the N. T., but 
 often in the sense of resolving in Greek writers; comp. 2 Mace. 
 “vi. 9; 3 Mace. ii. 30, vi. 10; 4 Mace. ix. 1), πρὸ has the notion 
 of the preference, which we give to that on which we resolve, 
 because the simple αἰρεῖσθαι has the sense of sibi eligere, where it 
 likewise expresses a resolve or purpose (Xen. vii. 6. 37; Ages. 
 ii. 4; Soph. Ajax, 445 ; Isocrates, Panath. 185). Hence μᾶλλον 
 also, though in itself superfluous, may be added to προαιρεῖσθαι 
 (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 2, 111. δ. 16, iv. 2. 9). — ἐκ λύπης ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης] 
 The opposite of καθὼς προαιρ. τ. καρδ. : out of sadness, namely, at 
 having to lose something by the giving, or out of necessity, because 
 one thinks himself forced by circumstances and cannot do other- 
 wise (comp. Philem. 14). ᾿Εκ denotes the subjective state, out 
 of which the action proceeds. To the ἐκ λύπης stands contrasted 
 ἐξ εὐμενῶν στέρνων, Soph. Oed. C. 488; and to the ἐξ ἀνάγκης, 
 the ἐκ θυμοῦ φιλέων, Hom. 71. ix. 486. — ἱλαρὸν yap κ.τ.λ.] 
 Motive for complying with this precept. The emphasis is on 
 ἱλαρόν, whereby the opposite, as the giving ἐκ λύπης and ἐξ 
 ἀνάγκης, is excluded from the love of God. Comp. Rom. xii. 8. 
 The saying is from LXX. Prov. xxi. 8, according to the reading: 
 ἀγαπᾶ instead of εὐλογεῖ It is wanting in our present Hebrew 
 text. Comp. also Ecclus. xiv. 16, and the Rabbinical passages in 
 Wetstein ; Senec. de benef. ii, 1. 2: “in beneficio jucundissimo 
 est tribuentis voluntas.” Instead of δότης, δοτήρ or δωτήρ only 
 is found in classical authors; in Hes. Op. 353, δώτης also. See 
 in general, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 428. 
 
 Ver. 8 ff. After Paul has aroused them to ample and will- 
 ing giving, he adds further the assurance, that God can bestow 
 
 1 The δέλειν, not yet taking definite shape, already existed ἀπὸ πέρυσι ; but the 
 
 definite determination how much each desires to give, is conceived by Paul as 
 occurring now, after the readers have read ver. 6. 
 
CHAP. ΙΧ. 8. EW 6 
 
 (vv. 8, 9), and will bestow (vv. 10, 11) on them the means also 
 for such beneficence. Finally, he subjoins the religious gain, 
 which this work of contributing brings, ver. 11, ἥτις κατεργά- 
 ζεται x.T.r., on to ver. 14. 
 
 Ver. 8. The δέ is continuative; δυνατός, however, is with 
 emphasis prefixed, for the course of thought is: God has the power, 
 and (ver. 10) He will also do it. The discourse sets out from 
 possibility, and passes over to reality. — πᾶσαν χάριν] every showing 
 of kindness. This refers to earthly blessing, by which we have the 
 means for beneficence; see the sentence of aim, that follows. 
 Chrysostom correctly says: ἐμπλῆσαι ὑμᾶς τοσούτων ὡς δύνασθαι 
 "“περιττεύειν ἐν τῇ φιλοτιμίᾳ ταύτῃ. Theodoret and Wolf, at 
 variance with the context, hold that it applies to spiritual bless- 
 ings; Flatt and Osiander, to blessings of both kinds. — περισ- 
 cedoat| transitive: efficere ut largissime redundet in vos. See on 
 iv. 15. ---ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν] in all points at all times all, 
 an energetic accumulation. Comp. on Eph. v. 20; Phil. 1. ὃ, 4. 
 — πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες) having every, that is, all possible 
 self-sufficing ; for this is the subjective condition, without which 
 we cannot, with all blessing of God, have abundance εἰς πᾶν 
 ἔργον ἀγαθόν. Hence Paul brings out so emphatically this 
 necessary subjective requirement for attaining the purpose, which 
 God connects with his oljective blessing: i order that you, as 
 being in every case always quite seif-contented, ete. «Αὐτάρκεια is 
 not the sufficienter habere in the sense of external position, in 
 which no help from others is needed (as it is taken usually ; also 
 by Emmerling, Flatt, Riickert, Osiander), but rather (comp. Hof- 
 mann also) the subjective frame of mind, in which we feel eurselves 
 so contented with what we ourselves have that we desire nothing 
 from others,—the iaward self-sufficing, to which stands opposed 
 the προσδεὲς ἄλλων (Plato, Tim. p. 88 Ὁ) and ἐπιθυμεῖν τῶν 
 ἀλλοτρίων. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 6; Phil. iv. 11, and the passages 
 in Wetstein. It is a moral quality (for which reason Paul could 
 say so earnestly ἐν παντὶ πάντ. πᾶσ., without saying too much), 
 may subsist amidst very different external circumstances, and is 
 not dependent on these,—which, indeed, in its very nature, as 
 τελειότης κτήσεως ἀγαθῶν (Plato, Def. p. 412 B), it cannot be. 
 Comp. Dem. 450. 14; Polyb. vi. 48. 7: πρὸς πᾶσαν περίστασιν 
 αὐτάρκης. ---- περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν] that you may 
 
378 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 have abundance (comp. ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι, ver. 11) for every 
 good work (work of beneficence; comp. Acts ix. 36, and see 
 Knapp, Opusc., ed. 1, p. 486 ff). If Riickert had not taken 
 αὐτάρκεια in an objective sense at variance with the notion, 
 he would not have refined so much on περίσσ., which he 
 understands as referring to the growth of the Corinthians them- 
 selves: “in order that you, having at all times full sufficiency 
 .. may become ever more diligent unto every good work.” De 
 Wette also refines on the word, taking the participial clause 
 of that, which in spite of the περισσεῦσαι takes place in the 
 same: “ tmasmuch as you have withal for yourselves quite 
 enough,’ which would present a very external and selfish con- 
 sideration to the reader, and that withal expressed of set purpose 
 so strongly ! 
 
 Ver. 9 connects itself with περίσσ. els πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθ. This 
 περισσεύειν is to exhibit the fulfilment of the Scripture saying in 
 your case: He scattered, He gave to the poor;' His righteousness 
 remains for ever. The quotation is Ps. exii. 9 (exactly after the 
 LXX.), where the subject is ἀνὴρ ὁ φοβούμενος τὸν κύριον. ---- 
 ἐσκόρπισεν) figurative description of the beneficent man, who 
 μετὰ δαψιλείας ἔδωκε, Chrysostom. Comp. Symmachus, Prov. 
 xi. 24. Bengel well says: “ Verbum generosum: spargere, plena 
 manu, sine anxia cogitatione, quorsum singula grana cadant.” But 
 that Paw (not the original) had in his view the image of strewing 
 seed, is already probable from ver. 6, and is confirmed by ver. 10 
 (in opposition to Hofmann), Regarding the use in late Greek 
 of the originally Ionic word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 218. — ἡ 
 δικαιοσύνη] is not, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, 
 Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Vater, Emmerling, and others, to be 
 taken as beneficence (Zachariae and Flatt have even: recompense), 
 which it never means, not even in Matt. vi. 1; but it always 
 means righteousness, which, however, may, according to the con- 
 text, as here (comp. Tob. xiv. 11), be that which expresses itself by 
 doing good. So also ΠΡῚΝ, which on this account is often trans- 
 
 1 Regarding the notion of πένης, which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. 
 (ὁ ἐκ πόνου καὶ ἐνεργείας τὸ ζῆν ἔχων, Htym. M.), and its distinction from πτωχός, 
 which among the Greeks expresses the notion of mendicant poverty, see Arist. Plut. 
 f52f.; Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. p. 23C. Regarding αὖος, egenus, esuriens, see Jacobs, 
 ad Anthol. IX. p. 431, XII. p. 465. 
 
CHAP. IX. 10. 379 
 
 lated by ἐλεημοσύνη in the LXX. (see Gesen. Zes. III. p. 1151; 
 Buxt. Lex. Talm. p. 1890). The Christian moral righteousness 
 is beneficent through the love which comes from faith. Comp. 
 Rom. xii. 9, x. 13-15; Gal. v. 6.— μένει els τ. αἰῶνα] is, 
 according to Paul, to be taken quite in the full sense of the 
 words: remains for ever (comp. Diod, i. 56; Lucian, Philops. 17), 
 never ceases, either before the Parousia, when his δικαιοσύνη 
 continues to develope its vital activity, as in general, so specially 
 through beneficent love, or after the Parousia, when, in itself 
 incapable of being lost, it has its eternal subsistence in love that 
 cannot be lost (1 Cor. xiii. 8, 13). Explanations, such as of a 
 perpetua laus apud homines and gloriosa merces apud Dewm (Estius, 
 comp. Chrysostom, Grotius, Emmerling, and others), or that it 
 applies merely to the earthly lifetime of the beneficent one (Beza), 
 are at variance with the words, which affirm the pévew of the 
 δικαιοσύνη itself; and in the N. T. μένειν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is always 
 to be taken in the definite sense of eternal abiding. See John 
 Sao, ἘΠῚ Ss Heb, ὙἹ 24502) Pet i255 1 John i. V7. 
 Comp. μένειν eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον, John vi. 27. Hence de Wette 
 also takes it too indefinitely : “that the beneficence itself, or the 
 means for it, has enduring subsistence.” Chrysostom and Theodoret 
 have, moreover, inverting the matter, found the beneficence here, 
 which Chrysostom compares to a fire consuming sins, to be the 
 cause of the justification. It is its consequence and effect, Gal. v. 
 6, 22, Col. iii. 12 ff, al., as is the Christian righteousness of 
 life itself, Rom. vi., vill. 4 ff. 
 
 Ver. 10. The progress of the discourse is this: able is God, 
 etc., ver. 8; but He who gives seed, etc., will also do it. The 
 description of God introduced by δέ contains the ground of this 
 promise, which rests on a syllogism a minori ad majus.— Who 
 supplies seed to the sower and bread for eating, is a reminiscence 
 of Isa. lv. 10, which is very suitable to the figure prominent in 
 the context (vv. 6,9). On βρῶσις, actus edendi, differing from 
 βρῶμα, cibus, see on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. viii. 4; Col. 11. 16.— 
 Chrysostom, Castalio, Beza, and others, including Hofmann, rightly 
 connect χορηγήσειν with what follows. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, 
 Estius, Elzevir, and others, including Ewald and Neander, think 
 that καὶ ἄρτον eis βρῶσιν χορηγ. should go together. This would 
 be at variance with Isa. lv. 10,and would destroy the symmetrical 
 
 ~ 
 
380 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 relation of the two parts’ of the verse. — γορηγήσειϊ κ. πληθυνεῖ 
 τὸν σπόρον ὑμῶν] 1... dropping the figure: will give and increase 
 the means, with which you distribute benefits. What is given 
 away benevolently by the readers, is the seed which they scatter 
 (ὁ σπόρος αὐτῶν); hence Riickert’s idea is arbitrary and unnecessary, 
 that here two clauses, χορηγήσει ὑμῖν σπόρον and πληθυνεῖ τὸν 
 σπόρον ὑμῶν, are blended into one. Riickert also inappropriately 
 thinks that Paul is not speaking at all of the present, but wholly 
 of the future, of the blessed consequences of their beneficence now 
 asked, and that ὁ σπόρος, therefore, does not denote what they were 
 now to give away, but what God will further bestow on them. At 
 variance with the entire course of the passage (see on ver. 8 ff.) ; 
 and the very δι᾽ ἡμῶν in ver. 11 ought to have prevented the ex- 
 cluding of the present time. Paul intends by χορηγήσει... ὑμῶν 
 the means for the present work of collection, and only with καὶ 
 αὐξήσει does he promise the blessing thence arising for the future. 
 This «. av&. τὰ γεννημάώτα τῆς Sux. bu. corresponds to the preceding 
 καὶ ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν : and will make the fruits of your righteous- 
 ness grow (see on ver. 9), ue. and will cause that the blessing, 
 which proceeds from your δικαιοσύνη (what blessing that is, see 
 ver. 11) may become always larger. Paul abides by the figure. 
 Just as God causes ἄρτον eis βρῶσιν to crow from the natural seed, 
 so from the σπόρος, which the beneficent scatters through his gifts 
 of love, He likewise causes fruits (blessings) to grow; but because 
 this σπόρος had been sown by the beneficent man in virtue of his 
 Christian righteousness, the fruits produced are the γεννήματα τῆς 
 δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, just as the bread-fruits, which the husbandman 
 obtains from his σπόρος, are the γεννήματα of his diligence. 
 Hence Theodoret rightly remarks: σπόρον μέντοι πάλιν τὴν 
 εὐποΐαν ἐκάλεσε" γεννήματα δὲ δικαιοσύνης τὴν ἐκ ταύτης βλασ- 
 τάσασαν ὠφέλειαν. ---- γέννημα, in the sense of vegetable fruit, 
 according to late Greek; not to be written γένημα. Comp. on 
 Matt. xxvi. 29. On the figurative expression γεννήμ. τ. δικαιοσ., 
 comp. Hos, x. 12. 
 
 Ver. 11. The manner in which they will experience in them- 
 selves the αὐξήσει τὰ γεννήματα τ. δικαιοσύνης ὑμῶν just pro- 
 mised. — The participle is neither to be supplemented by ἐστέ 
 
 1 ἐπιχορηγ. and χορηγ. are distinguished simply like the German darreichen and 
 reichen, dargeben and geben [give forth and give]. 
 
CHAP. ΙΧ. 11. 881 
 
 or ἔσεσθε (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt), nor to be attached to 
 ver. 8, so that vv. 9 and 10 would be a parenthesis (Valla, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Bengel, Schulz), 
 which is forbidden by the portion of the discourse beginning afresh 
 at ver. 10; but it is anacoluthic, namely, in such a way that it 
 is attached to the mentally supplied logical subject of what is 
 promised in ver. 10 (ὑμεῖς), and indeed of this whole promise, 
 not merely of the portion of it contained in πληθυνεῖ τ. σπόρον 
 ὑμῶν (Hofmann): inasmuch as you become enriched. Comp. oni. 7. 
 The becoming rich in everything is, according to the connection 
 (see ver. 10), an earthly enrichment, not, however, in and for 
 itself, but with the telic ethical reference: εἰς πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα, 
 whereby Riickert’s objection disappears, that it would be unsuit- 
 able for the apostle tc promise to his readers riches. Riickert 
 understands it of a spiritual enrichment (viii. 7), and therefore 
 attaches πλουτιζ. only to τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὑμῶν. This is as 
 arbitrary as Hofmann’s interpretation of an internal enrichment, 
 which makes the sowing abundant, so that they with small means 
 are able to give more liberally than otherwise with large, if their 
 growth on all sides in the Christian life ultimately issues in an 
 increase of entire simplicity and self-devotion. Without arbitrary 
 restriction and separation, ἐν παντὶ πλουτ. εἰς πᾶσ. dX. can only 
 be a modal definition of the whole promise χορηγήσει on to δικαιοσ. 
 ὑμῶν. ---- els πᾶσαν ἁπλότ.) ἁπλότης does not mean even here 
 (comp. on vill. 2) bowntifulness, but singleness, simplicity of heart ; 
 and εἰς expresses not the consequence of ἐν π. πλουτιζ., but the 
 aim: for every simplicity, 1.6. in order to bring it into exercise, 
 to give it satisfaction (through the corresponding exercise of 
 beneficence). The emphasis rests, as formerly on ἐν παντί, so 
 here on πᾶσαν, whereby attention is directed to the present 
 work of collection and every one that might be set on foot in 
 future by Paul (ἥτις κατεργ. δι᾿ ἡμῶν K.7.r.). —Fris κατεργάζεται 
 K.7.r.] quippe quae, ete. With this the discourse makes the 
 transition to set forth the religious side of this blessing of the 
 collecting work, ver. 12 ff. — δι ἡμῶν] through our means, in so 
 far as the work of the ἁπλότης, the collection, διακονεῖται ὑφ᾽ 
 ἡμῶν, vill. 19, 20, and the apostle, for himself and his com- 
 panions, feels so much that is elevating in this service of love, 
 that he cannot let pass unmentioned. — The thanksgivers are the 
 
OS 
 
 82 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 veceivers of the gifts of the ἁπλότης. The paraphrase of Grotius: 
 “quae causa est, cur nos gratias Deo agamus,” is incorrect (on 
 account of dvd, and of vv. 12, 13).—7@ θεῷ] might belong to 
 κατεργάζεται, but is better, because in uniformity with ver. 12, 
 jomed to εὐχαριστίαν as an appropriating dative (Bernhardy, 
 p. 88), which is quite warranted in keeping with the construction 
 εὐχαριστεῖν τινι (comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Huthyphr. p. 18 Ὁ, Apol. 
 
 τ: ιν 
 Ver. 12. Confirmation of what was just said ἥτις κατεργάζεται 
 x.7.d. by the particular circumstances of the present collection.’ — 
 ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργ. ταύτης] 1.6. the service, which you render 
 hy this λειτουργία. And the work of collection is called 
 λειτουργία, in so far as it was to be regarded, according to its 
 destined consecration to God, as a priestly bringing of offering 
 (going to the benefit of the receivers). Comp. on Phil. ii. 17, 25; 
 tom. xiii. 6, xv. 16. Most others take ἡ διακονία of the service 
 of the apostle, who took charge of the collection (τὴν λειτουργίαν 
 ταύτην). But this is at variance with ver. 13, where τῆς διακονίας 
 ταύτης is manifestly equivalent to τῆς διακονίας τῆς Net. Tavr., 
 and must be understood of the service rendered by the con- 
 tributors. Hence the activity of those conveying it is not even to 
 be understood as included here (Hofmann).— οὐ μόνον «.7.2.] 
 The emphasis lies on προσαναπληρ. and περίσσ., in which case 
 the expression with ἐστι denotes how the διακονία is as regards 
 its efficacy, not simply what it effects (this would be the simple 
 present of the verb). The service, etc., has not only the supple- 
 menting quality,in that it makes up for what the saints lack, but 
 also an abounding, exceedingly blissful quality, in that it calls forth 
 many thanksgivings towards God. Others, like Piscator and 
 Flatt, connect περισσεύουσα τῷ θεῷ: “it contributes much to 
 glorify God ;” comp. Hofmann : “it makes for God a rich produce.” 
 Against linguistic usage, since περισσεύει μοί te means: I have 
 abundance or superfluity in something (Thue. ii. 65. 9; Dion. Hal. 
 iii. 11; Tob. iv. 16; John vi. 13; Luke ix. 17; comp. Luke xii: 
 15; Mark xii. 44). There must have been used εἰς θεόν or εἰς 
 τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. v. 15; 2 Cor. iv. 15).— On προσανώ- 
 1 Nowhere has Paul expressed with so deep fervour and so much fulness as here 
 
 the blissful influence, which his collecting among the Greeks for the Jews was to 
 have on the quickening of the religious fellowship between them. 
 
CHAP. IX. 18. 383 
 
 mAnpow, to fill by adding to, comp. xi. 9; Plat. Men. p. 84 D; 
 Diod. v. 71; Athen. 14, p. 084 Ὁ; Wisd. xix. 4. 
 
 Ver. 13 is not to be placed in a parenthesis; see on ver. 14. 
 The participle is again anacoluthic (comp. on ver. 11). As if he 
 had said before: by the fact that many give thanks to God, Paul now 
 continues: trasmuch as they, induced by the tried character of this 
 service, praise God on account of the submission, ete.' Hofmann con- 
 siders ver. 13 as co-ordinated with ver. 11, so that the δοξάζοντες 
 τ. 8. would be the subjects themselves performing the service, who 
 by this service prove themselves to be Christians. If so, (1) we 
 should have to leap over ver. 12 as a merely relative appendage 
 of ver. 11, and to eliminate it from the continuity of the chain 
 of thought; but it does not lend itself to be so dealt with either 
 in virtue of the position assigned to it by ὅτι, or in virtue of the 
 important contents of its two clauses ; (2) we should have to shut 
 our eyes to the fact, that δοξάξοντες τ. 8. is obviously correlative 
 to the previous διὰ πολλ. εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ; finally, we should 
 have to make the participial clause afterwards begin, in a very 
 involved fashion, with ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ «.7.X., in spite of the fact 
 that this ἐπί could not but at once present itself to, and obtrude 
 itself upon, every reader, as the specification of the eround of the 
 δοξάζοντες τ. θεόν (comp. ver. 15; Luke ii. 20; Acts iv. 21; 
 Ecelus. ii. 2). — The δοκιμὴ τῆς διακον. τ. is the indoles spectata 
 (see on vill. 2) of this work of giving, according to which it has 
 shown itself such as might have been expected in keeping with the 
 Christian standard (especially of love). So Theophylact: διὰ τῆς 
 δοκίμου ταύτης Kai μεμαρτυρημένης ἐπὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ διακονίας. 
 Others take the relation of the genitive as: the attestedness, in 
 which this bounty has exhibited you. So Calvin (“ erat enim speci- 
 men idoneum probandae Corinthiorum caritatis, quod erga fratres 
 procul remotos tam liberales erant”), Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
 
 tiickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander; comp. also Hof- 
 man, who takes τῆς διακονίας as epexegetical genitive. But it is 
 
 2 Luther and Beza connect διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης with ver. 12, for 
 which Beza adduces the reason that otherwise δοξάζοντες is connected with διά and 
 iwi without copula,—a reason quite untenable, considering the diversity of the 
 relations expressed by the two prepositions! And how very much the symmetry of 
 the passage would be disturbed! As ver. 11 closed with sdyap. τῷ θεῷ, so also the 
 confirmatory clause closes with εὐχαρ. τῷ δεῷ, and the more precise explanation begins 
 with the following διὰ τῆς; 30x, κιτολι 
 
\ 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 384 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHYANS. 
 
 only in what follows that the ground of the praise is jntroduced as 
 subsisting in the Corinthians, aad that by a different prepasition (ἐπί), 
 and, τ it is most natural to understand τῆς διακονίας τ. of 
 that which is attested, so that the attested character of the collecting 
 work appears as the occasion (διά, see Winer, p. 357 [E. T: 476]; 
 Bernhardy, p. 235) of God’s being praised on account @f the 
 obedience of the Corinthians, etc. Observe, withal, how’ the 
 actual occasion which primarily brings about the δοξάξειν τ΄. θ. 
 (διά), and the deeper ground of this δοξάζειν. (ἐπί), are disitin- 
 guished. We may add that Riickert arbitrarily finds here a0 
 evidence that Paul in the collection had it as his aim to break 
 down the repugnance of the Jewish-Christians towards the Gentile- 
 Christians by this proof of the latter’s love. Comp. on 1 Cor: 
 xvi. 1. The work of collection may have furthered this reconcilia- 
 tion, but this was not its aim. — ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ . . . πάντας] con- , 
 tains two reasons for their praising God. The first refers to the 
 gospel of Christ (concerning Christ, ii. 12): on account of the con'- 
 oliance with your confession (because you are so obedient in fact 
 to your Christian confession of faith), they praise God wn referenv’é 
 to the gospel of Christ, which, in fact, produces such compliance of - } 
 its confessors. The second reason refers to the persons, namely, 
 to them, the receivers themselves, and all Christians in general: , 
 and on account of the simplicity of the fellowship (because you held« 
 the Christian fellowship in such a sincere and pure manner) the*Y 
 praise God in reference to themselves and to all,as those wham 
 this ἁπλότης τ. κοινωνίας goes to benefit. Paul rightly adds, Κ- 
 eis πάντας ; for by the beneficence towards the Jews the Cori!n- 
 thians showed, in point of fact, that they excluded no Christiao?s 
 from the sincere fellowship of love. The expositors connect «εἰς 
 To evayy. τ. X. either with τῆς ouoroy. ὑμῶν, so that ὁμολογ. ¢? τὸς 
 is said, like πίστις εἰς (Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, Flatt, Riickerd, 
 Ewald, Osiander, and others, including Billroth), or with τῇ ὑπο-θι 
 tayn (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and many 
 others), and then εἰς αὐτοὺς x. εἰς πάντας with τῆς κοινωνίας." 
 1 Riickert and most others interpret: ‘‘ on account of the sincerity of your fellow- 
 ship with them and with all;” but Billroth and Neander: ‘‘on account of the 
 liberality of communication to them and to all,”—which, however, is quite wrong, for 
 ἁπλότης does not mean liberality, and of the communication (which, besides, is never 
 
 the meaning of κοινωνία at least inthe N. T.; see on Rom, xv. 26, xii. 13, Gal. vi. 6) 
 it could not be said that it had taken place fo all, 
 
CHAP, IX, 14 385 
 
 But this view would require the connecting link of the article 
 both before eis τὸ evayy. and also before εἰς αὐτούς, since neither 
 ὑποτάσσεσθαι nor ὁμολογεῖν nor κοινωνεῖν is construed with εἰς, 
 the last not even in Phil. i. 5 (in opposition to de Wette). The 
 suggestion to which Hofmann has recourse, that the twice used εἰς 
 expresses the direction in which both—the ὑποταγὴ τῆς ὁμολογίας 
 and the ἁπλότης τῆς Kowvwvias—take place, has against it the non- 
 insertion of the connecting article, which only may be rightly 
 omitted when εἰς in both cases belongs to the verb (δοξάζοντες τ. θ.).} 
 Riickert’s appeal to the inexactness of the language in this chapter 
 is unfounded and the more to be rejected, that no fault can be 
 found with the meaning—by no means tame (Osiander), but rich 
 in significant reference—which arises from the strictly gram- 
 matical construction. Observe especially the quite Pauline way 
 of exhausting, by different prepositions, the different characteristic 
 aspects of the subject-matter (here the δοξάζειν τὸν θεόν), which he 
 does according to the categories of the occasion (διά), the ground 
 (em), and the point of reference (es: with a view to). Comp.i.11, 
 Rom. iii. 25, and many other passages. — On ὁμολογία," confession, 
 comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13; Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23; 3 Esr. ix. 8; 
 not so in the Greek writers. The explanation consensus (Erasmus: 
 “ quod intelligant vos tanto consensu obedire monitis evangelicis,” 
 comp. Castalio, Vatablus, and Calvin) accords, no doubt, with the 
 classical usage, but is at once set aside by the fact that the pas- 
 sage must have run: ἐπὶ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ τῆς ὑποταγῆς. 
 
 Ver. 14. Καὶ αὐτῶν δεήσει ὑπὲρ ὑμ.1 does not go with περισ- 
 σεύουσα in ver. 12, so that ver. 13 would be a parenthesis 
 (Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Olshausen, de Wette), because 
 in that case Paul would have written very enigmatically, and 
 must at least have continued with διά instead of with the dative. 
 Nor yet does it go with δοξάζοντες, in which case the dative is 
 either made to depend on ἐπί (Luther, Castalio, Bengel), or is 
 taken instrumentally (Emmerling, Billroth, Osiander, Neander ; 
 Riickert does not decide), for in the former case there would 
 
 1 This, indeed, is quite impossible according to Hofmann’s mistaken construing of 
 ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγή κ.τ.λ. as dependent on the participial clause καὶ αὐτῶν... ἐπιποθούντων. 
 2 Many elder commentators quite arbitrarily took τῆς ὁμολογίας for τῇ ὁμολογου- 
 μένῃ. So Beza: ‘‘de vestra testata subjectione in evang.” But Erasmus Schmid 
 
 and Wolf: ‘cb subjectionem vestram, contestatam in evang.” (so that εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ. 
 is held to belong to τῆς ὁμολογ.), 
 
 2 COR. Il. 28 
 
4 
 
 386 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 result an idea strange and destitute of all analogy from the N. T. 
 (Bengel wrongly appeals to 2 Tim. i. 3); in the latter, καί would 
 be superfluous, and the prefixing of the αὐτῶν would remain 
 entirely unregarded. We must rather take καὶ αὐτῶν... ἐπι- 
 ποθούντων together as genitive absolute (comp. the punctuation in 
 Lachmann and Tischendorf, also Ewald and Hofmann), and καὶ 
 αὐτοΐ means they too, by which is meant to be indicated the fact 
 that, and the mode in which, on their side also the ἁπλότης τῆς 
 κοινωνίας, which the Corinthians have shown, is returned. Thus: 
 while they too with prayer for you long after you. The emergence 
 of the genitive absolute without difference of the subject is a 
 phenomenon also frequent in classical authors. See Poppo, ad 
 Thucyd. I. p. 119 f.; Richter, de anacol. § 16 ; Matthiae, p. 1306; 
 Bornemann, ad Act. xiii. 6. — δεήσει is not instrumental, but an 
 accompanying accessory definition of the mode: with prayer, amid 
 prayer for you.. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 100 f. — Regarding ἐπύπο- 
 θεῖν, see on v. 2. It is the longing of pious, grateful love for 
 personal fellowship with the brethren far distant. It is a sheer 
 fancy that it means maximo amore complecti (Beza and many 
 others, even Billroth).— διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν x.7.d.] reason 
 of this pious longing: because the grace of God is abundant towards 
 you. How far this was shown in the present instance, see ver. 13. 
 Chrysostom well says: ἐπιποθοῦσι γὰρ τοῦτο οὐ διὰ τὰ χρήματα, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε θεαταὶ γενέσθαι τῆς δεδομένης ὑμῖν χάριτος. Even in 
 this 6. τ. ὑπερβάλλ. χάριν, Hofmann finds the contrast between 
 the Jsraelitic Christians and the Gentile Christians, who before 
 had lived beyond the pale of the church of God, and without 
 God in the world. If Paul had meant this relation, he would 
 have expressed it (comp. Eph. ii. ,12).— ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν belongs to 
 imepBarr. Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2.18. ἐπί denotes 
 the object, to which the activity has passed over, Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 290 [E. T. 337]. 
 
 Ver. 15. At the close we have an exclamation of gratitude 
 springing out of deep piety (comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 33 ff.; 1 Cor. 
 
 1 It is the Christian intercession of thankfulness for the benefactors, for whom the 
 praying heart yearns. Hofmann goes beyond the text when he imports into this 
 prayer the definite contents: ¢éhat God would keep the Achaean Christians till the 
 time, when Jesus shall bring together the scattered children of God with those of the 
 
 Holy Land and people. Matt. xxiv. 81 treats of the Parousia, and is not at all 
 relevant here. 
 
Lad 
 
 CHAP. IX. 15. 387 
 
 xv. 57; Gal.i. 5; 1 Tim. 1. 17), without any special purpose 
 (such as to awaken humility, Beza; comp. Chrysostom), but. issu- 
 ing out of the fuller craving of the heart, without being intended 
 (as Hofmann holds) to impress the duty of willingly contributing 
 gifts which are so small in comparison.— The dwped is conse- 
 quence and evidence of the χάρις, ver. 14. Comp. Rom. vy. 15, 
 17. -- ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνεκδιηγ. αὐτοῦ δωρεᾷ] on account of his unde- 
 scribable gift. What is meant by this is indicated to the Christian 
 consciousness by dvexdiny. (comp. Rom. xi. 33; Eph. iii. 18 f.), 
 namely, the whole wonderful and inexpressibly blissful work of 
 redemption. It is for this, and not simply for the grace imparted 
 to the Gentiles (Hofmann), that Paul gives thanks, because it. is 
 the gracious foundation of such fellowship in love, and of its blissful 
 working. Others* understand it of the previously discussed happy 
 result of the work of collection (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Billroth, 
 Riickert, Osiander ; comp. Ewald, who takes χάρις «.7.d. as the 
 quoted closing words of the prayer of gratitude on the part of the 
 church at Jerusalem itself) ; but in that case ἀνεκδιήγητος appears 
 to be much too strong an epithet, whereas it is quite suitable to 
 the highest of all God’s gifts, the δωρεὰ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. Comp. 
 Rom. v. 15 ; Heb. vi. 4. — On ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ, comp. Arrian, Anab. 
 p. 310: τὴν ἀνεκδιήγητον τόλμαν. 
 
 1 To these belongs Grotius also, who in his acute way remarks: ‘‘ Paulus in 
 eratiarum actionem se illis in Judaea fratribus adjungit, et quasi Amen illis accinit.” 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact quote both explanations, but incline more to that 
 which we have adopted. 
 
388 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 CA ACP TCH Ty, x 
 
 Ver. 7. Instead of ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ read ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ; see the exegetical 
 remarks. — After ἡμεῖς Elz. has Χριστοῦ. An addition condemned 
 by a great preponderance of evidence. — Ver. 8. re] is wanting in 
 B F G, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Bracketed by Lachm., and deleted 
 by Riick. But how easily might the omission of the particle take 
 place, as it might quite well be dispensed with, while there was no 
 ground whatever for inserting it !— καί before περισσ. has against it 
 the principal uncials and vss. An addition produced by the sense 
 of climax. — 7ui] is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted, 
 with Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary insertion, instead of 
 which μοι is also found. — Vv. 12, 13. The words οὐ συνιοῦσιν᾽ ἡμεῖς 
 δέ, which follow after ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς in the Recepta, and are defended 
 by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Reiche, are wanting in D* F G 109, codd. 
 of the Itala, Ambrosiast. Auct. gr. de singul. cleric. (in Cyprian) 
 Vigil. taps. Idacius, Sedul. (while in 74** Vulg. Lucif. Pel. 
 Fulg. only οὐ συνιοῦσιν is wanting). Condemned by Mill, Bengel, 
 Semler, Morus, Griesb. Rosenm. Flatt, Fritzsche, Billr., Rinck, 
 Incubr. crit. Ὁ. 165 f.; Ewald. But the very fact that we have 
 only Occidental evidence on the side of the omission makes the 
 latter suspicious, and the difficulty of the words (which, with the 
 reference of αὐτοί to Paul so easily suggesting itself after ἀλλά, 
 cannot at all be overcome), while in the event of their omission 
 the passage runs on smoothly, makes their deletion appear an 
 expedient critically violent and resorted to in the interest of 
 explanation. Where οὐ συνιοῦσιν only is wanting (see above), ἡμεῖς δέ 
 appears to be an imperfect restoration of the imperfect text. — The 
 following χαυχησόμεθα also is wanting in D* Clar. Germ., while 
 F G, Boern. Auct. de singul. cler. read καυχώμενοι. But if the word 
 had not been original, but added by way of gloss, the makers of 
 the gloss after their mechanical fashion would not have used the 
 future, but the present, in accordance with the previous τολμῶμεν, to 
 which the comparison of ver. 15 also might induce them. Hence 
 it is to be assumed that in the witnesses adduced above καυχησόμεθα 
 has dropped out. By what means we do ποῦ know ; perhaps it is 
 simply due to the similar final letters in ἄμετρα and καυχησόμεθᾳ. 
 
CHAP, X. 1. 989 
 
 The χαυχῶμενοι, subsequently introduced instead of καυχησόμεθα, is 
 to be considered as a critical restoration, made under the influence 
 of ver. 15.— Ver. 14. οὐ yap ὡς μή] Lachm. reads ὡς γὰρ μή, on the 
 authority of B and two min. only, so that he puts a note of inter- 
 rogation after ἑαυτούς. Too weakly attested. 
 
 
 
 Ch. x.-xiii. contain the third chief section of the Epistle, the 
 apostle’s polemic vindication of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, 
 and then the conclusion. 
 
 Ch. x. 1-18. After the introduction of vv. 1, 2, which plunges 
 at once in mediam rem, Paul, in the first place, makes good 
 against his opponents the power of his genuinely apostolic work- 
 ing (vv. 1-8), in order to repel the malicious attack that he was 
 strong only in letters (vv. 9-11). This leads him to set forth in 
 contradistinction the very different modes of self-judgment, which 
 are followed by him and his arrogant opponents (vv. 12—16), after 
 which there is further held up to the latter the Christian standard 
 of self-boasting (vv. 17, 18). 
 
 ReMARK.—The difference of the subject-matter—with the im- 
 portance of that which had now to be decided—and the emotion 
 excited in the high and pure self-consciousness of the grievously 
 injured Paul, so sufficiently explain the change of tone which at 
 once sets in, and this tone, calculated for the entire discomfiture 
 of his enemies, is just in the last part of the Epistle—after the 
 church as such (as a whole) had been lovingly won over—so suited 
 to its object, that there is no ground at all for the hypothesis of 
 ch. x.-xiii. 10 having formed a separate Epistle (see Introd. § 2). 
 
 Ver. 1. 4é leads over to a new section, and its position lays 
 the emphasis on αὐτός - comp. on Rom. vii. 25: ipse autem ego, 
 I, however, for my own self, independently and without bias from 
 the action of others among you. See what follows. With this 
 αὐτὸς ἐγώ, Paul, in the feeling of his elevation above such action, 
 boldly casts into the scales of his readers the weight of his own 
 personality over against his calumniators. The expression has 
 something in it nobly proud and defiant ; but the ἔμφασις τῆς 
 ἀποστολικῆς ἀξίας (Theodoret, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Oecumenius, and others, including Billroth) lies not in αὐτός, but 
 in ἐγὼ Παῦλος simply. While many, as Beza and Olshausen, 
 have left the reference of αὐτός quite unnoticed, and others have 
 arbitrarily imported what the context does not suggest, such as 
 
990 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Erasmus, Bengel, and also Hofmann; Emmerling and Riickert 
 assume that Paul wrote from x. 1 onward with his own hand, so 
 that the αὐτός was explained to the readers by the altered 
 handwriting. Comp. Ewald, according to whom Paul meant only 
 to add a short word of conclusion with his own hand and there- 
 with to end the letter, but on beginning this concluding word, 
 felt himself urged to enter on a detailed discussion of the matter 
 itself in its personal relations. But, seeing that Paul has not 
 added anything like τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί (1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18), 
 or at least written γράφω ὑμῖν instead of mapaxar® ὑμᾶς, there is 
 no sufficiently certain hint of this explanation in the words them- 
 selves, the more especially as the αὐτὸς ἐγώ is frequently used 
 by him elsewhere (xii. 13; Rom. vil. 25, ix. 3, xv. 14). Riickert 
 finds a confirmation of that hypothesis in the fact that this 
 Epistle does not, like the First, contain some concluding lines in 
 his own hand. But most of the apostle’s letters contain nothing 
 of the sort; and this Epistle in particular, on account of its whole 
 character and on account also of its bearer, stood so little in need 
 of any authentication, if there was to be such a thing, from his 
 own hand, that his enemies would have made themselves ridicu- 
 lous by doubting the authenticity of the composition. Apart 
 from this, it remains very probable that Paul himself wrote 
 the conclusion of the Epistle, possibly from xiii. 11 onward, 
 without mentioning the fact expressly. — διὰ τῆς πρᾳότητος Kal 
 ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ, by means cf the meekness and gentleness 
 of Christ ; ae. assigning a motive for compliance with my exhor- 
 tation by pointing to the fact, that Christ, whose example I have 
 to imitate, is so gentle and meek (Matt. xi. 29, 30; Isa. ΧΙ], 
 2, 8, 111. 4-7). Comp. Rom. xii. 1; 1 Cor. 1.10. The gentleness 
 
 1 Erasmus : “1116 ipse vobis abunde spectatus P., qui vestrae salutis causa tantum 
 malorum et passus sum et patior.” Bengel, however, hesitates between three 
 references : “‘ ipse facit antitheton vel ad Titum et fratres duos, quos praemisit P., 
 vel ad Corinthios, qui ipsi debebant officium observare ; vel etiam ad Paulum ipsum 
 majore coram usurum severitate, ut αὐτός, ipse, denotet wiltvo.” Hofmann, still 
 referring to the collection, makes the apostle lay emphasis on the fact that this 
 exhortation comes from himself, in contradistinction, namely, from what those 
 others (chap. ix.) will do in his stead and by his order (comp. Bengel’s 1st). But the 
 whole matter of the collection was completely ended at ix. 15. After the exclama- 
 tion of thanksgiving in ix. 15, a παρακαλεῖν of his own in this matter is no longer 
 suitable ; and, besides, the emphatic vindication of the apostolic authority in that 
 case would be uncalled for. 
 
CHAP. X. 2. 391 
 
 and meekness of Christ belong to the divine love manifested in 
 Him (Rom. viii. 39; Tit. iii. 4 ff), and are continually shown by 
 Him in His heavenly government, in the working of His grace, 
 in His intercession, etc. Estius designates rightly the grownd of 
 the motive assigned : “ quia cupiebat non provocari ad severitatem 
 vindictae ” (which would not be in harmony with Christ’s meek- 
 ness and gentleness). On ἐπιείκεια, clementia (Acts xxiv. 4), 
 which is often found in connection with πρᾳότης (as Plut. Pericl. 
 39, Caes. 57; Philo, de Vita Mos. p. 112), comp, Wetstein. It 
 is attributed even to God (2 Macc. x. 4; Bar. ii, 27) and to 
 Wisdom (Wisd. xii. 18). Bengel gives the distinction of the two 
 words : “ πρᾳότης virtus magis absoluta; ἐπιείκεια magis refertur 
 ad alios.” It is the opposite of standing on one’s full rights, 
 Plato, Def. p. 412 B: δικαίων x. συμφερόντων ἐλάττωσις. --- ὃς 
 κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν «.7.r.] I who, to the fuce, am indeed humble, 
 of a subdued, unassuming character among you, but in absence 
 have courage towards you—a malicious opinion of his opponents, 
 designed to counteract the influence of the apostle’s letters, which 
 he here appropriates to himself μιμητικῶς. Comp. ver. 10. Kara 
 πρόσωπον, coram, is not ἃ Hebraism, but see Wetstein on the 
 passage; Hermann, ad Soph. Trach. 102; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. 
 Ῥ. 612. There is no need to supply anything after ταπεινός, 
 neither εἰμί nor ὦν. On ταπεινός, comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 5, 
 where it is connected with ἀνελεύθερος ; Dem. 1312. 2. 
 
 REMARK.—Riickert is wrongly of opinion that the assertion of 
 the opponents had been true, and just on that account had been 
 so ill taken by Paul; that he belonged to those in whom natural 
 impetuosity is not united with personal courage. Against this 
 there is the testimony of his whole working from Damascus to 
 Rome ; and outpourings like vi. 4 ff. ad. do not lack internal truth. 
 Comp. besides, passages like Acts xx. 22 ff., xxi. 13, xxiv. 25; 
 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. al. That assertion of his opponents may be 
 explained from the fact that, though there were not wanting dis- 
 turbing phenomena even at his second arrival in Corinth (ii. 1, 
 xi. 21), it was only subsequently that the evils had become so 
 magnified and multiplied as to necessitate his now writing (in our 
 first Epistle) far more severely than he had spoken in Corinth. 
 
 Ver. 2. After the previous relative clause, the παρακαλῷ is in 
 substance resumed by means of δέομαι δέ, and that in such a way 
 that δέ has its adversative reference in the contents of the relative 
 
992 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 clause (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 174; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 377), 
 and the δέομαι now substituted for παρακαλῶ betrays the in- 
 creasing earnestness softened by the mention of Christ’s gentle- 
 ness and meekness. Emmerling and Riickert refer δέομαι not to 
 the Corinthians, but to God: “but I pray God that I when 
 present may not be obliged to act with the confidence and bold- 
 ness,” etc. So also Ewald and Hofmann. But how strangely 
 Paul would have written, if he had left his παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς to 
 stand quite abruptly at the very beginning of the new address! 
 It is all the more arbitrary not to refer δέομαι also to the readers, 
 and not to be willing to supply a ὑμῶν with δέομαι from the 
 previous παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς. Chrysostom and most expositors rightly 
 give it this reference. And how little does what is attached to 
 δέομαι δέ (observe especially ἢ λογίζομαι x.7.d.) sound like the 
 contents of prayer !— τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαῤῥῆσαι x.7.r.] I entreat 
 the not being courageous in presence, i.e. that I may not when 
 present (this παρών has the emphasis) be of brave courage with the 
 confidence, etc. The meaning is: that you may not let it come to 
 this, that I, etc. Comp. Chrysostom: μή pe ἀναγκάσητε x.T.2. 
 On the infinitive with the article, see Buttmann, newt. Gr. 
 p. 225 [E. T. 261]. The nominative παρών with the infinitive 
 is quite according to Greek usage. See Kihner, II. p. 344; 
 Matthiae, p. 1248. The πεποίθησις is not specially fiducia in 
 Deum (Grotius, against the context), but generally the official 
 confidentia, assurance. — ἣ Χογίζομαι τολμῆσαι] with which I reckon 
 (am minded) to be bold towards certain people, etc. On λογίζομαι, 
 comp. Herod. vii. 176; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 13; 1 Macc. iv. 35, 
 vi. 19; LXX. 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Jer. xxvi. 3; and on ToApjoa, 
 xi. 21; Hom. J/. x. 232; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 173. — Others, 
 such as the Vulgate, Anselm, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Er. 
 Schmid, Calovius, Bengel, Semler, Schulz, take λογίζομαι passively 
 (qua efferri ducor, Emmerling). In that case we should have had 
 an ἀπών with τολμῆσαι, because in this lay the most essential 
 point of the hostile criticism ; besides, the boldness of the expres- 
 sion, which lies in the correlation of λογίζομαι τοὺς λογιζομένους, 
 would be obliterated. — ἐπέ τίνας τοὺς λογιζομ.] against certain, 
 who reckon us, etc., is to be connected with τολμῆσαι, since only 
 by the erroneous course of taking the previous λογίζομαι as 
 passive would the connection with θαῤῥῆσαι be required (Luther, 
 
CHAP. X. 8. 393 
 
 Beza, Estius, Emmerling, also Billroth). — τινάς denotes quosdam, 
 quos nominare nolo. See on 1 Cor. xv. 12. These are then 
 characterized in their definite quality by τοὺς Aoysfou. See on 
 Luke xviii. 9, and Doederl. ad Oecd. Col. p. 296. — ὧς κατὰ σάρκα 
 περυπωτοῦντας) as people who walk according to the standard of 
 the flesh. ὡς with the participle as the object of a verb of be- 
 lieving or saying. See Kihner, II. p. 375. Comp. Rom. viii. 
 36; 1 Cor. iv. 1; LXX. Gen. xxxi, 15, al.. The περίπατεῖν 
 κατὰ σάρκα is not an expression of weakness, since περιπατεῖν 
 denotes the moral conduct. Hence the meaning is: as those, 
 whose way of thinking and of acting follows, not the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit, but the lusts opposed to God, which have their seat 
 in the materio-psychical nature of man. Comp. on Rom. viii. 4. 
 This general interpretation is not at variance with the context, 
 since, in fact, a κατὰ σάρκα περιπατεῖν would have shown such a 
 demeanour in the apostle’s position as his opponents blamed him for, 
 —bold αὖ ἃ distance, timid when near, full of the fear of men and 
 of the desire to please men. In that special accusation there was 
 therefore expressed this general one of the κατὰ σάρκα περιπατεῖν ; 
 διέβαλλον yap αὐτὸν ὡς ὑποκριτὴν, ὡς πονηρὸν, ὡς ἁλαζόνα, 
 Chrysostom. Thus the expression is to be explained from the 
 immediate context, and not of the reproach made to him by the 
 representatives of a false spirituality, that he acted on too free 
 principles (Ewald). 
 
 Ver. 3 does not introduce the refutation of the previous 
 accusation (so that, with Estius and Billroth, we should have to 
 supply a quod falswm est), since γάρ may quite naturally find its 
 logical reference in what was expressed before. Nor does it 
 assign the reason for τῇ πεποιθ. ἣ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι, since there 
 is nothing whatever against the reference, which first and most 
 naturally suggests itself, to the chief thought of the previous verse. 
 Hence it assigns the reason of the δεόμαι δὲ «.7.d.: “I entreat, 
 let me not become bold, etc.; for the position of matters with us 
 is quite different from what the opponents believe: we do not 
 march to the field κατὰ σάρκα, etc. Do not therefore run the 
 risk of this !— ἐν σαρκὶ yap περιπ.] Paul wishes to express the 
 
 1 Beza: ‘non alio praesidio freti, quam quod prae nobis ferimus, qui videlicet 
 
 homines sumus viles, si nihil aliud quam hominem spectes.” Comp. Bengel, Mos- 
 heim, Flatt, Emmerling, also Billroth. 
 
Ω 
 
 994 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 thought: for it by no means stands with us so as those think, 
 and hence says: For, though we walk in the flesh, for although the 
 existent form of the sinful bodily human nature is the organ, in 
 which our conduct of life has its course (σάρκα μὲν yap περικείμεθα, 
 Chrysostom), stad we do not take the field according to the flesh, the 
 σάρξ is not the standard, according to which our official working, 
 which resembles a campaigning, is carried on. Observe that even 
 in ἐν σαρκί the notion of the cap& is not indifferent, expressing 
 the mere life of the body (comp. Gal. ii. 20; Phil. 1. 22): this is 
 forbidden by what goes before and follows. If taken in this way, 
 ἐν σαρκὶ περύπ. would contain something very insignificant, because 
 self-evident, and would form no adequate contrast to κατὰ σάρκα--- 
 a contrast, which only results when the notion of σάρξ is alike in 
 both clauses. For the stress of this contrast lies in ἐν and κατά 
 (in the flesh, not according to the flesh) ; instead of wepimatovdpuev, 
 however, there comes in στρατευόμεθα, because it was highly 
 appropriate to the context (vv. 1, 2) to give thus a military 
 character to the apostle’s περιπατεῖν in presence of his enemies 
 (comp. vi. 7). On the idea, comp. 1 Tim. 1. 18. 
 
 Ver. 4. Reason assigned for the assertion just made οὐ «. o. 
 στρατευόμεθα, but not a parenthesis (Griesbach, Lachmann), since 
 ver, 5 is manifestly a further explanation of the preceding πρὸς 
 καθαίρ. ὀχυρ., so that the participles in ver. 5 f. are to be referred 
 to the logical subject of the verse before (ἡμεῖς). Comp. ix. 11, 
 13. — That the στρατεύεσθαι is not κατὰ σάρκα, is shown from 
 the fact that the weapons of warfare are not capxixd; for, if the 
 former were the case, so must the latter also. By the weapons 
 (comp. vi. 7; Rom. vi. 13, xiii. 12) are to be understood the 
 means, which the apostolic activity makes use of in the strife with 
 the hostile powers. — σαρκικά] which belong to the life-sphere 
 of the σάρξ, so that the σάρξ, the sinfully inclined human nature, 
 is their principiwm essendi, and they do not proceed from the 
 Holy Spirit) as eg. σοφία σαρκική, i. 12, the νοῦς τῆς σαρκός, 
 Col. ii. 18, the whole ἔργα τῆς σαρκ., Gal. v.19. Now, since 
 fleshly weapons as such are weak (Matt. xxvi. 41; Rom. vi. 19), 
 and not in keeping with the aims of the apostolic work, the 
 weapons opposed to them are not designated according to their 
 
 1 Chrysostom reckons up such weapons: σλοῦτος, δόξα, Duvecrsia, εὐγλωττία, 
 δεινότης, σπεριδροιιαὶ, κολακεῖαι, ὑποκρίσεις, TH ἄλλα σὰ TOUTOIS ἐοικότα. 
 
CHAP. X. 5. 395 
 
 nature (for it is self-evident that they are ὅπλα πνευματικά), but 
 at once according to their specific potency (comp. 2 Cor. 11. 4), as 
 δυνατὰ τῷ Oecd. By this the passage only gains in pith, since by 
 virtue of the contrast so expressed in σαρκικά the quality of weak- 
 ness, and in δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ the pneumatic nature, are understood 
 ex adjuncto. Hence the inference frequently drawn from δυνατὰ 
 τῷ θεῷ, that σαρκικός here must mean weak, is too hasty. — 
 δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ] mighty for God, 1.6. passing with God as mighty, 
 which denotes the true reality of the being mighty, without, how- 
 ever, being a Hebraistic periphrasis for the superlative (Vorstius, 
 Glass, Emmerling, Vater, Flatt). See on ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ, Acts 
 vii. 20; Bernhardy, p. 83 f. Others, not following this current 
 genuinely Greek usage (for the corresponding Hebrew usage, see 
 Gesenius, Thesawr. I. p. 98), have explained it as: through God 
 (Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, 
 Bengel, and others; Erasmus has affatu Der), or for God, 1.6. so 
 that they are to God a means of showing His power (Billroth ; 
 comp. Chrysostom and Hofmann). But the former would be 
 superfluous, since itis self-evident in the case of spiritual weapons, 
 and the latter would ¢mport something into the words, especially 
 as not God, but Christ (ver. 5), is conceived as the general; comp. 
 2 Tim. ii. 3. For the mighty πανοπλία of the Christian, which, 
 along with the special apostolic gifts, is also that of the apostles, 
 see Eph. vi. 14 ff. — πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὄχυρωμάτων] that, for which 
 the weapons are mighty: ἐο the pulling down of strongholds (Xen. 
 Hell. iii. 2. 3; very frequent in the books of the Maccabees ; 
 comp. ὀχυρὸς πύργος, τόπος, ὀχυρὰ πόλις, φρουρά, and the like). 
 The τύφος ᾿Ελληνικός and the ἰσχὺς τῶν σοφισμάτων καὶ τῶν 
 διαλογισμῶν (Chrysostom) are included in the phrase. It does 
 not, however, mean these alone, nor the “old walls of the 
 Jewish legal system” (Klépper), but generally everything, which 
 may be included as belonging to the category of humanly strong 
 and mighty means of resistance to the gospel. Examples of this 
 jigurative use may be seen in Wetstein and Kypke, and from 
 Philo in Loesner, p. 317. The pulling down depicts the making 
 quite powerless and reducing to nought—the καταργεῖν, 1 Cor, 
 i, 28, and καταισχύνειν, 1 Cor. i. 27. 
 
 Ver. 5. How the πρὸς καθαίρ. ὀχυρωμ. is executed by the 
 ἡμεῖς (the logical subject in ver. 4): inasmuch as we pull down 
 
396 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 thoughts (Rom. ii. 15), 1.56. bring to nothing hostile deliberations, 
 resolutions, plans, calculations, and the like, raising themselves 
 like fortresses against Christ. More precise definitions (Grotius 
 and many others: “ ratiocinationes philosophorum,” comp. Ewald ; 
 “ subtleties,” Hofmann ; “thoughts of their own,’ behind which 
 men screen themselves from the urgent knowledge of God) are 
 not warranted by the context, nor yet by the contrast of γνῶσις 
 τ. 6. since this is meant objectively (in opposition to de Wette, 
 who understands thoughts of self-conceited wisdom). Also against 
 Olshausen’s opinion, that Paul is censuring specially the pretended 
 wisdom of the Christ-party, it is to be observed that he is speak- 
 ing, not simply of the working against Corinthian opponents, but 
 against enemies in general. The figurative expression of destruc- 
 tion by war, καθαιροῦντες, was very naturally suggested by the 
 image which had just gone before, and which is immediately after- 
 wards taken up again by ὕψωμα (ἐπέμεινε τῇ τροπῇ, ἵνα πλείονα 
 ποιήσῃ τὴν ἔμφασιν, Chrysostom); and the subsequent ἐπαιρόμ. 
 emphatically corresponds to it. — καὶ πᾶν ὕψωμα κ.τ.λ.] and every 
 exalted thing (rampart, castle, tower, and the like, comp. Aq. Ps. 
 xviii. 34, and see in general, Schleusner, Zhes. V. p. 427), which ts 
 lifted wp against the (evangelical) knowledge of God (the knowledge 
 of God κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν), that this may not become diffused and pre- 
 vailing. The real meaning of the figurative ὕψωμα is equivalent to 
 that of ὀχύρωμα, ver. 4; the relation to λογισμούς is, however, 
 correctly defined by Bengel: “ cogitationes species, altitudo genus.” 
 — The enemy, who is thus vanquished by the destruction of his 
 high places, is wav νόημα, 1.6. not ail reason (Luther; comp. 
 Vulgate: “ omnem intellectum”), as if πάντα νοῦν were used, but 
 (comp. on 111. 14, iv. 4) every creation of thought, every product of 
 the human thinking faculty. The λογισμοί before named belong 
 to this, but Paul here goes on to the whole general category of that, 
 which as product of the νοῦς takes the field against Christianity. 
 All this is by Paul and his companions brought into captivity, 
 and thereby into subordination to Christ, after the bulwarks are 
 destroyed, ete. Thus the holy war comes to the goal of complete 
 victory. — εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ X.] so that this πᾶν νόημα, which 
 previously was hostile to Christ, now becomes obedient and sub- 
 ject to Christ. By this is expressed the conversion to Christ, 
 which is attained through the apostolic working, consequently a 
 
CHAP, Χ. 6. 397 
 
 leading captive ἀπὸ δουλείας εἰς ἐλευθερίαν, ἀπὸ θανάτου πρὸς 
 ζωὴν, ἐξ ἀπωλείας πρὸς σωτηρίαν, Chrysostom. The condition ὑπα- 
 kon τοῦ Χριστοῦ is conceived of as a local sphere, into which the 
 enemy is led captive. Comp. Luke xxi. 24; Tob. i. 10; 1 Kings 
 vill. 46: 3 Esdr. vi. 16; Judith v. 18. Apart from this concep- 
 _ tion, Paul would have written τῇ ὑπακοῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, or simply 
 τῷ Χριστῷ. Comp. Rom. vii. 23. Kypke, Zachariae, Flatt, 
 Emmerling, Bretschneider, connect εἰς τ. ὕπακ. τ. X. with πᾶν 
 νόημα, and take εἰς as contra. But in that case Paul would have 
 written very unintelligibly, and by the change of the preposition 
 (previously κατά) would have simply led the reader astray ; 
 besides, the αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, without eis τ. ὕὑπακ. τ. X., would 
 remain open and incomplete; finally, ver. 6 shows that he 
 conceived the ὑπακοὴ Χριστοῦ as the goal of the working, con- 
 sequently as belonging to aiypar. Comp. also Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. 
 
 Ver. 6. The reverse side of the αἰχμαλωτίζοντες x.7.r. just 
 expressed. Although, namely, the αὐχμαλ. πᾶν νόημα εἰς τ. ὑπακ. 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ is the result of the apostolic warfare on the whole 
 and in general, yet there remain exceptions—persons, who do not 
 surrender themselves captive to Christ’s dominion ; there remains 
 παρακοή in contradistinction to the ὑπακοή of others. Hence it 
 is a part also of the complete work of victory to punish every 
 παρακοή. And this, says Paul, we are in readiness to execute, 
 so soon as, etc. Bengel well says: “ Zelus jam adest ; prometur, 
 cum tempus erit.” Paul does not speak of the action of war- 
 captives at variance with the duty of obedience, to which they 
 are taken bound (Hofmann). For this the threat, which would 
 amount, in fact, to the avenging of every sin, would be too strong, 
 and the following ὅτων κτλ. would not be suitable. The παρα- 
 κουοντες must still be enemies who, after the victory, do not 
 submit to the victor. — ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες] in promptu habentes, 
 also in Polyb. ii. 34. 2, and Philo, Leg. ad. Caj. p. 1011, 1029. 
 See, in general, Wetstein. — ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή] With 
 this he turns to apply what was previously said of a general tenor 
 (ἐκδικ. πᾶσαν mapax.) specially to the circumstances of the 
 Corinthians, so that the conduct of the Judaistic teachers, who 
 had intruded into Corinth and directed their doings against Paul, 
 appears especially to be included in πᾶσα παρακοή; and the 
 Corinthian church, a part of which had been led astray by those 
 
398 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 persons, is represented as not yet completely obedient, but as in 
 the course of developing this complete obedience. When this 
 development shall be completed (which till then makes a claim on 
 my patience, “ne laedantur imbecilliores,” Bengel), that ἐκδίκησις 
 of every disobedience shall—even as respects the situation of 
 things at Corinth—ensue.’ Thus the apostle separates the in- 
 terest of the church from that of the intruding seducers, and 
 presents his relation to the church as one of forbearance and 
 confidence, while his relation to his opponents is one of vengeance 
 delaying its execution only for the sake of the church, which has 
 not yet attained to full obedience—a wise manipulation of the 
 Divide et tmpera!— How he means to execute the ἐκδικεῖν 
 (Rom. xii. 19), he does not say; he might do so by ordaining 
 excommunication, by giving them over to Satan (1 Cor. v. 5), or 
 by other exercise of his miraculous apostolic power. — ὑμῶν] is 
 placed first with emphasis, to distinguish the church from those 
 whose παρακοή was to be punished. Hofmann, without ground, 
 denies this emphasis, because ὑμῶν does not stand before πληρωθῆ. 
 The emphasis certainly falls, in the first instance, on πληρ., and 
 next not on ἡ ὕὑπακ., but on ὑμῶν. 
 
 Ver. 7. Paul feels that the ἐξουσία, just described in vv. 3-6, 
 is not conceded to him by his opponents and those misled by 
 them in the church; they judge that he is evidently no right 
 servant of Christ, and that he must come to shame with his 
 boasting (comp. ver. 8). He at once breaks into the midst ot 
 this course of thought on the part of his opponents with the dis- 
 approving question: Do you look on that which lies before the eyes 2 
 do you judge according to the appearance? by which he means 
 this, that they profess to have seen him weak and cowardly, 
 when he was in Corinth personally (comp. ver. 1). This does not | 
 involve any admission of the charge in ver. 1, but, on the con- 
 trary, discloses the error, in accordance with which the charge was 
 based on the apostle’s outward appearance, which did not make a 
 display of his boldness. The answer to the question is: 17 any 
 
 2 Lachmann, by a fullstop, separates ὅσαν rnp. du. ἡ ὑπακ. Wholly from what goes 
 before, and connects it with what follows, so that the meaning results: ‘‘ When 
 your obedience shall have become complete, see to what lies before your eyes.” A 
 precept strangely conditioned! And why should we give up the common punctua- 
 tion, which yields a delicate touch quite characteristic of Paul ? 
 
CHAP HRT: 399 
 
 one ts confident that he belongs to Christ, let him judge this again 
 of himself, that just as he belongs to Christ, so do we. The opposing 
 teachers had certainly boasted: How utterly different people are 
 we from this Paul, who is bold only at a distance, and makes a boast 
 of belonging as an apostle to Christ! We are right servants of 
 Christ !— τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον βλέπετε] is taken interrogatively 
 by Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Cajetanus, Beza, Grotius, 
 Calovius, Wolf, Hammond, Bengel, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, Em- 
 metling, Riibiger, Osiander, Klopper, and others ; along with which, 
 however, many import into κατὰ πρόσωπον elements at variance 
 with the text (see vv. 1 and 10), such as intercourse with Jesus 
 when on earth and other matters. It is taken as not interrogative 
 (Lachmann and Tischendorf), but also with βλέπετε as indicative, 
 and the sentence, consequently, as a yudgment of censure, by Chry- 
 sostom, Gennadius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schulz, Flatt. 
 Calvin says: “ Magni facitis alios, qui magnis ampullis turgent ; 
 me, quia ostentatione et jactantia careo, despicitis ;” while Flatt, 
 following Storr, in spite of vv. 1 and 10, refers κατὰ πρόσωπον 
 to the kinship of James with Christ, on which the Christine 
 party had relied. In any case, however, it is more lively and 
 forcible, and therefore more suitable, to take it as interrogative. 
 Others, again, take βλέπετε as an imperative (Vulgate, Ambro- 
 siaster, Anselm, Cornelius a Lapide, Billroth, Rickert, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Bisping, Hofmann): observe withal what lies so clearly 
 before the eyes! In this view we should not have to explain 
 it with Ewald: “regard personal matters ;” so that Paul begins 
 to point to the personal element which is now to be taken into 
 consideration ; but with Hofmann: the readers only needed to 
 have their eyes open to what lay before them, in order to judge 
 rightly. But against this it may be urged that κατὰ πρόσωπον 
 could not but most naturally explain itself from ver. 1, and that 
 the meaning itself would have something tame and more calmly 
 argumentative, than would be suited to the lively emotion of the 
 passage. Besides, it is Paul’s custom elsewhere to put βλέπετε 
 first, when he summons to an intwemini. See 1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18; 
 Phil. iii. 2. — εἴτις πέποιθεν ἑαυτῷ Χριστοῦ εἶναι) In this way 
 is designated the confidence which his opponents (not a single 
 peculiar false teacher, as Michaelis thinks) arrogantly cherished for 
 themselves, but denied to Paul, that they were genuine Christ- 
 
400 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 people, genuine servants of Christ. The addition of δοῦλος to 
 Χριστοῦ in D* E* F G, It. Ambrosiaster, is a correct gloss (comp. 
 ΧΙ. 23). For it is not the conjiteor of the Christine party (1 Cor. 
 i. 12) that is meant here (Mosheim, Stolz, Flatt, comp. also 
 Olshausen, Dahne, de Wette, Schenkel, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld, 
 Klopper, and others; see against this, Neander, I. p. 393 ff., and 
 also Hofmann), but the assertion—to the exaltation of themselves 
 and the exclusion of Paul—of a true apostolic connection (through 
 calling, gifts, ete.) with Christ’ on the part of Judaistic pseudo- 
 apostles (xi. 5, xii. 22, 23). Observe that the teachers here meant 
 were not a party of the church, like the adherents of Christ desig- 
 nated in 1 Cor.i.12. The very οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, compared with 
 ver. 8,—to say nothing of the fact that there is no hint of any 
 such special reference,—precludes our explaining it of the continued 
 immediate connection with Christ through visions and the like, 
 of which the heads of the Christine party had probably boasted 
 (de Wette, Dihne, Goldhorn, and others, following Schenkel). — 
 πάλιν] not: on the contrary, or on the other hand, which it never 
 means in the N. T. (see on Matt. iv. 7, and Fritzsche, ad Matt. 
 p. 167), but again, denuo. It refers to ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, which is corre- 
 lative to the previous éavt@. He is confident to himself ; let him 
 then consider once more for himself. In this view there was no 
 need of the shift to which Fritzsche has recourse, that πεποι- 
 θέναι and λογίζεσθαι “communem continent mente volvendi 
 notionem.” The verbs might be quite heterogeneous in point of 
 the notion conveyed, since πάλιν is logically defined by the rela- 
 tion of ἑαυτῷ and éavtov.— The Recepta ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, instead of 
 which, however, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ is to be read,’ would mean proprio 
 
 1 Not with His disciples, and in particular with Peter, as Baur insinuates. See 
 his Paulus, I. p. 306, ed. 2. It was in his view the original apostles as immediate 
 disciples of the Lord (see also Holsten, z. Hvang. des Paul. u. Petr. p. 24 ff.), from 
 whose position the anti-Pauline party in Corinth had borrowed their watchword 
 
 Χριστοῦ sivas, And in these his opponents Paul was at the same time combating the 
 original apostles. 
 
 2 The reading ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (Lachm. ed. min.), supported by BL δὲ 21, is not mean- 
 ingless (Ewald), but is to be taken : with himself, in quietness for himself—a classic 
 usage since Homer (Jl. vii. 195, xix. 255; see Faesi on these passages) of very 
 frequent occurrence ; see Kiihner, II. p. 296. The translation apud se in the Vulg. 
 and It. also rests on this reading, which might easily enough be supplanted by the 
 better known ἀφ᾽ tavrov, and hence deserves to be preferred. There lies in this ἐφ᾽ 
 
 ἑαυτοῦ (secum solo reputet) a reproof putting more delicately to shame than in ἀφ᾽ 
 ἑαυτοῦ, 
 
CHAP. X. 8. 401 
 
 motu, Luke xii. 57, xxi. 30, 2 Cor. iii. 5, ὧδ. without any need for 
 one first to say it to him. The text gives no warrant for ¢ronical 
 interpretation (from his own high estimate, Riickert).— οὕτω καὶ 
 ἡμεῖς] is a litotes from the apostle’s point of view. Οὐ yap Bov- 
 AeTat ἐκ προοιμίων σφοδρὸς γίνεσθαι ἀλλὰ κατὰ μικρὸν αὔξεται 
 καὶ κορυφοῦται, Chrysostom. 
 
 Ver. 8. Proof of the οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς from his apostolic authority, 
 which was yet greater than he had already represented it. — τὲ 
 γάρ] etenim, as in Rom. i. 26, vil. 7. See on these passages, 
 and Hermann, ad Soph. Trach. 1015; regarding the independent 
 usage frequent in the later Attic, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 750 f. 
 — ἐάν] is not used concessively (Riickert ; not even 1 Cor. iv. 15, 
 xii, 1 ff.), but puts a case as a conception of the speaker, in which 
 the realization remains left to experience: for, in case that I shall 
 have boasted myself yet something more (than has been already 
 done by me in vv. 3-6) of the authority, etc., I shall not be put 
 to shame, it will be apparent that I have not been practising empty 
 boasting of which I should have to be ashamed. περισσότ. τι is 
 accusative of object, like τί, vii. 11. See on ix. 2. The reference 
 of the comparative to what was said in ver. 7 (Osiander, Hof- 
 mann, following older commentators) has against it the fact that 
 Paul, in ver. 7, has not spoken of an ἐξουσία ; and to take περὶ τ. 
 efove. 7. as an element added only by way of supplement, would 
 be all the more arbitrary, since, in fact, what follows is attached 
 to it significantly. It is taken too generally by Grotius and 
 others: “plus guam alii possent,” or as: “ sumewhat more amply” 
 (Ewald ; comp. Billroth and Olshausen). On τ. ἐξουσίας «.7.X., 
 comp. xiii. 10. — ἧς ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος εἰς οἰκοδομὴν K.7.d.] signifi- 
 cant more precise definition of the previous ἡμῶν, with a double 
 side-glance at the false apostles, whose power neither was from 
 Christ nor redounded to edification (perfection of the Christian 
 life), but rather to the destruction of the church. Paul conceives 
 of the church as a temple of God, which the apostolic teachers 
 are building (1 Cor. iii. 16; comp. on Rom. xiv. 19); and he is 
 conscious that he will, in the event of his making a still greater 
 boast of that, not be put to shame, but see himself justified by the 
 result of his work. Observe the interchange of plural (ἐξουσ. ἡμ.) 
 and singular. Olshausen, in an arbitrary and involved way, 
 connects εἰς ood. with καυχήσωμαι, holding that there is an 
 
 2 COR. IL, 20 
 
402 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 anticipation of the thought, so that, according to the meaning, it 
 ought to have run: οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι, ἐγένετο yap εἰς K.T.d. — 
 οὐκ αἰσχυνθ.] when ? in every case of the future generally. There 
 is no indication in the text of a limitation to the last day (Ewald). 
 Even on his arrival at Corinth he expected that he should 
 experience no cause for shame. 
 
 Ver. 9 is taken by Chrysostom, Calvin, Schulz, Morus, 
 Zachariae, Emmerling, Vater, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, as the protasis of ver. 11, so that ver. 10 
 becomes a parenthesis. But by Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
 Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Billroth and Schrader, it is 
 attached to ver. 8, in which case, however, some (Beza, Bengel, 
 comp. Billroth) supply before ἵνα a “ quod ego idcirco dico,” others 
 (Grotius, comp. Erasmus): “xon addam plura ea de re.” The 
 latter is pure invention; and from the supplement of Beza there 
 would not at all logically result what is said in ver. 9, No; let 
 iva μὴ δόξω κιτιλ. be joined immediately, without assuming any 
 intervening thought, to οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι: I shall not be put to 
 shame (now comes the definition, in a negative form, of the divine 
 aim with reference to the charge in question), in order that I may 
 not appear, etc., that the matter may not remain on the footing 
 of the mere word, but it may be apparent in point of fact that 
 T am something quite other than the man who wishes to frighten 
 you by his letters. If in this way the passage proceeds simply 
 and correctly without logical difficulty, the less simple con- 
 nection of Chrysostom et al. (see above) is superfluous, and is, 
 moreover, not to be accepted, because the new part of the passage 
 would begin, in a very palpably abrupt way, with wa without 
 any connecting particle,’ and because what Paul says in ver. 11 
 could not destroy the appearance indicated in ver. 9, to which 
 belonged matter of fact.— ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς) The Vulgate 
 rightly has: “tanquam terrere vos,” and Beza: “ ceu perterrefacere 
 vos.” The ὡς av modestly takes away from the harsh and strong 
 ἐκφοβεῖν the offensiveness, which in the feeling of the apostle it 
 would have had, if taken by itself and in its full sense. It is not 
 modal (“in any way,” Hofmann), but comparative, corresponding 
 quite to our modifying as [German wie]: that I may not appear 
 
 Δ Hence also at a very early time there crept in after ἵνα a δέ, which we still find 
 in Syr. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Pel. Ambrosiast. and several cursives. 
 
CHAP. X. 10, 11. 403 
 
 to put you as in dread. In later Greek ws ἄν certainly has the 
 meaning tanguam, quasi, ἄν having lost its specific reference. See 
 Hermann, de part. av, 4. 3, p. 184; Bornemann, in d. Stichs. 
 Stud. 1846, p. 61; Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 189 [E. Τὶ 219]. 
 To resolve it into ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβοῖμι ὑμᾶς (Olshausen) is arbitrary, 
 as if it were oratio directa. The classical ὡς ἄν with optative 
 and subjunctive (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 767), as in 1 Thess. ii. 7, 
 is not to be brought into comparison here. — διὰ τῶν ἐπιστ. 
 namely, which I write to you (article); he had already written 
 two. The plural does not justify the hypothesis of a third letter 
 already written (Bleek). — The compound ἐκφοβεῖν (comp. 
 ἔκφοβος, Mark ix. 6; Heb. xii. 21) is stronger than the 
 simple form, Plato, Gorg. p. 483 C; Zp. 3, p. 318 B; Thue. 
 ni. 42. 4; Polyb. xiv. 10. 3; Wisd. xvii 9, 19 ; 1 Mace, 
 xiv. 17. 
 
 Ver. 10. For his letters, it is said, are weighty and strong ; his 
 bodily presence, however, is powerless (when present in body, he acts 
 without power and energy), and his speech despised, his oral teach- 
 ing, exhortation, etc., find no respect, are held of little account. 
 Comp. ver. 1. For the apostle’s own commentary on the second 
 part of this assertion of his opponents, see 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4. Quite 
 at variance with the context, some have found here also bodily 
 weakness (Witsius in Wolf; recently, in particular, Holsten, zm 
 iv. d. Paul. τι. Petr. Ὁ. 85), and a weak utterance (Er. Schmid). 
 Besides, the tradition is very uncertain and late, which pronounces 
 Paul to have been μικρὸν καὶ συνεσταλμένον τὸ τοῦ σώματος 
 μέγεθος (Niceph. Call. ii. 37). Comp. on Acts xiv. 12.— The 
 opposite of ἐσχυραί, powerful, is ἀσθενής. ---- On βαρεῖαι, comp. 
 Wetstein. The gravitas is imposing and instils respect ; hence 
 the opposite ἐξουθενημ. —- φησι] it is said, impersonal, as 
 often with the Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading 
 φασίν (Lachmann, following B, Vulg.) is a rash correction. Comp. 
 Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph. p. 189; Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 119 
 [E. T. 136]. 
 
 Ver. 11. After ver. 10 a full stop is to be put (see on ver. 9), 
 so that now, without any connecting particle, but with the more 
 striking force, there follows what is suggested for the considera- 
 tion of the person judging in such wise. — τοιοῦτοι καὶ παρόντες 
 τῷ ἔργῳ] sc. ἐσμέν. Such a double part we do not play. 
 
404 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 12.’ Reason assigned for this assurance (οἷοί ἐσμεν... 
 τῷ ἔργῳ): for we are not like our boastful opponents, but, etc. 
 If we were such people as they are, word and work might doubt- 
 less not harmonize in our case. — οὐ yap τολμῶμεν K.7.r.] for we 
 do not venture to number ourselves among, or compare ourselves with, 
 certain people among those who commend themselves; but they,’ 
 measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with 
 themselves, are not rational ; we, on the other hand, will not make 
 our boast beyond measure, but, etc., ver. 13. In ov τολμῶμεν is 
 implied an irony which shows the want of humility in those 
 people. Bengel aptly says: “sepem inter se et illos ponit.” — 
 éyxpivar] annumerare, to place in one category; inserere, as the 
 Vulgate rightly has it (Hor. Od. i. 1. 35); construed with eis, 
 μετά, ἐπί with genitive, and with the simple dative of the per- 
 sons joined (Apoll. Rhod. i. 48. 227). See Wetstein and Kypke, 
 II. p. 264. — συγκρῖναι] might mean the same (Morus, Rosen- 
 miiller, Flatt, Reiche, and several, following the Peshito), but is 
 defined by συγκρίνοντες in the contrasting clause as having the 
 meaning comparare (Vulgate), which it very often has in later 
 Greek, as also in Wisd. vii. 29, xv. 18, equivalent to παραβάλλειν 
 in Polyb. i. 2. 1, xii. 12. 1.2 See, in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 278. Comp. Loesner, Obss. p. 273. Observe, moreover, the 
 paronomasia of the two verbs, something like inferre aut conferre, 
 the German zuwrechnen oder gleichrechnen ; Ewald: eingleichen oder 
 vergleichen [reckon to or reckon like]. τισι] as in ver. 2, not: 
 even the least of them (Hofmann), — tév éavt. συνιστ.] This is 
 the class of men, to which the τινές belong. — ἀλλά] introduces 
 the opposite in such a way that the procedure of the two parties is 
 placed antithetically in juxtaposition: “We do not venture to 
 reckon ourselves to or compare ourselves with them, but they 
 proceed thus, we, on the other hand, thus.” We do not venture, 
 
 1 This passage is most thoroughly discussed by Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 33 ff. 
 (whom Billroth has entirely followed), and by Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 375 ff. 
 Theodoret remarks: ἀσαφῶς uray τὸ χώρημα τοῦτο γέγραφεν, and for this he advances 
 as a reason: ἐναργῶς ἐλέγξαι rods αἰτίους οὐ βουλόμενος. 
 
 2 This emphasized they (αὐτοί, they on their part) is fully justified in contrast to 
 the following ἡμεῖς; hence it is not, with Osiander, to be taken in the sense of soli, 
 n its limitation to themselves. 
 
 3 The objects compared may be of similar or dissimilar nature. On this point 
 the word does not determine anything, 
 
CHAP. X. 12. 405 
 
 etc., but between them and us there subsists the contrast, which 
 does away with that ἐγκρῖναι ἢ συγκρῖναι «.7.X., that they, ete, 
 whereas we, etc. — αὐτοί down to οὐ συνιοῦσιν applies to the hostile 
 τινές, and on this point one half of the expositors are agreed. 
 But συνιοῦσιν, which is therefore not to be accented συνίουσιν 
 (comp. on Rom. iii. 11), is not a participle (Chrysostom), so that it 
 would be definition of quality to ἑαυτοῖς, which would quite un- 
 necessarily make an anacoluthon, but it is the third person plural 
 (Matt. xiii. 13) for the Attic συνιᾶσιν, which is read by Lachmann, 
 following B x**—-so that ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες K. συγκρ. 
 ἑαυτ. ἑαυτοῖς is the point, in which the opponents show their 
 irrationality (inasmuch as they measure themselves by themselves 
 ... they are irrational), and not the object of οὐ συνιοῦσιν (they 
 do not know that they measure themselves by themselves), as Erasmus, 
 Castalio, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, and several 
 have held. To this last view, indeed, there is no grammatical 
 objection (Valckenaer, ad Herod. III. 1, and on the distinction 
 from the infinitive construction, Kiihner, II. p. 357), but it would 
 yield an inappropriate meaning; for the contrast ἡμεῖς δὲ #.7.A. 
 shows that Paul did not mean to bring into prominence the blind- 
 ness of his opponents towards their foolish conduct, but the folly 
 of this procedure itself, whereas he proceeds quite otherwise. 
 When those people measure themselves by themselves, judge 
 themselves by their own personality, and compare themselves 
 with this instead of with persons working more and better,’ they 
 are in this presumption of theirs (comp. Chrysostom 1) irrational, 
 ineptiunt, οὐ συνιοῦσι. This, however, is not to be defined more 
 precisely by arbitrary additions, such as: they do not know how 
 ridiculous they make themselves (Chrysostom 2, Theophylact), or 
 how arrogant they are (Oecumenius), or what they are talking about 
 
 ? Such an one thinks: what a great man I am, for how much I know and can 
 do! how I even excel myself, ete. ! His own ego is thus object and canon of the 
 measuring and judging. Calvin aptly illustrates this by the example of the ignorant 
 and yet so conceited monks. The juxtaposition of αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτούς palliates the 
 conceit of the selfish nature. Comp. Plato, Protag. p. 347 E: abrol δ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς σύνεισι 
 δι ἑαυτῶν, It is well paraphrased by Reiche, p. 380: ‘‘sibi ipsis e vana sua de se 
 opinione virtutum meritorumque modulum constituentes atque se sibi solis com- 
 parantes, non potioribus meliusque meritis, quod si fecerint, illico quam sint nihil 
 ipsi cognoscerent.” Hofmann, again, deals in subtleties, referring ἐν ἑαυτοῖς not only 
 
 to the first, but also to the second participle, and (see against this, below) connecting 
 the concluding ἑανφσῖς with the following verb. 
 
400 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (Augustine). Comp. rather Rom. ili. 11; Matt. xiii. 13, al. Hof- 
 mann prefers the reading of x* 93: συνίσασιν (comp. on this 
 Attic form, Acts xxvi. 4, and see Buttmann, Ausf. Sprachl. p. 
 548 ff.), and attaches ἑαυτοῖς to it: they are not conscious of this, 
 that they only measure themselves and compare themselves, 1.6. that 
 only within their own selves they form their gudgment respecting 
 themselves, how far they are capable of apprehending, and to whom 
 they are entitled to rank themselves equal. But the reading συνίσασιν 
 can only be regarded as a copyist’s error, through which, instead 
 of συνιᾶσιν (Lachmann), there crept in the word συνίσασιν well 
 known from the Attic writers (6... Soph. £7. 93; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 
 1. 9), and this in turn was at once amended by the corrector A. 
 And in no case can ἑαυτοῖς be separated from συγκρίνοντες, since 
 συγκρίνειν in itself is an incomplete notion, which necessarily 
 requires a specification of that with which comparison is made. 
 Hofmann’s view is at once wneritical and illogical, apart from 
 the fact that it very much disturbs the purposely chosen symmetry 
 of the two participial definitions; hence it is also formally 
 unsuitable. — The second half of the expositors (Chrysostom 
 hesitates between the two views) refer αὐτοὶ... συνιοῦσιν 
 to Paul, and consider συνιοῦσιν (to be written συνίουσιν) as ὦ 
 participle, so that the measuring self by self, etc. appears to be 
 the right kind of judgment.' Comp. Horace, Ep. 1. 7. 98: 
 “ Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est.” In this case 
 either (a) οὐ συνιοῦσιν is considered as in contrast with ἑαυτοῖς : 
 with ourselves, not with wise people, by which the conceited 
 opponents would be ironically meant (Bos, Homberg, Schrader). 
 Or (Ὁ) ἀλλὰ... ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς is taken as parenthesis, and 
 ov συνιοῦσι as one conception in apposition to τισὶ τῶν éavT. 
 συνιστ. (Schulz). Or (ὁ) οὐ συνιοῦσιν is taken as apposition to 
 the preceding ἑαυτοῖς : “neque existimo ex me, homine, ut istis 
 placet, insipido,” Emmerling, whom Olshausen follows. All these 
 views take the participles for the finite tenses (or rather as anaco- 
 luthic); but against them all the following ἡμεῖς δέ is decisive, 
 
 1 According to Emmerling, rp. tavz. ἐν tar. applies to abstinence from promises 
 which transcend their powers, and the συγκριν. tavr. ἕξαυτοῖς to the “ judicium ferre 
 de se ad normam virium suarum, factorum et meritorum.” According to Olshausen, 
 ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες is intended to mean: we measure ourselves by what the 
 Lord has imposed on us! 
 
CHAP, X. 12. 407 
 
 which makes it logically necessary to refer αὐτοί to the opponents ; 
 for it cannot, as Emmerling and Olshausen think, form a logical 
 contrast to the charge which is alleged to be implied in οὐ 
 συνιοῦσιν, since ἡμεῖς δέ would require to be put in antithesis to 
 the accusers, and not to the accusation (which, besides, would 
 only be expressed quite cursorily and indirectly by ov συνιοῦσιν). 
 Further, there may be urged against (a), that it would require ov 
 τοῖς συνιοῦσιν with the article ; against (0), that this interpretation 
 is involved ; against (c), not so much the want of the article—for 
 ov συνιοῦσιν need not be in apposition, but might also be an accom- 
 panying definition of éavrois—as the fact that there is no hint 
 in the context of any ironical adducing of such a charge, and 
 hence it is not to be compared with xi. 1, 16, 19, xu. 11. 
 
 REMARK 1.—Against our explanation (which is found in sub- 
 stance also in Augustine, Chrysostom 1, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Luther, Calvin, Hammond, Wetstein, Zachariae, and others, in- 
 cluding Riickert, Reiche, Neander, Osiander, Kling, partly also in 
 Hofmann), it bas been objected (see especially Fritzsche and 
 Billroth) that ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κιτιλ. cannot apply to the opponents, 
 because manifestly different modes of dealing, and not different 
 persons, would be opposed to each other, in which case Paul could 
 not but have written: ἡμεῖς γὰρ od... ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κιτιλ. But by 
 this very contrast of persons first introduced by ἀλλά (ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ 
 . .. ἡμεῖς 62) the opposite of the mode of action previously negatived 
 is exhibited in a truly concrete and vivid way, and by no means 
 illogically, seeing that in fact by the previous ἑαυτοὺς τισί the 
 contrast of persons introduced with ἀλλά was very naturally sug- 
 gested. On the other hand, it would not have been logical, if Paul 
 had written ἡμεῖς γὰρ οὐ τολμῶμεν... ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κιτιλι, since then 
 doubtless the persons, but not that which is asserted of the persons, 
 would stand in logical contrast with one another; for what is 
 asserted would need to be substantially in both clauses one and 
 the same thing, which would be denied of the ἡμεῖς, and affirmed of 
 the αὐτοί, It has been objected to our explanation of οὐ συνιοῦσιν 
 that it is against the context; but it is, in point of fact, to be 
 observed, that on the one hand it gives a very delicate explanation 
 concerning the ironical οὐ τολμῶμεν, and that on the other hand 
 the following ἡμεῖς δὲ x.r.A. with logical accuracy opposes to the 
 previous ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ χιτιλ. the thought: we, however, abide by the 
 measure which God has imparted to us, so that in κατὰ τὸ μέτρον 
 σοῦ κανόνος, ov ἐμέρ. nu. ὁ θεὸς μέτρου there lies the contrast to the 
 irrational procedure of the opponents measuring themselves by 
 
408 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 themselves. He who measures himself by himself, seeing that in 
 fact he lacks an objective standard, falls with his boasting εἰς τὰ 
 ἄμετρα, like those opponents; but not he, who knows himself deter- 
 mined by a limit set by God. Finally, the objection, that by our 
 interpretation οὐ συνιοῦσιν gets a thought imported into it which its 
 literal tenor does not actually present (Hofmann), is quite ground- 
 less, since οὐ, by a quite common usage, turns the συνιοῦσιν into its 
 opposite , consequently od συν. expresses the ἀσυνεσία, the irrationality 
 and folly of those men in their procedure. 
 
 REMARK 2.—By leaving out οὐ ovwodow ἡμεῖς δέ, but retaining 
 καυχησόμεθα, ver. 13 (see the critical remarks), the meaning results: 
 “sed me ex meo modulo metiens mihique me conferens, non praeter 
 modum, sed ad modum ita mihi praefiniti spat, ut ad vos quoque 
 pervenirem, gloriabor” (Fritzsche)... But if καυχησόμεθα also is left 
 out, as Fritzsche and Billroth approve, Paul in ver. 15 turns back 
 to οὖκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα in ver. 13, and then adds the still necessary 
 verb anacoluthically in the participle: “sed me ipse miht con- 
 Jerens, non practer modum ... ver. 15, non praeter modum inquam 
 me efferens” (Fritzsche). The suitableness of the meaning and of 
 the antithetic character in the several parts, as well as the unex- 
 ceptionable warrant of the anacoluthon, have been aptly shown by 
 Fritzsche, pp. 41,43 f. But the rejected words cannot thereby be 
 deprived of their critical title to exist. 
 
 Ver. 13. Eis τὰ ἄμετρα] so that we with our καυχᾶσθαι go 
 beyond measure, go into limitless extravagance. This is what is 
 done by the man who measures himself by himself, because in 
 that case no check external to himself is put on his imagination 
 and self-exaltation. Such a man certainly has an olject of the 
 καυχᾶσθαι, and is not simply aiming at the having one (Hofmann), 
 which would yield an absurd idea; but he has no bounds in the 
 manner and degree of his καυχᾶσθαι ; he is wanting in μετριότης. 
 Regarding the use of εἰς with an adjective of degree and the 
 article, see Viger. ed. Herm. p. 596; Matthiae, p. 1349. On 
 the expression itself, comp. Homer, J/. 11. 212, where Thersites is 
 called ἀμετροεπής. ---- καυχησόμεθα] The futwre asserts that this 
 
 ? Comp. Ewald: ‘‘ but modestly and cautiously measuring ourselves by ourselves 
 and our abilities, and comparing ourselves with ourselves and our labours already 
 achieved and clear before the world and before God, we will not (like those intruders) 
 boast without measure, but at most will boast according to the measure of the 
 standard which God imparted to us as measure, and which accordingly among 
 other things authorized and strengthened us, that we attained even unto you and 
 founded you.” 
 
CHAP. X. 13. 409 
 
 ease will not occur. Comp. Rom. x. 14, al. ; Dissen, ad Dem. de 
 Cor. p. 369.— ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος, οὗ K.T.X.] 50. 
 καυχησόμεθα : but according to the measure of the boundary-line, 
 which God (aot our own choice) has assigned to us as measure, to 
 reach even unto you, te. but our boasting will restrict and measure 
 itself according to the limit which God has drawn for us, and 
 by which He has measured off the sphere of our activity, in 
 order that we should reach even to you with our working. By 
 this Paul is manifestly aiming at the vaingloriousness of the 
 false apostles, who decked themselves with extraneous feathers, 
 inasmuch as they intruded into the provinces of others, into 
 spheres which had not been assigned to them by God as the 
 measure of their activity : as, indeed, in particular they had come 
 also to Corinth, which lay within the boundary-line of Paul’s 
 apostolic action, and were now boasting as if the church-life in 
 Corinth were chiefly their work. For, although they could not 
 give themselves out to be the founders of the church (Baur, Z%b. 
 Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 101), they could still put forward as their 
 merit the rapid grewth of the church and many points of detail, 
 and thereby presume to put the apostle in the shade. Olshausen 
 thinks that the false apostles had appropriated to themselves 
 Corinth as their province, because they had already been at work 
 there before Paul; but that the latter had still felt himself at 
 liberty to preach in Corinth, because no apostle had been there 
 before him. This is an hypothesis quite as superfluous as it is 
 unhistorical, since neither in the Book of Acts is there found any 
 trace of Christianity at Corinth before Paul’s arrival, nor in the 
 Epistles, in which, on the contrary, he states expressly that he 
 was the first to preach there (1 Cor. iii. 6, 10), and that all other 
 teachers had entered later into the work (1 Cor. iv. 15). — κατὰ 
 τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος] Here τὸ μέτρον is the measure defined 
 Jor the καυχᾶσθαι, as is clear from the previous οὐχὶ εἰς τὰ 
 ἄμετρα xavy.,—and τοῦ κανόνος is the genitivus subjecti: the 
 measure given by the drawn measuring-line. And the subsequent 
 μετροῦ ' is an apposition to τοῦ κανόνος not at all unnatural (as 
 
 1 For which Grotius ought not to have conjectured μέτρον. But the most mis- 
 taken view as regards μέτρου is that lighted on by Hofmann, who attaches it to 
 6 θεός : ** the God of measure,” by which, in his view, it is affirmed that ‘‘ to every- 
 thing God sets some sort of measure.” As if this singular way of designating God 
 
410 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Hofmann declares it), but attracted by the relative clause accord- 
 ing to a very frequent Greek usage (see Bernhardy, p. 302 ; 
 Pfluck, ad Eur. Hee. 771; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 Εἰ; 
 Rep. p. 402 C; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 246 [E. T. 286]) ; con- 
 sequently not again the measure of the boasting, but, as appears 
 from the definition of the object aimed at ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι x. 
 ὑμῶν, the spatial measure, namely, how far one is to reach (see 
 what follows), or, dropping the figure : the measure of extent of the 
 destined working. Paul, namely, conceives of the local extension 
 assigned to his official working as a space marked out by God 
 with a measuring-line, in which he takes his stand and is able to 
 reach to all points of it without unduly stretching or straining 
 himself, ver. 14. Hence: ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι καὶ ὑμῶν, which is not 
 simply exegetical (Hofmann), nor does it express the consequence 
 (Riickert, de Wette), but is, in accordance with the notion of 
 ἐμέρ., to be taken as infinitive of definition of οὗ ἐμέρ. ἡμ. ὁ θεὸς 
 μέτρου. ---- κανών does not mean sphere of vocation (Flatt and 
 many others), but measuring-rod, measuring-line. Here the latter. 
 Comp: Gal. vi. 16; Aq. Job xxxviii 5; Ps. xvii 4. See im 
 general, Duncan, Zex. ed. Rost. p. 587 ἃ On μερίξειν τινί τι, to 
 impart something to one, assign as one’s share, comp. Rom. xii. 3 ; 
 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; Heb. vii. 23; Polyb. xi. 28. 9, xxx. 18. 34) 7ie 
 ἐφικνεῖσθαι is, in keeping with the figurative representation of 
 the state of the matter (see especially ver. 14), not to arrive at 
 (Hofmann), which is only expressed by ἐφθάσαμεν, but to reach 
 to, pertingere, as the Vulgate aptly renders it. The word is found 
 nowhere else in the N. T., and is here selected for the sense 
 indicated. Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 5, v. 5.8; Plut. Mor. Ὁ. 190 E; 
 Lucian, Jup. conf. 19, al.; also Ecclus. xliii. 27, 30. The 
 Corinthians, because not to be found beyond the bounds of his 
 κανών, were to the apostle ἐφικτοί, reachable. 
 Ver. 14. A parenthetical (see on ver. 15) confirmation of 
 ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι καὶ ὑμῶν : for not, as though we were such as do 
 not reach to you, do we overstretch ourselves, 1.6., dropping the figure : 
 
 (altogether different from such appellations as: the God of glory, of peace, of love, 
 of hope, and the like) were even possible without the article before ~irpov! In Wisd. 
 ix. 1, πατέρων required no article, according to the well-known anarthrous usage of 
 πατήρ in the singular and plural; and in Ecclus, xxxiii. 1, πάντων without the 
 article is quite according to rule. 
 
CHAP, X. 15. 411 
 
 for we do not usurp for ourselves any extension of our working 
 at variance with its destined limit, as would be the case, if you 
 lay beyond the measured-off province which is divinely assigned 
 to us. Paul abides by his figure: for if he were not destined to 
 extend his official working even to Corinth, and yet wished to do 
 so, he would resemble a man who stretches himself beyond the 
 boundary-line drawn for him, in order to reach to a point that 
 lies beyond the limits which he is forbidden to overpass. — ὡς μὴ 
 ἐφικν. εἰς ὑμᾶς] ἐφικν. is to be taken in no other sense than the 
 previous ἐφικέσθαι. The present, however, denotes: as though 
 we were persons, 77. whose case the reaching to you does not occur, Le. 
 whose position within their measured local district implies that 
 you are not capable of being reached by them, because, forsooth, 
 you lie beyond the limits of this district. Luther, Beza, and 
 many others, overlooking this continuation of the figure, and taking 
 ἐφικνούμενοι, in spite of the present (and in spite of the present 
 ὑπερεκτείνομεν), historically, have explained it: ut sz non pervenis- 
 semus, from which error there has sprung the participle of the 
 second aorist, supported by very weak evidence, and yet preferred 
 by Billroth. Regarding μή, Winer, p. 442 [E. T. 595], very cor- 
 rectly remarks: “a mere conception ; in point of fact, the state of 
 the case is otherwise ; compare, on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26.” 
 — - ἄχρι yap καὶ ὑμῶν «.7.r.] This is now the historical position 
 of the case, in confirmation of what was just figuratively expressed 
 by od yap... ἑαυτούς. How fraught with shame must the sum 
 of recollections, which this simple historical fact embraced, have 
 been for the misled portion of the church! ἐφθάσαμεν is simply : 
 we have arrived at (Rom. ix. 31; Phil. 11. 16; Matt. xi. 28; 
 1 Thess. ii. 16), not: we have arrived before (sooner than the 
 opponents, Osiander, comp. Ewald). This important point Paul 
 must have denoted by some such expression as ἐφθάσ. ἐκείνους 
 (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 15).—év τῷ evayy. τ. X.] The gospel of 
 Christ is conceived as the official element in which the ἐφθά- 
 σαμεν took place: in the matter of the gospel, zc. in functione 
 evangelica (Bengel). Comp. Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. vill. 18; Phil. 
 av. 3; 1 Thess. i 2. 
 
 Ver. 15. As οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχ. is evidently intended to 
 resume the οὐχὶ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα Kavy. in ver. 13, and as ver. 14 is 
 merely a confirmatory statement occasioned by ἐφικέσθαι ἄχρι κ. 
 
412 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 ὑμῶν, it is most natural and logically most suitable, with Lach- 
 mann, Osiander, Ewald, to place the whole of ver. 14 in a paren- 
 thesis (not the second half of the verse merely, as is done by 
 Griesbach, Scholz, de Wette, Hofmann), so that καυχώμενοι 
 depends on the καυχησόμεθα to be supplied in the second clause 
 of ver. 13, not on οὐ yap... ὑπερεκτείν. ἑαυτούς (de Wette, 
 Hofmann). To attach it, with Riickert (comp. Tischendorf), to 
 ἐφθάσαμεν is quite unsuitable, because the latter contains an 
 historical remark,—only made, moreover, in passing,—and_ thus 
 heterogencous elements would be combined. — ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις κόποις] 
 object of the negatived εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχᾶσθαι. With his 
 opponents it was the case that their unmeasured boasting referred 
 to labours which were done by others, but were boasted of by them 
 as their work. — ἐλπίδα δὲ ἔχοντες] but having doubtless hope, when 
 your faith inereases, to become large among you according to our rule 
 abundantly, 1.6. but doubtless hoping, with the growth of your 
 faith, to attain among you ¢hzs, that starting from you we may be 
 able still further abundantly to extend our working according to 
 the measure of our destination. This meaning Paul expresses 
 figuratively, and that with faithful adherence to the figure used 
 in vv. 13,14. He, namely, who can work far off, is a man of 
 great stature, who without overstretching himself reaches afar ; 
 hence μεγαλυνθῆναι Further: because Paul still thinks of 
 working forth to distances indefinitely remote, he hopes to become 
 
 
 
 1 μεγαλ. is by most taken as celebrari, which departs from the figure and hence 
 is at variance with the context (Luke i. 46; Acts v. 18, x. 46, xix. 17; Phil. i. 20). 
 So Flatt, Billroth, and Ewald: ‘‘to be exceedingly praised, instead of being bitterly 
 blamed,” to which κατὰ τ. κανόνα ἡμῶν is not suitable. The whole figure demands 
 the explanation to become large (Matt. xxiii. 5; Luke i. 58), and only thus does it 
 stand in its right relation to, and bearing on, αὐξανομ. +. rier. du. Theodoret seems 
 to have understood μεγαλ. rightly, since he explains it: περαιτέρω πορευθῆναι. Comp. 
 Luther: ‘‘ proceed further,” which explains the figurative expression no doubt, but 
 does not translate it. Osiander understands under it an actual glorifying of the office, 
 —that its influence, greatness, and glory shall become advanced. Hofmann: that the 
 continuation of the preaching in the far West will make him still greater, whereby he 
 will have still more ground for boasting—a view made impossible by the fact that ἐν 
 ὑμῖν must be joined with μεγάλ. x.c.a. With all such interpretations the bold, 
 concrete figure, which is set forth in μεγαλυνθ,, is—in opposition to the connection— 
 abandoned according to a subjective standard of taste, as if it were too strong and 
 harsh. Erasmus in his Annot, (not in the Paraphr.) aptly says: ‘‘ Significat se 
 sperare futurum ut in dies crescente fide Corinthiorum creseai et ipse et major 
 majorque fiat.” 
 
. CHAP, X, 15. 413 
 
 large εἰς περισσείαν (comp. Prov. xxi. 5). Still he knows that 
 this wide working, on which he cherishes the hope of being able 
 to enter, will be in keeping with the line drawn for him by God— 
 1.6. the spatial limit divinely appointed for him—and thus will be 
 no ὑπερεκτείνειν Eavt.; hence κατὰ Tov κανόνα ἡμῶν, which 
 Beza ought not to have taken for ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἡμ. (comp. ver. 13). 
 Further: the possibility of this wider working will not set in, if 
 the faith of the Corinthians does not grow, namely, intensively, by 
 becoming always purer, firmer, and more living than now, because 
 Paul will not sooner be able to leave Corinth and travel onward ; 
 hence αὐξανομ. τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, so that thus—and what a 
 wholesome impulse ought this to be to them—it is the Corinthians 
 themselves, among whom he will see himself brought to the point 
 of being able to extend his working further; hence ἐν ὑμῖν" peya- 
 λυνθ.: among you to become large in order to further abundant 
 working. — εἰς mepiccetav] for Paul knew that he was destined 
 to preach the gospel among all nations (Rom. i. 14, 15, and see on 
 Rom. xv. 23, 34; Acts xix. 21); hence beyond doubt he had 
 already at that time the intention of proceeding by way of Rome 
 to Spain. Thus in peyaduvOjvar... εἰς περισσείαν the whole 
 grand feeling of his apostolic destiny finds earnest and true 
 expression. liickert, on the contrary, sees a touch of irony, as 
 if Paul would say: if the Corinthians would become a church as 
 perfect as he wishes and expects, there will thence accrue a gain 
 
 ? Rickert, at variance with the context, understands under κανών here the apostle’s 
 rule of not working where others had already wrought. See against this, ver. 13. 
 
 * Bengel rightly remarks on the present participle: ‘‘ Paulus Corinthios neque ante 
 tempus omittere voluit, neque alios diutius differre.” Olshausen erroneously thinks 
 that Paul was waiting for the completion “of faith among the Corinthians. The 
 apostle rather means the proportionate increase of the faith of the readers, which 
 hitherto had not attained such a degree of development as to make it possible for 
 him to withdraw his working from them and extend the sphere of his activity further. 
 This delicate reference of αὐξανομ, +. rier, ὑμῶν, which appeals to the whole sense of 
 honour in the readers, and according to which Paul makes his further working at a 
 distance depend on their Christian progress, is missed by Hofmann, who explains 
 avgavou. x.7.2, merely in the sense of coincidence in time (while faith grows). This is 
 bound up with his incorrect joining of ἐν duiv with αὐξανομ. See the following note. 
 
 5. This ἐν ὑμῖν is not, with Luther, Castalio, Beza, Mosheim, Billroth, de Wette, 
 Hofmann, to be joined to αὐξανομ.. (whereby either ὑμῶν or ἐν ὑμῖν at any rate, even 
 with the meaning imported into it by Hofmann : ‘‘ within your own sphere,” would 
 seem very superfluous); nor yet is it to be taken as per vos (Erasmus, Grotius, 
 
 Flatt), which only impairs the vividness and completeness of the figure, and in sub- 
 stance is already contained in αὐξανομ. +. rior, bu. 
 
414 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 also for him ; he, too, will then grow with them, and become cap- 
 able not only of doing in the midst of them what is necessary, but 
 also of doing yet something more, of growing, as it were, beyond 
 the proper stature, ete. But both κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν and εἰς 
 περισσείαν are at variance with the character of irony. If Paul 
 had wished to express himself ironically, he would have written 
 possibly ἐν ὑμῖν μεγαλυνθῆναι ὀλίγον or the like, which would 
 have expressed something different from what he properly meant. 
 Ver. 16. Infinitive without a connecting «ai, and all the less 
 therefore dependent in its turn on ἐλπίδα δὲ ἔχοντες, but rather 
 infinitive of the aim: we hope to become exceedingly large 
 among you, 7 order to preach the gospel unto the lands lying 
 beyond you, not within the boundary-line of another to boast of 
 what is already done. This negative part is a side-glance at 
 the opponents who in Corinth, which lay within the range of the 
 line drawn for Paul, and so ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι, had boasted in 
 regard to the circumstances of the church there, which they had, 
 in fact, found already shaped before they came, consequently εἰς 
 τὰ ἕτοιμα. Comp. Calvin: “ quum Paulus militasset, illi trium- 
 phum agebant.” Beza and Billroth, also de Wette and Hofmann 
 (who thinks all three infinitives dependent on ἐλπ. ἔχ.), take the 
 infinitive as epexegesis of μεγαλυνθ. by adding an id est ; but this 
 is precluded by the correct connection of ἐν ὑμῖν with μεγαλυνθ. 
 For, if Paul hopes to become large among the Corinthians, this 
 cannot mean the same thing as to preach away beyond Corinth 
 (εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμ. εὐαγγ.. No; that μεγαλυνθ. denotes the 
 becoming capable for further extended working, the being put into 
 a position for it, and accordingly the aim of this is: εἰς τὰ ὑπερέ- 
 κεινα ὑμῶν evayy. Ewald would make the infinitives edayy. and 
 καυχ. dependent on κατὰ τ. κανόνα ἡμ., so that they would 
 explain in what more precisely this rule consists; but this is 
 forbidden by the fact that εἰς wepuoc. is not placed before κατὰ 
 τ. K. 14—The adverb ὑπερέκεινα, ultra, is bad Greek. See 
 Thomas Magister, p. 356: ἐπέκεινα ῥήτορες λέγουσι... ὑπερέ- 
 κεινα δὲ μόνοι of σύρφακες (the rabble). Comp. Bos, Hilips., ed. 
 Schaef. pp. 288, 290.— εἰς before ὑπερέκ. does stand for ἐν 
 (Flatt and others), but comp. 1 Pet. 1. 25; John viii, 26 
 
 1 Meridiem versus et occidentem; nam Athenis Corinthum venerat, Act. 
 xviii. 1,” Bengel. 
 
CHAP. X.. 17,118. 415 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 9.—ot« ἐν ἀλλοτρ. κανόνι] οὐκ, not μή, is here 
 used quite according to rule (in opposition to Riickert), since the 
 οὐκ ἐν ἀλλ. Kav. is correlative to the εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν as 
 contrast (Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 125 f.). And this correlation 
 demands that ἐν be understood not of the object of καυχᾶσθαι 
 (Hofmann), but locally, to which also the very notion of κανών 
 (ver. 15) points: within the measuring-line drawn for another, 
 Zé. as to substance: in the field of activity divinely destined for 
 another. — On eis with καυχ., in reference to, comp. Arist. Pol. 
 ve EO. 
 
 Ver. 17 ἢ The ἐν ἀλλ. καν. εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα Kavy. was the way 
 of the opponents, whose self-glorying was selfish ostentation. 
 Therefore Paul now lays down the law of the right καυχᾶσθαι, 
 and establishes it ina way (ver. 18), the application of which 
 to the perversity of the opponents’ boasting could not but be 
 obvious. — de] leading over from the previous καυχήσασθαι to 
 the daw of the καυχᾶσθαι. “ But as regards self-glorying, the 
 maxim applies: Let him that glories glory (not otherwise than) in 
 the Lord,” let him have God as the object of his καυχᾶσθαι, inas- 
 much as it is God, by whose grace and power he has and does 
 everything. Paul himself gives a glorious example of the ἐν κυρίῳ 
 καυχᾶσθαι in 1 Cor. xv. 10. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, 10.— As ὁ 
 Kavy. ἐν κυρ. καυχ. is an O. T. maxim well known to the reader 
 (Jer. ix. 23 ἢ; comp. 1 Cor. 1. 31), and the context contains 
 nothing at all which would be at variance with the original refer- 
 ence of the ἐν κυρίῳ to God, viewed as object of the καυχᾶσθαι, 
 in which this is grounded (see on Rom. ii. 17), it is not to be 
 understood of Christ (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, Riickert, and others), 
 nor is ἐν to be taken in the sense of communion (Calvin, Bengel, 
 Osiander). Observe, moreover, what a moral difference there is 
 between this Christian καυχᾶσθαι ἐν θεῷ (comp. Rom. ν. 11) and 
 that of the Jewish particularism, Rom. ii. 17. — Ver. 18. For 
 not he who acts in the opposite way, not he who, instead of 
 glorying ἐν κυρίῳ, makes himself the object which he commends 
 to others, 7s approved, is in the position of attested Christian cha- 
 racter, but he, whom the Lord commends. The latter is—and that 
 in contrast with the opponents extolling themselves—the practical 
 commendation, which God bestows on those concerned by His 
 whole gracious aid, by the success and blessing attending their 
 
 
 
416 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 work, by their rescue from dangers, etc. In this de facto θεῖα 
 ψῆφος (Theodoret), which is made known before the eyes of the 
 world, they have at the same time the right de facto self-com- 
 mendation, vi. 3 ff, without being αὐτεπαίνετοι (αὐτεπαινέτους 
 yap μισεῖ ὁ θεός, Clem. 1 Cor. 30).— Observe, further, the 
 emphatic ἐκεῖνος as well as the unrestricted δόκιμος, the notion 
 of which is not to be referred merely to hwman recognition 
 (Hofmann), as in Rom. xiv. 18, where τοῖς ἀνθρώπ. stands beside 
 it; comp. rather 1 Cor. x1 19; Rom. xvi 10; Jas. i 12. 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ. 417 
 
 ELAR T BR. «ΧΟ, 
 
 VER. 1. ἀνεήχεσθε] Elz.: ἠνείχεσθε, following min. Chrys. Theophyl. 
 But the former is decisively attested by BD EGLM (ws has ἀνάοσ- 
 χεσθε) and many min., also Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theoph. ms. K 
 and several min., as also Theodoret, have ἀνέχεσθε, which appears 
 to be a corruption of the original ἀνεήχεσθε, easily arising from the 
 ἀνέχεσθε that soon follows.— τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ] So Mill, Beng. Matth. 
 Griesb. Scholz, Reiche, following K L and many min. Copt. Chrys. 
 Theodoret, Damasc. Oec. Theophylact, ms. But there is far more 
 support for the reading of Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.: τὶ ἀφροσύνης, 
 following B 1) E'8, min. (Elz. has τι τῆς ἀφρ., following F G, min. 
 vss. Fathers). This τὶ ἀφροσύνης is to be held as the original, not, 
 however, as if Griesbach’s reading had arisen only from a copyist’s 
 error of itacism (τῇ for τι, as Rinck holds, Lucubr. crit. p. 167, and 
 Riick.), but on account of the relatively preponderant attestation, 
 and because the following ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθε wou most naturally 
 suggested to the copyists to regard μου as the object of ἀνεήχεσθε, 
 to which then the genitive ἀφροσύνης was no longer suitable. Τῇ 
 ἀφροσύνῃ had to be made out of it (in regard to folly), and thereupon 
 the superfluous τι easily disappeared through the following τῇ. The 
 reading μικρὸν τῆς ἀφροσύνης μου (F G, It. Vulg.) is explained partly 
 from imperfect critical restoration (of the genitive), partly as an indi- 
 cation of the right construction. — Ver. 3. οὕτω] is wanting in B D* 
 F Gx, It. Copt. Goth. Arm. Clem. Epiph. Lucif. Gaud.; deleted by 
 Lachm. and Riick. An addition. — After ἁπλότητος B F G8, min. 
 Syr. p. (with asterisk), Aeth. Copt. Goth. Boern. Pol. Aug. Beda 
 have καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος (so Lachm.); D E, Clar. Germ. Epiph. (once) 
 change the order of the two parts; Epiph. (once) has ἁγνείας instead 
 of ἁγνότητος. After ver. 2 (ἁγνήν) ἁγνότητος was written alongside 
 as a gloss on ἁπλότητος, and was already at an early date incor- 
 porated in the text, partly behind, partly before ἁπλότς. -- Ver. 4. 
 ἀνείχεσθε] The form ἠνείχεσθε (Elz.) is condemned here also by decisive 
 evidence. Comp. ver.1. Lachm. reads ἀνέχεσθε, but only supported 
 by B, where it has arisen from the apparent grammatical necessity of 
 the present. Fritzsche also, on account of this necessity, declares tor 
 the present; but see the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 6. φανερωθέντες] 
 
 2 COR. IL 2D 
 
418 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. read φανερώσαντες, supported by B F Gu* 17. 
 φανερωθέντες Was explained by the gloss φανερώσαντες ἑαυτούς, aS 18 
 actually the reading in M, 108** Arm., and thus the active par- 
 ticiple came into the text, where it was the more easily retained, 
 as it could be referred without difficulty to τὴν γνῶσιν. ---- Ver. 14. 
 θαυμαστόν] Β D* F GR, 17, -39, 67** 74, Or. have θαῦμα. 80 
 Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. The former is a gloss.— Ver. 16. The 
 order κἀγὼ inp. τι καυχ. (Elz. has μικρ. τ. κἀγὼ καυχ.) has decisive 
 attestation. — Ver. 21. ἠσθενήσαμεν] Lachm. has the perfect, but 
 follows only Bx, 80.— Ver. 27. ἐν before κόπῳ is on decisive evi- 
 dence, with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick., to be deleted as an addition. 
 — Ver. 28. ἐπισύστασίς μου] BEG &*: ἐπίστασίς wor; so Lachm. Riick. 
 ᾿Επίστασις 15 supported also by Ὁ Es** 39, al., which have the 
 reading ἐπήστασίς wov. Comp. also instantia mea in Vulg. Boern. 
 Ambrosiast. Pel. The word ἐπισύστασις has crept in from Acts 
 xxiv. 12, because ἐπίστασις was not understood, and μοὺ is a hasty 
 correction. — Ver. 32. θέλων] is wanting in important witnesses, 
 deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. An exegetical addition. 
 
 
 
 ConTENTS.— The apostle’s self-glorying against his opponents. 
 (1) Introduction, vv. 1-4. (2) Theme of the self-praise, ver. 5 f. 
 (3) Vindication of the special boast that he had preached to his 
 readers gratuitously (vv. 7-9), a practice which he will continue 
 to observe on account of his opponents (vv. 10-15). Then, (4) 
 after a repeated entreaty for patience towards the folly of his 
 self-glorying, which entreaty he accompanies with bitter remarks 
 (vv. 16-20), he compares himself with his enemies (a) in general, 
 ver. 21; (Ὁ) specially as a Jew, ver. 22; (c) as a servant of 
 Christ, ver. 23 ff., in which latter relation he vindicates his suffer- 
 ings, toils, and dangers, as things of which he will glory (vv. 23- 
 30). Lastly, (5) after a solemn assurance that he does not lie, he 
 begins an account of his experiences of suffering (vv. 31-33), 
 which, however, is not continued. 
 
 Ver. 1. Would that ye would bear from me a little bit of 
 folly! The connection of thought is this: after the principle 
 just expressed in x. 18, I am indeed acting foolishly when I 
 boast of myself; but would that you became not angry on that 
 account! Jrony; the apostle’s περιαυτολογία was not, like that 
 of his opponents, idle self-exaltation, but a vindication enjoined 
 by the circumstances and accordant with his duty, in order to 
 drive the refractory boasters at length quite out of the field. 
 
CHAP, XI. 2. 419 
 
 Flatt and Baur would insert an also (from me also as from mine 
 enemies), but quite arbitrarily. — ὄφελον} see on 1 Cor. iv. 8. — 
 ἀνείχεσθε] Hellenistic form with the simple augment (Piers. ad 
 Moer. p. 176) instead of the common vey. in the older writers 
 (Buttmann, Ausfiihrl. Sprachl. II. p. 189 f.; Blomfield, ad Aesch. 
 Choeph. 735). The imperfect is not: have borne (Erasmus, Calvin, 
 and others), but: ferretis, would bear. Comp. εἴθε with imperfect : 
 “ubi optamus eam rerum conditionem quam non esse sentimus,” 
 Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 516; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 499; Butt- 
 mann, newt. Gr. p. 185 LE. T. 215].— μου] does not belong to 
 ἀφροσύνης (Hofmann), so that its position standing apart and 
 prefixed would be emphatic-—which, however, does not at all suit 
 the enclitic form,—but, as genitivus subjecti, to μικρόν τι adpoc., 
 so that μικρ. Te has two genitives with it. Comp. LXX. Job vi. 
 26: οὐδὲ yap ὑμῶν φθέγμα ῥήματος ἀνέξομαι. See in general, 
 Kiihner, ὃ 542. 3; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. 
 p. 329 B. With the reading μικρὸν τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ (see the critical 
 remarks) it would have to be attached to ἀνείχ. (would that ye 
 endured me a little as to folly), not to τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ, as Fritzsche, 
 Diss. 11. p. 53 f, contrary to the simple order of the words, 
 prefers, and μικρόν would have to be taken either of time, or, 
 with Reiche, of degree : paulisper, “ non nimio fastidio.” — ἀλλὰ 
 καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου] corrective: yet this wish is not needed, ye 
 really bear patiently with me. The imperative interpretation of 
 ἀνέχεσθε (Vulgate, Pelagius, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, 
 Bengel, Hofmann), according to which Paul would proceed from 
 wish to entreaty, would be quite tame on account of the pre- 
 ceding wish, and in the corrective form unsuitable. — καί] also, 
 1.6, in reality. See Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 182. ---- μου] ἀνέχεσθε 
 governs either the accusative, as in the case of μικρόν τι before (and 
 this is the more common construction in Greek authors), or, as 
 here, the genitive (so usually in the N. T.), which is also found 
 in Greek authors when the object is a thing (Hom. Od. xxii. 423, 
 and later authors, such as Herodian, viii. 5. 9, i. 17. 10), but very 
 seldom with persons (Plat. Protag. p. 323 A), without a parti- 
 ciple standing alongside, as Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 1; Plat. Pol. ii. p. 
 367 D, or without a simple participle, as Plat. Pol. viii. p. 564 Ὁ, 
 Apol. p. 31 B; Herod. v. 89, vii. 159. 
 
 Ver. 2. Ground of the ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ pov: My jealousy 
 
420 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 for you is, in fact, a divine jealousy ; how can you then refuse to 
 me the ἀνέχεσθαι ! Riickert refers γάρ to ὄφελον... ἀφροσύνης, 
 but in this way ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου is overleaped all the more 
 violently, seeing that it is a correction of what goes before, 
 Calvin (comp. Chrysostom and Bengel): “en cur desipiat, nam 
 hominem zelotypia quasi transversum rapit.” Against this may 
 be urged the emphatic θεοῦ, in which lies the very point of the 
 reason assigned. — ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς x«.7.r.] As Paul, in what 
 follows, represents himself as a marriage-friend (comp. John iii. 
 29) who has betrothed the bride to the bridegroom, and is now 
 anxious that she may not let herself be led astray by another, 
 ζηλῶ is to be taken in the narrowest sense as equivalent to 
 ζηλοτυπῶ: I am jealous concerning you (comp. Num. v. 14; 
 Ecclus. ix. 1), for the marriage-friend very naturally takes the 
 bridegroom’s part. The more indefinite interpretation: I am 
 zealous concerning you (Flatt and others), is therefore, according 
 to the context, too general, and the explanation: vehementer amo 
 vos (Rosenmiiller, comp. Fritzsche), is at variance with the con- 
 text. — θεοῦ ζήλῳ] with a jealousy, which God has ; which is no 
 human passion, but an emotion belonging to God, which I there- 
 fore have in common with Him. Paul consequently conceives of 
 God as likewise jealous concerning the Corinthian church (ὑμᾶς), 
 that she might not, as the bride of Christ, suffer herself to be 
 led astray. God appears in the O. T. as the spouse of His 
 people, and therefore jealous regarding it (Isa. liv. 5, Ixii. 5; 
 Jer. 11, 1 f£;' Ezek. xvi. 8 ff, xxiti.; Hos. ..18)19)." “Nowe 
 the representative of God in the theocracy of the N. T. is Christ, 
 with whom, therefore, the church appears connected, partly as 
 spouse (see on Rom. vii. 4), partly as betrothed (with reference 
 to the completion of the marriage at the Parousia), as here (comp. 
 Eph. v. 25 ff.) ; the falling away from Christ must therefore be 
 the object of divine jealousy, and so Paul knows his ζῆλος, the 
 ζῆλος of the marriage-friend, as the ζῆλος of God. θεοῦ has been 
 taken as genitivus auctoris (Wolf and others, comp. Flatt, de 
 Wette), or as: zeal for God (Rom. x. 2, so Calvin, Grotius, Estius, 
 Semler, Schulz), or as: zeal pleasing to God (Billroth, comp. Flatt), 
 or as: zeal extraordinarily great (Emmerling, so also Fritzsche ; 
 comp. Bengel: “ zelo sancto et magno”); but all these interpre- 
 tations lie beyond the necessary definite reference to what follows, 
 
CHAP, XI. 2 421 
 
 in which a reason is given for the very predicate θεοῦ. ---- ἡρμο- 
 σάμην yap κ.τ.λ.] for I have betrothed you... but I fear, ete., ver. 3, 
 so that, with Lachmann, only a comma is to be put after ver. 2. 
 ἁρμόζειν, adaptare, then specially in the sense of betroth; see 
 Wetstein. The more Attic form is ἁρμόττειν. See Gregor. 
 p. 154, Schaef.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 241, That Paul has 
 expressed himself contrary to the Greek usage (according to 
 which ἁρμόζεσθαί twa means: to betroth oneself to a woman, 
 Herod. v. 32, 47, vi. 65), is only to be said, in so far as a classical 
 writer would certainly have used the active (Herod. ix. 108; 
 Pind. Pyth. ix. 207), although in late writers the middle also 
 occurs in the active sense (see the passages from Philo in Loesner, 
 p. 320, eg. de Abr. p. 864 Β: γάμος ὃν ἁρμόζεται ἡδονή), and 
 here the following évi ἀνδρί leaves no doubt of the reference: 7 
 have joined (1.06, according to the context, betrothed) you to one 
 husband. Paul regards himself as a marriage-friend (προμνήστωρ 
 ὑμῶν ἐγενόμην καὶ τοῦ γάμου μεσίτης, Theodoret), by whose inter- 
 vention the betrothal of the Corinthians with Christ was brought 
 to pass. Chrysostom aptly says on the figurative representation 
 of the matter: μνηστείας γάρ ἐστι καιρὸς ὁ παρὼν καιρός" ὁ δὲ 
 τῶν παστάδων ἕτερος, ὅταν λέγωσιν" ἀνέστη ὁ νυμφίος... Ὃ 
 μάλιστα τοὔτοις (to the readers) ἔφερεν ἀξίωμα, τοῦτο τίθησιν, ἑαυ- 
 τὸν μὲν ἐν χώρᾳ τῆς προμνηστρίας, ἐκείνους δὲ ἐν τάξει τῆς νύμφης 
 στήσας. Pelagius, Elsner, Mosheim, Emmerling wrongly hold 
 that he conceives himself as father of the Corinthians ; their 
 father (but this figure is here quite out of place) he has, in fact, 
 only come to be through their conversion to Christ (1 Cor. iv. 17; 
 2 Cor. xii. 14; comp. Tit. 1, 4); he had not been so already before. 
 Regarding the marriage-friend of the Jews, 3), παρανύμφιος, 
 who not only wooed the bride for the bridegroom, but who was 
 the constant medium between the two, and at the wedding itself 
 was regulator of the feast, see Schéttgen, Hor. ad Joh. 11. 29. 
 With the Rabbins, Moses is represented as such a marriage-friend. 
 See Rab. Sal. ad Exod. xxxiv. 1, al. — évi ἀνδρί] to one husband, 
 to belong to no one further, — παρθένον ἁγνὴν x.7.d.] Aim, with 
 which he had betrothed the Corinthians to a single husband: in 
 order to present a pure virgin to Christ (παραστ., comp. iv. 14), 
 namely, at the Parousia, when Christ appears as bridegroom, to 
 fetch home the bride, Matt. xxv. 1 ff.; Eph. v. 27; Rev. xix. 7-9. 
 
422 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 The church in its entirety, as a moral person, is this virgin. On 
 ἁγνήν, comp. Dem. 1371. 23; Plut. Mor. p. 268 EH, 438 C; 
 Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D. The whole emphasis is on παρθένον 
 ayynv. When this is attended to, there disappears the semblance 
 of εἷς ἀνήρ and ὁ Χριστός being different persons,—a semblance 
 for which Riickert blames the apostle. Fritzsche regards τῷ 
 Χριστῷ as apposition to ἑνὶ ἀνδρί (in which Riickert agrees with 
 him), and encloses παραστῆσαν between two commas; but this 
 is an unnecessary and enfeebling breaking up of the passage. 
 Beza and Bengel connect évi ἀνδρί with wapact., and take τῷ 
 Χριστῷ likewise epexegetically. But the absolute ἡρμοσάμην 
 ὑμᾶς would in fact mean: 1 have betrothed myself to you! In 
 order that it may not mean this, it must necessarily be joined to 
 ἑνὶ ἀνδρί. 
 
 Ver. 3. The point of comparison is the leading astray by the 
 devil, which took place in the case of Eve (through the serpent), 
 and was to be feared in that of the Corinthians (through the false 
 apostles, Satan’s servants, ver. 15). For Paul presupposes it as 
 well known to his readers, that Satan had led astray Eve by means 
 of the serpent. To him and to them the serpent was by no means 
 either a symbol or a mystical figure of the cosmical principle 
 (Martensen). Comp. Wisd. ii. 23f; 4 Macc. xvii. 8; 1 John 
 iii. 8; Rev. xii. 9, 14f., xx. 2; and see on John vii. 44, and 
 Grimm on Wisd. /.c. For the monstrous inventions of the later 
 Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, L'ntdecktes Judenth. I. Ὁ. 830 ff. — Paul's 
 mention (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 15) of Zve (not Adam) is alike in 
 keeping with the narrative (Gen. 111.) and with the comparison, 
 since the church is represented as feminine (comp. Ignat. Eph. 
 interpol. 17). In Rom. v. 12 and 1 Cor. xv. 22, the con- 
 nection demanded the mention of Adam.—o ὄφις) the well- 
 known serpent. — ἐν τῇ πανουργ. αὐτοῦ] instrumental. Comp. 
 Eph. iv. 14; Aq. Gen. iii 1: ὁ ὄφις ἦν πανοῦργος, Ignat. 
 Phil. 11 interpol.: ὁ σκολιὸς ὄφις x.7.4.— φθαρῇ] become cor- 
 rupted, not be corrupt (Ewald). Paul expresses himself with tender 
 forbearance; the corruption of the church by anti-Pauline doctrine 
 (ver. 4) he sees as a danger. — ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότ. κιτ.λ.1 a pregnant 
 phrase: lest your thoughts (comp. 111. 14, iv. 4, x. 5) become cor- 
 rupted and led away from the simplicity towards Christ (εἰς X. is 
 not equivalent to ἐν X.,.as the Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, and others 
 
CHAP, XI. 4. 423 
 
 have it). See Fritzsche, Diss, II. p. 63 ἔν; Buttmann, newt. Gr. 
 p. 277 [E. T. 322]. The ἁπλότης ἡ εἰς X. is the quality of 
 simple, honest fidelity in the παρθένος ayv7}, who shares her heart 
 with no other than with her betrothed. 
 
 Ver. 4. An ironical (and therefore not conflicting with Gal. i. 
 18) reason assigned for that anxiety. For df, indeed, my opponents 
 teach and work something so entirely new among you, one would 
 not be able to blame you for being pleased with it. — Regarding 
 εἰ μέν, if indeed, see Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 414 f.; Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 522. —6 ἐρχόμενος] does not refer to ὁ ὄφις, ver. 3 
 (Kniewel). It might doubtless mean the first comer, as Emmer- 
 ling and Billroth hold (Bernhardy, p. 318), comp. Gal. v. 10; 
 but, since Paul manifestly has in view the conduct of the whole 
 fraternity of opposing teachers (see immediately, ver. 5), it is 
 rather this totwm genus that is denoted by ὁ ἐρχόμενος, and that 
 concretely, and in such a fashion that their emergence is vividly 
 illustrated by reference to one definitely thought of, of whom, 
 however, the point is left undetermined who he is: is gua venit. 
 Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. II. p.65; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 8. 22. 
 The word exhibits the persons meant in the light of owtsiders, 
 who come to Corinth and there pursue their courses in opposition 
 to the apostle. They are intruders (comp. 111. 1), and by the 
 present tenses their coming and practices are denoted as still 
 presently prevailing, just as this corrupting intercourse had been 
 already going on for a considerable time. Ewald thinks here, 
 too, of a special individual among the counter-apostles. — ἄλλον 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν κηρύσσει] 1.6. so preaches of Jesus, that the Jesus now 
 preached appears not to be the same as was previously preached," 
 consequently as if a second Jesus. Hence, to explain it more 
 precisely, there is added: ὃν οὐκ ἐκηρύξαμεν: who was not the 
 subject-matter of our preaching, of whom we have known nothing 
 and preached nothing, therefore not the crucified Saviour (1 Cor. 
 ii. 2) through whom men are justified without the law, etc. ἄλλος 
 negatives simply the identity, ἕτερος at the same time the simi- 
 larity of nature : an other Jesus ... a different spirit. Comp. Acts 
 iv. 12; Gal. i. 6, 7; 1 Cor. xii. 9, xv. 40. — ἢ πνεῦμα ἕτερον x.7.r.] 
 
 1 If Paul had written ἄλλον Χριστόν, the reading of F G, Arm. Vulg., the meaning 
 
 of it would be: he preaches that not Jesus, but another is the Christ. How unsuit- 
 able this is, is self-evident. 
 
498 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ἢ, or, in order to describe this reformatory working from another 
 side, another kind of Spirit, etc. As the false apostles might have 
 boasted that only through ¢hem had the right Jesus been preached 
 to the Corinthians,’ they might also have added that only through 
 their preaching had the readers received the true Holy Spirit, 
 whom they had not before received, namely, when Paul had taught 
 them (ὃ οὐκ édaBere). Moreover, it is decidedly clear from ἢ 
 πνεῦμα ἕτερον x.T.r. that it cannot have been (this in opposition 
 to Beyschlag) a more exact historical information and communica- 
 tion regarding Jesus, by means of which the persons concerned 
 attempted to supplant Paul among the Corinthians. It was 
 by means of Judaistic false doctrines; comp. ver. 19 ff. See 
 also Klopper, p. 79 f. —6 οὐκ ἐδέξασθε) for the Pauline gospel 
 was accepted by the readers at their conversion: the gospel _ 
 brought by the false apostles was of another kind (ἕτερον), which 
 was not before accepted by them. Riickert arbitrarily says that 
 ἐδέξασθε is equivalent to ἐλάβετε, and that the former is used 
 only to avoid the repetition of the latter. How fine and accurate, 
 on the other hand, is Bengel’s remark: “ Verba diversa, rei apta ; 
 non concurrit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipi- 
 endo evangelio.” Comp. on the distinction between the two 
 words, Theile, ad Jacob. p. 68.— καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε] καλῶς, like 
 praeclare in the ironical sense of with full right. See on Mark 
 vii. 9; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 271 ff.; Dzss. 11. p. 72 ἢ; and re- 
 garding the ironical use of the adjective καλός, Stallb. ad Rep. 
 p. 595 Ο, 607 E. According to Hofmann, καλῶς is an expres- 
 sion of an earnest approval, which, however, is cancelled of itself 
 by the impossibility of the case which is put. But in the protasis 
 the case, in fact, is just simply put, not put as «npossible 
 (comp. Gal. i. 8, 9); hence in the apodosis an ἀνάθεμα on the 
 seducers, or a severe censure of those who did not withstand 
 them, would have had its place in the mind of the apostle rather 
 than a καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε carnestly meant. The imperfect ἀνείχεσθε 
 does not, indeed, in strict logic suit κηρύσσει and λαμβάνετε in 
 the protasis, and we should expect ἀνέχεσθε, as is actually the 
 reading of B. But it is not on that account to be explained as 
 
 1 Against the interpretation that it was a spiritual, visionary Christ whom the 
 
 Christine party had given out for the true one (Schenkel, de Wette, and others), see 
 Beyschlag, 1865, p. 239 f. 
 
CHAP. XI. 5. 425 
 
 if εἰ ἐκήρυσσεν x.7.r. stood in the protasis (if the comer was 
 preaching . . . ye would, etc.), as Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, and many others, including Baur, /.c. p. 102, 
 explained it, which is wrong in grammar; nor is—along with an 
 otherwise correct view of the protasis—xadds ἀνείχεσθε to be 
 taken in the historical sense, as has been attempted by some, as 
 interrogatively (have you with right tolerated it?), such as Heu- 
 mann, by others, such as Semler,’ in the form of an indignant 
 exclamation (yow have truly well tolerated it!), both of which 
 meanings are logically impossible on account of the difference of 
 tenses in the protasis and apodosis. No; we have here the 
 transition from one construction to the other, When Paul wrote 
 the protasis, he meant to put ἀνέχεσθε in the apodosis ; but when 
 he came to the apodosis, the conception of the utter non-reality 
 of what was posited in the protasis as the preaching of another 
 Jesus, ete., induced him to modify the expression of the apodosis 
 in such a way, that now there is implied in it a negatived reality, 
 as if in the protasis there had stood εἰ ἐκήρυσσεν x.7.d. For 
 there is not another Jesus; comp. Gal. ii. 6. Several instances of 
 this variation in the mode of expression are found in classical 
 writers. See Kiihner, II. p. 549; Klotz, ad Devar.p.489. Comp. 
 on Luke xvii.6. The reason for the absence of ἄν in the apodosis 
 is, that the contents of the apodosis is represented as sure and 
 certain. See Kriiger, ὃ 65,5; Stallb. ad Plat. Sympos. p. 190 C, 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6.21; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. IV. p. 438 ff. 
 
 Ver. 5. You might well tolerate it, Paul had just said; but 
 every reader who knew the apostle could not but at once of 
 
 1 He is followed recently by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 261. 
 
 * Here, too, the delicate and acute glance of Bengel saw the correct view: ‘‘ Ponit 
 conditionem, ex parte rei impossibilem ; ideo dicit in imperfecto toleraretis ; sed 
 pro conatu pseudapostolorum non modo possibilem, sed plane presentem ; ideo dicit 
 in praesenti praedicat. Conf. plane Gal. i. 6 f.”” Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 11. Riickert 
 refines and imports a development of thought, which is arbitrarily assumed, and 
 rests on the presupposition that there is no irony in the passage. With the same 
 presupposition Hofmann assumes the intermingling of two thoughts, one referring to 
 the present, the other to the past, —which would amount to a confusion of ideas with- 
 out motive. This also in opposition to Klépper, p. 84, who thinks that Paul does 
 not wish to charge the readers with the ἀνέχεσθαι for the immediate present, but had 
 been distinctly aware that they had tolerated, etc. In that case we should have 
 here a singular forbearance and a singular form of its expression, the former as 
 
 undeserved as the latter is unlogical. There was as little need for the alleged 
 forbearance toward the readers as in ver. 19 f, 
 
420 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 himself feel that he did not mean it so, that the meaning at his 
 heart was rather: then you would be very far wrong in tolerating 
 such novelties; that he thus in the way of ironical censwre makes 
 it palpable to his readers that their complaisance towards the 
 false apostles was the ground of his anxiety expressed in ver. 3. 
 Hence he now by yap’ at once gives a reason for the censure of 
 that complaisance so disparaging to his own position as an 
 apostle, which is conveyed in the ironical καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε. This 
 yap does not refer therefore to ver. 1, but to what immediately 
 precedes, in so far, namely, as it was not meant approvingly 
 (Hofmann), but in exactly the opposite sense. Hofmann ground- 
 lessly and dogmatically replies that the reason assigned for an 
 ironical praise must necessarily be itself ironical.” — λογίζομαι] 
 censeo, 1 am of opinion. Rom. ii. 3, iii. 28, viii. 18, al. — μηδὲν 
 ὑστερηκέναι] in no respect have I remained behind. Comp. on 
 Matt. xix. 20. Riickert without reason adds: “de. am my action.” 
 The μηδέν, in no respect a stronger negation than the simple py 
 (Kitihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 10), excludes any restriction to 
 some mere partial aspect of his official character. The perfect 
 exhibits the state of the case as at present continuing to subsist 
 (Bernhardy, p. 378): to stand behind. In xii. 11 the conception 
 is different.— τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων] The genitive with a 
 verb of comparison. Comp. Plat. Pol. 7, p.539 E. See Matthiae, 
 p. 836. Comp. Kypke, IL p. 265. ὑπερλίαν, overmuch, supra 
 quam valde, is not preserved elsewhere in old Greek, but is found 
 again, nevertheless, in Eustath. Od. i. p. 27, 35: ἐστι yap ποτε Kat 
 τῷ Mav κατὰ τὴν τραγῳδίαν χρᾶσθαι καλῶς, καθ᾽ ὃ σημαινό- 
 μενον λέγομέν τινα ὑπερλίαν σόφον. Similarly we have ὑπεράγαν 
 (2 Mace. viii. 35, x. 34; Strabo, iii. p. 147), ὑπέρευ (Kypke, Obss. 
 II. p. 267), ὑπεράνω, etc., as well as generally Paul’s frequent 
 application of compounds with ὑπέρ (Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351). 
 But whom does he mean by τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων, According 
 
 1 32, adopted by Lachm. on the testimony of B only, and approved by Riickert, 
 appears after εἰ μέν in ver. 4 as an alteration, because no reference was seen for the 
 γάρ. With δέ there would result the quite simple course of thought : ‘‘ Jf indeed 
 . .. I mean, however,” etc., not as Riickert would have it, that Paul passes from 
 the justification of the intended self-praise given in vy. 2-4 to the self- praise 
 itself. 
 
 2 Without conceding this arbitrary assertion, observe, moreover, that ver. 5 also 
 has a sufficiently ironic tinge. Comp. iv. 8, 9. See also Klopper. 
 
CHAP, XI. 6. 427 
 
 to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the older 
 commentators, also Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Baur, Hilgenfeld, 
 Holsten, Holtzmann (Judenth. und Christenth. p. 764), the actual 
 summos apostolos, namely, Peter, James, and John (comp. Gal. 11. 
 9). But Paul is not contending against these, but against the 
 false apostles (ver. 13); hence the expression: “ the over-great 
 apostles,” which is manifestly selected not μετ᾽ ἐγκωμίων (Chrysos- 
 tom), but with a certain bitterness, would be very unsuitable here 
 (comp. on the other hand, 1 Cor. xv. 9, ix. 5) if the old apostles 
 should be simply incidentally mentioned, because they were 
 possibly placed high above Paul by his opponents.’ Rightly, 
 therefore, Richard Simon, Alethius, Heumann, Semler, Michaelis, 
 Schulz, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Fritzsche, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, Weiss, Beyschlag, 
 and others have followed Beza’s suggestion (comp. Erasmus in 
 the Annot.), and understood the Judaistic anti-Pauline teachers 
 to be the psewdo-apostles (vv. 13, 22), whose inflated arrogance 
 in exalting themselves over Paul is caricatured. Nevertheless 
 they are not to be considered as the heads of the Christ-purty 
 (comp. on x. 7). 
 
 REMARK.—The reference of our passage to Peter, James, and 
 John was supported among the earlier Protestants from polemical 
 considerations, for the comparison in itself and the plural expres- 
 sion were urged against the primacy of Peter. See Calovius, Bibl. 
 al. p. 505. In defence of this primacy, it was maintained by the 
 older Catholic writers that the equality referred to preaching and 
 gifts, not to power and jurisdiction. See Cornelius a Lapide. 
 
 Ver. 6. A more precise explanation of this μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι 
 TOV ὑπερλ. ἀποστόλων, starting from a concession, so that δέ 
 introduces something apparently opposed. Although, however, I 
 am untrained in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge, but in every- 
 thing we have become manifest among all in reference to you. The 
 view of Hofmann, that that concession bears on the preference of 
 the opponents for Apollos, finds no confirmation in the discussion 
 that follows. Comp. on the contrary, x. 10. — δανερωθέντες does 
 not apply to the γνῶσις (Bengel, Zachariae, and others), for how 
 inappropriate ver. 7 would then be! But Paul proceeds from the 
 
 1 The immediately following εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ would also be quite unsuit- 
 able, since every other apostle, at least as much as Paul, was ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ. 
 
458 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 γνῶσις, which he has attributed to himself in opposition to the 
 reproach of want of training in discourse, to his having become 
 manifest in every respect, so that τῇ γνώσει and ἐν παντί are related 
 to one another as species and genus.’ It is arbitrary to supply a 
 definite reference for φανερωθ. (Rosenmiiller: “tanquam verum 
 apostolum et doctorem ;” Riickert : “ as apostle and honest man”); 
 in every respect, says Paul, we have become manifest as to how we 
 are constituted ; and what kind of manifestation that was—its gualt- 
 tative aspect—he leaves entirely to the judgment of his readers. 
 Riickert (following Flatt) regards εἰ δὲ καὶ... γνώσει as a paren- 
 thesis, and places ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ «.7.X. in connection with ver. 5, so 
 that Paul, instead of keeping to the infinitive construction, would 
 pass over into the participial ; but after what has been said above, 
 this is a quite superfluous. expedient, according to which, more- 
 over, εἰ δὲ καὶ... γνώσει would only stand as a strangely isolated, 
 as it were forlorn thought, out of all connection. Olshausen, too 
 (comp. Beza), breaks up the passage by taking the second ἀλλά as 
 corrective: “ Yet ye know in fact my whole conduct, why should 
 I still describe it to you?” And yet ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντί stands in 
 so natural relation and connection with the previous οὐ τῇ γνώσει, 
 that it more readily occurs to us to take ἀλλά as: but on the 
 contrary, than, with de Wette, to take it as co-ordinate with the 
 first ἀλλά (introducing a second apodosis), as in 1 Cor. vi. 11. — 
 ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ] Paul therefore did not reckon a scholastically- 
 trained eloquence (and he is thinking here specially of the Hellenic 
 type, of which in fact Corinth was a principal seat) as among 
 the requisites for his office? Comp. 1 Cor.i.17, ii 1 ff But 
 his opponents (comp. x. 10) disparaged him for the want of 
 it. Regarding ἰδιώτης, see on Acts iv. 13; 1 Cor. xiv. 16.— 
 
 1 Billroth follows the reading φανερώσαντες : ‘‘ If I, however, am unskilled in an 
 artistic discourse of human wisdom, I am not so in the true, deep knowledge of 
 Christianity; yea rather, I have made it (the knowledge) in every point known to you 
 in all things.” Ewald, following the same reading : ‘‘ but people, who in everything 
 (in every position) have spoken clearly regarding all kinds of matters (ἐν πᾶσιν) 
 towards you.” 
 
 2 How Paul, with the great eloquence to which all his Epistles and speeches in 
 the Book of Acts bear testimony, could yet with truth call himself ἰδιώτης σῷ λόγῳ, 
 Augustine, de doctr. Christ. iv. 7, has rightly discerned: ‘‘Sicut apostolum praecepta 
 eloquentiae secutum fuisse non dicimus: ita quod ejus sapientiam secuta sit elo- 
 quentia, non negamus.” Comp. also how Xenophon (de venat. 14, 3) designates 
 and describes himself as zdiotes, in contradistinction to the sophists. 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ. 7. 429 
 
 τῇ γνώσει) “quae prima dos apostoli,” Bengel; Matt. xii. 11 ; 
 Eph. iii. 34; Gal. 1. 12, 15. --- ἐν παντί] not: at every time 
 (Emmerling, Flatt), nor whigue (Erasmus), but, as it always means 
 with Paul: in every point, in every respect, iv. 8, vi. 4, vil. 16, 
 viii. 7, ix. 8; see Bengel. Particularly frequent in this Epistle. 
 — After φανερωθέντες, ἐσμέν is to be supplied from what goes 
 before. The aorist contains the conception: have not remained 
 hidden, but have become manifest. The perfect is different in v. 11. 
 The device of Hofmann, that after φανερωθ. we should supply 
 an ἐφανερώθημεν to be connected with ἐν πᾶσιν eis ὑμᾶς, yields a 
 thought weak in meaning (“after that we... had been made mani- 
 fest we have ... been made manifest in presence of you”) and 
 is utterly groundless. How altogether different it is at vii. 24! 
 The transition to the plural form inclusive of others (by which 
 Paul means himself and his fellow-teachers) cannot surprise any 
 one, since often in his case the purely personal consciousness 
 and that of fellowship in a common office present themselves side 
 by side,.Comp..1. 23 f., v. 11; 1 Thess. 1. 4; Philem. 7 f., 
 al. —év πᾶσιν] being separated from ἐν παντί cannot (as in 
 Phil. iv. 2) be taken as neuter (in all things, Billroth, Neander ; 
 in all possible points, Hofmann: ἐν πᾶσιν οἷς ποιοῦμεν κ. λέγομεν, 
 Theophylact), but only as masculine: among all we have been made 
 manifest in reference to you, that is, among all (i.e. coram omnibus) 
 there has been clearly displayed, and has remained unknown to 
 none, the relation in which we stand to you; every one has 
 become aware what we are to you. Comp. Erasmus (“quales 
 simus erga vos”). 
 
 Ver. 7. That Paul meant by his ἐν παντὶ φανερωθ. an advan- 
 tageous manifestation, was obvious of itself; comp. v.11. Hence, 
 in order now to make good a distinctive peculiar point of his 
 φανέρωσις, he continues with a question of bitter pain, such as 
 the sense of being maliciously misunderstood brought to his lips: 
 Or have I committed sin—abasing myself in order that ye might be 
 exalted—that I gratuitously preached to you the gospel of God ? 
 No doubt the opponents had turned this noble sacrifice on his 
 part, by way of reproach, into un-apostolic meanness. — ἐμαυτὸν 
 ταπεινῶν] namely, by my renouncing, in order to teach gratuitously, 
 my apostolic ἐξουσία, 1 Cor. ix.,and contenting myself with very 
 scanty and mean support (comp. Acts xviii. ὃ, xx. 84). Chry- 
 
450 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 sostom and others exaggerate it: ἐν στενοχωρίᾳ διήγαγον, for 
 καὶ ὑστερηθείς, ver. 8, is only a temporary increased degree of 
 the ταπείνωσις. — ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε] viz. from the lowness of 
 the dark and lost pre-Christian condition through conversion, 
 instruction, and pastoral care to the height of the Christian 
 salvation. It is much too vague to take it of prosperity in general 
 (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt); and when Zachariae explains it: 
 “jn order to prefer you to other churches,” or when others think 
 of the riches not lessened by the gratuitous preaching (Mosheim, 
 Heumann, Morus, Emmerling), they quite fail to see the apostle’s 
 delicate way of significantly varying the relations. Comp. viii. 9. 
 Chrysostom already saw the right meaning: μᾶλλον ὠκοδομοῦντο 
 Kal οὐκ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο. --- ὅτι] that, belongs to auapt. ἐποίησα 
 (to which ἐμαυτ. ταπεινῶν is an accompanying modal definition), 
 inserted for the sake of disclosing the contrast of the case as it 
 stood to the question. “Ove may also be taken as an exegesis of 
 ἐμαυτ. ταπειν. «.T.r., So that already with the latter the com- 
 mitting of sin would be described as regards its contents; comp. 
 Acts xxi. 13; Mark xi. 5 (so Luther, Beza, and many others, 
 also Osiander). But our view interweaves more skilfully into one 
 the question with its contradictory contents. — δωρεάν] has the 
 emphasis. — τοῦ θεοῦ] Genitivus awctoris. Note the juxtaposi- 
 tion: δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ evayy.: gratuitously the gospel of God 
 (“ pretiosissimum,” Bengel). 
 
 Ver. 8. Further information as to the previous δωρεὰν «.T.r. 
 — ἐσύλησα] I have stripped, plundered, a hyperbolical, impassioned 
 expression, as is at once shown by λαβὼν ὀψώνιον after it. The 
 ungrateful ones are to be made aware, in a way to put them 
 thoroughly to shame, of the forbearance shown to them. — The 
 ἄλλαι ἐκκλησίαι meant were beyond doubt Macedonian. Comp. 
 ver. 9. — λαβὼν x.7.X.] contemporaneous with ἐσύλησα, and in- 
 dicating the manner in which it was done. — ὀψώνιον] pay (see 
 on Rom. vi. 23), 1.6. payment for my official labour. — πρὸς τὴν 
 ὑμῶν διακονίαν] Aim of the ἄλλας ἐκκλ. ἐσύλησα λαβὼν oyp., 50 
 that the emphatic ὑμῶν corresponds to the emphatic ἄλλας. Paul 
 had therefore destined the pay taken from other churches to the 
 purpose of rendering (gratuitously) his official service to the Corin- 
 thians, to whom he travelled from Macedonia (Acts xvii. 13 ἢ, 
 xviii, 1) in order to preach to them the gospel. — καὶ παρὼν κ.τ.λ.] 
 
CHAP, XI. 9. 431 
 
 and during my presence with you I have, even when want had 
 set in with me, burdened no one. He thus brought with him to 
 Corinth the money received from other churches, and subsisted on 
 it (earning more, withal, by working with his hands); and when, 
 during his residence there, this provision was gradually exhausted, 
 so that even want set in (καὶ ὑστερηθείς), he nevertheless im- 
 portuned no one, but (ver. 9) continued to help himself on by 
 Macedonian pecuniary aid (in addition to thé earnings of his 
 handicraft). Comp. on Phil. iv. 15. Rickert thinks that Paul 
 only sought to relieve his want by the manual labour entered on 
 with Aquila, when the money brought with him from Corinth had 
 been exhausted and new contributions had not yet arrived. But, 
 according to Acts xviii. 3, his working at a handicraft—of which, 
 moreover, he makes no mention in this passage—is to be conceived 
 as continuing from the beginning of his residence at Corinth; 
 how conceivable, nevertheless, is it that, occupied as he was so 
 ereatly with other matters, he could not earn his whole livelihood, 
 but still stood in need of supplies! On πρὸς ὑμῶς, which is not to 
 be taken “after my coming to you” (Hofmann), comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6 ; 
 Matt. xiii. 56.— κατενάρκησα)] Hesychius: ἐβάρυνα, I have lain 
 as a burden on no one. It is to be derived from νάρκη, paralysis, 
 debility, torpidity ; thence ναρκάω, torpeo, Il. viii. 328; Plat. 
 Men. p. 80 A BC; LXX. Gen. xxxii. 32; Job xxxiii. 19 ; hence 
 καταναρκᾶν twos: to press down heavily and stiffly on any one 
 (on the genitive, see Matthiae, p. 860). Except in Hippocrates, 
 Ῥ. 816 C, 1194 H, in the passive (to be stiffened), the word does 
 not occur elsewhere in Greek; and by Jerome, Aglas. 10, it is 
 declared to be a Cilician expression equivalent to non gravavi vos. 
 Vulgate: “nulli onerosus fui.” Another explanation, quoted in 
 addition to the above by Theophylact (comp. Oecumenius): “ J 
 have not become indolent in my office” (so Beza, who takes κατὰ 
 
 . οὐδενός, cum cujusquam incommodo), would be at variance with 
 the context. See ver. 9. Comp. also xii. 13, 14. Besides, this 
 sense would not be demonstrable for καταναρκ. but for ἀποναρκ. 
 (Plutarch, Educ. p. 8 F). 
 
 Ver. 9. τὸ yap ὑστέρημα down to Μακεδονίας is not, with 
 Griesbach, Lachmann, and others, to be made parenthetical,’ since 
 
 1 So also Ewald, who takes ver. 8 and ver. 9 still as a continuation of the question 
 a yer."7."" 
 
432 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 καὶ ἐν παντὶ «.7.X. is structurally and logically (as consequence) 
 connected with it: for what was wanting to me the brethren (known 
 to you) supplied, after they had come from Macedonia, and, ete. — 
 προσανεπλήρωσαν] addendo suppleverunt (comp. ix. 12). But 
 we are not, with Grotius (who in ver. 8 and here thinks of the 
 means for supporting the poor) and Bengel, to seek the reference 
 of πρός in the addition to the earnings of his labour, for of this 
 the whole context contains nothing; but the brethren added the 
 support brought by them to the apostle’s still very small provision, 
 and so supplemented his ὑστέρημα. This aid is later than 
 that mentioned in Phil. iv. 15 (see zm loc.). the names of the 
 brethren (were they Silas and Timothy? Acts xviii. 5) are unknown 
 to us. — καὶ ἐν παντὶ «.7.r.] and in every point (comp. ver. 6) 1 
 have kept and will keep myself non-burdensome to you; I have 
 occasioned you no burden in mine own person, and will occasion 
 you none in the future (“tantum abest, ut poeniteat,” Bengel). — 
 ἀβαρής only here in the N. T., but see Arist. de col. 4; Chrysipp. 
 in Plat. Mori sp. τσ Ee (ue ΕΣ Ὁ 
 
 Ver. 10. Not in form an oath, but a very solemn assurance of 
 the καὶ τηρήσω : there is truth of Christ in me, that, etc. That 
 is to say: By the indwelling truth of Christ in me I asswre you 
 that, etc. The apostle is certain that as generally Christ lives in 
 him (Gal. ii. 20), Christ’s mind is in him (see on 1 Cor. ii. 16), 
 Christ’s heart beats in him (Phil. i. 8), Christ speaks in him 
 (xiii, 3), all, namely, through the Spirit of Christ, which dwells in 
 him (Rom. viii. 9 ff.); so, in particular, also ¢ruth of Christ is in 
 him, and therefore all untruthfulness, lying, hypocrisy, etc., must 
 be as foreign to him as to Christ Himself, who bears sway in 
 him. The ὅτι is the simple that, dependent on the idea of 
 assurance, which lies at the bottom of the clause ἔστιν ἀλήθ. X. 
 ἐν ἐμοί, and has its specific expression in this clause. Comp. ζῶ 
 ἐγὼ, ὅτι, Rom. xiv. 11. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 242 f. 
 diickert’s view is more far-fetched: that ὅτι «.7.X. is the subject, 
 of which Paul asserts that it is ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ in him, 1.06. what 
 he says is a proposition, which just as certainly contains truth, as 
 if Christ Himself said it. Olshausen attenuates the sense at 
 variance with its literal tenor into: “as true as I am a Christian.” 
 The thought is really the same in substance as that in Rom. ix. 1: 
 ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, but the form of the con- 
 
CHAP; ΧΙ 1119. 453 
 
 ception is different.— ἡ καύχησις αὕτη οὐ φραγ. εἰς ἐμέ] this 
 self-boasting will not be stopped in reference to me. The gloriatio 
 spoken of, namely as to preaching gratuitously, is personified ; its 
 mouth is not, as to what concerns the apostle, to be stopped, so that 
 it must keep silence. Hofmann, not appreciating this personifica- 
 tion, takes offence at the fact that the καύχησις is supposed to have 
 a mouth, while Riickert resorts to an odd artificial interpretation 
 of dpay. εἰς ἐμέ (will not be cooped up in me). Just because the 
 καυχᾶσθαι is an action of the mouth, the personified καύχησις has 
 a mouth, which can be stopped. Comp. Theodoret. — dpayn- 
 cerat| Comp. Rom. ii. 19; Heb. xi, 33; LXX. Ps. ον. 42; 
 Job v. 16; 2 Mace. xiv. 36; Wetstein, ad Rom. l.c.; Jacobs, ad 
 Anthol. XII. p. 297. It cannot surprise us that τὸ στόμα is not 
 expressly subjoined, since this is obvious of itself, seeing that the 
 καύχησις is conceived as speaking. There is nothing in the con- 
 text to justify the derivation of the expression from the damming 
 up of running water, as Chrysostom and Theophylact, also Luther 
 (see his gloss), and again Hofmann take it. There is just as little 
 ground for de Wette’s suggestion, that φραγήσεται is meant of 
 hedging in a way (Hos. ii. 6). — εἰς ἐμέ] For, if Paul should so 
 conduct himself that he could no longer boast of preaching 
 gratuitously, the mouth of this καύχησις would, in reference to 
 him, be stopped. In this εἰς ἐμέ, as concerns me, there is implied 
 a tacit comparison with others, who conducted themselves dif- 
 ferently, and in regard to whom, therefore, the mouth of καύχησις 
 αὕτη would be stopped.— ἐν τοῖς κλίμασι τῆς ’Ay.] is more 
 weighty, and at the same time more tenderly forbearing, than the 
 direct ἐν ὑμῖν, which would be πληκτικώτερον (Chrysostom). 
 
 Ver. 11. Negative specification of the reason for his continuing 
 to preach gratuitously in Achaia.— How easily, since he had 
 accepted something from the poorer Macedonians, might his con- 
 duct appear or be represented to the Corinthians as the result of 
 a cold, disdainful, distrustful disposition towards them! Love 
 willingly accepts from the beloved one what is due to it.— ὁ θεὸς 
 οἶδεν] namely, that the reason is not want of love to you. — Observe 
 the lively intervogative form (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. pp. 186, 347). 
 
 Ver. 12.’ Positive specification of the reason, after brief repe- 
 tition of the matter which calls for it (ὃ δὲ ποιῶ, καὶ ποιήσω). --- 
 
 1 See regarding ver. 12, Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 517 ff. 
 2 COR. 11. 2E 
 
434 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Since Paul, in accordance with ver. 10, wishes to specify the aim 
 inducing the future continuance of his conduct, καὶ ποιήσω must 
 be apodosis (comp. Erasmus, Annot., Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf), and must not be attached to the protasis, so as to 
 make it necessary to supply before ἵνα a διὰ τοῦτο ποιῶ (Erasmus, 
 Paraphr., Luther, Castalio, Emmerling), or τοῦτο ποιῶ κ. ποιήσω 
 (Riickert, but undecidedly), or simply γίνεται (Osiander, Ewald). 
 — ἵνα ἐκκόψω κιτ.λ.] in order that I may cut off the opportunity 
 of those, who wish (exoptant, Beza) opportunity, namely, to de- 
 erade and to slander me. Τὴν ἀφορμήν, having the article, denotes 
 the definite occasion, arising from the subject in question, for 
 bringing the apostle into evil repute. Had he caused himself to 
 be remunerated by the Corinthians, his enemies, who in general 
 were looking out for opportunity (ἀφορμ. without the article), 
 would have taken thence the opportunity of slandering him as 
 selfish and greedy ; this was their ἀφορμή, which he wished to 
 cut off (ἀναιρεῖν, Chrysostom) by his gratuitous working. Others 
 understand by τὴν ἀφορμήν the occasion of exalting and magnify- 
 ing themselves above him (Calvin, Grotius, Flatt). But according 
 to this, we should have to assume that the false apostles had 
 taken no pay, on which point, after the precedent of Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Billroth, and others, Riickert 
 especially insists. This assumption, however, which Neander 
 also supports (comp. against it, Beza), has against it ἃ priori the 
 fact that Paul lays so earnest stress on his gratuitous preaching— 
 which would not be appropriate to his apologetico-polemic train 
 of argument, if on this point he had stood on the same footing 
 with his opponents. Further, xi 20 and 1 Cor. ix. 12 are 
 expressly opposed to it; and the objection of Rickert, that the 
 apostle’s testimony to the baseness of his opponents loses much of 
 its force owing to his passionate temperament, is an exaggerated 
 opinion, to which we can concede only this much, that his 
 testimony regarding his opponents is strongly expressed (comp. 
 ver. 20), but not that it contains anything untrue. If they had 
 worked against him from honest prejudice, it would have been 
 at once indiscreet and un-Christian in him to work against them. 
 Riickert’s further objection, that the adversaries, if they had taken 
 payment where Paul took none, would have coupled folly with 
 selfishness, is unfounded, seeing that in fact, even with that 
 
CHAP, XI. 12. 435 
 
 recommendation in which Paul had the advantage of them by his 
 unpaid teaching, very many other ways were left to them of 
 exalting themselves and of lowering his repute, and hence they 
 might be all the more prudent and cunning. Comp. on ver. 6. 
 — να ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται «.7.d.] may be parallel to the previous 
 clause of purpose (Diisterdieck). Yet it is more in keeping with 
 the logical relation—that here something positive, and previously 
 only something negative, is asserted as intended—and thereby with 
 the climactic course of the passage, to assume that wa ἐν ᾧ xavy. 
 «.7.r. is the aim of ἐκκόψω τὴν ἀφορμὴν τ. θ. ἀφ., and thus the 
 jinal aim of the ὃ δὲ ποιῶ, καὶ ποιήσω in regard to the opponents : 
 in order that they, in the point of which they boast, may be found 
 even as we. This is what I purpose to bring about among them. 
 If, namely, the enemies did not find in Paul the opportunity of 
 disparaging him as selfish, now there was to be given to them 
 withal the necessity (according to his purpose) of showing them- 
 selves to be just such as Paul? in that, in which they boasted, 1.6. 
 according to the context, in the point of unselfishness. Hitherto, 
 forsooth, the credit of unselfishness, which they assigned to them- 
 selves, was idle ostentation, see ver. 20. De Wette makes 
 objection, on the other hand, that they could not have boasted of 
 unselfishness, if they had shown themselves selfish. But this was 
 the very point of his enemies’ wntruthfulness (ver. 13, comp. 
 v. 12), that they vaingloriously displayed the semblance of un- 
 selfishness, while in fact they knew how to enrich themselves by 
 the Christians. Theodoret aptly says: ἔδειξε δὲ αὐτοὺς λόγῳ 
 κομπάζοντας, λάθρα δὲ χρηματιζομένους.  Diisterdieck, too, 
 can find no ground in the context for saying either that the 
 opponents had reproached the apostle with selfishness, or had 
 given themselves out for unselfish. But the former is not 
 implied in our explanation (they only sought the occasion for 
 that charge), while the latter is sufficiently implied in ver. 20. 
 The expositors who consider the opponents as labouring gratui- 
 tously understand ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται of this unpaid working, of 
 
 1 Beza well gives the substantial meaning: ‘‘ Isti quidem omnem mei calumniandi 
 occasionem captant, expectantes dum poeniteat me juri meo renuntiantem in prae- 
 dicando evangelio ex manuum mearum labore victitare. At ego nunquam patiar 
 hance laudem (qua ipsos refello) mihi in Achaiae ecclesiis praeripi. Imo in hoc 
 
 instituto pergam, ut et ipsos ad exemplum meum imitandum provocem, nedum ut 
 quam captant occasionem inveniant.” 
 
436 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 which they had boasted, so that Paul in this view would say: 
 in order that they, in this point of which they boast, may be 
 found not better than we. See Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, 
 comp. Billroth and Riickert ; Billroth and others (comp. Diister- 
 dieck above) taking withal the second iva as parallel to the first, 
 which Riickert also admits. But against the hypothesis that the 
 opponents had taught gratuitously, see above. And the not better 
 than we arbitrarily changes the positive expression καθὼς ἡμεῖς 
 into the negative. Lastly, this explanation stands in no logical 
 connection with what follows. See on ver. 13. Following 
 Augustine, de serm. Dom. in monte, ii. 16, Cajetanus and Estius 
 regard va... ἡμεῖς as an exposition of ἀφορμήν : occasion, in 
 order to be found as we, and ἐν ᾧ xavy. as parenthetical: in quo, 
 sc. in 60 quod est invenire sicut et nos, gloriantur. Comp. also 
 Bengel. But the opponents did not, in fact, boast of being like 
 Paul, but of being more than he was (ver. 5), and wished to 
 hold him or to have him held as not at all a true apostle, ver. 4. 
 This also in opposition to Hofmann, who, attaching the second wa 
 to ἀφορμήν, and referring’ ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται to the apostleship of 
 which the opponents boasted, finds Paul’s meaning to be this: 
 maintaining in its integrity the graturtous character of his working, 
 he takes away from those, who would fain find ways and means of 
 making their pretended apostleship appear equal to his genuine one, 
 the possibility of effecting their purpose. But in the connection of 
 the text, ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται on the one side and καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς 
 on the other can only denote one and the same quality, namely, 
 the waselfishness, of which the opponents untruly boasted, while 
 Paul had it in truth and verified it. Olshausen has been led 
 farthest astray by taking the second ἵνα as the wish of the 
 opponents; he imagines that they had been annoyed at Paul’s 
 
 1 De Wette and Diisterdieck also refer ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται to the apostolic working and 
 dignity. According to the latter, the meaning would be: tm order that they, as 
 regards unselfishness, may let themselves be found just such as I, the apostle vilified 
 by them, and may in this way show what is the worth of their boastful claim 
 to apostolic dignity. Even this clear interpretation does not remove the difficulty 
 that, as the καύχησις of Paul concerned the gratuitous nature of his labouring (ver. 
 10, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 15), so also the καυχᾶσθαι ascribed in the immediate context to 
 the opponents, and pointing back by καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς to the apostle’s conduct (which 
 was the subject-matter of his boasting), requires no other object, nay, when we 
 strictly adhere to the immediate connection, admits of no other. 
 
ts] 
 
 CHAP; XI. 15: 437 
 
 occupying a position of strictness which put them so much to 
 shame, and hence they had wished to bring him away from it, in 
 order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be 
 found even as they. And the ἐν ᾧ xavy. is to be taken, as if 
 they had put forward the authority to take money as an object of 
 glorying, as an apostolic prerogative (1 Cor. ix. 7 ff.) ; so that 
 the whole passage has therefore the ironical meaning: “ Much as 
 they are opposed to me, they still wish an opportunity of letting 
 me take a share of their credit, that I may allow myself to be 
 supported as an apostle by the churches; but with this they wish 
 only to hide their shame and rob me of my true credit: im this 
 they shall not succeed!” But that the opponents had put forward 
 the warrant to take money as an apostolic prerogative, is not to 
 be inferred from 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff., where Paul, in fact, speaks only 
 of the right of the teacher to take pay. Further, there is no 
 ground in the context for the assumed reference of ἐν ᾧ xavy. ; 
 and lastly, in keeping with the alleged ironical meaning, Paul 
 must have written: εὑρεθῶμεν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοί, which Olshausen 
 doubtless felt himself, when he wrote: “in order that he might 
 have no advantage, but that he should be found such as they.” — 
 On ἐκκόπτειν, in the ethical sense of bringing to nought, comp. 
 LXX. Job xix. 10; 4 Macc. iii 2 ff.; Plat. Charm. p. 155 C; 
 Polyb. xx. 6. 2. The opposite: παρέχειν ἀφορμήν (Bihr, ad 
 Pyrrh. p. 237).—On the double ἵνα, the second introducing 
 the aim of the first clause of aim, comp. Eph. v. 27; John i. 7. 
 Hofmann, without reason, desires ὅπως in place of the second 
 iva, 
 
 Ver. 13. Justitication of the aforesaid ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται, 
 εὑρεθ. καθὼς x. ἡμεῖς. “Not without ground do I intend that 
 they shall, in that of which they boast, be found to be as we; 
 for the part, which these men play, is lying and deceit.” — Those 
 who take καθὼς x. ἡμεῖς in ver. 12: not better than we, must 
 forcibly procure a connection by arbitrarily supplying something ; 
 as eg. Riickert: that in the heart of the apostle not better than 
 we had the meaning: but rather worse, and that this is now 
 illustrated. Hofmann, in consequence of his view of wa ἐν @ 
 καυχ. «.T.. ver. 12, interpolates the thought: “ for the rest” 
 they have understood how to demean themselves as Christ’s 
 messengers. — οὗ yap τοιοῦτοι K.7.r.] for people of that kind are 
 
438 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 false apostles, etc., so that ψευδαπόστολοι is the predicate. So 
 also de Wette and Ewald. Usually, after the Vulgate (also 
 Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Hofmann), ψευδαπόστολοι is made the 
 subject: “for such false apostles are,’ etc. But it should, in 
 fact, be rather put: “for the false apostles of that kind (in dis- 
 tinction from other false apostles; comp. xii. 3; Soph. 0. R. 674; 
 Polyb. viii. 2, 5, xvi. 11, 2) are,” ete.—which would be quite 
 appropriate. Besides, the ψευδαπόστολοι, disclosing entirely at 
 length the character of the enemies, would lose its emphasis. On 
 the contemptuous sense of τοιοῦτος, comp. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. 11. 
 p. 843. — ἐργάται δόλιοι] comp. Phil. iii. 2. They were workers, 
 in so far certainly as they by teaching and other activity were 
 at work in the church; but they were decectful workers (dealt in 
 δολίαις βουλαῖς, Eur. Med. 413, δολίοις ἐπέεσσιν, Hom. ix. 282, 
 and δολίαις τέχναισι, Pind. Nem. iv. 93), since they wished only 
 to appear to further the true Christian salvation of the church, 
 while at bottom they pursued their own selfish and passionate 
 aims (ver. 20). For the opposite of an ἐργάτης δόλιος, see 
 2 Tim. 11. 15. — μετασχηματιζ. εἰς ἀποστ. X.] transforming them- 
 selves into apostles of Christ. Their essential form is not that of 
 apostles of Christ, for they are servants of Satan; in order to 
 appear as the former, they thus assume another form than they 
 really have, present themselves otherwise than they really are. 
 In working against Paul in doctrine and act, they hypocritically 
 assumed the mask of apostle, though they were the opposite of a 
 true apostle (Gal. i. 1; Rom. xv. 18 ff.; 2 Cor. xii. 12). 
 
 Vv. 14,15. And that is quite natural !— καὶ οὐ θαῦμα] neque 
 res admiranda est. Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 498 Ὁ; Epin. p. 
 988 D; Pind. Nem. x. 95, Pyth.i. 50; Eur. Hipp. 439; Soph. 
 Oecd. R. 1132, Phil. 408; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 976.— What 
 follows is an argumentum a majori ad minus.— adbtos| ipse 
 Satanas, their lord and master. Comp. afterwards of διάκονοι" 
 αὐτοῦ. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 733.— εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός] 
 into an angel of light. As the nature of God (1 John i. 5; Rev. 
 
 1 Bengel says aptly: ‘‘ Haec jam pars praedicati, antitheton, ver. 5. Nunc tandem 
 scapham scapham dicit.” On the idea of ψευδαπόσφολοι, Erasmus rightly remarks : 
 “* Apostolus enim ejus agit negotium a quo missus est, isti suis commodis serviunt.” 
 Without doubt the people maintained for themselves their claim with equal, nay, 
 
 with better right than Paul, to the name of apostle, which they probably conceded to 
 Paul only in the wider sense (Acts xiv. 4, 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7). 
 
CHAP, XI. 15. 439 
 
 xxi. 23, 24) and His dwelling-place (1 Tim. vi. 16; 1 John i. 7) 
 is light, a glory of light, a δόξα beaming with light, which corre- 
 sponds to the most perfect holy purity, so also His servants, the 
 good angels, are natures of light with bodies of light (1 Cor. xv. 
 40); hence, where they appear, light beams forth from them 
 (Matt. xxviii. 3,al.; Acts xii. 7,al.; see Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 
 I. p. 274f£.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 460). Regarding Satan, on 
 the other hand, comp. Eph. vi. 12; Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 13. 
 He is ὁ κληρονόμος τοῦ σκότους, Ev. Nic. 20.— There is no trace 
 in the narratives concerned to justify the assumption * that ver. 15 
 points to the fall of man (Bengel, Semler, Hengstenberg, Christol. 
 I. p. 11), or even to the temptation of Christ, Matt. iv. 8, in which 
 the devil appeared as the angel to whom God had entrusted 
 the rule of Palestine (Michaelis) ; but, at any rate, it is the 
 apostle’s thought, and is also presupposed as known to the readers, 
 that devilish temptations in angelic form assail man. In the O. T. 
 this idea is not found; it recurs later, however, in the Rabbins, 
 who, with an eccentric application of the thought, maintained 
 that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. xxxul. 34; Hos. 
 xii. 4, 5) was the devil. See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. 1. 
 p. 845. For conceptions regarding the demons analogous to our 
 passage from Porphyry and Jamblichus, see Grotius and Elsner, 
 Obss. p. 160. 
 
 Ver. 15. It is not a great matter, therefore, not strange and 
 extraordinary, if, etc. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11; Plato, Hipp. maj. 
 p. 287 A, Menex. p. 235D; Herod. vii. 38.—xa/] if, as he 
 does himself, his servants also transform themselves, namely, as 
 servants of righteousness, 7.6. as people who are appointed for, and 
 active in, furthering the righteousness by faith, Comp. on iii. 9. 
 The δικαιοσύνη, the opposite of ἀνομία, but in a specifically 
 Christian and especially Pauline sense (comp. on vi. 14) as the 
 condition of the kingdom cf God, is naturally that which Satan 
 and his servants seek to counteract. When the latter, however, 
 demean themselves as ἀπόστολοι Χριστοῦ, the δικαιοσύνη, which 
 they pretend to serve, must have the semblance of the righteousness 
 
 1 The present would not be against it. See Bengel: ‘‘ Solet se transformare ; fecit 
 jam in paradiso.” According to Ewald, we are to think of a narrative, which was 
 known then but is not preserved in our present O. T., to which Paul alludes, or of 
 a narrative similar to that in Matt. iv. 1-11. 
 
440 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 of faith, although it is not so in reality. This view is therefore 
 not “out of the way” (Klopper, p. 90), but contextual; and the 
 δικαιοσύνη cannot be the righteousness of the Jaw, the preaching 
 of which is not the mark of the ἀπόστολοι Χριστοῦ. As to 
 ὡς (transform themselves and become as), comp. on Rom. ix. 29. — 
 ὧν τὸ τέλος κιτ.λ.] Of whom—the servants of Satan—+the end, 
 final fate, will be in accordance with their works. Comp.’ Phil. 
 iii. 19; Rom. vi. 21; 1 Pet.iv.17. “ Quacunque specie se nunc 
 efferant, detrahitur tandem schema,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 16. 7 repeat it: let no one hold me for irrational ; but 
 af not, receive me at least as one wrrational (do not reject me), am 
 order that I too (like my opponents) may boast a little. Thus 
 Paul, after having ended the outpouring of his heart begun in 
 ver. 7 regarding his gratuitous labours, and after the warning cha- 
 racterization of his opponents thereby occasioned (vv. 13-15), now 
 turns back to what he had said in ver. 1, in order to begin a new 
 self-comparison with his enemies, which he, however, merely 7- 
 troduces—and that once more with irony, at first calm, then growing 
 bitter—down to ver. 21, and only really begins with ἐν 6 δ᾽ dv τις 
 τολμᾷ K.T.A, at ver. 21. — That, which is by πάλιν λέγω designated 
 as already said once (ver. 1), is μή τίς με δόξῃ ἄφρ. εἷναι and εἰ δὲ 
 μή ye. . . καυχήσωμαι, both together, not the latter alone (Hof- 
 mann). The former, namely, lay zmplicite in the ironical character 
 of ver. 1, and the latter explicite in the words of that verse. — 
 εἰ δὲ μή γε] sed nisi quidem. Regarding the legitimacy of the γε in 
 Greek (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 425 E), see Bremi, ad Aesch. de fals. leg. 
 47 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 527 ; Dindorf, ad Dem. I. p. v. f. praef. 
 After negative clauses εἰ δὲ μή follows even in classical writers 
 (Thue. 28. 1,131. 1; Xen. Anadb. iv: 3. 6, ΕΗ 
 although we should expect εἰ Sé But εἰ δὲ μή presupposes in 
 the author the conception of a positive form of what is nega- 
 tively expressed. Here something like this: I wish that no one 
 should hold me as foolish; if, however, you do not grant what I 
 wish, etc. See in general, Heindorf, ad Plat. Parm. p. 208; 
 Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 106; Hartung, Partick. 11. p. 218 ; 
 and in reference to the N. T., Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 254 f.— 
 Kav] certe, is to be explained elliptically: δέξασθέ pe, καὶ ἐὰν 
 ὡς ἄφρονα δέξησθέ με. Comp. Mark vi. 56; Acts v.15. See 
 Wiistemann, ad Theocr. xxiii. 35 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 316; 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ. 17. 441 
 
 Winer, p. 543 [E. T. 729].— ὡς ἄφρονα] in the quality of one 
 irrational, as people give an indulgent hearing to such a one. — 
 μικρόν τι] accusative as in ver. 1: aliqguantulum, may deal in a 
 little bit of boasting. 
 
 Ver. 17. More precise information as to the κἂν ὡς ἄφρονα. --- 
 ὃ λαλῶ] namely, in the boastful speech now introduced and 
 regarded thereby as already begun. — κατὰ κύριον] according to 
 the Lord (comp. Rom. xv. 5, viii. 27), ae. so that I am determined 
 in this case by the guiding impulse of Christ. A speaking accord- 
 ing to Christ cannot be boasting; Matt. xi. 29; Luke xvii. 10. 
 Now as Paul knew that the κατὰ κύριον λαλεῖν was brought about 
 by the πνεῦμα working in him (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, xxv. 40), 
 ov λαλῶ κατὰ κύριον certainly denies the theopneustic character of 
 the utterance in the stricter sense, without, however, the apostle 
 laying aside the consciousness of the Spirit’s guidance, under 
 which he, for his purpose, allows the human emotion temporarily 
 to speak. It is similar when he expresses his own opinion, while 
 yet he is conscious withal of having the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 12, 25, 
 40). Regarding the express remark, that he does not speak κατὰ 
 κύριον «.7..., Bengel aptly says: “quin etiam hunc locum et 
 propriam huic loco exceptionem sic perscripsit ex regula decori 
 divini, a Domino instructus.” — ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ] but as one 
 speaks in the state of irrationality. — ἐν ταύτ. τ. ὑὕποστ. τ. K.] 
 belongs to od λαλῶ κατὰ κύριον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν adpoc. taken together : 
 not according to the Lord, but as a fool do I speak tt, with this 
 confidence of boasting. ὑπόστασις is here interpreted as differently 
 as in ix. 4. According to Chrysostom, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann, 
 and many others: in this subject-matter of boasting (comp. Luther, 
 Billroth, and de Wette: “since it has once come to boasting”). 
 But what little meaning this would have! and how scant justice 
 is thus done to the ταύτῃ prefixed so emphatically (with this so 
 great confidence)! The boasting is indeed not yet actually begun 
 (as de Wette objects), but the apostle is already occupied with it 
 in thought; comp. previously λαλῶ. According to Hofmann, ἐν 
 ταύτ. τ. ὑπ. τ. kK. is to be attached to the following protasis ἐπεὶ 
 πολλοὶ K.7.X. But apart from the uncalled-for inversion thus 
 assumed, as well as from the fact that the ὑπόστασις τ. x. is held 
 to be specially the apostleship, the τῆς καυχήσεως would be a 
 quite superfluous addition ; on the other hand, with the reference 
 
442 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 to the general λαλῶ as modal definition of ὑπόστασις it is quite 
 appropriate. 
 
 Ver. 18. That which carries him away to such foolishness, 
 ver. 16: ἵνα κἀγὼ μικρ. τι καυχήσ. ---- Seeing that many boast 
 according to their flesh, so will I boast too, namely, κατὰ τ. σάρκα.---- 
 Since κατὰ τὴν σάρκα is opposed to the κατὰ κύριον in ver. 17, 
 and is parallel to the ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ, it cannot express the objective 
 norm (comp. v. 16), or the object of the boasting (comp. Phil. 111. 
 3 ff.; Gal. vi. 13), as Chrysostom and most expositors, including 
 Emmerling, Flatt, and Osiander, explain it: on account of external 
 advantages,, but it must denote the subjective manner of the 
 καυχᾶσθαι, namely: so that the καυχᾶσθαι is not guided by the 
 Holy Spirit, but proceeds according to the standard of their natural 
 condition as material, psychically determined, and striving against 
 the Divine Spirit, whence they are urged on to conceit, pride, 
 ambition, etc.” Comp. Riickert: “according to the impulse 
 of self-seeking personality ;” also de Wette, Ewald, Neander. 
 Billroth, in accordance with his philosophy, takes it: “as indi- 
 vidual, according to what one is as a single human being.” κατὰ 
 ἄνθρωπον in 1 Cor. ix. 8 is not parallel. See on that passage. — 
 Riickert denies that Paul after κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι has again 
 
 - . Ἂν / - 
 supplied in thought κατὰ τ. σάρκα, and thinks that he has pru- 
 dently put it only in the protasis and not said it of his own 
 glorying. But it necessarily follows, as well from the previous 
 
 1 To this category belongs also the interpretation of Baur, who, however, refers 
 σώρξ quite specially to Judaism as what is inherited, and therefore understands a 
 boasting, the object of which is only inherited accidental advantages. The διάκονοι 
 Xpiorov, ver. 23, and the apostle’s subsequent glorying in suffering, ought to have 
 dissuaded Baur from adopting such a view. 
 
 2 Osiander is quite wrong in objecting to this interpretation that the article is 
 against it, since Paul, when he means σάρξ in this sense, never puts the article after 
 κατά. Paul, in fact, has the article only in this single passage, and elsewhere writes 
 always κατὰ σάρκα (i.e. conformably to flesh) whether he uses σάρξ in the subjective 
 or objective sense ; hence, so far as the article is concerned, there is no means at all 
 of comparison. Besides, σήν here is very doubtful critically, because it is wanting 
 in D* F G &* min. Chrys. Dam., and is at variance with the Pauline usage. 
 Osiander’s further objection, that κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, as understood by us, is in the 
 apostle’s mouth unworthy of him for the apodosis, is likewise incorrect, for he is 
 speaking ironically ; he wishes, in fact, to dealin boasting like a fool! ΑΒ to the 
 distinction between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, we may add that the one 
 means: ‘‘ after the manner of natural humanity,” the other, ‘‘ after the manner of 
 
 their natural humanity.” Comp. on Phil. i. 24, 22. In substance they are equi- 
 valent ; the latter only individualizes more concretely. 
 
CHAP. XI. 19, 20. 443 
 
 ov λαλῶ κατὰ κύριον, in which the κατὰ τ. σάρκα is already 
 expressed implicite, as also from the following τῶν ἀφρόνων, 
 among whom Paul is included as κατὰ τὴν σάρκα καυχώμενος. 
 It is otherwise in John viii. 15. 
 
 Ver. 19. Not the motive inducing, but an ironical ground 
 encouraging, the just said κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι: For willingly you 
 are patient with the irrational (to whom I with my καυχᾶσθαι 
 belong), since ye are rational people! The more rational person 
 is on that account the more tolerant toward fools. Hence not: 
 although you are rational (Ewald and the older commentators). 
 
 Ver. 20. Argumentum a majort for what is said in ver. 19, 
 bitterly sarcastic against the complaisance of the Corinthians 
 towards the imperious (καταδουλοῖ), covetous (κατεσθίει), slyly 
 capturing (λαμβάνει), arrogant (ἐπαίρεται), and audaciously 
 violent (εἰς πρόσωπον δέρει) conduct of the false apostles. — 
 καταδουλοῖ]) enslaves. Comp. on Gal. ii. 4; Dem. 249. 2, and 
 the passages in Wetsteim. Paul has used the active, not the 
 middle, as he leaves quite out of view the authority, whose 
 lordship was aimed at; beyond doubt, however (see the following 
 points), the pseudo-apostles wished to make themselves lords of 
 the church, partly in religious, 1.6, Judaistic effort (comp. 1. 
 24), partly also in a material respect (see what follows). — 
 κατεσθίει] swallows wp, devours, sc. ὑμᾶς, a figurative way of 
 denoting not the depriving them of independence in a Christian 
 point of view (Hofmann), which the reader could the less guess, 
 since it was already said in καταάδουλ., but the course of greedily 
 gathering to themselves all their property. Comp. Ps. 111, 5; 
 Matt. xxiii. 13; Luke xv. 30; Add. to Esth. i. 11; Hom. Od. 
 11, 315: μή τοι κατὰ πάντα φάγωσι κτήματα, Dem. 992. 25; 
 Aesch. ὁ. Zim. 96. So also the Latin devorare (Quintil. viii. 6). 
 Comp. also Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. pp. 217, 230. Riickert, who 
 will not concede the avarice of the opponents (see on ver. 12), 
 explains it of rending the church into parties. Quite against the 
 meaning of the word; for in Gal. v. 15 ἀλλήλους stands along- 
 side. And would it not be wonderful, if in swch a company of 
 worthlessness avarice were wanting 1 ---- λαμβάνει] sc. ὑμᾶς, cap- 
 twres you. Comp. ΧΙ]. 10. The figure is taken from hunting, and 
 denotes the getting of somebody into one’s power (Dem. 115. 10, 
 239. 17) in a secret way, by machinations, etc. (hence different 
 
444 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 from καταδουλοῖ). Comp. Reiske, Jnd. Dem., ed. Schaef. p. 322: 
 “ devincire sibi mentes hominum deditas et veluti captas aut 
 fascino quodam obstrictas.” This meaning is held by Wolf, 
 Emmerling, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, and 
 others. The wsual older interpretation: if any one takes your 
 goods from you (so also Ewald), is to be set aside, because ὑμᾶς 
 would necessarily have to be supplied, and because already the 
 far stronger κατεσθίει has preceded. The same is the case with 
 Hofmann’s interpretation: if any one seizes hold on you (“ treats 
 you as a thing”), which after the two previous points would be 
 nothing distinctive. — ἐπαίρεται) exalts himself (proudly). See 
 the passages in Wetstein. As in this clause ὑμᾶς cannot be 
 again supplied, and thus the supplying of it is interrupted, 
 ὑμᾶς is again added in the following clause. — εἰς πρόσωπ. déper] 
 represents an extraordinary, very disgraceful and insolent mal- 
 treatment. Comp. 1 Kings xxii. 24; Matt. v. 39; Luke xxii. 
 64; Acts xxiii. 2; Philostr. vit. Apoll. vu. 23. On the impetuous 
 fivefold repetition of εἰ, comp. 1 Tim. v. 10. 
 
 Ver. 21. In α disgraceful way (for me) I say, that we have been 
 weak Δ Tronical comparison of himself with the false apostles, 
 who, according to ver. 20, had shown such energetic bravery in 
 Corinth. For such things we, I confess it to my shame, were 
 too weak !— κατὰ ἀτιμίαν] is the generally current paraphrase 
 of the adverb (ἀτίμως), to be explained from the notion of 
 measure (Bernhardy, p. 241). See Matthiae, p. 1359 f.—os 
 ὅτι] as that (see in general, Bast, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 52), intro- 
 duces the contents of the shameful confession, not, however, in 
 an absolutely objective way, but as a fact conceived of (ὧς). 
 Comp. 2 Thess. ii, 2; Xen. Hist. 111, 2. 14; and the passages 
 from Joseph. 6. Ap. i. 11, and Dionys. Hal. 9 (ἐπιγνοὺς, ὡς ὅτι 
 ἐσχάτοις εἰσὶν οἱ κατακλεισθέντες) in Kypke, II. p. 268; also 
 Isocr. Busir. arg. p. 362, Lang.: κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὅτι 
 καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρει, and the causal ὡς ὅτι, v. 19. The 
 confession acquires by ὡς ὅτι something of hesitancy, which 
 strengthens the touch of irony. — ἡμεῖς} is with great emphasis 
 opposed to the men of power mentioned in ver. 20.— ἠσθενή- 
 σαμεν] namely, when we were there; hence the aorist. On the 
 subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor, 11. 2.— There agree, on the whole, 
 with our view of the passage Bengel, Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, 
 
CHAP, XI. 21. 445 
 
 Schrader, de Wette, Neander, Osiander, and others. The main 
 point in it is, that κατ᾽ ἀτιμίαν denotes something shameful for 
 the apostle, and λέγω has a prospective reference. ITiiickert also 
 gives λέγω a prospective reference, but he diverges in regard to 
 κατ᾽ ἀτιμίαν, and supplies μέν: “in the point, indeed, to bring 
 disgrace upon you, I must acknowledge that I have been weak.” 
 But in that case how unintelligibly would Paul have expressed 
 himself! For, apart from the arbitrary supplying of μέν, the 
 definite ἀτιμίαν would be quite unsuitable. Paul, to be under- 
 stood, must have written κατὰ τὴν ἀτιμίαν ὑμῶν (as regards your 
 disgrace), or at least, with reference to ver. 20, κατὰ τὴν ἀτιμίαν 
 (as regards the disgrace under consideration). Ewald and Hof- 
 mann take κατὰ ati. rightly, but give λέγω a retrospective 
 reference. In their view of ὡς ὅτι they diverge from one another, 
 Ewald explaining it: as if I from paternal weakness could not 
 have chastised you myself ; Hofmann, on the other hand, taking 
 ὡς ὅτι as specifying the reason for saying such a thing (comp. 
 v.19). Against Ewald it may be urged that ὡς ὅτε does not 
 mean as if, and that the five points previously mentioned are not 
 brought under the general notion of chastisement; and against 
 both expositors, it may be urged that if κατὰ ἀτιμίαν were in reter- 
 ence to what precedes to mean a dishonour of the apostle himself, 
 ἡμῶν roust of necessity (in Phil. iv.11, κατά is different) have been 
 appended in order to be understood, because the previous points 
 were a shame of the readers; consequently the fine point would 
 have lain just in an emphatically added ἡμῶν (such as κατὰ τὴν 
 ἡμῶν ἀτιμίαν). In our interpretation, on the other hand, κατὰ 
 ἀτιμίαν receives its definite reference through ὡς ὅτι ἡμεῖς (that 
 we), and a ἡμῶν with ἀτιμίαν would have been quite superfluous. 
 Most of the older commentators, too, though with many varia- 
 tions in detail, refer κατὰ ἀτιμ. λέγω to what precedes, but 
 explain κατὰ ἀτιμ. of the shame of the readers. So Chrysostom,’ 
 Theophylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Hunnius, 
 and others: to your shame I say this (ver. 20), as {7 [rather: as 
 because] we had been weak, and could not have done the same 
 thing, although we could do it but would not. Similarly also 
 Billroth (followed by Olshausen): “Jn a disgraceful way, 1 
 
 1 Chrysostom observes that ὡς ὅτι κι τ... is given obscurely, in order to conceal the 
 unpleasantness of the meaning by the obscurity. 
 
440 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 maintain, you put up with that injustice from the alleged reason 
 that we are weak” (rather: had been). But since κατὰ ἀτιμ. is 
 not more precisely defined by a ὑμῶν, we have no right to give 
 to it another definition than it has already received from Paul 
 by the emphatic ἡμεῖς joOevno. Against the retrospective 
 reference of λέγω, see above. Finally, in that view the passage 
 would lose its ironical ‘character, which however still continues, 
 as is shown at once by the following ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω. ---- ἐν ᾧ 
 δ᾽ ἄν τις τολμᾷ x.7.r.] Contrast with the ironical ἠσθενήσαμεν : 
 wherein, however, any one ts bold—TI say it irrationally—T too am 
 bold ; in whatever respect (quocunque nomine) any one possesses 
 boldness, I too have boldness. In ἐν ᾧ lies the veal ground, in 
 which the τολμᾶν has its causal basis. As to τολμᾷ, comp. on 
 x. 2. ἄν contains the conception: should the case occur. See 
 Fritzsche, Conject. p. 35. — ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω] Irony; for μή τίς 
 με S0En ἄφρονα εἶναι, ver. 16. But Paul knew that the τολμῶ 
 κἀγώ would appear to the enemies to be a foolish assertion. 
 
 Ver, 22. Now comes the specializing elucidation of that ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ 
 ἄν τις τολμᾷ, τολμῶ κἀγώ, presented so as directly to confront 
 his enemies. Comp. Phil. iii. 5. Observe, however, that the 
 opponents in Corinth must have still left circumcision out of the 
 dispute. — The three names of honour, in which they boasted 
 from their Judaistic point of view, are arranged in a climax, so 
 that Ἑβραῖοι, which is not here in contrast to the Jews of the 
 Diaspora, points to the hallowed nationality, ᾿Ισραηλῖται to the 
 theocracy (Rom. ix. 4 f.), and σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ to the Messianie 
 privilege (Rom. xi. 1, ix. 7, al.), without, however, these references 
 excluding one another. The interrogative interpretation of the 
 three points corresponds to the animation of the passage far more 
 than the afirmative (Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Estius, Flatt, and 
 others). 
 
 Ver. 23. In the case of those three Jewish predicates the aim 
 was reached and the emotion appeased by the brief and pointed 
 κἀγώ. Now, however, he comes to the main point, to the relation 
 towards Christ; here κἀγώ cannot again suffice, but a ὑπὲρ ἐγώ 
 must come in (comp. Theodoret), and the holy self-confidence of 
 this ὑπὲρ ἐγώ gushes forth like a stream (comp. vi. 4 ff.) over 
 his opponents, to tear down their fancies of apostolic dignity.— 
 παραφρονῶν λαλῶ] also ironical, but stronger than ἐν ἀφροσ. λέγω: 
 
CHAP, ΧΙ. 98. 447 
 
 in madness (Herod. iii. 24; Dem. 1188. 1; Soph. Phil. 804) 7 
 speak! For Paul, in the consciousness of his own humility as af 
 the hateful arrogance of his foes, conceives to himself a: παρα- 
 φρονεῖ ! as the judgment which will be pronounced by the oppo- 
 nents upon his ὑπὲρ ἐγώ; they will call it a παράφρον ἔπος (Eur. 
 Hipp. 232)! — ὑπὲρ ἐγώ] He thus concedes to his opponents the 
 predicate διάκονοι Χριστοῦ only apparently (as he in fact could not 
 really do so according to vv. 13-15); for in ὑπὲρ ἐγώ there lies 
 the cancelling of the apparent concession, because, if he had granted 
 them to be actually Christ’s servants, it would have been absurd to 
 say: Tam more! Such, however, is the thought: “ servants of 
 Christ are they? Well, if they are such, still more am I!” The 
 meaning of ὑπὲρ ἐγώ is not, as most (even Osiander and Hofmann) 
 assume: “I am a servant of Christ in a higher degree than they” 
 (1 Cor. xv. 10), but: Lam more than servant of Christ; for, as 
 in κἀγώ there lay the meaning: I am the same (not in reference 
 to the degree, but to the fact), so must there be in ὑπὲρ ἐγώ the 
 meaning: J am something more. Thus, too, the meaning, in 
 accordance with the strong παραφρονῶν λαλῶ, appears far more 
 forcible and more telling against the opponents.’ ὑπέρ is used 
 adverbially (Winer, p. 394 [E. T. 526]); but other undoubted 
 Greek examples of this use of ὑπέρ are not found, as that in Soph. 
 Ant. 514 (ὁ δ᾽ ἀντιστὰς ὑπέρ) is of doubtful explanation. — ἐν 
 κόποις περισσοτέρως x.7.d.| Paul now exchanging sarcasm for 
 deep earnest, under the impulse of a noble peyadnyopia (Xen. 
 Apol. i. 2) and “argumentis quae vere testentur pectus apostoli- 
 cum” (Erasmus), begins his justification of the ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, so that 
 ἐν is to be taken instrumentally : through more exertions, etc. The 
 comparative is to be explained from the comparison with the κόποι 
 of the opponents. The adverb, however, as often also in classic 
 writers, is attached adjectivally (sc. οὖσι) to the substantive. So 
 also de Wette.” Comp. Luke xxiv. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 31; Phil. i. 26; 
 Gal. i. 13; see Ast, ad Plat. Polit. p. 371 ἢ; Bernhardy, p. 338. 
 Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, and the older commentators incor- 
 
 1 So that the absolute ὑπέρ is not to be explained ὑπὲρ αὑτούς, but ὑπὲρ διακόνους Χ, 
 Our view is already implied in the plus (not magis) ego of the Vulgate. Luther 
 also has it, recently Ewald ; and Lachm. writes ὑπερεγώ as one word. Comp. also 
 Klépper, p. 97. 
 
 ? In the Vulgate this view has found distinct expression at least in the first clause : 
 ‘*in laboribus plurimis.” 
 
448 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 rectly hold that εἰμί is to be supplied: “I am so in a yet much 
 more extraordinary way in labours.” Apart from the erroneous 
 explanation of ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, which is herein assumed, the subsequent 
 πολλάκις is against it, for this with εἰμί supplied would be absurd. 
 Hofmann would make a new series begin with ἐν θανάτ. πολλάκις ; 
 but this is just a mere makeshift, which is at variance with the 
 symmetrical onward flow of the passage with ἐν. Beza, Flatt, 
 and many others supply ἦν or γέγονα; but this is forbidden by 
 ver. 26, where (after the parenthesis of vv. 24, 25) the passage 
 is continued without év, so that it would be impossible to supply 
 nv or γέγονα further. — ἐν πληγ. ὑπερβαλλ.] by strokes endured 
 beyond measure. — ev φυλακ. περισσοτ.) by more imvprisonments. 
 Clement, ad ον. i. 5: ὁ Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ἀπέσχεν 
 ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, in which reckoning, however, the later 
 imprisonments (in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome) are included. — 
 ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις πολλάκις γὰρ εἰς κινδύνους παρεδόθην 
 θάνατον ἔχοντας, Chrysostom. Comp. 1 Cor. χν. 51 ; 2 Cor.iv.11; 
 Rom. viii. 36; and Philo, Macc. p. 990 A: προαποθνήσκω πολ- 
 Aovs θανάτους ὑπομένων ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς τοῦ τελευταίου, Lucian, Tyr. 
 22; Asin. 28. See on this use of θάνατος in the plural, Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 46 C; Seidler, ad Zur. Hl. 479. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. Parenthesis, in which definite proofs are brought 
 forward for the ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις. --- 710 ᾿Ιουδαίων] refers 
 merely to πεντάκις... ἔλαβον; for it is obvious of itself that 
 the subsequent τρὶς ἐῤῥαβδίσθην was a Gentile maltreatment. 
 Paul seems to have had in his mind the order: from Jews 
 
 . . from Gentiles, which, however, he then abandoned. — 
 τεσσαράκοντα Tapa μίαν] sc. πληγάς. Comp. on Luke xii. 47, 
 and Ast, ad Legg. p. 433. παρά in the sense of subtraction ; 
 see Herod. i. 120; Plut. Caes. 30; Wyttenb. ad Plat. VI. pp. 
 461, 1059; Winer, p. 377 [E. T. 503], Deut. xxv. 3 ordains 
 that no one shall be beaten more than forty times. In order, 
 therefore, not to exceed the law by possible miscounting, only 
 nine und thirty strokes were commonly given under the later 
 administration of Jewish law.' See Joseph. Anié. iv. 8. 21, 23, 
 
 1 This reason for omitting the last stroke is given by Maimonides (see Coccej. ad 
 Maccoth iii. 10). Another Rabbinical view is that thirteen strokes were given 
 with the three-thonged leathern scourge, so that the strokes amounted in all to 
 thirty-nine. See in general, Lund, p. 540f. According to Maccoth iii. 12, the 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ. 26, 27. 449 
 
 and the Rabbinical passages (especially from the treatise Maccoth 
 in Surenhusius, IV. p. 269 ff.); in Wetstein, Schoettgen, Hor. p. 
 714 ff.; and generally, Saalschiitz, Z. R. p. 469. Paul rightly 
 adduces his five scourgings (not mentioned in Acts) as proof of 
 his ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις, for this punishment was so cruel that 
 not unfrequently the recipients died under it; hence there is no 
 occasion for taking into account bodily weakness in the case of 
 Paul. See Lund, Jiid. Heiligth. ed. Wolf, p. 539 f.— τρὶς 
 ἐῤῥαβδίσθην] One such scourging with rods by the Romans is 
 reported in Acts xvi. 22; the two others are unknown to us, — 
 ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθ.] See Acts xiv. 19; Clem. 1 Cor. v. — τρὶς 
 évavay.| There is nothing of this in Acts, for the last shipwreck, 
 Acts xxvii, was much later. How many voyages of the 
 apostle may have remained quite unknown to us! and how 
 strongly does all this list of sufferings show the incompleteness 
 of the Book of Acts !— νυχθήμερον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα] Lyra, 
 Estius, Calovius, and others explain this of a mzracle, as if Paul, 
 actually sunk in the deep, had spent twenty-four hours without 
 injury ; but this view is at variance with the context. It is 
 most naturally regarded as the sequel of one of these ship- 
 wrecks, namely, that he had, with the help of some floating 
 wreck, tossed about on the sea for a day and a night, often 
 overwhelmed by the waves, before he was rescued. On βυθός, 
 the depth of the sea, comp. LXX. Ex. xv. 5 ; Ps. lxvii. 14, evil. 24, 
 al. ; Berg]. ad Alciphr. 1. 5, p. 10 ; and Wetstein in loc. — ποιεῖν of 
 time : to spend, as in Acts xv. 33 ; Jas. iv. 13 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
 IX. p. 449. The perfect is used because Paul, after he has simply 
 related the previous points, looks back on this last from the 
 present time (comp. Kiihner, ὃ 439, 1a); there lies in this change 
 of tenses a climactic vividness of representation. 
 
 Ver. 26 ἢ After the parenthesis of vv. 24, 25, the series begun 
 in ver. 23 is now continued, dropping, however, the instrumental 
 ἐν, which is not to be supplied, and running on merely with the 
 instrumental datiye—through frequent journeys, through dangers 
 from rivers, etc. The expression ὁδούπορ. πολλάκες is not to be 
 taken as saying too little, for Paul was not constantly engaged 
 
 breast, the right and the left shoulder, received each thirteen of the thirty-nine 
 strokes. But it cannot be proved from the Rabbins that it was on this account that 
 the fortieth was not added, as Bengel, Wetstein, and others assume. 
 
 2 COK. IL. 2F 
 
450 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 in journeys (comp. his somewhat lengthy sojourns at Ephesus and 
 at Corinth); wherefore he had the less occasion here to put 
 another expression in place of the πολλάκις which belonged, as it 
 were, to the symmetry of the context (vv. 23, 27). Hofmann 
 wrongly joins πολλάκις with κινδύνοις, and takes πολλάκ. κινδύνοις 
 as in apposition to ὁδοιπορίαις : “journeys, which were often 
 dangers.” As if Paul were under the necessity of expressing (if 
 he wished to express at all) the quite simple thought : ὁδουπορίαις 
 πολλάκις ἐπικινδύνοις (journeys which were often dangerous), in 
 a way so singularly enigmatical as that which Hofmann im- 
 putes to him. Besides, if the following elements are meant to 
 specify the dangers of ¢ravel, the two points ἐκ γένους and 
 ἐξ ἐθνῶν at least are not at all specific perils incident to travel. 
 And how much, in consequence of this erroneous connection of 
 ὁδοιπορ. πολλάκ. Kivdvy., does Hofmann mar the further flow 
 of the passage, which he subdivides as ποταμῶν κινδύνοις, 
 ληστῶν κινδύνοις, ἐκ γένους κινδύνοις K.T.A. down to ἐν θαλάσσῃ 
 κινδύνοις, but thereafter punctuates: ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις κόπῳ κ. 
 μόχθῳ ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις, πολλάκις ἐν λιμῷ κ. δίψει, ἐν νηστείαις, 
 πολλάκις ἐν ψυχ. κ΄ γυμν In this way is lost the whole 
 beautiful and swelling symmetry of this outburst, and particu- 
 larly the essential feature of the weighty anaphora, in which 
 the emphatic word (and that is in ver. 26 κινδύνοις) is placed 
 first (comp. eg. Hom. Jl. x. 228 ff.,i. 436 ff, ii. 382 ff, v. 7140 ἢ; 
 Arrian, Diss. i. 25; Quinctil. ix. 3. Comp. also ver. 20, vii. 2; 
 Phil. iii. 2, iv. 8, al.). — κινδ, ποταμῶν «.7.r.] The genitive denotes 
 the dangers arising from rivers (in crossing, swimming through 
 them, in inundations, and the like) and from robbers. Comp. 
 Heliod. 11. 4. 65: κινδύνοι θαλασσῶν, Plat. Pol. i. p. 332 E; 
 Euthyd. p. 279; Ecclus. xliii. 24. — The κινδύνοις each time pre- 
 fixed has a strong oratorical emphasis. Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 28. 
 There lies in it a certain tone of triumph. — ἐκ γένους] on the 
 part of race, 1.0. on the part of the Jews, Acts vii. 19; Gal. i. 14. 
 The opposite: ἐξ ἐθνῶν. ---- ἐν πόλει, in city, as in Damascus, 
 Jerusalem, Ephesus, and others; the opposite is ἐν ἐρημίᾳ, in 
 desert. On the form of expression, comp. ἐν οἴκῳ, ἐν ἀγρῷ, ἐν 
 
 1 So that πολλάκ. ἐν λιμῷ x, δίψει Would belong to ἀγρυπνίαις, and σολλάκ. ἐν ψύχει 
 
 x. γυμνότητι to νηστείαις, each as a circumstance of aggravation ; while both iv ἀγρυπ- 
 νίαις anil ἐν νηστείαις belong to κόπῳ x μόχθῳ. 
 
CHAP. XI. 28. 451 
 
 μεγάρῳ, and the like. Xen. de rep. Lac. viii. 3: ἐν πόλει καὶ ἐν 
 στρατιᾷ καὶ ἐν οἴκῳ. --- ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις] among false brethren, 1.6. 
 among Judaistic pseudo-Christians, Gal. ii. 4, οἱ ὑπεκρίνοντο τὴν 
 ἀδελφότητα, Chrysostom. Why should not these, with their 
 hostile and often vehement opposition to the Pauline Christianity 
 (comp. Phil. i. 2), have actually prepared dangers for him ? 
 Riickert, without reason, finds this inconceivable, and believes 
 that Paul here means an occasion on which non-Christians, under 
 cover of the Christian name, had sought to entice the apostle into 
 some danger (? κινδύνοις). ---- Ver. 27. κόπῳ κ. μόχθῳ] by trouble 
 and toil; comp. 1 Thess. ii, 9; 2 Thess. iii, 8... Then with 
 ἐν ἀγρυπν. there again appears the instrumental ἐν. On ἐν λιμῷ 
 κιτιλ., comp. Deut. xxviii. 48.— ἐν νηστείαις πολλάκις) by fre- 
 quent fastings. Here precisely, where ἐν λιμῷ κ. δίψει, and so 
 involuntary fasting, precedes, the reference of νηστ. to voluntary 
 fasting is perfectly clear (in opposition to Riickert, de Wette, 
 Ewald). Comp. on vi. 5. Estius aptly observes: “jejunia ad 
 purificandam mentem et edomandam carnem sponte assumta.” 
 Comp. Theodoret and Pelagius. 
 
 Ver. 28. Apart from that which occurs beside (beside what had 
 been mentioned hitherto), for me the daily attention is the care for 
 all the churches.” He will not adduce more particulars than he 
 has brought forward down to γυμνότητι, but will simply mention 
 further a general fact, that he has daily to bear anxiety for all 
 the churches. On χωρίς with the genitive: apart from, see 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. S.p.35 C. The emphasis is on πασῶν. 
 Theodoret : πάσης yap THs οἰκουμένης ἐν ἐμαυτῷ περιφέρω τὴν 
 μέριμναν. Nevertheless, this πασῶν is not, with Bellarmine and 
 other Roman Catholic writers, as well as Ewald et al., to be limited 
 merely to Pauline churches, nor is it to be pressed in its full 
 generality, but rather to be taken as a popular expression for his 
 unmeasured task, He has to care for all. Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 
 1 From these passages, combined with Acts xx. 31, we may at the same time 
 explain the ἀγρυσνίαι, which Hofm. interprets of night-watchings in anwiety about 
 the pseudo-Christians. This results from his error in thinking that all the points 
 in ver. 27 are to be referred to ἐν ψευδαδέλφ, 
 
 2 Accordingly the comma after ἡμέρων is to be deleted. If μέριμνα x.7.a. be (as is 
 the usual view) taken as a clause by itself, the ἐσσί to be supplied is not a copula, 
 but : exists. But according to the right reading and interpretation, ἡ taier. μοι, aS an 
 independent point, would thus be too general, 
 
ae PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 lact, and others attach ywp. τ. παρ. to what precedes, and separate 
 it from what follows by a full stop; but this only makes the 
 latter unnecessarily abrupt. Luther, Castalio, Bengel, and many 
 others, including Flatt, Billroth (but uncertainly), and Olshausen, 
 consider ἡ ἐπίστασις x.7.r. (or, according to their reading: ἡ 
 ἐπισύστασις «.T.A.) aS an abnormal apposition to τῶν παρεκτός : 
 not to mention what still occurs besides, namely, etc. This is 
 unnecessarily harsh, and χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός would withal only 
 be an empty formula. — τὰ παρεκτός is: quae praeterca eveniunt,' 
 not, as Beza and Bengel, following the Vulgate, hold: “ quae 
 extrinsecus eum adoriebantur ” (Beza), so that either what follows 
 is held to be in apposition (Bengel : previously he has described 
 the proprios labores, now he names the alienos secuwm convmunicatos), 
 or τῶν παρεκτός is referred to what precedes, and what follows 
 now expresses the «ward cares and toils (Beza, comp. Erasmus), 
 Linguistic usage is against this, for παρεκτός never means e- 
 trinsecus, but always beside, in the sense of exception. See 
 Matt. v. 32; Acts xxvi. 29; Aq. Deut. i. 36; Test. XII. Patr. 
 p. 631; Geopon. xiii. 15.7; Htym. 2 Ὁ. 652, 18. This also 
 in opposition to Ewald : “ without the wruswal things,” with which 
 what is daily is then put in contrast (comp. Calvin). Hofmann, 
 following the reading ἡ ἐπισύστασίς μου, would, instead of τῶν 
 παρεκτός, write τῶν παρ᾽ ἐκτός, which is, in his view, masculine, 
 and denotes those coming on to the apostle from without (the 
 Christian body), whose attacks on his doctrine he must con- 
 tinually withstand. With this burden he associates the care of 
 all the many churches, which lie continually on his soul. These 
 two points are introduced by χωρίς, which is the adverbial 
 besides. This new interpretation (even apart from the reading 
 ἐπισύστασις, Which is to be rejected on critical grounds) cannot 
 be accepted, (1) because of παρ᾽ ἐκτός, for which Paul would 
 have written of ἔξω (1 Cor. v. 12; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12) 
 or οἱ ἔξωθεν (1 Tim. iii. 7), is an expression without demonstrable 
 precedent, since even Greek writers, while doubtless using οἱ 
 ἐκτός, extranet (Polyb. ii. 47. 10, v. 37. 6 ; comp. Ecclus. Praef. 1.), 
 do not use of map’ ἐκτός ; (2) because the two parts of the verse, 
 
 1 The Armenian version gives instead of σαρεκτός : ἄλλων θλίψεων. A correct 
 
 interpretation. Chrysostom exaggerates: πλείονα τὰ παραλειφθέντα τῶν ἀπαριθμη- 
 θέντων, 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ. 38, 4δὃ 
 
 notwithstanding their quite different contents, stand abruptly 
 (without «ai, or μὲν... δέ, or other link of connection) side by 
 side, so that we have not even ἡ δὲ μέριμνά pov (overagainst the 
 ἐπισύστασίς ov) instead of the bare ἡ μέριμνα ; and (3) because 
 the adverbial χωρίς in the sense assumed is foreign to the N. Τὶ, 
 and even in the classical passages in question (see from Thucy- 
 dides, Kriiger on i. 61. 3) it does not mean praeterea generally, 
 but more strictly scorsim, separatim, specially and taken by itself.* 
 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 974. But the two very general 
 categories, which it is to introduce, would not suit this sense. — 
 ἡ ἐπίστασις) may mean either: the daily halting (comp. Xen. 
 Anab, ii. 4. 26; Polyb. xiv. 8. 10; Soph. Ant. 225: πολλὰς 
 yap ἔσχον φροντίδων ἐπιστάσεις, multas moras deliberationibus 
 effectas), or : the daily attention.” See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 527; 
 Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 265. This signification is most accordant 
 with the context on account of the following ἡ μέριμνα κ.τ.λ. 
 Riickert, without any sanction of linguistic usage, makes it: the 
 throng towards me, the concourse resorting to me on official 
 business.” So also Osiander and most older and more recent 
 expositors explain the Recepta ἐπισύστασίς pov or ἐπισύστ. μοι. 
 But likewise at variance with usage, since ἐπισύστασις is always 
 (even in Num. xxvi. 9) used in the hostile sense: hostilis concursio, 
 tumultus, as it has also been taken here by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, Beza,* Bengel, and others. See Acts xxiv. 12, and 
 the passages in Wetstein and Loesner, p. 230.—The μοί, which, in 
 
 1 So, too, in the passage, Thue. ii. 31. 2, adduced in Passow’s Lexicon by Rost 
 and by Hofmann, where χωρίς further introduces a separate army contingent, which 
 is counted by itself. 
 
 2 Gregory of Nazianzus has ἐπιστασία, which is to be regarded as a good gloss. 
 See Lobeck, U.c.; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 2, var. 
 
 3 ἐπίστασις does not once mean the pressing on (active), the crowding. In 2 Mace. 
 vi. 3 (in opposition to Grimm in loc.), ἡ ἐπίστασις vis κακίας is the setting in, the 
 coming on, i.e. the beginning of misfortune (Polyb. i. 12. 6, ii. 40. 5, a/.). In Dion. 
 Halicarn. vi. 31, the reading is to be changed into ἐπίθεσιν. In Polyb. i. 26. 12, it 
 means the position. Nevertheless, Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 156 [E. T. 180], agrees with 
 Riickert. 
 
 4 Chrys. : οἱ θόρυβοι, αἱ σαραχαΐ, αἱ πολιορκίαι σῶν δήμων καὶ σῶν πόλεων ἔφοδοι. Beza 
 renders the whole verse ; ‘‘ Absque iis, quae extrinsecus eveniunt, urget agmen illud 
 in me quotidie consurgens, é.e. solicitudo de omnibus ecclesiis.” Comp. Ewald : 
 ‘«the daily onset of a thousand troubles and difficulties on him.” Bengel: ‘‘ obtur- 
 batio illorum, qui doctrinae vitaeve perversitate Paulo molestiam exhibebant, v. gr. 
 Gal. vi. 17.” 
 
454 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 the interpretation of ἐπίστ. as concowrse, would have to be taken 
 as appropriating dative (Bernhardy, p. 89), is, according to our 
 view of ἐπίστ., to be conceived as dependent on the éo7,to be 
 supplied. 
 
 Ver. 29. Two characteristic traits for illustrating the μέριμνα 
 πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. Chrysostom aptly says: ἐπήγαγε καὶ 
 τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς φροντίδος, and that for the individual members 
 (Acts xx. 31).— As ἀσθενεῖ with σκανδαλίζεται, so also ἀσθενῶ 
 with πυροῦμαι forms a climax—and in a way highly appropriate 
 to the subject! For in point of fact he could not in the second 
 clause say: καὶ od σκανδαλίζομαι. ----- The meaning of the verse 
 is to express the most cordial and most lively sympathy (comp. 
 1 Cor. xii. 26) of his care amidst the dangers, to which the 
 Christian character and life of the brethren are exposed: “ Who 
 is weak as regards his faith, conscience, or his Christian morality, 
 and I am not weak, do not feel myself, by means of the sympathy 
 of my care, transplanted into the same position? Who 18 
 offended, led astray to unbelief and sin, and I do not burn, do not 
 feel myself seized by burning pain of soul?” Semler and 
 Billroth, also de Wette (comp. Luther’s gloss), mix up what is 
 foreign to the passage, when they make ἀσθενῶ apply to the 
 condescension of the apostle, who would give no offence to the 
 weak, 1 Cor. ix. 22. And Emmerling (followed by Olshausen) 
 quite erroneously takes it; “quem afflictum dicas, si me non dicas ¢ 
 quem calamitatem oppetere, si me non vis premt, quin wrt memores 2” 
 In that case it must have run καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀσθενῶ ; besides, 
 σκανδαλίζεσθαι never means calamitatibus affici, but constantly 
 denotes religious or moral offence ; and lastly, σκανδαλίζεται and 
 πυροῦμαι would yield a quite inappropriate climax (Paul must 
 have repeated σκανδαλίζομαι). ---- ἀσθενεῖ] comp. Rom. iv. 19, 
 xiv. 1, 2,21: 1 Cor, vili.’9, 11; 1 Thess. v.14; Acts, Χ ὦ 
 The correspondence of σκανδαλίζεται in the climax forbids us to 
 understand it of suffering (Chrysostom, Beza, Flatt). — πυροῦμαι] 
 What emotion is denoted by verbs of burning, is decided on each 
 occasion by the context (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 9 ; see in general on 
 Luke xxiv. 32), which here presents a climax to ἀσθενῶ, there- 
 fore suggests far more naturally the idea of violent pain (comp. 
 Chrys. : καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὠδυνᾶτο μέλος) than that of anger (Luther: 
 “it galled him hard ;” comp. Bengel, Rickert), Augustine says 
 
CHAP. XL 80; 81. 455 
 
 aptly : “quanto major caritas, tanto majores plagae de peccatis 
 alienis.” Comp. on the expression, the Latin ardere doloribus, 
 faces doloris, and the like (Kiihner, ad Cic. Tuse. 11. 25. 61); 
 also 3 Macc. iv. 2, and Abresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 519.— 
 Lastly, we have to note the change in the form of the antitheses, 
 which emerges with the increasing vividness of feeling in the two 
 halves of the verse: οὐκ ἀσθενῶ and οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι. In 
 the former case the negation attaches itself to the verb, in 
 the latter to the person. Who is weak without weakness like- 
 wise occurring in me? who is offended without its being J, who 
 is burning? Of the offence which another takes, £ on my part 
 have the pain. 
 
 Ver. 30. Result of the previous passage—from ver. 23 onward * 
 in proof of that ὑπὲρ ἐγώ in ver. 23—put, however, asyndetically 
 (without οὖν), as is often the case with the result after a 
 lengthened chain of thoughts (Dissen, ad Pind. Exe. II. de asynd. 
 p. 278); an asyndeton swmming up (Nagelsbach on the Jlad, 
 p. 284, ed. 3). Jf J must boast (as is the given case in confront- 
 ing my enemies), J will boast in that which concerns my weakness 
 (my sufferings, conflicts, and endurances, which exhibit my weak- 
 ness), and thus practise quite another καυχᾶσθαι" than that of 
 my opponents, who boast in their power and strength. In this 
 τὰ τ. ἀσθ. μ. καυχ. there lies a holy oxymoron. To refer it to 
 the ἀσθενεῖν in ver. 29 either alone (Riickert) or inclusively 
 (de Wette), is inadmissible, partly because that ἀσθενεῖν was a 
 partaking in the weakness of others, partly because the future is to 
 be referred to what is meant only to follow. And it does actually 
 follow ; hence we must not, with Wieseler (on Gal. p. 596), 
 generalize the future into the expression of a maxim, whereby a 
 reference to the past is facilitated. So also in the main Hofmann. 
 — καυχᾶσθαι, with accusative, as ix. 2. 
 
 Ver. 31. He is now about to illustrate (see vv. 32, 33) the just 
 announced τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας μου καυχήσομαι by an historical 
 enumeration of his sufferings from the beginning, but he first 
 
 1 Everything in this outburst, from ver. 23 onward, presented him, in fact, as the 
 servant of Christ attested by much suffering. Thus, if he must make boast, he wishes 
 to boast in nothing else than his weakness. And this καυχᾶσθαι is then, after an 
 assurance of his truthfulness (ver. 31), actually begun by him (ver. 32) in concrete 
 
 historical form. 
 2Chrys. exclaims: Οὗτος ἀποστολικὸς χαρακτήρ, διὰ τούτων ὑφαίνεται εὐαγγέλιον, 
 
456 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 prefaces this detailed illustration (“ rem quasi difficilem dicturus,” 
 Pelagius) by the asswrance, in God’s name, that he narrates nothing 
 false. The objections taken against referring this assurance to 
 what follows (see Estius and Riickert)—that the incident adduced 
 in ver. 32 stands, as regards importance, out of all proportion to 
 so solemn an assurance, and the like—lose their weight, when we 
 reflect that Paul has afterwards again broken cf (see xii. 1) the 
 narrative begun in vv. 32, 33, and therefore, when writing his 
 assurance, referred it not merely to this single incident, but also 
 to all which he had it in his mind still to subjoin (which, how- 
 ever, was left undone owing to the interruption). Others refer 
 the oath to what precedes, and that either to everything said from 
 ver. 23 onward (Estius, Calovius, Flatt, Olshausen), or to ver. 30 
 alone (Morus, Riickert, Hofmann ; Billroth gives a choice between 
 the two). But in the former case logically we could not but 
 have expected ver. 31 after ver. 29, and in the latter case the 
 assurance would appear as quite irrelevant, since Paul at once 
 begins actually to give the details of his τὰ τῆς ἀσθεν. μου καυχή- 
 σομαι (ver. 31 f.).—o θεὸς x. πὰτὴρ τ. Kup. jy. 1. X.] Union 
 of the general and of the specifically Christian idea of God. 
 Ἡμῶν yap θεὸς τοῦ δὲ κυρίου πατήρ, Theodoret. Comp. on 
 1 Cor. xv. 24 and Eph. i. 3.—o ὧν εὐλογητὸς x.7.r.] appended 
 by the apostle’s pious feeling, in order to strengthen the sacred- 
 ness of the assurance. “Absit ut abutar ejus testimonio, 
 cul omnis laus et honor debetur in omnem aeternitatem,” 
 Calovius. 
 
 Vv 32, 33. Paul now actually begins his καυχᾶσθαι τὰ τῆς 
 ἀσθενείας αὐτοῦ, and that by relating the peril and flight which 
 took place at the very commencement of his work. Unfor- 
 tunately, however (for how historically important for us would 
 have been a further continuation of this tale of suffering !), yet 
 upon the emergence of a proper feeling that the continuation of 
 this glorying in suffering would not be in keeping with his apos- 
 tolic position, he renounces the project, breaks off again at once 
 after this first incident (xii. 1), and passes on to something far 
 higher and more peculiar—to the revelations made to him. The 
 expositors, overlooking this breaking off (noted also by Hilgenfeld), 
 have suggested many arbitrary explanations as to why Paul 
 narrates this incident in particular (he had, in fact, been in much 
 
CHAP. XI. 32, 33. 457 
 
 worse perils !),’ and that with so solemn asseveration and at such 
 length. Billroth, eg. (comp. Flatt), says that he wished to direct 
 attention to the jirst danger pre-eminently by way of evidence 
 that everything said from ver. 23 onward was true (ver. 31). In 
 that case he would doubtless have written something like ἤδη 
 yap ἐν Δαμασκῷ, or in such other way as to be so wnderstood. 
 Olshausen contents himself with the remark that Paul has only 
 made a supplementary mention of the event as the first persecu- 
 tion; and Riickert even conjectures that it was by pure accident 
 that Paul noted by way of supplement and treated in detail 
 this story occurring to his recollection! Osiander thinks that he 
 singled it out thus on account of its connection (?) in subject- 
 matter and time with the following revelation, and, as it were, 
 by way of further consecration of his official career. Comp. also 
 Wieseler on Gal. p. 595, who likewise considers the narrative as 
 simply a suitable historical introduction to the revelation that 
 follows. But we do not see the purpose served by this detailed 
 introduction,—which, withal, as such, would have no indepen- 
 dent object whatever,—nor yet, again, the purpose served by the 
 interruption in xii. 1. According to Hofmann, the mention of 
 this means of rescue, of which he had made use, and which many 
 a one with merely natural cowrage would on the score of honour 
 not have consented to employ, is intended to imply a confession of 
 his weakness. The idea of weakness, however, is not at all here the 
 opposite of the natural courage of honour, but rather that of the 
 passive undergoing of all the παθήματα of Christ, the long chain 
 of which, in Paul’s case, had its first link historically in that 
 flight from Damascus. Calvin correctly names this flight the 
 “tirocinium Pauli.” — ἐν Δαμασκῷ) stands as an anacoluthon. 
 When Paul wrote it, having already in view a further specification 
 of place for an incident to follow, he had purposed to write, instead 
 of the unsuitable τὴν ΖΔαμασκηνῶν πόλιν, something else (such 
 as τὰς πύλας), but then left out of account the ἐν Δαμασκῷ 
 already written. It is a strange fancy to which Hofmann has 
 recourse, that τ. Δαμασκ. πόλιν is meant to be a narrower con- 
 ception than ἐν Ζαμασκῷ. ---- ἐθνάρχης) prefect (Josephus, Antt. 
 
 1 Arbitrary explanations are already given by Chrysostom (comp. Bengel, Ewald, 
 
 and others): because the incident was older and less known; and by Pelagius: 
 because in Damascus the Jews had stirred up etiam principes gentium against Paul. 
 
458 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 xiv. 7. 2; 1 Mace. xiv. 47, xv. 1; Strabo, xvii. p. '798 ; Lucian, 
 Macrob. 17), an appellation of Oriental provincial governors, See 
 in general, Joh. Gottlob Heyne, de ethnarcha Aretae, Witeb. 
 1755, p. 3 ff The incident itself described is identical with 
 that narrated in Acts ix. 24f. No doubt in Acts the watching 
 of the gates is ascribed to the Jews, and here, to the ethnarch ; 
 but the reconciliation of the two narratives is itself very naturally 
 effected through the assumption that the ethnarch caused the 
 gates to be watched by the Jews themselves at their suggestion 
 (comp. Heyne, lc. p. 89). “Jewish gold had perhaps also some 
 effect with the Emir,’ Michaelis. — τὴν dapack. πόλιν] namely, 
 by occupying the gates so that Paul might not get out. Regard- 
 ing the temporary dominion over Damascus held at that time by 
 Aretas, the Arabian king, and father-in-law of Herod Antipas, 
 see on Acts, Introd. § 4, and observe that Paul would have had 
 no reason for adding ’Apéra τοῦ βασίλέως, if at the very time 
 of the flight the Roman city had not been exceptionally (and 
 temporarily) subject to Aretas—a state of foreign rule for the 
 time being, which was to be brought under the notice of the 
 reader. Hofmann thinks that the chief of the Arabian inhabitants 
 in the Roman city was meant; but with the less ground, since 
 Paul was a Jew and had come from Jerusalem, and consequently 
 would not have belonged at all to the jurisdiction of such a tribal 
 chief (if there had been one). He went to Arabia (Gal. 1. 17) 
 only in consequence of this incident. — διὰ θυρίδος] by means of a 
 little door (Plato, Pol. ii. p. 359 D; Lucian, Asin. 45). It was 
 doubtless an opening high up in the city wall, closed, perhaps, 
 with a lid or lattice. — ἐν capydvn] in a wickerwork, 1.6. basket 
 (Lucian, Lexiph. 6), Comp. Acts ix. 25: ἐν σπυρίδι. ----- On the 
 description itself Theodoret rightly remarks: τὸ τοῦ κινδύνου 
 μέγεθος τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς φυγῆς παρεδήλωσε. 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ, 459 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Ver. 1. καυχᾶσθαι δή] So also Tisch., following K M and most min. 
 Arm. and the Greek Fathers. But Β D** E FG 1; and many min., 
 also Syr. utr. Arr. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. have the reading καυχᾶσθαι 
 6e% which Griesb. has recommended, and Scholz, Lachm. Riick. 
 have adopted. D*s* 114, Copt. Slav. codd. Lat. Theophyl. have 
 καυχᾶσθαι δέ, Which Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 122 f., prefers. The testi- 
 monies for καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ preponderate so decidedly that we are 
 not entitled to derive δεῖ from xi. 30. On the other hand, the 
 apparent want of connection in καυχ. δεῖ οὐ συμῷ. was sufficient 
 occasion, partly for changing é<7 into δέ, or by means of itacism into 
 δή (the latter Reiche defends and Ewald follows, also Hofm.), partly 
 for prefixing an εἰ to the καυχ. from xi. 30 (x** 39, Lect. 17, Vulg. 
 Pel.). — οὐ συμφέρει μοι, ἐλεύσομαι γάρ] Lachm. and Riick. read οὐ 
 συμφέρον μὲν, ἐλεύσομεν δέ (Lachm.: 6? καί, after B), supported by 
 BE Gx, and in part by some min. vss.and Fathers. But μὲν... 
 
 δέ betrays itself as a correction by way of gloss of the difficult γά, 
 in which μοί was supplanted by μέν, and γάρ by δέ. The question 
 whether συμφέρον is original instead of συμφέρει, is decided by the 
 circumstance that, according to the codd., the reading συμφέρον is 
 connected with the reading wiv... δέ, and hence falls with it. — 
 Ver. 3. ἐκτός] Β D* Ἐπ 8, Method. in Epiph. have χωρίς. So Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Riick. Rightly; ἐχτός is from ver. 2. The subsequent 
 οὐκ οἶδα is deleted by Lachm., but only on the: authority of B, 
 Method. — Ver. 6. τῇ] is doubtless wanting in B D*** E** F G x* 
 37, 67** Arm. Boern. Tol. Harl.** codd. Lat. Or., and is deleted by 
 Lachm. and Riick. But how easily it was left out, being regarded 
 as utterly superfiuous, and even as confusing ! — Ver. 7. Before the 
 first ἵνα Lachm. has διό, following A BF G 8 17, Boern. An insertion 
 for the sake of connection, occasioned by the not recognising the 
 inverted order of the words, so that καὶ τῇ ὑπερβ. τῶν ἀποκαλ. was 
 attached in some way to what goes before (with some such mean- 
 ing as this: in order that no one may get a higher opinion of 
 me... even through the abundance of the revelations). — The second 
 iva μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι 15 wanting in A Ὁ E F G s* 17, and several vss. 
 and Fathers (bracketed by Lachm.); but the emphasis of the repe- 
 
400 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 tition being overlooked, the words have been passed over as having 
 been used already. — Ver. 9. δύναμίς μου] μου is wanting in A* B D* 
 F G s*, and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Bengel, Lachm. 
 Tisch. Considering, however, the no small weight of the testi- 
 monies for wou (A** D*** E K L** and almost all min. vss. Or. 
 Chrys. Theodoret), and seeing that the syllable μου might easily 
 be passed over after the syllable μις, the Recepta is to be preserved, 
 its sense also being necessary according to the whole context. — 
 τελειοῦται] A BD* F Gxt have τελεῖσα. So Lachm. Tisch. and 
 Riick. Rightly; the former is an interpretation. — Ver. 11. After 
 ἄφρων Elz. has καυχώμενος, against decisive evidence. An exegetical 
 addition. — Ver. 12. ἐν σημείοις] ἐν is wanting in A Β Ἐκ 17, 39, » 
 71, al. Vulg. ms. Clar. Germ. Tol. and Fathers; while F G, Boern. 
 Syr. Chrys. Ambrosiast. have καί. ἐν 15 mechanically repeated from 
 what precedes, and with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. is to be deleted. 
 — Ver. 13. ἡττήθητε] Β D* 8* 17 have ἡσσώθητε (so Lachm.), which 
 is nothing but a copyist’s error, and in D and δὲ is rightly corrected; 
 FG have ἐλαττώθητε, which is a gloss.— Ver. 14. After τρίτον 
 Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read τοῦτο, following doubtless 
 a preponderance of authorities, among which, however, D E 93, 
 Copt. Syr.? put it before τρίτον. An addition from xiii. 1. — ὑμῶν] 
 is wanting after καταναρκ. in A Β καὶ 17, 71, al. Aeth. Damasc., while 
 D* F G have ὑμᾶς. Both have been supplied, and are rightly 
 deleted by Lachm. Tisch.— Ver. 15. εἰ κα καί is wanting in 
 A BF Gx* Copt. Sahid. Deleted by Lachm. An addition from 
 misunderstanding; see the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. σάλιν] 
 Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. read πάλαι on preponderating evidence. 
 Rightly ; the πάλαι not understood was erroneously glossed. — In 
 what follows κατέναντι is to be adopted instead of κατενώπιον, with 
 Lachm. and Riick., on preponderating evidence. Comp. il. 17. — 
 Ver. 20. Instead of pec, Lachm. and Riick. read ἔρις, but against 
 preponderating evidence. The latter might easily originate 
 through itacism. Instead of ζῆλοι, Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. read 
 ζῆλος, following A Β D* F G, Goth. Syr. Arm. Dam. Rightly; 
 the plural crept in from the surrounding forms. — Ver. 21. ἐλθόντα 
 με] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read ἐλθόντος μου, following A BF G s* 
 39, 93. Rightly; the Recepta is a grammatical emendation, which 
 brought with it the omission of the subsequent με. ---- ταπεινώσῃ!] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. read σαπεινώσει, following BD EF G L, min. 
 Oec. The subjunctive is a mechanical alteration in accordance with 
 the preceding and usual form. 
 
 
 
 ContEents.—Breaking off from what precedes, Paul passes over 
 to the revelations which he has had, narrates one of them, and 
 
CHAP, XII. 1. 461 
 
 says: Of this he would boast, not of himself, except only of his 
 weaknesses ; for he will perpetrate no folly by self-glorying, but 
 abstains from it, in order not to awaken too high an opinion of 
 himself (vv. 1-6). And in order that he might not plume himself 
 over those revelations, there was given to him a painful affliction, 
 on account of which after a thrice-repeated invocation he had been 
 referred by Christ to His grace; hence he preferred to glory in 
 his weaknesses, in order that he might experience the power of 
 Christ, for which reason he had pleasure in his weaknesses (vv. 
 7-10). — He had become a fool, compelled thereto by them; for 
 he ought to have been commended by them, since in no respect 
 did he stand behind the fancied apostles, but, on the contrary, 
 had wrought amongst them the proofs of his apostolic dignity 
 (vv. 11,12). This leads him, amidst bitter irony, again to his 
 eratuitous working, which he will continue also on his third 
 arrival (vv. 13-15). But not only had he not by himself and 
 immediately taken advantage of them, but not even through others 
 mediately (vv. 16-18). Now begins the conclusion of the whole 
 section : Not before them, but before God, does he vindicate him- 
 self, yet for theiredification. For he fears that he may find them 
 not in the frame of mind which he wishes, and that he may be 
 found by them in a fashion not wished for (vv. 19-21), 
 
 Ver. 1.’ Scarcely has Paul, in xi. 32 f., begun his καυχᾶσθαι 
 τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας with the incident in Damascus, when he breaks 
 off again with the thought which, in the instantaneous, true tact 
 of his consciousness (comp. on xi. 32 f.), as it were bars his way: 
 καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, οὐ συμφέρει μοι (see the critical remarks): to 
 boast of myself is necessary, not beneficial for me. Let it be observed 
 that οὐ cud. is the antithesis of δεῖ (necesse, non utile est), and that 
 a comma only must therefore stand after δεῖ; further, that μοι be- 
 longs not merely to συμῴ., but also to δεῖ (Tob. v. 14; Kihner, ad 
 Xen. Mem. iii. 3.10, Anab. iii. 4. 35 ; Miitzner, ad Antiph. p. 257); 
 
 1 See on ver. 1 ff., Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 206 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 173 fl. ; and again, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ; 
 also Holsten, zwm Evang. des Paul. u. d. Petr. 1868, p. 21 ff. 
 
 3 Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 404) objects that Paul must have written ‘* solen- 
 niter et perspicue:” καυχᾶσθαι ἐμὲ δεῖ, οὐ δὲ συμφέρει wor, But if μοι were not to 
 be referred jointly to δεῖ, seeing that 3:7 with the dative and infinitive certainly 
 is found in classical writers seldom (see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 399 f.), and 
 never in the N. T., an ἐμέ would not be necessary; but καυχ. δεῖ may be taken 
 
402 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 lastly, that cupd. means the moral benefit as opposed to the 
 ethical disadvantage of the self-exaltation (comp. ver. 7, and see 
 Theophy1.): “saluberrimum animo ἡ τῆς οἰήσεως συστολή,᾽ Grotius. 
 Comp. Ignat. Zrall. 4: πολλὰ φρονῶ ἐν θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν μετρῶ, 
 ἵνα μὴ ἐν καυχήσει ἀπόλωμαι. The δεῖ arose out of the existing 
 circumstances of the Corinthians, by which Paul had seen himself 
 necessitated to the καυχᾶσθαι; but the ov συμφέρει prevails with 
 him to pass on to something else and far higher, as that in which 
 there lay no self-glory (ver. 5). With the reading δή (see the critical 
 remarks) the δή would only make the notion of καυχᾶσθαι more 
 significantly’ prominent, like the German eben or ja [ certainly, or 
 indeed] (see Kriiger, § 69,19. 2; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 392; Baum- 
 lein, Partikell. p. 98), but could not, as Hofmann (with an inappro- 
 priate appeal to Hartung) assumes, denote glorying “ simply and 
 absolutely,” in contrast with a καυχᾶσθαι τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας. This 
 Paul would have known how to express by something like ἁπλῶς 
 δὴ καυχᾶσθαι. --- ἐλεύσομαι] not: 1 would (to which Hofmann 
 practically comes), but: I wll (now) come to speak. See Wolf, 
 Curae; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ix. 83, p. 119. -- γάρ] He might 
 also have said οὖν, but his conception is, that by his passing over 
 to something else the ov συμφέρει μοι is illustrated and con- 
 firmed. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 235; Baumlein, Partik. p. 86. --- εἰς 
 ὀπτασίας Kal ἀποκαλ. κυρίου] 1.6. to facts, in which Christ imparted 
 tome visions and revelations.” The genitivus subjectt κυρίου is the 
 characteristic definition, which both words need (not simply the 
 
 absolutely: boasting is necessary (under the circumstances given), not advantageous 
 is it to me. The non-use of δέ or ἀλλά is in keeping with the very common 
 asyndetic juxtaposition of contrasted statements, 1 Cor. vii. 6; Rom. ii. 29; 2 Cor. 
 v. 8, etal. Reiche himself, defending the Recepta, lays the whole emphasis on ga: 
 my boasting takes place not for my own advantage, but for yours (in order to cor- 
 rect your judgment regarding me, etc.). He explains it, therefore, as if Paul had 
 written : οὐκ ἐμοί or οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ συμφέρει. Theodoret had already taken it erroneously, 
 quite like Reiche. 
 
 1 ἐς ayest particula determinativa, id verbum, quod sequitur, graviter efferens,” 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 7. ἃ, Comp. also Hartung, Partik. 1. p. 288. Erasm.: 
 “ὁ oloriari sane non expedit mihi.” It might accordingly be taken also with a touch 
 of irony, like scilicet : boast indeed 1 must. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p.173E; 
 Hartung, 1.56. Holsten also, l.c. p. 28, takes it in the ironical sense. 
 
 ? As is well known, from this passage arose the apocryphal ᾿Αποκάλυψις Παύλου, 
 and (or ?) the ᾿Αναβατικὸν Παύλου. See Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offend. Joh. 1. p. 244 ff. 
 ed. 2. Theophylact finds the proof that this treatise is not genuine in ἄῤῥητα, 
 ver. 4, 
 
CHAP, XII. 2. 463 
 
 second, to which Hofmann limits it). Theophylact remarks 
 that in ἀποκαλ. there is added to ὀπτασ. something more, ἡ μὲν 
 yap μόνον βλέπειν δίδωσιν, αὕτη δὲ καί τι βαθύτερον τοῦ ὁρω- 
 μένου ἀπογυμνοῖ, This distinction, however, keeps the two 
 ideas apart contrary to their nature, as if the apocalyptic 
 element were not given with the ὀπτασίαᾳ. ᾿Οπτασία (“species 
 visibilis objecta vigilanti aut somnianti,’ Grotius) is rather a 
 special form of receiving the ἀποκάλυψις (comp. Liicke, inl. 
 in ad. Offend. Joh. 1. p. 27, ed. 2), which latter may take place by 
 means of such a miraculous vision (Dan. ix. 23, x. 1, 16); see 
 also Luke i. 22; Actsxxvi. 19. This is the meaning of ὀπτασία 
 here, and ἀποκαλ. is a wider idea, inasmuch as revelations occur 
 also otherwise than in the way of visions beheld, although here 
 ensuing in that way ; comp. ver. 7, where azroxan. stands alone.— 
 That Paul by what follows wishes to prove, with a polemic object 
 against the Christine party, that external acquaintance with Christ 
 was superfluous (so Baur; see also Oecumenius), is not to be 
 assumed, just because otherwise the mention of his having had 
 a vision of Christ would be necessary for its bearing on the 
 sequel. Nor can we from this passage infer it as the distinctive 
 feature of the Christines, that they had claimed to stand by visions 
 and revelations in a mystical connection with Christ (Schenkel, 
 Dihne, de Wette, Goldhorn; comp. also Ewald, Beyschlag), since 
 Paul is contending against specifically Judaistic opponents, against 
 whom he pursues his general purpose of elucidating his apostolic 
 dignity, which enemies obscured in Corinth,’ from the special 
 distinctions which he, and not his opponents, had to show (comp. 
 Rabiger, p. 210; Klopper, p. 99 ff). 
 
 Ver. 2. He now quotes instar omniwm a single event of such a 
 nature, specially memorable to him and probably unique in his 
 experience, vv. 2—4. — οἶδα ἄνθρωπον x.t.d.] I know aman... 
 who was snatched away. Paul speaks of himself as of a third 
 person, because he wishes to adduce something in which no part 
 
 1 According to Hilgenfeld, Paul means now to impart yet something greater than 
 the vision of Christ (?) at his call. Not something greater, but something quite 
 of another kind. Holsten, too, finds in the ὀπτασίας something, which exalts Paul 
 above the original apostles, since to the latter such things had not been imparted 
 after the resurrection of Christ. That, indeed, we do not at all know. We are 
 acquainted with analogous disclosures also by Peter. And how scanty are our 
 sources regarding the history of the Twelve! 
 
404 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper. And how suitable in 
 reality was the nature of such an event to the modest mode 
 of representation, excluding all self-glory! In that ecstasy the 
 Ego had indeed really ceased to be the subject of is own activity, 
 and had become quite the object of the activity of others, so that 
 Paul in his usual condition came before himself as other than he 
 had been in the ecstasy, and his J, considered from the stand- 
 point of that ecstasy, appeared as a he.—év Χριστῷ) a man to 
 be found in Christ (as the element of life), 1 Cor. 1. 30, a Chris- 
 tian; not: “quod in Christo dico, ie. quod sine ambitione 
 dictum velim,” Beza, connecting it with οἶδα (comp. Emmerling). 
 --- πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων] belongs to ἁρπαγέντα, from which 
 it is separated by the parenthesis. We may add that this note 
 of time is already decisive against those, who ezther find in this 
 incident the conversion of the apostle (or at least something 
 connected therewith), as Damasus, Thomas, Lyra, L. Capellus, 
 Grotius, Oeder, Keil, Opusc. p. 318 ff.; Matthaei, Religionsgl. I. 
 p. 610 ff, and others, including Bretschneider and Reiche, and 
 quite recently Stolting, Beitr. z. Exeg. d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 173 
 —or identify it with the appearance in the temple, Acts xxii. 
 17 ff., as Calvin (but uncertainly), Spanheim, Lightfoot, J. Ca- 
 pellus, Rinck, Schrader, and others; comp. also Schott, Hrért. 
 p. 100 ff; Wurm in the 7 δ. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 41 ff; 
 Wieseler, p. 165, and on Gal. p. 591 ff.; Osiander. The con- 
 version was upwards of twenty years earlier than this Epistle (see 
 on Acts, Introd. § 4). See, besides, Estius and Fritzsche, Diss. I. 
 p. 58 ff.; Anger, rat. temp. p. 164 ff. In fact, even if the 
 definition of the time of this event could be reconciled with that 
 of the appearance in the temple, Acts xxii. 17 ff., still the nar- 
 rative of this passage (see especially ver. 4: ἤκουσεν ἄῤῥητα 
 K.T.W.) is at any rate so essentially different from that in Acts xxii., 
 that the identity is not to be assumed.’ The connection which 
 Wieseler assumes with the Damascene history does not exist in 
 reality (comp. on xi. 32 f.), but with xii. 1 there begins something 
 new. The event here mentioned, which falls in point of time to 
 
 1 According to Wieseler, the ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα were the preparatory basis for the 
 delegation of the apostle in Acts xxii. 18, 21. But there is no hint of this in either 
 text. And the revelation laying the basis for his vocation among the Gentiles had 
 been received by Paul much earlier than the appearance in the temple, Gal. 1, 15. 
 
CHAP, XII. 2. 465 
 
 the stay at Antioch or to the end of the stay at Tarsus (Acts 
 xi. 25), is to us guite wnknown otherwise. The reason, however, 
 why Paul added the definition of time is, according to Chrysos- 
 tom, Pelagius, Theodoret, and others, given thus: “ videmus 
 Paulum ipsum per annos quatuordecim tacuisse, nec verbum 
 fuisse facturum, nisi importunitas malignorum coégisset,” Calvin. 
 But how purely arbitrary! And whence is it known that he 
 had been so long silent regarding the ecstasy? No; the speci- 
 fication of time flowed without special design just as naturally 
 from the pre-eminently remarkable character which the event 
 had for Paul, as from the mode of the representation, according 
 to which he speaks of himself as of a third person, in whose case 
 the notice of an already long past suggested itself spontaneously ; 
 for “longo tempore alius a se ipso quisque factus videtur” (Bengel). 
 -- εἴτε ἐν σώματι] sc. ἡρπάγη from what follows. Regarding 
 εἴτε... εἴτε, whether... or, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 202 f., 
 also Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 224. He puts the two cases as 
 quite equal as respects possibility, not the first as more probable ; 
 hence with the second εἴτε no καΐ is added; see Dissen. In 
 that ecstasy his lower consciousness had so utterly fallen into 
 abeyance, that he could not afterwards tell (according to Athan. 
 6. Ar. Serm. 4: dared not tell) whether this had taken place by 
 means of a temporary withdrawal of his spirit out of the body, 
 or whether his whole person, the body included (ἐν σώματι), had 
 been snatched away. By this alternative he expresses simply the 
 utter incomprehensibleness for him of the manner of the occurrence. 
 It is to him as if either the one or the other had taken place, 
 but he knows neither the former nor the latter; hence he is not 
 to be made responsible for the possibility or eventual mode of 
 the one or other. “Ignoratio modi non tollit certam 701 scien- 
 tiam,” Bengel. Following Augustine, Genes. ad lit. xii. 5, 
 Thomas and Estius explained ἐν σώματι: anima in corpore 
 manente, so that Paul would say that he does not know whether 
 it took place in a vision (ἐν σώματι) or by an actual snatching 
 away of the spirit (ἐκτὸς tod o.). But if he had been uncertain, 
 and had wished to represent himself as uncertain, whether the 
 matter were only a seeing and perceiving by means of the spiri- 
 tual senses or a real snatching away, it would not have had at all 
 the great importance which it is held to have in the context, and 
 2 COR, II. 2G 
 
466 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 he would only have exposed to his rivals a weak point, seeing 
 that inward visions of the supernatural, although in the form of 
 divinely presented apparitions, had not the quite extraordinary 
 character which Paul manifestly wishes to ascribe to the event 
 described. This also in opposition to Beyschlag, 1864, p. 207, 
 who explains the alternative εἴτε ἐν σώματι only as the bestowal 
 of a marvellous “range” and “ reach” of the inward senses— 
 in spite of the ἁρπαγέντα. Moreover, we must not ascribe to the 
 apostle the Rabbinical opinion (in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 697) that 
 he who is caught into paradise puts off his body and is clothed 
 with an ethereal body; because otherwise he could not have 
 put the case εἴτε ἐν σώματι So much, however, is clear, 
 that for such a divine purpose he held as possible a temporary 
 miraculous withdrawal of the spirit from the body without 
 death The mode*® in which this conceived possibility was to 
 take place must be left undetermined, and is not to be brought 
 under the point of view of the separability of the bare πνεῦμα 
 (without the ψυχή) from the body (Osiander) ; for spirit and soul 
 form inseparably the Zgo even in the trichotomistic expression 
 of 1 Thess. v. 23, as likewise Heb. iv. 12 (see Liinemann in oc.). 
 Comp. also Calovius against Cameron. Hence also it is not to be 
 said with Lactantius: “ abit animus, manet anima.’ — The anar- 
 throus ἐν σώματι means bodily, and that his own body was meant 
 by it, and tod σώματος with the article is not anything different, 
 was obvious of itself to the reader; σῶμα did not need the article, 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 83 C. — ἁρπαγέντα] the stated 
 word used of sudden, involuntary raptures. See Acts viii. 39; 
 Rev. xii. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 17. The form of the 2d aorist belongs 
 to the deteriorated Greek. See Thomas Mag. p. 424; Buttmann, 
 1. p. 381. — τὸν τοιοῦτον] summing up again (Kiihner, II. p. 330): 
 such an one, with whom it was so. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 5.— ἕως 
 
 1 Just as little is the case put to be made conceivable as a momentary transfigura- 
 tion of the body (Osiander). The bodily transfiguration is simply an eschatological 
 event (1 Cor. xv. 51 ff. ; 1 Thess. iv. 17), anda transformation of such a nature, 
 that after it the return to the previous condition is quite inconceivable. 
 
 2 Comp. the passage already quoted in Wetstein from Philo, de Somn. I. p. 626, 
 where Moses ἀσώματος γενόμενος is said to have fasted forty days. 
 
 The remark of Delitzsch in this connection: ‘‘ because what is experienced 
 compresses itself, after the fashion of eternity, into a moment” (Psychol. p. 857), is 
 to me obscure and too strange to make it conceivable by me. 
 
CHAP. XII. 2. 467 
 
 τρίτου ovp.| thus, through the first and second heaven into the 
 third.’ As the conception of several heavens pervades the whole 
 of the O. and N. T. (see especially, Eph. iv. 10; Heb. iv. 14); 
 as the Rabbins almost unanimously (Rabbi Juda assumed only 
 two) reckon seven heavens (see the many passages in Wetstcin, 
 Schoettgen, Hor. p. 718 ff; comp. also Eisenmenger, Lntdeckt. 
 Judenth. I. p. 460; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T.1. p. 247); and as 
 Paul here names a definite number, without the doctrine of only 
 three heavens occurring elsewhere; as he also in ver. 4 specifies 
 yet a higher locality situated beyond the third heaven: it is quite 
 arbitrary to deny that he had the conception of seven heavens, as 
 was done by Origen, contra Celswm, vi. p. 289: ἑπτὰ δὲ οὐρανοὺς, 
 ἢ ὅλως περιωρισμένον ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν, ai φερόμεναι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλη- 
 σίαις οὐκ ἀπαγγέλλουσι γραφαί. The rationalistic explanations 
 of more recent expositors, such as that of Billroth (following 
 Schoettgen): that he only meant by this figurative (?) expression 
 to express the nearness in which his spirit found itself to God, 
 have as little exegetical warrant as the explanation of Calvin, 
 Calovius, and others, that the holy number three stands κατ᾽ 
 ἐξοχήν pro summo et perfectissimo, so that τρίτου denotes “ the 
 highest and most perfect sphere of the higher world” (Osiander) ;? 
 or as the assertion of others (Estius, Clericus, Bengel, and others), 
 that it is a doctrine of Scripture that there are only three heavens 
 (the heaven of clouds, the heaven of stars, and the empyrean; 
 according to Damascenus, Thomas, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, 
 “coelum sidereum, crystallinum, empyreum ;” according to Grotius : 
 “regio nubifera, reg. astrifera, reg. angelifera”), or the fiction of 
 Grotius and Emmerling, that the Jews at that time had assumed 
 only these three heavens. It is true that, according to the 
 Rabbins, the third heaven was still no very exalted region.* But 
 we do not know at all what conception of the difference of the 
 seven heavens Paul followed (see below), and are therefore not at 
 
 1In Lucian, Philopatr. 12, Christ (Taa:aeins) is mocked at as εἰς σρίσον οὐρανὸν 
 ἀκροβατήσας καὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἐκμεμαθηκώς. 
 
 * The old Lutherans, in the interests of the doctrine of ubiquity, maintained that 
 the third heaven and paradise denote ‘‘ statwm potius alterius saeculi quam locum,” 
 Hunnius. 
 
 3 The Rabbinical division was different, e.g. (1) velum ; (2) expansum ; (3) nubes ; 
 (4) habitaculum ; (5) habitatio ; (6) sedes fixa ; (7) Araboth or ταμεῖον. Others divide 
 in other ways. See Wetstein. 
 
468 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 all justified in conjecturing, with Riickert, in opposition to the 
 number seven, that Paul was not following the usual hypothesis, 
 but another, according to which the third heaven was at least one 
 of the higher ;* but see on ver. 4, where a still further ascent from 
 the third heaven into paradise is mentioned. Even de Wette 
 finds the usual view most probable, that by the third heaven is 
 meant the highest; “im such things belonging to pious fancy 
 nothing was established until the Rabbinical tradition became 
 fixed.” But the third heaven must have been to the readers a 
 well-known and already established conception ; hence we are the 
 less entitled to depart from the historically attested number seven, 
 and to adopt the number three (nowhere attested among the Jews) 
 which became current in the church only on the basis of this pas- 
 sage (Suicer, Thes. II. p. 251), while still in the Zest. XII. Patr. 
 (belonging to the second century) p. 546 f., the number seven 
 holds its ground, and the seven heavens are exactly described, as 
 also the Ascensio Jesaiae (belonging to the third century) has still 
 this conception of Jewish gnosis (see Liicke, Hinl. in ἃ. Offend. 
 Joh. I. Ὁ. 287 f., ed. 2). How Paul conceived to himself the several 
 heavens as differing, we cannot determine, especially as in those 
 Apocryphal books and among the Rabbins the statements on 
 the point are very divergent. Erroneously, because the concep- 
 tion of several heavens is an historical one, Hofmann (comp. also 
 his Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 535) has regarded ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ 
 as belonging to the vision, not to the conception (in connection 
 with which he lays stress on the absence of the article), and 
 spiritualizes the definite concrete utterance to this effect, that 
 Paul in the vision, which made visible to him in a spiritual 
 manner the invisible, “ saw himself caught away beyond the lower 
 domains of the supermundane and up into a higher region.” This 
 is to depart from the clear literal meaning and to lose oneself in 
 generalities, It is quite unwarranted to adduce the absence of 
 the article with τρίτου, since with ordinal numbers the article is 
 not at all required, Matt. xx. 3; Mark xv. 25; Acts 11, 15, 
 
 1 Riickert appeals to the fact that R. Juda assumed only two heavens. But this 
 isolated departure from the usual Rabbinical type of doctrine cannot have any 
 application here, where a third heaven is named. Passages would rather have to be 
 shown, in which the number of heavens was assumed to be under seven and above 
 two. In the absence of such passages, Riickert’s conjecture is groundless, 
 
CHAP. XII. 8, 4 469 
 
 xxiii, 23; John i 40; Thue. ii. 70. 5; Xen. Anad. iii, 6.1; 
 Lucian, Alex. 18; 1 Sam. iv. 7; Susann. 15; see Kiihner, ad 
 Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 35; Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 292, ed. 3. 
 Vy. 3, 4. And I know such a man... that he, namely, was 
 caught away, etc. The expression is here the well-known attraction 
 οἰδά σε τίς et. Most expositors consider the matter itself as not 
 different from what is mentioned in ver. 2, so that τρίτος οὐρανός 
 and ὁ παράδεισος would be one and the same. But it is decisive 
 against this view, that ὁ τρίτος οὐρανός cannot without arbitrari- 
 ness be taken otherwise than of a region of heaven compara- 
 tively low (see on ver. 2). Besides, the whole circumstantial 
 repetition, only with a change in designating the place, would not 
 be solemn language, but battology. This also in opposition to 
 Hofmann, who imports the modification: “ The one time emphasis 
 is laid only on the swrrowndings, into which he found himself 
 transported away from the earth; the other time on the con- 
 trast of the fellowship of God, into which he was transported 
 away from the church of God here below.” Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, and several Fathers and schoolmen 
 (see Estius and Bengel on the passage), also Erasmus’ and Bengel,” 
 have rightly distinguished paradise from the third heaven. Comp. 
 also Hahn, Theol. ἃ. N. T. 1. p. 246; Osiander, Hilgenfeld, and 
 others. Still we are not, with Bengel (comp. de Wette), to 
 regard (see on ver. 2) paradise as interius quiddam %n coelo tertio, 
 quam ipsum coclum tertiwm (comp. Cornelius a Lapide); but 
 Paul relates first how he was caught up into the third heaven, and 
 then adds, as a further point in the experience, that he was 
 transported further, higher up into paradise, so that the éws 
 τρίτου οὐρανοῦ was a break, as it were, a resting-point of the 
 vaptus. Thus, too, the repetition of the same words, as well as 
 the repetition of the parenthesis, obtains its solemn character ; 
 for the incident is reported step by step, 1.6. in two stages. — The 
 paradise is here not the lower, 1.6. the place in Sheol, in which 
 the spirits of the departed righteous are until the resurrection 
 
 1 ἐς Raptus est in tertium usque coelum, hine rursum in paradisum,” Erasmus in 
 his Parapir. Comp. Clemens Alex, : ἕως πρίτου οὐρανοῦ, κἀκεῖθεν εἰς παράδεισον 
 (Strom. v. p. 427). 
 
 2 Who as to the repetition of the same words judges very rightly: ‘*Non solum 
 suaviter suspendunt acuuntque lectorem, et gloriationi consideratae pondus addunt, 
 sed etiam plane duplex rei momentum cuprimunt.” 
 
470 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (see on Luke xvi. 23, xxiii. 43), nor as Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 1, 
 Ῥ. 489, substitutes in place of this historical conception the abstrac- 
 tion: “the present communion of the blessed dead with God, as 
 it is on this side of the end of things;” but the upper, the 
 paradise of God (Rev. ii. 7; Enoch xxv. 1) in heaven, where 
 God’s dwelling is. This distinction is one given historically, and 
 necessary for the understanding of the passage, and is rightly 
 maintained also by Osiander, Hahn, and others. Comp. the Rab- 
 binical passages in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. 296 ff, and 
 generally, Thilo, ad Hv. Nic. 25, p. 748 ff. ; Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. Heils, 
 II. p. 42 ff. The idea, however, that Christ has carried the believ- 
 ing souls out of Hades with Him to heaven (Delitzsch, Psychol. 
 p. 414) goes beyond Scripture, and is not presupposed even in 
 this passage. — ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα] an oxymoron:' dicta nefanda 
 dictu, speakings, which may not be spoken (Dem. 1369. 25,1370. 14; 
 Soph. 0. R. 465 ; Eur. Hel. 1370; and Pflugk in loc.), 1.0. which may . 
 not be made the subject of communication to others. The reve- 
 lations which Paul received were so sublime and holy, that the 
 further communication of them would have been at variance with 
 their character; what was disclosed to him was to be for him 
 alone, for his special enlightenment, strengthening, comforting, 
 with a view to the fulfilment of his great task; to others it was 
 to remain a mystery, in order to preclude fanatical or other 
 misuse ; comp. Calvin. That ἄῤῥητα here does not mean quae dict 
 nequeunt (Plato, Soph. p. 238 C), as Beza, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, 
 and many others, including Billroth and Olshausen, hold (Riickert 
 is not decided), is shown by the solemn epexegetical ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν 
 ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι, in which ἐξόν means licct, fas est, and is not 
 —as Luther and many older and later commentators, includ- 
 ing Billroth and Olshausen, wish to take it, quite at variance 
 with the signification of the word—equivalent to δύνατον. The 
 Vulgate aptly renders: “et audivit arcana verba, quae non licet 
 homini loqui,” ze. which a man may not utter aloud. Lucian, 
 Epigr. 11 (Jacobs, Del epigr. VII. 66): ἀῤῥήτων ἐπέων γλώσσῃ 
 σφρηγὶς ἐπικείσθω, Soph. Hl. 1000, 47. 213. Comp. Rev. x. ὃ ἢ 
 — ἀνθρώπῳ] for they are reserved only for divine communica- 
 
 1See regarding similar juxtapositions in general, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229f. 
 
 Comp. Plat. Conv. p. 189 B: ἄῤῥητα ἔσσω τὰ εἰρημένα, Soph. Oed. Col. 1005: ῥητὸν 
 ἄῤῥητον, Aj. 218 : λόγον ἄῤῥητον. 
 
CHAP, XII. 5. 471 
 
 tion; a man, to whom they are revealed, may not utter them. 
 —As to what it was that Paul heard for himself, the Fathers and 
 schoolmen made many conjectures after their fashion. See Cor- 
 nelius a Lapide and Estius. Theodoret well says: αὐτὸς οἶδεν ὁ 
 ταῦτα τεθεαμένος. From whom as the organ of communication 
 he heard it, remains veiled in apocalyptic indefiniteness. Reveal- 
 ing voices (comp. Rev. /.c.) he did hear. 
 
 Ver. 5. On behalf of the one so constituted I will boast, but on behalf 
 of myself, etc. Paul abides by his representation begun in ver. 2, 
 according to which he speaks of himself as of a third person. 
 The reader understood him! to the effect, namely, that apart from 
 that difference of persons underlying the mere representation, the 
 essential meaning of ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιούτου καυχήσομαι was the 
 same as if Paul had written: τὸ τοιοῦτο (or ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ) 
 καυχήσομαι. But this may not mislead us, with Luther, Mosheim, 
 Zachariae, Heumann, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, to take τού- 
 του as neuter ; for in favour of the view that it is masculine (so after 
 Chrysostom, most expositors, including Flatt, Fritzsche, Billroth, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann) we may decisively 
 urge not merely τὸν τοιοῦτον, vv. 2 and 3,as well as the personal 
 contrast in ἐμαυτοῦ, and the otherwise marred symmetry of the 
 whole mode of representation (see Fritzsche, Diss, 11. 124), but 
 also ὑπέρ, which with καυχᾶσθαι denotes the person for whose 
 advantage (see on v. 12), not simply iz regard to whom (Hofmann), 
 the boast is made; the thing is afterwards by év expressly 
 distinguished from the person. The objection of Riickert, that 
 Paul might not push the conception so far! is quite invalid, 
 since, in fact, the readers, if they once knew that from ver. 2 
 onward he meant himself, could not at all misunderstand him. 
 —eé μή is not for ἐὰν μή (Rickert), but it introduces an 
 actually existing exception to that principle” ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ ov 
 καυχήσομαι. It is, however, neither necessary nor justifiable to 
 supply with ὑπ. ἐμ. ov καυχ.: “of the visions and revelations 
 which I have had,” so that εἰ μή would form an inexact contrast 
 
 1 Tt is most natural (comp. the Apocalypse) to think of disclosures regarding the 
 end of the world, which, however, must have gone further than what occurs in the 
 Epistles of the apostle (as 1 Thess. iv.; 1 Cor. xv.; Rom. xi. 25f.). More definite 
 statements (see Ewald) must be left in abeyance. 
 
 2 Καυχήσομαι, namely, expresses a principle to be followed, not as Grotius and others 
 would take it : ‘‘ Futurum pro potentiali. . . gaudere et exultare posscm.” 
 
472 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (de Wette), since Paul, quite in harmony with xi. 30, absolutely 
 denies that he wishes to boast on behalf of his own self other- 
 wise than only of his weaknesses (comp. xi. 30). Self-glorying 
 otherwise is only then to take place on his part, when his own Ego 
 (his work, toil, merit, etc.) does not come at all into considera- 
 tion, but he is merely the dependent, receptive instrument of the 
 Lord, and appears as a third person, on behalf of whom the καυ- 
 χᾶσθαι takes place. The plural ἀσθεν. denotes the various situa- 
 tions and manifestations, in which his feebleness presents itself. 
 Ver. 6. Γάρ] is not indeed or however (Flatt and others), nor 
 are we, with Riickert, to supply a μέν after ἐάν ; but the thought, 
 for which ydp assigns the reason, is — by a frequent usage very 
 natural with the lively train of thought (see especially, Hartung, 
 Partikell. I. p. 464 ff.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 83 f.)—as result- 
 ing of itself, not expressly set forth; it is implied in the οὐ 
 καυχήσομαι εἰ μὴ K.T.r., in so far as these words presuppose that 
 Paul could boast, if he would. In reference to this he continues : 
 for in case I possibly shall have wished, etc. Comp. Winer, p. 422 
 [E. T. 568]. Osiander wrongly refers γάρ to the jirst half of 
 ver. 5; for the second half contains the leading thought and the 
 progressive point of the passage. According to Ewald, Paul 
 means the time of judgment, when he shall wish really to glory, 
 whereas now he refrains. In this case he must have subse- 
 quently at least written νῦν δὲ φείδομαι in order to be understood, 
 and even then the reference of the θελήσω to the day of judg- 
 ment, in the absence of any express designation of the latter, 
 would only be very indirectly indicated. — ἐάν] does not stand 
 for κἄν any more than at x. 8 (in opposition to Riickert). — οὐκ 
 ἔσομαι ἄφρων] glancing back to xi. 1, 16 ff., but spoken now in 
 entire seriousness, expressing the folly of the vaunting which 
 injures the truth, — φείδομαι δέ] 850. τοῦ καυχᾶσθαι, 1.6. but I keep 
 it back, make no use of it. Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 35, iv. 6. 19; 
 Soph. 47, 115; Pind. Nem. ix. 20. 47; LXX. Job xxxiii, 18; 
 Wisd. i. 11; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 488 ; Porson, ad Eur. Or. 3877. 
 - μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται κιτ.λ.] Purpose of the φείδομαι δέ: 
 in order that no one may judge im reference to me beyond that, as 
 which he sees me (i.e. supra wd quod vidit esse me, Beza), or what he 
 possibly hears from me (out of my mouth), 1.6. in order that no one 
 may form a higher opinion of me than is suggested to him by his 
 
CHAP. XII. 7. 473 
 
 being eye-witness of my actions, or by his being, it may be, 
 an ear-witness of my oral ministry. Many in Corinth found his 
 action powerless and his speech contemptible (x. 10); but he 
 wished still to call forth no higher judgment of himself than one 
 consonant to experience, which could not but spontaneously form 
 itself ; hence he abstains from the καυχᾶσθαι, although he would 
 speak the truth withit. On λογίσηται, comp. xi. 5 ; Phil ili. 13 ; 
 1 Cor, iv. 1, αἰ. Ewald takes it: in order that no one may put 
 to my account. This, however, would be expressed by μή τις ἐμοὶ 
 Aoyic. — The τί (possibly) is to be explained as a condensed 
 expression : si guid quando audit, See Fritzsche, Diss. 11. p. 124; 
 Schaefer, ad Dem. IV. p. 232; Bremi, ad Aesch. II. p, 122 ἢ 
 On ἐξ ἐμοῦ, comp. Herod. iii. 62, and the Latin audio ex or de 
 aliquo. See Madvig, ad Cie. Fin. p. 865. 
 
 Ver. 7. καί] is the simple copula, not even (Fritzsche). The course 
 of thought, namely, is: For this reason I abstain from καυχᾶσθαι 
 (ver. 6), and—to return now to what I said in vv. 1—5—as concerns 
 those revelations which I, though without self-glorifying, leave not 
 unmentioned (ver. 5), care is taken of this, that I do not vaunt 
 myself on this distinction. — τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλ.] Dativus 
 instrumenti: because the revelations imparted to me have a charac- 
 ter so exceeding,—a nature transcending so utterly all the bounds 
 of what is ordinary. The order of the words is inverted, in order 
 to make the whole attention of the reader dwell on τῇ ὕπερβ. τ. 
 ἀποκαλ., to which the discourse here returns." Comp. ii. 4; Gal. ii. 
 
 1 Lachmann, who has adopted διό before ἵνα (see the critical remarks), puts the 
 whole of ver. 6, ἐὰν... ἐξ ἐμοῦ, in a parenthesis, and places a full stop after ἀπόκα- 
 λύψεων in ver. 7, so that x. σῇ ὑπερβ. +. ἀποκαλ. goes with εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις 
 (Lachmann has struck out μου, but on too slender authority) in ver. 5, and διὸ ἵνα μὴ 
 ὑπεραίρωμιαι begins a new sentence. But in that case not only would καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολή 
 σῶν ἀποκαλ. come in haltingly after a very isolated and, as it were, forlorn fashion, 
 but Paul would have given to the parenthesis an illogical position. Logically he 
 must haye written : ὑπὲρ δὲ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ καυχήσομαι (ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι. .. ἐξ 
 ἐμοῦ) εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων. Ewald follows Lach- 
 mann’s reading, but, not assuming any parenthesis, attaches καὶ τῇ ὑπερβ. τῶν ἀποκαλ. 
 to μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται κι π.λ., and that in the sense : even by these abundant dis- 
 closures led astray, it 1 should express myself, namely, as to their contents. But 
 apart from the consideration that Paul would have expressed such a sense too unin- 
 telligibly by the mere dative and without more precise definition, utterances regard- 
 ing the contents of the ἀποκαλύψεις, had he made them, would have fallen within the 
 category of what is denoted by ἢ ἀκούει oi ἐξ ἐμοῦ, and consequently in so far the 
 logical accuracy of μή σις εἰς ἐμὲ Avy. κι τ. λ. would fail. 
 
5.73: PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 10, al. See on Rom. xi, 31. — ἐδόθη μοι oxdro τῇ σαρκὶ K.7.r.] 
 “ Ex alto habuit revelationem, ex profundo castigationem,” Bengel. 
 It is not to be connected so as also to take in ἵνα ἄγγελος Sar. 
 pe κολαφ. (Knapp), nor is σκόλοψ' to be considered as a prefixed 
 apposition, and ἄγγελος Sar. as subject (Tertullian, and probably 
 also Chrysostom, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 127). For it may be 
 urged against the former, that an inappropriate relation of mean- 
 ing would result from it; and against the Jatter, which Hofmann 
 has again preferred, that there is no reason whatever for departing 
 from the usual order of the words, since even with it the ἵνα pe 
 Koda. applies to the angel of Satan. The ordinary construction 
 is to be retained as the simplest and most natural ; according to 
 this, ἄγγελος Sat. appears as an appositional more precise defini- 
 tion of σκόλοψ' τῇ σαρκί: there was given to me a thorn for my 
 flesh, an angel of Satan. — ἐδόθη} by whom? The uswal answer, 
 given also by Riickert, Olshausen (“ the educating grace of God”), 
 Ewald, is: by God. See especially, Augustine, de nat. et grat. 27: 
 “ Neque enim diabolus agebat, ne magnitudine revelationum Paulus 
 extolleretur, et ut virtus ejus proficeretur, sed Deus. Ab illo 
 igitur traditus erat justus colaphizandus angelo Satanae, qui per 
 eum tradebat et injustos ipsi Satanae.” Certainly ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραί- 
 ρωμαν is the purpose not of the devil, but of the divine will, 
 without which the suffering in question inflicted by the devil on 
 the apostle could not affect him; but just because the latter has 
 thought of the devil as the one from whom that suffering pro- 
 ceeded, he must have conceived him also as the giver, because 
 otherwise his mode of representation would be self-contradictory. 
 Doubtless Satan is only the mediate οἴνου, who thereby is to 
 serve the divine final aim ἵνα μὴ ὑπαιρ.; but the explanation, 
 that Paul had wished to say (?) that God had permitted (so also 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact) Satan to torment him (Billroth) is 
 a quite arbitrary alteration of what Paul actually says. His 
 meaning is rather, and that expressed in an active form: Satan 
 has given to me a thorn for the flesh, in order to torment me 
 with it—which has the moral aim ordained in the divine counsel, 
 that I should not vaunt myself.— σκόλοψ] only here in the 
 N. T. It may mean stake, ξύλον ὀξύ, Hesychius (Homer, 11. 
 
 1 Comp. Hofmann: ‘an evil which befalls him in accordance with God’s will, but 
 through the working of a spiritual power opposed to God.” 
 
CHAP. XII. 7. A475 
 
 viii. 343, xv. 1, xviii. 177; Herod. ix. 97; Xen. Anab. v. 2. 5), 
 but also thorn (Lucian, Mere. cond. 3; LXX. Hos. ii. 6; Ezek. 
 xxvii. 24; Num. ΧΧΧΙΙ 55; Ecclus. xii. 19, and Fritzsche in 
 loc., Dioscor. in Wetstein), as, indeed, it may also denote any- 
 thing pointed, splinters, ridges, etc. The Vulgate has stimulus. 
 It is here commonly taken as stake, many, like Luther, thinking 
 of a penal stake." Comp. σκολοπίζω, impale, ἀνασκολοπίζω, 
 Herod. 1. 128. But as the conception of a stake fixed in his flesh 
 has something exaggerated and out of keeping about it, and as 
 the figurative conception of a thorn pressed into the flesh with 
 acute pain might very naturally occur to him from the LXX. 
 (Num. xxxiii, 55 ; Ezek. xxviii. 24), the latter signification is to 
 be preferred. Comp. Artem. iii. 33: ἄκανθαι καὶ σκόλοπες ὀδύνας 
 σημαίνουσι διὰ τὸ ὀξύ. --- τῇ σαρκί is most naturally attached 
 to σκόλοψ' as an appropriating dative (comp. Castalio): a thorn 
 for the flesh, whichis destined to torment that sensuous part of my 
 nature which lusts to sin (in specie, to self-exaltation). Fritzsche, 
 who, with Winer, Osiander, and Buttmann, takes τῇ σαρκί as 
 defining more precisely the part of wos (see as to the σχῆμα 
 καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος, more used by the poets, Nagelsbach on the 
 Zi. ii. 171, iii. 438; Reisig, ad Ocd. Col. 266; Jacobs, Delect. 
 Epigr. p. 162, 509; Kiihner, II. p. 145), objects that τῇ σαρκί 
 seems inappropriate, because it is inconceivable that a σκόλοψ, 
 should torment the soui, and not the body. But this objection 
 would apply, in fact, to Fritzsche’s own explanation, and cannot 
 at all hold good, partly because it is certainly possible to think 
 figuratively of a σκόλοψ' tormenting the soul (see Artemid. ἐς, 
 where, among the figurative references of ἄκανθαι x. σκόλοπες, he 
 also adduces: καὶ φρόντιδας καὶ λύπας διὰ τὸ τραχύ), partly 
 because σάρξ does not denote the body absolutely, or only accord- 
 ing to its susceptibility (Hofmann), but according to its sinful 
 quality which is bound up with the σάρξ. The objection, on the 
 other hand, that salutary torment is not the business of an angel 
 of Satan (Hofmann), leaves out of consideration the divine teleology 
 in the case ; comp. on 1 Cor. v. ὅ. ---- ἄγγελος Satdv] Paul con- 
 siders his evil, denoted by σκόλοψ' τ. o., as inflicted on him by 
 Satan, the enemy of the Messiah, as in the N. T. generally the 
 devil appears as the originator of all wickedness and all evil, 
 * In the gloss: ‘It is a stake, where people are impaled, or crucified, or hanged.” 
 
476 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 especially also of bodily evil (Hahn, Theol. ἃ. N. T. 1. p. 5128; 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 462). By the addition of ἄγγελος Sar. in 
 apposition to σκόλοψ τ. o. the σκόλοψ' is personified, and what 
 is an ἔργον of Satan appears now, under the apostle’s vivid, concrete 
 mode of view, an angel of Satan. The interpretation which takes 
 the indeclinable Saray,’ occurring only here in the N. T. (see, 
 however, LXX. 1 Kings xi. 14, 23, 25; Aq. Job 1. 6), as the 
 genitive, is the usual and right one. For if Saray be taken as a 
 nominative, it must either be a nomen proprium : the angel Satan 
 (Billroth), or it would have to be taken adjectivally: ὦ hostile 
 angel (Cajetanus and others, including Flatt). But the latter is 
 against the standing usage of the N. T., into which ΤΟ has passed 
 only asa nomen proprium. Against the former no doubt Fritzsche’s 
 reason is not decisive: “sic neminem relinqui, qui ablegare 
 Satanam potuerit” (comp. Riickert), since Satan in his original 
 nature was an angel, and might retain that appellation without 
 the point of view of the sending coming further into considera- 
 tion ; nor can we, with Olshausen, urge the absence of the article, 
 since ayy. Sa7. might have assumed the nature of a proper 
 name ; but the actual usage is against it, for Satan, so often as he 
 occurs in the N. T., is never named ἄγγελος (Rev. ix. 11 is not 
 to the point here, see Diisterdieck 7a Jloc.), which was a very 
 natural result of the altered position of the devil, who, from being 
 an ἄγγελος before, had become the prince (Eph. 11. 2) of his 
 kingdom, and now had angels of his own (Matt. xxv. 41, comp. 
 Barnab. 18). — ἵνα pe κολαφίζῃ] design of the giver in ἐδόθη μοι 
 K.T.r.: in order that he may buffet me (Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 11; 1 Pet. 11. 20). The present denotes the still subsisting 
 continuance of the suffering. See Theophyl.: οὐχ ἵνα ἅπαξ pe 
 κολαφίσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί, Comp. Chrysostom. The subject is ἄγγελος 
 Saray, as indeed often the continuation of the discourse attaches 
 itself to the apposition, not to the subject proper. See Fritzsche, 
 Diss. 11. p. 143 f. Fritzsche himself, indeed, regards σκόλοψ as 
 the subject,? and assumes that the vivid conception of the apostle 
 has transferred to the subject what properly belongs only to the 
 
 1 Σαχανᾷ, read by Lachmann and Riickert on the authority of δὴ B D* F G δ᾿ 
 67**, is a correct interpretation. 
 
 2 Comp. Augustine, Conc. 2 in Ps, lviii. : ‘* Accepit apost. stimulum carnis, a quo 
 colaphizaretur.” 
 
CHAP, XII. 7. 477 
 
 apposition, to which view he had been moved by the similar 
 sound of σκόλοψ' and κολαφίξζῃ, as well as by the personification 
 of σκόλοψ. But how easily might he have found a word which 
 would have suited the conception of the personified σκόλοψ,, and 
 would not have been inappropriate to the apposition dyy. Yar. ! 
 But in fact he has chosen a word which does not suit σκόλοψ' at 
 all, and suits dyy. Zar. exclusively, and hence we are not war- 
 ranted in denying that the word belongs to dyy. Sar. Besides, 
 this connection is most naturally suggested by the relations of 
 the sense ; for only by ἵνα με κολαφ. does ayy. Yat. come to be 
 a complete apposition to σκόλοψ' τ. o., inasmuch as the element of 
 pain in the case expressed in σκόλοψ' τ. σ. is not yet implied 
 in the mere ayy. Saray, but is only added by wa pe κολαφ. --- 
 iva μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι) paedagogic aim of God’s guidance in this 
 κολαφίζειν. See above. The devil and his angels serve, against 
 their intention, the intention of God. See Hahn, Theol. d. N. Τ. 
 I. p. 382 ἢ In the repetition of the same words there is 
 expressed the deeply felt importance of this telic destination. 
 See Heindorf, ad Phacd. p. 51 ff.; Matthiae, p. 1541. Comp. 
 also Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. xxxix. — Lastly, as concerning 
 the thing itself, which Paul denotes by σκόλοψ' τ. σ. x.7.2., it 
 was certainly known by the Corinthians from their personal 
 acquaintance with Paul without any more precise indication ; to 
 us at least any special indication has been denied. For a great 
 host of attempts at explanation, some of them very odd, see 
 Poole’s Synopsis ; Calovius, Bibl. il. p. 518 ff.; Wolf, Cur. The 
 opinions are in the main of three kinds: (1) that Paul means 
 spiritual assaults of the devil (what are called injectiones Satanae), 
 who suggested to him blasphemous thoughts (Gerson, Luther, 
 Calovius), stings of conscience over his earlier life (Luc. Osiander, 
 Mosheim ; also Osiander, who includes also a bodily suffering), and 
 the like. The Catholics, however, to whom such an exposition, 
 favouring forms of monastic temptation, could not but be welcome, 
 thought usually of enticements of Satan (awakened, according to 
 Cardinal Hugo, by association with the beautiful Thecla !)* to 
 unchastity (Thomas, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 and many others, and still Bisping), for which Augustine and 
 
 1 See, regarding this mythical association, the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischend. 
 Act. apocr. p. 40 fi, 
 
478 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Theophylact are often wrongly quoted as vouchers. (2) That 
 Paul means the temptations on the part of his opponents’ engaged 
 in the service of Satan (xi. 13, 15), or the temptations and troubles 
 of his apostolic office in general (Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Beza, 
 Calvin, and many others, including Fritzsche, Schrader, Reiche, 
 Comm. crit. p. 401). (9) That Paul means a very severe bodily 
 suffering (Augustine and many others, including Delitzsch and 
 Hofmann), in connection with which conjecture has lighted on a 
 variety of ailments, such as hypochondriac melancholy (Bartholinus, 
 Wedel, and others), pain in the head (τίνες already in Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Jerome, ad Gal. iv. 14, 
 mention it; so also Teller), haemorrhoids (Bertholdt), “ falling 
 sickness or something similar” (Ewald, Hofmann), epileptic attacks 
 of cramp (Ziegler, Holsten), and several others. — Against No. 1 
 we cannot urge τῇ σαρκί, since the devil’s influence would have, 
 in operating on the moral consciousness, to start certainly from 
 the σάρξ, where the principle of sin has its seat (Rom. vii.), but 
 we may urge σκόλοψ, and iva pe xodad., figurative expressions 
 which evidently portray an acute and severe pain. Besides, 
 under such a constant spiritual influence of the devil, Paul would 
 not appear in a manner in keeping with his nature wholly filled 
 by Christ (see especially, Gal. ii. 20), and with his pneumatic 
 heroism. Enticements to unchastity are not even to be re- 
 motely thought of on account of 1 Cor. vii. 7; it would be an 
 outrage on the great apostle. Against No. 2 it is to be remarked 
 that here a suffering quite peculiar must be meant, as a counter- 
 poise to the quite peculiar distinction which had accrued to him 
 by the ὑπερβολὴ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων. Besides, adversaries and 
 official troubles belonged necessarily to his calling (see especially, 
 iv. 7 ff., vi. 4 ff.), as, indeed, he had these in common with all 
 true preachers of Christ, and knew how to find an honour in 
 them (comp. Gal. vi. 17); hence he would certainly not have 
 besought the taking away of these sufferings, ver. 8. It is 
 believed, no doubt, that this explanation may be shown to 
 
 1 So Chrysostom and others. Many among these, because of the singular, think 
 specially of one pre-eminently hostile antagonist. So, among the ancient expositors, 
 Oecumenius, and, among the modern, several cited by Wolf, and also Semler and 
 Stolz. Chrysostom and Theophylact name, by way of example, the smith Aiexander, 
 Hymenaeus, and Philetus, 
 
CHAP. XIL 8, 9. 479 
 
 suit the context by ver. 9 compared with ver. 10 (see especi- 
 ally, Fritzsche, p. 152 1), but ἀσθένεια in vv. 9 and 10 ex- 
 presses only the category, to which also that special suffering 
 belonged. Accordingly No. 3 remains at all events as the most 
 probable, namely, the hypothesis that Paul bore in his person 
 some kind of painful, chronic bodily evil, which seemed to him as 
 inflicted by Satan.’ Only this evil cannot at all be specified 
 more precisely than that it made itself felt in its paroxysms by 
 shocks of pain, which might be compared to blows; but in what 
 part of the body it had its seat (possibly proceeding from the 
 head) cannot with certainty be inferred from κολαφίζειν, since 
 this word, like the more correct Greek κονδυλίζειν, denotes 
 buffeting with the fist. More specific conjectures are mere 
 fancies, are liable to be enlisted in the service of tendency- 
 criticism (Holsten, who attaches to this suffering the disposition 
 to visionary conditions), and come to some extent into sharp 
 collision with the fact of the apostle’s extraordinary activity and 
 perseverance amid bodily hardships. The hypothesis of a bodily 
 suffering, with the renunciation of any attempt to specify it more 
 precisely, is rightly adhered to, after older expositors, by Emmer- 
 ling, Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette, Beyschlag, ef al. (though 
 Riickert here also appeals to the alleged traces of sickness in our 
 Epistles, such as 1 Cor. ii. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 12, as well as to Gal. 
 iv. 13-15) ; while others, as Neander and Billroth, content them- 
 selves with an utter non liquet, although the former is inclined 
 to think of inward temptations.” 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. “Ὑπὲρ τούτου] in reference to whom, namely, to this 
 angel of Satan. That τούτου is masculine (comp. ver. 3), not 
 neuter (Vulgate, Luther, Flatt, Osiander, and others), is evident 
 from the fact that ἵνα ἀποστῇ am ἐμοῦ follows without any 
 
 1 In this respect, too, we finda parallel in the history and mode of view of Luther, 
 who, as is well known, suffered from violent attacks of stone (which visited him 
 with especial severity on the Convention at Schmalkald), and likewise ascribed this 
 suffering to the devil as its author.—Chrysostom exclaims against the view of a 
 bodily evil (κεφαλαλγία) : wn γένοιτο" ob γὰρ dv τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Παύλου ταῖς τοῦ διαβόλου 
 χερσὶν ἐξεδόθη, ὅπου γε αὐτὸς 6 διάβολος ἐπισάγματι μόνον εἶκεν αὐτῷ Παύλῳ. An argu- 
 ment nimium probans ! 
 
 * The most strange interpretation of the passage is given by Redslob in the Progr. 
 ἃ. Hamb, Gymnas. 1860, who goes so far as to make out of it a jesting designation 
 of Silvanus (nd, Ezek. xxviii. 24)! 
 
480 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 other subject. On the latter, comp. Luke iv. 13; Acts v. 38, 
 xxii. 29. pis] is taken since Chrysostom’s time by many as 
 equivalent to πολλάκις: but quite arbitrarily, and not at all in 
 keeping with the small number! No; Paul relates historically, 
 as it really happened, leaving it withal undetermined what 
 intervals had elapsed between these invocations. At his first 
 and second appeal to the Lord no answer was made; but when 
 he had made a third appeal, the answer came. And that he 
 thereupon did not entreat again, was understood of itself from his 
 faithful devotion to Him, whose utterance he had now received. 
 According to Billroth, τρίς is intended to intimate a thrice- 
 repeated succumbing to that pain, a thrice-repeated utter dejec- 
 tion, which, however, is sheer fancy.— τὸν κύριον] not God 
 (Calvin, Neander, and others), but Christ (see ver. 9), who is, in 
 fact, the heavenly advancer of His kingdom and mighty van- 
 quisher of Satan.’ — εἴρηκέ μοι] The perfect, which Riickert finds 
 surprising, is what is quite commonly used of the continued 
 subsistence of what has been done: he has spoken, and I have 
 now this utterance abidingly valid. Accordingly the evil itself 
 is to be regarded as still adhering to the apostle. How he 
 received the answer, the χρηματισμός (Matt. 11. 12; Luke ii. 6; 
 Acts x. 22), from Christ (by some kind of inward speaking, or by 
 means of a vision, as Holsten holds), is entirely unknown to us. 
 — ἀρκεῖ σου ἡ χάρις μου] there suffices for thee my grace, more thou 
 needest not from me than that I am gracious to thee. In this 
 is implied the refusal of the prayer, but at the same time what a 
 comforting affirmation! “ Gratia esse potest, etiam ubi maximus 
 doloris sensus est,” Bengel. Riickert (comp. Grotius) takes χάρις 
 quite generally as good-will; but the good-will of the exalted 
 Christ is, in fact, always grace (comp. ΧΙ. 13; Acts xv. 11; 
 Rom, v. 15), and made itself known especially in the aposile’s 
 consciousness as grace, 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, and often. A special gift 
 of grace, however (Chrysostom: the gift of miracles), is arbitrarily 
 imported. —- ἡ yap δύναμίς μου x.7.r.] for my strength is in weak- 
 ness perfected, The emphasis lieson δύναμις : “ Thou hast enough 
 in my grace; for I am not weak and powerless, when there is 
 suffering weakness on the part of the man to whom I am gracious, 
 
 1 The invocation of Christ has reference also here to the intercessory work oi the 
 Lord. Comp. on Rom. x. 12; Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 127 f. 
 
CHAP. XII. 8, 9. 481 
 
 but exactly under these circumstances are my power and 
 strength brought to perfection, 1... effective in full measure.” 
 Then, namely, the divine δύναμις of Christ has unhindered 
 scope, not disturbed or limited by any admixture of selfish 
 striving and working. The relation is similar in 1 Cor. 11. 4 f. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 7. With the reading without pov (see the 
 critical remarks), which Hofmann too prefers, there would result 
 the quite general proposition: “for power there attains to its 
 full efficacy, where weakness serves it as the means of its self- 
 exertion” (as Hofmann puts it)—a proposition, which is only 
 true when the δύναμις is different from the ability of the weak 
 subject, and can work with all the less hindrance amidst the 
 powerlessness of the latter. Hence, for the truth of the proposi- 
 tion and in keeping with the context (comp. ver. 9), the specifica- 
 tion of the subject for ἡ δύναμις cannot at all be dispensed with. 
 — ἥδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι κ-.τ.λ.] the altered tone proceed- 
 ing from that answer of Christ. Grotius’ and others, including 
 Emmerling, join μᾶλλον with ἥδιστα, although μᾶλλον is used to 
 heighten the comparative, but not the superlative (see on vil. 13). 
 Estius (comp. previously, Erasmus) finds in μᾶλλον : “ magis ac 
 potius, quam in ulla alia re, qua videar excellere ;” Bengel and 
 Billroth: ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἀποκαλύψεσιν; Riickert: more than of what I 
 can (my talents and performances); comp. also Ewald. But against 
 all this is the consideration that Paul must have written: μᾶλλον 
 ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου καυχήσομαι. As the text stands, μᾶλλον 
 belongs necessarily to καυχήσομαι (comp. vii. 7), not to its object. 
 And the reference of μᾶλλον is furnished by the context. Pre- 
 viously, namely, Paul had stated how he had prayed the Lord to 
 take away his suffering. Now, however, after mentioning the 
 answer received, he says: With the utmost willingness (maxima 
 cum voluptate, comp. ver. 15) therefore will I, encouraged by the 
 word of the Lord which I have, only all the more (comp. on 
 vii.u7) glory in my weaknesses; all the more boldly will I now 
 triumph in my states of suffering, which exhibit me in my 
 weakness ; comp. Rom. v. 3, viii. 35 ff. More than would have 
 been otherwise the case, is the courage of the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς 
 ἀσθενείαις increased in him by that utterance of the Lord. — ἵνα 
 
 1 Grotius and Emmerling expressly, but many others, as also Flatt and Olshausen, 
 tacitly, by leaving ##?.Acy untranslated, 
 
 2 COR, IL 2.8 
 
482 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ἐπισκηνώσῃ κιτ.λ.] Aim of the μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι «.7.A. And 
 the Lord’s answer itself has, in fact, placed this goal before his 
 eyes, and assured him of his reaching it. The ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ is con- 
 ceived of as: may take its abode on me, 1.6. may come down 
 before me and unite itself with me for abiding protection, 
 comfort, strengthening, etc." The choice of the word ἐπισκῆν. 
 leads us to conclude that he has conceived of the case as © 
 analogous to the Shechinah (comp. on John i. 14, xiv. 23). The 
 direction from above downward is not withal implied in ἐπί by 
 itself, which rather indicates direction in general (comp. Polyb. 
 iv. 18. 8: ἐπισκηνοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκίας, to go into quarters in the 
 houses), but is given in the context. Comp. Ps. civ. 12. 
 
 Ver. 10. 4:0] because, namely, in such circumstances with 
 such a mood the power of Christ joins itself with me. — εὐδοκῶ 
 ἐν ἀσθεν.] I take pleasure in weaknesses, bear them with inward 
 assent and willingly, when they befall me. Comp. vil. 4. 
 “ Contumax enim adversus tormenta fides,” Tacitus, Hist. 1. 3; 
 Seneca, de prov. iv. 4. ac@. are here, as in the whole context, 
 situations of human powerlessness, brought about by allotted ex- 
 periences of suffering. Afterwards four, partly more, partly less 
 special, kinds of such situations are adduced. iickert, quite at 
 variance with the context, understands diseases to be meant. — 
 ἐν ὕβρεσιν) passive: in cases of arrogant treatment, which I ex- 
 perience. On the plural, comp. Plato, Legg. i. p. 627 A; Dem. 
 522.13; Ecclus. x. 8. They bring into necessities (avaryx.); and 
 persecutions drive into straitened positions (otevoy.), out of which 
 no issue is apparent (comp. on iv. 8).— ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] belongs 
 neither to all five elements (so usually), nor simply to the last 
 four points (Hofmann), but to εὐδοκῶ : for Christ's sake, because 
 by such sufferings His honour and His work are promoted. That 
 Paul meant sufferings for Christ, was, indeed, self-evident. But 
 he wishes to assign the specific motive for his εὐδοκῶ. ---- τότε 
 δύνατός εἰμι] inwardly through Christ’s power. See vv. 8, 9. 
 τότε, then, is emphatic, here with the feeling of victortousness, 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54; Col. iii, 4; Hom. 11. xi. 191 f, 206 ἢ; Plato, 
 Phil. p. 17 D, Conv. p. 192 B. On the idea, comp, the expres- 
 
 1 That is the holy ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι by means of Christ to the ἰσχύειν πάντα (Phil. iv. 
 
 18) in its forms of ever-renewed heightening and exaltation (Phil. iv. 16), Comp. 
 2 Cor, vi. 4 ff. ; Rom. viii. 37 ff. 
 
CHAP ΧΙ 18) 12. 483 
 
 sion of Moses in Philo, Vit. ΜΠ. 1, p. 613 B: τὸ ἀσθενὲς ὑμῶν 
 δύναμίς ἐστιν. 
 
 Ver. 11. Paul now comes to a stand, and surveys how much he 
 has said in commendation of himself from chap. xi. onward. This 
 retrospect extorts from him the admission : γέγονα ἄφρων, but as 
 respects its contents he at once proceeds to justify himself, and to 
 impute the blame to the readers. It is not to be taken either as a 
 question or in the sense of a hypothetical protasis (Hofmann gives a 
 choice between the two). The ὑμεῖς «.7.Xr., asyndetic, but all the 
 more striking, gives no ground for such a weakening of the 
 meaning. — γέγονα ἄφρων] ironical exclamation ; for it is clear 
 from xi, 16, xii. 6, that Paul did not really regard his apologetic 
 καυχᾶσθαι hitherto as a work of folly. But the opponents took 
 itso! In the emphatically prefixed yéyova (comp. v. 17) there 
 is implied: ἐξ has come to pass that Iam a fool! This now sub- 
 sists as accomplished fact! “Receptui canit,” Bengel. — ὑμεῖς pe 
 ἠναγκάσατε' ἐγὼ yap «.7.r.| This justifies him and blames the 
 Corinthians for that γέγονα ἄφρ. The emphatic ὑμεῖς, and after- 
 wards the ἐγώ, the emphasis of which Riickert failed to perceive, 
 correspond to each other significantly : you have compelled me ; 
 for J had a claim to be commended by you, instead of commending 
 myself. The stress is on tf’ ὑμῶν, next to the ἐγώ, in which 
 there is a side-glance at the pseudo-apostles, boastful themselves, 
 and boasted of by their partisans. —ovdév yap ὑστέρησα κ.τ.λ.} 
 Reason assigned for ἐγὼ ὥφελον. See, moreover, on xi. 5. The 
 aorist refers to the time of his working at Corinth. The negative 
 form of expression is a pointed litotes.—ei καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι] 
 although I am quite without value and without importance. The 
 same humility as in 1 Cor. xv. 8-10. But how fraught with 
 shame for the opposing party, with which those false apostles 
 were of so greataccount! And in this way the significant weight 
 of this closing concessive clause is stronger and more telling than 
 if it were attached as protasis to what follows (Hofmann). It is more 
 striking.—In regard to οὐδὲν εἶναι, see on 1 Cor. xiii. 2 ; Gal. vi. 3. 
 
 Ver. 12. Proof of the previous οὐδὲν ὑστέρησα τῶν ὑπερλ. 
 ἀποστ: The signs, indeed (yet without producing among you the 
 due recognition), of the apostle were wrought among gou. The μέν 
 solitarium leaves it to the reader to supply for himself the cor- 
 responding contrast, so that it may be translated by our truly 
 
484 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 indeed. See especially, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 ; Maetzner, ad 
 Antiph. p. 153; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab.i. 2.1. The contrast to be 
 supplied heve is put beyond doubt by the idea of the σημεῖα which 
 is placed emphatically and significantly at the head; hence we 
 must reject what Billroth (followed by Olshausen) supplies ; but 
 even otherwise you can make no complaint about anything. — τὰ 
 σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστ. is that which divinely evinces the apostle to - 
 be such, that by which one discerns the apostle. ‘O ἀπόστολος 
 with the article does not denote the zdeal of an apostle (Billroth), 
 which would be at variance with his humility, but the apostle in 
 abstracto. Bengel says aptly: “ ejus, qui sit apostolus.” — κατειρ- 
 γάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν] namely, which I was with you. The J, however, 
 retreats modestly behind the passive expression. The compound 
 “ nerficere notat maxime rem arduam factuque difficilem,” Fritzsche, 
 ad Rom. 1. p. 107. — ἐν πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ] the manner of the κατειρ- 
 γάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν, strengthening the force of the proof: in all manner 
 of perseverance, so that amidst adverse and painful circumstances 
 there was perseverance with all possible stedfastness in fully 
 exhibiting these signs of an apostle. The view followed by many 
 older expositors since Chrysostom: “primum signum nominat 
 patientiam,” is erroneous, since the ὑπομονή is not a specifically 
 apostolic σημεῖον." --- σημείοις x. τέρασι καὶ δυνάμεσι] whereby those 
 signs of an apostle were accomplished, so that σημείοις is here 
 meant in a narrower sense (miraculous signs) than the previous τὰ 
 σημεῖα. The three words in emphatic accumulation denote the 
 same thing under the two different relations of its miraculous 
 significance (on. x. Tép.) and of its nature (δύν. deeds of power, 
 1 Cor. xii. 10). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9; Heb. 11. 4; Acts i, 22. 
 The notions of σημεῖα and τέρατα are equivalent. See on Rom. 
 xv. 19.— Paul therefore wrought miracles also in Corinth, and 
 wrought them as legitimations of his apostleship (Heb. 11. 4). Comp. 
 Rom. xv. 19; Acts xv. 12. — On the accumulation of terms, comp. 
 Cic. Tuse. ii. 40. 26: “His ego pluribus nominibus unam rem 
 declarari volo, sed utor, wt quam maxime significem, pluribus.” 
 Comp. also Cic. de Fin. ili. 4.14; Nat. D. 11. 7. 18. — How at 
 variance with our passage is the historical criticism, which lays 
 down ἃ priori the negation of miracles! 
 
 1 An appeal should not have been made to vi. 4, where in fact there stands the 
 wider conception θεοῦ διάκονοι. 
 
CHAP, XII. 13, 14. 485 
 
 Ver. 13. Ti yap ἐστιν... ὑμῶν] Bitterly ironical justifica- 
 tion of what was said in ver.12. For what is there, in which you 
 were placed at a disadvantage towards the other churches (in which I 
 wrought), except, etc.? that is to say : for in nothing have you come 
 behind, as compared with the other churches, except, etc. Quite 
 arbitrarily Grotius limits this question, which embraces the whole 
 blissful apostolic working, to the communication of gifts by the lay- 
 ing on of hands. —tép] means nothing else than beyond, but in 
 the direction downward (reference to the minus) which ἡττήθητε 
 specifies. Comp. Winer, p. 376 [E. T. 502]. Riickert, overlook- 
 ing the comparative sense of ἡττήθητε, says: there is here an 
 ironical confession that all churches had disadvantage from Paul, 
 and it is only denied that the disadvantage of the Corinthian was 
 greater than that of the other churches. This would not suit at 
 all as assigning a reason for ver. 12. In assigning a reason, Paul 
 could not but say: ye have in nothing come off worse ; but to say, 
 Sor your disadvantage has not been greater, would, with all its 
 irony, be inappropriate. On the accusative of more precise defini- 
 tion with ἡττήθητε, comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 4.5: ἃ ἡττῷτο. The 
 more usual construction is @ or ἐν @.— εἰ μὴ ὅτι x.7.A.] In this 
 exception (“specie exceptionis firmat quod dicit,” Grotius) lies the 
 painful bitterness of the passage, which in the request that follows 
 χαρίσασθε x.7.X. becomes still sharper. It is the love, deeply 
 hurt in its pure consciousness, that speaks. — αὐτὸς ἐγώ] I myself; 
 this places his own person over against the apostolic services 
 indicated in τί... ἡττήθητε. Comp. in general on Rom. ix. 3. 
 Riickert (so also Bengel) holds that Paul has already had in his 
 mind what he subjoins in vv. 16-18. Such an arbitrary pro- 
 lepsis of the reference is the more untenable, seeing that with 
 vv. 14, 15 another train of ideas intervenes. — οὐ κατενάρκησα 
 ὑμῶν] See on xi. 8. Only by the fact that he has not been burden- 
 some to them in accepting payment and the like, has Paul asserted 
 himself as an apostle less among them than among the other 
 churches! For this injustice they are to pardon him! 
 
 Ver. 14. After that cutting irony comes the language of pater- 
 nal earnestness, inasmuch as Paul once more (comp. xi. 9-12) 
 assures them that even on his impending third arrival among them 
 he will remain true to his principle of not burdening them, and 
 explains why he will do so. — ἰδού] vivid realizing of the posi- 
 
486 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 tion in the changing play of emotion. — τρίτον] emphatically 
 prefixed, belongs to ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς (comp. xiii. 1), not to ἑτοίμως 
 ἔχω, aS Beza, Grotius, Estius, Emmerling, Flatt, and others, also 
 Baur (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, p. 139 ff), Lange, Apost. 
 Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f., would have it,’ since, according to the context, 
 it was not on his third readiness to come that anything depended, 
 but on the third arrival, for only as having arrived could he be 
 burdensome to the readers. Comp. the Introd., and see Bleek in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff.; Neander, 1. p. 414; Anger, 
 Rat. temp. p. 71; Wieseler, Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 233. Chry- 
 sostom aptly says: καὶ δεύτερον παρεγενόμην καὶ τρίτον τοῦτο 
 παρεσκεύασμαι ἐλθεῖν, καὶ οὐ καταναρκήσω ὑμῶν. ---- οὐ γὰρ ζητῶ 
 K.T.r.] for my endeavour is not directed to yours, but to you; you 
 yourselves (your ψυχαί, ver. 15)—namely, that I may win you for 
 the salvation in Christ (Matt. xviii. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 19)—are the 
 aim of my striving. “ Dictum vere apostolicum,” Grotius. Comp. 
 Cic. de Fin. 11. 26: “ Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, 
 si veri amici futuri sumus.” Comp. also Phil. iv. 17.—ovd γὰρ 
 ὀφείλει κιτ.λ.] Confirmation of the principle previously expressed, 
 from a rule of the natural rightful relations between parents and 
 children ; for Paul was indeed the spiritual father of the Corin- 
 thians (1 Cor. iv. 15). The negative part of this confirmation 
 corresponds to οὐ ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν, and the positive to the ὑμᾶς; 
 for, while Paul ζητεῖ αὐτούς (not τὰ αὐτῶν), he is the father, who 
 gathers for his children treasures, namely, the blessings of the 
 Messianic kingdom. — οἱ γονεῖς] sc. ὀφείλουσι θησαυρίζειν, not 
 as Beza holds: θησαυρίζουσι; for ὀφείλει is not impersonal. That 
 by the first half of the verse, moreover, the duty of children in love 
 to support and provide for their parents is not excluded, is clear 
 from the very θησαυρίζειν, and is just as obvious of itself as that 
 in the second part the θησαυρίζειν is not to be urged as a duty of 
 parents (1 Tim. v. 8), but always has merely its relative obliga- 
 tion, subordinate to the higher spiritual care (Matt. vi. 33, vv. 
 19-21; Eph. vi 4; Mark viii. 36). 
 
 Ver. 15. Paul applies what was said generally in ver. 14: οὐ 
 γὰρ ὀφείλει κιτιλ., to himself (ἐγώ, I on my part): I, however, will 
 very willingly spend and be spent for the good of your souls, in 
 order, namely, to prepare them for the salvation of eternal life 
 
 1 See also Marcker, Stellung d. Pastoralbr., Meiningen 1861, p, 13 f. 
 
CHAP. XIL 16—18. 487 
 
 (Heb. x. 39, xiii. 17; 1 Pet. 1. 9; Jas. i. 21). Theodoret rightly 
 says: ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν φύσει πατέρων καὶ πλέον τι ποιεῖν ἐπαγγέλ- 
 λομαῖι. ---- For examples of δαπανᾶν (ἐκ strengthens, Polyb. xxv. 
 8. 4, xxi 8. 9, xvii. 11. 10) used of the ἐγ, see Kypke, II. 
 p. 272. On the subject-matter, comp. Horace, Od. i. 12. 38 ἢ: 
 “animaeque magnae prodigum Paullum.” — εἰ περίσσοτ. ὑμᾶς 
 ἀγαπῶν ἧττον ἀγαπῶμαι] εἰ does not stand for εἰ καί (which is 
 read by Elzevir and Tischendorf), for which Riickert takes it, but 
 is the simple ἐγ, and that not even in the sense of ἐπεί or ὅτι, as 
 it is used “ne quid confidentius, directius affirmetur” (Dissen, 
 ad Dem. de Cor. p. 195), but, as is here most in keeping with 
 tender delicacy in the expression of a harsh thought, in the 
 purely hypothetical sense: if, which I leave undecided, etc. In 
 view of the possible case, that he finds the less love among his 
 readers, the more he loves them (this is implied in the mutual 
 reference of the two comparatives, see Matthiae, § 455, Rem. 
 7), the apostle will most gladly sacrifice his own (what he has 
 from others, or even by his own work) and himself (comp. Rom. 
 ix. 83; Phil. ii. 17) for their souls, in order that thus he may do 
 his utmost to overcome this supposed—and possibly existing— 
 disproportion between his loving and being loved by stimulating 
 and increasing the latter (Rom. xii. 21; 1 Cor. xiii. 4~7). 
 Hofmann, not observing the clever turn of the hypothetical 
 expression of the thought, without reason finds this view absurd, 
 and with sufficient crudeness and clumsiness takes εἰ to dya7@paz . 
 as an independent question, to which Paul himself makes answer 
 with ἔστω δέ (in the sense: be 1 so withal, I will let it rest 
 there). To this interrogative view Hofmann ought all the less to 
 have resorted, seeing that interrogation in such an indirect form 
 (Winer, p. 474 [E. T. 639], and see on Matt. xii. 10; Luke 
 xiii. 23) is wholly without example in Paul, often as he has had 
 an opportunity for using it. It is found often in Luke, more 
 rarely in Matthew and Mark. Except in the writings of these 
 three, the N. T. does not present that independent use of the 
 indirectly interrogative εἰ. 
 
 Vv. 16-18. Refutation of the possible slander, which assuredly 
 
 1 In opposition to Hofmann, who, not attending to the correspondence of the 
 
 two comparatives, supplies with w:piee.: than others, and with ἧσσον; than by 
 others. 
 
488 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 was also actually ventured on the part of his adversaries, that, if 
 he had not himself directly burdened the Corinthians, he had 
 still done so in a cunning way indirectly by means of his 
 emissaries. — In ver. 16 Paul does not, indeed, speak in the 
 person of his opponents, for otherwise, instead of ἐγώ, he must 
 have expressed himself in the third person ; but he clothes his 
 speech in the words of his adversaries.'— ἔστω δέ] concessive: © 
 but be it so, it may, however, be the case that JZ have not 
 oppressed you. Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 516 Ὁ, al. (Kriiger, ὃ 54, 
 4, 2); also the εἶεν, very common in classical writers, Stallbaum, 
 ad Plat. Euthyph. p.13 D; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 1303, and for the 
 similar use of the Latin esto, sit ata sane, Cicero, Tusc. i. 48. 
 102; De Fin. iv. 45. — ἐγώ] my own person. — ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων 
 x.T.r.] no longer depends on ἔστω δέ, but is the contrast—to be 
 read as an exclamation— of ἔστω δὲ, ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρ, ὑμᾶς : but 
 cunningly I, etc. — δόλῳ] This would have been the case, if he 
 had made plunder of them indirectly by a third hand. — ἔλαβον] 
 caught, figure taken from hunting. See on xi. 20. Comp. on 
 δόλῳ λαμβάν. Soph. Phil. 101, 107, 1266. — Vv. 17 and 18 
 now show in lively questions, appealing to the reader’s own 
 experience, how untrue that ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων... ἔλαβον was. 
 Have I then overreached you by one of those whom I sent to you ? 
 namely, by claims for money, and the like. The construction is 
 anacoluthic, inasmuch as Paul, for emphasis, prefixes absolutely 
 the twa ὧν ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς as the object of what he 
 wishes to say, and then subjoins the further statement indepen- 
 dently of it, so that the accusative remains the more emphatically 
 pendent—a usage found also in classical writers. See Bernhardy, 
 Ῥ. 133. — ὧν] τούτων οὕς. Comp. Rom. xv. 18.— In ver. 18 
 he now mentions, by way of example, Z%tws, whom he had 
 encouraged to travel to Corinth, and his fellow-envoy, and he 
 asks, significantly repeating ἐπλεονέκτ. and prefixing it: Has 
 Titus overreached you? This journey of Titus to Corinth is 
 not, as is otherwise usually supposed, the one mentioned in 
 chap. vili., which had yet to be made, and in which Titus had 
 
 1 Let us conceive that they had asserted regarding Paul: ἔστω δέ: αὐτὸς οὐ κατε- 
 βάρησεν ὑμᾶς x.7.A. This Paul makes use of, inasmuch as he, entering into their 
 meaning, says of himself, what they have said of him—a mimesis, which is almost a 
 parody. 
 
CHAP. XII. 19. 489 
 
 two companions (viii. 18, 22), but the one made soon after our 
 first Epistle, and mentioned in chap. vii. The fact that Titus 
 only is here mentioned, and not also Timothy (1 Cor. iv. 17, 
 xvi. 10), is made use of to support the opinion that Timothy had 
 not come to Corinth at all (see the Introd.). Comp. Riick. 
 pp. 380, 409. But how groundlessly! From the long and close 
 connection of the apostle with the Corinthians it may be even ἃ 
 priori concluded, that he had sent various persons to Corinth beside 
 Titus ; and he himself testifies this by the plural ὧν ἀπέσταλκα. 
 But here he names only Titus instar omniwm as the one last sent. 
 Besides, it would not have been even proper to say: I have sent 
 Timothy to you, since Timothy, in fact, was joint-sender of the 
 letter (i. 1).— τὸν ἀδελφόν] the brother (fellow-Christian) weil 
 known to them (but unknown to us).’ That in that mission he was 
 quite subordinate to Titus is clear from συναπέστ., and from the 
 fact that in what follows the conduct of Titus alone is spoken 
 of.—7@ αὐτῷ πνευμ.} with the same Spirit, namely, with the 
 Holy Spirit determining our walk and excluding all πλεονεξία. 
 The dative is that of manner to the question how? Comp. Acts 
 ix. 31, xxi. 21; Rom. xiii. 13. It may, however, also be just 
 as fitly taken as dative of the norm (Gal. v. 16, vi. 16). We 
 cannot decide the point. If the inward agreement is denoted by 
 τῷ αὐτῷ πνευμ., the likeness of outward procedure is expressed 
 by τοῖς αὐτοῖς tyveos (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 276 D: τῷ ταὐτὸν 
 ἴχνος μετιόντι). But here the dative is local, as in Acts xiv. 16; 
 Jude 11 (comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 225 f.). So Pind. 
 Pyth. x. 20: ἐμβέβακεν ἴχνεσιν πατρός, comp. with Nem. vi. 27: 
 ἴχνεσιν ev Πραξιδάμαντος ἐὸν πόδα νέμων. Whose are the 
 footsteps, in which the two walked? The footsteps of Paul, 
 in which Titus followed his predecessor (comp. Lucian, Herm. 
 73), so that they thereby became the same, in which both 
 walked —said with reference to the unselfishness maintained 
 by both. The context does not yield any reference to Christ 
 (1 Pet. i. 21). 
 
 Ver. 19. His vindication itself is now concluded. But in 
 order that he may not appear, by thus answering for himself, to 
 install the readers as judges over him, he further guards his 
 
 1 According to Wieseler, Chronol. p. 349, it was J'ychicus, as also at viii. 22. 
 This rests on a combination drawn from Titus iii. 12, 
 
490 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 apostolic dignity against this risk. Carrying them in mediam 
 vem, he says: For long you have been thinking that we are 
 answering for ourselves to you! Comp. 1 Cor. iv. ὃ. Correction 
 of this opinion: Before God we speak in Christ ; it is God in 
 presence of whom (as Judge) we speak in Christ’s fellowship 
 (as the element in which we subsist and live). ἐν X. gives to 
 λαλοῦμεν its definite Christian character (which, with Paul, was 
 at the same time the apostolic one). Comp. ii. 17. But, that 
 he may not suppress the proper relation of his apology to the 
 readers, he adds lovingly : but the whole, beloved, (we speak) for 
 your edification, for the perfecting of your Christian life. — πάλαι 
 δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογ.] After adopting the reading πάλαι (see 
 the critical remarks) this sentence is no longer to be taken 
 interrogatively, because otherwise an unsuitable emphasis would 
 be laid on πάλαι. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Riickert have 
 also deleted the mark of interrogation. πάλαι means nothing 
 else than for a long time, in which, however, the past to be 
 thought of may be very short according to the relative nature of 
 the notion of time, as eg. Hom. Od. xx. 293 f.: μοῖραν μὲν δὴ 
 ξεῖνος ἔχει πάλαι, ὡς ἐπέοικεν, ἴσην, Plat. Gorg. p. 456 A; Phaed. 
 p. 63 1), αἰ. ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 18 B; Xen. Anab. 
 iv. 8. 14, iv. 5.5; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. 11. p. 481. So also the 
 Latin dudum, jamdudum. Here the meaning is, that the readers 
 are already for long, during the continuation of this apology, remain- 
 ing of opinion, ete. As respects the connection with the present, 
 see further, Plato, Phaedr. p. 273 C; Xen. Anad. vii. 6. 37. 
 There exists no reason for attaching πάλαι to ver. 18 (Hofmann, 
 then taking δοκεῖτε interrogatively), and it would, standing after 
 ἴχνεσι, come in after a tame and dragging fashion, while it 
 would have had its fitting position between οὐ and τῷ αὐτῷ. ---- 
 ὑμῖν] Dative of destination. Comp. Acts xix. 33; Plato, Protag. 
 p. 8359 D; Pol. x. p.607 B. Vobis, ie. vobis judicibus, has here 
 the chief emphasis, which Riickert has aptly vindicated. The 
 earlier expositors, not recognising this, have accordingly not hit 
 on the purpose and meaning of the passage; as still Billroth: 
 “It might seem that he wished to recommend himself” (comp. 
 111, 1, v.12). To this lis answer is: “I speak before God in 
 Christ, ie. my sentiments in what I say are not selfish, but 
 upright and pure.” Comp. Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
 
CHAP. XII. 99. 491 
 
 Grotius. — κατέναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Xp. λαλοῦμεν] to be taken 
 together,’ as in ii. 17. — τὰ δὲ πάντα] sc. λαλοῦμεν. Grotius 
 and others, including Griesbach, Scholz, Olshausen, and Ewald, 
 read τάδε as one word, and connect it with the previous λαλοῦμεν. 
 But for what end? The mode of expression in the usual 
 way of writing it is quite Pauline, and makes the important 
 thought more emphatically prominent; ὅδε never occurs with 
 Paul, and the reference of tade to what goes before would at 
 least not be in accordance with the common usage (comp. on 
 Luke x. 39). 
 
 Ver. 20 f.? Subjective justification of what was just said, ὑπὲρ 
 τῆς ὑμῶν οἰκοδομῆς. For I fear to find you on my arrival such 
 as have very great need of οἰκοδομή. ---- ΤῊΘ sharp lesson which 
 he now gives his readers down to xiii. 10, although introducing 
 it not without tenderness to their feelings (φοβοῦμαι, and then 
 the negative form of expression), could not but wholly cancel the 
 thought: ἡμῖν ἀπολογεῖται, and make them feel his apostolic posi- 
 tion afresh in all its ascendancy. It is in this way that the 
 victor speaks who has reconquered his domain, and ¢his language 
 at the end of the letter completes the mastery shown in its 
 well-calculated arrangement. — κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν x.7.r.] and that 
 I shall be found such an one as you do not wish, namely, as 
 τιμωρὸς Kal κολαστῆς, Theophylact; 1 Cor. iv. 21. The negation 
 attaches itself to οἵους in the first clause, but in this second to 
 θέλετε, by which there is produced a climax in the expression. — 
 ὑμῖν] Reference of εὑρεθῶ: for you, to your judgment based on 
 experience. Comp. Rom. vii. 10; 2 Pet. iii 14. This is more 
 delicate and expressive than the meaning of the common inter- 
 pretation : by you (dative with the passive), Rom. x. 20. — What 
 follows is not, with Riickert, to be regarded as if μήπως down to 
 ἀκαταστασίαι were a more precise explanation regarding the 
 condition of the Corinthians (consequently regarding that μήπως 
 ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς), and, ver. 21, a more precise 
 explanation regarding the apostle’s duty to punish (consequently 
 regarding that κἀγὼ... θέλετε. Against this it may be de- 
 
 1 So that the chief emphasis is laid on κατέναντι σοῦ θεοῦ, opposed to the previous 
 ὑμῖν. 
 
 3 On ver. 20-xiii. 2, see the thorough discussion by Liicke (Whitsun Programm of 
 1837) ; Conjectan. exeg. Part I. p. 147. 
 
402 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 cisively urged that ver. 21 brings forward quite a different 
 category of sinful states from ver. 20, and that ver. 21, rightly 
 understood, does not yet express any threat of punishment. No; 
 the arrangement of the passage is this: After Paul has said that 
 he is afraid of not finding them such as he wishes them, and of 
 being found by them such as they would not wish him, he now gives 
 the more precise explanation of that first apprehension (unas... 
 εὕρω ὑμᾶς), by adducing two kinds of sins, which he fears to find 
 among them, namely, (1) the mischiefs occasioned by partisan 
 feeling; and (2) the sins of impurity, which would bow him down 
 and make him sad. The further explanation regarding the second 
 apprehension expressed, κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε, there- 
 upon follows only at xiii. 1 ffi — μήπως Epes κ.τ.λ.] sc. εὑρεθῶσιν 
 ἐν ὑμῖν. ---- ἔρεις, ζῆλος] contentions, jealousy. See 1 Cor. i. 11, 
 ili. 3. — θυμοί] irae, cucitements of anger. See on Rom. ii. 8; 
 Gal. ν. 20. — ἐριθεῖαι] party-intrigues. See on Rom. ii. 8, and 
 the excursus of Fritzsche, I. p. 143 ff? — καταλαλίαι, ψιθυ- 
 ρισμοί] slanders, whisperings. See on Rom. i. 30. — φυσιώσεις] 
 Manifestations of conceited inflation; elsewhere only in the 
 Fathers. ἀκαταστασίαι) disorderly relations, confusions, comp. 
 1 (ΟΣ. παν. 99: 
 
 Ver. 21. The interrogative interpretation (Lachmann, Liicke) 
 is, viewed in itself, compatible not only with the reading tazre- 
 νώσει (Lachmann), but also with the deliberative subjunctive of 
 the Recepta (Liicke). Comp. Xenophon, Oec. iv. 4: μὴ αἰσχυνθῶ- 
 μεν τὸν Περσῶν βασιλέα μιμήσασθαι; see in general, Hartung, 
 Partikell. II. p. 159 f.; Baeumlein, “ων. p. 203. But the usual 
 non-interrogative explanation, which makes μή still dependent 
 on φοβοῦμαι, not only makes the passage appear more emphatic 
 (by the three parallels, μήπως --- μήπως --- μή), but is also the 
 only interpretation suited to the context, since, in fact, after the 
 apprehension quite definitely expressed in ver. 20, the negative 
 
 1 Regarding the plural form ἔρεις, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 326; Gregor. Cor., ed. 
 Schaef. p. 476; also Buttmann in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1862, p. 172. 
 
 2 Fritzsche (following Ilgen) is probably right in deriving ἔριθος from ἔρι, valde (see 
 Buttmann, Lezilog. I. p. 146 f.). Comp. the many forms compounded with % in 
 Homer. For the second part of the word no proper derivation has yet been found. 
 This second halfis not simply the ending θοὸς, but .#es, since in ¢y the iota is short, 
 whereas in ἔριθος it is long. See Homer, Jl. xviii. 550: ᾽Εν δ᾽ ἐτίθει φέμενος Bubvanioy 
 ἔνθα δ᾽ ἔριθοι, See regarding the various derivations, Lobeck, Pathol. p. 365. 
 
CHAP. XII. 21. 493 
 
 ‘question, in the case of which a No is to be conceived as the 
 answer (comp. vv. 17, 18), would be inappropriate. — In μή 
 compared with the previous μήπως there lies a climax as regards 
 the definiteness of the conception. — πάλιν] goes along with ἐλθόν- 
 τος μου ταπεινώσῃ με ὁ θ. μ. πρὸς bw. (comp. on ii. 1), so that Paul 
 reminds them how already at his second visit (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9) 
 he had experienced such humiliation. Connected merely with 
 ἐλθόντος μου (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, de Wette, Wieseler, and many 
 others), it would be without important bearing. — ἐλθόντος μου 
 tam. με] a construction also of frequent occurrence in classical 
 writers. Comp. on ix. 14, and see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 270 
 [E. T. 315]. — ταπεινώσει pe, not of bodily (Hofmann), but of 
 mental bending, as in dejection. Comp. Polyb. 111. 116. 8, iv. 80. 3. 
 * Nihil erat, quo magis exultaret apostolus, quam prospero suae 
 praedicationis successu (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 20; Phil. iv. 1); contra 
 nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore animo redderetur, quam 
 quum cerneret, se frustra laborasse,’ Beza. Comp. Chrysostom. 
 The future ταπεινώσει (see the critical remarks), which expresses 
 the apprehension that the sad case of this humiliation wi// 
 withal actually stil occur (see on Col. it. 8), stands in a climactic 
 relation to the previous subjunctives ; the apprehension increases. 
 — ὁ θεός μου] as Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor.i.4. In the humbling expe- 
 riences of his office Paul sees paedagogic decrees of his God. — 
 πρὸς ὑμᾶς} not among you, for how superfluous that would be ! 
 but: a reference to you, in my relation to you. So also Riickert, 
 who, however (comp. Chrysostom, Osiander, and several), explains 
 ταπεινώσις of Paul’s seeing himseif compelled “ to appear before 
 them not with the joyful pride of a father over his good children, 
 but with the punitive earnestness of a judge.” But the puni- 
 tive earnestness of the judge is in fact no ταπεινώσις, but an 
 act of the apostolic authority, and only follows subsequently, 
 after the ταπεινώσις has taken place by the observation of the 
 punishment - deserving state, which has made him feel that his 
 efforts have been without result. — πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων 
 Kal μὴ μετανοησάντων) On προημαρτ., comp. Herodian, iii. 14. 8 : 
 ἀπολογεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰ προημαρτημένα. According to Riickert, 
 Paul has written thus inexactly, instead of πολλοὺς τῶν προη- 
 μαρτ. τοὺς μὴ μετανοήσαντας. How arbitrary! In that case 
 he would have expressed himself with downright inaccuracy. 
 
494 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Liicke, lc. p. 20, explains it more ingeniously: “ Cogitavit rem 
 ita, ut primum poneret Christianorum ex ethnicis potissimum 
 τῶν προημαρτηκότων Kal μὴ μετανοησάντων genus univer- 
 sum, cujus generis homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde 
 vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos, qui Corinthi essent, 
 designaret definiretque.” But the reference to the unconverted 
 sinners, who wbigue ecclesiarum essent, is quite foreign to the 
 context, since Paul had simply to do with the Corinthians 
 (comp. previously πρὸς ὑμᾶς), and hence these could not seek — 
 the genus of the προημαρτηκότων κιτιλ. here meant elsewhere 
 than just in their own church. The right interpretation results 
 undoubtedly from the order οἵ" the thoughts specified at ver. 20, 
 according to which ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ κιτίλ. cannot belong 
 to petavono. (comp. Lucian, de salt. 84: μετανοῆσαι ἐφ᾽ οἷς 
 ἐποίησεν), as it is usually taken, but only to πενθήσω: and 
 that I will lament’ many of those, who have previously sinned 
 and shall not have repented, on account of the uneleanness, etc. 
 
 1 πενθήσω is taken by Theophylact and others, including Billroth, Riickert, 
 Olshausen, and de Wette, as a threatening of punishment ; and Grotius even thought 
 that the apostles may have discharged their penal office not without signs of mourning, 
 «ὁ sicut Romani civem damnaturi sumebant pullam togam.” But the whole reference 
 of the word to punishment is in the highest degree arbitrary, and at variance with 
 the context. For it is only at xiii. 1ff. that the threat of punishment follows ; 
 and the σαπεινώσῃ ws ὃ θεός μον πρὸς ὑμᾶς, with which καὶ πενθήσω is connected, 
 warrants us only to retain for the latter the pure literal meaning lugere aliquem, 
 which is very current in classical writers (Hom. Jl. xix. 225, xxiii. 283; Herod. vii. 
 220; Xen. Heil, ii. 2. 8) and in the LXX. (Gen. xxxvii. 34, 1.3, al. ; Ecclus, li. 19; 
 Judith xvi. 34). The word does not at all mean to prepare sorrow, as Vater and 
 Olshausen explain it. Calvin therefore is right in leaving the idea of punishment 
 out of account, and aptly remarks: ‘‘ Veri et germani pastoris affectum nobis 
 exprimit, quum luctu aliorum peccata se prosequuturum dicit.” Lstius, too, 
 rejects any reference to punishment, and finds in πενθήσω that Paul regards those 
 concerned as Deo mortuos. Comp. Ewald. Under the latter view too much is found 
 in the word, since the context does not speak of spiritual death, but specifies the 
 ground of the mourning by ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ x.7.A. Hence we must adhere to 
 Calvin’s exposition as not going beyond either the meaning of the word or the 
 context. Calovius also says very correctly (in opposition to Grotius): ‘* Non de 
 poena hic Corinthiorum impoenitentium, sed de moerore suo super impoenitentia.” 
 De Wette, followed by Osiander, finds in zvé. the pain of being obliged to proceed 
 with the special punishment of excommunication, and explains πολλοὺς τῶν xponuapr. 
 x. μὴ μεταν. ἐπὶ κι πολ. of the worst among the unconverted sinners guilty of unchas- 
 tity. In that case the chief points of the meaning must be mentally supplied, for 
 which there is the less warrant, seeing that πενθήσω is parallel to the rari». ws ὁ 6, 
 expressing subjectively that which is denoted by tame, x.7.A. objectively. 
 
CHAP. XII. 21. 495 
 
 Thus Paul passes over from the sinful states named in ver. 20 to 
 quite another category of sins, and the course of thought accord- 
 ingly is: “I fear that I shall not only meet with contentions, 
 etc., among you, but that I shall have also to bewail many of the 
 then still unconverted sinners among you on account of the sins 
 of impurity which they have committed (Eph. iv. 30; Heb. 
 xiii. 17).” Not all προημαρτηκότες καὶ μὴ μετανοήσαντες in 
 Corinth were impure sinners, but Paul fears that he will en- 
 counter many of them as such; hence he cowld not write at all 
 otherwise than: πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων Kal μὴ μετανοη- 
 σάντων. This explanation is adopted by Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 
 792], Bisping, and Kling.—The perfect participle προημαρτ. 
 denotes the continuance of the condition from earlier times ; and 
 καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων has the sense of the futurum exactum: 
 and who shall not have repented at my arrival. The προ in 
 πρόημαρτ. expresses the sinning that had taken place in earlier 
 
 1 The objections of de Wette against my explanation will not bear examination. 
 For (1) from the fact that Paul, in order to express his alarm and anxiety regarding 
 the uwnchaste, mentions withal the category of sinners in general, there does not 
 arise the appearance as if he would not have to mourn over the latter; but out 
 of the collective wickedness in Corinth he singles out the unchastity which was 
 prevalent there as specially grievous. This species of sinners appears under the 
 genus of Corinthian sinners as one of the two chief stains on the church (the other 
 was the party-spirit, ver. 20). Further, (2) the προημαρτηκότες in xiii. 2 are not any 
 more than here a species, but likewise the category, to which the kinds denoted in 
 vy. 20 and 21 belonged. (3) The connection of ἐπὶ x.7.a. with πενθήσω is not un- 
 natural, but natural, since πολλοὺς τῶν wponu. x. μὴ μεταν., taken together, is the 
 object of πενδ., so that Paul has observed the sequence which is simplest of all and 
 most usual (verb—object—ground). The cbjections of Osiander and Hofmann are 
 not more valid. Those of the latter especially amount in the long run to subtleties, 
 for which there is no ground. For Paul certainly fears that he will have to lament the 
 non-repentance of the persons concerned, and the sins which they are still committing 
 at the time. This is clearly enough contained in καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων ; and as to 
 ἡ ἔπραξαν, Paul very naturally writes the aorist, and not 7 πρώσσουσιν, because he 
 transplants himself, as in μὴ μετανοησ., to the point of time when he arrives and 
 will then judge what they have done up to that time. He might also have written 
 ἡ πράσσουσιν, but would thereby have deviated from the conformity of his conception 
 of time introduced with x. w. wsravone. (which is that of the futurum exactum), for 
 which he had no occasion. It is incorrect, with Hofmann, to say that μετανοησάντω 
 refers to the time when Paul was writing this, and that, because there was still space 
 for them to repent up to the time of his arrival, he has not spoken generally of the 
 impenitent, but of many (who, namely, would remain hardened). According to the 
 context, μετανοησάνσων can only apply to the time of his impending ἐλθεῖν, when he 
 will have to lament many of the old and still at that time non-repentant sinners, 
 on account of their impurity, etc. 
 
496 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 times, which Liicke (comp. Olshausen) refers to the time before 
 conversion (comp. the passages of Justin, Apolog. i. 61; Clement, 
 Strom. iv. 12 in Liicke, p. 18 f.). But as the evils adduced in 
 ver. 20 only set in after the conversion, we are not warranted 
 (see the plan of the passage specified at ver. 20) to assume for 
 the sins named in ver. 21 the time before conversion, as, indeed, 
 1 Cor. v. 1 also points to the time after conversion. But if. we 
 ask how far Paul with his πρὸ looks back into the past of the 
 Corinthians that had elapsed since their conversion, it might, if 
 we regard vv. 20 and 21 by themselves, appear as if he referred 
 not further back than to that time, in which the contentions 
 (ver. 20) and the sins of impurity censured in 1 Cor. v. 1 
 (ver. 21) emerged. But as this happened only after his second 
 visit, and as he says in xiii. 2 that he had foretold (comp. ii. 1) 
 punishment to the προημαρτηκόσι already at his second visit, it 
 follows that with his πρὸ he glances back from the present to 
 the time before his second visit. After his first visit there had 
 already emerged in Corinth evils, which humbled him at his 
 second visit (ver. 21), and on account of which he at that time 
 threatened (see on xiii. 2) these προημαρτηκότες with punishment ; 
 after his second presence there had now broken out, in addition, 
 the contentions and sins of impurity which we know from his 
 Epistles ; and to all this, consequently to the whole time till 
 after his first and before his second visit, he looks back, inasmuch 
 as he says not merely ἡμαρτηκότων, but προημαρτηκότων. Con- 
 sequently Billroth is wrong in restricting the word merely to 
 those “whom I already, through my second sojourn among you, 
 know as sinners;” and Estius says too indefinitely, and also 
 quite arbitrarily, as regards προ, not starting from the pre- 
 sent time: ante scriptam priorem epistolam, while many others, 
 like Riickert, do not enter on the question at 8]]. ---- ἐπὶ τῇ 
 ἀκαθαρσίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] if connected with μετανοησάντων, would be in 
 respect or on account of. But, apart from the fact that μετανοεῖν 
 (which, we may add, Paul has only here) is in the N. T. never 
 connected with ἐπί (as Joel ii. 13 ; Amos vii. 3, LXX.), but with 
 ἀπό (Acts viii. 22 ; Heb. vi. 1) or ἐκ (Rev. ii. 21 f, xvi. 11), in 
 this particular case the necessary and correct connection (see pre- 
 viously on πόλλ. τ. προὴημ. K. μὴ μετανοησ.) is with πενθήσω, 
 the ground of which it specifies: over. Just so Aeschin. p. 84, 
 
CHAP. XII. 21. 497 
 14; Plut. Agis, 17 ; Rev. xviii. 11 ; 1 Sam. xv. 35 ; Ezra x. 6, al. 
 ᾿Ακαθαρσία, here of licentious impurity, Rom. i. 24; Gal. v. 19; 
 Eph. iv. 19. Then: πορνεία, fornication in specie. Lastly: 
 ἀσέλγεια, licentious wantonness and abandonment (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 
 Gal. v. 19; Eph. iv. 19; Wisd. xiv. 26).— ἔπραξαν] have 
 practised. Comp. on Rom. i. 32. 
 
 2 COR. II. 21 
 
498 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 CHAPTER, X LL. 
 
 Ver. 2. After viv Elz. has γράφω, in opposition to decisive evidence. 
 A supplementary addition. Comp. ver. 10.— Ver. 4. εἶ] is wanting 
 in B D* FG Καὶ s* min. Copt. Aeth. It. Eus. Dem. Theoph. Bracketed 
 by Lachm. and Riick. Looking to the total inappropriateness of 
 the sense of xa? εἰ, those authorities of considerable importance 
 sufficiently warrant the condemnation of εἰ, although Tisch. (comp. 
 Hofm.) holds the omission to be “ manifesta correctio.” Offence was 
 easily taken at the idea that Christ was crucified ἐξ ἀσθενείας, and 
 it was made problematical by the addition of an εἰ, which in several 
 cases also was assigned a position before καί (Or.: εἰ γὰρ xai).— 
 καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς] Elz. has καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς, in opposition to far pre- 
 ponderating evidence. The second κχαΐ is an addition, which arose 
 out of καὶ γάρ being taken as a mere for, namque.— ἐν aire] 
 AFGRs, Syr. Erp. Copt. Boern. have σὺν αὐτῷ: So Lachm. on 
 the margin. An explanation in accordance with what follows. — 
 ζησόμεθα) Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read ζήσομεν, in favour of which the 
 evidence is decisive. — εἰς ὑμᾶς] is wanting only in B D*** E*** 
 Arm. Clar. Germ. Chrys. Sedul., and is condemned by Mill, who 
 derived it from ver. 3. But how natural was the omission, seeing 
 that the first half of the verse contains no parallel element! And 
 the erroneous reference of ζήσομεν to eternal life might make εἰς 
 ὑμᾶς appear simply as irrelevant. — Ver. 7. cixouas| Lachm. Tisch. 
 and Riick., following greatly preponderant evidence, have εὐχόμεθα, 
 which Griesb. also approved. And rightly; the singular was in- 
 troduced in accordance with the previous ἐλπίζω. ---- Ver. 9. rodro dé] 
 This δέ is omitted in preponderant witnesses, is suspected by Griesb., 
 and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. Addition for the sake of 
 connection, instead of which 73 has δή and Chrys. yép. — In ver. 
 10, the position of ὁ κύριος before ἐδωκ. μοι is assured by decided 
 attestation. 
 
 
 
 ConTENTS.—Continuation of the close of the section as begun 
 at xii. 19. At his impending third coming he will decide with 
 judicial severity and not spare, seeing that they wished to have 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1. 499 
 
 for once a proof of the Christ speaking in him (vv. 1-4). They 
 ought to prove themselves; he hopes, however, that they will 
 recognise Ais proved character, and asks God that he may not 
 need to show them its verification (vv. 5-9). Therefore he writes 
 this when absent, in order that he may not be under the necessity 
 of being stern when present (ver. 10). Concluding exhortation 
 with promise (ver. 11); concluding salutation (ver. 12); con- 
 cluding benediction (ver. 13). 
 
 Ver. 1. As Paul has expressed himself by μήπως ἔρις x.7.d. in 
 xii, 20, and in ver. 21 has explained himself more precisely 
 merely as regards that μήπως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς 
 (see on xii. 20), he still owes to his readers a more precise 
 explanation regarding the κἀγὼ εὑρεθῷ ὑμῖν οἷον ov θέλετε, and 
 this he now gives to them. Observe the asyndetic, sternly-measured 
 form of his sentences in vv. 1 and 2. --- τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι 
 πρὸς ὑμᾶς] The elaborate shifts of the expositors, who do not 
 understand this of a third actual coming thither, inasmuch as they 
 assume that Paul had been but once in Corinth,’ may be seen in 
 Poole’s Synopsis and Wolfs Curae. According to Lange, apost. 
 Zestalt. I. p. 202 f. (comp. also Marcker, Stellwng der Pastoralbr. 
 p. 14), τρίτον τοῦτο is intended to apply to the third project of a 
 journey, and ἔρχομαι to its decided execution: “ This third time 
 in the series of projects laid before you above 7 come.” Linguis- 
 tically incorrect, since τρίτον τοῦτο épy. cannot mean anything 
 else than: for the third time I come this time, so that it does not 
 refer to previous projects, but to two journeys that had taken place 
 before. On τρίτον τοῦτο, this third time (accusative absolute), 
 that is, this time for a third time, comp. Herod. v. 76: τέταρτον 
 
 δὴ TodTo .. . ἀπικόμενοι, LXX. Judg. xvi. 15: τοῦτο τρίτον 
 ἐπλάνησάς pe, Num. xxii. 28; John xxi. 14. Bengel correctly 
 remarks on the present : “ jam sum in procinctu.” — ἐπὶ στόματος 
 
 δύο μαρτύρων «.T.r.] On this my third arrival there is to be no 
 further sparing (as at my second visit), but summary procedure. 
 
 1 Most of them, like Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Wetstein, Zachariae, Flatt, were of 
 opinion that Paul expresses here, too, simply a third readiness to come, from which 
 view also has arisen the reading ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν instead of ἔρχομαι in A, Syr. Erp. 
 Copt. To this also Baur reverts, who explains ἔρχομαι: I am on the point of coming. 
 But this would, in fact, be just a third actual coming, which Paul was on the point 
 of, and would presuppose his having come already twice. Beza and others suggest: 
 ** Binas suas epistolas (!) pro totidem ad illos profectionibus recenset.”’ 
 
500 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Comp. Matt. xviii. 16, where, however, the words of the law are 
 used with another turn to the meaning. Paul announces with the 
 words of the law well known to his readers, Deut. xix. 15, which 
 he adopts as his own, that he, arrived for this third time, will, 
 without further indulgence, institute a legal hearing of witnesses 
 (comp. 1 Tim. v. 19), and that on the basis of the affirmation of two 
 and three witnesses every point of complaint will be decided. Not 
 as if he wished to set himself up as disciplinary judge (this 
 power was vested ordinarily in the church, Matt. xvii. 16, 1 Cor. 
 v. 12, 13, and was, even in extraordinary cases of punishment, 
 not exercised alone on the part of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 3-5), 
 but he would set agoing and arrange the summary procedure in 
 the way of discipline, which he had threatened. Nor did the 
 notoriety of the transgressions render the latter unnecessary, seeing 
 that, on the one hand, they might not all be notorious, and, on 
 the other, even those that were so needed a definite form of treat- 
 ment. Following Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Estius, 
 and others, including recently Neander, Olshausen, Raebiger, 
 Ewald, Osiander, Maier, have understood the two or three witnesses 
 of Paul himself, who takes the various occasions of his presence ~ 
 among the Corinthians as testimonies, by which the truth of the 
 matters is made good,’ or the execution of his threats (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and others, comp. Bleek, Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann) is 
 to be decided (Theophylact: ἐπὶ τῶν τριῶν μου παρουσιῶν πᾶν ῥῆμα 
 ἀπειλητικὸν κατασταθήσεται καθ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ κυρωθήσεται, ἐὰν μὴ 
 μετανοήσατε: ἀντὶ μαρτύρων γὰρ τὰς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τίθησι). 
 But if Paul regarded himself, under the point of view of his dif- 
 ferent visits to Corinth respectively, as the witnesses, he could make 
 himself pass for three witnesses only in respect of those evils 
 which he had already perceived at his jist visit (and then again 
 on his second and third), and for two witnesses only in respect of 
 
 1 Grotius, in consistency with the view that Paul had been only once there, quite 
 at variance with the words of the passage pares down the meaning to this: ‘‘ cum bis 
 terve id dixerim, tandem ratum erit.” Compare also Clericus. The explanation of 
 Emmerling: ‘‘Titum ejusque comites certissimum edituros esse testimonium de 
 animo suo Corinthios invisendi,” is purely fanciful. The simple and correct view 
 is given already by Erasmus in his Paraphr.: ‘‘ Hic erit tertius meus ad vos adventus ; 
 in hune se quisque praeparet. Neque enim amplius connivebo, sed juxta jus strictum 
 atque exactum res agetur. Quisquis delatus fuerit, is duorum aut trium hominum 
 testimonio vel absolvetur vel damnabitur.” 
 
CHAP. XIII, 2. 501 
 
 those evils which he had lighted upon in his second visit for the 
 jirvst time, and would on his ¢hird visit encounter a second time. 
 But in this view precisely all those evils and sins would be left 
 out of account, which had only come into prominence after his 
 second visit; for as regards these, because he was only to become 
 acquainted with them for the jist time at his third visit, he would 
 only pass as one witness. Consequently this explanation, Pauline 
 though it looks, is inappropriate; nor is the difficulty got over 
 by the admission that the relations in question are not to be 
 dealt with too exactly (Osiander), as, indeed, the objection, that 
 the threat is directed against the προημαρτηκότες, avails nothing 
 on the correct view of xii. 21, and the continued validity of the 
 legal ordinance itself (it holds, in fact, even at the present day 
 in the common law) should not after 1 Tim. v. 10 have been 
 doubted. Nor does the refining of Hofmann dispose of the matter. 
 He thinks, forsooth, that besides the προημαρτηκότες, all the rest 
 also, whom such a threat may concern, are now twice warned, 
 orally (at the second visit of the apostle) and ὧν writing (by this 
 letter), and his arrival will be to them the third and last ad- 
 monition to reflect. This is not appropriate either to the words 
 (see on ver. 2) or to the necessary unity and equality of the idea 
 of witnesses, with which, in fact, Paul—and, moreover, in applica- 
 tion of so solemn a passage of the law—would have dealt very 
 oddly, if not only he himself was to represent the three witnesses, 
 but one of them was even to be his Jetter.—xai] not in the 
 sense of 7, as, following the Vulgate, many earlier and modern 
 expositors (including Flatt and Emmerling) would take it, but: 
 and, if, namely, there are so many.’ Paul might have put 7, as 
 in Matt. xviii. 16, but, following the LXX., he has thought on 
 and, and therefore put it.— πᾶν ῥῆμα] everything that comes to 
 be spoken of, to be discussed. Comp. on Matt. iv. 4.— σταθή- 
 σεται] will be established (O%P*), namely, for judicial decision. 
 This is more in keeping with the original text than (comp. on 
 Matt. xxvi. 25): will be weighed (Ewald). 
 
 Ver. 2. ‘Ns παρὼν.... νῦν is not to be put in a parenthesis, 
 since it is a definition to προλέγω, which interrupts neither the 
 
 * It corresponds quite to the German expression ‘‘zwei bis drei.” Comp. Xen. 
 
 Anab. iv. 7. 10: δύο καὶ rpia βήματα. See Kriiger and Kiihner in loc. In this case 
 xai is atque, not also (Hofmann). 
 
502 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 construction nor the sense. I have said before, and say before- 
 hand, as at my second visit (“sicut feci, cum secundo vobiscum 
 essem,” Er. Schmid), so also in my present absence, to those who have 
 formerly sinned, and to all the rest, that, when I shall have come 
 again, I will not spare. Accordingly ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον leaves 
 no doubt as to the temporal reference of προείρηκα. Moreover, 
 from ver. 2 alone the presence of the apostle, which had already 
 twice taken place, could not be proved. For, if we knew that he 
 had been only once, προείρηκα would certainly refer to the first 
 epistle, and ὡς παρὼν x.7.X. would have to be explained: as if I 
 were present for the second time, although I am now absent (comp. 
 Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Baur, and others)’ 
 But, as it is clear from other passages that Paul had already been 
 twice in Corinth, and as here in particular τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι 
 immediately goes before, that view, in which also the νῦν would 
 simply be superfluous and cumbrous, is impossible. Beza, who 
 is followed by Zachariae and Mircker, connects awkwardly (seeing 
 that τὸ δεύτερον and νῦν must correspond to each other) τὸ δεύτερον 
 with προλέγω. Hofmann also misses the correct view, when he 
 makes ws serve merely to annex the quality (“as one having been 
 there a second time, and now absent ”), in which the apostle has said 
 and says beforehand. In this way ὡς would be the quippe qui from 
 the conception of the speaker, as in 1 Cor. vii. 25, and παρών 
 would be imperfect. The two clauses of the sentence, however, 
 contain in fact not qualities subjectively conceived, but two objec- 
 tive relations of time; and hence ὡς, if it is to have the sense 
 given above, would simply be irrelevant (comp. 1 Cor. v. 3a; 
 2 Cor. x. 11; Phil. 1. 27) and confusing. Paul would have 
 simply written: προείρηκα παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ προλέγω ἀπὼν 
 νῦν. ---- τοῖς προημαρτηκόσι] See on xii. 21. It is self-evident, 
 
 1 To this category belongs also the strange view of Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 203: 
 ‘«This is the second time that I am present among you and yet absent at the same 
 time.” Paul, namely, had, in Lange’s view, the spirit-like gift of transplanting 
 himself with the full spiritual power of his authority during his absence into the 
 midst of the distant church, which had doubtless felt the thunderclap of his spiritual 
 appearing. In Corinth this had taken place the first time at the exclusion of the 
 incestuous person, 1 Cor. v. 8, and the second time now. Of such fancies and 
 spiritualistic notions there is nowhere found any trace in the apostle. And what 
 are we to make in that case of the νῦν The only correct view of this νῦν and its 
 
 relation to τὸ δεύτερον is already given by Chrysostom: παρεγενόμην δεύτερον καὶ εἶπον, 
 λέγω δὲ καὶ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ἀνάγκη με λοιπὸν ἀληθεῦσαι, Comp. also ver. 10. 
 
CHAP, XIII. 8, 503 
 
 we may add, that the προ in προημαρτ. has from the standpoint 
 of the προλέγω a greater period of the past behind it than from 
 the standpoint of the προείρηκα, and that the προημαρτηκότες, 
 whom the present προλέγω threatens, were more, and in part 
 other, than those to whom at the second visit the προείρηκα had 
 applied. The category, however, is the same; and hence it is not 
 to be said, with Liicke, that from our passage it is clear: “ quibus 
 nune, tanquam προημαρτηκόσι, severiorem castigationem minatur 
 apostolus, cosdem jam tunc, gquum olim (προείρηκα) minitatus esset, 
 προημαρτηκότας fuisse.” Paul had at his second presence threat- 
 ened the προημαρτηκότες, and he threatens them also now. On 
 the two occasions the threat referred to the same genus hominum, 
 to those who had sinned before the time at which Paul discoursed 
 to the Corinthians, and were still sinners; but the individuals 
 were not on the two occasions quite the same. Certainly at 
 least there were now (προλέγω) not a few among them, who had 
 not been included on the previous occasion (see 1 Cor. i. 11, 
 v. 1, comp. with 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21).— καὶ tots λοιποῖς πᾶσιν] 
 Thus τοῖς μὴ προημαρτηκόσι. To these he then said it before, 
 and he says it so now, by way of warning, of deterring. It is the 
 whole other members of the church that are meant, and Paul men- 
 tions them, not as witnesses, but in order that they may make 
 the threatening serve according to the respective requirements 
 of their moral condition to stimulate reflection and discipline; 
 hence τοῖς λοιποῖς, even according to our view of mponuapr., is 
 not without suitable meaning (in opposition to de Wette). — εἰς 
 τὸ πάλιν] On the πάλιν used substantivally, see Bernhardy, p. 
 328, and on εἰς in the specification of a term of time, Matthiae, 
 Ῥ. 1345. Comp. εἰς αὖθις, εἰς ὀψέ, ἐς τ΄λος, and the like. — οὐ 
 φείσομαι] The reasons why Paul spared them in his second, cer- 
 ‘tainly but very short, visit, are as little known to us, as the reason 
 ‘why Luke, who has in fact passed over so much, has made no 
 mention of this second visit in the Book of Acts. 
 
 Ver. 3. I will not spare you; for ye in fact will not have it 
 otherwise! Ye challenge, in fact, by your demeanour, an experi- 
 mental proof of the Christ that speaks in me. Thus ἐπεί, before 
 which we are to conceive a pause, annexes the cause serving as 
 motive of the οὐ φείσομαι, that was under the prevailing cir- 
 cumstances at work. Emmerling begins a protasis with ἐπεί, 
 
δ04 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 parenthesizes ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς κιτιλ., and the whole fourth verse, and 
 regards ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε in ver. 5 as apodosis. So, too, Lachmann, 
 Olshausen, Ewald, who, however, treat as a parenthesis merely 
 ver. 4. This division as a whole would not yield as its result 
 any illogical connection, for, because the readers wish to put Christ 
 to the proof, it was the more advisable for them to prove them- 
 selves. But the passage is rendered, quite unnecessarily, more 
 complicated and cumbrous. — ἐπεὶ δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε «.7.r.] That is, 
 since you make it your aim that the Christ speaking in me shall 
 verify Himself, shall give you a proof of His judicial. working. 
 To take τοῦ... Χριστοῦ as genitive of the subject (comp. ix. 13; 
 Phil. 11. 22) better suits the following ὃς καὶ ὑμᾶς x.7.r., than the 
 objective rendering (Billroth and Riickert, following older exposi- 
 tors): a proof of the fact that Christ speaks in me. — ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ 
 ἀσθενεῖ x.7.r.] who in reference to you is not impotent, but mighty 
 among you. By this the readers are made to feel how critical and 
 dangerous is their challenge of Christ practically implied in the evil 
 circumstances of the church (xii. 20 f.), for the Christ speaking 
 in the apostle is not weak towards them, but provided with power 
 and authority among them, as they would feel, if He should give 
 them a practical attestation of Himself. A special reference of 
 δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν to the miracles, spiritual gifts, and the like, such 
 as Erasmus, Grotius,! Fritzsche,” de Wette, and others assume, is 
 not implied in the connection (see especially ver. 4); and just as 
 little a retrospective reference to x. 10 (Hofmann). — Of the use 
 of the verb δυνατεῖν no examples from other writers are found, 
 common as was ἀδυνατεῖν. Its use in this particular place by 
 Paul was involuntarily suggested to him by the similar sound of 
 the opposite ac@evet, Yet he has it also in Rom. xiv. 4; as 
 regards 2 Cor. ix. 8, see the critical remarks on that passage. — 
 ἐν ὑμῖν] not of the internal indwelling and pervading (Hofmann), 
 which is at variance with the context, since the latter has the 
 penal retribution as its main point; but the Christ speaking in 
 Paul has the power of asserting Himself de facto as the vindex 
 
 1 Grotius: ‘* Non opus habetis ejus rei periculum facere, cum jampridem Christus 
 per me apud vos ingentia dederit potentiae suae signa.” 
 
 2 Fritzsche, Diss. Il. p. 141: ‘quiChristus χαρίσματα largiendo, miracula regundo, 
 religionis impedimenta tollendo, ecclesiam moderando, ipse vobis se fortem ostendit.” 
 
 This emphatic ipse is imported, —which arose out of Fritzsche’s regarding the apostle, 
 not Christ, as the subject of dex. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 4. 505 
 
 of His word and work in the church, so far as it is disobedient to 
 Him and impenitent. 
 
 Ver. 4. Kai yap ἐσταυρ. ἐξ ἀσθ., ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμ. θεοῦ] 
 Reason assigned for the previous ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰ 
 δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν: for even crucified was He from weakness, but 
 He is living from the power of God.’ Without μέν after ἐσταυρ. 
 the contrast comes in with the more striking effect. ἐξ ἀσθενείας 
 denotes the causal origin of the ἐσταυρώθη, and is not, with 
 Chrysostom (who complains of the difficulty of this passage), to 
 be interpreted of apparent weakness, but finds its explanation 
 in vii. 9; Phil ii. 7 f. Jesus, namely, had, in the state of His 
 exinanition and humiliation, obedient to the Father, entered in 
 such wise into the condition of powerless endurance as man, 
 that He yielded to the violence of the most ignominious execu- 
 tion, to which He had, according to the Father's will, submitted 
 Himself; and accordingly it came ἐξ ἀσθενείας, that He was 
 crucified. But since His resurrection He lives (Rom. v. 10, vi. 9, 
 xiv. 9, al.), and that from the power of God, for God has, by His 
 power, raised Him up (see on Rom. vi. 4) and exalted Him to 
 glory (Acts ii. 33; Eph. i. 20 ff; Phil ii. 9). To make the 
 θεοῦ refer to ἀσθενείας also (Hofmann, who inappropriately com- 
 pares 1 Cor. i. 25) would yield a thought quite abnormal and 
 impossible for the apostle, which the very οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ver. 3, 
 ought to have precluded. — καὶ yap ἡμεῖς x.7.r.] Confirmation 
 of the immediately preceding καὶ yap... θεοῦ, and that in 
 
 1 The Recepta καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἔσταυρ. would yield the quite unsuitable sense : for even 
 if, i.e. even in the event that, He has been crucified, etc. Kai εἰ should not, with 
 the Vulgate and the majority of expositors, be taken as although, for in that case it 
 would be confounded with εἰ καί, Καὶ εἰ means even if, so that the climactic καί 
 applies to the conditional particle. See Hartung, I. p. 140 ἢ. ; Haack. ad Thue. 
 p- 562 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 82 A, Gorg. p. 509 A. De Wette wrongly 
 rejects my view of the Recepta, making καὶ γάρ signify merely for. It always 
 means for even. See Hartung, I. p. 148; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B. So, 
 too, immediately in the καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς that follows. Hofmann quite erroneously takes 
 the Recepta in such a way, that Paul with καὶ εἰ merely expresses a real fact con- 
 ditionally on account of his wishing to keep open the possibility of looking at it also 
 otherwise. In that case ἐξ ἀσθενείας would really be the point of consequence in the 
 protasis, and the apostle must at least have written καὶ yap εἰ ἐξ ἀσθενείας ἐσταυρώθη. 
 Besides, the leaving open a possible other way of regarding the matter would have 
 no ground at all in the text. A mistaken view is adopted also by Osiander, 
 who has taken καί as the also of comparison, namely, of Christ with His servant 
 (consequently, as if καὶ γὰρ αὐτός had stood in the text). 
 
506 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
 
 respect of the two points ἐξ ἀσθενείας and ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ. 
 “That the case stands so with Christ as has just been said, 
 is confirmed from the fact, that these two relations, on the one 
 hand of weakness, and on the other of being alive ἐκ δυνάμ. 
 θεοῦ, are found also in us in virtue of our fellowship with Him.” 
 It is an argumentum ab effectu ad causam issuing from the lofty 
 sense of this fellowship, a bold experiential certainty, the argu- 
 mentative stress of which, contained in ἐν αὐτῷ and σὺν 
 αὐτῷ, bears the triumphant character of strencth in weakness. 
 Hofmann wrongly, in opposition to the clear and simple connection, 
 desires to take καὶ yap ἡμεῖς ἀσθ, ἐν αὐτῷ, which he separates from 
 the following ἀλλὰ «.7.r., as a proot for the clause ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς 
 οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, for which reason he imports 
 into ἐν αὐτῷ the contrast: not a weakness of the natural man. 
 This contrast, although in substance of itself correct, is not 
 here, any more than afterwards in σὺν αὐτῷ, intentionally present 
 to the mind of the apostle. — ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ] Paul repre- 
 sents his sparing hitherto observed towards the Corinthians (for 
 it is quite at variance with the context to refer do@., with 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Estius, and others, 
 to sufferings and persecutions) as a powerlessness based on his 
 fellowship with Christ, masmuch as Christ also had been weak 
 and ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας. But that is only a transient power- 
 lessness ; we shall be alive with Him through the power of God in 
 reference to you. As he is conscious, namely, of that impotence as 
 having its ground in Christ, he is conscious also of this being alive 
 in union with Christ as fellowship with His life (σὺν αὐτῷ), and 
 hence proceeding ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ, as Christ’s being alive also 
 flowed from this source, Rom. i. 4, vi. 4, al. — Eis ὑμᾶς, lastly, 
 gives to the ζήσομεν (which is not, with Theodoret, Anselm, and 
 Grotius, to be referred to the future life) its concrete direction 
 and special reference of its meaning:” we shall be alive (vigere, 
 comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8) in reference to you, namely, through the 
 effective assertion of the power divinely conferred on us, especially 
 
 1 This impotence is not to be conceived as involuntary (de Wette, following Schwarz 
 in Wolf), but as voluntary (comp. οὐ φείσομαι, ver. 2), as Christ’s weakness also was 
 voluntary, namely, the impotence of deepest resignation and self-surrender, and this 
 was its very characteristic. Comp. Heb. xii. 2. 
 
 * Hence εἰς ὑμᾶς is not, with Castalio and Riickert, to be joined to δυνάμ. ϑεοῦ. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 5. 507 
 
 through apostolic judging and punishing (see vv. 1, 2). “ Non est 
 vivere, sed valere vita,” Martial, vi. 70. Comp. for the pregnant 
 reference of ζῶ, Xen. Mem. 111. 3.11; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 809 D; 
 Dio Cass. lxix. 19. Calvin well observes: “ Vitam opponit 
 infirmitati, ideoque hoc nomine jflorentem et plenum dignitatis 
 statum intelligit.” 
 
 Ver. 5. Now he brings the readers to themselves. Instead of 
 wishing to put to the proof Christ (in Paul), they should try 
 themselves (πειράζειν, to put to the test, and that by comparison 
 of their Christian state with what they ought to be), prove them- 
 selves (δοκιμάζειν). Oecumenius and Theophylact correctly estimate 
 the force of the twice emphatically prefixed ἑαυτούς ; δοκιμάζειν, 
 however, is not, any more than in 1 Cor. xi. 8, equivalent to 
 δόκιμον ποιεῖν (Riickert); but what Paul had previously said by 
 πειράζετε, εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τ. π., he once more sums up, and that with 
 a glance back to ver. 3, emphatically by the one word δοκιμάζετε. 
 —e ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει] dependent on πειράζετε, not on 
 δοκιμάζετε: whether ye are in the faith, whether ye find your- 
 selves in the fides salvifica (not to be taken of faith in miracles, 
 as Chrysostom would have it), which is the fundamental condition 
 of all Christian character and life. The εἶναι ἐν τῇ πίστει stands 
 opposed to mere nominal Christianity.— ἤ οὐκ ἐπυγινώσκετε 
 «.T..] not ground of the obligation to prove themselves the more 
 strictly (“si id sentitis, bene tractate tantum hospitem,” Grotius, 
 comp. Osiander, Maier, and others); for the ἐπυγινώσκειν already 
 presupposes the self-trial, not the converse (Hofmann). On the 
 contrary, Paul lays hold of the readers by their Christian sense of 
 honour, that they should not be afraid of this trial of themselves. 
 Or does not this proving of yourselves lead you to the knowledge 
 of yourselves, that Christ isin you? Are you then so totally 
 devoid of the Christian character, that that self-trial has not the 
 holy result of your discerning in yourselves what is withal the 
 necessary consequence’ of the εἶναι ἐν τῇ πίστει : that Christ is 
 in you (by means of the Holy Spirit) present and active ? Comp. 
 Gal. ii, 20; Eph. 111. 17. The construction ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι “I. X. ἐν 
 ὑμῖν ἐστιν is not a case of attraction, since in ὅτι x.7.X., ὑμεῖς is 
 not the subject (see on Gal. iv. 11), but ὅτε defines more pre- 
 
 1 The εἶναι ἐν τ. πίστει and the Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν are not equivalent, but are related to 
 each other as cause and effect. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 348. 
 
508 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 cisely (that, namely). And the full name ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός has 
 solemn emphasis. — εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε] After this a mark of 
 interrogation is not to be repeated, but a period to be placed. 
 That Christ is in you, you will perceive, if you are not perchance 
 (εἰ μήτι, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 5) spurious Christians. In such, no 
 doubt, Christ is not! Rom. viii. 9 ἢ To attach it merely to 
 the predicated clause itself (I. X. ἐν ὑμ. ἐ.) as a limitation 
 (Hofmann), is at variance with the very γνώσεσθε, ὅτι that 
 follows in ver. 6, in keeping with which that exception εἰ μήτι 
 K.T.. is to be included under the ὅτι «.7.X. attached to ἐπιγινώσκ. 
 ἑαυτούς. In εἰ μήτι the te serves (like forte) “incertius pro- 
 nuntiandae rei,’ Ellendt, Lea. Soph. I. p. 496. According to 
 Ewald, εἰ μήτι ad. ἐστε depends on δοκιμάζετε, and ἢ ov ἐπυγινώσκ. 
 
 εν ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν is to be a parenthesis—a construction which is 
 harsh and the less necessary, seeing that, according to the usual 
 connection, the thoughtful glance in the ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε back to 
 ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε is retained. 
 
 Ver. 6. The case of the ἀδόκιμον εἶναι, however, which he has 
 just laid down as possible perhaps in respect of the readers, shall 
 not, he hopes, occur with him: you shall discern (in pursuance 
 of experience) that we are not unattested, ungenuine, that is, 
 “non deesse nobis experimenta et argumenta potestatis et virtutts, 
 qua in refractarios uti possimus,’ Wolf. Comp. vv. 7, 9. Not 
 without bitterness is this said. But the object of the hoping is 
 not the desert of punishment on the part of the readers, but the 
 δοκιμή of the apostolic authority in the event of their deserving 
 punishment. ᾿Απειλητικῶς τοῦτο τέθεικεν, ὧς μέλλων αὐτοῖς τῆς 
 πνευματικῆς δυνάμεως παρέχειν ἀπόδειξιν, Theodoret. According 
 to others (Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Calovius, Bengel), Paul expresses 
 the hope that they would amend themselves and thereby evince 
 the power of his apostolic influence. This, as well as the blending 
 of the two views (Flatt, Osiander), is opposed to the context in 
 vy. 3f, 7,9. Not till ver. 7 does Paul turn to the expression 
 of gentle, pious love. 
 
 Ver. 7. Yet we pray to God that this, my apostolic attestation, 
 which I hope to give you means of discerning, may not be made 
 necessary on your part. On εὐχόμεθα (see the critical remarks), 
 compared with the ἐλπίζω used just before, observe that, as 
 often in Paul and especially in this Epistle of vivid emotion, the 
 
CHAP. XIII. 7. 509 
 
 interchange of the singular and the plural forms of expressing 
 himself has by no means always special grounds by which it is 
 determined. — μὴ ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς κακὸν μηδέν] that ye may do 
 nothing evil, which, in fact, would only keep up and increase 
 your guilt. Others incorrectly take it,’ “that I be not compelled 
 to do something evil to you.” How could Paul have so designated 
 his chastisement ? For that ποιεῖν κακόν stands here, not in the 
 sense: to do something to one’s harm, but in the ethical sense, is 
 shown by the contrast τὸ καλὸν ποιῆτε in what follows. But 
 even apart from this, in fact, because εὐχόμεθα receives through 
 πρὸς Tov θεόν (comp. Xen. Mem. i. 3. 2; 2 Mace. ix. 13, xv. 27; 
 Num. xxi. 8, al.) the meaning we pray, the words, in the event 
 of ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς not being held to be accusative with infinitive, 
 would have to be explained: we pray to God that He may do 
 nothing evil to you—which would be absurd. But the accusative 
 with the infinitive occurs as in Acts xxvi. 19.— οὐχ ἵνα ἡμεῖς 
 k.T.X.] Statement of the object, for which he makes this entreaty 
 to God, first negatively and then positively; not in a selfish 
 design, not in order that we may appear through your moral 
 conduct as attested (in so far, namely, as the excellence of the 
 disciple is the attestation of the teacher, comp. 111. 2 f., Phil. iv. 1, 
 1 Thess. 11. 20, αἰ.), but on your account, in order that ye may do 
 what is good, and thus the attestation may be on your side and we 
 may be as unattested, in so far, namely, as we cannot in that case 
 show ourselves in our apostolic authority (by sternness and exe- 
 cution of punishment). That he should with δόκεμοι ἀπ ἀδόκιμοι 
 refer to two different modes of his δοκιμή, is quite a Pauline 
 trait. Through the moral walk of the readers he was manifested 
 on the one hand as δόκιμος, on the other as ἀδόκιμος ; what he 
 intended in his εὐχόμεθα πρὸς τὸν θεόν x.7.r. was not the former, 
 for it was not about himself that he was concerned, but the latter, 
 because it was simply the attestation of the readers by the ποιεῖν 
 τὸ καλόν that he had at heart. According to Olshausen, there is 
 meant to be conveyed in οὐχ ἵνα ἡμεῖς Sox. φανῶμ. : not in order 
 that the fulfilment of this prayer may appear as an effect of my 
 
 1 So Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann, and previously Flatt and Emmerling, as in the 
 first instance Grotius, who says: ‘‘ Ne cogar cuiquam poenam infligere, quae malum 
 dicitur, quia dura est toleratu.” On ποιεῖν τινά σι, comp. Matt. xxvii. 22; Mark 
 xv. 12, Elsewhere always in the N. T. σοιεῖν τινί τι. 
 
510 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 powerful intercession. But Paul must have said this, if he had 
 meant it. Others’ hold that after ody there is to be supplied 
 εὔχομαι, or the idea of wish implied in it, and ἵνα expresses its 
 contents ; “I do not wish that I should show myself as standing 
 the test (that is, stern), but rather that ye may do what is good 
 and I be as not standing the test (that is, may appear not standing 
 the test, and so not stern),” Billroth. Certainly the contents of 
 εὔχεσθαι might be conceived as its aim, and hence be expressed 
 by ἵνα (Jas. v.16; Col.i.9; 2 Thess.i.11); but in this particular 
 case the previous infinitive construction, expressing the contents 
 of the prayer, teaches us that Paul has not so conceived it. 
 Had he conceived it so, he would have simply led the readers 
 astray by ta. The explanation is forced, and simply for the 
 reason that the fine point of a double aspect of the δοκιμή was 
 not appreciated. From this point of view Paul might have said 
 in a connection like vi. 8 f.: ὡς ἀδόκιμοι καὶ δόκιμοι. ---- ὡς ἀδό- 
 κιμοι] Beza aptly says: hominum videlicet gudicio. By way of 
 appearance. Comp. already Chrysostom. 
 
 Ver. 8. Reason assigned for the relation just expressed as 
 aimed at by ἵνα ὑμεῖς τὸ καλὸν ποιῆτε, ἡμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἀδόκιμοι 
 ὦμεν. That we really have this design, is based on the fact 
 that we are not in a position to do anything against the truth, 
 but for the truth. The ἀλήθεια is to be taken in the habitual 
 sense of the N. T.: the truth κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the divine truth, 1.0. 
 the gospel ; comp. iv. 2, vi. 7. If Paul, forsooth, had not had 
 the design that the readers should do what is good, and he 
 himself appear without punitive power and consequently as 
 unattested, he would have counteracted the gospel, in so far as it 
 aims at establishing Christian morality, requires penitence, an- 
 nounces forgiveness to the penitent, etc. ; but he is not in a position 
 to do so. To take ἀλήθεια, with Flatt and older expositors,’ as 
 moral truth (see on 1 Cor. v. 8), wprightness, is a limitation of 
 it, which the context all the less suggests, seeing that ἀλήθεια in 
 the above sense embraces in it the moral element. The taking 
 
 1 So Billroth and Osiander and others, as well as previously Flatt, Zachariae, 
 Estius, Menochius, al. 
 
 2 So Photius in Oecumenius, p. 709D: darteay σὴν εὐσέβειαν καλεῖ ὡς νόθου ὄντος ποῦ 
 δυσσεβοῦς βίου, and previously Pelagius: ‘‘ Jnnocentiae enim nostra sententia obesse 
 non poterit ;” as also Erasmus, Mosheim, and others. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 9, 10. 511 
 
 it in the judicial sense would be accordant with the context 
 (va ἀληθῆ φέρωμεν τὴν ψῆφον, Theophylact, so Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Grotius: “quod rectum justumque est ;” Cornelius 
 a Lapide, Bengel, de Wette: “the true state in which the matter 
 finds itself;” so, too, Rabiger); yet, in that case, there would 
 result an inappropriate contrast, since ὑπὲρ. τ. ad. can only mean 
 “for the benefit of the truth,” which presupposes a more compre- 
 hensive idea of ἀλήθ. (de Wette: “to further the truth”). — ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὑπὲρ τ. ἀλ.] sc. δυνάμεθά τι, we are able to do something. 
 
 Ver. 9. Not reason assigned for ver. 7 (Hofmann), but con- 
 firmation of what is said in ver. 8 from the subjective relation of 
 the apostle to the readers, in which χαίρομεν has the emphasis. 
 This joy is as the living seal of the heart to that axiom.— 
 ἀσθενῶμεν)] according to the connection, quite the same as 
 ἀδόκιμοι ὦμεν in ver. 7, of the state in which the apostle is not 
 in a position to exercise punitive authority on account of the 
 Christian conduct of his readers. Comp. ver. 4.— δυνατοί] 
 correlative to the ἀσθενῶμεν, consequently: such as (on account 
 of their Christian excellence) one can do nothing to with the power 
 of punishment. The latter is powerless in presence of such a 
 moral disposition. The context does not yield more than this 
 contrast; even the thought, that the δυνατοί guard themselves 
 against all that would call forth the punitive authority (Hofmann), 
 is here foreign to it.— τοῦτο καὶ εὐχόμεθα] this, namely, that ye 
 may be strong, we also pray; it is not merely the object of our 
 joy, but also of our prayers. On the absolute εὔχεσθαι used of 
 praying (for after ver. 7 it is not here merely wishing), comp. 
 Jas. v 16; often in classic writers. There is no reason for 
 taking the τοῦτο adverbially: thereupon, on that account (Ewald). 
 — τὴν ὑμῶν xatdpticw] epexegesis of τοῦτο: namely, your full 
 preparation, complete furnishing, perfection in Christian morality. 
 Comp. καταρτισμός, Eph. iv. 12. Beza and Bengel think of the 
 readjustment of the members of the body of the church that had 
 been dislocated by the disputes (see on 1 Cor. i. 10, and Kypke, 
 ΤΙ. p. 290)—a special reference, which is not suggested in the 
 context. See ver. 7. 
 
 Ver. 10. This, namely, that I wish to have you δυνατούς or 
 κατηρτισμένους and pray accordingly, this is the reason why I write 
 this when absent, in order not to proceed sharply when present, ete. 
 
ay 7. PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 He wishes that he may be spared from the οὐ φείσομαι threatened 
 in ver. 2, and that he may see the earnest anxiety, which he had 
 already expressed at xii, 20 ἢ, dispelled. In virtue of this view 
 of its practical bearing, ταῦτα is to be referred, not to the whole 
 Epistle, but (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) to the current sec- 
 tion from xii. 20 onward. — ἀποτόμως] literally, cwrtly,—that is, 
 with thoroughgoing sternness,—the same figurative conception 
 as in our schroff, scharf [English, sharply]. In the N. Τὶ only 
 recurring at Tit. 1.13. Comp. Wisd. v. 22, and Grimm 7 loz. ; 
 ἀποτομία, Rom. xi. 22. More frequently in classical writers. 
 See, in general, Fritzsche, ad Kom. II. p. 508; Hermann, ad 
 Soph. O. R. 877.— On χράομαι without dative, with adverb, to 
 deal with, comp. Esth. i. 19, ix. 27, ix. 12; 2 Mace. xii. 14; Polyb. 
 xii. 7. 3. — ἣν ὁ Κύριος ἔδωκέ μοι εἰς οἰκοδ. x.7.d.] contains a 
 reason why he might not proceed ἀποτόμως, as thereby he could not 
 but act at variance with the destined purpose for which Christ 
 had given to him his apostolic authority, or at least could serve 
 it only indirectly (in the way of sharp chastening with a view to 
 amendment). Comp. x. 8. If we connect the whole κατὰ τ 
 ἐξουσίαν «.7.d. with γράφω (Hofmann), the ἵνα παρὼν μὴ ἀποτόμι 
 χρήσωμαι is made merely a parenthetic thought, which is not in 
 keeping with its importance according to the context (ver. 7 ff), 
 and is forbidden by the emphasized correspondence of ἀπών and 
 παρών (comp. ver. 2). This emphasis is all the stronger, seeing 
 that ἀπών in itself would be quite superfluous. 
 
 Ver. 11 Closing exhortation. Bengel aptly observes : “ Severius _ 
 scripserat Paulus in tractatione, nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa non 
 dimissa.” --- λοιπόν] See on Eph. vi. 10. What I otherwise 
 have still to impress on you is, etc.: “Verbum est properantis 
 sermonem absolvere,’ Grotius.— χαίρετε] not: valete (for the 
 apostolic valete follows only at ver. 13), as Valla, Erasmus, and 
 Beza have it, but gaudete (Vulgate). Encouragement to Christian 
 joy of soul, Phil. 111. 1, iv. 4. And the salvation in Christ is 
 great enough to call upon even a church so much injured and 
 reproached to rejoice. Comp. 1. 24. --- καταρτίζεσθε] let your- 
 selves be brought right, put into the right Christian frame; τέλειοι 
 γίνεσθε, ἀναπληροῦτε τὰ λειπόμενα, Chrysostom. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 i. 10; and see Suicer, Zhes. 11. p. 60.— παρακαλεῖσθε] is by 
 most, including Billroth, Schrader, Osiander, correctly understood 
 
» 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 12. 513 
 
 of consolation ; become comforted over everything that assails and 
 makes you to need comfort, consolationem admvittite! ἐπεὶ yap 
 πολλοὶ ἦσαν οἱ πειρασμοὶ Kal μεγάλοι οἱ κίνδυνοι, Chrysostom. 
 Riickert no doubt thinks that there was nothing to be comforted ; 
 but the summons has, just like what was said at i. 7, its good 
 warrant, since at that time every church was placed in circum- 
 stances needing comfort. Riickert’s own explanation: care for 
 your spiritual elevation, is an arbitrary extension of the definite 
 sense of the word to an indefinite domain. Others, following the 
 Vulgate (exhortamini), such as Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Ewald, Hof- 
 mann, render: accept exhortations to what is good, which, however, 
 in the connection is too vague and insipid; while de Wette, 
 following Pelagius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others (exhort ye one 
 another), imports an essential element, which Paul would have 
 expressed by παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους (1 Thess. iv. 18, v. 11) or 
 ἑαυτούς (Heb. iii. 13).— τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε] demands the being 
 harmonious as identity of sentiment. See on Phil. 11. 2, — 
 εἰρηνεύετε] have peace (one with another), Rom. xii. 18; 1 Thess. 
 wie, Mark ix. 50; Plat. Theact. Ὁ. 180 A; Polyb. v. 8. 7; 
 Ececlus. xxviii. 9,13. It is the happy consequence of the τὸ 
 αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ; with the δίχα φρονεῖν it could not take place. — 
 καὶ ὁ θεὸς κιτ.λ.] This encouraging promise refers, as is clear 
 from τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰρήνης, merely to the two last points 
 especially needful in Corinth—to the harmony and the keeping of 
 peace ; hence a colon is to be put after παρακαλεῖσθε. And then, 
 if ye do that (καί, with future after imperatives, see Winer, 
 p. 293 [E. T. 392]), will God, who works the love and the peace 
 Chem xy, 19. xvi. 20: Phil ν᾽; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. xii. 
 20), help you with His presence of grace. The characteristic 
 genitival definition of God is argumentative, exhibiting the cer- 
 _ tainty of the promise as based on the moral nature of God. 
 
 Ver. 12. As to the saluting by the holy kiss, see on 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 20. ---- οἱ ἅγιοι πάντες] namely, at the place and in the 
 viemity, where Paul was writing, in Macedonia. It was obvious 
 of itself to the readers that they were not saluted by all Christians 
 generally (Theodoret). It by no means follows from this saluta- 
 tion that the Epistle had been publicly read at the place of its 
 composition (possibly Philippi) in the church (Calovius, Osiander), 
 but simply that they knew of the composition of the Epistle. 
 
 2 COR. II. | 2K 
 
alice PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Nor is any special set purpose to be sought as underlying the 
 current designation of Christian ἅγιον (“utpote sanguine Christi 
 lotos et Dei Spiritu regenitos et sanctificatos,” Calovius). Accord- 
 ing to Osiander, the higher value and blessing of the brotherly 
 ereeting is meant to be indicated; but comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20, of 
 ἀδελφοὶ πάντες. --- Paul does not add salutations to individuals by 
 name; these Titus might orally convey, and the apostle himself 
 came, in fact, soon after (Acts xx. 2). 
 
 Ver. 13. Concluding wish of blessing—whether written by his 
 own hand (Hofmann) is an open question—full and solemn as in 
 no other Epistle, ¢ripartite in accordance with the divine Trinity,’ 
 from which the three highest blessings of eternal salvation come 
 to believers. — The grace of Christ (comp. Rom. v. 15, i. 7; 
 1 Cor.1.3 ;.2 Cor. i, 2, viii. 9; Gal. vii 18; Eph. i. 2; Pai 
 2 Thess. 1. 2; Philem. 25), which is continuously active in favour 
 of His own (Rom. vi. 34; 2 Cor. xii. 8), is first adduced, because 
 it is the medians, Rom. v. 1, viii. 34, between believers and the love 
 of God, that causa principalis of the grace of Christ (Rom. v. 8), as 
 it also forms the presupposition of the efficacy of the Spirit, Rom. 
 vil. 1, 2. The fellowship of the Holy Spirit—that is, the par- 
 ticipation in the gracious efficacy of the Holy Spirit —is named 
 last, because it is the consequence of the two former (Rom. 
 vill. 9; Gal. iv. 6), and continues (Rom. vii. 6, viii. 4 ff, 26 f.) 
 and brings to perfection (Rom. viii. 11; Gal. vi. 8) their work 
 in men. — μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν] sc. εἴη. Seal of holy apostolic love 
 after so much severe censure, one thing for all. 
 
 1 On the old liturgical use of this formula of blessing, see Constit. apost. viii. 5. 5, 
 viii. 12. 3. 
 
 * Kstius, Calovius, and Hammond understand κοινωνία of the communicatio activa 
 of the Holy Spirit, which, doubtless, as rod πνευμ. ey. would be genitivus subjecti, is 
 in accordance with the preceding clauses, and not at variance with the linguistic 
 usage of κοινωνία in itself (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. pp. 81, 287), but is in opposition 
 to the usage throughout in the N. T. (see on Rom. xv. 26; 1 Cor. x. 16), and not 
 in keeping with passages like Phil. ii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Pet. i. 4,—passages which 
 have as their basis the habitually employed conception of the participation in the 
 divine, which takes place in the case of the Christian. Hence also not: familiaris 
 consuetudo with the Holy Spirit (Ch. F. Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 276). Theophylact 
 well remarks : τὴν κοινωνίαν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, τουτέστι τὴν μετοχὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν 
 μετάληψιν, καθ᾿ ἣν ἁγιαζόμεθα, τῇ ἐφ᾽’ ἡμᾶς ἐπιφοιτήσει τοῦ παρακλήτου κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ 
 γενόμενοι καὶ αὐτοὶ, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ μεθέξει ὄντες. 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 
BS2344 .M6137c 
 oe and catia Tostiout to the 
 
 iii 
 
 1 1012 00082 0656